Economic Benefits of Cycling Infrastructure at the Program Level

Lawrence, Craig and Davies, Robyn and Rogers, Adam and Vardon, Ben (2017): Economic Benefits of Cycling Infrastructure at the Program Level. Published in: AITMP 2017 National Conference (2017)

Abstract

More cycling tackles morbidity, obesity and mental health issues and that means a reduced burden on the public health system. The benefits compound as cycling networks are completed, made denser, or separated from traffic. We’ve known about the health benefits of cycling for a long time, but have you ever wondered whether the benefits actually outweigh the capital cost of the infrastructure required to support this activity? Recent research has quantified a range of benefits of cycling and walking which are now encapsulated in the Australian Transport Assessment and Planning (ATAP) Guidelines for Active Transport. The economic benefits of this type of investment are real, quantifiable and measurable. When the benefits are monetised, and the number of users are taken into account (sometimes through population forecasting) the benefit cost ratios can be greater than 4. In western countries with aging populations, that’s of profound interest to policymakers at all levels of government, and should require that the planning and design of this type of infrastructure remains a priority. This paper details a methodology for determining the economic return on cycling networks based on population data, user profiles and separated/unseparated paths, developed as part of a business case for the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads’ Cycling Infrastructure Program.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: microeconomics, cost benefit analysis, program appraisal, transport infrastructure, capital investment, active transport, externalities, cycling
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D0 - General > D00 - General; D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D61 - Allocative Efficiency ; Cost-Benefit Analysis; D - Microeconomics > D6 - Welfare Economics > D62 - Externalities; H - Public Economics > H4 - Publicly Provided Goods > H42 - Publicly Provided Private Goods; H - Public Economics > H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies > H51 - Government Expenditures and Health; H - Public Economics > H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies > H54 - Infrastructures ; Other Public Investment and Capital Stock; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R4 - Transportation Economics > R40 - General; R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics > R4 - Transportation Economics > R41 - Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion ; Travel Time ; Safety and Accidents ; Transportation Noise

References

Australian Transport and Infrastructure Council (2015) National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia, Mode Specific Assessment: Active Travel (draft) now the Australian Transport Assessment and Planning (ATAP) Guidelines for Active Transport (2016), Commonwealth of Australia.

Austroads (2015) National Cycling Participation Survey: Queensland, Sydney.

Price Waterhouse Coopers/SKM (2011) Benefits of inclusion of active transport in infrastructure projects, Report prepared for Department of Transport and Main Roads,Brisbane.

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Cycle Strategy 2011-2021.

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (unpublished report), Principal Cycle Network Plans for Queensland – Highest Priority Route Costings: Technical Report.

Schooner, J.E. and Levinson, D.M (2014) “The missing link: bicycle infrastructure networks and ridership in 74 US cities”, Transportation 41:1187-1204.

Wardman, M., Tight, M. and Page, M., (2007) “Factors influencing the propensity to cycle to work”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 41,Issue 4, May 2007, Pages 339–350.

University of British Columbia Cycling in Cities Research Program website, (http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/motivating-cycling/opinion-survey/).

Teschke, K., Harris, M.A., Reynolds, C.C.O., Winters, M., Babul, S., Chipman, M., Cusimano, M.D., Brubacher, J., Friedman, S.M., Hunte, G., Monro, M., Shen, H., Vernich, L., Cripton, P.A., (2012) “Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists: A Case-Crossover Study”, American Journal of Public Health 2012; 102:2336-2343.

The University of Sydney (Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies) (2015). 2015 Transport Opinion Survey. Quarter 1, March 2015. Sydney: University of Sydney.