The separated bike lane proposed for Hornby Street is being opposed because, it’s argued – if not assumed – that it’s bad for business.
Says Laura Jones of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses:
“The city has taken an extremely cavalier attitude toward the effect this will have on businesses … They are making it a lot less convenient for people to get to them, which means that customers are going to go elsewhere. A drop of 10 per cent will break most businesses.”
I guess it depends on your definition of ‘convenient.’ But the assumption that this is a zero-sum game, that advantages for cycling come at the expense of a healthy downtown economy – that’s too great a leap. And it’s wrong.
Cycle tracks are not bad for business. Let’s repeat: the assumption that cycle tracks are bad for business is not true. Evidence from other Canadian cities indicates that removing parking for bike lanes and wider sidewalks can be good for business. Same in the States. Not for a moment should the assumption be accepted that cycling infrastructure is inherently bad for business.
For some businesses, there’s disruption. But some are not all. And others benefit.
On the whole, adding another practical transportation choice, making downtown a healthier, more interesting place, bringing a broader range of customers to more doors – that’s good for business. And it’s the way the world is going.
What’s at question is the business model for downtown. For those who say their business is dependent on customers who drive directly to their storefront and need on-street parking – is that really what a retailer should reasonably expect when they lease space downtown? Surely not on Robson or Granville, or Pender or Hastings.
Parking for cars is a requirement for a healthy downtown. Loading bays and valet parking zones need to be accommodated. There needs to be choices for all kinds of customers, tourists and emloyees. And there are. There’s abundant off-street parking already, and the City will be replacing the parking spaces lost on Hornby with even more on Howe. Loading, drop-off zones, right-turns – they all need to be accommodated in the planning.
But is it realistic to think that the economic future of downtown retail depends on the business model assumed by the CFIB (drive to the door, and park) to the point where we cannot remove any street parking to promote alternatives, whether cycling or transit?
A business that expects to have patron parking on the street in front might want to check what customers are actually doing, and see whether that really makes sense in the future.
Hear hear! Excellent post.
Also an interesting choice of picture. If that painted bike lane were on the sidewalk side of the cars, rather than the road side, life would be easier for drivers parking (no need to look out for passing cyclists). And it would be more pleasant for pedestrians (noisy, smelly cars that little bit further away) which might increase foot traffic, and hence browsers/shoppers.
Downtown businesses have been benefitting from my dollars ever since the Dunsmuir lane went in. I’ve completely changed where I do my shopping and access services, and instead of going into the downtown core 3 times a year, I now go 3 times a week. I’ve tried telling this to the businesses I now use frequently (IGA, Shoppers Drug Mart, Sears) but none of the managers seem interested. A Hornby lane would increase my visits to the Scotiabank movie theatre among other places, because I wouldn’t be scared to bike home after dark on those dangerous downtown streets!
I was thinking the other day as I was driving through downtown on the way to Squamish, that this is the only type of trip I take by car downtown. When I want to actually stay downtown to shop, I always take transit, because it is so much more convenient. It would be a great idea for businesses to find out their customers modes of transport to their shops. And to be open to the idea that new modes will bring new types of customers.
Excellent piece. A 2009 Toronto bike lane study found that pedestrians and cyclists spent the most time and money shopping. Many business owners welcome the planned lanes because of this. And this wasn’t on a little side street either, it was planned for Bloor street.
I live in the Westend, and I was having a conversation with a friend from Langley the other night on the ‘wasted money’ on the Gateway project. Now they will have a toll and still no choice – no matter was Campbell says – when they should have built a Skytrain straight to 200th st allowing for future growth and choice – sit on the Port Mann or take transit.
Anyways…totally off topic, but I mentioned to him that I will never drive downtown because parking is now a fortune, and good luck finding a parking space. So what do I do, I walk, bike or take transit. And all my neighbours do the exact same thing. The lies of motordom and the Central Business Districts continue – 30 years ago, this was true, but not anymore.
Anyone who drives downtown knows that finding on-street parking is hit-or-miss. Nobody actually EXPECTS to find parking right in front of the store they’re going to – the best they can hope for is a spot within a block or two, and most would consider themselves lucky to get that.
The corollary to this is that the parking spaces directly in front of a given store are only rarely used by patrons of that business. Most of the time it’s just some random person who was trying his or her best to score a parking spot somewhere nearby.
As long as the net number of parking spaces within a few blocks of a store doesn’t change, then business owners have no sound basis for complaint. And as I understand it that’s exactly what the city is doing – opening new spaces to make up for the ones lost to the bike lane.
I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that if your business is so dependent on adjacent parking that it will fail without it, then you need to relocate it somewhere other than downtown. Let some other business better suited to the downtown ecosystem make better use of the space. Let’s face it, parking is not a new issue for downtown business owners, and over the longer term it’s not going to get any better. The writing is on the wall, better start paying attention and making plans.
