The Minuteman Bikeway Extension ~ Annual Town Meeting 2022

March 29, 2022

The proposed Minuteman Bikeway Extension is on life support, after town meeting Monday failed to authorize acquisition of easements needed to complete the project.

Although 60 percent of nearly 600 voters approved Article 11, that proposal included acquisition by eminent domain, which requires a two-thirds vote. That caught a lot of people by surprise, as it was only acknowledged after the vote.

Moderator Mark Siegenthaler paired the article with a proposed $1.5 million expenditure for the easements, a component of the community preservation fund allocations. The intent was to discuss them together and vote separately.

Get The Bedford Citizen in your inbox!

When after an hour of debate the spending was approved 350 to 258, there was little reaction, as Siegenthaler moved on to Article 11. But the handwriting was on the wall for those who knew about the two-thirds requirement.

The vote to authorize acquisition was 363-235, i.e., 60 percent. Siegenthaler announced that the article was defeated. There was a murmur; some people who were leaving stopped in their tracks. A voter asked Siegenthaler to clarify what just happened.

“Town meeting has authorized the funding but did not authorize the Select Board to actually acquire the easements,” the moderator said, because of the two-thirds requirement. “The Select Board cannot move forward with the easements at this time.”

For many voters, this was like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, or vice versa. None of the advance material for Article 11 had mentioned the two-thirds requirement.

“We have to regroup,” Select Board Chair Emily Mitchell said after the meeting when asked about whether there will be any next steps. (The first step may come at tonight’s town meeting session, as the capital budget includes an undesignated amount for the bikeway.)

The vote appears to abruptly end a process that began more than 15 years ago and has been approved in varying phases three times by past town meetings. The outcome is a dramatic case of grass-roots activism, mainly–but not exclusively–from the neighborhoods closest to the trail prevailing over recommendations of every relevant town board and committee.

The proposed 12-foot accessible paved path with three-foot shoulders on each side would extend 1.7 miles from Railroad Avenue to the Concord line, following the long-abandoned B&M Railroad bed. Margot Fleischman of the Select Board said the town pedestrian and bicycle master plan designates the improved extension as “the major east-west spine of Bedford’s bike-pedestrian network, accessible to residents “of all ages and abilities.”

Fleischman began the discussion with an explanation of the need to acquire temporary and permanent easements, and how assessment of the land had to be based on current values. She also pointed out that the project includes correcting drainage problems on Railroad Avenue, as a shared-use path would link the existing bikeway and the paved extension.

But no one talked about money. The issues that went back and forth, with more than 20 voters speaking pro and con, were about safety, tranquility, environmental preservation, accessibility, even cross-country teams.

Representatives of three town committees delivered recommendations from the floor microphones, interspersed with other voters.

Scot Shaw, speaking for the Transportation Advisory Committee, cited the importance of connection without using a car and access for “the greatest number of users possible. Extending it as a paved trail would provide an amazing resource for the town.” Bob Dorer of the Energy and Sustainability Committee said the betterment is consistent with the town’s net zero plan and adds to non-fossil options.

Mark Bailey, speaking for the Bicycle Advisory Committee, highlighted the paved path’s impact on traffic reduction, access to woodland trails and playing fields, in-town and inter-town connectivity.

But David Radlo, an abutter, said improvements will mean more cyclists from other towns, “and  guess what – not all of them are good because  they are the general public.”

Like Bailey, Scott Counsell felt that the trail is a great local resource. But he predicted widening and paving will encourage excessively fast cycling and undermine “a very calming and pleasant woodland experience.” Julie Brill, who said she opposed the original bikeway extension article, noted there is strong resistance in Concord to paving its portion of the trail.

Environmental concerns seemed like a wash. Some speakers cited reduced use of cars; opponents responded that the paving process itself involves use of fossil fuels. Angela Winter, an opponent who lives in the Center, asked if there had been any kind of environmental offset study.

Opponents like Laura Keating and Lori Eggert pointed out the likely presence of endangered species. Fleischman said the project has passed state and federal environmental reviews. There were concerns about wetlands impact, tree removal, and resulting wildlife disruption. Linda Ugelow said that on days when the trail is too muddy for safe and easy use, it’s called ‘learning to live with nature.’

There were also comments on the disruption paving would cause to school cross-country teams, though Fleischman said the school’s Athletic Department has assured that there are other options.

