Brett Smiley looks to change / eliminate bicycle lane on South Water Street

Submitted by Locksmith-Pitiful t3_zwilbz in providence

Article: https://www.providencejournal.com/restricted/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.providencejournal.com%2Fstory%2Fnews%2Flocal%2F2022%2F12%2F27%2Fprovidence-mayor-elect-brett-smiley-looks-ahead-to-upcoming-term%2F69739894007%2F

Fragment of article:

Another change coming to the city's streets may be the location of the South Water Street bike lane, which last year become a hard fought battle among cyclists, businesses, the city and the state.

"I think it’s worth looking at whether that is in the right place. At a minimum, I think the parallel parking adjacent to the bike path … is challenging," Smiley said, pointing out the food trucks and vendors routinely stationed nearby for the Providence Flea market.

Smiley said he is "not afraid to ask" whether relocation is necessary, but said a decision "won’t be without consultation of bike advocates as well." However, Smiley's spokeswomen, Patricia Socarras, later said Smiley is open to eliminating the bike lane.

Overall, the public can "anticipate that there would be either new or realigned bike paths in my administration," Smiley said, noting that as it stands, the city's bike lanes and paths are fragmented and therefore may leave cyclists unsafe.

27

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Status_Silver_5114 t1_j1uwav5 wrote

Reminds me why I didn’t vote for him.

65

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1v53y8 wrote

>Reminds me why I didn’t vote for him.

It was a relatively small percentage if I recall correctly. If the two more progressive candidates weren't running against one another or if we had ranked voting, I'd wager he'd likely lose.

Smiley was quite popular with businesses, realtors and developers, wealthy, and older (mostly) white people.

16

AltruisticBowl4 t1_j1whrho wrote

I really liked Nirva but still kind of wish she had dropped out in the last two weeks when it was clear Gonzalo was pulling ahead—feels like it just ended up splitting the progressive vote unnecessarily.

9

Mountain_Bill5743 t1_j1x1v0k wrote

Let's not forget that the South water bike lane was hugely contentious for the businesses because of parking.

He's quite popular with realtors as his husband is the (I believe) top selling real estate agent on the East Side.

So, yeah, popular with those groups is definitely accurate.

6

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1yhbp0 wrote

But it didn’t eliminate any parking! When on earth can the detractors just let this south water thing go and admit that it’s fine.

11

Mountain_Bill5743 t1_j1zsecm wrote

Ah thats right! thanks for the correction. I believe they eliminated a lane (which really hasn't been missed, as a driver).

3

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1ut76y wrote

My opinion:

Brett Smiley, while appearing as a Democrat, is quite moderate and very pro business even at the detriment of the community according to previous debates and statements.

I'm not sure why eliminating a bike lane because "it's fragmented" is a logical conclusion. It would be most helpful to do the opposite, to construct more and connect them. Additionally, in that area, people use the bike lane to walk, bike, and even during certain events to use it as a seating and walkable area. Eliminating this for cars only degrades the community.

Of course, this also encourages pollution (RI is about to miss its 2030 goals solely due to lack of non-car infrastructure), makes it more dangerous, and ignores the large population of students and those in the area who bike, use public transit, and walk.

63

kbd77 t1_j1vb108 wrote

“Moderate” lol

11

AbigailFlippinfloppn t1_j1vdne3 wrote

Moderate is a euphemism for right wing, always

12

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1vf6ky wrote

>Moderate is a euphemism for right wing, always

Trying not to go down a huge rabbit hole about liberal vs. democrat vs. progressive, right wing vs. modern conservative, etc...

I personally call him a moderate democrat because he isn't a progressive one. He isn't going to do stupid shit like ban gay marriage or abortion, but he likely won't fight for green energy, public transportation, income equality, etc. He's likely to side with businesses and developers.

If he was in congress, he isn't going to side with AOC or Bernie, he'd likely vote like Manchin. Overall, not much progress or change will happen, it's likely to be a slow 4 years.

