Providence’s parkway proposal: the essence of community development


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

elorza raimondoPlease join me in giving a round of applause to Mayor Elorza and the Providence Department of Planning and Development for their hard work and due diligence every step of the way during the 6/10 Connector’s community engagement process.

The city has been extremely transparent and open, taking the public’s input into consideration while drafting their design for the future of the 6/10 Connector. It is reassuring to know that the mayor and the planning department are actively listening to the needs and wants of the community. By taking a bottom-up approach, the City of Providence is conveying that its interests align with that of its communities, and appreciates the ideas and solutions that its residents bring to the table. Who else knows what’s best for the City of Providence other than the residents that live, work, and thrive here.

On Monday, October 3, the City released their draft plans for the future of the 6/10 Corridor at a public forum held at the Doorley Jr. Municipal Building in downtown Providence. While the City’s plans do not call for a surface boulevard that I and other community members would have liked to see presented, I can tolerate the parkway design. The parkway concept addresses the concerns of both sides about the looming question, “What should the future of the 6/10 Connector look like?” The plan addresses the need to fast-track the reconstruction of the structurally deficient Huntington Viaduct, out of concern that the structure might collapse. The plan appeases auto-interests as well as those citizens who want to see a concept that is more pedestrian and bike friendly, although we would much prefer a pure boulevard instead of a parkway.

The proposed parkway plan frees up land for development (approximately 50 acres), expands the footprint of DePasquale Square, adds two new off-street bike paths, creates a new exit to West Exchange Street, adds additional connections to the existing street grid, and reconnects parts of Olneyville to the urban fabric of Providence, among other things as well. The proposed “halo” elevated rotary where Route 6 merges with Route 10 allows for the potential to incorporate boulevard elements into sections of the route further down the line. While the entire length of the 6/10 Connector isn’t the pure boulevard that many of us had envisioned, the two-phased parkway plan allows the City and State to revisit the compelling arguments made in favor of an intermodal boulevard.

The most important aspect of the plan isn’t the plan itself. Rather, it is culmination of everything that has led to the plan being drafted in the first place. It is the countless hours spent by engaged citizens, who took it upon themselves to get involved, speak out, and voice their opinions about the project; citizens who persevered even when things weren’t going their way because they knew that this is a critical, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to turn the 6/10 Connector into something truly special. Without vocal citizens and lots of vigorous discussions, RIDOT would probably have elected to refurbish the highway a long time ago, and that wouldn’t have worked for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and city residents alike.

The future of the 6/10 Connector will single-handedly change the physical, social, and economic makeup of the city for generations to come. It is up to us as citizens to decide whether or not we want to make Providence a more livable community for our children, our children’s children, and ourselves. Or, if we want to sit idle, content with the current economic conditions in our Capital City. The choice is ours. RIDOT has the final say about the project’s design, and I strongly encourage my fellow Rhode Islanders to continue to be actively involved in the process, and vocal about the future we envision for a livable, thriving city for decades to come.

How would you spend $17 million on downtown transit?


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

RIPTAHave you heard about the $17 million “Downtown Enhanced Transit Corridor” grant that the city of Providence received for the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority to develop a 6-stop enhanced bus corridor to run from the Providence Railroad station to a new bus hub in the hospital district?  Its largely the route originally planned to be for a streetcar.

RIPTA is organizing a “stakeholder” group to advise on implementation, the first meeting of which is scheduled for October 24.  The RIPTA Riders Alliance, of which I am a member, was invited to participate.  An open public meeting for all may be scheduled later.

$17 million should be enough to be a potential game-changer for downtown and for RIPTA, both of which are struggling.  Indeed RIPTA ridership has dropped significantly in the last 2 years, from about 20 to 18 million riders. Not long ago the RIDOT Director publicly called RIPTA a “failure” because of our low commute by transit rate.  The decision by Citizens Bank to locate a huge corporate “campus” west of I-295 where there is no transit is an indication of how little RIPTA can matter to employers.  Downtown is hurting too, from the long empty “Superman” building to the well publicized perception of unpleasant conditions and “chaos” in Kennedy Plaza.

RIPTA planners have said they intend to use the $17 million grant to jazz up the bus stops with enhanced amenities, to buy some ultra-clean hybrid buses, and have six of their lines (#1,3,6,51,58,72) routed on the
corridor to ensure very frequent service.

While this includes some good ideas, at $2/ride, soon likely to be $2.50, I don’t see how this will attract many new riders who don’t already have a pass or ride free anyway.  I don’t see how this expensive fare will do much to attract attention of those wanting to do business that might lead to economic redevelopment. Thus I suggest that the buses RIPTA wants to buy be used to establish a free loop on that corridor.

About a year ago the Coalition for Transportation Choices hosted a meeting here with invited speakers from Denver, Minneapolis and Hartford where transit initiatives were successful in building ridership and spurring economic development.  One thing Denver and Hartford (New Haven too) did to help do this was to institute a free bus shuttle connecting their train stations, also on the periphery, to key central locations.  So this can be done!  I’ll also add that having lived in Oregon 1974-75 when Portland OR was considered a failed city with a dead downtown, one thing they did, (Seattle too) to turn things around was to institute a fare-free downtown zone to get people more used to using transit and to come downtown where they can get around easily.  This was a great success even if it could not be sustained through the 2008 recession.

Not just those that love cities, we all have a stake in having our central city and transit system succeed as they have so much potential to contribute to the problem of combating climate change.

Those who think this is an idea worth exploring  need to encourage RIPTA to reconsider.  Operating funds for the shuttle is a problem, but if there is a will to do so perhaps Federal “CMAQ ” funds  can be reprogrammed for this purpose, at least for a few years.  (CMAQ helped support operating the old Providence-Newport ferry and the South County commuter rail.)  After the bad publicity on Kennedy Plaza, both for the buses and the city, something needs to be done to get positive attention.  And a free shuttle will help strengthen the value of our Northeast Corridor location and commuter rail access TO Providence, from the north and south.

This project, together with enhanced policing and better services for the homeless and mentally ill in the Plaza, can begin to turn the situation around for the better.   For reasons of environment, economy, and quality of life, and for those who love cities, we don’t want to squander this opportunity created by this grant to make a real improvement on our economy, environment, and quality of life.

Occupy wants to reclaim Kennedy Plaza for the people


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

2016-10-15-occupy-5-years-02A protest organized by Occupy Providence and supported by RIPTA Riders Alliance was held in Burnside Park Saturday against plans by downtown building owners and allied politicians to push out buses and homeless people from the Kennedy Plaza area. October 15 marks the 5th anniversary of Occupy Providence. “We oppose the damaging idea of moving the state’s bus hub to a worse location far from downtown, and pushing people without homes into other parts of Providence without adequate services,” said the group in a statement, “We also oppose efforts by downtown owners to assert more control over the Kennedy Plaza area to the detriment of others.”

2016-10-15-occupy-5-years-04
“There is no ‘those people’ there is only ‘We the people!'”

As is the tradition at Occupy, the event took the form of an open microphone, where anyone was invited to stand up and address their concerns and ideas to the crowd. A sampling of the speakers is presented blow. Technical difficulties marred the video, but the audio is clear.

People spoke about the issues surrounding homelessness, the persecution of panhandlers, and the increase in the bus fares that will be impacting the most vulnerable come January. Three student from the Alpert Medical School at Brown University attended, arguing that public transportation is a health issue.

Randall Rose, a member of Occupy Providence, said, “The Kennedy Plaza area should be kept safe for everyone, and not put under the sway of a few owners who want to use their insider connections to make more money from a more tightly restricted downtown.”

2016-10-15-occupy-5-years-05
“Since when did it become a crime to ask for help?”

2016-10-15-occupy-5-years-03

2016-10-15-occupy-5-years-01

Up Against a Wall with 6/10


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

BgZZr1iCQAAMPOB (1)Mayor Jorge Elorza appeared with his team from Providence Planning to present a draft proposal for the 6/10 Connector Monday night. The plan took the form of a parkway.

The looming context of the meeting was Governor Gina Raimondo’s September 7th announcement to rebuild the highway as-is. Though the bridges in question remain open to car and truck traffic, Gov. Raimondo and Rhode Island Department of Transportation Director Peter Alviti have maintained that the condition of the bridges creates an emergency situation in which the planning process must be severely curtailed. On the 7th, Director Alviti stated that the surface boulevard was “dead”. [It seems like this would be well known, but for full disclosure, that boulevard proposal came through the group Moving Together Providence, of which I am one founding member].

