It has been pointed out that Jeffrey Tumlin's talk, on walkable communities, conflicts with the active transportation summit.
But isn't that ok? Tumlin would just be preaching to the choir at the summit, and maybe some folks who wouldn't go to the full two-day summit will go to a brown bag talk across from city hall at the library. Outreach, not echo chamber!
For the weekend, you may recall a friend of the blog has shared a copy of Jeff Speck's Walkable City for review.
There don't seem to be very many reading it at the moment, but maybe we'll put out an open thread over the weekend, and see if it'll generate any discussion.
In his intro Speck says:
In the absence of any larger vision or mandate, city engineers - worshipping the twin gods of Smooth Traffic and Ample Parking - have turned our downtowns into places that are easy to get to but not worth arriving at.And off he goes. Here's another choice quote:
Underpriced curb parking is no fairer than giving random discounts on other municipal services like water or electricity based upon who circles the block the longest...But here's one that challenged a core value here in favor of bicycling:
The latest enemies of on-street parking...are two erstwhile friends [of Speck, one presumes]: bikeways and transit lines. Stripping a sidewalk of its protection [which a row of parked cars provides] in order to add bike lanes is just sacrificing one form of non-motorized transportation for another.So if you're reading it, or have already read it, what has stood out? Did Speck have any insights or analytical notions especially relevant to current projects and problems here in Salem?