1

INTERREG IVC – CYCLECITIES (1307R4)

Synthesis report: “Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment of individual reports, development of

synthesis report”

CycleCities Partner: Municipality of Genoa in collaboration with the University of Genoa- DICCA-CRUIE

Project Component: 4.1.2 Document version: Final Version

Date: 27 October 2014 Municipality of Genoa authors: Guido Gandino, Yuri Piccione

University of Genoa authors: Francesca Pirlone, Selena Candia

2

Project acronym: CYCLECITIES

Project name: European cities for integrating cycling within sustainable mobility management schemes

Project code: 1307R4

Document Information

Document Identification Name: Synthesis report: Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment of individual reports, development of synthesis report.

Document title: Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment of individual reports, development of synthesis report

Type: Final report

Date of Delivery: 27/10/2

Component: 4.1.2

Component Leader: Municipality of Genoa

Dissemination level: Public Document Status

No. Action Partner Date

1 Submitted Municipality of Genoa 27/10/2014

Document History

Versions Date Changes Type of change Delivered by

Version 1.0 05/09/2014 First draft version -

Municipality of Genoa

Version 2.0 17/10/2014 Second draft version

Updated document with the final version of the public and the private investment reports

Municipality of Genoa

Version 3.0 27/10/2014 Final version - Municipality of Genoa

Disclaimer The information in this document is subject to change without notice. All rights reserved The document is proprietary of the CYCLECITIES Consortium. No copying or distributing, in any form or by any means, is allowed without the prior written agreement of the owner of the property rights. This document reflects only the authors’ view. The INTERREG Programme is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

3

TABLE OF CONTENT 1. Introduction.

This Section provides information regarding the objectives of CycleCities project and the scope of the present study.

1.1 Background

1.2 CycleCities objectives

1.3 EU programs to help cycling projects

1.4 Scope of the present work

2 Methodology.

This section provides information regarding the methodology used.

3 Definition of private and public Investments.

This section defines what fall within the area of public and private investments.

3.1 Typologies of public investments in cycling

3.2 Typologies of private investments in cycling

3.3 Combination of private and public investments

4 Cost and Benefit analysis for private and public investment in cycling.

This section presents economic costs and benefits from investments in cycling infrastructures. a. Costs b. Benefits c. Policies and incentives d. Assessment of existing studies. Summary of quantitative results.

4.1 What is a Cost and Benefit Analysis?

4.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis for private and public investments in cycling

4.3 Costs and Benefits for bicycles

4.4 Assessment examples of CBA

4

5 Environmental Impact Analysis.

This section presents environmental effects connected to investments in cycling infrastructures.

5.1 Methodology

5.1.1 Overview – Objectives

5.1.2 Steps to follow

5.2 Definition of environmental parameters and indicators for different ways of transport

5.2.1 Energy use

5.2.2 Green House Gasses

5.2.3 Air Quality

5.2.4 Noise

5.2.5 Land Use and quality of urban spaces

5.3 Definition of environmental parameters connected to other areas of interest

5.4. Assessment of existing studies for an environmental impact analysis and a CBA in

Cycling

5.4.1 European directives to assess the environmental impacts

5.4.2 Existing tools to calculate the environmental impacts for transport and cycling

5.4.3 Proposition of new assessment methodology and conclusion

6 Review/Conclusions.

In this section it’s reported the summary of the topics visited and the conclusion of the entire analysis work.

7 References.

5

1. Introduction

The Municipality of Genoa is a project partner in the European project “European cities for

integrating cycling within sustainable mobility management schemes (CycleCities)” which is funded

by the INTERREG IVC interregional cooperation programme, financed through the European

Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

As reported in the Application Form the Municipality of Genoa has the assignment to produce a

synthesis report about cycling investment called: “Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment

of individual reports, development of synthesis report”.

The Municipality of Genoa charged the University of Genoa CRUIE (Research Centre about

Urbanism, Infrastructure and Ecology) – DICCA (Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental

engineering) of the editing of the over mentioned document.

The synthesis report is written following the procedure described in the document: “4.1.2

Methodology for the identification & assessment of environmental & economic gains & costs of

cycling in sustainable urban mobility” edited by the Sustainable Mobility Unit of the National

Technical University of Athens.

1.1 Background

Transportation systems can increase the productivity and quality of life at the same time if they are

planned and managed properly. Although the needs of people stimulate the demand for

transportation, environmental pollution and health care are also very important for the people. The

transportation systems should ensure efficient movements of passengers and freights but, such a

system should not deplete the natural resources and badly affects the environment.

Modern urban agglomerations face several problems that affect the quality of life. Many of them

are a result of the inability of existing infrastructures to cope with the transportation needs of the

population. One of the most common reasons behind this fact is the predominance of automobiles

used for local trips. Therefore in recent decades there has been an extensive effort to divert people

from private cars initially to public transportation and more recently to other sustainable urban

mobility methods, such as cycling and walking. Cycling is increasingly recognized as a clean,

sustainable mode of transport and an essential part of an inter-modal plan for sustainable urban

6

travel. While regional and local Authorities bear the primary responsibility for detailed planning and

implementation of cycling policies, national-level commitment is important in setting the right legal,

regulatory and financial framework so that successful implementation of cycling initiatives can take

place.

While the growing trend in car use continues, the level of bicycle use seems generally stable with

only minor fluctuations. The modal share of cycling trips, though varying from country to country, is

roughly 5 to 10% of all trips in Western Europe and approximately 1 to 5% in Central and Eastern

European countries. Two countries stand out with much higher modal shares for cycling:

the Netherlands (32%) and Denmark (18%). Japan’s cycling modal share is also noteworthy at 14%.

Cycling’s share in North American cities, although growing in importance, remains fairly low.

Cycle usage – cycling as main mode of transport % of population

Figure 1: Future of cycle usage in Europe. Source, The Gallup Organization, Hungary upon the request of Directorate

General Mobility and Transport, march 2011.

A slim majority (53%) of EU citizens said they used a car as their main mode of transport and about

one in five (22%) used public transport. “Walking” was mentioned by 13% of EU citizens and 7%

selected “cycling”. The least popular choice was a motorbike, mentioned by 2%.

Men were more likely to say that they used a car to get around on a daily basis (59% vs. 47% of

women). Women more frequently said they usually walked (16% vs. 9% of men) or used public

transport (25% vs. 18%). Almost two-thirds (64%) of rural residents said that they used a car to get

about on a day-to-day basis; metropolitan residents, on the other hand, were almost as likely to

7

mention public transport as they were to say they used a car as their main mode of transport (37%

vs. 43%).

A large majority (71%) of car users felt that public transport was not as convenient as a car, a

similar proportion (72%) said that a lack of connections was a problem, about two-thirds (64%)

mentioned a low frequency of services and 54% said they did not use public transport because it

was not reliable. Half (49%) of car users said public transport was too expensive and a similar

proportion (49%) stressed a lack of information about schedules. Security concerns were

considered as an important reason not to use public transport by 40% of car users.

Cycling policies and measures alone cannot bring about sustainable travel in cities. They are,

however, an important element of a comprehensive package of policy tools designed to improve

the sustainability of the whole transport network. Integration and coherence between cycling

policies and other policies addressing land use, environment, physical health and finance are

essential.

1.2 CycleCities objectives

Research conducted for the purposes of the CycleCities project is aimed at investigating the

introduction and adoption of cycling friendly mobility management schemes.

CycleCities is a project of eight partners from seven European regions with a common initiative to

promote and increase cycling in urban mobility management schemes. The overall goal of the

project CycleCities is to carry out:

a) the transfer of experience and exchanges of good practices among European cities on mobility

management and cycling,

b) the development of a knowledge capital regarding the integration of cycling into urban mobility

strategies. These objectives have as their end-scope to inform relevant target-groups (e.g.

municipalities, ministries, schools and families) about the utility of cycling integration in urban

mobility management schemes.

8

CycleCities addresses some critical challenges and opportunities for European cities that relate to a

number of factors:

- Traffic congestion: 30% of car trips in Europe are under 3km and 50% are under 5km – a 15 minute

bike ride (EEA - European Environment Agency - Report No 5/2009). Reducing car use and

increasing cycling will unclog roads and reduce congestion and associated delays, lost working hours

and wasted fuel.

- Cost reduction: Motorized transport imposes high costs on individuals and society, both directly

(road construction and maintenance) and indirectly (casualties, obesity, pollution, congestion, etc.).

The European Commission (COM 2009/279) estimates the external costs of road transport (mostly

individual motorized transport) at 2.6 % of GDP. Other studies suggest as much as 4% and 8%. Shift

from car to cycling provides an opportunity for huge cost savings.

- Lower carbon footprint: Some 40% of Europe's CO2 emissions from road transport and 70% of

other pollutants are due to urban traffic. As recognized in EU Communication 2009/279, urban

transport accounts for 40% of CO2 emissions, and 70% of other air pollution, in particular PM10 and

NOx emissions, from transport. Tripling the modal share of cycling would save 5% of transport CO2

emissions by 2020. This would make a significant contribution to mitigating climate change and

decreasing dependency on fossil fuels.

- Health benefits: Increasing the modal share of cycling enhances physical and mental health.

Accidents involving cars are associated with cycling and walking, too. Nevertheless, on balance, the

benefits to life expectancy of choosing to cycle are 20 times the injury risks incurred by that choice

(WHO, 2000). Higher proportions of commuter cyclists are correlated with lower risks of casualties.

Car drivers are used to the presence of cyclists and are more likely to be cyclists themselves.

- Land use: increased uptake of cycling leads to reduced land consumption: 10 bikes can be parked

in the space required for one car. One lane of typical road can accommodate 2,000 cars per hour –

or 14,000 bikes. Fostering of investment and neighborhood revitalization: Cycle-friendly cities

9

attract individuals & businesses investment, encourage neighborhood revitalization and can

improve cities quality of life and environment.

1.3 EU programs to help cycling projects

During the EU programming period 2007-2013 it is estimated that €600 million has been allocated

to cycling. This money has come by: the European Commission - seventh Framework Program (FP7),

European Social Fund (ESF), Cohesion Fund; Member States/Regional Authorities - European

Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)-;

European Agencies - Intelligent Energy Europe Program (IEE) by the European Agency for

Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI), Program of Community Action in the Field of Health by the

Executive Agency for Health and Consumers (EAHC)-; Funds for neighboring countries - European

Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)-.

So far, funds have mainly been used for:

• projects promoting cycling through all possible means;

• construction of infrastructure (new complete cycling networks, completion of existing networks,

upgrading existing infrastructures e.g. bicycle bridge, intersections, parking facilities);

• bicycle sharing systems (planning, implementation and operation);

• campaigns to promote sustainable urban mobility and particularly cycling.

Although, investments on cycling projects, in general, are not justified nor evaluated in a

standardized way as in major transport projects’ case, there has been widely recognized lately, the

need to document their economic effects, in order to support funding claims.

It’s also for this reason that CycleCities seeks to produce a complete document that can resume all

the possible economic (through private and public investments) and environmental effects in

cycling. This complete document is produced unifying the contribution of three partners: the

10

Regional Development Agency of Gorenjska, BSC of Kranj, the London Borough of Merton and the

Municipality of Genoa.

1.4 Scope of the present work

The scope of the Municipality of Genoa is to write the synthesis report on investments in cycling

infrastructures combining the two separate reports developed by the consortium partners BSC

(report: “Analysis of public investment costs, inhibitors and externalities”) and Merton (report:

“Analysis of private investment infrastructure”) on public and private investments respectively, and

to enrich them in areas where improvements can be made. Economic costs and benefits have been

the subject of these two initial reports. However an environmental impact analysis was excluded

and so the scope of this synthesis report is to combine the economic aspect already descript with

environmental problems .

The Municipality of Genoa, to join the documents on public and private investment in cycling, has

decide to underline the common points and the differences between these two kind of

investments. Moreover Genoa has decided to integrate these researches with other aspects or

references but the core of the synthesis report is the development of an environmental impact

analysis. A modal shift in favor of bicycling can have significant environmental impact in the local

microclimate and the global climate (in case of a more generalized trend). Although global effects

from localized policies are very marginal, the effects for the local communities can be very

significant and include improvements in areas such as air pollution, noise pollution, micro-climate

conditions etc. This report makes a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impact and

provide relevant data.

This report wants to find an answer to the following questions:

What is the environmental impact of cycling friendly mobility management schemes?

At the center of the synthesis report is the development of an environmental impact

analysis. The synthesis report should include possible interactions between environmental

effects and economic costs and benefits. A very common example of such an interaction is

11

the relationship between air quality in a city and population health with the associated

economic implications.

What are the (types of) cycling friendly investments that can be made by the public and

private sector?

For the purposes of this report it’s developed an unifying approach to public and private

investments in cycling friendly mobility management schemes by recognizing similarities and

locating indicative sources of divergence. The main source of information are the individual

reports prepared by the partners BSC and Merton, where the appropriate definition and

typologies of investments are elaborated.

What are the economic costs and benefits that can be associated to investments in cycling

friendly mobility management schemes? Which are the potential drivers and inhibitors

that can potentially facilitate or impede investments?

Investments that promote cycling friendly mobility management schemes can be associated

with costs and expected benefits. Both these categories can be specific to the entity making

the investment; however they can also have a more general economic and social impact.

Direct costs and benefits are usually related to monetary expenditures and income

associated with the investment. On the other hand the wider impact (also known as

externality) will affect entities that are not involved in the investment in a positive or

negative way (positive and negative externalities).

12

2. Methodology

The methodology used by the University of Genoa, charged by the Municipality of Genoa to write

the synthesis report of the CycleCities project, is based on the document: “4.1.2 Methodology for

the identification & assessment of environmental & economic gains & costs of cycling in sustainable

urban mobility” edited by the Sustainable Mobility Unit of the National Technical University of

Athens.

For the purposes of this report Genoa developed an unifying approach to public and private

investments in cycling friendly mobility management schemes by recognizing similarities and

locating indicative sources of divergence. The main source of information are the individual reports

prepared by the partners BSC and Merton, where the appropriate definition and typologies of

investments are elaborated. The objective of GENOA is to enrich areas where improvements are

possible.

B. Analysis of private investment

infrastructure.

CycleCities Partner: London Borough of Merton

A. Analysis of public

investment costs, inhibitors and externalities.

CycleCities Partner: Regional Development Agency of Gorenjska, BSC, Kranj

C. Analysis of environmental aspects, enrichment of individual reports, development of

synthesis report CycleCities Partner: Municipality of Genoa in collaboration with the University of Genoa-

CRUIE-DICCA

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS IN CYCLING

SYNTHESIS

COMMON ASPECTS

DIFFERENCES

INTEGRATIONS

13

The objective of GENOA for the purpose of the synthesis report is to use the individual reports as a

starting point and develop an unifying position on the economic costs and benefits and the

associated drivers and inhibitors of both public and private investments in cycling friendly mobility

management schemes. The goal is to highlight similarities, point out differences and distinguish

possible interconnections.

The synthesis of the two report is completed with an environmental impact analysis in cycling in

comparison with other ways of transport. Measuring the environmental effects of transportation

modes may be a complex process because of the different criteria which approach to the subject

from different aspects (the characteristics of the transportation modes and the environmentally

evaluation criteria are discussed detailed in the fifth chapter).Taking all forms of transport together-

according to the Statistical Pocketbook 2009 published by the Directorate-General for Energy and

Transport of the European Commission - CO2 emissions in the transport sector have risen by 35%.

