Just a note the Meeting, Saturday, June 27th, at the Community Center, of the Chappaquiddick Path Committee, as so many people have been wanting to know what occured. 

The Agenda of the meeting can be found elsewhere on the CHAPPYBIKEPATH.COM website.

As people gathered at the community center, they were offered handouts from the opponents of the path.  Copies of these arguments  can be seen at other links at the CHAPPYBIKEPATH.COM site.

Inside, Peter Wells had laid out the 1995 survey, indicating where the path would go along the Chappaquiddick road to the Dike Bridge.  It showed what steps would be taken along the way to make room for the path.  He also had some great pictures of the roadway to show the terrain along the south side of the road where the path would go.  

Dr. Colvin opened the meeting by reciting the accomplishments of the committee so far, even without any public meetings on Chappaquiddick.  He sited the 70% approval of the concept of a path on Chappy survey and the process of getting money to survey the Dike Bridge road which will be completed in July.  No mention of the CHAPPYBIKEPATH.COM polling numbers, or lack of support from the town for the demonstration path at the Gardner property near the point.  

Peter Wells then asked everyone to stand around his long line of tables where the survey was laid out and he proceded to describe his vision of how the path would go and how each obstacle would be overcome.  
A quick run down would be as follows:  

     1.  The path would procede over the Gardner Conservation Property, across Manaca Hill Road, then join the main road at the Beach Club's sheds/dormitories, which would be moved back from the road to allow room for the path between them and the road.  

     2.  At Caleb's pond, the roadway would be shifted towards the outer harbor and the path would run along approximately where the southern edge of the present roadway is.  Dr. Colvin said a bridge was considered but rejected as too much view obstruction.

     3,  Maybe the path could be separated from the road along the Sherrif's Meadow conservation property, but if not, would continue along the road.

     4.  The telephone equipment in front of the Dewings would be circumscribed or maybe the equipment is dated and would be removed. 

     5.  Maybe the paved portion of the road could be shifted at Brine's corner, easing that spot and allowing more room for the path.

     6.  The path would then separate slightly from the road at the Community Center and along the land bank property to the wetlands on the Tucker property.  

     7.  From there until the Sharp Curve, it was a little unclear how the wetlands and steep low spots would be transgressed, but Peter was unconcerned.  Norma Costain raised many questions about the degradation of conservation lands and wetland areas.  Hopefully we will hear from Peter about how that will go.

     8.  At the Sharp Curve, Peter is planning a threeway stop sign and crosswalk to get to the Dike Bridge portion of the path which (unless the survey points to something different) would continue along the south side of the road to the bridge.  How it would affect the Malm and Carter property is still to be determined. 

     9.  Peter summarized by stating the path, "at most places" would be 10-15 feet from the road, but others differed pointing out the only places were at the Gardner property (Assuming approval by its conservation trustees) , Sherriffs Meadow property (Assuming approval by their conservation trustees) and the Land Bank Property (assuming approval by its board).  

There were many questions at this point, as the group of about 40 attendees stood around the table, but finally everyone returned to their seats to continue the meeting.  Many people agreed the pictures of the road were great.  Will Geresy set up an easel and began with a marker to record points made by the attendees.  Hopefully he'll send those along for everyone to see. 

At his point, Tom Tilghman took the floor to lead a discussion about the merits of a paved or unpaved path.  Dr. Colvin said he had talked with the people at the Concord, Mass. Minuteman National Park about their Federally maintained path of which he had a picture.  He said the path was about 12 years old, and was holding up well.  Tom thought the unpaved path would look a lot better and that is was important to plan for that if we wanted it as otherwise the town or state would dictate the paved path we see on the otherside.  Someone suggested the path would only receive state or town money if it were built to AASHTO standards, that is 12 feet wide.  Colvin replied that there might be wavers available.   A poll was taken and 3 voted in favor of a asphalt path, while 5 favored the unpaved national park model.  The remaining of the 40 or so attendees withheld an opinion.  

Next on the agenda was a presentation of ideas for a "Demonstration Path". 
 
