To the editor:
The concept of being able to see down the Merrimack River and some of the surrounding area from the new Whittier Bridge as a pedestrian or cyclist has appeal. However, one has to wonder just how safe the concept is.
The report that is available at the local library shows that traffic speeds were monitored on Saturday morning and Sunday evening and revealed that traffic crossed the bridge at an average speed of 58 miles per hour. That, however, is in sharp contrast to what often occurs, especially during rush-hour traffic. Vehicles cross the bridge at much higher speeds equating to 70-75 miles per hour in the passing lane, and drivers often move to the right lanes at high speed while on the bridge to line up with the Salisbury or Amesbury exits. One hardly has to pick up the local paper to read of another serious accident on interstates 95 and 495 in this area associated with speed, often resulting in fatalities. The routine practice of persons using their cellphones and, unfortunately, texting while driving, regardless of what the law requires, poses a very real hazard to any pedestrians or cyclists on the planned adjoining path.
Placing pedestrians and cyclists within several yards of high-speed traffic under these circumstances should be of grave concern. Although a concrete barrier and wire above the barrier separates the traffic from the pedestrian path, one has to question whether it would adequately protect pedestrians in event of a serious accident. If a tractor-trailer were involved in the accident, the odds of a collapse of the concrete wall is greater still, or debris passing over the barrier and landing on the pedestrian side. It is entirely conceivable that a serious accident will happen with tragic consequences to pedestrians and bicyclists.
Another aspect of this path is the added cost. Governments are strapped for funds. The allocation of tax dollars should be prioritized. There is no need for this path on this interstate bridge, the key word being "need." The Hines/Chain bridge is nearby and, of course, the Route 1 bridge downstream already provides an impressive view.
The combination of safety and cost factors should be of concern in the design of this bridge, although one might question just how much consideration they received after reading the report at the library.
Drivers are not going to slow down, and they are not going to exercise more caution in the future. Vehicles are so well made today they invite drivers to go faster. The concept of a pedestrian and bike path on the bridge may not be worth the financial cost and risk of injury and loss of life.
Dallas Haines
Amesbury


