Both projects had funds earmarked four or five years ago and were
engineered and had contractors chosen well before work began. Stopping
or postponing these projects would not have resulted in the funds
returning to the state's general fund.
In the case of the Route 100B bridge, the bridge is debilitated to the
point of needing repair. What's worse -- a bridge failing or state
government doing the job it is supposed to do and repairing the
infrastructure?
Regarding the Turner Farm cow underpass, the Turners, a
third-generation family dairy farm, were promised the cow underpass
over a decade ago by the Vermont Department of Agriculture and then as
recently as three years ago. However, the underpass was first promised
to the Turners when Route 100 was upgraded from gravel to pavement.
Four years ago the Turners approached the state asking for that promise
to be made good. The Turners have a long history of allowing public
access to their lands for recreation and snowmobiling.
They applied political pressure by closing their lands to the public,
resulting in enough public outcry that The Valley's Washington County
Senate delegation, local businesses, recreational groups and The
Valley's state representative went to bat for the project.
It took another year to actually secure funding for the project and
longer to arrange easements and even longer to engineer, such is the
pace at which the Agency of Transportation works.
Funds for the project, according to Washington County Senator Phil
Scott, came from the Agency of Transportation ($100,000) and the
Vermont Department of Agriculture ($100,000).
Complain at will about the cost and inconvenience of both projects, but at least do so with the facts straight.
{loadnavigation}
