Time for a bike path solution
To the Editor:
It is unclear to me why Chappaquiddick, which is a neighborhood of Edgartown, should be asked to come to a consensus on our own. I question the notion that because the Chappy people are independent and self-sufficient that we should be capable of arriving at such a consensus. This is an issue that has divided people for more than 30 years, and I think both sides would agree that mediation is unlikely to bring about consensus.
Paying town taxes and electing town officials makes Chappy as much a part of Edgartown as any other neighborhood, and it seemed logical for the Chappy path committee to enlist the town's infrastructure to help move this issue into the public domain and follow an established political process.
There is misinformation that I feel must be corrected. First, our committee was formed in July of 2008, not in September of 2008. We sent out a brief email survey to approximately 380 people on August 13, 2008. The goal of this survey was to gauge whether there was enough community support for our committee to continue working toward our goal. We opted for an email survey as opposed to a summer meeting because we believed we would get a higher response rate (since not everybody is here at the same time). Seventy percent of more than 200 respondents favored the concept of a bicycling/walking path, and this seemed like more than enough to move forward. All of this occurred in the summer of 2008, not in the fall.
In the fall of 2008, the plan taken to town officials was actually an application to the Community Preservation Act Committee. The proposal requested funds for an engineering design study of a mixed-use pedestrian/bicycle path and for construction of a demonstration section of the path on the Gardner property. Faced with a litany of reasons why it was impossible to put a path on Chappy (telephone poles, wetlands, etc.), we believed that having a current survey of the road would give us an accurate picture of the road and enable us to discuss what was and was not possible. The rationale behind applying for funds for the demonstration path was to show people that there is a way to make a path fit in with the rural character of the Island. We agree with our opponents that it would be nice to avoid adding more paved surfaces if possible and have supported the idea of a hard packed surface.
As for the computer survey, I am curious as to when this was sent out and what the questions were. My name is on a list of people in favor, but I don't recall filling out a survey or submitting my name to the website. When scanning the lists (against and in favor) I notice that there are duplicate names on the against side, as well as numerous people (some from our committee) missing from the in favor side.
The bottom line is that it is challenging to get accurate survey results, and this is all the more reason to bring the issue before the town for a fair and public vote.
With regard to the debate over two-way paths vs. bike lanes, I cannot cite the statistics nor quote from the reports.
Our committee made a conscientious and wholehearted attempt at demonstrating how a multi-use path could be designed on Chappy. Less pavement and maintaining the rural character of the island (concerns of our opponents), as well as separating cars from bikers/walkers were main factors in opting for a two-way path along one side of the road. However, we are not the experts and this may not be the only solution. We would be more than happy to enlist the support of experts to design a smart solution that enables bikers, walkers and automobile drivers to travel safely from the ferry to East Beach. The current situation is unsafe, and it is only a matter of time before there is an accident. The problem has clearly been identified, evaluated and it is time for a solution.
Melissa Kagan
Chappy Path Committee Steering Committee
Edgartown