Better Connected. Economic Appraisal Report. April 2014. Norfolk County Council

Better Connected Economic Appraisal Report April 2014 Norfolk County Council

Document Control Sheet Project Title Report Title Better Connected Economic Appraisal Report Report ref no. 1059214 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

Contents Document Control Sheet... i Contents... ii Table of figures... iii Tables... iv 1 Introduction... 1 2 Key Assumptions... 3 3 Demand Estimates... 8 4 Journey Ambience Benefits... 10 5 Health Benefits... 12 6 Absenteeism Benefits... 14 7 Accident Benefits... 16 8 Marginal External Cost... 18 9 Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits... 21 10 Appendix A Baseline Population and Journey to Work Data... 22 11 Appendix B Estimation of Cycling Demand... 25 12 Appendix C Present Value of Benefits... 28 Mouchel 2014 ii

Table of figures Figure 2-1 Better Connected Economic Appraisal Study Area... 5 Figure 5-1 HEAT Model Outputs... 13 Mouchel 2014 iii

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 A4.1.6... 10 Table 4-2 Journey Ambience Data for Wymondham Rail Station Cycle Hire Scheme 11 Table 4-3 - Journey Ambience Data for Cycle Link to Hethel Engineering Centre... 11 Table 4-4 Summary of Journey Ambience Benefits (2010 Prices)... 11 Table 5-1 HEAT Assumptions... 12 Table 5-2 Summary of Monetised Health Benefits... 12 Table 6-1 - Absenteeism Benefits Assumptions... 14 Table 6-2 Calculation of Absenteeism Benefits... 14 Table 6-3 - Absenteeism Benefits Summary... 15 Table 7-1 Average Value of Accident Prevention per Road Casualty by Class of Road User (TAG Data Book A4.1.2)... 16 Table 7-2 Better Connected Accident Assumptions... 16 Table 7-3 Accident Benefits Calculation... 17 Table 7-4 - Accident Benefits Summary... 17 Table 8-1 MEC s Summary of assumptions used for reduction in car kilometres calculation... 18 Table 8-2 - Proportion of traffic by road type for East Anglia (TAG Data Book A5.4.1).. 19 Table 8-3 - Weighted average marginal external costs for East Anglia (pence per km). 19 Table 8-4 - MEC Benefits Summary... 20 Table 9-1 Analysis of Monetised Costs & Benefits (2010 Prices)... 21 Table 10-1 2011 Census Neighbourhood Statistics: Population & Journey to Work, 2011... 22 Table 11-1 - Better Connected Trip Demand Summary 2012... 25 Mouchel 2014 iv

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). 1.1.1 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 2014 1

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 2014 2

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 2.1.1 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 2014 3

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 2014 4

Figure 2-1 Better Connected Travel Corridor Contains Ordnance Survey Data Crown Copyright & Database Right 2014 2.2 Scheme Costs A robust cost estimate has been prepared for the measures described in Table 2-2. They are based on Quarter 3 2013 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 2014 5

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 985,000 2.2.1 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 Q3 2013 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 2014 6

(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 2.3.1 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 (2016 2046) 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. 2.3.2 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 2014 7

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 16-74 in employment; Total aged 16-74 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 2014 8

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) 10005 Assuming 3.5% growth each year, based on average cycle trip growth in Norwich and South Norfolk based on cycle count data 2008-2012 Cycling Trips - With scheme (DS) 11221 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 2014 9

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 4.2.1 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 98.14 Wardman et al. (2007) Changing and shower facilities 20.82 Wardman et al. (2007) 4.2.2 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 2014 10

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 4-3 - 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 2.97 32.67 550 100 179.78 16.38 51,001.17 98.1 98.14 55 33 54.00 16.40 18,306.04 Total 69,307.21 Present Value of Journey Ambience Benefits over 30 year Appraisal Period 1,405,568 Mouchel 2014 11

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) 104.3 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 2014 12

