Irish cyclists looking for a €1b investment? - note stay on-topic warning, post #160

Chuchote

How Utrecht changed to a city where people want to live, rather than a commuter city (skip the intro in Dutch; presentation starts around 2 minutes in)

Chuchote

Last time I looked, cycling was transport.

monument

Chuchote wrote: »

How Utrecht changed to a city where people want to live, rather than a commuter city (skip the intro in Dutch; presentation starts around 2 minutes in)

Worth noting that the main predestination is in English... I was about to turn it off.

Chuchote

A study by Columbia University has found that bicycle lanes may be the most cost-effective way to improve public health

http://www.zmescience.com/medicine/bike-lanes-public-health-22112016/

The figures they came up with are impressive. For instance, back in 2005, New York City spent $10 million on curbing traffic. They widened sidewalks, redesigned traffic lights, and constructed bike lanes. The net societal benefit of that project? A whopping $230 million…

“We conclude that investments in bicycle lanes come with an exceptionally good value because they simultaneously address multiple public health problems. Investments in bike lanes are more cost-effective than the majority of preventive approaches used today.”

Another piece

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-costbenefit-bike-lanes-idUSKCN11Z23A

has some criticism of its methodology (conflating painted bike lanes and broad, well-designed, protected cycleways):

The study did not distinguish between bike lanes, bikeways, shared-use paths and other bike facilities, said Anne Lusk, a research scientist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston who was not part of the new study.

One study, cited by Mohit and coauthors, found that bike lanes made the city safer for drivers and pedestrians but less safe for bicyclists, Lusk told Reuters Health by email.

“In sum, I am glad to read the conclusion that bicycle facilities are a worthwhile health investment but saddened that the author did not clearly specify that the facilities built in NYC starting in 2007 were primarily Class IV cycle tracks (barrier-protected bicycle-exclusive paths beside sidewalks),” she said…

“Once considered desirable because they were 'low hanging fruit,' we need to stop painting door zone bike lanes and start creating barrier protected cycle tracks,” Lusk said. Riding in the so-called door zone can be fatal if someone in a parked car opens their door at the wrong time, she said.

And in news from Sweden, the invisible cyclist

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092575351600045X

In about half of these collisions the drivers reported that they did not see the cyclists beforehand.

eeguy

Deedsie wrote: »

I have no idea how these incidents occurred and I'm not blaming motorists or pedestrians but surely we are long past time where motorists are separated from cyclists and pedestrians where possible?

By the time political will has swung around to this idea, we'll be living in an eradicated of autonomous cars.
All evidence so far says they're already safer than humans and estimated to reduce crashes by more than 90%.
Most companies plan on releasing some form of limited autonomous car in 5 years and full autonomous in 10.

check_six

eeguy wrote: »

By the time political will has swung around to this idea, we'll be living in an eradicated of autonomous cars.
All evidence so far says they're already safer than humans and estimated to reduce crashes by more than 90%.
Most companies plan on releasing some form of limited autonomous car in 5 years and full autonomous in 10.

Could be big traffic problems with private autonomous cars. If everyone with a regular car now sent their future autonomous car home to wait after it dropped them off it would double the number of trips by each vehicle on the road. Double the trips means double the traffic. Might be time to look at some other way of travelling that can skirt around the traffic? Autonomous bicycles would be something we could all get behind!

CramCycle

check_six wrote: »

Could be big traffic problems with private autonomous cars. If everyone with a regular car now sent their future autonomous car home to wait after it dropped them off it would double the number of trips by each vehicle on the road. Double the trips means double the traffic. Might be time to look at some other way of travelling that can skirt around the traffic? Autonomous bicycles would be something we could all get behind!

Could pass legislation that autonomous cars are not allowed be in operation unless the registered vehicle owner or insured party is there to ensure there is someone there to take over if needs be (alas very unlikely).

check_six

CramCycle wrote: »

Could pass legislation that autonomous cars are not allowed be in operation unless the registered vehicle owner or insured party is there to ensure there is someone there to take over if needs be (alas very unlikely).

Perhaps, but right now I'm down in the garden shed designing an autonomous bicycle that can wield a 'morning star' spiked ball and chain thing to chase off bike thieves.
Just need some more spikes...

