<p>The wrangling is finally over and the much-debated Beach Road improvement plan is ready for the next step as town leaders presumably send the plan along to state highway officials for action.</p>
The wrangling is finally over and the much-debated Beach Road improvement plan is ready for the next step as town leaders presumably send the plan along to state highway officials for action.
But it was pretty painful getting there, with three selectmen who could not reach consensus and a public process that was at best confusing, at worst obfuscatory.
The plan began more than a year ago when the town learned that state and federal money was available to help improve the stretch of road from Five Corners to the drawbridge. The project got a priority designation because the heavily congested, mixed commercial/light industrial area, a critical link between Oak Bluffs and Vineyard Haven, is so obviously hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists. Currently this section of Beach Road, which runs along the harbor’s edge on one side, has no bike path or bikeway and sidewalks are scattered and disconnected. After state funding became available, planners at the Martha’s Vineyard Commission stepped in to assist with the work.
There are few stretches of roadway where the need to provide safe passage for bikers and walkers is more obvious. But somewhere along what should have been a straight path to approval, things went awry. Late-stage public meetings on the plan held in recent weeks included three design choices that were confusing, not least in nomenclature: symmetrical, hybrid, hybrid-hybrid. Hard to tell at times whether the town was talking about a road improvement plan or some strange math and science project. Last week in a second vote where one board member changed his position, the selectmen did finally decide on a plan (hybrid-hybrid as opposed to symmetrical). But by then spokesmen for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation said it would likely be too late for the $2.4 million project to make the funding cycle for this year.
Thankfully the project can still be funded in a subsequent year. But the whole process left lingering questions about how Tisbury, the Vineyard’s main port town, manages its affairs.
For the sake of contrast, decision making in the Squibnocket beach improvement plan last year in Chilmark — like the Beach Road plan, complicated, controversial, involving competing interests and lacking clear consensus — was managed in a carefully orchestrated series of transparent steps, driven in part by the need to meet a deadline for a far smaller grant of funds.
To be sure, Tisbury town leaders, aided by technical studies, expert advice and public comment, had to sort through a lot of sometimes contradictory information to come up with the best possible plan. But the clear need for some kind of resolution before another busy summer passes and a looming funding deadline should have been enough to bring this protracted process to an earlier conclusion.
In governing, making a decision is often more important than making the perfect decision. Any of the plans for Beach Road would have been an improvement on what we have now. Now that a decision has been made, let’s hope the town can put aside its differences and build on that.

Comments
"Presumably" says it. Anyone
Katherine Scott Tisbury"Presumably" says it. Anyone who actually attend the BOS meeting in which the Tisbury selectmen reversed their decision of the previous week's meeting knows that there isn't "a plan" to send along. Please, Mr. or Mrs. Editorial Writer, check out the actual wording of the motion that was voted on. It consists more or less of "fingers crossed" that we can get a decent solution, with the help of teh DOT. It is not a "plan." As for "negative feedback," I think I know exactly where the pressure came from between the first and the second votes. Note that there was no discussion of the so-called "hybrid hybrid." It was a figleaf for vote change. And I know that there was also positive feedback on the first vote between the two meetins. So, in this I think Dan Baum oversteps in his op-ed. Mr. Baum's op-ed overreaches also with his statement that since an SUP is "one of the Vineyard's longstanding transportation goals," that it is feasible FOR THIS STRETCH OF ROADWAY or that this has achieved consensus of any kind in Tisbury. MVC executive directors and senior planners have lots of dreams, but the DOT has to deal with reality on the ground. My question to Mr. Baum, and all other proponents of the SUP here: How do you propose, actually, to get an SUP past the MV Shipyard? IMO, the best plan is the one that the DOT presented in January 2015. It involves takings on both sides from Five Corners to Wind's Up. The only way to get a decent roadway, bikeway, and pedestrian access is for the state to take enough land on both sides to provide the needed width. Mr. Baum as a traffic professional also must be aware of the need to strictly control speed of motorists on that stretch. Most of the safety issues lie with motorists, it is their vehicles that are large moving projectiles that can harm others, and many of the solutions lie in forcing them to adhere to rules of the road, not in forcing the town to impose on itself something as ridiculous as this SUP on Beach Road between the sea wall and Wind's Up. I was at both BOS meetings. At the first one, Henry Neider spoke in favor of the symmetrical plan, as did I, and others. Selectman Larry Gomez says he speaks for a "silent majority" in voting for the symmetrical plan. I expect he is right. I sincerely hope that the DOT goes ahead with its January 2015 plan.
Add new comment