Regarding July 2 article “Rail trail objections lose out,” we contest the article’s claim that MassDOT requires roads classified as arterial to separate vehicle and bicycle traffic. The engineering directive cited as the basis for this claim does not even contain the word “arterial.” Instead, the directive identifies five conditions that call for restricted bicycle facilities, and South Main Street meets none of them. Bicycle facility manuals from MassDOT, the Federal Highway Administration and NACTO all recommend for South Main what the residents are asking for, a bicycle boulevard treatment for the street. (See southmain01039.com for details.)

The “experienced professional engineers” that the Mill River Greenway Committee trusts have also stated that the $2.4 million treasury bond funding for the project would be forfeited if the Greenway’s design wasn’t built. We had to write to MassDOT ourselves to learn that the money could be used for either a shared-use path or a bicycle boulevard. The same engineers state that traffic volume on South Main is “about 2,000” vehicles per day. Traffic volume was actually measured by previous engineers at 809 vehicles per day, and residents counting cars have demonstrated that current levels are down about 10% from that figure.

As for what’s allowed in practice, just visit West Farms Road in Northampton. Classified as arterial, with a higher speed limit and greater traffic volume than South Main Street, and what do you see? Sharrow pavement markings and Bikes May Use Full Lane signs, exactly what the Greenway’s engineering company is refusing to provide in Haydenville.

Jim Weigang

Haydenville