Procesos incluidos cuellos de botella

Some of the indicators in the table above need some extra explanation. We give those explana- tions below, supported by examples which weren’t discussed in Section 2.

Energy Use

When we first think of cycling instead of driving a car we would say this will save a lot of energy. A car uses fuel to drive while a bicycle is fuelled by our own efforts. A scientist from the Univer- sity of Pennsylvania investigated this issue and concludes this effect will be negligible in the end. The core of Ulrich’s (2006) argument is when car drivers start to cycle they will live longer and thereby use energy for a longer period of time. According to Ulrich, the overall energy con- sumption will not be smaller due to cycling.

Cycling Industry: British “Gross Cycling Product”

The cycling industry differs a lot between European countries. Therefore it is impossible to give one indicator for all of Europe to calculate the effects of cycling on the cycling industry. How- ever, the methods to do so can be the same for almost every country. Therefore we will get in to more detail on a British study on the Gross Cycling Product; the economic effects of cycling in numerous fields.

In 2010, the London School of Economics carried out a study to the economic gains due to cy- cling. In that year an extra 12 thousand miles of cycle paths were realised resulting in 1,3 million new cyclists. The researchers build up a so called Gross Cycling Product by counting the eco- nomic wins in bicycle manufacturing, cycle and accessory retail, and employment in those sec- tors. The benefits in those categories were the following in 2010:

- Cycling accessories: £853 million per year;

- Employment in cycling industry: 23.000 jobs = £500 million in wages;

- Manufacturing 3.7 million bikes sold: £51 million British built - £1,62 billion due to multi- pliers.

Results in a total Gross Cycling Product of £2.9 billion. Which means £230 per cyclist per year.

The environmental paradox of cycling:

• Human-powered transportation can substitute for trips by single-occupant automobiles. This substitution has a direct and immediate benefit of reducing energy consumption, even accounting for the latent energy content of the food required for human power.

• A substantial increase in the use of human-powered transportation would engage a sub- stantial

number of currently sedentary people in physical activity.

• Physical activity by previously sedentary individuals increases their longevity, and therefore their overall energy consumption.

• Depending on the characteristics of the population that adopts human-powered transporta- tion there may be little net environmental benefit associated with an increase in human- powered

transportation.

Figure 4.1 The British ‘Gross Cycling Product’

Source: London School of Economics (2010), p. 4-5. Quality of urban spaces

Space is scarce in our cities, especially in compact world cities like Amsterdam, London, Paris and the like. A recent article on this issue in a Dutch newspaper presented the distribution of public space along different functionalities (see figure 4.2). Of the total 45 acres of public space in the centre of Amsterdam more than 40% is taken by parked cars. Bicycle lanes only account for 11% of the public space. So cars still use a lot more space than bicycles. If we translate this to indicators of social value for use of space in euros, we find that every kilometre on a bicycle instead of in a car results in a benefit of €0,002.

Figure 4.2 Use of pub- lic space in the centre of Amsterdam

5 Conclusions

In this report we investigated the field of private investment in cycling infrastructures. The ty- pologies and examples in Section 2 show how broad and diverse such investments can be. From building physical infrastructure like bicycle racks, facilities at the workspace or even a bicycle lane, to the cycle tourism economy, promotion activity and cycling education. From these examples and further research (see appendix) we are able to derive some strong argu- ments for private companies to invest in cycling:

1. Cyclists spend more than car drivers

Several studies show that cycling is good for business. Cyclists visit shops more often and spend more than car drivers or people who travel by bus. Besides that businesses benefit from proper cycling infrastructure because car drivers lower their speed so that they have a better look at a storefront or lunch deal. Therefore, cycling infrastructure is a good investment for re- tailers or real estate developers.

2. Cycling employees are more productive and deliver better quality

The health benefits of cycling are often presented as the biggest advantage of cycling com- pared to other modes of transport. Studies show that people who commute by bike regularly perform better at work and are less absent due to illness. Therefore, employer investments in cycling facilities and stimulating programmes for their employees are a good investment that proves to give rates of return.

