StrongTowns: As a reminder of the upcoming video chat with Charles Marohn of StrongTowns, we’ll
start with something from Brent Toderian, a Vancouver, BC city planner. Toderian seems to be a convert to the
StrongTowns theory because he tweeted, “These days in North America, the most
persuasive argument for compact, walkable cities, and for walking, biking, and
transit, is a fiscal one.”
Please note
that Toderian isn’t saying the “best” argument, but the most “persuasive”
one. The distinction is
significant. One can argue that there
are many reasons for an increased emphasis on urbanism, including climate
change, peak oil, and market demand. But
the fiscal argument is the one that will likely resonate across the broadest
range of the political spectrum. And
that breadth can be crucial toward building a consensus.
Infrastructure
Cult: Despite the efforts of Marohn and Toderian, the drumbeat of the infrastructure cult continues. When the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) released their updated assessment on the need for more infrastructure,
the Bloomberg Report, CNBC, and the Washington Post all jumped into line, noting the
$3.1 trillion of GDP that could be lost without new infrastructure.
All three understood
one key point differently than I had. They
assumed that $3.1 trillion would be the GDP loss if the U.S. didn’t fund $1.1
trillion in potentially unfunded infrastructure improvements. But I understood it to be the loss if none of
the $2.7 trillion in infrastructure costs required between now and 2020 were
funded. I still suspect that I’m
correct. If I could argue that $3.1
trillion in benefits would flow from $1.1 trillion in costs, I’d make that
point as clear as possible. And ASCE
didn’t do that.
Presidential
Inauguration: I described an urbanist connection for the woman who offered the invocation at the
inauguration, but missed another urbanism star.
The press coverage of the motorcade from the Capitol to the White House gave
good coverage to the newly installed bicycle lane on Pennsylvania
Avenue.
Bicycles
versus Motorcycles: Two months ago, I made a passing note about the line between bicycles and motorcycles becoming blurred.
Apparently I wasn’t the first to think so. The European Union has developed a
demarcation between the bicycles and motorcycles. I don’t know if they drew the line in the
right place, but I’m sure of two things.
One, there is at least one manufacturer unhappy with the decision. And two, the U.S. government will draw the
line in a different place.
Readership: I
recently noted that readership of this blog had decreased slightly
during the holiday season. I hoped for a
rebound. The rebound happened. Readership is now at its all-time peak. I thank my loyal readers for coming back
three times a week and for telling their friends about this blog. We’re hopefully building a solid North Bay
urbanism community around this blog and around other people and sites who offer
a similar message.
I continue
to send email reminders, by bcc, whenever I publish a new blog post. If you or a friend would like to receive
these emails, let me know by comment or by email. I’ll be pleased to add you to the list.
Petaluma
Urban Chat: This past Saturday, Petaluma
Urban Chat took its scheduled Petaluma Transit field trip. The outing went well, with the Petaluma
Transit manager joining us for lunch to discuss some of the intricacies of
transit planning and finance. The group
will soon begin discussing its next field trip.
The next
meeting of Petaluma Urban Chat will be on February 12, when we can chat with
the StrongTowns founder. Details are here.
These
follow-ups were fun. Look for more next
week.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment