costs vs. benefits of cycling development promotion

PSWE

COST VS. BENEFITS OF CYCLING DEVELOPMENT

PROMOTION

COST VS. BENEFITS OF CYCLING DEVELOPMENT

PROMOTION

Kyiv, Veloforum 5 June 2011.

Dr Piotr Kuropatwiński, University of Gdańsk, Pomeranian Association „Common Europe”

COPYRIGHT © 2007 PSWE – WSZELKIE PRAWA ZASTRZEŻONE

2AGENDA

SOME PHILOSOPHYSOME PHILOSOPHY

EXAMPLES OF APPROACHES ADOPTED ELSEWHEREEXAMPLES OF APPROACHES ADOPTED ELSEWHERE

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

CONTEXT OF ECONOMIC CALCULATIONSCONTEXT OF ECONOMIC CALCULATIONS

PSWE SOME PHILOSOPHY


4Some philosophySome philosophy – – price vs. valueprice vs. value

• Economic definition of a cynic:

• Someone who knows the price of everything but the value of none

• Not all economists are cynics, even if they are often accused to be like them

• Value may be perceived from different perspectives, not only from the financial one

• Economics is about management of scarcity, not of minimizing costs at all costs


5MANAGEMENT OF MANAGEMENT OF SCARCITYSCARCITY

• Trying to eliminate congestion by extension of the road network is like trying to fight obesity by loosening the belt (Walter Kulash)

• Myopic attempts to eliminate visible problems sometimes leads to underestimation of the invisible, but productive solutions

• Cycling infrastructure, where built, if not explained and promoted, tends to be marginalised in decision making


6CYCLING BENEFITS SOCIETYCYCLING BENEFITS SOCIETY

• EVERY KILOMETRE CYCLED PROVIDES A 0.16 € GAIN FOR SOCIETY

• CONVERSELY, SOCIETY INCURS A 0.09€ LOSS FROM EVERY KILOMETER DRIVEN BY CAR

• Source: City of Copenhagen 2008

PSWE CONTEXT

OF ECONOMIC

CALCULATIONS


8CONTEXT OF ECONOMIC CALCULATIONSCONTEXT OF ECONOMIC CALCULATIONS IN URBAN IN URBAN PLANNINGPLANNING

• Tendency to include only out of pocket costs

• Lack of data about non-motorised traffic

• Rural or poor man’s image of cycling and walking

• Low value attached to leisure time and labour productivity in low income countries

• Health considered as a „free good”, independent of behavioural choices

PSWE EXAMPLES

OF APPROACHES

ADOPTED ELSEWHERE


10DIFFERENT EUROPEAN APPROACHESDIFFERENT EUROPEAN APPROACHES

• The Scandinavian approach

• The British approach

• The Austrian approach

• The Central European approach

PSWE THE

SCANDINAVIAN APPROACH


12FINLAND – JOHANNA KALLIOINENFINLAND – JOHANNA KALLIOINEN

Circular argumentation in transport planning

The modest volumes of cycling

The large volumes of car transport

Modest resource use to cycling facilities

Substantial resources use to car transport facilities

Weak competitiveness of cycling

Strong competitiveness of car transport

Source: Johanna Kallioinen, INSTITUTIONAL POSITION OF CYCLING IN TRANSPORT PLANNING; Velo-city 2003, Paris


13NORWAY – NORWAY – KJARTAN SÆLENSMINDEKJARTAN SÆLENSMINDE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Hokksund Hamar Trondheim

Other Benefits

Health

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Hokksund Hamar Trondheim

Health - large share of benefitNet benefit/cost ratio


14

Gunnar Lind, MoveaGunnar Lind, Movea Christer Hydén, Christer Hydén, LTH, LTH, Ulf Ulf Persson, LTHPersson, LTH

CBA of bicycle infrastructureCBA of bicycle infrastructure

source: Sven Hunhammar, Swedish EPA; Cost Benefit Analyses, of infrastructure for cycling, Velo-City Congress, Dublin 2005

PSWE

THE BRITISH APPROACH


16ROD KING – HILDEN vs. WARRINGTONROD KING – HILDEN vs. WARRINGTON

£200 000

£8 000£-

£20 000

£40 000

£60 000

£80 000

£100 000

£120 000

£140 000

£160 000

£180 000

£200 000

£

Warrington Hilden

Annual spend on cycle specific facilities

5%

24%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

%

Warrington Hilden

%age "within town" journeys by cycle

Hilden spends a fraction of Warrington’s cycle spendYet achieves results nearly 5 times greater


17ALEXALEX SULLYSULLY PUMA CongressPUMA Congress

• 10 new cyclists are worth spending € 1.2 million

• ₤2 M invested in 2000 – returned in local spend in two years

• In 2006/7 400k bike visits & - ₤ 9 M in local spend

source: Alex Sully (2010) Active Mobility in the UK - from Vision into Action; 1st Polish active Mobility Congress, October 2010


18ALEXALEX SULLYSULLY (PUMA Congress) - Hierarchy of Provision(PUMA Congress) - Hierarchy of Provision


Consider Consider firstfirst

Consider Consider lastlast

Traffic volume reductionTraffic volume reduction

Traffic speed reductionTraffic speed reduction

Junction treatment, hazard site Junction treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic managementtreatment, traffic management

Reallocation of carriageway spaceReallocation of carriageway space

Cycle tracks away from roadsCycle tracks away from roads

Conversion ofConversion of f footways/footpaths ootways/footpaths to shared useto shared use


