Transportation – Page 3

December 9, 2015

Top-down transportation troubles for new TIP process

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

If you want a say in what transportation projects will and won’t be completed in your community, then I’d like to tell you about RI’s new Transportation Improvement Program, or TIP. There have been some concerning changes in how the State advances its transportation program, and you may have less than a month to affect how transportation money will be spent in your community over the next 10 years.

The TIP is a comprehensive list of transportation projects which the State would like to construct. Why is this list so important? Well, for any transportation project to be federally funded, it needs to be listed in the TIP; if it is not on the list, it doesn’t get federal funding. (Traditionally, 90% of our transportation project funding comes from the federal government.) In past years, the State has produced this plan on a five year horizon. For the upcoming 2016 TIP, the state agencies that produce the TIP have decided to change the time horizon to ten years. Effectively this means that if a transportation project isn’t in the TIP, it is not going to happen in the next ten years.

Along with this unusual move of doubling the plan’s time horizon, RI DOT has also issued a list of transportation projects to each municipality. However, only bridge, pavement, and safety improvements are listed; no bicycle, pedestrian, or transit projects are included. These type of projects would need to be added on a town by town basis as desired by the residents.

It’s also worth noting that Rhode Island cities & towns have been given an extremely short amount of time to create their list of desired transportation projects. All Rhode Island municipalities need to create a list of projects to be constructed over the next ten years, hold a public hearing, and submit the list to the State by January 8, 2016—otherwise, their list of projects will only include the ones that RI DOT has deemed appropriate for their communities. Public bodies might only meet once a month and the local project list would need to be completed for review prior to the time the public hearing is advertised. For some communities, this could be as early as next week. And as a practical matter, during the holiday season, most RI citizens are thinking about things other than their town’s transportation projects over the next decade.

My fear is that a cash-strapped, short-staffed community would effectively be compelled to use the provided RI DOT list, which contains no projects at all for bicycle access or public transportation. (In the past, communities were given more time to develop their list of transportation projects; municipalities and RI DOT would submit their project generally at the same time. This time, RI DOT completed their list first, over a much longer time horizon, and has dramatically reduced the time available for municipalities to develop their own lists.)

Instead of encouraging modern, efficient, environmentally responsible transportation projects, this process has done the opposite: It has ensured that the traditional auto-centric mode will continue to dominate Rhode Island.

To be fair, the State has indicated that it will ask for public comment about the TIP on an annual basis. This had not been previously done. But no detailed procedure for this process has been provided yet, and there is no reason to think that the ten year TIP will be able to be changed.

Time is limited, but if your priorities include Rhode Island creating a more sustainable future for its residents over the next ten years, then demand that your community’s TIP list comprises not only support for automobile transportation, but also 21st century transportation projects as well. You can also submit your own project ideas to the RI DOT by January 8, 2016.

See http://www.planning.ri.gov/statewideplanning/transportation/tip.php for more information.

November 24, 2015November 24, 2015

Coalition demands driver’s licenses for all, regardless of immigration status

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

“In June of last year, when the candidates were running for governor, we got a promise from all the candidates, including Gina Raimondo, that she would sign an executive order granting driver’s licenses to undocumented people in Rhode Island within the first year of office,” said Juan Garcia, from the Comité de Inmigrantes en Acción.

Garcia was speaking at a State House press conference organized by Todos Somos Arizona, (We Are All Arizona) coalition, a group that supports immigrant rights. Since the Paris attacks last Friday, say organizers, “we have seen a surge in xenophobic messages and remarks made by politicians and the media against refugees and immigrants across Europe and the United States, including Rhode Island.”

2015-11-23 Driver's Licenses 03 — Todos Somos Arizona

Garcia said, “We just want to send a message, especially with everything that has happened in Paris with the terrorist attacks. The people standing behind me are not terrorists. We are human beings, and what better way to promote safety in Rhode Island than to give everybody a driver’s license?”

The coalition argues that this is a human rights issues and that, “driver’s licenses for all residents of Rhode Island would mean safer roads for everyone… Parents need driver’s licenses to drive their children (many of whom are US citizens) to school, doctor’s appointments, and to get to work. They shouldn’t have to live in fear everyday simply to provide for their families.”

“We do not want to be criminalized,” said Heiny Maldonado, director of Fuerza Laboral, “We only want to be recognized for the people that we are.”

José has been in the country in since 2000 and has been driving without a license since 2009. “It’s a safety issue,” he said, “I drive in fear, looking through my rear view mirror… I work a lot, I drive a lot and I need to provide for my loved ones.”

Veronica, speaking on behalf of Inglés en Acción / English for Action (EFA), said that she was speaking for undocumented parents who need to meet with teachers, meet with doctors and need to attend English language classes. They are, says Veronica, “afraid that they can’t get somewhere because they don’t have licenses.”

A dozen states, including Illinois, Vermont, California, New Jersey and Connecticut, have already passed legislation to provide licenses for all of their residents, regardless of immigration status. “We demand that Speaker [Nicholas] Mattiello support the governor, and not block this action,” said Garcia.

So far, Governor Raimondo has failed to keep her campaign promise and sign the executive order. In response to a query, the Governor’s office replied, “The Governor supports providing licenses for undocumented Rhode Island residents and remains committed to pursuing a solution. She has a team across state agencies working on this, but no decisions have been made on timing or process at this time.”

The Todos Somos Arizona coalition includes English for Action (EFA), Olneyville Neighborhood Association (ONA), Jobs with Justice, SIEU, Fuerza Laboral, Comité de Inmigrantes en Acción / Immigrant Action Committee and the American Friends Service Committee.

November 20, 2015November 20, 2015

RIPTA Riders Alliance rallies against elderly/disabled fare increases

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The RIPTA Riders Alliance held a rally and press conference outside the State House yesterday to call attention to the proposed increases in fares for elderly and disabled passengers. As has been reported here before, in order to close a budget gap, the General Assembly and Governor Gina Raimondo authorized RIPTA (Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority) to do away with free rides. In response, RIPTA is planning to charge, “all disabled people and seniors $1.00 per ride during peak AND off-peak hours, regardless of those passengers’ income levels.”

Other fare increases for monthly and weekly passes and transfers have been proposed, as well as eliminating discounts on multi-ride tickets.

Many seniors and disabled passengers live on fixed incomes and will be negatively impacted by this rate increase. Though the state will provide rides for scheduled doctor’s visits, free rides will not be provided for shopping, visits with friends and relatives, or attending political rallies. Those stuck at home will face isolation and declining health outcomes.

Balancing budgets on the backs of the most vulnerable populations in a state that continues to cut taxes on the wealthiest, is a moral outrage.

State Senator Harold Metts and Representative Aaron Regunberg both addressed the crowd and promised to revisit RIPTA funding when the new session of the General Assembly begins in January.

Here are RIPTA’s proposed fare hikes for early 2016, from the RIPTA Riders Alliance press release:

SENIORS AND DISABLED PEOPLE will be charged $1 per ride. Disabled people must go back and submit proof that they’re disabled again.

MONTHLY PASSES will go up from $62 to $70. Weekly passes will go up from $23 to $25. The 15-ride pass will be discontinued and replaced with a 10-ride ticket costing $20.

TRANSFERS, which now cost 50 cents, will double in price. The new transfers will cost $1 for regular riders and are usable for travel anywhere in a 2-hour period.

SENIORS AND DISABLED PEOPLE will pay 50 cents per transfer. If they want a monthly pass, that will be $35 per month. Weekly passes will be $12.50.

October 28, 2015October 29, 2015

Sens Metts, Pichardo ask RIPTA not to raise fare prices on elderly, disabled

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

State senators Harold Metts and Juan Pichardo have requested in writing that the Rhode Island Public Transportation Agency cancel a proposal to raise fare prices on elderly, disabled and homeless riders. The two Democrats who represent poor areas of Providence wrote a joint letter to RIPTA Board Chairman Scott Avedesian, also the mayor of Warwick, and to Jonathan Womer, the director of the state Office of Management and Budget, imploring them to reconsider the rate increase.

“Hurting the most vulnerable is not the answer; and we can not support the proposed increase,” they wrote in a letter.

