stadsregio presentatie 10 oktober 2016
TRANSCRIPT
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