Crossed Dunsmuir at Granville on foot six times over the weekend, at different times of the early to late afternoon. The two vehicle lanes were pretty much fully loaded each time, but I only counted one eastbound and two westbound cyclists in total (including any as far as I could see in either direction each time I crossed).
No bias – I variably take transit, bike, drive and walk around the city. If the dedicated cycling pathway agenda is “build it and they will come”, it appears that a disproportionately large amount of money is being expended for very little gain. It’s summer, prime cycling weather, but I honestly can’t say I’ve noticed more people on bikes this summer than any other summer. Just how much money has to be spend and roadways altered before there is an appreciable benefit? One year? Five years? Ten?
If I was a street level retailer on Hornby paying market rents and property taxes faced with the loss of street parking and impact of seemingly endless no turn intersections in return for a few cyclists instead of people in cars, I’d be asking a lot of tough questions too. “Doing it for the common good” has cost a lot of retailers – many of them small business owners/employers trying their hardest to make a go of it – a great deal of financial misfortune in this city in recent years.
Perhaps the backlash is symptomatic of something larger: broken public trust and the perception that special interest groups, whether they be property developers, cycling advocates or a closed minded city council furthering its particular political agenda, have gained too much of an upper hand here. Bring on the public discourse!
@Jake: Are you suggesting that transportation policy should be based on what you saw on the weekend while crossing the street?
The point of increasing cycling infrastructure is to increase cycling. Data show this has been effective around the world, and in the city of Vancouver (even in the Dunsmuir lane!).
I’m confused by what you have written in your last two paragraphs. Are cycling advocates in favour of “the common good”, or are they “a special interest group”?
Sorry Agustin, not interested in taking your bait.
Public policy should balance vision, an appropriate consultative process and fiscal responsibility. Determining its efficacy should be tied to clearly defined metrics such as usage, time, budgets and expenditures. These metrics should also accurately reflect the true impact of the public policy, to the extent that it can be reasonably measured.
For example, counting bicycles on Dunsmuir tells only part of the story. Determining if the counts of bicycles have changed on other streets since the addition of dedicated cycling lanes on Dunsmuir tells another. Measuring changes in trip durations and emissions due to restricted or altered vehicle routing another. Vehicle counts, accident rates, retail expenditures and storefront vacancies another. And so on.
Implementation of a public policy without having taken all of these considerations into account suggests inexperience, a lack of transparency, or both. While change can be good, even the most well-intended change usually comes at some cost. Rational people want to understand that cost along with the anticipated benefits so they can assess how the change will affect them. Implementing public policy without an appropriate consultative process or having reasonable and clearly defined metrics to accurately quantify its results smacks of “build it and they will come” or “trust us, it’ll be good for you”, mindsets that have no place in today’s public realm.
If all of these considerations have been taken into account here and there is complete transparency, then city council has done a poor job in communicating that to the public.
Cheers.
Jake – I couldn’t reply to your post, so I’m replying to my own again. (Some glitch in the comments system?)
I wasn’t trying to bait you. I was confused as to why you brought up the fact that when you were out crossing the street, you saw few cyclists.
Your comment below seems reasonable, and studies have taken place. You can go to the city’s section on cycling to see stats about the Burrard Bridge lane, and the city has put out communiqués on the Dunsmuir lane. They are currently undergoing a public consultation process for the Hornby lane, where I’m sure you could ask a thousand questions about their metrics and models. I’ve seen information about accident rates, vehicle counts, trip times, etc. The information is out there — you can find it on the web, by phone, or in person.
At some point, the decision has to be made to stop studies and actually build something. This government was elected on a green platform, including the expansion of the cycling network. That is exactly what they are doing.
Yes, some people are complaining, but I haven’t seen any complaints backed up by the metrics that you speak of. Honestly, I think most of the complaints are based on fear of the unknown.
“Streets with bicycle lanes are 40 percent less deadly for pedestrians than those without bicycle lanes.”
Yet another finding from the landmark New York City Pedestrian Safety Study and Action Plan. I urge anyone interested in traffic safety and sustainable cities in general to check out the full report:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/pedsafetyreport.shtml
The stat above is highlighted here:
http://blog.tstc.org/2010/08/18/groundbreaking-nycdot-pedestrian-study-recommends-testing-20-mph-limit-for-neighborhoods/
I meant to add that dead pedestrians don’t make good customers!
It’s about learning to adapt.
Apparently some of the businesses are underestimating on the spending power of people using alternate modes of transportation. I have some friends who make more than decent incomes, yet they like biking to Downtown to work whenever conditions permit.