If there had been any hopes that the City of Providence would reignite the boulevard proposal, it did not happen Monday. The parkway plan honed very close to the design of a highway. The city’s plan made a number of changes to the RIDOT proposal that improved neighborhood connectivity through biking and walking access.

I’m going to take off my objective journalist hat and comment on some things I liked and did not like, as well as some things I continue to have questions about, as we move forward.

Good: Reclaiming Land

While the parkway continues to take up an extraordinary 240’ of width, the city’s plan nonetheless reduces the footprint in places to half of what the highway would be. This has allowed the city to claim fifty of the seventy acres originally expected to be developable under the surface boulevard proposal.

The Providence proposal reclaims significant land in Olneyville, with a phase two proposal to extend DePasquale Square into about half of the 13 acres of Federal Hill that were lost to the Dean Street exit/entrance ramps.

Good: Creating new connections for Smaller Streets like Magnolia and Tobey

As a former resident of Tobey Street, one of my favorite proposals was changing the Tobey Street on-ramp into a bridge connecting Federal Hill to Olneyville. Street grid connections like this are a good idea.

Bad: Continued Use of Traffic Pseudo-Science

Traffic engineers who are in any way honest understand that it does not make sense to do traffic counts on a road and then plan capacity for that roadway accordingly. Numerous highways have been removed and seen a significant part of the traffic that uses those highways disappear, and this is such a common occurrence that it is now a routine understanding. Given the political context of pressure from RIDOT to reify traffic counts, the City of Providence Planning Department did the logical thing, which was to base its various proposals on projections about how many cars would be on 6/10. This is going to make many of the otherwise reasonable proposals less livable. It’s a shame to see the boulevard proposal die on the western half of the roadway that inspired Cheonggyecheon.

Good: Preserved Space for Enhanced Amtrak and MBTA Upgrades

While Amtrak continues to look into whether to reorient the highly-traveled Northeast Corridor through Worcester instead of Providence, the Planning Department’s proposal to keep land open for enhanced rail travel is an important part of the economic and quality-of-life picture.

Bad: Stroad Design for Connecting Streets

The images used for connecting streets were four lane roads with anemic looking bike lanes alongside them. Urban streets should be two lanes, with even the most traffic-oriented streets getting two lanes with a turn lane. The bike lanes put in these proposals are anemically narrow (Dutch infrastructure goes for 4 meters to allow bikes to pass one another) and is without separation. These streets need a road diet.

Bad: Bait-and-Switch on the Roundabout

BgZZr1iCQAAMPOBThe Providence Planning proposal made use of a widely circulated image of a raised roundabout in the Netherlands, which serves bicycles crossing a Dutch highway. Problematically, this image was intended to go besides a proposal for a raised car roundabout to connect Routes 6 East and West and Route 10.

Roundabouts are not inherently a bad idea, but the use of this Dutch image is misleading. (Surface) roundabouts are an economical and safe way to connect roads that are high volume. (Would a raised roundabout that of course has many structures holding it up be cost-effective? That remains to be seen). They cost less than signalized intersections and usually allow more steady flow of traffic, causing them to be the default treatment in some states. Smaller roundabouts like the one carried out in Poynton, UK can be used in such a way as to create more pedestrian friendly areas while moving a surprisingly large number of vehicles. Larger roundabouts like those seen on Parisian boulevards can also carry a lot of traffic, but are being greatly curtailed as Paris attempts to revitalize the pedestrian connections around its major squares.  Dutch bike design takes pedestrian and bike crossings away from roundabouts, while using them as a connection for cars.

Cti6O5dWIAAGe6Q

In short, the roundabout should be understood as what it is: part of the parkway (which is really just a word for a scenic highway). The other connections need to put bike, pedestrians, and transit in the forefront.

Bad: No Real RIPTA Vision

While Providence Planning presented its efforts to remove cars from Olneyville Square via the raised roundabout as a way of improving through-flow of RIPTA buses, this follows the same induced demand logic that other traffic congestion schemes follow. Making a more direct connection between 10 N and 6 W will definitely take cars out of Olneyville immediately, but the pattern is that within a very short time traffic will fill that space and find equilibrium. So plans to create transit improvements need to acknowledge that. One way to improve transit-flow and make Olneyville more business friendly would be to disallow car through-traffic (allowing cars to visit and park at the edge, but pedestrianizing the center of the square is an idea that has its origins with Jef Nickerson of GCPVD). Having designated areas of the square for bus travel would then allow for better transit flow, though Providence Planning should be cognizant of the dos and don’ts about pedestrian spaces.

There also should be Bus Rapid Transit on the boulevard itself. I’ve pointed out in the past that while BRT does have some costs associated with it, a lot of the biggest costs going along with the RIDOT BRT proposal were added lanes for the BRT, and skyway bridges to connect pedestrians to center stations on a highway. A parkway continues to be a road designed with high speeds in mind, and I’m not certain how BRT could be best handled on a roadway like this, but I think it should be explored.

Getting Mugged by RIDOT

Two television stations and two newspapers asked me what I thought of the plan, and I compared it to a mugging. The Rhode Island Department of Transportation has very transparently used safety concerns about the Huntington Bridge to torpedo normal rules of process for deciding what to do with the highway. Essentially, Providence Planning has its back against the wall, and RIDOT is saying, “Your money, or your life?” Given that very limiting context, what Providence produced was a reasonable compromise that I can live with, in the same way that I accept other unpleasant realities forced upon me. I think the plan is leaps and bounds ahead of RIDOT’s proposal, but that’s not setting a high bar.

Spencer Grassie- Let’s reconnect Olneyville to the city’s urban fabric


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

Spencer Grassie is a senior at Providence College, majoring in Management and minoring in Finance. He has written the following op-ed:

pc (1)As a current Providence College Friar and a native Rhode Islander, I am passionate about our state and capital city. As a millennial, I want to ensure that future generations have the building blocks necessary to thrive and make a living right here in the Ocean State. That is why the ProJo Editorial board’s piece, “Smart decision on bridges” is short sighted. The idea of turning the decrepit 6/10 Connector into a surface boulevard is about much more than safety.

College students and millennials rely heavily on alternative modes of transportation such as biking, walking, ride-hailing (Uber, Lyft), and public transportation. This is not to say that I, or my millennial counterparts, want to get rid of the automobile entirely, but we are drawn to places that offer a unique sense of community. We thrive in cities  that have an array of transportation options, ample amounts of interconnected green space, retailers, and restaurants for social interaction and the exchange of ideas. These places provide people with a genuine emotional connection to the community, one that the car simply cannot replicate.

I attended three public forums on the future of the 6/10, and the general consensus does not want to reconstruct the 1950s style limited-access highway. At the last forum my group envisioned the 6/10 as a tree-lined boulevard, equipped with bike lanes, walking trails, and bus rapid transit running through Providence’s newest mixed-use neighborhood. If Rhode Island is serious about making the state more conducive to millennials and attracting talented individuals and companies, our state leaders should reconsider their position on the 6/10 Connector and recognize the immense value and countless upsides the boulevard concept has for the city and state as a whole.

San Francisco, New York, and Milwaukee deconstructed their highways in favor of boulevards. These cities have proved that replacing a highway with a boulevard has the potential to create a focal point for civic pride while increasing nearby property values and promoting a higher quality of life.

At another forum, Peter Park, a city planning expert, stated that, “The 6/10 boulevard idea is not a technical issue, but a political one.” There are urban planners and transportation engineers who have successfully rolled out projects of similar complexity. The public should not worry about the technical details because these professionals possess the knowledge and skills to get jobs like this done all the time.

We, as Rhode Islanders, have two options: 1) we can continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results or 2) we can facilitate strategic action among private, civic, and public sectors to reverse the dismal public policy decisions of the 1950s by replacing the limited-access highway with an intermodal boulevard.

Let’s choose to reconnect the strangulated neighborhood of Olneyville to the city’s urban fabric, provide opportunities for disenfranchised residents, lower our infrastructure’s annual maintenance costs, and add properties to the city’s tax rolls. But most importantly, let’s choose to build a civic point of pride, one that makes us proud to be from Rhode Island because we are no longer bound by antiquated thinking.

Let’s build on Providence’s commitment to being the Creative Capital and showcase that the smallest state in the Union is looking for innovative ways to grow its economy and sense of community. Let’s build a boulevard.

