It's happening! Um... sort of.

On 5/13/2014 6:18 PM, James wrote:
On 13/05/14 21:24, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:


"... cost-benefit analysis of investments in bicycling in a
US city shows that such efforts are cost-effective, even when
only a limited selection of benefits is considered."

Out of curiosity, how "cost effective"? Are there fewer medical
claims? Better air quality? Cheaper roads?

That seems to be what the Dutch claim. Less weight related illness.
Lower rates of respiratory disease. A study from here (Australia)
indicated that for every 20 minute (each way) commute by bicycle, the
economy was saved $21.

I've got roughly five research articles on file that show that
bicycling's health benefits greatly exceed its tiny risks. One of them
makes the calculation in terms of annual medical costs, claiming
something like 18:1 ratio of cost benefits. So, I can accept that $21
claim.

Regarding cost-benefit analysis of bike facilities: I suppose it
depends heavily on the cost, as well as on how the facility is used.
The most expensive bike facilities are probably the rail-trail MUPs,
which usually function as linear parks; that is, most users (at least in
the U.S.) seem to drive to the trails' parking lots, take their bike off
the rack, then ride out & back. I think that's a societal money-loser,
since the path costs millions per mile (and more if overpasses are
needed), and almost every use generates an _extra_ car trip instead of
replacing a car trip. Far better to convince the people to just ride on
existing streets. However, if people vote to pay for such a park,
that's their choice. I just wish they were promoted and funded honestly.

Likewise, even inexpensive bike lanes (stripes on road) are probably
money losers if nobody uses them. And as I mentioned, I know of some
that go almost entirely unused.

OTOH, I can imagine good cost-benefit results from facilities that fix
real (not imaginary) problems, and generate lots of bike trips that
replace car trips. Three schools near me have paved paths that allow
bike or pedestrian access from adjoining residential neighborhoods, and
kids use those quite a lot. Those are kids who are not delivered by
belching school buses or (worse) mommie's Escalade SUV.

But my main point in this conversation is that the utopian visions often
used to sell bike infrastructure are simply not realistic. IOW, we will
never see 30% of U.S. trips done by bike, just as we will never see vast
numbers of homes powered by tiny rooftop wind turbines, or vast numbers
of urban & suburban families growing all their own food. There are too
many practical factors working against such romantic visions.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/13/2014 6:38 PM, Dan O wrote:


I only saw an abstract, but it says:

"Costs of investment plans are compared with 2 types of
monetized health benefits, health care cost savings and
value of statistical life savings. Levels of bicycling
are estimated using past trends, future mode share goals,
and a traffic demand model. Results: By 2040, investments
in the range of $138 to $605 million will result in health
care cost savings of $388 to $594 million, fuel savings of
$143 to $218 million, and savings in value of statistical
lives of $7 to $12 billion. The benefit-cost ratios for
health care and fuel savings are between 3.8 and 1.2 to 1,
and an order of magnitude larger when value of statistical
lives is used."

So you have no knowledge of how those estimates were generated? For
example, what bike mode share are they using to predict those savings in
health care and fuel? If they're based on bike mode share more than
(say) 2%, I think there's a problem.

I learned long ago that abstracts sometimes tell very different stories
than thoughtful analyses of the full papers.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:18:46 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/13/2014 6:38 PM, Dan O wrote:

I only saw an abstract, but it says:

"Costs of investment plans are compared with 2 types of
monetized health benefits, health care cost savings and
value of statistical life savings. Levels of bicycling
are estimated using past trends, future mode share goals,
and a traffic demand model. Results: By 2040, investments
in the range of $138 to $605 million will result in health
care cost savings of $388 to $594 million, fuel savings of
$143 to $218 million, and savings in value of statistical
lives of $7 to $12 billion. The benefit-cost ratios for
health care and fuel savings are between 3.8 and 1.2 to 1,
and an order of magnitude larger when value of statistical
lives is used."

So you have no knowledge of how those estimates were generated? For
example, what bike mode share are they using to predict those savings in
health care and fuel? If they're based on bike mode share more than
(say) 2%, I think there's a problem.

