To the Editor:
On Tuesday, Nov. 3, the Tisbury board of selectmen met. At that meeting it was prearranged that a motion be made to allow the symmetrical road design to be included in the feasibility study by the consultants hired by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.
The symmetrical road design has a lot going for it. It does not create an intersection at the Shell station/Tisbury Marketplace. This is rather important in that this intersection will introduce more traffic and congestion, and place cyclists in the path of oncoming motor vehicles.
The symmetrical road design allows for sidewalks on both sides of the road, within the 40-foot right-of-way. The hybrid design does not allow this, but requires a sidewalk to be built past the right-of-way and onto the beach where it will be prone to flooding.
The symmetrical road design does not remove shade trees, but adds them; costs less; is safer; and is more aesthetically pleasing, which are the reasons Tristan Israel stated for supporting it before he changed his mind.
So why then, when one of the selectmen, Larry Gomez, proposed the idea that the symmetrical design should be included in the feasibility study, did neither of the other selectmen second the motion, nor allow any discussion of the motion by the public? Why?
If the symmetrical road design is in fact better than the shared-use path, and if the study would reveal, and explain this, then why are the two selectmen justified in not considering it? Are there not fundamental ideas in being an elected official which need to be adhered to, such as what is best for the town, and for the cyclists, and for the environment? It would seem as though a public official would want to know the best way to accomplish these things. Would it not? And if not, then we as citizens should at the very least have the right to ask why. Why?
Frank Brunelle
Tisbury
The post He asks why appeared first on Martha's Vineyard Times.