It would be great if you could cite the report you're talking about, so we can judge for ourselves whether you're steel-manning or straw-manning its methodology.
" Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Arts with
Honours in Economics
Acadia University, 2013" biased and poorly balanced.
As far as can be determined, no cost-benefit analyses of bicycle facilities have been carried out for locations in Canada.
Maybe says more about the searching skills author than the state of cost-benefit analysis in Canada - but it sounds bad.
The daily benefits from one person switching from car travel to bicycle travel for commuting are estimated to be $2.14.
Most of that 2.14 "savings" is car ownership and maintenance costs, which is bullshit because they say elsewhere you need a car for the days your can't cycle. Nice double counting eh?
Plus the internal+external "health ben." added up to be about equal to vehicle ownership costs.
See the "analysis" bias?
Perhaps an Acadia University Honours in Economics is toilet paper.
https://economics.acadiau.ca/tl_files/sites/economics/resour...
" Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Economics Acadia University, 2013" biased and poorly balanced.
Maybe says more about the searching skills author than the state of cost-benefit analysis in Canada - but it sounds bad. Most of that 2.14 "savings" is car ownership and maintenance costs, which is bullshit because they say elsewhere you need a car for the days your can't cycle. Nice double counting eh?Plus the internal+external "health ben." added up to be about equal to vehicle ownership costs.
See the "analysis" bias?
Perhaps an Acadia University Honours in Economics is toilet paper.