INTERREG IVC – CYCLECITIES (1307R4) Synthesis report: “Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment of individual reports, development of synthesis report” CycleCities Partner: Municipality of Genoa in collaboration with the University of Genoa- DICCA-CRUIE Project Component: 4.1.2 Document version: Final Version Date: 27 October 2014 Municipality of Genoa authors: Guido Gandino, Yuri Piccione University of Genoa authors: Francesca Pirlone, Selena Candia
85
Embed
INTERREG IVC CYCLECITIES (1307R4) · INTERREG IVC – CYCLECITIES (1307R4) Synthesis report: “Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment of individual reports, development of
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
INTERREG IVC – CYCLECITIES (1307R4)
Synthesis report: “Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment of individual reports, development of
synthesis report”
CycleCities Partner: Municipality of Genoa in collaboration with the University of Genoa- DICCA-CRUIE
Project Component: 4.1.2 Document version: Final Version
Date: 27 October 2014 Municipality of Genoa authors: Guido Gandino, Yuri Piccione
University of Genoa authors: Francesca Pirlone, Selena Candia
2
Project acronym: CYCLECITIES
Project name: European cities for integrating cycling within sustainable mobility management schemes
Project code: 1307R4
Document Information
Document Identification Name: Synthesis report: Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment of individual reports, development of synthesis report.
Document title: Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment of individual reports, development of synthesis report
Type: Final report
Date of Delivery: 27/10/2
Component: 4.1.2
Component Leader: Municipality of Genoa
Dissemination level: Public Document Status
No. Action Partner Date
1 Submitted Municipality of Genoa 27/10/2014
Document History
Versions Date Changes Type of change Delivered by
Version 1.0 05/09/2014 First draft version -
Municipality of Genoa
Version 2.0 17/10/2014 Second draft version
Updated document with the final version of the public and the private investment reports
Municipality of Genoa
Version 3.0 27/10/2014 Final version - Municipality of Genoa
Disclaimer The information in this document is subject to change without notice. All rights reserved The document is proprietary of the CYCLECITIES Consortium. No copying or distributing, in any form or by any means, is allowed without the prior written agreement of the owner of the property rights. This document reflects only the authors’ view. The INTERREG Programme is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.
3
TABLE OF CONTENT 1. Introduction.
This Section provides information regarding the objectives of CycleCities project and the scope of the present study.
1.1 Background
1.2 CycleCities objectives
1.3 EU programs to help cycling projects
1.4 Scope of the present work
2 Methodology.
This section provides information regarding the methodology used.
3 Definition of private and public Investments.
This section defines what fall within the area of public and private investments.
3.1 Typologies of public investments in cycling
3.2 Typologies of private investments in cycling
3.3 Combination of private and public investments
4 Cost and Benefit analysis for private and public investment in cycling.
This section presents economic costs and benefits from investments in cycling infrastructures. a. Costs b. Benefits c. Policies and incentives d. Assessment of existing studies. Summary of quantitative results.
4.1 What is a Cost and Benefit Analysis?
4.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis for private and public investments in cycling
4.3 Costs and Benefits for bicycles
4.4 Assessment examples of CBA
4
5 Environmental Impact Analysis.
This section presents environmental effects connected to investments in cycling infrastructures.
5.1 Methodology
5.1.1 Overview – Objectives
5.1.2 Steps to follow
5.2 Definition of environmental parameters and indicators for different ways of transport
5.2.1 Energy use
5.2.2 Green House Gasses
5.2.3 Air Quality
5.2.4 Noise
5.2.5 Land Use and quality of urban spaces
5.3 Definition of environmental parameters connected to other areas of interest
5.4. Assessment of existing studies for an environmental impact analysis and a CBA in
Cycling
5.4.1 European directives to assess the environmental impacts
5.4.2 Existing tools to calculate the environmental impacts for transport and cycling
5.4.3 Proposition of new assessment methodology and conclusion
6 Review/Conclusions.
In this section it’s reported the summary of the topics visited and the conclusion of the entire analysis work.
7 References.
5
1. Introduction
The Municipality of Genoa is a project partner in the European project “European cities for
integrating cycling within sustainable mobility management schemes (CycleCities)” which is funded
by the INTERREG IVC interregional cooperation programme, financed through the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
As reported in the Application Form the Municipality of Genoa has the assignment to produce a
synthesis report about cycling investment called: “Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment
of individual reports, development of synthesis report”.
The Municipality of Genoa charged the University of Genoa CRUIE (Research Centre about
Urbanism, Infrastructure and Ecology) – DICCA (Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental
engineering) of the editing of the over mentioned document.
The synthesis report is written following the procedure described in the document: “4.1.2
Methodology for the identification & assessment of environmental & economic gains & costs of
cycling in sustainable urban mobility” edited by the Sustainable Mobility Unit of the National
Technical University of Athens.
1.1 Background
Transportation systems can increase the productivity and quality of life at the same time if they are
planned and managed properly. Although the needs of people stimulate the demand for
transportation, environmental pollution and health care are also very important for the people. The
transportation systems should ensure efficient movements of passengers and freights but, such a
system should not deplete the natural resources and badly affects the environment.
Modern urban agglomerations face several problems that affect the quality of life. Many of them
are a result of the inability of existing infrastructures to cope with the transportation needs of the
population. One of the most common reasons behind this fact is the predominance of automobiles
used for local trips. Therefore in recent decades there has been an extensive effort to divert people
from private cars initially to public transportation and more recently to other sustainable urban
mobility methods, such as cycling and walking. Cycling is increasingly recognized as a clean,
sustainable mode of transport and an essential part of an inter-modal plan for sustainable urban
6
travel. While regional and local Authorities bear the primary responsibility for detailed planning and
implementation of cycling policies, national-level commitment is important in setting the right legal,
regulatory and financial framework so that successful implementation of cycling initiatives can take
place.
While the growing trend in car use continues, the level of bicycle use seems generally stable with
only minor fluctuations. The modal share of cycling trips, though varying from country to country, is
roughly 5 to 10% of all trips in Western Europe and approximately 1 to 5% in Central and Eastern
European countries. Two countries stand out with much higher modal shares for cycling:
the Netherlands (32%) and Denmark (18%). Japan’s cycling modal share is also noteworthy at 14%.
Cycling’s share in North American cities, although growing in importance, remains fairly low.
Cycle usage – cycling as main mode of transport % of population
Figure 1: Future of cycle usage in Europe. Source, The Gallup Organization, Hungary upon the request of Directorate
General Mobility and Transport, march 2011.
A slim majority (53%) of EU citizens said they used a car as their main mode of transport and about
one in five (22%) used public transport. “Walking” was mentioned by 13% of EU citizens and 7%
selected “cycling”. The least popular choice was a motorbike, mentioned by 2%.
Men were more likely to say that they used a car to get around on a daily basis (59% vs. 47% of
women). Women more frequently said they usually walked (16% vs. 9% of men) or used public
transport (25% vs. 18%). Almost two-thirds (64%) of rural residents said that they used a car to get
about on a day-to-day basis; metropolitan residents, on the other hand, were almost as likely to
7
mention public transport as they were to say they used a car as their main mode of transport (37%
vs. 43%).
A large majority (71%) of car users felt that public transport was not as convenient as a car, a
similar proportion (72%) said that a lack of connections was a problem, about two-thirds (64%)
mentioned a low frequency of services and 54% said they did not use public transport because it
was not reliable. Half (49%) of car users said public transport was too expensive and a similar
proportion (49%) stressed a lack of information about schedules. Security concerns were
considered as an important reason not to use public transport by 40% of car users.
Cycling policies and measures alone cannot bring about sustainable travel in cities. They are,
however, an important element of a comprehensive package of policy tools designed to improve
the sustainability of the whole transport network. Integration and coherence between cycling
policies and other policies addressing land use, environment, physical health and finance are
essential.
1.2 CycleCities objectives
Research conducted for the purposes of the CycleCities project is aimed at investigating the
introduction and adoption of cycling friendly mobility management schemes.
CycleCities is a project of eight partners from seven European regions with a common initiative to
promote and increase cycling in urban mobility management schemes. The overall goal of the
project CycleCities is to carry out:
a) the transfer of experience and exchanges of good practices among European cities on mobility
management and cycling,
b) the development of a knowledge capital regarding the integration of cycling into urban mobility
strategies. These objectives have as their end-scope to inform relevant target-groups (e.g.
municipalities, ministries, schools and families) about the utility of cycling integration in urban
mobility management schemes.
8
CycleCities addresses some critical challenges and opportunities for European cities that relate to a
number of factors:
- Traffic congestion: 30% of car trips in Europe are under 3km and 50% are under 5km – a 15 minute
bike ride (EEA - European Environment Agency - Report No 5/2009). Reducing car use and
increasing cycling will unclog roads and reduce congestion and associated delays, lost working hours
and wasted fuel.
- Cost reduction: Motorized transport imposes high costs on individuals and society, both directly
(road construction and maintenance) and indirectly (casualties, obesity, pollution, congestion, etc.).
The European Commission (COM 2009/279) estimates the external costs of road transport (mostly
individual motorized transport) at 2.6 % of GDP. Other studies suggest as much as 4% and 8%. Shift
from car to cycling provides an opportunity for huge cost savings.
- Lower carbon footprint: Some 40% of Europe's CO2 emissions from road transport and 70% of
other pollutants are due to urban traffic. As recognized in EU Communication 2009/279, urban
transport accounts for 40% of CO2 emissions, and 70% of other air pollution, in particular PM10 and
NOx emissions, from transport. Tripling the modal share of cycling would save 5% of transport CO2
emissions by 2020. This would make a significant contribution to mitigating climate change and
decreasing dependency on fossil fuels.