3. The cycle economy ensures economic and societal gains

As the examples of the benefits of cycle tourism in Section 2 and the British cycle economy as a whole in the previous section show, cycling has great economic opportunities. Purely economi- cally speaking, the cycling sector can be called a good investment, but the societal benefits may be even bigger. Presenting societal cost benefit analysis (SCBA) on particular public-private or completely private investments in cycling in the future would be a good way to convince compa- nies and public authorities to invest more in cycling.

Within this last argument lies the first driver public authorities could create towards private com- panies to invest in cycling. We presented several drivers and inhibitors for private investments in cycling in Section 2. All of those drivers and inhibitors more or less come down to the following statement:

“Public investment is a precondition for private investment”

In this report we also worked towards a method for cost benefit analyses for private investments in cycling. The road map in Section 3 and the quantitative indicators in the previous section are the result of this. Dutch experience with a Cost Benefit Analysis tool has been a great advan- tage for our understanding of the international market. Experimenting with the Dutch Cost Bene- fit Analysis Tool using international variables and parameters will allow potential private inves- tors in cycling as well as cities of course to develop a better understanding of the costs and benefits, and of their inter-relationships. This is great for a first impression, but will not prove

suitable for a detailed and fundamental analysis. It would benefit potential investors and cities greatly if the Dutch experience with CBA would be developed further for international use. The development of such a tool is beyond the scope of this report, but could be taken up in future projects. Countries with an established but expanding cycling culture could provide data for further refinement of the tool; countries with cycling in development could already instantly benefit from such a tool as follower cities and countries considering implementing cycling could use an instrument like this to better make up their minds.

Bibliography

Beukers, E., L. Bertolini & M. Te Brömmelstroet (2012), Why Cost Benefit Analysis is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport plans: A process perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46:1, pp. 68–78.

Bernier-Heroux, L. & J. Ryan (2012), East Village Shoppers Study: A Snapshot of Travel and Spending Patterns of Residents and Visitors in the East Village. Transportation Alternatives. Bushell, M. A., B. W. Poole, C. V. Zegeer, D. A. Rodriguez (2013) Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements: A Resource for Researchers, Engineers, Planners, and the General Public. UNC Highway Safety Research Center.

Bruijn K. de, Dirven R, Eijgelaar E. & Peeters P. (2011), Travelling large in 2009: The carbon footprint of Dutch holidaymakers in 2009 and the development since 2002. Breda, The Nether- lands: NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences; NRIT Research; NBTC-NIPO Research. Daly, A., F. Tsang & C. Rohr (2011), The value of small time savings for non-business travel. RAND Europe.

Decisio (2014), SME mobility voucher project.

Cavill, N., S. Kahlmeier, H. Rutter, F. Racioppi & P. Oja (2008), Economic analyses of transport infrastructure and policies including health effects related to cycling and walking: a systematic review Review of transport economic analyses including health effects related to cycling and walking. Transport Policy 15, pp. 291–304.

European Cycling Federation (2014), Cycling Industry Club. Online: http://www.ecf.com/projects-and-networks/cycleindustryclub/why-join/

Fried, B. (2012), A Bike Company Offers a Prescription for America’s Health Care Cost Crisis. Online: http://www.streetsblog.org/2012/03/23/a-bike-company-offers-a-prescription-for- americas-health-care-cost-crisis/

International Business Times (2013), The World’s Largest Bike-Share Programs. Online: http://www.ibtimes.com/worlds-largest-bike-share-programs-1283955

Kastrup, M. (2013), Are cyclists good customers?

Kumar, A, K.M. Teo & A. Odoni (2012), A Systems Perspective of Cycling and Bike-Sharing- Systems in Urban Mobility. 30th International Conference of the System Dynamic Society. London School of Economics (2010), The British Cycling Economy; ‘Gross Cycling Product’ Report.

Mouter, N., J.A. Annema & B. van Wee (2013), Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch Cost–Benefit Analysis practice. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 49, Pp. 241–255.

