The reports are out:
2. Downtown Separated Bicycle Lanes Status Report, Summer 2011
The attached Administrative Report dated July 20, 2011 
, refers.
3. Business Impact Study Report, Downtown Separated Bike Lanes
The following refer:
.
And so is the coverage. (You can pretty well guess the slant on the story from the wording of the headlines.):
The Globe: Vision Vancouver stands by bike lanes
The CBC: Vancouver bike lanes have ‘moderate economic impacts’
The Vancouver Sun: Vancouver’s bike lane experiment needs more time: city staff
The Province: Study finds Vancouver’s new downtown bike lanes cost business $2.4-million so far
Georgia Straight: City staff recommend Dunsmuir, Hornby separated bike lanes stay until at least 2012
CTV BC: Businesses blasé about Vancouver bike lanes
The Courier: Impact of Vancouver bike lanes ‘moderate’ on downtown businesses, study says
(Thanks to Richard Campbell for the compilation.)
My initial take:
There has been mixed impacts on business along the cycle tracks:
Businesses along Hornby and Dunsmuir streets have stated lost sales and profit as a result of the bike lanes, but these stated losses have been moderate. According to survey participant perceptions, the overall sales loss is estimated at $2.4 million, which translates into an approximate profit loss of $480,000 over a full year.
Yet:
… respondents along Hornby confirmed that vacancy rates were on average 11% and 12% in 2009 and 2010 respectively, but that vacancy rates in 2011 have dropped to 2%.
Recommendations for improvements are made (or are underway). But in the end, the study has limited utility:
… the partners in the study were disappointed by the survey response rates and by the limited number of businesses willing to provide hard data to the consulting team on loss of sales or impacts, which affected the strength of the analysis.
It has been recognized however, that it was too early to accurately measure the impacts on businesses, particularly along Hornby Street where the bike lane was only in place for six (6) months. These results therefore should be viewed as the preliminary and short-term business impacts.
No doubt there will be another round of debate, and those with fixed positions will find whatever arguments they need from the reports. But I doubt anyone will seriously suggest the lanes be removed. Why? Because they improve safety for pedestrians and drivers:
The total number of collisions reported to ICBC on Dunsmuir Street is down noticeably. The five years 2005-2009 saw between 144 and 193 collisions per year and an average of 164 per year. During the 9 months following the installation of separated bike lanes on Dunsmuir Street, the number of collisions is reduced when compared to the 5-year average of same 9-month period of previous years. July 2010-March 2011 saw only 98 collisions, down 18% from the 119 average from the previous July-March periods (2005-2010).
… Cycling on Hornby Street sidewalks has reduced 80% since the installation of the separated bike lanes. Less than 1% of cyclists now use the sidewalks on Hornby and Dunsmuir Streets.
While a few would remove the lanes and throw cyclists back into mixed traffic (presumably so that all road users have equal rights to the same space), it would be to the measurable disadvantage of those who walk and drive.
The economic impacts are estimated based on a 32% response rate (despite multiple attempts) as the half-way point between “everyone is as bad as those who reported” and “only those who reported were impacted.” Whether this is a valid measure, and whether the newspapers should be quoting sales or profits (estimated as 20% of sales) is up for debate.
The key point, though, is that the 32% who did respond reported -11% on sales on Hornby (compared to -1% on Howe to get the -10% quoted), and only -2% on Dunsmuir (vs _2% on Georgia for -4% quoted). Whether these are valid comparators (parking was shifted to Howe from Hornby, for example), and whether the Olympics had an effect last year, is equally debatable.
The report also mentions that only four of the fifteen businesses asked to prove their high losses did so, “although the data that was collected indicated that the estimated loss in sales was not as high as reported in the surveys, the responses by businesses have been taken at their word.” In other words, we caught them fudging but we’ll let it slide.
What does this all mean? Some marginal businesses in unlucky spots probably were affected, but personally I feel like it’s just that the welcome mat hasn’t been laid out on Hornby. Dunsmuir’s now doing just fine on aggregate. It’s like the shouting of calamity keeping Olympic Village sales down. I really should leave some thoughts for my own write-up though.
That should read “vs +2% on Georgia”
I think if anything the business numbers are suspect because only four of those businesses opened their books to the study and those who did were found to overstate their losses in the survey. I also think saving lives should probably trump business losses in the end, and it seems like the bike lane is preventing collissions and that will save lives in the long run. Overall, good news.