Tom, as ever I think we and yourself have lost track of what you are arguing for. A recap, Tom, lets take you back to the post on this report that we are now discussing.You said 'many studies published on hte effect on bussinesses of increased active travel. All have been positive'. But in one of the specific cases in the report, Altrincham in Greater Manchester, there is no active travel provision, none. Its also tenuous in the extreme to argue there was a reallocation of space from cars to retail.Without rehashing it all, the best analogy is Essex Place and Empire House. Note this is a hypethetical for clarity. Lets say that the council engage with the local business and developed a plan, two bits that are not explicitly linked:* The eastern end of the current stretch of essex Place (the road between the Sainsburys loading bay entrance and the bollards just before the current pedestrian area in front of Sainsburys) was part pedestrianised. It would still allow access to stalls and rear of shops for loading. So half a dozen parking space lost on a dead end, dirty and unpleasant back road. This was smartened up and more market stores put in, expanding the stalls currently in front of Sainsburys. One or two of the units that back on to here could be opened up as bars.* Then on the High Road, the often vacant retail units of Empire House were rebuilt to make two storey retail, with larger floor areas and new nice glass frontages. Ignore the wider residential development and pretend its not happening. This plan was based on consultation with local and national business and the local community.So that would be it. There would be no bike lanes, no new guided walking paths, perhaps a bike rack or two, but not that obvious. At the same time, local bus services would be cut significantly, some withdrawn altogether. But there would still be two large multi storey car parks and lots of other surface car parks (this is for context as these exist in Altrincham)Now, the vacant retail units of Empire House prove easier to let, offering a store size that is hard to find in the rest of the area. The expanded market stalls are also popular. Its hard to draw a direct link between these two factors given the wider retail and food locations along the High Road, but of course it helps.if you are Tom or a cyclist lobbyist, firstly you claim this shows the benefit of active travel. Even though there is no provision of active travel, no data on how people travel, and with fewer bus services and extensive parking in the area its likely more people than ever arrive by car.You then also claim that this scheme shows the benefit of allocating road space from cars to retail. At a certain obscure level yes, but remember this is a dirty dead end road that is actually being tidied up and brought to life. No traffic is diverted, no residents find it harder to get home, emergency services are not impacted, buses are not delayed.So, this is a slightly simplistic but generally fair comparison of what happened in Altrincham. For those that can be bothered to read it, I will let you draw your own conclusions. To me it simply shows good urban planning and the power of engagement.Remember, this report was promoted by one of the most vocal advocates of CS9 and cycling on this forum. WHo claims there is lots of evidence for his views that cycling is good for High Streets. And some wonder why I get frustrated with these repeated and palpably false claims
Paul Green ● 2054d