Guest MINDSETTER™ Sam Bell: $21 Million Bike Path Project is Offensive to Cyclists
Monday, August 06, 2012
In recent years, Rhode Island has made some pretty good improvements to our infrastructure. The I-Way project, for instance, has made Providence a better city. However, when it comes to bicycle infrastructure, all common sense is abandoned. The most extreme example is the current plan to spend $21 million to close the Washington Bridge Bike Path for two years for renovations.
A previous article billed this as something the bicycle community supports. Let’s be clear. The bicycle community does not support this project. In fact, as a bicycle commuter who sold my car a few months ago, I am offended by this project. Setting cost concerns aside, this project makes things worse, not better, for bicyclists because closing the bridge for two years more than offsets making it slightly wider in the future.
So how does the DOT take the cost of this project into the stratosphere? By adding completely unnecessary features that have nothing to do with bikes. There is no need for a separate walkway for pedestrians. As every existing bike path in Rhode Island shows, pedestrians and bicyclists can actually share paths quite easily if they are wide enough. There is definitely no need for benches. No need for a median. No need for a scenic outlook. No need for landscaped planters. No need for decorative lights. No need for informational kiosks.
As anyone who has ever been on that bridge knows, the highway is extremely loud. This point cannot be overstressed. No one in their right mind would ever want to hang out there, no matter how many granite benches and informational kiosks you put up. I honestly cannot think of a dumber place to put a park in the entire state of Rhode Island short of an active landfill.
This project represents a broader anti-bicycle attitude in this state. Bicycle infrastructure in Rhode Island is mostly designed for either traffic control or aesthetics, not as a legitimate means of transportation. There are a number of bike routes within the state, but without fail they do not connect up with each other, and they do not actually service places where people go to work or school. This is a shame because bike infrastructure is notoriously cheap. In terms of value for money, there are very few ways the government can spend its money better. With $21 million well-spent, we could very easily fix bicycle infrastructure in Providence.
Here’s what we’d do: We would extend the East Bay bike path to downtown, creating a paved path through India Point Park and the I-95 land. We would then connect the East Bay bike path to Blackstone Boulevard. Most importantly, though, we would build bike lanes in South Providence. We would build a dedicated bike path connecting the Washington Bike Path, which terminates at the Cranston police station, to downtown Providence, serving Classical High School along the way. We would also build a bike route servicing the airport. Large portions of most of these routes have already been constructed. All you would have to do is connect up those isolated segments. It would be difficult to spend more than $10 million on all of these projects, since bike paths are very cheap and bike lanes are even cheaper, but I would not be surprised if the DOT found a way. If the DOT were vaguely competent, the extra money could be used for more ambitious projects, like waterfront bike paths servicing tourist areas like Newport, Jamestown, Little Compton, and Narragansett. But the DOT is not competent when it comes to bikes, as the Washington Bridge boondoggle clearly demonstrates.
As the State Coordinator of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, I assure you I do not say this very often, but on this issue the Ocean State Tea Party does not go far enough. Spokeswoman Lisa Blais calls the idea “great” but the cost “extremely excessive.” She is wrong. This is not a good idea with a preposterous price tag; it is a bad idea with a preposterous price tag.
Sam Bell is the Rhode Island State Coordinator for the Progressive Democrats of America.
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Comments:
Chris MacWilliams
7:50am on Monday, August 06, 2012
Every time I see an article on the East Bay Path I have to comment on the "crack repair" work that was done on the Barrington/Bristol end. WHAT A MESS! There are thick strips of gooey bumpy tar everywhere.
Maybe some of the $21 million could be used to go back and 're-do' the "crack-repair" job.
Nancy Thomas
9:04am on Monday, August 06, 2012
Glad to see your commentary picked up as a story - I wonder if there is time to stop and rethink this project.....
Matt Moritz
10:07am on Monday, August 06, 2012
As a bicycle user who has been watching the construction seasons on the Henderson and Washington bridges for the last 5 years, I think that your views on the 2 year closure are a bit short sighted. I am looking forward to being able to ride across the bridge without having to dodge other users in the overlook bastions. Those of us who have been working on this project have not thrilled with the closure and wish RIDOT had done more.
I also believe that it is far better to have a closure now to address structural concerns than to have a permanent closure as the concrete crumbles away from below the existing sidewalk. All the better that we will be getting a first class connection, equal to the quality given to motorized users on a regular basis at the end of the project.
Many of us have been trying to convince RIDOT for the last 4 years, ever since the project went through value engineering to reduce costs, to have a portion of the walkway kept open while work was done on the opposite side, as is frequently done with bridge work elsewhere. This was rejected by RIDOT on safety concerns for routing people through an active work zone, cost concerns because of effectively doubling the amount of labor needed to work the bridge by halves, and schedule concerns that work would take even longer to complete. As far back as fall of 2010, RIBIKE has been on record with RIDOT on this issue and been repeatedly told the project was going forward as planned.
For many, the egregious error is that there is no detour marked to get people from one side to the other. No indication of the nearest bus stops, and the signage that is present is easily missed in a sea of poles, fences and advertisements.
The money has been earmarked for the project for well over 6 years, and given that at least 200 trips per day use the pedestrian bridge in its current state. Many of those are commuting to and from work and living in car-free/car-light households. Given that, this seems to be a very valuable investment for the state to make it easier and more attractive for people to not be encumbered with the burden of owning a car to navigate daily life.
As for building a bridge over the Seekonk fo rhalf a million dollars: Something tells me the standards the Parks department of California uses for bridges on walking trails aren't the same as high level crossings a quarter mile long. They probably also don't deal with having to work existing structures and remediation of deteriorating structures. By comparison, redecking the Warren and Barrington bridges was nearly a half million dollar project, and according to NCDOT (http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/download/bikeped_planning_albemarle_AppendixE.pdf) costing estimates, pre-engineered steel bridges (http://www.conteches.com/Products/Bridges-and-Structures/Truss/Steadfast-EXPRESS-Pedestrian-Bridge.aspx), like those on the Blackstone River Bikeway , cost $1,200/linear foot for 10' width. For further comparison, it's costing 6.6 million to completely build one mile of Waterfront Drive in East Providence, a road that connects nothi
Samuel Bell
1:39pm on Monday, August 06, 2012
Hi Matt,
I agree that high-level steel bridges are more expensive than the concrete bridge costs I was quoting, but for the hypothetical bridge to Barrington, I think you would agree that a concrete bridge would be appropriate.
Although I don’t think I said so in the article, I do think $500,000 is a reasonable cost estimate for a bridge over the Seekonk. The reason why the original Seekonk bridges have such high spans is that when they were built, the Blackstone River and Canal was still a working industrial waterway. The bridges had to be able to accommodate steamboats and their smokestacks. In fact, the Washington Bridge was originally a draw-bridge like the abandoned rail bridge slightly upstream. Because the waterway is now closed, it is no longer necessary to build such high bridges. A bridge built today would only need to accommodate the pleasure craft that use the river.
For a new bridge over the Seekonk, there are basically three options. The shortest span across the river is 300 feet, but there are several sailboats moored upstream, so the bridge would have to be tall enough to accommodate them. That would probably mean costs more on the order of the $1,200 per linear foot used for the high-level steel bridges. Another alternative would be to build a concrete bridge at $500 per linear foot just upstream of the Washington Bridge, where the narrowest span is 900 feet. A third option would be to relocate the sailboats and build a low-level bridge across the narrower part of the river, possibly utilizing the remaining segment of the now-abandoned India Point Railroad Bridge. For all of these options, $500,000 is a reasonable cost estimate, once miscellaneous costs like access ramps and land have been included.
—Sam