Hi Terry,
Would you please forward my letter to the CIA membership.
Thank you.
Brad

My name is Brad Woodger. I am part of the Marshall family of Chappaquiddick. I have lived on Chappy as a full time resident for the past 20 years, and had visited for the 25 years preceding my permanent arrival. I currently reside on the same property on which my Great Grandfather brought his family to at the end of the 1800's. So I have a reasonable reference point on Chappy and its evolving character.

My family has always strived to preserve the rural charm and natural value of Chappy through land conservation and thoughtful care of its assets. But we've also been acutely aware that we do not live in a gated community, and thus can not control all the variables that exist outside our borders. To this point, I believe that it is a fruitless and possibly treacherous effort being mounted by those who wish to stop the bike path discussion before it gets started. 

Within the content of the letters written by those opposing even the formation of a bike path study, there exists an ignorance of the reality of our current situation. Because, while I agree that a bike path will do little to enhance the natural aesthetics of our home, I don't believe that aesthetics have as large a role in this discussion as do the issues of safety. The paved road, in its current incarnation, does not, and cannot, accommodate both vehicular and pedestrian/bike traffic. I have logged thousands of hours on Chappy roads as both a driver and a pedestrian, and as such have witnessed innumerable spills, collisions, and near tragedies. A bike path would seem to be the logical solution to this problem. 

Furthermore, the logic employed by the opposition is grounded in fallacies. The slippery slope argument (posed by several letter writers) that the formation of a bike path study will lead us precipitously down the path to Walmarts, casinos, and hordes of "the unwashed" is lacking in causal relationships. There is absolutely no supporting evidence being presented that bike paths lead to over development and the exploitation of a community. I realize that there is some hyperbole and perhaps humor being employed in these dire examples of Chappy's fate, but the fear being irrationally implanted is not funny. Moreover, much of the foundation for the argument against the bike path is built upon the assumption that it will adversely impact the "environment". Thus far, all that has been presented are assumptions. And one can not build an argument upon assumptions. It is one thing to suppose that a bike path will have a marked adverse impact on the flora and fauna of Chappy, it is another thing entirely to provide facts and data that support this supposition. 

Next, the argument that there are other routes on which bikers and pedestrians may safely traverse Chappy is flawed as well. Anyone that has actually ridden a bike on Chappy's dirt roads or trails can attest to the perils of such travel. The Chappy trail system, while suited well enough to walking traffic, is in no way accessible to the average bicyclist. And as for Chappy's dirt roads, they share the problem of the paved roads -- mixed use of cars and bikes (as well as posing the additional hazard of negotiating the vagaries of sand).

It might also be noted that those who oppose the bike path have offered little in the form of alternate solutions. Simply denying that a problem exists is not a solution in itself. Nor are attempts to impugn the viability of a bike path. Several opponents have detailed the dangers of bike paths, and have drawn the conclusion that they are less safe. My question remains, less safe than what? Than our current situation? I don't believe so. One can not deny a possible solution simply because it is less than perfect. There must be a sense of relatively applied to the argument. So the question more accurately framed should be -- would a bike path allow for safer travel on Chappy than our current dynamic of sharing a narrow paved road with dump trucks and SUVs? 

Of course we could ban pedestrian traffic and bicycle traffic all together. That might solve our problem. But I still believe that the vision of hundreds of bikers on Chappy is far from the nightmare that some propose, and is closer to a pleasant dream -- a dream in which bikes have replaced cars. Because, bicycling and walking are not simply recreational activities, but are real modes of transportation. A bike or feet will, if employed, take one from point A to point B without ever turning a key.

Ultimately, the blight of a bike path still remains in the realm of imagination. But the danger to personal safety on the Chappy Road is very real. It is not enough to hope that no tragedy will befall, or deny that a problem exists. We must now (at the very least), attempt to find a solution.

So I propose that before we allow hysteria and imagined statistics to guide our policies and decisions, we give engineering a try. 

Brad Woodger