The Route 30 Shared Use Path — From Free Money to Divisive Quagmire
Summary
Originally initiated in 2018 to secure state funding for repaving Route 30, the Shared Use Path project, with its associated 15-to-20-foot roadway corridor widening, has sparked major controversy regarding its necessity, Weston town character, environmental damage, safety issues, financial burdens, and property takings, requiring a future town meeting vote to decide whether the project proceeds. Weston must decide whether to sacrifice its historic semi-rural character, aesthetics, and a long swath of vital mature tree canopy for a new 10-foot-wide asphalt shared use path that carries ongoing long-term maintenance liabilities and will likely be used by only a few residents.
Several significant issues and concerns have been raised, including:
The proposed shared use path is unnecessary now that Route 30 has already been repaved, lacks evidence of demand, and would be much more intrusive than a standard 5-foot-wide sidewalk providing equivalent local connectivity.
Constructing the shared use path would permanently degrade Weston's semi-rural character by requiring the removal of some 900-1,000 trees and paving four acres of asphalt along a scenic corridor.
The proposed shared use path will cause lasting environmental damage – including increased flooding, higher temperatures, and the destruction of protective natural buffers and mature trees – while failing to provide any proven traffic or carbon reduction benefits.
The proposed shared use path fails to genuinely improve safety, instead introducing new hazards across dozens of driveways and intersections, narrowing roadway lanes, and creating severe collision risks due to its still limited separation from high-speed traffic.
The proposed shared use path will burden Weston taxpayers with significant unquantified maintenance, utility relocation, and legal expenses, while inflicting severe property impacts and high overall project costs despite state funding.
Because the current draft 75% design differs significantly from the 2024 Town Meeting concept and critical information remains missing, the project requires further review by several committees, comprehensive environmental and legal review, and an additional town meeting vote before proceeding.
You are invited to share your comments and any additional concerns with the Traffic and Sidewalk Committee, by September 30, by email to traffic@westonma.gov.
What began in 2018 as a relatively straightforward effort to get state Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) funding to pay for repaving Weston’s portion of Route 30, also known as South Avenue, and extend the 5-foot-wide sidewalk, has been transformed into a major 15-20 foot widening of the roadway corridor with the addition of a 10-foot-wide “Shared Use Path” (SUP). As Weston residents have become more aware of the proposed loss of tree canopy, safety complications, and other impacts, it has generated enormous controversy in town.
The Traffic and Sidewalk Committee is evaluating the current draft “75% design” from the state’s engineering firm, Howard Stein Hudson, and considering the many negative comments that were voiced in three listening sessions a few months ago. The committee has extended to September 30 the opportunity for sending them additional comments, which can be emailed to traffic@
The Shared Use Path is no longer required now that Route 30 has already been repaved
When the project was initiated in 2018, it was basically a case of acquiring “free money” from the state, but that changed to a major state intrusion when the state revised its design criteria for such projects in 2020. The original quid pro quo for the state TIP funds, which covered the cost of repaving Route 30, was that Weston fund the $938,000 design fees and allow the state to extend the 5-foot-wide sidewalk now along the central third of the roadway to the east and west town borders, which many people in town wanted to see anyway. In January 2020, however, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (DOT) adopted new "Controlling Criteria" formally requiring a wide shared-use path, separated bike lane, or buffered bike lanes on roads of this type to qualify for TIP funding.
Ironically, because of Weston’s delays in the TIP project implementation, and given a relatively pressing need to repave Route 30, the state has already repaved the entire roadway, border-to-border, so the need for the TIP funds is now moot. This project was never mandated by the state. The SUP (or similarly intrusive buffered bike lanes) was simply the state’s quid pro quo for funding a one-time repaving of Route 30, which Weston otherwise does not now have to do for several more years, and for drainage and intersection reconfigurations that are not required. If Weston does not take the state TIP funds, it does not have to proceed with the drainage and intersection reconfigurations, or add the SUP, or any new sidewalks or bike lanes for that matter.
Several Issues Have Been Raised
This proposed evolution of the roadway corridor involves several tradeoffs and raises issues concerning the character of the town, the aesthetic and environmental impact of clearcutting some 900-1,000 trees, usage and safety, financial impacts, and the possible eminent domain property takings from many residents along South Avenue. It will also require a third round of town funding – on top of the $1.5 million we have already spent – for these property takings and to further refine the design. This will provide Weston residents with another town meeting vote, probably next spring, on whether to proceed.
Significant issues and concerns have been raised, including:
The proposed shared use path lacks evidence of demand and would be much more intrusive than a standard 5-foot-wide sidewalk providing equivalent local connectivity. There is no evidence of actual demand for such a shared used path – proof that such a path will be significantly used, and by whom and to what degree. The concern is that, as a practical matter, hardly any adults who now commute on that corridor by car will then commute by bike since there are no significant businesses at either end. Similarly, kids’ habits for getting to/from school will not change materially – they will still take the school bus or drive or be driven, not bike, let alone walk, as demonstrated by the current very low biking/walking to school even where it is possible, even in the few months of nice weather during the school year.
