Better Connected. Economic Appraisal Report. April Norfolk County Council

Transcription

1 Better Connected Economic Appraisal Report April 2014 Norfolk County Council

2 Document Control Sheet Project Title Report Title Better Connected Economic Appraisal Report Report ref no Version 1.0 Status Final Report Date 26/03/14 Record of Issue Version Status Author Date Checked by Date Approved by Date 1.0 Final JP 26/03/14 GB 26/03/14 GB 26/03/14 Distribution Date Organisation Contact Format Copies 26/03/14 Norfolk County Council Louise Cornell PDF 1 Limitations This report is presented to Norfolk County Council in respect of Better Connected LSTF Bid and may not be used or relied on by any other person. It may not be used by Norfolk County Council in relation to any other matters not covered specifically by the agreed scope of this Report. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the report, Mouchel Limited is obliged to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the performance of the services required by Norfolk County Council and Mouchel Limited shall not be liable except to the extent that it has failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence, and this report shall be read and construed accordingly. This report has been prepared by Mouchel Limited. No individual is personally liable in connection with the preparation of this report. By receiving this report and acting on it, the client or any other person accepts that no individual is personally liable whether in contract, tort, for breach of statutory duty or otherwise. Mouchel 2014 i

3 Contents Document Control Sheet... i Contents... ii Table of figures... iii Tables... iv 1 Introduction Key Assumptions Demand Estimates Journey Ambience Benefits Health Benefits Absenteeism Benefits Accident Benefits Marginal External Cost Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Appendix A Baseline Population and Journey to Work Data Appendix B Estimation of Cycling Demand Appendix C Present Value of Benefits Mouchel 2014 ii

4 Table of figures Figure 2-1 Better Connected Economic Appraisal Study Area... 5 Figure 5-1 HEAT Model Outputs Mouchel 2014 iii

5 Tables Table 2-1 Elements of the Better Connected Economic Appraisal... 3 Table 2-2 Better Connected Package of Measures... 3 Table 2-3 Better Connected Scheme Cost Estimate (Base Costs)... 5 Table 2-4 Impact of Inflation and Optimism Bias... 6 Table 2-5 Key Assumptions... 7 Table 3-1 Demand Estimate Cycling Trips... 9 Table 4-1 Value of journey ambience benefit of cycle facilities relative to no facilities (2010 prices and values) TAG Data Book A Table 4-2 Journey Ambience Data for Wymondham Rail Station Cycle Hire Scheme 11 Table Journey Ambience Data for Cycle Link to Hethel Engineering Centre Table 4-4 Summary of Journey Ambience Benefits (2010 Prices) Table 5-1 HEAT Assumptions Table 5-2 Summary of Monetised Health Benefits Table Absenteeism Benefits Assumptions Table 6-2 Calculation of Absenteeism Benefits Table Absenteeism Benefits Summary Table 7-1 Average Value of Accident Prevention per Road Casualty by Class of Road User (TAG Data Book A4.1.2) Table 7-2 Better Connected Accident Assumptions Table 7-3 Accident Benefits Calculation Table Accident Benefits Summary Table 8-1 MEC s Summary of assumptions used for reduction in car kilometres calculation Table Proportion of traffic by road type for East Anglia (TAG Data Book A5.4.1).. 19 Table Weighted average marginal external costs for East Anglia (pence per km). 19 Table MEC Benefits Summary Table 9-1 Analysis of Monetised Costs & Benefits (2010 Prices) Table Census Neighbourhood Statistics: Population & Journey to Work, Table Better Connected Trip Demand Summary Mouchel 2014 iv

6 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview The report details the economic appraisal of the Better Connected package of smarter travel measures and supports the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) Application. This report describes the approach used to appraise the Better Connected smarter travel measures, the sources of data used as part of the economic assessment and sets out the resulting Benefit to Cost Ratio. The Better Connected programme aims to capitalise on the benefits of the Better Bus Area, Cycle City Ambition project and planned capital schemes and enhance the value of these projects. Better Connected will act as the glue for these potentially disparate capital projects and will result in better connected communities and employment hubs along one of the key growth corridors in Norfolk. It will enable and encourage door to door journeys to be made using more sustainable modes helping address congestion and support sustainable growth. This project builds on significant local support and will improve access to jobs and services across this important area of growth as well as encourage sustainable travel and support healthy active lifestyles. The economic appraisal of the Better Connected measures follows guidance set out by the Department for Transport and specifically follows the approach set out in the following Transport Analysis Guidance documents: TAG Unit A1.1: Cost-Benefit Analysis (Jan 2014); TAG Unit A1.2: Scheme Costs (Jan 2014); TAG Unit A4.1: Social Impact Appraisal (Jan 2014); TAG Unit A5.1: Active Mode Appraisal (Jan 2014); and TAG Unit A5.4: Marginal External Costs (Jan 2014) Structure of the Report The remainder of this report is structured as follows: Section 2 sets out the key assumptions used in this appraisal; Section 3 describes the sources of data used within the appraisal and the methodology used to derive the baseline statistics; Section 4 describes the journey ambience benefits that are forecast to result from the Better Connected package; Section 5 sets out the health benefits that are forecast to result from the scheme; Mouchel