“The elderly and disabled who are also poor are the last people who should be made to shoulder the burden of RIPTA’s budget shortfalls,” said Pichardo, of District 2, in a press release from the State House. “It’s hard enough for them to put food on the table and keep their heat on. They don’t have money to start paying every time they need to go anywhere. This is going to have a devastating effect on their households, health and quality of life.”

Metts, who represents District 6, said, “Not only is this going to hurt the most vulnerable people financially, the result is going to be that these folks simply can’t go anywhere. Many elderly and disabled people aren’t able to walk very far, so this is going to have the effect of making them virtual shut-ins. This will isolate them on top of adding to their financial struggles. The effects of this plan are morally unacceptable, and RIPTA needs to identify a way to fund its services without doing so much harm to those least able to take the impact.”

Both letters are copies in full below.

The RIPTA Board has been considering increasing fare prices on elderly and disabled riders who earn less than 200 percent of the annual poverty level income to one dollar. Currently, they ride for free.

Here’s the letter to Avedesian:

October 27, 2015
Hon. Scott Avedisian, Chairperson
RIPTA
705 Elmwood Avenue
Providence RI, 02007

Dear Chairperson Avedisian,

We are writing you in opposition to fare increases on seniors and the handicapped currently being proposed by RIPTA to the Office of Regulatory Reform, under the umbrella of the Office of Management & Budget. The sustainability of RIPTA should not be at the expense of the most vulnerable poor.

We have received several telephone calls from constituents and advocacy groups about this. They are extremely concerned and outraged by the negative impact this will have. The poor and handicapped need public transportation to buy food at the grocery market, keep their doctor’s appointments, etc. This population is struggling as it is; and price increases for those on limited fixed income should never have been considered.

Public transportation is the only mode for them to move about the neighborhoods, city and state. As a result of this proposed action, people will feel limited and this will affect their mental state with added stress.

Public transportation is very important to the Rhode Island economy. We disagree; however, with the March study on revenue and technology, authorized by RIPTA. Hurting the most vulnerable is not the answer; and we can not support the proposed increase.

Sincerely yours,
________________                                                         ___________________
Harold M. Metts,                                                               Juan M. Pichardo
Senate District #6                                                             Senate District #2

HMM

cc. Governor Gina Raimondo
Speaker Nicholas A. Mattiello
Madam President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed
Mr. Jonathan Womer, Director
Mr. Raymond Studley, Director of RIPTA

And to Womer:

October 27, 2015
Mr. Jonathan Womer, Director
Office of Management & Budget
1 Capitol Hill 4th Floor
Providence, RI 02908

Dear Mr. Womer,

We understand that the office of Regulatory Reform is under your umbrella, as the director of the Office of Management and Budget. We are opposed to the proposed 50% fair increase by RIPTA, submitted to your agency for approval. The sustainability of RIPTA should not be at the expense of the poor, handicapped and most vulnerable.

People on fixed incomes don’t have options. This population uses public transportation to buy food at the market, go to their doctor’s appointments, etc. The most vulnerable will be severely and negatively impacted.

In closing, please reject this proposal. Ask RIPTA to find a more suitable option that we all can support.

Sincerely yours,
________________                                                         __________________

Harold M. Metts                                                                Juan M. Pichardo
Senate District #6                                                             Senate District #2

cc. Governor Gina Raimondo
Speaker Nicholas A. Mattiello
Madam President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed

October 20, 2015

Opposition to RIPTA fare hike on elderly and disabled intensifies

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

About 100 people turned out to oppose the RIPTA‘s planned fare hikes on the elderly and disabled at yesterday’s board meeting, packing the small conference room and overflowing into the halls. This almost doubles the opposition the plan faced a month ago at the last board meeting.

This time 29 people spoke out against the fare hikes. Some were speaking out for themselves, as affected riders, others were there to advocate for the people they serve.

“Our constituents literally have no money,” said Lee Ann Byrne, policy director at Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless. She noted that 53 percent of Rhode Island’s homeless population are disabled.

Willa Truelove, of the State Rehabilitation Council, pointed out that it is “about to be really cold” which will create mobility issues for people who would normally use the bus to travel. These people, says Truelove, “cannot afford to pay another dime.”

But the most contentious moment of the afternoon was during the testimony of William Flynn, executive director of the Senior Agenda Coalition of RI. It was at this moment that a seemingly exasperated Mayor Scott Avedisian, the head of RIPTA’s board, interrupted Flynn to “clarify” the issue at hand.

Flynn was making the point that lack of access to affordable transportation will strand seniors at home, leading to disastrous health outcomes for seniors and greater costs to Medicare. Theses are the certain results of the actions the board takes today, said Flynn. Avedisian interrupted, (at the 1m 10s mark below) insisting that the issue was not up for a vote today, and that the decision has not been made.

Avedisian insisted that today’s vote was, “the beginning of a public hearing process” but as the later discussion made clear, the public hearing process and subsequent vote to raise fares is all but inevitable. There are no plans under consideration that do not include fare increases, and if the board does not increase fares there are no alternative revenue streams to balance their $6 million shortfall.

RIPTA will shortly announce a series of ten public hearings throughout the state to take place in the evening and afternoons. After the hearings RIPTA hopes for a vote sometime in December and for the fare increase to be in place by February.

Reverend Donald Anderson, representing the Interfaith Coalition to Reduce Poverty, asked the board to take a stand against the idea of balancing budgets on the backs of the most vulnerable. While acknowledging the fact that RIPTA’s budgetary woes are entirely due to the General Assembly’s lack of support for RIPTA, he maintained that a vote against beginning the process that will inevitably lead to raising the rates on seniors and the disabled might set a moral example for other boards throughout the state.

Despite Anderson’s plea, the entire board voted to proceed.

Though the fare increase on seniors and disabled riders seems inevitable, as Randall Rose, a member of the RIPTA Riders Alliance pointed out, this outrage can be defeated if enough people raise the issue and fight against it.

This meeting easily doubled the number of people who turned out against the fare increase last time. As awareness of this issue grows and media outside of RI Future start to cover this, opposition will grow as well. Further, we are entering an election year. Members of the General Assembly will begin their bi-annual treks to elderly housing complexes searching for votes. You can be sure that these voters will be wondering why their fixed incomes are being mined o pay for previously free services.

You can also be sure that RI taxpayers will be wondering why RIPTA is being forced to take actions that will result in soaring Medicaid and Medicare costs. As seniors and disabled riders are forced to choose between transportation and medication, or cut down on the essential transportation that keeps them socially engaged and healthy, taxpayers will be footing the bill.

It is far cheaper to provide free transportation than it is to provide round the clock nursing care.

Below is the testimony of all twenty-nine people to speak against the fare hikes.

October 8, 2015October 8, 2015

Protest then partnership: how bikes can beat cars

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Re-imagining transportation and street design in Rhode Island is about more than trying to reduce congestion, says Steven Miller, co-founder of Boston’s Livable Streets Alliance, it’s about, “liberating ourselves, our bodies and our social lives, from the trap we find ourselves in.”

The trap Miller is talking about is the automobile. Though as individuals we all drive less on average, there are more of us due to population increase, and we all head to work at the same time. “Until we radically redistribute our populations,” says Miller “congestion is going to get worse.”

The Livable Streets Alliance “envisions a world where our streets are vibrant public spaces that encourage personal interaction, physical activity, community and fun. We believe streets should be designed to accommodate all people and provide mobility options that enhance access to goods, services, jobs, health care, friends and family.” Miller, who has been working for decades as an advocate in Boston, is speaking at AS220 to a small but very interested audience. The event is sponsored by the RI Bike Coalition.

“There are no solutions within the car world for the problem of the car,” says Miller. “Until we radically redistribute our populations, congestion is going to get worse.” And Miller doesn’t think that’s going to happen in our lifetimes. The solution then is to telecommute, move to a city and reverse commute, or provide alternatives.

In order to provide alternatives, especially those that promote health and reduce pollution, we need to organize, said Miller. What Miller then did was to outline the process of effective protest and advocacy in broad strokes.

Miller knows the world of organizing well, and it starts with protest.