This feels like such an “old world” conversation. The only way we can step forward into a cleaner, more economical future is to speed this process up. Some people need cars on a daily basis, but do those people need to take their cars downtown? Maybe, but they don’t need to leave them there all day.
Some European countries have almost 25 years of structured traffic division (Cycle, Pedestrian, Auto), why are we not consulting with them? The only bike lane in the city that comes close to the traffic management I saw while living in Denmark is Dunsmuir street. I say, move the parking spaces over a lane and either elevate the bike lane or put in a median. We have too much of a bullshit “Cyclist vs Driver” attitude in Vancouver. Let’s just accept that everyone needs a share of the road and move on—while gradually decreasing the use of automobiles downtown. (To the commenter that said, “Nobody is using the Dunsmuir lane” – please don’t be so near-sighted, people are and will continue to use it more as they realize it exists)
As someone who drives, cycles, and walks – I HATE driving downtown. When I do, I deal with the nuisance that equation presents. The next step in the lower mainland is a revamped traffic network, we need to alleviate start/stop traffic and work on designing a system that maximizes free-flow in every given direction.
*For my fellow cyclists – you need to obey the rules too! Stop at red lights and stop signs, use hand signals, and don’t ride on crosswalks.
2009 Toronto proposed bike lane study on Bloor St. was summarized in article here:http://thirdwavecyclingblog.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/bike-helmets-on-customers-exposes-unnoticed-business-for-retailers/
Study link is given in article.
I lived and worked in Toronto for nearly 2 decades and still visit Toronto since moving out to Vancouver. The Annex area featured in the Toronto study is a vibrant area similar in spirit to Commercial Drive.
This post fails to hit other completely legitimate reasons why businesses may object which have nothing to do with being money hungry.
It’s actually not just about parking. It’s about not allowing right hand turns and making driving downtown more challenging/intimidating than it already is with it’s plethora of one way streets. It’s about Cyclists that blaze through red lights and don’t wear their helmets getting hurt due to a false sense of security. It’s about the restaurants and businesses you ENJOY not having access to load their merchandise without any sort of thought on resoluting it other than “figure it out yourself”.
Many of these “evil” businesses are in support of diverse methods of transportation into the downtown, but they have families and staff to look after. Their demands are not so unreasonable.
@I love my car: have you ever been to Europe? Some of the best places to go are restaurants in the old cities. Those cities were built before cars existed, which means that they are not nearly as friendly to vehicular traffic as our cities are. And restaurants in Europe thrive!
My point is: don’t be scared just because it’s different. You worry about the livelihood of downtown business owners, but they will be OK.
As well, the families and staff you mention will be safer because there will be fewer 2000-kg hunks of metal buzzing around at upwards of 50 km/h and spewing toxic fumes as they go.
@Agustin I’m not saying cyclists don’t make good customers. Tehy can be.. but there are many cyclists who do not obey the rules, cruise through red lights, think they own the sidewalk, don’t wear helmets.. etc.. and also drivers who will make illegal right turns which were not illegal before. It’s not a safe environment.
Business owners that will be impacted most are small businesses. If it was your mom or your family thats impacted I doubt you’d take such a cavalier attitude about it.
Are you so fooled by their “temporary” cement lanes to see the decision was made long ago… and that the supposed consultation is just going through the motions?
drivers often don’t obey the rules of the road – so that’s not what this is about. It’s irrelevent. It’s not like bikers will start breaking more rules just because they have a separated bike lane now. As a regular biker I can tell you it is far safer to have your own space, even with the problem of drivers still being occasionally confused by the right turn issue. Drivers have plenty of more options to cut me off when I’m in a painted lane than a separated lane.
As well, studies have shown (and are linked to on this site, in fact) that bike lanes make for a safer street not just for cyclists but for other road users as well. A cyclist who makes a mistake isn’t likely to veer into traffic, either.
If there is some evidence that the dunsmuir set-up is somehow more dangerous than alternatives, then I’d love to see it. But that’s not the reality I’ve seen in studies or in personal experience.
Can’t wait to walk down the Hornby Street lane when it’s done. If you can ride on the sidewalk, I can walk in the bike lane.
are you suggesting drivers pissed off at “jaywalking” should start driving on sidewalks?
Off topic: It’s amazing how inevitable it is, on a blog/news post related to cycling, that someone will mention law-breaking cyclists as a reason to object to… well, anything really!
On topic – I sincerely hope that we are moving, as a City, towards a day when it is not automatically assumed that one must have easy driving/parking access to every inch of every street for businesses to thrive. I think these changes to our downtown streets are a huge step forward towards making everyone more safe, and I’d love to see businesses find creative ways to embrace their cycling-friendly location (instead of bemoaning the change).