I didn’t even report this story, you guys, so you can’t claim it’s my pro-bike bias twisting the facts. No! Instead, front page of the fuckin’ Portland Tribune: A new study shows that investing in bike infrastructure will save the city millions of dollars in decreased healthcare and fuel costs.
It’s a first-of-its-kind cost benefit analysis of investing in biking from Swiss epidemiologist Thomas Gotschi (who has never been to Portland and so is free from our Kool-Aid) shows that Portland’s plan to invest in hundreds of new miles of bike lanes and paths will break even by 2032. Funding has been pretty much the only hurdle (but a big one) in the debate over the Bike Plan city council ratified last year. If you believe the numbers of the Swiss study, the plan’s $600 million pricetag over the next 30 years will be paid off, and then some, by the reduced costs of healthcare, fuel, and the rather morbid “value of lives saved.”
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. Though those are based on past numbers and other cities’ experiences, they’re ambitious estimates, not set-in-stone guarantees.
Check out his numbers and read the whole study yourself (pdf).
“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.
“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.