7 Section 6 describes the absenteeism benefits that are expected to be generated by the scheme; Section 7 sets out the forecast accident benefits; Section 8 describes the marginal external cost benefits for the study area; and Section 9 presents the overall costs and benefits of the scheme including the final Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR). Mouchel

8 2 Key Assumptions 2.1 Overview The following section provides a brief overview of the assumptions and procedures followed in deriving the benefits of the smarter travel measures included as part of the Better Connected programme. As the programme focuses on promoting and encouraging travel by active modes (particularly cycling), the economic assessment primarily follows the guidance set out in TAG Unit A5.1 Active Mode Appraisal. In line with the guidance the key elements of the appraisal are as follows: Table 2-1 Elements of the Better Connected Economic Appraisal Indicator Cycling and walking users New individuals cycling or walking Car kilometres saved Commuter trips generated Used to appraise Journey quality Physical activity Journey quality Accidents GHG emissions, air quality and noise Indirect tax revenue Travel time (decongestion) Absenteeism Scheme Costs Revenue costs including optimism bias Better Connected Overview & Study Area The Better Connected programme focuses on the area located to the west and south west of Norwich. It includes the A11 corridor and the area from the centre of Norwich towards Wymondham, Hethersett, Cringleford, Hethel and Costessey and incorporates the Norwich Research Park (NRP), University of East Anglia and Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. The travel corridor used as the basis for this appraisal is shown in Figure 2-1 and a description of the package of measures that form the basis of this bid are set out in Table 2-2 below. Table 2-2 Better Connected Package of Measures Bid element Measure Description Active travel measures Cycle training for adults Bike maintenance sessions Organised cycle rides Provision of free cycle training for businesses with an active travel plan Key feature of the package - properly arranged Dr bike events in town centres, at key businesses and schools. Sessions would include teaching people low level bike maintenance training as well as on the spot fixing of basic problems Monthly organised rides along the corridor into Norwich, strong publicity for these, with role for volunteers Mouchel

9 Bid element Measure Description Enhancing public transport experience Travel planning Better travel information Project manager Cycle fun days Cycle videos Bike hire scheme Beat the Streets & Fit together health walks Innovative ways of capturing customer feedback Target key businesses across city centre and wider project area Travel toolkit for residents Encouraging travel independence for school children through travel planning Personalised travel planning with residents Personalised travel planning at the N&N Hospital and through Jobcentre Plus Downloadable sustainable network maps Real time passenger information at bus stops 10 cycle fun events in communities through the year, to include showcasing different bikes, info provision, PTP, something for the whole family to get into cycling Professionally produced videos of key routes within the area, helping to breakdown barriers for new / nervous cyclists. Would demonstrate how best to deal with difficult junctions etc. Building on the success of the Norwich Rail Station bike hire scheme, we'd launch cycle hire at Wymondham rail station, creating a link with Hethel Engineering Centre. 20 bikes Scaling up existing public health initiatives to promote walking in the community Look at opportunities to use crowd sourcing and online data to target information and travel improvements Continue work commenced as part of BBA to target businesses in the city centre, utilising the bus travel toolkit which is packed with up to date travel information. Scale up this delivery to encourage the creation of voluntary travel plans. Adapt existing bus travel toolkit for businesses so that this is can be used as a general tool for residents. All schools have a travel plan, we would work to re-engage schools in the area. Link in with cycle maintenance initiative and existing road safety training in schools. Continue to deliver PTP to employees of key businesses in Norwich, adding value through LSTF by also providing PTP to residents in Wymondham, Hethersett, Cringleford and Bowthorpe. Cost includes staff time and purchase of PTP credits Scaling up existing PTP work as part of BBA, adapting the tool so that it's fit for purpose. Aiming to reduce barriers to the take up of interviews & appointments. Also subsidising travel for jobseekers when successfully acquired a job Downloadable maps of key routes to education & employment sites, with recommended walking, cycling & bus stops. Aim to simplify maps, so have tube style, drawing on best practice elsewhere. Adding value to this through targeted promotion through LSTF Better Connected PM Marketing & Press Officer Project Coordinator Better Connected Marketing & press officer Better Connected Project Coordinator Mouchel