All forecasts for the coming years in Europe are based on the expectation of growth in the volume

of traffic, which will inevitably lead to increasing CO2 emissions too, because no coordinated

European strategy is being developed to curb these emissions. Forms of mobility that do not impair

the global climate are also the best protection against the greatest economic threat to our societies,

namely the end of availability of mineral-oil resources. However, a strategy of ending dependence

on oil, a ‘farewell to oil’ in favor of forms of mobility that protect the climate and the environment,

is not only a necessity for the sake of the global climate; it is also crucial to the competitiveness of

Europe. Bike could be a good solution to prevent the use of car in towns where the distances to

cover are often short. Half of all car journeys in the EU are shorter than five kilometers, and one in

ten is shorter than a kilometer. A large percentage of these journeys could be made by bicycle or on

foot. This would save a great deal of fuel and hence cut CO2 emissions, because cold starts mean

double fuel consumption in summer and even triple consumption in winter as well as the

corresponding emission volumes. Taking Germany as an example, even if only 30% of car journeys

below six kilometers were replaced by bicycle trips, this would lead to a 4% reduction in CO2

emissions from road traffic.

For these reasons it’s clear the importance to combine public and private investment in cycling with

the environmental impact to give a complete view of the possibility offered by a good policy in

cycling. So this report could be a useful instrument for local Authorities to decide to invest in

cycling: the CBA analysis plus the environmental effects prove it.

14

3. Definition of private and public Investments

Some 80% of the population of the EU live in densely populated conurbations. Many cities possess

thoroughly attractive systems of local passenger transport, albeit with scope for further

improvement. Bicycles are the ideal form of transport for distances up to five kilometers, but their

utilization varies widely. Whereas bicycles account for 27% of total mileage in the Netherlands,

where the average distance cycled per inhabitant in a year exceeds 1 000 kilometers, far less use is

made of bicycles in most other countries with similar geographical and economic conditions.

Far more short car journeys in particular could be made by bicycle or on foot instead. Ten per cent

of car journeys are shorter than a kilometer, 30% are shorter than three kilometers, and 50% are

shorter than five kilometers. Thus there is enormous potential here for more environment-friendly

mobility patterns.

Cycling can have many advantages as a short-distance means of travel in urban areas: it is

environmentally friendly – without emissions and noise nuisance; provides cost-effective mobility,

and offers an opportunity for health and physical fitness by regular exercise.

On the other hand, there are both real and perceived barriers to bicycle use that – with the

exception of a few countries – keep cycling somewhat in the margins of urban travel. These barriers

include vulnerability in accidents with motorized traffic, bicycle theft, increasing travel distances

due to urban sprawl, perceived low social status, weather and topology.

An increasing number of countries are developing national cycling plans, strategies and policies. The

approach to cycling on a national level varies from country to country: some countries have a

separate, specific plan for cycling promotion at a national level, while others include cycling policies

in national transport, environment or health plans. In many countries, cycling remains the exclusive

responsibility of regional and local authorities with limited commitment at a national level.

Cycling policy objectives draw from various sectors including transport, land-use, safety,

environment, and health. The cycling policy and planning process therefore involves input from the

wide range of cycling stakeholders mentioned above - governmental bodies at all levels, non-

governmental organizations, cycling associations and the bicycle manufacturing industry. In a

15

number of countries the Ministry of Transport has a leading role in co-operation and co-ordination

with relevant bodies in the policy planning process.

Although a number of countries are making progress in promoting cycling travel, difficulties persist

in the process of planning and implementing cycling promotion policies.

First, cycling remains somewhat marginal in transport policy discussions in many countries, and

national budgetary allocation reflects this status. Second, as cycling policies draw from a wide range

of objectives and involve many actors, lack of co-ordination, both horizontally and vertically, may

cause biased policy planning and roadblocks to implementation. Third, safety fears arise from

cyclists’ vulnerability to motorized traffic. Fourth, technical understanding is not always adequate

and, consequently, the design of transport infrastructure - even cycling-specific infrastructure - is

often flawed or of poor quality. Fifth, scarcity of road space makes it difficult to provide adequate

bicycle infrastructure. Finally, cycling often carries with it a somewhat skewed image – often

perceived only as a sport, leisure, or children’s activity rather than a mode of transport.

Many countries are working to better understand these barriers.

But How can public investment be helpful? Or private? And how it’s possible to combine them?

Investments for cycling both from private investors and from citizens are necessary. Collaboration

between investors and society is a prerequisite to collect enough funding in order that cycling

replace as much as possible car trips because the problems that city faces are many and urgent.

While the scope of the public sector is not the direct gains for the private sector the direct gains is

what mainly is interested for. Public investment for cycling is a way for the private sector to be

funded by citizens. Public Investments are a precondition for Private Investments.

3.1 Typologies of public investment in cycling

A complete study about public investments is reported in the document presented by the BSC

“Analysis of public investment costs, inhibitors and externalities”. This report divides public

investment in cycling infrastructure, in three major categories: Trave infrastructure for cycling; Bike-

parking and end of trip facilities; Integration of bicycling with public transport; Bike sharing system.

16

Travel infrastructures for cycling: These include infrastructures upon which bicycles can travel

and other measures (through infrastructures) that facilitate the flow of cycling traffic.

Travel infrastructure includes all infrastructures that cyclists can use when travelling. Within this

category we can distinguish two subcategories; the differentiating factor will be the existence or

not of a physical separation of the cycling path from the rest of the road used by other vehicles.

As a result it is possible to distinguish two categories:

1) MIXED TRAFFIC. Paths were cycling traffic is mixed with motorized traffic, or where there is

no physical obstacle for crossing over between normal street and cycling path. These travel

infrastructures are:

- On-road bicycle lanes.

These are lanes that occupy part of existing roadway. Usually there is a stripe separating bicycles

from other vehicles.

- Two-way travel on one-way streets.

In this case bicycles can travel in the opposite direction in one-way streets. These are also

known as “contra-flow” lanes. Bicycles can travel in both directions on the one-way street.

- Shared bus/bike lanes.

In order to improve traffic flow of buses, many cities have introduced bus lanes in their

downtown areas, where traffic is dense and problematic.

- Bicycle Boulevards.

These are signed bicycle routes. They are usually located on low-traffic streets.

- Colored lanes.

This is a type of bicycle lanes mentioned earlier. The special characteristic here that for these

lanes special methods have been used to make them more visible and distinguish them from

other lanes.

- Shared Lane markings.

This type of signage is used in lanes where both automobiles and bicycles can travel.

- Advanced Stop lines.

Usually this is a marked “box” where cyclist can wait when traffic lights are red. They are place

in front of motor vehicles. This makes cyclists more visible to drivers.

17

2) SEPARATED TRAFFIC. Paths were cycling traffic is completely separated from motorized

traffic. This implies a physical obstacle that cars cannot cross easily or at least without noticing

it.

- Cycle tracks.

Cycle tracks bear many similarities with cycle lanes. They are adjacent to existing vehicle

roadwork and its traffic management arrangements.

-Off-street paths.

These are also tracks that are completely separated from motor vehicle traffic. They are paved

and usually pedestrian travel is not allowed on them.

3) OTHER INFRASTRUCTURES. The infrastructures examined so far where the various types of

lanes/tracks that facilitate the usage of bicycles by citizens. However those routes are not the

only measures that can have an impact on the usage of bicycles, their effectiveness and (as a

result) the potential for a shift for citizens from motorized traffic to cycling. Indicative examples

of this type of investments are:

- Bicycle phases / Traffic Signals.

Investing in traffic signals dedicated to cyclists can be an important facilitator of bicycle usage.

They can manage and coordinate traffic (motorized and non-motorized) and increase safety.

- Way finding signage.

Using signs it is possible to manage cycling traffic and improve both its flow and safety.

Furthermore it can help cyclists by giving them directions for prominent destinations.

-Techniques to shorten cyclists’ routes.

This category includes traffic arrangements that facilitate cycling traffic especially in

intersections and involves the construction of cut-throughs that provide cyclists with more

direct ways than motor vehicles.

4) OTHER MEASURES FACILITATING CYCLING TRAFFIC.

Finally one cannot forget the various policies regarding traffic management that can also have a

large effect on the uptake of cycling. These policies include:

- Traffic calming;

- Home zones (Traffic Calming in residential zones);

18

- Car-free zones (Both permanent or temporary restrictions and bans to motor vehicle traffic);

- Complete Streets (Streets were all types of traffic are allowed, after having implemented the

appropriate precautions).

Bike-parking and end of trip facilities: The existence of the necessary lanes and routes

examined in the previous sections is of significant importance when individuals consider using a

bicycle for their trips (both work related commuting as well as leisure). They are not however

the only factor. Of similar importance are the so called “end-of-trip facilities”. These are

infrastructures that cyclists can use when they have reached their destination.

In this vein a categorization that can be made is the following:

- unsheltered, sheltered, guarded, bike parking;

- bike rentals;

- bike repairs;

- bike washer;

- showers and changing room.

Integration of bicycling with public transport: Parking infrastructures, end-of-trip facilities and

bike-sharing systems, such as those described so far, can play a key role in achieving a shift

towards cycling. Their role can be further enhanced through other intervention in urban policy

planning. This includes policies that integrate cycling with various forms of public transportation.

Bike sharing: A bicycle sharing system, or bike share scheme, is a service in which bicycles are

made available for shared use to individuals on a very short term basis. The main purpose is

transportation: bike share allows people to depart from point "A" and arrive at point "B" free

from the worries of ownership.

Bike-share has seen explosive, global growth over recent years. As of April 2013 there were

around 535 bike-sharing programs around the world, made of an estimated fleet of 517,000

bicycles. In May 2011 there were around 375 schemes comprising 236,000 bikes. So those two

years saw a doubling of bike share globally.

19

Education and Promotion: To support educational and promotional programs to encourage the

responsible use of bicycle is very important for the success of public investment in cycling.

Education

Few people would ever suggest just getting in a car and driving without learning the rules of the

road and the proper techniques. Fewer still would want to share the road with a driver who

skipped these steps. Riding a bike safely — and especially, riding in traffic — requires a range of

skills and knowledge. Having these tools makes a world of difference in a cyclist’s safety and

comfort on the roadway.

For the Municipalities which decide to invest in cycling so is also important to invest in:

- Improve safety through funding for cycling skills and safety education for children and adults;

- Support the update of Driver’s Training to include more education on driver interactions with

cyclists and pedestrians;

- Explore easy-to-learn riding skills that will gain you greater respect on the road;

- Learn what the bicycle laws are in your territory.

Promotion

Promoting cycling is not only a question of improving the conditions for bicycles (or making the

alternatives less attractive), but also marketing cycling.

Traditionally, individual transportation choices are linked to objective conditions (distance,

infrastructure, weather) although it is evident that there are also - as with other consumer

choices - a number of non-rational and highly emotional factors involved. Knowing these factors

and ways to influence them will be the key to a more effective marketing of the bicycle, which

would mean that we could achieve a higher effect in encouraging the growth of new cyclists and

reducing the number of those who give up the bicycle.

Promoting cycling is all about behavior modification, and can be tackled with the so-called trans-

theoretical model. The trans-theoretical model works with a curve that describes the various

stages of “will do it or not considering doing it at all” through “can well imagine that” to “do it

every day.” The model was developed for use in health behaviors (diet, smoking), but is also

used previously in connection with transport behavior.

The individual’s placement on the curve indicates whether there is frequent cycling or not, and

how far someone that usually doesn’t cycle is from taking up cycling as a mode of transport. If a

20

larger group is examined, the result will tell you how developed a bicycle culture is, just as

repeated studies will be able to show whether or not the bicycle culture is moving forward or

backward. As well as showing whether potential bicycle promotion initiatives have had any

effect. This also applies if the effect has not yet manifested itself in a large group of cyclists.

The importance of promoting cycle is evident in many examples, the most effective is the one of

Copenhagen. 40 years ago Copenhagen was just as car-clogged as anywhere else but now 36%

of the population arriving at work or education do so on bicycles, from all over the Metro area.

Today 50% of Copenhageners themselves use bicycles each day. They all use over 1000 km of

bicycle lanes in Greater Copenhagen for their journeys. This impressive result was possible

thanks to a strong promoting program called Copenhagenize.

3.2 Typologies of private investment in cycling

A complete study about private investment is reported in the document presented by the London

Borough of Merton “Research, Analysis and Report of Private investment in cycling”. Private

investments in cycling infrastructure and promotion can have a significant impact, by creating

favorable conditions and additional incentives towards the uptake of cycling by the population. As

we will see in some examples, when private parties invest in cycling they are often encouraged to

do so by some public institutions.

Travel infrastructures: The "Velocity"2025 (Manchester UK) Master Plan from the Transport for

Greater Manchester Committee shows how public and private parties can cooperate in

stimulating cycling. The Plan actively engages the private sector to invest in cycling

infrastructure. The "Barclays Cycle Hire" (London, UK) is a good example of combination of

public and private investment. Initiated by the municipal government the private investment

involved is substantial: Barclays (an important bank in the UK) contributed 25 million pounds in

exchange for being the name carrier of the prestigious project.

Bike parking and end of trip facilities: In countries with a high popularity of cycling like the

Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries, cyclists are a very important group of customers for

21

retailers, especially in the city center (Kastrup, 2013). Bad or missing parking facilities for bikes

are an important barrier for people to take their bike for a shopping trip. This should be an

incentive for retailers or developers of retail real estate to take care of enough parking facilities

for bicycles around the shopping area or in front of shops. Private companies in general could

stimulate cycling by investing in parking facilities for bicycles at their own location. Besides

stimulating their own employees to take up their bicycle for commuting trips they can stimulate

visitors to come by bike as well. Investments in physical facilities at the workplace that offer

better comfort to cycling commuters are called investments in a “Bicycle-Oriented-Design”

(Phyllis et al., 2010). Bad or missing facilities at the end of a commuting trip can be a major

barrier towards cycling for commuters. So the other way around, investments of the employer

in a bicycle-oriented-design could encourage the employees to take up their bicycle to work.

Some examples of investments employers could make towards a bicycle-oriented-design:

showers, changing rooms, secured bicycle parking, shared bicycles, charging possibilities for e-

bikes, bicycle repair service.

Opening up bicycle shops therefore can be seen as private investments in cycling infrastructure,

in the end even influencing peoples travel mode choice towards cycling. The opportunity of

fixing defects like a flat tire in close proximity to a cyclists route makes it far more comfortable

to cycle around the city.

Bike sharing: In Europe, local governments exploit still 27% of the existing bike sharing systems.

However, the future of bike-sharing is to private (or public-private) initiatives as new business

models are emerging (Parkes et al., 2013). Bike sharing systems can be organized in several

ways, accounting for different shares of investments by private companies.

- The advertising model: a private company builds the infrastructure and provides the bike fleet

for a bike-sharing program in order to have the right advertisements on the streets (at the bike-

sharing-stations). Local governments mostly exploit the system.

- The sponsor model: another advertisement based business model to realize bike sharing

programs. In this case, the local government is the initiator of the program but private

companies do (most of) the investment. The program is often named after the sponsor, but

exploited by the local government.

22

- Private exploitation: the whole investment is done by a private company, as well as the

exploitation of the system.