Willy Wonka leads the way 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

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

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
Peter Alviti, RIDOT director, testifying in favor of Rhode Works
Peter Alviti, RIDOT director, testifying in favor of Rhode Works. (Photo by Elisha Aldrich)

Director Peter Alviti of RIDOT recently stated his own version of reality about the 6/10 Connector when he said that, “Hypothetical plans or other scenarios could be explored in the world of theory, but in the world of reality we are facing we now need to address this structurally deficient problem.”

Alviti’s words are dismissive of basic commuting and engineering realities. It’s not really clear why spending $5-6 million to temporarily brace the Huntington Bridge would be unacceptable since it would open up time to discuss plans that may save the state hundreds of millions of dollars on the 6/10 Connector. Be that as it may, Alviti’s insistence that boulevard experts across the country are fanciful imagineers got me thinking about the most recently departed icon of imagination. As the City of Providence fights back against RIDOT, it’s going to have to take a page from the book of Willy Wonka. And no, not the Johnny Depp version, the real thing.

Every child loves Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory but it takes adult eyes to see one of the key lessons of the movie. My uncle pointed out to me growing up that what’s funniest to adults about the Gene Wilder representation of Wonka is that he never seems to raise his voice when the time is appropriate. This was obvious to my uncle, the father of four girls, because as a parent he understood how ineffective Wonka was being, and read that it was intentional. 

Help. Police. Murder.

Kevin Proft, whose excellent pieces in Eco RI have put me to shame month after month for their fine-toothed journalistic detail on 6/10, deserves credit again for his excellent piece juxtaposing the various statements of RIDOT Director Peter Alviti has made before and after the supposed “emergency” that Gov. Raimondo announced Sept. 7th. But deep inside this sharp critique of Raimondo and Alviti is an important statement about Mayor Jorge Elorza as well:

Mayor Jorge Elorza and the city are pushing back, lightly. The mayor agreed to be at the governor’s press conference, and was commended twice by Raimondo for his support of her decision.

“I want to thank all of the mayors who have come together today in support of this. Mayor Elorza … it’s been a pleasure to work with you,” the governor said at the start of her remarks.

It’s unclear how supportive the mayor actually is. In his own remarks at the Sept. 7 press conference, he noted the importance of safe infrastructure, but said public safety doesn’t need to come at the expense of the city’s needs.

“While we know the bridge must be addressed in short order, we remain enthusiastic about the opportunity to collaborate with the state on the options to enhance and improve the 6-10 corridor as a whole,” Elorza said. “RIDOT, the city, and the community have all articulated a larger goal for this project including enhanced mobility options, improving the quality of place and quality of life in and around the corridor, and opening up new areas of economic development and jobs.

“We can invest these dollars in a way that ensures the safety of this roadway and also enhances the livability of this entire corridor. It’s our responsibility to advocate for the smartest investment of these dollars.”

Mayor Elorza can’t ride this fence for long. Though everyone agrees that he supports the boulevard, what counts is not just the words that are said, but the tone and manner in which they’re said. 

Eventually Wonka finds his voice.

It’s all there, black and white. Clear as crystal. You STOLE Fizzie Lifting Drinks. You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, and so you get NOTHING. YOU LOSE. GOOD DAY, SIR.”

We’re at a delicate place, and theatrics matters. Governor Raimondo doesn’t have the facts behind her, and nor does Director Alviti. There is no reason why stabilizing the Huntington Bridge entails curtailing the rights of Providence residents to participate fully in the public process and see their vision built. But facts don’t matter. Theater does. The mayor needs to learn from the late Gene Wilder and put a bit more magic in his step.

Mayor Elorza has been taking on a lot of issues. He’s fighting hard on Liquified Natural Gas, and just unveiled an ambitious plan to fight the root causes of poverty and homelessness near Kennedy Plaza. These deserve praise. 

But it’s time to do the same on 6/10. If not, we’ll be stuck with this design for 75-100 years, and no one reading this will be able to affect change in their lifetimes.

Mayor Elorza has been taking on a lot of issues. He’s fighting hard on Liquified Natural Gas, and just unveiled an ambitious plan to fight the root causes of poverty and homelessness near Kennedy Plaza. These deserve praise. 

But it’s time to do the same on 6/10. If not, we’ll be stuck with this design for 75-100 years, and no one reading this will be able to affect change in their lifetimes.

To quote Wonka: “We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams.” It might seem silly, but dreams have greater power to motivate people to action than facts. It’s time to make a stronger statement. Show some imagination! Call a press conference at the 6/10 Connector. But speak up.

Homeless advocates release their plan for Kennedy Plaza


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
2016-09-14 Homelessness 05
Ron Watts

Lost in yesterday’s coverage of real estate investor Joseph Paolino‘s roll out of the Providence Downtown Improvement District‘s (DID) plan to deal with the issue of panhandling (and homelessness) in downtown Providence was the introduction of an alternative plan by committed homeless and poverty activists that took place across from Kennedy Plaza at Paolino’s property “The Shops at 100.”

The Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project (RIHAP), Homeless Bill of Rights Defense Group and DARE (Direct Action for Rights and Equality) presented a comprehensive plan called “Reclaiming Our Public Spaces.”

The group presented recommendations in three major areas:

  • Promoting Community and Economic Development
  • Discontinuing Current Criminalization Policies; and
  • Supporting Social and Human Service Needs.
2016-09-14 Homelessness 08
Eric Hirsch

The advocates sought to differentiate their ideas from those to be presented by Paolinio. Dr. Eric Hirsch, Professor of Sociology at Providence College and a member of the Homeless Bill of Rights Defense Committee pointed out that Paolino’s proposals were akin to the flawed “broken windows” policies that have been discredited around the country. The “broken windows” policies were based on an idea that allowing minor offenses like littering, panhandling, loitering, or washing car windshields was an open invitation for more serious crimes. They argued that these “broken windows” were the real reasons for the rise of violent and serious property offenses.

“The problem with basing policy on this “broken window” idea is that there was no evidence to back it up,” stated Hirsch. “Unfortunately, although the idea has been completely discredited, police departments and city officials around the country continue to base policy decisions on this flawed proposal.”

“Criminalization is not a solution to homelessness,” added Roger Williams University School of Law Professor and Assistant Dean Andrew Horwitz. “It is incredibly cruel to those experiencing homelessness, dehumanizing the individuals and making it harder to connect to advocates and services. It also costs the system more by spending taxpayer dollars on court costs and incarcerations rather than on housing, medical care, and other long-term solutions.”

Key findings/conclusions from the report are:

  • Homeless people are criminally punished for being in public even when they have no other alternatives
  • The criminalization of homelessness is increasing across the country
  • Criminalization laws violate the civil and human rights of homeless people
  • Criminalization laws are costly to taxpayers
  • Criminalization laws are ineffective; and
  • Criminalization laws should be replaced with constructive solutions to ending
  • homelessness.

“Rhode Island has the potential to be a model for how to end homelessness,” concluded Barbara Freitas, Director of RIHAP. “We can do this by collaborating to provide safe, affordable, permanent housing and engaging with and educating our community. It is not done by harassing and further marginalizing our city’s most vulnerable neighbors.”

Here’s the video from their press conference:

2016-09-14 Homelessness 07

2016-09-14 Homelessness 06

2016-09-14 Homelessness 04

2016-09-14 Homelessness 03

2016-09-14 Homelessness 02

2016-09-14 Homelessness 01

Moving them along


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

RIPTAI saw my friend Jeff yesterday morning, on the way to his morning workout at the YMCA. Jeff is confined to a wheelchair, and uses RIPTA to get to the East Side Y most mornings. We chatted for a few minutes while we got on the same bus and shared it through the bus tunnel.

Because I commute via RIPTA, I walk through Kennedy Plaza pretty much twice a day, every day. In a couple of decades of riding the bus, early, late, middle of the day, I have never felt unsafe in the plaza. Now and again I’ve been asked for change, which I decline to give, and once or twice I’ve been offered bags of drugs, which I decline to buy. I’ve occasionally seen loud arguments and even a couple of altercations, but they were not my arguments and altercations. People loiter, but after all, how different is that from me waiting for my bus?  I see other people carrying on their lives in the Plaza, just as I’ve shared the bus with some people for years, and am familiar with a little slice of their lives. Their lives are not mine, so we coexist, but seldom interact.

