Hi Roger.
The Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Advisory Committee meets 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 16 at the MVC building. While the Chappy path is not a formal agenda item, I suspect it will be the subject of some discussion (see the email thread below). It might decide whether to forward a formal response to the path proposal. - bv
________________
Hi Bob.
As you can tell from the several emails from members of the MV Bike/Ped committee, there is a great deal of passion regarding bike paths, whether on Chappy or elsewhere.
I spoke with Stuart Fuller Monday morning, who informed me of the inadequate qualities of the 1995 survey. So a good survey sound warranted to help identify some of the options related to the road ROW, which shouldn’t be limited to a shared use path. 
How we have handled the missing links in the pre-feasibility study is to look at the potential alternative routes and evaluate the viability of each. In only a few instances do we have surveys of the roadway within the layout, so the evaluations have had to use assumptions, but we hope to be able to present enough information for the community to discuss the options and determine which options to pursue further. In most instances, the next step will be discussion with the communities about the options, followed by a formal survey if necessary.
To summarize my position: The survey of the Chappy Road layout would provide information to evaluate options – of which a roadside bike path is just one – for better accommodating the mixture of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic the road receives.
- bv
From: Colvin, Robert B., M.D. [mailto:COLVIN@helix.mgh.harvard.edu] 
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 11:09 AM
To: Jim Miller; David Whitmon; veno@mvcommission.org
Cc: Ashley Hunter; Carol Kenney; Chris Fried; Craig Hockmeyer; Ebba Hierta; Margaret Curtin; Mimi Davisson; Nancy Weaver; Ned Orleans; Stuart Fuller
Subject: RE: Chappy Shared Use Path Project
Come on over -- you might change your mind. A couple of random photos are enclosed to give the flavor. Bob

From: Jim Miller [mailto:jiminmisery@yahoo.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:31 AM
To: David Whitmon; veno@mvcommission.org
Cc: Colvin, Robert B., M.D.; Ashley Hunter; Carol Kenney; Chris Fried; Craig Hockmeyer; Ebba Hierta; Margaret Curtin; Mimi Davisson; Nancy Weaver; Ned Orleans; Stuart Fuller
Subject: Re: Chappy Shared Use Path Project
Bill,
I think your comments, and David's, are spot on. I'm frankly stunned that an island so small, with a road that only gets traffic three cars at time, feels the need for a bike path. Seems like these problems can easily be mitigated by driver AND cyclist education. While I'm always supportive of exploring bicycle issues, it seems to me that scarce resources could be much better used elsewhere.
As a former planner, my first suggestion would be to do a two-day (Sat, Sun) traffic survey there next July or August (paid for by the Chappy Committee) to see if there's an issue, or just the perception of an issue.
- Jim

From: David Whitmon <whitmon@vineyard.net>
To: veno@mvcommission.org
Cc: "Colvin, Robert B., M.D." <COLVIN@HELIX.MGH.HARVARD.EDU>; Ashley Hunter <ashhunt@vineyard.net>; Carol Kenney <chilmark6@aol.com>; Chris Fried <chrisfried@hotmail.com>; Craig Hockmeyer <craigcycle@yahoo.com>; Ebba Hierta <ebbah@aol.com>; Jim Miller <jiminmisery@yahoo.com>; Margaret Curtin <johnbest@vineyard.net>; Mimi Davisson <mimi02557@aol.com>; Nancy Weaver <nancy@pollyhillarboretum.org>; Ned Orleans <ellned@comcast.net>; Stuart Fuller <edghighway@verizon.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2008 5:40:51 AM
Subject: Re: Chappy Shared Use Path Project

Bill and all

Not once at the CPC meeting did any one on the Chappy Path Committee say the path would be under 8' wide. I was hearing such ideas as a 10' path with a 10' buffer between path and road way.
Nor was it unanimous among Chappy residents who wrote to the CPC to support the idea, either at all or as submitted.

