I write to discuss the Town Center Transportation Committee (TCTC) and the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission (MRPC) report presented to the TCTC on Aug. 25. The Press of Sept. 4 devoted considerable space to it.
I am a member of the TCTC but missed that meeting; I have read the report. I write as a (well-informed) private citizen, not to speak for the TCTC. There has been considerable activity on Nextdoor Harvard; acquaintances have asked about planning for town center traffic, especially given the dramatic “alternatives” reported in the Press, accurately reflecting the MRPC report.
The MRPC is a state agency that provides planning support to cities and towns. It works for free. Unfortunately, we have failed to provide adequate guidance to the agency. As the Press said, there were many “alternatives proposed by MRPC to improve traffic flow.” But “improving traffic flow” is by no means the goal of the TCTC; indeed, the town has made clear, in many reports and planning documents over two decades, that we want a lively center, with enhanced pedestrian and bicycle circulation. These may well trade off with improved traffic flow.
We did not task MRPC to develop alternatives, and we did not tell it that we seek to “improve traffic flow.” We—the TCTC and its “parent,” the Planning Board—must make clear to MRPC what we want from it. The agency should help us to understand the issues in pursuing our goals and, if appropriate, develop alternatives that will. MRPC has told us that there is no problem with traffic flow.
We almost certainly do not want to do anything to attract more traffic; improving traffic flow risks doing that. We want to make sure that traffic flow remains manageable as we enhance pedestrian and bicycle convenience and safety.
William Salter
Elm Street
