Upload
meyyappa-raj
View
229
Download
7
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Evaluating the benefits and cost incurred in Cycling and Walking related Infrastructures.
Citation preview
i
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
CIVIL, MARITIME AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND
SCIENCE
Strategic evaluation of Interventions in Promoting Cycling and Walking
By
Meyyapparaj M
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the degree of MSc (Transportation Planning and Engineering)
2012-2013
September 2013
i
Abstract
In the past years, huge investments has been made by the Government for cycling and walking
schemes both at national and at Local Authority levels. Now there is a growing recognition of
the contribution that these non-motorized modes can make to some of the greatest challenges
faced by the society like climate change, increasing levels of obesity and traffic congestion,
however there is less evidence to clear that how this wider contribution is valued in economic
terms and how much beneficial they are. Hence there is a significant importance for economic
analysis of these projects to justify and sustain the investments.
The literature review evaluated the different types of interventions in promoting cycling and
walking, what are the benefits associated with these schemes and how these benefits are valued.
This has helped to gain some idea regarding the economic analysis and gave the research a
vital background.
This report has investigated the case of Itchen Riverside Boardwalk in Southampton, and aimed
to evaluate the benefits associated with Environment, Health and Transportation. Pre and Post
intervention surveys done at the walkway in the years 2010 and 2011 formed the basis for the
usage estimation of cyclists and pedestrians. Procedures for the economic evaluation is done
as per the Transport Analysis Guidance for cycling and walking schemes Unit 3.14.1 from
Department for Transport.
The Cost Benefit Ratio obtained from the analysis of the Itchen Boardwalk is 1:10 which
proves to be a highly beneficial. Majority of the benefit values are coming from Health and
Journey Ambience related benefits.
ii
Acknowledgement
This dissertation is a milestone in my academic career. The theories and concepts which I have
gathered would have never been possible without the extensive research work carried out. I am
grateful to a few people who have guided and supported me throughout the research process
and provided assistance for the work.
I would first like to thank my research supervisor Mr. John Preston who guided me throughout
the completion of this project. His recommendations and instructions has enabled me to
assemble and finish the dissertation effectively. My family has supported and helped me along
the course of this dissertation by giving encouragement and providing the moral and emotional
support I needed to complete my project. I am really grateful to them.
Finally thanks to the almighty for his blessings.
iii
Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...i
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ii
Contents……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………iii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..v
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………v
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
1.1 Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
1.2 Aims and Objectives……………………………………………………………………………………….2
1.3 Structure of the Report…………………………………………………………………………………..3
2. Literature review………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
2.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………….4
2.2. Intervention and its effect on human behavior……………………………………………..4
2.3. Types of Interventions…………………………………………………………………………………..5
2.4. Impact of Engineering measures……………………………………………………………………5
2.5. Economic evaluation of Interventions……………………………………………………………6
2.6. Evaluation of Cycling Benefits………………………………………………………………………..7
2.7. Evaluation of walking Benefits……………………………………………………………………..10
2.8. Evidences of BCR of Cycling and walking projects in UK……………………………….11
2.9. Site Location of Itchen Riverside Boardwalk…………………………………………………12
3. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………………..15
3.1. Estimation of Cycling and Walking users………………………………………………………17
3.2. Estimation of Car Kilometers………………………………………………………………………..19
3.3. Estimation of commuter Trips………………………………………………………………………20
4. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Results……………………………………………………………………….21
4.1. Capital and Recurring Maintenance Cost………………………………………………………21
4.2. Evaluation of benefits from the Scheme……………………………………………………….22
4.2.1. Environment Benefits………………………………………………………………………….22
4.2.2. Journey Ambience Benefits…………………………………………………………………24
4.2.3. Health Benefits……………………………………………………………………………………28
4.2.4. Absenteeism Benefits………………………………………………………………………….29
iv
4.2.5. Accident Reduction Benefits………………………………………………………………31
4.2.6. Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits……………………………………………..35
4.2.7. Indirect Tax Revenue Loss………………………………………………………………….38
4.2.8. Discounting of Cost and Benefits………………………………………………………..39
5. Discussion and Analysis of Results…………………………………………………………………..40
6. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………….42
References………………………………………………………………………………………………………….45
Appendix A: Usage Estimation…………………………………………………………………………….52
Appendix B: Estimation of Car Kilometers saved…………………………………………………53
Appendix C: Benefits from Marginal Economic Cost Method………………………………54
Appendix D: Journey Ambience Benefits…………………………………………………………….57
Appendix E: Health and Reduced Absenteeism Benefits……………………………………..58
Appendix F: Benefits from Travel Time Savings and Vehicle Operating Cost………..61
Appendix G: Indirect Tax Calculation……………………………………………………………………70
Appendix H: Accident Reduction Benefits……………………………………………………………71
Appendix I: Cost Benefit Analysis…………………………………………………………………………73
v
List of Figures
Figure 1: Cycling and walking trips per person per year since 1995………………………….1
Figure 2: Distance travelled through cycling and walking per person per year since 1995……2
Figure 3: Changes in the number of cyclist accidents with the number of cyclists in London...9
Figure 4: Itchen Riverside Boardwalk, Southampton………………………………………..12
Figure 5: Southern end of the walkway towards the Industrial area…………………………13
Figure 6: Route User Survey Location at Itchen Boardwalk, Southampton…………………16
Figure 7: Itchen Riverside footpath before the construction of walkway in 2010………………..26
Figure 8: The Itchen walkway after construction in 2011…………………………………....26
Figure 9: Directional Signage and Information panels at the walkway……………………...27
List of Tables
Table 1: Non-Motorized transportation Benefits and Costs…………………………………..6
Table 2: Factors Affecting Walking and Cycling Travel Demand……………………………7
Table 3: Congestion savings estimates………………………………………………………..8
Table 4: Walkability Economic impacts…………………………………………………......10
Table 5: Four day Southampton RUS count data……………………………………………14
Table 6: Modified Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits………………………………16
Table 7: Indicators used for the economic appraisal of walking and cycling schemes……...17
Table 8: Number of users generated through the intervention……………………………....18
Table 9: Traffic count data in Bevois valley Road…………………………………………..23
Table 10: PCU factors for conversion are used from Table B4 in TAG Unit 3.9.5………....23
Table 11: Summary of value of journey ambience benefit of different
types of cycle facility relative to no facilities……………………………………24
Table 12: Values of different aspects of the pedestrian environment used in the evaluation
of the London Strategic Walk Network………………………………………….25
Table 13: Value of prevention per casualty…………………………………………………28
vi
Table 14: Accident prevention values as per severity of accidents…………………………13
Table 15: Accident report for cyclists in the roads adjacent to the Boardwalk since 2005....32
Table 16: Number of cyclists in Bevois Valley Road, Southampton Traffic count………...32
Table 17: Number of incidents per million car kilometres in A335 road link………………33
Table 18: Working and Nonworking Value of time…………………………………………36
Table 19: Cost and Benefit accounting of Itchen Boardwalk Case study…………………....40
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
Walking and cycling are now widely accepted as a key means to incorporate physical activity
into everyday lifestyles. This can be done in the form of commuting to workplace, getting to
schools, visiting friends, travel to shops and in the form of recreational activities, for example
cycling through the countryside etc. Physical activity is recognized as key element for a healthy
lifestyle, reducing the risk of illness and premature deaths. For this reason physical activity has
been identified as a ‘best buy’ for public health (Morris, 2004). In addition to health related
benefits, increase in these modes helps to reduce traffic congestion and carbon emissions.
However, there are still less evidences which supports the economic analysis of cycling and
walking projects and is a major area to focus.
If we look at the past trend of cycling and walking in the past two decades across United
Kingdom and other developed countries, the numbers have reduced quiet significantly. The
National Travel Survey report, 2012 (DfT, 2013) shows that in United Kingdom the average
number of walking trips was 212 trips per person per year in 2012 compared with 292 trips in
1995, a reduction of 27.4%. The number of bicycle trips per person per year has dropped from
18 trips in 1995 to 16 trips in 2012 (figure 1). However in terms of distance travelled, the
average number of bicycle miles has increased by 23.4% from 43 miles in 1995 to 53 miles in
2012 and number of walking miles has reduced from 200 miles per person per year to 181
miles per person in 2012 (figure 2). This is mainly as a result of widespread use of private car
and public transport, increased sedentary leisure activities and insufficient pedestrian and
cycling infrastructure like dedicated cycle tracks and foot paths, shared space on roads etc.
Figure 1 Cycling and walking trips per person per year since 1995.
18 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 15 16 14 16 14 16 15 15 16 16
292292292271271271244244246246245249216221227213222212
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
Trips per person per year
Cycling Walking
2
Figure 2 Distance travelled through cycling and walking per person per year since 1995.
In the past decade huge investments has been done at the National and local Authority level for
improving the facilities for cycling and walking. A list of action plans were set up in 2004 for
promoting cycling and walking across the country (DfT, 2004). The National Cycle Network
(NCN) has also grown considerably since 1995 by Sustrans, a UK charity which promotes
sustainable transport; the network now consists of 14000 miles of walking and cycling
networks in 2013 which includes scenic traffic-free paths, quiet roads and lanes, signed on-
road routes, themed long-distance routes (Sustrans, 2013). In 2008 Sustrans secured £50
million of Big Lottery Funding to help develop the local travel in 79 communities known as
Sustrans Connect2 programme, by creating new crossings and bridges to overcome barriers
such as busy roads, rivers and railways, giving people easier and healthier access to their
schools, shops, parks and countryside (iConnect, 2013).
Cycling England an independent expert body, established by Department for Transport in 2005
has made significant contributions for the promotion of cycling through championing best
practice and channeling funding to partners engaged in training, engineering and marketing
projects. Number of schemes has been launched under Cycling England for promoting Cycling
like Cycling Cities and Cycling Towns, Bikeablity, Bike It, Links to School, National cycle
Journey planner and Travel plans for cycling. The funding also raised from a 2006 base of £5
million to a total investment package of £160 million in 2008 (DfT, 2008a). The Department
for Transport has also announced £560 million for a Local Sustainable Transport Fund, which
is available for the period from 2011-2015 (DfT, 2008b).
1.2 Aims and Objectives
Besides the huge investments done in the recent years for promoting cycling and walking, it is
also an important aspect to analyze the benefits from these project schemes. This research
project will conduct a Cost-Benefit analysis of a cycling and walking infrastructure, the Itchen
Riverside Boardwalk in Southampton. It aims to evaluate the benefits associated with the
increase in usage numbers of cyclists and pedestrians in the riverside as a result of the
construction of the Boardwalk. Economic evaluation benefits involves the combination of
Environment, Health and Transport economics.
43 43 43 40 40 40 36 36 37 39 36 39 40 42 46 42 49 53
2002002001981981981981982012031972011901931961831871811
99
5
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
Miles per person per year
Cycling Walking
3
1.3 Structure of Report
Literature survey will initially be looking at an overview of the types of interventions and its
effects on human behavior. Further detailed review is done to know the different benefits
associated with cycling and walking projects and the methods used for the economic
evaluation. Other site reports and previous surveys conducted specifically for the Itchen
walkway is also reviewed at the end. In the next chapter, we shall look at the methodology and
other survey data used for further evaluation of benefits. Later we will be going through the
detailed calculation of each benefits one by one. The next chapter will include a snapshot of all
the results obtained and a brief discussion over the results. Finally a sensitivity analysis is done
considering different scenarios related to the walkway and respective changes in the Cost-
Benefit Ratio and Net Present Value of the scheme. The report ends with key conclusions and
shortfalls in this research project.
4
2. Literature Review
2.1 Introduction:
Sustrans along with the Big Lottery Fund and the respective Local authority partners has
invested over 100 million for the Connect 2 programme, developing number of engineering
interventions over 80 sites across United Kingdom with the main purpose of promoting walking
and Cycling in public. Secondly these interventions could also be used as natural experiments
from which we can evaluate their impact on travel volumes, travel time and cost, on health
benefits associated with walking and cycling activity, and on environmental benefits due to
reduction in carbon emissions.
2.2 Interventions and its effect on human behavior
It is important to design interventions in such a way which helps in changing the human
behavior and promotes walking and cycling. Many studies has been conducted in the past to
know the effectiveness of cycling and walking interventions and the validity of cognitive and
behavior techniques used in the interventions.
The research paper published on the topic “Behavior Change Techniques (BCT) used to
promote walking and cycling” (Bird et al., 2013) gives us information on the Behavior change
techniques used in walking and cycling interventions targeted at adults. Forty six past studies
on walking and cycling interventions met the inclusion criteria of this review. The principle
findings of this research showed that in more than half of the studies two often used BCT were:
‘prompting self-monitoring of behavior’ and ‘prompting intention formation’. Self-monitoring
techniques like using a pedometer, or by mobile phone application ( Baker et al .,2008; Merom
et al., 2007) for monitoring walking has shown positive changes as it helps to increasing self-
efficacy (Du et al., 2011) and to reduce perceived barriers (Wilbur et al.,2003). In contrast, this
technique was used only in one out of 16 interventions assessed for their effects on cycling
behavior which has limited our understanding of its relationship with cycling outcomes.
‘Provide general encouragement’ is one BCT used in most of the interventions which has not
shown any significant changes (Bird et al., 2013). Another useful finding of this study tells us
that instead of using a single BCT combination of many BCTs results in significant behavior
change. But a shortcoming of this study is it couldn’t empirically determine the contribution
made by each individual technique and also was unable to give results for any particular
combination of BCTs.
It is been concluded that evidently built up environment helps to promote the cycling behavior
but few controlled intervention studies are available at present to prove this (National Institute
for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007). It is also claimed from previous studies that lack of
supportive infrastructure also limits the willingness of people to shift towards cycling (Mutrie
et al., 2002) particularly in areas which doesn’t have any cycling culture.
Two general characteristics of interventions found to be effective were ‘Targeting and
Tailoring’ (Ogilvie et al., 2007). Most of the interventions used for promoting walking as mode
of transport targeted only those individuals or households who were identified through prior
screening as already motivated to change their behavior (Ogilvie et al., 2007). Interventions for
promoting general walking targeted mostly the sedentary people or patients with particular
health conditions. Second vital characteristics of effective interventions was to involve content
5
tailored to participant’s requirement or circumstances such as promoting environment friendly
modes of transport or to map individual children’s journey to school (Ogilvie et al., 2007).
Most promising studies evidently proved that among the targeted participants successful
interventions could increase general walking by 30-60 minutes a week and walking as a mode
of transport by 15-30 minutes a week on average (Ogilvie et al., 2007).
2.3 Types of Interventions:
Amanda Killoran, Nick Doyle, Seta Waller, Clare Wohlgemuth and Hugo Crombie in their
evidence briefing on the topic “Transport interventions for promoting safe cycling and
walking” (Killoran et al., 2006) have broadly categorized the interventions as follows:
Targeted behavior change programs- directed at motivated sub groups.
Publicity campaigns and agents of change- directed at groups undifferentiated by
motivation or personal travel circumstances.
Engineering measures- dedicated cycle paths, shared on road cycle space, short cycle
routes etc.
Financial incentives like providing subsidy to employees who commute to work by
modes other than cars, toll charge for motor vehicles etc.
Providing alternative services.
As this report is mainly focusing on evaluation of engineering interventions we shall look at
few studies done in the past related to engineering measures and its effect on promoting cycling
and walking.
2.4 Impact of engineering measures:
Engineering measures and its effect on increasing cycling and walking from the past studies
have been systematically reviewed and are added in the paper published by the British Medical
Journal on the heading “Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to use cars” by Ogilvie
et al., 2004. Out of the 22 studies which met the inclusion criteria, six studies were related to
engineering interventions. Out of which 3 studies related to improving and extending cycle
route networks in Delft (Netherlands; controlled study) and Detmold and Rosenheim
(Germany; uncontrolled study). One study done on a new cycle route opened to a school in
Stockton, England (Uncontrolled study). Another done on traffic restraints scheme like 20 mph
zones in six urban areas and of the by-pass demonstration project in six small towns in England
(Uncontrolled study). Sixth study is an uncontrolled study done in Boston where the modal
shift to work place was checked after the introduction of the downtown restricted zone.
Findings in the Delft study showed a 3% increase in cycling share, 4% increase in bike trips
and no change in walking and car trips from the households in the intervention suburb, and in
the control area the frequency of car trips increased by 15% and no changes in bike trips. In
Detmold and Rosenheim, there was a negative modal shift i.e decrease in cycle trips of 5% in
the former and 0% modal shift in the later case. In both cases there was insufficient data to
judge statistical precision of results.
