10 rates1, crash cost reductions, changes in mobility and average commute times, improved air quality and economic benefits. Other indirect and less easily quantifiable benefits include improved livability and quality of life, social capital impacts, economic development and social equity. Substantial literature exists related to the benefits and costs of non-motorized investments; perhaps the most straightforward set of guidelines pertaining to benefit-cost analyses of bicycle investments comes from the Transportation Research Board’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP Report 552 (Report 552), Guidelines for Analysis of Investments in Bicycle Facilities, provides research and guidelines to agencies seeking to measure the benefits and costs associated with new and improved bicycle facilities. Report 552 also provides a framework for comparing investments in bicycling to investments in other modes, selecting appropriate bicycle facilities and, and at a systematic level, integrating the benefits and costs of bicycling into the general transportation planning process. The guidelines from Report 552 are summarized in Section 2. The research and guidelines within Report 552 also form the basis of Bicycling Info’s Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool, summarized in Section 2 along with other online tools available for the public to use to quantify the benefits associated with non-motorized investments. In addition to the guidelines recommended in Report 552, substantial research quantifies specific benefits associated with bicycling and walking investments. This literature, summarized below, offers case studies useful for communicating the value of such community investments. Non-motorized Transportation: Benefit-Cost Analysis Literature Conducting a benefit-cost analysis for non-motorized projects can be useful for agencies seeking to compare multiple projects and can form the basis of project comparison across transportation modes. In addition, the results from a benefit-cost analysis offers quantitative information for communicating the value of investing in non-motorized facilities. 1 Morbidity refers to the disease state of an individual, or the incidence of illness in a population.Mortality refers to the state of being mortal, or the incidence of death (number of deaths) in a population.
quantifying
Several studies demonstrate the benefit-cost ratio for bicycle and pedestrian investments, based on quantifiable benefits, such as accident cost savings, health care cost savings and pollution reductions. The examples summarized within this section range from local case studies of specific infrastructure projects to national analyses of the monetary benefits of increased bicycling and walking rates.
Example Benefit Cost Ratios for Bicycle Treatments Benefit-cost analyses are not traditionally conducted for bicycle and pedestrian treatments in the United States, however existing research has demonstrated that the benefits of such projects overwhelmingly outweigh the costs, as illustrated in the benefit-cost ratios reported from a European study below. • Speed reduction strategies. BCR = 9:1
A study from Norway assessing the costs and benefits of • Segregated bicycle facilities. bicycling and walking networks in BCR = 9:1. three Norwegian cities concluded that benefits of investments in • Bicycle intersection priority non-motorized networks are treatments (advanced stopbar). four to five times the costs. This BCR =12:1 (uitgeverij, 2000). research took into account the benefits associated with reduced insecurity, increased physical activity, reduced pollution and costs linked with motor vehicle use (Saelensminde, 2004). The City of Sydney conducted a benefit-cost analysis of its proposed bicycle investments, accounting for congestion and pollution reductions, reduced transportation costs, travel time reductions, reduced mortality, increased productivity and improved trip quality. The analysis showed that in comparison to doing nothing at all, the bicycle network would generate a net economic benefit of $507 million, at a benefit-cost ratio of 3.88 (AECOM, 2010). Another study from Australia concluded that every 1,000 kilometers shifted from driving to non-motorized modes generated a net benefit to society of
& prioritizing non-motorized transportation investments