10 Figure 2-1 Better Connected Travel Corridor Contains Ordnance Survey Data Crown Copyright & Database Right Scheme Costs A robust cost estimate has been prepared for the measures described in Table 2-2. They are based on Quarter prices and the base costs are set out in Table 2-3. Table 2-3 Better Connected Scheme Cost Estimate (Base Costs) Bid element Measure Base Costs Reducing barriers to active travel Enhancing public transport experience Cycle training for adults 10,000 Bike maintenance sessions 200,000 Organised cycle rides 10,000 Cycle fun days 50,000 Cycle videos 50,000 Bike hire scheme 85,000 Beat the Streets & fit together health walks 10,000 Innovative ways of capturing customer feedback 15,000 Mouchel

11 Bid element Measure Base Costs Travel planning Better travel information Target key businesses across city centre and wider project area 40,000 Travel toolkit for residents 50,000 Encouraging travel independence for school children through travel planning 50,000 Personalised travel planning with residents 75,000 Personalised travel planning at the N&N Hospital and through Jobcentre Plus 100,000 Downloadable sustainable network maps 100,000 Real time passenger information at bus stops 10,000 Project manager 50,000 Marketing & press officer 40,000 Project coordinator 40,000 Total Base Costs 985, Quantified Risk Assessment & Optimism Bias The impact of inflation and optimism bias has also been assessed and accounted for within this appraisal. As described above the base costs have been calculated at Q prices, in line with TAG Unit A1.2 the impact of inflation up to end of the LSTF revenue funding period (2015/16) has been calculated (see Table 2-4). To ensure that a robust scheme cost is used as part of the economic appraisal an optimism bias has been applied to adjust the estimate identified above. The approach set out in TAG Unit A1.2 identifies that based on the current development stage of the scheme an optimism bias of 44% may be appropriate for the Better Connected programme. However, as the measures included within this bid look to further develop the smarter travel measures already being successfully delivered, and as these costs are well established, a lower factor is considered more appropriate. As such an optimism bias of 15% has been applied to the scheme equivalent to schemes at the conditional approval / works commitment stage. Table 2-4 Impact of Inflation and Optimism Bias Cost Estimate Uplift Package Costs Optimism Bias 15% Base Costs + Inflation + Optimism Bias 1,254,762 Base Costs + Inflation (2015/16) 1,091,098 Base Costs 985,000 A risk assessment and risk register has been generated for the Better Connected programme, the outputs of which are described in Section B8 of the Better Connected LSTF Bid. TAG Unit A1.2 identifies that a Quantified Risk Assessment Mouchel

12 (QRA) is required for all transport projects with a cost greater than 5m, and is encouraged for smaller schemes, to adjust the base cost for identifiable risks. However, a full quantified risk assessment is not considered proportionate for this scheme due to the scale of the programme and has not been included as part of the scheme costs. Any risks inherent within the cost estimate are considered to have been captured by the inclusion of optimism bias (in respect of this economic appriasal). 2.3 Key Assumptions Assessment Periods The key assessment dates used as part of this appraisal are set out below: Base Year: 2012 Scheme Opening Year: 2016 Assessment period: 30 years ( ) As described in Section 1.1, the Better Connected Programme aims to build on the infrastructure changes that form part of the Better Bus Area and Cycle City Ambition projects. By building on these infrastructure changes the measures contained within this bid aim to result in behavioural changes that will continue to maintain the identified benefits long after the LSTF funding has finished. As such considering the benefits over an appraisal period of 30 years is considered appropriate Key Assumptions The key cycling assumptions used within this appraisal are set out in Table 2-5 below. Table 2-5 Key Assumptions Input Data Without Scheme With Scheme Source/Comments Cycling Demand 2012 Base +20% Based on increases identified within comparative studies an assumed uplift in base demand of 20% is both achievable and conservative, thus the target should in fact be greater. Demand estimate based on cycle count from monitoring and applied across study area using Census data. Average Cycling Speed (kph) Average Cycling Distance (km) Average Cycling Time 14kph 14kph Average DfT Cycle Speed of 20kph reduced to 14kph to allow for local circumstances. Average cycling speed from the Norwich CCAG bid 5.1km 5.1km National Travel Survey Table nts0306 Figure for the year 2012: 3.2miles = 5.1km 22mins 22mins Based on cycling for 5.1km at 14kph. Mouchel