This new SUP would provide no additional connectivity to town center or other north-south locations beyond what a simple 5-foot-wide sidewalk would provide, since all the other sidewalks in town are +5 feet wide. Most of the amenity enhancements could be accomplished with a traditional, much less intrusive 5-foot-wide sidewalk instead of this major shared use path, for which there is essentially no precedent in the state. While the Mass Central Rail Trail is now widely appreciated and well used, it is an irrelevant comparison because the rail trail corridor had already been completely cleared and entirely constructed; the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation simply had to pull up the rails and lay an asphalt path, with wooden guardrails added in a few places, not clear-cut a wide additional corridor through town.
Constructing the shared use path would permanently degrade Weston's semi-rural character by requiring the removal of some 900-1,000 trees and paving four acres of asphalt along a scenic corridor. The SUP would require complete clearing of an additional 15-to-20-foot-wide swath, which needs to be cleared of everything, including but not limited to all trees, forest undergrowth, fences, and stone walls. The current plan requires the removal of approximately 900-1,000 trees (by one count, 931 over 6 inches in diameter) rather than the 177 cited at the 2024 town meeting, which will significantly degrade the tree canopy for the entire 3.7-mile length. Building the SUP also involves the destruction (or at least moving at great difficulty and expense) historic stone walls, all of which still need to be identified and evaluated. In some areas, blasting and removing ledge rock outcropping that provides an important buffer between Route 30 and the Mass Pike will be required.
The creation of the shared use path will add nearly four acres of environmentally unfriendly asphalt to areas that previously provided shade and noise and visual buffering, forever changing the streetscape along this scenic roadway. Intersections will be reconfigured, including in some cases with the addition of concrete islands. This SUP compounds several large real estate development projects proposed along and near Route 30, and the total impact (traffic volume/congestion and otherwise) of potentially all these major changes happening together has not been reviewed and evaluated. Even without considering the potential negative impact on Weston property values, this major negative impact on the town’s semi-rural character would erode one of the main reasons many people chose to move to Weston rather than to other more urbanized Boston suburbs.
The proposed shared use path will cause lasting environmental damage – including increased flooding, higher temperatures, and the destruction of protective natural buffers and mature trees – while failing to provide any proven traffic or carbon reduction benefits. The required blasting of ledge rock and significant elimination of large, mature trees that cannot be replaced will significantly alter the terrain. There is no factual evidence that the SUP will shift transportation trips from cars to bikes or cause a material reduction in roadway traffic or carbon emissions. However, the many large trees now along Route 30 absorb significant carbon and rainwater, so their replacement with so much asphalt could create flooding issues that do not now exist, with impact on adjacent wetlands despite attempted mitigation. Replacement of so many trees with so much additional asphalt will also increase the nearby ambient temperature during hot summer months. The blasting will not only remove the ledge rock and associated buffer from the Mass Pike, but also potentially damage nearby private property.
The construction process alone will be long and intrusive, creating major traffic, noise, and other disruptions to our normally quiet community for 2-3 years. For example, the construction plan would be to set up temporary stoplights at several cross-street intersections along Route 30 during construction, slowing traffic and increasing congestion along the entire roadway and on cross-streets.
The proposed shared use path fails to genuinely improve safety, instead introducing new hazards across dozens of driveways and intersections, narrowing roadway lanes, and creating severe collision risks due to its still limited separation from high-speed traffic. The trade-off is not whether a shared use path is safer than walking/running/cycling on Route 30 as it is now, but rather, whether the future situation would be more versus less safe than the current situation. Essentially no one now walks or runs (and very few cycle) on Route 30 because – with cars travelling at 40-45 mph – that would be clearly unsafe. As such, the issue is really whether to create this new amenity rather than whether/how to increase safety per se. The safety discussion characterized as trade-offs is purely hypothetical because the alternatives to the SUP being compared for relative safety are not currently being considered.
The proposed SUP will create several new specific safety issues, particularly at intersections and near institutions, but also at each of the nearly 50 driveways and other crossings along the south side of Route 30. In the current plan, the Route 30 roadway itself will actually be narrowed from its current 12 feet width to 11 feet wide lanes, making even just straight-through driving less safe. Serious cyclists will continue to use the road itself, not the SUP, since it will be extremely inconvenient for them to stop at each intersection, rather than riding straight through as they can now do legally as a traveler on Route 30. And this will further degrade safety since the road will then be narrower than it is now, with the utility poles moved closer to the road than they are now.
