I reviewed the bike path extension project website in relation to the “High Street” option. Some of my unknowns from this limited review have surely been discussed in workshops.

The website indicates cyclists would, as they do today, use the “shared street” method on Thames and Church and Constitution and High streets. If a marked lane exists or not on these streets, then it won’t change the cycling or motoring experience from current conditions.

After a crossing from High Street to the westerly shoulder of Hope Street, the path will continue from a dedicated off-street lane in the state right of way (currently a grassy shoulder) adjacent to Hope Street and Bristol Ferry Road.

To get to what a councilwoman described as ‘nowhere’ (the foot of the Mt. Hope Bridge) would require a crossing of Bristol Ferry Road traffic heading north and south. This crossing can be easily regulated with a pedestrian crossing system tied to traffic lights. Press a button to cross, wait until the crossing symbols tell you to, and the traffic will stop in response.

I disagree that the “dead ending” of the path at the base of the bridge is an abyss. The view here of the Mt. Hope Bridge is one of the most picturesque scenes in New England. One can walk east along the shore, and the views of passages to the Sakonnet River and Fall River are breathtaking.

Every bike path has a terminus, and this one isn’t too shabby. If this point is “nowhere,” then why is the scene used so frequently to promote our town?

The extension will promote cycling into town by university students. The university is our biggest economic stimulator.

Regarding safety concerns: 1) having marked and signaled cycling and pedestrian crossings over Hope Street and Bristol Ferry Road will promote safety. Today’s crossings near the park west of Walley Street are very dangerous.  2) I believe the bulk of cyclists will be happy stopping at the current end-point near Independence Park. The difference will be encouraging signage and other installations informing of a southerly path extension.

3) The risk of a collision between a cyclist and an auto entering the road from driveways on Hope Street and Bristol Ferry Road exists today. From the proposal, the risk to cyclists is lessened from not having to worry about an inattentive driver striking him or her in the road.

4) This path will be safer for pedestrians and especially for joggers than under current conditions. The current shoulder is not consistently graded.

The bike path has transited cyclists and walkers and joggers past nearby homes for many decades. I don’t recall complaints from homeowners abutting the path, nor has the path increased crime or other disturbances. In fact, the bike path gives homeowners an easy means to enjoy picturesque walks and cycling.  Proximity to the bike path appears universally in real estate promotions.

Having extolled the merits of the plan, I am concerned about the high cost ($2 million or more). This extension will not increase the economic benefit to the town in a material way.  This is an investment in an amenity. Having the funding come from state or federal sources doesn’t diminish the cost. We all pay this cost in the end. This is not a cost benefit analysis, it is a policy choice.

Louis Sousa
Bristol