13 3 Demand Estimates 3.1 Overview The following section describes the process used to derive the baseline statistics for the following: Baseline population within the study area; The number of people in full time employment within the study area; The journey to work mode split for the study area; The cycling trip demand per day; The cycling trip demand for journeys to work per year; and The cycling trip demand for per year. These have been used to forecast the likely change in demand for cycling resulting from the implementation of the Better Connected programme. 3.2 Baseline Population & Journey to Work Data The baseline population and journey to work data was taken from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 2011 Census Data. The following datasets covering the study area were extracted at Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) level: Total population; Total population aged 16-74; Total aged in employment; Total aged not in employment; and The number of people travelling to work by bicycle. The outputs are set out in Appendix A. 3.3 Estimation of Cycling Demand An estimate of the baseline cycling trip demand across the study area has been derived using available automated cycle count data and the journey to work cycle mode share for each LSOA within the study area. The cycle count data was taken from a counter located on the B1172 which is the closest point to the A11 corridor and the focus for the Better Connected programme. The cycle count data (for 2012) gives an average of 96 single cycle trips per day. This figure was then adjusted using 2011 Census Method of Travel to Work data from the 2011 Census Neighbourhood Statistics for the LSOAs relevant to the study area to reflect the difference in proportion of working residents travelling to work by bicycle. The following formula was used to adjust cycle count data to provide an estimate of the likely cycle trip demand per day within the study area for 2012: 96*Cycle to work Mode Share (LSOA for the study area) / Cycle to Work Mode Share (LSOA for the Count Data Site) Mouchel

14 The trip demand per day was then factored up to provide an annual trip demand for travel to work journeys (based on weekday trips) and for total annual demand for all journeys. The demand estimates for the study area are set out in Appendix B. 3.4 Forecast Cycling Demand The demand estimates for cycling across the study area are summarised in Table 3-1 below. It details the demand for 2012 (based of the cycle data and calculation described in Section 3.3), and the estimates for the scheme opening year. Table 3-1 Demand Estimate Cycling Trips 2012 Base Demand Calculation Cycling Trips (Base) 9351 Cycling Trip demand per day for study area Number of Cyclists (Base) 5143 Based on guidance set out in WebTAG A5.1 The number of individual users is based on the assumption that 90% of trips are part of a return journey using the same route, to avoid double counting in the calculation of the number of individuals affected: Base trips * 90% / 2 + Base trips * 10% = Individual users Scheme Opening Year Estimate Demand Calculation Cycling Trips - Without scheme (DM) Assuming 3.5% growth each year, based on average cycle trip growth in Norwich and South Norfolk based on cycle count data Cycling Trips - With scheme (DS) Assumes a 20% increase in cycling after 1 year Usage difference (trips) 1216 DS Trips DM Trips Number of Cyclists - Without Scheme 5503 Based on guidance set out in WebTAG A5.1 The number of individual users is based on the assumption that 90% of trips are part of a return journey using the same route, to avoid double counting in the calculation of the number of individuals affected: DM Trips * 90% / 2 + DM Trips * 10% = Individual users Number of Cyclists -With Scheme 6171 Based on guidance set out in WebTAG A5.1 The number of individual users is based on the assumption that 90% of trips are part of a return journey using the same route, to avoid double counting in the calculation of the number of individuals affected: DS trips * 90% / 2 + DS trips * 10% = Individual users Usage difference (Number of Cyclists) 669 DS Number of Cyclists DM Number of Cyclists Mouchel

15 4 Journey Ambience Benefits 4.1 Overview This section provides an overview of the journey quality benefits that are forecast to result from the Better Connected Programme. They specifically relate to the impact of the additional cycling infrastructure that forms an integral part of the measures included within the bid. 4.2 Assumptions Type of Project and Associated Ambience Rates The calculation of benefits follows the guidance set out in TAG Unit A5.1 and uses the data contained in the TAG data book (see Table 4.1 below) to quantify the impact of the additional cycle facilities at Wymondham Rail Station (cycle hire scheme) and the creation of a link to Hethel Engineering Centre. The values for on on-road non-segregated cycle lane and secure cycle parking facilities have been used as the basis for the calculation. Table 4-1 Value of journey ambience benefit of cycle facilities relative to no facilities (2010 prices and values) TAG Data Book A4.1.6 Scheme type Value (p/min) Source Off-road segregated cycle track 7.03 Hopkinson & Wardman (1996) On-road segregated cycle lane 2.99 Hopkinson & Wardman (1996) On-road non-segregated cycle lane 2.97 Wardman et al. (1997) Wider lane 1.81 Hopkinson & Wardman (1996) Shared bus lane 0.77 Hopkinson & Wardman (1996) Value (p) Secure cycle parking facilities Wardman et al. (2007) Changing and shower facilities Wardman et al. (2007) Methodology The calculation of journey ambience benefits aims to assess the impact on both new and existing users. Tables 4-2 and 4-3 summarise the calculations used to formulate the benefits of the cycle hire scheme at Wymondham Rail Station and the new link to the Hethel Engineering Centre. Mouchel

