Lay down a sewer pipe and there are myriad standards dictating dimension, clearance and placement. Lay down a bike lane and sound design precepts are optional, more often recognized in the breach than in the application. How is it that conduits for sh_t are typically subjected to greater planning rigor than conduits for human beings on bicycles?
There are a lot of ways to calculate the benefit of bike-sharing programs. For Paris' Velib bike-sharing program one could look at the number of Parisians using it, improvements to traffic congestion, improvements to the air quality, health benefits of the users, and so on. Adam Stein of TerraPass, a carbon offsetting company, crunched some numbers based on these stats from a NYC article on the Paris Velib program and came up with an estimate of the amount of greenhouse gases avoided.
Only since Metrolinx started calling for secure indoor bike parking at all "Mobility Hubs" has the city and the TTC have finally gotten the message that cyclists would like safe and secure bike parking at subways stations. The fact that it's been in the bike plan for years, and that the entrances to the subways stations are littered with bikes locked to every available surface just wasn't getting the message across well enough for them. So allow me to pass on my thanks to Metrolinx.