- Health benefits: Increasing the modal share of cycling enhances physical and mental health.
Accidents involving cars are associated with cycling and walking, too. Nevertheless, on balance, the
benefits to life expectancy of choosing to cycle are 20 times the injury risks incurred by that choice
(WHO, 2000). Higher proportions of commuter cyclists are correlated with lower risks of casualties.
Car drivers are used to the presence of cyclists and are more likely to be cyclists themselves.
- Land use: increased uptake of cycling leads to reduced land consumption: 10 bikes can be parked
in the space required for one car. One lane of typical road can accommodate 2,000 cars per hour –
or 14,000 bikes. Fostering of investment and neighborhood revitalization: Cycle-friendly cities
9
attract individuals & businesses investment, encourage neighborhood revitalization and can
improve cities quality of life and environment.
1.3 EU programs to help cycling projects
During the EU programming period 2007-2013 it is estimated that €600 million has been allocated
to cycling. This money has come by: the European Commission - seventh Framework Program (FP7),
European Social Fund (ESF), Cohesion Fund; Member States/Regional Authorities - European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)-;
European Agencies - Intelligent Energy Europe Program (IEE) by the European Agency for
Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI), Program of Community Action in the Field of Health by the
Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC)-; Funds for neighboring countries - European
Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)-.
So far, funds have mainly been used for:
• projects promoting cycling through all possible means;
• construction of infrastructure (new complete cycling networks, completion of existing networks,
upgrading existing infrastructures e.g. bicycle bridge, intersections, parking facilities);
• bicycle sharing systems (planning, implementation and operation);
• campaigns to promote sustainable urban mobility and particularly cycling.
Although, investments on cycling projects, in general, are not justified nor evaluated in a
standardized way as in major transport projects’ case, there has been widely recognized lately, the
need to document their economic effects, in order to support funding claims.
It’s also for this reason that CycleCities seeks to produce a complete document that can resume all
the possible economic (through private and public investments) and environmental effects in
cycling. This complete document is produced unifying the contribution of three partners: the
10
Regional Development Agency of Gorenjska, BSC of Kranj, the London Borough of Merton and the
Municipality of Genoa.
1.4 Scope of the present work
The scope of the Municipality of Genoa is to write the synthesis report on investments in cycling
infrastructures combining the two separate reports developed by the consortium partners BSC
(report: “Analysis of public investment costs, inhibitors and externalities”) and Merton (report:
“Analysis of private investment infrastructure”) on public and private investments respectively, and
to enrich them in areas where improvements can be made. Economic costs and benefits have been
the subject of these two initial reports. However an environmental impact analysis was excluded
and so the scope of this synthesis report is to combine the economic aspect already descript with
environmental problems .
The Municipality of Genoa, to join the documents on public and private investment in cycling, has
decide to underline the common points and the differences between these two kind of
investments. Moreover Genoa has decided to integrate these researches with other aspects or
references but the core of the synthesis report is the development of an environmental impact
analysis. A modal shift in favor of bicycling can have significant environmental impact in the local
microclimate and the global climate (in case of a more generalized trend). Although global effects
from localized policies are very marginal, the effects for the local communities can be very
significant and include improvements in areas such as air pollution, noise pollution, micro-climate
conditions etc. This report makes a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impact and
provide relevant data.
This report wants to find an answer to the following questions:
What is the environmental impact of cycling friendly mobility management schemes?
At the center of the synthesis report is the development of an environmental impact
analysis. The synthesis report should include possible interactions between environmental
effects and economic costs and benefits. A very common example of such an interaction is
11
the relationship between air quality in a city and population health with the associated
economic implications.
What are the (types of) cycling friendly investments that can be made by the public and
private sector?
For the purposes of this report it’s developed an unifying approach to public and private
investments in cycling friendly mobility management schemes by recognizing similarities and
locating indicative sources of divergence. The main source of information are the individual
reports prepared by the partners BSC and Merton, where the appropriate definition and
typologies of investments are elaborated.
What are the economic costs and benefits that can be associated to investments in cycling
friendly mobility management schemes? Which are the potential drivers and inhibitors
that can potentially facilitate or impede investments?
Investments that promote cycling friendly mobility management schemes can be associated
with costs and expected benefits. Both these categories can be specific to the entity making
the investment; however they can also have a more general economic and social impact.
Direct costs and benefits are usually related to monetary expenditures and income
associated with the investment. On the other hand the wider impact (also known as
externality) will affect entities that are not involved in the investment in a positive or
negative way (positive and negative externalities).
12
2. Methodology
The methodology used by the University of Genoa, charged by the Municipality of Genoa to write
the synthesis report of the CycleCities project, is based on the document: “4.1.2 Methodology for
the identification & assessment of environmental & economic gains & costs of cycling in sustainable
urban mobility” edited by the Sustainable Mobility Unit of the National Technical University of
Athens.
For the purposes of this report Genoa developed an unifying approach to public and private
investments in cycling friendly mobility management schemes by recognizing similarities and
locating indicative sources of divergence. The main source of information are the individual reports
prepared by the partners BSC and Merton, where the appropriate definition and typologies of
investments are elaborated. The objective of GENOA is to enrich areas where improvements are
possible.
B. Analysis of private investment
infrastructure.
CycleCities Partner: London Borough of Merton
A. Analysis of public
investment costs, inhibitors and externalities.
CycleCities Partner: Regional Development Agency of Gorenjska, BSC, Kranj
C. Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment of individual reports, development of
synthesis report CycleCities Partner: Municipality of Genoa in collaboration with the University of Genoa-
CRUIE-DICCA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS IN CYCLING
SYNTHESIS
COMMON ASPECTS
DIFFERENCES
INTEGRATIONS
13
The objective of GENOA for the purpose of the synthesis report is to use the individual reports as a
starting point and develop an unifying position on the economic costs and benefits and the
associated drivers and inhibitors of both public and private investments in cycling friendly mobility
management schemes. The goal is to highlight similarities, point out differences and distinguish
possible interconnections.
The synthesis of the two report is completed with an environmental impact analysis in cycling in
comparison with other ways of transport. Measuring the environmental effects of transportation
modes may be a complex process because of the different criteria which approach to the subject
from different aspects (the characteristics of the transportation modes and the environmentally
evaluation criteria are discussed detailed in the fifth chapter).Taking all forms of transport together-
according to the Statistical Pocketbook 2009 published by the Directorate-General for Energy and
Transport of the European Commission - CO2 emissions in the transport sector have risen by 35%.
All forecasts for the coming years in Europe are based on the expectation of growth in the volume
of traffic, which will inevitably lead to increasing CO2 emissions too, because no coordinated
European strategy is being developed to curb these emissions. Forms of mobility that do not impair
the global climate are also the best protection against the greatest economic threat to our societies,
namely the end of availability of mineral-oil resources. However, a strategy of ending dependence
on oil, a ‘farewell to oil’ in favor of forms of mobility that protect the climate and the environment,
is not only a necessity for the sake of the global climate; it is also crucial to the competitiveness of
Europe. Bike could be a good solution to prevent the use of car in towns where the distances to
cover are often short. Half of all car journeys in the EU are shorter than five kilometers, and one in
ten is shorter than a kilometer. A large percentage of these journeys could be made by bicycle or on
foot. This would save a great deal of fuel and hence cut CO2 emissions, because cold starts mean
double fuel consumption in summer and even triple consumption in winter as well as the
corresponding emission volumes. Taking Germany as an example, even if only 30% of car journeys
below six kilometers were replaced by bicycle trips, this would lead to a 4% reduction in CO2
emissions from road traffic.
For these reasons it’s clear the importance to combine public and private investment in cycling with
the environmental impact to give a complete view of the possibility offered by a good policy in
cycling. So this report could be a useful instrument for local Authorities to decide to invest in
cycling: the CBA analysis plus the environmental effects prove it.
14
3. Definition of private and public Investments
Some 80% of the population of the EU live in densely populated conurbations. Many cities possess
thoroughly attractive systems of local passenger transport, albeit with scope for further
improvement. Bicycles are the ideal form of transport for distances up to five kilometers, but their
utilization varies widely. Whereas bicycles account for 27% of total mileage in the Netherlands,
where the average distance cycled per inhabitant in a year exceeds 1 000 kilometers, far less use is
made of bicycles in most other countries with similar geographical and economic conditions.
Far more short car journeys in particular could be made by bicycle or on foot instead. Ten per cent
of car journeys are shorter than a kilometer, 30% are shorter than three kilometers, and 50% are
shorter than five kilometers. Thus there is enormous potential here for more environment-friendly
mobility patterns.
Cycling can have many advantages as a short-distance means of travel in urban areas: it is
environmentally friendly – without emissions and noise nuisance; provides cost-effective mobility,
and offers an opportunity for health and physical fitness by regular exercise.
On the other hand, there are both real and perceived barriers to bicycle use that – with the
exception of a few countries – keep cycling somewhat in the margins of urban travel. These barriers
include vulnerability in accidents with motorized traffic, bicycle theft, increasing travel distances
due to urban sprawl, perceived low social status, weather and topology.
An increasing number of countries are developing national cycling plans, strategies and policies. The
approach to cycling on a national level varies from country to country: some countries have a
separate, specific plan for cycling promotion at a national level, while others include cycling policies
in national transport, environment or health plans. In many countries, cycling remains the exclusive
responsibility of regional and local authorities with limited commitment at a national level.
Cycling policy objectives draw from various sectors including transport, land-use, safety,
environment, and health. The cycling policy and planning process therefore involves input from the
wide range of cycling stakeholders mentioned above - governmental bodies at all levels, non-
governmental organizations, cycling associations and the bicycle manufacturing industry. In a
15
number of countries the Ministry of Transport has a leading role in co-operation and co-ordination
with relevant bodies in the policy planning process.
