A pedestrian walks over the Anna Hunt Marsh Bridge in 2023.
Chris Rycroft/Creative Commons (BY) license
A pedestrian walks over the Anna Hunt Marsh Bridge in 2023.
Voices

Throwing good taxpayer money after bad

The best long-term solution for both Brattleboro and Hinsdale is for the Marsh and Dana bridges to be replaced with ones scaled to be accessible for pedestrians and cyclists

Gemma Seymour is a Brattleboro Representative Town Meeting member representing voters in District 8. She serves on the Planning Commission and the town's Capital Grants Review Board.


BRATTLEBORO-As a person who has been car-free in Brattleboro for four years now, relying entirely on my feet and my bicycle for all my local transportation needs, as a member of Representative Town Meeting for District 8, and as a member of the Brattleboro Planning Commission, I have some thoughts on the future of the Anna Hunt Marsh and Charles Dana bridges over the Connecticut River between Brattleboro and Hinsdale, New Hampshire.

Over the past several years, I have been highly critical of the plans for the General John Stark Bridge because I viewed the design as inappropriate and insufficient to meet the current and future needs of Brattleboro.

The new bridge cost over $65 million to build and has no safe accommodations for pedestrians, people who use wheelchairs, or bicyclists.

Its plans were approved by officials in both states who seemingly have little to no care for the comfort, safety, and convenience of non-vehicular uses of public resources and seemingly no insight into the impending economic crisis of global climate change, caused primarily by human impacts on the environment-quite literally, driven by our addiction to mechanized mobility.

These designs were based on the idea that the old bridges would be refurbished so that they would remain open for pedestrians, disabled people, and cyclists. To anyone who is familiar with the history of highway projects, this was always an obvious, outright misdirection.

From the very day the new bridge opened, the old bridges have been completely neglected.

First and most obviously, there was no attempt at snow removal for the remainder of the winter, rendering both bridges completely impassable, save perhaps to mountain climbers with crampons and ice axes. Barriers were placed to make bicycle and wheelchair access difficult to impossible.

Then the pavement on the New Hampshire side was torn up, making bicycle access completely impossible, though it has since been replaced. Now, finally, the other shoe has hit the floor, and the bridges have been closed to the public by the Hinsdale Police Department.

* * *

The main problem here is that for historical reasons unfathomable to modern society, the border line between New Hampshire and Vermont runs down the Vermont shoreline, rather than - as is normally customary for state borders - mid-channel of the river.

The consequence is that the islands in the middle of the Connecticut River, as well as all of the Charles Dana Bridge and 93% of the Anna Hunt Marsh Bridge, are in New Hampshire, and therefore anything that happens to or on those islands and bridges is the responsibility of that state. Vermont has no responsibility and no control over what New Hampshire decides to do or not do.

Our New Hampshire neighbors in Hinsdale are understandably frustrated at the expense and responsibility of policing and otherwise responding to activity on the islands and bridges.

The majority of the people accessing that land and those structures are people coming over from Brattleboro, because the town center of Hinsdale is not within walkable distance. Brattleboro, being the regional hub that it is, necessarily attracts those in need of assistance and services.

Because very few residents of Hinsdale live near the Connecticut River, the land and old bridges are effectively of almost no utility at all to most of the town's residents, now that their access by motor vehicle to the Interstate Highway System has been secured by the new bridge.

However, legally closing the old bridges is of course not going to entirely prevent people occupying those islands and creating problems for Hinsdale. They will just have to walk a little farther, at a little more risk to their safety, over the new bridge.

Those of us who want or need to cross to New Hampshire without a motor vehicle understand with no small chagrin that we are almost certainly never going to see safety improvements to the General John Stark Bridge for our benefit; like it or not. We failed to stop its construction at a time when we could have easily done, so we are now stuck with it.

* * *

New Hampshire has received at least $8 million in funding for the refurbishment of the two old bridges, but I think it's safe to say that that money will never be spent on refurbishing those bridges.

I will submit to you that it should not be spent on refurbishment of the old bridges, as it is throwing good taxpayer money after bad. Refurbishment can at best delay the deterioration of these neglected, crumbling eyesores, which were built for vehicular traffic, not for pedestrian traffic. Vehicular bridges are simply overkill, and they are now white elephants, beasts which cost more money to feed and maintain than they are worth to our communities.

