Fast Track to a Bicycle City in Light of the BICY Project: Infrastructure Investment Strategy and Cost Benefits

Transcription

1 Fast Track to a Bicycle City in Light of the BICY Project: Infrastructure Investment Strategy and Cost Benefits Jason N. Meggs University of Bologna, DICAM Transport Engineering Group

2 BICY: People inform the Science

3

4 Qualitative Data Heard SWOT meetings bring diverse Stakeholders together. Source: Košice SWOT Report

5 WP3 analysis framework

6 Combined Inputs Ferrara Comacchio Ravenna Cervia Graz Erfurth Košice-C Michalovce SNV Prague 5 Koper Velenje Budaörs Population Minors ages12-16 (<17) Adults ages Population > Population (male) Population (female) Population >8 years Population 8 years and below Population > Share interviewed (per 1000) Car ownership/1000 country Share children 8 years and below share of males share of females share of minors(12-16) share of adults(17-59) share of elderly (60 and over) share of car-ownership (2009) Population province Carownership province , ,672 Four sources of BICY data: SWOT/stakeholder meetings, survey, official data and OpenStreetMap data 9500 questionnaires 80 questions each 14 cities!

7 Jason N. Meggs: Cycling Priorities in Sweden. Stockholm, Sept. 26,

8 Economic, health and environmental Benefits

9 16.00% CO2 Savings for Three Scenarios 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% Scenario 1: CO2 reduction ratio Scenario 2: CO2 reduction ratio Scenario 3: CO2 reduction ratio

10 Economic Benefits Cost to society in DKK/km. Source: City of Copenhagen s Bicycle Account 2008

11 Health Economic Benefits Indicator & Survey Data Target Bikeways for 15% Cycling Foundational Data Košice Michalovce SNV Prague 5 Koper Velenje Budaörs Population Bikeways km Cycling Index (Raw) E E E Fit Line Slope (city & town) Marked Bikeway 84,000 66,000 60,000 91,000 13,000 13, ,000 Physical Bikeway 200, , , , , , ,000 Share Adult Workers 64.30% 64.50% 55.10% 62.70% 42.30% 50.10% 75.80% Population Adult Workers Share Biker and Worker 4.00% 5.70% 4.60% 7.30% 10.60% 17.90% 5.50% Share Regular Bike-Work 2.30% 3.40% 2.70% 3.00% 2.10% 3.30% 1.90% Pop. Reg. Bike Workers Note: assumptions were made for Prague, Koper and Budaörs to correct/provide their cost data Target 15% Košice Note: only adult workers and cyclists (age 17-59) are counted here; work includes commuting to study (school) Michalovce SNV Prague 5 Koper Velenje Budaörs Target Cycling Index (Raw) Target Total Bikeway km New km needed Cost, Marked Bikeways 9,799,811 1,910,414 1,774,703 3,390, , ,362 3,281,699 Cost, Physical Bikeways 23,332,883 4,341,851 6,625,558 14,901,115 5,765,137 2,947,956 3,750,513 Middle cost (half each) 16,566,347 3,126,132 4,200,131 9,145,560 3,155,102 1,633,659 3,516,106 HEAT (Target 15%) Košice Michalovce SNV Prague 5 Koper Velenje Budaörs Current Bike Commuters Future Bike Commuters Average Cycling/Day (hours) Average Cycling (minutes) Time to Max Uptake Mortality Rate (country) Local Value of Statistical Life 1,574,000 1,574,000 1,574,000 1,574,000 1,574,000 1,574,000 1,574,000 Time period for benefits Discount Rate 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Average Annual Benefit 35,387,000 6,421,000 5,185,000 6,591,000 4,247,000 3,406,000 2,002,000 8-yr Total Benefit 283,092,000 51,366,000 41,481,000 52,730,000 33,974,000 27,247,000 16,017,000 Max annual benefit (yr 11) 81,583,000 14,803,000 11,954,000 15,196,000 9,791,000 7,852,000 4,616,000 Current Value, 8-yr avg Benefit 4,759,000 3,843,000 4,885,000 3,147,000 2,524,000 1,484,000 Total 8-yr savings (current val) 209,808,000 38,069,000 30,743,000 39,080,000 25,179,000 20,193,000 11,871,000 Benefit-Cost Ratio 9.91: :1 7.32:1 4.27:1 7.98: :1 3.38:1 Formula: x2 = (y2-y1 + B*x1)/B where x1 is initial Cycling Index, x2 is target CI, y1 is initial cycling %, B is slope, y2 is target = 15% Note: all these calculations assume that marked and physically separated bikeways have the same effect on cycling levels Health Economic Benefits of Lives Saved Note: future bike commuters are 15% of total population, not of workers, because survey was of total population Note; this assumes that bicycle commuting increases at the same rate as all cycling increases Note, this assumes average commute time does not change. Days per year assumed to be 220, to be on the conservative side.