Although a number of countries are making progress in promoting cycling travel, difficulties persist
in the process of planning and implementing cycling promotion policies.
First, cycling remains somewhat marginal in transport policy discussions in many countries, and
national budgetary allocation reflects this status. Second, as cycling policies draw from a wide range
of objectives and involve many actors, lack of co-ordination, both horizontally and vertically, may
cause biased policy planning and roadblocks to implementation. Third, safety fears arise from
cyclists’ vulnerability to motorized traffic. Fourth, technical understanding is not always adequate
and, consequently, the design of transport infrastructure - even cycling-specific infrastructure - is
often flawed or of poor quality. Fifth, scarcity of road space makes it difficult to provide adequate
bicycle infrastructure. Finally, cycling often carries with it a somewhat skewed image – often
perceived only as a sport, leisure, or children’s activity rather than a mode of transport.
Many countries are working to better understand these barriers.
But How can public investment be helpful? Or private? And how it’s possible to combine them?
Investments for cycling both from private investors and from citizens are necessary. Collaboration
between investors and society is a prerequisite to collect enough funding in order that cycling
replace as much as possible car trips because the problems that city faces are many and urgent.
While the scope of the public sector is not the direct gains for the private sector the direct gains is
what mainly is interested for. Public investment for cycling is a way for the private sector to be
funded by citizens. Public Investments are a precondition for Private Investments.
3.1 Typologies of public investment in cycling
A complete study about public investments is reported in the document presented by the BSC
“Analysis of public investment costs, inhibitors and externalities”. This report divides public
investment in cycling infrastructure, in three major categories: Trave infrastructure for cycling; Bike-
parking and end of trip facilities; Integration of bicycling with public transport; Bike sharing system.
16
Travel infrastructures for cycling: These include infrastructures upon which bicycles can travel
and other measures (through infrastructures) that facilitate the flow of cycling traffic.
Travel infrastructure includes all infrastructures that cyclists can use when travelling. Within this
category we can distinguish two subcategories; the differentiating factor will be the existence or
not of a physical separation of the cycling path from the rest of the road used by other vehicles.
As a result it is possible to distinguish two categories:
1) MIXED TRAFFIC. Paths were cycling traffic is mixed with motorized traffic, or where there is
no physical obstacle for crossing over between normal street and cycling path. These travel
infrastructures are:
- On-road bicycle lanes.
These are lanes that occupy part of existing roadway. Usually there is a stripe separating bicycles
from other vehicles.
- Two-way travel on one-way streets.
In this case bicycles can travel in the opposite direction in one-way streets. These are also
known as “contra-flow” lanes. Bicycles can travel in both directions on the one-way street.
- Shared bus/bike lanes.
In order to improve traffic flow of buses, many cities have introduced bus lanes in their
downtown areas, where traffic is dense and problematic.
- Bicycle Boulevards.
These are signed bicycle routes. They are usually located on low-traffic streets.
- Colored lanes.
This is a type of bicycle lanes mentioned earlier. The special characteristic here that for these
lanes special methods have been used to make them more visible and distinguish them from
other lanes.
- Shared Lane markings.
This type of signage is used in lanes where both automobiles and bicycles can travel.
- Advanced Stop lines.
Usually this is a marked “box” where cyclist can wait when traffic lights are red. They are place
in front of motor vehicles. This makes cyclists more visible to drivers.
17
2) SEPARATED TRAFFIC. Paths were cycling traffic is completely separated from motorized
traffic. This implies a physical obstacle that cars cannot cross easily or at least without noticing
it.
- Cycle tracks.
Cycle tracks bear many similarities with cycle lanes. They are adjacent to existing vehicle
roadwork and its traffic management arrangements.
-Off-street paths.
These are also tracks that are completely separated from motor vehicle traffic. They are paved
and usually pedestrian travel is not allowed on them.
3) OTHER INFRASTRUCTURES. The infrastructures examined so far where the various types of
lanes/tracks that facilitate the usage of bicycles by citizens. However those routes are not the
only measures that can have an impact on the usage of bicycles, their effectiveness and (as a
result) the potential for a shift for citizens from motorized traffic to cycling. Indicative examples
of this type of investments are:
- Bicycle phases / Traffic Signals.
Investing in traffic signals dedicated to cyclists can be an important facilitator of bicycle usage.
They can manage and coordinate traffic (motorized and non-motorized) and increase safety.
- Way finding signage.
Using signs it is possible to manage cycling traffic and improve both its flow and safety.
Furthermore it can help cyclists by giving them directions for prominent destinations.
-Techniques to shorten cyclists’ routes.
This category includes traffic arrangements that facilitate cycling traffic especially in
intersections and involves the construction of cut-throughs that provide cyclists with more
direct ways than motor vehicles.
4) OTHER MEASURES FACILITATING CYCLING TRAFFIC.
Finally one cannot forget the various policies regarding traffic management that can also have a
large effect on the uptake of cycling. These policies include:
- Traffic calming;
- Home zones (Traffic Calming in residential zones);
18
- Car-free zones (Both permanent or temporary restrictions and bans to motor vehicle traffic);
- Complete Streets (Streets were all types of traffic are allowed, after having implemented the
appropriate precautions).
Bike-parking and end of trip facilities: The existence of the necessary lanes and routes
examined in the previous sections is of significant importance when individuals consider using a
bicycle for their trips (both work related commuting as well as leisure). They are not however
the only factor. Of similar importance are the so called “end-of-trip facilities”. These are
infrastructures that cyclists can use when they have reached their destination.
In this vein a categorization that can be made is the following:
- unsheltered, sheltered, guarded, bike parking;
- bike rentals;
- bike repairs;
- bike washer;
- showers and changing room.
Integration of bicycling with public transport: Parking infrastructures, end-of-trip facilities and
bike-sharing systems, such as those described so far, can play a key role in achieving a shift
towards cycling. Their role can be further enhanced through other intervention in urban policy
planning. This includes policies that integrate cycling with various forms of public transportation.
Bike sharing: A bicycle sharing system, or bike share scheme, is a service in which bicycles are
made available for shared use to individuals on a very short term basis. The main purpose is
transportation: bike share allows people to depart from point "A" and arrive at point "B" free
from the worries of ownership.
Bike-share has seen explosive, global growth over recent years. As of April 2013 there were
around 535 bike-sharing programs around the world, made of an estimated fleet of 517,000
bicycles. In May 2011 there were around 375 schemes comprising 236,000 bikes. So those two
years saw a doubling of bike share globally.
19
Education and Promotion: To support educational and promotional programs to encourage the
responsible use of bicycle is very important for the success of public investment in cycling.
Education
Few people would ever suggest just getting in a car and driving without learning the rules of the
road and the proper techniques. Fewer still would want to share the road with a driver who
skipped these steps. Riding a bike safely — and especially, riding in traffic — requires a range of
skills and knowledge. Having these tools makes a world of difference in a cyclist’s safety and
comfort on the roadway.
For the Municipalities which decide to invest in cycling so is also important to invest in:
- Improve safety through funding for cycling skills and safety education for children and adults;
- Support the update of Driver’s Training to include more education on driver interactions with
cyclists and pedestrians;
- Explore easy-to-learn riding skills that will gain you greater respect on the road;
- Learn what the bicycle laws are in your territory.
Promotion
Promoting cycling is not only a question of improving the conditions for bicycles (or making the
alternatives less attractive), but also marketing cycling.
Traditionally, individual transportation choices are linked to objective conditions (distance,
infrastructure, weather) although it is evident that there are also - as with other consumer
choices - a number of non-rational and highly emotional factors involved. Knowing these factors
and ways to influence them will be the key to a more effective marketing of the bicycle, which
would mean that we could achieve a higher effect in encouraging the growth of new cyclists and
reducing the number of those who give up the bicycle.
Promoting cycling is all about behavior modification, and can be tackled with the so-called trans-
theoretical model. The trans-theoretical model works with a curve that describes the various
stages of “will do it or not considering doing it at all” through “can well imagine that” to “do it
every day.” The model was developed for use in health behaviors (diet, smoking), but is also
used previously in connection with transport behavior.
The individual’s placement on the curve indicates whether there is frequent cycling or not, and
how far someone that usually doesn’t cycle is from taking up cycling as a mode of transport. If a
20
larger group is examined, the result will tell you how developed a bicycle culture is, just as
repeated studies will be able to show whether or not the bicycle culture is moving forward or
backward. As well as showing whether potential bicycle promotion initiatives have had any
effect. This also applies if the effect has not yet manifested itself in a large group of cyclists.
The importance of promoting cycle is evident in many examples, the most effective is the one of
Copenhagen. 40 years ago Copenhagen was just as car-clogged as anywhere else but now 36%
of the population arriving at work or education do so on bicycles, from all over the Metro area.
Today 50% of Copenhageners themselves use bicycles each day. They all use over 1000 km of
bicycle lanes in Greater Copenhagen for their journeys. This impressive result was possible
thanks to a strong promoting program called Copenhagenize.
3.2 Typologies of private investment in cycling
A complete study about private investment is reported in the document presented by the London
Borough of Merton “Research, Analysis and Report of Private investment in cycling”. Private
investments in cycling infrastructure and promotion can have a significant impact, by creating
favorable conditions and additional incentives towards the uptake of cycling by the population. As
we will see in some examples, when private parties invest in cycling they are often encouraged to
do so by some public institutions.