17

AbigailFlippinfloppn t1_j1vfh5i wrote

Tbf there is no left here. Bernie, AOC, etc are centrists. They can't even back up the rail workers ffs

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1vg8fr wrote

After the rail worker shit, I understand... as a progressive, I'm like, WTF? At the same time, there were several statements released by the progressive democrats essentially saying their hands were tied and that "it was complicated." Many of them voted for sick days but it was dismissed. I still think the progressive democrats are doing pretty damn good work though, still, the rail union was fucked.

3

AbigailFlippinfloppn t1_j1vhhlx wrote

Nah, there is no excuse. Always stand with labor. But that's the difference between actual socialists and these spineless social democrats.

3

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1vhqh9 wrote

I need to research it more unfortunately, I feel unequipped to give any strong opinions or thoughts :( At a surface level, it appears super shitty, I need to dive in more.

5

Sarcofaygo t1_j1w5avi wrote

Most democrats are moderate tbh

Joe Biden is a great example of this.

He literally voted to overturn Roe vs. Wade when Reagan was president.

He called for an invasion of Iraq as early as 1998.

He sided with Bush and voted to invade Afghanistan

He sided with Bush and voted to invade Iraq

In 2021, he rounded up thousands of black haitians refugees and violently deported him.

Yet in 2022, he called for 100,000 ukranian (white) refugees

That was where he lost me.

−1

jconti1233 t1_j1usyj7 wrote

Came to Reddit once i saw this in projo. Smh, I ride that lane every day towards work. Thought smiley was gonna be a bike ally :/

48

aKnowing t1_j1vqsq0 wrote

Honestly as a walker down that path it’s frustrating how many people still ride their bikes the whole way on the sidewalk right next to the bike path

5

alekoz47 t1_j22amyo wrote

This is a response to the design of the pedestrian bridge. For some reason they made no on-ramp from the bike lane near the bridge itself. If you're traveling north, you need to turn onto the sidewalk on Dollar St, otherwise you have to overshoot.

2

aKnowing t1_j22hxnr wrote

Ah yeah that makes a lot of sense now, I hadn’t considered that

2

beta_vulgaris t1_j1uwhzx wrote

Dismantling infrastructure that makes Providence a more modern & multi modal city is a great way to ensure you are a one term mayor.

43

jconti1233 t1_j1uxjlf wrote

Going after bike lanes on day 1, cause, you know, priorities.

26

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j1voewr wrote

That isn't remotely what the article says and I'm not sure how anyone can see it that way even with a cherrypicked quote like this. Hell, it sounds like he was just asked about it because he was out in public kind of near the location and it was a pretty controversial topic.

It's like the 4th topic addressed in the story and easily the least consequential thing.

It also sounds like nothing has changed from his answer on the topic when he was a candidate.

5

jconti1233 t1_j1vpg1f wrote

From projo article during primary:

"However, Smiley added that he feels construction should be done "in a way that makes sense so that we’re not promptly ripping it up again, which happens all too often."

Like Cuervo, Smiley hinted at the need for adequate communications surrounding the city's work.

"Nobody likes feeling like they were surprised," he said. "Nobody likes feeling like it happened overnight or that it was done over their objections."

During primary race/In this interview his responses were pro great streets initiative. Now.. not so much

10

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j1vqnxw wrote

IDK, it sounds like he's just saying "maybe this wasn't the best planned or executed idea" and he's open to change. People are acting like it's a much more definitive statement than it is.

If anything, I'd imagine the only likely change is maybe making it narrower or something.

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1x0prx wrote

Interesting how his first plan of action isn't to be proactive about accessible infrastructure and public transit, it's literally to eliminate parts of it.

And let's be real, by "change" it's his politician speak that means to absolutely eliminate it (or hinder it to an unusable extent) because businesses hate this shit. He's indicated previously that business demands are the top priority.

6

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j1x54nw wrote

I think using the phrase “first priority” requires willful divorce from reality.

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1x6yaz wrote

Huh? It was one of his top priorities. It was such a specific, targeted topic, it's so clear he has a grudge. I think that thinking he means anything other than eliminating it requires a divorce from reality.

2

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j1x9jso wrote

Where does he even call it a priority, much less one of his top ones? That isn’t what the piece or the quotes say at all.

