City-commissioned study shows bike lanes have no impact on business
Cambridge’s newly released economic impact study on bike lanes give us two key pieces of information, one old, one new:
- What we already knew: If you ask business owners, many are concerned about bike lanes and claim they affect revenue.
- What’s new: Objective measures show no meaningful economic differences between streets with and without recently built bike lanes.
The study included three objective measures: employment trends, and commercial property rents and vacancies. Separated bike lanes didn’t affect any of these. As the study summarizes:
- “There was generally little difference in employment trends between treatment and control corridors during the relevant time periods before and after bike facility construction.”
- “Differences in commercial property [rents or vacancies] within corridors and between time periods, or between treatment and control corridors, are not substantial and may vary by location.”
This pattern, with businesses’ worries and complaints not aligning with objective evidence, is something we’ve seen before in Cambridge’s history and in other cities.
Past public health fights in Cambridge
Separated bike lanes are a public health measure: based on separate research by the Federal Highway Administration and city staff, Cambridge’s new separated bike lanes cut crash rates by as much as 50 percent and significantly reduced the severity of injuries. There’s another proven public health measure that was unpopular with Cambridge businesses when first introduced: banning indoor smoking.
Many restaurant and bar owners spent years fighting against this ban, including in 1994 and 2003. The latter article quotes Joe Sater, one of the owners of the Middle East club: “I don’t think we can live through this experiment. If you look at Brookline, where smokers congregated in the clubs, nightlife doesn’t exist now that a smoking ban has been put into place.”
These dire predictions by businesses were wrong. Twenty years later, the Middle East has multiple shows this weekend and Cambridge and Brookline still have restaurants and bars, even though indoor smoking is still banned. And importantly, these businesses attracted customers who had previously avoided smoke-filled locations. All of us, and staff in particular, benefit from a reduction in secondhand smoke and nicotine exposure. Inhaling toxic smoke is no longer, as one bar owner claimed at the time, “part of the business.”
Bike lane installations in other cities
Returning to separated bike lanes, the pattern of businesses predicting significant damage that is then disproved by objective data is also found in other cities. Consider bike lanes installed in New York in 2017; as Streetsblog reports, businesses were not happy:
“Protected bike lanes do not guarantee safer streets, but it will mean a loss of business,” Gary O’Neill, owner of the Aubergine Cafe on Skillman, said a few months later.
But when New York City looked at sales tax data, the opposite result emerged: Business was doing fine. This pattern repeated itself across many cities, from Toronto to Berlin, as businesses opposed bike lanes but objective data later showed that these fears were unwarranted.
We don’t need to fear change
As the owner of a small business, I know how nerve-wracking it is to be at the mercy of changes outside my control. But while restaurant and bar owners never wanted their customers and employees to suffer from the many health impacts of secondhand smoke, they let their fear of change override their better instincts. And as it turned out, these fears were unwarranted.
Just like banning indoor smoking, separated bike lanes are a critical, proven and necessary public health measure. And change is still scary, especially for businesses recovering from Covid disruptions. But the objective data, from cities around the world and from right here in Cambridge, shows that we don’t have to fear bike lanes’ economic impact.
In fact, people biking are great customers for small, local businesses: listen to these interviews of local shoppers and consider that no one is likely to bike from Cambridge to the Burlington Mall. The study itself found that at most 17 percent of intercepted customers arrived by car. While not an exact number, it does give a sense of scale, and realistically this number won’t be going up. On the other hand, Somerville is going to roll out a major network of separated bike lanes over the next six years and Boston is building more safe bike infrastructure, as are other neighboring towns. So we will see increasing numbers of shoppers who are able to safely bike to Cambridge stores.
I appreciate the authors comparison to smoking. It is actually a very apt comparison and one many are reticent to acknowledge. In fact there was an interesting study done on that too.
Coverage: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2023/01/19/the-dangers-of-driving-are-way-more-normalized-than-we-think
Study: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/egnmj
“But when New York City looked at sales tax data, the opposite result emerged: Business was doing fine. This pattern repeated itself across many cities, from Toronto to Berlin, as businesses opposed bike lanes but objective data later showed that these fears were unwarranted.”
This even understates it somewhat the pattern in NYC and Toronto (and same for most other studies as well) wasn’t simply no effect but actually a positive impact on business with bike lanes. See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-08/for-store-owners-bike-lanes-boost-the-bottom-line
Finally I do think it is worth adding that some businesses really went out of their way to be hostile to potential customers on bicycles. This hostility got so bad that some local cyclists created a list of hostile businesses to boycott: https://www.ibikeiboycott.com I do hope local businesses learn that public safety improvements are not a threat to their business, and might even be a benefit, but making yourself an enemy of such changes might.
