Old 03-07-14, 02:31 PM
  #27  
GodsBassist
Senior Member
 
GodsBassist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Odenton, MD
Posts: 660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Roody
Good point. Thanks for explaining it in more detail. I think you're right that one must be very careful when comparing various types of projects. However, if expanded bike infrastructure actually does result in a significant switch from cars to bikes, comparisons can be made. There are currently 15 cities with bike mode shares of 25% or greater, up to 55%. Cost benefits of bike infrastructure at those levels of ridership are surely significant and can be directly compared to costs of car infrastructure.

In many cases, adding more car infrastructure increases traffic gridlock, adding to the problem. And some cities simply don't have the room for more car infrastructure, so ultra-expensive projects are required, such as double deck bridges and Boston's Big Dig. I won't even go into parking issues, economic inequality, public health, and pollution--although these are other factors to be considered when comparing the relative costs of various infrastructures.
I'd be interested to see how much of the cycling infrastructure in those cities is separated facilities, and how much of it is on street bike lanes. In my opinion, you can't reach those numbers with on street facilities.
GodsBassist is offline