Letter: Vote “No” on Pathway Design

To the Editor:

Typically, situations needing improvement are evaluated for a least cost, mid-cost or shoot-for-the-moon project.

We have never been given any other options for different solutions to this situation. Why? How about moving the road to the west and enlarging shoulder on the east side of the road? The point here is that this hasn’t been totally evaluated in the way that I think that it should be. This has been approached from the standpoint of here’s a grant, and that has been the only option presented. And the price has grown tremendously, from $600,000, to $1.25 million, with the town’s cost growing as well. This project will be a black hole for $$$. If we spend $150,000 on engineering studies, does that mean that the total funds left for construction are $1.1 million?

What will be the process for creating a framework for the engineering study? Will there be lights or no lights? Do power poles need to be moved or not? There has been so much conflicting information.

We would be better off building a roller coaster instead of a pathway, given the terrain on that part of Sport Hill road.

Besides the water crossing and steep slope (which will prevent this pathway from meeting the ADA grant requirement), there are 2 major hazards with this project. The first is how will cars be kept off this 11 foot wide pathway, which people will think is a roadway, especially when traffic backs up at Silverman’s? The second issue is the path’s crossing of Old Oak Road. Having personally pedaled a bicycle over 18,000 miles on roads, highways and pathways across this country, it is clear that this pathway will CREATE a hazard at that crossing. When driving south on Sport Hill Road, there would be no way to pay attention to the cars coming north at 50 mph, while also trying to see if anyone is coming down pathway in the southerly direction on a bike or skateboard. If the pathway users don’t stop at the crossing, collisions are likely.

Let us be clear that any development just leads to more development. That is antithetical to the protection of the water supply, which should be the highest calling for the town.

Let’s keep the town rural. Vote no on funding the ‘pathway’.

Jeff Becker

Easton

image_pdfimage_print