[ndsipa_pomu]

If you're looking for return on investment, then cycle infrastructure is the way forwards. Each mile travelled by bike actually benefits society (less illness etc) whereas each mile travelled by car costs society.

> For every £1 invested, walking and cycling return an average of around £5-6

> A study of New York concluded that, in terms of health: “Investments in bike lanes are more cost-effective than the majority of preventive approaches used today.”

From https://www.cyclinguk.org/briefing/case-cycling-economy

[Dr4kn]

People that walk or bike are also more likely to do small shopping locally. This benefits the local economy and gets less money to international big box retailers, which generally pay less taxes.

If you drive by a small market you often won't park your car to go there. Cars and trucks destroy streets fast. Having less of them keeps repairs less frequent. Infrastructure for walking and biking can exist for multiple decades or even millennia

[rangestransform]

So you’re saying that people should do shopping locally, spend more, and waste more time to prop up inefficient businesses who don’t benefit from economies of scale? Tell that to voters and then try to win an election. Society exists to make our lives easier, not to prop up as many businesses and employees as possible as a make-work make-taxes program.

[panick21_]

Oh my god the obsession with 'economics of scale' is such narrow minded nonsense.

Shopping locally is more efficient, because the distribution network distributes things locally much more efficiently then a bunch of housewives in their SUVs.

Sure its cheaper for the shop providing the food, but for the society its more expensive. What you are completely missing is the massive cost of all the infrastructure and the massive subsidizes therein to create these centralized stores. And then the massive cost in time and capital investment for every users to buy a car to pick that stuff up.

You are also ignoring the massive waste this creates because people only go shopping every 1-2 weeks. And you are ignore the lack of fresh foods in the food system because of this behavior. That of course Americans eventually pay in their medical systems.

If you actually do some research you will see the systematic bias that is in the zoning code, infrastructure cost calculation and services. Walmart often consumer more in just police services then they pay in taxes. Walmart is systematically gaming the property rights system to pay almost no taxes. And yet Walmart uses a huge amount of land and requires a huge amount of public infrastructure to sustain itself.

If you really need to do some massive pickup of stuff for a party or something there are still larger stores you can go to as well, just not for everyday stuff.

Actually having a shop where I can locally pick up fresh food every day or every other day is actually much more convenient and saves far more time. And I know this is crazy for Americans to consider, but as a society it would be nice if people without a car could also buy food sometimes. This video points this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYHTzqHIngk

[rangestransform]

Cities only exist because of economies of scale! Public transit, road maintenance, utilities delivery, public recreation facilities, and the plethora of small and large businesses are more efficient in a city because of economies of scale.

What people don’t benefit from is laws to artificially benefit small businesses at the expense of the consumer. Here in New York, we have this stupid law that one corporate entity can only have one liquor retail license. This law was created at the “behest” of the lobby of liquor store owners. The end result of this is that liquor is more expensive than my hometown of Vancouver, despite NYS collecting a significantly lower tax rate than BC province. That money all flew into private coffers, and the consumer still gets bent over in the end.

I also take issue with the implication that Walmart incurring policing costs is bad for society. The implication is that Walmart should either have private police or be a shoplifting free for all. The former is a bad idea because Walmart police don’t have the same responsibility or accountability to the public as public police. The latter is a bad idea because society will collapse without property rights.

[panick21_]

> Cities only exist because of economies of scale!

Sure if you want to have an intellectual debate about what the economics of scale means then that's fine but your point about economics of scale about suburban super-markets was still wrong and that was the context of my critic.

The rest of your post is irrelevant to my point. I have not advocated for any policy specifically to help small business. Small shops in cities can and are operate by major cooperation. There is no contradiction between large companies and small/urban locations. Not sure why you are even bringing this up. Are you so 'America'-brained that you think large companies can only exist in large commercial zones right of highway exchanges?

> I also take issue with the implication that Walmart incurring policing costs is bad for society.

I didn't say the issue is that its incurring policing cost, I said the cost it incurs is higher then the taxes its paying. The whole point of taxes is that they finance the operation of a geographical area. And everybody living or operating in that area should help finance that area.

If somebody operates in that area that incurs more cost then benefits then that somebody should only continue to be doing so if people consider it a 'social good'. And supporting Wallmart a highly profitable company, clearly doesn't fall under that.

So designing policies so that a multi-billion $ company can show up and extract value from your town is nonsensically stupid.

In fact you are stealing from other business and people in your area to give more profits to wallmart.

> The implication is that Walmart should either have private police or be a shoplifting free for all.

No 'the implication' is that when a community does land use, infrastructure and tax planning it should consider facts, and consider cost to provide services and infrastructure for to those areas.

The fact is, most communities make most of their money in the 'down town' that is true even for very small town and even villages.

