An occasional update on items from the Velo-city.
___________________________________________________________________
.
GOOD BIKING, GOOD BUSINESS
From the Wall Street Journal Metropolis blog:
City officials are fond of asserting that their changes to the New York streetscape are making pedestrians, cyclists and drivers safer. Now they are debuting a new ream of statistics to make a related point: those bike lanes, pedestrian plazas and slow zones have been good for business, too.
In a new report released Wednesday, the city Department of Transportation analyzed the retail activity around some of the first of its major street projects …
The result, the DOT contends, has been a boom in retail activity, seemingly linked to the way its experts have tried to improve the city streets.
Using data from the city’s Department of Finance, the DOT found an increase of as much as 49% in retail sales at “locally based businesses” on 9th Avenue from 23rd to 31st Streets since the bike lane was initiated in the fall of 2007. In that time, retail sales increased only 3% in the rest of Manhattan.
___________________________________________________________________
.
AMSTERDAM IN NEW YORK
Speaking of New York, this will be worth following: New York City Tests Local Sentiment by Reconsidering Scrapped Bike Lane Plan. A proposed bike lane on Amsterdam Avenue that was never approved is back for reconsideration.
___________________________________________________________________
.
HEATED BIKE LANES?
What’s most amazing, according to the BBC, is that the Dutch are having a serious conversation about the costs and benefits of such a pricey investment …
Story in Atlantic Cities here.
___________________________________________________________________
.
Does anyone have a copy of the DOT report?
The stated cost for heated lanes of $30k-$50k/km is not “pricey” compared to the overall cost of separated bike facilities. It would be about 1%-5% of the cost of the downtown separated bike lanes.
My guess is that they’re pumping hot water (i.e. geothermal energy) through some pipes under the asphalt. They could also be using resistive heating. Either way, the cost seems low for this, more like on the order of painting lines.
Re: GOOD BIKING, GOOD BUSINESS:
The numbers sound startlingly dramatic, which is perhaps what inspires Agustin to ask about the report. One might well suspect additional influences or manipulated stats. However, I for one would not be at all surprised if business *is* better, even if not 49% better, on traffic-calmed routes.
I’m convinced that a reduction in private vehicular traffic, in favour of more people walking, cycling, and using public transport, would change our neighbourhoods considerably and dramatically => for the better <=. More people on the street, moving more slowly (than in a speeding car), means more attention paid to neighbourhood details, which logically has the potential to translate into more local participation – 'local' meaning where one is at in the moment.
I also suspect that, as more people ‘shop locally’, more would also be inspired to invest in small, independent businesses and increase opportunities for small scale entrepreneurial projects. Better local economies, more neighbourhood activity, calmer commuters, environmentally less destructive – it’s difficult to imagine that this would be considered a bad thing, but effectively that’s what those who shout about “the war on the car” are saying. They’re really talking about a “war on possibility.”
I was hoping to see the report to better understand what’s happening, and in the hopes that the study can be repeated in other cities, so that these direct economic benefits can be quantified.