Industry alliances: On the national but also on the European level, bike manufacturers unite

themselves in industry networks. This quote from the Cycling Industry Club, an European

alliance of bicycle manufacturers, explains why competitors should work together: It is as simple

as math: More cyclists mean more bikes and more bikes are good for business. If cycling levels in

Europe matched those of Denmark, we would sell 30 million more bikes per year. But even by

doubling cycling in Europe, we could increase the market by 10 million bikes (European Cycling

Federation, 2014).

Professional cycling sport: Sponsoring professional cycling teams by bicycle manufacturers, or

other companies, can be seen as private investment in cycling as well. Taiwanese bicycle

manufacturer Giant for instance, which is active on the European bicycle market out of their

office in the Netherlands, support the Dutch professional cycling teams (male and female).

Reason for sponsoring a cycling team is simple: getting good publicity and eventually growing

their market share. But why these investments are interesting in the light of investment in

cycling in general is the chance of growing the total market for bicycles. So the potential

benefits are twofold here. A bicycle manufacturer hopes to grow their sales but additionally this

could result in more people cycling.

Health insurances’ investments: For employers promoting cycling towards their employees

could be a very good economic investment as well. The health and well being program of the

American bicycle company Quality Bike Products (QBP) shows that offering financial incentives

towards employees to commute by bike, results in significant health effects and appurtenant

financial benefits. The company offered their employees an account of $110 to buy QBP

products and paid $45.000 on commuter rewards to cycling commuters every year. The

program resulted in a 4.4% reduction in health costs associated with a saving of $170.000 over

three years. This reduction is even more remarkable against the background of an average

yearly growth of 25% of health costs for American companies. Decrease of productivity loss as

23

result of the program accounted for $650 per employee per year, resulting in a total gain of

more than $900.000 over a three-year period (Fried, 2012).

Citizen investment: Why should citizens invest in a cycle infrastructure? Most people will say

this is the responsibility of the (local) government. A study from scholars of the University of

Delaware in the US shows us why. Racca and Dhanju (2006) show that the presence of a bike

path or trail has a positive effect on the value of prop-erty near that trail. With a GIS-analysis

they identified all properties situated within 50 metres of a bike path and compared their value

and latest sales price with those of properties further away from bike paths. When controlling

for other variables, such as number of bedrooms and the like, they found that properties within

the 50 meter range from the bike path had significantly higher values than properties outside

that range. According to the study, properties with a bike path close by have an average value of

$8800 dollars higher than properties with no bike paths nearby. This fact could be a major

argument to invest up to some hundreds of dollars in a bike path close to your house via crowd

funding. In the end, return on investment could be higher than investing in adjustments to the

house itself.

3.3 Combination of private and public investment

This report analyses all the possible combinations of public and private investments in cycling

starting from the typologies of public and private investment presented in “Research, Analysis and

Report of Private investment in cycling” by the London Borough of Merton and in “Analysis of

public investment costs, inhibitors and externalities” by BSC and reported in the previous pages.

Different combinations have be done according to the main typologies of investments that involve

private and public investments:

- travel infrastructures;

- bike parking and end of trip facilities;

- integration of cycling with public transportation;

- bike sharing;

- cycle tourism.

24

Finally here aren’t analyzed the investment combinations for the categories that are:

- typically public as cycling promotion;

or

- typically private as industry alliances, professional cycling sport, health insurances' investments

and citizen investments

Travel infrastructures

Figure 2: Percentage of public and private investment in travel infrastructures for cycling.

Mostly the local government is the initiator of the program but the investment could be done by

private companies in exchange for advertisement or for being name carrier of the project.

What Municipalities have to do to stimulate private investment in cycling?

- An active campaign on cycling can encourage private parties to start investing in cycling;

- Giving the right example and making a Master Plan on how cycling should get a more important

position as a city’s infrastructure;

- Think about different ways of financing public cycling infrastructure, using commercial interest of

private companies (like the right to advertise in public space);

- Keep on boosting cycling even if there are political changes in the Public Administration.

% public investment

% private investment

25

Bike parking and end of trip facilities

Figure 3: Percentage of public and private investment in bike parking and end of trip facilities.

In this kind of investment the private is the predominant part. These end of trip facilities can create

new jobs (bicycle rentals, repairs, washers…) or can be done by enterprises to get better the

condition of their employees (showers, bike parking,…). Providing bicycle parking at transit facilities

is a critical element in achieving high levels of bicycle access to transit. Some studies, made by the

Municipality of Seattle in the US, show that a lack of adequate bike parking and other related

services is a major deterrent to commuting by bike. Parking that is convenient, secure, weather-

protected, and plentiful provides a measure of predictability and comfort for those who want to

travel by bike and transit. Wherever possible, bicycle parking should be conveniently located near

bus stops; high quality bicycle storage is a must at rail stations and major transit transfer facilities.

Shower and storage facilities can be established for employees of several companies located in

close proximity. Examples of this type of arrangement have been organized by Transportation

Management Associations in Vancouver, BC and Portland, Oregon. The City of Portland has

established a public/private partnership with local fitness centers to provide local area commuters

with off-site permanent clothes storage, shower facilities, and secure bike parking. Cyclists can

purchase day or monthly passes and access any of the fitness centers. Public/private partnerships

reduce the infrastructure investment by the city and allow for a greater geographic network of

facilities available to cyclists. Portland’s experience indicates that these programs require regular

advertising of maintain users. Employers influence the commuting behavior of their employees in

many ways through “firm location, work schedules and mobility management initiatives”

(Vanoutrive, 2010). In this line, employers could have a major influence on bicycle use for

commuting. Some common employer initiatives to stimulate cycling are facilities at the workplace

% public investment

% private investment

26

like showers, changing rooms and secured bicycle parking and non-physical measures like cycle

mileage allowance, information on cycling routes and promotion events like a ‘ride to work day’.

Integration of cycling with public transportation

Figure 4: Percentage of public and private investment in integration of cycling with public transportation.

This kind of investment is typically public, but integrating bicycles with other mean of transports,

municipalities can save money for example investing less in busses. The quality of bicycle amenities,

facilities, and environment affect access to transit service. Improving bicycle access to transit

supports existing ridership levels and attracts new transit passengers by providing additional

connectivity to other modes an enhancing the overall travel experience. Enhancing bicycle access to

transit can be a cost-effective way to affect a mode shift. Targeted coordination of policies,

programs, and implementation among agencies and private entities is required to successfully

integrate these modes of travel.

% public investment

% private investment

What improvements are needed?

27

Figure 5: This statistic was made by The Institute for Sensible Transport – Queensland University of Technology,

Australia – in 2013. The Institute for Sensible Transport has developed a reputation as a specialist consultancy for

government and organizations looking to increase their resilience and reduce their vulnerability to contemporary

transport challenges.

Bike sharing

Figure 6: Percentage of public and private investment in bike sharing

Bike-sharing advocates believe the systems shouldn’t be expected to pay for themselves, as they

are no different to other forms of transit such as buses or roads yet, bike-sharing generates a

number of other shared benefits. Since 2010, Bicycle claims that its systems have helped cities burn

more than 98.7 million calories and 12,700 kilograms. Bike-share provides cities with a transport

option that not only helps the environment, but also the health of the community. As obesity,

diabetes and healthcare costs continue to rise, cities need to begin to take a holistic approach to

encourage active living. Public bike sharing provides a simple solution that simultaneously addresses

environmental, economic and health challenges. Just as important for the long term, the popularity

of bike-sharing schemes creates political support for cycling infrastructure, through dedicated lanes

and bike parking, which enables safer cycling for everyone. Although bike share programs have

existed for almost half a century, the most recent decade has seen a sharp increase in both their

prevalence and popularity worldwide, with over 400 cities currently operating bike share programs.

In 2007, Paris launched Europe’s largest scheme, with over 20,000 bicycles. Wuhan and Hangzhou in

China currently have the world’s largest bike share programs, with 90,000 and 70,000 bikes

respectively. New York City launched North America’s largest bike share program, with 6,000 bikes

in May, 2013, and is set to grow to 10,000 bikes in the near future. China is clearly the dominant

% public investment

% private investment

28

country, holding the majority of the world’s largest bike share programs (eight of the top ten).

Several researchers have examined the motivating factors associated with bike share use. Bachand-

Marleau et al. found convenience and the avoidance of private bike theft and maintenance to be

key facilitators to the use of the BIXI program in Montreal. These findings are generally supportive

of an earlier study by Fuller et al. of the same program. Convenience consistently emerges as the

main motivating factor for bike share use, and this has been found in various programs in North

America, China, London and Australia. The distance between home and closest docking station is a

factor directly associated with convenience and this has been found to be a reliable predictor of

bike share usage. Bachand-Marleau et al. found that living within 500m of a docking station resulted

in a three-fold increase in the odds of BIXI use. Bike-share schemes across the world are promoted

by cities as valuable mechanisms for reducing congestion, improving people’s health and cutting air

pollution, however they are costly systems to run and require significant investment from both the

public and private sector. New York is seeking a further US$14 million in funding for their City Bike

scheme and London about to start their search for a new sponsor to replace Barclays’ £5 million a

year support.

Cycle Tourism

Figure 7: Percentage of public and private investment in Cycle tourism.

Bicycle tourism generally means self-contained cycling trips over long distances, which prioritize

pleasure, adventure and autonomy rather than sport, commuting or exercise. Touring can range

from single day rides to multi-day trips, or even years at a time. Tours may be planned and

organized by the participant/s for themselves or organized for a group by a professional holiday

business, a club, or a charity as a fund-raising venture. Public and private investors have to

cooperate together to promote this new form of tourism that is fast increasing. Private investors

% public investment

% private investment

29

could help public authorities to built new infrastructures for cycling and then have the possibility to

open hotels, bars, ecc..

Figure 8: Percentage of public and private investment in different typologies of cycling infrastructure according to the two reports

“Analysis of public investment costs, inhibitors and externalities.” and “Analysis of private investment infrastructure”.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100

Travel infrastructures

Bike parking and end of

facilities

Integration with public transport

Bike sharing Health insurances' investments

Cycle tourism

Public investment

Private investment

30

Typology of

cycling

infrastructure

Private investment in

cyclingExamples of investment

Combination of public and private

investment

On-road bicycle lanes. A stripe

separating bicycles from other

vehicles. These lanes occupy part of

existing roadway

Two way travel on one-way

streets. In this case bicycle can

travel in the opposite direction in one-

way streets.

Shared bus/bike lanes. Bicycles

are allowed to travel on bus lanes.

Bicycle Boulevards. These are

signed bicycle routes usually on low-

traffic streets.

Coloured lanes. Bicycle lanes

more visible thank to the use of colour.

Shared lane markings. Lanes

where both bicycles and cars can

travel.

Advanced stop lines. It's a

marked "box" where cyclist can wait

when traffic lights are red.

Cycle tracks. There is a physical

separation between motorized traffic

and cyclist instead of a simple stripe.

Off street paths. These are also

tracks that are completely separated

from motor vehicle traffic. They are

paved and usually pedestrian travel is

not allowed on them.

Traffic signals. Signals dedicated

to cyclist.

Way finding signage. Sings to

help cyclist to find directions for

prominent estimation.

Techniques to shorten cyclist'

routes. This category includes traffic

arrangements that facilitate cycling

traffic especially in intersection.

bike parking

bicycle rentals

bicycle repairs

bicycle washer

showers and change

rooms

The "Velocity"2025

(Manchester UK) master

plan from the Transport

for Greater Manchester

Committee shows how

public and private parties

can cooperate in

stimulating cycling. The

plan actively engages the

private sector to invest in

cycling infrastructure. The

"Barclays Cycle Hire"

(London, UK) is a good

example of combination

of public and private

investment. Initiated by

the municipal

government the private

investment involved is

substantial: Barclays (an

important bank in the UK)

contributed 25 million

pounds in exchange for

being the name carrier of

the prestigious project.

Mostly the local government is the

initiator of the program but the

investment is done by private

companies in exchange for

advertisement or for being name

carrier of the project.

What Municipalities have to do to

stimulate private investment in

cycling?

- An active campaign on cycling

can encourage private parties to

start investing in cycling;

- Giving the right example and

making a master plan on how

cycling should get a more

important position as a city’s

infrastructure;

- Think about different ways of

financing public cycling

infrastructure, using commercial

interest of private companies (like

the right to advertise in public

space);

- Keep on boosting cycling even if

there are political changes in the

public administration.

In this kind of investment the

private is the predominant part.

These end of trip facilities can

create new jobs (bicycle rentals,

repairs, washers…) or can be done

by enterprises to get better the

condition of their employees

(showers, bike parking,…)

bicycle washer

showers and change rooms

1. There are a lot of

examples of public

investment in cycling

infrastructures. We

suggest to take into

account the following

experiences (classified as

the best ones in the word

from a group of Danish

researchers): Hamburg,

Munich, Paris, Nantes,

Bordeaux, Budapest,

Barcelona, Seville,

Nagoya, Malmo,

Eindhoven, Utrecht,

Amsterdam, Antwerp,

Montreal and

Copenhagen.

2. Barclays Cycle Hire,

London Uk - Public &

Private investment;

3. Velocity, Manchester

UK - Public & Private

investment;

4. Crowdfunded bicycle

Lane, Memphis USA -

Public & Private

investment.

1. The 98 Bike Box,

Australia - Private

investment;

2. Bicycle End-of-trip

Facilities, a guide for

Canadian Municipalities -

Public & Private

investment.

Bike parking and

end of trip

facilities

mix

ed

tra

ffic

sep

arat

ed

tra

ffic

Public investment in cycling

oth

er

infr

astr

uct

ure

s

Travel

infrastructures

bike parking

bicycle rentals

bicycle repairs

31

Figure 9: Integration and synthesis of data reported in the two documents “Analysis of public investment costs, inhibitors and

externalities” and “Analysis of private investment infrastructure” prepared by BSC and by London Borough of Merton.

Typology of

cycling

investment

Private investment in

cyclingExamples of investment

Combination of public and private

investment

Integration of

cycling with

public

transportation

Private advertisement in

interconnection hot

spots.

1. The integrated

transport system of

Malmo - Public

investment.

This kind of investment is typically

public, but integrating bicycles

with other mean of transports,

municipalities can save money for

example investing less in busses.

Education and

Promotion

Some companies promote

between their employees

the use of bicycle to have

less health insurance

costs. There are also ONG

that use private funds to

promote the use of

bicycles.

1.Promoting cycle for

Copenhagen:

Copenhagenize - Public

investment;

2. London Cycling

Canpain - Private

investment.

To support educational and

promotional programs to

encourage the responsible use of

bicycle is very important for the

success of both public and private

investments in cycling. A good

example of mixed investment are

the Cycling Embassies (Dutch,

Danish, British).

Cycle tourism

Private companies, as

groups of hotel managers

or restaurateurs, could

invest on cycle tourism to

support this new form of

tourism.

1. Cycle Tourism,

Scotland - Private and

Public investment;

2. Cycling tourism

Program of the ECF -

Private & Public

investment.

Public and private investors have

to cooperate together to promote

this new form of tourism. Private

investors could help public

authorities to built new

infrastructures and then have the

possibility to open hotels, bars,

ecc..

Industry

alliances &

Professional

cycling

On the national but also

on the European level,

bike manufacturers unite

themselves in industry

networks.

Sponsoring professional

cycling teams by bicycle

manufacturers, or other

companies, can be seen

as private investment in

cycling.

1. Cycling Industry Club-

Private investment;

2. The UCI professional

team organisation -

Private investment.