6
In the Stockton study, 2,946 secondary school pupils were observed for 17 months which
showed an increase of 2% in car shares and negative shift of 2% in cycling shares and no
significant changes in walk. For the traffic restraint schemes done in England the studies
showed that the 20 mph zones provided no evidence of a change in travel patterns and in the
by-passed towns there was negative modal shift of 3% in the main mode of travel to the Town
centre. The observed proportions showed that the changes in walking share was significant, but
car and cycling mode share changes were not significant. Car restrictions, subsidized bus
services and pedestrianisation of the central business district in Boston made a positive modal
shift of 6% of commuting journeys (Ogilvie et al., 2004).
The results in these studies show mixed results of both positive and negative shift in travelling
modes due to these engineering interventions. So more natural experiments has to be performed
through engineering measures to prove its effectiveness in promotion of cycling and walking
modes.
2.5 Economic evaluation of interventions:
Adding Walking and Cycling as part of our daily travelling has the potential of many economic
benefits related to transport, health and environment. There is also growing evidence that
increasing walking and cycling levels in the population also achieves substantial economic
return in long term. The quantified benefits from them vary depending on direct and indirect
outcomes considered and the method of valuing the benefits.
The following table describes the general benefits and costs of Non-Motorized Transport
(walking, cycling, and variants such as wheelchair, scooter and handcart use) policies and
projects:
Table 1: Non-Motorized transportation Benefits and Costs
Improved NMT
Increased NMT
Reduced Automobile
More Compact
Conditions Transport Activity Travel Communities
Improved user User enjoyment Reduced traffic Improved accessibility,
Potential
convenience and Improved public
congestion particularly for non-
comfort
drivers
Benefits fitness and health
Road and parking
Improved Increased community facility cost savings Transport cost savings
accessibility for non-
cohesion (positive Consumer savings Reduced sprawl costs
drivers, which
interactions among
supports equity Reduced chauffeuring Open space
neighbors due to
objectives burdens preservation
more people walking
Option value on local streets) Increased traffic safety More livable
Higher property
which tends to Energy conservation communities
increase local
values Pollution reductions Higher property values
security
Economic development
Potential
Facility costs
Equipment costs
Slower travel
Increases in some
Costs Lower traffic speeds (shoes, bikes, etc.) development costs
Increased crash risk
Source: Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation Benefits and Costs, Todd Litman, Victoria
Transport Policy Institute (2013).
7
Most often used outcomes for valuation by the transport economists are savings from reduction
in car trips, travelling time, travel cost, health care costs, absenteeism, air pollution, congestion,
and greenhouse gases (Bidwell, 2012).
There are number of factors which affect the Walking and Cycling Travel Demand. The table
below gives us information regarding the different factors and its impact on Non-Motorized
Transport:
Table 2 Factors Affecting Walking and Cycling Travel Demand (Based on Dill and Gliebe 2008; Pratt, et al. 2012)
Factors Impacts on Non-Motorized Travel
Age Young people tend to have high rates of walking and cycling. Some older people have high rates of walking for transportation and exercise.
Physical ability Some people with impairments rely on walking and cycling, and may require facilities with suitable design features, such as ramps for walkers and wheelchairs.
Income and Many lower-income people tend to rely on non-motorized modes for transportation. education Bicycle commuting is popular among higher income professionals.
Dogs Daily walking trips tend to be higher in households that own dogs.
Vehicles and
People who do not have a car or driver’s license tend to rely on walking and cycling for drivers licenses transportation.
Travel costs Walking and cycling tend to increase with the cost of driving (parking fees, fuel taxes, road tolls, etc.)
Facilities Walking and cycling activity tend to increase where there are good facilities (sidewalks, crosswalks, paths, bike racks, etc.)
Roadway Walking and cycling tend to increase in areas with narrower roads and lower vehicle conditions traffic speeds.
Trip length Walking and cycling are most common for shorter (less than 2-mile) trips.
Land use Walking and cycling tend to increase in areas with compact and mixed development where more common destinations are within walking distances.
Promotion Walking and cycling activity may be increased with campaigns that promote these activities for health and environmental improvement sake.
Public support Cycling rates tend to increase where communities consider it socially acceptable.
2.6 Evaluation of Cycling Benefits:
Three major categories which are mostly evaluated for Cost-Benefit Analysis in any Cycling
projects are:
Increasing health and fitness
Reducing traffic congestion
Reducing pollution.
While calculating the health benefits of cycling, three elements are considered:
Value of lost lives-reducing Mortality
8
NHS savings-Reducing the cost to the treatment of illnesses as a result of physical
inactivity (morbidity)
Productivity gains- Reducing absenteeism.
(Segal et al., 2007)
Traffic congestion is now a major concern in many towns and cities, with latest estimates
of putting the cost of congestion to the UK economy at around £20 billion (Goodwin, 2005).
Main problems caused by congestion which can be translated to monetary values are:
Wastage of travelling time and delays during a working day
Cars emitting the pollutants and inefficient engine use increase the operating cost.
Health problems related to respiratory diseases and absenteeism caused by stress.
Table below summarized the various values used to quantify the congestion savings:
Table 3 : Congestion savings estimates
Source Range values per Km
Surface Transport costs and charges Great
Britain 1988-Sansom et al(2001)
9.71p-11.16p
Smarter choices, changing the way we travel-
Cairns et al (2004)
3p-45p(15p average)
Economic Appraisal of Cycling and Walking
Projects-Sustrans(2006)
7p-23p
Source: Various
The congestion reduction values estimated differs for rural and urban areas. According to the
values estimated by the SQW consulting research the congestion saving per km of car travel
reduced is around 22p and 11p in urban and rural area respectively. Promotion of cycling can
help in reducing air pollution which depends on the number of cars and other motorized
transport which has been substituted by cycle trips. For the final quantification purpose, number
of car kilometers replaced is estimated (Wilson et al., 2011).
Many recent studies have found that increasing the number of cycling trips has resulted in
reduction of cyclists killed or injured. Data collated from various studies done in London by
Lynn Sloman, 2006 shows the decrease in the number of deaths or serious injuries against an
increase in the cycling trips.
9
Figure 3 Changes in the number of cyclist accidents with the number of cyclists in London.
Similar results were also found in many other studies like Krag (2005) reports in Copenhagen
from 1990-2000 the level of cycle traffic increased by 40%, the number of accidents fell by
25%. In Netherlands, from 1980 to 1998 there was a 54% reduction in cyclist fatalities in spite
of a 30% increase in cycling (Ministry of Transport, Netherland, 1999).
Jacobsen study report and Smeed’s Law also states similar scenario. Research article published
by Jacobsen (2003), concludes that by doubling the number of persons walking or cycling, the
risk of getting hit by a motorized vehicle reduces to 66%. Jacobsen in his study has taken
compared the accidents data of different places or different time with differing amount of
cycling. Jacobsen compares six sets of data falling into 3 separate categories like:
Proportion of bicycling trips to work against (Injuries/Population) / (Bike trips/Total Trips) (68
cities in California).
Amount of bicycling (Km or trips/population/day) [abscissa] against (Injuries or fatalities/Km)
[ordinate]. Bicycling in 47 Danish towns, 14 European nations, 8 European nations.
Amount of bicycling (Km/year) [abscissa] against (fatalities/Km) [ordinate] for UK 1950-
1999, Netherlands 1980-1998.
Each of these six graphs showed the accident rates reducing with increase in cycling.
Alternatively promoting cycling in areas without any supporting traffic control measures will
increase the number of cycling accidents. Separate of road cycle tracks helps to reduce cyclist
accidents.
10
2.7 Evaluation of walking benefits:
In UK the National Travel Survey report (DfT, 2012a) shows that walking mode share for the
average distance travelled is only 3% comparing to 78% for car (both as driver and as
passenger) and 9% for Rail. Several reasons why walking and walkability used to be
undervalued in conventional transport planning has been stated in the paper published on the
topic “Economic value of walkability” by Todd Alexander Litman (2011). A few of the main
reasons are added here:
Difficult to measure: Most of the surveys don’t collect information on total walking activity.
In many surveys short trips, non-work travelling, travel by children, recreational travel, and
non-motorized links are ignored.
Lower status: Walking is often attached with lower income group and motorized transport with
success and progress.
Low Cost: One of the vital reasons why walking is always overlooked as it is less expensive.
Improved walkability saves consumer costs, but such costs are difficult to be predicted and are
given less consideration.
Ignoring benefits: Conventional planning tends to ignore or undervalue benefits such as health
benefits, enjoyment of walking and cycling, improved mobility options for non-drivers. Many
models even ignores benefits like reduced congestion, parking cost savings and consumer cost
savings which results from mode shift.
Following table summarizes the categories of economic benefits and a brief description about
measuring techniques which must be considered while evaluating walking.
Table 4 Walkability Economic Impacts
Name Description Measuring Techniques
Accessibility Degree that walking provides mobility options, particularly for people who are transportation disadvantaged.
Travel modelling, analysis of travel options.
Consumer cost savings
Degree to which walking provides consumer transportation cost savings.
Consumer expenditure surveys
Public cost savings (reduced external
costs)
Degree that walking substitutes for vehicle travel and reduces negative impacts.
Determine to what degree walking reduces motor vehicle travel, and the economic savings that result.
Efficient land use
Degree that walking helps reduce the amount of land used for roadway and
parking facilities, and helps create
more accessible, clustered land use.
Identify the full economic, social and environmental benefits of more pedestrian-oriented land use.
11
Livability Degree that walking improves the local environment.
Property values, business activities, consume preference surveys.
Public fitness and health
Degree that walking provides physical exercise to people who are otherwise sedentary.
Travel and health surveys to determine the number of
people who benefit from
walking exercise.
Economic development
Degree to which walking makes commercial areas more attractive and
shifts consumer expenditures to goods
that provide more regional economic
activity and employment.
Market surveys and property assessments. Input-output
table analysis.
Equity Degree that walkability helps achieve various equity objectives.
Various indicators of horizontal and vertical equity.
Source: Litman (2011), Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
2.8 Evidences of Benefit Cost Ratio of cycling and walking projects in UK:
Physical activity is now evidently considered as a vital component of healthy lifestyle, reducing
morbidity and premature death. This reason has made it a best buy for public health (Morris,
1994). Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) of cycling and walking interventions is not currently
widespread but still a general acceptance is there among experts in many OECD (Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development) Countries that physical activity has many public
benefits in short as well as long term (WHO,2007). Few examples of walking and cycling
projects in UK and in other countries and their respective BCR have been added below:
CBA research for Department of Transport assessed a Canal Towpath in London which was
transformed into a high quality walking and cycling commuter use. It showed a BCR of 24.5:1
with a savings of £5,487,130 through absenteeism and a savings of £28,537,854 due to reduced
mortality. In 2005, Sustrans evaluated three links to schools in Bootle, Hartlepool and
Newhaven and found a BCR of 29.3:1, 32.5:1 and 14.9:1 respectively (Davis, 2010). In
November 2009 cycling England Researchers used the WHO’s HEAT tool and estimated the
value of reduction in adult mortality and found a maximum annual benefit of £8.9 million per
annum (Sloman et al., 2009).
The main objective of this research projects is also to evaluate one such scheme of cycling and
walking intervention in Itchen River in Southampton using the concepts obtained from this
literature review regarding the quantification of cycling and walking benefits and along with
the appraisal guidance from DfT, Web TAG 3.14.1.
12
2.9 Site Location:
The Connect2 Southampton project, known as the Itchen Boardwalk, consists of a raised
walkway built on top of a wave wall which was installed in 2006 for protecting the railway line
from scouring action of the tidal river. It provides a north-south connection and is intended to
connect local people to the river and sea in order to make possible new local journeys to
schools, workplaces and leisure destinations. It fills the gap in the National Cycle Route
Network 23 in Southampton which links the Southampton airport, Swaythling, Riverside park,
St. Denys, St Mary’s, the city Centre and the ferry terminals (Ogilvie et al., 2012). Itchen
Boardwalk lies within the Bevois electoral ward comprising the suburbs of Bevois valley,
Nichols town, Northam with a population of 16,844 with 12,530 people in the age group of 18
to 64 (ONS, 2011). The route runs between the river and the railway line. An informal footpath
was previously used by the local residents for many users along the shore in order to avoid the
busy alternative route around the industrial area, but the footpath was not usable during high
tide and for cycling. The original plan was to construct an 800 m Boardwalk but the structure
built is 400 m long and 2.8 meters wide, made of a durable hardwood decking incorporating
an antiskid surfacing.
Figure 4 Itchen Riverside Boardwalk, Southampton.
At the end of this elevated walkway the users have to take a detour through an industrial estate
or use the old gravel-surfaced path further to reach the Northam Bridge which is intended to
be upgraded in future (Ogilvie et al., 2012).
13
Figure 5: Southern end of the walkway towards the Industrial area.
SURVEYS AT SITE LOCATION:
Board walk construction began in April 2010 and was completed on 22nd September 2010.
Survey data were collected prior to Boardwalk construction and post-completion in March
2011, at three locations along a 1.6 miles stretch of the Boardwalk. Three monitoring locations
as mentioned in the iConnect survey report are Riverside walkway, Riverside Park and Railway
Figure 6 Route User Survey Location at Itchen Boardwalk, Southampton.
crossing. For the evaluation of the walkway the data collected at the start point of the
Boardwalk is used in this study. The Survey was conducted on four days, three weekdays and
one weekend. Weekdays surveys were carried out over the peak periods of 7-9 am, 12-1 pm
and 4-6 pm, weekend was conducted on Saturday 10 am-1 pm. These count data doesn’t
represents the whole day’s usage.
14
The Route user Intercept Survey count data conducted by the Sustrans at Riverside Walkway
both before and after the intervention is shown in the table below:
Table 5 Four day Southampton RUS count data
User
Category
Riverside Walkway 2010 Riverside Walkway 2011
Towards
Northern end
Towards Southern
end
Towards
Northern end
Towards
Southern end
Cyclist C 7 19 24 30
A-M 6 0 124 182
A-F 0 0 32 52
E-M 0 0 9 13
E-F 0 0 4 4
Total Cyclists 13 19 193 281
User
Category
Riverside Walkway 2010 Riverside Walkway 2011
Towards
Northern end
Towards
Southern end
Towards
Northern end
Towards
Southern end
Pedestrians C 109 128 99 139
A-M 218 271 278 361
A-F 98 128 138 207
E-M 35 46 28 37
E-F 21 19 19 18
Total Pedestrians 481 592 562 762
Note. C = child, A-M = adult male, A-F = adult female, E-M = elderly male, E-F = elderly
female.
Above survey data collected forms the basic data for our further Evaluation of the Itchen
Boardwalk scheme.
15
3. Methodology
The procedure for economic evaluation of benefits is followed as per the guidelines given in
the Transport Appraisal Guidance (TAG) Unit 3.14.1, Appraisal for walking and cycling
schemes. The Appraisal summary table as given by DfT appraisal guidance (TAG Unit 3.14.1)
is divided into five objective categories:
Environment
Safety
Economy
Accessibility
Integration
Sub-objectives under these main objectives are divided as follow:
Environment – noise, local air quality, greenhouse gases, landscape, townscape, biodiversity,
heritage of historic resources, water environment, physical fitness, journey ambience
Safety – accidents, security
Economy – public accounts, transport economic efficiency, reliability, wider economic impacts
Accessibility – option value, severance, access to the transport system
Integration – transport interchange, land use policy, other government policies
For this cycling and walking scheme the monetized cost and benefits from table 1 in TAG Unit
3.14 as shown the next page has been used.
