(02-10-2015, 11:45 AM)BuildingScout Wrote:(02-08-2015, 08:52 PM)clasher Wrote: I think it wouldn't be bad to see a real full-size grocery store there with a residential and office-type building on top of it. They would have to get creative with parking and discourage people driving there but it might work.
Again, we shouldn't be trying to "discourage" people from driving. This is a war-on-cars mentality which is counterproductive.
We want to encourage people to take transit because it is the faster, cheaper, smarter choice. One way for this to happen is to run the LRT at a somewhat higher average speed than presently planned, say 10km/h faster. If the LRT takes five minutes less point to point and I can read a book/watch a youtube video/text friends on my way to work, I'm taking the LRT on my own accord.
That sounds inclusive but I'm not sure the empirical evidence is conclusive. My belief is essentially that parking needs to cost money. One of the reasons for that is that taking transit isn't free.
At first I wrote "more difficult to park" but actually I think "more expensive to park" is the right thing. Also, as you say, antagonizing people isn't the right thing, but setting prices probably is. It's neutral and non-antagonistic. Why should parking be free?
from: http://www.internationaltransportforum.o...oodwin.pdf
"The most successful applications of multi-element packages in practice have probably been the large-scale pedestrianisation of town centres accompanied by parking restriction and enhanced public transport, where successful cases have been good for mobility, commerce and public enthusiasm with few or no undesirable side effects."
I also missed the statements that are more on-point, e.g. "In general the experience is that both sticks and carrots are effective in changing behaviour of the individuals concerned." [p17] Must have both carrots and sticks.