“If you want to stop the machine at some point you need to shout and stick something in the machine,” said Miller. But protesting is “the power of veto.” To be truly effective, a group needs to advocate and be able to clearly state what they want. This requires using the media and “being a little outrageous and a little political at the same time.”

Lastly, organizers need to move past protest and into partnership, which means working with government to effect change. Of course, once you start working with the government you lose your outsider status and some will perceive you as part of the problem. “This is why groups split,” said Miller.

Let’s say you want to build more bike lanes. When you have the government’s ear, it’s important to “generate political will.” This means understanding what it is that politicians want. Not just money and votes, but what kind of ideas fit their agendas, their goals.

Next you have to help develop the government’s capacity. Not everyone who designs a city’s streets knows how to design a bike lane. Presenting the information authorities need to do it right can help facilitate successful projects. When a government agency gets it right, publicly thank them, but also support them against the inevitable backlash. “Once you’ve done something, at least some percent of the population is going to hate it,” said Miller, so giving officials cover and supporting them is smart politics.

The final step is to “get the pilot made permanent.” Most new ideas are first rolled out as pilot programs. No matter how successful a project is, if the ideas are not “integrated into the core policies, procedures and operations of the agency” then the pilot program will die when the people you’ve been working with inevitably move on. New people means new pet projects, and your ideas risk being left behind.

When we first started designing roads in this country, said Miller, engineers had no idea what they were doing. Then we started building Interstates, the highways, and we quickly learned how to build them very well. When we turned our attention to city streets, we brought all that knowledge to bear, and it was all wrong.

Highways are the opposite of city streets. City streets require narrow lanes, slow speeds, and many distractions. On a highway we have wide lanes, with a lot of tolerance built in. We have rumble strips for inattentive drivers, for instance. City streets require our full attention. After all, we’re sharing those streets with bikes and pedestrians. This is the essence of “context sensitive road design” says Miller, we want “city roads, not mini highways in the city.”

Seems obvious, but we are only just starting to understand and implement this insight.

Ultimately, says Miller, when we advocate for better transportation options, we are ultimately advocating for larger values: the environment, physical and mental health, education, energy… just about anything that makes living better for humans.

September 29, 2015May 23, 2016

People to RIPTA: raising bus fares on the elderly, homeless, disabled is immoral

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Scott Avedisian, fully engaged, with his phone

RIPTA is considering raising bus fares by $1 on disabled, elderly and the homeless, and more than two dozen advocates and representatives from those communities voiced their opposition at the RIPTA board meeting held in the middle of the afternoon yesterday.

They wondered why RIPTA (Rhode Island Public Transportation Authority) is considering balancing its budget on the poorest and most vulnerable communities. For some, the bus is their only means of travel. Raising the rates will mean getting out of the home and into the community less.

As William Flynn, executive director of the Senior Agenda Coalition of RI said, “Isolation kills, and transportation is a vital part of fighting isolation.” He thinks as many as 4,500 Rhode Islanders may be affected by the plan.

Another speaker, from the RIPTA Riders Alliance, cited a Brown University study that showed that on average, people on fixed income may have as little as $40 a month of discretionary cash. Raising the bus fares on these people is estimated to cost an average of $30 a month. Several present and former clergy, such as the Reverend Chris Foster of the Providence Presbyterian Church, implied that the very consideration of a plan that goes after the last dollars of the poor and vulnerable was “immoral” and implored the board to find other ways of closing the funding gap.

Amazingly, the RIPTA board almost didn’t have a quorum when the meeting started, many of the board members did not even show up at what one observer called the most packed public commentary meeting in years. Warwick Mayor Scott Avedisian, chairman of RIPTA’s Board of Directors, was often seen reading his cellphone during testimony, apparently unable to feign interest for the concerns of the poor, disabled, homeless or elderly.

Ray Studley, RIPTA CEO, like most other board members presents, was attentive, but after public commentary ended, he made false and misinformed comments about the availability of Medicare billable transportation services through Logisticare. Logisticare is a private company used by the state to transport people to non-emergency doctor appointments. The company requires scheduling trips up to weeks in advance, and according to many who spoke to me outside the meeting, is unreliable, often late or doesn’t show up at all.

Further, Logisticare does not provide rides for anything but Medicare billable transportation. Shopping, work, visits to family, social engagements, pharmacy visits and even necessary trips to rehabilitation support groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, are not covered, despite what Studley was saying. Of course, Studley said this after public comment was over, so those I talked to outside RIPTA after the meeting were frustrated that they had no chance to refute this.

Logisticare is expensive. The state is billed, through Medicare, much more than it costs to provide free bus trips for some groups of people. If a senior is able to use the bus for a regular doctor’s appointment, why force that person to use a more expensive and more specialized means of transportation at a much higher cost to the state?

William Flynn of the Senior Agenda Coalition knows a woman in recovery who goes to four or five AA meetings a week. These meetings are her lifeline. If she misses meetings, her odds of relapsing go up. Others may start missing needed doctors appointments or not fill prescriptions in a timely manner. The economic cost to our state in terms of emergency medical services will rise, but more importantly there will be a rise in misery and suffering.

Balancing budgets on the backs of the poor is never the right thing to do.

Below is the testimony of all 17 people who spoke out at the board meeting.

“I can not impress upon you the damaging effect… many of these people are living on incomes of less than $800 a month…”

“…the dollar will cost them $360 a year, we’re talking about people who make $782 a month…”

“…to a lot of the people here… that’s not a lot of money at all..” but to those on a fixed income…

…not only the cost, but the isolation they face in Providence with the difficulty of getting around…”

“…there will be an increase of physical and mental afflictions as well as an increase in visits to the emergency room…”

“Those with mental illness tend to isolate, and if they don’t have a lot of support they isolate and don’t take care of themselves…”

“If this proposal goes through… I won’t be able to go to Rhode Island College…”

“The Pope [was] talking about the small things that we do that result in justice, mercy and the care of others. This is what he’s talking about…”

“There’s people downtown stranded right now and there’s homeless people downtown every day in Kennedy Plaza. They cannot get on the bus if they don’t look right…”

“The greatest single factor that leads to shorter lives for people is isolation.”

“We are all responsible for all, and to all. This is a basic framework, a basic belief of all our major religions. The Judeo-Christian, the Muslem, the Hindu, Buddhist, even the non-religious, the Humanists!”

“Each time we take the bus we have to take several buses a day to attend programs that greatly improve the quality of of our illnesses or disablities…”

“In my last twenty years I’ve seen seniors who are of low income come to me because they have no food. I’ve seen them come to my center because they have no money. I’ve seen them come to my center because they’re in the dark because they can’t pay their electric bill…”

“I know people who have cars and high paying jobs who are ethically outraged by this…”

“Brown University did a study and the average discretionary monies per month for disabled and elderly people is around $40…”

And here’s RI Future’s own Andrew Stewart!

September 4, 2015September 12, 2015

10 PVD city councilors voted for exclusionary zoning last night

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Providence City Council voted 10-3 to modify the zoning code to add exclusionary zoning restrictions on student housing on Thursday night. Under the provision, persons defined as “college students” would not be able to live more than three to a house in zones 1 and 1A (map), despite reports in The Projo that many of the homes in question have as many as five bedrooms.

Zoning laws in Providence must be passed by City Council twice, and either have a veto-proof majority or be signed into law by the mayor. The measure, if passed a second time, would be a challenge to housing affordability and transit-oriented design. The upshot is that the 10-3 vote is very fragile. Just one turnaround would allow Mayor Jorge Elorza to veto the zoning change. I am contacting Mayor Elorza’s chief-of-staff Brett Smiley for comment, but by publication time it is unlikely that I will have word on the mayor’s position. Keep your eyes peeled for updates!

The tempest-in-a-teapot in Ward 5 started around student noise. Councilwoman Jo-Ann Ryan has tried proposing other methods of shunning students, including additional fees on student housing, but decided to settle on this zoning measure, according to reporting done in The Projo.

Changes in density affect transit. Transit viability is affected along an exponential curve, rather than a linear progression, based on density. So small changes in density through exclusionary zoning can have large reverberating effects on transit frequencies, and those changes disproportionately hurt low income people, especially time-poor low income people, like those with multiple jobs or children.

