Your air pollution reduction benefit is based on a very poor
assumption of all new cyclists were former drivers (per Rabl and De
Nazelle) could be no more wrong than in NYC with the biggest public
transit system in the US, lowest per capita car ownership and miles driven
of any major city, and where over 56% of workers use public transit, and
over 10% walk. Even the estimated 30% who drive or cab to work are
unlikely to...
Your air pollution reduction benefit is based on a very poor
assumption of all new cyclists were former drivers (per Rabl and De
Nazelle) could be no more wrong than in NYC with the biggest public
transit system in the US, lowest per capita car ownership and miles driven
of any major city, and where over 56% of workers use public transit, and
over 10% walk. Even the estimated 30% who drive or cab to work are
unlikely to convert to bicycling given how they might be elderly/disabled,
choose not to even walk to public transit bus stops and subway stations,
or may drive cabs or delivery vehicles for work.
Unless you get accurate survey information of mode shifts from new
cyclists since bike lane institution, you have no basis to make your huge
claims of air pollution reduction, and thus can't claim even 25% of the
air quality benefit you do to non-riders. In Rabl and De Nazelle cyclists
suffer from greater exposure to air pollution in traffic than non-riders.
Rider positive benefit is limited to added exercise.
I hope you reconsider your assumptions and calculations to produce a
more accurate estimation of bike lane cost-effectiveness.
Your air pollution reduction benefit is based on a very poor assumption of all new cyclists were former drivers (per Rabl and De Nazelle) could be no more wrong than in NYC with the biggest public transit system in the US, lowest per capita car ownership and miles driven of any major city, and where over 56% of workers use public transit, and over 10% walk. Even the estimated 30% who drive or cab to work are unlikely to...