Joe Paolino talks blithely about moving the buses to the Peter Pan station, or to Allens Avenue. He can do that because he never takes the bus, but has a driver to drop him off wherever he wants to go. If he gets what he wants, the rest of us who do not enjoy that luxury will have longer commutes, get wetter when it rains, and miss connections, in service of enhancing the value of his property.

Does anyone beside me remember the people who used to hang around the Fogarty building on Fountain Street in downtown Providence when the unemployment office was in it years ago?  I’m not so old that I could possibly be the only one, am I?  Or at the bus station on Sabin Street before that?  What about the people who would crowd around Travelers Aid (now Crossroads) off Westminster?  The bus station, Crossroads, and the unemployment offices have all been moved out of downtown, to keep “those people” away.

Now city leaders have set their sights on RIPTA, suggesting that the bus system is somehow a magnet for poor people and thus a threat to an upscale downtown, just like those other magnets. This is a familiar tune, but why do we keep singing it?  Paolino himself was the mayor who presided over moving the bus station from Sabin Street to its current remote location off I-95 back in the 1980s. Did that help? Moving these other supposed magnets out of downtown has not worked in the past. Why should anyone imagine it will do the trick this time?

The problem in Kennedy Plaza is not RIPTA, and pretending so will not solve anything, but only cause hardship and inconvenience to people whose lives are already marked by hardship and inconvenience. The problems are social problems of drugs, poverty, and homelessness, unmasked by the evacuation of workers from downtown. Abetted by state policy, and with transportation to downtown increasingly less convenient (RIPTA cutbacks anyone?), banks, law firms, and other commerce has left downtown. The state itself has removed hundreds of its employees, too. The poor people who congregate in Kennedy Plaza are not new; they are just the ones left behind.

Back before the state decided to evacuate its workers from downtown, there was a substantial presence downtown by social service agencies. In service of enhancing property values and chasing away the poor people who they “attracted”, those agencies were moved out of downtown. Now there is little or nothing downtown to help people who need it, but the people are still there. How strange.

Moving these problems out of the center of town will not make them go away, but only allow our civic leaders  to pretend they do not exist. Do we want to solve those problems, or just ignore them?  Wait, don’t answer that.

ProJo 6/10 editorial wrong on basic facts


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

ProjoThe Providence Journal editorial board posted a piece praising Governor Gina Raimondo for her decision to ignore the public process and the recommendations of national and local experts to fast-track the reconstruction of the 6/10 Connector.

The Projo is, as a journalistic entity, free to make whatever statements it wants on any issue. The problem with the Projo’s editorial is that it is wrong on basic facts that all parties agree to. Quoth the Projo:

Gov. Gina Raimondo, thus, did the right thing by responding boldly to new evidence that bridges along that stretch are in perilous condition, putting the public’s safety at risk. She announced Wednesday that the state must repair these crumbling structures as quickly as possible.

In doing so, she had to pull the plug on an extravagant $595-million state Department of Transportation plan to cap the highway and knit back together neighborhoods that have been disconnected for decades with a new surface boulevard. That plan would have taken longer and cost more than simply fixing the bridges.

Three plans have been considered during the 6/10 Connector public process: rebuilding the highway as-is, rebuilding the highway with a cap over it at certain crossings, and a surface boulevard. The “rebuild with a cap” option, though better described as a highway plan, has been labeled by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) as a “highway-boulevard hybrid.” Hence the confusion.

Everyone agrees that the surface boulevard would be the cheapest option of the three. That option, as outlined by community group Fix the 6/10, would cut down the amount of infrastructure spending needed to complete the project, while restoring the grid to drivers:

Rebuilding a highway in the 6/10 corridor, especially if it involves a cap, will cost at least $600 million, hundreds of millions more than a surface alternative. A surface option will cost taxpayers much less, making resources available for other projects throughout the state. Further, the ongoing maintenance costs of the highway option will burden our children with billions of dollars of maintenance and replacement costs. A surface road option will also unlock dozens of taxable acres for development, improving the region’s fiscal health.

In a Cranston public forum on the 6/10 Connector, Eco RI news documented that RIDOT officials intentionally spun the capped highway option as best, holding information that would favor the surface boulevard close to their chest unless specifically grilled on it:

RIDOT officials routinely downplayed instances where the boulevard option compared favorably to the capped-highway idea. At the meeting in Olneyville, it wasn’t until ecoRI News asked about the relative costs of the options — more than an hour into the meeting — that RIDOT revealed the boulevard option would cost taxpayers less. The difference remains undetermined, as RIDOT hasn’t calculated the cost of the boulevard option.

If the Projo had made such an error in a news article, it would be a problem. But for an editorial whose thesis is that the governor is making the tough decisions needed to save money, mistaking two of the three options on the table for one another, and then getting the costs of the options wrong calls for a full retraction.

~~~~

On 6/10, Pichardo says people want ‘plan to reunite the neighborhoods’


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

pichardoGovernor Gina Raimondo may have acted too hastily when she took off the table the idea of transforming the 6/10 connector into a boulevard, according to Providence state Senator Juan Pichardo.

“The people who live in these areas were counting on the plans to reconnect the neighborhoods after being divided for so long by the highway,” Pichardo said in a recent news release. “This is a decision that will have a major impact on the daily lives of many people, and I’m concerned that it was made too hastily.”

Pichardo’s press release referred to the boulevard proposal as the “plan to reunite the neighborhoods.”

He said, “The benefit this project would have on the people in these neighborhoods just cannot be calculated. It’s rare that a government proposal gets this kind of support from the community. This project would have gone a long way to making the city more inclusive, ending decades of disenfranchisement that have been brought about in these neighborhoods. It’s more than a little disconcerting that something so positive for the whole city could be so quickly and so arbitrarily dismissed at a moment’s notice.”

Transportation advocates have been pushing to transform the 6/10 connector, which is in desperate need of repairs, into a boulevard – as other American cities have done when highways that cut through urban neighborhoods have needed major repairs. Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza is supportive of this concept. RIDOT is not. Last week, Raimondo said the overpasses are in such dire need of repair that the state cannot wait to consider the boulevard idea.

“I truly hope the state will reconsider and take into consideration the concerns and desires of an entire community, instead of repeating the mistakes of decades past by recreating a citywide scar on the landscape that has such a negative impact on the lives of so many.”

While Gov. Raimondo made remarks at a recent RIC event signaling her openness to accept any proposal that was safe, affordable, and not a traffic problem, a later statement through a spokesperson doubled down on her commitment to rebuild the highway as-is, with the caveat of adding a bike lane (on a highway?), building an additional ramp (i.e., expanding the highway), or putting in Bus Rapid Transit (part of both the RIDOT and City of Providence proposals).

Providence Planning will continue to take public feedback at 610Connector@providenceri.gov.

Raimondo quietly reverses 6/10 decision, then backslides.


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

Governor Raimondo seemed to quietly reverse herself on the 6/10 Connector, stating that her office was open to working with the City of Providence on any solution that was safe, did not worsen traffic, and was cost-effective. Through a staffer, Raimondo later denied that her statement constituted a reversal of policy. Rhode Islanders can continue to reach out participate in the outreach Providence Planning Dept. is doing. The department opposes rebuilding 6/10 as-is.

The (non?) reversal was more of a whimper than a bang, because it contained significant caveats. But those who see a sustainable future for the corridor should press the governor to stick to her commitments going forward.

Rhode Island Bicycle Coalition activist Alex Krogh-Grabbe asked the governor what she would do on 6/10 around 5:00.

Gov. Raimondo said that if the City of Providence completes its public forums within the 60 day time frame she has outlined, she will honor their plan, so long as it is affordable and does not create safety issues for the bridges by delaying work.

The governor also gave herself breathing room for the future in laying out a caveat around traffic management.

While RIDOT officials have described the 6/10 boulevard as a traffic impediment, it’s clear that it would not be. The famed Champs Elysées in Paris carries as many cars as 6/10, while also accommodating 500,000 pedestrians a day.

Even more impressively, the city of Seoul, South Korea removed a raised highway above the Cheongyecheon River. At 160,000 cars a day, the Cheongyecheon Freeway carried 60% more cars than the 6/10 Connector, but Seoul didn’t even replace it with a boulevard. They just created a river park.

The irony might be pressing as is, if it weren’t for the fact that Seoul officials sent observers to Providence before redesigning their highway, in order to see Waterplace Park– essentially the eastern edge of Route 6.

The reality is that traffic engineers have understood since the 1970s that urban highways create their own traffic mire, and that removing them does not worsen traffic congestion. The trick is getting RIDOT to admit this known fact. It’s hard to convince a person of something when their salary depends on them not understanding it.

Mayor Elorza will continue to take public feedback in order to aid his Planning Department in pushing for a boulevard. If you have something to share, please send your thoughts to 610connector@providenceri.gov.

Update:

Through spokesman Mike Raia, Raimondo’s office backed away from its statement to Krogh-Grabbe, saying it did not reverse its position on the need to repair overpasses on the 6/10 connector immediately, thus ending the debate on replacing it with a boulevard instead.

“She hasn’t backed away from her announcement, as RI Future is reporting,” said Raia. “This is a public safety decision. We are not considering a boulevard.”

Raia added:

“[The governor] announced three things:

“Move forward immediately with an in-kind replacement of the Huntington Ave bridge.

“Immediately start quarterly inspections of all the bridges.

“Reached an agreement with Mayor Elorza for his public input process to conclude quickly to allow RIDOT to issue RFPs by the end of the year.

“She said during the presser and again on Channel 10 that she is willing to consider modifications to a simple replace in kind for the remaining bridges as long as they do not cause any additional delay (these modifications might include a bike lane, BRT, a future project to connect 10N with 6W).”