16
Table 6 Modified Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits Table
Noise
Local Air Quality Greenhouse Gases Journey Ambience
Accidents
Physical Fitness
Consumer Users
Business Users and Providers
Present
Value of
Benefits (PVB)
Public
Accounts
Present
Value of
Costs (PVC)
OVERALL IMPACTS
Net Present Value (NPV)
Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)
NPV=PVB-PVC
BCR=PVB/PVC
17
There are four key indicators which are used for the evaluation of different benefits related to
cycling and walking schemes. The indicators and the benefits to which it is used is shown in
the table below:
Table 7 Indicators used for the economic appraisal of walking and cycling schemes
Indicator Used for appraising
Cycling and walking users Journey ambience
New individuals cycling or walking Health and Journey ambience
Car kilometers saved CO2 emissions
Noise reduction benefits
Local air quality
Travel time (decongestion benefits)
Fuel tax revenue
User cost (Fuel and Vehicle operating cost)
Commuter trips Health (absenteeism)
3.1 Estimation of Cycling and walking users:
The generation of cycling and walking users is estimated by considering two scenarios, a ‘core’
scenario and ‘with intervention’ scenario. A ‘core’ scenario is the forecasting of the growth in
users in the intervention location without walkway. Since sufficient survey data is not available
for the growth rate in cycling and walking in Itchen walkway location in the past few years, we
can consider the growth rate in the core scenario to be same as that of the growth rate in cycling
and walking in Southampton and at national average respectively. The growth rate assumed for
cycling is 9.2% (SCC, 2011) and for walking it is 1% (DfT, 2012a), every year a single cyclist
and three pedestrians are added until 2015 for the core scenario. ‘With intervention’ scenario
is the case where the users are estimated after the construction of walkway. The growth rate of
the users in the ‘with intervention’ case can be obtained from the pre and post RUS count data
shown in table 5. This growth rate is assumed for five years till 2015 and for the remaining
appraisal period the users are assumed to be same each year i.e no growth in the users after
2015, so every year 111 cyclists and 63 pedestrians are added until 2015. The users generated
in cycling and walking is obtained by subtracting the users in the ‘core’ scenario for the forecast
number of users under the ‘with intervention’ scenario.
Growth rate in cycling assumed for the core Scenario is obtained as shown below:
Daily cycling trips count in Southampton (2009/10) =5618
18
Daily Cycling trips in Southampton (2010/11) = 6251
Daily Cycling trips in Southampton (2011/12) =6935
(SCC, 2011)
Hence, the percentage increase in the cycling trips for the year 2010 and 2011 comes out to be
7.5% and 10.9% respectively. The growth rate assumed for the core scenario in this study is
the average of both years.
Total number of cyclists from four day usage count in 2010= 13+19=32 (Refer Table 5)
Single day usage =8
Total number of cyclists from four day usage count in 2011=193+281=474 (Refer Table 5)
Single day usage =119
Growth in cyclist for ‘with intervention Scenario’= 119-8=111.
So every year 111 cyclists are assumed to be added until 2015 and assumed to remain stagnant
from 2015 to the end of the appraisal period.
Growth in cyclist for ‘Core Scenario’= 9.2% of 8= 0.74. Thus every year single cyclist is
assumed to be added till 2015.
Similarly, single day usage for pedestrians in 2010 and 2011 form the RUS count obtained is
268 and 331 respectively. The growth in the numbers for the pedestrians is also calculated in a
similar way as that for the cyclist done above.
The number of new individuals cycling and walking is obtained from the difference between
the users generated in two consecutive years. The usage estimation till 2020 is shown in the
table below. The complete details of the generated users and the new individuals cycling and
walking is attached in Appendix A.
Table 8 Number of users generated through the intervention
Year Users per day with
intervention
Users per day
Core scenario
Users generated by
intervention
New Individuals
added each year
Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians
2010 8 268 8 268 0 0 0 0
2011 119 331 9 271 110 60 110 60
2012 230 394 10 274 220 120 110 60
2013 341 457 11 277 330 180 110 60
19
2014 452 520 12 280 440 240 110 60
2015 563 583 13 283 550 300 110 60
2016 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2017 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2018 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2019 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2020 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
3.2 Estimation of Car kilometers saved:
Car kilometers saved from the walkway is estimated on the basis of the number of users who
previously travelled through car in the adjacent roads and now got shifted to either cycling or
walking modes. The user’s origin and destination locations are different for each user. For the
calculation purpose, the average trip length by each user is assumed to be the distance between
Horseshoe Bridge and Northam Bridge, which is 0.9 kilometer through the walkway and 2.1
kilometers through Bevois Valley Road (A 335). Distances are calculated using the Google
distance calculator. It is also assumed that the car users before shifting to cycling and walking
modes used the Bevois Valley Road for travelling from Horseshoe Bridge to Northam Bridge.
The proportion of current users who travelled through car before the construction of walkway
is obtained from two surveys done in 2010 and 2012 by Emily White and Wenbo Cui
respectively, for their research projects. Emily’s survey report tells that 4.7% of the cyclists
and 2.8% of the pedestrians in the walkaway stated that they used car for travelling before the
construction of the walkway. Another survey conducted by Wenbo Cui in 2012 tells that 2.8%
of the cyclists and 5.6% of the pedestrians in the walkway used car previously. Hence for this
research, the proportion of users who got shifted from car mode is assumed to be the average
of both survey reports, which comes out to be 3.75% and 4.2 % for cyclists and pedestrians
respectively. For the calculation of car kilometers saved, the number of cycling and walking
users generated in the ‘core’ and ‘with intervention’ scenario are multiplied with the average
trip length, and former is subtracted from the later. The estimation of car kilometers for the
appraisal period is done as per the guidelines given in paragraph 5.2.7 TAG Unit 3.1.4.1. The
calculation for the first year is shown below:
For year 2011,
Number of cycling trips expected in core scenario (per day, 2011) = 9
Number of cycling trips expected under ‘with intervention’ scenario (per day, 2011) =119
Users generated= 110
20
Mean trip length in Km per trip (2011) =2.1 Kms.
Total trip kilometers= 2.1*110=231 Kms.
Car kilometers saved from per day usage= 3.75% of 231= 8.7 Kms.
Car Kilometers saved for the year 2011= 8.7*365= 3161.8 Kms.
Similarly for pedestrians
Mean trip length in Km per day (2011) = 2.1 Kms.
Users generated= 60.
Total trip Kilometers= 2.1*60=126 Kms.
Car Kilometers saved from per day usage= 4.2% of 126= 5.29 Kms.
Car Kilometers saved for the year 2011= 5.29*365= 1931.58 Kms.
Total car kilometers saved from both users = 5093 Kms.
Car Kilometers saved for the remaining appraisal period is shown in Appendix B.
3.3 Estimation of Commuter trips:
Commuter trips are defined as those trips made by individuals travelling from home to work
or from work to home (DfT, 2011a). For the estimation of commuter trips for the intervention,
the proportion of route users saying travelling from work and to work has been considered from
the RUS journey characteristics data obtained. The RUS journey Characteristics obtained from
the RUS survey conducted at Itchen walkway gives the percentage of commuters travelling in
the Itchen Riverside in 2010 (pre intervention) and 2011 ( post intervention). But the survey
results obtained shows a drastic decrease in percentage of commuters in the Boardwalk
comparing to 2010. It shows a decrease of 34% from 37% in 2010 to 3% commuters in 2011.
Thus for the scheme evaluation purpose the percentage of commuters out of the total users
generated through intervention is taken from the travel survey conducted by Southampton City
Council in 2011. Thousand five hundred interviews were conducted through computer aided
telephoning interview with Southampton residents. This survey shows that out of all the
walking trips done, 16 % is towards working and similarly for cycling it is 13% towards work
(SCC, 2011b). Considering this as the commuter percentage for the appraisal of the scheme we
shall assume 16% of the pedestrians generated and 13% of the cyclists generated through
intervention fall under commuter category and this remains same throughout the appraisal
period.
Cyclists generated in the year 2011= 110, Commuters= 13%*110=14
Pedestrians generated in the year 2011=60, Commuters =16%*60= 10
The detailed estimation of commuters for the entire appraisal period is shown in Appendix E.
21
4. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Results
4.1 Capital cost and Recurring Maintenance cost:
The Project cost includes investment costs (design and construction) and operating costs
(maintenance).
Investment: £1,500,000 of which £450,000 from Big Lottery Fund (SCC, 2011c).
Any other developer contributions along with the Capital investment is deducted from it and
the deducted cost value is used in the Cost-Benefit analysis (Table 12, TAG Unit 3.14.1).
Scheme Capital cost after deducting the fund from Big Lottery Fund= £1,050,000.
Appraisal period used is 30 years.
Maintenance cost: £10,000 per annum (Assumed value).
22
4.2 Evaluation of Benefits from the scheme:
4.2.1 Environmental benefits
Environment related benefits are monetized considering the benefits from noise reduction,
improved local air quality and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions especially carbon
dioxide. Noise and local air quality benefits are monetized following the method in TAG units
3.3.2 and 3.3.3 respectively. Marginal External costs (MEC) approach for calculating
decongestion benefits is used as per the guidance for estimating the benefits from all above
impacts.
Car kilometers saved due to considerable mode shift as a result of the Intervention have been
calculated. The number of car kilometers taken off from the road helps in reducing congestion.
The Marginal External Cost is the cost imposed on society by adding a marginal vehicle to the
road. MEC for other users of the road is calculated from the change in delay time and change
in vehicle resource cost (TAG Unit 3.9.5). Congestion is an important aspect which affect the
above two factors mentioned. At low congestion level, the impact is less but at high congestion
the impact on travel time and vehicle operating cost is high (TAG Unit 3.9.5). The Values of
time and the Vehicle operating cost used are as per the cost given in TAG unit 3.5.6. The
benefits of decongestion related to Travel time and Vehicle operating cost will be estimated
later in Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits. Now we shall look at the estimation of
benefits from Noise reduction, Local air quality, and Greenhouse gases.
Calculation through Marginal External cost Approach:
First step for the calculation of decongestion benefits involves estimation of car kilometers
taken off from the road as a result of the implementation of any scheme. As per the previous
calculation done the number of car kilometers saved in 2011 is 3162 and 1932 kilometers from
both Cycling and walking respectively (calculated for 365 days in a year). Car kilometers saved
for each year from 2011 till 2040 has been estimated and the details are attached in the
Appendix B.
The Marginal External Costs for Congestion, Local Air quality, Noise, and Greenhouse gases
are taken from the Spreadsheet 2 from TAG Unit 3.9.5. These values are classified on the basis
of Congestion level, Area, and Road type. While looking at the traffic routes immediately
affected by the Itchen Boardwalk are Thomas Lewis Way, Bevois valley Road, which comes
under A335 road type and Empress and Imperial road which comes under other roads. Let us
assume the car kilometers saved due to the Itchen walkway is solely from A335 road and
neglect the other roads. This route comes under urban category population>10,000 (Rural and
urban classification of Southampton, 2004). Road type is Class A Principal road in urban area
(PU) (DfT, 2012). Traffic detail in this road is collected from the traffic counter at Bevois
Valley Road (Counter Point ID: 99872).
23
Traffic data for the year 2011 from this location is shown in the table below:
Table 9: Traffic count data in Bevois valley Road DfT, 2012b Traffic Count
AADF
Year
Start
Junction
End
Junction
Link
length
Pedal
Cycle
Motorcycle Cars Buses LGV HGV Total
2011 A33 A3035 2.1
km
416 231 14,236 206 2,448 318 17,439
Table 10: PCU factors for conversion are used from Table B4 in TAG Unit 3.9.5.
Vehicle type PCU Factor
Car 1.0
Light Goods Vehicle 1.0
Rigid Goods Vehicle 1.9
Public Service Vehicle 2.5
Artic Goods Vehicle 2.9
PCU factors used for Cycles and Motorcycles are 0.2 and 0.4 (TRL, 2003). The congestion
band is obtained from the ratio of Actual traffic flow (V) to the Theoretic maximum traffic
flow (C). Both the traffic flows are expressed in terms of PCU per lane km per hour. The
Annual Average Daily Flow obtained from the traffic count data is 17,439. After converting to
Passenger Car Units it is equal to 18,039 PCU’s. The link length is 2.1 kilometers. The
suggested average capacities for different road and area types are given in Table B3 TAG Unit
3.9.5. The 2011 census population of Southampton is 236,900 (HCC, 2011), therefore the area
type is 4 (Population 25k to 250k). Therefore, A road under type 4 area has a capacity flow of
700 PCU per lane km per hour (Table 7, TAG Unit 3.9.5).
Actual traffic flow=18039/ (2*2.1km*24hrs) =179 PCU/lane km/hour.
Congestion band Type=179/700=0.26 which comes under Type 2 congestion band, from Table
5 TAG Unit 3.9.5.
The marginal External cost of congestion for A roads under other urban category is obtained
from the spreadsheet 2 in TAG Unit 3.9.5 and is equal to 1.9 p/car km. The cost values are
given from 2010 to 2035 (Table 2, Appendix C). The missing values from 2011 till 2034 are
obtained through interpolation between two nearest values. The spreadsheet 2 is attached in
Appendix C.
24
The Marginal External Cost benefits calculated for Congestion, Noise, Air quality, and
Greenhouse gases are found to be £16,151, £1,885, £178, and £5,633 respectively. Detailed
calculation attached in Appendix C.
4.2.2 Journey ambience benefits:
It forms an important consideration during the appraisal of walking and cycling schemes. This
value depends on the infrastructure and environmental quality of the journey along with safety
associated with it. The benefits from the journey ambience is subjected to “rule of half”- that
is the benefits for the new users (new to Cycling) is divided to half and the old users will enjoy
the full benefits of the improvements in journey ambience (TAG Unit 3.14.1 Para 1.9.1). The
monetary values for improved environment quality, comfort and convenience and perceived
improvements to safety are obtained from Table 4 of TAG unit 3.14.1 which has been shown
below:
Table 11 Summary of value of journey ambience benefit of different types of cycle
facility relative to no facilities
Scheme type Value Source
Cycling schemes
Off-road segregated cycle track 4.73p/min Hopkinson & Wardman (1996)
On-road segregated cycle lane 2.01p/min Hopkinson & Wardman (1996)
On-road non-segregated cycle lane 2p/min Wardman et al (1997)
Wider lane 1.22p/min Hopkinson & Wardman (1996)
Shared bus lane 0.52p/min Hopkinson & Wardman (1996)
Secure cycle parking facilities 66p Wardman et al (2005)
Changing and shower facilities 14p Wardman et al (2005)
These values have been obtained from various researches done in the past related to cycling
schemes. While looking at the Itchen Riverside Boardwalk, two of the above benefits are
clearly applied to the scheme which includes:
a) Off road segregated cycle path.
b) Wider lane.
25
As we know that before the construction of this Boardwalk most of the users used other roads
adjacent to this route and the old path at this location before Boardwalk construction was a
narrow footpath which was not accessible during high tides. So comparing to the previous
locations this Boardwalk is a traffic free cycle path and has a wider lane. The values given in
the table which equals to 4.73 p/min and 1.22 p/min for off road segregated path and wider
lane respectively. The total journey ambience benefits for cyclists are estimated by multiplying
the above values with the total time spent by the cyclists in this Boardwalk. The time spent by
each cyclist on the walkway is calculated from the distance of the Boardwalk and the average
speed of a cyclist. The total path length from Horseshoe Bridge to Northam Bridge is 0.9
Kilometer through the industrial area. Assuming the speed of each cyclist to be 13 km/hr
(CILT, 2011), the time spent on the Boardwalk for each trip (or cyclist) is 4.2 minutes.
The journey ambience benefits is subjected to ‘Rule of half’ only for those users who are new
to cycling as they value the new facilities more than the old users. The RUS survey report from
Sustrans in the walkway gives information about the cycling experience of the users, which
shows that 0% of the users are new cyclists. Hence the journey ambience benefits calculated
for the users generated is fully enjoyed by them and is not subjected to ‘Rule of half’.
Number of users generated for the year 2011 is 110.
Journey ambience benefits for the users= {4.2 minutes x (4.73+1.22) x 110 x 365}/100
=£ 10,034.
Total journey ambience benefits from cyclists for the entire appraisal period= £ 1,404,688.
Details of the ambience benefit calculation for the entire appraisal period is attached in
Appendix D.
Ambience benefits for walking:
The monetary values for journey ambience benefits is taken from Table 5 in TAG Unit 3.14.1,
which is from Heuman (2005) values, used before in evaluation of the strategic walk network
in London. Those values are mentioned in the table below:
Table 12 Values of different aspects of the pedestrian environment used in the evaluation of
the London Strategic Walk Network
Scheme type Value Source
Street lighting 3.4 p/km Heuman (2005)
Crowding 1.7 p/km Heuman (2005)
Kerb level 2.4 p/km Heuman (2005)
Information panels 0.8 p/km Heuman (2005)
26
Pavement evenness 0.8 p/km Heuman (2005)
Directional signage 0.5 p/km Heuman (2005)
Benches 0.5 p/km Heuman (2005)
Figure 7 and figure 8 below shows the location of Itchen walkway pre and post intervention
which are an evidence for the improvement in pavement evenness. As the earlier path was an
earthen footpath and unsafe to travel during high tides.
Figure 7 Itchen Riverside footpath before the construction of walkway in 2010.
Figure 8 The Itchen walkway after construction in 2011.
Figure 9 shows the directional signage and information panels at the walkway which
increases the attraction of both pedestrians and cyclists.