Figure 5-1 HEAT Model Outputs Mouchel 2014 13

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 A4.1. 6.2 Assumptions The benefits have been calculated using the assumptions set out in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 - 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, 2012 30 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, 2012 7.7 Expected reduction in absenteeism from increased physical activity Minutes of activity to achieve 6% reduction WHO, 2003 6% WHO, 2003 30 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) 0.462 54,000 207.69 Benefit per affected individual Average Salary cost per Working Day * Reduction in Sick Days per affected Individual 95.95 Estimated increase in Cyclists See Section 3 669 Assume 60% of new cyclists are commuters Estimate split of new cyclists. 60% Average Cycle Journey Time (Mins) N/A 22 Mouchel 2014 14

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 42.2 28,226.64 6.4 Outputs The forecast absenteeism benefits are summarised in Table 6-3 below. Table 6-3 - Absenteeism Benefits Summary Absenteeism Benefits Summary Benefits Absenteeism Benefits per annum 28,226.64 Present Value of Absenteeism Benefits over 30 Year Appraisal Period 572,444 Mouchel 2014 15

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 79056.53 Pedal cyclist 53148.86 Bus and coach occupants 27860.99 Goods vehicle occupants 45983.85 Car and taxi occupants 36912.28 Motorised two-wheeler rider and passengers 86167.65 All motor vehicle users 43287.13 Average, all road users 48970.79 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) 53,148.86 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 5.1. 241 7.23 Mouchel 2014 16

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) 40.97 Forecast Cycle growth Estimate 20% Accident elasticity parameter Based on TAG Unit A4.1 0.4 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% 3.10 44.07 53,148.859 219,529.5 7.4 Outputs The forecast accident benefits are summarised in Table 7-4 below. Table 7-4 - 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 2014 17

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) 28064.33 With scheme cyclist km length (5.1 * Number of Cyclists with scheme) 31474.02 Change in cycling kms (With scheme cyclist km length - With scheme cyclist km length) 3409.685 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 ) -1022.91 Car KMs saved per year (Car KMs saved * working days per year) -265955 Mouchel 2014 18

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 8-2 - Proportion of traffic by road type for East Anglia (TAG Data Book A5.4.1) Year A road Other Road 2010 17.40% 16.30% 2015 17.40% 16.20% 2020 17.30% 16.10% 2025 17.20% 16% 2030 17.20% 16% 2035 17.10% 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 8-3 - Weighted average marginal external costs for East Anglia (pence per km) MEC 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Decongestion 4.06 4.35 5.36 6.55 7.74 7.74 7.74 7.74 Infrastructure 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 Accidents 1.01 1.08 1.17 1.26 1.39 1.39 1.39 1.39 Local AQ 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Noise 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 GHG 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 Indirect taxation -1.72-1.68-1.52-1.29-1.19-1.19-1.19-1.19 Reduction in km (000 s) 0.00 239.4 141.3 83.5 49.3 29.1 17.2 17.2 Net impact 0.00 9.99 7.573 5.758 4.112 2.428 1.434 1.434 Mouchel 2014 19

8.4 Outcome The forecast MEC benefits are summarised in Table 8-4 below. Table 8-4 - 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 2014 20

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) 7.84 9.2 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 7.84. Mouchel 2014 21

10 Appendix A Baseline Population and Journey to Work Data 10.1 Baseline Population and Journey to Work Data Table 10-1 2011 Census Neighbourhood Statistics: Population & Journey to Work, 2011 2011 Census Lower SOA All aged 16 to 74 16 to 74 in employment Travel to work by bicycle Bicycle Travel to work mode share % Broadland 006A 853 623 14 2.2% Broadland 006E 1097 776 16 2.1% Broadland 006F 1189 683 17 2.5% Broadland 006G 1189 848 26 3.1% South Norfolk 007 1567 1204 49 4.1% South Norfolk 007 743 470 16 3.4% South Norfolk 004 925 681 16 2.3% South Norfolk 004 1227 747 15 2.0% South Norfolk 007 1953 1444 62 4.3% Breckland 006C 865 600 5 0.8% Broadland 007B 1260 987 27 2.7% Broadland 007C 816 473 7 1.5% Broadland 007D 839 517 23 4.4% Broadland 002C 1073 750 18 2.4% Broadland 010A 1030 652 39 6.0% Broadland 010B 1016 655 42 6.4% Broadland 010C 936 609 39 6.4% Broadland 010D 1161 768 41 5.3% Broadland 011A 1275 833 53 6.4% Broadland 011B 1219 846 61 7.2% Broadland 011C 1278 894 68 7.6% Norwich 005A 1118 611 46 7.5% Norwich 005B 1052 662 47 7.1% Norwich 005C 1203 638 53 8.3% Norwich 005D 1565 1081 55 5.1% Norwich 005F 1208 604 57 9.4% Norwich 001A 1846 1406 106 7.5% Norwich 012A 963 571 55 9.6% Norwich 012B 1051 669 78 11.7% Norwich 012C 1044 741 78 10.5% Norwich 012D 990 595 65 10.9% Norwich 012E 1051 633 81 12.8% Mouchel 2014 22