In the current plan, there are places where the SUP is separated from Route 30 by only one foot of berm, so pedestrians and children biking will be hardly more protected than simply walking/biking along Route 30 in places where there is not a sidewalk now. Even worse, the Route 30 roadway and the SUP will be stay-right, with roadway cars travelling at 40-45 mph and any serious cyclists (and e-bikes, which would be illegal on the SUP but nevertheless still use it) travelling in the opposite direction at 15-25 mph. So, where the SUP is immediately adjacent or close to the roadway, there is the potential for deadly head-on collisions with a combined speed of 60-70 mph.
The proposed shared use path will burden Weston taxpayers with significant unquantified maintenance, utility relocation, and legal expenses, while inflicting severe property impacts and high overall project costs despite state funding. The addition of 15-20 feet of roadway corridor width needed to accommodate the new SUP will have a huge impact – both on the town as a whole and on individual abutting property owners. The abutters will certainly pursue their rights, and this will become both legally time-consuming and expensive. The drainage and other improvements are either unnecessary or can be accomplished inexpensively without state involvement and funding.
Beyond the $1.5 million in design funds that Weston has already spent on this project there are still significant expenses that Weston residents will have to shoulder, including remaining design and engineering expenses, since all the previously voted design funds have been spent. Further funding will also be needed for the required Environmental Impact Study, required easements and potential eminent domain takings from abutters, and the likely legal costs associated with litigating certain key property easements and takings. Who bears the cost of relocating the approximately 75 utility poles at ~$10,000 per pole, or $7.5 million, is somewhat debatable since the federal and state funds are expected to cover a portion of this cost, with most of the remainder borne by the various utilities, and the cost of any associated easements borne by Weston residents (who are also federal and state taxpayers, and utility ratepayers.)
Of the projected $18 million total project cost, it would be useful to understand how much is due to the various components, how much cost Weston would be avoiding, and how much relates to improvements that may or may not be necessary. While the state has covered the cost of repaving Route 30 for this one time, they would not cover the costs of repaving it in the future or subsequently repaving the SUP when that becomes necessary. However, the SUP will be a permanent addition and the ongoing maintenance costs to the town have not been identified, much less quantified and evaluated. Additional Police Department and Fire Department involvement due to the increase in serious accidents and other issues may require additional staffing and costs. And philosophically, saying that “the state” will be paying for it ignores the fact that we are state taxpayers as well, so this too is our money.
Because the current draft 75% design differs significantly from the 2024 Town Meeting concept and critical information remains missing, the project requires further review by several committees, comprehensive environmental and legal review, and an additional town meeting vote before proceeding. The current draft 75% design is in many ways significantly different from the concept that was proposed at the May 2024 Town Meeting. And in any case, we voted for design funds and the design has been done, nearly fully accomplished to the 75% level (though with essentially no funds remaining to proceed further). We did not vote to go ahead with the project regardless of what design emerged from the design process we funded.
And yet, we do not have all the information necessary to make an informed decision, for example, the actual safety impact, incidental costs to the town and nearby homeowners, ongoing maintenance requirements, Environmental Impact Statement, and so forth. In addition to the need for another town meeting vote to secure additional funding, a second town meeting vote will be required because the bike path and other proposed changes along Route 30 constitute an alteration of the existing Route 30 layout, which must be legally approved by a town residents.
The Massachusetts Public Shade Tree Law will also require hearings and impacts on designated Wetlands will need to be reviewed and approved by the Conservation Commission. The involvement of the Planning Board falls somewhat into a gray area since South Avenue is a designated Scenic Road in Weston’s Zoning Bylaw but not its General Bylaw, as it is a numbered state road. As a practical matter, though, the Planning Board will almost certainly take up the matter and they have successfully challenged unwelcome changes to historic stone walls and tree clearing even on other Weston numbered roads such as Route 117 (North Avenue). Whether or not "official" permits are required from these and other boards and committees, their support for the new 75% design will nevertheless be an essential factor in gaining town approval to proceed.
Before bringing this issue back to town meeting, the Traffic and Sidewalk Committee should review the experience in several other towns where shared use paths have been considered and rejected, such as the Cranston, RI Shared Use Path (2026), the East Boston Bikeway (2026), and the Dedham Heritage Rail Trail (2020). It would also be useful for the TSC to visit the relatively few shared use paths (as opposed to rail trails) already completed in Massachusetts, such as on Central Street in Stoughton and Route 20 in Chatham, even if only to see what they look like and how they are used.
Next Steps — Resident Opportunity to Comment
Weston faces a fundamental trade-off: Does this proposed new amenity for a small number of potential users justify losing the semi-rural nature of our town, damaging the surrounding natural environment and subjecting users to the inherent safety issues associated with this proposed SUP? Further, are we willing to trade the current town character and aesthetics for the cost of a one-time re-pavement, which we will still subsequently have to pay for ourselves, and for a 10-foot-wide asphalt shared use path that we will also then have to maintain and repave periodically at our own expense?
You are invited to share your comments and any additional concerns with the Traffic and Sidewalk Committee, by September 30, by email to traffic@westonma.gov.