Cyclists and Pedestrians Better for Business than Drivers

"The objective, unless you own a parking lot, is to attract the largest possible number of people – not the largest number of cars."

[...]

"A recent report by the Clean Air Partnership about Bloor St. in the Annex [in Toronto] found that only 10 per cent of patrons at local businesses arrive by car and that patrons arriving by foot and bicycle spend the most money each month. The report also noted that about 20 per cent of spaces in nearby parking lots were empty even during peak periods. Finally, the report's survey found that more merchants than not believed that wider sidewalks or bike lanes would increase business. (Patrons preferred the bike lane option by a ratio of four to one.)

"CAP's report suggests one rather obvious conclusion: bringing a single 70 kilogram shopper to a store in a 1,400 kilogram vehicle is a cumbersome route to success. By contrast, about half a dozen bikes can fit in the space of a single car. And since bikes can stop faster than cars, the amount of space between bikes can be small, which means far more shoppers on bikes can fit onto our roads than shoppers in cars.

[...]

"A study in Munster, Germany, found that cyclists buy fewer goods on each trip but spend more overall in the course of a greater number of trips."

File this article under "sudden outbreak of good sense".

More here: TheStar.com | Opinion | Shoppers on bikes good for business

(Alas, many of the comments below this article in the Star range from wilful ignorance, i.e. refusing to read TFA* - what else is new on the Internet - to blind hatred of cyclists, tarring them all with the same brush because some cyclists disobey traffic laws. Some Toronto drivers run red lights and/or speed and/or drive drunk, some kill pedestrians and/or cyclists and/or other people in cars, but you don't see people making hateful generalizations about all drivers. Double standard? You decide.)

_____

* TFA = The Famous Article (substitute other words for the "F" one if you must :-)

[Important Notice]

Electric Cars? Cycling's Better and More Popular Than Ever

Great opinion piece by Leah McLaren in the Globe & Mail today:

Pedal power to the people - ride on!

The British government recently launched a £250-million strategy to introduce the electric car to mainstream London. The initiative, which includes citywide charging points, battery-swapping stations and hefty consumer incentives, is well-intentioned, but you won't see me signing up for an electromobile any time soon.

As it stands, there is only one convenient way of getting around the modern urban landscape, and that is the almighty bicycle.

Hopping on a bike is cheaper, faster, healthier, more pleasant and more environmentally sound than any other mode of transportation known to humankind. Old-fashioned as it might seem, cycling is the way of the future.

No need for initiatives or incentives here. People are way ahead of their governments on this one. The recent numbers are astonishing. Last year, the New York City department of transportation reported that, in 2007-08, bicycle commuting went up by 35 per cent. London is reporting a similar increase in the wake of the inner-city traffic congestion charge that was introduced a couple of years ago. Today, an estimated quarter of a million Londoners travel to and from work by bike.

Toronto - a city without the benefit of a year-round bike-friendly climate - is also on the upswing. Statistics Canada reported a 32-per-cent increase in pedal-pushers on the roads from 2001 to 2006 - and that was before the downturn.

As a committed lifelong cyclist, it's heartening to see so many people finally coming around to the same obvious conclusion. If you care about your health, the environment and your bank account and are physically able, biking just makes sense, full stop.

And yet in spite of its increased popularity, there are still a puzzling number of people who are resistant to cycling on the grounds that it's dangerous or impractical. In fact, though, London statistics show that the number of biking accidents actually goes down as the number of cyclists goes up.

In Germany, where bike riding is part of the normal culture, people are 10 times more likely to ride a bike than Americans and three times less likely to get hurt while doing so.

More here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090502.wstleah02art1349/BNStory/lifeStyle/home

As Roger Gagne from Calgary, Canada has noted, though, pitting bikes against electric cars misses an important half-way technology. Electric-assisted bikes may be an excellent way forward for many people. (See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090502.wstleah02art1349/CommentStory/lifeStyle/home#comment3498696 )

[Important Notice]

What's Wrong with Baird's Anti-Kyoto "Economics"?

"The purpose of studying economics is... to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists." --Joan Robinson

John Baird claims that complying with Kyoto would cause a recession (Press Release, Full Report). Baird and the economists supporting him ignore the costs of inaction (which could further undermine post-Kyoto talks). They forget that emissions trading creates incentives to cut emissions. Finally, they ignore mitigating economic strategies -- and the many benefits of action. Other economists disagree with Baird, which he has failed to mention. Meanwhile, Germany is already reaping a bonanza of jobs and exports from renewable energy. Why can't we?