2011 Census Lower SOA All aged 16 to 74 16 to 74 in employment Travel to work by bicycle Bicycle Travel to work mode share % Norwich 012F 1084 711 95 13.4% Norwich 002A 1182 702 56 8.0% Norwich 002E 936 553 54 9.8% Norwich 002F 990 520 60 11.5% Norwich 009B 1244 835 129 15.4% Norwich 009C 1203 848 116 13.7% Norwich 009D 1184 790 112 14.2% Norwich 010A 1069 496 59 11.9% Norwich 010B 1104 634 74 11.7% Norwich 010C 4026 876 80 9.1% Norwich 010D 1143 555 43 7.7% Norwich 010E 952 574 82 14.3% Norwich 006A 1471 908 108 11.9% Norwich 006B 1121 781 65 8.3% Norwich 006C 1395 810 74 9.1% Norwich 006D 1265 842 116 13.8% Norwich 006E 1077 575 52 9.0% Norwich 006F 1140 607 65 10.7% Norwich 006G 1006 513 43 8.4% South Norfolk 005 1100 707 21 3.0% South Norfolk 005 975 645 16 2.5% South Norfolk 002 975 724 37 5.1% South Norfolk 002 1399 904 47 5.2% South Norfolk 002 1189 784 30 3.8% South Norfolk 007 838 550 27 4.9% South Norfolk 007 1061 755 22 2.9% South Norfolk 002 1153 806 20 2.5% South Norfolk 002 900 621 17 2.7% South Norfolk 003 691 386 14 3.6% South Norfolk 003 1041 627 26 4.1% South Norfolk 003 1294 902 37 4.1% South Norfolk 003 1046 819 43 5.3% South Norfolk 009 1217 907 22 2.4% South Norfolk 009 1111 731 21 2.9% South Norfolk 009 1442 1066 21 2.0% South Norfolk 001 1484 990 62 6.3% South Norfolk 001 1025 671 36 5.4% South Norfolk 001 1260 811 51 6.3% Mouchel 2014 23

2011 Census Lower SOA All aged 16 to 74 16 to 74 in employment Travel to work by bicycle Bicycle Travel to work mode share % South Norfolk 005 1014 687 35 5.1% South Norfolk 005 982 621 25 4.0% South Norfolk 001 1096 677 23 3.4% South Norfolk 001 1539 1033 52 5.0% Norwich 005G 1394 891 86 9.7% Norwich 005H 999 530 47 8.9% South Norfolk 001 1592 1353 35 2.6% South Norfolk 001 1124 712 15 2.1% Total 92135 58311 3746 Average: 6.6% Mouchel 2014 24

