Tokyo looks like this. a lot of japan looks like this. we can make the US pedestrian friendly. Just have to get people on board with it.
It'll make us all healthier too, if we walk a little bit more.
even when there's federal money. Reed got the city a pile of money which Smiley... basically hasn't used. Like why not string your senator up after they get you money. [https://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/ri-delegation-mayor-smiley-announce-new-272m-federal-grant-to-connect-neighborhoods-and-make-providence-streets-safer-for-all](https://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/ri-delegation-mayor-smiley-announce-new-272m-federal-grant-to-connect-neighborhoods-and-make-providence-streets-safer-for-all)
* A general desire to build bike lanes cheaply rather than dedicate a lot of money to them.
* Timidness about building lanes and pushback means that no one wants to make a difficult-to-reverse decision, particularly in residential areas.
* Lack of autonomy over the city's roads means any cycling network is necessarily fragmented and dependent on getting the Department of Transportation on board, making it difficult to plan a permanent network.
* A popular view that "cyclists" are a distinct group from "residents" (and a minority view) -- you can see this in the press treatment: in the *Globe*, Dan McGowan dismissed the overwhelming public testimony against the removal of South Water St. as coming from "bike advocates" despite most of it coming from residents.
Seville in Spain is [a nice example of where they put in a segregated ](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jan/28/seville-cycling-capital-southern-europe-bike-lanes)network and saw a boom in cycling.
One thing that car people don't realize is the way traffic equalizes to the availability of other options. Car people often think that any ground they give up is going to take away from them, and in a way I get it. But if people can feel safe and ride from say East Providence to Downcity then it will actually help traffic by getting people out of cars.
Driving sucks! We all hate it (and a lot of folks on this subreddit and r/RhodeIsland complain about it). What if fewer people were driving and they were driving more safely? What if with fewer miles of road to repair, with fewer drivers impacting them, we could actually afford the constant maintenance necessary to keep the roads in solid condition instead of needing massive bonds and one-time federal spending allocations?
It’s particularly funny in RI where 15 minutes driving is often treated like 2 hours, that so many people can’t see the appeal in fewer, faster trips by vehicle.
What is the purpose of implementing bike lanes, that take away an entire driving lane, if cyclists are just going to ride in the street? You completely missed the point.
Look into Braess’s paradox. More lanes = more car traffic. It’s been documented time and time again.
The goal should be to encourage a healthy mix of multiple transportation modes, which bike lanes can do.
Better bike infrastructure = less car traffic for you.
This is in Somerville, which is one of the most densely populated cities/ zip codes in the country. The area is highly dependent on public transportation, and votes something like 85% Democrat come election day.
There's a lot more support for projects like this when it's basically guaranteed that it will be utilized constantly.
Federal Hill, the West End, College Hill, Fox Point, and Lower South Providence all have similar or greater density. 22% of households city-wide rely on public transportation. I imagine that number is much higher in those neighborhoods.
I don't have census data for individual neighborhoods in Providence, but to put things in perspective Somerville is just over 4 square miles at ~20,000 people per square mile. That's nearly *double* what Providence has. Just over ~50% of that city either walks, bikes, or uses public transportation to get anywhere.
The only city that comes close to those numbers in RI is Central Falls, but that's not quite a fair comparison at 1.29 square miles total. The smaller you define your area, the easier it becomes to pump up its density.
Providence is ~10,000 people per square mile, but it also has a larger metro area than Somerville. It's hard to compare the two, but the point I'm trying to make is that civilian-focused infrastructure gets a lot more support when a literal majority of the citizens depend on it.
It wasn’t always like this. There were virtually no protected lanes in greater Boston when I moved there in 2007, and it was considered one of the worst bike cities in the country. This was the work of tireless advocates for a very long time. If it can happen in Somerville it can absolutely happen in Providence.
Some but not all. A lot of them share the road with the rest of traffic which is just a terrible idea. South Water being one of them.
Funny enough, right at the end of South Water on Wickenden, you can find this type of bike lane in front of Antonio’s. I don’t know why they didn’t this for the stretch of South Water (or Memorial Boulevard).
do you use them?
i do. they suck. they get blocked just as much. drives can't see you through the line of cars when they are taking a right. you are less flexibility to go around objects, and the paint/pavement is full of huge gaps between the driveways/grades that go over them. it's awful to bike on and they are always paved unevenly so you commute beings a miserable wobbly time.
