"Hmm. We're wasting money."

You can say that again:

http://www.vtpi.org/ecodev.pdf

https://www.google.com/search?q=bicy...structure+cost

"... cost-benefit analysis of investments in bicycling in a
US city shows that such efforts are cost-effective, even when
only a limited selection of benefits is considered."

.... and:

"The data support the need for well-connected neighborhood
streets and a network of bicycle-specific infrastructure to
encourage more bicycling among adults. This can be accomplished
through comprehensive planning, regulation, and funding."

.... and:

"Both nonbicycle commuters and bicycle commuters agreed
that bicycle lanes, trails, and paths would encourage them
to ride a bike (or ride more often)... "

Pretty much goes on and on like that.

Here's the closest thing to a challenge (and even it suggests
that infrastructure is essential):

"Substantial increases in bicycling require an integrated
package of many different, complementary interventions,
including infrastructure provision and pro-bicycle programs,
supportive land use planning, and restrictions on car use."

Portland is doing it all, and Frank has nothing but smarmy,
bitter contempt for them.

This is interesting:

"The factors "safety" and "awareness" are important over shorter
distances. Having a cycling habit increases the likelihood of
cycling and a higher frequency of cycling. The perceived opinion
of others only affects the mode choice over short distances
suggesting indicates mode choice on longer commutes is based on
one's own attitudes."

That resonates with my own perception and long-distance
commuting experience.