Travel infrastructures: The "Velocity"2025 (Manchester UK) Master Plan from the Transport for
Greater Manchester Committee shows how public and private parties can cooperate in
stimulating cycling. The Plan actively engages the private sector to invest in cycling
infrastructure. The "Barclays Cycle Hire" (London, UK) is a good example of combination of
public and private investment. Initiated by the municipal government the private investment
involved is substantial: Barclays (an important bank in the UK) contributed 25 million pounds in
exchange for being the name carrier of the prestigious project.
Bike parking and end of trip facilities: In countries with a high popularity of cycling like the
Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries, cyclists are a very important group of customers for
21
retailers, especially in the city center (Kastrup, 2013). Bad or missing parking facilities for bikes
are an important barrier for people to take their bike for a shopping trip. This should be an
incentive for retailers or developers of retail real estate to take care of enough parking facilities
for bicycles around the shopping area or in front of shops. Private companies in general could
stimulate cycling by investing in parking facilities for bicycles at their own location. Besides
stimulating their own employees to take up their bicycle for commuting trips they can stimulate
visitors to come by bike as well. Investments in physical facilities at the workplace that offer
better comfort to cycling commuters are called investments in a “Bicycle-Oriented-Design”
(Phyllis et al., 2010). Bad or missing facilities at the end of a commuting trip can be a major
barrier towards cycling for commuters. So the other way around, investments of the employer
in a bicycle-oriented-design could encourage the employees to take up their bicycle to work.
Some examples of investments employers could make towards a bicycle-oriented-design:
Opening up bicycle shops therefore can be seen as private investments in cycling infrastructure,
in the end even influencing peoples travel mode choice towards cycling. The opportunity of
fixing defects like a flat tire in close proximity to a cyclists route makes it far more comfortable
to cycle around the city.
Bike sharing: In Europe, local governments exploit still 27% of the existing bike sharing systems.
However, the future of bike-sharing is to private (or public-private) initiatives as new business
models are emerging (Parkes et al., 2013). Bike sharing systems can be organized in several
ways, accounting for different shares of investments by private companies.
- The advertising model: a private company builds the infrastructure and provides the bike fleet
for a bike-sharing program in order to have the right advertisements on the streets (at the bike-
sharing-stations). Local governments mostly exploit the system.
- The sponsor model: another advertisement based business model to realize bike sharing
programs. In this case, the local government is the initiator of the program but private
companies do (most of) the investment. The program is often named after the sponsor, but
exploited by the local government.
22
- Private exploitation: the whole investment is done by a private company, as well as the
exploitation of the system.
Industry alliances: On the national but also on the European level, bike manufacturers unite
themselves in industry networks. This quote from the Cycling Industry Club, an European
alliance of bicycle manufacturers, explains why competitors should work together: It is as simple
as math: More cyclists mean more bikes and more bikes are good for business. If cycling levels in
Europe matched those of Denmark, we would sell 30 million more bikes per year. But even by
doubling cycling in Europe, we could increase the market by 10 million bikes (European Cycling
Federation, 2014).
Professional cycling sport: Sponsoring professional cycling teams by bicycle manufacturers, or
other companies, can be seen as private investment in cycling as well. Taiwanese bicycle
manufacturer Giant for instance, which is active on the European bicycle market out of their
office in the Netherlands, support the Dutch professional cycling teams (male and female).
Reason for sponsoring a cycling team is simple: getting good publicity and eventually growing
their market share. But why these investments are interesting in the light of investment in
cycling in general is the chance of growing the total market for bicycles. So the potential
benefits are twofold here. A bicycle manufacturer hopes to grow their sales but additionally this
could result in more people cycling.
Health insurances’ investments: For employers promoting cycling towards their employees
could be a very good economic investment as well. The health and well being program of the
American bicycle company Quality Bike Products (QBP) shows that offering financial incentives
towards employees to commute by bike, results in significant health effects and appurtenant
financial benefits. The company offered their employees an account of $110 to buy QBP
products and paid $45.000 on commuter rewards to cycling commuters every year. The
program resulted in a 4.4% reduction in health costs associated with a saving of $170.000 over
three years. This reduction is even more remarkable against the background of an average
yearly growth of 25% of health costs for American companies. Decrease of productivity loss as
23
result of the program accounted for $650 per employee per year, resulting in a total gain of
more than $900.000 over a three-year period (Fried, 2012).
Citizen investment: Why should citizens invest in a cycle infrastructure? Most people will say
this is the responsibility of the (local) government. A study from scholars of the University of
Delaware in the US shows us why. Racca and Dhanju (2006) show that the presence of a bike
path or trail has a positive effect on the value of prop-erty near that trail. With a GIS-analysis
they identified all properties situated within 50 metres of a bike path and compared their value
and latest sales price with those of properties further away from bike paths. When controlling
for other variables, such as number of bedrooms and the like, they found that properties within
the 50 meter range from the bike path had significantly higher values than properties outside
that range. According to the study, properties with a bike path close by have an average value of
$8800 dollars higher than properties with no bike paths nearby. This fact could be a major
argument to invest up to some hundreds of dollars in a bike path close to your house via crowd
funding. In the end, return on investment could be higher than investing in adjustments to the
house itself.
3.3 Combination of private and public investment
This report analyses all the possible combinations of public and private investments in cycling
starting from the typologies of public and private investment presented in “Research, Analysis and
Report of Private investment in cycling” by the London Borough of Merton and in “Analysis of
public investment costs, inhibitors and externalities” by BSC and reported in the previous pages.
Different combinations have be done according to the main typologies of investments that involve
private and public investments:
- travel infrastructures;
- bike parking and end of trip facilities;
- integration of cycling with public transportation;
- bike sharing;
- cycle tourism.
24
Finally here aren’t analyzed the investment combinations for the categories that are:
- typically public as cycling promotion;
or
- typically private as industry alliances, professional cycling sport, health insurances' investments
and citizen investments
Travel infrastructures
Figure 2: Percentage of public and private investment in travel infrastructures for cycling.
Mostly the local government is the initiator of the program but the investment could be done by
private companies in exchange for advertisement or for being name carrier of the project.
What Municipalities have to do to stimulate private investment in cycling?
- An active campaign on cycling can encourage private parties to start investing in cycling;
- Giving the right example and making a Master Plan on how cycling should get a more important
position as a city’s infrastructure;
- Think about different ways of financing public cycling infrastructure, using commercial interest of
private companies (like the right to advertise in public space);
- Keep on boosting cycling even if there are political changes in the Public Administration.
% public investment
% private investment
25
Bike parking and end of trip facilities
Figure 3: Percentage of public and private investment in bike parking and end of trip facilities.
In this kind of investment the private is the predominant part. These end of trip facilities can create
new jobs (bicycle rentals, repairs, washers…) or can be done by enterprises to get better the
condition of their employees (showers, bike parking,…). Providing bicycle parking at transit facilities
is a critical element in achieving high levels of bicycle access to transit. Some studies, made by the
Municipality of Seattle in the US, show that a lack of adequate bike parking and other related
services is a major deterrent to commuting by bike. Parking that is convenient, secure, weather-
protected, and plentiful provides a measure of predictability and comfort for those who want to
travel by bike and transit. Wherever possible, bicycle parking should be conveniently located near
bus stops; high quality bicycle storage is a must at rail stations and major transit transfer facilities.
Shower and storage facilities can be established for employees of several companies located in
close proximity. Examples of this type of arrangement have been organized by Transportation
Management Associations in Vancouver, BC and Portland, Oregon. The City of Portland has
established a public/private partnership with local fitness centers to provide local area commuters
with off-site permanent clothes storage, shower facilities, and secure bike parking. Cyclists can
purchase day or monthly passes and access any of the fitness centers. Public/private partnerships
reduce the infrastructure investment by the city and allow for a greater geographic network of
facilities available to cyclists. Portland’s experience indicates that these programs require regular
advertising of maintain users. Employers influence the commuting behavior of their employees in
many ways through “firm location, work schedules and mobility management initiatives”
(Vanoutrive, 2010). In this line, employers could have a major influence on bicycle use for
commuting. Some common employer initiatives to stimulate cycling are facilities at the workplace
% public investment
% private investment
26
like showers, changing rooms and secured bicycle parking and non-physical measures like cycle
mileage allowance, information on cycling routes and promotion events like a ‘ride to work day’.
Integration of cycling with public transportation
Figure 4: Percentage of public and private investment in integration of cycling with public transportation.
This kind of investment is typically public, but integrating bicycles with other mean of transports,
municipalities can save money for example investing less in busses. The quality of bicycle amenities,
facilities, and environment affect access to transit service. Improving bicycle access to transit
supports existing ridership levels and attracts new transit passengers by providing additional
connectivity to other modes an enhancing the overall travel experience. Enhancing bicycle access to
transit can be a cost-effective way to affect a mode shift. Targeted coordination of policies,
programs, and implementation among agencies and private entities is required to successfully
integrate these modes of travel.
% public investment
% private investment
What improvements are needed?
27
Figure 5: This statistic was made by The Institute for Sensible Transport – Queensland University of Technology,
Australia – in 2013. The Institute for Sensible Transport has developed a reputation as a specialist consultancy for
government and organizations looking to increase their resilience and reduce their vulnerability to contemporary
transport challenges.