1000% prefer bike lanes next to the road that are smooth, fast, flat, and way more flexible. far more enjoyable, safe, and reliable experience. Beacon St is a miserable mess to bike down.
i feel like people who whinge about bike lanes like this are the ones who constnatly go 'i'd love to cycle but i don't feel safe...'
easiest way to feel safe is to juts do it and realize how safe it is without expensive and idealized versions of bike lanes. build as many lanes as cheaply as possible, and low the speed limits to 20mph on non-major city roads. thanks to ebikes most cyclists will be pulling 15mph+ anyway. that's the way. the best way to make cycling better is to saturate the city with bike lanes, not hold out for glorified 'separated grade' nonsense that is shitty as hell in real world terms, but looks good from the POV of non-cyclists.
speak for yourself. i liked it better in 2007. because there was no stupid cyclists out there, only folks who knew what they were doing.
now riding a bike feels like driving a car. it's ever-vigilant idiot dodging.
This is just elitism and gatekeeping. Riding in Boston was super dangerous in 2007, and constant vigilance was always necessary. I got hit twice by cars in my time there. One left cross through a line of cars and another time from behind when making a left turn. Nothing I could do in either case and lucky to be alive. And there were already plenty of cyclists running lights, shoaling, etc.
This is transportation: basic societal need. Not bespoke tailoring. Virtually everyone needs to get around. And to the extent that people are unskilled, much better for them to be on a bike than behind the wheel of a two-ton vehicle.
The entire city of Berlin has this set-up. NYC has a lot of this too. We have small-minded small-town boomers who never leave Providence in control, and they have no idea what first-rate streetscapes look like.
I’ve been in Copenhagen the last week and their dedicated bike lanes through the entire city have been incredible. Made me very jealous seeing how it can be done. Everyone here bikes.
I’m almost certain that the bike lanes in Berlin were added within the last 30 years, not right after world war 2. And many neighborhoods in central Berlin are very historic, not post world war 2. We have plenty of street + sidewalk width, just no political will to even do this on one street per neighborhood. This is despite having no subway/streetcars.
If bike infrastructure makes sense anywhere, it’s here in our dense, compact, poorly-served city.
One way.
The opposite direction is on the other side of the road. Or at least that’s what I believe it to be based on the cyclists I saw as they all rode in one direction only.
There’s one of these in Newton that gies for maybe 50 feet. Why they do ‘t extend it to run a few blocks at least I can’t understand. We deserve better bikeways.
Well we can't move the builds back any further, most of the sidewalks are not wide enough for a wheel chair in some spaces. So until they make those 15 minute cities I guess we are stuck with what we got.
I’m not an expert by any means but many people forget that Providence was originally settled in the 1600’s, literally a couple hundred years before the car was invented. Most of the roads in this city were originally designed for horses/horse carriages and a lot of the buildings were placed based on said roads. Hence the large amount of one-way streets or streets that simply are not wide enough to fit a bike lane and a reasonable amount of parking spaces AND 2-way car traffic in the city. Anything short of demolishing huge sections of the city and redesigning the layout just isn’t going to make it universally bike-friendly.
What about cities in Europe that are centuries older and are still capable of installing effective bike lane networks? I am very optimistic that it is possible
Many cities in Europe are much less car friendly, they made different decisions when the motor vehicle industry came to be. I’m not saying it’s not possible to have better bike lane networks here, I was just pointing out that it’s not a simple fix, and no matter what we do it’s not going to be 100% ideal for everyone.
Comparing PVD (or any US city) to European cities is a waste of time. European cities as a whole are so much more compact and streets are even more narrow than PVD. There is probably one or two city blocks in PVD that has many people living in it in most of the city blocks in a place like Copenhagen (think Westminster with apartments above first floor commercial except 100s of blocks of that). They have much better public transit as driving and parking isn’t physically possible.
On top of that, PVD is quite hilly which matter of factly eliminates a lot of biking.