The author must not have read the report.
The Impact Study completely fails to provide an insight into the business impact of parking loss, and loading zone re-configuration. The Cambridge Day prints a complete falsehood: “Objective measures show no meaningful economic differences between streets with and without recently built bike lanes.” The report showed no meaningful results because there is no reliable data (except the Business Survey) to analyze. Showing no meaningful results DOES NOT MEAN there aren’t negative economic impacts from parking removal.
The final section highlights the need for objective data collection. The city needs a credible process for this.
Summary of the report below.
5.1 LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES)
The report’s assessment is “Additionally, while the distribution of employment was an important second-order consideration when identifying potential control corridors, it was not directly relevant to the analysis of trends pre- and post-construction of bike lanes.”
5.2 SafeGraph Point of Interest Consumer Data Considerations
The report’s assessment is “Overall, unexplained inconsistencies in the data, including a large number of missing observations and implausibly high and low values, make this dataset unsuitable for any statistical analysis at the geographic level required for this study. As such, no conclusions can be drawn from this dataset.”
5.3 Exploration of CoStar Data
CoStar tracks rental rates and availability(vacancy) rates for commercial properties. The problem is that empty storefronts may not be available because they’re still under lease. Changes in rent and availability do not reflect the health of active businesses.
The report’s assessment is “Overall, only limited inferences can be drawn from the CoStar real estate data, but they generally indicate that differences in commercial property within corridors and between time periods, or between treatment and control corridors, are not substantial and may vary by location.”
The Porter Square data shows 7.8% before and 2.5% availability after bike lane installation. (statistically significant). Walking Porter Square around indicates that storefronts are 40-50% empty. Availability doesn’t reflect active business.
6.2 Business Survey
The business survey is the most valuable data in the report. It covers primarily first-floor retail, so it doesn’t cover doctor/therapist offices or basement/upstairs business.
– 63% reported decreased revenues because of changes in parking and loading zones (figure 27)
– 49% reported a decrease in revenue after bike lane changes (Figure 30).
– Business need parking
6.3 Customer Intercept Surveys
This survey does not address business impact and has limited use.
– Conducted in July when students and residents are gone for vacation.
– Had a tiny sample size of 214 across Cambridge
– 84% of respondents were less than 55 years old (figure 38)
– 0% of cyclists in Kendall Square (figure 33)
From LA survey: Findings of the intercept survey were generally mixed or counterintuitive, and the authors note that intercept survey findings do not establish causal impacts of bicycle infrastructure.
Please read the report.
John
The business survey is the least useful part of the study because it tells us nothing new: we already knew businesses don’t like bike lanes, asking them to repeat that isn’t very informative. The point is to get data that isn’t skewed by personal biases, and insofar as we got that data, it suggested those personal biases are incorrect.
As far as the customer intercept… “84% of respondents were less than 55 years old” is supposedly grounds for doubt, but let’s go to the Census: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S0101?q=age&g=160XX00US2511000
If my arithmetic is right (please validate!) shows 19.7% of residents are above age 55. Seems pretty close to the 16% in the survey. And then there’s “students and residents are gone”, so you’re saying lots of students are driving to stores? Really?
If you actually pay attention to how stores work in Porter you can do some simple arithmetic and see it is extremely implausible that the number of people who sit in Sugar & Spice could arrive by car, now or before bike lanes. And then in the summer they fill up even more with outdoor dining. There never has been enough parking for that. This is true of all but the tiniest restaurants in Porter.
If one actually pays attention, restaurant after restaurant in Porter (the Abbey, Chalawan) voluntarily swaps parking for outdoor seating because they’d much rather have outdoor seating.
Thank you John Hanratty for delving into what data can be gleaned from the survey. Despite all the work put into it by CDD, Volpe and the small number merchants who shared their full financial details with them, this survey, by their own statement, reveals nothing conclusive.
Once again we have ITT providing more cheerleading for bike lanes aided and abetted by his sock puppet Mr. cold-Slaw.
My question is why didn’t Cambridge Day do its own work reviewing this study and show us it really is a newspaper?
Mincing no cabbage or verbiage, I freely sign my own name to this comment.