Parkes, S.D., G. Marsden, S.A. Shaheen & A.P. Cohen (2013), Understanding the diffusion of public bikesharing systems: evidence from Europe and North America

Pensylvania Environmental Council (2013), Philadelphia Bike Share Strategic Business Plan. Pratte, J. (2006), Bicycle tourism: on the trail to economic development, University of Winnipeg, Prairie Perspectives, pp. 67-68.

Piket, P., E Eijgelaar & P. Peeters (2012), European cycle tourism: a tool for sustainable re- gional rural development.

Pratte, J. (2006), Bicycle tourism: on the trail to economic development.

Pronk, N.P., B. Martinson, R. C. Kessler, A.L. Beck, G.E. Simon & P. Wang (2004), The Ass ciation Between Work Performance and Physical Activity, Cardiorespiratory Fitness, and Obe- sity. JOEM Volume 46:1.

Racca, D.P. & A. Dhanju (2006), Property Value/Desirability Effects of Bike Paths Adjacent to Residential Areas.

Rowe, K. (2013), Bikenomics; Measuring the Economic Impact of Bicycle Facilities on Neighborhood Business Districts. Community, Environment, and Planning, 2013.

Stephen D. Parkes, Greg Marsden, Susan A. Shaheen, Adam P. Cohen (2013), Understanding the diffusion of public bikesharing systems: evidence from Europe and North America.

Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review.

Vanoutrive, T., L. van Malderen, B. Jourquin, I. Thomas, A. Verhetsel & F. Witlox (2010), Mobili- ty Management Measures by Employers: Overview and Exploratory Analysis for Belgium. EJTIR 10:2), pp. 121-141.

Ulrich, K.T. (2006), The environmental paradox of cycling. Working Paper; Department of Oper- ations and Information Management, The Wharton School.

Volkskrant (2013), Utrecht krijgt grootste fietsenstalling ter wereld. 20-06-2013.

Woodcock, J., M. Tainio, J. Cheshire, O. O’Brien & A. Goodman (2014), Health effects of the London bicycle sharing system: health impact modelling study.

World Health Organisation (2008), Health Economic Assessment Tool for Cycling (HEAT for cycling). User guide, Version 2.

Websites

San Sebastian bicycle rack for rent:

http://www.fomentosansebastian.org/talenthouse/precios_depositos_fianzas.php?lang=en&PHP SESSID=0u2hggvdf4qvnsv6lih8e9grd7

Innovative bicycle storage:

http://www.giken.com/en/developments/eco_cycle/

About the HEAT:

http://www.heatwalkingcycling.org/index.php?pg=cycling&act=introduction

HEAT tool

http://www.heatwalkingcycling.org/index.php?pg=cycling&cs=result&m= Electrical bike-sharing-system in Portugal:

http://visao.sapo.pt/bicicletas-eletricas-movidas-a-energia-solar=f676907

Coke Zero bike-sharing-system:

http://www.coca-cola.ie/community/coke-zero-bikes.html

Memphis crowd-funded bicycle lane:

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/memphis-is-about-to-build-the-countrys-first- crowdfunded-bike-lane

Greenport Bikeway:

http://www.greenportbikeway.nl/ambassadeurs/

Article on use of space in Amsterdam:

http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/2014/augustus/14/ja-amsterdam-is-vies-en-vol-de-auto-moet- weg-1411792

Appendix – Synopsis of previous studies

In this section we give an overview of previous research on (private) investment in cycling and costs and benefits of investments in cycling. We start with some empirical studies that provide examples of certain private investments and the impact such investments could have. With ex- amples of Manchester and London, we give a first insight into incentives and inhibitors local governments could create towards private parties. Finally, we give an overview of methodologi- cal studies on CBA in cycling. A research gap is detected, which will be filled in by the current report.

1. Empirical studies

Employer initiatives

Employers influence the commuting behaviour of their employees in many ways through “firm location, work schedules and mobility management initiatives” (Vanoutrive, 2010, pp. 124). In this way, employers could have a major influence on bicycle use for commuting. Some common employer initiatives to stimulate cycling are facilities at the workplace 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’. These kinds of fa- cilities and small investments are easily accepted and carried out by employers, in contrast with larger investments like buying (pool) bicycles or reimbursements for buying a bicycle (Vanout- rive, 2010).