~~~~

Senior/disabled bus pass re-qualification leads to long lines


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

2016-09-07 RIPTA 002Rosa was waiting near the end of a line of about 30 people when I found her at 8:30am in the Kennedy Plaza terminal building Wednesday morning. In her hand she held a senior/disabled bus pass that was due to expire in September 2020, but a driver told her that the pass was no good anymore and that she had to get a new bus pass if she wanted to continue to ride at the reduced fare.

“I paid for this pass, and now it’s no good and I have to pay again,” said Rosa.

Barbara Polichetti, Director of Public Affairs at RIPTA (Rhode Island Public Transit Authority)  said that, “Individuals who obtained their passes before January 1, 2013 will be required to pay $10 for their new passes. Anyone who obtained their pass after January 1, 2013 will still need to re-qualify but will not have to pay the $10 processing fee.”

2016-09-07 RIPTA 001Further up the line Frederick, a disabled man in his late thirties, told me that he had waited in line for over two hours the day before. “They cut off the line at ten people, and told the rest of us to come back tomorrow,” he said. He added that it is difficult for him to get around without a bus pass.

RIPTA announced back in April that they were “re-qualifying all passengers eligible to participate in RIPTA’s Reduced Fare Bus Pass Program for lower income senior citizens and persons with disabilities.” All participants were then required to obtain new passes by July 1. That deadline was later extended to September 1.

I asked Polichetti why re-qualification became necessary. “We looked at all aspects of this program as part of the Comprehensive Fare Study that was conducted last year. In addition to looking at fares, or in this case our no-fare customers, we also looked at the administration of the program. It became very clear that having passes that were valid for five years at a time was not practical or prudent – it was simply too long to go without having people check back in to see if they still qualify for the program.

2016-09-07 RIPTA 005“There was no way to determine if a pass holder had died or moved away; their passes remained active and in use in our system until they expired. So we knew we needed to lessen the time the passes are valid. They will now be valid for two years, not five. The passes being issued now will expire on a customer’s birthday after the two-year mark, so everyone will not have to re-qualify at the same time again – it will be staggered.”

Originally senior and disabled bus riders were facing a $.50 price hike, but that increase was put off until January, when the General Assembly might reconsider the fare increase.

“We are sensitive to the fact that this program serves a population that is facing financial, health and other stressors in their lives,” said Raymond Studley, RIPTA’s CEO in June when the extension was announced.

That population includes Alan, who first got in line for a new pass on August 31. He was told that he lacked the proper paperwork. It took him a while to get what he needed from the IRS. I wasn’t sure that the one paper he had in his hand would be enough, but Alan seemed confident.

RIPTA’s outreach to the public about the program changes has been extensive, said Polichetti, and has included distributing information at charitable organizations and senior centers across the state, running radio ads for five months, and posting reminders on its website, social media and the digital boards on buses and at the Kennedy Plaza transit hub.

Still, many senior and disabled people didn’t get the message until a bus driver informed them that their pass was no good. Jose, who was waiting in line with Rosa, doesn’t speak much English and his pass didn’t expire until May 2019. He was visibly annoyed that his pass was invalid, despite the date printed on it.

“A lot of riders thought that at the last minute the governor would have a change of heart and decide to honor the passes until they expired,” said Don Rhodes, president of the RIPTA Riders Alliance. So why didn’t RIPTA grandfather in people like Jose and Rosa, who have passes that won’t expire for a few years?

“Since one of the goals was to end the five-year tenure of the passes for better administration of the program,” said Polichetti, “this would not have worked. It would have meant that some people were still going to have five years without checking in with RIPTA, five years without us verifying that they still qualify for the program, and that they are the rightful pass holder.

“We tried to minimize the financial impact of the re-qualification process by not charging anyone who received a pass after Jan. 1, 2013 for their new passes.  The fee – which is the administrative fee for getting a photo ID pass – remains the same at $5 per year.  The new two-year passes are $10.”

Mary waited in line on Tuesday from 1pm to 3:30pm, only to be told to go home and come back tomorrow. She had spent Tuesday morning at the DMV, getting her state issued ID, and then spent hours in vain at RIPTA. It was a long day of waiting in line, with tons of other people, and she didn’t get the bus pass she needed.

“It was crazy in here yesterday,” said Mary, “It was nuts. The line was over twice as long, and stretched around the room and outside into the rain.”

Hopefully Mary will have better luck today, since she arrived an hour before the office opened.

2016-09-07 RIPTA 003

Patreon

Amid emergency repairs, Raimondo, Elorza disagree on feasability of 6/10 boulevard


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

elorza raimondoGovernor Gina Raimondo and Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza disagree on whether emergency repairs needed for bridges across the 6/10 connector means the grassroots idea of turning the highway connector into a boulevard is now off the table.

At a news conference today, Raimondo said the boulevard idea is dead because emergency repairs to seven of nine bridges over the 6/10 connector need to be fast-tracked.  But Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza disagrees, according to his new communications director Emily Crowell.

“Not at all,” Crowell said when asked if the mayor agrees with the governor that the boulevard idea is unfeasible because of the emergency repairs the announced today. “We’re not abandoning the idea to make the 6/10 connector multi-modal.”

Raimondo and Department of Transportation Executive Director Peter Alviti announced that the 6/10 connector needs emergency repairs. Those emergency repairs, they both said, effectively take off the table the grassroots idea to turn the 6/10 connector into a boulevard instead of repairing it. The repairs to the Huntington Avenue bridge need to be finalized in 60 days.

Elorza spoke at the State House event today.

“We can invest these dollars in a way that ensures the public safety of this roadway and also enhances the livability of this entire corridor,” he said. “It’s our responsibility to advocate for the smartest investment of these dollars to move the city and the state forward and that is what we will be doing at the table alongside RIDOT and the governor’s office to advance this project.”

Raimondo and Alviti were unequivocal that the emergency repairs means the boulevard idea is off the table.

“We have to move immediately, so some options are closed” said Raimondo, when asked about the boulevard idea. “The time is out for debate. It’s time for action. I would love to be able to take a longer process but I don’t have that option.”

Alviti said, “Hypothetical plans or other scenarios could be explored in the world of theory but in the world of reality we are facing we now need to address this structurally deficient problem.”

Raimondo added that just because the boulevard idea can’t be done doesn’t mean some smart growth measures are off the table for the highway that cuts through the west side of Providence. “We’re going to take the next couple months to listen and if there are opportunities to put in a bike lane, we will listen.”

Raimondo and Alviti said that seven of the nine bridges over the 6/10 connector are “structurally deficient.” Because the problem is more severe than initially thought, these repairs are being fast-tracked.

“Not only is the bridge defunct,” said Alviti, “but the plan to fix the bridge is defunct.” He said the 6/10 connector bridge repair have been in the works for 30 years, but they have also been without funding for 30 years.

Simultaneously, a grassroots effort to replace the 6/10 highway connector with a boulevard was gaining momentum. James Kennedy, a regular RI Future contributor who has been covering the 6/10 boulevard idea, took to Twitter to criticize the announcement.