This Opinion Letter was successful at one thing for sure; it forced me to review the “economic impact report .” Surely there was much effort placed on this endeavor, but even the City was honest enough to evaluate the usefulness of each variable and most truly even the city deemed not useful in the study. John Hanratty does a great job of explaining the limitations of the study. I agree with his analysis and encourage anyone reading this to review his critique and the report itself. Itamar’s analysis is truly a feat in cyclist leger de main.
For those who think the COVID pandemic is a hoax, no data will ever change their minds. Similarly, nothing will ever convince people who want to hate bike lanes. We need to stop letting these extremists hold society hostage and treating their opinions on equal footing as those supported by reality.
@jhanratty and @Vickey Bestor You both sued the city in part claiming bike lanes would be a disaster for businesses if those extreme claims were true wouldn’t the results of any study have been able to pick up on that?
@Jhanratty you are very obviously cherry picking and twisting. The overall takeaway from the report is “there are little to no discernable differences between “treatment” areas and otherwise similar “control” areas, and most of the differences that exist are either not statistically significant or point in opposite directions” that’s a finding, even if you don’t like what it says or there may be more data needed to confirm it. Again if bike lanes were as bad for business as you claim they are this would show up wouldn’t it?
As for your comments on the business survey “here is no reliable data (except the Business Survey)” and “The business survey is the most valuable data in the report.” The report itself doesn’t agree with that categorization saying: “like all surveys, there are issues with self-selection and other potential sources of bias, as well as differences in interpretation of some questions.”
@Vickey Bestor the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is actually just one person with a bunch of accounts is hilariously delusional, please find help and some real problems.
I am not part of the bike lobby so I’m sure this isn’t part of the talking points but… if your business in Cambridge is so reliant on a few parking spaces that you’d go under if they are removed, you are probably going out of business soon anyway.
We all own and pay for the roads together. Residents of Cambridge want more bike lanes. That’s just as legitimate of a use of public space as subsidized or free parking spaces. Adjust or move on. End of story.
Slaw, while you seem to take great pride in criticizing VB and JH for “suing the city,” did you not know that Itamar is an intervenor and represented by an attorney? Essentially he too is a party.
Cportus, you assert residents of Cambridge want bike lanes. Really? All residents of Cambridge? Have you not noticed the takeover of meetings sanctioned by the city? Have you ever noticed the same speakers like handiwipes speaking and advocating in other communities.
@cportus “the bike lobby” doesn’t really exist. It’s road builders and car companies who have lobbyists. Support for biking is driven by community activism, while the perpetuation of the car centric status quo that is driven by shady back room dealing.
See the reasoning for the closure of riverside park: https://mass.streetsblog.org/2023/07/26/emails-reveal-state-officials-flawed-excuses-for-taking-away-riverbend-park-access-in-cambridge
See also the recent purge enforced anti-park meeting for well connected NIMBYS to pressure state officials: https://www.cambridgeday.com/2024/02/05/opponents-of-riverbend-park-meet-in-riverside-with-state-official-demanding-support-on-traffic/
The bike lobby is just a smear those lobbying for car culture like to throw out at people who want to be safe biking in their community. Welcome to the bike lobby.
What our government did to people who can’t or won’t own and operate a car over the past century will be remembered as one of the greatest public policy failures in this country.
Ya’ll are being asked to share. Five year olds know better.
More gaslighting by a big gas bag. Hey Itamar, did you even read the study or did you just make up your own? The study clearly says 63% reported decreased revenues because of changes in parking and loading zones (figure 27). And those who didn’t have decreased revenue probably had off-street parking.
Here is just one example: Kaleidoscope Tattoo. Shawn, the owner, started his business 20 years ago. They barely survived after Covid mandates closed their business for four months. After they re-opened, he got a rent increase. Then he got a two-day notice from the city that they were removing all parking. He lost two employees the first week because there was no parking. These two employees brought in 25% of their revenue. Total revenue is down by 50% Their intern paid over $400 in tickets. She received so many tickets that she just got a letter from the city threatening to confiscate her car. She commuted an hour to get to Kaleidoscope. It wasn’t worth it for her to come anymore so she left. 15% of their revenue came from stop-ins, people who were driving by and noticed the shop. After driving around the neighborhood 6-7 times looking for parking, they call and ask where they can park. Answer: nowhere. 90% of their customers come from outside of Cambridge. They cannot survive without parking. About 50% are vets, many disabled. They also have blind and limited mobility customers. Shawn works 7 days/week even though many days there is only one customer. He used to have a waitlist. To make up for the loss of customers, he has gone through all of his personal and business savings. He has a wife and three children to support. Bike advocates say they can make up for the loss of revenue. This is a pipe dream. In his 20 years in business, he has only had two customers arrive by bike. It’s bad enough that he had to go through all this, but for you to say that it never happened is despicable.