27
Figure 9 Directional Signage and Information panels at the walkway.
For the evaluation of absenteeism benefits for walkers, the values for pavement evenness,
directional signage and information panels are taken from the table.
The journey ambience benefit values for pedestrian facilities are given in pence per kilometer
travelled. The distance used for the evaluation is 0.9 kilometer as mentioned earlier in the
journey ambience calculation for cyclists. The number of pedestrians generated from the
previous usage estimation comes out to be 60 for the year 2011.
Journey ambience benefits for old users (pedestrians) = {0.9 x (0.8+0.8+0.5) x 60 x 365}/100
=£ 412.
Total Journey ambience benefits from walking= £ 57,947.
Total Journey Ambience benefits for both cycling and walking is £1,462,635.
The journey ambience benefits calculated for the entire appraisal period is shown in
Appendix D.
28
4.2.3 Health benefits for new cycling and walking facilities:
Health benefits or Physical fitness benefits are calculated by estimating the number of
preventable deaths per person who take moderate amount of physical exercise through walking
or cycling. The value of life used in this calculation is taken from the Highways Economics
Note 1 2005 (DfT, 2007).
Table 13 Value of prevention per casualty £ June 2005
Injury Severity Lost output Human cost Medical and
Ambulance
Total
Fatal 490,960 936,380 840 1,428,180
Hence the value of a life when prevented from death is the sum of lost output from the person
to this society, personal human cost and the medical and ambulance expenses, which comes
out to be around £1.43 million per person. Since this value is in 2005 price level, the value for
2011 is obtained by increasing it in line with real GDP growth per capita (Para 1.10.4, TAG
Unit 3.14.1). The GDP growth rate per head during the appraisal period is taken from Table
3a, TAG unit 3.5.6. The mean distance travelled in the route of the cyclist is assumed to be 0.9
kilometer. The average number of days travelled in this Boardwalk is assumed to be 220 days
in a year (considering only the working days and leaving the public holidays and weekends).
The benefits are calculated on the basis of a single trip length, as there is no data available from
the survey which shows that how many trips are made by a single user in a day. The
Copenhagen Centre for Prospective Population studies has found from a research that cycling
for three hours per week or 36 minutes per day reduces the risk for all-cause mortality to 72%
(Para 1.10.5, TAG Unit 3.14.1). The distance travelled is assumed to be 0.9 Kilometer per trip
and the average speed of a cyclist is 13 km/hour (CILT, 2011) and for a pedestrian 5 km/hour
(Galloway, 2005). From these data the time spent by each cyclist and a pedestrian can be
calculated. The time spent on the walkway is used to calculate the reduction in risk for all-
cause mortality of the users.
Reduced Mortality benefit calculation for cyclist (year 2011):
Calculating mean distance travelled per annum
Mean distance travelled on route 0.9 Km/trip.
Time spent on the walkway through cycling 4.2 minutes/trip
For spending 36 minutes the risk reduces by 72% (from Copenhagen study)
Hence, from having 4.2 minutes of physical activity, risk to death reduces to 97% (Linear
interpolation).
The Percentage of life saved =100-97= 3%.
Similarly for walking, the time spent in the walkway is 11 minutes (=0.9 km/5km per hour).
29
The reduction in risk to death is 91% obtained from linear interpolation with Copenhagen study
results.
The Percentage of life saved=100-91= 9%.
Calculation of Reduced mortality benefit from cycling (2011)
Mean proportion of England and Wales population aged 15-64 who
die each year from all causes =(78,038/36,961,800) *100 0.211
(ONS 2011)
Health benefits are estimated for the new individuals added (Para 5.5.6, TAG Unit 3.14.1)
Number of new Cyclists added each year from the scheme 110
Expected deaths in this population= 0.211*110 (new users 23.21
Lives saved (in year 2011) = Expected death in the user population* Percentage of life saved
from cycling 23.21*0.03
=0.7
Cost of a life (Source: DfT, Cost at 2011 price level) = £ 1,415,372
Reduced mortality benefits (in year 2011) = 1,415,372*0.7 £990,760
Total Reduced Mortality benefits from Cycling for the appraisal period = £5,032,038.
Calculation of Reduced mortality benefit from walking (2011)
Number of new individuals walking in the year 2011 60
Expected death in the population= 0.211*60 12.66
Life saved = 12.66*0.09= 1.14
Reduced mortality benefits (in year 2011) =1,415,372*1.14= £1,612,675.
Total Reduced Mortality benefits from walking for the appraisal period= £ 8,234,244.
Detailed calculation tables for both cycling and walking for the appraisal period is attached in
Appendix E.
4.2.4 Estimating Absenteeism benefits from Cycling and Walking:
This benefit comes under business benefits rather than consumer benefits, as this comes from
the reduction in sick leave from work for employees who do some physical activity as a result
of walking and cycling during their commuting. This benefit is calculated using the method
shown in para 1.11, TAG unit 3.14.1. This method was previously used in Transport for
London (2004). In the USA, physical activity programmes involving 30 minutes of exercise a
30
day showed a reduction of 6% to 32% in short term sick leave (WHO, 2003). In UK the average
absence rate of employees in 2010 was 6.5 days per employee, only a marginal change from a
record low of 6.4 days in 2009 of which 94% is accounted for short term sick leave (CBI,
2011). This survey was done by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) 2011, where
organizations responding came from throughout the UK and were asked to submit the absence
data from January to December 2010. The relation between physical activity and reduced
absenteeism is assumed to be linear (Davis, 2011).
For cycling and walking the physical activity time per day for this scheme is assumed to be 4.2
minutes and 11 minutes per day in 2011 and assuming same for the remaining appraisal period.
Thus for 4.2 minutes of cycling per trip 5 days a week would reduce the short term sick leave
from 0.84% to 4.5% and for walking 11 minutes per trip would reduce short term sick leave
from 2.2% to 11.7%. Considering the minimum values for both cycling and walking the
absenteeism benefits is calculated below:
For Cycling:
Average short term sick leave in UK= 94% of 6.5 days per employee= 6.11 days.
Annual benefit to the employer due to reduction in short term sick leave = 0.84% of 6.11 days
=0.051 days gross salary cost.
For Walking:
Annual benefit to the employer due to reduction in short term sick leave = 2.2% of 6.11 days.
=0.134 days gross salary cost.
The average gross salary per day is calculated from the cost figures given in table 1 TAG Unit
3.5.6. It gives the value of working time per person in £ per hour in 2010 price level. Since the
individuals value of working time decides the employer’s wage rate paid (TAG Unit 3.5.6, Para
1.2.3), this value is taken as the wage rate paid for an average working person. The market
price value of average working person is used in the calculation. This value is assumed to grow
in line with GDP growth rate per head for the remaining appraisal period as given in table 3
TAG Unit 3.5.6. The average working hours is taken as 7.3 hours/day (Source: ONS Labor
Force survey), which is the average usual working hours for all sectors in United Kingdom in
2011. This is assumed to be same for the remaining appraisal period. These benefits are
calculated only for the commuters in the Itchen Boardwalk those who are working and not for
the entire users generated by the Intervention. The number of commuters has been estimated
previously.
Average salary of all working persons per day = £ 34.12 per hour* 7.3
= £ 249.1 per day (Year 2010)
The value is in 2010 price level which can be converted to 2011 price level by using a CPI
inflation index of 1.045 (DfT, 2012d). Hence, the salary for 2011 is equal to
260.31=249.1*1.045.
31
Reduced absenteeism benefits from cycling commuters for 2011=260.31*0.051 days
=£ 13.27 per cyclist commuter.
Number of cycling commuters in 2011= 14.3
For the total cycling commuters generated
Reduced absenteeism benefits= (14.3*13.27) = £ 189.73
Similarly from walking commuters the benefits for 2011 comes out to be £ 334.66.
Total Reduced absenteeism benefits from cycling and walking is £35,206 and £62,099
respectively. Total benefits from absenteeism reduction are £ 97,305 for the entire appraisal
period. Detailed calculation per year can be seen in Appendix E.
4.2.5 Accident reduction benefits:
Accident benefits for the scheme is obtained in two ways. At first it is estimated from the
improvement in safety for the cyclists who shifted to the walkway from adjacent roads thereby
travelling in traffic free mode. Secondly, the benefits also comes from reduction in the number
of accidents in adjacent roads as a result of shifting from car mode to either cycling or walking.
The reduction in car kilometers results in reduction of accidents and consequently helps in
assigning a positive value to the appraisal (TAG Unit 3.14.1, Para 5.5.14). The value of life for
accident appraisal is taken from Table 3, TAG Unit 3.4.1 (The Accident Sub-Objective) which
gives the average value of prevention of road accidents by severity and element of cost. The
prices are given in 2009 price level and they increase with respect to the growth rate in GDP
per capita. The accident prevention value as per severity of the accident is shown in the table
below:
Table 14 Accident prevention values as per severity of accidents
Average value of prevention of
road accidents by severity
£ June 2009 £ 2011
Severity Total
Fatal 1,790,203 1,812,745
Serious Injury 205,056 207,638
Slight Injury 21,372 21,641
Accident reduction benefits from shifting of cyclists from other routes:
The proportion of cyclists shifting from adjacent roads to the walkway can travel free of traffic
and are less subjected to be hit by a motorized vehicle. The results of an Intervention survey
32
done by Wenbo Cui (University of Southampton) in 2012 shows that 21.7% of the cyclists in
the Boardwalk said that they used to travel through other routes before the construction of the
Boardwalk. It is assumed that these cyclists used the adjacent roads closer to the walkway
which includes Bevois Valley Road, Thomas Levis Way Onslow Road and other smaller roads
close to the Boardwalk. The accident report of cyclists in these roads since 2005 is obtained
from the Department for Transport Road Accident Map website and the number of reported
incidents are shown in the table below:
Table 15 Accident report for cyclists in the roads adjacent to the Boardwalk since 2005, DfT
2012h.
Thomas Lewis
Way
Bevois Valley
road
Onslow Road Empress Road Mount Pleasant
Road
Slight Serious Slight Serious Slight Serious Slight Serious Slight Serious
2005 1 1
2006 1 2 1
2007 2 1 1 1
2008 1 3
2009 1 1 2
2010 1 1 1
2011 1 2
Count data regarding total number of cyclists in these roads is obtained from the traffic counter
at Bevois Valley Road (Counter Point ID: 99872). The Annual Average Daily Flow of cyclists
and the percentage of accidents with respect to the flow is shown in the table below:
Table 16 Number of cyclists in Bevois Valley Road, Southampton Traffic count (DfT, 2012b)
Year Number of cyclists in
A335 Total Accidents Accident Percentage
AADF Yearly Slight Serious Slight Serious
2005 255 93075 2 0 0.0021488 0
2006 401 146365 3 1 0.0020497 0.00068
2007 335 122275 4 1 0.0032713 0.00082
2008 375 136875 4 0 0.0029224 0
2009 375 136875 4 0 0.0029224 0
2010 377 137605 1 2 0.0007267 0.00145
2011 416 151840 3 0 0.0019758 0
Average 0.0023 0.0004
33
Results from above table shows that 0.0023% and 0.00045% of the cyclists in A335 (which
includes Thomas Lewis Way, Bevois Valley Road and Onslow Road) are subjected to slight
and serious accident injuries. Therefore a similar proportion of the cyclists who shifted to the
walkway are reducing the incidents of slight and serious injuries.
Estimation of accident reduction benefits:
Number of current cyclists in the Boardwalk in 2011= 119
Assuming 21.7 % of them shifted from adjacent roads, the number of cyclists=26
The proportion of these users reducing slight injuries= 0.0023% *26=0.000598
Value of preventing a road accident for slight injury (2011) = £ 21,641 (Highways Economic
Note 1, DfT 2007)
Benefits from preventing slight injury accident in 2011= 21,641*0.000598=£ 12.94.
Value of preventing a serious injury road accident (2011) = £ 207,638.
Proportion of users reducing serious injuries= 0.0004%*26=0.000104.
Benefits from preventing serious injury road accident= 207,638*0.000104= £21.59.
Total benefits from accident reduction from cyclists shifted for the entire appraisal period is
£ 6027. The detailed calculation for each year is shown in Appendix H.
Accident reduction benefits from car kilometers saved:
The car kilometres removed from the road as a result of the construction of the Boardwalk also
helps to reduce road accidents. The car kilometres removed as a result of shifting from car
modes has been calculated initially. The car kilometres taken off is assumed to be from A335
road link starting from junction A3035 and ending in junction A33 which includes Thomas
Lewis Way, Bevois Valley Road and Onslow Road. The Annual Average Daily Flow data of
cars in this road link is obtained from the traffic counter at Bevois Valley Road , Counter Point
ID: 99872 (SCC, 2012) The accident report of cars in this road link since 2005 is obtained from
the Department for Transport Road Accident Map website and is shown in the table below:
Table 17 Number of incidents per million car kilometres in A335 road link
Year AADF yearly flow
Link length
Yearly Car kilometres Slight Serious Fatal
Per million car kilometres
Slight Serious Fatal
2005 13951 5092115 2.1 10693441.5 9 1 0 0.841 0.093 0
2006 13993 5107445 2.1 10725634.5 10 3 0 0.935 0.28 0
2007 14373 5246145 2.1 11016904.5 20 0 1 1.82 0 0.091
2008 14057 5130805 2.1 10774690.5 16 3 1 1.5 0.28 0.093
2009 14366 5243590 2.1 11011539 19 3 0 1.73 0.273 0
2010 14279 5211835 2.1 10944853.5 15 2 0 1.38 0.183 0
2011 14236 5196140 2.1 10911894 10 1 0 0.917 0.092 0
Average 1.3 0.172 0.026
34
The average value for number of the incidents per million car kilometers is calculated by the
past 7 years data from 2005. The average incident values are shown in the table above. This
value is used for the calculation of accident reduction benefits for the appraisal period.
Calculation of accident reduction benefits from car kilometres removed for the year 2011:
Number of car kilometres saved in 2011= 5093 (Refer Appendix B)
Proportion of slight injury in this car kilometres saved= (1.3/1000000)*5093=0.0066
Accident prevention value for slight injury=£21,641.
Benefits from slight injury reduction=21,641*0.0066=£142.
Proportion of serious injury in the car kilometres saved= (0.172/1000000)*5093=0.00088
Accident prevention value for serious injury=£207,638
Benefits from serious injury reduction=207,638*0.00088=£182.72
Proportion of Fatal injury in the car kilometres saved= (0.026/1000000)*5093=0.00013
Accident prevention value for serious injury=£1,812,745
Benefits from serious injury reduction=1,812,745*0.00013=£235.66.
Total accident reduction benefits from car kilometres saved for the entire appraisal period is
equal to £104,888.
Detailed calculation shown in Appendix H.
35
4.2.6 Transport Economic Efficiency Benefits:
These benefits for cycling and walking scheme are assessed using the Transport Economic
Efficiency (TEE) table 2 given in TAG Unit 3.14.1. For cycling and walking schemes some
entries are not applicable in this table. The TEE benefits can be divided into two categories.
Firstly, the benefits enjoyed by the user itself as a result of reduction in travel time and/or
vehicle operating cost as a result of introducing short distances or by switching from car mode.
Secondly, the benefits enjoyed by other road users due to a significant reduction in motorized
traffic known as ‘Business users benefits’. These benefits are calculated in the form of
decongestion benefits using the method described in MSA: Decongestion Benefits (TAG Unit
3.9.5).
TEE benefits for Consumers:
Consumers here refer to those cyclists and pedestrians who benefit from reducing their
travelling time and/or vehicle operating cost by shifting from other roads to the riverside
walkway. For the above benefit calculation let us consider the travel between two key locations
close to the Boardwalk such as Horseshoe Bridge and Northam Bridge. Now we shall analyze
the changes in distance and travelling time between these locations through different modes
before and after the construction of Itchen Boardwalk.
For Cyclists and Pedestrians:
Cyclists who travelled from Horseshoe Bridge to Northam Bridge before the Itchen Boardwalk
they had to travel though the adjacent Empress road. Distance between these two locations
through empress road is 1.77 km (approx.) and through Boardwalk it is 0.9 km (Google
distance calculator tool). The national average cycling speed ranges 13 km/hr to 16 km/hr
(CILT, 2011) and the average walking speed for an adult is 5 km/hour (Galloway, 2005). So a
normal cyclist travelling through Empress Road takes 8.2 minutes, but through the walkway it
takes only 4.2 minutes and for a pedestrian the time taken is 21 minutes and 10.8 minutes
respectively. From the above calculation we can see that for a cyclist the reduction in travelling
time is 4 minutes and for a pedestrian it is 10 minutes.
