Cycling instead of driving saves £X

[snibgo]

Do we have a figure for the saving to the state of cycling instead of driving a car? Something like "Every mile cycled instead of driven saves the state £0.10 per mile, taking into account road maintenance, pollution, cost of accidents, cyclists needing less healthcare etc etc."

Ideally, I'm looking for an official government number. But I'll take what I can get. With references, please.

[FatBat]

Not exactly what you're after, but, when I worked the appraisal of rail schemes for the SRA and DfT, we used a rule-of-thumb that for each kilometre driven by car in an urban area represented a cost of around £0.50. I believe this only took into account congestion costs (i.e. if one extra kilometre is driven, congestion gets slightly worse, leading to many people being delayed by a slightly longer time - and all that time lost can be valued at about 50p).

I imagine there is a document somewhere that would explain how this was calculated. I'll post a link if I can find one!

edit to add: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/ ... 3.13.2.php

[snibgo]

That's great, thanks.

Following the trail, I also found "TAG unit 3.14.1: Guidance on the Appraisal of Walking and Cycling Schemes" which contains a multitude of gems such as "Estimating the journey ambience impacts for cyclists". Cycle paths are valued at 4.73 pence per minute, if anyone cares.

More to the point, for my purposes, it illustrates how the DfT calculate things like mortality benefit (cycling instead of not exercising reduces the chances of dying). Brilliant.

[thirdcrank]

.., it illustrates how the DfT calculate things ....

Isn't that what used to be called sophistry?

[Mike Sales]

I think I remember correctly that in the cost benefit analysis (COBA?) used in assessing whether a road scheme is a good idea, there is a value put on time saved by users.
This might be worthwhile looking at. My information is at least a decade old, (the road was built of course, though another was not) but I would imagine the procedure is still similar.

After reading TC's post I add, "you might think that, I couldn't possibly comment." COBA is a scientific sounding sophistry, but depends on certain assumptions.

[snibgo]

Sophistry, certainly, but that's okay for my purposes. I want to say, "Using your methods, this scheme has a benefit to cost ratio of 30" or whatever.

[Steady rider]

http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advic ... _table.jsp

congestion, pollution, infrastructure, CTC produced a 'Costing the benefits' some time ago
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaig ... ations.doc

list of
http://www.cyclingresourcecentre.org.au ... of_cycling

[Tonyf33]

http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advice/advice_rcosts_petrol_table.jsp

congestion, pollution, infrastructure, CTC produced a 'Costing the benefits' some time ago
http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaig ... ations.doc

list of
http://www.cyclingresourcecentre.org.au ... of_cycling

Are the CTC publications not available on the main website then? If not who would one need to speak to to make these accessible for members for free via a download?

[gaz]

Sophistry, certainly, but that's okay for my purposes. I want to say, "Using your methods, this scheme has a benefit to cost ratio of 30" or whatever.

COBA is usually applied to the construction of new facilities weighing the cost of implementation against the benefits derived from the finished scheme. Essentially it's a measure of value for money.

SusTrans claim 20:1 return for local cycle/pedestrian facilities using government methods, compared with 3:1 for most local motor traffic schemes.

[snibgo]

Many thanks, folks.

If anyone is curious, I'm looking at the horrible A14 between (roughly) Huntingdon and Cambridge, which has a knock-on effect on many surrounding roads. A £1.2bn scheme for a brand new road has been abandoned, and they are loking for innovative ideas.

This is an opportunity to inject cycle-thinking into the system, and maybe, just maybe, get some more good facilities.

Deadline is 31 Jan, so there is little time.

[Steady rider]

Are the CTC publications not available on the main website then? If not who would one need to speak to to make these accessible for members for free via a download?

It looks like much more information via pdfs could be provided. On this forum we could open topics, 'pdf references' safety, road, cycles, accessories, lighting, infrastructure, helmets etc, only listing pdfs titles, with links to assessments of these pdfs. Where non-pdf material was of note, some sort of links would need providing.

Topic sections where cyclists could add pdf links as they become available.
'Comments on pdfs' another section could be included to comment on particular pfds.

[FatBat]

I think I remember correctly that in the cost benefit analysis (COBA?) used in assessing whether a road scheme is a good idea, there is a value put on time saved by users.
This might be worthwhile looking at. My information is at least a decade old, (the road was built of course, though another was not) but I would imagine the procedure is still similar.

DfT stills uses cost-benefit analysis to determine the worth of a transport scheme. There is a program called COBA that was used to perform various calculations to do this, but DfT now recommends a newer program called TUBA (transport user benefit analysis). This does, broadly, the same thing. The cost-benefit analysis is just one part (officially) as the decision making process, however.

The value of time savings are still a big part of the benefits of a scheme, together with accident cost savings and vehicle-operating cost savings. The process also places values on such things a greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, noise, landscape, physical fitness and townscape.

It's all good fun and makes me realise how happy I am to have changed job to get away from it all!

[james01]

The value of time savings are still a big part of the benefits of a scheme, together with accident cost savings and vehicle-operating cost savings. The process also places values on such things a greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, noise, landscape, physical fitness and townscape.

Another hard-to-quantify factor is the vital "humanising" effect on bleak and hostile townscapes of having cyclists and pedestrians on the streets rather than only people in steel cocoons.

[flat tyre]

Does the benefit analysis take account of state revenue lost due to lack of car fuel tax and vehicle tax, coporation tax on oil companies, car manufacturers etc?

[Steady rider]

http://www.heatwalkingcycling.org/
http://www.heatwalkingcycling.org/index ... troduction

May be useful to see, I put in 10km for 100 days for 1 person, value came out 1 euro per km.

The value of statistical life applied is: 1,574,000 EUR
The annual benefit of this level of cycling, per year, is: 1,000 EUR
The total benefits accumulated over 1 years are: 1,000 EUR
When future benefits are discounted by 5 % per year:
the current value of the average annual benefit, averaged across 1 years is: 1,000 EUR
the current value of the total benefits accumulated over 1 years is: 1,000 EUR

http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advic ... _table.jsp
If only using a car for 10km and 100 days per year, low useage, could cost 65p per mile, 40p per km.

Per km, cycling benefits you about 80p, car travel costs about 40p, difference £1.2 per km or £1.92 per mile.

The data used would change on higher use of the car.