We are inclined to support the county’s Mt. Baker Road improvement project, but there are a few questions we would like answered.

Around 90 percent of the funds are coming from the state. The goal of the work is to increase the safety of the road. The plan calls for replanting any trees that have to be cut down, and healthy trees will be protected by guardrails. It will ensure that county employees, and island companies, will have a year-long job to complete.

These are all good things.

The improvements include rebuilding the failed road base and adding drainage features, designing for a 35 mph speed limit, removing or relocating road hazards such as trees, fences, and culvert ends to at least 10 feet from the edge of the new lanes, and enhancing or replacing wetlands.

But how many trees will be removed? How will the improvements really reduce speeding? Will road closures affect operation of the medical center, OPALCO, Orcas Center, and other businesses on that road?

Many in the audience at the county workshop last week felt that a wider road would increase speeding. We don’t think that a 30-foot road (two 11-foot lanes and four-foot shoulders) will necessarily do that, but we would like to know what will prevent drivers from exceeding 35 mph, as they do now when it’s 25 mph. You know what would cut down on the number of fast drivers? Speeding tickets.

We fully support a pedestrian/bike path. Many use Mt. Baker Road to walk their dogs, ride bicycles, and walk to Buck Park. Widening the road and including a four-foot shoulder would definitely provide more safety for those walking or riding. A pedestrian path is even better, but the county hasn’t secured money for that yet, as it’s not included in the state funds. We hope that project comes to fruition. The county is designing the new road with that in mind.

Of the three design options presented by county engineers, we advocate either Alternative B, which calls for a five-foot pedestrian/bike path or Alternative A, which would simply widen the road and create bigger shoulders. Alternative C is not ideal: it calls for a curb and gutter and a five-foot sidewalk inside the UGA boundary with a 5-foot path the rest of the way. That feels just a little too urban for a stretch of road that is best described as pastoral.

We look forward to hearing more about this project with county engineers at the next workshop this summer. To submit questions now, call project manager Dan Vekved at 370-0504.