The best long-term solution for both Brattleboro and Hinsdale is for the old bridges to be demolished and replaced with bridges better scaled for pedestrian, disabled-user, and cyclist access; however, Hinsdale does not have the money to demolish the bridges, and for that matter, neither does Brattleboro.

Hinsdale wants the bridges demolished, because that would prevent any access to the islands and would dramatically reduce the frequency with which its emergency services would be required to respond at their expense. It is, however, in the interests of Brattleboro to retain access to those islands, as it has a much larger population and is much closer to the islands.

* * *

The only reasonable solution to this problem would be for New Hampshire to formally cede the islands to the Vermont, so that they would become part of the town of Brattleboro. This would require the approval of the U.S. Congress, the only body empowered to decide interstate borders; however, there is no reason to believe that the federal government would stand in the way of an agreement to this effect between Vermont and New Hampshire, which would have negligible impact to anyone outside of our two towns.

As part of this agreement, New Hampshire would also cede the grant funds for the bridge renovations to Vermont to be earmarked for the demolition of the Anna Hunt Marsh and Charles Dana Bridges and their eventual replacement(s); however, those monies are likely not sufficient to cover the demolition (let alone the construction of) new, smaller bridges.

Once the land is part of Vermont, Brattleboro would then have the sole power and authority to seek funding for improvements and to build them. Ideally, this agreement would also include the old Route 9 bridge to Chesterfield, New Hampshire, which is also a neglected, crumbling eyesore and should be removed.

We should also avoid entertaining any ambitions that private developers may have regarding that land. I should not need to remind people that these are low-lying islands in the middle of a river, in an era when our region is increasingly subject to flooding due to the changing climate.

Private development of these mid-channel islands would be an environmental disaster in the making. The only rational use for them is as a public park, with minimal improvements, so that a future flood does not wipe away too much value and create pollution downstream.

* * *

People need to understand that Hinsdale has very little bargaining power here, because town officials' backs are up against the wall. Because the land belongs to the town, the town is responsible for it, and it cannot afford that responsibility.

Hinsdale needs to unload this problem as quickly as its officials can, and this is what economists call a "monopsony," a market with only one buyer. Brattleboro, Vermont is the only possible entity that can take this problem off the hands and off the books of Hinsdale, which resents us, rightly or wrongly, because they see it as a problem we are causing for them.

I am sure that Hinsdale also resents the fact that they are about as distant from the thoughts, cares, and prayers of their own state legislature as we are. Concord is not coming to their rescue, certainly not when New Hampshire's Supreme Court has just declared that New Hampshire's public education funding is unconstitutionally low and must immediately be rectified.

* * *

Neither Hinsdale nor New Hampshire is really in a position to say no to Brattleboro's taking over the bridges and islands. Our assumption of the properties is nothing but cutting losses for them, yet it can potentially be a boon to Brattleboro, provided we are willing to invest in our future, and I believe we ought to do just that.

It's really not legally tenable to entertain the idea that Brattleboro could somehow buy or lease the bridges and islands; so long as the land remains part of Hinsdale and part of New Hampshire, it remains their legal responsibility.

But I see this as a wise investment for Brattleboro's future.

I ran for Representative Town Meeting on a platform of "Growth and Equity for Brattleboro."

I have said that I want to see Brattleboro grow both its heart and its population by three sizes, hopefully before the end of my life.

I want to see our town's population grow to be four times the size it is today, when population has been stagnant for the past 80 years. People are the drivers of economy, and if we wish to arrest a slow slide into decay, then we have to make Brattleboro a more affordable and a more attractive place to settle.

In contemplating that growth, we must do so judiciously, equitably, and compassionately, but we must also do so bravely. That is why I chose to stand for a seat on the Planning Commission, as well.

The fact is, however, that any growth we contemplate for our town must contend with the realities and constraints of the geography of both the land and of our built environment.

None of the changes I wish to see in this town are changes which can happen overnight. They will take long-term vision and long-term courage, but the place and the time to start is the here and the now.

I hope that you are willing to take the first steps with me.

This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.

This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].

Subscribe to the newsletter for weekly updates