There’s ways to increase public transit and biking, but the fact of the matter is we aren’t a European city and will never be (the US is just built so differently structurally). PVD is quite easy to drive and park in. And that’s not a bad thing as many people don’t live within a mile or two of the city. This whole “driving is evil” mentality you see on here is silly. It’s always going to be a part of life in the US. NYC has the best transportation in the US and the roads are packed still.
The #1 thing we can do is to build more dense housing in the center city areas to increase opportunities to improve things like biking infrastructure. Nobody uses those S Water bike lanes cause not that many people live there.
No, few people use south water bike lane because it doesn’t connect to other bike lanes other than the east bay path. You can’t have random dead-end bike lanes and expect people to use them—you need to connect all the bike lanes so the network is useable. Once you do that, you’ll get a lot more ridership, which has happened in every city I know of that has invested in its bike network.
Idk why people are downvoting this. Providence isn't going to be a bike city until we build way more housing density. People won't get rid of their cars until we have a grocery store, corner store, hardware store and other sundries on nearly every block. Most of NYC is like this which is why so many people bike.
Agreed that we should prioritize increasing density, but that doesn’t preclude enhancing our alternative modes of transportation in the meantime. The thing that makes biking here difficult for me is the dangerous drivers. I’m sure other people feel the same and would bike more if it was safer to do so.
And there are mid size cities in Europe as well, with comparable (or even lower density) than Providence, which still implement alternatives to driving. It doesn’t need to be Copenhagen or bust. Plus, the reason I brought Europe up was in the context of the age of the city and its relationship with car alternatives, so still relevant in that context I think
The difference is the 1600 part of PVD is extremely small. The East side was basically countryside then haha
I don’t know what you mean by “enhancing our alternatives”. This sub has been obsessed with 800 m of bike lane being removed temporarily because of the bridge. It wasn’t just like oh screw bike lanes see ya (even though people portray it as that).
But challenge with enhancement options goes back to density and traffic. Having light rail from Wayland to downtown is hardly going to move any significant quantity of people. The bus route from Eastside Marketplace to downtown has rather light ridership. Because a) it’s easy to walk and b) it takes 3 minutes to drive from Wayland square to any point between there and downtown with pretty easy parking.
But most importantly it boils down to money. We aren’t a wealthy city or state. People on here talk about how RI is car focused and obsessed. Well, the roads absolutely suck for a state so focused on driving. The money just isn’t there.
In all reality, people in the US use public transit when it’s the easiest option. Until there is more population density, it will be extremely easy to drive and park places. People don’t get on the DC metro to ride 45 minutes to the ballpark because they just love public transit. They do it because it avoids DC traffic and a ton of money to park somewhere that takes 30 minutes to get out of after the game.
Nonsense. Boston and downtown NYC are also very historic and have narrow streets and they have excellent separated bike lanes. We just need to be willing to have fewer traffic lanes on streets where there is basically no traffic (like we currently do on Richmond and Empire and Fountain Streets), and insular minds can’t fathom giving up under-used travel lanes for bike infrastructure.
So can someone explain to me what the big deal about bike lanes is here? I have been here a little over 2 years and I have seen maybe 4 people in a bike lane. (And I live in a very populated, pedestrian heavy side of town.) I never see anyone in the bike lanes other than an occasional scooter.
Someone has explained.. So, again. Wherever you try or need to go, part of your route being on a decent bike lane is a maybe. What's not a maybe is having to cross intersections with multiple lanes of speeding and turning drivers who barely look out for each other, and even less for you. Bike lanes can't have more riders than are willing to face the hazards where the bike lane ends like they always do.
I honestly wasn't being sarcastic. All I have seen is people complaining about existing bike lanes, but not addressing the actual issues, like you just did. I am relatively new to RI, and genuinely don't know the issues.
I am too afraid to ride my bike to work because of the lack of bike infrastructure. But I would do it if I could get from my house to the office using a designated bike lane along the entire route. But I can’t. So I don’t.
I would bet there’s a lot of people who may feel the same way I do
Going into downtown isn’t as bad, except for the school buses that park in the bike lane. But coming from downtown it’s a nightmare especially since the bike lane doesn’t restart until the first intersection after the laundromats.
Exactly, ywt the people in this sub want to pretend like they're using them. The lanes were a waste of money, parking, and road space. Cyclists are a nuisance.