The results from the Intervention survey done by Wenbo Cui (University of Southampton) in
2012 shows that 21.7% of the cyclists after intervention said that they used to travel through
other routes before the construction of the walkway and 29.2 % of the pedestrians used other
roads for travelling. Assuming a similar proportion for the users generated in the future years
the value of journey time saved for each cyclist and pedestrian can be calculated. The value of
time for a cyclist and pedestrian is divided into working and non-working values. Value of
travelling time during working hours is a cost to the employers’ business and these values are
taken from table 1 in TAG Unit 3.5.6. Time spent during commuting and other purpose is
known as Non-Working time and the value for this time is obtained from table 2 in TAG Unit
3.5.6. The values of Non-Working time for cycling and walking is twice the values mentioned
in the table 2 (Para 1.2.20 TAG Unit 3.5.6). Since these values are given in 2010 price level
they are converted to 2011 price level using CPI measure. The growth percentage per annum
for both Working and Non-Working Values of time are taken from Table 3b TAG Unit 3.5.6.
Since the entire journey trips done is not solely for the work, we shall assume journey purpose
36
related to work constitutes 5% and Non-Working purpose like ‘Commuting’ and ‘Other’
journeys constitute 95%.
Table 18: Working and Nonworking Value of time.
Price per person Working Value
of time,£/hr,
2010
Non-Working
Value of time,
£/hr, 2010
Working
Value of
time, £/min,
2011
Non-
Working
Value of
time, £/min,
2011
Cyclist 21.7 24.34 0.38 0.42
Pedestrian 37.83 24.34 0.66 0.42
In 2011,
Time saved by each cyclist who shifted from adjacent road =4 minute
Number of cyclists shifted= 24 (=21.7% of 110)
Benefits from travel time saving= {(0.05*0.38+0.95*0.42)*4}*24=£ 39.9
Travel time saved by pedestrian=10 minutes.
Number of pedestrians shifted= 18 (=29.2% of 60)
Benefits from Travel time saving= {(0.05*0.66+0.95*0.42)*10}*18=£ 75.69.
Using the same method for the remaining appraisal period the travel time reduction benefits
for cycling is £7,406 and for pedestrians is £14,044.
Total benefits =£ 21,450.
The detailed calculation for the remaining period of the appraisal is shown in the Appendix F.
Benefits from Vehicle operating cost:
For car users:
Vehicle operating cost savings comes from reducing the Fuel and Non-fuel Vehicle operating
cost. These benefits are calculated from the car kilometers saved due to shifting from car mode
to either cycling or walking. Car kilometers saved have been calculated previously and is
attached in Appendix B. Vehicle operating cost is calculated as per the guidelines given in
TAG Unit 3.5.6.
The average vehicle speed for the vehicles in A-335 road is assumed to be equivalent to 31.9
miles/hour (51.4 km/hour) which is the yearly average vehicle speed in 2011 for the vehicles
37
in Hampshire authority managed ‘A’ roads (DfT, 2012c). With this average speed the car users
travelling from Horseshoe Bridge to Northam Bridge would have taken a journey time of 2.5
minutes in 2010.
Vehicle operating costs (VOCs) are separated into fuel VOCs and non-fuel VOCs. The method
of calculating both costs are described below.
Vehicle Operating Cost-Fuel:
The values for cars are divided into three categories on the basis of the energy source used. The
energy source can be either fuel (petrol and diesel) or Electricity for electric car. Fuel
consumption is calculated from the formula given below (TAG unit 3.5.6, Para 1.3.9):
L=a/v+b+c.v+d.v2
Where, L=consumption, expressed in litres/km;
V=average speed in km/hour; and
a, b, c, d are parameters defined for each vehicle category.
For electric cars energy consumption is proportional to distance travelled but independent of
speed. Hence it is equal to “b” parameter in the fuel consumption formula with all other
parameters zero. These cost parameters decrease with increase in fuel efficiency. The
percentage improvement in vehicle efficiency every year is taken form Table 13 TAG Unit
3.5.6. The proportion of cars in petrol, diesel and electric is divided on the basis of the
percentage given in Table 12 TAG Unit 3.5.6 until 2030 and is assumed to be the same for the
remaining years. The vehicle km saved is divided into each car category on the basis of above
proportions. In 2011, according to our previous estimation total number of car kilometers saved
from both cyclists and pedestrians is 5093 Kilometres. Dividing the total car Kms saved in each
category is 2903.7 Kms for petrol cars, 2188 Kms for diesel cars and 1.63 Kms for electric
cars. Using the fuel and energy consumption formula mentioned above the fuel and energy
consumed for the year 2011 comes out to be 179 litres (petrol cars), 109 litres (diesel cars), and
0.2 kWh (electric cars).
The market price for petrol, diesel, and electricity is taken form Table 11a in TAG Unit 3.5.6.
Prices are in 2010 price level which has been converted to 2011 price level using RPI inflation
factor of 1.052. The market price used is the sum of resource cost and fuel duty, plus VAT (that
is, market price= [resource cost + fuel duty] x [1+VAT]. Beyond 2030, both the resource and
duty prices are forecasted to grow at a rate of 0.195% per year (Para 1.3.24, TAG Unit 3.5.6).
The resource cost of electricity beyond 2030 is taken form Table 11b in TAG Unit 3.5.6. The
fuel consumption cost for the entire appraisal period calculated from the car Kms saved comes
out to be £20,617, £22,152, and £551 from petrol, diesel, and electric cars respectively. Total
benefits from saving fuel VOC for the appraisal period is £ 43,321.
38
Vehicle Operating Costs-Non fuel:
The Non-fuel VOC include oil, tyres, maintenance, depreciation and vehicle capital saving.
The Non-fuel VOC can be calculated from the formula given below:
C=a1 + b1/V
Where:
C= cost in pence per kilometer travelled.
V= average link speed in kilometers per hour.
a1 is a parameter for distance related costs.
b1 is a parameter for vehicle capital saving ( only for working vehicles).
The average link speed used for the calculation is 51.4 km/hour, which is the yearly average
vehicle speed in 2011 for the vehicles in Hampshire authority managed ‘A’ roads (DfT, 2012c).
In case of Non-fuel non-working VOC there is no ‘b’ factor, hence the formula used is a1/V.
The price levels are converted to 2011 prices by using CPI inflation factor of 1.045. Both a1
and b1 parameter values are taken from Table 15 TAG Unit 3.5.6 for both working and
nonworking time. Both working and non-working times are assumed to 5% and 95%
respectively. The rate of change in Non-fuel cost is done as per the rates mentioned in Table
16 TAG Unit 3.5.6.
Total savings from non-fuel VOC for the appraisal period is £ 3,256.
Thus, total savings from VOC (both of fuel and non-fuel) = 43,321+3,256= £ 46,577.
Detailed calculation for both fuel and Non-fuel VOC is attached in Appendix F.
4.2.7 Indirect Tax Revenue loss:
Due to modal shift occurring from car to either cycling or walking mode as a result of the
walkway car kilometers saved or taken off leads to a loss in ‘indirect tax revenues’ to the
Central government. This is due to the reduced fuel sales. Indirect tax calculation from NTM
(National Transport model) shows that this Indirect tax revenue is the difference between
Perceived and Resource cost of fuel which is nothing but the fuel duty (TAG Unit 3.9.5, Para
3.9). In addition to the fuel duty VAT is also applied over the fuel and electricity consumed,
which is 20% for both petrol and diesel and 5% for electric cars. The values for fuel duty and
VAT are taken from table 11a of TAG Unit 3.5.6 for the indirect tax revenue calculation. These
values are in 2010 price level which is converted to 2011 price level by using RPI inflation
index. The RPI inflation factor used for 2011 price calculation is 1.052. The values for fuel and
energy consumption calculated on the basis of car kilometers saved is added in Appendix G.
The total loss from ‘indirect tax revenue’ calculated for the appraisal period is £ 13,341.
39
4.2.8 Discounting of Benefits and Costs:
Benefits and Costs calculated for each year during the appraisal period is discounted to the
present value by using a discount rate of 3.5%. Any sum which may occur during the project
years can be reduced to its present value by the formula:
Present Value= Sum/ (1+0.035)x.
Where, 1/ (1+r)n is the discount factor used for the respective scheme year ‘n’.
For both cost and benefit the present value is calculated using the above formula and are
denoted as PVC (Present Value Cost) and PVB (Present Value Benefits).
Net Present Value=PVB-PVC
Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR):
BCR=PVB/PVC
40
5. Discussion and Analysis of Results
Table 19 Cost and Benefit accounting of Itchen Boardwalk Case study
Scheme Capital cost (adjusted) £1,500,000
Operating Costs £300,000
Big lottery fund £-450,000
Indirect Tax Revenue £21,054
Public accounts (PVC) £1,246,953
Noise reduction £1,885
Local Air quality £178
Greenhouse gases £5,633
TEE Business users (Congestion) £16,151
TEE Users consumers
Time savings
Vehicle Operating Cost
£21,450
£46,577
Journey ambience (both cycling and
pedestrians)
£ 1,462,635
Health benefits £13,266,282
Reduced Absenteeism £97,305
Accident Benefits £110,915
Present Value of Benefits £12,490,415
Net Present Value £11,243,462
BCR 10
Present value calculation for cost and benefits for each year is shown in Appendix H.
The above table shows the total economic value of each benefits obtained as a result of users
generated by the construction of the Itchen Riverside Boardwalk. The Net Present Value
obtained is close to £11 million, and the Benefit-Cost Ratio obtained is 10. The results shows
that most of the contribution comes from the health and Journey Ambience values. Usually for
41
engineering projects when the Cost-Benefit Ratio is above 1, it can be considered acceptable
economically, when it is in between 1 to 2, it is considered to be fair, when it is above 2, such
projects are considered highly economical and emphasizes a good return for money. As the
BCR obtained for the walkway is 10, it can be stated that the construction of walkway at the
Itchen Riverside in Southampton has the potential for a high return for money.
The economic return from any engineering project depends on a number of factors associated
with it like the construction period, market prices of construction material, economic life, or
maintenance cost incurred during the appraisal period etc. Hence, it is also important to check
how sensitive its economic value is, when there are fluctuations on the factors to which it
depends. A few imaginary scenarios has been taken below and their respective impact on the
Cost-Benefit Ratio and Net Present Value is analyzed.
Case 1: Changes in Users generated.
When there are no users generated after 2011, BCR evaluated on the basis of the users
generated for the first year of the scheme.
BCR=1.84 and NPV=£1,039,733.
When the growth of users in the first year is assumed to sustain till 2020
BCR=19.34 and NPV=£23,035,162.
When the growth of users in the first year is assumed to sustain till 2025
BCR=27.73 and NPV=£33,722,350.
Case 2: Changes in maintenance cost
When there is no maintenance cost until 2020
BCR= 10.73 and NPV=£11,326,629.
When there is no maintenance cost until 2025
BCR=11.04 and NPV=£11,358,637.
When there is no maintenance cost until 2031 that is 20 years from the scheme opening year.
BCR=11.31 and NPV=£11,385,587.
When the maintenance cost is assumed to be £15,000
BCR=9.33 and NPV=£11,151,502.
When the maintenance cost is £20,000
BCR=8.7 and NPV=£11,059,542.
When the maintenance cost is £5,000
42
BCR=10.81 and NPV=£11,335,423.
Case 3: Removing certain scheme benefits
When the analysis is done without the health benefits
BCR=0.42 and NPV= -£724,263
When the benefits for business users (or other users) are removed which includes Noise, Air
quality, Carbon emission, Congestion and Absenteeism benefits,
BCR=9.96 and NPV= £11,174,609
Case 4: Changes in the Appraisal period
When the appraisal period is 10 years
BCR=10.44 and NPV=£10,755,705.
When the appraisal period is 20 years
BCR=10.18 and NPV=£11,038,932.
Case 5: Optimism bias applied
When a +15% Optimism bias uplift is applied
BCR=8.5 and NPV=£ 11,018,462.
When a +32% Optimism bias uplift is applied
BCR=7.2 and NPV=£ 10,763,462.
From the above sensitivity analysis done we can find that, even when the benefits are estimated
taking the first year of the scheme the Benefit-Cost Ratio is above 1 and is beneficial from
economic point of view. The BCR value is found to be highly sensitive to changes in the
number of users. When the growth is assumed to sustain till 2020, the BCR value increases by
93.4%. The BCR value is not significantly sensitive to changes in the maintenance cost. In all
cases assumed it is quiet close to 10. The BCR is found to be highly sensitive when there is
changes in health benefits. The BCR falls below 1 and the Net Present Value is negative when
the benefits from physical fitness is removed. By removing the benefits of Business users we
can see that the benefits for others in the scheme constitutes only 0.4% of the total benefits,
and 99.6% of the benefits is enjoyed by the consumer themselves.
Changes in the appraisal period doesn’t seems to impact much on the BCR value. There is a
slight change on the BCR value when the uplifts for Optimism Bias is applied.
43
6. Conclusions
Cycling and walking modes are often considered as a poor man’s transport mode since the
development of motorized mode. Transport economists in the past years from many developed
and developing country also get baffled when they were asked to justify the economic return
for the investments over Cycling and Walking schemes. This was mainly due to the lack of
sufficient evidences which provided the economic evaluation of benefits associated with real
cycling and walking schemes.
Through the economic analysis of the Itchen Riverside Boardwalk in Southampton, this
research has provided a detailed analysis of the money value associated with different benefits
enjoyed by the users of the Boardwalk. The economic value for benefits associated with
Environment, Health, Travel Time, Cost and Volume, Journey Ambience, and Safety has been
estimated on the basis of the growth shown in the user numbers in the initial years. The Benefit-
Cost Ratio obtained also proves the high money value of the investment in this Boardwalk.
The results shows that most the benefits in this scheme comes from health and Absenteeism
benefits. Other benefits related to Travel time, Travel cost, Environment have been estimated
considering the distance travelled by car form Horseshoe Bridge to Northam Bridge via A335
Road. But in reality the case may be different. The trip distance could be more for the car
travelers. This is one such obvious reason for the low values for the benefits estimated from
car kilometers removed. Survey data regarding the exact trip length by each user and the
Number of daily trips done by a single user must be available to avoid the under estimation of
trip lengths.
There is a period during which the health benefits will accrue over time until an individual is
deemed “fully active” and to derive the full health benefits of their trip-making activities by
active modes, since there less research evidences over such accrue period (para 1.10.8, TAG
Unit 3.14.1). Here in this evaluation the users are assumed to gain the full health benefits
immediately, which will be an over estimation. The initial growth in users generated as a result
of the scheme implementation is assumed to remain with the same increase in numbers for four
years till 2015. The actual growth in the users for the remaining years can be found with more
RUS surveys conducted at the site in the coming years. The annualisation factor is assumed to
be 365 days for the evaluation of few benefits. But usually the trips are less during the weekend
comparing to weekdays. Seasonal and climatic factors like journeys during vacation time and
during a rainy day is going to be different from other normal days. These factors could also be
added during evaluation of number of trips when relevant survey reports on weekend trips and
local weather report for the whole year is available. Other benefits like the enjoyment
experienced by a Cyclist or Pedestrian through a riverside can’t be evaluated in monetary terms.
This walkway has also increased the accessibility to the Transport interchanges and other hot
spot locations like, the boardwalk is now making a direct and short route to the St. Denys Rail
station in the North and to the football stadium in the South.
44
At present, the walkway with its hardwood decking surface only covers 400 meters. The
Southern end of this walkway has its older path connecting to the Northam Bridge. This path
is a narrow lane with gravel surface. Many current cyclists and pedestrians are using this path.
The previous surveys conducted at this location doesn’t give any information regarding the
users on this path. This path is much shorter than the current National Cycle Route via the
industrial area to reach the Northam Bridge. Further development on this path in future can
further increase the number of users. The facilities like lighting, Benches, CCTV cameras, and
regular cutting of bushes grown at the side of the walkway could be done which may attract
more users and feel them safe and comfortable during their journey.
This research project has provided an evidence of the high economic value attached with a
Cycling and Walking scheme from the detailed economic evaluation of benefits associated with
the users generated in the Itchen Walkway, Southampton.
45
References
Baker, G., Gray, S. R., Wright, A., Fitzsimons, C., Nimmo, M., Lowry, R., & Mutrie, N.
