Update on #Educate195 dedicated bike lane campaign


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

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

Many of you may have read this recent post, which talked about the I-195 Commission’s silly statement that double parking is more important than biking. We said the story would evolve, and we were hoping some simple nudging of the commission in the right direction would show them the error of their ways and get them behind protected bike lanes which have already gotten support from the business community on S. Main Street and the Brown and RISD campuses nearby.

 Well, the story did evolve, but not exactly how we thought. In response to the article, the I-195 Commission tweeted the following:

Note the several tweets exhorting that the I-195 Commission likes bikes and all things bike-related, which to me comes off as the cycling version of “But I have black friends!”

But note also, especially, tweets 5 and 6 of the series. “we see shared traffic lane on S. Main as the best model for PVDs dense urban core (5/7)” and “a designated bike lane is better in a suburban model, not a downtown model (6/7).”

 Ridiculous, right?

 So we’ve started a campaign on twitter, since that’s the social media we use primarily. If you use another social media device, please spread it there as well. We’re asking people to #educate195, and send them examples of urban dedicated bike lanes, especially protected infrastructure. Send a tweet with #educate195 as a hashtag at @transportpvd and @195commission telling them why bike lanes are important in downtowns. For further reach, include someone from the city you’re tweeting about. We asked the Bike Coalition of Greater Philadelphia what they thought of this statement, and they said:


 

David Hembrow of the blog The View from the Cycle Path had this to say:

 

PVD’s own @papabybike vented his frustration:

 

We had other Providence reactions. Anne of Small Point Cafe, whose business certainly would benefit from a bike lane going up South Main towards her neck of the woods on Westminster, shared via the Rhode Island Bike Coalition her thoughts that this makes her so angry that “I could run my bike lights off of the steam coming out of my ears.”

And deceptively named @Iowa_Jen, who is from the Iowa originally but lives in Providence, tweeted from Austin, Texas, where she’s visiting for work:

 

Don’t get us wrong. We think the suburbs deserve bike lanes too. We just think cities need them even more.

If you could bring examples of bike lanes from a city to somewhere urban in Rhode Island–Providence, Pawtucket, Woonsocket, Central Falls, Newport– what infrastructure would you bring? Share your pics, videos, and thoughts @195commission with #educate195.

 

~~~~

Jan Brodie of I-195 Commission says no to protected bike lanes


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

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
195-park-west-sideMembers of the community, including many cyclists, the head of the S. Main Street Merchants’ Association, the RI Bike Coalition, and staff members of Brown and RISD came to last month’s Bike & Ped Advisory Commission (BPAC) meeting in Providence to support protected bike lanes on the section of Main Street from Wickenden/Point Streets to College/Westminster Streets. This BPAC meeting had testimony from I-195 Commissioner Jan Brodie, and BPAC Commssioner Eric Weis took the chance to ask her if she supported protected bike lanes on the street.

Brodie said, “You don’t need to remove that second lane of travel. My biggest problem on S. Main is the double parking for delivery. If you take a lane of traffic out, you will just stop it. We don’t want that double parking thing to necessarily go away because that is how those activated first-floor uses stay activated.  I hate driving on Boylston, on Newbury Street in Boston. It’s all about the double, triple parking. They don’t do anything about it because every one of those first floor uses is activated [inaudible]. I understand it’s awkward.”

James Kennedy: “Do we have the opportunity to put loading zones in, because double parking is not something that they’re really supposed to do” [laughter from group}

Brodie: Of course not [i.e., that cars aren’t supposed to double park.].

James Kennedy: I understand, I definitely hear you, [double parking] is a very active use of [the street]. We need the loading, whatever is happening there needs to happen. But, isn’t there a way that we can manage the supply of parking that exists through metering and loading zones?

Brodie: Um, I don’t know the answer to that. I imagine that would have been the solution if there was that easy solution. I don’t think they’re doing it because they just don’t want to go around the corner. Um, some of these properties don’t have a back. It’s part and parcel of Northeastern, older cities that don’t have their current needs built into their development. I’ll try to think of some of the ones that utilize the double parking who are—um, it’s restaurants–

Jenn Steinfeld [another BPAC Commissioner]: The big truck deliveries.

Brodie: The big truck deliveries, and it’s usually early in the morning.

James Kennedy: What I mean though, is with the on-street parking that already exists, couldn’t we create loading zones within that on-street parking, so that there’s loading zones for the trucks.

Brodie: Parking is another option for people. I don’t want to take it away. There isn’t a ton. It’s probably in the right balance, because there are only so many streets, and the more dense we build, the tighter the ratio between street parking and a lot of square feet built. So, um, to take, to take the need for parking out of the street and put it in centralized parking garages leaves some on-street parking so that people can zip in and zip out.  All, I think all of these make for an interesting urban fabric.

James Kennedy: You wouldn’t want to remove all the parking, I mean, but obviously if we had both of the travel lanes we wouldn’t have a protected bike lane, so balancing the—having some of the parking used as loading zones for trucks, which is a use that is needed, and having metering so that the zip in and zip out can happen more effectively, alongside the fact that we’re adding garages, I mean, would you balance that and say that the parking is more important than the protected bike lane?

Brodie: My sense is that a shared bike lanes is—in the city—is an appropriate way to get bikes to go through the city.

Kennedy: What do you mean by a “shared bike lane” though?

Brodie: Uh, cars can go on it. A truck could pull over and do a delivery. It’s striped appropriately. And especially if it has some loading on it, it’s not going to be a through lane, people are not going to be going fast.

Brodie indicated that her views on the matter are up for evolution. I certainly hope she will check out Donald Shoup’s work on parking management and change her stance to support metering of parking alongside the protected bike lanes, which have broad community support. It would also be helpful if she reviewed the quick success offered by protected bike lanes to cities like Chicago, where some streets have more bikes than cars on them after just a short period of having the infrastructure. It might also be good to review @carfreepvd’s great piece highlighting the “P-Wiggle” which includes S. Main & Water Streets as a means of getting around the hills on the East Side.

Art installations to grace I-195 lands


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

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

I-195The barren swaths of empty I-195 lands may soon look more like an open air art museum.

That’s because the “LINK” commission is looking for 12 to 15 art installations to grace the 20 soon-to-be-developed acres between downcity and Fox Point for a year or more while it looks to re-purpose the parcels left vacant when Interstate 195 was moved.

“This is an unusual occasion for creative placemaking that will contribute to the vitality and attractiveness of Providence’s urban landscape,” according to the artists’ application. It “will enrich the surrounding urban environment and generate excitement for the I-195 land while giving local individuals a very visible space to showcase their creative talents.”

The commission is holding a meeting Monday, December 2, 5pm at 315 Iron Horse Way (EDC HQ) to discuss the public art installation. Each project may be funded up to $2,000. Yep, I said $2,000, starving artists. Click here for details.

Here’s the more information from Providence: “The I-195 Redevelopment District invites all individuals currently working or residing in Rhode Island to enliven the community and activate public space in Providence with original creative works for an interim period. All persons selected for this project will be asked to design temporary installations for specific sites on the parcels. It is the hope that the installations will generate excitement for the I-195 land while giving local individuals a very visible space to showcase their creative talents.”

Download the application here.