19ALEXALEX SULLYSULLY (PUMA Congress) - Hierarchy of Provision(PUMA Congress) - Hierarchy of Provision


Consider Consider firstfirst

Consider Consider lastlast

Traffic volume reductionTraffic volume reduction

Traffic speed reductionTraffic speed reduction

Junction treatment, hazard site Junction treatment, hazard site treatment, traffic managementtreatment, traffic management

Reallocation of carriageway spaceReallocation of carriageway space

Cycle tracks away from roadsCycle tracks away from roads

Conversion ofConversion of f footways/footpaths ootways/footpaths to shared useto shared use

Invis

ible

cyclin

g

infra

stru

ctu

re


20LYNN SLOMAN – Sevilla CongressLYNN SLOMAN – Sevilla Congress

Earning money for purchase, insurance, repairs fuel, paking

510 hrs/year

Doing tasks: car wash, repair, find parking space, de-icing, walking to car

265 hrs/year

Sitting in car: moving and stationary

425 hrs/year

Paying for extra cost of garage

100 hrs/year

Time devoted to the average private car

Total: 1300 hrs

to get 16,000 km =

‘average speed’ 12kph

source: Sloman (2006) Car Sick: Solutions for our Car-addicted Culture, after Ivan Illich (1974) Energy and Equity

PSWE

THE AUSTRIAN APPROACH


22MICHAEL & GREGOR TRUNK – Velo-city Sevilla 2011MICHAEL & GREGOR TRUNK – Velo-city Sevilla 2011

Costs for the overall economy: bicycle vs.carIndicator

[€-ct/km]Internal External Total

Bicycle Car Bicycle Car Bicycle Car

Health

Noise

Accidents

Running costs

Travel time

Pollutants

CO2

TOTAL

DIFFERENCE bicycle-car

source: Michael Meschik & Gregor Trunk Institute for Transport Studies, BOKU Vienna – Velo-City Sevilla


23MICHAEL & GREGOR TRUNK – Velo-city Sevilla 2011MICHAEL & GREGOR TRUNK – Velo-city Sevilla 2011

Costs for the overall economy: bicycle vs.carIndicator

[€-ct/km]Internal External Total

Bicycle Car Bicycle Car Bicycle Car

Health - - 89.89 - 89.89 -

Noise - - - -1.02 - -1.02

Accidents -6.29 -1.44 -8.42 -1.85 -14.71 -3.29

Running costs 10.20 -38.30 - - -10.20 -38.30

Travel time 66.53 -54.29 - - -66.53 -54.29

Pollutants - - - -0.63 - -0.63

CO2 - - - -0.85 - -0.85

TOTAL -83.02 -94.03 81.47 -4.35 -1.55 -98.38

DIFFERENCE bicycle-car

11.01 85.82 96.83

source: Michael Meschik & Gregor Trunk Institute for Transport Studies, BOKU Vienna – Velo-City Sevilla


24GENTLE MOBILITY GENTLE MOBILITY -- GRAZ GRAZ

• Three car parking restriction levels

• Abandonment of car oriented traffic policy

• No more roads built

• The Mayor who proposed to build a tunnel under the city not re-elected

• Tempo 30/50 introduced all over the city after a 6 months explanation campaign

PSWE THE CENTRAL

EUROPEAN APPROACH


26

FUNDS DEVOTED TO TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS DEVOTED TO TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN CEE 10+ DEVELOPMENT IN CEE 10+ AT THE NATIONAL LEVELAT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN APPROACH 1/3

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/atlas2007/index_en.htm’


27THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN APPROACH 2/3THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN APPROACH 2/3

• Allow for more recreational cycling

• Rhythm replaces strength

• Invite foreign experts and tell them what to tell

• (no-one is considered a prophet in his own land)


28THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN APPROACH 3/3THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN APPROACH 3/3

• Promote from below, from above and from the centre

• Avoid militant attitudes – convert cycling promotion groups into an organised, civic movement

• Look for low hanging fruit – eliminate bottlenecks and create attractive medium distance trails/routes Source: http://www.gdansk.pl/ster,1433,18848.html


29

• Do not fight directly with routism – dedicated cycle routes along main traffic arteries and along attractive water fronts are O.K.

• Pay attention to education and promotion as much as to infrastructure development

• Address your message to the small and slow: consider families, women and children as a target group

PSWE SUMMARY

& CONCLUSIONS


31SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1/2 1/2

• Cycling is a valuable source of revenue

• Promotion of sustainable urban and regional development is a source of important savings

• Promotion of cycling is more important than the development of visible cycling infrastructure

• Develop capacity for partnership co-operation


32SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 2/2 2/2

• Decision makers pay more attention to chances of success and tend to choose large infrastructure, car traffic oriented solutions

• Promotion of active mobility is more productive than promotion of public transport use and they reinforce one another

• We are in the mind opening business – the issue of transport efficiency is a part of it only

PSWE THANK YOU FOR YOUR

ATTENTION


34THIS PRESENTATION WAS PREPARED BY A TEAM COMPOSED OF:

TELEPHONE:

E-MAIL:

ANDRZEJ B. PIOTROWICZ +48 502 200 559 [email protected]

Dr PIOTR KUROPATWIŃSKI +48 501 069 616 [email protected]

costs vs. benefits of cycling development promotion

Sports

car source

car wash

car sick

total difference bicyclecar

caraddicted culture

average private car

provision source

transport planning velocity