This is my report of the meeting this morning at the CCC.    Roger Becker

     Please email me your reports indicating a desire or not to publish them
on the Website  Chappybikepath.com  No reports will be edited or turned down.  
Everyone sees and hears different things...please correct for the record if you disagree.

                      Chappaquiddick Path Committee  July, 10, 2010

     Presentation by NEU instructor Dan Dulaski of students design of a Multi use path along the 
North side of the Chappy and Dike Road to the Dike Bridge.  Including the results of the Opinion
Survey conducted by mail in March and April.

     Mr. Dulaski was introduced by Bob Colvin and proceeded to give his report that included most of
what was gone over by the students in the two presentations this winter and spring.  There was 
nothing of substance different from those presentations but the instructor was more coherent 
than the students were. The slides were essentially the same, although there was one added that 
showed a much larger matrix used to arrive at the decision to recommend the Multi-use path over
the only alternatives considered:  Do Nothing, Paint Sharrows on the road to alert motorists of the 
presence of cyclists, or add four feet of pavement to both sides of the road to be used as exclusive
bicycle lanes. Unfortunately it was impossible to read the slide.   When asked by Jack MacCauley
about the seeming subjectivity of Dulaski's findings, and the emphasis placed on the Homogeneity 
and Forgivingness, Dulaski said he was objective but then proceeded to 
say "From my point of view" and "This is just me talking".  Others pointed out the lack of a check
in the matrix box under Functionality, Recognizability, and State of Awareness for the "Do Nothing", 
and sharrows alternatives, even there would seem to be an argument that Road does now function,
is recognizable and most users seem to be aware of it.  

No specifics concerning the treatment at the Beach Club, North Neck Road, Jerry's garage or Mytoi
were offered.  The portion of the slide show concerning the Ferry Parking Lot or the Dike Road 
Intersection were cut off at the urging of some proponents of the path, with Jo-Anne Tilghman asking 
for the results of the Opinion Survey.  They repeated, in response to a couple of questions, that because
the right of way is 50 feet wide, there will no taking of private property.  However, they may require the
relocation of the present paved portion of the roadway which might change the landscape of portions of
the right of way which some people may mistakenly think is theirs.  But this was not a problem for the
engineer.  

Some other technical points (Most of which were already on the table from when the students made 
their presentation).

•	8 feet wide (Even though state guidelines specify 10-16.  Dulaski says the guidelines are just
            that (Guidelines) and could be ignored if the engineer says so.) 
•	There are a few trees with a diameter greater than 6 inches that could be saved by having the
             path weave around them.
•	North side chosen because the present paved roadway tends towards the southern side of the    
            right of way and wouldn't have to moved in as many places.  There are fewer utility poles to move.
            There would be a "straight shot" from ferry to beach.
•	Stone pavers would be used wherever the path crossed a drive to alert the path users and motorist of the intersection and to keep the asphalt from breaking up under the heavier car and truck traffic.   (After Bob Clay pointed out the number of intersections required with the path on the north side,   Dulaski tried to assert that these wouldn't represent an increase from the present situation as the bikes and cars were intersecting these drives now anyway.  This after indicating that these newly  created bike path drive/road intersections best be identified with stove pavers for safety.)
•	There was a nice slide showing the wetlands treatment.  Sheet steel pilings would be driven and 
            and the road grade extended by filling the wetlands to the pilings.  A 4 foot guard fence would 
            keep cyclists from going off the path into the wetlands and as the separation from the road at
            these points would be substandard, a rail similar to the phone poles laid horizontally (Like along
            the beach road  to Oak Bluffs) would run between the path and road and between the path and 4
            foot fence to keep cyclists from catching their handlebars etc.  Dulaski said Highway Supervisor
            Stuart Fuller had  advocated bridges (Like along the West Tisbury Road at Sweetenwater farm.) 

There were some questions asked:

•	Wouldn't brush at driveways have to be cleared way back to give drivers a clear view of both the 
            road (as now) and bike path?  Yes probably, no problem.
•	Why isn't it safer to drive against (Facing) the traffic so you can see the drivers about to run you 
            down while using the cell phone etc?   State law says bicycles are vehicles and must obey same
            rules as other vehicles.  ie;  ride on right, stop at stop signs, signal intentions etc. 
•	There were several requests for a place young children could ride their bikes.  Apparently in Denmark, kids 5  years old ride all over the place.
•	Cost?  1.4 Million if Stuart Fuller does it.   No prevailing wage rules etc.
•	Costs in Boston suburb (Selectwoman speaking) are 2 million a mile.  (Proposed path is 3 Miles).
•	Turnouts for cyclists in west (Mountains) seem to work, less of an impact.  Dulaski calls this the
            "Black Spot" approach....just fix the problem areas rather than the "Complete street" approach.
•	What would be the next step if it were to be done on an incremental basis?  Ferry to Beach Club 
            as there are a lot of strollers down there.
•	What will be the resolution of the issue?  Maybe the CIA will figure out a voting method to be used  for this and other Chappy issues.   Will the CPC take this to the town meeting even though
            there are 250 named people (Friends and Neighbors) against the side path?  Colvin:" I don't 
            know, sometimes safety trumps democracy."

Other questions and comments were made, many, but I depend on others to pass those along. 

THE SURVEY RESULTS:

Dulaski then gave his results of the mailed survey as promised. 

Writing as quickly as I could, these are my notes.  We will be able to verify them as the town will/does have Dulaski's complete report and drawings showing the route of his plan.  

498 Surveys were sent out.
220 were counted.  Some duplicates and unsolicited returns were discarded.  Those returns which had 
not stuck to the format were discarded.  The primary data (Returned forms) will not be made available.  All comments are apparently lost.  

•	25 % (55)   Registered to vote,  75%  not.
•	80 % (176)   Member of CIA, 20% not.
•	6 % (14)  Attended the students presentation, 2/26/10  94% did not.
•	76% (167)  Subscribe to the CCC
•	18% (40)  Has property along the proposed route  82 % does not.
•	Which Project alternative are you in favor of?  
            46% (101)  Do Nothing.
            6%  (14)  Sharrows
            11% (24)  Dedicated bike lane
            38% (84)  Mixed use path        ((At this point, Dulaski points out 55% want something, audience
                                                             member points out 52% would do nothing or paint pictures of bikes 
                                                             on pavement (Sharrows)).  
•	31% bike daily in summer, 37% weekly, and 32% never.
•	62% (136) would use path if built, 38% would not.
•	60% have children/grandchildren (Under 10) that bike on Chappy.
•	48% say surface should be asphalt.
•	56% drive less than 25 mph,  2% greater than 35 mph.
•	Most compelling concerns  (Three choices allowed) 
            Safety was checked by 51%,  Cost by 33%  the rest 17%  (This is totally mis-communicated, in my 
            opinion.  Could it be that 49% didn't choose safety for even one of their 3 choices?)  We need 
            more numbers to make sense  of this.  Did many not use all three chances to say what their
            concerns were? 

     Dulaski then presented his Survey Summary with several interesting cross tabulations.  He said by combining 3 questions, he was able to determine that 53% of registered voters wanted a asphalt paved multi-use path.

     Also 7% of those abutting the route are registered to vote, while 92% are not.

     Member of Audience:  It seems like emphasizing being registered to vote is divisive and hirts the bike path cause.   We should decide this as a whole community.  

     Maybe someone has noted the 4 summary points in Dulaski's report.

Thanks for your support,  Roger.