3

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1xa69r wrote

While technically you may be right, his priority has been business first, and businesses don't like this. It appears this may have been his first thought when asked about bikes which is a worrying sign for our accessible infrastructure and green energy goals.

1

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1yj5er wrote

There aren’t that man businesses on south water and right now at least Wild Colonial, Cafe Modest, and Baccaro support the bike lane. I bet others do too now that it’s been implemented and hasn’t effected their business. The PVD streets coalition should organize these businesses so show the new mayor that businesses do support it.

1

boop-snoot-boogie t1_j1vjv1u wrote

We need safer spaces for cyclists and pedestrians who intentionally live in a walkable urban area, not racetracks for suburbanites who are accustomed to speeding from surface parking lot to surface parking lot with total disregard to the safety of anybody not in a metal box.

It’s so annoying that even the smallest victories for mobility in this city can be reversed without constant resistance. Like, why don’t we just tear down the pedestrian bridge and re-route 195 over the river while were at it? Brett Smiley is as progressive as the rock stuck in my shoe.

21

Sarcofaygo t1_j1w5heq wrote

> Brett Smiley is as progressive as the rock stuck in my shoe.

So he's a typical democrat politician?

2

boop-snoot-boogie t1_j1wcuf8 wrote

Well, unfortunately yeah

3

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wd2mi wrote

I had hope for Biden until the 2021 Haitian refugee crisis. He basically got away with it because "at least he isn't Trump". The bar goes ever lower as we circle the drain.

1

hurricanetruther t1_j221tbg wrote

One of Smiley's unsavory allies is Joe "I Own 7 Acres of Parking Lots" Paolino Jr. He believes there's no greater threat to Providence than bike lanes and speed bumps.

As long as that idiot's advising him, we shouldn't expect much progress on transit.

6

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1yijqp wrote

We need to change our tact here. Smiley is a new mayor who is still pretty ignorant about basic city planning practices. Now is the time to educate him in a supportive way, not alienate him and push him further right by name calling.

I think he’s a pragmatist and he’s just heard more from the few but vocal opponents than he has from supporters and so he thinks this anti-south water street bike path view is the popular one.

Now is the time to letter write to show that many voters support this sort of infrastructure.

5

FourAM t1_j1uzn0z wrote

You guys elected this wolf in sheep’s clothing? Fuck.

4

UncleJimmee t1_j1w6xll wrote

Most ppl in pvd didn't vote for him. The majority (~58%) of the D primary votes were split between Ceurvo and LaFortune. Since there's no way pvd would vote R the ofc Smiley won the general w 94%

edit to add: primary voter turnout was terrible like 14%(?). So literally: no one voted for him.

8

2ears_1_mouth t1_j1z5912 wrote

I just spent the holidays in more progressive and modern cities, trying to convince myself that Providence has hope too. Then I see this from our mayor.

The best cities in the US (and worldwide) are working on increasing density while decreasing reliance on cars by boosting public transportation and adding as much pedestrian/bike access as possible. Just look at Boston, Worcester, Jersey City, Manhattan, Seattle, Portland, Paris, Amsterdam, Shanghai.

What's with our anti-progressive agenda in RI? We're the joke of New England.

4

Jerkeyjoe t1_j1zi1td wrote

It's done, leave it alone. We should be finding ways to encourage people to not drive to things.

3

listen_youse t1_j1vp1yn wrote

Not even mayor yet and this is Job #1?? Sucking right up to the Nextdoor Karens that voted for him.

  1. Even if the new version of South Water street were congested, reverting to 2 lanes could not increase its capacity beyond the limit set by the intersection at Point St.
  2. Before the change, traffic routinely went 40mph or more. When your park is across and right next to 40mph traffic it feels less like a park than a highway embankment.
  3. The solution to Fragmented Bike Lanes is connect them, not eliminate them.
  4. Yeah right, realigned = Put it someplace where it won't even make car drivers imagine needing to slow down.
  5. More upon request...
2

lestermagnum t1_j1vsni5 wrote

As someone mentioned earlier, this is like the fourth or fifth subject, he was asked about in the interview. I suggest you read the whole article before commenting.