What you are proposing is basically that a community should finance, build and maintain a lot of public infrastructure, then finance continue police and other services far away from where most people actually live to protect cooperate property (and specifically the parking lot) all while Wallmart does everything in its power to pay the absolute minimum back to the community it is in. Both by local tricks and by tricks on a federal level.

[graemep]

What you quote is for "walking or cycling".

I would favour walking. Its far easier to get people to do it and most people can do it. A lot of infrastructure already exists and its cheaper and easier to improve.

If you provide reasonably public transport its far easier to walk. I drive into town, then park and walk, where I currently live because busses are infrequent. I never even owned a car in London because it has good public transport (to be fair, I probably would have if I lived in a suburb and had kids).

[mmooss]

It's not XOR; you can do both. Most people who cycle also walk at times.

Why exclude cycling? You're range is ~5x walking - in the time and effort required to walk a mile, you could easily cycle 5 miles.

It doesn't have to be a universal panacea to be valuable. Walking isn't possible for everyone, including some who can cycle, and it's not useful for longer distances like 5 miles, ~2.5 hrs walking or 30 min cycling slowly.

[tasuki]

Are you walking on hands? 5 miles is 8 km, that's 80 minutes of fast walk. I routinely walk 5 miles for transportation: I consider it time well-spent.

[phil21]

16 minutes per mile (3.75mph) (5 miles in 80 minutes) is basically my 'fast walk' time in the city. My wife who is shorter has a hard time keeping up with that.

Unfortunately stop lights/etc. will also make this longer. My "best" pace where I actually do get tired is about 15 minutes per mile. Few can keep up a 4mph pace even on a dedicated walking trail with no elevation changes for any material length of time.

Most folks average probably greater than 20 minutes per mile, especially for longer walks. 2.5 hours is definitely on the extreme end, but close to 2 hours is probably more realistic for most.

[graemep]

> It's not XOR; you can do both.

The quote I was replying to was about return on investment. Money spent on cycling infrastructure is money not spent on walking and public transport. Spending money is definitely XOR.

I am arguing that walking for shorter distances and providing public transport for longer distances is a better use of money in most places.

> Why exclude cycling? You're range is ~5x walking

Your range for walking plus public transport is far greater.

One big problem I see with cycling is low uptake in most places - in most (not all, to be fair) places I know cycles lanes are mostly empty.

> Walking isn't possible for everyone, including some who can cycle

People can cycle who cannot walk or use a bus?

[panick21_]

A few point.

You are right that money is XOR. But cycling takes people of roads and improves the overall system while being very cheap. Also, you don't need dedicated super dutch style infrastructure to encurrage cycling. Making it safe for walking and cars to interact, ALSO makes it much, much better for cycling. Its a mistake in thinking that 'cycling' infrastructure is only dedicated cycling lanes. Encuriging cycling almost always pays off, in pretty every systematic measurment ever done on the topic. And if you reach Dutch level it pays of a gigantic amount. Its really low investment high return.

Cycle lanes actually look empty often because they are so much more efficent. They have done some studies on paths that were always empty and the threwput is usually not as bad as people think. To be sure the place you are refering to could be totally empty, it happens, but its not the norm even in the US.

Also, of course in a lot of places, specially in the US where they are really bad at cycling infratructure, they believe that all it takes is for one road to have a cycle lane and then magically people on bikes show up. They just want to get in on the 'hype' and were pressured to 'do something'. You need to actually be able to reasonably safely go from A to B between places that are vaguly useful. Dedicate cycling lanes make sense in places where there is no alterantive and you need cars to go resonably fast. But generally its more about your car infrastructure and how fast and dangerous your cars are. Improving cycling always goes hand in hand with making cars less dangerous, and that always pays off.

It takes some up front investment and actual planning, but its not like that infrastructure is worthless after a few years. Cycle lanes once built basically never get destroyed, so putting it in speculatively while having a long term plan makes a lot of sense.

[robocat]

Your summary is incorrect. From link from link:

  while the majority of [the savings] consists of traditional transport decongestion benefits, around a fifth are arising from e.g. health, journey quality and safety.

Cycling doesn't replace cars, it just reduces the cost of cars!

Once you're too old, the health benefits are less clear e.g. my mother dangerously broke bones after falling off her bike (I think cause was overloading herself with a grubber in a backpack).

[mmooss]

> Cycling doesn't replace cars, it just reduces the cost of cars!

The quote doesn't support that. It says decongestion is most of the savings, and decongestion is fewer cars, implying bikes replace cars.

Is there something else in the article that supports it?

Someone on a bike isn't driving - it seems like a clear substitute, though it also substitutes for public transit.

[panick21_]

Yes I know. I'm a huge, huge fan of cycling infrastructure. And I agree that it is the highest value.

But even if you have that you still need high quality public transport. Its not either or. And if you are going to invest in public transport, investing in capacity, speed and convenience. Is a better investment then not making people pay.