I find the new pop-up group supporting the building of a new bridge between Topsham and Brunswick puzzling (See: New group emerges in debate over Frank J. Wood bridge replacement in Aug. 9 edition).
MDOT never seemed to need such public support before. They make decisions and convince us of the need for them. So this, to me, is a little strange. Could it be they actually fear losing to the preservationists wanting to keep the Frank Wood Bridge? With the National Trust for Historic Preservation joining the local preservationists?
But MDOT has bested the National Trust before. With a replacement of the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Bridge crossing Portsmouth Harbor. That bridge was not merely a National Register listee, but on the actual Top 11 Endangered Properties List. Being on that list was almost tantamount to being saved. Yet somehow MDOT, joining the NHDOT defeated the National Trust. Something doesn’t compute here.
If we build the new bridge, I would like to see it named for a woman this time instead of for a man. One woman comes to mind: Larissa Darcy, a banker leading the charge for a new bridge. Why not take a page out of the history of the existing bridge. Frank Wood, a farmer, went around gathering signatures for that bridge that would be named for him. Like Darcy, he was an activist of sorts. Both were or are fighting for new bridges. Name the new span the Larissa Darcy Bridge.
Steve Lindsey
Keene, NH
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less