In October 2007 the Town Council created the Shore Road Pathway Committee consisting of seven citizens, a member of the Conservation Commission and a member of the Town Council.  The Town Council’s charge to the Committee was to “study the potential for creating an off road path adjacent to Shore Road that should be designed with sensitivity to the character of Shore Road and in collaboration with property owners abutting Shore Road.  The committee shall at the conclusion of its collaborative process present to the Town Council a path plan that includes a recommended path layout, recommendations for path surface(s), recommendations for any mitigation needed and a cost estimate”.

No.  The committee has ruled out adding any shoulders to Shore Road as exist on Route 77.  Rather, there will be a single 4 to 5 foot pathway on one side of Shore Road with a 3 to 5 foot green space between the road and the pathway to the extent possible.  

No.  The road will remain the same width since the pathway will be off road and no shoulders are being added.  

Yes.   Two studies have found paths or sidewalks along roads improve safety.  A study by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that “in residential and mixed residential areas, pedestrian crashes were more than 2 times as likely to occur at locations without sidewalks…”  (Source: American Journal of Public Health, Sept. 2003, page 1460.)    Another study concluded that “[t]he presence of a sidewalk . . . clearly has a strong beneficial effect of reducing the risk of a walking-along-roadway pedestrian collision with a motor vehicle.”   (Source:  Transportation Research Record 1674, Paper No. 99-1203, page 44).   A  follow-up discussion with Dan Stewart, Manager of the Maine Department of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, confirmed these findings.  Mr. Stewart indicated that even though the path was only on one side, it would be much safer than without the path

Yes.   A member or members of the Shore Pathway committee, together with the Town Planner,  met with every abutter at their property (or at town hall if requested by the abutter) to discuss the pathway prior to the development of the concept plan.  The purpose of the meetings was to learn about any particular concerns of each property owner so the design engineers could incorporate the concerns to the extent possible. 

No.  There are over 3,000 feet of stone walls along the stretch of Shore Road between Fort Williams and the town center. The current design proposal does not contemplate the removal or moving of any of the stone walls.

No.   The pathway is proposed to run entirely in the publicly owned right-of-way except where property owners have offered to grant the town an easement to have the pathway cross their property. 

Many people are under the misconception that their property extends to the edge of paving of a road in front of their house.    However, most roads, including Shore Road,  have a strip of land adjacent to the edge of paving, which strip can be used for purposes of road safety such as drainage, vehicle sight lines and signs; utilities such as water, sewer, electrical, cable and fire hydrants; pedestrian accommodations such as sidewalks, paths, and bike lanes; and mailboxes.  This strip of land is commonly referred to as the right-of way. On Shore Road, the width of the right-of-way strip beyond the paving varies from approximately 5 feet to 15 feet on both sides of the road.  It is helpful to think of the right-of-way as a continuous strip of land, approximately twice the width of the paved road, with the paved road built within the right-of-way.  In new roads the center of the road coincides with the center of the right-of-way, so the adjacent strips of land on each side of the road are approximately equal.  For a variety of reasons, Shore Road is not centered in its right-of-way and therefore the strips of land on either side of the road are unequal.  This has created one of the conditions that makes one side of Shore Road more conducive to a pathway than the other side.   It should be noted in this context that abutting property owners do not own the Right-of-Way or the right to control its use. The right(s) to improve the Right-of-Way previously mentioned are held exclusively by the Town to be exercised for the benefit of the public in general. The public has the right to travel in the right-of-way and the town has the exclusive right to improve the right-of-way for the benefit of the public.

The committee believes that adding markings of the  Right-of-Way limits, prior to actual construction would potentially create the false impression in the public’s eye that all of the land and everything located within the ROW limits would be disturbed.  In fact, in many instances the proposed pathway does not extend to the limits of the ROW and involves only a very small percentage of trees.   No stonewalls are being disturbed even though many are in the ROW.   Abutters were given a copy of the survey map that shows the right of way during their individual visits and it is available on the committee website.

The most recent proposal is on the web under the Shore Road Pathway Committee site.  A copy can also be seen at the Town Planner’s office in Town Hall. 

No.  This was a design concept goal that the committee developed in an effort to stay within the right-of-way, and avoid significant physical features such as stone walls, fences, trees, ledge.  Although a 5 foot separation between the pathway and the edge of Shore Road was the committee’s original design goal, there are some places where a 5 foot separation is not feasible without removal of stone walls, trees or ledge, and the committee has therefore chosen to narrow the esplanade to avoid unnecessary interference with these physical features.

There are many more physical constraints on the shore side of the road. Also, there are fewer issues with right-of-way constraints on the land side of Shore Road. For a complete comparative listing of the characteristics of the two sides of the road that the committee considered, see the committee’s  website (www.capeelizabeth.com).

The committee has not placed any restrictions on users.  The committee expects that the pathway would be used by walkers, joggers, and casual bike riders.  The relatively narrow design of the pathway and the meandering nature of the pathway make it unsuitable for bike riders who want to travel at anything other than a casual pace.  Because the width of the pathway is about the same as a town sidewalk, the users of the pathway are expected to be the same as those who would choose to use a sidewalk.

Once the concept is completed, the engineering firm will develop cost estimates.  We expect those in March. 

This project will probably be funded from a variety of local, state, federal and private grant funds.  The specifics will need to be determined after we know the cost.  The cost of the feasibility study was $35,000, with  $28,000 of the cost funded by the Portland Area Comprehensive Transportation Committee (PACTS), and $7,000 funded by the town of Cape Elizabeth.  No other funds have been spent to date, and no other funds will be spent without approval of the Town Council.

The current proposal calls for cutting  about  20 trees, or less than 5 percent of all trees that lie within 10 feet of the edge of the road way.  All the trees proposed to be cut are in the right-of-way.  No trees above 3 inches in diameter will be cut in Robinson Woods. 

Whatever noise level currently exists on Shore Road is unlikely to change appreciably as a result of the pathway.   The objective quantity of sound, as measured by a decibel meter, is influenced more by vehicle traffic then pedestrian traffic.  Both types of traffic appear to be steadily increasing on Shore Road, so in the future Shore Road will probably have a higher and more sustained ambient sound level then it now has, regardless of whether or not the path is built.   Some people consider the sound of pedestrians as unwanted noise but do not object strongly to traffic sounds, and some people have the opposite feeling.  In either case, the perception of noise levels as a nuisance is subjective and not easily measured.  The committee does not expect the measurable sound level and profile to change appreciably with the presence of the path.