Skowhegan Transportation Study: Overview
History of the Project:
Phase I
The Town of Skowhegan created the Second Bridge Committee to work with
Maine DOT and the community. Regular meetings were held to obtain input
from the public about the study as the potential
corridors and alternatives were evaluated. Building
on the input received at the July 1998 meeting, five potential
corridors for a new river crossing in Skowhegan were identified for preliminary
consideration. Within these five corridors were fourteen potential alternatives
involving new bridge and/or highway facilities. Ten alternatives within
four river crossing corridors were located downstream of the existing
Skowhegan crossing and four alternatives in a single river crossing corridor
were located upstream of the existing crossing. The alternatives included:
E1—Through downtown:
E1A—East Front Street to Madison Avenue, over
Water Street
E1B—East Front Street to North Avenue
E2—East of downtown, at Coburn Park:
E2A—East Front Street to Water
Street
E2B—East Front Street to Madison Avenue
E3—East of downtown:
E3A—Route 201 South to Route 2 East
E3B—Route 201 South to Route 201 North
E3C—Route 1 East to Route 201 North
E3D—Route 2 West to Route 2 East
E3E—Route 2 West to Route 201 North
E4—Rural, east-west only, south of downtown:
E4A—Route 2 West
to Route 2 East
W1—West of downtown:
W1A—West Front
Street to Norridgewock Avenue
W1B—West Front Street to Route 201
W1C—Route 201 South to Route 201 North
W1D—Route 2 West to Route 2 West
As part of the initial alternative screening evaluation, Maine DOT conducted
a traffic analysis, preliminary environmental review, and cost-benefit analysis
of each alternative. Each alternative was measured against the "no-build" alternative.
The analysis also included gauging each alternative's ability to satisfy
the purpose and need, and an identification of any potential environmental
fatal flaws.
Based on this work, the study team proposed to the Second Bridge
Committee that four alternatives in two river crossing corridors be advanced
for further engineering and environmental analysis and for comparison
with the no-build option. These included alternatives E3A, E3B,
E3E, E1B. The location of these proposed alternatives are shown in the
maps below.
Click here to
view the maps.
Due to potential environmental impacts on the community and the
limited ability to satisfy the project purpose and need, Maine DOT
dismissed Alternative E1B from further consideration. This decision
was discussed with and supported by the federal sponsoring agency,
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Phase II
The next stage of the process in spring 2002 was to conduct conceptual
engineering and environmental evaluation of each alternative. DMJM Harris,
Inc. was selected to conduct engineering studies and prepare
an Environmental Assessment (EA) to meet the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NEPA was passed by Congress in 1969
to protect natural, physical, and social resources. The options developed
during the EA alternatives analysis process included the routes shown
in the map below.
Click here to
view the map.
After consideration of these alternatives by MaineDOT and FHWA in consultation
with the appropriate regulatory agencies, Alternative E3E4 was selected
to be evaluated in the EA.
In 2005,
the EA was elevated to a more comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)
process due to some public controversy. An important part of the EIS
process is the continuing involvement of the public in project decision-making.
In addition to public meetings designed for the general public, a public
advisory committee is being created to assist MaineDOT and FHWA in developing
and evaluating the alternatives. The alternatives being considered in
the EIS include the EA alternatives, plus additional options suggested
by the public as noted in red in the figure below. These would be in
addition to any other options identified as part of the public scoping
process.
Click here to
view the map.
This page last updated on
August 8, 2008