stadsregio presentatie 10 oktober 2016

Ex-ante appraisal of cycling policiesTowards a holistic framework for social cost-benefit analysis

Paolo Ruffino

Content of the presentation

• Introduction

• Research process

• Theoretical underpinnings

• Methodology

• Results

• Policy recommendations

• Conclusions

Research aim and question

Aim:

• How can the effects of cycling policies be appraised in ex-ante assessment from a holistic perspective?

Questions:

1. What are the determinants of bicycle use?

2. What are the effects of bicycle policies?

3. How can such effects be appraised from a holistic perspective?

4. What are the main benefits and the costs of investing in fast cycle routes byapplying this perspective?

5. What are the opportunities and limitations can be identified in theapplication of this approach to social cost-benefit analysis?

Process

Theoretical underpinnings

Individual features - - - - - - - - - -

Travel experience

Climate

Landscape & built

environment

Social economic and technological

development

Political and culturalcontext

Cycling policies

Exogenous factors

Generalised costs of cycling

Generalised costs of other modes

Travel time, cost, distance

Vehicle ownership operating costs

Physical energy

Supply of Public Transport

Vehicle ownership and operating costs

Endogenous factors

Direct effect

Indirect effect

Bike use

Bicycleuse

Demand management

• Upgrade, expansion of realisation of physical infrastructure

• Traffic management improvements

• Road redesign (reduce parking supply, road space shrink, pedestrian areas

• Traffic laws• Market-based instruments (monetary incentives)• Non-monetary incentives• Communication programmes• Education programmes• Integration with public transport• Introduction bicycle sharing systems

• Contain land-use• Promote densification • Promote mixed urban

functions• Location-efficient

development

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

The Netherlands(2010)

Denmark (2009) Germany (2015) Norway (2016) United States(2009)

United Kingdom(2010)

Money spent on cycling infrastructure (€/person)

Money spent on cycling infrastructure (€/person)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

The Netherlands Denmark Germany Norway United Kingdom United States

Modal share of cycling (2016)

Modal share of cycling

Quality and design

Shared space Bike lanes Segregation

Attractiveness of cycling

“Notably, the attractiveness of cycling is inversely linked to the attractiveness of

car driving, and measures to re-designate car lanes and car parking are both

psychologically important to support cyclist identities, and physically necessary

to accommodate growing cyclist populations” (Gossling & Choi, 2015)

Average: -21,9%

Median: -10,6%

Supply management approach

Happiness

Freedom

Equity

Health

Productivity

Environmental

sustainability

FlexibilityPrivate Savings

Tourism

Less congestion

Less traffic

accidents

Noise reduction

Effects of Cycling Policies

• Internal vs external

• Intended vs unintended

• Direct vs indirect

• Prized vs non-prized

• Factors affecting their magnitude:

• Number of users and amount increase

• Type of bicycle (e-bike, normal bike...)

• Travel purpose

• Exogenous factors

Holistic appraisal

Methodology

•Desk research (statistical / policy document analysis / Bike Print)

•Field research (VU seminar / qualitative analysis)

•Unstructured / semi-structured interviews

•3 feedback sessions

•2 expert panels

•Social cost-benefit analysis of fast cycle route

Qualitative problem analysis

• Bad asphalt quality

• Unsafe intersections

• Mixed traffic

• Noise

• Bushes on the cycle path

• Sometimes indistinguishable path

Quantitative problem analysisStretch (Figure) Speed Based on (source)

Stretch 1 – 3 12 km/h 67 cyclists (bikeprint, 2015)

Stretch 3 – 5 10 km/h 53 cyclists (bikeprint, 2015)

Stretch 5 – 6 18 km/h 22 cyclists (bikeprint, 2015)

Stretch 6 – 8 16 km/h 56 cyclists (bikeprint, 2015)

Stretch 8 – 9 10 km/h 66 cyclists (bikeprint, 2015)