(2008). The effect of a pedometer-based community walking intervention “Walking for
Wellbeing in the West” on physical activity levels and health outcomes: A 12 week
randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Behavior Nutrition and Physical
Activity, 5, 44.
Bird, E.L., Baker, G., Mutrie, N., Ogilvie, D., Sahlqvist, S. and Powell, J. (2013)
Behavior change techniques used to promote walking and cycling: A systematic review.
Health Psychology [Online]. Available at:
http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/18458/19/BCT_review_2013.pdf [Accessed on 15th July 2013]
Bidwell, S. (2012) Review of studies that have quantified the economic benefits of
interventions to increase walking and cycling for transport, Canterbury District Health
Board [Online]. Available at:
http://www.cph.co.nz/Files/QuantEconBenefitPhysicalActive.pdf [Accessed 15th July
2013]
Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson, C., Anable, J., Kirkbride, A. and Goodwin, P. (2004)
Smarter Choices- Changing the Way We Travel, DfT, p. vi, [Online]. Available at:
http://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/Smarter_Choices_Changing_The_Way_
We_Travel_chapter1.pdf [Accessed on 20th July 2013]
CBI, (2011) Healthy returns? Absence and workplace health survey 2011 [Online].
Available at: http://www.cbi.org.uk/media/955604/2011.05-healthy_returns_-
_absence_and_workplace_health_survey_2011.pdf [Accessed on 8th August 2013]
CILT, (2011) Think Cycling [Online]. Available at:
http://www.ciltuk.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/The%20Hub/thinkcycling.pdf [Accessed
on 10th August 2013]
Cui, W. (2012) Evaluating Infrastructural Interventions on the Itchen Riverside
Boardwalk (Southampton) to promote Active Travel Behavior. Dissertation project
(MSc), University of Southampton.
Dill, J. and Gliebe, J. (2008) Understanding and Measuring Bicycling Behavior: A Focus
on Travel Time and Route Choice, Oregon Transportation Research and Education
Consortium (OTREC) [Online]. Available at:
www.lulu.com/items/volume_64/5687000/5687029/1/print/OTREC-RR-08-
03_Dill_BicyclingBehavior_FinalReport.pdf [Accessed 17th July 2013]
Davis, A. (2010) Value for Money: An Economic Assessment of Investment in Walking
and Cycling, Department for Health, pp. 3-13 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=91553 [Accessed on 17th August 2013]
46
Du, H. Y., Newton, P. J., Zecchin, R., Denniss, R., Salamonson, Y., Everett, B.,
Davidson, P. M. (2011) An intervention to promote physical activity and self-
management in people with stable chronic heart failure The Home-Heart-Walk study:
Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 12, 63.
DfT (2004) Walking and Cycling: an action plan [Online]. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/walki
ng/actionplan/ingandcyclingdocumentinp5802.pdf [Accessed on 23rd July 2013]
DfT (2007) Highways Economics Note No. 1 2005 Valuation of the Benefits of Prevention
of Road Accidents and Casualties [Online]. Available at:
http://www.fightbackwithfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/D.38-Valuation-of-
Accidents.pdf [Accessed on 20th August 2013]
DfT (2008a) Cycling England [Online]. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110601212617/http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclin
gengland/who-we-are/ [Accessed on 29th August 2013]
DfT (2008b) Local sustainable Transport fund: Cycling England [Online]. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110601212617/http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclin
gengland/2011/03/local-sustainable-transport-fund/ [Accessed on 3rd July 2013]
DfT (2011a) Commuting and Business trips [Online]. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49703/Co
mmuting_and_business_travel_factsheet___April_2011.pdf [Accessed on 7th July 2013]
DfT (2012a) Local Area walking and cycling statistics [Online]. Available
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/local-area-walking-and-cycling-in-england-
2010-11
DfT (2012b) Traffic count Southampton 2012 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/area.php?region=South+East&la=Southampton
DfT (2012c) Congestion on local authority managed ‘A’ roads. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/congestion-on-local-authority-managed-a-
roads-2011-12
47
DfT (2012d) CPI and RPI Index. [Online].
Available at: http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/
DfT (2012e) Guidance on the Appraisal of Walking and Cycling Schemes TAG Unit
3.14.1 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/u3_14_1-walking-and-cycling-
120723.pdf
DfT (2012f) Major Scheme Appraisal: Road Decongestion benefits TAG Unit 3.9.5
[Online]. Available at:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/U3_9_5-msa-road-decongestion-
benefits-120723.pdf
DfT (2012g) Value of Time and Vehicle Operating Cost TAG Unit 3.5.6 [Online].
Available from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/u3_5_6-vot-op-
cost-120723.pdf
DfT (2012h), Reported Road Accident Map [Online]. Available at:
http://road-collisions.dft.gov.uk/accident-
map/southampton?Year=2012&AccidentSeverity=Fatal,Serious&AgeBand=&VehicleTy
pe [Accessed on 14th September 2013]
DfT (2013) National Travel Survey: 2012 [Online]. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-travel-survey-2012 [Accessed on
22nd July 2013]
Galloway, J., (2005) Walking: The Complete Book. New York, Meyer & Meyer Sport
Limited.
Goodwin (2005) Utilities Street Works and the Cost of Traffic Congestion, p 31
[Online]. Available at:
http://www.njug.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/93.pdf [Accessed on 20th July 2013]
48
Hampshire County Council (HCC) (2011) Southampton Census factsheet [Online].
Available at:
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/2011_census_southampton_summary_factsheet.pdf
Heuman, D (2005) Investment in the Strategic Walks - Economic Evaluation with
Waves, Strategic Walk Network, Colin Buchanan and Partners Limited, July.
iConnect (2013) Impact of COnstructing Non-motorised Networks and Evaluating
Changes in Travel [Online]. Available at: http://www.iconnect.ac.uk/
Jacobsen, P.L. (2003) Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists,
Safer Walking and Bicycling, Injury prevention. British Medical Journal, 9, pp.205-209
[Online]. Available at: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/3/205.full.pdf+html
[Accessed on 14th September 2013]
Krag, 2005 CBA of cycling, p.33 – Nordic Council.
Killoran, A., Doyle, N., Waller, S., Wohlgemuth, C., and Crombie, H. (2006) Transport
Interventions Promoting Safe Cycling and Walking: Evidence briefing, National Institute
for Health and Clinical Excellence, [Online]. Available at:
http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/Transport_Evidence_Briefing_05-07.pdf
[Accessed on 16th July 2013]
Litman, T.A. (2011) Economic Value of Walkability, Victoria Transport Policy Institute,
p.16 [Online]. Available at: http://www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf [Accessed on 17th July
2013]
Litman, T.A. (2013) Evaluating Non-Motorized Transport benefits and costs. Victoria
Transport Policy Institute [Online]. Available at: http://www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf
[Accessed on 17th July 2013]
Morris, J. (1994) Exercise in the prevention of coronary heart disease: today’s best buy in
public health, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 26: 807-813.
Ministry of Transport, Netherland (1999) The Dutch Bicycle Master Plan, description
and evaluation in an historical context, p.49 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.fietsberaad.nl/library/repository/bestanden/The%20Dutch%20Bicycle%20Ma
ster%20Plan%201999.pdf [Accessed on 25th July 2013 ]
49
Mutrie, N., Carney, C., Blamey, A., Crawford, F., Aitchison, T., & Whitelaw, A. (2002).
“Walk In to Work Out”: A randomized controlled trial of a self-help intervention to
promote active commuting. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56, 407–
412.
Merom, D., Rissel, C., Phongsavan, P., Smith, B. J., van Kemende, C.,Brown, W. J., &
Bauman, A. E. (2007). Promoting walking with pedometers in the community: The Step-
by-Step Trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32, 290 –297.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2006) Transport interventions
promoting safe cycling and walking: Evidence briefing [Online]. Available at:
http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/pdf/Transport_Evidence_Briefing_05-07.pdf
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2007) Guidance on Behavior
change [Online]. Available at: http://www.nice.org.uk/ph6
Ogilvie, D. and Egan, M. and Hamilton, V. and Petticrew, M. (2004) Promoting walking
and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review. British Medical Journal
329(7469) [Online]. Available at:
http://www.bmj.com/content/329/7469/763.pdf%2Bhtml
[Accessed on 23rd July 2013]
Ogilvie, D., Foster, C. E., Rothnie, H., Cavill, N., Hamilton, V., Fitzsimons, C. F., &
Mutrie, N. (2007). Interventions to promote walking: Systematic review. BMJ: British
Medical Journal, 334, 1204.
Office for National statistics (2011) Neighborhood Statistics [Online]. Available at:
http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadDatasetList.do?a=7&b=6
499739&c=bevois&d=14&g=6401341&i=1001x1003x1032&m=0&r=1&s=1376766032
035&enc=1&domainId=61 [Accessed 20th August 2013]
Ogilvie, D., Bull, F., Cooper, A., Rutter, H., Adams, E., Brand, C., Ghali, K., Jones, T.,
Mutrie, N., Powell, J., Preston, J., Sahlqvist, S., Song, Y. (2012) Evaluating the travel,
physical activity and carbon impacts of a ‘natural experiment’ in the provision of new
walking and cycling infrastructure: methods for the core module of the iConnect study,
British Medical Journal Open, 2:e000694, pp. 7,8 [Online]. Available at:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000694.full.pdf+html
50
Pratt, R.H., Evans, J.E., and Levinson, H.S. (2012), Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities,
Chapter 16, Traveller Response to Transportation System Changes, TCRP Report 95,
TRB (www.trb.org) [Online]. Available at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c16.pdf
[Accessed 17th July 2013]
Rural and Urban areas Southampton (2004). [Online]. Available at:
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/southampton_and_surrounding_area_rural_urban.pdf
[Accessed on 2nd August 2013]
Sansom, T., Nash, C., Mackie, P., Shires, J. and Watkiss, P. (2001) Surface Transport
Cost and Charges Great Britain 1998, University of Leeds [Online]. Available at:
http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/Surface_Transport_Costs_and_Charges
_Great_Britain_2001.pdf [Accessed on 23rd July 2013]
Segal, N., Quince, R., and Wicksteed, B. (2007) Valuing the Benefits of Cycling [Online].
Available at: http://www.hiagateway.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=118319 [Accessed
on 23rd July 2013]
Sloman. L., Cavill, N., Cope, A., Muller, L. and Kennedy, A. (2009) Analysis and
synthesis of evidence on the effects of investment in six Cycling Demonstration Towns.
London: Cycling England, p.24 [Online]. Available at:
http://www.transportforqualityoflife.com/u/files/Analysis%20and%20Synthesis%20Nov
%202009.pdf [Accessed on 25th July 2013]
Southampton City Council (SCC) (2011a) Planning Annual Monitoring Report 2010-11,
p.24, [Online]. Available at:
http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/SCC%20AMR%202010-11_tcm46-314278.pdf
[Accessed 16th August 2013]
Southampton City Council (SCC) (2011b) Travel Survey report 2011 [Online]. Available
at:
http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/Southampton%20Rep%20V2%20110511_tcm46
-298966.pdf.
51
Southampton City Council (SCC) (2011c) Local Transport plan 3, p.108 [Online].
Available at:
http://www.southampton.gov.uk/Images/LTP3%20Final-web%20resolution_tcm46-
305220.pdf
Southampton City Council (2012) Traffic Count for Different Local Authority [Online].
Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/cp.php [Accessed on 23rd August
2013]
Sustrans (2013) National Cycle Network [Online]. Available at:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map/national-cycle-network [Accessed on 14th
September 2013]
Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) (2003) Capacity implications of Advanced Stop
Lines for cyclists, TRL585, p.7 [Online]. Available at:
https://wiki.cecs.pdx.edu/pub/ItsWeb/BikeBoxes/TRL585.pdf [Accessed on 25Th August
2013]
White, E. (2010) Investigating the effectiveness of the Itchen Walkway, Southampton, as a
measure to encourage modal shift. Dissertation project (MSc), University of
Southampton.
Wilson, A. and Cope, A. (2011) Value for Money of walking and cycling interventions:
Making the case for investment in active travel, Sustrans Researching and Monitoring
unit, p.3 [Online]. Available at: http://www.stsg.org/star/2011//angelaWilson.pdf
Wilbur, J., Miller, A. M., Chandler, P., & McDevitt, J. (2003). Determinants of physical
activity and adherence to a 24-week home-based walking program in African-American
and Caucasian women. Research in Nursing & Health, 26, 213–224.
