[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6301484,"mediaKeyId","2487885-9353ea56958d174fdfda904b03bdcaff","parentId",2487885,"title","BPAC reviews Pleasant Street one‑way pilot: mixed feedback, data collection planned","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",4080000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2487885-9353ea56958d174fdfda904b03bdcaff&start=4080&end=4080","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2487885-9353ea56958d174fdfda904b03bdcaff/thumbnail_4080000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6301484/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/BPAC-reviews-Pleasant-Street-oneway-pilot-mixed-feedback-data-collection-planned","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6301484-f8978783715021dc12e523f9e6863ab6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771075371&Signature=nLs6kZdA1w03XFwqWE8EeP1~mcMfHd1FxFIojdQAJSZuzp9tha4o-KG1~aGgWCBJcPU3uExCVqJItU~5utyQWBS839OhDb7HOSI4FB3AM1XqlfIAWuzmG3v-268Z0ZIMS7oF-l~BsokybiCZxc8397KkvNjbjeuesoQj5lMgT1J9tH2zUBVDIcKkqEdkPdomCaMmr1bPmlDuHVy8Lcp1ceqlkx5wcYyiTQ6qDRkCdFq3GgNKQ0by5WxhqvmYh~Cj7WjMFG6zdXlAEb1xgR3CYWfaqvxmh6UQRYfK5qFW4wlGMhq5j44hR28pNxCX~jnR3yd8Ux4kvhU1lWqpP9QRLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Town-County of Nantucket, MA","date","2025-03-04T00:00:00Z","article","The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee on Wednesday reviewed the ongoing Pleasant Street one‑way pilot, heard mixed member and abutter input, and clarified a timeline for additional data collection and a select board decision.

Why it matters: the one‑way pilot routes vehicle traffic differently and is intended to improve safety and active‑transportation conditions. The pilot also creates convenience impacts for some drivers and raises questions about cyclist exposure on the seasonal, repaired roadway.

Staff told the committee that a contract for sensors and intersection counts had not been executed as planned; staff said the contract is expected to be approved by the select board in March and that traffic counting would take place later that month. The pilot team asked the committee to extend the pilot through April and to ask the select board to review the data and decide whether to continue the one‑way at the April 30 meeting.

Public and member comments reflected divided experience. The project team reported it received about 160 survey responses; staff said 18 respondents reported personally benefiting from the one‑way configuration. Several committee members and some abutters said the current timing of the pilot (off‑season, roadway still under construction and in places narrow or rough) and recent weather (snow, limited snow removal) skewed the results and meant bicycle counts were lower than summer use.

Members raised operational concerns: temporary barricades and sawhorses had reduced the available bike lane space in areas, and committee members said that until pavement and drainage are completed, cyclist behavior and safety observations will differ from summer conditions. Staff noted that the concrete base for the pilot may be paved over this spring, and the committee suggested collecting counts again after repaving to get a clearer picture of rider behavior.

The committee discussed funding: staff said they had submitted a town meeting request for about $2 million to cover damage awards and easements tied to the Pleasant Street alignment, noting that figure was a first estimate and not an appraisal. Members asked staff to clarify which property owners had offered easements; staff said one family had expressed conditional support but that a second family controlled the key parcel and was unlikely to grant a voluntary easement.