Hexen

Chuchote wrote: »

A study by Columbia University has found that bicycle lanes may be the most cost-effective way to improve public health

http://www.zmescience.com/medicine/bike-lanes-public-health-22112016/

[...]

Also, here's an interesting study from Auckland NZ. It modelled potential benefits from investing in cycling infrastructure. It monetised the impact of cycle friendly policies finding that, depending on the policies pursued, potential benefits outweighed harms anywhere from 6 to 24 times. That is, for every $1 (NZ) invested in cycling infrastructure there was a long-term return of between $6 and $24. According to their model, the greatest benefits would accrue from the combined implementation of segregated cycling network (arterial segregated bicycle lanes) and what they term "self-explaining roads" ('creating low-speed local streets using nontraditional, endemic road features such as street narrowing, trees, and art').

The Societal Costs and Benefits of Commuter Bicycling: Simulating the Effects of Specific Policies Using System Dynamics Modeling

Hexen

Chuchote wrote: »

A study by Columbia University has found that bicycle lanes may be the most cost-effective way to improve public health

The most interesting finding of this study was that non-bike riders benefit more than bike riders from investment in cycling and associated infrastructure.

“New bike riders gain an average of 0.033 QALYs [quality-adjusted life years] per year from increased exercise and New Yorkers as a whole gain 0.047 QALYs per year from reduced exposure to pollution.” This suggests the average New Yorker benefits from the increase in biking even more than the bikers do themselves — when the chance of an accident is factored into the bikers’ overall health.

Bike lanes benefit non-riders more than riders: New research

Hexen

Similarly a Norwegian study finds that the benefits from investing in a bicycle network or between 4 and 5 times the cost.

The study presents cost–benefit analyses of walking and cycling track networks in three Norwegian cities. The cost–benefit analyses take into account the benefit of reduced insecurity and the health benefits of the improved fitness the use of non-motorized transport provides. In addition to reductions in health costs, the analyses also take into account that a change from travel by car to cycling or walking means reduced external costs (e.g. air pollution and noise) from motorized traffic and reduced parking costs. The benefits of investments in cycle networks are estimated to be at least 4–5 times the costs. Such investments are thus more beneficial to society than other transport investments.

The results of such complete cost–benefit analyses make it possible to calculate the benefits to society that are not realized because motorized traffic prevents people from bicycling or walking as much as they otherwise would prefer. These “barrier costs” attributable to motorized traffic are estimated to be of at least the same magnitude as air pollution costs and more than double the noise costs. Barrier costs should therefore be taken into account in the same way as other external costs, when the issue is to determine the proper level of car taxes or to evaluate different kinds of restrictions on car use.

Cost–benefit analyses of walking and cycling track networks taking into account insecurity, health effects and external costs of motorized traffic

Hexen

UK DoH report finds that:

This report compiles the best available cost benefit evidence from the UK and abroad from
recent studies that have calculated health benefits alongside other benefits such as savings in
travel time, congestion and accidents.

The results are astonishing. The typical cost ratios are many times greater than the threshold of
2:1 which is considered by the Department for Transport as ‘high’ value for money.

[...]

This review assesses the evidence base from both peer reviewed and grey literature both in the
UK and beyond. Almost all of the studies identified report economic benefits of walking and
cycling interventions which are highly significant. The median result for all data identified is
13:1 and for UK data alone the median figure is higher, at 19:1.

Value for Money: An Economic Assessment of Investment in Walking and Cycling

Hexen

2008 review analyses the benefit-cost ratios (BCR) of cycling & walking infrastructure and policies across a range of studies. Finding that:

The median BCR is 5:1 with a range from -0.4 to 32.5. It should be treated with caution however as the values are based on many different assumptions.

They looked at a further six studies which provided attributed values to the one new walker or cyclist.

These ranged from €127 to €1290. Much of this variation is accounted for by different assumptions – for example Lind and Saari based their valuations on the same overall estimates but use different assumptions when reporting the data.

Economic analyses of transport infrastructure and policies including health effects related to cycling and walking: a systematic review

Hexen

Copenhagen study. Cost of driving for the individualsix times higher than cycling.