Changes in zoning like this also negatively affect housing affordability, not only for students, but for everyone. You might find yourself saying, “Who cares what happens to college students?” It’s not like someone is being discriminated against on the basis of race, or gender, or sexuality. Being a college student is just a stage in life, and it’s not even a stage in life that everyone goes through.” But the students who are most affected by this type of rule will be disproportionately those students who are riding the razor’s edge of affording school. Upper class students will shrug this off, and perhaps not even notice it, or be annoyed by it for lifestyle reasons.

Students who can find housing will. When students overflow from housing they may have previously been able to occupy, they may outbid others with less money looking for apartments. While sometimes this outbidding process can lead to greater housing development, resolving the imbalance, the zoning ordinance itself stops an increase in zoning density, and actually reduces densities below their existing levels. The price increases here are also not due to people’s increased desire for a neighborhood–which is at least a mixed blessing–but by artificial regulations that will just keep certain people out. The process of using zoning to limit housing is one of the things that has most affected displacement of working class families from homes. It tries to shape our cities into an imagined ideal of single-family homes that never existed except in the imagination of someone like Frank Lloyd Wright. This means that housing will become expensive, but with none of the attendant positives of that process–a kind of “stagflation” of housing policies.

Who are the people who voted for exclusionary zoning?

Councilman Kevin Jackson, Ward 3, Mt. Hope (my councilman)

Mr. Jackson narrowly won his last election against a write-in candidate, Marcus Mitchell, who started a write-in campaign for his seat just before Election Day. The election went to a recount. I have contacted Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Jackson on this issue, but as yet have not heard back, but multiple previous conversations I’ve had with Marcus Mitchell have centered on his involvement with RhodeMap, which opposes exclusionary zoning.

Councilwoman Jo-Ann Ryan, Ward 5, Elmhurst

Somewhat unsurprisingly, Councilwoman Ryan voted for her own bill. She is a new councilor.

Councilman Michael Correia, Ward 6, Manton

Councilman John Iggliozzi, Ward 7, Silver Lake

Councilwoman Carmen Castillo, Ward 9, Elmwood

Council President Luis Aponte, Ward 10, Lower South Providence and Washington Park

The Councilman’s vote for exclusionary zoning shocks me, because he has frequently been a voice for tenant’s rights and an acceptable if not perfect voice for transit-oriented development. This is a misstep for the Council President, and we hope he’ll change his vote.

Councilwoman Mary Kay Harris, Ward 11, Upper South Side

Councilman Bryan Principe, Ward 13, Federal Hill and the West End

I have to report disappointment on this vote by Councilman Principe, as I’ve found him to be a very urbanist-oriented councilman much of the time. I hope that residents in my old neighborhood of the West End will speak out to Councilman Principe, and that he’ll change his vote next week.

Councilman David A. Salvatore, Ward 15, Elmhurst and Wanskuck

Councilwoman Sabina Matos, Ward 16, Olneyville

Many of these councilpersons represent districts that ought to be unified in their opposition to exclusionary zoning for one reason or another.

Councilmen Yurdin, Zurier and Jennings voted against the measure. Councilmen Narducci and Hassett were not present at Thursday night’s meeting. Councilman Zurier’s hands haven’t exactly been clean. In his own district he has worked to make apartments and other types of multifamily housing less easy to develop.

Please contact your city councilor–and indeed, please contact the entire Providence City Council–and let them know that Providence is not supportive of exclusionary zoning policies. And ask Mayor Elorza to veto any vote next Thursday that isn’t over the veto-proof margin of 10.

Update: According to a by Patrick Anderson, Mayor Elorza’s office will support the zoning change, as proposed.

~~~~

August 28, 2015

Bus riders protest proposed RIPTA rate hikes on seniors and disabled

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

RIPTA Riders Alliance, an advocacy group for bus riders, held a press conference in Kennedy Plaza across from Providence City Hall on Thursday afternoon to protest “a sharp bus fare increase” of $1 per ride for low-income disabled people and seniors. Right now the increase is only a proposal and the current fare for senior and disabled riders is $0.

According to the RIPTA Riders Alliance, “RIPTA officials say that they haven’t decided yet on bus fare increases, [but] some information about the planned increases is already publicly known. According to comments made by RIPTA officials at RIPTA’s July 20 board meeting, their planned budget includes plans to raise fares.”

RIPTA Riders Alliance release a list of cities and states with bus systems of comparable size to RIPTA. The average fare in these systems in $1.60 for regular riders, 40 cents lower than RIPTA. The average rate for seniors and disabled riders is 68 cents. RIPTA Riders Alliance wants RIPTA to find savings via internal efficiencies, not with additional costs to riders.

Don Rhodes, president of RIPTA Riders Alliance, said in a statement, “RIPTA Riders Alliance is opposed to balancing the deficit on the backs of the passengers. The Alliance is against the imposition of an off-peak fare for disabled and elderly people living on a limited income. And during peak hours, charging them $1 per ride is far too much of a financial burden, greatly limiting their mobility. We are also opposed to any increase in the $2.00 base fare, which is already higher than average base fares in similar bus systems.”

Several speakers spoke of the economic hardships they would face under a new rate system.

August 26, 2015August 27, 2015

Trade higher wages for paid parking

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

What do we want? Free parking!

What?

Greater City Providence deserves journalistic credit for picking up on a story about graduate student organizing at URI and connecting the dots about how those demands impact environmental planning goals. I wanted to make a specific repost here, as well as add a few thoughts of my own, because I don’t find that the labor world and the environmental world always talk to each other very effectively in Rhode Island (or anywhere, maybe). People who read RI Future, like myself, care about labor organizing and what it portends for a more equal future for all of us at the workplace, but may also be concerned about exactly the points that GCPVD brought to light.

The story: The URI grad students reportedly have asked for a continuation of free parking at URI’s ~~downtown~~ Kingston campus. In an earlier version of this article, I had given information about downtown and Kingston, but in this sentence I accidentally glossed over and left only the word “downtown” during last minute corrections. The union has been clear that its demands relate only to the Kingston campus. I am keeping downtown information here as well for context because I think it’s relevant to URI’s overall parking policy discussion. Apologies for the error! The free parking is of course not really free at all, but costs taxpayers money to subsidize the garages where people park, and policies that subsidize parking warp commute choices towards driving. In addition, URI stands out for having very incomplete and inconvenient transit pass policies. The result is a very easy and cheap drive commute competing with a more cumbersome and expensive transit one, right across the street from Kennedy Plaza. Students at URI Main Campus in Kingston have access to the 66 and 64 buses and an excellent bike path through South County, and could in short order have MBTA service as well. Grad students naturally see the attempts from university officials to charge them for parking as an attack on their already meagre livelihoods, but it’s an ominous sign for the future of Rhode Island if free parking policies continue in such obvious transit-oriented locales.

Where I would add to what Jef Nickerson of GCPVD has said is that I actually think this is a relatively easy issue to resolve, and doesn’t at all have to pit us either against the environment or against unions. The solution here is to charge full price for parking just as the university has proposed, but also credit grad students with that cost as pay which can be used for whatever they like. That would mean that workers who bike or ride the bus effectively get a raise, while everyone else breaks even. Graduate students are right, in my view, to be pointing out the absurdity of their pay hovering around $15,000 a year. It’s just that the solution to that is better pay, not subsidized driving.

Many states, like California, require a parking cash out for workers in certain types of jobs. In California, it’s structured so that only employers who rent parking are required to give the cash out, because it’s assumed that rented parking spots are a liquid asset that can be dropped or maintained by the employer based on parking demand, and that the savings should be passed as part of people’s wages. In URI’s case, the parking that is rented is paid for by the state to the Dunk Center, and so is definitely that kind of liquid asset. In Kingston, as in downtown Providence, the parking situation is absurd. URI has been gradually tearing up more and more of the agricultural land around it to satisfy the needs of its students and faculty to drive instead of finding ways to resolve that through on-campus housing expansion, transit, or biking. Parking cash outs have a positive effect on commute modeshares–increasing carpooling, biking, walking, and transit-use.

It’s not probably well known, but there was a window of my life when I did a lot of labor organizing, and was even a card-carrying union member. The work that the grad students are doing to improve their working conditions is something I support. But an injury to one is an injury to all not just in labor situations, but also for our world as a whole, and it’s the duty of union members to imagine a new world in the shell of the old, not just to make shallow demands about their own needs. This is a time when the grad student union could show real leadership and modify its demands in order to get what it needs for its workers while also respecting the future of our planet.

I dreamt I saw Joe Hill last night,

Driving an S-U-V.

I said to Joe, “our planet’s dying”,

He said, “it’s up to me.”