Next steps: staff will execute the sensor/traffic count contract after select board approval, collect intersection and corridor data in March, and return to the select board and BPAC with results; staff asked the committee to consider an extension to April 30 to allow the select board to act on the collected data.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Nantucket Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee - 2/26/2025","oneSentenceSummary","BPAC heard public feedback and technical concerns about the Pleasant Street one‑way pilot, agreed to collect traffic data in March and asked staff to seek a select board contract so the pilot’s continuation can be decided in late April; members raised concerns that current road condition and seasonal timing skew cyclist data.","taxTitle","Nantucket County, Massachusetts","taxId",61456,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6301488,"BPAC weighs replacing stop signs on bike paths, reviews prototype warning sign",1986,2314000,4300000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2487885-9353ea56958d174fdfda904b03bdcaff&start=2314&end=4300","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2487885-9353ea56958d174fdfda904b03bdcaff/thumbnail_2314000.jpg","/articles/6301488/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/BPAC-weighs-replacing-stop-signs-on-bike-paths-reviews-prototype-warning-sign","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6301488-e4a7eb4aba312abff29e7da0b169f9d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771075371&Signature=bfbLKPpRr9WGr1v1i9xg15aOxxINgB3ax6ScnJXMM2vwxE~kr34KXID2hfnVTXj906WwreNZYz3-cx00McBX3ipWGnquAFDZWxuWrbL18RD2pmwFKGnV6dXO4i-gTh3SuEbp8PCzlE5RjZAhmHm7v4vSfI26~VOFODM4grIwtynbZvjSpm5qJZr4sGSufL7NFkqtlIGKnwXL4Cc9Dyf8U4FsqzdAXUbGtVk1cFkzEP8INpRqSd~TY5KXbNrSjjkYPGS5mWTc-oBqqJydiTRucDSCct7TL0Y17Ls~38tgOSvN0bO07rpusZROW3G4Jn6BaTm0pGgGyUz-enaEe~pJfg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee continued a months‑long discussion on stop signs and intersection treatments for multiuse paths, focusing on alternatives to requiring path users to stop at private and secondary roads.

At issue: the committee is seeking treatments that preserve path user safety and predictability without creating an excessive number of new vertical signs. Members discussed examples from other jurisdictions — San Diego’s use of intersection caution signs for multiuse path crossings, a Colorado DOT worded driveway caution sign referred to in the meeting, and pavement thermoplastic markings — and debated whether an icon‑style warning sign or a pavement marking would better alert path users approaching cross‑traffic.

Staff reported they had seen an 18‑inch diamond crossroad sign used in California and said the San Diego presenter described it as \"an acceptable treatment, at least in California.\" Committee members and staff explored alternatives that could include thermoplastic pavement legends, red crossing stripe markings, and textured driveway aprons or Belgian block to slow motorists exiting driveways.

The committee approved a request that staff draft a letter asking the select board to place the topic on its agenda; members also discussed routing recommendations through the MPDC per the committee’s advisory role. The committee reviewed a prototype warning sign produced by town sign shop staff (Ray Sylvia) — a green/blue “Nantucket” styled sign produced as a temporary example — and members generally supported presenting a final design to the select board and showing a sample at town meeting. Several members suggested producing thermoplastic pavement versions or stickers for rental and fleet bikes as lower‑cost adjuncts.

Safety and practicality were recurring concerns: some members said vertical signs can be stolen or clutter the landscape, while others said pavement markings and rumble features can better cue riders. Members also noted state and federal traffic control guidance (MUTCD) and MassDOT practices inform what can be used on roadways and crossings; staff said some treatments may require local or state approval.

Next steps: staff will coordinate with the town sign shop and Ray Sylvia on production costs and options, explore pavement marking thermoplastic alternatives, and prepare a letter to the select board asking for a formal presentation and discussion. The committee agreed to revisit the item next month with refined cost estimates and sample materials.

","BPAC discussed replacing stop signs on multiuse paths at private‑road intersections with alternatives including pavement markings, caution signs and a prototype 'Nantucket' wayfinding sign; the committee approved requesting a select board agenda item and expressed support for developing prototype signage and pavement markings.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6301493,"BPAC debates Tom Nevers bike alignment as cost, safety and easements collide",1469,121000,1590000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2487885-9353ea56958d174fdfda904b03bdcaff&start=121&end=1590","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2487885-9353ea56958d174fdfda904b03bdcaff/thumbnail_121000.jpg","/articles/6301493/Nantucket-County/Massachusetts/BPAC-debates-Tom-Nevers-bike-alignment-as-cost-safety-and-easements-collide","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6301493-2987aa43c97bd8782fb86b14cf9cdfc3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771075371&Signature=HNmZA1wNN4GOpx5Ak6Z~84r8dq9utlFKmhPhYxA6zRmZ5AwhtTIvesJAk8rH~h9Ks8bgoQZa-zsUVR0SWxvmDF51HEg4g5DzxYYKKflIE~5m1THjSnXpRA2ezA2xykXq3MsmtEk0XPoItOKAHFyAWM4nL8tVJxYrHEFG6-9SDItWgyrzwvS2zGXSogsxQV1K4GOkp9RAQEKGL8MHk1ooCxWA5iGVyLdyitc4c~XHB3tkGFcb8~ZwhkFXAUQgUZmEjfBi-41XUTSh6k1rbwZL0lNG85ybFYJwmk7GniyMzOfrwK9K3RY649YoxZHbe22EjIJngNuke5ZdM3IGaZFlcw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee met Wednesday to review design alternatives for the Tom Nevers corridor and to weigh trade-offs between safety, property impacts and project cost.