16 Table 4-2 Journey Ambience Data for Wymondham Rail Station Cycle Hire Scheme Wymondham Rail Station Cycle Hire Scheme Calculation Benefit per cyclist value (p/min)*average trip time / 2 Demand (Existing Users) Demand (New Users) Existing Users (based on 2011 Census Journey to work data) *10% (Estimate of existing users that may use new facilities) Existing Users (based on 2011 Census Journey to work data) *15% (Estimate of new users that may use new facilities) Existing Users Benefit [Existing Users*Benefit per cyclist] / 100 New Users Benefit [New Users*Benefit per cyclist] *0.5 / 100 Annual User Benefit [Existing User Benefit *260] + [New User Benefit * 260] Table Journey Ambience Data for Cycle Link to Hethel Engineering Centre Cycle Link to Hethel Engineering Centre Demand (Existing Users) Demand (New Users) Calculation Existing Users (based on 2011 Census Journey to work data) *1% (Estimate of existing users that may use new facilities) Existing Users (based on 2011 Census Journey to work data) *5% (Estimate of new users that may use new facilities) Existing Users Benefit [Existing Users*98.14] / 100 New Users Benefit [New Users*98.14] *0.5 / 100 Annual User Benefit [Existing User Benefit *260] + [New User Benefit * 260] 4.3 Ambience Benefit Output The forecast Journey Ambience benefits are detailed in Table 4-4 and show an annual benefit (in 2010 prices) of 69,307. The forecast benefits over the 30 year appraisal period (in 2010 prices) are forecast to total 1,405,568. Table 4-4 Summary of Journey Ambience Benefits (2010 Prices) Scheme Type Value (p/min) (p) Benefit per cyclist (p) Existing users (per day) New users (per day) Existing user benefit (per day) New user benefit (per day) Annual benefit On-road nonsegregated cycle lane Cycle Parking Facilities , , Total 69, Present Value of Journey Ambience Benefits over 30 year Appraisal Period 1,405,568 Mouchel

17 5 Health (Physical Activity) Benefits 5.1 Overview The calculation of health benefits follows the methodology set out by Quantifying the health effects of cycling and walking (WHO, 2007). It uses its accompanying model, the Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT), to quantify the benefits associated with active travel mode measures such as those set out within the Better Connected LSTF application. The following section summaries the assumptions used within the HEAT assessment and details the outputs. 5.2 Assumptions As described above, the assessment utilised the HEAT tool to calculate and forecast the health benefits that may result from the scheme. The assessment follows the guidance set out within both TAG Unit A5.1 and HEAT; Table 5-1 details the assumptions input into HEAT. Table 5-1 HEAT Assumptions Assumptions Average Cycle Trip Duration (NTS) HEAT Average number of days people cycle (Based on WHO Guidance) Variables 22mins 124 days Number of Cyclists (DM) 5503 Number of Cyclists (DS) 6171 Assessment Period 1 yr assessment Cycle Casualties (from NorfolkInsight) death per 100,000 Value of Fatality (TAG Unit A5.1) 1,643,572 Future Benefits Discount Rate 3.5% 5.3 HEAT Outputs The HEAT outputs are set out in Figure 5-1 and the health (physical activity) benefits summarised in Table 5-2 below. Table 5-2 Summary of Monetised Health Benefits HEAT Benefits Summary Benefits Average Annual Benefit (HEAT) 108,000 Present Value of Health Benefits over 30 Year Appraisal Period 2,190,268 Mouchel