~~~~

August 18, 2015

RI ACLU calls behavior detection testing at T.F. Green ‘junk science’

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has come out in opposition to the behavioral testing conducted at T.F. Green Airport by the Department of Homeland Security. The field test is for a “behavior detection” program that is meant to determine whether or not passengers have “mal-intent.”

Steven Brown, the executive director of the RI ACLU, issued a letter to Kelly J. Fredericks, the President of the RI Airport Corporation, asking that they cease their involvement in the program, and not support any such programs in the future.

“I am writing to express the ACLU of Rhode Island’s deep concerns about the Rhode Island Airport Corporation’s apparent decision last month, with no public input, to work with the Department of Homeland Security’s Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in field testing the expansion of a largely discredited program that attempts to identify travelers who might pose a potential security risk through questionable “behavior detection” techniques,” Brown wrote.

The field test, which is called “Centralized Hostile Intent,” will use actors to mimic behaviors that the TSA should be able to screen and identify. They will be asked to identify these behaviors through a video feed, rather than in person. Because actors will be used during the field test, the ACLU recognized that the effect on travelers’ privacy will be minimal, but they still opposed the overall intent of the study.

“But one cannot ignore what the ultimate goal of this project is- to make it easier and more routine to target innocent travelers for intrusive incursions on their privacy, all based on what have thus far been largely discredited “behavior detection” activities,” Brown wrote.

Brown also wrote that the current “behavior detection” patterns that officers look for are arbitrary and random at best, such as being late for a flight, excessive clock watching, strong body odor, sweaty palms, among other signs. These monitoring activities have been criticized since a 2013 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office recommended that the TSA limit their funding for behavior detection, since there was no scientific evidence to prove whether or not these activities actually work. According to the report, “the human ability to accurately identify deceptive behavior based on behavioral indicators is the same or slightly better than chance.”

The program being tested at T.F. Green also seeks to develop a tracking algorithm so officers can follow on-camera anyone they believe to be suspicious, and identify those with them as well.

“The anticipated future applications of this project are disturbing, as they promise to be just as ineffective as TSA’s existing efforts. At bottom, this effort is junk science, but one with serious civil liberties and privacy implications,” Brown said. “We all want to ensure proper security measures are in place at our airports, but it is time to end, not expand, ineffective programs like this that use up limited resources, and that open the door to more intrusive privacy invasions and increased racial profiling, while doing little to keep us safe.”

July 29, 2015

Disability forum exposes inaccessibility, discrimination across state programs

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

If you thought that riding RIPTA, or receiving food benefits was difficult, imagine trying to do it with a disability. That’s what was talked about Tuesday afternoon when the Governor’s Commission on Disabilities held a public forum at the Warwick Public Library, where those in the disabled community could voice their concerns about accessibility across the state.

The forum hosted a number of healthcare professionals, who specialize in a number of care outlets for disabled patients. Different groups that were represented included the Disability Law Center, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, the Ocean State Center for Independent Living, and the Office of Rehabilitation Services, among others. But, rather than the professionals taking up the time to speak, many community members came forward, expressing how they believe Rhode Island can do better in terms of accessibility.

Barbara Henry, a blind woman who cannot drive, frequents RIPTA, which has proven problematic for her on more than one occasion.

“When the bus pulls up, I have no idea what bus it is,” she said. “They do not announce the bus, and I feel they really discriminate against anyone who is visually impaired, or print disabled, or anything for that matter.”

Henry’s problems have ranged from not knowing that a stop had been changed, to dealing with the newly renovated Kennedy Plaza, which she said is not accessible at all. While the stop names are in braille, the bus numbers that go through those stops are not, and the bus drivers do not announce which bus they are driving.

“My bus stop is G, but my bus number is 33,” she said. “There’s the 33, the 56, and the 54 that go out of that one stop. There’s nothing in braille that indicates that. If you were standing there, I would have to come up to you, and ask, “What bus is this?” And when the bus pulls up, there’s no audio announcement.”

Henry, who advocated, in her own words, “like hell,” for braille at Kennedy Plaza, feels as though her community is not taken seriously. Henry said that she attends the RIPTA community meetings, advocating for other blind people, because there is nothing tactile for them to process when they are finding their stop, not even a map.

“Since it’s been open since January, I’m still trying to process, make a mental map, of where everything is. They didn’t make any type of map or anything,” she said.

When Kennedy Plaza reopened earlier this year, RIPTA staff were there to assist passengers and direct them where to go, but Henry said that there was nobody to specifically help disabled riders.

Henry said that these issues don’t just affect blind people, though. Many other disabled riders struggle with RIPTA, including those who are deaf, autistic, or impaired in some other fashion. Such treatment has lead Henry to believe that RIPTA discriminates against the disabled.

“I truly, truly believe, that they do discriminate against the disabled,” she said. “I feel that my safety is placed at risk.”

Kristin Clark went to the forum to represent her friend, who is disabled and experienced mistreatment and belligerent service at the hands of the Wakefield SNAP office when trying to get certified for her benefits. Clark’s friend, who was not named, went into her local Wakefield office rather than conducting a phone interview with the main Providence office.

“The staff apparently relies on phone interviews, even though they are told they can come into offices to do the recertification,” Clark said. “When she came into the office, she was treated very badly, and very hostilely, and was told several times that SNAP would be cancelled for her, and that she would have to pay back what they said was an overpayment, and now she’s left not knowing what her situation is.”

Clark added that Rhode Island Housing has been helpful for her friend and her son, who is also disabled, because she is part of section 8 housing. SNAP, on the other hand, has caused a whole host of problems for her. Clark has even spoken to Congressman Jim Langevin’s (D- District 2), who looked into the problem and asked that they also speak to the Department of Health. When her friend called, the Department of Health was not only rude to her again, but also defended the SNAP office’s treatment towards her.

“By the end of the call, my friend was just a mess, and as of right now, has no idea what her situation is,” she said. “She does not know if she’s cancelled, she does not know if somebody is going to come after her for that money that they say she was overpaid, she does not know if, come Aug. 1, if she is going to have any SNAP benefits.”

Raffi Jansezian, a staff member for the GCD, explained how their office plans to move forward with these issues.

“After all the forums are done after this week, and after all the transcripts are finalized, I’ll be going through them, personally reading them as well as running different focus groups to analyze the transcripts, to figure out which problems are coming up over and over again,” he said.

Once that process is completed, they then move to begin writing solutions for these pressing issues into legislation, and create laws that can benefit everyone who has been affected and come to them to voice their concerns.

Jansezian added that Governor Gina Raimondo has shown “fantastic” support for the GCD, and that they have already made some strides towards what they hope to accomplish.

June 25, 2015

Toll bill unlikely to see House floor despite bridge closure

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The prospect of Governor Gina Raimondo’s Rhode Works legislation hitting the House floor before the end of this legislation is highly unlikely, Speaker Nicholas Mattiello said today.

“Right now, I’m not planning on it coming to the House floor by week’s end,” he said. “I have substantial concerns. I’ve indicated that the House is not going to act upon this bill until the concerns of our local business community are adequately addressed.”

Speaker Mattiello also said that he believes the proposal requires more analysis, so he is not comfortable introducing it in the House quite yet.

“It’s a big proposal, a big project, and I think the calls for it to move forward thoughtfully are probably the right calls and the right way to approach this. There’s no reason to rush this, there are reasons to do it in a timely manner, but there’s absolutely no reason to rush it,” he said.

This announcement comes a day after the Park Avenue bridge in Cranston was closed by RIDOT due to safety concerns. The bridge was suffering from severe deterioration and was “in imminent danger of collapse,” RIDOT Director Peter Alviti said in a letter to the Governor.

Speaker Mattiello finds the closure curious considering the bridge was examined nine months ago, and was deemed structurally deficient, but safe for travel.

