TO: Edgartown Board of Selectmen
FROM: Virginia 'Ginny' Murray, 283 Chappy Road, Edgartown
RE: Bike path on Chappy
The Chappy community particularly appreciated the presence of chairman Mike Donaroma at our gathering and thank him for his time familiarizing himself with the community's sentiments about this issue.
I wish to share with you a written copy of my remarks at the Pro and Con Moderated Meeting at the Chappy Community Center last Tuesday evening.
MVC senior planner Bill Veno referred to and supported the process I described in paragraph 4 (identify a problem, identify solutions, evaluate solutions, and only then propose a particular solution) as appropriate for the scenario of considering a path on Chappy.
If the selectmen decide that the issue merits a town committee, I urge the selectmen to vote for an ad hoc, non-partisan group such as that described in the August 7, 20009 proposal given to you by the Sharing Chappy Road group. That proposal is "to assess the capacity/capability of Chappaquiddick transportation venues to meet the needs of residents and seasonal visitors." Someone should execute this needs assessment of Chappy before committing to the specific mixed use bike path proposed by the Chappy Path Committee. 
August 11 Sharing Chappy Roads Presentation: Ginny Murray
Is a bike path needed on Chappy?
What is the rationale for this bike path project?
Why is this bike path project needed now on Chappy? I speak about this specific proposal and not necessarily against a bike path in another shape or form.
Safety is always our goal, our common ground. However, safety and danger are relative terms. Comparatively speaking, Chappy is one of the safest places to bike in the USA. In our opinion, there has not been a demonstrated need for this project. In ten years, eight recorded bicycle accidents on Chappy (and those do not involve cars) is an enviable safety record for bicycling in any community. 
The Chappy Path Committee (CPC) has proposed a specific project and given a variety of reasons for their viewpoint. This is a different process from identifying a problem, identifying solutions, evaluating solutions and only then proposing a particular solution as best. This CPC project proposal is premature and makes many assumptions not widely accepted .
At a recent public meeting, an engineering protocol suggested for any project included assessing the 1) desirability 2) feasibility and 3) do-ability of a proposal. We believe a complete assessment of Chappy road and path users is needed to fulfill the “desirability” aspect of this bike path.
What is the ‘desirability’ situation on Chappy now? Does Chappy want or need a bike path?
There is a noticeable increase in bicycles only 2-3 months in the year. We can accommodate this situation for that short time.
If vehicle speed is the issue, which has been suggested, there are many ways to slow down traffic: ways that have not been considered seriously to date (greater police presence on island, speed humps, electronic and camera monitoring, better signage, etc).
Other MV bike paths are designed to take bikes off the road so car traffic can be faster and keep moving, i.e. the OB-Edgartown road. This should not be a Chappy movement to make it easier for cars to get to the ferry faster. This proposal also includes straightening existing road curves and creating more straight-aways for cars, which also encourages faster driving.
SHARE CHAPPY ROADS. GO SLOWLY.
Bikers, especially children, need more skills on a mixed use two way path, battling oncoming bike traffic/strollers/ walkers/dogs than on our slowed traffic roads. The CPC says their bike path will be ‘big enough’ not to cause these problems; how big will it have to be then?
Maintenance of the proposed bike path is crucial, with the Highway Department’s poor record for keeping up Chappy roads. Just consider the condition of the Chappy Point area, with its sandy surfaces and potholes in the car waiting lane and the parking lots. Who will maintain their BP and how much will it cost on an ongoing basis?
The price to construct a mixed use path paid with any public funds is ultimately paid by individuals in their taxes. We believe this is a misuse of tax dollars.
We believe this proposal is premature, incomplete and inappropriate for Chappy. There are many alternative solutions to perceived problems to be considered, once a need has been established by our community. 
We are not proposing any specific ‘solution’, but wish to suggest/brainstorm other possibilities to be studied, including but not limited to:
A management plan for the Point at the ferry
Town purchase of small unbuildable lots, so called tax-title land, for child recreation bike lots
Use of the existing and extensive Chappy trail system with modification of the trail material for biking (also avoids the dangers of the proposed BP crossing 4 roads and 15+ driveway intersections)
Improved education and materials for bikers arriving on Chappy
The speed control suggestions from above
Widening the existing roadway for bike lanes on both sides
3 way stop sign at the Dyke Road intersection, with or without painted crosswalk
Repairing the existing road surface so bikes can use all of the paved area. 
And many more…
What is the rationale for a bike path project? Why is this bike path necessary? Is it desired by most Chappy residents? We do not see acceptable professional answers in this proposal for this radical aggressive approach to an un-identified problem. Let’s start by ‘Sharing Chappy Roads” at a safe and respectful speed.
Ginny Murray
283 Chappy Road, Chappy
Edgartown MA 02539