Yes, we will. Actually, no, we won’t. Wait a second, maybe we will.

That’s the clear-as-mud message the Maine Turnpike Authority has sent to the people of Westbrook on the potential closure of the Stroudwater Street bridge.

Dan Paradee, Maine Turnpike Authority public relations manager, said last week the Authority was considering closing the bridge to traffic for the repairs after hearing from the Portland mayor who felt keeping one lane open, extending the length of time it takes to complete the project, would cause more traffic problems. But the Authority had previously said it would keep one lane open during the repair, after hearing from Westbrook residents and Mayor Bruce Chuluda who felt keeping at least one lane open would help relieve some of the pressure from overburdened roads and intersections nearby.

The Authority’s attempts to respond to the objections of the people whose lives will be affected by the construction work are laudable. That’s why the Authority should stick to the decision it made after hearing from the people who will be affected by it the most: Westbrook residents.

With Stroudwater Street closed, Portland residents, after all, would still have easy access to the Maine Mall, the Jetport and to their home city, where most of the people in this area work. By contrast, people in Westbrook would lose one of their central arteries to all of those things.

Most of the residents living in the Stroudwater area of Portland would no doubt like to see the bridge closed. It would certainly cut down on the high number of cars that come through their neighborhood every morning and evening.

On the other side of the bridge, some Westbrook residents might not mind a reduction in the number of cars coming by their homes. Many of them, however, would also lose a convenient route to work. John Searles, who owns Town & Country Motors, located just over the bridge on the Westbrook side, would likely lose a few customers who wouldn’t want to drive all the way into Westbrook on Spring Street or Brighton Avenue and drive all the way back up Stroudwater Street.

The biggest problem with closing Stroudwater Street, however, would be sending all of the cars that usually use it onto other roads that are already overburdened with traffic. The lines of cars backed up at the intersection of Spring Street and County Road would grow even longer.

The Maine Department of Transportation plans to upgrade that intersection to allow more cars to get through it quicker. Had the state already done that work, Westbrook might not have such a good case to make against closing the bridge. But it’s unclear when the Transportation Department will even begin construction on that project.

One of Westbrook’s biggest problems is that everyone seems to drive through it. Because of the residential growth in communities to the west of Westbrook, the city’s roads already have to support many more cars than other cities of the same size.

“We are a transportation hub, and everything spokes out of us,” said City Councilor John O’Hara. “Closing one of our major arteries won’t make it any easier.”

The Turnpike Authority is now saying it could complete the project in nine months, rather than a year, with the bridge closed by adding $75,000 to the cost of the project. As Council President Jim Violette pointed out Monday night, however, that would be long enough to change plenty of driving habits.

“If you close a roadway for nine months, you create a habit for many drivers who won’t go back to Stroudwater Street because they’ve found a way to work they’re comfortable with,” he said. “By taking that bridge and closing it, you’re sending more cars onto two-lane roads in Westbrook that can’t handle it.”

The Turnpike Authority should stick to its commitment to keep one lane of that bridge open. We urge Westbrook residents to come out to the Authority’s board meeting at 9 a.m. Sept. 27 to let its board of directors know how important this road is to Westbrook.

The Authority didn’t know, by the American Journal’s press time, where the meeting would be held or whether it would take public comment at the meeting. The meeting is already being held at a time that makes it inconvenient for many people to attend because they have to be at work at that time. Considering its recent reversal of its position, we urge the Authority to allow public comment at its meeting and let people know where the meeting will be held as soon as possible so that they can participate in the process.

As soon as the Authority determines where the meeting will be held, we’ll post it on our Web site, www.keepmecurrent.com.

Brendan Moran, editor