Volto ao tema do disparatado argumento que afirma que a redução da mobilidade automóvel na cidade acaba por afastar as pessoas, os moradores e o comércio. Um relatório do Transportation Alternatives (via) refere algumas consequências de condicionamentos ao trânsito:
Residential property values:
85% reduction in traffic translated to 5% increase after one year and • 30% after 13 years (Bagby) [aumento em comparação com outros locais]
Streets with no through traffic command 9% price premium (Hughes)
Quiet streets command 8-10% premium over noisy streets (Nelson)
Community gardens boost nearby apartment prices 7% (Voicu and Been)
Pedestrianization boosts sales 10-25% in first year (University of Oxford)
Pedestrianization boosts pedestrian traffic 20-40% in first year (University of Oxford)
West Palm Beach, Florida, converted its one-way main street to two-way operation, narrowed the street at points and raised intersections. In five years, vacancy rates fell from 70% to 20%, while commercial rents increased from $6 to $30 per square foot.
A survey of retailers in eleven German cities that created pedestrian zones in the 1970s found that 83% of retailers inside the zones reported higher sales, while retailers outside the zone on balance saw essentially no change.
O primeiro ponto (aumento do preço dos imóveis) é importante porque mostra que os imóveis são agora mais apetecíveis do que dantes, logo há mais pessoas querer morar/trabalhar nestes locais.
Mais uma vez, menos carros significou mais pessoas. Por último uma passagem maior, dedidaca aos receios infundados dos comerciantes:
When pedestrianization or traffic calming schemes are proposed, retailers are frequently among the most vocal opponents. Traffic calming and pedestrianization might result in drivers shopping elsewhere, and retailers may believe that these customers are the largest fraction of their customers.
Even if there is an upsurge in pedestrian traffic, retailers may fear that pedestrians spend less than drivers. Evidence from London and other cities suggests that these fears are unfounded. As the research cited above suggests, where business is already thriving, traffic calming and pedestrianization have tended to boost sales.
Some customers undoubtedly take their business elsewhere, but those losses are more than offset by the increase in pedestrian traffic. Two surveys in Europe suggest that some of retailers’ fears are based on a poor understanding of their customers’ travel choices. A 1991 study in Graz, Austria, found that retailers thought that a majority of their customers arrived by car, and only 25% on foot. In fact, 32% arrived by car and 44% on foot. Sustrans (2004) found a similar discrepancy in Bristol, UK. This misperception may fuel anxiety about changes that increase pedestrian access at the expense of drivers.
Studies in London also suggest that pedestrians spend more than drivers. A survey of shoppers in central London shopping districts found that those who walked to the store spent about the same (₤41) as those who drove (₤43), but that over the course of a week, those who walked spent much more (₤104) than those who drove (₤73).62 These findings were confirmed in a study on London’s Kensington High Street, which found that walkers shopped more frequently than drivers and accounted for 35% of retail spending, compared with 10% for drivers.63 The ability of customers to take home heavy or bulky goods – another possible concern of retailers – is apparently a minor issue for central London shoppers, at least: only one percent chose their travel mode because they had to carry heavy bags.
Posts anteriores Menos Carros = Menos Pessoas?
Uma das medidas compensatórias para a Região Oeste, por ter perdido o novo aeroporto, será a requalificação total da linha do Oeste (Lisboa-Figueira da Foz). Bem precisava!