Residents urge Select Board to pause BWALT Section 2, cite procedural and safety concerns
Loading...
Summary
Several Westborough residents asked the Select Board to halt work on Section 2 of the BWALT trail, citing what they described as an incomplete public process, perceived conflicts of interest in the 2019 feasibility study, safety issues for Meadow Road, and a request that the full multi‑section plan be presented to town meeting for a vote.
Dozens of residents pressed the Westborough Select Board during open forum to pause implementation of Section 2 of the BWALT trail and order a new, independent feasibility study.
Joanne Aramini, of 7 Bridal Road, told the board that “the plan was never taken to town meeting for people to look at it in its entirety” and that abutters’ input described as solicited in earlier meetings was not incorporated. She said the project has been implemented incrementally since 2012 and that the public only recently became aware of the scope and the potential cost, which attendees variously described as in the “$25 to $35,000,000” range.
Neighbor Eric Hammond pressed the technical rationale behind the route for Section 2, asking why the path ‘‘takes a hard right and comes down Meadow’’ instead of running in a more direct alignment behind Meadow Plaza that, he said, would tie to a crosswalk across Route 135 and avoid narrowing Meadow Road further. Michelle Coburn raised safety concerns for Meadow Road, saying it is ‘‘narrower than some of the roads in town’’ and that adding a shared path there could make passage hazardous for cars, bicycles and pedestrians.
Kevin Barry, who said he has lived in town more than two decades, reiterated objections directed at the 2019 feasibility study and at the consultant selection, alleging that the consultant who produced the study previously worked on earlier plans and that created an appearance of conflict of interest. Barry also said the study relies on dated traffic data from 2013 and should be refreshed before major implementation decisions are made.
Town staff and a board member responded in brief: one board member clarified that appropriations related to the effort were made at town meeting and that the town did not spend funds outside of town‑meeting appropriations. The town manager and planning staff were asked to follow up on requests for clarity about outreach, feasibility‑study procurement, and the project’s path selection and cost estimates.
Next steps: petitioners requested the board halt further implementation of Section 2 until an independent feasibility study is commissioned and the complete BWALT plan is presented to town meeting. Board members and staff acknowledged those requests and said they would return further information to the board and public in upcoming meetings.
