According to an article published Thursday in The Day, ConnDOT’s dubious proposal to extend Route 11 8.5 miles from Salem to I-95 continues to receive heavy criticism from two of the federal agencies charged with reviewing the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

In a letter sent in advance of formal comments on the FEIS, the Environmental Protection Agency skewered ConnDOT for failing to fully consider alternatives to the extension plan, and for omitting a mitigation plan for expected environmental impacts. The EPA’s comments are especially important because the agency has veto power over the project’s required environmental permits.

Last fall the Fish and Wildlife Service lambasted the plan in a scathing letter to ConnDOT, criticizing the project’s stated purpose and need as a “narrow, self-limiting criterion” which biases the project review to favor the extension. FWS went on to suggest that “one alternative should evaluate the removal of existing Route 11 from the corridor to alleviate effects on [Routes] 82/85 and to examine opportunities for environmental restoration in the Eight Mile River and other watersheds traversed by this uncompleted highway.”

The Day notes that such an alternative would “cost about one-eighth as much as extending Route 11, now estimated at just under $1 billion,” and would sufficiently ease Route 11’s traffic and safety problems, according to the EPA and FWS.

Responding to EPA’s letter, Molly McKay of the Sierra Club told MTR, “We are grateful to EPA New England for their vigilance and steadfast opposition to the extension of Route 11 and to Day Staff Writer Karin Crompton for her thorough and objective reporting on this controversial project.” McKay went on to suggest that the state study transit solutions as opposed to highway widenings.

Because there is no funding for the Route 11 extension in the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan, and because several other projects are competing for state funding, the extension seems unlikely to materialize. Still, political pressure and bureaucratic inertia continue to move the project forward. A record of decision from the Federal Highway Administration is expected no sooner than the end of January. The Campaign hopes that the FWS and EPA criticisms of the environmental impact statement will serve as the final nail in the coffin.