12 ycling Košice Michalovce SNV Prague 5 Koper Velenje Budaörs Projected Bicycling Košice Michalovce ode % 2.20% 3.50% 2.50% 3.50% 6.70% 5.10% 1.90% Current Bike Mode % 2.20% 3.50% ential 43.70% 31.90% 63.60% 31.90% 63.40% 57.80% 20.10% Theoretical Potential 43.70% 31.90% KE % 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% 20.00% TARGET BIKE % 20.00% 20.00% Index Target Cycling Index Ratio New v. Old % Ratio Bikers New Work-Bikers Bikers Total Work-Bikers y km Target Bikeway km ay km New Bikeway km erson New meters/person s /m 12,671,379 2,865,436 2,255,127 4,678, , ,326 3,893,205 Marked Bikeways /m 12,671,379 2,865,436 s /m 30,169,950 6,512,354 8,419,139 20,564,693 7,178,127 3,935,316 4,449,377 Physical Bikeways /m 30,169,950 6,512,354 /km 21,420,664 4,688,895 5,337,133 12,621,580 3,928,393 2,180,821 4,171,291 Avg Bkwy Cost /km 21,420,664 4,688,895 (y2-y1 + m*x1)/m, x1=initial CI x2=target CI, y1=initial cycling %, m=slope, y2=target biking % Formula: x2 = (y2-y1 + m*x1)/m, x1=initial CI x2= arked v. physically separated bikeways have equal influence on bicycling future bikers proportional to new mode share (major commute mode % by max distance) Note: assumes marked v. physically separated bikewa Note: Assumes future bikers proportional to new mod PUT Košice Michalovce SNV Prague 5 Koper Velenje Budaörs HEAT INPUT Košice Michalovce Bikers Current Work-Bikers uting Minutes Commuting ing/yr Avg Days Biking/yr Bikers Future Work-Bikers Time New CommuteTime Times Combined Times State Years to Steady State 8 8 nefits Yrs to Health Benefits 5 5 Rate Mortality Rate f Life 1,574,000 1,574,000 1,574,000 1,574,000 1,574,000 1,574,000 1,574,000 Statistical Val of Life 1,574,000 1,574,000 eriod Assessment Period t Rate 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Discount Rate 5.00% 5.00% ture commute patterns unchanged; existing trips converted to bicycle. ssumed 220, modified (fairweather bikers avoid 40% due to rain or cold) Assumes that future commute patterns unchanged; ex Days per year assumed 220, modified (fairweather bik

13 Cost-Benefit Ratio Target 15% Bike Mode Share by 2020

14 Cost-Benefit Ratio Target 15% by 2020 v (Faster)

15 Faster Is Better!

16 Even for Grandma!

17 Health Case Example: Košice The costs of 5 years delay to 15% (HEAT calculation) Target 2015: 10-year Current Value of HEAT Benefits: 240M EUROS! 25-year lives saved: 833 lives saved! Target 2020: 10-year Current Value of Benefits: 140M EUROS, lost opportunity: 100M euros Life protection lost while waiting: 167 lives!