Stretch 9 – 10 16 km/h 52 cyclists (bikeprint, 2015)

Stretch 10 – 11 17 km/h 38 cyclists (bikeprint, 2015)

Total path 14 km/h (average) 50 cyclists (bikeprint, 2015)

Lower than the average:

Amsterdam average = 16km/h

Low-medium urbanised = 18 km/h

(CBS, 2015; BikePrint, 2015)

Quantitative problem analysis

N° intersections / otherstarts & stops

Total waiting time in min (sec)

Based on (source)

11 3 min (conservative) 50 cyclists (bikeprint, 2015)

Quantitative problem analysis

Increasing traffic

Strong economic growth

Strong land development

Quantitative problem analysis

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Motorised traffic development on N201/N196

Weekdays Intensity Working days Intensity

Freight Total average motorised traffic

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

CO2/t a year

CO2/tYear CO2/t CH4/kg NO2/kg PM10/kg

2010 23856,495 3087,5 325,0 26

2030 30299,217 3921,3 412,8 31

Cycling also losing appeal among Schiphol Employees

• Largest target group in the area

43.746.3

52

20.2

24.8

21.520.9

16.714.8

2008 2010 2013

Car Public transport Bicycle

Auto (alone)48%

Public transport20%

Bicycle15%

Other17%

Mode choice < 10 km

Auto (alone) Public transport Bicycle Other

Downward

trend

cycling

Upward

trend car

use

Intervention

• Fast cycle route:

• High quality asphalt

• Wind schield

• Prioritised

• Reduced intersectios (safety)

• Option value

• Amenity value

• Attractor of tourism

• Behavioural campaign

Supply management approach

Method

• Geographical – temporal definition

• Impact model

• Pre-post estimates

• Valuation

• Methodological consideration:

• Uncertainty incorporation = conservative estimates + scenarios

• Better approximately right than precisely wrong approach

Scope

Time frame:

15 years

Gepographical scope:

Project level – Regional level and

(partially global)

Definition based on origin /

destination of cyclists (BikePrint +

OViN, 2015 and CBS, 2015)

Pro

ject

leve

lLo

cal l

evel

Reg

ion

al t

o

glo

bal

Short term

Reduced Travel Time

Increased Comfort

Increased value of option

Increased Travel Speed

Reduced Risk of Injury

Medium-term

Increased amenity value

Increase bicyle use

Health benefits

Long-term

Policy implementation: Fast cycle route

Increased productivity

More contact possibilities

Decreased car use

Decreased noise pollution

Decreased environmental

externalities

Increased energy saving

Prolongued lifeHappiness & Well-being

Tourism & Branding

Climate change

Generalised costs of cycling

Congestion

Road deterioration

LegendaAccounted

Not accounted

Natural system

Support system

Human system

Estimate of bicycle use

0

2000

4000

6000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Daily bike trips baseline estimates

Observed bike trips (based on pop growth rate)

Observed bike trips (traffic model)

Estimated bike trips

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Bicycle use scenarios(Cyclists/day)

Baseline Pessimistic scenario Realistic scenario Optimistic scenario

Very conservative estimates!

Valuation

• Travel time savings

Indicator Before After Difference

Travel speed 14km/h 18 km/h + 4 km/h Bikeprint (2015)

Time spent

travelling

18 min 14 min 4 min Bikeprint (2015)

Waiting time 3 min 1 min 2 min Est.

Parking time 1 min 1 min - Est.