In many cities of the world, bicycle infrastructure projects are implemented to foster more sustainable transportation systems. However, such projects have often raised questions regarding their public funding, as they entail considerable costs. This paper reviews cost–benefit analysis (CBA) frameworks as these are presently used to assess bicycle infrastructure projects. Specific focus is on the CBA framework developed in Copenhagen, Denmark, a self-declared “city of cyclists”. In this framework, costs and benefits of car and bicycle, the two major urban transport modes, have been assessed and are compared across accidents, climate change, health, and travel time. The analysis reveals that each km travelled by car or bike incurs a cost to society, though the cost of car driving is more than six times higher (Euro 0.50/km) than cycling (Euro 0.08/km). Moreover, while the cost of car driving is likely to increase in the future, the cost of cycling appears to be declining. The paper concludes with a discussion of the applicability of the Copenhagen CBA framework to advance sustainable transport planning and to motivate and justify urban restructuring.

Transport transitions in Copenhagen: Comparing the cost of cars and bicycles

For those wondering, the principal costs of cycling were time costs. You can also read a summary of the paper here.

In terms of societal costs:

Once these costs and benefits are summed the researchers found an overwhelming case for investment in infrastructure to encourage a cycling culture. The combined individual and societal costs of driving a car were 0.50 €/km in comparison to 0.08 €/km for cycling. Notably, when only considering the costs and benefits for society, rather than the individual, one kilometre by car costs €0.15, whereas society earns €0.16 for every kilometre cycled.

Hexen

Economic benefits of cycling in EU-27 calculated to be at least €205 bn per year.

We calculate an annual economic benefit of cycling in the EU-27 of at least € 205 bn.
In 2010, 7.4 % of European citizens used the bicycle as their preferred mode of transportation.1
Using the best statistics we currently have at hand, we assume that this translates into 94 bn km
cycled in that year.2 All calculations on the internal and external benefits of cycling have been
done based on this value.

This paper is ECF’s first calculation to monetise the internal and external benefits that come with
this level of cycling in the EU-27, based on:
 Health benefits of cycling;
 Congestion-easing due to cycle use;
 Fuel savings due to cycle use;
 Reduced CO2 emissions due to cycle use;
 Reduced air pollution due to cycle use;
 Reduced noise pollution due to cycle use.

The six categories combined accumulate to an economic benefit of € 143.2 – 155.3 bn. The
largest single benefit of cycling is on the health side, representing about 80 % of the total internal
and external benefits withheld for this exercise. The wider social benefits of cycling to local
communities (increase in quality of life due to higher accessibility, improved quality of the public
realm, increased interaction between residents, a boost to the vitality of town centres, etc.) could
not be included in this paper due to a lack of verifiable data.

Calculating the economic benefits of cycling in EU-27

magicbastarder

Hexen wrote: »

Economic benefits of cycling in EU-27 calculated to be at least €205 per year.

€205bn

Hexen

The only negative findings I can find are for a case study of Pilsen (Czech Republic).

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE: A CASE STUDY OF PILSEN

Hexen

magicbastarder wrote: »

€205bn

Thanks. Will fix.

Hexen

Costs-benefit analysis of constructing segregated cycle-route on disused canal towpath in Ireland (Royal Canal Greenway). Analysis of health economic benefits only.

The results presented in this paper show that if the cycle route was constructed along the canal towpath, the economic health benefits from present day non-cycling commuters switching their travel mode for commuting to cycling, would reduce their mortality rate as a group by 18%. It was investigated how if the modal share of cycling was to increase from 1.72% to 2.5%, 5% and 10% could impact the health of the population in the study area. The increase in cycling rates would reduce the number of deaths per year by between 3.39 and 17.93, depending on the modal switch. Using the European Union׳s statistical value of life at €1,574,000, it can be inferred that over a 10 year period with a two year uptake of cycling and five years for the buildup of the health benefits, that the benefits accumulated over 10 years would be between €26,695,000 and €141,222,000, dependent on the modal switch. These benefits would result from an initial investment of €12,000,000. This would lead to benefit–cost ratios of between 2.22:1 and 11.77:1, dependent on the mode switch. For a transport facility, the ratios are very favourable and indicate that this would be a very worthwhile infrastructure project for the area.

