Ciclovias 1

Bicycle infrastructure assessment for ChileLiterature review and required tools for a new approach

1mercoledì 19 giugno 13

Current SECTRA - MDS methodology for evaluating bicycle infrastructure projects. Phases A and B

Phases A and B: “Propuesta inicial de red” and “Propuesta de Plan Maestro de Ciclo-Rutas”

• Assessment of 5 factors for the selection of axes:

• feasibility of construction (via 15 indicators of physical features of proposed intervention site)

• current amount of bike traffic

• absolute number of accidents in last three years

• interference of bicycles with other means of transport (takes into account current bike traffic, current vehicle traffic, number of lanes and width of road)

• environmental impact (via 20 indicators of potential damage to the natural environment involved)

• Each of the 5 indicators result in a high, medium or low score, and some of them are then weighted with a 2 or 3 factor. A final score is then computed.



Limitations and problems of Phases A and B:

• the 5 indicators are reduced to three levels (high, medium and low) instead of being standardised to a comparable scale. This was done to mitigate the effect of outlier values, but can also produce a distortion in the evaluation. Perhaps a standardisation of indicators including upper/lower bounds should be considered, or a more articulated separation in levels should be performed (e.g. 5 or 10 levels instead of 3)

• the weighing factors appear arbitrary

• only current amount of bike traffic is considered, then preventing the possibility of building paths that create shortcuts and thus produce more demand, and similarly under-evaluate routes that are now avoided by cyclists since they’re deemed too dangerous. Similar discourse can be done for the assessment of interference

• absolute number of accidents is considered, instead of weighing it for the amount of motorised and cycle traffic (most studies suggest that bicycle accidents are so sparse and unpredictable that they should not be considered for the CBA analysis, let alone the preliminary choice of axes)


Current SECTRA - MDS methodology for evaluating bicycle infrastructure projects. Phase C

Phase C: “Plan Maestro de Ciclo-Rutas”. A ranking of proposed axes is built, based on three indicators:

• Evaluation of demand (current demand + demand from modal switch from walking)

• Early assessment of profitability (following the development of technical and operational solutions)

• Preliminary evaluation of the network (evaluation of benefits from expected speed improvements)


Current SECTRA - MDS methodology for evaluating bicycle infrastructure projects. Phase D

Phase D: “Red de Corto Plazo”:

Engineering of the routes on top of the Plan Maestro, given the ranking of axes and the applicable restrictions. At the same time the costs of the Red de Corto Plazo are assessed and finally the definitive social and economic indicators are computed.


Current assessment methodology in Chile.Benefits and Costs indicators included

• Benefits included in the economic and social assessment:

• Reduction in transfer time for people switching to cycling from walking, assuming a fixed 4.7% of people switching from walking to cycling (lower than in all European and North American studies)

• Reduction in transfer time for users of other means of transport who benefit from the separation of fluxes. This assuming that the lane is built right next to a road that will benefice from less bikes.

• Costs included in the assessment:

• Actual cost of building single projects. No maintenance costs included.


Limitations of current assessment method in Chile

• All the most relevant indicators for the benefits of bicycle infrastructure are missing (discussed later)

• Time savings are actually a not much relevant indicator. Most studies agree that they are close or equal to zero, and in the case of modal switch from car to bike, transfer time is generally increased

• The evaluation applies only to bike lanes built along a road (i.e. not considering stand-alone cycle paths), and it outputs better results the more the road is busy with car and bus traffic. This leads to a prioritisation of busy roads, and a lower score for less busy roads preferred by current cyclists. This could lead to great distance between the routes usually chosen by users and the projected axes

• Maintenance costs are not included


Social benefits found in literaturesorted by approximate importance

1. Health savings (reduced healthcare costs, life years saved)

2. Absenteeism and productivity savings (general better shape, less minor problems caused by air and noise pollution)

3. Public transport expansion savings

4. Less future investment on car facilities

5. External costs of private transport (including air and noise pollution, wearing of infrastructure, etc)

6. Increased comfort and security

7. Reduced parking costs

8. Accidents reduction and reduced per-accident cost

9. Travel time reduction savings

10. Accessibility. Positive effect on employment, emerging economy and general attractiveness of business environment

11. Fall of barrier costs produced by motorised traffic

12. School bus transport savings


Private benefits found in literature

• Less travel costs

• Better physical and psychological condition (longer life, personal satisfaction, etc.)