My concern is that we will be told one thing (what they think we would like to hear?) and they do something else. One need only look at the County Road bike path as an example.
At a public meeting we were told one thing and what we got was something half done and far less than what was implied.

It is my deep concern that this is another substandard measure at cyclists expense, to benefit the hurried motorists to get the cyclists off the road and out of the way.

The problem they have on Chappy as does the whole of Martha's Vineyard is that there are to many cars and way to many motorists who are not very good drivers.

We need to change the whole perception, educate the motoring public that cyclists are traffic too.

What are the Chappy folks doing to reduce use of motor vehicles on Chappy.

How many of those on the Chappy Path Committee use a bicycle for transportation?

David Whitmon

On Dec 5, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Bill Veno wrote:

> Hi Bob.
> 
> I’ve been keeping up with the flurry of emails the Chappy path idea is generating, including your synthesis of your committee’s actions to date. I have been contacted by a couple of interested parties on either side of the bike path issue and have tried to keep the Commission’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Committee apprised of the Chappy proposal. I can tell you that the Bike/Ped committee continues to wrestle with many of the issues the Chappy proposal is confronting – separation from roadway, intersections with driveways, surface material and maintenance. We are just finalizing comments on an engineer’s pre-feasibility study of alternatives for plugging the gaps in main island’s share use path network at several locations.
> 
> With regards to your solicitation of a letter of support for the Chappy path proposal to the Edgartown Community Preservation Committee, I think endorsement of the proposed engineering survey from either the Bike/Ped committee or myself as MVC staff would have to contain several caveats intended to allow the community to coalesce around the concept of the bike path before proceeding.
> 
> Below are my personal comments that I am sharing with the Bike/Ped committee. You are welcome to distribute them as you wish.
> 
> Problem Definition and Options Despite the considerable amount of investigation conducted by the path committee, the perception persists that alternatives to the bike path have not been adequately explored. The problem statement as presented in the proposal is that the Chappy community has debated for 30 years whether or not a bike path is needed. I suggest that the problem is the congestion of motorized and non-motorized traffic on Chappaquiddick Road. From what I can glean from the emails, this congestion is only a problem with large volumes of (I’m assuming) non-motorized traffic that, for now, only occurs in the peak summer months. The committee acknowledges that even with a bike path, some bicyclists will choose to remain on the roadway; presumably at volumes that will not create congestion on the roadway. The behavior of all users should be examined to potentially improve the situation:
> · Motorists might have more patience and congestion might be substantially eased if there were periodic sections of the roadway with widened shoulders on one side or the other to allow for easier passing. If safety is an issue even under un-congested conditions, then vehicle speed and behavior is an element that needs addressing, even if a bike path is built, because some cyclists will choose to remain on the roadway. Any potential realignment of the road surface to accommodate a bike path should anticipate the impact upon vehicle speed.
> · Behavior modification of the cyclists and pedestrians should also be considered: they should not ride/walk two abreast when there is vehicular traffic. Extended lines of bicyclists should be avoided.
> 
> Magnitude of Path As indicated in the proposal, the path committee has used the 1995 survey to approximate the sections of the ROW where sufficient width exists for a shared use path alongside the road pavement and where pavement realignment or utility poles might need to be relocated. It seems like this is the fundamental information regarding a path along the roadway that the Chappy community needs to discuss and form a consensus upon before obtaining the more detailed survey necessary for preparing for future construction of the path.
> 
