3 ms·

Anecdotally certain areas in London shops with parking near or in front of the premises seem to survive better than shops that have no parking at all. I've see

Anecdotally certain areas in London shops with parking near or in front of the premises seem to survive better than shops that have no parking at all. I've seen certain areas in North London with no parking on very busy roads die within months of opening, repeat cycle of new shops that come and go, I can't imagine the costs to outfit some of these places. My thinking was the area just isn't right but less than 200 meters down plenty of free short term parking and the area is bustling with businesses that have been around longer than I can remember.

rtlfe 4y ago
> Anecdotally certain areas in London shops with parking near or in front of the premises seem to survive better than shops that have no parking at all. Presumably those are areas that don't have the bikes and buses the article talks about. You obviously can't make driving impossible without providing any alternatives.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > You obviously can't make driving impossible without providing any alternatives. This sums up my complaint about Strong Towns, Not Just Bikes, etc. They want to do things that will make driving impossible (or at least miserably difficult) now, and only maybe later do things that will provide alternatives for everyone.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    You can make this argument for any change that would improve cycling and transit though. Take street A, a street that right now is hostile to both; it only has car lanes, traffic is fast enough that it's intimidating to bike on, and buses get stuck in traffic. You'd like to get to street B: a street that people feel safe to bike on (protected bike lanes) and that enables transit to be fast and reliable (dedicated bus lanes or streetcar right-of-way). Now how do you get from A to B? At some point during that process, you'll have to take away space from cars. This might mean removing travel lanes, and it might mean removing on-street parking, but regardless, that is a necessary step to get to street B. That point is where people complain, "you're making driving impossible!" But you can never get to street B if you never make that step. And at the point you do, there generally also won't be that many people biking or taking transit, because you haven't changed the street yet.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      > At some point during that process, you'll have to take away space from cars. Why couldn't you just build transit that's above or below the existing space for cars instead? Sure it might be more expensive or difficult to do, but at least it wouldn't be making people's lives worse the whole time.
      - ryukafalz 4y ago
        That is exorbitantly expensive by comparison and only makes financial sense when you have a large enough population in the area to support it. Local governments are not rolling in cash. If your town substantially raised your taxes to pay for that project, would you also complain about that?
      - rtlfe 4y ago
        > Why couldn't you just build transit that's above or below the existing space for cars instead? It's basically free to paint a lane red and declare that it's only for buses. Tunnels can cost billions per mile.
        josephcsible 4y ago
        It's free in terms of direct monetary cost to do, sure. But there's a very high cost of banning cars from a lane, borne by everyone who used to use that lane but can't anymore.
        rtlfe 4y ago
        Alternately: there's a high cost to not creating a dedicated bus lane paid by everybody who rides the bus or chooses not to ride the bus because it's too slow.
    - namibj 4y ago
      Or you fix the "bus stuck in traffic" by charging a toll (possibly congestion-adaptive), high enough to prevent the bad congestion.
  - spixy 4y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k

rtlfe 4y ago

> Anecdotally certain areas in London shops with parking near or in front of the premises seem to survive better than shops that have no parking at all. Presumably those are areas that don't have the bikes and buses the article talks about. You obviously can't make driving impossible without providing any alternatives.

josephcsible 4y ago
> You obviously can't make driving impossible without providing any alternatives. This sums up my complaint about Strong Towns, Not Just Bikes, etc. They want to do things that will make driving impossible (or at least miserably difficult) now, and only maybe later do things that will provide alternatives for everyone.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  You can make this argument for any change that would improve cycling and transit though. Take street A, a street that right now is hostile to both; it only has car lanes, traffic is fast enough that it's intimidating to bike on, and buses get stuck in traffic. You'd like to get to street B: a street that people feel safe to bike on (protected bike lanes) and that enables transit to be fast and reliable (dedicated bus lanes or streetcar right-of-way). Now how do you get from A to B? At some point during that process, you'll have to take away space from cars. This might mean removing travel lanes, and it might mean removing on-street parking, but regardless, that is a necessary step to get to street B. That point is where people complain, "you're making driving impossible!" But you can never get to street B if you never make that step. And at the point you do, there generally also won't be that many people biking or taking transit, because you haven't changed the street yet.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > At some point during that process, you'll have to take away space from cars. Why couldn't you just build transit that's above or below the existing space for cars instead? Sure it might be more expensive or difficult to do, but at least it wouldn't be making people's lives worse the whole time.
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      That is exorbitantly expensive by comparison and only makes financial sense when you have a large enough population in the area to support it. Local governments are not rolling in cash. If your town substantially raised your taxes to pay for that project, would you also complain about that?
    - rtlfe 4y ago
      > Why couldn't you just build transit that's above or below the existing space for cars instead? It's basically free to paint a lane red and declare that it's only for buses. Tunnels can cost billions per mile.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        It's free in terms of direct monetary cost to do, sure. But there's a very high cost of banning cars from a lane, borne by everyone who used to use that lane but can't anymore.
        rtlfe 4y ago
        Alternately: there's a high cost to not creating a dedicated bus lane paid by everybody who rides the bus or chooses not to ride the bus because it's too slow.
  - namibj 4y ago
    Or you fix the "bus stuck in traffic" by charging a toll (possibly congestion-adaptive), high enough to prevent the bad congestion.
- spixy 4y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k