More cyclists mean more bikes

and more bikes are good for

business. If cycling levels in

Europe matched those of

Denmark, we would sell 30 million

more bikes per year. Reason for

sponsoring a cycling team is

simple: getting good publicity and

eventually growing their market

share. Also these investments are

interesting in the light of growing

the total market for bicycles.

Health

insurances'

investments

Promoting cycling

towards their clients

could be an interesting

investment for insurance

companies.

1. Health program Quality

Bike Products (QBP),

USA.

This kind of investment is typically

private, but also public

administrations could benefit of

it, moreover in Countries where

the Health system is guaranteed

by National governments.

Extensive network of parking

spots for bicycles close to metro

and railway station as well as

central bus hub.

Promoting cycling is not only a

question of improving the

conditions for bicycles, but also

marketing cycling.

Public investment in cycling

Cycle tourism could become a

new profitable form of tourism.

For this reason could be

important for public

administration to invest on it.

Typology of

cycling

investment

Private investment in

cyclingExamples of investment

Combination of public and private

investment

Integration of

cycling with

public

transportation

Private advertisement in

interconnection hot

spots.

1. The integrated

transport system of

Malmo - Public

investment.

This kind of investment is typically

public, but integrating bicycles

with other mean of transports,

municipalities can save money for

example investing less in busses.

Education and

Promotion

Some companies promote

between their employees

the use of bicycle to have

less health insurance

costs. There are also ONG

that use private funds to

promote the use of

bicycles.

1.Promoting cycle for

Copenhagen:

Copenhagenize - Public

investment;

2. London Cycling

Canpain - Private

investment.

To support educational and

promotional programs to

encourage the responsible use of

bicycle is very important for the

success of both public and private

investments in cycling. A good

example of mixed investment are

the Cycling Embassies (Dutch,

Danish, British).

Cycle tourism

Private companies, as

groups of hotel managers

or restaurateurs, could

invest on cycle tourism to

support this new form of

tourism.

1. Cycle Tourism,

Scotland - Private and

Public investment;

2. Cycling tourism

Program of the ECF -

Private & Public

investment.

Public and private investors have

to cooperate together to promote

this new form of tourism. Private

investors could help public

authorities to built new

infrastructures and then have the

possibility to open hotels, bars,

ecc..

Industry

alliances &

Professional

cycling

On the national but also

on the European level,

bike manufacturers unite

themselves in industry

networks.

Sponsoring professional

cycling teams by bicycle

manufacturers, or other

companies, can be seen

as private investment in

cycling.

1. Cycling Industry Club-

Private investment;

2. The UCI professional

team organisation -

Private investment.

More cyclists mean more bikes

and more bikes are good for

business. If cycling levels in

Europe matched those of

Denmark, we would sell 30 million

more bikes per year. Reason for

sponsoring a cycling team is

simple: getting good publicity and

eventually growing their market

share. Also these investments are

interesting in the light of growing

the total market for bicycles.

Health

insurances'

investments

Promoting cycling

towards their clients

could be an interesting

investment for insurance

companies.

1. Health program Quality

Bike Products (QBP),

USA.

This kind of investment is typically

private, but also public

administrations could benefit of

it, moreover in Countries where

the Health system is guaranteed

by National governments.

Extensive network of parking

spots for bicycles close to metro

and railway station as well as

central bus hub.

Promoting cycling is not only a

question of improving the

conditions for bicycles, but also

marketing cycling.

Public investment in cycling

Cycle tourism could become a

new profitable form of tourism.

For this reason could be

important for public

administration to invest on it.

Citizen investments

The presence of a bike path or trail has a positive effect on the value of property near that trail. For this reason citizens could invest in cycling

1. Crowd-funded Bicycle Lane, Memphis, USA 2. Bicycle tax in Amsterdam

Public administration should give some incentives to private citizens who want to invest in cycling.

32

4. Cost and Benefit analysis for private and public investment in

cycling

4.1 What is a cost and benefit analysis?

A world widely used systematic process for calculating and comparing gains (benefits) and costs of

projects, decisions and policies is the Cost-Benefit Analysis [CBA], which is the officially suggested

assessment tool for investment financed by EU funds, in order:

to determine if it is a sound investment (justification / feasibility),

to see how it compares with alternative projects (ranking / priority assignment).

Since there is a long history of evaluation of major transport projects such as motorways, railways,

etc., CBA may also be proven a helpful tool to demonstrate cycling’s potential. A CBA on cycling

should follow somehow the same methodology as regular CBA’s. Therefore, we first give a short

introduction on how this method is used for other infrastructure than cycling, such as road

infrastructure for cars. The methodology of the CBA for infrastructure has developed more and

more towards Social Cost Benefit Analysis, including ‘soft’ factors besides ‘hard’ effects reflected by

real behavior and real economic value.

Social Cost Benefit Analyses (SCBA) are used in many western countries as evaluation tool for

infrastructure projects ex ante (Mouter et al., 2013). Making a SCBA gives insight to policymakers

and the public into the costs and benefits of an infrastructure project or several alternatives. Not

only the simple costs of building a road, bridge or rail track are included but also ‘soft costs’ such as

damage to nature, pollution and accidents are taken into account. On the benefit side a SCBA

calculates the benefits of a certain infrastructure project to society in terms of welfare. These

benefits stem from all kind of aspects such as travel time gains, better accessibility, safer traffic

environment, agglomeration effects and so on.

In the academic spheres as well as in public policy the Societal Cost Benefit Analysis can count on

some critics as well (Beukers et al, 2012; ). Those critics mainly focus on the problems of quantifying

‘soft’ factors due to an infrastructure project, such as effects on nature. However, translating these

33

soft factors into money makes it possible to involve them into the analysis so that a decision is far

better supported.

An important methodological issue when performing a CBA is the type of data in terms of revealed

or stated preferences. Revealed Preference (RP) shows the real effect of a certain investment or

project on consumer behavior. It is the preference of people shown by hard data on their actual

behavior. For many effects we want to include in CBA’s it is not easy (or impossible) to get data on

revealed preferences. The value of nature or biodiversity in case of building a road near a forest for

instance, cannot be measured out of real consumer behavior. In these cases we can ask people how

much they think this piece of nature or biodiversity is worth. This is called Stated Preference (SP).

In summary, a CBA attempts to measure the positive or negative consequences of a project, which

may include:

1. Effects on users or participants

2. Effects on non-users or non-participants

3. Externality effects

4. Option value or other social benefits.

4.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis for private and public investment in cycling In the third chapter we have provided an indicative list of cycling investment that can be target of

public or private programs. It becomes apparent from that list that there is a variety of alternative

routes that can be followed by each investor. The selected solutions will be a reflection of their

policy objectives and priorities in conjunction with the limitations set by financial, political and

public preference constraints. In order to do that each public administration or private company

considers expected costs and benefits associated to an investment and decides taking into account

all other pertinent factors.

In the following page it’s proposed a roadmap that should be followed performing a CB analysis.

This roadmap comes out the elaboration of the London Borough of Merton experience.

34

1. PROBLEM ANALYSIS Why is an investment in cycling necessary? What problem will it solve?

2. FORMULATING ALTERNATIVES It’s important to find all the possible solutions to the problem analysis

2a. ZERO ALTERNATIVES Research on all the Best practices to solve similar problems

3. NAMING EFFECTS It’s necessary to make a list of effect, we expect to happen as a result of the formulated alternatives.

4. SCOPE OF EFFECTS Collection of quantitative data to determine parameters for all affects. Many of these parameters may be location specific.

5. MONETIZE EFFECTS For all effects we manage to collect parameters we can calculate the effects in euro’s. With parameters on traffic accidents and the value of preventing a deadly victim of an accident, we can calculate the societal benefits of building a safer cycling path which means less deadly victims in traffic accidents.

5a. MAKING COST AND BENEFITS

COMPARABLE In order to make alternatives comparable we transfer all costs and benefits to Net Present Values. An overview of all NPV’s for different alternatives is useful in the decision making process of weighing different interventions such as constructing a new bike path versus a cycling promotion campaign.

6. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS In the last step we ‘play’ with some parameters to give insight in the effect of specific parts of a measure.

7. FINAL DECISION

35

4.3 Drivers and inhibitors

There are different drivers or inhibitors that can facilitate or prevent investments in cycling. These

elements are important to be considered to do a correct CBA.

First of all is necessary a solid collaboration between national and local authorities and private

companies. Public administration have to give the right example. Which could mean financially

invest in cycling infrastructure themselves, but it could also be by providing a master plan on how

cycling should get a more important position in a city’s infrastructure.

It’s also important to set out a national/local approach to prioritize future investments in capital

and revenue spend on cycling, and challenges policy makers to ensure that programs are in place

to influence, enable and encourage individuals, families and communities to take part in physical

activity and adopt active travel choices. Increasing cycling levels will have a dramatic impact on the

PUBLIC engagement PRIVATE engagement

Encourage individuals to use bicycles as mean of transport.

This is possible giving them:

1 Safety;

2 Available infrastructures;

And

3 Improving the image of

cycling

This is possible giving them:

1 Safety;

2 Available infrastructures;

And

3 Improving the image of

cycling

have to work together to

It the uptake of cycling by citizens is

positive: GOOD INVESTMENT

It the uptake of cycling by citizens is

negative: BAD INVESTMENT

Inhibitors - financial constraints; - institutional barriers; - insufficient understand-ding of technical issue; -lack of public and road space

Drivers - incentives and funding coming from European projects; - a strong local commitment (citizens, associations,..); - political support

Inhibitors - bureaucracy problems;

- irregular interventions on the territory made by the

local authorities; - technical competences

Drivers - use commercial interest; - use image of cycling to grow cycle market; - a local master plan made by public authorities; - new sectors of investments

36

region’s health and economic prospects. A high quality network of cycle routes that are fit for

purpose, connecting people to the places they want to go to, alongside infrastructure

improvements and a comprehensive program of training and support are instrumental to bring

about a cultural shift to cycling. Achieving greater levels of sustainable transport into and around

the regional centre are critical to continue on a trajectory of growth and prosperity, not least with

regard to city centre living. Moreover it’s necessary, in order to estimate both the costs and the

benefits from cycling, to estimate the uptake of cycling by the citizens. The portion of population

that will shift towards cycling affects both the costs and the benefits. Generally if a low uptake is

expected, then the cost will probably outweigh the benefits, and thus the investment might not be

undertaken.

4.4 Cost and Benefit of bicycles

COST

Infrastructure costs consist of the construction costs of a cycle lane or other peace of infrastructure

but also contains the maintenance costs and operational costs.

- Infrastructure costs. These are the costs associated with the initial construction of an

infrastructure and are expenses that occur only once. They can range from relatively low (e.g. the

installation of signs and traffic management equipment) to intermediate (e.g. construction of bike

lanes on the existing road network) to high (e.g. construction of bicycle tracks and off-road paths).

Separated bicycle lane On-road bicycle lane

Asphalt 55,52 € 49,18 €

Red asphalt 66,71 € 60,37 €

Concrete 54,32 € 54,32 €

Red concrete 63,84 € 63,84 €

Concrete (better foundation) 64,14 € 64,14 €

Red Concrete (better foundation) 73,65 € 73,65 €

Bricks 71,79 € 65,44 €

Red Bricks 77,94 € 71,60 €

Figure 10: Example- cost of bicycle lanes in Belgium in 2014.

37

Type Dollar Euros Unit

Bicycle lane 65,53 $ 51,93 € Per meter (wide: 1,5 m)

Pavement marking 9,58 $ 7,59 € Per meter

Traffic light 5’611,40 $ 4’447,30 € Each

Bike rough signage 160,82 $ 127,46 € Each

Figure 11: Example- Costs of different types of infrastructure in the U.S. in 2013.st of bicycle lanes in Belgium in 2014.

Cost per meter UK pounds Euros

Bicycle lane with major junctions 746,75 £ 950,82 €

Bicycle lane with simple junctions 271,52 £ 345,72 €

Bicycle lane on bus lane 40,74 £ 51,88 €

Traffic calmed / managed area 271,52 £ 345,72 €

White line 2,91 £ 3,71 €

Raised white line 13,39 £ 17,05 €

Cycle logo (each) 30,56 £ 38,91 €

Figure 12: Example- Costs of different types of infrastructure in the U.K. in 2014.

1 km of……. Is equivalent to ……. Km of bikeway

RAIL 29 Km

ROAD 110 km

BUS WAY 138 Km

ROAD WITH TUNNELS 324 Km

UNDERGROUND RAIL 533 Km

Figure 13: Comparison between cycle infrastructure cost and the infrastructure cost of the other mean of transport.

38

- Infrastructure Maintenance Costs. After constructing any infrastructure and releasing it for public

usage, the continuous and gradual degradation of its properties begins. This degradation can be a

result of the usage, it can also be the result of other environmental factors. According to the

Municipality of Milan these maintenance costs are 1700€ per Kilometer each year.

- Operational costs. Some types of investment do not only have maintenance costs, but also have

operational costs. These are not related to the physical degradation of the investment, but are

related to its normal operations. A good example would be the salaries of personnel operating bike-

sharing system, the energy consumption of lights install above an off-road bike path and the energy

consumption of traffic lights for cyclists.

Figure 14: Investment costs, operating costs and maintenance costs of the Philadelphia Bike-sharing system in Fiscal Years 2014 –

2020.

- Promotion / Training Costs. A different type of cost is related to the resources spent in order to

ensure that the efficiency and effectiveness of an infrastructure is maximized. A good example

would be the resources spent in order to increase public awareness and mitigate common

misperceptions. To have a practical example in Munich for the promotion cost were allocated 0,70 €

for each inhabitants.

39

BENEFITS

The adoption of cycling can have significant impact in mitigating a variety of the costs associated

both with the usage of public and private transportation methods. Indicatively it is worth

considering the following aspects where cycling can play an important role in saving time and

money.

- Time cost. In London, Cologne, Amsterdam and Brussels, car drivers spend more than 50 hours a

year in road traffic jams. In Utrecht, Manchester and Paris, they spend more than 70 hours stuck on

roads. Cyclist could save time getting faster to work using cycle lanes.

Studies Valuation of Time by bicyclists

Wardman et al. (2007) €18,17 per hour (Revealed Preference)

Strangeby (1997) €10,17 per hour (Stated Preference)

Borjesson & Eliasson (2012) €15,90 per hour on the street €10,50 per hour on bike paths

Figure 15: Overview of valuation of time by bicyclists.

- Congestion. Congestion costs Europe about 1% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) every year.

- Vehicle Operating Costs. 13.2% of every household's budget is spent on average on transport

goods and services.

- Transit synergies. Cycling should be treated as a complement to public transportation rather than

a competitor. To this end measures that facilitate the integration of both methods of transportation

can have an important role. A successful policy in this case would have significant impact on the

effectiveness and efficiency of both methods of transportation. Short trips would become faster,

while the ability to use public transportation would allow for the bicycle to be used for more distant

destinations, thus increasing its flexibility. This complementarity would elevate the profile of both

transportation methods and make them more attractive to a larger part of the population,

especially the youngest segments.

40

- Health. Frequent use of the bicycle for commuting as well as leisure activities is a very good way

to have regular physical activity. This reduces symptoms of a sedentary lifestyle, increases fitness

and improves overall health. The gains for society come in form of reduced healthcare costs, which

can mitigate most of the investment costs if a significant modal shift is achieved.