WHO, (2007) Economic assessment of transport infrastructure and policies:
Methodological guidance on the economic appraisal of health effects related to walking
and cycling, Copenhagen: Denmark, [Online]. Available at:
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/87479/E90944.pdf
[Accessed on 19th July 2013]
World Health Organization (WHO) (2003), Health and development through physical
activity and sport. [Online]. Available at:
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2003/WHO_NMH_NPH_PAH_03.2.pdf
52
APPENDIX A: Usage Estimation
Year
Usage per day(with intervention)
Usage per day (core scenario)
Users Generated by intervention New individuals added
Cyclist Pedestrian Cyclist Pedestrian Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians
2010 8 268 8 268 0 0
2011 119 331 9 271 110 60 110 60
2012 230 394 10 274 220 120 110 60
2013 341 457 11 277 330 180 110 60
2014 452 520 12 280 440 240 110 60
2015 563 583 13 283 550 300 110 60
2016 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2017 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2018 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2019 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2020 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2021 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2022 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2023 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2024 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2025 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2026 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2027 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2028 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2029 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2030 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2031 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2032 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2033 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2034 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2035 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2036 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2037 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2038 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2039 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
2040 563 583 13 283 550 300 0 0
Total 15780 16860 380 8460 15400 8400 550 300
53
APPENDIX B: Car Kilometers Saved
Car Kms Saved( per day) Car Kms Saved (365 days)
Cyclist
Pedestrians Cyclist
Pedestrians Cyclists
Pedestrians Cyclists
Pedestria
ns Total Cyclists
Pedestria
ns Total
2011 2.1 2.1 110 60 231 126 8.6625 5.292 13.9545 3161.813 1931.58 5093.393
2012 2.1 2.1 220 120 462 252 17.325 10.584 27.909 6323.625 3863.16 10186.79
2013 2.1 2.1 330 180 693 378 25.9875 15.876 41.8635 9485.438 5794.74 15280.18
2014 2.1 2.1 440 240 924 504 34.65 21.168 55.818 12647.25 7726.32 20373.57
2015 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2016 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2017 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2018 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2019 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2020 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2021 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2022 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2023 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2024 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2025 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2026 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2027 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2028 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2029 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2030 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2031 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2032 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2033 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2034 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2035 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2036 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2037 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2038 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2039 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
2040 2.1 2.1 550 300 1155 630 43.3125 26.46 69.7725 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96
Total 442653.8 270421.2 713075
Mean trip length
(km)
Year
Users Generated
Trip Distance for
each trip
54
APPENDIX C: Marginal Economic Cost
Year
MEC Congesti
on
(p/Km)Congestion
Benefits
MEC Noise
(p/Km) Noise
Benefits
MEC Air
quality
(p/Km)Air quality
Benefits
MEC Green
house
gases
(p/Km)
Green house
gases
Benefits
2011 3161.813 1931.58 5093.393 1.92 9779.31 0.20 1018.68 0.10 509.34 0.82 4176.582
2012 6323.625 3863.16 10186.79 1.94 19762.36 0.20 2037.36 0.10 1018.68 0.84 8556.899
2013 9485.438 5794.74 15280.18 1.96 29949.15 0.20 3056.04 0.10 1528.02 0.86 13140.95
2014 12647.25 7726.32 20373.57 1.98 40339.67 0.20 4074.71 0.10 2037.36 0.88 17928.74
2015 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.00 50933.93 0.20 5093.39 0.10 2546.70 0.90 22920.27
2016 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.02 51443.26 0.20 5093.39 0.10 2546.70 0.86 21901.59
2017 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.04 51952.60 0.20 5093.39 0.10 2546.70 0.82 20882.91
2018 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.06 52461.94 0.20 5093.39 0.10 2546.70 0.78 19864.23
2019 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.08 52971.28 0.20 5093.39 0.10 2546.70 0.74 18845.55
2020 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.10 53480.62 0.20 5093.39 0.00 0.00 0.70 17826.87
2021 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.12 53989.96 0.22 5602.73 0.00 0.00 0.70 17826.87
2022 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.14 54499.30 0.24 6112.07 0.00 0.00 0.70 17826.87
2023 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.16 55008.64 0.26 6621.41 0.00 0.00 0.70 17826.87
2024 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.18 55517.98 0.28 7130.75 0.00 0.00 0.70 17826.87
2025 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.20 56027.32 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.70 17826.87
2026 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.24 57046.00 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.70 17826.87
2027 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.28 58064.67 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.70 17826.87
2028 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.32 59083.35 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.70 17826.87
2029 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.36 60102.03 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.70 17826.87
2030 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.40 61120.71 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.70 17826.87
2031 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.42 61630.05 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.74 18845.55
2032 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.44 62139.39 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.78 19864.23
2033 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.46 62648.73 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.82 20882.91
2034 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.48 63158.07 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.86 21901.59
2035 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.50 63667.41 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.90 22920.27
2036 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.50 63667.41 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.90 22920.27
2037 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.50 63667.41 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.90 22920.27
2038 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.50 63667.41 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.90 22920.27
2039 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.50 63667.41 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.90 22920.27
2040 15809.06 9657.9 25466.96 2.50 63667.41 0.30 7640.09 0.00 0.00 0.90 22920.27
Total 1615114.76 188455.52 17826.87 563329.2
In £ 16151.14762 1884.555225 178.2687375 5633.292
23847.26Total MEC benefits
MEC for Congestion, Noise, Air quality and Greenhouse gases
Car Kms Saved (365 days)
55
Marginal External Costs & Indirect Tax - Cars
Pence per car km 2010 Prices 2010 Prices
2010 2015
Cost type Congestion
band
Other Urban Other Urban
A roads Other Roads
A roads Other Roads
Congestion
1 0.6 2.4 0.6 2.5
2 1.9 9.0 2.0 9.4
3 11.0 19.4 11.5 20.2
4 46.9 134.4 44.9 136.9
5 73.1 222.2 78.1 241.4
Average 13.6 11.2 15.3 11.9
Infrastructure All 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Accident All 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.2
Local Air Quality All 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Noise All 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Greenhouse Gases All 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9
Indirect Taxation All -4.8 -5.4 -4.7 -5.3
Total 13.0 10.1 15.0 11.1
2020 2025
Cost type Congestion
band Other Urban
Other Urban
A roads Other Roads
A roads Other Roads
Congestion
1 0.6 2.7 0.7 2.8
2 2.1 10.2 2.2 10.7
3 13.0 21.7 14.2 23.1
4 46.8 93.8 48.5 90.0
5 89.9 266.7 104.0 307.2
Average 19.0 14.0 23.6 16.5
Infrastructure All 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
56
Accident All 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.8
Local Air Quality All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Noise All 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3
Greenhouse Gases All 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8
Indirect Taxation All -4.3 -4.8 -3.7 -4.1
Total 19.3 13.9 24.9 17.4
2030 2035
Cost type Congestion
band
Other Urban Other Urban
A roads Other Roads
A roads Other Roads
Congestion
1 0.7 2.9 0.8 3.1
2 2.4 11.3 2.5 12.1
3 15.5 24.6 17.0 26.6
4 52.0 94.6 56.2 96.9
5 118.8 337.8 137.7 385.1
Average 28.1 18.4 34.1 21.2
Infrastructure All 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Accident All 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.6
Local Air Quality All 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Noise All 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Greenhouse Gases All 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.1
Indirect Taxation All -3.4 -3.8 -3.3 -3.7
Total 30.0 20.0 36.9 23.7
57
APPENDIX D: Journey Ambience Benefits
Users generated
(cyclist) Benefits
Users generated
(pedestrians) Benefits Total
benefits
2011 110 10033 60 413.91 10447.4
2012 220 20067 120 827.82 20894.79
2013 330 30100 180 1241.73 31342.19
2014 440 40134 240 1655.64 41789.58
2015 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2016 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2017 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2018 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2019 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2020 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2021 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2022 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2023 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2024 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2025 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2026 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2027 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2028 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2029 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2030 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2031 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2032 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2033 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2034 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2035 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2036 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2037 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2038 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2039 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
2040 550 50167 300 2069.55 52236.98
Total 1404688 57947.4 1462635
58
APPENDIX E: Health Benefits
Increase in value of human life
New Users every year
Proportion dying each
year
Expected death in the population
Lives saved each year
Reduced mortality benefit
Year Value of life
GDP growth
per head Cyclist
2005 1428180
2006 1457029.236 2.02
2007 1497534.649 2.78
2008 1471028.285 -1.77
2009 1397771.077 -4.98
2010 1416221.655 1.32
2011 1415371.922 -0.06 110 0.211 23.21 0.6963 985523.4693
2012 1416645.757 0.09 110 0.211 23.21 0.6963 986410.4405
2013 1434778.822 1.28 110 0.211 23.21 0.6963 999036.4941
2014 1463187.443 1.98 110 0.211 23.21 0.6963 1018817.417
2015 1496840.754 2.3 110 0.211 23.21 0.6963 1042250.217
2016 1531717.144 2.33 0 0.211 0 0 0
2017 1564342.719 2.13 0 0.211 0 0 0
2018 1589841.505 1.63 0 0.211 0 0 0
2019 1615914.906 1.64 0 0.211 0 0 0
2020 1642415.911 1.64 0 0.211 0 0 0
2021 1672800.605 1.85 0 0.211 0 0 0
2022 1702241.896 1.76 0 0.211 0 0 0
2023 1732371.577 1.77 0 0.211 0 0 0
2024 1765113.4 1.89 0 0.211 0 0 0
2025 1796885.441 1.8 0 0.211 0 0 0
2026 1829588.756 1.82 0 0.211 0 0 0
2027 1863070.23 1.83 0 0.211 0 0 0
2028 1897537.03 1.85 0 0.211 0 0 0
2029 1933020.972 1.87 0 0.211 0 0 0
2030 1969361.766 1.88 0 0.211 0 0 0
2031 2006779.64 1.9 0 0.211 0 0 0
2032 2045109.131 1.91 0 0.211 0 0 0
2033 2086624.846 2.03 0 0.211 0 0 0
2034 2131487.281 2.15 0 0.211 0 0 0
2035 2177314.257 2.15 0 0.211 0 0 0
2036 2224126.514 2.15 0 0.211 0 0 0
2037 2270388.345 2.08 0 0.211 0 0 0
2038 2317612.423 2.08 0 0.211 0 0 0
2039 2365818.761 2.08 0 0.211 0 0 0
2040 2417393.61 2.18 0 0.211 0 0 0
Total Benefits £5,032,038.04
59
Increase in value of human life New Users every year
Proportion dying each
year
Expected death in
the population
Lives saved each year
Reduced mortality benefit
Year Value of life
GDP growth
per head Pedestrians
2005 1428180
2006 1457029.236 2.02
2007 1497534.649 2.78
2008 1471028.285 -1.77
2009 1397771.077 -4.98
2010 1416221.655 1.32
2011 1415371.922 -0.06 60 0.211 12.66 1.1394 1612674.768
2012 1416645.757 0.09 60 0.211 12.66 1.1394 1614126.175
2013 1434778.822 1.28 60 0.211 12.66 1.1394 1634786.99
2014 1463187.443 1.98 60 0.211 12.66 1.1394 1667155.773
2015 1496840.754 2.3 60 0.211 12.66 1.1394 1705500.356
2016 1531717.144 2.33 0 0.211 0 0 0
2017 1564342.719 2.13 0 0.211 0 0 0
2018 1589841.505 1.63 0 0.211 0 0 0
2019 1615914.906 1.64 0 0.211 0 0 0
2020 1642415.911 1.64 0 0.211 0 0 0
2021 1672800.605 1.85 0 0.211 0 0 0
2022 1702241.896 1.76 0 0.211 0 0 0
2023 1732371.577 1.77 0 0.211 0 0 0
2024 1765113.4 1.89 0 0.211 0 0 0
2025 1796885.441 1.8 0 0.211 0 0 0
2026 1829588.756 1.82 0 0.211 0 0 0
2027 1863070.23 1.83 0 0.211 0 0 0
2028 1897537.03 1.85 0 0.211 0 0 0
2029 1933020.972 1.87 0 0.211 0 0 0
2030 1969361.766 1.88 0 0.211 0 0 0
2031 2006779.64 1.9 0 0.211 0 0 0
2032 2045109.131 1.91 0 0.211 0 0 0
2033 2086624.846 2.03 0 0.211 0 0 0
2034 2131487.281 2.15 0 0.211 0 0 0
2035 2177314.257 2.15 0 0.211 0 0 0
2036 2224126.514 2.15 0 0.211 0 0 0
2037 2270388.345 2.08 0 0.211 0 0 0
2038 2317612.423 2.08 0 0.211 0 0 0
2039 2365818.761 2.08 0 0.211 0 0 0
2040 2417393.61 2.18 0 0.211 0 0 0
Total Benefits £8,234,244.06
60
Reduced Absenteeism benefits:
Year
Cyclist
Pedestri
an Cycling
Walki
ng
Salary
saved
Cycling
Salary
saved
Walking
Cycling
benefits
walking
benefits Total
260.31 0.051 0.134
2011 110 60 14.3 9.6 -0.06 260.1538 13.26784 34.86061 189.7302 334.6619 524.392
2012 220 120 28.6 19.2 0.09 260.388 13.27979 34.89199 379.8019 669.9261 1049.73
2013 330 180 42.9 28.8 1.28 263.7209 13.44977 35.3386 576.995 1017.752 1594.75
2014 440 240 57.2 38.4 1.98 268.9426 13.71607 36.03831 784.5593 1383.871 2168.43
2015 550 300 71.5 48 2.3 275.1283 14.03154 36.86719 1003.255 1769.625 2772.88
2016 550 300 71.5 48 2.33 281.5388 14.35848 37.72619 1026.631 1810.857 2837.49
2017 550 300 71.5 48 2.13 287.5355 14.66431 38.52976 1048.498 1849.429 2897.93
2018 550 300 71.5 48 1.63 292.2224 14.90334 39.1578 1065.589 1879.574 2945.16
2019 550 300 71.5 48 1.64 297.0148 15.14776 39.79998 1083.065 1910.399 2993.46
2020 550 300 71.5 48 1.64 301.8859 15.39618 40.4527 1100.827 1941.73 3042.56
2021 550 300 71.5 48 1.85 307.4707 15.68101 41.20108 1121.192 1977.652 3098.84