I learned long ago that abstracts sometimes tell very different stories
than thoughtful analyses of the full papers.

I was answering John's direct question. I was not endorsing
or validating the methodology. You've taken the latter snippet
out of its context.

Nor even the conclusion. I only included it in a smattering
of results from my web search for "bicycle infrastructure cost",
which seems to yield near unanimous overwhelming upside as
consensus.

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:10:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

Regarding cost-benefit analysis of bike facilities: I suppose it
depends heavily on the cost,

(Imagine that :-)

... as well as on how the facility is used.
The most expensive bike facilities are probably the rail-trail MUPs,

snip

I think that's a societal money-loser,

http://btaoregon.org/2009/03/alice-a...-janet-taylor/

(Read the comments by "Dan".)

(This facility, BTW, was probably not a societal money-
loser, but I don't think the bridge conversion forwards
bicycling in the city much.)

snip

Likewise, even inexpensive bike lanes (stripes on road) are probably
money losers if nobody uses them. And as I mentioned, I know of some
that go almost entirely unused.

Here I disagree, 'cause they're horizontal billboards
for bicycling, at least some encouragement to prospective
but scared transportation bicyclists, they effectively
result in a "road diet"... I could go on.

(And they almost certainly *are* used by *somebody*
sometimes.)

OTOH, I can imagine good cost-benefit results from facilities that fix
real (not imaginary) problems, and generate lots of bike trips that
replace car trips. Three schools near me have paved paths that allow
bike or pedestrian access from adjoining residential neighborhoods, and
kids use those quite a lot. Those are kids who are not delivered by
belching school buses or (worse) mommie's Escalade SUV.

Wow! It came! It finally came! Frank endorses a specific
facility... a *set* of them! (On my way to google maps to
look for them... )

But my main point in this conversation is that the utopian visions often
used to sell bike infrastructure are simply not realistic.

You need to set your sights high, or you'll compromise
them down to almost nothing. Dreamers aren't out of
touch with reality; they know dreams are dreams.

IOW, we will
never see 30% of U.S. trips done by bike,

Almost certainly not nationwide; why would anyone
even suggest such a thing?

snip

... just as we will never see...

"urban trout streams" (?)

On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:22:43 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/12/2014 5:11 PM, James wrote:
On 13/05/14 07:00, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/12/2014 1:39 PM, jbeattie wrote:


Bike lanes increase ridership, at least based on my
observations here
in PDX.
A lot of people don't want to ride because they are afraid
of mean old
cars.
Whether that behavior is reasonable or not, they will ride
if you give
them a
lane or a bike boulevard, etc. Will it ever be Amsterdam
. . . no. We
have
hills, long commuting distances for employment outside
downtown, car love,
etc., etc. A huge amount of spending on separate bike
avenues (and the
condemnation of a lot of private property) might increase
modal share to
10%.
We can't afford to fill pot holes. Chances of building a
bicycle
super-highway
are nill.

Just for the record, I agree with almost everything in
that paragraph.

My only disagreement is this: Only a few people
(percentage-wise) will
ride if you give them a bike lane or a bike boulevard,
etc. The vast
majority will still be uninterested.

I think Jay covered that with huge spending might increase
modal share to 10%. That kinda says the majority will still
be uninterested.

(And BTW, I personally like bike boulevards. I'd like to
see more of
them.)

If the government (or anybody) wants to get more than a
few percent bike
mode share, they'll need to find ways to strongly
discourage driving.
Gas at $10 a gallon will help, but it's only the first of
many necessary
steps. And most of those necessary steps will be
politically impossible
in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.


Political suicide in many places around the world. I think
the Dutch did it slowly. A gradual squeeze on the cars.

At the moment I'm working near 30km from home, and need to
cart a large heavy laptop that is not mine to damage, and a
few other things. 20-25 minutes on the motorway in the
comfort of my Jeep, or an hour risking my neck on the
arterials with wall to wall texting junkies carrying fragile
cargo and no place to shower or get changed at the
destination, means I'll drive, thanks.



Indeed, it's a basic difference in worldview.