- Cycling Tourism. The creation of a cycling network can also have a positive impact on economic

activity resulting in economic growth. Cycling Tourism is a good example. The existence of

appropriate cycling routes can be attractive to a specialized and growing segment of tourism

activity.

4.5 Assessment examples of CBA

Copenhagen

In order to be able to perform a cost benefit analysis, it is firstly necessary to quantify the impact

from cycling and establish “unit prices” for cycling activities. The result is a monetization of actual

effects; these figures are subsequently comparable to cost figures related to an investment. A good

example for this is a Danish study which developed a methodology and used available data to

determine unit prices for cycling. The latter were then used to perform a cost benefit analysis and

assess two cycling investments (a bridge and an intersection). In order to calculate the unit prices in

this study they took into account the following parameters related to cycling (although not all of

them are relevant for unit price calculations):

Effect for the economic CBA Methodology to quantify traffic effects Data requirement

Vehicle operating costs Change in vehicle kilometer by mode, i.e.

for different motorized vehicles, public

transportation and bicycles.

Traffic counts and/or modeling.

Time cost Change in transport time by transport

mode

Traffic counts and/or modeling.

Accident cost Change in the number of accidents with

and without bicycles involved.

Accident registrations, traffic counts

and/or modeling.

41

Pollution and externalities Change in vehicle kilometers for each

mode of transportation.

Traffic counts and/or modeling.

Recreational Value Change in cycle kilometers and cyclists’

statements.

Interviews and traffic counts and/or

modeling.

Health Benefits Change in cycle kilometers. Traffic counts and/or modeling.

Safety Change in the number of accidents,

cyclist statements and change in cycle

kilometers.

Accident registrations, interviews and

traffic counts and/or modeling

Discomfort Change in cycle kilometers. Traffic counts and/or modeling.

Branding Value Not a traffic effect. -

Value for urban open spaces Not a traffic effect. -

System Benefits Change in cycle kilometers. Traffic counts and/or modeling.

Figure 16: Methodology to quantify traffic effects. Source, Economic evaluation of cycle projects – methodology and unit prices,

2009, COWI, City of Copenhagen.

Using data collected on those parameters they were able to calculate average costs (benefits) per

kilometer for cycling. However their approach is limited by the fact that for some cases no model

exists that can perform such calculations. They separate cycling costs into internal and external. The

distinction is similar to the distinction between direct and indirect costs. Therefore, internal costs

are the ones that affect the cyclist’s decision process, because the directly affect him/her. On the

contrary external costs are the ones creating externalities to third persons. It is assumed that these

costs (benefits) do not enter the cyclists’ decision process. The average unit cost per kilometer for

cycling estimated using this methodology is shown in the following table.

Cycling (16 Km/h) Car (50 Km/h)

Internal External TOTAL Internal External Duties TOTAL

Time cost 5.00 0 5 1.60 0 0 1.60

Vehicle Operating costs 0.33 0 0.33 2.20 0 -1.18 1.02

Prolonged life -2.66 0.06 -2.59 0 0 0 0

Health -1.11 -1.80 -2.91 0 0 0 0

Accidents 0.25 0.54 0.78 0 0.22 0 0.22

Perceived Safety - 0 - - - 0 -

Discomfort - 0 - - - 0 -

42

Branding/Tourism 0 -0.02 -0.02 - - 0 -

Air pollution 0 0 0 0 0.03 0 0.03

Climate changes 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0.04

Noise 0 0 0 0 0.36 0 0.36

Road deterioration 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.01

Congestion 0 0 0 0 0.46 0 0.46

TOTAL 1.81 -1.22 0.60 3.80 1.13 -1.18 3.74

Figure 17: Methodology to quantify traffic effects. Source, Economic evaluation of cycle projects – methodology and unit prices,

2009, COWI, City of Copenhagen.

UK cycle program

Apart from the per kilometer costs and benefits from using a bicycle there is a wider economic

impact of increased bicycle usage. Cycling can be a driving force to an entire business sector and can

increase GDP and employment. Indicative to this direction are the figures from the cycling sector in

the United Kingdom. A driving force behind the size of the sector is the extensive network of cycling

infrastructures, especially lanes and tracks:

200 per cent expansion of the National Cycle Network to over 12,000 miles within a period

of 20 years

More dedicated cycling lanes in urban and city areas

In economic terms the effects on UK economy are also impressive:

£2.9b total contribution to UK economy

28 per cent increase in volume of cycle sales in 2010, generating £1.62b

£853/m further contribution to the UK economy through the purchase of cycling accessories

and bicycle maintenance, resulting in total retail sector sales of £2.47b

Over £500/m generated in wages and £100/m in taxes from 23,000 employed directly in

bicycle sales, distribution and the maintenance of cycling infrastructure

Health benefits save the economy £128/m per year in absenteeism

And the expectations for future benefits are also very promising. The study states that in the

coming decade the projected gains could be:

43

Frequent and Regular cyclists could further save the economy £2b over a ten-year period in

terms of reduced absenteeism

A 20 per cent increase in current cycling levels by 2015 could save the economy £207/m in

terms of reduced traffic congestion and £71/m in terms of lower pollution levels

Latent demand for cycling could amount to around £516/m of untapped economic potential

for the UK.

The Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT)

The Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT) for cycling is a tool online designed by the World

Health Organization. This tool provides quantitative information regarding the health benefits of

active transportation (cycling and walking) establishing a methodology for an economic assessment

of the health effects.

Cost and Benefit Analysis from the Austrian Government

In 2011 the Austrian Government published guidelines regarding investments in cycling

infrastructures. The guidelines included information on four different factor of interest: Expenses,

Benefit for cycling traffic, Administrative effort, Public Acceptance. The scales that were used for

the guidelines are here below presented.

Score Expenses Benefit for Cycling Traffic Administrative Effort Public Acceptance

1 Less than €3,000 Very low Very low Very negative

2 €3,000 - €10,000 Low Low Negative

3 €10,000 - €50,000 Average Average Neutral

4 €50,000 - €100,000 High High Positive

High5 Over €100,000 Very High Very High Very Positive

Figure 19: Scale used for the Austrian Government guidelines regarding investment in cycling infrastructures (2011).

Measure Expenses Benefit for Cycling Traffic Administrative Effort Public Acceptance

Cycle path 5 3 5 4

Cycle lane 2 5 2 5

44

Advanced stop line 1 3 1 4

Cycling traffic guidance system 3 5 3 5

Phased traffic lights for cyclist 3 2 3 3

Opening one-way streets to

cycling traffic

2 5 2 4

Figure 20: This table reports the score for each typology of investment (1= very low, 2=low, 3=average, 4=high, 5=very high). Source-

Austrian Government guidelines regarding investment in cycling infrastructures (2011).

Cost and Benefit Analysis from “bicycle kilometer”.

“Bicycle kilometer” is a Dutch web tool for making simple Cost Benefit Analyses for investment in

cycling. Besides the comparison with car traffic these Dutch figures also allow us to compare the

bicycle with travelling by public transport. Behind this tool lies a rich database with key figures on

time values, health effects, environmental effects, accidents and so on. When we translate all these

figures to a per kilometer value, we are able to compare the costs and benefits of the bicycle to

those of driving a car or travelling by public transport.

Figure 21: Social effects modal shift in urban area with relatively dense car traffic.

45

As we can see from the figure above, driving a bicycle is €0,41 more beneficial to society than

driving a car per kilometer. So every kilometer that is driven on a bike instead of in a car has 0,41€

of benefits to society. The effect of lower congestion due to less car kilometers is the largest part of

this. Health effects (life years) are relatively low in this case but we must notice these figures are

applicable to the Dutch case where physical activity is already relatively high.

The societal benefits of driving a bike instead of travelling by bus are even larger; every kilometer

on a bike instead of in a bus brings €0,51 of societal benefits. Hereby we must also notice these

figures are very much country specific; in the Netherlands public transport receives relatively high

grants and subsidies. Note that the example assumes that the extra cyclists leads to an adaption of

the public transport supply. This will not be true for small number of travelers shifting from public

transport to bike. But it may be true when a rise in traffic demand is expected and an investment in

cycling can replace extra expenditures on public transport. When performing a CBA it is therefore

important to collect key figures on the national or even regional (city) level.

CBA tool made by DECISIO

A more recent addition to the CBA cycling investment knowledge base is a social cost benefit

analysis for cycling tool made by Decisio, commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and

Environment. Even in the Netherlands, where cycling takes a significantly larger share of the modal

split, such cost-benefit analyses were seldom carried out for bicycle projects, mainly because the

amounts involved are relatively insignificant. Now that the bicycle is assuming a more important

role in mobility policy, it is becoming increasingly important to quantify the benefits of bicycle

projects and to compare these benefits with those of other investments such as road infrastructure.

The web tool uses a large number of variables in its calculation of the social costs and benefits of

bicycle projects. For instance, how many people will switch from car to bike as a result of the new

bicycle infrastructure? Is there a positive impact on absenteeism? The downside is also included:

what is the loss in fuel tax revenue? How many people will stop using public transport in favor of

the bicycle and will this reduce public transport expenses?

A separate module is available for bike parking near railway stations. The module compares the cost

of investment and maintenance to the savings that could be realized if fewer people use public

transport or their own car to make their way to the station.

46

Even though the calculations in this CBA are based on a large number of variables in the

Netherlands, the tool still only offers a rough estimate of the costs and benefits. ‘Playing’ with the

input variables and parameters will allow the user to develop a better understanding of the size and

effects of those costs and benefits, and of their inter-relationship. This is fine for a first impression,

but not suitable for a detailed and complete analysis.

As stated in the report on the Nordic seminar there is a need for data at the national level (Te-

maNord, 2005). The Dutch CBA tool proves the possibility of using comparable methods as in

general CBA for other infrastructure projects, but is only usable in the Dutch context. Of course, it is

possible to adjust the model to another national, regional or even urban context but there-fore data

of that specific context is needed.

Experimenting with the Dutch Cost Benefit Analysis Tool inputting international variables and

parameters will allow the user to develop a better understanding of the size and effects of those

costs and benefits, and of their inter-relationship. This is fine for a first impression, but not suit-able

for a detailed and complete analysis. It is recommended to develop this tool further for

international use.

Figure 22: CBA tool made by DECISIO 2013.

A FINAL TABLE REPORTING ALL THE EXISTING COST AND BENEFITS ANALYSIS IS REPORTED AT THE

END OF THE PARAGRAPH 5.4.3 INCLUDING ALSO THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

47

5. Environmental impact analysis

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union has pledged itself to cut the greenhouse-gas

emissions of the 15 older Member States by 8% in relation to the 1990 level during the period from

2008 to 2012.

In 2006, the 1990 emission level had only been reduced by 2.7%.1 The enlarged 27-member EU,

which does not have a common Kyoto target, has nevertheless managed a 7.7% reduction, due

primarily to the rapid transformation in the domains of industrial manufacturing and energy

production following the demise of socialism in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The

common EU target of reducing CO2 emissions by 2020 by at least 20% compared to the 1990 level,

or even by 30% if other industrialized and newly industrialized countries are included, is not

achievable if there is a linear continuation of the trend.

Land transport was a major source of greenhouse gases in Europe in 2006, producing 20% of the

total volume of emissions. It was also the only sector in which emissions had been rising sharply

since 1990, the total increase in CO2 emissions in this sector having amounted to some 25%. In the

15 older EU Member States, emissions rose by an annual average of 1.7% between 1990 and 2005.

In the ten new Member States, the average increase was initially only 0.2%. Since 2000, the picture

has changed: greenhouse gas emissions in the new Member States are now increasing at an

average annual rate of 5.6%, whereas emission growth in the older Member States has slowed

down to one per cent a year.

Three quarters of the volume of CO2 emissions from land transport operations are produced by

road traffic.

The greenhouse-gas emissions from air transport and international sea transport must also be taken

into account. They are responsible for about 3% (air transport) and 4% (sea transport), respectively,

of the CO2 emissions in the EU-27, but there is a sharp upward trend. Whereas emissions from

shipping rose by an annual average of 2.3% from 1990 to 2000, a figure that has even increased to

2.9% for the period since 2000,4 the growth in the volume of air traffic over the same period has

actually amounted to 5.6%.

48

5.1 METHODOLOGY

For the fifth chapter we have followed the indications reported in the document “Methodology for

the identification & assessment of environmental & economic gains & costs of cycling in sustainable

urban mobility” edited by the Sustainable Mobility Unit of the National Technical University of

Athens. This methodology is the same for the others two document prepared by the BSC and

Merton on public and private investment in cycling. We have tried to adapt it also to the analysis of

environmental benefits of cycling.

This methodology starts reporting the proposed objectives and then pass through three different

steps:

Step 1 – Identification

Step 2 – Quantification of indicators

Step 3 – Assessment

This steps are useful to prove, quantify and asses all the proposed objectives and to write the final

conclusion.

5.1.1 Overview – Objectives

The objectives of the environmental impact analysis are:

- to prove that cycling is one of the best way of transport in towns from an environmental

point of view;

- to demonstrate why public authorities and private companies could be interested in cycling

investment from an environmental point of view;

- to analyze all the environmental impacts according to each mean of transport;

- to underline how much transport affects the environment.

5.1.2 Steps to follow

To analyze the objective above mentioned, it was necessary to pass through three different steps:

Step 1 – Identification

This step is important to identify all the possible environmental impacts caused by transport. This

identification starts with an accurate research work on a lot of scientific documents. For example

49

we have analyzed the EEA documents, the EPA data - US Environmental Protection Agency -,

national and international university’s researches, etc.

The assessment of environmental' effects requires identification of:

• thematic areas of influence;

• parameters per thematic area;

• indicators per parameter or thematic area.

The thematic areas of interest are divided, in the following paragraphs, in two groups: the first one

define the environmental impacts connected to each mean of transport and the second one

individuate the environmental impacts connected to other areas of interest.

Step 2 – Quantification of indicators

Step 2 involves quantification of as many as possible of the indicators emerged from previous

research stage in order to establish a data basis of unit prices for cycling for each EU country -

provided the necessary data is available - and at least for the countries involved in CycleCities

consortium. This would be extremely useful for comparison reasons.

Step 3 – Assessment

After the quantification of indicators is possible to compare and to assess all the different means of

transport from an environmental point of view, and so it’s possible to determinate an answer to the

initial objectives.

We started our analysis with a research on the existing studies for an environmental impact analysis

and a CBA in cycling. Then we have reported a specific re-elaboration of these studies to assess the

best way of transport in towns from an environmental point of view.

Then we have measured the positive or negative environmental consequences of a project in

cycling, which may include:

1. Effects on users or participants

2. Effects on non-users or non-participants

3. Externality effects

4. Option value or other social benefits

50

5.2 DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS AND INDICATORS

FOR DIFFERENT WAY OF TRANSPORT

5.2.1 Energy use

Energy use in the transportation sector includes energy consumed in moving people and goods by

road, rail, air, water, and pipeline. Transportation systems are essential for trade and economic

competitiveness in an increasingly globalized world, as well as for enhancing standards of living.

Trade and economic activity are the most significant factors determining demand for freight

transportation. A more complex set of determinants—including travel behavior, land use patterns,

and urbanization—affect demand for passenger transportation, along with macroeconomic and fuel

market impacts.

