Herschlag: Your City Council And Interstate 93 Expansion

Here’s what I think. If you watched the most recent city council meeting and you thought city councilors had listened to your testimony on the widening of I-93, you shouldn’t be getting your hopes up.

The mayor’s draft of the letter the city will be sending to the State’s Department of Transportation supports the project, with a few caveats. More lighting in the areas of exits 13 and 14 and improvements to landscaping at some other areas.

But those representing our city appear to be willing to leave the determination of the width of the road up to the state.

After pushback concerning the scope of the project from one of the councilors a second councilor asked the state’s project manager if he understood that what was in the letter was not necessarily what the city meant? If that sounds confusing it is, because it is.

Person after person testifying at previous city council and city board meetings voiced their opposition to an eight lane highway. The state has countered that it is a six lane road with an auxiliary lane in each direction. When I went to school and even as poor a student as I was, I learned that when you add six plus two you get eight. The state is proposing an eight lane road, expanding it from the current four lanes.

In the second paragraph of the mayor’s draft letter to the NHDOT, he writes:

“After lengthy discussions and weighing all the public input, the Concord City Council expresses it support for the project and offers the following requested modifications to the NHDOT, upon which the City’s support is predicated upon.”

Here’s what is stated in the draft letter regarding requested modifications to Interstate Widening on page 5:

“The Bow-Concord I-93 widening project, as currently proposed will have significant impacts on the City of Concord. As such, the City appreciates that NHDOT has agreed to update its traffic study to ensure that current traffic volumes are reflected and that predicted traffic growth is based on the actual traffic in the last several years. Any widening will directly impact the city and its residents and businesses, so it is important to ensure that any widening proposed is necessary. A genuine reconsideration of the number of lanes proposed is critical to ensuring support for this project.”

Members of the city council have stated if the data from a new traffic study shows the need for eight lanes, than it is not their job to second guess the data. We can have a separate discussion on why it is the council’s responsibility to second guess information provided to them. It is called oversight and that is precisely why they were elected. But moving on.

What will the data be recording. I imagine it will record the volume of traffic, breaking out where the traffic enters and exits the highway and providing information on the time it takes to transit certain sections.

Here’s what the data won’t tell you. It won’t tell what impact rail service could have. It won’t tell you what impact autonomous vehicles could have. It won’t tell you what the the impact other 21st century transportation modalities could have on the roadway and how they could change the paradigm for I-93’s design.

The mayor’s draft letter doesn’t say the city is opposed to the widening of the highway and it doesn’t say it is opposed to an eight lane road. All it says is that the NHDOT must provide data to support the widening of the highway to maintain the city’s support.

The mayor’s draft letter wasn’t available to the public before the city council meeting and councilors only received it just prior to their discussion on whether they wanted to make edits before sending it. Members of the city council were given about five minutes to review the information before their discussion ensued. If you had taken the time to attend the city council meeting you may have been one of the lucky few to receive a copy at the same time the councilors did.

And while there has been much public testimony up to this point regarding the I-93 project and the mayor has stated that the city council always welcomes public feedback, why would there not be the opportunity for the public to voice their opinion on a letter that purports to support the state’s goals for an eight lane highway if the ‘data’ shows it is necessary. A road that will only further divide our city.

And again, here’s what I think. While there are any number of important goals for this project these are two that the city has focused on. The first is the moving of the railroad tracks to allow for fuller development along an extended Storrs Street. The second is improvements in the area of the north bound off ramp at exit 13 and improvements to traffic flow and intersection improvements on Manchester Street and Old Turnpike Road. Under the state’s current proposal, the state will pay for both.

It appears that our city leaders and those representing us on the city council are wiling to cede your concerns for the projects eight lanes for the state picking up the tab for these two items.

I can’t fault the state for sweetening the pot, attempting to make the project less onerous.

I can display my displeasure at those who represent us, for ignoring us.