'Crowded, cluttered and confusing': Why Mark Patinkin says South Water St. bike lanes can go

There are three Rhode Island groups I’m deathly afraid of.

First, the mob, which has shrunk, but if you were around in the Godfather era , you’re still scared of swimming with the fishes if you cross the wrong guys, and there were a lot of them here.

Second, state troopers. They’re spit-shined, they mean business and they're seen as an untouchable police force. I strongly recommend you don’t mess with Staties.

Then there’s the final group one dares not ruffle.

Rhode Island bicyclists.

You know – the ones in blue and yellow spandex, who, to their huge credit, have made Rhode Island a bit of a biker’s paradise and are right to feel that cycling needs to be a state priority.

They get rather vocal about anyone opposing biking initiatives.

Which is why I’m writing this from under my desk.

I’m about to oppose one.

It has to do with a big controversy in Providence.

The mayor, Brett Smiley, has decided to do what the cycling crowd considers blasphemy.

He’s removing a bike lane.

It’s the one that runs a mile or so on South Water Street by the Providence River, from Hemenway's to Wickenden Street.

It was put in a few years ago by ex-Mayor Jorge Elorza. Local businesses told him not to, because it messed with traffic and parking, but he did it anyway.

South Water Street used to be two lanes, but now it’s one, with cars parked oddly mid-street on the former inside lane, and the bike path between them and the curb. That one traffic lane gets backed up far more than before, including every time a car stops to park. And it’s awkward with trucks. The whole stretch now feels crowded, cluttered and confusing.

Smiley is worried the backups will become worse, since South Water feeds toward the current Washington Bridge mess.

That’s what prompted him to move now to put things back the way they used to be, restoring two car lanes.

Cyclists are unhappy. So unhappy that they filled a City Council meeting a week ago with scores of folks blasting the plan and pleading to save the bike lane. The council got 294 letters against and only one in favor, and it passed a resolution telling Smiley not to do it.

But it’s the mayor’s call, and he’s going to do it anyway.

He should.

And not just for the sake of traffic flow.

You see, Smiley has an alternative to the lane that everyone is oddly dismissing. It's an alternative that I think is actually better for bikers. I’ll get to that in a second.

Meanwhile, before I get beat up too much for being anti-bike lane, I promise I’m a cycling guy myself. My kids make fun of me for wearing yellow spandex, and I believe in the sacred trilogy of motherhood, apple pie and bike paths – though actually I prefer pecan or banana cream pie.

But for real – bike paths are among Rhode Island’s great assets, with long, lovely stretches along the Blackstone River, another through Cranston, Warwick and Coventry and the beloved East Bay Bike Path from Providence to Bristol.

I ride parts of that one a lot, leaving directly from my garage, because the state added a mile-long connector path on the East Side along the Seekonk River from behind the Salvation Army building on Pitman Street to India Point Park, the start of the amazing stretch to Bristol.

As I pointed out in a recent column , the one upside of the Washington Bridge disaster is that a mile of bike path along the good side of the bridge, a key leg of the East Bay path, will survive.

Now let’s get to what’s been minimized in the controversy around Smiley’s bike lane plan.

Washington Bridge fall out: Businesses hurt by Washington Bridge closure tell lawmakers they need grants, not loans

He’s not killing it after all.

He’s moving it.

And just a few yards over.

Running parallel to the bike lane is a rare opportunity – a super-wide sidewalk and greenbelt with more than enough room for a dedicated bike path.

Smiley plans to spend $750,000 to shift it there.

If you ask me, an off-street bike “path” is far better than a bike “lane.”

Biking folks still don’t like that Smiley’s move prioritizes cars. And that going back to a two-lane South Water Street will mean faster, more dangerous traffic.

But it’s also better – far better – for the area’s businesses, though many don’t want to back Smiley's plan out loud for fear of appearing anti-bike.

Yet I don’t think Smiley’s being anti-bike at all.

Opposing his plan seems knee-jerk to me, even shortsighted about a better alternative.

I’m predicting that once the “lane” is replaced with a “path” along the same stretch, many cyclists will like it more.

Credit to Smiley for taking the heat to do what I think is best, long-term, for both sides.

mpatinki@providencejournal.com

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: 'Crowded, cluttered and confusing': Why Mark Patinkin says South Water St. bike lanes can go