I thought this bit was key:
Economically, the access-all-areas motoring network is already established so that things like pedestrian crossings and cycle tracks are seen as walking and cycling infrastructure which must be able to economically wash their own faces. The problem is that retrofitting can be costly as well as controversial so that investment in walking, wheeling and cycling is seen as a nice to have, where we can fit it in, and so long as we don’t take any motoring capacity. If we turn this proposition on its head, we can start to see that infrastructure to support walking, wheeling and cycling is actually motoring infrastructure because the only reason we need it is because the prevailing conditions created by motorisation are so hostile. Therefore, any use of benefit to cost ratio in this regard immediately appears nonsensical and it pushes us to think about better ways to consider and prioritise interventions to provide a basic level of service for walking, wheeling and cycling at the network level we have for cars.
