Hi all,

I am not a fan of everything Enrique Peñalosa says, but I think his
speech had some very appealing arguments (intertwined with his B.S.
about how little children should be safe everywhere). We would be
fools not to recognize that appeal and even point out that it can be
cast in a vehicular cycling framework. Doing so does not take sides in
the new-urbie debates, but it places vehicular cycling as a
non-opponent, or even an ally, of many of the things that new urbies
want.

I am not currently an urban dweller, but I was one from 1974 to 1980.
My last urban residence (in Allentown, PA) was on an overly noisy urban
arterial (one-way, two-lane, with synchronized traffic lights), and my
annoyance with that street pushed my decision to relocate to the
semi-rural unpaved road where I live now.

Before that, I lived in another downtown (Media, PA) that was excellent
for walking or cycling short trips. It was quiet and felt peaceful. I
really enjoyed it. And yes, the merchants were thriving and the real
estate market was healthy.

Here's a sample of a Peñalosa quote that one would be hard pressed to
argue against:

"A good city is good for children, for the
handicapped, for low-income people, for the elderly, for the most
vulnerable citizens."

Here's another:

"People tend to think sidewalks are
relatives of streets, because they live next to each other," h
e said.
"But in fact, sidewalks are not for getting from one place to another.
Sidewalks are for talking, for doing business, for playing, for
kissing.
Sidewalks really are relatives of parks."

And here's where he'll never get a majority of Americans to agree:

"Whenever people use public transit, it's not because they love the
environment. In advanced cities in Zurich or in London, most people use
public transit, even the rich. Why do they use it? Because they have
to.
If we want people to use public transport, we have to improve transit
but we also need to restrict car use, a little bit of the carrot, a
little bit of the stick."

In my opinion, the carrot is shamefully underused. There is no
coherent attempt to make public transportation or cycling easy and
convenient. Which would you rather do in a strange city: try to
figure out the bus schedule or pay $10 for parking? I keep hearing
that buses are less appealing than trollies. But whose fault is that?
Why hasn't anyone tried to make a city bus appealing?

And here's a Peñalosa quote that I agree with, at least in the broad
outlines presented here:

>>>Peñalosa urged the audience to set its
sights as high as possible to completely re-imagine cities so that not
only "those who have a private motorcar have the right to safe
mobility. ..."

The late great city traffic engineer Gihon Jordan could tell you
neighborhood-by-
neighborhood what percentage of his customers didn't
have driver's licenses. And he did what he could to serve them. I see
that as a self-evident good.

John Schubert
Limeport.org