By
JOANNA JAMES Gazette Staff Writer
04/07/2005
Board
members said they were in favor of replacing the current bridge constructed in
1896 because of "public safety issues from the bridge's deteriorating
factors."
Selectman
Joseph Senato said after a 100 years of the current
bridge, it's time to build a "safer bridge that will last another 100
years."
Maintaining a
historic look for a new bridge wasn't the controversial factor. Rather, the
danger in both widening - and not widening - the roads sparked a heated debate.
The board
unanimously voted not to change existing roadways to accommodate trucking or
commercial use. However, selectmen were not in favor of limiting vehicle
traffic.
Marci Rogers
lives on
If the roads
are widened it could invite more commercial use from trucks, and if they're not
widened the trucks and cars that already use that route will be able to go
faster while there won't be room for pedestrians.
Another man
asked if the roads aren't widened, "what's going to happen when a kid gets
killed."
People
throughout the room reacted to the remark until Chairperson Carol Mills
intervened with her gavel. "We won't have any bantering back and
forth," she said.
Roland Hebert,
the transportation planning manager from Southeastern Regional Planning and
Economic Development District (SRPEDD), suggested an alternative to widening
existing roads.
He recommended
creating "a bike-way or multi-use trail because of the high foot traffic
in that area leading to schools."
Marge Ghilarducci, secretary for the volunteer group Save Our
Bridge (SOB), made a few requests, such as looking at safety issues and having
the Historic Berkley Commission take part in the negotiations for designing the
bridge.
One man from
SOB wanted more future communication from the selectmen because he felt the
board had not informed the volunteer group of some previous decisions and
meetings.
Rep. David
Sullivan,
ŠThe