18 Figure 5-1 HEAT Model Outputs Mouchel

19 6 Absenteeism Benefits 6.1 Overview This section describes the assumptions and methodology used to assess the impact of the Better Connected scheme on a reduction in absenteeism. The calculation of benefits follows the guidance set out in TAG Unit A Assumptions The benefits have been calculated using the assumptions set out in Table 6-1. Table Absenteeism Benefits Assumptions Assumption 7.7 Days per Year 30 mins activity to achieve 6% reduction in short term sick leave 6% expected reduction in absenteeism from increased physical activity Source Average annual absenteeism rate per person from CIPD Absence Management report, minutes of exercise a day has been shown to reduce short term sick leave by 6%-32%. (WHO, 2003) 6.3 Methodology The methodology for calculating the forecast benefits resulting from a reduction in absenteeism benefits is set out in Table 6-2. Table 6-2 Calculation of Absenteeism Benefits Variable Calculation Outcome Days per year - average annual absenteeism rate per person Average annual absenteeism rate per person from CIPD Absence Management report, Expected reduction in absenteeism from increased physical activity Minutes of activity to achieve 6% reduction WHO, % WHO, Reduction in sick days per affected individual Median gross annual earnings for fulltime employees (2013 ONS report). Multiplied by 2 to account for overheads. Average salary cost per working day. Av Annual absenteeism rate (Days per Year) * Expected Reduction in Absenteeism Median Gross Annual Earnings (Full Time Emp) * 2 Median Gross Annual Earnings (Full Time Emp) / Working Days Per Year (260) , Benefit per affected individual Average Salary cost per Working Day * Reduction in Sick Days per affected Individual Estimated increase in Cyclists See Section Assume 60% of new cyclists are commuters Estimate split of new cyclists. 60% Average Cycle Journey Time (Mins) N/A 22 Mouchel

20 Variable Calculation Outcome Value of reduction in absenteeism per new cyclist per annum Absenteeism Benefits per annum Benefit per affected individual * % of New Cyclist Commuters * Average Cycle Journey Time / 30mins Activity Value of reduction in absenteeism per new cyclist per annum * Estimate Increase in Cyclists , Outputs The forecast absenteeism benefits are summarised in Table 6-3 below. Table Absenteeism Benefits Summary Absenteeism Benefits Summary Benefits Absenteeism Benefits per annum 28, Present Value of Absenteeism Benefits over 30 Year Appraisal Period 572,444 Mouchel

21 7 Accident Benefits 7.1 Overview The Better Connected programme includes a number of measures designed to improve cycling safety such as cycle training, bike maintenance sessions, organised cycle rides and road safety training as part of the school travel planning measures. The following section describes the process for forecasting the accident benefits that may result from the programme. 7.2 Assumptions & Base Data The calculation of accident benefits follows the guidance set out in TAG Unit 4.1 for active travel. It uses the average accident values as set out in TAG Data Book A4.1.2 (see Table 7-1) and the variables set out in Table 7-2 below. Table 7-1 Average Value of Accident Prevention per Road Casualty by Class of Road User (TAG Data Book A4.1.2) Average value of prevention per road casualty by class of road user (2010 prices and 2010 values) Road user class Average value Pedestrian Pedal cyclist Bus and coach occupants Goods vehicle occupants Car and taxi occupants Motorised two-wheeler rider and passengers All motor vehicle users Average, all road users Table 7-2 Better Connected Accident Assumptions Description & Source Accidents involving cyclists in the Better Connected study area for recent 5 year period (NCC Data) Assumption Annual average cyclists accidents 48.2 Cyclist accident reduction estimate * 15% Accidents saved per year (Annual average cyclists accidents * % Reduction in accidents) Value of accident prevention per cyclist accident (Tag Data Book A4.1.2) 53, Elasticity of accident increase based on 20% (TAG Unit A1.4) 7.57% * Note that whilst this is based on an estimate a sensitivity test has been undertaken to assess the impact of a lower accident reduction percentage. A 10% saving will deliver a positive overall BCR of Mouchel

22 7.3 Accident Benefits Calculation Table 7-3 below sets out the components used within the accident benefit calculation. Table 7-3 Accident Benefits Calculation Accident Benefit Variables Calculation Outcome Base Accident Level Annual average cyclists accidents 48.2 Change in accidents due to package projects Estimate -15% Accident level post measure Base Accident Level (Base Accident Level* Cyclist accident reduction estimate) Forecast Cycle growth Estimate 20% Accident elasticity parameter Based on TAG Unit A Increase in accidents Elasticity of accident increase based on 20% increase in cycling (TAG Unit A1.4) Forecast additional accidents Forecast accidents Average accident value for pedal cyclist Accident benefit per year Accident level post measure * Increase in accidents Accident level post measure + Forecast additional accidents Value of accident prevention per cyclist accident (Tag Data Book A4.1.2) (Base cyclists accidents Forecast cyclist accidents) * Average value of accident prevention for cyclist road casualty ( 53,149) 7.57% , , Outputs The forecast accident benefits are summarised in Table 7-4 below. Table Accident Benefits Summary Accident Benefits Summary Benefits Accident Benefits per annum 219,529.5 Present Value of Accident Benefits over 30 Year Appraisal Period 4,452,116 Mouchel

