It is a tremendous concession aimed at one goal: calming the fears of 3,500 Brimfield residents worried that casino traffic might ruin their rural lives.
No casino project can compete for a coveted state license until the people of the host community endorse the project in a referendum, and casino opponents in many communities have been quick to seize on traffic as a good reason to resist the developments. “Every one of these sites faces a challenge in terms of ease of access,’’ said Clyde Barrow, a casino specialist at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. “I think every proposal that’s been put forward to this point will require some type of major transportation improvement.’’
Beyond the concerns of local voters, there is also a practical reason to solve traffic problems: traffic jams are bad for business, especially in a competitive market. “What people more and more prefer is to slide off a big highway and right into a garage,’’ said Barrow.
In California, where tribal casinos have been approved on hard-to-reach reservation land, tribes and investors have spent up to $100 million to improve access, including construction of highway interchanges, said William Eadington, professor of economics and a casino specialist at the University of Nevada, Reno.
At least seven casino companies are exploring bids for development rights for a casino in Greater Boston or Western Massachusetts. The state gambling law authorizes up to three resort casinos, with bidding delayed in Southeastern Massachusetts to give the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe a chance to make progress toward federal approval of a tribal casino.
In East Boston, where Suffolk Downs is pursuing a resort casino, officials have been discussing “decades-long traffic issues’’ on the North Shore, chief operating officer Chip Tuttle said in an e-mail. “We would look forward to doing our share of the needed improvements so North Shore commuters can have a better commute.’’
