Cost-benefit analyses of walking and cycling track networks taking into account insecurity, health effects and external costs of motorized traffic
AbstractThe 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.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice.
Volume (Year): 38 (2004)
Issue (Month): 8 (October)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Noland, Robert B & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Short-run and long-run policies for increasing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 67-79, January.
- Hopkinson, P & Wardman, M, 1996. "Evaluating the demand for new cycle facilities," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 241-249, October.
- Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Iacobelli, Andrés & Valeze, Claudio, 2000. "Estimating demand for a cycle-way network," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 353-373, June.
- Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas, 2012.
"The value of time and external benefits in bicycle appraisal,"
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 673-683.
- Börjesson, Maria & Eliasson, Jonas, 2011. "The value of time and external benefits in bicycle appraisal," Working papers in Transport Economics 2011:22, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.