National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities (2006)

Chapter: Appendix C: Literature Researching Bicycle Benefits

« Previous: Appendix B: Bicycling Demand and Proximity to Facilities
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Literature Researching Bicycle Benefits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Literature Researching Bicycle Benefits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Literature Researching Bicycle Benefits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Literature Researching Bicycle Benefits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Literature Researching Bicycle Benefits." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13929.
×
Page 77

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

C-1 APPENDIX C LITERATURE RESEARCHING BICYCLE BENEFITS Conventional evaluation techniques suggest that any bicycle facil- ities should be considered in the same manner as other transportation facilities (e.g., roadways, light rail, HOV lanes) or, for that matter, any major public capital investment (e.g., wastewater treatment plant, sports stadium). Doing so subjects bicycle facilities to the same methodologies or criteria used in these projects such as benefit/cost analysis, economic impact assessment (local, regional or state), cost-effectiveness evaluation, and financial or risk analysis. Of these approaches, benefit/cost analysis is the most well-known and most frequently relied on in transportation projects. It provides a means of comparing the effects of contemplated policies or projects on social welfare. It requires identifying all project impacts (positive or negative) in the present and the future and then assigning an eco- nomic value to these impacts. A handful of research studies attempt to calculate benefit-cost ratios for bicycle-specific projects. The general approaches and data used in doing so are presented in Table 13, together with values. As can be seen, all show that benefits exceed costs. Such consensus is a reflection of a variety of factors, including the inexpensive nature of bicycle facilities (i.e., a low valued denominator) and optimistic adoption rates of such facilities. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH Reviewing past research on this subject in a systematic manner is challenging because geographic scale, research depth, overall qual- ity, and focus of past study varies considerably, and few studies build on previous efforts. To the extent that some of the measured bene- fits overlap (see Table 14), we present values derived from six dif- ferent studies. There remains considerable disparity between values that are imputed. A second observation is that there is no clear strategy to delineate what constitutes such a benefit. We cast a relatively wide net in what we consider a study of bicycle benefits. Our definition includes any research effort describing or attributing an economic value to bicy- cling or bicycle facilities. By our tally this includes more than 25 studies, which comes close to representing the universe of all available and published research efforts. Each of these studies are presented in alphabetical order (author’s name) in Table 15 showing the date, title, and geographic level to which the study applies and an indication of whether the report appears in a peer-reviewed outlet. The research ranges from general overview pieces to those examining ridership data within a traditional benefit-cost framework. Eleven are published in peer reviewed outlets. Many of the studies have a tone of advocacy to their analysis and findings. Below we provide a brief review of each of these studies. The first—and largest—geographic area includes a series of studies conducted for individual states to calculate the economic impact of cycling and related industries. In Colorado, more than 6,000 house- holds and a selection of bicycle manufacturers, retail bicycle shops, and ski resort operators were surveyed to glean a better understand- ing of the impact bicycling has on Colorado’s economy in the form of production, sales, jobs and income and tax revenue (70). Extrap- olating data in concert with household information, this research assessed the impact of bicycling in the form of expenditures, produc- tion, employment, income and tax revenues. A study from Maine conducted for the Department of Transportation surveyed bicycle tour operators to estimate the total economic impact of bicycle tourism in the state and to develop marketing recommendations to increase bicycle tourism (187). From this research, they estimated the size and characteristics of the bicycle tourism market in terms of socio- economic class, spending patterns, direct and indirect impacts. Finally, Michigan has also estimated spending by users of local rail-trails while participating in organized bike rides (188). A second level of analysis focuses on regional geographic areas or entire cities. Buis (69) offers an international application describing the results of calculations in Amsterdam, Bogotá, Delhi, and Moro- goro. Using existing data from each municipality about proposed or existing bicycle policy, such as investments in infrastructure and reported saved motorized journeys, this research attempts to capture the cost of the facilities. The benefits in the four different cities, while not calculated consistently for each setting due to the availability of data, used infrastructure, user, and safety information that were translated into U.S. dollar amounts. In each case, the calculations demonstrate that the benefits exceed the costs; the benefit-cost ratio was more pronounced in cities that have not yet invested in cycling facilities. A study prepared on behalf of the Institute of Transport Economics in Oslo is in many respects, among the most robust of available work (189). This research estimates the average bicycle rid- ership in three Norwegian cities (Hokksund, Hamar and Trondheim) and determines a project’s calculated profitability, or net benefit. This research claims to have used low benefit estimates, and con- cludes that spending money on future infrastructure benefits soci- ety in those three cities. Saelensminde ascribes monetary values to all aspects from security and crash reduction to health benefits and parking. Using a slightly different geographic unit, research by Fix and Loomis (67) use a travel cost model to estimate the economic bene- fits to users of mountain bike trails in Moab, Utah. They did so mea- suring consumer surplus and individual per-trip values. The second of these studies, also focusing on the Moab area, compared non- market valuation techniques by applying the TCM and the dichoto- mous choice contingent valuation method (CVM) (68). Also included in this group of studies is an exercise, now more than 25 years old, that created a computer model analyzing savings reaped from increased cycling on a college campus (190). The computer simu- lation results generate a benefit-cost ratio by multiplying the bene- fits per mile for each commuter type by the miles per year traveled by that commuter type and sums it over commuter types and years. Subsequent research discusses the applicability of applying man- agement economic techniques to bicycle and pedestrian transporta- tion systems (191). Next are a handful of studies that focus on specific facilities. The Sharples work (66) is valuable because it lists a variety of

