The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee on Wednesday reviewed the ongoing Pleasant Street one‑way pilot, heard mixed member and abutter input, and clarified a timeline for additional data collection and a select board decision.

Why it matters: the one‑way pilot routes vehicle traffic differently and is intended to improve safety and active‑transportation conditions. The pilot also creates convenience impacts for some drivers and raises questions about cyclist exposure on the seasonal, repaired roadway.

Staff told the committee that a contract for sensors and intersection counts had not been executed as planned; staff said the contract is expected to be approved by the select board in March and that traffic counting would take place later that month. The pilot team asked the committee to extend the pilot through April and to ask the select board to review the data and decide whether to continue the one‑way at the April 30 meeting.

Public and member comments reflected divided experience. The project team reported it received about 160 survey responses; staff said 18 respondents reported personally benefiting from the one‑way configuration. Several committee members and some abutters said the current timing of the pilot (off‑season, roadway still under construction and in places narrow or rough) and recent weather (snow, limited snow removal) skewed the results and meant bicycle counts were lower than summer use.

Members raised operational concerns: temporary barricades and sawhorses had reduced the available bike lane space in areas, and committee members said that until pavement and drainage are completed, cyclist behavior and safety observations will differ from summer conditions. Staff noted that the concrete base for the pilot may be paved over this spring, and the committee suggested collecting counts again after repaving to get a clearer picture of rider behavior.

The committee discussed funding: staff said they had submitted a town meeting request for about $2 million to cover damage awards and easements tied to the Pleasant Street alignment, noting that figure was a first estimate and not an appraisal. Members asked staff to clarify which property owners had offered easements; staff said one family had expressed conditional support but that a second family controlled the key parcel and was unlikely to grant a voluntary easement.

Next steps: staff will execute the sensor/traffic count contract after select board approval, collect intersection and corridor data in March, and return to the select board and BPAC with results; staff asked the committee to consider an extension to April 30 to allow the select board to act on the collected data.