In the IEO2013 (International Energy Outlook) reference case, world energy consumption in the

transportation sector increases by an average of 1.1 percent per year. Petroleum and other liquid

fuels are the most important component of transportation sector energy use throughout the

projection. The transportation sector accounts for the largest share (63 percent) of the total growth

in world consumption of petroleum and other liquid fuels from 2010 to 2040, increasing by 36

quadrillion Btu as compared with an increase of 25 quadrillion Btu in the industrial sector and

declines in all other end-use sectors.

Figure 23: Word energy consumption

express in Btu by source. Source,

IEO2013 (International Energy Outlook).

51

In the IEO2013 Reference case, non-OECD demand for transportation energy use nearly doubles,

from 43.1 quadrillion Btu in 2010 to 83.9 quadrillion Btu in 2040. The fast-paced growth in non-

OECD transportation energy demand is a result of strong economic growth that leads to rising

standards of living and corresponding increases in demand for personal and commercial travel.

There is, however, a great deal of uncertainty associated with long-term projections for

transportation sector energy consumption, particularly among the developing non-OECD regions.

Because of the rapid economic growth in non-OECD regions, there is greater flexibility in future

capital investment, infrastructure development, and other elements of transportation systems than

in the OECD regions. Consequently, there is a wider range of potential outcomes for transportation

energy consumption in the non-OECD regions.

The energy consumption of the EU transport sector10 increased very rapidly between 1990 and

2000 (2%/year). Between 2000 and 2007, there has been a net slowdown (1.5%/year) linked to the

sharp increase in oil prices, and thus in motor fuel prices, the slowdown in air traffic, and national

measures in certain countries11. The consumption has then been decreasing since 2007 (-1.3%/year

over 2007-2010 on average), with a sharp drop in 2009 (- 2.5%).

Figure 24: Word energy consumption by source express in percentage. Source, IEO2013 (International Energy Outlook).

In Germany, consumption has been falling since 2000 (-0.8%/year on average); in France and UK,

there has been almost no growth since 2001. In Spain and Italy, there has been a significant change

compared to historical trends after 2007 with the economic recession. In New Member Countries,

there has been a rapid growth until 2008 (>4%/year), followed by a rapid decrease twice higher

than for the EU average (-3.5%/ year over 2008-2010). The sector’s energy consumption has

52

increased by 84 Mtoe since 1990, with trucks and light vehicles accounting for almost 40% of that

growth, cars for about one-third and air transport (both domestic and international) for about 25%.

In 2009 road transport represented 81% of the total EU transport consumption (ranging from 63-

98%).

Half of the energy consumption for cars and 30% for trucks Cars account for about half of the

sector’s total consumption. The share of cars is declining (48% in 2010 compared to 53% in 1990),

whereas that of road freight transport (trucks and light- duty vehicles) is slightly increasing (30% in

2010 compared to 28% in 1990). Light-duty vehicles have the fastest consumption growth among

road vehicles (1.6%/year compared to 0.9%/year for cars). The share of buses and two-wheelers is

steady since 1990, at 4% of the total transport consumption.

Figure 25: Source: European Environment Agency, August 2011; Including Bunkers; Electrical Energy and Industrial Waste;

Renewables share in transport, according to the definition in the Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources.

5.2.2 Green House Gasses

A greenhouse gas is any gaseous compound in the atmosphere that is capable of absorbing infrared

radiation, thereby trapping and holding heat in the atmosphere.

By increasing the heat in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases are responsible for the greenhouse

effect, which ultimately leads to global warming.

53

At the global scale, the key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) - Fossil fuel use is the primary source of CO2. The way in which people

use land is also an important source of CO2, especially when it involves deforestation. Land can

also remove CO2 from the atmosphere through reforestation, improvement of soils, and other

activities.

Methane (CH4) - Agricultural activities, waste management, and energy use all contribute to

CH4emissions.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) - Agricultural activities, such as fertilizer use, are the primary source of

N2O emissions.

Fluorinated gases (F-gases) - Industrial processes, refrigeration, and the use of a variety of

consumer products contribute to emissions of F-gases, which include hydrofluorocarbons

(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

The majority of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are CO2 emissions resulting from

the combustion of petroleum-based products, like gasoline, in internal combustion engines.

Relatively small amounts of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are emitted during fuel

combustion. In addition, a small amount of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) emissions are included in the

Transportation sector. These emissions result from the use of mobile air conditioners and

refrigerated transport.

Figure 26: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source. Source: IPCC (2007).

54

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. The main

human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy

and transportation, although certain industrial processes and land-use changes also emit CO2.

Figure 27: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source. Source: IPCC (2007).

Globally, the U.S. has the world’s highest reported per capita CO2emissions at 18 tonnes emitted

per person. Meanwhile, China is reported to emit more CO2 than the US and Canada put together

and India ranks as the world’s third biggest emitter of CO2. Adding to the growing problems in the

developing world, some of the world’s smallest countries and islands emit the highest levels of CO2

per person with the worst offender being Gibraltar at 152 annual tonnes per person.

Actual global emissions increased by 1.4%1 over 2011, reaching a total of 34.5 billion tonnes in

2012. After a correction for the leap year 2012, this increase was reduced to only 1.1%, compared

with an average annual increase of 2.9% since 2000. The CO2 emission trend mainly reflects energy-

related human activities which, over the past decade, were determined by economic growth,

1 Data source: Trends in global CO2 emissions report, 2013.

55

particularly in emerging countries. In 2012, a ‘decoupling’ of the increase in CO2 emissions from

global economic growth (in GDP) took place, which points to a shift towards less fossil-fuel intensive

activities, more use of renewable energy and increased energy saving.

5.2.3 Air Quality

Smog hanging over cities is the most familiar and obvious form of air pollution. But there are

different kinds of pollution—some visible, some invisible—that contribute to global warming.

Generally any substance that people introduce into the atmosphere that has damaging effects on

living things and the environment is considered air pollution.

These various sources of air pollution, both anthropogenic and of natural origin, are:

burning of fossil fuels in electricity generation, transport, industry and households;

industrial processes and solvent use, for example in chemical and mineral industries;

agriculture;

waste treatment;

volcanic eruptions, windblown dust, sea-salt spray and emissions of volatile organic

compounds from plants are examples of natural emission sources.

Air pollution harms human health and the environment. In Europe, emissions of many air pollutants

have decreased substantially over the past decades, resulting in improved air quality across the

region. However, air pollutant concentrations are still too high, and air quality problems persist. A

significant proportion of Europe’s population live in areas, especially cities, where exceedances of

air quality standards occur.

Particulate matter and ground-level ozone, are now generally recognized as the two pollutants that

most significantly affect human health. Long-term and peak exposures to these pollutants range in

severity of impact, from impairing the respiratory system to premature death. In recent years, up to

40 % of Europe’s urban population may have been exposed to ambient concentrations of coarse PM

(PM10) above the EU limit set to protect human health. Up to 50 % of the population living in urban

areas may have been exposed to levels of ozone that exceed the EU target value. Fine particulate

matter (PM2.5) in air has been estimated to reduce life expectancy in the EU by more than eight

months.

56

Figure 28: From left to right the pollutants shown are as follows: sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide

(CO), ammonia (NH3), particulate matter (PM), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAH), methane (CH4), heavy metals (HM).

“Air pollution is bad for our health. It reduces human life expectancy by more than eight months on average and by more than two years in the most polluted cities and regions. Member States must comply with EU air quality standards quickly and reduce air pollutant emissions.”

Janez Potočnik, EU Commissioner for the Environment

Europe’s air quality has not always improved in line with the general decrease of anthropogenic

(human-caused) emissions of air pollutants. Reasons for this are complex:

there is not always a clear linear relationship between decreasing emissions and the

concentrations of air pollutants observed in the air;

there is a growing contribution of long-distance transport of air pollutants to Europe from

other countries in the northern hemisphere.

57

Targeted efforts to reduce emissions are therefore still required to further protect human health

and the environment in Europe.

Industrialized countries have worked to reduce levels of sulfur dioxide, smog, and smoke in order to

improve people's health. But a result, not predicted until recently, is that the lower sulfur dioxide

levels may actually make global warming worse. Just as sulfur dioxide from volcanoes can cool the

planet by blocking sunlight, cutting the amount of the compound in the atmosphere lets more

sunlight through, warming the Earth. This effect is exaggerated when elevated levels of other

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap the additional heat.

Most people agree that to curb global warming, a variety of measures need to be taken. On a

personal level, driving and flying less, recycling, and conservation reduces a person’s "carbon

footprint"—the amount of carbon dioxide a person is responsible for putting into the atmosphere.

On a larger scale, governments are taking measures to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other

greenhouse gases. One way is through the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement between countries that

they will cut back on carbon dioxide emissions. Another method is to put taxes on carbon emissions

or higher taxes on gasoline, so that people and companies will have greater incentives to conserve

energy and pollute less. The motor vehicle engine emits many types of pollutants including nitrogen

oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2),

particulates, sulphur dioxide (SO2) and lead. Emissions are related to use of the engine, mainly the

fuel type and the temperature of combustion. If the engine is 100% efficient, then the products of

combustion will be CO2 and water (H2O).

Carbon monoxide (CO)

Carbon monoxide is a temporary atmospheric pollutant in some urban areas, chiefly from the

exhaust of internal combustion engines (including vehicles, portable and back-up generators, lawn

mowers, power washers, etc.), but also from incomplete combustion of various other fuels

(including wood, coal, charcoal, oil, paraffin, propane, natural gas, and trash). Carbon monoxide is a

colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas that is slightly less dense than air. It is toxic to humans and

animals when encountered in higher concentrations, although it is also produced in normal animal

metabolism in low quantities, and is thought to have some normal biological functions. In the

58

atmosphere, it is spatially variable and short lived, having a role in the formation of ground-level

ozone. Carbon monoxide is produced from the partial oxidation of carbon-containing compounds; it

forms when there is not enough oxygen to produce carbon dioxide (CO2), such as when operating a

stove or an internal combustion engine in an enclosed space. In the presence of oxygen, including

atmospheric concentrations, carbon monoxide burns with a blue flame, producing carbon dioxide.

The annual global emissions of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere have been estimated to be as

high as 2600 million tonnes, of which about 60% are from human activities and about 40% from

natural processes. Largest proportion of these emissions are produced as exhausts of internal

combustion engines, especially by motor vehicles with petrol engines.

Figure 29: Annual mean carbon monoxide. Source, EEA 2010.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known as "oxides of nitrogen," or

"nitrogen oxides (NOx)." Other nitrogen oxides include nitrous acid and nitric acid. In urban

outdoor air, the presence of NO2 is mainly due to traffic. Nitric oxide (NO), which is emitted by

motor vehicles or other combustion processes, combines with oxygen in the atmosphere, producing

NO2. Indoor NO2 is produced mainly by unvented heaters and gas stoves. NO2 and other nitrogen

59

oxides are also precursors for a number of harmful secondary air pollutants such as ozone and

particulate matter, and play a role in the formation of acid rain. Exposure to NO2 may affect health

independently of any effects of other pollutants. However, because its presence is closely linked to

the formation or presence of other air pollutants, it is difficult to establish the health effects

attributable to NO2 alone.

Figure 30: Annual mean nitrogen dioxide. Source, EEA 2010.

Ozone (Ox)

Ground-level (tropospheric) O3 is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but formed from a chain

of chemical reactions following emissions of the precursor gases NOX, VOC and CO. Nitrogen oxides

are emitted during fuel combustion, for example by industrial facilities and road transport.

Nitrogen oxides play a complex role in O3 chemistry: close to its source NOX will deplete O3 due to

the reaction between the freshly emitted NO and O3. Areas downwind of major sources of VOC and

NOX may experience O3 peaks after wind has carried O3 and its precursors far from their sources.

Thus, high O3 concentrations can occur in remote areas.

60

Figure 31: Twenty-sixth highest ozone. Source, EEA 2010.

Particulate Matter (PMx)

"Particulate matter," also known as particle pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely

small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components,

including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.

Figure 32: Annual mean particulate matter. Source, EEA 2010.

61

PM2.5 refers to 'fine particles' that have a diameter of 2.5 micrometres or less. PM10 refers to the

particles with a diameter of 10 micrometres or less. PM10 includes the 'coarse particles' fraction in

addition to the PM2.5 fraction. Particulate matter is either of natural origin, e.g. sea salt, naturally

suspended dust, pollen, volcanic ash or from anthropogenic sources, mainly from fuel combustion

in thermal power generation, incineration, households for domestic heating and vehicles, amongst

others. In cities vehicle exhaust, road dust re-suspension and burning of wood, fuel or coal for

domestic heating are important local sources.

Sulphur dioxide (SO2)

Sulphur dioxide is emitted when fuels containing sulphur are burned. The key manmade

contributions to ambient SO2 derive from sulphur containing foss il fuels and biofuels used for

domestic heating, stationary power generation and transport. Volcanoes are the most important

natural source .

Figure 33: Annual mean sulphur dioxide. Source, EEA 2010.

62

5.2.4 Noise

Environmental noise pollution relates to ambient sound levels beyond the comfort levels as caused

by traffic, construction, industrial, as well as some recreational activities. It can aggravate serious

direct as well as indirect health effects. Night-time effects can differ significantly from day time

impacts.

According to a European Union (EU) publication:

about 40% of the population in EU countries is exposed to road traffic noise at levels

exceeding 55 db(A);

20% is exposed to levels exceeding 65 dB(A) during the daytime; and more than 30% is

exposed to levels exceeding 55 dB(A) at night.

Figure 34: Lden in dB planning values for residential areas (avarage number reported by 14 Member States). Source- The Community

Guidelines 2010

The World Health Organisation (WHO) on urban night noise edited in 2010 proposed a guideline

target limit of outdoor night noise of 40 dB. Member States adopted this night noise guideline to

reduce noise using measures such as house insulation, locating offices in noise exposed areas and

creating zones where a certain level of noise cannot be exceeded. It can also be used for health

impact assessment of new projects such as roads, airports or residential areas.

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

Rail Road Airport Industry

Lden in dB planning values for residential areas (avarage number reported by 14 Member States)

Lden in dB planning values for residential areas (avarage number reported by 14 Member States)

63

Road traffic is the most widespread source of noise in all countries and the most prevalent cause of

annoyance and interference. Therefore, traffic noise reduction measures have the highest priority.

As with road traffic noise, LAeq is the preferred index for rail traffic noise. The noise limits for new

lines in residential areas vary between 60 and 70dB. In some countries, the railway bonus is

included in the limit values. The railway bonus is based on social surveys from several countries,

compar­ing the annoyance from road and rail traffic. The effect is more pronounced at higher

levels. The Community Guidelines 2010 from the WHO recommends 50/55 LAeq, 16 hrs as health

daily based threshold, which is in line with earlier recommendations and guidance from ISO and

National and International Environment Agencies.

5.2.5 Land Use and quality of urban spaces

Although most land use factors have modest individual impacts, typically affecting just a few

percent of total travel, they are cumulative and synergistic. Integrated smart growth programs that

result in community design similar to what developed prior to 1950 can reduce vehicle ownership

and travel 20-40%, and significantly increase walking, cycling and public trans it, with even larger

impacts if integrated with other policy changes such as increased investments in alternative modes

and more efficient transport pricing. Care is needed when evaluating the impacts of specific land

use factors. Impacts vary depending on definitions, geographic and time scale of analysis,

perspectives and specific conditions, such as area demographics. Most factors only apply to subset

of total travel, such as local errands or commute travel.

Density tends to receive the greatest attention, although alone its travel impacts are modest.