23 8 Marginal External Cost 8.1 Overview This section describes the calculation of Marginal External Cost (MEC) benefits for the Better Connected programme. TAG Unit A5.4 Marginal External Cost states that road decongestion benefits will arise where significant traffic reductions occur in moderate to congested conditions. The guidance identifies that in the absence of a multi-modal transport model (as is the case for this scheme) the primary method for estimating decongestion benefits is through calculating the MEC. The guidance describes that the use of road vehicles incurs both private costs borne by the individual traveller (such as fuel costs and personal travel time) and external costs borne by others. For car use, these external costs include congestion, air pollution, noise, infrastructure and accident costs. The MEC methodology is based on the change in these external costs arising from an additional (or removed) vehicle (or vehicle km) on the network. 8.2 Assumptions and Base Data The MEC analysis for the Better Connected programme has focused on the reduction in car kilometres as a result of cycling and follows the four steps to assess MECs set out in TAG Unit A5.4, these are: Step 1 Estimate the change in car kilometres Step 2 Analyse the characteristics of the car journeys removed Step 3 Calculate marginal external costs for modelled years Step 4 Discount costs over the appraisal period As per the guidance Table 8-1 sets out the assumptions that have been used to estimate the reduction in car kilometres as a result of the Better Connected package of measures. Table 8-1 MEC s Summary of assumptions used for reduction in car kilometres calculation Variable Description Assumption Average trip length for cyclists (KM, based on NTS Data) 5.1 Number of Cyclists without scheme 5503 Number of Cyclists with scheme 6171 Without scheme cyclist km length (5.1 * Number of Cyclists without scheme) With scheme cyclist km length (5.1 * Number of Cyclists with scheme) Change in cycling kms (With scheme cyclist km length - With scheme cyclist km length) Proportion of cyclists that could have used car but chose not to (based on travel plan experience and DfT Door to Door strategy). 30% Car KMs saved (Proportion of cyclists that could have used car but chose not to * Change in cycling KMs ) Car KMs saved per year (Car KMs saved * working days per year) Mouchel

24 The second step of the analysis requires an understanding of the characteristics of the car journeys removed from the network. TAG Unit A5.4 recommends using proportions from TAG data book A5.4.1 Traffic by region, congestion band, area type and road type. These are summarised in Table 8.2 below. Table Proportion of traffic by road type for East Anglia (TAG Data Book A5.4.1) Year A road Other Road % 16.30% % 16.20% % 16.10% % 16% % 16% % 16% 8.3 Marginal External Cost Benefits Calculation As described above, steps one and two provide the change in car kilometres by road type, area type and congestion level for the opening year and future years. As per step three of the process these have been combined with the marginal external costs given in the TAG databook, to estimate the decongestion benefits in the opening and future years. Table 8-3 details the outcome of this process. Table Weighted average marginal external costs for East Anglia (pence per km) MEC Decongestion Infrastructure Accidents Local AQ Noise GHG Indirect taxation Reduction in km (000 s) Net impact Mouchel

25 8.4 Outcome The forecast MEC benefits are summarised in Table 8-4 below. Table MEC Benefits Summary MEC Benefits Summary Present Value ( 000s, 2010 prices) Congestion 76,296 Infrastructure 517 Accident 15,944 Air quality 0 Noise 1,044 GHG 3,367 Indirect Tax - 19,197 Mouchel

26 9 Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits 9.1 Summary Table 9.1 summarises the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) and Present Value of Costs (PVC) based on the appraisal of the economic impacts outlined in the preceding sections of this report. The table shows a PVB of 8,698,365 (Appendix C details how this is calculated for each benefit) over the 30 year appraisal period and a PVC of 1,109,358. Table 9-1 Analysis of Monetised Costs & Benefits (2010 Prices) Costs & Benefits Benefits ( ) Noise 1,044 Local Air Quality 0 Greenhouse Gases 3,367 Journey Quality 1,405,568 Physical Activity 2,190,268 Accidents (Includes accident benefits for active modes + accident benefits derived from MEC) Economic Efficiency: 4,468,060 - Decongestion 76,296 - Absenteeism 572,444 - Infrastructure 517 Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -19,197 Present Value of Benefits (PVB) 8,698,365 Broad Transport Budget Investment Costs 1,109,358 Present Value of Costs (PVC) 1,109,358 Overall Impacts Net Present Value (NPV) 7,589,007 Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) Value for Money The Net Present Value for the Better Connected package of measures is 7,589,007 and a Benefit to Cost Ratio of Mouchel