CPortus–This is one of the most callous things I’ve ever read. So people who have worked their whole lives building up a business should go under for bike lanes and just move on. Where? To the unemployment line? How much of a cut in pay would you be willing to take for the cause? Some have been in business for 100 years. They are not “going out of business soon anyway.”
70% of Cambridge businesses customers come from outside of the city. This is standard for cities with large student populations. If they were to rely only on Cambridge customers, we would not have the wide variety of restaurants and shops that we have. Do you want Cambridge to become a boring city with only a few restaurants and big box stores that cater to the masses? We provide parking because these businesses are important to us and we want them to stay around.
I looked at reviews for Kaleidoscope Tattoo on Google that are “a year ago” or newer. In addition to Shawn, customers mention artists by the name of Jennifer, Sandra, Angelo, Pete (visiting artist from Brookyln apparently), Jenny, Aiden, Mike (owner’s response: “thanks from Mike and the team”), Bill, Bobby, Shelby, and Jayden. So that’s 11 different artists who worked there over past year or two.
Review from 5 months ago: “That girl who answered the phone today though definitely cost you my business”. Business owner’s response: “sorry it occured it was a busy day and she also sends her apology”.
Review from a year ago: “Jayden, Shelby and Fred welcomed us with open arms and gave my friends exactly what they were looking for.”
The website lists Sandra, Shawn, Angelo, Jennifer, and Shelby as current artists.
Kaleidoscope Tattoo 2 was opened at some point in Peabody (2022 maybe?). It has 3 of the same artists, and one additional artist. I counted 33 reviews in the Cambridge store (“a year ago” or newer). In contrast, there’s only 5 reviews on Google from the past year for the Peabody location, despite the Peabody location having basically infinite parking.
It’s possible that “70% of Cambridge businesses customers coming from outside the City” but they’re certainly not driving! The city has done a whole bunch of customer intercept studies and typically it’s 18-33% of customers driving (with exception of Alewife). You can go read the CDD documents:
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/EconDev/Districts/Central/CentralSquare_DistrictAssessment_2017.pdf
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/EconDev/Districts/EastCambridge/eastcamb_2013_survey_final.pdf
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/EconDev/Districts/HarvardSq/finalharvardsqsurveyreport_122016.pdf
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/EconDev/Districts/InmanSq/ed_inmandistrictassessment_012019_2.pdf
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/EconDev/Districts/KendallSq/kendallsq_2011_survey.pdf
https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/CDD/EconDev/Districts/Porter_NMassAve/portersquarelowermassavedistrictassessment_2020.pdf
(New East Cambridge survey should be released soon.)
The intercept surveys aren’t perfect, but if it really was majority driving you wouldn’t be seeing anything near these numbers. And obviously they’re an average across different businesses.
(Should’ve said “certainly not 70% driving” above.)
Thank you Master!
“Slaw, while you seem to take great pride in criticizing VB and JH for “suing the city,” did you not know that Itamar is an intervenor and represented by an attorney? Essentially he too is a party.”
What? My issue isn’t with the concept of being a party in the legal system, it is what was done and why.
You are basically asking “If you take issue with wealthy and well connected nimbys attempting to use non-democratic means to block a public process from implementing proven safety improvements for vulnerable street users, and undo the improvements already made, explicitly motivated by misinformation and outright lies, simply because they did not get what they want, why don’t you take issue with someone who intervened against that?”
I didn’t know that Itamar hired a lawyer to intervene against that effort, frankly it only makes me more sympathetic.
Clearly ITT and CPortus have never been involved in running a small local business, so read their opinions with that in mind. Very few businesses can operate and remain in business with only local customers. To discount business owner’s reporting and experiences or tell other businesses to just move on or adjust is disingenuous and wrong. We have already seen what happens when local businesses and services were forced out of Harvard Square, it has lead to a lack of community vitality and resulted in fewer potential customers making the trip leaving the few remaining local businesses suffering. Massachusetts and specifically Cambridge are very expensive places to conduct business and the margins are very slim at best so any additional cost or disruption can be catastrophic. The cost of rent, staffing, insurance, and utilities are incredibly high here, not to mention that most commercial leases are triple net – meaning the tenant is paying a portion of the higher Cambridge commercial property taxes. This can mean an amount equal to an additional month’s rent so it’s really awful that the city has not taken these business owners into consideration when they made these far-reaching changes. Many businesses have lost their loading zones and access to the street which makes receiving the goods they sell incredibly difficult and more time consuming than ever. I could go on and on, but suffice to say, local business owners have borne the weight and expense of these changes and it’s very sad to see these commenters making light of the situation and making so many untrue claims.