Betz Fix & Loomis Lindsey Litman Nelson Sharples Benefit Air Pollution $0.20 - $0.40 $0.24 - $0.40 184 kg of CO2 Congestion $0.04 - $0.40 $0.03 - $0.32 varies Earnings $14,434,000 Ecological/ Environmental $0.23 $0.23 Economic Benefits $18.46 - $29.23 (surplus) $197 - $205 (surplus) $1.43-$6.13 UDV Energy Costs $0.10 - $0.12 Jobs 982 FTE Noise $0.05 - $0.10 $0.02 1.5 dB Parking $0.25 - $1.50 $0.23 - $2.25 varies Road Maintenance $0.05 - $0.10 $0.02 varies Road Safety £450,00 0 Sales (from derived demand) $21,000,000 est. User Savings/ Driver Costs $0.55 - $0.85 $0.40 - $0.60 £7,472 Total $1.37 - $3.20 $1.27 - $3.42 C-2 Author/Date Context Ratio Comments Everett (1976) University of So. Mississippi 1.7 : 1 Uses computer and hand-calculations to estimate benefits and costs on a university campus. Dated, difficult to replicate. Amsterdam, Netherlands 1.5 : 1 Bogotá, Colombia 7.3 : 1 Morogoro, Tanzania 5 : 1 Buis (2000) Delhi, India 20 : 1 Each case attempts to answer: “What economic benefits can be attributed to an increase in bicycle use due to local bicycle policies?” Wealthier, currently bicycle-friendly countries benefit to a lesser degree than do poorer, less well- invested countries. Hokksund, Norway 4.09 : 1 Hamar, Norway 14.34 : 1 Saelensminde (2002) Trondheim, Norway 2.94 : 1 Ratio based on “best estimates” of future cycling/pedestrian traffic. Cities with the least amount of infrastructure in place see the most benefit from new infrastructure. Central Indianapolis Waterfront Greenway 1.43 : 1 Przybylski & Lindsey (1998) Ohio River Greenway 1.9 : 1 Estimates benefits by Unit Day Values and costs (based on construction costs) to establish cost-benefit ratio. TABLE 13 Cost-benefit studies TABLE 14 Benefits from six studies considerations that are applicable and subsequently demonstrates in a specific application how to evaluate related costs and benefits (192). She generates specific values around such diverse costs as air pollution and crash reduction. However, her benefits rely almost exclusively on first-hand experience of one particular corridor using personally collected data. Lindsey and Knaap (76) use contingent valuation to understand how much residents are willing to spend for a greenway facility. A different approach applied unit day values to estimate the benefits of proposed greenway projects (193). Using a rating system established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), scores based on the USACE project evaluation scheme are converted to dollar values, also established by the USACE. While useful for estimating value, this work is limited because it only esti- mates use value. The same study also estimates use and net benefits of the greenway projects and includes a regional economic impact analysis for the two trails.

Author (date) Title Geography Summary Peer Review Argys, Mocan (2000) Bicycling and Walking in Colorado State Provides statistical information regarding the economic impact of bicycling in Colorado, and documents bicycling behaviors and attitudes of residents of Colorado. No Buis (2000) The Economic Significance of Cycling City The results of four cost-benefit calculations: Amsterdam, Bogotá, Delhi, Morogoro. No Everett (1976) Measuring the Economic Value of Exercise in Labor-Intensive Urban Transportation Systems University campus Analysis of how labor-intensive transportation modes provide needed exercise. Quantifies health benefits and the economic benefit of reducing coronary heart disease. Yes Everett, Dorman (1976) New Approach to Economic Evaluation of Labor-Intensive Transportation Systems University campus Applies managerial economics tools to quantify the benefits of a proposed bicycle-pedestrian transportation system. Yes Fix, Loomis (1997) The Economic Benefits of Mountain Biking at One of Its Meccas Mountain bike trails, Moab, Utah Compares non-market valuation techniques by applying a data travel cost method and contingent valuation method to mountain biking. Yes Fix, Loomis (1998) Comparing the Economic Value of Mountain Biking Estimated Using Revealed and Stated Preference Mountain bike trails, Moab, Utah Estimates the value of mountain biking using travel cost method. Yes Lindsey et. al (2002) Use of Greenway Trails in Indiana Greenway system Informational report on trail use in Indiana. No Lindsey, Knaap (2003) Sustainability and Urban Greenways (Indiana) Greenway system This case study examines whether the greenways system in Indianapolis, Indiana, is sustainable using a framework based on six principles of sustainability recently proposed in the planning literature. Yes Lindsey, et al (2003) Amenity and Recreation Values of Urban Greenways (Indiana) Greenway system Presents a taxonomy of the values of greenways and demonstrates how different values can be measured using complementary techniques. No Litman (2002) Economic Value of Walkability General Uses economic evaluation methods to investigate the value of walking. Analysis may be applied to other non- motorized travel modes. No Litman (1999) Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Transport for Achieving TDM General Examines the degree to which non-motorized travel help achieve Transportation Demand No C-3 TABLE 15 Summary of literature examining economic aspects of bicycle facilities (continued)