Density is usually associated with other factors (regional accessibility, mix, transport system

diversity, parking management) that together have large travel impacts. It is therefore important to

make a distinction between the narrow definition of density as an isolated attribute, and the

broader definition (often called compact development) that includes other associated attributes.

Numerous studies measure the effects of various land use factors on travel activity. Many land use

factors overlap. For example, increased density tends to increase land use mix, transit accessibility

and parking pricing, so analysis that only considers a single factor may exaggerate its effect.

64

Figure 35: This table summarizes the typical benefits of land use management. Victoria Transport Policy Institute – Victoria Canada.

Figure 36: Various land use management strategies can increase accessibility and multi-modalism. Victoria Transport Policy Institute

– Victoria Canada.

For each category before mentioned we have fond a list of parameters and indicators to evaluate

the effective environmental impact.

65

Figure 37: Parameters and indicator to assess the environmental impacts.

Then we have evaluate for each urban mean of transport the indicators proposed. This process is

very important to compare the direct impact of each mean of transport on the environment.

As we can see (in the figure below) bicycles and pedestrians are the best way of transport in terms

of almost all the considered categories - energy use, green house gasses, air quality, noise and land

use –except for safety. The cause is the high mortality of cyclist in comparison to the other way of

transport users. But this negative result could be easily changed thank to private and public

investments, creating new cycle lanes, signals and educating both cyclist and car drivers. According

to this table we can also understand what is the best inter-modality system that smart cities have to

adopt. It’s better to support an integrated public transport system composed by cycle paths, trams

and electrical buses.

Environmental impacts Parameters Indicators

%Fuel used

%Energy from different sources

used

5.2.2 Green House Gasses CO2 introduce in the environment by

each mean of transport% CO2

% PM10 ,

% NOx

% CO

n°dB day and intensity

n°dB night and intensity

Safety % of mortality

Funtionality/Accecibility % of use

Upkeen services n° of upkeen services in a year

n° square meters occupied for a km

of mean of transport

n° square meters for services

connected to each mean of

transport

Modification of the environment

couse to trasportation needs5.2.6 Land Use

5.2.1 Energy Use

5.2.3 Air Quality

Typology and quantitative of energy

used by each mean of transport

Analisys of the introduction of

particulates, biological molecules, or

other harmful materials into the

Earth's atmosphere

5.2.5 Quality of Urban Spaces

5.2.4 Noise

Analysis of the disturbing or

excessive noise that may harm the

activity or balance of human or

animal life.

66

Envi

ron

men

tal i

mp

acts

Par

amet

ers

Ind

icat

ors

tram

bu

sca

rb

icyc

lep

edes

tria

ns

%Fu

el u

sed

x

25 l

flu

el o

il/

100

Km

0,5

l / p

ers

on

100

Km

(ava

rage

cap

acit

y 50

pe

op

le)

7 l f

lue

l/10

0 K

m

xx

%En

erg

y fr

om

dif

fere

nt

sou

rce

s u

sed

5 kw

h/k

m

0,00

25 K

wh

/ p

ers

on

Km

(av

arag

e

cap

acit

y 20

00

1 kw

h/k

m

0,02

Kw

h /

pe

rso

n

Km

(av

arag

e c

apac

ity

50 p

eo

ple

)

0,2

kwh

/Km

xx

5.2.

2 G

ree

n H

ou

se G

asse

s

CO

2 in

tro

du

ce in

th

e

en

viro

nm

en

t b

y e

ach

me

an

of

tran

spo

rt

% C

O2

33g/

pe

rso

n K

m75

g/p

ers

on

Km

237

g/K

mx

x

% P

M1

0 ,

x

0,75

g/K

md

iese

l

0,0

68 g

/km

pe

tro

l

0,0

171

g/km

xx

% C

Ox

4 g/

Km

die

sel

0

,97

g/k

m

pe

tro

l

1,5

5 g/

kmx

x

% N

Ox

x12

,5 g

/Km

die

sel

0

,202

g/k

m

pe

tro

l

0,0

7 g/

kmx

x

n°d

B d

ay a

nd

inte

nsi

ty (

max

55d

B)

45 d

B80

dB

70 d

B35

dB

30 d

B

n°d

B n

igh

t an

d in

ten

sity

(m

ax

40d

B)

45 d

B80

dB

70 d

B35

dB

30 d

B

Safe

ty%

mo

rtal

ity

0,3

de

ath

eac

h

bil

lio

n o

f km

0,4

de

ath

eac

h b

illi

on

of

Km

3,1

de

ath

eac

h

bil

lio

n o

f K

m

44,6

de

ath

eac

h

bil

lio

n o

f K

m

54,2

de

ath

eac

h

bil

lio

n o

f K

m

Fun

tio

nal

ity/

Acc

eci

bil

ity

% o

f u

se in

Eu

rop

e53

,00%

7,00

%13

,00%

Up

kee

n s

erv

ice

sco

st o

f u

pke

en

se

rvic

es

for

infr

astr

uct

ure

s in

a y

ear

no

t fo

un

d8.

500

€/(k

m*y

ear

)8.

500

€/(k

m*y

ear

)17

00 €

/(km

*ye

ar)

1300

€/(k

m*y

ear

)

n°

squ

are

me

ters

occ

up

ied

for

a km

of

me

an o

f tr

ansp

ort

3000

mq

/km

(do

ub

ble

lan

e)

1000

0 m

q/K

m

(do

ub

ble

lan

e)

1000

0 m

q/K

m

(do

ub

ble

lan

e)

3000

mq

/km

(do

ub

ble

lan

e)

2500

mq

/Km

(do

bb

le

sid

ew

alk)

n°

squ

are

me

ters

fo

r se

rvic

es

con

ne

cte

d t

o e

ach

me

an o

f

tran

spo

rt

81 m

q*1

tra

m38

mq

*1 b

us

12,5

mq

*1 c

ar0,

83 m

q*

1 b

ike

0,5

mq

*1

pe

de

stri

an

5.2.

6 La

nd

Use

Mo

dif

icat

ion

of

the

en

viro

nm

en

t co

use

to

tras

po

rtat

ion

ne

ed

s

5.2.

1 En

erg

y U

seTy

po

logy

an

d q

uan

tita

tive

of

en

erg

y u

sed

by

eac

h m

ean

of

tran

spo

rt

5.2.

3 A

ir Q

ual

ity

An

alis

ys o

f th

e i

ntr

od

uct

ion

of

par

ticu

late

s, b

iolo

gica

l

mo

lecu

les,

or

oth

er

har

mfu

l

mat

eri

als

into

th

e E

arth

's

atm

osp

he

re

5.2.

4 N

ois

e

An

alys

is o

f th

e d

istu

rbin

g o

r

exc

ess

ive

no

ise

th

at m

ay

har

m t

he

act

ivit

y o

r b

alan

ce

of

hu

man

or

anim

al li

fe.

5.2.

5 Q

ual

ity

of

Urb

an

Spac

es

Mea

n o

f Tr

asp

ort

pu

bb

lic

tras

po

rt 2

2%

67

Environmental

impact typologies

Best way of transport

Energy Use

S

I

I

G

Green House Gasses

G

I

I

G

Air Quality

G

I

I

G

Noise

G

I

I

G

Quality of Urban

Spaces

G

G

S

I

Land Use

I

I

S

G

G= good

S= sufficient

I= insufficient

Figure 38 and 39: Form to calculate the environmental impacts of each way of transport and the final asses of the environmental

impact of each mean of transport.

5.3 DEFINITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CONNECTED TO OTHER AREAS OF

INTEREST

According to the parameters proposed in “Methodology for the identification & assessment of

environmental & economic gains & costs of cycling in sustainable urban mobility” (edited by the

Sustainable Mobility Unit of the National Technical University of Athens) this report analyses the

environmental impact connected to different areas of interest. These areas of interest are:

transportation, health, safety, cycling tourism, sport and leisure, cycling industry. We have add to

the categories proposed by Athens the category “Social”. In the previous paragraph we have

reported all the directly impacts of bicycles to the environment - according to the groups: energy

68

use, green houses gasses, air quality, noise, quality of urban spaces and land use-. In this paragraph

we propose some guide lines for a bike investment that respects the environment and the effects -

positive, negative or not influent - of some categories related to investment in cycling.

Figure 40: Environmental impacts connected to other areas of interest in the cycle contest.

Environmental

impact connected

to other areas of

interest

ParametersLine guides for a bike investment that respects the

environment

bike impact on the

environment

Time cost

there aren't environment impacts connected to this

parameter because bicycles are not pollutant. You can

drive your bike for an hour or 15 minutes and the effects

on the environment are the same.

positive

Congestion bicycle lanes prevent car traffic congestion (very

pollutant). But bicycle congestion doesn't impact the

environment.

positive

Vehicle operating

costsnot influent for the environment not influent

Transit synergies

bicycles have to be integrated with other ways of

transport. The best choice for the environment is to

integrate bicycles with tram.

positive

Infrastructure &

maintenance cost

bicycle lanes maintenance is sustainable more from an

economic point of view rather than an environmental

point of view.

not influent

Physical fitness not influent for the environment. not influent

Air pollution bicycles aren't pollutant for the air. positive

Noise pollutionbicycles are the most silent mean of transport (only 35

dB).positive

Safety

Traffic accidents In case of accident broken bicycles are easy to transport

and don't release pollutant substances (oil, fuel,..)positive

Cycling tourism

Cycling holidays and

day tripsCycle tourism is almost always linked to eco-tourism and

with eco friendly accommodations as agritourisms.

positive

Sport & LeisureCycling events

Cycling events are a good way to promote

environmental awarness but to be completely

environmental friendly these events have to control

their waste production and use of soil.

positive

Cycling industry

Design,

manufacture, retail,

rental…

Cycling industry is environmental friendly when it uses

reused materials or materials that can be easily recycled. it depends

Social Environmental

awarness

the use of bicycles is usually linked to a positive

environmental attitude positive

Transportation

Health

69

5.4. ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING STUDIES FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

ANALYSIS AND A CBA IN CYCLING

Cycling has significant environmental benefits.

• It has a benign environmental impact since it creates no atmospheric and noise pollution,

consumes no finite resources and does not cause congestion. Therefore, every kilometer travelled

by bicycle or foot will be a kilometer without environmentally damaging emissions (I-ce, 2000).

• Promoting bicycle use in urban areas could lead to a modal shift from car use to bicycle use. A

reduction of car trips shorter than 7.5km by 10% could lead to a reduction of 1.5% of total CO2

emissions from passenger road traffic and 2% of the total atmospheric emissions (CE, 2000).

• Cycling is contrastingly quiet to motorized road traffic. Furthermore, it is significantly less energy

intensive and, “surveys have shown that a cyclist can travel 1,600 [1,600] miles on the equivalent

energy of one gallon [4.55 liters] of petrol” (Sharp, 1990, in CTC, 1991).

• Cycling also makes fewer demands on space unlike cars which are making increasing demands on

road space, having controversial effects on the landscape by destroying habitats, dividing

communities and threatening rare wildlife habitats (CTC, 1991).

• Cycling has huge potential as a cost-effective way of achieving environmental objectives. For

examples, much greater investment would be needed to achieve the same environmental results by

expanding public transport which is also not as clean as cycling (I-ce, 2000).

• Cycling has huge potential importance in fulfilling the EU’s climate policy and air quality goals

(Bjerregaard in EC, 1999).

• Bike production should be focused on an Eco-design principle, with emphasis on recyclable and

replaceable parts.

Cycling has almost any environmental cost:

• Manufacturing cost. Bikes do have negative environmental impacts, particularly those associated

with their production and disposal. Making frames and other components burns energy, typically

non-renewable fossil fuels, and produces both greenhouse gas emissions and toxins. It’s important

to protect the environment to follow a eco-friendly design to build new bicycles.

70

• Cycling waste. While some bike components can be recycled, others end up in landfills.

From the environmental benefits and costs reported in the previous lines it seems to be obvious the

importance for the environment in cycling investment. The CBA methodology for the environmental

impact it seems to be easy to use and reply.

5.4.1 European directives to assess the environmental impacts

There are two European directives that introduce two different instruments to evaluate the

environmental impacts:

- SEA Strategic Environmental Assesment - Directive 42/2001: A SEA is mandatory for

plans/programmes which are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry,

transport, waste/ water management, telecommunications, tourism, town & country

planning or land use.

- EIA Environmental Impact Assesment – Directive 337/1985: Environmental Impact

Assessment (hereafter EIA) is the process of identifying, predicting, evaluating and

mitigating the relevant environmental impacts from projects prior to decisions being taken

and commitments made.

These two directives aren’t used only to transport plans and infrastructures but in general to all the

programs that control the territory and the projects that modify it.

The Municipality that decides to invest in cycling has better to prepare a new Sustainable

Transportation Plan. This plan integrates all public transports with bicycles. What would a

sustainable transportation system look like?

Transportation planners and providers must continuously struggle with the trade-offs between the

economic and societal benefits of transportation and the associated unsustainable environmental,

safety, health, ecosystem, and equity impacts. A sustainable transportation system requires a

culture that not only sees sustainability as desirable but also accepts the inclusion of sustainability

concepts in the transportation planning process and supports the tough decisions necessary to

make sustainability a priority. The public and policy makers in this culture will understand and

71

consider potential solutions, such as integrated land use and transportation and innovative public

transportation (for example, bus rapid transit and car sharing).

This Plan has to be guide and control trough a SEA. To obtain good results from this European tool

it’s important for the Municipality to invest more in sustainable way of transports, as bicycles are.

After that the Municipalities have to realize the infrastructures and interventions reported in the

Plan. These Municipalities could save money investing in cycling rather than in other way of

transports (as cars, busses, trains,…) because cycling lanes don’t require an EIA analysis that is

obligatory to build new roads, bridges, highways ecc.

5.4.2 Existing tools to calculate the environmental impacts for transport and cycling

1) The Global Environment Facility (GEF)2

The primary purpose of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is to generate global environmental

benefit. The essential path for achieving this goal is the financial support of projects whose

completion delivers substantial, measurable reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG). The GEF is

committed not only to supporting the national and regional goals of each group, but to extending,

as far as possible, the results of these projects so that they contribute to the reduction of

greenhouse gases (GHG) on a global scale. the GEF developed a manual detailing specific

methodologies for calculating the GHG impacts of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean

energy technology projects. This new Manual provides the first methodology designed specifically

for projects in the transportation sector. The GEF models are designed to develop ex-ante

estimations of the GHG impacts of transport interventions (projects) as accurately as possible,

without requiring data so exacting that it discourages investment in the sector. The methodology

provides uniformity in the calculations and assumptions used to estimate the GHG impact over a

very diverse array of potential projects. These include projects that:

• Improve the efficiency of transportation vehicles and fuels;

• Improve public and non-motorized transportation modes;

2 Manual for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Global Environment Facility Transportation Projects. Prepared by

the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy for the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the Global Environment Facility.

72

• Price and manage transport systems more efficiently;

• Train drivers in eco-driving;

• Package multiple strategies as comprehensive, integrated implementation packages.

Sequence of the GEF Methodology:

Even though there is a vast variability in the types of GEF projects, there is a consistent sequence

that is followed in calculating CO2 emission reductions for a GEF application:

1. Establish a baseline: Calculate the estimated baseline emissions of the scenario without a GEF

intervention. The baseline emissions estimation will be compared against the estimated GHG

emissions reduction achieved by the GEF project. When using TEEMP3 models to find direct impact,

no separate baseline need be established in this step because TEEMP models automatically

calculate a baseline by using a market-shed analysis approach. Instead, the user should be sure to

input all dependable local transport data that is available into the TEEMP model. If dependable local

data is unavailable, default values are provided.