I enjoy riding and think bicycles and cycling have inherent
worth. That doesn't mean that I would want to beat people
about the head, punish tax and belittle them and then ruin
the present transportation system to force people to ride
bicycles. It's human hubris to assume that one's opinions
ought to be mandated but it's also very human to stand
defiant against such rubbish.

Here's the classic Onion item:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/rep...blic-tra,1434/

I suspect that the question asked was something like "Do you believe
that a public transportation system is a good idea", and the people
said "YES". But when the people of L.A. were asked to vote on a bond
issue (that would increase the tax rate) to finance a public
transportation system, a totally different answer was arrived at. They
voted the idea down twice.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tue, 13 May 2014 07:35:26 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Monday, May 12, 2014 6:03:24 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2014 10:43:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski

wrote:



On 5/12/2014 12:25 AM, Dan O wrote:

On Sunday, May 11, 2014 3:58:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:



snip



Personally, I believe that if the U.S. _could_ get (say) 30% bike mode

share, we would see easily detectable benefits.



Personally, I believe that if one person discovers the joy

of bicycle commuting, benefits are easily detectable...



True, assuming you mean it's easy to detect that person's joy.



That also applies to other activities - for example, the joy of fishing.

But there are no landscape architects lobbying to transform America by

constructing trout streams everywhere.



And if we did construct thousands of urban trout streams, yet fishing

increased only a fraction of a percent in 30 years, I think people would

certainly say "Hmm. We're wasting money."



But isn't the "save the fisheries" an ongoing project. I distinctly

remember an article about people protesting the building of an Atomic

Power Station somewhere in N.Y. state because it was going to increase

the temperature of a river/stream by a degree or two and kill the

trout.

Around here, the annual salmon numbers are watched more carefully than the NFL draft. We spend a lot of time and money on preserving and improving salmon runs because fishing is a significant part of the Oregon economy. What I love is one when other, warm and fuzzy creatures start eating our precious coho. Shoot 'em!
http://www.corvallisadvocate.com/201...gon-sea-lions/

-- Jay Beattie.

Funny that. I read the other day about a group who was suing, or
otherwise, bothering, Colonel Saunders for "Cruelty to Chickens" and
here youse guys are out there shooting a much more lovable critter :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Wed, 14 May 2014 08:18:22 +1000, James
wrote:

On 13/05/14 21:24, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:


"Hmm. We're wasting money."

You can say that again:

http://www.vtpi.org/ecodev.pdf

https://www.google.com/search?q=bicy...structure+cost

"... cost-benefit analysis of investments in bicycling in a
US city shows that such efforts are cost-effective, even when
only a limited selection of benefits is considered."

... and:

"The data support the need for well-connected neighborhood
streets and a network of bicycle-specific infrastructure to
encourage more bicycling among adults. This can be accomplished
through comprehensive planning, regulation, and funding."

Out of curiosity, how "cost effective"? Are there fewer medical
claims? Better air quality? Cheaper roads?

That seems to be what the Dutch claim. Less weight related illness.
Lower rates of respiratory disease. A study from here (Australia)
indicated that for every 20 minute (each way) commute by bicycle, the
economy was saved $21.

I'm not sure about the Netherlands but from what little I've read
about the country it seems that automobile usage was never high enough
to develop the massive U.S. auto culture.

The U.S. has about 797 cars/1000 population
Australia, about 697/1000
and Holland 458/1000

But I'm not sure that presents a true picture as I suspect that the
real picture would be something that takes into consideration the
culture, population density, and public transportation system,
weather, auto cost, fuel cost,etc.

The number of cars in Alice springs probably does not provide an
adequate picture of the traffic there :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:49:28 PM UTC-7, Dan O wrote:
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:10:30 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

OTOH, I can imagine good cost-benefit results from facilities that fix
real (not imaginary) problems, and generate lots of bike trips that
replace car trips. Three schools near me have paved paths that allow
bike or pedestrian access from adjoining residential neighborhoods, and
kids use those quite a lot. Those are kids who are not delivered by
belching school buses or (worse) mommie's Escalade SUV.