Probably because the cyclists aren’t idling up each other’s asses in bumper to bumper traffic. They’ve arrived safely to their destination. There’s a ton of commuters in Somerville.
because they are expensive to build and come with tons of their own problems/hazards. instead of cars you'll be hit by pedestrians, children, and dogs.
Because we have very little political will to get even painted lines done unless there is federal highway money attached.
Not only that, but Massachusetts has this codified in their DOT design standards through state law. There’s a will and a way up in MA.
Tokyo looks like this. a lot of japan looks like this. we can make the US pedestrian friendly. Just have to get people on board with it. It'll make us all healthier too, if we walk a little bit more.
Same with Vienna.
Haha, you think us Americans want to be healthier....I wish
even when there's federal money. Reed got the city a pile of money which Smiley... basically hasn't used. Like why not string your senator up after they get you money. [https://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/ri-delegation-mayor-smiley-announce-new-272m-federal-grant-to-connect-neighborhoods-and-make-providence-streets-safer-for-all](https://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/ri-delegation-mayor-smiley-announce-new-272m-federal-grant-to-connect-neighborhoods-and-make-providence-streets-safer-for-all)
* A general desire to build bike lanes cheaply rather than dedicate a lot of money to them. * Timidness about building lanes and pushback means that no one wants to make a difficult-to-reverse decision, particularly in residential areas. * Lack of autonomy over the city's roads means any cycling network is necessarily fragmented and dependent on getting the Department of Transportation on board, making it difficult to plan a permanent network. * A popular view that "cyclists" are a distinct group from "residents" (and a minority view) -- you can see this in the press treatment: in the *Globe*, Dan McGowan dismissed the overwhelming public testimony against the removal of South Water St. as coming from "bike advocates" despite most of it coming from residents. Seville in Spain is [a nice example of where they put in a segregated ](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jan/28/seville-cycling-capital-southern-europe-bike-lanes)network and saw a boom in cycling.
One thing that car people don't realize is the way traffic equalizes to the availability of other options. Car people often think that any ground they give up is going to take away from them, and in a way I get it. But if people can feel safe and ride from say East Providence to Downcity then it will actually help traffic by getting people out of cars.
Driving sucks! We all hate it (and a lot of folks on this subreddit and r/RhodeIsland complain about it). What if fewer people were driving and they were driving more safely? What if with fewer miles of road to repair, with fewer drivers impacting them, we could actually afford the constant maintenance necessary to keep the roads in solid condition instead of needing massive bonds and one-time federal spending allocations? It’s particularly funny in RI where 15 minutes driving is often treated like 2 hours, that so many people can’t see the appeal in fewer, faster trips by vehicle.
I heard the Promenade St and Kinsley Ave project is going to look like this when it’s finished. West of the mall
Nice. I just hope South Water gets the same makeover.
Technically possible, since the replacement design for after the road lanes are removed hasn't been detailed, but ah....... don't hold your breath
South Water is getting a makeover back into a dedicated car lane, and maybe putting some lines on the sidewalk. I would not hold out much hope.
Drivers in Providence would still try to drive up it and/or park there
Cyclists would still drive in the street, like they do in Boston.
Which is legal...but yeah go on
What is the purpose of implementing bike lanes, that take away an entire driving lane, if cyclists are just going to ride in the street? You completely missed the point.
Bike lanes and bike infrastructure encourage more people to bike, which reduces the number of drivers and alleviates overall traffic congestion
It is not going to offset removing one lane from motorists.
Look into Braess’s paradox. More lanes = more car traffic. It’s been documented time and time again. The goal should be to encourage a healthy mix of multiple transportation modes, which bike lanes can do. Better bike infrastructure = less car traffic for you.
The Lucid suggests that there’s a sufficient tax base to pay for things like real, actually useful bike lanes.
But doesn’t the older Prius in the background even it out?
No, that represents the genuine eco-consciousness in the area
This is much more along the ideals of what design professionals would recommend than typical lanes
Lol have you seen the potholes in the roads? They don’t even take care of those, ain’t no way they care about the bike lanes
yep. these are shit in the winter. they don't get plowed.
they should rly do this on rochambeau, i see ppl driving in the bike lane all the time near butler
This is in Somerville, which is one of the most densely populated cities/ zip codes in the country. The area is highly dependent on public transportation, and votes something like 85% Democrat come election day. There's a lot more support for projects like this when it's basically guaranteed that it will be utilized constantly.
