Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1yy6tp wrote

Reply to comment by lightningbolt1987 in Brett Smiley looks to change / eliminate bicycle lane on South Water Street by Locksmith-Pitiful

Unfortunately, we're kind of running out of time to meet our 2030 climate goals here, we cannot keep katowing to businesses and wealthy people.

I'd wager that if we put accessible infrastructure on the side streets, it'd still be opposed by residents and businesses because:

  • it would reduce business overflow parking

  • bring in poorer people who have less money and commit more crime

  • streets wouldn't be able to plow, garbage collection couldn't happen

Note: all these are of course, false and hyperbolic but would likely be used to oppose it.

5

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1z3m17 wrote

There would still be opposition on side streets but not nearly as much. Because Providence is still getting used to bike infrastructure we need to pick and choose our battles. Besides it IS unusual to remove a full side of parking in a commercial district for a cycle track. That’s not how it’s done in Boston and NYC—there it’s usually a road diet like south water. Removing parking is more controversial than removing a travel lane.

Anyway, point being: we need to be really strategic about how we advance bike infrastructure so that we don’t blow up the whole effort over petty battles.

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1z5hyr wrote

While I want to agree with you, climate change, people dying, etc, can't wait. We just can't.

I disagree about your assessment of New York City and Boston or any major cities for that matter as we have repeatedly removed on street parking for an accessible lane. Do businesses complain? Yup. And they'll complain no matter where we put it.

We need to recognize that people will oppose this regardless no matter where we put it to more or less the same degree. In fact, I could argue that the South St. Bike lane and Blackstone were the most controversial yet because they reduced the number of lanes.

3

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1z689d wrote

People always complain but there’s places that cause more or less angst. It’s why NYC put lanes on less busy 1st and 2nd Avenue and not Madison or Park Avenues, and didn’t remove parking, and why they’re trying to put a cycle track on Schermerhorn and not Atlantic in Brooklyn and, again, not remove parking. Less controversial and less busy.

You and I both want the same thing but I’m just trying to be pragmatic so we don’t self destruct. Also, I agree we can’t wait on climate change, but putting a bike lane on Camp or Morris vs Hope has the same transit outcome (safe north-south biking between Olney Street and Lippet Park) so neither is better for the environment than the other—that’s sort of a red herring argument.

Anyway: this isn’t about Hope, it’s about South Water, which is a great place for a cycle track for urban design reasons (quieting the street and making a better waterfront).

People in Providence are very car-centric. We need to be very political about how we proceed, otherwise we’ll undermine our own efforts.

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1zaamk wrote

From a progressive policy perspective, it's often best to aim where we ought to be but understand it'll fall short. Aim for Hope Street but in reality, it'll likely be built on a side street. If we aim low, we'll get opposition who will drag us further down. Does this make sense? Kinda one of those shitty motivational quotes, "aim high and even if you lose, you'll be at a good place."

> putting a bike lane on Camp or Morris vs Hope has the same transit outcome

100% disagree. This is quite literally, transportation discrimination. Hope St. is a huge commercial and school district, we need a path there. No one wants to bike the side street, get to Hope, and be vulnerable.

>Anyway: this isn’t about Hope, it’s about South Water, which is a great place for a cycle track for urban design reasons (quieting the street and making a better waterfront).

People often forget that tourism and walkability is huge, especially in that area. No one wants to hear or smell a highway as they fish, walk about, etc.

>People in Providence are very car-centric. We need to be very political about how we proceed, otherwise we’ll undermine our own efforts.

I agree, I just don't want to aim low. Set expectations high!

1

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1zf7zy wrote

“…No one wants to bike the side street, get to Hope, and be vulnerable.”

This is how it works in most places. In Boston you bike down commonwealth avenue and cut over on whichever side street you want to get to Newbury. Same with NYC. You bike on the quiet street and cut over to the shopping street at the relevant block and you barely bike down the shopping street—you cut over and park the bike. This seems to be best practice.

Do you have ANY examples on main shopping streets where parking has been removed for cycle tracks?

Maybe Cambridge Street in Cambridge which is pretty prime but no parking was removed, just a lane of traffic.

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1zh4be wrote

There's many if you dig down into the case studies or do a bit of google searching. And of course, businesses and wealthy folks in those areas come up with the same shitty arguments.

All I'm saying is, especially in the advent of climate change, we need to aim high, and we need to ensure we aren't being discriminatory based on someone's transportation.

My personal opinion is: Fuck the opposition, they will always be there, this is why we have experts. If your thoughts and ideas aren't grounded in evidence or reason, why should they be considered? I get this is murky water for politicians but for fucks sake, we're falling so behind by considering the ideas of Billy down the fucking street who rolls coal on pedestrians over Dr. Jim who spent his entire life publishing research over this, know what I mean?

1