18 CO2 Case Example: Košice The cost of 5 years delay to 15% (carbon savings) Target 2015: Annual averaged estimate of CO2 saved: 67M EUROS! Target 2020: Lost opportunity: 333M euros!

19 The transnational Strategy (Drawing the line) Prague 17/01/2013

20 They can't all be sunny days Jason N. Meggs: Cycling Priorities in Sweden. Stockholm, Sept. 26, 2012

21 SkyCycle, London: Proposal to create elevated bikeways free of traffic

22 SkyCycle, London: Proposal to create elevated bikeways free of traffic

23 Original Bicycle Freeway : Connecting Los Angeles and Pasadena, California

24 Original Bicycle Freeway : Connecting Los Angeles and Pasadena, California

25 Increased Cycling, per Scenario

26 Percent of trips below 5km Potential bike share

27 SWOT - Common findings Strength: Cultural and Political support, assigned staff, existing Infrastructure Weaknesses: Lack of bicycle infrastructure and funding to build it Opportunities: Health and economic benefit and regional opportunities including tourism Threats: Lack of funding, socio-political barriers, institutional deficiencies

28 Percent of trips by bike Bike mode share and cycling index of Bicy partners in new EU member states Meters Bikeway per Person

29 Percent of trips by bike Bike mode share and cycling index of all Bicy partners (Central Europe) Meters Bikeway per Person

30 Percent of trips by bike Bike mode share and cycling index in Europe They have done it: almost all trips below 5km are made by bike!! Meters Bikeway per Person

31 Km bikeways Km bikeway needed to match Groningen s 2m per person Target: 2 x (thousands of inhabitants) km bikeway

32 Why can t we build 100s of km of bikeways? 1. There is no funding 2. There is no alternative (TINA) (no space, no parking, traffic collapses, against regulations,...) 3. There is no support Draw the line...

33 How not to draw the line (Bologna 7%) Not connected Fragmented Tortuous Poor quality...

34 How not to draw the line (Bologna 7%) Wasted space, No priority for bikes

35 How to draw the line (Bolzano 15%) Better coverage Connected Straight Good quality...

36 How to draw the line (Bolzano 15%) Priorities clearly visible, Good, low cost protection at critical points...

37 How to draw the line (Groningen 50%) Fully connected inter-city network One-way for cars, two-way for bikes (dashed green) High permeability for bikes only

38 How to draw the line (Groningen 50%) One-way for cars, two-way for bikes (dashed green) Few signposts, huge effect!

39 How to draw the line (Groningen 50%) High permeability for bikes only Low cost cycle ways...

40 Space for bikes can be created! It is a matter of priority Reduced width of lanes => Traffic will become slower and safer Reduce the number of car lanes => Capacity will increase Avoid obstacles salvage parking areas => Cyclists feel respected and welcome where to draw the line

41 Some policy tools Public engagement => The interested citizens will participate! Remove car-parking after road works => People will have found a different solution... Built protected bikeways around schools => to increase safety for children is acceptable to a wider public

42 The transnational dimension Learning benefits, targets, methods Standards Unification of regulations, signposting, infrastructure and services (bike-rental) Convergence - gaining the same insight - creating common values - making the changes together

43 Are we respected by drivers and the law?

44

45 Legislative help for cyclists Strict Liability for Motorists Very strong and effective legal protection Right to the Road Always Cyclists in Sweden are hurt by lack of choice Flow is a Cyclist's Friend Unnecessary stopping is harmful. Ability to ride counterflow also essential. Protection from Harassment

46 Public Transport a Key Partner Many bicycle trips are complementary with transit

47 Public Transport a Key Partner Many bicycle trips are complementary with transit

48 Balancing effects of investments What s the right balance: PT, Cycling and Walking? Very important for modeling future scenarios, e.g., GHG emissions as well.

49 Public Transport can be less direct

50 Funds can be saved by integrating cycling

51 You can make changes today! Thank you! Questions welcome! (office)