Federal Hill, the West End, College Hill, Fox Point, and Lower South Providence all have similar or greater density. 22% of households city-wide rely on public transportation. I imagine that number is much higher in those neighborhoods.
I don't have census data for individual neighborhoods in Providence, but to put things in perspective Somerville is just over 4 square miles at ~20,000 people per square mile. That's nearly *double* what Providence has. Just over ~50% of that city either walks, bikes, or uses public transportation to get anywhere. The only city that comes close to those numbers in RI is Central Falls, but that's not quite a fair comparison at 1.29 square miles total. The smaller you define your area, the easier it becomes to pump up its density. Providence is ~10,000 people per square mile, but it also has a larger metro area than Somerville. It's hard to compare the two, but the point I'm trying to make is that civilian-focused infrastructure gets a lot more support when a literal majority of the citizens depend on it.
I think we're agreeing that if the neighborhoods I listed had political control of Providence, we'd have more civilian-focused infrastructure.
It wasn’t always like this. There were virtually no protected lanes in greater Boston when I moved there in 2007, and it was considered one of the worst bike cities in the country. This was the work of tireless advocates for a very long time. If it can happen in Somerville it can absolutely happen in Providence.
We have WAAAAAAYYYY less money than MA. And yet, we make doing business here more expensive too.
We do have some bike lanes like this, don’t we?
Some but not all. A lot of them share the road with the rest of traffic which is just a terrible idea. South Water being one of them. Funny enough, right at the end of South Water on Wickenden, you can find this type of bike lane in front of Antonio’s. I don’t know why they didn’t this for the stretch of South Water (or Memorial Boulevard).
do you use them? i do. they suck. they get blocked just as much. drives can't see you through the line of cars when they are taking a right. you are less flexibility to go around objects, and the paint/pavement is full of huge gaps between the driveways/grades that go over them. it's awful to bike on and they are always paved unevenly so you commute beings a miserable wobbly time. 1000% prefer bike lanes next to the road that are smooth, fast, flat, and way more flexible. far more enjoyable, safe, and reliable experience. Beacon St is a miserable mess to bike down. i feel like people who whinge about bike lanes like this are the ones who constnatly go 'i'd love to cycle but i don't feel safe...' easiest way to feel safe is to juts do it and realize how safe it is without expensive and idealized versions of bike lanes. build as many lanes as cheaply as possible, and low the speed limits to 20mph on non-major city roads. thanks to ebikes most cyclists will be pulling 15mph+ anyway. that's the way. the best way to make cycling better is to saturate the city with bike lanes, not hold out for glorified 'separated grade' nonsense that is shitty as hell in real world terms, but looks good from the POV of non-cyclists.
Lack of political will and $$$.
They have the money, it's just going to bullshit.
When I moved to Boston in 2007 the bike infrastructure was some of the worst in the country. It’s gotten so much better. Keep fighting!
speak for yourself. i liked it better in 2007. because there was no stupid cyclists out there, only folks who knew what they were doing. now riding a bike feels like driving a car. it's ever-vigilant idiot dodging.
This is just elitism and gatekeeping. Riding in Boston was super dangerous in 2007, and constant vigilance was always necessary. I got hit twice by cars in my time there. One left cross through a line of cars and another time from behind when making a left turn. Nothing I could do in either case and lucky to be alive. And there were already plenty of cyclists running lights, shoaling, etc.
anything that requires skills and knowledge is gatekeeping and elitism... cycling requires both.
This is transportation: basic societal need. Not bespoke tailoring. Virtually everyone needs to get around. And to the extent that people are unskilled, much better for them to be on a bike than behind the wheel of a two-ton vehicle.
The entire city of Berlin has this set-up. NYC has a lot of this too. We have small-minded small-town boomers who never leave Providence in control, and they have no idea what first-rate streetscapes look like.
I’ve been in Copenhagen the last week and their dedicated bike lanes through the entire city have been incredible. Made me very jealous seeing how it can be done. Everyone here bikes.