8

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wr7y3 wrote

How do you connect the bike lanes without making certain lanes too narrow for larger vehicles?

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1yxidg wrote

This has already been answered in providence's great streets plan. Federal and state guidelines dictate roads have to fit trailers, garbage trucks, plows, etc.

The real question though is: what about everyone else who doesn't drive? They literally don't even have a lane.

3

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j200vu7 wrote

Part of why that Eaton Bike lane didn't stick was because Great Streets failed account for the road not having a consistent width. I'm sure there's room to learn from mistakes but that's a mistake that was already pretty avoidable.

3

weednpornnpolitics t1_j1xtdui wrote

Lol. If cuervo hadnt come out and said hed bulldoze triggs for housing, i'd have voted for him. Idt anyone outside the east side brunch liberal enclave that smiley lives in really cares for him. Also, glad he's talking about fckuing bike lanes, guess we have the fent, violent crime, homelessness etc problems all sewn up

1

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1yk4or wrote

I also have to say, while I personally support the idea of a Hope Street bike lane, the bike community wasted a huge amount of political capital on that effort and put all bike lanes, including south water, at risk. Putting it on a parallel street to hope would have been so much less controversial and had the same effect for access. Instead we started this massive battle that created enemies with voters who otherwise would have been ambivalent at most about bike lanes.

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1yy6tp wrote

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

lestermagnum t1_j1ylj7b wrote

Have they released the results of the surveys and studies they did from Hope St yet? I don’t think I’ve seen them.

1

Jay-stevns1204 t1_j25ygo4 wrote

Good, this is a city and public safety should come into play. Eliminating a travel lane and cutting into response time is dangerous.

0

hellionlord t1_j1vdt5b wrote

The bike lanes are an overwhelmingly unpopular vanity project by an outgoing administration. While they maybe popular on the subreddit the Broad St bike lane sees little use and it increased congestion considerably. It’s not just businesses who dislike the bike paths despite what many seem to believe.

−5

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1vgy1l wrote

> The bike lanes are an overwhelmingly unpopular vanity project by an outgoing administration.

I don't mind an org that pushes for progress, especially in a state where its people are seemingly hellbent on staying the same and stuck in their ways.

>While they maybe popular on the subreddit the Broad St bike lane sees little use and it increased congestion considerably.

People are still accustomed to cars. Over time, as we increase non-car infrastructure, congestion will go down as people pick up bikes, public transit, and walking.

>It’s not just businesses who dislike the bike paths despite what many seem to believe.

It kind of is along with older, wealthy people. Most young people, students, low income, and minorities are pretty much in favor of it. But, who cares? A populations support of X is mostly irrelevant to whether X is beneficial.

If it was based purely on support, we'd likely still be a few centuries behind... would we even have cars? What about locally, the pedestrian bridge? Wind turbines? Everyone I talked to about that was against those. Even the Blackstone path and bike lane was shit on but now look at how successful it was.

Ultimately, we need to look at the evidence, and it quite clearly says what the right thing to do is. We need an administration to consult and listen to the the experts and move with their recommendations.

5

hellionlord t1_j1vj2o5 wrote

My experience is limited to talking to people, I’m unaware if any polling was done, but I don’t believe this is supported by low income of minority communities. The only people I’ve spoken with who support the bike lanes are white and considerably more wealthy than most in the south side.

3

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1vjjq6 wrote

> My experience is limited to talking to people, I’m unaware if any polling was done, but I don’t believe this is supported by low income of minority communities.

>A populations support of X is mostly irrelevant to whether X is beneficial.

3

hellionlord t1_j1vq74f wrote

This isn’t a soda tax or cigarette tax, this has a measurable negative affect on the community it is effecting. Bike commuting simply isn’t viable for many people and to try to stretch this into a way it forces them to is both ludicrous and harmful.

7

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1vrvle wrote

I agree, there is a measureable negative effect when we only cater to cars.

4

Sarcofaygo t1_j1w5uyt wrote

Do you actually think it's possible to make Providence suitable for traveling without cars? You need a car or a bus pass to get around. A bike isn't gonna get it done for long distances. Plus a lot of bikers use the sidewalk instead of the bike lane, even on roads WITH the bike lanes.