Bike sharing
Figure 6: Percentage of public and private investment in bike sharing
Bike-sharing advocates believe the systems shouldn’t be expected to pay for themselves, as they
are no different to other forms of transit such as buses or roads yet, bike-sharing generates a
number of other shared benefits. Since 2010, Bicycle claims that its systems have helped cities burn
more than 98.7 million calories and 12,700 kilograms. Bike-share provides cities with a transport
option that not only helps the environment, but also the health of the community. As obesity,
diabetes and healthcare costs continue to rise, cities need to begin to take a holistic approach to
encourage active living. Public bike sharing provides a simple solution that simultaneously addresses
environmental, economic and health challenges. Just as important for the long term, the popularity
of bike-sharing schemes creates political support for cycling infrastructure, through dedicated lanes
and bike parking, which enables safer cycling for everyone. Although bike share programs have
existed for almost half a century, the most recent decade has seen a sharp increase in both their
prevalence and popularity worldwide, with over 400 cities currently operating bike share programs.
In 2007, Paris launched Europe’s largest scheme, with over 20,000 bicycles. Wuhan and Hangzhou in
China currently have the world’s largest bike share programs, with 90,000 and 70,000 bikes
respectively. New York City launched North America’s largest bike share program, with 6,000 bikes
in May, 2013, and is set to grow to 10,000 bikes in the near future. China is clearly the dominant
% public investment
% private investment
28
country, holding the majority of the world’s largest bike share programs (eight of the top ten).
Several researchers have examined the motivating factors associated with bike share use. Bachand-
Marleau et al. found convenience and the avoidance of private bike theft and maintenance to be
key facilitators to the use of the BIXI program in Montreal. These findings are generally supportive
of an earlier study by Fuller et al. of the same program. Convenience consistently emerges as the
main motivating factor for bike share use, and this has been found in various programs in North
America, China, London and Australia. The distance between home and closest docking station is a
factor directly associated with convenience and this has been found to be a reliable predictor of
bike share usage. Bachand-Marleau et al. found that living within 500m of a docking station resulted
in a three-fold increase in the odds of BIXI use. Bike-share schemes across the world are promoted
by cities as valuable mechanisms for reducing congestion, improving people’s health and cutting air
pollution, however they are costly systems to run and require significant investment from both the
public and private sector. New York is seeking a further US$14 million in funding for their City Bike
scheme and London about to start their search for a new sponsor to replace Barclays’ £5 million a
year support.
Cycle Tourism
Figure 7: Percentage of public and private investment in Cycle tourism.
Bicycle tourism generally means self-contained cycling trips over long distances, which prioritize
pleasure, adventure and autonomy rather than sport, commuting or exercise. Touring can range
from single day rides to multi-day trips, or even years at a time. Tours may be planned and
organized by the participant/s for themselves or organized for a group by a professional holiday
business, a club, or a charity as a fund-raising venture. Public and private investors have to
cooperate together to promote this new form of tourism that is fast increasing. Private investors
% public investment
% private investment
29
could help public authorities to built new infrastructures for cycling and then have the possibility to
open hotels, bars, ecc..
Figure 8: Percentage of public and private investment in different typologies of cycling infrastructure according to the two reports
“Analysis of public investment costs, inhibitors and externalities.” and “Analysis of private investment infrastructure”.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
100
Travel infrastructures
Bike parking and end of
facilities
Integration with public transport
Bike sharing Health insurances' investments
Cycle tourism
Public investment
Private investment
30
Typology of
cycling
infrastructure
Private investment in
cyclingExamples of investment
Combination of public and private
investment
On-road bicycle lanes. A stripe
separating bicycles from other
vehicles. These lanes occupy part of
existing roadway
Two way travel on one-way
streets. In this case bicycle can
travel in the opposite direction in one-
way streets.
Shared bus/bike lanes. Bicycles
are allowed to travel on bus lanes.
Bicycle Boulevards. These are
signed bicycle routes usually on low-
traffic streets.
Coloured lanes. Bicycle lanes
more visible thank to the use of colour.
Shared lane markings. Lanes
where both bicycles and cars can
travel.
Advanced stop lines. It's a
marked "box" where cyclist can wait
when traffic lights are red.
Cycle tracks. There is a physical
separation between motorized traffic
and cyclist instead of a simple stripe.
Off street paths. These are also
tracks that are completely separated
from motor vehicle traffic. They are
paved and usually pedestrian travel is
not allowed on them.
Traffic signals. Signals dedicated
to cyclist.
Way finding signage. Sings to
help cyclist to find directions for
prominent estimation.
Techniques to shorten cyclist'
routes. This category includes traffic
arrangements that facilitate cycling
traffic especially in intersection.
bike parking
bicycle rentals
bicycle repairs
bicycle washer
showers and change
rooms
The "Velocity"2025
(Manchester UK) master
plan from the Transport
for Greater Manchester
Committee shows how
public and private parties
can cooperate in
stimulating cycling. The
plan actively engages the
private sector to invest in
cycling infrastructure. The
"Barclays Cycle Hire"
(London, UK) is a good
example of combination
of public and private
investment. Initiated by
the municipal
government the private
investment involved is
substantial: Barclays (an
important bank in the UK)
contributed 25 million
pounds in exchange for
being the name carrier of
the prestigious project.
Mostly the local government is the
initiator of the program but the
investment is done by private
companies in exchange for
advertisement or for being name
carrier of the project.
What Municipalities have to do to
stimulate private investment in
cycling?
- An active campaign on cycling
can encourage private parties to
start investing in cycling;
- Giving the right example and
making a master plan on how
cycling should get a more
important position as a city’s
infrastructure;
- Think about different ways of
financing public cycling
infrastructure, using commercial
interest of private companies (like
the right to advertise in public
space);
- Keep on boosting cycling even if
there are political changes in the
public administration.
In this kind of investment the
private is the predominant part.
These end of trip facilities can
create new jobs (bicycle rentals,
repairs, washers…) or can be done
by enterprises to get better the
condition of their employees
(showers, bike parking,…)
bicycle washer
showers and change rooms
1. There are a lot of
examples of public
investment in cycling
infrastructures. We
suggest to take into
account the following
experiences (classified as
the best ones in the word
from a group of Danish
researchers): Hamburg,
Munich, Paris, Nantes,
Bordeaux, Budapest,
Barcelona, Seville,
Nagoya, Malmo,
Eindhoven, Utrecht,
Amsterdam, Antwerp,
Montreal and
Copenhagen.
2. Barclays Cycle Hire,
London Uk - Public &
Private investment;
3. Velocity, Manchester
UK - Public & Private
investment;
4. Crowdfunded bicycle
Lane, Memphis USA -
Public & Private
investment.
1. The 98 Bike Box,
Australia - Private
investment;
2. Bicycle End-of-trip
Facilities, a guide for
Canadian Municipalities -
Public & Private
investment.
Bike parking and
end of trip
facilities
mix
ed
tra
ffic
sep
arat
ed
tra
ffic
Public investment in cycling
oth
er
infr
astr
uct
ure
s
Travel
infrastructures
bike parking
bicycle rentals
bicycle repairs
31
Figure 9: Integration and synthesis of data reported in the two documents “Analysis of public investment costs, inhibitors and
externalities” and “Analysis of private investment infrastructure” prepared by BSC and by London Borough of Merton.
Typology of
cycling
investment
Private investment in
cyclingExamples of investment
Combination of public and private
investment
Integration of
cycling with
public
transportation
Private advertisement in
interconnection hot
spots.
1. The integrated
transport system of
Malmo - Public
investment.
This kind of investment is typically
public, but integrating bicycles
with other mean of transports,
municipalities can save money for
example investing less in busses.
Education and
Promotion
Some companies promote
between their employees
the use of bicycle to have
less health insurance
costs. There are also ONG
that use private funds to
promote the use of
bicycles.
1.Promoting cycle for
Copenhagen:
Copenhagenize - Public
investment;
2. London Cycling
Canpain - Private
investment.
To support educational and
promotional programs to
encourage the responsible use of
bicycle is very important for the
success of both public and private
investments in cycling. A good
example of mixed investment are
the Cycling Embassies (Dutch,
Danish, British).
Cycle tourism
Private companies, as
groups of hotel managers
or restaurateurs, could
invest on cycle tourism to
support this new form of
tourism.
1. Cycle Tourism,
Scotland - Private and
Public investment;
2. Cycling tourism
Program of the ECF -
Private & Public
investment.
Public and private investors have
to cooperate together to promote
this new form of tourism. Private
investors could help public
authorities to built new
infrastructures and then have the
possibility to open hotels, bars,
ecc..
Industry
alliances &
Professional
cycling
On the national but also
on the European level,
bike manufacturers unite
themselves in industry
networks.
Sponsoring professional
cycling teams by bicycle
manufacturers, or other
companies, can be seen
as private investment in
cycling.
1. Cycling Industry Club-
Private investment;
2. The UCI professional
team organisation -
Private investment.
More cyclists mean more bikes
and more bikes are good for
business. If cycling levels in
Europe matched those of
Denmark, we would sell 30 million
more bikes per year. Reason for
sponsoring a cycling team is
simple: getting good publicity and
eventually growing their market
share. Also these investments are
interesting in the light of growing
the total market for bicycles.
Health
insurances'
investments
Promoting cycling
towards their clients
could be an interesting
investment for insurance
companies.
1. Health program Quality
Bike Products (QBP),
USA.
This kind of investment is typically
private, but also public
administrations could benefit of
it, moreover in Countries where
the Health system is guaranteed
by National governments.
Extensive network of parking
spots for bicycles close to metro
and railway station as well as
central bus hub.
Promoting cycling is not only a
question of improving the
conditions for bicycles, but also
marketing cycling.
Public investment in cycling
Cycle tourism could become a
new profitable form of tourism.
For this reason could be
important for public
administration to invest on it.
Typology of
cycling
investment
Private investment in
cyclingExamples of investment
Combination of public and private
investment
Integration of
cycling with
public
transportation
Private advertisement in
interconnection hot
spots.
1. The integrated
transport system of
Malmo - Public
investment.