Investments in physical facilities at the workplace which offer better comfort to cycling commut- ers are called investments in a “Bicycle-Oriented-Design” (Phyllis et al., 2010). While many studies focus on the infrastructure during a cycling trip, like bicycle lanes and safer intersec- tions, fewer studies focus on the trip end. However, bad or missing facilities for cyclists at the end of the commuting trip can be a major barrier towards cycling for commuters. Employers can contribute to this by investing in Bicycle-Oriented-Design at the workplace.

For employers promoting cycling towards their employees could be a very good economic in- vestment 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 associated financial benefits. The company offered their employees an account of $110 to buy QBP products and paid $45.000 on commuter re- wards 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 re- markable against the background of an average yearly growth of 25% of health costs for Ameri- can companies. Decrease of productivity loss as 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).

Bike sharing programs

Public bike sharing systems have grown in popularity in the past decade, mostly in Europe. The principle of a bike sharing system is simple. At multiple locations throughout a city there are (mostly unattended) bike-sharing stations where people can grab a bike as required. These systems are not very different from public transport systems, except from the fact that travellers

need to drive themselves. The user cycles to another bike-station and leaves the bike there. In Europe, still 27% of the existing bike sharing systems is exploited by local governments. Ac- cording to Parkes et al. (2013) the future of bike-sharing is for private (or public-private) initia- tives as new business models are emerging. One example of such a business model for bike- sharing is that of advertising companies providing the infrastructure and bike fleet to a city in exchange for the right to advertise on the streets (at the bike-sharing-stations). The sponsor- model is another advertisement based business model to realize bike-sharing programs. Mostly the local government is the initiator of the program but (most of) the investment is done by pri- vate companies in exchange for advertisement space at the stations and on the bikes (Parkes et al., 2013).

Figure 1 Bike sharing program “Vélib” in Paris with more than 18.000 bikes, mainly financed through advertisement.

Source: International Business Times, 2013 Parking facilities

A recent Danish study shows that cyclists are a very important group of customers for retailers, especially in the city centre (Kastrup, 2013). Bad or missing parking facilities for bikes are an important barrier for people to take their bike for a shopping trip. Kastrup (2013) shows that cyclists are more important in terms of total revenue of the Copenhagen central shopping district than any other mode of transport. These facts can be a major incentive for retailers and devel- opers of retail real estate to provide enough parking facilities for bicycles around the shopping area or in front of shops.

Health insurances investments

For the same reasons, promoting cycling towards their clients could be an interesting invest- ment for insurance companies. As bike use on a regular basis increases health it automatically

reduces health costs. In the same line as the QBP example above it will most likely be finan- cially beneficial for insurance companies to offer client reimbursements for purchasing a bike. For instance, the vitality program from health insurance company PruHealth gives their custom- ers a reimbursement of up to 50% when they purchase a bike.12

Bicycle shops

Cycling infrastructure isn’t limited to bicycle lanes and parking facilities for bikes. As described above, private initiatives like bike sharing programs can be of great added value to the cycling infrastructure of a city. In the same way, bicycle shops that repair bikes next to selling them are very important nodes within the cycling infrastructure of a city. The opportunity of fixing defects like a flat tyre in close proximity to a cycle route makes it far more comfortable to cycle around the city. Opening up bicycle shops therefore can be seen as private investments in cycling infra- structure, having positive influence on people’s travel mode choice towards cycling.

2. Drivers and inhibitors

“Velocity”, Manchester, UK

The Velocity 2025 master plan from the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee shows how public and private parties can cooperate in stimulating cycling as mode of transport for commuting or other ends. The plan actively engages the private sector to invest in cycling infra- structure. Bruntwood, one of the largest property owners in the Greater Manchester region in- vests a lot in cycling facilities across their buildings in the city centre. Another Manchester ex- ample is MediaCityUK, where different businesses invest in showers and inside storage facilities for bicyclists.13

“Barclays Cycle Hire”, London, UK

It is the dream of London’s mayor Boris Johnson that the bicycles from the Barclays Cycle Hire program will become just as typical for the city as the black taxis and red buses. Initiated by the