@Master, why is the city responsible for providing parking spaces for individual businesses? There are so many better uses of city resources and public space than providing cheap/free storage of private vehicles in public space. I don’t believe bike lanes hurt businesses (A lot of evidence indicates that bike lanes boost local business), but even if that were the question, between profits or safety for people outside of cars I still hope we would prioritize the latter. People over profit should be a basic moral principle for any truly democratic society
That being said, there are several private lots surrounding this business. If parking is really that essential to their business they should have negotiated for access to those lots. The one a block down South East is already shared by several businesses, or they could have negotiated with Junction realty trust for access to their large and generally underutilized lot also a block away to the North West.
Notably his comments are a great example of the “issues with self-selection and other potential sources of bias” that come out in surveys. despite the claim “Then he got a two-day notice from the city that they were removing all parking.” All parking has not in fact been removed from this stretch of Mass ave. Literally the next block still has parking and door zone bike lanes. The idea that there is no parking if there is not a spot on the street immediately in front of where you want to go is genuinely absurd.
There is parking very close by and a smart business owner would have negotiated for access to it rather than encouraging his employees to keep parking in the bike/ bus lanes and generating, fully legitimate, tickets for those parking violations. It really seems here that he is neglecting, his own responsibilities for his employees/management choices and blaming the city for it.
“15% of their revenue came from stop-ins, people who were driving by and noticed the shop.” is also likely an example of biases creeping in. Retailers around the world pretty consistently overestimate car use by their customers and underestimate other modes. Here’s analysis of a study on that: https://phys.org/news/2021-07-shoppers-mobility-habits-retailers-overestimate.html Itamar highlights stats that seem to indicate the same principle is at play here.
On top of that overestimation of driving to shops, there are studies showing that people driving by stop less frequently at local businesses than people walking or biking: http://kellyjclifton.com/Research/EconImpactsofBicycling/OTRECReport-ConsBehavTravelChoices_Nov2012.pdf
Knowing this, the idea that everyone doing a stop in was in a car beggars belief.
Another likely example of biases creeping in is “In his 20 years in business, he has only had two customers arrive by bike” Has he asked literally everyone who has come in over the years how they go there and recorded the answers? I seriously doubt it. People who drive are a lot more likely to complain about parking than people who biked are to announce that fact as they walk in.
The shop is a block and a half from the linear park/community path. If he really only had two customers arrive by bike in 20 years, you really have to ask some different questions. Making yourself an enemy of bike safety improvements isn’t likely to improve those numbers either. This is even more so if it is true “90% of their customers come from outside of Cambridge.” (He seems to presume 100% of them do so by car despite being a 10 min walk from Davis square, and immediately adjacent to a frequent bus route). One has to ask why if 90% of his customers really come from outside the community, and almost entirely by car, why pay premium rents to operate in a walkable and bikable area, relatively proximate to transit and community paths? Seems like if that really were the customer breakdown he would do fine in a chapter space in the suburbs. Something tells me he has underestimated those benefits significantly, and perhaps screwed himself over somewhat, by coming out with such hostility to building upon them.
This is why the study itself didn’t share the belief that these surveys were the most reliable or most important part of the study. When you dig into the claims, despite being presented as statistics in your comment, these ultimately are not statistically valid numbers just numbers a disgruntled business owner came up with from who knows where and which appear to be contradicted by the available data locally, and internationally.
“It’s bad enough that he had to go through all this, but for you to say that it never happened is despicable.” What exactly did he have to go through? It sounds to me like he made some extremely questionable business choices in response to the community his business is in making itself a better place to live in, made himself an enemy of the safety of his business’s neighbors, has blamed the city for his own failures to meet the needs of his employees and customers, while consistently underestimating the value of the community around his business to that business. It is frankly hard for me to really see the victimhood in that, or be all that sympathetic. It does in fact remind me of an earlier generation of the business owners saying smoking bans will kill them.
I agree with Hanratty that the report does not show that bike lanes have no impact; rather, the report fails to show an impact.
