Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1z5hyr wrote on December 28, 2022 at 2:11 PM

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

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.

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1z689d wrote on December 28, 2022 at 2:17 PM

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.

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1zaamk wrote on December 28, 2022 at 2:49 PM

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!

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1zf7zy wrote on December 28, 2022 at 3:26 PM

“…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.

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1zh4be wrote on December 28, 2022 at 3:39 PM

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?