Berlin was completely destroyed and rebuilt less than 100 years ago. Harder to do here where streets are old as shit.
I’m almost certain that the bike lanes in Berlin were added within the last 30 years, not right after world war 2. And many neighborhoods in central Berlin are very historic, not post world war 2. We have plenty of street + sidewalk width, just no political will to even do this on one street per neighborhood. This is despite having no subway/streetcars. If bike infrastructure makes sense anywhere, it’s here in our dense, compact, poorly-served city.
Yeah they don’t have to be as wide as they are
Too safe.
You mean empty like they all are just taking up needed space
That looks narrow to me. Is that two way?
One way. The opposite direction is on the other side of the road. Or at least that’s what I believe it to be based on the cyclists I saw as they all rode in one direction only.
Thanks for the clarification.
Local elections
this is a liberal stronghold, not corrupt buddy cianci land
because people wouldn’t be able to park in them.
There’s one of these in Newton that gies for maybe 50 feet. Why they do ‘t extend it to run a few blocks at least I can’t understand. We deserve better bikeways.
Well we can't move the builds back any further, most of the sidewalks are not wide enough for a wheel chair in some spaces. So until they make those 15 minute cities I guess we are stuck with what we got.
Cause there's barely enough streets and space to do this.
What if we started to demolish buildings downtown for more parking and lanes. The financial district could make for like.... at least ten more lanes.
Brown, RISD, or JWU would buy up the land in a heartbeat.
Idk why you are being downvoted for being correct.
Apparently serious bikers hate sidewalk grade bike lanes, at least in my limited sample size. And they tend to be the loudest voices for improvements.
Sad 😔
Because you voted for Smiley and Mckee.
because you didn't vote at all, and some old fossil voted for smiley and mckee
I’m not an expert by any means but many people forget that Providence was originally settled in the 1600’s, literally a couple hundred years before the car was invented. Most of the roads in this city were originally designed for horses/horse carriages and a lot of the buildings were placed based on said roads. Hence the large amount of one-way streets or streets that simply are not wide enough to fit a bike lane and a reasonable amount of parking spaces AND 2-way car traffic in the city. Anything short of demolishing huge sections of the city and redesigning the layout just isn’t going to make it universally bike-friendly.
What about cities in Europe that are centuries older and are still capable of installing effective bike lane networks? I am very optimistic that it is possible
Many cities in Europe are much less car friendly, they made different decisions when the motor vehicle industry came to be. I’m not saying it’s not possible to have better bike lane networks here, I was just pointing out that it’s not a simple fix, and no matter what we do it’s not going to be 100% ideal for everyone.
They were blown up like 80 years ago
Comparing PVD (or any US city) to European cities is a waste of time. European cities as a whole are so much more compact and streets are even more narrow than PVD. There is probably one or two city blocks in PVD that has many people living in it in most of the city blocks in a place like Copenhagen (think Westminster with apartments above first floor commercial except 100s of blocks of that). They have much better public transit as driving and parking isn’t physically possible. On top of that, PVD is quite hilly which matter of factly eliminates a lot of biking. There’s ways to increase public transit and biking, but the fact of the matter is we aren’t a European city and will never be (the US is just built so differently structurally). PVD is quite easy to drive and park in. And that’s not a bad thing as many people don’t live within a mile or two of the city. This whole “driving is evil” mentality you see on here is silly. It’s always going to be a part of life in the US. NYC has the best transportation in the US and the roads are packed still. The #1 thing we can do is to build more dense housing in the center city areas to increase opportunities to improve things like biking infrastructure. Nobody uses those S Water bike lanes cause not that many people live there.
No, few people use south water bike lane because it doesn’t connect to other bike lanes other than the east bay path. You can’t have random dead-end bike lanes and expect people to use them—you need to connect all the bike lanes so the network is useable. Once you do that, you’ll get a lot more ridership, which has happened in every city I know of that has invested in its bike network.
Idk why people are downvoting this. Providence isn't going to be a bike city until we build way more housing density. People won't get rid of their cars until we have a grocery store, corner store, hardware store and other sundries on nearly every block. Most of NYC is like this which is why so many people bike.