Wow! It came! It finally came! Frank endorses a specific
facility... a *set* of them! (On my way to google maps to
look for them... )

Okay, I took a quick look - think I found what you're talking
about. They don't appear to be anything more than very short
paved trails with one and only one destination - like the walk
up to the front porch of your house (if you have a big yard).
Probably used mostly by pedestrians.

Corvallis, Oregon had a large network of paved trails back in
the '70s when I went to school - except they circled the entire
city with many destinations and connections - even extending
many miles out of town with destinations in _other cities_.

Don't get me wrong - I like them, and anything that supports
early development of a bicycle habit is great; but they're
hardly transportation infrastructure. I do feel fortunate
to have grown up here; and no place is exactly like any other.
So please pardon me if I consider those facilities "negligible".

We are having a bit of a moment here, though, aren't we -
both of us appreciating livable spaces with nary a belching
Escalade and only a few school buses needed. Dream big! :-)

snip

On Tue, 13 May 2014 15:38:54 -0700 (PDT), Dan O
wrote:

On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:18:22 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
On 13/05/14 21:24, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2014 00:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Dan O wrote:

"Hmm. We're wasting money."

You can say that again:

http://www.vtpi.org/ecodev.pdf

https://www.google.com/search?q=bicy...structure+cost

"... cost-benefit analysis of investments in bicycling in a
US city shows that such efforts are cost-effective, even when
only a limited selection of benefits is considered."

snip


Out of curiosity, how "cost effective"? Are there fewer medical
claims? Better air quality? Cheaper roads?

I only saw an abstract, but it says:

"Costs of investment plans are compared with 2 types of
monetized health benefits, health care cost savings and
value of statistical life savings. Levels of bicycling
are estimated using past trends, future mode share goals,
and a traffic demand model. Results: By 2040, investments
in the range of $138 to $605 million will result in health
care cost savings of $388 to $594 million, fuel savings of
$143 to $218 million, and savings in value of statistical
lives of $7 to $12 billion. The benefit-cost ratios for
health care and fuel savings are between 3.8 and 1.2 to 1,
and an order of magnitude larger when value of statistical
lives is used."

That seems to be what the Dutch claim. Less weight related illness.
Lower rates of respiratory disease. A study from here (Australia)
indicated that for every 20 minute (each way) commute by bicycle, the
economy was saved $21.

What mostly interested me about the earlier quote above was
the "... even when only a limited selection of benefits is
considered". There can be many, many and great benefits
that may be either too intangible, too subjective, or too
something else to make the cost/benefit analysis. (Trout
fishing, indeed!)

Thing is, they're not even needed to make the case. Bike
infrastructure is *cheap* compared to what is spent propping
up the car culture; and the cost of waiting around for the
car culture to collapse on its own in too immense.

Certainly more exercise if better. In fact I read somewhere that of
people who are medically disqualified from entering the U.S. Military
that obesity is the major reason. I might also mention that when you
see two tourists over here the fat one is almost always from the U.S.
:-)

But I am skeptical of numbers like $138 - $605 million. I would think
that even a random guess would get closer than a 438% variance :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:18:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/13/2014 6:38 PM, Dan O wrote:


I only saw an abstract, but it says:

"Costs of investment plans are compared with 2 types of
monetized health benefits, health care cost savings and
value of statistical life savings. Levels of bicycling
are estimated using past trends, future mode share goals,
and a traffic demand model. Results: By 2040, investments
in the range of $138 to $605 million will result in health
care cost savings of $388 to $594 million, fuel savings of
$143 to $218 million, and savings in value of statistical
lives of $7 to $12 billion. The benefit-cost ratios for
health care and fuel savings are between 3.8 and 1.2 to 1,
and an order of magnitude larger when value of statistical
lives is used."

So you have no knowledge of how those estimates were generated? For
example, what bike mode share are they using to predict those savings in
health care and fuel? If they're based on bike mode share more than
(say) 2%, I think there's a problem.

I learned long ago that abstracts sometimes tell very different stories
than thoughtful analyses of the full papers.

My difficulty with the numbers. Can you imagine going into a store and
being told, "Yes Sir, this costs between 138 and 594 dollars :-)

You'd buy it?
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)