Costs found in literature

• Social costs

• Investment cost

• Maintenance cost

• Opportunity cost of capital

• Private costs

• Discomfort of cycling compared to travelling by car

• Possibly longer transfer times


General data and assumptions required for the study

• Average trips per day, modal split and length

• Additional demand induced by cycle infrastructure (in Norway 20%, 5-40% in sensitivity analysis)

• Modal switch from car to bike (in Norway 15% for trips shorter than 5km)

• Proportion of bike trips on current cycle track network


1. Health savings - reduced healthcare costs

The distinction is between active and inactive population. Active population performs at least 30 minutes of physical activity a day, that can also be split into sessions of at least 10 minutes each. According to the different studies, activating an inactive person leads to a 25-50%1 reduction in risk of premature death. Studies in Europe have established a monetary yearly benefit for healthcare cost for activating an inactive person. 880€ (~580k CLP) for Norway, 940€ (~620k CLP) for Sweden.2 This means that only the km that exceed the 30 min threshold should be taken into account for CBA.

Illness that are connected with inactivity include3:

• cardiovascular disease (- 50%6, 8)• stroke• obesity (-50%6)• cancer7 (five types). Colon cancer (- 40-50%8)• type 2 diabetes (- 25-33%5, - 50%6)• osteoporosis7

• depression• hypertension (- 30%6)


1. Health savings - life years saved

• There is evidence that non-cyclists have a 39% higher mortality rate than cyclists1

• It is possible to produce a km-life year relationship, measured for metabolic equivalent intensity level and kilometres cycled1


1. Health savings - data required

• Proportion of inactive individuals in Chile

• Proportion of obese individuals in Chile

• Average treatment costs for said diseases, or for obesity-related diseases

• Life year value


2. Absenteeism and productivity savings

• Norway and Denmark assume a 1% lower absenteeism rate because of general better shape in consequence of an individual becoming “active”. (Elvik 1998)

• Additional savings come from productivity savings coming from less exposure to air and noise pollution. Although, since these savings are marginal and difficult to compute, they will be assumed to be included in the external costs of motorised traffic discussed later


2. Absenteeism savings - data required

• Proportion of work trips on total

• Average wage

• Absenteeism data



An increase in the share of cyclists leads to a decrease in costs for public transport because of the modal shift from bus to the bike. However, this effect is only relevant in the long term. In a shorter term, though, it could lead to savings in the expansion of public transport network. This is particularly relevant in Antofagasta where a big public transport infrastructure improvement is planned (switching from cost-effective minibus system to a non cost-effective rapid transit system)4

Probably impossible to include in the CBA


4. Less future investments in car facilities

There is evidence that an investment in cycling infrastructure is the cheapest way of expanding transit capacity, being cheaper to build and to maintain and much more space efficient than increasing car capacity4. Widening a road, building new road connections or parkings can be avoided if bicycle transit capacity is increased.

It’s probably not possible to include all of them in the CBA, although it might be possible for the parking costs (discussed later)


5. External costs of private transport

• External costs of private transport include:

• Air emissions

• Noise emissions

• Wear of road infrastructure

• Environmental costs connected with car use (disposal of oil, tyres, etc.)