Estimating the health economic benefits of cycling

AndrewJRenko

check_six wrote: »

Could be big traffic problems with private autonomous cars. If everyone with a regular car now sent their future autonomous car home to wait after it dropped them off it would double the number of trips by each vehicle on the road. Double the trips means double the traffic. Might be time to look at some other way of travelling that can skirt around the traffic? Autonomous bicycles would be something we could all get behind!

True, but it could also transform our streets by eliminating the need for on-street parking. Imagine a city where we didn't have half the space taken up by parked cars?

CramCycle

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

True, but it could also transform our streets by eliminating the need for on-street parking. Imagine a city where we didn't have half the space taken up by parked cars?

We could do that just by removing car park spaces and investing in (and more importantly planning) in PT .

eeguy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

True, but it could also transform our streets by eliminating the need for on-street parking. Imagine a city where we didn't have half the space taken up by parked cars?

Personally I think the way we view cars today will change drastically in the next few years.
I'm sure someone will invent an autonomous single seater commuter pod, with just enough room for you and and your bag.

magicbastarder

eeguy wrote: »

Personally I think the way we view cars today will change drastically in the next few years.
I'm sure someone will invent an autonomous single seater commuter pod, with just enough room for you and and your bag.

there are an awful lot of things people are promising autonomous cars will bring, which are already possible. which makes me sceptical about many of the claims being made of how much change they will bring.

eeguy

magicbastarder wrote: »

there are an awful lot of things people are promising autonomous cars will bring, which are already possible. which makes me sceptical about many of the claims being made of how much change they will bring.

Most of these changes are very possible, but they're either too expensive or humans are too unreliable.
When the likes of Uber are saying they can reduce taxi costs by 80% and run their taxis 24/7, the economics of buying and maintaining a car fall apart.

Amazon patented a system of redirecting lanes depending on traffic flow, so half the northbound M1 could be redirected south for morning rush hour and vice versa.

magicbastarder

i had a reply typed out, but then reread the warning in the thread title.
onwards and upwards.

Carawaystick

eeguy wrote: »

Amazon patented a system of redirecting lanes depending on traffic flow, so half the northbound M1 could be redirected south for morning rush hour and vice versa.

Is that an Irish patent?

Would the cost of installing such a system not dwarf the cost of implementing a high quality ( wide, GSJ) cycle infrastructure ton, around and into Dublin.


It's incredible the nra have not been challenged for not providing a safe cycling route from the N25 into and out of Cork city at the N4-/N8/N25 junction.

Hexen

eeguy wrote: »

When the likes of Uber are saying they can reduce taxi costs by 80% and run their taxis 24/7, the economics of buying and maintaining a car fall apart.

Amazon patented a system of redirecting lanes depending on traffic flow, so half the northbound M1 could be redirected south for morning rush hour and vice versa.

The changes will certainly be dramatic but it's very hard to predict the long-term impact. For example, it's unknown whether robo-vehicles will be largely privately owned by individuals (leading to larger fleets) or shared as in the Uber model (leading to smaller fleets). These options would have very different consequences in terms of parking infrastructure and congestion. While a shared fleet might be much more rational one would assume that the automotive industry would have powerful incentives for promoting private ownership. I do think some kind of shared fleet model is the likely, ultimate outcome but I would really like state regulation and there should also be a public robo-fleet.

Assuming a fairly long transition period, it's not clear to me either what traffic will really look like with a mix of autonomous and driver vehicles on the road at the same time.

Either way, the inevitable impact on the bus transit system will be enormous and lead to significant job losses.

Taking it back to the thread topic, cheaper, safer, automated transit, either point to point or fixed route, both public and private, could certainly have benefits for cycling: freeing up space, possibly, with the reclamation of parking spaces, for cycle routes and other forms of 'active transport'; reducing collisions, etc.. I'd really like to see the development of public policy towards infrastructural changes that will follow as a consequence of the introduction of mass autonomous vehicles and planning for the purchase of a public autonomous fleet to maintain transport equity.

Also, the change in cultural focus that might follow from the introduction of shared robo-vehicles, from car consumption to mobility, might benefit cycling. It might also rob car culture of much of its current romanticism, a lot of which is centred on the autonomy of the car-driver.

Hexen

Carawaystick wrote: »

Is that an Irish patent?

US Patent