3

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1we3w9 wrote

> Do you actually think it's possible to make Providence suitable for traveling without cars?

Considering we are one of the smallest, densest cities around yet other modern cities do it, I think the question answers itself.

It becomes challenging when people continually fight against public transit and this accessible infrastructure though... Quite hard to even walk 5 minutes without nearly being killed, but hey, we got parking 🥴

5

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wejep wrote

Would you say that many bikers choosing to use the sidewalk instead of the bike lanes right next to them is helping increase or decrease support for more bike lanes?

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1weyq0 wrote

Pointing to a few bikers using sidewalks is such a deflection and I hope you're not using it as any reasonable argument. I have never seen this used in any meetings or in any community so I have no idea. I've never seen a cyclist use one either except a few children.

If anything, a cyclist (or even a kid) using the sidewalk likely indicates a safe lane should be constructed.

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wfp7c wrote

I'm talking about when a bike lane is available....

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wfyw3 wrote

Why are you posing hypotheticals that rarely, if ever, happen?

My answer above is applicable.

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wgcn6 wrote

It's actually very common for bikers to be extremely aloof. Like the ones who bike directly In traffic when a sidewalk is available. It's a hazard for both themselves and the people driving

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wgpe9 wrote

>Like the ones who bike directly In traffic when a sidewalk is available

That's the law. Maybe they should have an accessible lane on the street.

And wait, weren't we talking about riding on the sidewalk?

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wifmn wrote

I'm using it as an example of how biking and cars do not coexist well in general. Both the bicyclist and the automobile driver are put into danger. Especially at night. Idc if it's legal, it's not safe

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wj8l9 wrote

I agree. It's also not safe for them to be on sidewalks.

Let's not blame the 10 pound bicycle... Maybe, just maybe, 5 ton vehicles that 16 year olds can drive with little training weren't a good idea - that's my super liberal part talking.

Let's build safe, accessible, streets for everyone.

1

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wla3s wrote

Banning cars & buses isn't gonna happen, sorry

And doing so would probably disproportionately impact disabled people who can't ride a bike... Doesn't sound very "liberal" to me!

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wnymu wrote

I never insinuated banning cars, please reread what I wrote. If you're going to operate a motor vehicle, you should have much, much more training and continual renewal. This is a big reason why so many people die on the road, bad drivers.

You've also strawmanned and deflected so many of my points. We get it. You hate bikes.

1

lestermagnum t1_j1w8t0x wrote

Another problem is that most of Providence relies on people coming in from outside of the city, either to work or dine or to support events. Those people need car infrastructure.

3

Sarcofaygo t1_j1w93fe wrote

Exactly. The notion of a walkable city is a great idea, but it has to be planned that way from the start. It's too late to retroactively change, in my opinion.

As-is, it's potentially fatal to travel by bike because there is many roads without adequate sidewalks.... Let alone bike lanes

3

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j1wazu9 wrote

I think there's probably room for improvements in areas. Some wholesale change like a car free downtown or something is ranging between very difficult and impossible.

All things considered, the city isn't that bad for walkability. There's plenty of spots that you could point to and say "That needs to be better" in terms of design, traffic calming , etc but I think the walkability and bike-ability issues aren't really one in the same.

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wbo0i wrote

That's fair. I think what I'm trying to say is that there is areas where that is true, but they are little "zones". However to go a long distance from one zone to another is where difficulties are encountered

1

jconti1233 t1_j1wgrrn wrote

Pvd was built before cars existed

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wiad6 wrote

Genius take. How does that apply to today? Best of luck biking across the city with all the cars

0

jconti1233 t1_j1winet wrote

The point being pvd was originally retrofitted to fit cars. Making pvd more walkable puts the city back in line with it's original design

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wlprq wrote

Wouldn't reducing accessibility by car/bus disproportionately impact disabled people who can't walk or bike? OP of this thread has implied they no longer want PVD to be a car city. I guess disabled people will have to shelter in place for the rest of their lives