If course, due to the well-studied precedent (reviewed in the report) of many cities all over the world, we would assume that there would be no impact. The burden of proof is on those who insist that Cambridge is unique. Third party studies have shown the effectiveness of Cambridge bike lanes as a safety measure. Evidence of any negative effect on business remains elusive.
In my mind, the most interesting statistic was the response rate of the business survey: 18%. Obviously, if you believe that bike lanes are threatening your livelihood, you’re going to speak out against them when you get the chance, especially if all that is required is filling out a 15-question survey on your opinions. 80% of Cambridge business owners obviously think this issue isn’t worth their time. So I think it’s also misleading to say that “businesses oppose bike lanes.” More accurate to specify: “SOME businesses oppose.”
There have been some businesses that have spoken out and many, as a result, have been harassed and put on lists circulated among the devout to avoid. Most business owners know there is no point to protest, and it will only further hurt their business. This is religion now.
It’s an anonymous survey.
Sure Scott. Businesses get these periodically and while I cannot speak for all I’ve learned over the years that these surveys are meaningless and often get ignored. I definitely didnt even see it come to my inbox. The bike “issue” was decided in 2015/16 and there is no turning back. The city never really concerned itself with small businesses and if the effect were detrimental there isn’t much the city would do to fix it. Business owners aren’t a big lobby group and have very weak voting power. The CDD survey is time honored tradition to layer ballast on a boat already set sail. That their own conclusion was they really couldn’t make a conclusion and the lobbies response is “see no issue” … is an eye roller. The bike lobby won and small businesses need to figure it out.
Yeah, so check out the website where a neophyte/person not contributing anything to the local economy tries to take down local businesses that have spent years making a difference to their community – ibikeiboycott – what an a**hole. I will definitely support these businesses now more than ever. Grow up and stop disrupting and disrespecting others because you have no other ideas or abilities of your own. These businesses have been in place and operating probably before you were born in a city that used to support them, shame on Cambridge for throwing them under the bus, we are losing vast parts of our community that will not be back.
@master From my count, it looks like 17 metered parking spots were removed from Mass Ave on the block of Kaleidoscope and the adjacent blocks. That same stretch of Mass Ave has about 12 other businesses, each of which have some amount of overlapping hours with Kaleidoscope. From what your comment said, it sounds like his employees were already using a significant amount of parking in the area, reducing the available parking for customers, not only for his store but the surrounding businesses too.
I’m guessing this is just a case of overestimating the value of parking and underestimating the amount of people arriving there by other means. He said that he’s only received 2 customers by bike in 20 years, but just the few pictures we have on Google Maps street view in the last decade and a half show several bikes parked on that block, even before the protected lanes were put into place. It just doesn’t strike me as plausible that none of his business comes from people on bikes and nearly all of it comes people driving.
I’ve lived in N.Cambridge 15 years. Most days I walk down Mass Ave to HSq. for work. My spouse bikes down across the river for work and has witnessed multiple scary incidents with cars and busses.
There are many shops I have frequented on my little commute… but when some started implying with flyers in their windows that my spouse’s safety was unimportant to them, I kinda decided supporting their business wasn’t so important to me.
It’s hard, because on the one hand I do want small businesses to thrive around here and I believe their assumptions about the future are wrong [as data elsewhere has shown]… but their flyers really, really put me off.
If they do fail, it _might_ be because they unwittingly shot themselves in the foot with their most regular shoppers… but I’m sure they’d blame street safety all the same.
@jhanratty continues his pattern of ignoring data he doesn’t like and, cherry-picking and twisting other data to fit his needs.
The results of this study are consistent with dozens of studies from around the country: Bike lanes do not negatively impact businesses and, in fact, often have a *positive* impact on businesses.
Now we have a study here showing the same thing, case closed.
Nearly half of Cambridge residents do not drive regularly and a large proportion of people use bikes. It is well past time to begin sharing streets, @jhanratty. As @cambridgeresident said, even five-year olds know how to share.
@PatrickWBarrett That is a whole of twisting and bending to try to explain away results that you don’t like.
Sorry. Reality is reality. Numbers don’t lie.
Anonymous weirdo posting on local blog Joe … no twisting involved. Read the report or at least skip to the conclusion. I’ve no issue with your religion. Peace be with you.
@AvgJoe – not so fast. The overall data is “limited.” From Overall Takeaways:
7.3 To some extent, this reflects the underlying limitations of the data sources, which were generally not designed for analysis at this highly detailed geographic scale. Meanwhile, survey data indicated that businesses in treatment areas were more likely than those in control areas to report a decrease in revenue.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to compare these perceived changes in sales against quantitative sales data, as the relevant SafeGraph dataset suffered from data quality issues that made it unsuitable for analysis.
