degggendorf

degggendorf t1_j6l9eyl wrote

The part I came looking for:

> The things we hear about the most are: vehicles, modified exhaust systems, stereos playing very loud, people using leaf blowers, ATVs, the all-terrain vehicles, the motorcycles without mufflers.

[fireworks throughout the summer were mentioned as well]

I'm surprised that almost the whole list is a problem only because of enforcement. ATVs shouldn't be on public roads, illegal exhaust systems are illegal, and there are ordinances for the likes of audio equipment. Beyond that, gas lawn equipment is surely going extinct soon, especially in the dense city.

Oh and /u/franzifranzi - this must be based on your work, right?

41

degggendorf OP t1_j6jv36r wrote

I agree, I'm skeptical that this relatively small amount of money will make much of a difference, and the goals described by Reed's office seem awfully lofty for "just" $27m. I look forward to additional info (and, ya know, actual progress).

This line:

> The city intends to use this funding to “advance engineering and systemic construction” of the Urban Trail Network in Providence.

Makes me think that this might be more about creating blueprints for the infrastructure more than actually building it. Like, coming up with the detailed engineering drawings for what a bike and pedestrian friendly section of urban residential street should look like, so the next time a street is being redone that uniform template can be applied. Then car/bike/pedestrian interaction will be predictable throughout the city, and therefore safer and more accessible. Much better than the mish mash of where a bike lane goes in relation to street parking, whether it's differentiated by paint or reflectors or curbing or just shared with cars, how car turn lane crossovers are handled, etc. Defining the Providence Way of handling those things seems like a good place to start.

But ultimately I don't know anything and can only hope this will be managed with some semblance of intelligence.

1

degggendorf t1_j6hxpeo wrote

Have you met people with higher degrees? They're more a measure of determination and persistence than raw intelligence, and might legitimately have an inverse relationship with broad, worldly knowledge.

I am sure her doctorate in Curriculum, Teaching, Learning and Leading didn't include intensive grammar studies.

To be clear, I am not saying that anything excuses anyone for poor grammar...just that it's largely unrelated to earning a higher degree.

2