1

jconti1233 t1_j1wmtib wrote

Not an expert in the topic, but valid concern. Imho A nice bike lane is a lot easier to use than the sidewalk for low accessibility people. I agree with your premise though, Public transit for low accessibility residents is the mark of a solid public transit system

1

bbristow6 t1_j1wrtj7 wrote

You don’t need a car or a bus to get around. I’ve lived in Providence for 6 years and have never owned/used a car. I started biking 4 years ago and will go down to Bristol just to get food. I also teach bike safety, so I know that riding on the sidewalk is a big no no. Meaning I ride on the street where I’m supposed to be

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1ws45q wrote

Riding on the street is where you are legally supposed to be, but it's also a dangerous place to be for both the bike rider and the car drivers. That was the impetus for making the bike lanes in the first place IIRC. Otherwise why not just ride bikes on the street in traffic

1

bbristow6 t1_j1ws952 wrote

So, you’re saying every street in Rhode Island should have a bike lane because it’s possible to get all over the state on a bike? I agree

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wsgkl wrote

Is that logistically possible? And where does the money for this come from? Tax hikes?

1

bbristow6 t1_j1wslru wrote

Exactly. It’s not. So car drivers should just accept that bicycles are supposed to be on the road, and stop freaking out when someone on a bike is in front of them

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wwydy wrote

So true, head on collisions caused by cars having to swerve left to avoid bikers is a small price to pay

1

bbristow6 t1_j1wx3g5 wrote

If they’re choosing to pass when there’s a car coming in the other lane, then it’s the drivers fault and I hope they get in an accident

1

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wxzux wrote

Very sane take. It'd be much better if they kept driving straight ahead and collided with you instead, right?

1

bbristow6 t1_j1wy8g9 wrote

Nope! They slow down and wait 5 seconds. I know it’s a super inconvenience to have to wait a whole 5 seconds; but if you can do it, you’ll be saving your life and the other driver or cyclist

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1x24d7 wrote

So that the car behind them can potentially ram into them instead? Still a collision potential. All because you want to play in traffic

1

bbristow6 t1_j1x29qp wrote

If the car behind you is so close that they hit you for SLOWING DOWN, not a full stop, then they’re way to close😂 I can do this all day my dude

2

Sarcofaygo t1_j1x3fya wrote

Lmao at you thinking it'd reasonable for people to risk car accidents so that you can weave in and out of the traffic lane

1

bbristow6 t1_j1x3l56 wrote

You’re lumping all cyclists into the “wheelie boy” category. Some of us do actually follow the rules of the road

2

bbristow6 t1_j1x3s67 wrote

And I’ve been hit by dumbass car drivers who have pulled out of side streets, without stopping at the very clear stop sign. There are idiots everywhere. It’s not dependent on what their choice of vehicle is

2

hellionlord t1_j1wdoh4 wrote

Everything you say seems to suggest you only care about your own view in this situation

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wfdsm wrote

When I'm in a conversation with conspiracy theorists, Republicans, or science deniers, they often claim the same.

I go by the evidence, that's all. If accessible infrastructure was demonstrated to be shit, I'd say it's shit. Unfortunately for you, the evidence strongly suggests the opposite.

0

hellionlord t1_j1wg4on wrote

What an embarrassing cop out. If you want to advanced green transportation initiatives you should do so in way that is productive and inclusive. You seem to be pretty uninformed about this topic so I get why you don’t want to talk about it in a detailed way.

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wgest wrote

What evidence do you have that catering to only cars in a city provides more benefit than a city that has accessible infrastructure for everyone?

All my reasoning is based literally on the US and global transit positions and goals and evidence in urban planning journals.

1

hellionlord t1_j1wl1ln wrote

I don’t need evidence to argue for that position, as I haven’t advocated for that. What evidence do you have that increased idling and stagnant traffic is good for the environment?

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wo9mp wrote

You've railed against accessible infrastructure. What evidence do you have it isn't a good idea?

>What evidence do you have that increased idling and stagnant traffic is good for the environment?

Accessible infrastructure reduces car use and congestion. It's the same notion that "to decrease congestion, we need more lanes" but in reality, congestion and pollution increases because it encourages car use.