Several speakers lauded the advantages of a year-round paved bikeway for commuters, including a West Bedford resident, Andrew Henderson. He also emphasized the connectivity with the middle and high school for neighborhood children, and a safe Concord Road crossing that would be ensured by the planned trail box culvert underpass. Gerald Skurla cited the relative safety of a bikeway compared to public streets for cyclists.

Leah Devereaux told town meeting that her partner has ALS, and an accessible paved trail would provide her children opportunities “to be safe in nature with their father by their side.” She noted that there are miles of trails already available to able-bodied people.

Amy Lloyd, a member of the Planning Board, prefers walking her dog on a paved surface because of minor balance issues. Along the Minuteman Bikeway she often sees small children, meanderers, recreational cyclists, and occasionally someone riding at an inappropriate speed.

Mike Rosenberg can be reached at [email protected], or 781-983-1763

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mario Mendes
August 13, 2022 5:46 pm

“A relatively small cohort of opponents, 235 people (less than a majority of Spring Town Meeting attendees; and less than 3% of the voting population in Bedford!)…”

Where exactly do you get the 3% of voting population in Bedford from?

According to this Bedford Citizen article (, nearly 600 voters voted on the extension.

Clearly, 600 was 100% of the voting population in Bedford.

If you want to include the entire town of Bedford in the “voting population” Wikipedia states the Bedford population is 14,383.

600 is 4.17% of 14,383

As you can see, 95.83% of the town voted “I’m OK with however things get voted in the town meeting” by not showing up.

235 is 40% of 600 who voted and the 60% that voted for was not enough to get the path as you want it to be. I’ll further state that 95.83% of the population in Bedford is just fine with that.

“Opponents of this expansion have ***misrepresented*** many of the facts and used NIMBY-like approaches in an attempt to deny broader access to recreational activities.”

The numbers above clearly show where the misrepresentation exists.

Virtually no one in town is against the path being improved. I have not heard or read anything from anyone in town who actually is against any improvement to the path.

Those against the proposed work on the path are pretty clear on why: we don’t want a commuting bicycle highway, those commuters can use the already maintained asphalt roads in Bedford just fine and they can follow the rules and laws of the road like everyone else does. We want a path that is improved for everyone to use for recreational activities. And that can be done without cutting down vegetation and laying down more asphalt and concrete in nature, where it does not belong. Also, concrete/asphalt is not required for differently-abled people to enjoy the path.

“Communities across Massachusetts have been actively and successfully supporting beneficial increases in access for pedestrians, bikes, and differently-abled people by expanding the network of rail trail and related community paths.”

I’ll end with the words from a town official when I questioned why the town would not allow me to do something that the majority of cities and towns in our commonwealth do allow: “just because other cities and towns do certain things it does not mean we have to”

Mario Mendes
August 16, 2022 8:09 pm
Reply to  Mario Mendes

I don’t know how this comment of mine ended up in this post, but it was meant to go here:

Molly L Haskell
March 31, 2022 8:52 am

I oppose the Bikeway Extension, for various reasons. Primarily, the scale and details are simply not negotiable. I do not see why a 30’+ swathe of trees and forest canopy must be clear cut for a broad path that already exists. This cutting amounts to three acres of tree removal. Trees will not be allowed to regrow within 10 feet of the pathway, because this swathe will be maintained with yearly cutting. Once gone, it is gone forever. The result is the equivalent of a state highway through a Conservation area. You may as well re-route SR 62 through the woods, it will be the same result.

Planners will tell you that all this clear space is needed to provide ADA compliant facilities. I don’t buy it. Last summer, I visited Pittsfield State Forest, where I walked Tranquility, an ADA compliant trail. It was paved, about 10 feet wide, and the canopy met overhead. There certainly was extra clearance on either side of the path, but a not 30’+ swathe. The results are beautiful. Several trees grow within feet of the paving, allowing everyone a close look at the life of the forest they came to visit. I don’t see why we cannot take this approach as well.

Planners will point out, rightly, that for every acre of cut trees, the Town will be recompensed with tree planting funds. They fail to mention that the Town will receive no more than $5,000 per acre of cut trees. How many trees is that? Go down to New England Nurseries and look around, and then leave some of that budget for regular watering by the DPW. In the end, the per acre number of new trees can counted on your fingers. This makes the tree recompense plan simply risible.

All Stories

Do you have a garden where you take care of either flowers or vegetables?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Junior Landscaping
Go toTop