This is a 'one off special' for the Embassy's weeekly blog roundup. Today we're trying to gather all the useful things you need to know when someone tells you that cycleways are going to kill your businesses, your shops, or, well, you.
This week has loads of PDF links because we're in the world of some pretty serious academic papers and reports - while pretty tough stuff to read, they provide a wealth of actionable, reliable data.
There's now an awful lot of research out there showing that cyclists tend to spend less on each visit, but visit more frequently than drivers (TfL Study - PDF link, Copenhagen study - PDF link, 2000 study - PDF). In a month in Portland, people cycling and walking spent more than people driving when they included food and drink (in Citylab) And when you ask businesses about how their customers arrive, they invariably over-estimate the percentage who arrive by car. In Graz, Austria they thought 58% of customer arrived by car, but only 32% actually did so (Bristol PDF). In Oslo in 1992, business owners estimated 40% arrived by car, and 40% by foot or bike; in fact the real figure was closer to 60% by foot or bike, and about 25% by car. (Thomas Krag PDF),
In Manhattan's East Village, a 2012 study (this PDF) showed that 55% of visitors arrived by foor or bicycle, and 40% by other public transport, with an unsurprising 95% of all spending attributed to these two groups. The study also notes:
A 2003 report in San Francisco found that adding cycle lanes 'either had no impact on businesses, or improved their sales'. (this PDF). And back to Citylab, which has an excellently through report on studies about converting car parking to cycle lanes, with loads of great infographics.
Over in Switzerland, they found (in Bern) that, per square metre of space allocated, bike parking was more profitable than car parking. (Melbourne had this excellent image to maske the samr case.) And the same 2013 article in Momentum magazine had these insights:
Cycling Christchurch picks up a number of these studies, with some excellent graphics, and Smart Growth America identifies the wider benefits (in health, etc.) of their 'Complete Streets' project. In Portland, there's a high quality study looking at the economics of consumer behaviour and travel mode choices (PDF here) which includes an excellent breakdown (p26) of types of spending and numbers of trips for different types of business. The overall data shows that when you take into account both the value of each trip, and the number of trips - as in the Danish study earlier - cycling was good for most businesses.
There are also many studies which talk about the overall value that can be derived from investing in cycling - the European Cyclists Federation showcases some here, NHS Health Scotland has one here, and the EU hosts a selection of papers here. (And yes, the Danes are in on the act (PDF here) too!
Finally, there's a detailed paper from CTC (PDF here), and the nearest we could find to something negative: a report from Surrey on how one-off events like RideLondon 100 lack sufficient data for us to be sure of the value they bring for the areas visited. (There's also a paper from Vancouver, but the methodology - calling businesses for their estimates and using almost no primary data - does make the report rather suspect.)
And finally, a huge thank you to Sally for the regular blog round-up, and all the other Embassy supporters. Last week I rode across Vauxhall Bridge on CS5: proof that however slowly things seem to be moving, the dedication and drive of campaigners around the country is keeping proper, safe, plesasant cycling on the agenda.
And Santa. Happy Christmas!
(Image HT @bikehugger)