1

hellionlord t1_j1wqcl9 wrote

I haven’t railed against anything, I’ve simply stated that the bike lanes as they are, are underutilized and increased traffic congestion.

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1wv10h wrote

>I’ve simply stated that the bike lanes as they are, are underutilized and increased traffic congestion.

Fuck these arguments are horribly illogical but I'll take the bait.

I'd love to see the stats on that, not that it matters, we make investments all the time because we know from the evidence it works out in the long run, right? You also know that in that long run, congestion decreases and this infrastructure is more used, right...? How do you think cars came about? Or acceptance of renewable energy? Or literally anything else? It's a mindset shift through infrastructure, something we do all the time to advance society.

Anyhoo, all the more reason to keep moving forward with building more.

1

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1yjizm wrote

There’s not an increase in traffic. South Water Street is empty 95% of the day and barely has traffic at rush hour. That’s partially why the bike lane makes sense at that location—the road was previously way over capacity for how many cars used it.

1

jconti1233 t1_j1wi1fw wrote

The vast majority of Streets has side walks on both sides, car lanes on both sides and parking on both sides.

As a bicycler I know I'm in a minority, but minority rights are important. Being able to travel safely seems like a right, no?

It's just hard and frustrating that there is one discontinuous bike lane to get across town and to see the mayor go after them in his first 4 topics seems like the wrong direction for a brand new administration

1

hellionlord t1_j1wofjb wrote

Orrrrr it highlights how unpopular they are among most folks.

3

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1ww7t2 wrote

The general public doesn't always know what's best for them ffs... hence why we have experts for everything, and take a wild guess on what transportation and urban academics and engineers suggest. And fun fucking fact, if the public had 100% control, we wouldn't even have the fucking cars you seem to suck off to.

God damn, your arguments are poor and lack any sort of empathy. The person you replied to just wants to get to work fucking safely. I promise you, bike lanes aren't your fucking enemy dude

3

hellionlord t1_j1x1upy wrote

“The general public doesn’t always know what’s best for them” is a disturbing thing to say as well

4

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1x2m5a wrote

They don't. For fucks sake, the general public was against cars, gay marriage, evolution and other mainstream science being taught in schools, fuck... a good portion of the population still think fucking Trump is fucking president.

Do you have any idea on how progress is made? You consult and rely on the fucking experts, not the public, and not solely businesses which is what Smiley is doing. What the fuck is the point of science and experts if we don't listen to them?

Accessible infrastructure is supported by mountains of evidence and all urban and transit orgs. You don't need to listen to fucking Billy down the street who knows fuck all about it.

−1

hellionlord t1_j1x4f33 wrote

I don’t know why you seem to believe there is a universally scientific consensus that the bike lanes in Providence are good as they are designed.

4

hellionlord t1_j1x4mnj wrote

Also, you seem like a lunatic. We are having a discussion about bike lanes and you bring up marriage equality and trump?

2

Dunder72 t1_j1z24ne wrote

Speaking of Trump, does he ride a bike?

0

hellionlord t1_j1x1h1h wrote

Please talk to a civil engineer about their thoughts on the new bike lanes. Unlike you, I actually have.

3

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1x1tuq wrote

The fact you think civil engineers solely have the hand in neighborhood building shows your ignorance -- in fact, civil engineers widely likely support this because it's what they're taught in schools because it's grounded in the fucking evidence. I've already went to meetings and talked to crowds of not just civil engineers, but everyone else involved.

Please consult an urban studies or transit academic journal. You're kind of behind on the times. Cars aren't the way forward anymore.

2

hellionlord t1_j1x669m wrote

Recommend me the people you have talked to, I’d love to talk to them.

2

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1x6oxd wrote

Come to the many meetings around transportation, accessible infrastructure, and urban planning in the city. These are often held by the city itself and elected officials from lawmakers to individual council members. Do let them know cars are the best way forward, perhaps if they have the patience, they'll explain to you why you're behind.

1

hellionlord t1_j1x91yx wrote

What meetings?