> Standards The proposal states the path would be 5-8 feet wide; it’s not clear if this means a path of variable with or if the entire width is yet to be decided. Regardless, my concern is that the bike path be of adequate width to minimize congestion on the path. In many ways, the two-way traffic with different speed users on the path presents a similar set of conditions as now exists on the roadway. The more congested (i.e. slow) the path is, the more likely some bicyclists will opt to remain on the less congested roadway. I would urge the path committee to proceed under the premise that the path should be at least 8 feet in width (possibly narrowed for short sections). Likewise, separation of the path from the roadway will bear on the surveyor’s evaluation of potential layout within the ROW and needs to be agreed upon in advance.
> 
> Visualization Much of the concern people have with the concept of the bike path have to do with the visual character of the existing roadway. The more detailed survey is not likely to shed light on this concern unless it includes provisions to develop illustrations of representative locations. The surveyor should be instructed when to know vegetation of a certain diameter, mass or height.
> 
> In summary, if the bike path concept is to proceed, a more detailed survey will be necessary. But the Chappy community does not seem to be sufficiently unified behind, nor do the materials I have seen thus far convince me to support, proceeding with a bike path. However, as the engineering survey would not start until late summer 2009, there may be sufficient time to convene community meetings designed to address some of the observations stated above, possibly in time for the committee to proceed with the survey. Whether the CPC would encourage such a provisional approval in light of competing interests for funds is unknown.
> 
> I’m sure you are getting tired of reading all these emails (especially as long as this one has turned out to be). You and the other committee members have my respect for addressing an obviously important issue and trying to make positive change for the community. Please let me know if the Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Committee or I can be of any help in your efforts.
> 
> - Bill Veno
> 
> From: Colvin, Robert B., M.D. [mailto:COLVIN@HELIX.MGH.HARVARD.EDU]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 4:06 PM
> To: veno@mvcommission.org
> Cc: Richard Knight; TilghmanT; melissakagan@verizon.net; Willgeresy@aol.com; Joe Sullivan; Peter Wells
> Subject: Chappy Shared Use Path Project
> 
> Bill--
> 
> We are delighted to report that the Edgartown Community Preservation Committee at its meeting November 20 unanimously approved our request for funding of an engineering survey for a shared use path on Chappy. The committee did not approve the proposed demonstration Gardner path at this time, because the support for that was less clear. Whether this can be changed or not, we do not know. In any case we are pleased that the most important project was approved.
> 
> However, the decision is not final at this stage. The committee will hold another public meeting next week (Dec 11th) to solicit comments and the Edgartown selectmen/town meeting have to approve the budget. Letters have been submitted to the committee both pro and con. So we need to intensify our work to achieve a favorable outcome.
> 
> We write now to see if you would be willing to send a letter to the Community Preservation Committee supporting our efforts. Because of your position we think this could be very helpful. The address of the secretary of the committee, Kristy Rose, is krose@edgartown-ma.us. We have enclosed a copy of our proposal (which we sent to you earlier) for reference.
> 
> Bob Colvin
> For the Steering Committee of the Chappy Path Committee
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Bill Veno [veno@mvcommission.org] <<Request for Funding from the Community Preservation Committee.pdf>>
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 1:45 PM
> To: Colvin, Robert B., M.D.
> Cc: 'Richard Knight'; ssnipeswells2@verizon.net; melissakagan@verizon.net; 'TilghmanT'; Willgeresy@aol.com; jcsullivan@beld.net; 'Mark London'; 'Ashley Hunter'; 'Carol Kenney'; 'Chris Fried'; 'David Whitmon'; 'Jim Miller'; 'Margaret Curtin'; 'Mimi Davisson'; 'Nancy Weaver'; 'Ned Orleans'; 'Stuart Fuller'
> Subject: RE: Chappy Path Committee Update
> 
> There are a variety of approaches to traffic-calming: from signing and pavement markings to neck-downs at critical points. Even management of roadside vegetation plays a role. This is one argument against simply clearing vegetation alongside the roadway for a SUP; the widened vista for the motorist appears safer to travel faster.
> 
