Editor:
Town Meeting Citizens Petitions 47 and 48 bear quite specifically upon the Upper Charles Trail Committee (UCTC). As a ten-year member of the UCTC, I want to set my own position straight on these matters.
Warrant Article 47 calls for the UCTC to be shut down and replaced by a subcommittee of the Trails Coordination and Management Committee (TCMC). Although the petitioner is the co-chair of the TCMC, he has consistently maintained that his motion is not motivated by his TCMC role. I accept his claim and acknowledge his considerable trail building skills.
Warrant Article 48 calls for the suspension of all funding for a section of the Upper Charles Trail (UCT) that is aligned along Hayden Rowe Street from approximately lot #147 south to lot #192.
I oppose each of these proposals, for the reasons below, beginning with the latter:
Article 48:
The route along Hayden Rowe Street is the only viable route to get between these endpoints that we have been able to find in the ten years that we have been looking. We have meanwhile endorsed the petitioner’s search for a viable alternative, and we would be profoundly pleased to support any preferable route or routes that should emerge from that effort. But as of now, there is no other viable alternative. There ARE “hoped-for” alternatives, just none that are viable and validated. If this trail were a “home” project of mine that had one known solution, along with a number of “hoped-for” solutions, I would not declare the known solution to be off limits. For that simple reason, I do not support Article 48.
Article 47:
Because the proposed UCTC regime would support Article 48, I cannot support this leadership change. My own reason for joining the UCTC ten or more years ago was to contribute to the planning and building of a bikeable trail that connects the Milford UCT Trailhead to the Hopkinton State Park. Having a Hopkinton UCT that makes that connection is my highest priority. A subcommittee that is willing to discard a known solution for a set of unknowns seems less likely to make the bikeable trail a reality.
Bob Snyder
37 Eastview Road
Member of Hopkinton UCT
There is a difference between being “viable” and sensible, for although something may be viable, it is not always wise to act upon it.
• Is it sensible to have users of the trail cross Hayden Rowe Street three times to get from Milford to the Hopkinton Center for the Arts or vice versa?
• Is it sensible to have the Upper Charles trail cross 15 driveways, endangering both users and home owners attempting to back out of their driveways?
• Is it sensible to have a trail on a road that it always congested and where cars and heavy duty trucks travel at 40-50 miles per hour despite posted speed limits and is a major thoroughfare for anyone traveling north or south, in or out of town?
• Is it sensible to have a trail on a road that abuts four schools and within a few years a fifth school, particularly since the school committee voted 5-0 against this segment of the trail?
• Is it sensible that in order to establish the trail on Hayden Rowe, the road itself may possibly have to be reconfigured to accommodate it?
• Is it sensible to allow a trail that may, in some instances, be within 10-15 feet of a home owners front door? Is it something that you would want?
• Is it sensible to curb the east side of Hayden Rowe for the trail so that there is no soft pullover for cars and trucks in order to allow emergency vehicles to pass through?
• Is it sensible to believe that this segment of the trail will even get much use given the noise, congestion, and potential danger, or will it ultimately be a misuse of town finances?
For these reasons I will be voting YES on Article 48. The plan to run the Upper Charles trail along Hayden Rowe may be “viable”, but there are too many negative ramifications in doing so. This plan affects not just the residents on Hayden Rowe but the residents of the town as a whole.
Richard Cunningham
The UCTC should know that the Hayden Rowe section is NOT viable at this time. The UCTC’s 2017 report notes that land would need to be taken for a trail. They spent our money this past summer on a survey of the roadway, and while they decided they didn’t need to know how many private properties would need to be taken for a trail, they do know that with the current road, the trail IS NOT possible without taking private property. As an alternative, they could reroute the road, at huge cost and inconvenience. In short, the Hayden Rowe route is not a particularly viable route for the type of shared use path that is being sought. Is there an ideal route? Maybe not. Are there better routes? Quite likely. The town should have the opportunity to consider these routes, not be held to a single, likely non-viable option.
For all those reasons Richard shared, I will be voting *YES* on Article 48.
Amanda Losada
Thank you, Mr. Cunningham and Mr. LaGoy, for your comments and for helping to further make my point. I refer you to the sentence in my letter beginning with “We have meanwhile endorsed….”. Otherwise stated, if there is a better way that anyone can find, we welcome it, we will embrace it and we will try to implement it. Thus Mr. LaGoy mischaracterizes our position by stating that “the town should not be held to a single option”. Mr. LaGoy chooses to go back six years in time to make a part of his argument. I am not interested in revisiting the past. We have not been a “perfect committee”. We are volunteer citizens trying to carry out a charge on behalf of our community. I am speaking for myself here, not the UCTC, by the way. For myself, I will stick to the present and the future. For the present, I welcome all submissions of a better route, but I’m not willing to throw away the one that will work if necessary.