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1x9d4z wrote

I suggest you email your local council person, follow the Providence planning social media (there was an event just like this the other week starring a Lego artist), as well as look at the cities upcoming meeting agendas.

1

hellionlord t1_j1vqzog wrote

It also seems like to fled the “low income/minority groups” support this to they don’t know what’s best for them VERY quickly

4

lestermagnum t1_j1vgg5h wrote

Came here to say this. Most people and businesses are against widespread installation of bike lanes. A very vocal minority of people in online forums shouldn’t dictate this sort of policy, especially when they’ve admitted in the past to not giving two shits what the neighborhood residents think.

1

Locksmith-Pitiful OP t1_j1vh896 wrote

> when they’ve admitted in the past to not giving two shits what the neighborhood residents think.

Why should more vocal, wealthy residents dictate what the rest of the community should do? You bet your ass students and low income workers are too busy to attend meetings or send emails to voice their support for it.

14

hellionlord t1_j1we9xr wrote

And all this being said, I was out on Election Day canvassing for Gonzalo in the rain as I had other days as well. Where TF were y’all?

0

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1yi5jh wrote

It’s not about what people on Reddit want. Installing these protected bike lanes is basic, competent, modern city planning. Most if not every dynamic American city are installing such lanes with great success. Like with south water, there is always backlash when proposed, and like south water there’s basically no negative impact after installed. Usually, at that point, the detractors just forget about it and move on when they realize their fears haven’t materialized. For some reason people here just can’t let this one go.

3

lestermagnum t1_j1ylawp wrote

There is a precedent of removing them. It happened on Eaton St a few years ago. Same thing with temporary bike lanes in East Providence that barely lasted a week. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t. Especially when it was pushed through with very little input from the local community, which was the case with the South Water St lanes. Its been a huge controversy since they first started building it, but the city plowed ahead over the objections and did it anyway.

0

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1yvb6e wrote

But what would be the point of removing south water street lane? It clearly does work. There’s been in depth traffic studies showing that there is not even remotely a traffic issue on the street. No parking spaces were lost. Local businesses are doing well. Is there ANY basis for removing the south water lane other than the detractors having too big of an ego to admit they were wrong?

4

Proof-Variation7005 t1_j1zzdnu wrote

>But what would be the point of removing south water street lane?

I think people are maybe overstating that possibility and the incoming Mayor's intent here.

I don't really frequent the area but if it's causing significant traffic issues all around, it'd probably worth looking into maybe not taking up 15 feet of road width, especially since you have the ability to use open land right next to the road for a large chunk of that area.

As for a point for or against removing it, I think how much or little it gets used would probably be consideration too.

1

lightningbolt1987 t1_j20dcww wrote

It’s not causing any traffic, that’s one of the reasons it’s time to let it be.

With regards to use, I hear you, but we have an issue currently with proving out these bike lanes, in that they were built in disconnected fragments. Until they connect and you can actually safely and seamlessly bike through the city it’s hard to measure impact because they aren’t that useable. Generally, in other cities, widespread connected bike infrastructure has led to a major increase in biking. There’s no reason to believe Providence (a sense, compact city) would be any different in this regard.

1

lightningbolt1987 t1_j1yvjc6 wrote

Also, businesses ALWAYS oppose bike lane when they are proposed, whether they are good locations for them or not. You can’t take “businesses objections” at face value. You need to parse out what’s an insightful objection and what’s just fear. On south water it’s become apparent objections were pure fear. There’s been no negative outcomes from the bike lanes installation—so if the city had listened to the 4 businesses that were against it then the city would have made the wrong choice and not built the bike lane here.

3

WearySeaworthiness52 t1_j1v12c3 wrote

Can he get rid of Jorges' speed bumps as well

−7

Bobisadrummer t1_j1v5s3j wrote

Only if you promise to replace them with your body :)

7

hellionlord t1_j1wlaiy wrote

Additional speed bumps were added to eliminate overages in budget. It was not the result of traffic mitigation studies or civil engineering plans. Do you think that’s good?

1

Sarcofaygo t1_j1wr49h wrote

I thought driving over protestors was frowned upon /s

1