27 10 Appendix A Baseline Population and Journey to Work Data 10.1 Baseline Population and Journey to Work Data Table Census Neighbourhood Statistics: Population & Journey to Work, Census Lower SOA All aged 16 to to 74 in employment Travel to work by bicycle Bicycle Travel to work mode share % Broadland 006A % Broadland 006E % Broadland 006F % Broadland 006G % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % Breckland 006C % Broadland 007B % Broadland 007C % Broadland 007D % Broadland 002C % Broadland 010A % Broadland 010B % Broadland 010C % Broadland 010D % Broadland 011A % Broadland 011B % Broadland 011C % Norwich 005A % Norwich 005B % Norwich 005C % Norwich 005D % Norwich 005F % Norwich 001A % Norwich 012A % Norwich 012B % Norwich 012C % Norwich 012D % Norwich 012E % Mouchel

28 2011 Census Lower SOA All aged 16 to to 74 in employment Travel to work by bicycle Bicycle Travel to work mode share % Norwich 012F % Norwich 002A % Norwich 002E % Norwich 002F % Norwich 009B % Norwich 009C % Norwich 009D % Norwich 010A % Norwich 010B % Norwich 010C % Norwich 010D % Norwich 010E % Norwich 006A % Norwich 006B % Norwich 006C % Norwich 006D % Norwich 006E % Norwich 006F % Norwich 006G % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % Mouchel

29 2011 Census Lower SOA All aged 16 to to 74 in employment Travel to work by bicycle Bicycle Travel to work mode share % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % Norwich 005G % Norwich 005H % South Norfolk % South Norfolk % Total Average: 6.6% Mouchel

30 11 Appendix B Estimation of Cycling Demand 11.1 Estimation of Cycling Demand Table Better Connected Trip Demand Summary Census Lower SOA Trip Demand (per day) Trip Demand (per Yr, Journey to Work) Trip Demand (per Yr) Broadland 006A Broadland 006E Broadland 006F Broadland 006G South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk Breckland 006C Broadland 007B Broadland 007C Broadland 007D Broadland 002C Broadland 010A Broadland 010B Broadland 010C Broadland 010D Broadland 011A Broadland 011B Broadland 011C Norwich 005A Norwich 005B Norwich 005C Norwich 005D Norwich 005F Norwich 001A Norwich 012A Norwich 012B Norwich 012C Norwich 012D Norwich 012E Norwich 012F Mouchel

31 2011 Census Lower SOA Trip Demand (per day) Trip Demand (per Yr, Journey to Work) Trip Demand (per Yr) Norwich 002A Norwich 002E Norwich 002F Norwich 009B Norwich 009C Norwich 009D Norwich 010A Norwich 010B Norwich 010C Norwich 010D Norwich 010E Norwich 006A Norwich 006B Norwich 006C Norwich 006D Norwich 006E Norwich 006F Norwich 006G South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk Mouchel

32 2011 Census Lower SOA Trip Demand (per day) Trip Demand (per Yr, Journey to Work) Trip Demand (per Yr) South Norfolk South Norfolk South Norfolk Norwich 005G Norwich 005H South Norfolk South Norfolk Total Mouchel

33 12 Appendix C Present Value of Benefits 12.1 Present Value of Benefits Calculation Year GDP Growth Discount Factor Accident Benefits Journey Quality Benefits Activity (Health) Benefits Absenteeism Benefits Congestion Discount Infrastructure Discount Accident Discount MEC Benefits Air Quality Discount Noise Discount GHG Discount Indirect Tax Discount Discounted to 2010 Discounted to 2010 Discounted to 2010 Discounted to 2010 Discounted to 2010 Discounted to 2010 Discounted to 2010 Discounted to 2010 Discounted to 2010 Discounted to 2010 Discounted to 2010 ( ) Per Year ( ) Per Year ( ) Per Year ( ) Per Year ( ) Per Year ( ) Per Year ( ) Per Year ( ) Per Year ( ) Per Year ( ) Per Year ( ) Per Year % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % Mouchel

34 % % % % % % Sum 4,452,116 1,405,568 2,190, , Mouchel