Design consultant materials presented three separate decision points: a short segment between Old Tom Nevers/Old Towne River Road and the playing fields (presented as a choice between on-road bike lanes and a separated multiuse path), and a longer Milestone-to-Nobby/Farm Road segment where staff presented three path alignment variants ranging from right‑next‑to‑the‑road to a 4‑ to 8‑foot buffer. The consultants also presented an estimate of easement impacts and cost for earlier, wider alignments.

Why it matters: the committee is advising the town and the county MPDC on designs tied to a town meeting capital request; alignment choices affect safety for bicyclists and pedestrians but also whether the project requires permanent and temporary easements, rising right‑of‑way and damage‑award costs.

The consultant told the committee the original 6–8 foot buffered alignment for the Milestone-to-Nobby segment would have affected about 64,000 square feet of permanent and temporary easement and carried about $2.6 million in right‑of‑way costs, producing a total project estimate of approximately $7.1 million. The town had previously placed a $6.85 million article on the warrant as an initial budget number. The consultant said later, more property‑sensitive alignments reduce easement area by roughly an order of magnitude and bring the estimate back within that $6.85 million figure.

Committee members split on the short segment from Old Tom Nevers Road to the playing fields. Abutters who responded strongly favored a low‑impact on‑road bike lane (presenter: \"most of them preferred option 1\"), arguing it avoids utility conflicts and permanent takings. Several committee members, citing separation and rider safety observed on other island paths, pushed for a separated path (the multiuse path option) despite the higher impacts. The committee chair said he would record the group’s preference for the separated path on that short section while noting the likely higher cost and potential for contested damage awards; staff said the county commissioners and MPDC will ultimately handle damage‑award decisions.

On the Milestone‑to‑Nobby/Farm Road corridor, the consultant recommended a middle ground (\"option 3\") featuring a 4‑foot buffer between path and roadway with alignment adjustments around utility poles and guy wires. The consultant described that compromise as the minimum buffer that allows vegetation to grow and meet basic design standards while greatly reducing easement takings. Committee members gave a unanimous thumbs‑up to that option (\"thumbs up from Edwin. Thumbs up from Joseph. Thumbs up from RJ\").

Staff emphasized the political and practical realities: some abutters are willing to grant easements, others are strongly opposed, and experience shows projects rarely receive full voluntary donations of right of way. The consultant said roughly half of abutters contacted answered, and that among those respondents willingness to grant easements was split.

The committee did not adopt a formal, binding vote to acquire easements; members instead recorded recommendations to be passed up the decision chain. The consultant said he would 1) adjust cost estimates if the committee’s preferences change the assumed design, and 2) share the committee’s recommendations and the updated cost table with the MPDC and county commissioners for final decisions on damage awards.

Looking ahead: staff will update the cost table and circulate the abutter response spreadsheet to committee members. County commissioners and the MPDC remain the bodies that authorize damage awards and any required acquisitions; committee members asked staff to return with refined cost comparisons at the next meeting.

","The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee reviewed multiple alignment options for the Tom Nevers corridor, with members split between a separated multiuse path and lower-impact bike lanes; the committee endorsed a compromise alignment on a second corridor that keeps the project within the town meeting budget.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

BPAC reviews Pleasant Street one‑way pilot: mixed feedback, data collection planned

BPAC weighs replacing stop signs on bike paths, reviews prototype warning sign

BPAC debates Tom Nevers bike alignment as cost, safety and easements collide