Comments

1
"The only caveat here is that the study is based entirely on the city's projections for how many people will bike when the new facilities are built."

That's an enormous caveat. When was the last time the city projected ANYTHING correctly?

I read through the report and there's something I don't understand, and as far as I can tell, is not explained in the study. Using myself as an example:

I have health insurance through work. Assuming that there would be a physical benefit from biking, how does my increased health save the city any money? I see how it saves the company i work for money in health care costs and productivity, but how does that save the city any cash?

Same with fuel costs. I might save myself some money, but how does that get translated to the city? Even if there are fewer people driving, current road infrastructure will still need to be maintained. If anything, wouldn't the city and state lose out on that tax revenue?

In general, I'm not really sure how many more people would bike if current biking infrastructure was vastly improved. I assume that line of questioning ("Would you bike more if it was safer?") tests well, but part of me thinks it's easier to say "Yes!" to that question than to admit that your too lazy or afraid of getting wet before work to ride more, the two reasons, along with working late and having to travel out of the area from time to time, that I don't ride more.
2
"When was the last time the city projected ANYTHING correctly?"

Great point. The city has consistently underestimated the amount of cycling growth throughout the last two decades.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.