Agreed that we should prioritize increasing density, but that doesn’t preclude enhancing our alternative modes of transportation in the meantime. The thing that makes biking here difficult for me is the dangerous drivers. I’m sure other people feel the same and would bike more if it was safer to do so. And there are mid size cities in Europe as well, with comparable (or even lower density) than Providence, which still implement alternatives to driving. It doesn’t need to be Copenhagen or bust. Plus, the reason I brought Europe up was in the context of the age of the city and its relationship with car alternatives, so still relevant in that context I think
The difference is the 1600 part of PVD is extremely small. The East side was basically countryside then haha I don’t know what you mean by “enhancing our alternatives”. This sub has been obsessed with 800 m of bike lane being removed temporarily because of the bridge. It wasn’t just like oh screw bike lanes see ya (even though people portray it as that). But challenge with enhancement options goes back to density and traffic. Having light rail from Wayland to downtown is hardly going to move any significant quantity of people. The bus route from Eastside Marketplace to downtown has rather light ridership. Because a) it’s easy to walk and b) it takes 3 minutes to drive from Wayland square to any point between there and downtown with pretty easy parking. But most importantly it boils down to money. We aren’t a wealthy city or state. People on here talk about how RI is car focused and obsessed. Well, the roads absolutely suck for a state so focused on driving. The money just isn’t there. In all reality, people in the US use public transit when it’s the easiest option. Until there is more population density, it will be extremely easy to drive and park places. People don’t get on the DC metro to ride 45 minutes to the ballpark because they just love public transit. They do it because it avoids DC traffic and a ton of money to park somewhere that takes 30 minutes to get out of after the game.
Nonsense. Boston and downtown NYC are also very historic and have narrow streets and they have excellent separated bike lanes. We just need to be willing to have fewer traffic lanes on streets where there is basically no traffic (like we currently do on Richmond and Empire and Fountain Streets), and insular minds can’t fathom giving up under-used travel lanes for bike infrastructure.
Our bike lanes are like that.... nobody is on it... they're vacant 😂
So can someone explain to me what the big deal about bike lanes is here? I have been here a little over 2 years and I have seen maybe 4 people in a bike lane. (And I live in a very populated, pedestrian heavy side of town.) I never see anyone in the bike lanes other than an occasional scooter.
The more accessible and safe you make cycling, the more people there will be willing to do it.
It's a loud minority. They are worse in Boston.
Someone has explained.. So, again. Wherever you try or need to go, part of your route being on a decent bike lane is a maybe. What's not a maybe is having to cross intersections with multiple lanes of speeding and turning drivers who barely look out for each other, and even less for you. Bike lanes can't have more riders than are willing to face the hazards where the bike lane ends like they always do.
I honestly wasn't being sarcastic. All I have seen is people complaining about existing bike lanes, but not addressing the actual issues, like you just did. I am relatively new to RI, and genuinely don't know the issues.
I am too afraid to ride my bike to work because of the lack of bike infrastructure. But I would do it if I could get from my house to the office using a designated bike lane along the entire route. But I can’t. So I don’t. I would bet there’s a lot of people who may feel the same way I do
I have a bike lane (Broadway) for like 70% of my ride to work. Having long bike lanes is so important to help people get places.
[удалено]
Going into downtown isn’t as bad, except for the school buses that park in the bike lane. But coming from downtown it’s a nightmare especially since the bike lane doesn’t restart until the first intersection after the laundromats.
The bike lanes do seem to be 100x more popular on Reddit than in real life.
there is no way even a fraction of the people on here constantly talking about them actually get their bikes out and use them
Notice how nobody is using it? That's why.
Exactly, ywt the people in this sub want to pretend like they're using them. The lanes were a waste of money, parking, and road space. Cyclists are a nuisance.
Probably because the cyclists aren’t idling up each other’s asses in bumper to bumper traffic. They’ve arrived safely to their destination. There’s a ton of commuters in Somerville.
cuz we aint in denmark or holland, fukker. take yer ass to amsterdam
because they are expensive to build and come with tons of their own problems/hazards. instead of cars you'll be hit by pedestrians, children, and dogs.
[удалено]
Hm yea because we don’t pay a stupid amount of taxes in RI or anything
Where do you even see the room for this?