This kind of investment is typically
public, but integrating bicycles
with other mean of transports,
municipalities can save money for
example investing less in busses.
Education and
Promotion
Some companies promote
between their employees
the use of bicycle to have
less health insurance
costs. There are also ONG
that use private funds to
promote the use of
bicycles.
1.Promoting cycle for
Copenhagen:
Copenhagenize - Public
investment;
2. London Cycling
Canpain - Private
investment.
To support educational and
promotional programs to
encourage the responsible use of
bicycle is very important for the
success of both public and private
investments in cycling. A good
example of mixed investment are
the Cycling Embassies (Dutch,
Danish, British).
Cycle tourism
Private companies, as
groups of hotel managers
or restaurateurs, could
invest on cycle tourism to
support this new form of
tourism.
1. Cycle Tourism,
Scotland - Private and
Public investment;
2. Cycling tourism
Program of the ECF -
Private & Public
investment.
Public and private investors have
to cooperate together to promote
this new form of tourism. Private
investors could help public
authorities to built new
infrastructures and then have the
possibility to open hotels, bars,
ecc..
Industry
alliances &
Professional
cycling
On the national but also
on the European level,
bike manufacturers unite
themselves in industry
networks.
Sponsoring professional
cycling teams by bicycle
manufacturers, or other
companies, can be seen
as private investment in
cycling.
1. Cycling Industry Club-
Private investment;
2. The UCI professional
team organisation -
Private investment.
More cyclists mean more bikes
and more bikes are good for
business. If cycling levels in
Europe matched those of
Denmark, we would sell 30 million
more bikes per year. Reason for
sponsoring a cycling team is
simple: getting good publicity and
eventually growing their market
share. Also these investments are
interesting in the light of growing
the total market for bicycles.
Health
insurances'
investments
Promoting cycling
towards their clients
could be an interesting
investment for insurance
companies.
1. Health program Quality
Bike Products (QBP),
USA.
This kind of investment is typically
private, but also public
administrations could benefit of
it, moreover in Countries where
the Health system is guaranteed
by National governments.
Extensive network of parking
spots for bicycles close to metro
and railway station as well as
central bus hub.
Promoting cycling is not only a
question of improving the
conditions for bicycles, but also
marketing cycling.
Public investment in cycling
Cycle tourism could become a
new profitable form of tourism.
For this reason could be
important for public
administration to invest on it.
Citizen investments
The presence of a bike path or trail has a positive effect on the value of property near that trail. For this reason citizens could invest in cycling
1. Crowd-funded Bicycle Lane, Memphis, USA 2. Bicycle tax in Amsterdam
Public administration should give some incentives to private citizens who want to invest in cycling.
32
4. Cost and Benefit analysis for private and public investment in
cycling
4.1 What is a cost and benefit analysis?
A world widely used systematic process for calculating and comparing gains (benefits) and costs of
projects, decisions and policies is the Cost-Benefit Analysis [CBA], which is the officially suggested
assessment tool for investment financed by EU funds, in order:
to determine if it is a sound investment (justification / feasibility),
to see how it compares with alternative projects (ranking / priority assignment).
Since there is a long history of evaluation of major transport projects such as motorways, railways,
etc., CBA may also be proven a helpful tool to demonstrate cycling’s potential. A CBA on cycling
should follow somehow the same methodology as regular CBA’s. Therefore, we first give a short
introduction on how this method is used for other infrastructure than cycling, such as road
infrastructure for cars. The methodology of the CBA for infrastructure has developed more and
more towards Social Cost Benefit Analysis, including ‘soft’ factors besides ‘hard’ effects reflected by
real behavior and real economic value.
Social Cost Benefit Analyses (SCBA) are used in many western countries as evaluation tool for
infrastructure projects ex ante (Mouter et al., 2013). Making a SCBA gives insight to policymakers
and the public into the costs and benefits of an infrastructure project or several alternatives. Not
only the simple costs of building a road, bridge or rail track are included but also ‘soft costs’ such as
damage to nature, pollution and accidents are taken into account. On the benefit side a SCBA
calculates the benefits of a certain infrastructure project to society in terms of welfare. These
benefits stem from all kind of aspects such as travel time gains, better accessibility, safer traffic
environment, agglomeration effects and so on.
In the academic spheres as well as in public policy the Societal Cost Benefit Analysis can count on
some critics as well (Beukers et al, 2012; ). Those critics mainly focus on the problems of quantifying
‘soft’ factors due to an infrastructure project, such as effects on nature. However, translating these
33
soft factors into money makes it possible to involve them into the analysis so that a decision is far
better supported.
An important methodological issue when performing a CBA is the type of data in terms of revealed
or stated preferences. Revealed Preference (RP) shows the real effect of a certain investment or
project on consumer behavior. It is the preference of people shown by hard data on their actual
behavior. For many effects we want to include in CBA’s it is not easy (or impossible) to get data on
revealed preferences. The value of nature or biodiversity in case of building a road near a forest for
instance, cannot be measured out of real consumer behavior. In these cases we can ask people how
much they think this piece of nature or biodiversity is worth. This is called Stated Preference (SP).
In summary, a CBA attempts to measure the positive or negative consequences of a project, which
may include:
1. Effects on users or participants
2. Effects on non-users or non-participants
3. Externality effects
4. Option value or other social benefits.
4.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis for private and public investment in cycling In the third chapter we have provided an indicative list of cycling investment that can be target of
public or private programs. It becomes apparent from that list that there is a variety of alternative
routes that can be followed by each investor. The selected solutions will be a reflection of their
policy objectives and priorities in conjunction with the limitations set by financial, political and
public preference constraints. In order to do that each public administration or private company
considers expected costs and benefits associated to an investment and decides taking into account
all other pertinent factors.
In the following page it’s proposed a roadmap that should be followed performing a CB analysis.
This roadmap comes out the elaboration of the London Borough of Merton experience.
34
1. PROBLEM ANALYSIS Why is an investment in cycling necessary? What problem will it solve?
2. FORMULATING ALTERNATIVES It’s important to find all the possible solutions to the problem analysis
2a. ZERO ALTERNATIVES Research on all the Best practices to solve similar problems
3. NAMING EFFECTS It’s necessary to make a list of effect, we expect to happen as a result of the formulated alternatives.
4. SCOPE OF EFFECTS Collection of quantitative data to determine parameters for all affects. Many of these parameters may be location specific.
5. MONETIZE EFFECTS For all effects we manage to collect parameters we can calculate the effects in euro’s. With parameters on traffic accidents and the value of preventing a deadly victim of an accident, we can calculate the societal benefits of building a safer cycling path which means less deadly victims in traffic accidents.
5a. MAKING COST AND BENEFITS
COMPARABLE In order to make alternatives comparable we transfer all costs and benefits to Net Present Values. An overview of all NPV’s for different alternatives is useful in the decision making process of weighing different interventions such as constructing a new bike path versus a cycling promotion campaign.
6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS In the last step we ‘play’ with some parameters to give insight in the effect of specific parts of a measure.
7. FINAL DECISION
35
4.3 Drivers and inhibitors
There are different drivers or inhibitors that can facilitate or prevent investments in cycling. These
elements are important to be considered to do a correct CBA.
First of all is necessary a solid collaboration between national and local authorities and private
companies. Public administration have to give the right example. Which could mean financially
invest in cycling infrastructure themselves, but it could also be by providing a master plan on how
cycling should get a more important position in a city’s infrastructure.
It’s also important to set out a national/local approach to prioritize future investments in capital
and revenue spend on cycling, and challenges policy makers to ensure that programs are in place
to influence, enable and encourage individuals, families and communities to take part in physical
activity and adopt active travel choices. Increasing cycling levels will have a dramatic impact on the
PUBLIC engagement PRIVATE engagement
Encourage individuals to use bicycles as mean of transport.
This is possible giving them:
1 Safety;
2 Available infrastructures;
And
3 Improving the image of
cycling
This is possible giving them:
1 Safety;
2 Available infrastructures;
And
3 Improving the image of
cycling
have to work together to
It the uptake of cycling by citizens is
positive: GOOD INVESTMENT
It the uptake of cycling by citizens is
negative: BAD INVESTMENT
Inhibitors - financial constraints; - institutional barriers; - insufficient understand-ding of technical issue; -lack of public and road space
Drivers - incentives and funding coming from European projects; - a strong local commitment (citizens, associations,..); - political support
Inhibitors - bureaucracy problems;
- irregular interventions on the territory made by the
local authorities; - technical competences
Drivers - use commercial interest; - use image of cycling to grow cycle market; - a local master plan made by public authorities; - new sectors of investments
36
region’s health and economic prospects. A high quality network of cycle routes that are fit for
purpose, connecting people to the places they want to go to, alongside infrastructure
improvements and a comprehensive program of training and support are instrumental to bring
about a cultural shift to cycling. Achieving greater levels of sustainable transport into and around
the regional centre are critical to continue on a trajectory of growth and prosperity, not least with
regard to city centre living. Moreover it’s necessary, in order to estimate both the costs and the
benefits from cycling, to estimate the uptake of cycling by the citizens. The portion of population
that will shift towards cycling affects both the costs and the benefits. Generally if a low uptake is
expected, then the cost will probably outweigh the benefits, and thus the investment might not be
undertaken.
4.4 Cost and Benefit of bicycles
COST
Infrastructure costs consist of the construction costs of a cycle lane or other peace of infrastructure
but also contains the maintenance costs and operational costs.
- Infrastructure costs. These are the costs associated with the initial construction of an
infrastructure and are expenses that occur only once. They can range from relatively low (e.g. the
installation of signs and traffic management equipment) to intermediate (e.g. construction of bike
lanes on the existing road network) to high (e.g. construction of bicycle tracks and off-road paths).