Citizens Bank trashes land, and land use planning


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

citizens johnstonLast week the big shots celebrated the groundbreaking for the new Citizens Bank headquarters on green space just west of I-295 in Johnston. Not me. I think the state is a triple loser, losing open space, tax revenue, and spending tax money. The 3,200 jobs that are supposed to be established there are not new but just a relocation of Citizens employees from built up areas in Providence, East Providence and Cranston.

Taxpayers are out because Johnston gave them a 20 year “tax treaty” (aka subsidy) and we will spend millions for a new interchange on I-295 at Greenville Avenue, and to extend sewer lines there. Providence Gas Company executives started Grow Smart RI because they were concerned with the high costs of providing infrastructure to such developments. Now that company is part of National Grid and they closed their building in downtown Providence, you cannot even pay a utility bill there any more. It seems corporate America is not interested in smart growth. Putting development where we have infrastructure is the core of land use planning, but everyone, including Statewide Planning, the Governor, RIDOT, and our congressional delegation seems ready to ignore this and roll over for Citizens. They don’t even seem to care that I-295 may become more dangerous with more traffic and more exit/entrance merges.

The site being developed, about 123 acres, is mostly forest and brush, and  Greenville Avenue, now a pleasant residential area, will inevitably suffer from traffic and ugly sprawl development from the new interchange. Citizens employees may well live even further out, perhaps within the Scituate watershed,  risking eroding our drinking water quality. Employees will do a lot  of driving, there is no serious chance for transit there. Gasoline consumption in the US just set a record high and Citizens Bank seems determined to make us use even more. Perhaps the “fossil free” folks opposing some specific fossil fuel supply projects, (e.g. the Burrillville power plant, Keystone pipeline) should pay more attention to actually reducing the demand for fossil fuels.

Not everyone in Johnston is so pleased with this. I note the Johnston Sunrise had an “open letter” from the Johnston Homeowners and Neighbors Association decrying what Raimondo and Mayor Joseph Polisena have done to facilitate this project which can turn their neighborhood into another ugly commercial strip choked with traffic and gobbling up more green space. But nobody helped or even paid attention, the town council and the planning and zoning boards did what Citizens Bank wanted, including amending the apparently worthless comprehensive plan.

I note that potential subsidies for reusing downtown Providence’s Superman Building have drawn criticism from both liberal and conservative groups but the Citizens project has not. As a city kid originally from New York, I think this reflects a Rhode Island suburban mind-set, cities are for the poor and minorities, we move out when we can, no reason to put the jobs there. The East Side, anchored by Brown and RISD, is the main exception.  Liberals and conservatives also mostly see the bus system as for the poor and minorities. Liberals are willing to subsidize it to keep it going, but for the most part will not use the buses themselves. Not even if service is pretty good – as it is in many places.

Finally, I’ll contrast this with what I just read about Denver, Colorado which has had unusual success in recovering from the 2008 recession. One key element noted in the article was regional cooperation in which various communities there support each other in generating development and building transit, rather than undermine each other as Johnston has done,  So our cities struggle, maybe face bankruptcy, sprawl spreads further, and our life style keeps us pumping out the greenhouse gases.

Raimondo’s office must take 6/10 position


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

https://twitter.com/TransportPVD/status/770773009380638720?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The assembled crowd of 200 people at Tuesday night’s 6/10 Connector community meeting were unequivocal: no highway should be rebuilt along the corridor. It found a receptive if demur audience in Providence Planning Department and Mayor Jorge Elorza. RIDOT and Governor Gina Raimondo’s Office appear to be the only agencies backing the highway rebuild after the loss of a federal grant for the billion dollar project.

https://twitter.com/TransportPVD/status/770769768815132672

RI Future has been among several area publications that have called on Mayor Elorza to take a more direct stance on the project. While the mayor’s office has clearly favored a boulevard approach to 6/10, it hasn’t yet sought direct conflict with RIDOT or Governor Raimondo’s office. Following the rejection of a federal grant RIDOT intended to use towards part of the 6/10 corridor, statements from the agency have focused on the dire need to complete the highway rebuild with a minimum of public input. Read past coverage Tear It Down: Pictures of Our Potential 6/10 Future The Drivers’ Argument for the Boulevard On Tuesday night, Mayor Elorza did not seek direct conflict with the agency, but did refer to the 6/10 Connector as “really a Disconnector”, a sign of his preferences. In a Projo report leading up to the Providence meeting, RIDOT spokesperson Charles St. Martin bristled in his emailed response to questions on the project:

As we stated before, we cannot continue to postpone this work,” wrote DOT spokesman Charles St. Martin in an email. “Thanks to the passage of Rhodeworks, Rhode Island has $400 million in committed state and federal funding to draw from to address the Route 6-10 interchange. RIDOT is evaluating its options to tackle this problem and will soon present a recommendation for next steps. No decisions have been made at this time.”

This brings us to an important question: When is Gov. Raimondo’s office going to see the writing on the wall and redirect the agencies under her charge to better priorities? The assembled crowd was almost unanimous in its priorities. The process sat small groups at tables to outline ideas and present them. Each group, to the one, came up with some form or other of the following priorities:

  • New housing
  • Non-displacement of current residents while bringing in new residents
  • Better outreach & a more welcoming process for Latino residents
  • A full and complete bike and pedestrian network
  • More green space
  • Rapid transit to connect Providence within and without its city borders
  • No highway

The groups varied in how they phrased these goals, but each group essentially outlined the same things. Notable about the meeting was the presence of individuals from communities like Cranston, Pawtucket, and Central Falls, whose citizens might have been more inclined to favor a highway than those having one built next to them. But those from outside Providence also favored the boulevard option. Among the attendees was Cranston at-large city council candidate Kate Aubin, who has made removing the 6/10 Connector a central tenet of her candidacy.

https://twitter.com/TransportPVD/status/770764144735838208

While Aubin is running on a progressive ticket, conservative Rhode Islanders also attended, questioning the priority of rebuilding 6/10 as-is. Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity’s Lawrence Gilheeney tweeted:

More pointedly, Brian Bishop, of the taxpayers’ rights group OSTPA spoke to the unnecessary waste of rebuilding the highway, drawing the night’s first laughter and applause:

https://twitter.com/TransportPVD/status/770775028090613760

Bishop, who owns properties on the East Side as well as a farm in Coventry, said that he was a “car person” and that others “can handle the bikes,” a friendly jab at non-OSTPA member Hugo Bruggeman, who held the table’s priority list and spoke to bike infrastructure like his home in the Netherlands. Bishop described the highway “hybrid” that RIDOT has been pushing over the Providence Planning-preferred boulevard as “brought to you by the same people who want to rebuild it again.” The audience roared with laughter at RIDOT’s expense.

With federal grants figured into the mix, RIDOT’s hybrid-highway proposal would have cost upwards of 80% of toll funds. Without that funding, it’s quite possible that rebuilding the highway as-is could put all other state projects on the back burner. Conservatives like Bishop and liberals like Aubin equally question the validity of this priority, despite living outside the city.

