| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Less than 10% of us drive to the High St | |
| Posted by: | David Lesniak | |
| Date/Time: | 18/01/20 15:22:00 |
| "Of course we need successful retail, but concentrating on a mode of transport that only allows on average most two customers at a time (the average shop frontage divided by the parking length of a car) literally cannot deliver on this score" Tom, you should mention that to Karen Liebreich who thinks shops are "useless." Otherwise, if you allow cars to park perpendicular to shop fronts you would double the amount of parking. So a simple matter of geometry indeed. Then again you can have council-sponsored parking facilities which they have demonstrated in Brentford. And no, Karen, I do not now nor have I ever supported a 9-storey car park on CHR but your buddies Steve Curran and Guy Lambert thought it was appropriate for Brentford and I'm just asking why haven't they addressed identical issue in Chiswick in some way shape or form. I do support appropriate car parking infrastructure for businesses. Per your other post "you’ll make congestion, pollution and pedestrian safety worse, and for minimal benefit: a 10% increase in visitors by car means less than a 1% increase in visitors to our high streets" pretty much sums up CS9. It is for minimal benefit for the minimum user as you previously said the LSE report ascertains the majority walk. Be that as it may, even if cycle use ticks upward, it will not definitively yield profit. As you so rightly say, a 10% increase in visitors by (insert vehicle choice here) means less than a 1% increase in visitors to our high streets. Pertinent, too, is the theory that empty space denotes lack of need. I listened to Iain Cassidy (LBHF councillor for Cycling) defend CS9. He got all huffy saying empty bike lanes doesn't mean they are not needed. The identical thinking applies to parking. Just because a space is empty, doesn't mean it isn't needed eventually. I'm guessing the irony was lost on him. |