11 Appendix B Estimation of Cycling Demand 11.1 Estimation of Cycling Demand Table 11-1 - Better Connected Trip Demand Summary 2012 2011 Census Lower SOA Trip Demand (per day) Trip Demand (per Yr, Journey to Work) Trip Demand (per Yr) Broadland 006A 41 10683 14669 Broadland 006E 38 9802 13459 Broadland 006F 46 11833 16247 Broadland 006G 56 14576 20014 South Norfolk 007 74 19348 26566 South Norfolk 007 62 16184 22222 South Norfolk 004 43 11169 15337 South Norfolk 004 37 9546 13108 South Norfolk 007 79 20412 28027 Breckland 006C 15 3962 5440 Broadland 007B 50 13005 17857 Broadland 007C 27 7036 9660 Broadland 007D 81 21149 29040 Broadland 002C 44 11410 15666 Broadland 010A 109 28437 39046 Broadland 010B 117 30484 41856 Broadland 010C 117 30444 41802 Broadland 010D 98 25379 34848 Broadland 011A 116 30248 41532 Broadland 011B 132 34278 47067 Broadland 011C 139 36160 49651 Norwich 005A 138 35791 49144 Norwich 005B 130 33752 46344 Norwich 005C 152 39493 54226 Norwich 005D 93 24188 33212 Norwich 005F 173 44864 61602 Norwich 001A 138 35841 49213 Norwich 012A 176 45792 62876 Norwich 012B 213 55428 76107 Norwich 012C 192 50042 68712 Norwich 012D 200 51935 71310 Norwich 012E 234 60833 83529 Norwich 012F 244 63521 87219 Mouchel 2014 25

2011 Census Lower SOA Trip Demand (per day) Trip Demand (per Yr, Journey to Work) Trip Demand (per Yr) Norwich 002A 146 37924 52072 Norwich 002E 179 46423 63742 Norwich 002F 211 54854 75319 Norwich 009B 282 73445 100846 Norwich 009C 250 65031 89293 Norwich 009D 259 67399 92543 Norwich 010A 217 56550 77647 Norwich 010B 213 55488 76190 Norwich 010C 167 43416 59613 Norwich 010D 142 36833 50574 Norwich 010E 261 67914 93252 Norwich 006A 217 56545 77641 Norwich 006B 152 39566 54327 Norwich 006C 167 43432 59635 Norwich 006D 252 65495 89929 Norwich 006E 165 42993 59032 Norwich 006F 196 50908 69900 Norwich 006G 153 39848 54715 South Norfolk 005 54 14121 19389 South Norfolk 005 45 11793 16193 South Norfolk 002 93 24295 33359 South Norfolk 002 95 24717 33938 South Norfolk 002 70 18191 24978 South Norfolk 007 90 23338 32045 South Norfolk 007 53 13853 19021 South Norfolk 002 45 11797 16198 South Norfolk 002 50 13014 17869 South Norfolk 003 66 17243 23675 South Norfolk 003 76 19714 27068 South Norfolk 003 75 19501 26776 South Norfolk 003 96 24960 34272 South Norfolk 009 44 11531 15833 South Norfolk 009 53 13657 18752 South Norfolk 009 36 9365 12859 South Norfolk 001 115 29773 40880 South Norfolk 001 98 25506 35022 South Norfolk 001 115 29896 41049 South Norfolk 005 93 24220 33256 Mouchel 2014 26

2011 Census Lower SOA Trip Demand (per day) Trip Demand (per Yr, Journey to Work) Trip Demand (per Yr) South Norfolk 005 74 19139 26279 South Norfolk 001 62 16151 22177 South Norfolk 001 92 23931 32859 Norwich 005G 176 45886 63005 Norwich 005H 162 42158 57886 South Norfolk 001 47 12298 16886 South Norfolk 001 39 10015 13752 Total 9351 2431148 3338153 Mouchel 2014 27