Separated bicycle lane On-road bicycle lane
Asphalt 55,52 € 49,18 €
Red asphalt 66,71 € 60,37 €
Concrete 54,32 € 54,32 €
Red concrete 63,84 € 63,84 €
Concrete (better foundation) 64,14 € 64,14 €
Red Concrete (better foundation) 73,65 € 73,65 €
Bricks 71,79 € 65,44 €
Red Bricks 77,94 € 71,60 €
Figure 10: Example- cost of bicycle lanes in Belgium in 2014.
37
Type Dollar Euros Unit
Bicycle lane 65,53 $ 51,93 € Per meter (wide: 1,5 m)
Pavement marking 9,58 $ 7,59 € Per meter
Traffic light 5’611,40 $ 4’447,30 € Each
Bike rough signage 160,82 $ 127,46 € Each
Figure 11: Example- Costs of different types of infrastructure in the U.S. in 2013.st of bicycle lanes in Belgium in 2014.
Cost per meter UK pounds Euros
Bicycle lane with major junctions 746,75 £ 950,82 €
Bicycle lane with simple junctions 271,52 £ 345,72 €
Bicycle lane on bus lane 40,74 £ 51,88 €
Traffic calmed / managed area 271,52 £ 345,72 €
White line 2,91 £ 3,71 €
Raised white line 13,39 £ 17,05 €
Cycle logo (each) 30,56 £ 38,91 €
Figure 12: Example- Costs of different types of infrastructure in the U.K. in 2014.
1 km of……. Is equivalent to ……. Km of bikeway
RAIL 29 Km
ROAD 110 km
BUS WAY 138 Km
ROAD WITH TUNNELS 324 Km
UNDERGROUND RAIL 533 Km
Figure 13: Comparison between cycle infrastructure cost and the infrastructure cost of the other mean of transport.
38
- Infrastructure Maintenance Costs. After constructing any infrastructure and releasing it for public
usage, the continuous and gradual degradation of its properties begins. This degradation can be a
result of the usage, it can also be the result of other environmental factors. According to the
Municipality of Milan these maintenance costs are 1700€ per Kilometer each year.
- Operational costs. Some types of investment do not only have maintenance costs, but also have
operational costs. These are not related to the physical degradation of the investment, but are
related to its normal operations. A good example would be the salaries of personnel operating bike-
sharing system, the energy consumption of lights install above an off-road bike path and the energy
consumption of traffic lights for cyclists.
Figure 14: Investment costs, operating costs and maintenance costs of the Philadelphia Bike-sharing system in Fiscal Years 2014 –
2020.
- Promotion / Training Costs. A different type of cost is related to the resources spent in order to
ensure that the efficiency and effectiveness of an infrastructure is maximized. A good example
would be the resources spent in order to increase public awareness and mitigate common
misperceptions. To have a practical example in Munich for the promotion cost were allocated 0,70 €
for each inhabitants.
39
BENEFITS
The adoption of cycling can have significant impact in mitigating a variety of the costs associated
both with the usage of public and private transportation methods. Indicatively it is worth
considering the following aspects where cycling can play an important role in saving time and
money.
- Time cost. In London, Cologne, Amsterdam and Brussels, car drivers spend more than 50 hours a
year in road traffic jams. In Utrecht, Manchester and Paris, they spend more than 70 hours stuck on
roads. Cyclist could save time getting faster to work using cycle lanes.
Studies Valuation of Time by bicyclists
Wardman et al. (2007) €18,17 per hour (Revealed Preference)
Strangeby (1997) €10,17 per hour (Stated Preference)
Borjesson & Eliasson (2012) €15,90 per hour on the street €10,50 per hour on bike paths
Figure 15: Overview of valuation of time by bicyclists.
- Congestion. Congestion costs Europe about 1% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) every year.
- Vehicle Operating Costs. 13.2% of every household's budget is spent on average on transport
goods and services.
- Transit synergies. Cycling should be treated as a complement to public transportation rather than
a competitor. To this end measures that facilitate the integration of both methods of transportation
can have an important role. A successful policy in this case would have significant impact on the
effectiveness and efficiency of both methods of transportation. Short trips would become faster,
while the ability to use public transportation would allow for the bicycle to be used for more distant
destinations, thus increasing its flexibility. This complementarity would elevate the profile of both
transportation methods and make them more attractive to a larger part of the population,
especially the youngest segments.
40
- Health. Frequent use of the bicycle for commuting as well as leisure activities is a very good way
to have regular physical activity. This reduces symptoms of a sedentary lifestyle, increases fitness
and improves overall health. The gains for society come in form of reduced healthcare costs, which
can mitigate most of the investment costs if a significant modal shift is achieved.
- Cycling Tourism. The creation of a cycling network can also have a positive impact on economic
activity resulting in economic growth. Cycling Tourism is a good example. The existence of
appropriate cycling routes can be attractive to a specialized and growing segment of tourism
activity.
4.5 Assessment examples of CBA
Copenhagen
In order to be able to perform a cost benefit analysis, it is firstly necessary to quantify the impact
from cycling and establish “unit prices” for cycling activities. The result is a monetization of actual
effects; these figures are subsequently comparable to cost figures related to an investment. A good
example for this is a Danish study which developed a methodology and used available data to
determine unit prices for cycling. The latter were then used to perform a cost benefit analysis and
assess two cycling investments (a bridge and an intersection). In order to calculate the unit prices in
this study they took into account the following parameters related to cycling (although not all of
them are relevant for unit price calculations):
Effect for the economic CBA Methodology to quantify traffic effects Data requirement
Vehicle operating costs Change in vehicle kilometer by mode, i.e.
for different motorized vehicles, public
transportation and bicycles.
Traffic counts and/or modeling.
Time cost Change in transport time by transport
mode
Traffic counts and/or modeling.
Accident cost Change in the number of accidents with
and without bicycles involved.
Accident registrations, traffic counts
and/or modeling.
41
Pollution and externalities Change in vehicle kilometers for each
mode of transportation.
Traffic counts and/or modeling.
Recreational Value Change in cycle kilometers and cyclists’
statements.
Interviews and traffic counts and/or
modeling.
Health Benefits Change in cycle kilometers. Traffic counts and/or modeling.
Safety Change in the number of accidents,
cyclist statements and change in cycle
kilometers.
Accident registrations, interviews and
traffic counts and/or modeling
Discomfort Change in cycle kilometers. Traffic counts and/or modeling.
Branding Value Not a traffic effect. -
Value for urban open spaces Not a traffic effect. -
System Benefits Change in cycle kilometers. Traffic counts and/or modeling.
Figure 16: Methodology to quantify traffic effects. Source, Economic evaluation of cycle projects – methodology and unit prices,
2009, COWI, City of Copenhagen.
Using data collected on those parameters they were able to calculate average costs (benefits) per
kilometer for cycling. However their approach is limited by the fact that for some cases no model
exists that can perform such calculations. They separate cycling costs into internal and external. The
distinction is similar to the distinction between direct and indirect costs. Therefore, internal costs
are the ones that affect the cyclist’s decision process, because the directly affect him/her. On the
contrary external costs are the ones creating externalities to third persons. It is assumed that these
costs (benefits) do not enter the cyclists’ decision process. The average unit cost per kilometer for
cycling estimated using this methodology is shown in the following table.
Cycling (16 Km/h) Car (50 Km/h)
Internal External TOTAL Internal External Duties TOTAL
hydrocarbons (PAH), methane (CH4), heavy metals (HM).
“Air pollution is bad for our health. It reduces human life expectancy by more than eight months on average and by more than two years in the most polluted cities and regions. Member States must comply with EU air quality standards quickly and reduce air pollutant emissions.”
Janez Potočnik, EU Commissioner for the Environment
Europe’s air quality has not always improved in line with the general decrease of anthropogenic
(human-caused) emissions of air pollutants. Reasons for this are complex:
there is not always a clear linear relationship between decreasing emissions and the
concentrations of air pollutants observed in the air;
there is a growing contribution of long-distance transport of air pollutants to Europe from
other countries in the northern hemisphere.
57
Targeted efforts to reduce emissions are therefore still required to further protect human health
and the environment in Europe.
Industrialized countries have worked to reduce levels of sulfur dioxide, smog, and smoke in order to
improve people's health. But a result, not predicted until recently, is that the lower sulfur dioxide
levels may actually make global warming worse. Just as sulfur dioxide from volcanoes can cool the
planet by blocking sunlight, cutting the amount of the compound in the atmosphere lets more
sunlight through, warming the Earth. This effect is exaggerated when elevated levels of other
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap the additional heat.
Most people agree that to curb global warming, a variety of measures need to be taken. On a
personal level, driving and flying less, recycling, and conservation reduces a person’s "carbon
footprint"—the amount of carbon dioxide a person is responsible for putting into the atmosphere.
On a larger scale, governments are taking measures to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases. One way is through the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement between countries that
they will cut back on carbon dioxide emissions. Another method is to put taxes on carbon emissions
or higher taxes on gasoline, so that people and companies will have greater incentives to conserve
energy and pollute less. The motor vehicle engine emits many types of pollutants including nitrogen
Assessment (hereafter EIA) is the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and
mitigating the relevant environmental impacts from projects prior to decisions being taken
and commitments made.
These two directives aren’t used only to transport plans and infrastructures but in general to all the
programs that control the territory and the projects that modify it.
The Municipality that decides to invest in cycling has better to prepare a new Sustainable
Transportation Plan. This plan integrates all public transports with bicycles. What would a
sustainable transportation system look like?