Which brings us back to a pointed question: Who exactly does favor the 6/10 Connector as a highway, other than RIDOT and Gov. Raimondo’s office? As a more politically diverse coalition coalesces around opposition to the plan, Gov. Raimondo is going to have to make some decisions soon.

~~~~

Correction: A previous version of this article erroneously named Lawrence Gilheeney’s group the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Progress. It is the Rhode Island Center for Freedom & Prosperity. No doubt a liberal Freudian slip on my part. . . :-) Corrected.

The Elorza challenge: PVD needs 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

Mayor Jorge Elorza bikes to work everyday, and takes part in frequent night rides with community members. By all accounts the mayor is supportive of bicycling. However, Providence has made next to no progress on bike infrastructure during the two years the mayor has been in office. This needs to change.

Providence has seen the mayor step up on some issues, and his vocal leadership has had an effect. Just recently, Mayor Elorza spoke eloquently to the harm of liquefied natural gas (LNG) power plants, a move which put him in direct contradiction with Governor Raimondo. This move came after the Sierra Club of Rhode Island challenged the mayor to speak up clearly on the issue. I am making the same request.

Where is the bike infrastructure, Mayor Elorza?

We cannot expect mass cycling to take root in Rhode Island without our core cities establishing bike routes that are suitable for eight year olds, 80 year olds, and everyone in between. If we’re going to provide routes that are safe for people in wheelchairs and rascals, we need bike routes, like what the Dutch and Danish have. Doing this can help us make more efficient use of our school bus funding, our sidewalk fundingour parking, and improve business outcomes for small business.

The mayor’s principle bike advancement– requiring that city street projects go through the Bike & Pedestrian Advisory Commission before being completed– is a good step in the right direction, but much less of a game-changer than a commitment to large-scale infrastructure change.

The mayor has pushed some reform. The city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission currently receives advanced notice of city street projects, and its review of those projects has brought piecemeal changes to sections of street as they’re repaved. Many project reviews include only tiny sections of street, and nothing has yet been accomplished beyond paint, either through door-zone bike lanes, or even worse, sharrows. But this is not enough. To be frank, if Providence is not going to become a charming patch of shallow ocean in the next century, we need concerted action now.

What do community members demand? 

A demand is a challenge that comes as an honor only to those politicians who warrant it. Mayor Elorza has objectively not accomplished what needs to be accomplished in his first years of office, however, he has demonstrated himself to be someone who, with pressure, might accomplish those goals. Be honored, Mayor Elorza. You’re being called to the challenge.

The mayor must work to design a full network of protected bike lanes on the major arterials of the city. A starting point for this would be 50 miles of infrastructure, which we estimate would take only 3% of on-street parking to achieve.

The mayor must also work to create “bike boulevards”- routes that are low-traffic and low-speed, off of the major arterials. These are not substitutes for protected bike lanes, which are needed to reach jobs and shopping opportunities in commercial areas, but they are majorly important improvements to help make our neighborhoods safer for school children.

The mayor’s office has been supportive of remaking the 6/10 Connector as a boulevard, but as yet has not sought public conflict with RIDOT and the governor’s office about their intransigence to community needs. We need the mayor to pick this fight, in a direct way, just as he did on LNG. It’s understandable that the mayor wishes to advocate behind the scenes, but what will bring life to this issue is a top official speaking openly about the poor priorities RIDOT is putting forward. Without that, the 6/10 Connector continues to take a back-burner position in the news cycle. Speak up, mayor! Put the state government on notice!

These projects must be funded. The city’s $40 million bond includes transportation and non-transportation priorities, but among transportation priorities only 17% of funding is going to non-car priorities, mainly sidewalks. The city must spend in proportion to its population of non-car owners (22%), and it must make good use of those funds to make sure that biking is considered a high priority.

We’ve seen you act before, mayor. We have faith in you. Step it up! We need you to take action. The bike rides aren’t enough. We’re here to vote for you and to back you up when you are ready to do this.

It’s time.

~~~~

Can Joe Paolino learn to love the bus?


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

Former Providence mayor Joseph Paolino’s media blitz around homelessness should be taken with a grain (or two, or three) of salt. In 2014, Paolino spoke with James Baar at The Projo (“The Seven Deadly Sins of Downtown Providence”, April 29, 2014)  to outline his angst over panhandling homeless people and low income bus riders, suggesting a set of recommendations that show the casino magnate and parking lot landlord’s true political center. As I pointed out at the time and more recently, what really stretches credulity about Paolino’s 2014 proposals wasn’t simply their blithe disregard for the poor, but the barking way that Paolino assumed the city could just take up major new financial liabilities without any realistic stream of money to pay for them. With such extravagant ideas as removing Kennedy Plaza entirely, building a giant underground garage under it, and doubling the size of Burnside Park– all while policing the area to get rid of “vagrants” and completely banning potholes (Just “Do it!” yelled Paolino through the voice of Baar), you would think the city must be swimming in money. The kind of money that could, of course, help resolve the root causes of homelessness.

The 2014 priorities listed by Paolino remain poor uses of city or state funding, but the former mayor’s softer tone on homelessness opens up an opportunity to hold his feet to the fire and demand some changes. Most recently, in an interview with The Projo’s Edward Fitzpatrick, Paolino says he wants the city to avoid the “Giuliani way” of removing homeless people, and look to root causes. Will Paolino stay true to his word?

Here are some things Paolino can back to show that he’s serious.

A parking lot tax, with a refund to housing costs

GCPVD’s map of downtown parking lots and garages shows that a parking lot tax is sorely needed. Some of the revenue from this tax could go directly to housing vouchers.

Paolino has large holdings in downtown parking lots. Essentially these are land speculation projects. It makes sense to hold onto prime land in the city, earning money off of commuters who park there, until a perfect skyscraper project comes along for those plots of land. Parking lots do pay property taxes, but because a surface lot is not valued highly, this gives speculators the best of all worlds– an easy short-term revenue stream, low taxes, and a lottery ticket that is likely to be worth a lot of money in the future.

I’ve argued in the past that putting a tax on surface parking would change the balance of this math. Land speculators like Paolino would be inclined to build something– anything– to hold the space until larger projects could come, instead of pimping parking lots. A developer may prefer a skyscraper, and in the long-run that may be the best thing for the city as well, but having rowhouses in the space while something else comes along means people have a place to live. As bigger projects form, the city could also require the continued tenancy of low income residents as part of mixed income development. This could itself help create more affordable housing. A tax on parking could and should also be refunded directly to properties adjacent to the parking, lowering the cost of business and residency in the city. Yet another way that this stream of revenue could considerably change the forecast for the poorest people would be if a portion of it was directly put towards housing vouchers for homeless individuals and families. Paolino has suggested that more money be put to shelters for homeless people, but what people truly need is permanent housing.

A parking lot tax would cost Paolino– he owns 11 lots. But if he’s serious about his statement that the business community needs to step up, endorsing this reform and pushing it through the business community would be one sincere step he could take.

Deregulation of single-family only zoning & parking minimums

Many Providence neighborhoods do not allow affordable housing, by law. The zoning code is full of arcane regulations designed to allow only what types of housing currently exist in a neighborhood. This is nothing like what happened in normal cities before the 1920s.

Providing affordable housing in Providence should partly be built around getting rid of some of these arcane rules.

This map, from Ward 2 (Councilman Sam Zurier’s district, on the East Side) shows the kind of inane specificity of zoning, which has to carve out exceptions to acknowledge the existence of some apartments or rowhouses. Much of this ward, zoned 1 or 1A, doesn’t allow non-single-family housing. 1A goes a step further, and requires minimum lot sizes, disallowing even more middle-class forms of single-family units for straight-up upper class ones. 1A is actually a fairly recent intensification of zoning that is only a few years old.

Parking minimums require that most residences have x number of parking spots per square foot of space. This both makes the housing itself more expensive, and also rules out building new housing on land that is taken up by parking.

Providence also has a number of neighborhoods that don’t allow anything but single-family homes. Sometimes these neighborhoods already have some houses that aren’t single-family, and they’ve been carved into the zoning as exceptions. The business community and city need to work together to eliminate zones like 1 & 1A, which don’t allow things like granny cottages, rowhouses, apartments, twins, duplexes, or triple-deckers. The business community and city also have to work together to end the practice of putting residency limits on students. Students bleed out into housing, making what affordable options that exist more expensive, and displacing people on the fringes of becoming homeless.

These are not issues that Paolino can be held accountable for, but in his new-found advocacy for the homeless, they should become centerpieces of policy change. Paolino should push zoning reform.

Transit at the center, not the fringes

While Paolino can’t be blamed for zoning, he can be held accountable for his long agitation against Kennedy Plaza as a bus hub. In 2014, as I stated, Paolino advocated for moving buses “to the fringes of the city” and getting rid of the bus hub entirely, to make it an underground parking garage.

People who become homeless often have serious problems that go beyond job access, but once they get on track, keeping a job is a very important stabilizing force. Transit is one of the most important ways to make sure that low-income people, who cannot afford cars, can have access to jobs.

I’ve had some online discussions with other transit advocates who point out that RIPTA should not be running all its routes through Kennedy Plaza. I agree with this criticism, and think we need an effort to put together a full network of bus routes like what Jarrett Walker designed in Houston, but I also think it’s clear this hasn’t been what Paolino meant in the past. Referring to buses as needing to be “at the fringes” is pretty clear about why the buses need to move– in this case, to take the sour image of poor people out of the downtown. Paolino’s business coalition needs to work to make transit a priority by spearheading efforts to give buses rights-of-way, improving frequencies of bus routes by funding RIPTA better, and updating the city’s poor pedestrian and bike layout to aid last-mile connections.