“Where I call for an investigation is, you have the DOT making an assessment that it requires a high degree of corrective action in order to stay open, and no action is taken for nine months,” he said. His main concern is that Cranstonians, and especially safety vehicles, are now incredibly inconvenienced, because no steps were taken to prevent the closure.

“If they knew nine months ago that it was going to require a high priority of corrective action, why wasn’t any corrective action taken? That is something an investigation by DOT, I’d like to know what they’re doing.” he said.

Speaker Mattiello added that DOT is at fault for the closure, as they did not do what they are called to do for the community.

“You can’t just let a bridge go to the point of failure and say ‘Sorry, we’re shutting it down because we failed.’ That’s what they’re doing. They didn’t ask for anything, they didn’t tell us they had any concern.”

However, the Speaker did note that he agrees with RIDOT’s decision, but wishes that they take corrective action to have the bridge open back up as soon as possible.

Currently, there are nine bridges throughout the state undergoing investigations, and 17 that have been completed through RIDOT’s accelerated inspection program, which Alviti ordered in early May.

The timing of the closure did not work in Rhode Works’ favor. Minutes after the bridge was closed, Senate Finance unanimously approved the bill, and later that night it was approved on the Senate floor in a 33-4 vote. If the closure was a stunt to get Mattiello’s attention, he was not impressed.

“I can tell you it’s not going to force my hand on Rhode Works,” he said. “That’s not the right way to get my attention.”

June 23, 2015June 24, 2015

RIDOT continues Rhode Works defense in House Finance

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The House Finance Committee took lengthy testimony from the Rhode Island Department of Transportation on Monday afternoon as the agency defended its Rhode Works program with renewed vigor. Representatives from RIDOT spoke for three hours, echoing many of sentiments they have previously made about the initiative, before answering many questions from representatives who remain unclear about what the state needs to give up to achieve what Rhode Works promises.

One of the biggest concerns for the committee was the success of the program, and whether or not RIDOT will actually be able to pay back the $500 million bond they are asking from the state, as well as make good use of the total $1.4 billion to fund the program. Representative Patricia Morgan (R- District 26) has been Rhode Works’ most vocal opponent, wondering why RIDOT cannot repair bridges with its existing funding.

Peter Alviti, the director of RIDOT, said the existing funding they have is not enough to sufficiently repair or reconstruct the 155 bridges that are structurally deficient.

The $500 million bond would pay the expenses for the 17 possible toll locations, leaving that money open for other locations.

“The rest of the money would then have adequate funds to not only reconstruct, but to operate and maintain the facilities,” he said.

Jonathan Wormer, director of the Office of Management and Budget, added that the borrowed money for the initiative would be used to keep bridges from becoming structurally deficient, because they would have the money up front to do so. The goal of the bond is to compress the time in which the bridges can be reconstructed.

“If you don’t fix them at the beginning, it costs them a lot more later,” Wormer said.

The revised version of the bill also contains $13.5 million worth in tax breaks and property rebates for truckers, as well as per day toll caps, which have raised questions about its legality. Some have expressed fear that the tax breaks would discourage interstate commerce, and violate the commerce clause in the United States Constitution. But, RIDOT has asserted that the breaks and tolls are legal.

After nearly three hours of questioning, the Rhode Island Trucking Association, which has opposed the bill from the beginning, brought in American Trucking Association Vice President Bob Pitcher to speak on their behalf.

“We object to the bill before you because of the means it would use to raise the money,” he said. “We believe the proposal would weaken Rhode Island’s economy unnecessarily.”

The biggest objection by Rhode Works opponents is that legislators are rushing into signing it in the last days of session, and possibly overlooking any flaws it might have.

“I’ve never seen anything so vague in a tax law. Tax laws normally say who pays what, and this one does not,” Pitcher continued, adding that Rhode Works is an unprecedented piece of legislation. “No other state has sought to toll multiple state highways or bridges. Because there is literally no experience in such tolling elsewhere, Rhode Island should be doubly cautious.”

In their calculations, RIDOT estimated a 25 percent diversion rate, or that 25 percent of truckers would avoid going through Rhode Island if they were to implement the tolls. Both Alviti and Wormer expressed that this number was very conservative, especially because the plan minimizes the chance for diversions. They also added that only about two percent of trucking companies’ budgets are spent on tolls. Pitcher believes that they have underestimated their diversion rate, in part because tolls don’t exist in large parts of the country.

Many other opponents came forward to testify against the bill, reiterating the worry that the bill has been moving through the State House too fast. In a press release, the Rhode Island Trucking Association called upon Governor Gina Raimondo to create a committee to investigate the bill, rather than push it through at the last minute.

“This process is moving entirely too fast and there have been no discussions or analysis on the fiscal impact of the proposed toll plan to the trucking industry or the business community,” said RITA President Christopher Maxwell.

Other groups have shown support for Rhode Works, including AAA Northeast, The Sierra Club, Grow Smart RI, and Building America’s Future, a national, bipartisan group of elected officials dedicated to infrastructure improvement.

No vote was taken on Monday, but a vote on a version of the bill expected in Senate Finance on Tuesday.

June 19, 2015June 20, 2015

Tax breaks for truckers in new Senate toll bill

The Senate Lounge was standing room only before and during the hearing.

A Senate version of Governor Raimondo’s truck toll proposal, also known as Rhode Works, contains tax breaks for truckers.

The new version of the bill, sponsored by Sen. Dominick Ruggerio (D- District 4), and heard by the Finance Committee Thursday, includes $13.5 million in tax credits and rebates for truckers. They would receive tax credits on their registration fees, rebates on their gas and property taxes, as well as $3 million in grants for those who frequent TF Green Airport and Quonset Business Park.

RIDOT has also slightly reworked their funding formula for the proposal, asking for $500 million in revenue bonds, rather than $700 million. According to Director Peter Alviti, the difference would be bridged by refinancing some of the debt the Department already owes the state, which would give them another $120 million. Without that $80 million to complete the funding, Alviti said the Rhode Works program would be extended over a longer period of time, 30 years, to achieve the same goal. With this new schedule, RIDOT’s interest would increase, and they would eventually pay back $1 billion to the state. According to RIDOT, the total funding for the project would be over $4 billion.

The proposal is based on a serious need to repair Rhode Island’s bridge and road infrastructure, which is ranked 50^th in the United States. During the hearing, Alviti stressed safety as one of the main reasons for Rhode Works’ existence.

“This is becoming a more frequent problem, and it will become more frequent in the days and weeks coming unless we do something now,” he said.

The program would also create 11,000 job years in the construction industry. RIDOT also anticipates $60 million each year in revenue from the proposed tolls, $38 million of which would be put towards fees owed to the state. Any other revenue from tolls would directly go towards the repair of bridges and roads. RIDOT plans to reconstruct 155 bridges using this money, as well as upkeep others that are currently in fair condition. The tolls would only charge tractor-trailers, costing them $.69 per mile in Rhode Island, while most other states in the northeast are $1 or more per mile.

“It’s understandable that there’s a certain amount of resistance to the changes we’re proposing. But it’s a fair cost,” Alviti said.

Jonathan Wormer, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, also gave testimony in support of Rhode Works, and explained how much these tolls will end up costing the trucking companies. There are 123 trucks that drive explicitly in Rhode Island all day, whose tolls would be capped at $60 for the whole day, costing the company just under $1.8 million. The 3,111 interstate trucks that come through the state would be capped at $30 per day, and cost $14.9 million. Such toll costs are only about two percent of what companies spend per year. Fuel is considerably more, at 39 percent.

These fees would be collected via EZ Pass, which many truckers that pass through the state already have. If they do not, RIDOT would also implement camera technology that would charge the owner of the license plate. Alviti stared during the hearing that they would not build any tollbooths that would hold up traffic. There are 17 possible locations that the department is looking to install these gantries.

Although most of this information has been revised from the previous bill, Christopher Maxwell, the President of the Rhode Island Trucking Association, said it’s still not ready to become law. “The debate and dialogue should continue, it should not end now. It should begin now that we have all the information,” he told Senate Finance members.

