By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD — The Town Council this week approved one request for bicycle-related signage around town while rejecting another. Both requests originated with Town Councilor/bicycle activist John Crisley.
The first request was for 14 signs to be deployed at primary entry points into town reminding motorists to give four feet of clearance when passing cyclists.
These signs were proposed to be placed at the following locations: Vernon Street (near Lynnfield); Lowell Street (near the rotary); North Avenue (near Route 95 Exit 57); Parker Road (near Reading); Prospect Street (near Stoneham);Albion Street (near Stoneham); Forest Street (near Stoneham); Spring Street (near Stoneham); Greenwood Street (near Melrose); Ashland Street (near Melrose); Main Street (near Melrose); Farm Street (near Saugus); Water Street (near Saugus); and Salem Street (near Lynnfield).
The other request was for 76 signs to be installed along Main Street identifying the Route of the “Mystic Highlands Greenway,” a bicycle/pedestrian route established by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council that connects several town centers, parks, transit and established regional trail corridors in Malden, Melrose, Wakefield, Stoneham, and Reading. There would be 38 Greenway signs on each side of Main Street.
The Town Council first took up the matter of the 14 signs at gateways into the town reminding motorists to give four feet of clearance when passing bicycles.
Councilor John Carney pointed out that giving four feet of clearance to cyclists often requires drivers to cross over the double yellow line.
“You have to break a law to obey another law,” he said.
But Crisley dismissed Carney’s concern, observing that motorists can legally cross over the double yellow lines in a variety of circumstances, such as if a lane is blocked or if they need to avoid a bike or pedestrian.
Councilor Jonathan Chines noted that state law requires drivers to give cyclists four feet of clearance. The question, he said, was whether the town wanted the signs as a reminder.
Town Councilor Douglas Butler was less than impressed with the two signage proposals, calling them “a ridiculous effort.” He wondered why the town would be perpetrating more signs.
“This is an abandonment of common sense,” he said.
Councilor Brian Fox agreed, noting that the two proposals amounted to 90 new signs.
“I don’t see why we need signs at the borders,” he said.
Town Councilor Stacey Constas was also concerned about the overall number of signs but said that she did not have an issue with the 14 signs at the entryways into town.
Ultimately, the Town Council OK’d the 14 signs at the town borders.
Regarding the 76 Greenway signs, Crisley noted that the signs are identified in the town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. He said that most of them would be installed on existing poles. He said Wakefield is one of the few communities that has not installed these wayfindinding signs.
But Town Council Chair Mehreen Butt observed that “76 signs is a lot.” She proposed waiting until the town does a complete sign inventory before adding these signs.
Chines made a motion to table the Greenway signs pending a larger discussion of signage in town.
But Butler wanted the board to vote on the proposal, noting that the decision could always be revisited later.
Constas agreed. “We should just make a decision,” she said.
Fox also wanted to vote on the matter.
“We have enough information,” he said. If people are concerned about the number of signs in town, he said, it means there are already too many.
Chines motion to table the matter failed.
Carney made a motion to not install any of the Greenway signs.
However, Butt suggested that since the board would not be voting to install the signs, an explicit “no” vote was unnecessary.