• Congestion

• In a city like Antofagasta, air pollution mostly comes from cars (no heating and industries) so reducing car traffic is very effective in reducing emissions

• Noise pollution has a cost in terms of mental disease, lower productivity, insomnia

• Congestion in Antofagasta is a growing problem. Current car ownership growth rate might lead to saturation

• It is proved that, on average, cyclists are not more exposed to air pollution than motorists, so modal shift won’t lead to a worse health condition of cyclists4


5. External costs of private transport - assessment

There are two ways of assessing external costs:

• Sum of prevention, evasion and damage costs4, including everything from promotion of cycling and healthy lifestyle to positioning of baffle boards for soundproofing, actual health costs. (v/km costs standard costs are 35-122 CLP in Norway, 35 CLP in Sweden, 6-13 CLP in Finland-air pollution only-, 33 CLP in Denmark)2

• Stated preference “willingness to pay” approach. (7.6 CLP in Germany-air pollution only-, 12.6 CLP in US Litman study, 17-19 CLP in other US study)4


5. External costs of private transport - data required

• Average external km cost in Chile (including vehicle fleet quality and composition, cold start km, average trip lengths, average speed, etc.)

• and/or average stated preference car km cost (willingness to pay)



• Comfort and security are a fundamental incentives for biking. Antofagasta could be an ideal environment in which these aspects could be improved. Apparently, many cyclists ride on the pavement avoiding the road, so the presence of cycle routes would definitely improve safety. Comfort is generally linked to the quality of the infrastructure and weather conditions. A new, good quality infrastructure in a city with such ideal weather conditions could produce a high output for this indicator

• Assessment: this indicator is exclusively assessed with stated preference “willingness to pay” surveys. (40 CLP in Denmark, 175 CLP in Norway, 0-386 in Sweden-most comprehensive study)

• Data required: stated preference survey in Antofagasta



• In one car parking bay it is possible to fit at least 10 bike parkings. In the Netherlands, building a bike parking costs approximately 5% of the cost of a parking space for a car.

• Assessment: the easiest and most effective way to assess parking cost savings is to use the average parking rate price paid by firms in town7

• Data required: average parking costs, average parking usage



• All studies agree that it is very difficult to have a general cause-effect relationship between accidents and the presence of cycling facilities. This is generally due to the very sparse and rare nature of bike accidents, and to the fact that most of them don’t get reported

• Data shows that severe injuries or death of cyclists without a contact with a motorised vehicle are extremely rare

• Empirical data show that there exists a negative relationship between bicycle km per person per day and casualties per bicycle km, i.e. countries in which cycling is more common are usually safer on average. This might be also due to the presence of more and higher quality cycling facilities

• Accidents involving cyclists tend to be less severe, thus producing less hospital treatment costs and much less material damage and emergency service costs

• Anyway, even if the reduced risk generated by cycle infrastructure is NOT considered, positive health effects outsmart higher deaths rates by 20:1 4



Source: (2)


8. Accidents reduction and reduced per-accident cost - assessment

• Assessment: None of the literature considered had insights on the average effect of cycling infrastructure on casualties, only a Swedish study has performed a research on a particular section before and after the construction of the route

• Data required: a specific research on the positive effects of a cycle route could be performed, although this would need calculations brought on before and after the construction. Moreover, the low number of cyclists would hardly make possible the production of significant results



• The studies considered don’t include specific ways of assessing time savings, since they apply to a whole network of routes. At this level there is no sufficient evidence of an improvement in travel times, because of the heterogeneous nature of paths and streets.

• Assessment: for this study, the current method proposed by SECTRA could be used

• Data required: data on traffic and roads features


10. Accessibility, employment, business

• Accessibility is improved for categories that do not have access to a car. Increased mobility of less wealthy individuals leads to better work opportunities. The use of the bike broadens the radius reachable by people without the use of private or public transport, so it is particularly effective in the short/middle range for producing a higher flexibility of workforce. This is relevant in a city like Antofagasta where a consistent share of the workers cannot afford a car. As a side effect, the positive impact on congestion produces better accessibility for everyone else