Maxwell believes that directly tolling tractor-trailers will violate the commerce clause in the United States Constitution, and discourage interstate commerce. He stated that no other state is exclusively tolling trucks.

“This does clearly put interstate commerce, and these carriers that you’re not giving breaks to, at a disadvantage,” he said. So much of a disadvantage, that Maxwell added that his association could provide legal proof that such a toll would violate the commerce clause.

“We want to be part of the solution, we are not part of this bill,” he added, citing that the association does have ideas on what RIDOT should do, but did not offer an explanation of what those ideas are at the hearing.

Local truckers came to speak out against the bill as well. Frank Nardone, one truck driver, explained that he avoids tolls in almost all of his routes, and Rhode Island would be no different.

“I don’t like to pay tolls, I don’t think they’re necessary,” Nardone said. According to Nardone, tolls are not the way to make money, especially because Rhode Island truckers already have to pay $388 for the road use tax.

“I think I’m being taxed enough,” he said.

Ed Alfredi owns a trucking company based in Smithfield, and in his testimony, said that Rhode Works makes it impossible to figure out exactly how much the tolls would cost his business.

“If I was to try and sit down, and see what this was going to cost me and my company, it’s very difficult, because there’s no facts,” he said. “It’s going to have an effect, and we should be able to have an exact figure of what these tolls are, where exactly they’re going to be.”

Time is of the essence for the governor’s proposal. While those opposed want more, those in support keep pressing forward, wanting to pass the legislation as quickly as possible. If their efforts fail, Speaker of the House Nicholas Mattiello has hinted at a special fall session in order to fully consider the bill.

June 5, 2015June 5, 2015

Tolls, trucks and transportation: the contours of this debate

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Speaker Nicolas Mattiello has indicated that he may not include tolls for trucks on Rhode Island highways. I’d like to summarize the debate and highlight some ways that Rhode Island can move forward with reasonable compromises on this issue.

Singling out one industry

The trucking industry has been remarkably successful with a talking point: they say that tolling trucks is “singling out one industry” for a special charge. This raises the hackles of business-oriented members of the Assembly.

Expect more. Pay less. Strong Towns blog says this is more than just a slogan for the trucking industry.

The truth of the matter is that truckers are being singled out: for an unusually large subsidy. Director Peter Alviti of RIDOT spoke Monday night for several hours at the Finance Committee meeting, and one of the most important points he made is that trucks cause around 3/4 of the damage on roads, but only pay 19% of the costs of upkeeping them. With new tolls, that number would double, but essentially trucks will still be paying fifty cents to the dollar for the damage they leave behind them.

Some members of the Finance Committee were concerned at what it would mean if trucks decided to circumvent Rhode Island for through-trips. While it’s always smart to think about how a particular tax or fee might be evaded, in this case the worry doesn’t make sense. The truckers are like customers who show up to your lemonade stand: each cup is costing you a dollar to make, but you charge them $0.50 each time. This is a financial loss. You can’t make up that loss on volume, as any fifth grader could tell you. And so the only trucks we should really want in our state (at least at the present toll rates) are those that directly serve our households or businesses. And try as they might, truckers who are coming to directly serve us can’t avoid the tolls.

Fiscally-conservative urbanist blog Strong Towns talks very clearly in this article about why “the real welfare Cadillacs have 18 wheels.”

Why are we bonding for infrastructure?

A serious concern which may be holding up tolls are questions about whether we should be bonding (taking on public debt) to fund infrastructure projects. The tolls raise $700 million plus $200 million for debt service to repay the bonds. Concerns about bonding were raised by left (Rep. Tanzi) and right (Rep. Patricia Morgan), but were generally raised more intensely by conservative members of the Finance Committee.

Portland, Oregon’s Harbor Drive was once a highway. No longer.

Director Alviti pointed out that the long-term cost of our bridges falling into disrepair and needing to be completely replaced is much higher than the $200 million in debt service. Of course, said the director, there is a cost to financing these projects. But the overall net effect is a savings for taxpayers. Alviti used a metaphor over and over: fixing a road or bridge now is akin to replacing the broken hinge on a door. Waiting for perfect financing is like letting the door fall off the hinges and break entirely.

The ugliness of Harbor Drive when it was a highway belies the fact that highway infrastructure is also more expensive, and worse for development and the environment.

I agree with Director Alviti’s metaphor, but would like to expand on it. Debt service to help us fix our projects now is somewhat akin to fixing a hinge, instead of replacing the door. The difference is that in Rhode Island, we have a house that has too many doors.

With 4:7 dollars from the tolls going to capital expenses for the 6/10 Connector, the state should be giving serious consideration to whether we’re overbuilt in our highway system. Already, I’ve been very encouraged (and, frankly, surprised) at the outpouring of bipartisan support for exploring a boulevard on 6/10 to save money. A boulevard would be better for Providence and Cranston neighborhoods, would be better for our environment, but would also greatly reduce costs. This morning, Rep. Patricia Morgan tweeted me to signal her support, joining a consensus that includes West Side Councilman Bryan Principe, UNITE-HERE local 217, Environmental Committee Chair Art B. Handy, Minority Leader Brian C. Newberry, and Rep. Daniel Reilly. You really could not find a more politically diverse group of people who agree on this issue. As Speaker Mattiello explores whether to continue to subsidize the trucking industry, he should address the concerns of fiscal conservatives by including language in the toll bill requiring RIDOT to explore reduction of highway capacity as a cost-saving option.

Contact the Speaker

It needs to be clear to Speaker Mattiello that Rhode Islanders expect him to charge a fair(er) price for truck use of our highways. To not do so is to put the cost on the backs of other road users, and possibly leave our roads in a condition that is embarrassing and unsafe. But Mattiello should address the concerns of fiscal conservatives as well, mandating a reduction of costs by an over-stretched RIDOT.

Fiscal conservatives and environmental/social justice liberals have a budding consensus that part of the problem with our road system is that we’re spending too much money for bad outcomes. Addressing this is a way forward: The Speaker can reduce the overall amount of money needed to be raised, thus lowering tolls. Conservatives will feel that they’ve had a victory. Liberals, too, will be happy. And our state’s infrastructure needs will be addressed in a way that gives all sides part of what they want.

