What Do You Think?

One of the rationals posed for the closure of the West Hill Road slip lane is that it would save the town money not to have to repave it every ten years. I have learned that the cost of repaving that approximately 100' strip is $10,000. It would still cost to convert the slip lane into a green space as well as ongoing maintenance such as mowing. So the $10,000 savings would actually be less. Then there's the incalculable inconvenience to the residents and visitors. It certainly does not enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood .
Now let's compare that to how much money the town is spending on the combination Bill's LLC Visitor's Center/Park and Ride Facility, which mind you is a partly a private enterprise. Also it does nothing to improve the quality of life in the town (except ease the financial burden on Bill's LLC, three of whom don't even live in town). You could say it provides a place for people to park but that is the case now without the park and ride.
First, the town is spending roughly $25-30,000 in addition to the $80,000 federal grant, building the parking lot, reconfiguring exits and entrances and demo'ing the snowmobile shack The town is setting aside $3,000 per year for maintenance costs, which have been described to me as "hard costs" for items like line striping and repaving. Ten years accumulation, $30,000. The town manager and Select Board have waffled on the cost of the actual day to day maintenance such as plowing and sweeping. Can't pin them down. I gave them a ballpark number for plowing of $2,000 - $3,000. I imagine conservatively another $1,000 for summer maintenance is valid. So add another $30,000 to $40,000 over a ten year span, to the $30,000 they actually admit to and you get $60,000 to $70,000. Add the  $25-30,000 for building the parking lot and that number is $100,000.
So, on the one hand over a ten year span they're willing to spend up to $100,000 on a privately owned facility and save less than $10,000 by eliminating the slip lane. Something does not add up here. Is this sound fiscal management?
What do you think?
Another rational for elimination of the slip lane is that the traffic count is lower than it used to be. Well I thought part of the purpose of the lane closure was to enhance the  Gateway to the Killington Road business district, which in turn is part of the strategic plan for economic development. Isn't the plan to increase visitors and thus traffic? So you're going to close the slip lane because there's not enough traffic so you can increase traffic. Is this some sort of circular logic, sort of like chasing your tail, or is it just me?
What do you think?