      Peter Wells presented the idea of a path across the Gardener property.  This would presumably incorporate the boardwalk already in place.  This would be "Easy to do" so should be considered.  Opponents suggested bikers and stroller pushers would not relish starting up a hill immediately upon leaving the ferry and I wonder who would choose to cross the road at the beach club as they finish their bike trip to the beach and ride over the rolling terrain rather than just pedal their last 300 yards to the ferry along the road.  I asked if this area where car speeds are the slowest and people are aware of dangers presented by the beach club crossing isn't really the place of least need.  Like the town side of the ferry, full of pedestrians and bikers, it really is not an area anyone is talking about putting in a bike path or even bike lanes.  It is a problem only 2 months of the year and people are cautious for the most part realizing the summer congestion.  It was suggested that the new Yacht Club facility was even more of a reason to build the Gardner path. 

     Tom Tilghman presented the idea of a Land Bank path, also "Easy to do" as the landbank would be the only deciding authority.  Unfortunately, it couldn't start before the Community Center (and would need Community Center approval) so it would do nothing to deal with the "Blind corner".  I wondered if it would add any safety to the road use to have bikers returning to the ferry (on the north side of the road) cross over at the turtle crossing to get on the path, and then cross back at the end of the path, right at the new cemetary or at the CCC driveway.  (Would cyclist do this in order to ride a unpaved path?)(Would this encourage wrongway bike road use at this section of the road?)

     Melissa Kagan presented the idea of a demonstration path along the Dike Bridge Road.  She thought this was actually the best place as the road was unrideable.  Claire Thacher suggested that if cars were to keep there speeds under 10 mph the road would hold up lot better as indicated by other roads where speeds weren't as high.    Others thought the volume of traffic was the culprit in the degradation of the roadway. 

     Again there was a poll about which would be the best spot for a demonstration path.  Unfortunately, I didn't record the vote, but it was something like this: (I'll revise if someone sends their recorded vote).

     Gardner property  13
     Land Bank            7
     Dike Road            6
     None                   12  (The decision to add this as a choice was made after the other votes were taken)

     It was asked if one could vote twice (yes) and it was pointed out there were 38 in attendance, but Colvin said apparently some were undecided. 

     At this point in the meeting it was about five minutes to 10:00 and opponents were hoping and asking for the 15 minutes allotted discussion segment to still continue.  Siamak Adibi suggested the topic was very emotional and there needed to be a coming together of the proponents with the opponents to calmly discuss a way out.  Tom Tilghman announced he was leaving if the discussion was to continue and did.  Bob Colvin started making some concluding remarks and asked how the discussion might continue and how a concensus might be reached and gauged.  I stood and offered the website CHAPPYBIKEPATH.com as good place to spread information and get a reading of Chappy sentiment.  I extended my offer of publishing every submission and hoped Colvin would send along the study he sited as indicating paths were 3 times safer than riding on the road.  After the meeting, he said he would and would also send along a copy of the Application for a grant they are preparing.  (No mention of this at the meeting.)  Claire Thacher thought she would be much more supportive of a path if it were set off of the road, maybe on an entirely different right-of-way, more in keeping with the state guidelines for bike path construction. Peter Wells rejected that as not what he wanted, which apparently is a way to get off the road, yet travel to where the road goes. 

     I then asked if time couldn't be spared for Norma Costain to present an idea of having  a mediated (By Martha's Vineyard Mediation) panel discussion.  Those remaining, by a show of hands indicated almost unanimous interest in such a meeting later in the summer.  After the meeting Colvin suggested to me that the CIA membership should be asked if they would be interested in such a forum.  

     Bob Gurnitz thought it important to get some real numbers about the cost of the plan as that would make a big difference.  He was supprised at the extensive amount of work required but without numbers had no way to judge the merits.  Peter Wells earlier had continued to estimate the entire project in the Millions.  

    Dr. Colvin thanked all for coming and said there would be another meeting July 25th, but couldn't describe its format other than another public informational session. 

I'm hoping others could send in their accounts of what happened at the meeting and of course any Minutes the Chappaquiddick Path Committee wants to put up would be appreciated.  Of earlier meetings too!

Yours, Roger Becker.