East-west cooperation

I have read the March 5 op-ed by Hewlett Crawford titled, “Study other connector considerations.” His commentary opposes the suggested routing for the east-west highway for reasons that are too difficult in their content to be given serious consideration. The grave and serious danger this commentary presents is that his opinions are presented on the basis of his education and training and former position with the U.S. government and might therefore be given validity in the eyes of some people.

Dr. Crawford cites the unnecessary costs to the Maine taxpayers and ignores completely that the major portion of the highway construction costs are borne by the U.S. government under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century as it relates to international trade corridors under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. This represents new cash to the state of Maine and Maine construction workers, contractors and equipment dealers as opposed to the upgrades on Route 9 that did not take advantage of federal tax dollars under the international trade corridor funding arrangements that are generous by most standards.

Saint John, New Brunswick, and, by extension, the American border, I must point out in respect to one of Dr. Crawford’s points, are closer to the entrance to the Caledonia Industrial Park in Moncton than is Fredericton. Once in Fredericton from Moncton, the distance is made even longer because you then drive north for a distance before heading west a short jaunt to the American border at Houlton and then you begin the drive south to Bangor. Dr. Crawford also wants to save Maine taxpayers money, according to the op-ed, by sending Maine traffic to Montreal northeast along I-95 and then north along the new twin-laned Trans-Canada before then heading west and down into Montreal and Toronto.

I learned early in life that the shorter distance between two places is at the very least a reasonably straight line. Compound the added distance traveled by Maine trucks and other vehicles and you have added thousands of miles of travel in time and money that come at considerable and devastating expense to the Maine economy.

Add to this damage the fact that there is not one international trade corridor designated for Maine, New Hampshire or Vermont under the terms of NAFTA. This leaves the entire northeastern region out of the picture under the terms of TEA-21 and NAFTA as opposed to all other regions of the United States. The net result is that new factories will locate along the faster, safer, more efficient international trade corridors that are abounding in the planning details of the North American map and that will be paid for in good part by dollars from Washington. The older plants in Maine will compete for time to market and higher transportation costs that eat into money left over for plant modernization. That is the real job killer.

The net effect is that Maine is presently in a cul-de-sac when one looks at its location on a map of the United States in relation to the other states in the union. A cul-de-sac or dead-end street in any town or city is rarely if ever the location of a vibrant and active business. If you want to sell shoes, you locate on Main Street. Maine needs and deserves to be on an international trade corridor under NAFTA. One reads about factory closings, industries disappearing and job losses. Why should Maine’s neighbors be interested in what happens? I can only say that a stagnant or decaying economy pulls the entire neighborhood down because it is very difficult to sell to poor neighbors. There is much more to be gained through regional cooperation that is based on fast, safe and efficient transportation links that give each and every citizen an equal chance at a healthy, productive and prosperous life.

Edward Farren is an Intergovernmental Affairs officer based in Saint John, New Brunswick.