On Monday, July 16, 2018 at 6:29:58 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/16/2018 1:14 AM, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 11:13:59 AM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:

The issue was whether separated bicycle facilities have any effect on the economy, which is probably "no."
-- Jay Beattie.

I'd dispute that. I live in a city with lots of bike paths. I use them a lot. I probably bicycle more due to having the paths. Its so easy to ride. I stop at convenience stores and restaurants more due to cycling. I spend more of my money locally because I bicycle. Without the paths, I might not ride. And I would not go to the convenience stores or restaurants. Less of my money would be spent locally. My money would stay in my bank account until I spend it on stuff ordered from Amazon or invested in the stock market. It definitely would not go to local merchants.

I don't doubt that you and Joerg use bike paths and buy things. But
that's a long, long way from saying that bike paths have any
(significant) effect on the economy.

The longest bike path in our area has obviously allowed one bike shop to
thrive. But two other bike shops opened at other locations along the
same bike path. One moved after a few years to a better location, where
they are making much more money. The other closed down maybe a week ago.
They said it was unprofitable.

The net overall effect on the economy of that path is very close to zero.


It's probably worthy of a study and highly dependent on location, city density, etc. I've never spent any money at a store because it was accessible by a separate path -- except I bought an ice cream sandwich at Cartlandia while riding back from the Gorge. http://www.cartlandia.com/ Those food carts are on the Springwater Corridor in a crummy part of town. Some separated facilities are highly useful to me, but not for shopping or entertainment..

-- Jay Beattie.