Originally Posted by
genec
Not just as a reduced air pollution benefit, but for personal exercise, which is often touted, and reduced traffic crowding which requires the need for more infrastructure, and of course for the positive reasons you mentioned, as well as the economic benefits of increased tourism in an area that is conducive to cycling.
I would be surprised if any U.S. city could document any significant reduction in motor vehicle traffic and associated pollution as a result of more bicycling infrastructure being built/painted in the area. I would not be surprised if a small reduction in the use of public transportation, at least during favorable weather conditions, could be associated with increased bicycling infrastructure.
I would be surprised if much tourism economic benefits could demonstrated to be associated with added U.S. bicycling infrastructure outside of eating establishments and lodging in close proximity to bicycle rail-trails and similar bicycling friendly infrastructure in non urban locations.
Perhaps one of BF's Googling xperts might be able to dig out some surprising data on the subject of the actual economic benefits or environmental benefits U.S. cities have actually derived (not just been promised or forecasted) from increased expenditures on bicycling specific infrastructure. I think perhaps the best bang for the buck is making the adaptions to public transit vehicles that allow commuters and recreational cyclists to take their bikes on public transportation vehicles.