Also, it’s important to note that the Volpe Center study runs for SIX years for a reason. It’s much too early to see the effects of the bike lanes.
The conclusion, helpfully bolded for you, is that “there are little to no discernable differences between “treatment” areas and otherwise similar “control” areas, and most of the differences that exist are either not statistically significant or point in opposite directions.”
What really is “an eye roller” are the people who claimed bike lanes were a disaster for businesses still maintaining that position when presented with evidence to the contrary. I’ve already said it in these comments several times but if these lanes were as bad for business as you lot claim they are, shouldn’t that be readily apparent in quantitative data? The fact that it isn’t, despite the claims of a small section of hostile business owners, isn’t a failure to make a finding, just because you don’t like the finding. Yes, you are twisting the results and very obviously so.
Patrick, you continue to derisively accuse others of practicing “religion”, but you are the one who clings to the belief that bike lanes somehow hurt local businesses despite any evidence to support this belief. You seem to take it as an article of faith.
For a long time, the anti-bike lane people have said, “We need a study of the economic impacts of bike lanes, then you’ll see”.
Well, now we have the study and we have seen: There are no negative impacts of bike lanes.
That has been found in other cities and now here. Case closed.
You can’t dismiss results just because you don’t like the answer.
BTW, do some of you really think that business is more important than people’s lives??
The results of this study make perfect sense. Other cities have shown economic *benefits* of bike lanes. And studies show that only a minority of customers in Cambridge arrive by car.
I note that many of the businesses that said that the “bike lanes will force them out of business” are *still in business*, years later.
Scott,
What I am saying, should it not be clear, is that the study linked herein does not conclusively state anything … so to say “yay bike lanes = awesome for business” and I realize I’m paraphrasing is not accurate. Sure the bold sentence state treatment areas and control areas yada … yada .. but the sentence after that explains why that likely is. The Maoist approach of shaming folks for disagreeing won’t work on me … I’m immune. However the fact remains that the CSO is a done deal and the new reality folks will have to deal with is broken retail corridors in East Cambridge, Mass Ave, and in the neighborhood business districts (BA’s) which are hard enough to maintain with any requirement for ground floor retail which was difficult to maintain prior to the loss of parking. What’s annoying is that you and your tribe continue to state conclusively that which is not conclusive. It’s a pet peeve of mine. You guys want to be able to have a safe bike ride from your job at Google to your home. Maybe you’re entitled to that. Maybe your safety is 100% in the hands of the City. Maybe cars are not the future and even though we have designated business districts which up until last year put heavy parking requirements on businesses and even though we tax businesses at a much higher rate than residential your demand for that stretch of road should go unquestioned. You guys side studies that themselves aren’t apples to apples proxies for what Cambridge is doing and say “see see!” Well in Canbridge’s own study … the one you’re pointing to … it says very clearly that the data is limited and not entirely clear. So … is it a religion wherein the words typed have a different meaning twixt your tribe and Webster dictionary or is something else happening? Long story short the bike lobby already won so the argument is moot … it’ll be interesting to see what happens … will these districts wither and become 90% residential like what happened to Western and River (though this area has a massive down zoning in 2001 which lit the match for that fire) … will there be blanks on the streetscape like what has happened on mass Ave between city hall and Harvard? Or will businesses thrive as you demand we all believe based on inconclusive studies and mismatched proxies? Feels like the latter requires way more faith.
@PatrickWBarrett Over years, bike lane proponents cited nationwide studies affirming lanes don’t harm businesses. Experts echoed. Anti-bike lane retort: “Cambridge is different, we need local evidence.”
Now, we have it. Cambridge study mirrors nationwide findings: bike lanes don’t hurt businesses.
They didn’t get the answer they wanted. So now, the anti-bike lane camp seeks to undermine the study they demanded?!
Incredible.
@AvgJoe: +100 Hypocrisy alert! They demand a study and reject the results because they don’t get the desired answer.
@PatrickWBarrett: You lack evidence that bike lanes harm businesses. Yet, you persist in insisting they do, even though we now have direct evidence that they don’t.
It is not the “bike lobby’ that won. It is common sense that won.