Objectives Management objectives, including congestion reduction, road and parking facility cost savings, consumer cost savings, etc. Maine DOT (2001) Bicycle Tourism in Maine State (three trails) Summarizes study to estimate the total economic impact of bicycle tourism by estimating the tourism market. No Moore (1994) The Economic Impact of Rail-Trails Three trails Examined economic impact generated by three diverse rail- trails in Iowa, Florida, and California. Impacts were broken down into usersí expenditures related to trail visits. Yes Moore, Barthlow (1998) The Economic Impacts and Uses of Long-distance Trails Trail Investigates use patterns and economic impacts of long distance trails. Case study of Overmountain Victory National Historical Trail. No Nelson A. (1995) Private Provision of Public Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Ways National Presents findings to support that implementing bicycle and pedestrian access ways will result in economic benefit. Yes Vogt, Nelson (2002) A Case Study Measuring Economic and Community Benefits of Michigan’s Pere Marquette Rail-Trail Trail Compiles executive summaries from research reports that have been completed as part of this case study. Includes economic benefit generated by trails used for organized rides, property owners’ opinions. No PKF Consulting (1986) Analysis of Economic Impacts of the North Central Rail Trail (Maryland) State Investigated seven categories including tourism, property values, local resident expenditures and public sector expenditures to determine an economic value. No Przybylski, Lindsey (1998) Economic Evaluation of Major Urban Greenway Projects State Describes procedures used in economic evaluations of two major greenway projects in Indiana. Includes benefit-cost analyses and regional economic impact analyses. No Saelensminde (2002) Walking- and cycling-track networks in Norwegian Cities City Cost-benefit analyses of walking- and cycling-track networks based on use of the networks. No Schutt (1998) Trails for Economic Development: A Case Study Trail Summarizes a user and economic impact study of the Bruce Trail in Ontario. Yes Sharples (1995) A framework for the evaluation of facilities for cyclists – Part 1 General Suggests framework for how to determine who will be affected by new cycling infrastructure Yes C-4 TABLE 15 (Continued) (continued)

and how. Sharples (1995) A framework for the evaluation of facilities for cyclists – Part 2 Roadway Applies the above framework to Wilmslow Road Corridor in Manchester, England. Yes Siderlis, Moore (1995) Outdoor Recreation Net Benefits of Rail-Trails Trails in multiple states Estimates net economic values with the individual travel cost method for three rail trails in different U.S. Regions. Yes Sumathi, Berard (1997) Mountain Biking the Chequamegon Area of Northern Wisconsin Trail system Profiles mountain biking user characteristics from the Chequamegon Area Mountain Biking Association trail system. No Wittink (2001) On the Significance of Non-Motorized Transport City Presents the effectiveness of non-motorized transport in relation to economic growth, poverty reduction and quality of life urban areas and on the applicability of arrangements in the Netherlands. No Betz et al. (62) combine contingent valuation and TCM methods to estimate demand for visiting a greenway in northern Georgia and measures of consumer surplus. More recently, Lindsey et al. (72) demonstrated how different values of a specific greenway could be estimated using complementary techniques. They measured the impacts of greenways on property values in Indianapolis using residential real estate sales data, GIS, and hedonic price modeling. C-5 Recreation values for the trail were estimated using the TCM method. A more general work absent of a geographical context (71) focuses on walking aspects that can also serve as useful reference for cycling research. This piece suggests that benefit-cost analysis offers the broadest brush at identifying the full range of benefits but again stops short of suggesting specific methods and strategies for doing so. TABLE 15 (Continued)

Next: Appendix D: User Mobility Benefits »
Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 552: Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities includes methodologies and tools to estimate the cost of various bicycle facilities and for evaluating their potential value and benefits. The report is designed to help transportation planners integrate bicycle facilities into their overall transportation plans and on a project-by-project basis. The research described in the report has been used to develop a set of web-based guidelines, available on the Internet at http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost/, that provide a step-by-step worksheet for estimating costs, demands, and benefits associated with specific facilities under consideration.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!