Contact Speaker Mattiello’s office, and email me at transportprovidence@gmail.com or tweet me @transportpvd to let me know that you have.

~~~~

June 4, 2015June 4, 2015

Q&A on the 6/10 Connector

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

With Governor Raimondo’s recent push for transportation funding, people are talking about patching up the 6/10 Connector vs. replacing it with a boulevard. Best practice in urban design recommends replacing urban highways with boulevards. But that would be something we haven’t done before in Rhode Island, so it’s understandable that some people have concerns. Here are a few questions I thought you might have about updating the 6/10 Connector for the 21st century.

That’s a big change. Wouldn’t it be expensive to remove the highway?Governor Raimondo is proposing a tractor-trailer toll that would allow the state to bond for $700 million. $400 million of that (plus another $400 million RIDOT wants to get from the Feds) is earmarked for the 6/10 Connector repairs. That is expensive.
Prices vary a lot for building highways, but urban highways with as many overpasses as the 6/10 Connector tend to be on the high end of the scale (and $800 million is quite high). Boulevards (think Memorial Boulevard in Providence, but more multimodal) tend to have a cost roughly ten times lower than an urban highway. Imagine how many structurally-deficient bridges we could make safe with an extra $360-720 million? That’s a very rough cost comparison, but what we can be sure of is that replacing the 6/10 Connector with a boulevard (even tripped out with the best complete streets features you can think of) would cost dramatically less than rebuilding it as a highway.
So many cars use the connector! Wouldn’t removing it create massive traffic jams?Actually many cities have removed excessive urban highways and seen no marked increase in traffic. There are a couple reasons for this. Traffic is created through a process called “induced demand” where if you build more highways, drivers will use them. Conversely, if you eliminate an urban highway, fewer people will use it as a short-cut.
“But wait!” you say. “I use 6/10 as a shortcut! You want to reduce my transportation options!” Actually, in other cities that remove urban highways, they see the traffic that previously used the highway spread out over the city’s other streets. And there’s less potential for traffic jams when drivers have lots of options. It’s like how bugs congregate around lights on hot summer nights, but out in the dark it’s less buggy. 6/10 is the bug-clogged light, city streets are the cool night air.

And one more thing: our current transportation network overwhelmingly favors driving; it has big highways that cut swaths through neighborhoods that are uninviting to other ways of getting around. Leveling the playing field by making our street system more comfortable for more ways of getting around (RIPTA, walking, and biking as well as driving) gives you more choices and more freedom. Plus, it means more other people are choosing to walk or bike and they’re not clogging up the road in front of you.
It’ll never happen. We can’t do innovative things in Rhode Island.I mean, this isn’t that innovative. And hey, we started the Industrial Revolution and moved rivers to revitalize downtown Providence. I think we have it in us to make a prudent economic decision to give Rhode Islanders more transportation options and safer bridges.
Plus, you cynics, politicians like ribbon-cuttings and ground-breakings. It’s not as sexy to photo-shoot the replacement of an archaic 1950s-era project as it is to pose for the first complete multi-modal corridor in the State.

We can assume that because the 6/10 Connector is in Raimondo’s investment plan, now is the time that something will happen with it. The state should choose the approach that is best for the neighborhoods adjacent to the corridor, which coincidentally is the option with the best return on investment. Replace the 6/10 Connector with an urban boulevard.

Want to help make this happen? Transport Providence is organizing a walk around the area in question today at 5:15 with Providence City Councilman Bryan Principe. The best thing you can do is to talk to people about this. Which people? Especially your representatives (state, federal, and city if you live in Providence), the Governor’s office, and RIDOT.

May 28, 2015October 4, 2016

Tear down 6/10: Pictures of our potential future

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Some on the conservative right and the progressive left are angry about tolls and others, on both the right and left, are smart enough to understand why tolls make sense. But everyone should agree, beyond all doubt, that it doesn’t make sense for us to put 4 out of 7 toll dollars to work rebuilding an urban blight.

The oldest section of the 6/10 Connector, Rt. 10 Huntington Expressway, is the oldest highway in the state, and is mostly redundantly a mirror of I-95. It cuts neighborhoods from each other, lowers property values, takes up developable space, and pukes smog into the air for poor folks to breath. One of our state’s best resources, the Washington Secondary Bike Path, is poorly used because its natural connection to Providence from Cranston is at Cranston Street, where only the boldest ride their bikes under the highway through thick, multi-lane traffic jams.

Read: Why Should We Remove Rt. 6/10?

Read: RIDOT Director Alviti Promises 6/10 Bus Lanes: Why Are They a Bad Idea?

Read: Providence is in the Top Ten for Lane-Miles Per Capita of Highway

But forget all that. Here are some places that used to be highways in other parts of the world. If pictures can’t convince you, then what can?

Seoul, South Korea

Used to be a(n American-built) highway. This is one of several that have been removed.

Portland, Oregon

Used to be a highway. The on- and off-ramps for the Harbor Drive highway now serve a bike path.

San Francisco

Used to be a highway. There was no access to this old ferry building when the Embarcadero stood. Luckily an earthquake took it down, and the people of San Francisco decided it wasn’t worth replacing it.

Milwaukee

The Park East Freeway–not there anymore. Removed.

Chattanooga, Tennessee

Used to be this: limited access.

Now it’s this: complete streets.

Memphis

Before.

After:

Jamaica Plain, Forest Hills

I-95, proposed:

Almost happened:

Stopped:

Dallas

Rt. 345. What it is:

What it could be: lots of development land, right next to downtown.

New York City

West Side Highway. Before:

After:

Philadelphia:

(Never happened, South Street)

Proposed:

What it would’ve taken:

Isaiah Zagar helped fight that highway. Here’s his Magic Garden.

Providence

How it was: (Oh yeah! We did that!)

How it is:

Olneyville

How it was:

How it is:

Call your reps, state senators, and other officials, and let them know what should be done with the 6/10 Connector. No urban place has ever been made better by a highway. Every urban place that has removed a highway has flourished. It doesn’t make sense to spend so much money on something that will make our city worse. It’s a no-brainer.

~~~~

May 17, 2015May 17, 2015

‘Good To Go’

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Remember when you were a teen
And couldn’t wait to make the scene
Behind the wheel of your own car
Driving made you a superstar
But freedom on the open road
Was cut short as the traffic slowed
“A sign of progress” experts said
Congestion means full steam ahead

Remember your first airline seat
Runway rumble beneath your feet
The look of wonder in your eyes
As you wing through the friendly skies
Then flying lost some altitude
Lines got long, they stopped serving food
Like sardines in a sardine can
Congestion is their business plan

Remember your first railroad ride
The panorama countryside
Rambling by on iron wheels
The club car waiter serving meals
And then one day the train was new
More frequency and comfort too
But most of all it was faster
Racing to its own disaster

Traveling is a right they missed
On our Constitutional list
We need to get from here to there
By means that aren’t a double-dare
Drive a car and the road could sink
Is your pilot seeing a shrink?
Washington, invest the dough
Make America GOOD TO GO.

c2015pn
Read Peet Nourjian’s previous poems here.

May 12, 2015

What should be done about RIPTA’s deficit?

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

At the May 5 Senate Finance RIPTA budget hearing, RIPTA CEO Ray Studley projected a $1.4 million deficit this fiscal year, and about a $5.6 million deficit next year (which starts July 1), and said he is “running out of options” to reduce deficits without cutting service.

This deficit is mostly due to paratransit, or transit for people with disabilities. Changes to this program may cost RIPTA about $5.9 million next year due to elimination of the “Rhody 10” revenue and the shift of many clients from some DHS programs to unreimbursed but expensive ADA rides. There was also a loss of revenue due to changes at Johnson&Wales that reduced sales.

His “ask” to address this, as far as I can tell, was to refer to bill H6108 which seems to authorize RIPTA to charge a $1 fare to the 1/3 of all passengers who ride free, mainly low income seniors and the disabled.

It would also have the state make up any further subsidy needed as result of this reduced fare. Studley noted this is still more generous than federal requirements which allow full fare during peak hours. He indicated that with 5.6 million free rides/year, such a $1 fare with expected elasticity might produce about $3 million in additional revenue. He noted one reason for the high number of free rides is a generous qualification level at incomes up to 200% of poverty, Mr. Studley suggested consideration of lowering it to 150%.

It seems Pennsylvania and Illinois are the only other states having a comparable free ride level but those states explicitly make up the lost revenue with a state appropriation.

Studley also hinted at another gas tax hike dedicated to RIPTA, (there was a map of state gas tax rates in the power point) noted that is what happened last time RIPTA took a hit from changes in Medicaid transport policy. However, the gas tax is already going up 1 cent in July (RIPTA should get 5% of the additional revenue, about $210,000) and with MA gas tax 6.5 cents less than RI it will be a challenge to get the Assembly to boost it further.

The senators asked about fuel costs, the paratransit system, overtime expenses, but made no suggestions to close the deficit.

Charging low income seniors and disabled a fare is a sensitive subject but it is worthy of serious consideration as there seem no easy alternatives. Most passengers, RIPTA employees, and transit advocates who see the potential of transit to help our core cities, the economy and the environment, think the worst thing would be to reduce service, especially as lines with weak ridership have already been weeded out by the recent route study assessment. While a little revenue can be gained by higher fares on long distance park and ride expresses, a fare increase above $2 in the metro area may provide little additional revenue and would hurt the mostly low income working people who pay the fares.

I don’t expect much more help from the Governor. Channel 10 reported she stated her high priority was to end the car excise tax. That would be a boon to those households with many cars, or expensive cars, but at the expense of those without.

Perhaps RIPTA could do more to rebuild paying ridership which took a hit with the long KP construction and the snowstorms. It was also noted at the fare study hearing how little revenue was being generated by the employer-supported “ecopass.” Note that there is very limited support for Upass support from public colleges. For example, while Brown faculty and staff (as well as students) can ride “free” with Brown IDs, no such benefit is available to faculty and staff from CCRI, RIC or URI, not even at URI-Providence in the midst of congestion but with good transit access and where the “free” parking provided in the Convention Center garage is very expensive.

I welcome suggestions on how to proceed as does the RIPTA Riders Alliance.

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387