Compromise Needed

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

I am writing a follow-up to your editorial in the August 11 issue of the Gazette, relating to the deepening division on Chappaquiddick. It is important that the Chappy community come to some consensus on the issue of whether or not a bike path is desired.

In September of 2008, a group of Chappaquiddick residents formed a committee to lobby for building a bike path on Chappy. As soon as I learned of this, I wrote their leader that their plan needed first to be discussed by the Chappy residents and then to be submitted to a voting process by all Chappy residents. Since most of the residents had gone home for the winter, the traditional process of dealing with problems on Chappy had to wait until the next summer. Unfortunately the group ignored my advice and over the winter they took their plan to town officials for approval and financial support. Apparently they felt that this is urgent and could not wait until summer or else perhaps they felt they had a better chance of getting town support in the absence of the summer residents.

A recent computer survey has indicated that a large majority of Chappy residents are opposed to the building of a bike path (see chappybikepath.com). Therefore this summer, a committee of residents has formed to oppose plans for a bike path. This disagreement has become an emotional issue on our small island, and has caused animosity and ill will among friends and neighbors. As someone who has had the longest record and most extensive experience of biking on Chappy, I feel compelled to offer possible ways to resolve the disagreement.

First, last month on several occasions, at the request of the committee against a bike path (sharing the roads committee), I wrote the leader of the committee for the bike path (Chappy path committee) that the two committees should meet in person to resolve their differences. Each time my suggestion was rejected. The desirability of this approach would be that it allows the Chappy people to resolve their own island problem without taking it to the Edgartown voters for a verdict.

Second, if this option is not workable, the next option is to ask the selectmen to appoint a committee of experts and Chappy residents to serve the following functions:

• To determine whether there is a significant problem for the bicyclists on the Chappaquiddick Road.

• If the evidence shows that there is indeed a problem, to determine what is the most appropriate solution.

• If the above options fail to bring harmony and peace among the Chappy residents, then the last option is to accept the anecdotal claim of safety problems on the Chappy road, and consider the suggestion, namely, create a bike lane on each side of the road. This can be done by widening each side of the road two to four feet.

There are a number of reasons for advocating a bike lane.

• There is no evidence that a bike path, like the one being considered for Chappy, increases safety. In fact, experts believe it may increase accidents.

• With bike lanes, bicyclists are traveling in the same direction as traffic and the confusion crossing intersections and driveways is eliminated.

• In comparison with the bike path, it will greatly lessen damaging effects on the rural character of Chappy and its fragile environment.

• Bike lanes are commonly used throughout Martha’s Vineyard.

• The cost of building and maintaining bike lanes is much less expensive and therefore a lesser imposition on taxpayers.

• A few years ago Richard Rooney of Martha’s Vineyard Commission, who was asked to study problems with biking on Chappy, reported that his “survey of bicyclists indicated that the bike paths may not be suitable for Chappaquiddick and that bike lanes on both sides of the road may be more appropriate.”

Finally, there has to be an intensive attempt to educate the car drivers and bicyclists alike of the law to share the Chappaquiddick Road. For example, car drivers should follow the posted speed limits and not pass where there is a double yellow line. And bicyclists have to be reminded to stay in the lane as a single file and to wear helmets.

In conclusion, my suggestions for resolving a major conflict are evidence-based and require rationality and objectivity for reaching consensus.

Siamak Adibi

Chappaquiddick

•

Not Just Safety Vs. Environment

Editors, Vineyard Gazette:

In the Gazette editorial in Tuesday’s edition you have done a disservice to your readers by portraying opposing sides of the issue as simply those who are concerned about safety (in favor of the path) and those who are concerned about character and aesthetics (against the path). Although safety has been referenced by the proponents searching for a justification to building the path along the Chappaquiddick and Dike roads, they have touted the bucolic appeal of cruising along a motor vehicle-less path far from the snarls of common road usage. This even though it probably will lie within six feet of the road for most of its route. On the other hand, the opponents are the first to point to the AASHTO guide to shared use path design to show its inherent safety problems. In fact it’s the opponents who cite the plethora of studies and statistics showing that two-way side bike paths are not recommended by the state anywhere and further that they have been shown to be less safe than riding on the road.

The issue of bicycle path safety is not unlike the issue of airplane safety. The public remains terrified of falling out of the sky, yet casually get into their automobiles on a daily basis without a thought of the undisputed evidence that their risk of death or injury in the car is 37 times greater than in the airplane.

So in this case, the public, seeing the bicycles mixing it up with car traffic, assumes moving bicycles off the road to a separate path will reduce the risks of motor vehicle and bicycle collision. This is because of poor reporting of the facts of two-way side bike path risks. The scientific methods of determining these risks lie at the root of sensible discourse and planning for the development of safe bicycling facilities. If the public continues to rely on a gut feeling about bike path safety, poor decisions in design and planning will be made that will lead to more death and heartache.

At Tuesday’s forum at the Chappaquiddick Community Center about the proposed bike path along the Chappy road, I cited seven studies which all point to why the state does not recommend two-way side paths. In the interest of space, the editor could refer the reader to the Chappybikepath.com Web site where I have posted my presentation.

Suffice it to say here, this is not a controversial nor biased reporting of obscure studies but simply a laying out of the basis upon which engineers and designers for Massachusetts and the rest of the country have agreed on. Two-way side bike paths are not recommended. The AASHTO guide for the development of bicycle facilities states, “Shared use paths are facilities on an exclusive right of way with minimal cross flow by motor vehicles.” In fact the Idaho department of transportation recommends against installing a multi-use path when there are more than eight crossings per mile, suggesting an on street facility be provided instead. Opponents are asking that alternatives be evaluated.

No, the controversy on Chappy cannot be summed up as a choice between safety and the environment. It is rather a fight generated by some with influence who have a desire for a particular outcome and who do not want to bother with a process that will allow others to influence the decisions about Chappy’s future. They have not identified nor evaluated a problem, nor have they looked at alternative solutions to that unidentified problem. They have simply proposed a two-way side use bike path along the Chappaquiddick and Dike roads, and neighbors and abutters are incredulous.

Roger Becker

Chappaquiddick