Hello All, 
Roger, Ginny & Chrissy thank you for your good reports and comments on the NE student path presentation yesterday. A few more comments: 
The newest argument seemed to be the “sustainability” of the proposed design - something that would accommodate potential path users 50 years down the road. The students didn’t mention any studies forecasting levels of future use. 
I was surprised how the alternate options were dismissed in an emotional, unscientific way. The “Sharrows” approach with bicycle figures painted on the road to indicate traffic sharing was described as “redundant” and not offering much. Re: bike lanes - the students showed a picture of 4’ wide bike lanes with a painted line separating it from vehicles. They described it as creating “a sea of pavement” that would detract from aesthetics. 
Even though the students acknowledged there were few accidents on Chappy, they said safety should be pursued using “earthquake analysis”. It could happen and the possibility should be eliminated. It is a “comfort thing”. 
The presentation showed a couple of road pictures with a multi-modal path dubbed in. One was by the new cemetary and another was taken from the vantage point of the middle of the tar road, which made the path look less significant. 
A new argument for a path along Dike Rd. was Dike Rd. itself could stay dirt. 
The presentation showed several times a picture of the Bike Path along the W. Tisbury Rd., with a well treed buffer strip. It looked about 13’ wide instead of the potential 18’ (8’ path and 5 -10’ buffer the students said the design would entail). Roger pointed out in his recap the limitations on keeping and adding vegetation to the buffer strip. 
The map at the back of the room showed only one area near the Point where the road would be moved , although the students mentioned two other areas of 150 - 300’. The students said there would be no road moving to go around wetlands (except 1 student said possibly at one place). Even with a 50’ road layout this seems hard to believe. A student said “The path is totally in the road layout” and would not need any land from abutters. He did not mention the hardship created for the land owners who’d lose significant landscaping and privacy from the road. 
When asked about what would done at Mytoi, a student said you could reorient the stockade fence to parallel to the road and create enough space for the path. The map showed the path behind (north) of the fences. This would mean a lot of Mytoi’s ornamental trees and shrubs that also serve to screen the road would be eliminated and also take the path through a wetland area. A student said they could fill depressions and dropoffs (a number full of water now) and build a retaining wall. The students said they hadn’t dealt with costs yet. 
The students hadn’t looked into the hazards associated with driveways yet. They said it was not significant. Only few people enter or exit there. 
A positive note: Ruthie Welch said that the small rotary, roundabouts or “ronde point” were resisted in Europe but considered helfpul and successful once drivers learned who had the right of way. 
On the other hand the big turn around the Trent Field seems like it has served as a good stopping point for lemonade stands, NStar trucks, tired bicyclists, people reading maps and discussing directions and abandoning mopeds and the escaped rooster last year. 
Hatsy