• Failure to properly account for all the costs of inaction.
  

• This goes beyond the direct effect of Canada's emissions over a few years on the global climate:
  

• By officially giving up on Kyoto for fear of a supposed recession, we would also undermine post-Kyoto negotiations (even more than we already have under this Government). Other countries could use Canada's example as an excuse to delay their own emission reductions for years. The effect on the global climate would be compounded.

• Failure to understand the economic incentives of emissions trading.
  

• The fear that we would need a carbon tax of $195 per tonne is based on a rejection of unlimited international trading in carbon credits.
  

• If unlimited trading is allowed, the Baird Report itself admits that we would only need to pay the international price of $25 per tonne.
  

• So why are they rejecting unlimited international trade in carbon credits? The main argument is this:
  

"Assuming that 80% or so of Canada's Kyoto target would be met through international credits, somewhere in the range of $6 billion annually would be required for these purchases, while at the same time there would be little incentive for domestic investment in energy efficiency and GHG [Greenhouse Gas] reduction technologies" [emphasis added].

• Let's see: businesses would pay $6 billion per year for carbon emissions -- but they would have "little incentive" to reduce this cost?! Ignoring a $6 billion/year incentive for energy efficiency and GHG reduction might pass for "economic analysis" around the Harper Cabinet table. But how did it not get red-lined by the (formerly) level-headed economists endorsing the report?

• Failure to account for the benefits of action, and mitigating economic strategies:

• "...the report he [Baird] presented also states that its calculations do not take into account the benefits of green technology infrastructure, or the jobs created by new investments in that technology. Neither does it consider the impact of monetary policies the government could implement to diminish losses." (Source: Globe & Mail, emphasis added.

• Failure to disclose that other economists reviewing the draft Report had refused to endorse it:
  

"Baird did not mention that other economists who were asked to review the study came to different conclusions.

"'While Canada cannot plausibly meet its Kyoto commitments by domestic action, I think the report overstates the difficulty of implementing policies in the short term,' said David Keith, Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment at the University of Calgary.

"'The difficulty of meeting Kyoto is not an excuse for inaction.'"

(Source: Canadian Press, via Yahoo!)

• Meanwhile, Germany is already making Stephane Dion's famous "megatonnes of money" on green energy.
  

• Here are the details from United Press International. They are worth quoting at length:
  

"Great export numbers and thousands of new jobs -- Germany is expecting a 'green' economic boom sparked by its renewable energy sector.

"As early as 2020, sales from wind and solar energy companies will surpass those of automobile and machinery companies, right now among the largest industry sectors in Germany, according to a study from international consulting firm Roland Berger.

'The 'green' sector is turning into a leading sector in Germany,' Torsten Henzelmann, a senior official at Roland Berger, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung weekly. 'It really is a job motor. In 2020, the renewable energy and environment technology sector will employ more people than the machinery or car sector. Today already, companies complain that they can't find enough qualified personnel.'

"The study, commissioned by the German Environment Ministry, polled officials at 1,500 German renewable energy and environment technology firms. [...]

"The world market for environmentally friendly products has a volume of roughly $1.3 billion, and that will double by 2020, the study said. The main drivers of this growth will be renewable energy generation and energy-efficiency technologies, thus handing Germany great chances for additional economic development.

"Already, the country's renewable energy sector is among the most innovative and successful worldwide. Nordex, Repower, Enercon (all wind energy), SolarWorld and Conenergy (solar energy) -- renewable companies based in Germany -- dominate the world market. Every third solar panel and every second wind rotor is made in Germany, and German turbines and generators used in hydro energy generation are among the most popular worldwide.

"Most companies in German told Roland Berger they want to hire more staff because they expect even more growth.

"Nearly 800,000 people work in the German environment technology sector; an estimated 214,000 people work with renewables in Germany, up from 157,000 in 2004, an increase of 36 percent.

'Last year alone, the number of people employed in the German renewable energy sector grew by 24,000,' German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said last month in Berlin. 'This is a real success story.'"

The author of this study has no doubt that setting clear GHG emissions targets would help solidify Germany's lead:

"Berlin should formulate 'clear goals' for carbon dioxide emissions, support innovative research projects and fund "green" education programs at universities." (Emphasis added throughout.)

So the Germans get it. What are we waiting for?

[Important Notice]