> Another obvious determinant in vehicle speed is road alignment; the shifting of some sections of the Chappy Road’s surface contemplated for the SUP might also present opportunities for addressing traffic speeds – or at least not induce increased speeds.
> 
> - bv
> 
> 
> From: Colvin, Robert B., M.D. [mailto:COLVIN@helix.mgh.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 12:56 PM
> To: veno@mvcommission.org
> Cc: Richard Knight; ssnipeswells2@verizon.net; melissakagan@verizon.net; TilghmanT; Willgeresy@aol.com; jcsullivan@beld.net; Mark London; Ashley Hunter; Carol Kenney; Chris Fried; David Whitmon; Jim Miller; Margaret Curtin; Mimi Davisson; Nancy Weaver; Ned Orleans; Stuart Fuller
> Subject: RE: Chappy Path Committee Update
> 
> Bill, Good thoughts-- thanks for reading it so carefully-- we will try to find more about the cost and upkeep of the stone dust option-- as to the car speeding it is a chronic problem, and aside from a speed bumps (which punish everyone) I am not sure what we can do.
> 
> I hope there will be an occasion for representatives from our group to meet with you to get your further thoughts on strategy.
> 
> Bob
> 
> _____
> 
> From: Bill Veno [mailto:veno@mvcommission.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 11:58 AM
> To: Colvin, Robert B., M.D.
> Cc: 'Richard Knight'; ssnipeswells2@verizon.net; melissakagan@verizon.net; 'TilghmanT'; Willgeresy@aol.com; jcsullivan@beld.net; 'Mark London'; Ashley Hunter; Carol Kenney; Chris Fried; David Whitmon; Jim Miller; Margaret Curtin; Mimi Davisson; Nancy Weaver; Ned Orleans; Stuart Fuller; Wiliam Veno
> Subject: RE: Chappy Path Committee Update
> 
> Thank you for keeping me in the loop, Bob. Your committee seems to be making good progress. I’m particularly interested in the more natural surface being considered, as we have been looking for such alternative surfaces for shared use paths elsewhere on the Island.
> 
> Some weeks back, I had shared the committee’s response to common questions regarding the proposal to the Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Committee, a subcommittee of the MV Joint Transportation Committee. The Bike/Ped committee discussed the idea of the Chappy SUP. Committee members shared some of the concerns already raised, perhaps summarized as “Is the SUP primarily for the benefit of the path users or of the motorists?” This concern rises from members’ experience with the Vineyard’s existing SUPs. The top of page 10 of the CPC application says “…the path will keep bicyclists out of the way and able to get to their destination more efficiently”. Such wording only lends credence to the concern that without all the bikes and pedestrians, cars and trucks can more freely zip along.
> 
> To help allay such concerns (or minimize expectations, if a motorist is anticipating having an unimpeded roadway after the SUP is constructed), I suggest the CPC incorporate into its discussions and materials the intent to: 1) determine if speeding is or could become a problem and 2) propose traffic-calming measures to slow down motor traffic. The CPC already acknowledges that some cyclists and perhaps even pedestrians will continue to use the road even with the existence of the SUP. And even SUP users will continue to need to cross Chappy Road at various points to get to homes, North Neck Road, or conservation lands. So vehicle speed will continue to be an issue on Chappy Road, with or without a SUP.
> 
> Any opportunity to educate motorists that bicyclists have the right to (properly) use the roadway, even when a SUP exists just feet away, will hopefully increase motorist awareness, caution and tolerance of cyclists and make for safer roadways for all.
> 
> If there is any assistance the Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Committee or I can provide, please let me know.
> 
> - bv
> 
> 
> From: Colvin, Robert B., M.D. [mailto:COLVIN@HELIX.MGH.HARVARD.EDU]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 5:51 PM
> To: veno@mvcommission.org
> Cc: Richard Knight; ssnipeswells2@verizon.net; melissakagan@verizon.net; TilghmanT; Willgeresy@aol.com; jcsullivan@beld.net
> Subject: RE: Chappy Path Committee Update
> 
> Dear Mr. Veno,
> We would like let you know of our progress on a shared use path for Chappaquiddick-- we have submitted an application for a feasibility study and a demonstration path to the Community Preservation Committee (excerpts enclosed). We know that the MVC is supportive of such paths and hope that we can count on your support for this effort. We would be happy to discuss the possibilities and strategies with you at your request.
> 
> Bob Colvin <<Update 2 Chappy Path Comm.pdf>>
>