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 2010 1.00 3.50% 1.00 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2011 0.62 1.01 3.50% 0.97 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012-0.67 1.00 3.50% 0.93 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013-0.40 1.00 3.50% 0.90 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 0.72 1.00 3.50% 0.87 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 1.23 1.02 3.50% 0.84 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2016 1.63 1.03 3.50% 0.81 184230 58163 90634 23687.858 7952.26 58.81 1916.05 0 117.63 486.50-2879.61 2017 1.75 1.05 3.50% 0.79 181118 57180 89103 23287.786 7207.47 51.08 1694.23 0 102.16 412.07-2454.37 2018 1.76 1.07 3.50% 0.76 178077 56220 87607 22896.737 6532.44 44.36 1498.10 0 88.73 349.02-2091.93 2019 1.80 1.09 3.50% 0.73 175156 55298 86170 22521.172 5920.63 38.53 1324.67 0 77.06 295.62-1783.01 2020 1.81 1.11 3.50% 0.71 172300 54396 84765 22153.962 5366.12 33.47 1171.32 0 66.93 250.40-1519.71 2021 1.43 1.12 3.50% 0.68 168848 53307 83067 21710.092 4857.81 29.07 1034.19 0 63.04 217.47-1279.86 2022 1.44 1.14 3.50% 0.66 165481 52244 81410 21277.223 4397.64 25.24 913.11 0 59.38 188.88-1077.86 2023 1.45 1.16 3.50% 0.64 162198 51207 79795 20855.051 3981.07 21.93 806.21 0 55.93 164.05-907.75 2024 1.51 1.17 3.50% 0.62 159074 50221 78258 20453.413 3603.96 19.04 711.82 0 52.68 142.48-764.48 2025 1.62 1.19 3.50% 0.60 156178 49307 76834 20081.09 3262.57 16.54 628.48 0 49.62 123.74-643.83 2026 1.62 1.21 3.50% 0.58 153335 48409 75435 19715.545 2933.71 16.52 557.56 0 43.15 106.18-550.94 2027 1.63 1.23 3.50% 0.56 150559 47533 74069 19358.573 2638.00 16.50 494.63 0 37.52 91.11-471.46 2028 1.64 1.25 3.50% 0.54 147848 46677 72735 19009.949 2372.10 16.48 438.81 0 32.62 78.18-403.44 2029 1.71 1.27 3.50% 0.52 145286 45868 71475 18680.569 2132.99 16.46 389.29 0 28.37 67.08-345.23 2030 1.72 1.29 3.50% 0.50 142783 45078 70244 18358.719 1917.99 16.45 345.36 0 24.67 57.56-295.43 2031 1.62 1.32 3.50% 0.49 140186 44258 68966 18024.811 1667.82 14.30 300.31 0 21.45 50.05-256.89 2032 1.63 1.34 3.50% 0.47 137650 43457 67718 17698.732 1450.28 12.44 261.14 0 18.65 43.52-223.38 2033 1.64 1.36 3.50% 0.45 135173 42675 66500 17380.278 1261.11 10.81 227.08 0 16.22 37.85-194.25 2034 1.91 1.38 3.50% 0.44 133097 42020 65478 17113.314 1096.62 9.40 197.46 0 14.10 32.91-168.91 2035 2.02 1.41 3.50% 0.42 131189 41417 64540 16868.013 953.58 8.18 171.70 0 12.26 28.62-146.88 2036 2.02 1.44 3.50% 0.41 129315 40826 63618 16627.072 829.20 7.11 149.31 0 10.66 24.88-127.72 2037 2.03 1.47 3.50% 0.40 127479 40246 62714 16390.919 721.05 6.18 129.83 0 9.27 21.64-111.06 2038 2.03 1.50 3.50% 0.38 125668 39674 61824 16158.121 627.00 5.38 112.90 0 8.06 18.82-96.58 2039 2.03 1.53 3.50% 0.37 123883 39111 60946 15928.629 545.21 4.67 98.17 0 7.01 16.36-83.98 2040 2.13 1.56 3.50% 0.36 122243 38593 60139 15717.731 474.10 4.07 85.37 0 6.10 14.23-73.02 Mouchel 2014 28

2041 2.13 1.60 3.50% 0.34 120624 38082 59343 15509.626 412.26 3.53 74.23 0 5.30 12.37-63.50 2042 2.14 1.63 3.50% 0.33 119043 37583 58564 15306.267 358.49 3.07 64.55 0 4.61 10.76-55.22 2043 2.14 1.67 3.50% 0.32 117482 37090 57797 15105.575 311.73 2.67 56.13 0 4.01 9.36-48.02 2044 2.14 1.70 3.00% 0.31 116504 36781 57316 14979.88 272.38 2.34 49.05 0 3.50 8.17-41.95 2045 2.14 1.74 3.00% 0.30 115535 36475 56839 14855.232 238.00 2.04 42.86 0 3.06 7.14-36.66 2046 2.14 1.77 3.00% 0.29 114574 36172 56366 14731.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 Sum 4,452,116 1,405,568 2,190,268 572,444 76295.61 516.68 15943.90 0 1043.78 3367.01-19196.92 Mouchel 2014 29