The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee on Nantucket debated whether stop signs on multiuse paths should be removed at some intersections, with staff warning state design standards and public-safety staff advising caution.

BPAC Chair Ian Golding opened the discussion by noting the item was the “status of path stop sign removal,” and said he has been involved “since its inception 6 years ago.” Mike Burns, a town staff member who presented a slide deck, summarized the conflict: state and federal guidance recommend path stop signs and stop bars at most roadway crossings, while a spreadsheet of local recommendations suggested removing some path stop signs at minor crossings.

"The Massachusetts Department of Transportation's design guide for paths crossing roads ... notes that in most cases stop signs are to be provided on a path approaches," Burns said, adding that the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) guidance is used on state-funded projects and that an exemption would be required to depart from it.

Committee members raised legal and practical questions about right-of-way and local control. "My personal point of view is that I think a lot of accidents happen when things get confusing," committee member Michelle Kramer said, asking how local bylaws and state law interact. Committee member Edwin Claflin, who lives beside one of the contested locations, said drivers often fail to see the path and urged retaining stop signs where motorists might otherwise cross fast.

Public safety staff and police were reported to have recommended retaining many path stop signs. Burns said traffic-safety, police, fire and DPW staff recommended keeping path stop signs at several locations and improving markings and crosswalk treatments rather than wholesale removal.

BPAC members also discussed treatments to improve visibility and user behavior. Burns and others described alternatives such as continental ("piano-key") crosswalk markings and parallel-bar markings; green pavement markings for bike lanes; raised crossings; and detectable warning panels. Burns said some rural locations may be better served by parallel bars to preserve a rural aesthetic, while more settled areas may warrant more visible continental crossings.

The committee voted to continue work before taking a recommendation to the Select Board: members approved a motion to review the spreadsheets with accompanying photographs and identify which intersections they consider minor and candidates for stop-sign removal. The roll-call vote was recorded as unanimous in favor (7-0). Earlier in the meeting the minutes had been approved with five approvals and two abstentions.

Why it matters: the debate weighs local desires to reduce unnecessary stops for bicyclists against state design standards intended to protect all users when paths cross roadways. Several committee members urged clearer definitions of what qualifies as a "major intersection" versus a minor driveway or private road crossing.

The committee directed members to send annotated spreadsheets and photos to staff before the next meeting so the group can rate each crossing and return with a recommended list for the Select Board. Burns said staff would present recommendations and noted some crossings are tied to state- or federally-funded projects that must follow MUTCD/MassDOT standards unless a formal design exemption is granted.

The discussion concluded with committee members and presenters agreeing to further review specific locations, pursue improved pavement markings where appropriate, and bring a consolidated recommendation and supporting materials to the Select Board.