"I can't believe we're even here talking about South Water Street right now. We should be talking about North Main, Allen's Ave, Elmwood and Smith St - and all the streets that are so dangerous."
Smiley has it so backwards - promoting car travel and discouraging bike travel just when there are so many reasons to do the opposite: 1 bridge congestion - could be eased with more bike traffic across the Linear Park that goes across, especially now that it is getting warmer. It could also help if Smiley got the Gov and Alviti to make East Bay buses free to promote mode shift from driving to transit and reward those that do; 2 climate - should promote, not impede, using bikes, the closest to a true "zero-emission" vehicle; 3 more biking, less driving keeps more of our energy dollars in the state economy instead of flowing to the out of state oil companies and their barons; 4 safety - as the rally indicated, especially for seniors like my wife and me who found crossing South Main daunting when it was the 2 lane speedway Smiley seems to prefer; 5 health - biking is healthy and non-polluting.
I note Smiley also supports discouraging transit use by approving moving RIPTA's Kennedy Plaza hub to a remote location ("Siberia" is McKee's term for it) where almost no-one wants to go. What's wrong with Smiley?? But he's not a dictator, his apparent disdain for those who do not drive can be resisted
I know some of the businesses facing S. Water St. are violently opposed to bikes--period. No bike racks, so I don't shop there. If they did some basic research, they'd find out that bike paths increase business, not decrease it! I make a point of using the S. Water St. bikeway if I'm in that area, even if it's slightly out of the way. It's safe. It's faster. It's important.
Smiley has it so backwards - promoting car travel and discouraging bike travel just when there are so many reasons to do the opposite: 1 bridge congestion - could be eased with more bike traffic across the Linear Park that goes across, especially now that it is getting warmer. It could also help if Smiley got the Gov and Alviti to make East Bay buses free to promote mode shift from driving to transit and reward those that do; 2 climate - should promote, not impede, using bikes, the closest to a true "zero-emission" vehicle; 3 more biking, less driving keeps more of our energy dollars in the state economy instead of flowing to the out of state oil companies and their barons; 4 safety - as the rally indicated, especially for seniors like my wife and me who found crossing South Main daunting when it was the 2 lane speedway Smiley seems to prefer; 5 health - biking is healthy and non-polluting.
I note Smiley also supports discouraging transit use by approving moving RIPTA's Kennedy Plaza hub to a remote location ("Siberia" is McKee's term for it) where almost no-one wants to go. What's wrong with Smiley?? But he's not a dictator, his apparent disdain for those who do not drive can be resisted
Removal of the bike ;lanes would be among the most idiotic thing Brett Smiley ever did.
I know some of the businesses facing S. Water St. are violently opposed to bikes--period. No bike racks, so I don't shop there. If they did some basic research, they'd find out that bike paths increase business, not decrease it! I make a point of using the S. Water St. bikeway if I'm in that area, even if it's slightly out of the way. It's safe. It's faster. It's important.