Exit 4A Position Paper

Home

Events

Positions

Issues

Join ADT

About Us

Links

Should we spend the money on an Exit 4a?

While not necessarily one of the “front burner” issues in 2007, the Exit 4A issue remains a concern for 2 basic reasons. First, the bonding of $5 million for the project has already been approved (September 1997, Council voted 5-1 to authorize) and so that $5 million bond can be executed at any time. Secondly, the final project cost remains an unknown factor and only $8 million is promised from other entities for this project

How did this issue stack up against the ADT's 11 Questions?

1. What "need" is this action supposed to address? Is this truly the role of government?

Answer - The purported “need” is twofold, traffic management and mitigation, and increased commercial and industrial growth. On the first part, since the overwhelming majority of Derry commuters live to the South of the site of 4A, it would seem highly unlikely that this project would actually achieve the goal of reduced traffic on the Rte 102 (Broadway) corridor Downtown. In addition, there are plans to make improvements to the Broadway/Crystal Ave/Birch St intersection within the next 2 years, which would alleviate much of the Downtown congestion. The other need is commercial and industrial growth, the scope of “new” growth would be quite limited, especially in light of the $6 million TIF approved by the Council in 2006, which will basically open up the very parcels that would have become available through Exit 4A. Never mind that an Exit 4A would provide MUCH MORE of an economic boom to Londonderry than it would Derry.

2. Is the proposed action legal and within the proper jurisdiction? Does it rely on a narrow interpretation of the "letter of the law" while running counter to the "spirit of the law"?

Answer - Exit 4A does not pass the test of this Question for 2 reasons. First, the State of NH has made it clear that it will not give any money towards this project unless and until the widening of I-93 takes place at the Exit site, which (with the pending Law Suit from the Conservation Law Foundation) may never occur, and will certainly be at least a decade away. Secondly, municipalities paying for Exit cuts in Interstate highways are quite unusual and places the most of the fiscal cost inappropriately upon the municipal taxpayer.

3. What other options, including private sector, exist to address this issue? Have they been properly and effectively evaluated?

Answer - Options that have been discussed in the past included (but not limited to) having an Exit 3A at North Lowell Road in Windham, which from a Traffic perspective for Derry residents, would make far more sense, and cost much less as the bridge is already there and the State already owns the easements for the on-off ramps. There are also improvement options on the Rte 102 corridor that could be made at a far lower cost to assist in traffic movement. Generally, these options have not really gotten the full and fair discussion by local officials as they have been fixated on the 4A solution alone for over 20 years.

4. Which possible solution has the lowest short term costs to the taxpayer, and which has the lowest long term costs?

Answer - The answer is the same for both short and long term costs, make upgrades and improvements to Rte 102 traffic flow between the Londonderry line and the Traffic Circle to institute better traffic flow. As mentioned in the answer to Q1, the economic development factor of a 4A is minimal at best, and traffic flow is really the main issue that solutions are to be sought.

5. Does this action benefit only a few? Should the majority of taxpayers fund this benefit for the few?

Answer - As stated above, Exit 4A would be a burden on primarily Derry taxpayers, as the $16 million dollar difference between the current estimated cost of $24 million total, the $5 million from Londonderry and $3 million from the State being the other contributors, would be a completely unfair burden, where we’d pay 2/3 of the cost of a project where Londonderry gets the lions share of economic benefit and Chester, Auburn, Danville, Sandown and Fremont commuters would perhaps benefit MORE from the traffic flow changes than the bulk of Derry residents.

6. What are the short and long term consequences of implementing this action? Have recurring operating costs been factored into the true cost to the taxpayers? Will this action force funding consequent actions?

Answer - As this stage, any recurring costs would almost 100% become the responsibility of Derry taxpayers, where we’d be maintaining roads that by-and-large are helping commuters to the East and Northeast of Derry get home faster after work. We may find after 4A is built, that substantial infrastructure improvements will be necessary on many Derry roads to handle the increased traffic on those roads as a result of the Exit.

7. What are the likely collateral consequences of this action? Increased traffic, reduced safety, damage to existing neighborhood? Will this action increase the size of bureaucracy, and/or add regulatory interference? Will it result in the loss of personal freedoms?

Answer - Most of this question was answered in Question 6 above, though the potential of increasing Public Works personnel to handle the added roadway mileage is also a possibility

8. Who truly benefits? Are there hidden agendas that are being fulfilled by this issue? Is there favoritism or other remuneration involved?

Answer - Traffic wise, other than some residents of Derry’s Northeast quadrant, most of the traffic benefit will be to towns to our East and Northeast. Economically, there are clearly some land owners that will see siginificant increases in land value, and ironically, that greed may actually keep some commercial and industrial parcels from being improved that might otherwise be built upon for a more favorable purchase price.

9. Are undefined generalities, vague assumptions and unverifiable conjecture being used to advance the idea? Or is the idea being supported by proven facts?

Answer - Despite the 20+ year history of this project, this is clearly still a poorly defined project, where even the final path of the connector road into Derry has not yet been determined. The escalating costs of the project (from about $13 million 10 years ago to about $24 million now) place this project farther away from reality now than even 10 years ago.

10. What restraints are in place to verify that the intended action will be implemented as planned? (without changes in scope once authorized)

Answer - In essence, because the project is so ill defined even all these year later, there have never even been preliminary plans drafted to verify the actions that would take place. To wit, we haven’t even gotten that far yet.

11. How can the action be undone if it is proven to have failed to meet its stated goals? How much will it cost to undo the action?

Answer - First off, any costs already incurred on the project over the years (somewhere in the range of $1 million) would, of course be lost. Secondly, if the Council decides to rescind bond approval (it has the right to do so), then Londonderry’s obligation to kick in $5 million, and the state’s promise of $3 million go by the boards. But, and considering the $8 million we lose was money we would not actually have for any other purpose, the real loss of Derry taxpayer dollars is about $1 million over the last 20 years or so, BUT the savings in project costs to Derry taxpayers would be at least $16 million based on current total project estimates, so right now, undoing the action AS CURRENTLY FUNDED would be a tremendous cost savings to Derry Taxpayers. If the project is a 90/10 Fed/State split, then that would be a project of a different standing. But is it not now, and not likely to be so, and as such, undoing the project would certainly seen to be the fiscally prudent thing to do.

© Copyright 2007, Alliance of Derry Taxpayers. All rights reserved.