Keep the Connector

I'm a bit late with this, but I suspect the City Council will be discussing the proposal to connect Moseley Woods and Maudslay at Monday's meeting.

Some background. At the last council meeting, the body approved a request from the city's planning department to use $45,000 in CPA funds to analyze and possibly design a trail connecting our two cherished woods.

The trail would run under the new Route 95 bridge and presumably would be connected somehow to the walkway/bikeway running above over the Merrimack River.

I thought this was a fantastic idea the moment I read it in the Daily News a few weeks back.

As it turned out, my wife and I hiked under the bridge a month or so ago during a walk in Moseley. We had designs on climbing the other side when we realized we wouldn’t be able to get back over easily, so we abandoned the effort and stayed on the eastern side of the highway.

So I can see how the project would make sense. A riverfront trail connecting the two parks would be a fantastic addition to our city’s trails, and the connection to Route 95 would be truly unique (once the new Whittier Bridge was built.) This would be yet another feature to enable our community to stand out.

I was surprised to see the idea met with some opposition in the city council. Councilors Tom Jones and Brian Derrivan raised the principal concerns. (They would ultimately be joined by Steve Hutcheson and Tom O’Brien in voting against the grant.)

Jones’ opened up questioning whether the money might be better spent building out the South End rail trail, and it was a good point. But the city’s planning head Andrew Port said the South End trail is important, but its pieces are largely in place, enabling the city to act on its own timeline.

The opportunity to consider building a trail connecting Moseley and Maudslay is tied to the plans to replace the Whittier Bridge. If the city wants to do it, it’s got to decide now or else a chance might be lost.

Point. Counterpoint.

Then the arguments against began centering on public safety. In short, councilors are concerned that creating a public space so far removed from … well .. everything will invite less than virtuous people to gather and do less than virtuous things.

It was actually an interesting discussion, one worth watching. Go over to Ed Cameron’s blog. He sets the whole thing up nicely.

So where are we? The council approved the request, but now it may reconsider the vote as two councilors who voted yes – Kathleen O’Connor Ives and Bob Cronin - asked that the item be brought back for another vote. During the meeting. Ives at least twice asked why the proposal couldn’t be referred to committee when questions came up about what abutting entities (the Moseley trustees and the water department) were consulted about the idea. I’m not sure what Cronin’s concerns are but I’d guess they’re in line with Jones and Derrivan’s.

Ed Cameron is openly soliciting feedback from voters, so here’s mine.

We’ve got an opportunity to add a truly unique walking and biking experience to our very walkable city (as the Masked Preservationist has noted in recent spot-on posts.) A trail connecting two parks with a bridge spanning the Merrimack would be a great addition, even greater if it ultimately connected with more trails on the other side of the river.

Is public safety a concern? Sure, a little bit. But it’s a concern everywhere and at all time. If we let such matters dictate what we do and don’t do we’d never try anything. We’d never have a rail trail. Hell, we’d never even have the MBTA station. (I recall critics wondering if the extension of the commuter rail would bring Big City crime to Newburyport.)

These concerns aren’t as far-fetched (although I thought Jones was reaching by invoking the scary – yet very singular – axe attack in Salisbury) but they’re not big enough to derail a worthwhile project like this one.

I'll be interested in hearing what the abutting parties have to say, but if no legitimate roadblocks are erected I hope the council acts on this out of hope and opportunity, not fear.