The devil is in the details, the Tisbury planning board heard last week, as an improvement project for Beach Road in Vineyard Haven continues to be the subject of intense discussion.

In 2009 a Martha’s Vineyard Commission study identified the stretch of road from Five Corners to the drawbridge as a missing link in a network of Island shared-user paths. The state Department of Transportation has put an improvement plan in the 2017 federal funding cycle; meanwhile discussions between Mass DOT and the town began in the summer of 2014. A year later, there continue to be conflicting opinions over the best way to create safe space for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists.

The project was discussed at a planning board meeting last week where there were vocal opinions; the session will continue on Wednesday this week at 6 p.m. in the town hall annex.

Widening the road is a central issue. At the meeting last week, planning board chairman Dan Seidman said four options include a 43-foot roadway, which he said would destroy the area, a 41-foot roadway with a hybrid, shared-user path design, a 41-foot roadway with a single design, or no changes at all. Widening to 41 feet would require one foot of land to be taken from property owners who abut the road.

“It’s a working harbor area and its got a particular look to it,” Mr. Seidman said. “And working in the constraints of something that was set up originally in the late 1800s, the 1700s, and basically progressed over time, we are constrained on what we can and can’t do and this 41 feet seems to be the best solution. I believe it would be an enhancement for the town if we did this.”

Selectman Melinda Loberg noted the need to find some consensus and convey that to Mass DOT. “The purpose of our meeting together and our trying to get an agreement on how that 41 feet should be laid out is important to move forward with the design,” she said.

Selectman Tristan Israel said there are not many cyclists on that particular stretch of road, but Martha’s Vineyard Commission planner Bill Veno said: “Build it and they will come.”

Mr. Israel said he is skeptical about the shared-user path idea. “I have some reservations, that area is very narrow, and I have not been a big fan of having an SUP in that area,” he said. “As I understand an SUP, I’m trying to figure out how it would all fit in.”

Mr. Seidman called it a “super sidewalk,” noting the path would most likely be 12 to 14 feet rather than the 10 feet on the design sketch provided at the meeting.

“We don’t have to do the second option [shared-use path/super sidewalk],” he also said. “The reason that was put on there was because of the transition in the road. It really is two kinds of road and again, were talking about a thousand feet. And as somebody who walks, I know I don’t appreciate bicyclists on the same path, and I know bicyclists don’t appreciate walkers. Common sense isn’t common, people don’t know if you’re approaching each other you both go to your right, so I understand all those things.”

Cyclist Doris Clark had a different view. “I like the 41 feet, and am also in favor of sidewalk on both sides,” she said. “I ride that road every day and I have to pray to God when I make it to Five Corners that I make it alive.” She said if a share-user path was built on that section of the road, she would use it. She also suggested clear signage telling bicyclist where they are supposed to be riding, especially over the bridge.

Public discussion continues Wednesday.