Haydenville Residents Dispute Greenway Project’s Shared-Use Path, Citing Safety Concerns and Misrepresentations
A contentious debate is unfolding in Haydenville, Massachusetts, over the proposed Mill River Greenway shared-use path along South Main Street. Residents, while welcoming increased bicycle and pedestrian traffic, are voicing strong opposition to converting the existing sidewalk into a shared-use path, citing safety concerns and challenging the project’s justifications. They argue that the Greenway committee, VHB engineering firm, and the Williamsburg Select Board have misrepresented Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) regulations to justify their design choice.
At the heart of the dispute lies the classification of South Main Street as “arterial,” which the project proponents claim prohibits the implementation of a “bicycle boulevard,” a resident-preferred alternative. Residents counter this assertion, providing documentation that the cited MassDOT directive does not mention “arterial” streets and that South Main Street does not meet the criteria outlined in the directive. They highlight that a bicycle boulevard, promoting safe bicycle integration within the existing roadway, aligns with state and federal recommendations for streets with low traffic volume and speed limits like South Main.
Residents also challenge the Greenway committee’s claims regarding the necessity of a shared-use path. While the committee argues that only a small percentage of “risk-tolerant” cyclists would use the road, residents predict that the majority of cyclists will opt for the designated path if provided, effectively transforming their sidewalk into a busy bike lane. This contradicts the committee’s justification for the shared-use path, which aims to provide a safe and continuous route for cyclists between the Florence rail trail and the proposed Route 9 bike path.
The timeline of the project and the community engagement process have also come under scrutiny. Residents allege that the Greenway committee member, Jody Nishman, misrepresented the project’s history, claiming a 12-year planning period for the shared-use path. Residents assert that the current design emerged only in 2019, with previous plans focusing on accommodating bicycles within the roadway, a proposal that enjoyed strong neighborhood support. They further accuse the committee of deliberately delaying notification to residents about the 2019 design change until 2023.
Financial implications of the project are another point of contention. While proponents highlight the potential for $3 million in state funding for “needed repairs and improvements,” residents argue that routine road and sidewalk maintenance, the town’s responsibility, would cost significantly less. They caution that the shared-use path will introduce ongoing maintenance expenses, including snow removal and de-icing. Moreover, they raise concerns about potential legal liabilities arising from the flawed design, which they deem unsafe for both pedestrians and cyclists due to its narrow width, blind driveways, and steep grade.
Adding to the controversy is the claim of widespread town support for the shared-use path. Residents dispute the validity of this claim, pointing out that only approximately 10% of registered voters approved the Greenway easements at the recent town meeting. They argue this misrepresents the level of community support for the project.
Residents of South Main Street are urging the town to reconsider the current Greenway plan, advocating for a design that adheres to state and federal bicycle facility guidelines. They call for a solution that prioritizes pedestrian safety and improves conditions for cyclists while respecting the character of their neighborhood. They have created a website, southmain01039.com, to provide detailed information about their concerns and alternative proposals. The debate continues as residents seek a resolution that balances the needs of all stakeholders while ensuring the safety and well-being of the community.
