Regarding two letters in the Gazette “What is a neighborhood?” (June 18), and “Shared-use path in Haydenville benefits entire town” (June 24):
When the residents of South Main Street speak of “our neighborhood,” we naturally mean the homes, street, sidewalk and greenery adjacent to where we live. Two long-term members of the Williamsburg Mill River Greenway Committee found a way to read our words in an unfavorable light, accusing us of declaring that the neighborhood belongs to the residents alone. In reality, South Main’s residents have consistently welcomed the prospect of increased bicycle and pedestrian traffic along our street. Our objections to Greenway plans have been in an effort to ensure safety and enjoyment for everyone, on foot and on bicycle, passing in front of our homes.
Frances Borden’s claim that the Greenway design “incorporates the abutters’ suggestions wherever they are legal or safe” brings up a crucial point: The Greenway committee, VHB engineering and the Williamsburg Select Board all claim that a MassDOT engineering directive makes it illegal to create a “bicycle boulevard” (the facility preferred by the neighborhood) on a street classified as arterial. This claim is false. The directive in question does not contain the word “arterial,” and South Main meets none of the requirements listed in it. We have documented these facts in writing to the Select Board and on our website, but our objections have been ignored. A bike boulevard is the facility recommended by state and federal agencies for a street with South Main’s low traffic volume and speed limit.
Borden lists a number of benefits the Greenway plan will provide, but she neglects to mention that none of them depends on turning the neighborhood’s sidewalk into a bike path. She dismisses residents’ concerns about bicycles and pedestrians sharing an 8-foot path by saying that she guesses “virtually all through bikers will choose to remain on the road” — which is the opposite of what the Greenway committee has given as a reason for building a shared-use path. They claim that only “risk tolerant” bikers, 4-7% of the total, will ride on the road and that “continuity” between the Florence rail trail and the proposed Route 9 bike path is crucial to avoid confusing cyclists. If a path marked for bicycle use is offered to them, we expect virtually all cyclists traveling between the rail trail and Route 9 to ride on what used to be our sidewalk.
Jody Nishman calls a guest column written by a South Main resident “misleading.” He says that he writes as a private citizen but fails to mention that he was a member of the Greenway committee from 2016 to 2024. He says the plan for the “South Main Street shared-use path” has been in the works for more than 12 years. As a committee member, though, he knows that the South Main path was designed only in October of 2019, and that before then the committee planned to accommodate bicycles on the road — with enthusiastic neighborhood support. And he was present at five meetings where the committee found reasons to postpone notifying residents of the 2019 change of plans until April 2023.
In his letter, Nishman states that “a majority of the town’s voters support the shared-use path.” At the recent town meeting, 219 of the town’s 2,211 registered voters — approximately 10% — voted to approve an Article for Greenway easements. The letter states that $3 million of state funding would provide “needed repairs and improvements” on South Main and that the Greenway project has to move forward “in order to keep this infrastructure from further deterioration.” Yes, the sidewalk is ancient and the town has not repaved the road in a long time, but routine maintenance is rightfully the town’s responsibility and would cost a small fraction of $3 million. It is misleading to imply that the town would have to pay $3 million if the South Main bike path isn’t built. And if the path is built, the town will incur ongoing new expenses for its maintenance, including the cost of snow removal and de-icing, a service the highway department will be providing.
The town may also find itself on the hook for legal expenses: mixing bicycles and pedestrians on a substandard narrow shared-use path, one that crosses numerous blind driveways and involves a steep grade, is unsafe for both pedestrians and cyclists. At the point that injuries start happening, Williamsburg can expect to be named in lawsuits as a result of the flawed design constructed by the town. Who knows how much these will wind up burdening the town’s finances?
If Williamsburg wants to build a bike path that actually benefits the entire town, we suggest they put together a design which is in accordance with state and federal bicycle facility guidelines, one that preserves safety for pedestrians and improves conditions for cyclists on a well-used, already-safe neighborhood road.
Please visit southmain01039.com for explanations of these and other issues with the Greenway committee’s plans for South Main Street
Jim Weigang lives in Haydenville.