I’ve argued in the past that while there’s been a lot of action around maintaining free bus passes for elderly and disabled Rhode Islanders, that more attention needed to be put to making the bus system run efficiently and frequently (an argument I borrowed from Jarrett Walker as well). However, even in that piece, I argued that it was silly not to offer homeless people free rides on RIPTA. RIPTA has temporarily extended the free bus pass program pending funding, but business leaders like Paolino need to make RIPTA a long-term priority.

Supporting RIPTA, biking, and walking would be a big turnaround for Joe Paolino, but if he’s truly a reformed man with a vision to end the plight of the homeless, that would be what he needs to do.

And Scrooge was better than his word

I would be lying if I said that I trusted Joe Paolino’s softer messaging on panhandling in Kennedy Plaza. Over the years, many of Paolino’s priorities for the city have struck me as hostile to poor people and to non-drivers, couched in the kind of right-leaning identity politics one might associate more with Donald Trump than a former Democratic mayor of a blue-state city. But everyone can change. I will open my arms to Joe Paolino if he changes his ways. He needs to embrace the end of his parking empire as a way of speculating off of city land, support putting direct tax resources into more affordable housing, back zoning deregulation to stop the experiment of single-family-only neighborhoods, and back a robust RIPTA with bike and pedestrian infrastructure to support last-mile connections. His rhetoric has to move beyond temporary housing for homeless people, and towards permanent solutions.

As Charles Dickens would put it:

Scrooge was better than his word.  He did it all, and infinitely more; and to Tiny Tim, who did not die, he was a second father.  He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world.  Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms.  His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.

God Bless Us Every One.

~~~~

PVD entrepreneurs say Spotter app is Airbnb for driveways


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

spotterProvidence entrepreneurs Albie Brown and Will Newman have a new app they say could disrupt downtown parking the way Airbnb disrupted travel accommodations. And they aren’t at all shy about making that comparison. “Spotter is Airbnb for driveways,” said Brown.

Spotter links people looking for a parking spot with people with a vacant driveway. Press a button, the app finds and directs you to the closest parking spot. The recent college grads, Brown went to Brown University and Newman completed Rutgers, say they already have “hundreds of downloads” and have 80 available parking spots on the East Side of Providence. Download it here. Using a Spotter spot currently costs $1 an hour, the parking provider pays a percentage to the company.

“Two hour parking doesn’t make sense for a lot of people,” said Brown, about metered parking. “Commercial lots don’t make sense for a lot of people because it’s just way too expensive. By tapping into the sharing economy, and working with local residents … who have this idle asset, this driveway, they can begin bridging that gap and helping the people who need it.”

Newman added, “Anybody who has an empty driveway can sign up, put their spot on there, and start generating revenue.”

By opening the parking market to smaller players, their app can help create better urban environments by taking an emphasis away from downtown parking lots. “Creating a more compact, dense city center is always advantageous to the city,” Brown said. “We’d love to help turn some of those parking lots into parks.”

In the short term, they hope to offer a useful service to commuters and tourists of Providence. “We’re able to increase the supply of parking. We’re able to limit the need of more parking lots, creating a nicer Providence,” Brown said.

They believe their idea is “completely scalable.” Newport and Fall River might have ample need, and they are discussing ways to roll it out in other metropolitan areas of the United States and abroad. So far, they say, they’ve been pleased with the business climate in Providence and Rhode Island.

James Kennedy, RI Future transportation correspondent, and I interviewed Brown and Newman about their new service below:

 

RIPTA riders rally against fare hikes on RI’s most vulnerable


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

2016-06-14 RIPTA 015The RIPTA Riders Alliance rallied at the State House yesterday to call attention to bus fare increases to the elderly, disabled and very low income people.

RIPTA decided to end free bus fare for these riders earlier this year. The House budget restored free fares for the elderly and disabled until January. Advocates say it would cost the state $800,000 to extend the service for the entire year.

RIPTA riders who utilize the reduced fare spoke at the rally about why they need it and how it affects their lives.

“If we already can’t afford to get to and from places and RIPTA raises the fare where does that leave us,” asked Michael Viera, who is disabled and uses a wheelchair. “If this program doesn’t exist I would not be able to make it to all my doctor appointments.”

A developmentally disabled man said, “If I don’t ride bus free I will be lonely and stranded.”

Another RIPTA rider added, “It will not only restore the sanity to our souls, it will also keep us materially safer.”

Malcus Mills, an organizer with DARE, said, “The board at RIPTA are not thinking of the people they serve. They are not thinking about us. They are not thinking about the low income folks who need this the most.”

One woman called it, “simply a matter of justice. The fact is RIPTA gets funding from all of us through our taxpayer dollars. The fact that we all pay into it, we all should be able to access it. We should not be segregated from other people.”

Another said, “I know there is money in the budget, they just want to squander it on their friends.”

Camilo Viveiros also spoke about legislators role in the process. “Are they going to use their expertise to assist the most vulnerable? Or are they going to throw people who are disabled and seniors literally under the bus?”

Randall Rose added, “We have to keep fighting for this. We already achieved something. RIPTA wanted to raise the fares in July, but we postponed it at least six months and we can keep doing it as long as we keep coming out here.”

2016-06-14 RIPTA 000

2016-06-14 RIPTA 001

2016-06-14 RIPTA 002

2016-06-14 RIPTA 003

2016-06-14 RIPTA 004

2016-06-14 RIPTA 005

2016-06-14 RIPTA 006

2016-06-14 RIPTA 007

2016-06-14 RIPTA 008

2016-06-14 RIPTA 009

2016-06-14 RIPTA 010

2016-06-14 RIPTA 011

2016-06-14 RIPTA 012

2016-06-14 RIPTA 013  2016-06-14 RIPTA 015

2016-06-14 RIPTA 016

2016-06-14 RIPTA 017

2016-06-14 RIPTA 018

2016-06-14 RIPTA 019

2016-06-14 RIPTA 020

2016-06-14 RIPTA 021

2016-06-14 RIPTA 022

2016-06-14 RIPTA 023

How to stop the fare hikes on RI’s most vulnerable


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

2016-05-23 RIPTA 006A devastating fare hike for Rhode Island’s most vulnerable seniors and disabled people is the focus of a new budget fight.  Although Rhode Island has long had a program where seniors and disabled people who have trouble affording bus trips ride free, the last year has seen efforts to end this program and charge more to those who can least afford it.

Things are now coming to a head.

The recently revealed House budget includes money to put off the fare increase for six months, until January, but doesn’t quite put in enough funds to stop the fare increase altogether. RIPTA Riders Alliance is working to fight this, and there are several easy things people can do to help.  When the budget comes up for a House vote Wednesday, there will be a proposed amendment to add a small amount of funds to RIPTA ($800,000) and stop the fare increase.  Many disabled people and seniors have said publicly in the past year that they cannot afford to pay what RIPTA wants on their limited income, and RIPTA admits that they expect steep drops in how many bus trips disabled and senior Rhode Islanders will take.  Fortunately, there are ways to make this better.

  1. One way people can help is by signing our online petition — it automatically sends messages to the State House when you sign. Please also share the petition link with others — we need people to respond quickly.
  2. Another thing you can do to help is to contact your state representative and state senator and ask them both to support budget amendments: $800,000 more for RIPTA to stop this attempt to squeeze more money from RI’s limited-income disabled and seniors who are already facing challenges.  Go to vote.ri.gov to find your elected officials’ contact info — you can call them and/or email. RIPTA Riders Alliance has been distributing a flyer about this.
  3. Finally, RIPTA Riders Alliance will hold an event at 1:30 this Tuesday at the State House to talk about how important this is. We are sending the message that if Rhode Island’s senior and disabled people can’t afford to travel, they will be stuck at home, less able to shop, volunteer and visit loved ones — and isolation is deadly for seniors and the disabled.  Protest makes a difference sometimes!  Please come at 1:30 on Tuesday at the State House — and let people know about the Facebook event page.

Ironically, we’re facing this terrible fare hike on the most vulnerable because of a sneaky General Assembly move last year.  When the House debated the budget last year, the House Finance Chair at the time, Raymond Gallison, put in a last-minute amendment to allow (that is, encourage) RIPTA to charge more to limited-income seniors and disabled people.  Since then Gallison has had to resign.  But it’s fitting that what began with one last-minute budget amendment is now leading to another, this time to save the most vulnerable who have been targeted as budget victims in the past.  An amendment will be proposed in the House for Wednesday’s debate, and we are hoping to get an amendment in the Senate, too.

More useful information is available on RIPTA Riders Alliance’s Facebook page.


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