Walking time Unknown Unknown -

Total time 22 min 16 min -6 min Estimated

Value of Time Value utilitarian trip Value

recreational trip

Method

Value of time spent

travelling

€ 0,21/min €0,16/min WTP + Mode choice

experiment (research

seminar)Value of waiting time € 0,14/min €0,10/min

Value of walking

time

€ 0,036/min € 0,036/min

Value of searching

time

€ 0,021/min € 0,021/min

Travel time savings

Pessimistic Realistic Optimistic

€1.114.168,28 € 1.592.670,92 € 2.109.626,92

Together with

Travel time reliability

Pessimistic Realistic Optimistic

€ 216.732,54 € 310.724,13 € 412.269,06

Valuation

Health benefits

Pessimistic Realistic OptimisticPrevented

deaths/year13% 13% 13%

Reduced risk of

mortality0.24 0.82 1.45

Discounted total

benefit in 15 years€ 2.059.000 € 7.096.000 € 12.536.000

HEAT Tool (World Health Organisation, 2014)

Other valuesCosts Measure Source

Construction costs

(incl. material / labour)

Direct market price measurement

(€)

Stadsregio

Amsterdam (2016);

Interviews

Maintenance costs Direct market price measurement

(€/year)

Stadsregio

Amsterdam (2016);

Interviews

(reduced)

Environmental costs of

car use & freight

Shadow prices (emissions damage

impact) (€/vkt)

CBS (2016); de Bruyn

et al. (2010)

(reduced) Congestion

costs

WTP / less hours in traffic Stadsregio

Amsterdam (2015)

Benefits Measure Source

Increased comfort WTP (€/min) Van Ginkel (2014)

Prolonged life VSL (additional cyclist) TNO (2012)

Option Value WTP (€/vkt) Literature proxy:

Litman (2016)

Increased productivity Productivity (€/new cyclists) – less

sick days

Literature proxy:

Decisio (2013)

Tourism & Branding (€/vkt) Literature proxy

No double counting with

Health!

Differential discounting applied:

3% on general effects (Romijn & Renes,

2013)

No discounting for pollution (the less now

the less costly in the future!)

5% health and only 90% of group (WHO,

2014)

Results

Benefits Pessimistic Realistic Optimistic

Travel Time Savings € 1.114.168,28 € 1.592.670,92 € 2.109.626,92

Comfort € 216.732,54 € 310.724,13 € 412.269,06

Option Value € 875.623,73 € 875.623,73 € 875.623,73

Productivity € 38.972,50 € 134.294,65 € 237.277,06

Health € 2.059.000,00 € 7.096.000,00 € 12.536.000,00

Tourism & Branding € 54.013,11 € 54.013,11 € 54.013,11

Reliability future traffic € 278.542,07 € 398.167,73 € 527.406,73

Life years € 15.589,00 € 53.717,86 € 94.910,83

Sound € 25.877,74 € 44.942,17 € 65.538,65

Pollution € 7.794,50 € 26.858,93 € 47.455,41

Total (disc) Benefits € 4.559.711,23 € 10.360.530,27 € 16.625.730,61

Costs

Construction € 6.594.000 € 6.594.000 € 6.594.000

Maintenance € 1.483.650 € 1.483.650 € 1.483.650

Total Costs € 8.077.650 € 8.077.650 € 8.077.650

Net € -3.517.938,77 € 2.282.880,27 € 8.548.080,61

B/C ratio: 0.56:1 1.2:1 2.0:1

Policy recommedations

• Realistic and optimistic have positive results

• However:

• Only single alternative has been analysed (other alternatives more efficient?)

• Low level of social interaction & low recreational facilities on the way even if the fast cycle route will be built (risk)

• Faster cyclists or faster scooters?

• Noise pollution from the incoming / departing flights (no intervention can be done)

• No intervention on the supply side of cars

In line with previous studies

(Source: Elvik (2000); Saelensminde (2004); Wang (2005); Norden (2005); COWI (2009); Borjesson & Eliasson (2011); Decisio (2008); van Ginkel (2014); Gossling & Choi (2015); Decisio (2015).

Conclusion

• Holistic appraisal requires systems thinking and knowledge integration

• It also requires collaboration between multiple stakeholders and agreement on the assumptions

• SCBA is a valuable tool to assess costs and benefits of cycling infrastructure but the ability to make more accurate assessments highly depend on the quantity and quality of data

• However, cycling goes beyond health benefits and travel time savings...

Questions