I would like to know who proposed the new traffic pattern around the Town Hall and how was it approved. I think the change is completely unnecessary, as the roads around the Town Hall have functioned for years without a problem. If it was changed for safety concerns, I think you should consider the following:
The new steps up to the Town Hall, and protruding handrail, could have exited to the area to the side of Town Hall. As the steps are now they are dangerous; they lead people right into a travel lane rather than into a parking area. If the handrails are a problem now, that would have negated that. Whether this area is two-way or one-way will not make a difference; it’s still dangerous as it is.
Fire trucks exiting and entering should not be any more of a problem than before. In fact, when the ambulance was housed by the Town Hall there were far more emergency calls and vehicles using that area than the Fire Department will ever have.
Why are emergency vehicles allowed into the one-way street when they are a lot larger and more dangerous than any private vehicle?
There are now more road signs around the Common that detract from the appearance of the Common. Was the Historical Commission consulted on placing these signs?
There is still the chance of two-way traffic on Elm Street from Lovers Lane and the homes on Elm Street.
Getting to Town Hall from the north forces all the traffic (except for some town employees who I have seen disregarding the one-way sign) down to the light and up Elm Street, adding even more to the congestion at that intersection.
All in all, I would urge the selectmen to remove all of the signs, and let’s get the Common back as it was.
David W. Durrant
East Bare Hill Road
