<p>No matter what the Tisbury selectmen decide when they meet Tuesday night on the Beach Road project, it is now unlikely the project will be included in the 2017 funding cycle, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation told the Gazette Monday.
No matter what the Tisbury selectmen decide when they meet Tuesday night on the Beach Road project, it is now unlikely the project will be included in the 2017 funding cycle with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.
“It’s becoming profoundly unrealistic we can keep the project in funding cycle 2017,” Tom Currier, supervising project manager from MassDOT, told the Gazette Monday. Mr. Currier said at this stage, the time it takes to prepare the project to advertise for bids is longer than the time they have before the funding cycle begins.
After a three-hour meeting last week that saw much argument but little unanimity on what design to use for the road improvement project, selectmen plan to continue the discussion at their regular meeting Tuesday night. The meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. in the Katharine Cornell Theatre.
Last week, the vote was 2-1 in favor of a so-called symmetrical design, one of three concepts on the drawing board to improve the stretch of road from Five Corners to the drawbridge. Selectmen also agreed to discuss whether to bring the issue before voters at a special town meeting in early December.
The project has been under discussion for months, but as of yet no design has been sent to the state, one of the first of many steps that must be completed before the bidding process begins.
Mr. Currier said the state has included the town in the decision-making process as a courtesy, but ultimately the project is under Mass DOT jurisdiction.
“We are not obligated by what is decided on the local level on a state highway,” he said. Despite this, Mr. Currier said they want to work with the town. “We don’t want to force a project on a town that doesn’t want it,” he said.
He was also clear that the delays do not jeopardize the project, just the timeline.
“We were out of time a while ago,” Mr. Currier said. He said all the hard deadlines the state set were missed by the town. While the state will try their best to keep the project in the expected funding cycle, he said it’s becoming increasingly unrealistic.
“It’s tough,” Mr. Currier said. “I know it’s difficult to reach consensus. The town doesn’t want to build something the people don’t like.”
Selectman Melinda Loberg — whose nay vote was in the minority last week — expressed open frustration at the recent turn of events.
“All along we’ve been under a time constraint,” she said. Mrs. Loberg said while no hard deadlines were communicated to her, state officials did make it clear time was short.
“I suspect that we are going to send them a recommendation this week,” she said. “It’s probably going to be necessary to get a decision the town can live with as a town.”
The selectmen meet Tuesday at 5:30 p.m. in the Katharine Cornell Theatre.
Mrs. Loberg said her biggest concern is the prospect of losing state funding.
“From the very beginning I told my colleagues, let’s not get so bogged down that we lose the money,” she said.
William Veno, senior planner from the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, said on Monday if the project does not make the funding cycle deadline, state Transportation Improvement Program money earmarked for the work will have to be reallocated.
“If Tisbury Beach Road was bumped, we would have to scramble to figure out what to spend the money on,” Mr. Veno said. He said losing the money this time would not preclude the town from obtaining funds in the next cycle.

Comments
The article opens up some
Frank BrunelleThe article opens up some questions about the process. From the statements by Tom Currier, Project Manager for MassDOT and from Bill Veno, Chief engineer for the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, and from Melinda Loberg, selectman, Town of Tisbury, a picture, seems to be emerging.
We know that the Martha’s Vineyard Commission has been planning the SUP concept for the Beach Road corridor for a long time. I first learned of it in June of 2012 and by then it was already in the planning stages. I have been fighting it ever since. I live within the district of concern, the Beach Road corridor.
There is a question then, of what the town is voting on and we need clarification of this from MassDOT and the Commission.
Tom Currier says that MassDOT is not obligated to do what the town wants, but can do what it wants. Bill Veno says that the project may be delayed for funding, but that the funding is there, needs to be spent, and that the town can re-apply for funding.
What is the meaning of this?
Are we to understand that the funding focus is on the SUP and hybrid design? It would seem so. And if so, then why have we not been told? Why have we not met directly with MassDOT representatives in order to clarify what it is that this project is all about. Is it the case that the selectmen can vote 2 to 1 for a symmetrical design, which clearly is what the townspeople overwhelmingly support, and that the vote will only be a symbolic gesture and that MassDOT combined with the Martha’s Vineyard Commission will make the final decision?
This is something that we need to understand. So far, no one has told us that this is the case. And there are only hints that it may be. Could we get please get some clarification?
If it is the case, then the vote for the symmetrical design should be changed. There should not be a vote for the symmetrical design but for any funding for the road improvements as designed by the Martha’s Vineyard Commission at all. The vote should be against funding for “the project”.
A criticism from MassDOT might be that this does not meet the “Complete Streets” mandate by the state. Fair enough. The town of Tisbury has an answer to this.
Complete Streets is complied with by making the shoulders 4.5 feet wide and reducing the travel lanes to 10.5 feet. This is done in the first section of all the design proposals. The only thing that is necessary for this to happen is to move the fog line, the white line that separates the vehicle lanes from where cyclists can choose to travel. This is important for another reason, and it is that there is a 3-foot rule in the process of being approved by the legislature that would make it a rule that vehicles give 3 feet of space from their vehicles to cyclists.
And so, we do not need funding of a major project to accomplish this.
There is a request to widen the sidewalks to 5 ½ feet in the proposals from 5 feet. However, this is not necessary. Five feet is the width mandated by the ADA (American Disabilities Act). More than this is superfluous. So we do not need funding to take land by eminent domain if we stick to a 5 foot sidewalk and we can comply with Complete Streets simply, and within the 40 foot ROW (right-of-way).
But if we need to read between the lines to try and fess out what it is that we are doing, then we are being mis-led by the Commission yet again. So the question is, exactly what is it we are voting on? Could we please get an answer to this fundamental and very important question?
Unfortunately, trying to
Katherine Scott TisburyUnfortunately, trying to achieve total consensus on a plan that "everyone can agree on" wuld seem to be a recipe for getting bogged down.
Total consensus and getting the money nailed down seem to be contradictory goals.
Why were on discussion of
Catfish TisburyWhy were on discussion of area any news on Nobnocket Project,Ops,I meant Our new Stop And Shop Project the buildings that are falling down ,you can see them straight ahead when you come of Boat,the project were waiting on a parking problem to be resolved or something.Why can't we have a new Grocery store somewhere out of Town or in Town.
Add new comment