“What’s annoying is that you and your tribe continue to state conclusively that which is not conclusive.” Didn’t you literally just say several lines above that “that the CSO is a done deal and the new reality folks will have to deal with is broken retail corridors in East Cambridge, Mass Ave, and in the neighborhood business districts”? Isn’t “stat[ing] conclusively that which is not conclusive” exactly what you are doing there? Btw there is a lot more conclusive evidence bike lanes help businesses than hurt them.
“You guys want to be able to have a safe bike ride from your job at Google to your home.” I work as a public school teacher, not everyone who bikes works a tech job. You have a very bizarre understanding of class as related to this issue. Cars are expensive people who drive primarily are generally better off than those who don’t, etc. Additionally even people who work at google deserve to have safe commutes to and from work without having to rely on cars. Wanting to be safe while getting to and from work is extremely reasonable and benefits everyone, even those driving by reducing traffic. It is really telling that you care are obsessed with the idea that these hurt businesses (state conclusively that which is not conclusive, or rather conclusively wrong) but think peoples concern for their own lives is somehow a problem…
“Maybe you’re entitled to that.” Yes not maybe, people should be entitled to safe commutes without a car.
“Maybe your safety is 100% in the hands of the City.” No one has ever claimed this, what we have claimed is that the street design of the status quo is dangerous, which has been demonstrably proven, and that the city can dramatically improve safety with better street design, which also has been demonstrably proven. People can still make mistakes, good infrastructure makes it less likely they will die, or kill someone else, because of them.
“Maybe cars are not the future” Again, yes. Not a maybe, cars are not the future. Every great city in the world has recognized this. Time you got the memo.
“even though we have designated business districts which up until last year put heavy parking requirements on businesses” The city recognized that was a mistake, seems you didn’t get the memo on that either. “We used to do something stupid” is a terrible reason to keep doing it. The city is reevaluating its relationship to parking, that is good and necessary work. I hope they continue to go further. See: https://parkingreform.org
“even though we tax businesses at a much higher rate than residential your demand for that stretch of road should go unquestioned.” Paying more taxes should not mean you have more of a voice, and it especially should not mean you get to veto safety improvements that you believe, however erroneously, interfere with your profits. Again people before profit is a basic moral principle, essential for democracy. It is clear you place profit over people and believe money should by influence though.
“Well in Canbridge’s own study … the one you’re pointing to … it says very clearly that the data is limited and not entirely clear.” and yet here you are continuing to claim definitively that bike lanes hurt businesses. Outrageous hypocrisy on your part here.
“is it a religion wherein the words typed have a different meaning twixt your tribe and Webster dictionary or is something else happening?” That’s a pretty poor understanding of religion quite frankly but this is just incredible to say while simultaneously claiming that bike lanes hurt businesses while bemoaning those who disagree for citing evidence. The evidence contradicts your position and yet you are doubling and tripling down on it. If this applies to anyone here it is you.
“Feels like the latter requires way more faith.” You are imagining an apocalypse every time there is a new bike lane, and are proven wrong every time a new one goes in and that doesn’t happen. Bike lanes already exist on tons of streets in Cambridge that are far from withering. What requires more faith, believing your baseless street corner doomsday predictions, repeatedly proven false, or believing repeated studies that at worst bike lanes have no impact on business and in many cases help dramatically? Seems pretty obvious to me.
I know nothing I say will convince you but it is hard to witness such a total abrogation of logic and reason by someone appealing to it without responding.
The hypocrisy is startling.
The anti-bike lane camp asks for a study and then tries to dispute the results when they don’t like the answer.
They try to dispute evidence showing that bike lanes are harmless but they offer *zero evidence* to support their claims that they are harmful.
Everyone, slow down. The Volpe Center study runs for SIX years for good reason. It is much too early to determine the long-term effects on businesses.
@nsolly. The people who should slow down are those who have been claiming that bike lanes harm businesses *with no evidence whatsoever*
@nsolly Slow down? There are YEARS of studies from all over the country. They all show that bike lanes do not hurt, and often help, businesses. Now we have confirmation that Cambridge is like everywhere else: Bike lanes do not harm businesses.
What should we slow down? Protecting people and saving lives?
We have all the data we need.
Experts have been saying for years that bike lanes don’t harm businesses. Nonetheless, some people demanded a study here. Now we have it. Bike lanes have NOT harmed business in Cambridge. Done.
Link to full meeting and agenda is here.
One thing that came out of it is an acknowledgement that we never had benchmarking data before we began implementation and going forward we need to do more upfront to mitigate possible negative consequences for residents and businesses. The staff acknowledged that the process of conducting this study has been helpful for future planning and will continue gathering and monitoring data
http://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4507