• Employment. A study on shops in Utrecht4 has shown that, although cyclists spend less than motorists on an average visit, cyclists tend to make much more visits to a single shop and also to neighbouring ones, boosting the district effect. Evidence in the Unites States (NY, San Francisco...) shows that the installation of a protected bike lane has boosted sales by up to 50%. In addition to this, bike repair shops are more labour-intensive than automobile maintenance services, so a switch to a cycle-centric transport share produces positive effects on employment as well


10. Accessibility, employment, business

• Attractiveness for business is also improved in a cycle-friendly environment. A compact, cycle- and pedestrian-friendly city is an ideal location for corporate headquarters seeking for better quality of life and environmental sustainability of their workers. In Europe cities associated with good cycling infrastructure are top in quality of life. In Brazil, Curitiba, with its low congestion, good public transport, green areas and cycle paths, has attracted major multinational companies though not being in the Sao Paulo - Rio region that concentrates the country’s economic activity

• Assessment: assessing improvements in accessibility and in business attractiveness is probably not possible. Assessing the positive impact on business could be included in the study, after performing a research on the consequences of a new cycle lane on the sales of neighbouring businesses



• Motorised traffic constitutes a barrier to the ‘natural’ level of cycling, that prevents people from cycling and walking as much as they would want to. These costs can be computed by considering the output of the other indicators, and thus should not be included in the CBA, but can be useful to discuss the value of traffic calming policies (discussed later)

• Assessment: computed from the indicators produced



• The nordic studies6,7 suggest that there is an effect on school bus transport to be considered. Although, this doesn’t seem to be relevant in Antofagasta (?), so this indicator could be scrapped.

• Required data. School bus transit data


“Network” requisites for the creation of a successful bike-friendly city

• Existence of a proper network, with numerous connections between bike lanes and appropriate capillarity and uniformity in quality

• Existence of bike parking facilities. The fear of theft is one of the main factors that prevent people from cycling, so providing safe parking spots in strategic locations is a big incentive. Also a public bike tagging campaign could help.

• Traffic calming interventions. This involves both the theme of “ciclocalles”, i.e. streets where car traffic is slowed down and the coexistence of bike and car traffic is enhanced, and interventions for turning the trade-off between using the car and the bike more favourable to the bike. This includes: raising car taxation, raising car parking prices, decreasing the offer of car parking spots on the street, closing streets to car traffic, programming traffic lights so that car traffic is slowed and made less convenient, simultaneously giving right-of-way to cyclists and pedestrians.

• Cycle education activities both in and outside of school institutions

• Bike sharing projects. As seen in various european cities, managed with a digital system. Would need a separate CBA analysis.

• Public economic incentives to cycling. For example contributions for bike purchases, free warranty extensions etc.


New method proposed

• It seems that the approach used in Chile (evaluating the costs and benefits for every single axis) is not used anywhere in the cases studied (mainly Europe and USA). The general approach produces an average cost-benefit ratio, that ranges from about 1:4 to over 1:20 in certain cases, with an average of 1:5/6

• One reason is that the biggest effects come from health and other section-independent factors, and that demand effects are too unpredictable to be applied to a single section

• Another reason might be that this is the network effect can only be captured if the network is considered as a whole

• It is clear that planning on current traffic an infrastructure that has the primary function of attracting new cyclists and induce modal shift might be distortionary

• Proposed method: Creation of an average km-benefit relationship that considers only general benefits, so that the costs for each section can be separately assessed. This relationship is then integrated with site-specific features such as specific time savings, external costs of private transport... in order to be able to prioritise the axes


Bibliography

1. British Cycling Economy

2. CBA Nordic Council

3. Value for money UK

4. Economic significance ICE

5. N. Cavill, A. Davis. Cycling and Health: A Briefing Paper for the Regional Cycling Development Team. Final draft, London, 2003.

6. THE PEP in Nordic Council report

7. Sælensminde

8. CBA Pilsen, Czech


Ciclovias 1

Technology

Transcript of Ciclovias 1