Tisbury selectmen and planning board members met together on August 5, but were unable to reach an agreement on a plan to reconstruct Beach Road to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. Planning board chairman Dan Seidman originally intended to have a vote on whether to recommend a 41-foot-width right of way for the project to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), but the meeting quickly escalated into a vigorous discussion about the details of the project in its entirety.
One sticking point was whether or not to incorporate a shared-use path into the design. The discussion went back and forth until Mr. Seidman concluded the meeting, and the board voted to continue the public hearing to Wednesday, August 12.
Beach Road is one of a number of roads addressed in the Martha’s Vineyard Transportation Plan 2015-2040 (MVTP), released in a draft version on June 19, which outlined long-range transportation plans, goals, and strategies working “within estimated federal and state funding to establish priorities for improvements to the Island transportation systems.”
The plan recognized that bikes and pedestrians often end up on the roadways simply due to a lack of any alternative. That is the case on Beach Road, which has long stretches with no designated bicycle or pedestrian space, and is the direct route between Oak Bluffs and Vineyard Haven.
The current road from Five Corners past Packer’s has a 40-foot-width right of way. Last Wednesday, the planning board proposed a “41-foot hybrid option,” which would provide two 10.5-foot travel lanes with 4.5-foot bicycle lanes and 5.5-foot sidewalks on either side. MassDOT previously recommended a 43-foot right of way to allow for wider sidewalks.
“But if you can imagine what that would do to that terrain down there and to people’s properties, and then all these utility poles you would be moving back would be beyond the 43 feet,” Mr. Seidman said. “That amount of taking and disruption to that area just wouldn’t make sense.”
As a part of the plan, utilities would likely be run underground, and poles and streetlights would be off to the side, as opposed to the middle of the sidewalk, leaving it an obstruction-free space.
The 41-foot hybrid plan presented at the meeting also showed an eventual transition to a “shared-use path section” for about 1,000 feet, which would include the same 10.5-foot travel lanes, but one side would have a 2-foot buffer and 2-foot shoulder, and the other side would have a 2-foot shoulder with a 4- to 5-foot landscape area and 10-foot shared-use path (SUP). Mr. Seidman said how and where the transition would occur was still unclear.
Discussion takes off
There was initial modest support for the 41-foot right of way. Selectman Melinda Loberg pointed out that MassDOT had already presented a 25 percent design that was rejected by the town. She said the state didn’t want to continue going back to the drawing board, so it was important to agree on the 41-foot right of way and, furthermore, get an idea of what sort of design the town would like to see. She said the project was prioritized by the state because of the MVC’s efforts to complete a SUP connection through Tisbury.
“Which is why we’re struggling and looking at ways that we can get this pathway connected from the bridge to Vineyard Haven–Edgartown Road,” she said. “So all our twisting and turning and trying to find ways to do it is because that was the intended purpose.”
Selectmen chairman Tristan Israel said he was not a big fan of the SUP, and didn’t know how it would fit in. Planning board member Benjamin Robinson explained that the Oak Bluffs proposed SUP and the SUP on the bridge would run along the south side, connecting with the existing south-side SUP that runs from the boat landing to Winds Up.
Mr. Israel said he didn’t know if the population of bikers and pedestrians necessitated a path.
“I do see bicyclists coming and going out of town, and occasionally you see a group of people with the little flags or the camp or whatever, so there is a stream of people, but it’s not a mob, it’s not packed,” he said. “We need to accommodate the cyclists, but it’s not like we’re overwhelmed with thousands of bicyclists and pedestrians on these roads.”
Doris Clark of Vineyard Haven said she bikes on the road every day. She was in favor of the 41-foot right of way and having sidewalks running on both the north and south side, but disagreed with Mr. Israel’s comment.
“It was Tristan that said there’s not a lot of traffic, but I ride that road every single day and I have to pray to God when I get into Five Corners that I made it there alive,” she said.
Mr. Robinson asked Ms. Clark if she would make use of a SUP.
“I would like to use it, because I’m telling you, even God is tired of me praying when I get to Five Corners that I’m still alive,” she said. “Coming off of the bridge, it would be nice if there were a SUP on the south side of the road, and that you know you can ride on. Right now when you’re going over the bridge from Oak Bluffs toward Vineyard Haven, you don’t know at all where you’re supposed to ride.”
Bill Veno, MVC planner, said that the MVC’s Transportation Plan would create a network of SUPs around the Island, and a joint transportation committee agreed to assign the Island’s allocation of transportation improvement funds to the Beach Road project because it included a SUP.
“If you look at any of the other shared-use paths, when cyclists are provided the opportunity to get out of the traffic, they’re very popular,” he said. “It’s a little bit like if you build it, then they’ll come. To tie this back to the master-planning effort, we’re trying to close the blanks to get cyclists closer to the downtowns.”
Ralph Packer, who owns R.M. Packer Co., a heating and fueling operation on Beach Road, said his main concern with the road is the speed limit. He suggested reducing the speed limit and enforcing that reduction by introducing flashing speed-limit signs.
Chairman Seidman agreed, and said it is their goal to unify and reduce the speed limit as a part of the project.
Frank Brunelle, who has strongly opposed the shared-use path design, said he would like to see 5.5-foot sidewalks for pedestrians, 4.5-foot shoulders for bicyclists, and 10.5-foot travel lanes for motor vehicles for the length of the project. He is concerned that where the design shows a SUP, there is only a 2-foot shoulder and 2-foot barrier with no sidewalk on the north side of the road, which he said could compromise bike safety and Island businesses on that side of the road.
“As a year-round town, I would like to see shoulders, and I would like to see sidewalks on both sides of the road and no SUP, in order for it to be more of a living town, more of a place where we can call home rather than a Disney World or a tourist destination,” he said.
Mr. Brunelle suggested going back to MassDOT and requesting they draft two alternative plans to be compared to the current design. Some agreed, others believed the town needed a definitive idea before approaching MassDOT again. Almost everyone agreed that more discussion was necessary.
“I don’t know how many of these meetings I’ve sat in where we all have these different opinions, we all speak them and repeat them again, we come to the end of the meeting, and we’re nowhere,” planning board member Cheryl Doble said. She said they needed to facilitate a different type of dialogue in order to move forward with the project.
Although by the end of the meeting there was a general consensus that the 41-foot right of way was appropriate, the planning board voted to continue the public hearing for discussion over how the 41 feet would be utilized. “We’re not going to get a perfect solution; the best we can do is a good solution,” Mr. Seidman said. “I think we need to get people on board with that.”