Transportation planners and providers must continuously struggle with the trade-offs between the
economic and societal benefits of transportation and the associated unsustainable environmental,
safety, health, ecosystem, and equity impacts. A sustainable transportation system requires a
culture that not only sees sustainability as desirable but also accepts the inclusion of sustainability
concepts in the transportation planning process and supports the tough decisions necessary to
make sustainability a priority. The public and policy makers in this culture will understand and
71
consider potential solutions, such as integrated land use and transportation and innovative public
transportation (for example, bus rapid transit and car sharing).
This Plan has to be guide and control trough a SEA. To obtain good results from this European tool
it’s important for the Municipality to invest more in sustainable way of transports, as bicycles are.
After that the Municipalities have to realize the infrastructures and interventions reported in the
Plan. These Municipalities could save money investing in cycling rather than in other way of
transports (as cars, busses, trains,…) because cycling lanes don’t require an EIA analysis that is
obligatory to build new roads, bridges, highways ecc.
5.4.2 Existing tools to calculate the environmental impacts for transport and cycling
1) The Global Environment Facility (GEF)2
The primary purpose of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is to generate global environmental
benefit. The essential path for achieving this goal is the financial support of projects whose
completion delivers substantial, measurable reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG). The GEF is
committed not only to supporting the national and regional goals of each group, but to extending,
as far as possible, the results of these projects so that they contribute to the reduction of
greenhouse gases (GHG) on a global scale. the GEF developed a manual detailing specific
methodologies for calculating the GHG impacts of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean
energy technology projects. This new Manual provides the first methodology designed specifically
for projects in the transportation sector. The GEF models are designed to develop ex-ante
estimations of the GHG impacts of transport interventions (projects) as accurately as possible,
without requiring data so exacting that it discourages investment in the sector. The methodology
provides uniformity in the calculations and assumptions used to estimate the GHG impact over a
very diverse array of potential projects. These include projects that:
• Improve the efficiency of transportation vehicles and fuels;
• Improve public and non-motorized transportation modes;
2 Manual for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Global Environment Facility Transportation Projects. Prepared by
the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy for the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility.
72
• Price and manage transport systems more efficiently;
• Train drivers in eco-driving;
• Package multiple strategies as comprehensive, integrated implementation packages.
Sequence of the GEF Methodology:
Even though there is a vast variability in the types of GEF projects, there is a consistent sequence
that is followed in calculating CO2 emission reductions for a GEF application:
1. Establish a baseline: Calculate the estimated baseline emissions of the scenario without a GEF
intervention. The baseline emissions estimation will be compared against the estimated GHG
emissions reduction achieved by the GEF project. When using TEEMP3 models to find direct impact,
no separate baseline need be established in this step because TEEMP models automatically
calculate a baseline by using a market-shed analysis approach. Instead, the user should be sure to
input all dependable local transport data that is available into the TEEMP model. If dependable local
data is unavailable, default values are provided.
2. Calculate the direct emissions impact for the GEF scenario. This includes all GEF and co-financing
investments that are tracked in the logframe during the project’s implementation. The difference
between this GEF project scenario emissions and the baseline emissions equals the direct emission
impact of the project. If TEEMP models are used, this figure is the model‘s main output.
3. Estimate the direct post-project emission reductions, if any are expected. Direct post-project
impacts occur beyond the supervised timetable of the project. They result when a financial
mechanism, established as part of a project, remains in place and keeps providing support for GHG-
reducing investments beyond the lifetime of the project.
3 Transport Emissions Evaluation Models for Projects - TEEMP. Transport projects can either lead to net increase in GHG
(Green House Gasses) and air pollutant emissions or they can result in emissions savings. TEEMP primarily evaluates the impacts of transport projects on CO2 emissions and to some extent air pollutant emissions using data gathered during project feasibility and actual operations. The TEEMP tools have been developed in such a way that required input data are based on what data is available and easily accessible. This tool is free and available on this webpage http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/TEEMPTool.
4. Calculate the indirect emission reductions. These are reductions that occur from replication and
market expansion outside of the logframe or in the post-project period which have a “causal” link to
the GEF intervention. If it is appropriate for the situation, use both the Bottom-up and the Top
down methodologies to create a range of potential impacts. In some cases, only the Bottom-up
method will make sense. For certain types of transportation interventions, accepted (default)
replication rates based on observed impacts can be used.
Figure 41: Steps for Data Collection and Development of Baselines, Impact Estimations, and Calibration over GEF
Transport Project Lifetime. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York.
Local transport sector data
GEF default values & transport
emission evaluation models for projects
Ex- Ante (No-Project) Baseline Established
Lifetime Direct impact from Project
Transport Efficency Methodology
Public Trasport Methodology
Transport demand Management Methodology
Comprehensive Trasport Strategy
Methodology Project impact reported and data used to calibrate GEF Default sector Values & GHG
Reduction rates
Non-Motorized Transport
Methodology
Top-Down estimate total potential with
Causality
Range of indirect Project Impacts (based on replication)
Estimate Direct Post-
Project Effects
Is there a post-project
financial mechanism?
Estimate Direct Post-
Project Effects
Add in any direct secondary effects and apply a causality factor
Bottom-Up Replication
factor
Estimate Indirect Project
impacts
Yes
No
74
2) Evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes using an integrated
methodology and an application4.
Measuring the environmental effects of transportation modes may be a complex process because
of the different criteria which approach to the subject from different aspects. Under certain
conditions, determining the effects of transportation modes on environment may seem more
explicit. However, the criteria that contain uncertainties or cannot be given precisely are usually
expressed in linguistic terms by decision makers. This makes a mathematical procedure called
“fuzzy logic”5 a more natural approach to these kinds of assessment. This method connects
different ways of transport (road, railway, sea, air, multimodal) to different environmental
categories: noise, emission reduction, effects on open land, undesirable view, safety, energy
resources utilization, transportation capacity of the vehicle, infrastructure of the transportation
network, seasonal affect. This to find according to the path to do the best way of transport.
Figure 42: Hierarchical structure of the criteria and alternatives according to the “Evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes using an integrated methodology”.
4 Department of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Faculty, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.
5 Fuzzy set theory was introduced by Zadeh (1965) to deal with vague, imprecise and uncertain problems. This theory
has been used as a modeling tool for complex systems that are hard to define precisely, but can be controlled and operated by humans.
75
5.4.3 Proposition of new assessment methodology and conclusion
We proposed to use the “Global Environment Facility” methodology to calculate the environmental
cost that a Municipality or a State could save supporting cycling investment instead of other kind of
transport investment.
Moreover we have adapted the “Evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes
using an integrated methodology and an application” methodology to a local scale. We have used
the environmental impact, reported in paragraph 5.2.5 plus the categories foreseen in the Istanbul
methodology, according to the following scheme.
Figure 43: Hierarchical structure of the criteria and alternatives to determinate the most environmentalist transportation at urban scale.
From the scheme above is clear that the most environmentalist transportation at urban scale are
trams, bicycles and promenades. For this reason we suggest to local Authorities to favor in their
sustainable transport plans an inter-modality scheme using trams and bicycles.
Ener
gy u
se
Gre
en h
ou
se g
asse
s
Air
qu
alit
y
Inte
r-m
od
alit
y
Qu
alit
y u
rban
spac
es/u
se o
f so
il
Cars Trams Buses Bicycles
Safe
ty
Pro
du
ctio
n c
ost
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
ca
pac
ity
No
ise
Seas
on
al a
ffec
ts
Determining the most environmentalist transportation mode
Pedestrians
76
To complete the environmental impact analysis it’s necessary to report the positive or negative
consequences of a project in cycling , which may include:
1. Effects on users or participants
More eco-friendly projects effect the users and the participants in the quality of air that they have
to breath and so also their health.
2. Effets on non-user or non-participants
The effects on the non-user are also connected to a better air quality cause by the reduction of
traffic.
3. Externality effects
The externality effects could be:
- reduction of CO2;
- better air quality;
- less noise;
- less energy and resources use;
- better land use
- ………….
4. Option value or other social benefits
According to all the externality effects it’s possible to give a better quality of life for all the citizens:
safer, healthier and greener urban spaces.
It’s also important to integrate this environmental impact analysis to the cost and benefit analysis in
public and private investment. So we proposed to use the final table reported in the fourth chapter
and then to compare it with the environmental results.
Here below it’s reported, as conclusion, a new final table to follow to obtain a global CBA for
investments in cycling using the tool presented in this report.
77
Figure 44: CBA methodologies and tools for investments in cycling using the experiences presented in this report.
CATEGORIES CBA Tools and Methodologies to use
Environment The GEEF Methodology and the TEEMP tool
(http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/TEEMPTool)
Transportation
Travel time and costs
Vehicle operating costs
The Economic evaluation of cycle project Methodology – City of
Copenhagen- and the tool reported in the figure 9 (page 34 of this report)
http://www.ecf.com/ Eurovelo, the European cycle route network. http://www.eurovelo.org/ GEEF Methodology and the TEEMP tool. http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/TEEMPTool
Institute for Sensible Transport – Queensland, Australia. http://www.sensibletransport.org.au/ Sustainable mobility. http://www.sustainable-mobility.org/getting-around-today/two-wheels.html
European cycle tourism: a tool for sustainable regional rural development. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/164816/2/19_Piket.pdf The Economic evaluation of cycle project Methodology – City of Copenhagen. http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Economic%20evaluation%20of%20cycle%20projects.pdf) The Europe Health Economic Assessment Tool – HEAT. http://heatwalkingcycling.org/
The Danish Cycling Embassy. www.cycling-embassy.dk The Victoria Transport Policy Institute http://www.vtpi.org/ United Nations Environment Programme, environment for development. http://www.unep.org/