2. Calculate the direct emissions impact for the GEF scenario. This includes all GEF and co-financing

investments that are tracked in the logframe during the project’s implementation. The difference

between this GEF project scenario emissions and the baseline emissions equals the direct emission

impact of the project. If TEEMP models are used, this figure is the model‘s main output.

3. Estimate the direct post-project emission reductions, if any are expected. Direct post-project

impacts occur beyond the supervised timetable of the project. They result when a financial

mechanism, established as part of a project, remains in place and keeps providing support for GHG-

reducing investments beyond the lifetime of the project.

3 Transport Emissions Evaluation Models for Projects - TEEMP. Transport projects can either lead to net increase in GHG

(Green House Gasses) and air pollutant emissions or they can result in emissions savings. TEEMP primarily evaluates the impacts of transport projects on CO2 emissions and to some extent air pollutant emissions using data gathered during project feasibility and actual operations. The TEEMP tools have been developed in such a way that required input data are based on what data is available and easily accessible. This tool is free and available on this webpage http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/TEEMPTool.

73

4. Calculate the indirect emission reductions. These are reductions that occur from replication and

market expansion outside of the logframe or in the post-project period which have a “causal” link to

the GEF intervention. If it is appropriate for the situation, use both the Bottom-up and the Top

down methodologies to create a range of potential impacts. In some cases, only the Bottom-up

method will make sense. For certain types of transportation interventions, accepted (default)

replication rates based on observed impacts can be used.

Figure 41: Steps for Data Collection and Development of Baselines, Impact Estimations, and Calibration over GEF

Transport Project Lifetime. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York.

Local transport sector data

GEF default values & transport

emission evaluation models for projects

Ex- Ante (No-Project) Baseline Established

Lifetime Direct impact from Project

Transport Efficency Methodology

Public Trasport Methodology

Transport demand Management Methodology

Comprehensive Trasport Strategy

Methodology Project impact reported and data used to calibrate GEF Default sector Values & GHG

Reduction rates

Non-Motorized Transport

Methodology

Top-Down estimate total potential with

Causality

Range of indirect Project Impacts (based on replication)

Estimate Direct Post-

Project Effects

Is there a post-project

financial mechanism?

Estimate Direct Post-

Project Effects

Add in any direct secondary effects and apply a causality factor

Bottom-Up Replication

factor

Estimate Indirect Project

impacts

Yes

No

74

2) Evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes using an integrated

methodology and an application4.

Measuring the environmental effects of transportation modes may be a complex process because

of the different criteria which approach to the subject from different aspects. Under certain

conditions, determining the effects of transportation modes on environment may seem more

explicit. However, the criteria that contain uncertainties or cannot be given precisely are usually

expressed in linguistic terms by decision makers. This makes a mathematical procedure called

“fuzzy logic”5 a more natural approach to these kinds of assessment. This method connects

different ways of transport (road, railway, sea, air, multimodal) to different environmental

categories: noise, emission reduction, effects on open land, undesirable view, safety, energy

resources utilization, transportation capacity of the vehicle, infrastructure of the transportation

network, seasonal affect. This to find according to the path to do the best way of transport.

Figure 42: Hierarchical structure of the criteria and alternatives according to the “Evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes using an integrated methodology”.

4 Department of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Faculty, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.

5 Fuzzy set theory was introduced by Zadeh (1965) to deal with vague, imprecise and uncertain problems. This theory

has been used as a modeling tool for complex systems that are hard to define precisely, but can be controlled and operated by humans.

75

5.4.3 Proposition of new assessment methodology and conclusion

We proposed to use the “Global Environment Facility” methodology to calculate the environmental

cost that a Municipality or a State could save supporting cycling investment instead of other kind of

transport investment.

Moreover we have adapted the “Evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes

using an integrated methodology and an application” methodology to a local scale. We have used

the environmental impact, reported in paragraph 5.2.5 plus the categories foreseen in the Istanbul

methodology, according to the following scheme.

Figure 43: Hierarchical structure of the criteria and alternatives to determinate the most environmentalist transportation at urban scale.

From the scheme above is clear that the most environmentalist transportation at urban scale are

trams, bicycles and promenades. For this reason we suggest to local Authorities to favor in their

sustainable transport plans an inter-modality scheme using trams and bicycles.

Ener

gy u

se

Gre

en h

ou

se g

asse

s

Air

qu

alit

y

Inte

r-m

od

alit

y

Qu

alit

y u

rban

spac

es/u

se o

f so

il

Cars Trams Buses Bicycles

Safe

ty

Pro

du

ctio

n c

ost

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

ca

pac

ity

No

ise

Seas

on

al a

ffec

ts

Determining the most environmentalist transportation mode

Pedestrians

76

To complete the environmental impact analysis it’s necessary to report the positive or negative

consequences of a project in cycling , which may include:

1. Effects on users or participants

More eco-friendly projects effect the users and the participants in the quality of air that they have

to breath and so also their health.

2. Effets on non-user or non-participants

The effects on the non-user are also connected to a better air quality cause by the reduction of

traffic.

3. Externality effects

The externality effects could be:

- reduction of CO2;

- better air quality;

- less noise;

- less energy and resources use;

- better land use

- ………….

4. Option value or other social benefits

According to all the externality effects it’s possible to give a better quality of life for all the citizens:

safer, healthier and greener urban spaces.

It’s also important to integrate this environmental impact analysis to the cost and benefit analysis in

public and private investment. So we proposed to use the final table reported in the fourth chapter

and then to compare it with the environmental results.

Here below it’s reported, as conclusion, a new final table to follow to obtain a global CBA for

investments in cycling using the tool presented in this report.

77

Figure 44: CBA methodologies and tools for investments in cycling using the experiences presented in this report.

CATEGORIES CBA Tools and Methodologies to use

Environment The GEEF Methodology and the TEEMP tool

(http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/TEEMPTool)

Transportation

Travel time and costs

Vehicle operating costs

The Economic evaluation of cycle project Methodology – City of

Copenhagen- and the tool reported in the figure 9 (page 34 of this report)

“Methodology to quantify traffic effects”.

(http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Economic%2

0evaluation%20of%20cycle%20projects.pdf)

Health The Europe Health Economic Assessment Tool –HEAT

(http://heatwalkingcycling.org/)

- 0,77 $ win per dollar invested according to the Health program Quality Bike

Products, USA

(http://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/quality_bike_products_health_

reward_program.pdf)

Safety - The Economic evaluation of cycle project Methodology – City of

Copenhagen- and the tool reported in the figure 9 (page 34 of this report)

“Methodology to quantify traffic effects”.

(http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Economic%2

0evaluation%20of%20cycle%20projects.pdf)

- Value of statistical life: 1,5000,000 € according to the Health program

Quality Bike Products, USA

Cycling Tourism - The EUROVELO Project Methodology and Tool reported in the figure 10

(Page 37 of this report): “The estimated demand and economic impact of

cycle tourism”;

- European cycle tourism: a tool for sustainable regional rural development

(http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/164816/2/19_Piket.pdf)

Sport & Leisure -

Cycling industry -

78

Figure 45: Quantitative data for the parameters as defined by the report of the National Technical University of

Athens.DECISIO.

CATEGORIES Parameter Indicator

Environment

Energy use No effect of cycling

Greenhouse gasses /air quality

Between €0,03 (rural) and €0,15 (urban) per

km on bicycle instead of car

Noise €29,97 per dB change per person affected

Quality of urban spaces

€0,002 per km on bicycle instead of car for

use of space

Transportation

Travel time and costs Value of time between €6,62 (other

purposes) and €33 (pure business) per hour.

Congestion Between €0,14 (rural) and €0,28 (urban) per

km on bicycle instead of car.

Vehicle operating cost €0,06 per km on bicycle instead of car.

Transit synergies + (no quantitative indicator)

Infrastructure & Maintenance costs €0,003 per km on bicycle instead of car

Health Physical fitness €200,94 total health bene-fits per person

cycled full year

Productivity €95,73 per person cycled a full year

Life years - 0,000176 DALY per user of bike-share-

system;

- €74,05 per person cycled a full year

(reduced loss of lives).

Safety Traffic incidents 0,005847 mean proportion of deaths per year

€2.487.000 value of statisti-cal life

Cycling Tourism Cycling holidays and day trips by

bicycle (Europe total)

€15,40 spending on day trips, €57,10 on

overnight trips.

2,3 billion day trips and 20,4 million overnight

trips annu-ally

Sport & Leisure Cycling events Scotland: £5,6 million per year.

Cycling industry Design, manufacture, retail, rental

and main-tenance of bicycles,

components and equipment,

Bicycle Sharing Systems, bicycle

parking facilities, employment etc.

£230 per cyclist annually (Great Britain)

79

6. Conclusion

In the conclusion we propose an analytic consideration on all the contents of this synthesis report:

public investment, private investment and environmental impact in cycling.

In the following scheme we summarize the topic analyzed and we underline all the connections

between one argument and the others.

This report started with the two documents edited by the BSC and Merton about private and public

investments. Our work was to write a synthesis of these two reports enriching their contents to

produce an unify and uniform final document. We have integrated the two analysis adding to the

CBA the environmental impact of transport. But to produce the final conclusion it’s necessary also

80

to define all the possible reasons that can push public administrations and private companies to

invest in cycling considering the environmental aspect.

For public administration could be important to invest to protect and ameliorate the environment

for many different reasons:

- to give to their citizens a better quality of life;

- to establish a dialogue with a lot of green-associations and citizens and to receive from them

a strong support to their policy;

- to have European and National funding;

- to be competitive with other towns;

- to renovate some degraded part of town;

- to save money because prevention is better than a cure;

- to economize sanitary costs;

- to create new job places;

- ……

For private companies could be interesting to invest in environmental aspects for the following

reasons:

- to receive European and National funding;

- to invest in a new growing green sector;

- to create groups and cooperatives of green industries;

- to pay less taxation;

- to create new job places;

- to reach more clients respecting and following a green policy;

- …….

For both it’s a good opportunity to work together with a common goal but with some different

interests. It could be done thanks to an European project, where private industries experiment new

technologies and public administrations ameliorate the quality of life of citizens or thanks to a

public-private initiatives able to advertise the labels of private industries and support the national

policy.

81

This report want to be different from all the common documents that try to support investment in

cycling because it gives quality criteria and assessment to quantify the indicators proposed.

Investment in cycling are analyzed from a public, private and environmental point of view.

Municipalities could use the indications here reported to do a complete CBA (using the existing

tools to calculate the monetary benefits of health, safety, etc…) and to find private investments.

Calculating all internal and external benefits of cycling together, based on 7,4% of use of the bicycle

in Europe (Eurobarometer 2010), and adding the turnover of related industries, ECF6 estimates the

number to be well above € 200 bn annually, or more than € 400 for every person that lives in the

EU. By far the biggest single chunk is on the health side, with over € 110 bn annually.

We suggest the political world in general, the health sector and private companies, to take care of

the following key messages:

1 Cycling policy needs continuous political leadership and coordination from the very top

down.

2 As the main socioeconomic benefit of cycling is on the health side. Health departments

should actively reach out to other departments for fully inclusive cycling policies. This also

relates to the concept of ‘health in all policies’.

3 The “polluter pays” principle is finding more and more political support. The European

Commission stated in its White Paper on Transport (2011) the ambition to “Proceed to the

full and mandatory internalization of external costs (including noise, local pollution and

congestion).

4 To use European funding to create a mixed partnership (public & private) to promote

projects in cycling.

5 To do Sustainable Mobility Plan that includes a CBA. This report shows that almost every

CBA on cycling investment turns out to be very positive; the social costs outweigh the

benefits by far.

6 To consider cycling as an integral part of the total mobility plan of a city. Synergies with

public transport are an important part of that.

6 Europea Cyclists’ Federation

82

7 To work for a new green economy including Bicycles considering that:

- cycling spend more than car drivers;

- cycling employees are more productive and deliver better quality

- the cycle economy ensures economic and social gains.

83

7. References

A summary of current clima change findings and figures. World Meteorological Organisation, 2013.

A sustainable future for transport: towards an integrated, technology-led and user friendly system.

European Commission, 2009.

Air quality in Europe. European Environment Agency, 2012.

Analisi dei Questionari sulla mobilità ciclabile di Malnate. Urbanism and environmental division of

the Municipality of Malnate, 2012.

Analysis of private investment infrastructure. London Borough of Merton, 2014.

Analysis of public investment costs, inhibitors and externalities. Regional Development Agency of

Gorenjska – BSC –Kranj, 2014.

Bike share’s impact on car use: evidence from the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. Elliot

Fishman, Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland, Australia, 2013.

Calculating the economic benefits of cycling in EU-27. Fabian Küster and Benoit Blondel, 2013.

Cycling will improve environment and health. Christian Ege and Thomas Krag, 2002.

Enabling Cycling Cities, Ingredients for Success. Mario Gualdi and Pascal van der Noort, 2013.

Energy Efficiency Trends in the Transport sector in the EU. Lessons from the ODYSSEE MURE project,

2011.

Evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes using an integrated methodology and

an application. Department of Industrial Engineering, Mechanical Faculty, Yildiz Technical

University, Istanbul, 2009.

EU transport in figure. European statistical pocketbook, 2012.

How clean are Europe’s cars? An analysis of carmaker progress towards EU CO2 targets in 2012.

European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E), 2013.

84

Integrating cycling with public transports. Eliot Fischerman, 2010.

Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Transportation research board

executive committee, 2005.

Manual for Calculating Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Global Environment Facility Transportation

Projects. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York, 2010

Methodology for the identification & assessment of environmental & economic gains & costs of

cycling in sustainable urban mobility, Sustainable Mobility Unit of the National Technical University

of Athens, 2014.

Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient

transport system. European Commission, White paper 2011.

Seattle Transit Master Plan Briefing Book. Municipality of Seatle, 2012.

Soft mobility Measures for a climate-friendly transport policy in Europe. Michal Kramer,2009.

The European Cycle Route Network Eurovelo, Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Tourism.

ECF, 2012

Websites: Best practices manuals. http://www.bruxellesmobilite.irisnet.be/partners/professionnels/publications-techniques Climate Action, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/causes/index_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/index_en.htm Environment, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport/ Environmental Protection Agency – EPA. http://www.epa.gov/; http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html European Cyclists’ Federation.

85

http://www.ecf.com/ Eurovelo, the European cycle route network. http://www.eurovelo.org/ GEEF Methodology and the TEEMP tool. http://cleanairinitiative.org/portal/TEEMPTool

Institute for Sensible Transport – Queensland, Australia. http://www.sensibletransport.org.au/ Sustainable mobility. http://www.sustainable-mobility.org/getting-around-today/two-wheels.html

European cycle tourism: a tool for sustainable regional rural development. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/164816/2/19_Piket.pdf The Economic evaluation of cycle project Methodology – City of Copenhagen. http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/Economic%20evaluation%20of%20cycle%20projects.pdf) The Europe Health Economic Assessment Tool – HEAT. http://heatwalkingcycling.org/

The Danish Cycling Embassy. www.cycling-embassy.dk The Victoria Transport Policy Institute http://www.vtpi.org/ United Nations Environment Programme, environment for development. http://www.unep.org/