2022 550 300 71.5 48 1.76 312.8822 15.95699 41.92622 1140.925 2012.458 3153.38
2023 550 300 71.5 48 1.77 318.4202 16.23943 42.66831 1161.119 2048.079 3209.2
2024 550 300 71.5 48 1.89 324.4384 16.54636 43.47474 1183.065 2086.788 3269.85
2025 550 300 71.5 48 1.8 330.2783 16.84419 44.25729 1204.36 2124.35 3328.71
2026 550 300 71.5 48 1.82 336.2893 17.15076 45.06277 1226.279 2163.013 3389.29
2027 550 300 71.5 48 1.83 342.4434 17.46462 45.88742 1248.72 2202.596 3451.32
2028 550 300 71.5 48 1.85 348.7786 17.78771 46.73634 1271.821 2243.344 3515.17
2029 550 300 71.5 48 1.87 355.3008 18.12034 47.61031 1295.604 2285.295 3580.9
2030 550 300 71.5 48 1.88 361.9805 18.461 48.50538 1319.962 2328.258 3648.22
2031 550 300 71.5 48 1.9 368.8581 18.81176 49.42698 1345.041 2372.495 3717.54
2032 550 300 71.5 48 1.91 375.9033 19.17107 50.37104 1370.731 2417.81 3788.54
2033 550 300 71.5 48 2.03 383.5341 19.56024 51.39357 1398.557 2466.891 3865.45
2034 550 300 71.5 48 2.15 391.7801 19.98078 52.49853 1428.626 2519.93 3948.56
2035 550 300 71.5 48 2.15 400.2034 20.41037 53.62725 1459.342 2574.108 4033.45
2036 550 300 71.5 48 2.15 408.8077 20.84919 54.78024 1490.717 2629.451 4120.17
2037 550 300 71.5 48 2.08 417.3109 21.28286 55.91967 1521.724 2684.144 4205.87
2038 550 300 71.5 48 2.08 425.991 21.72554 57.0828 1553.376 2739.974 4293.35
2039 550 300 71.5 48 2.08 434.8516 22.17743 58.27012 1585.686 2796.966 4382.65
2040 550 300 71.5 48 2.18 444.3314 22.6609 59.54041 1620.254 2857.939 4478.19
35206.05 62099.37 97305.4Total
Reduced absenteeism benefits
Users generated Commuters GDP
growth
rate per
capita
Salary
per
working
person/d
ay
61
APPENDIX F:
Benefits from Travel Time Savings
Year
Users generated
Previously cycling/walking
other route Cost of time
Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclists Pedestrians Cyclist Pedestrian
Working Non-
working working Non-
working
2011 110 60 23.87 17.52 0.38 0.42 0.66 0.42
2012 220 120 47.74 35.04 0.380342 0.420378 0.660594 0.420378
2013 330 180 71.61 52.56 0.38521 0.425759 0.66905 0.425759
2014 440 240 95.48 70.08 0.392838 0.434189 0.682297 0.434189
2015 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.401873 0.444175 0.69799 0.444175
2016 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.411236 0.454524 0.714253 0.454524
2017 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.419996 0.464206 0.729466 0.464206
2018 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.426842 0.471772 0.741357 0.471772
2019 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.433842 0.479509 0.753515 0.479509
2020 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.440957 0.487373 0.765873 0.487373
2021 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.449115 0.49639 0.780041 0.49639
2022 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.457019 0.505126 0.79377 0.505126
2023 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.465108 0.514067 0.80782 0.514067
2024 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.473899 0.523783 0.823087 0.523783
2025 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.482429 0.533211 0.837903 0.533211
2026 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.491209 0.542915 0.853153 0.542915
2027 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.500198 0.552851 0.868766 0.552851
2028 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.509452 0.563079 0.884838 0.563079
2029 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.518979 0.573608 0.901384 0.573608
2030 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.528736 0.584392 0.91833 0.584392
2031 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.538782 0.595495 0.935778 0.595495
2032 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.549072 0.606869 0.953652 0.606869
2033 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.560218 0.619189 0.973011 0.619189
2034 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.572263 0.632501 0.993931 0.632501
2035 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.584567 0.6461 1.0153 0.6461
2036 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.597135 0.659991 1.037129 0.659991
2037 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.609555 0.673719 1.058701 0.673719
2038 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.622234 0.687732 1.080722 0.687732
2039 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.635177 0.702037 1.103201 0.702037
2040 550 300 119.35 87.6 0.649023 0.717342 1.127251 0.717342
62
Year GDP
growth % Time savings(minutes)
Travel time saving benefits
Benefits
Total Cyclist pedestrians Cyclist pedestrian
2011 4 10 39.91064 75.6864 115.597
2012 0.09 4 10 79.89312 151.509 231.4022
2013 1.28 4 10 121.3736 230.1725 351.5462
2014 1.98 4 10 165.0358 312.9733 478.009
2015 2.3 4 10 211.0395 400.2146 611.254
2016 2.33 4 10 215.9567 409.5396 625.4963
2017 2.13 4 10 220.5566 418.2627 638.8193
2018 1.63 4 10 224.1517 425.0804 649.2321
2019 1.64 4 10 227.8277 432.0517 659.8795
2020 1.64 4 10 231.5641 439.1374 670.7015
2021 1.85 4 10 235.8481 447.2614 683.1095
2022 1.76 4 10 239.999 455.1332 695.1322
2023 1.77 4 10 244.247 463.1891 707.4361
2024 1.89 4 10 248.8632 471.9434 720.8066
2025 1.8 4 10 253.3428 480.4384 733.7811
2026 1.82 4 10 257.9536 489.1823 747.1359
2027 1.83 4 10 262.6742 498.1344 760.8085
2028 1.85 4 10 267.5336 507.3499 774.8835
2029 1.87 4 10 272.5365 516.8373 789.3738
2030 1.88 4 10 277.6602 526.5538 804.214
2031 1.9 4 10 282.9357 536.5584 819.4941
2032 1.91 4 10 288.3398 546.8066 835.1464
2033 2.03 4 10 294.1931 557.9068 852.0999
2034 2.15 4 10 300.5183 569.9018 870.4201
2035 2.15 4 10 306.9794 582.1547 889.1341
2036 2.15 4 10 313.5795 594.671 908.2505
2037 2.08 4 10 320.1019 607.0402 927.1421
2038 2.08 4 10 326.76 619.6666 946.4266
2039 2.08 4 10 333.5566 632.5557 966.1123
2040 2.18 4 10 340.8282 646.3454 987.1736
Total Benefits 21450.02
63
Benefits from Fuel Vehicle Operating Cost
Energy
consump
tion
a
(l/km)
b
(l/km) c (l/km) d (l/km) a (l/km) b (l/km) c (l/km) d (l/km)
b
Kwh/km
2010 0.964023 0.041 -4.54E-05 2.01E-06 0.437094 0.058616 -0.00052 4.13E-06 0.125642
2011 0.943875 0.041 -4.45E-05 1.97E-06 0.42962 0.057614 -0.00052 4.06E-06 0.125504
2012 0.924148 0.04 -4.35E-05 1.93E-06 0.422273 0.056629 -0.00051 3.99E-06 0.125366
2013 0.904833 0.039 -4.26E-05 1.89E-06 0.415052 0.055661 -0.0005 3.92E-06 0.125228
2014 0.885922 0.038 -4.17E-05 1.85E-06 0.407955 0.054709 -0.00049 3.85E-06 0.12509
2015 0.867406 0.037 -4.09E-05 1.81E-06 0.400979 0.053773 -0.00048 3.79E-06 0.124953
2016 0.835139 0.036 -3.93E-05 1.74E-06 0.392077 0.05258 -0.00047 3.7E-06 0.124565
2017 0.804071 0.035 -3.79E-05 1.68E-06 0.383373 0.051412 -0.00046 3.62E-06 0.124179
2018 0.77416 0.033 -3.65E-05 1.62E-06 0.374862 0.050271 -0.00045 3.54E-06 0.123794
2019 0.745361 0.032 -3.51E-05 1.56E-06 0.36654 0.049155 -0.00044 3.46E-06 0.123411
2020 0.717634 0.031 -3.38E-05 1.5E-06 0.358403 0.048064 -0.00043 3.38E-06 0.123028
2021 0.691584 0.03 -3.26E-05 1.44E-06 0.349013 0.046804 -0.00042 3.3E-06 0.122155
2022 0.666479 0.029 -3.14E-05 1.39E-06 0.339869 0.045578 -0.00041 3.21E-06 0.121287
2023 0.642286 0.028 -3.03E-05 1.34E-06 0.330964 0.044384 -0.0004 3.13E-06 0.120426
2024 0.618971 0.027 -2.92E-05 1.29E-06 0.322293 0.043221 -0.00039 3.04E-06 0.119571
2025 0.596502 0.026 -2.81E-05 1.25E-06 0.313849 0.042089 -0.00038 2.96E-06 0.118722
2026 0.583976 0.025 -2.75E-05 1.22E-06 0.307258 0.041205 -0.00037 2.9E-06 0.117309
2027 0.571712 0.025 -2.69E-05 1.19E-06 0.300806 0.04034 -0.00036 2.84E-06 0.115913
2028 0.559706 0.024 -2.64E-05 1.17E-06 0.294489 0.039492 -0.00035 2.78E-06 0.114534
2029 0.547953 0.024 -2.58E-05 1.14E-06 0.288304 0.038663 -0.00035 2.72E-06 0.113171
2030 0.536446 0.023 -2.53E-05 1.12E-06 0.28225 0.037851 -0.00034 2.67E-06 0.111824
2031 0.532476 0.023 -2.51E-05 1.11E-06 0.27954 0.037488 -0.00034 2.64E-06 0.111534
2032 0.528536 0.023 -2.49E-05 1.1E-06 0.276857 0.037128 -0.00033 2.61E-06 0.111244
2033 0.524624 0.023 -2.47E-05 1.1E-06 0.274199 0.036771 -0.00033 2.59E-06 0.110954
2034 0.520742 0.022 -2.45E-05 1.09E-06 0.271567 0.036418 -0.00033 2.56E-06 0.110666
2035 0.516889 0.022 -2.44E-05 1.08E-06 0.26896 0.036069 -0.00032 2.54E-06 0.110378
2036 0.513064 0.022 -2.42E-05 1.07E-06 0.266378 0.035723 -0.00032 2.52E-06 0.110091
2037 0.509267 0.022 -2.4E-05 1.06E-06 0.26382 0.03538 -0.00032 2.49E-06 0.109805
2038 0.505498 0.022 -2.38E-05 1.06E-06 0.261288 0.03504 -0.00031 2.47E-06 0.109519
2039 0.501758 0.022 -2.36E-05 1.05E-06 0.258779 0.034704 -0.00031 2.44E-06 0.109235
2040 0.498045 0.021 -2.35E-05 1.04E-06 0.256295 0.03437 -0.00031 2.42E-06 0.108951
Fuel cost parameters (petrol) Fuel cost parameters (diesel)
Year
64
Proportion of Petrol, Diesel and Electric cars
Petrol
cars
Diesel
cars
Electric
cars
petrol
cars
diesel
cars
electric
cars
2010 59.27% 40.73% 0.00%
2011 0.0209 0.0171 0.0011 57.01% 42.96% 0.03%
2012 0.0209 0.0171 0.0011 54.75% 45.19% 0.06%
2013 0.0209 0.0171 0.0011 52.49% 47.41% 0.10%
2014 0.0209 0.0171 0.0011 50.23% 49.64% 0.13%
2015 0.0209 0.0171 0.0011 47.97% 51.87% 0.16%
2016 0.0372 0.0222 0.0031 47.12% 52.56% 0.32%
2017 0.0372 0.0222 0.0031 46.26% 53.25% 0.48%
2018 0.0372 0.0222 0.0031 45.41% 53.95% 0.64%
2019 0.0372 0.0222 0.0031 44.55% 54.64% 0.80%
2020 0.0372 0.0222 0.0031 43.70% 55.33% 0.96%
2021 0.0363 0.0262 0.0071 43.84% 54.87% 1.28%
2022 0.0363 0.0262 0.0071 43.98% 54.42% 1.59%
2023 0.0363 0.0262 0.0071 44.13% 53.96% 1.91%
2024 0.0363 0.0262 0.0071 44.27% 53.51% 2.22%
2025 0.0363 0.0262 0.0071 44.41% 53.05% 2.54%
2026 0.021 0.021 0.0119 44.42% 52.49% 3.09%
2027 0.021 0.021 0.0119 44.43% 51.92% 3.65%
2028 0.021 0.021 0.0119 44.44% 51.36% 4.20%
2029 0.021 0.021 0.0119 44.45% 50.79% 4.76%
2030 0.021 0.021 0.0119 44.46% 50.23% 5.31%
2031 0.0074 0.0096 0.0026 44.46% 50.23% 5.31%
2032 0.0074 0.0096 0.0026 44.46% 50.23% 5.31%
2033 0.0074 0.0096 0.0026 44.46% 50.23% 5.31%
2034 0.0074 0.0096 0.0026 44.46% 50.23% 5.31%
2035 0.0074 0.0096 0.0026 44.46% 50.23% 5.31%
2036 0.0074 0.0096 0.0026 44.46% 50.23% 5.31%
2037 0.0074 0.0096 0.0026 44.46% 50.23% 5.31%
2038 0.0074 0.0096 0.0026 44.46% 50.23% 5.31%
2039 0.0074 0.0096 0.0026 44.46% 50.23% 5.31%
2040 0.0074 0.0096 0.0026 44.46% 50.23% 5.31%
%improvement in vehicle
efficiency Proportion of cars
Year
65
Fuel and Energy Consumed
petrol
cars
diesel
cars
electric
cars
Petrol
consume
d (lts)
Diesel
consume
d (lts)
Electric
cosumpti
on (kwh)
2010
2011 2903.743 2188.02 1.629886 179.3106 109.44 0.204557
2012 5577.265 4603.001 6.519542 337.2065 226.2952 0.81733
2013 8020.565 7244.943 14.66897 474.7956 350.0892 1.836969
2014 10233.64 10113.85 26.07817 593.1426 480.3629 3.26213
2015 12216.5 13209.71 40.74714 693.2705 616.6742 5.091471
2016 11999.01 13385.94 81.49428 655.5978 611.0284 10.15138
2017 11781.53 13562.18 122.2414 619.7686 605.3295 15.17986
2018 11564.04 13738.41 162.9886 585.6978 599.5824 20.17707
2019 11346.55 13914.64 203.7357 553.3043 593.7921 25.14315
2020 11129.06 14090.87 244.4828 522.5103 587.9635 30.07825
2021 11165.23 13974.74 324.9584 505.1794 567.8401 39.69515
2022 11201.39 13858.61 405.434 488.4182 548.3676 49.17398
2023 11237.55 13742.48 485.9096 472.2082 529.5257 58.51621
2024 11273.71 13626.35 566.3852 456.5315 511.2946 67.7233
2025 11309.88 13510.22 646.8608 441.3707 493.6554 76.7967
2026 11312.42 13366.59 787.9478 432.1992 478.1506 92.43364
2027 11314.97 13222.96 929.0348 423.2183 463.0792 107.6875
2028 11317.52 13079.32 1070.122 414.4239 448.43 122.5653
2029 11320.06 12935.69 1211.209 405.8123 434.1919 137.0737
2030 11322.61 12792.06 1352.296 397.3797 420.354 151.2195
2031 11322.61 12792.06 1352.296 394.439 416.3186 150.8263
2032 11322.61 12792.06 1352.296 391.5202 412.3219 150.4342
2033 11322.61 12792.06 1352.296 388.6229 408.3636 150.0431
2034 11322.61 12792.06 1352.296 385.7471 404.4433 149.653
2035 11322.61 12792.06 1352.296 382.8926 400.5607 149.2639
2036 11322.61 12792.06 1352.296 380.0592 396.7153 148.8758
2037 11322.61 12792.06 1352.296 377.2468 392.9068 148.4887
2038 11322.61 12792.06 1352.296 374.4551 389.1349 148.1026
2039 11322.61 12792.06 1352.296 371.6842 385.3992 147.7176
2040 11322.61 12792.06 1352.296 368.9337 381.6994 147.3335
Fuel and energy consumptionCar kilometers saved
Year
66
Calculation of Market price of petrol
Year
Petrol price(2010)p/litre Petrol price(2011)p/litre Market price of petrol
(£/litre) Resource
cost Duty VAT Resource
cost Duty
2011 51.95 56.89 0.2 54.6514 59.84828 1.373996
2012 53.62 56.47 0.2 56.40824 59.40644 1.389776
2013 54.13 57.96 0.2 56.94476 60.97392 1.415024
2014 54.65 57.96 0.2 57.4918 60.97392 1.421589
2015 55.18 58.58 0.2 58.04936 61.62616 1.436106
2016 55.71 59.44 0.2 58.60692 62.53088 1.453654
2017 56.25 60.16 0.2 59.175 63.28832 1.46956
2018 56.79 60.73 0.2 59.74308 63.88796 1.483572
2019 57.34 61.16 0.2 60.32168 64.34032 1.495944
2020 57.9 61.44 0.2 60.9108 64.63488 1.506548
2021 58.46 61.56 0.2 61.49992 64.76112 1.515132
2022 59.02 61.68 0.2 62.08904 64.88736 1.523717
2023 59.59 61.8 0.2 62.68868 65.0136 1.532427
2024 60.17 61.92 0.2 63.29884 65.13984 1.541264
2025 60.75 62.04 0.2 63.909 65.26608 1.550101
2026 61.34 62.16 0.2 64.52968 65.39232 1.559064
2027 61.94 62.28 0.2 65.16088 65.51856 1.568153
2028 62.54 62.4 0.2 65.79208 65.6448 1.577243
2029 63.15 62.52 0.2 66.4338 65.77104 1.586458
2030 63.76 62.65 0.2 67.07552 65.9078 1.5958
2031 63.88433 62.77217 0.2 67.20632 66.03632 1.598912
2032 64.00891 62.89457 0.2 67.33737 66.16509 1.60203
2033 64.13372 63.01722 0.2 67.46868 66.29411 1.605153
2034 64.25878 63.1401 0.2 67.60024 66.42339 1.608284
2035 64.38409 63.26322 0.2 67.73206 66.55291 1.61142
2036 64.50964 63.38659 0.2 67.86414 66.68269 1.614562
2037 64.63543 63.51019 0.2 67.99647 66.81272 1.61771
2038 64.76147 63.63404 0.2 68.12907 66.94301 1.620865
2039 64.88776 63.75812 0.2 68.26192 67.07355 1.624026
2040 65.01429 63.88245 0.2 68.39503 67.20434 1.627192
67
Calculation of Market price of Diesel
Year
Diesel price(2010)p/lt Diesel price(2011)p/lt Market price of Diesel (£/lt)
Resource cost Duty VAT
Resource cost Duty
2011 56.11 56.89 0.2 59.02772 59.84828 1.426512
2012 59.64 56.47 0.2 62.74128 59.40644 1.465773
2013 60.21 57.96 0.2 63.34092 60.97392 1.491778
2014 60.78 57.96 0.2 63.94056 60.97392 1.498974
2015 61.36 58.58 0.2 64.55072 61.62616 1.514123
2016 61.95 59.44 0.2 65.1714 62.53088 1.532427
2017 62.54 60.16 0.2 65.79208 63.28832 1.548965
2018 63.14 60.73 0.2 66.42328 63.88796 1.563735
2019 63.74 61.16 0.2 67.05448 64.34032 1.576738
2020 64.35 61.44 0.2 67.6962 64.63488 1.587973
2021 64.97 61.56 0.2 68.34844 64.76112 1.597315
2022 65.59 61.68 0.2 69.00068 64.88736 1.606656
2023 66.22 61.8 0.2 69.66344 65.0136 1.616124
2024 66.85 61.92 0.2 70.3262 65.13984 1.625592
2025 67.5 62.04 0.2 71.01 65.26608 1.635313
2026 68.15 62.16 0.2 71.6938 65.39232 1.645033
2027 68.8 62.28 0.2 72.3776 65.51856 1.654754
2028 69.47 62.4 0.2 73.08244 65.6448 1.664727
2029 70.14 62.52 0.2 73.78728 65.77104 1.6747
2030 70.81 62.65 0.2 74.49212 65.9078 1.684799
2031 70.94808 62.77217 0.2 74.63738 66.03632 1.688084
2032 71.08643 62.89457 0.2 74.78292 66.16509 1.691376
2033 71.22505 63.01722 0.2 74.92875 66.29411 1.694674
2034 71.36394 63.1401 0.2 75.07486 66.42339 1.697979
2035 71.5031 63.26322 0.2 75.22126 66.55291 1.70129
2036 71.64253 63.38659 0.2 75.36794 66.68269 1.704608
2037 71.78223 63.51019 0.2 75.51491 66.81272 1.707932
2038 71.9222 63.63404 0.2 75.66216 66.94301 1.711262
2039 72.06245 63.75812 0.2 75.8097 67.07355 1.714599
2040 72.20297 63.88245 0.2 75.95753 67.20434 1.717942
68
Calculation of Market price for energy consumed
Year
Electricity price(2010) kWh/lt electricity
price(2011)p/lt Market price of energy
(£/kWh) Resource
cost Duty VAT Resource
cost Duty
2011 13.78 0 0.05 14.49656 0 0.152214
2012 14.78 0 0.05 15.54856 0 0.16326
2013 15.56 0 0.05 16.36912 0 0.171876
2014 16.05 0 0.05 16.8846 0 0.177288
2015 16.2 0 0.05 17.0424 0 0.178945
2016 16.74 0 0.05 17.61048 0 0.18491
2017 17.03 0 0.05 17.91556 0 0.188113
2018 16.78 0 0.05 17.65256 0 0.185352
2019 17.3 0 0.05 18.1996 0 0.191096
2020 17.96 0 0.05 18.89392 0 0.198386
2021 18.52 0 0.05 19.48304 0 0.204572
2022 18.78 0 0.05 19.75656 0 0.207444
2023 18.79 0 0.05 19.76708 0 0.207554
2024 19.27 0 0.05 20.27204 0 0.212856
2025 19.74 0 0.05 20.76648 0 0.218048
2026 19.92 0 0.05 20.95584 0 0.220036
2027 20.32 0 0.05 21.37664 0 0.224455
2028 20.45 0 0.05 21.5134 0 0.225891
2029 20.34 0 0.05 21.39768 0 0.224676
2030 20.6 0 0.05 21.6712 0 0.227548
2031 20.6 0 0.05 21.6712 0 0.227548
2032 20.56 0 0.05 21.62912 0 0.227106
2033 20.5 0 0.05 21.566 0 0.226443
2034 20.41 0 0.05 21.47132 0 0.225449
2035 20.29 0 0.05 21.34508 0 0.224123
2036 20.13 0 0.05 21.17676 0 0.222356
2037 19.95 0 0.05 20.9874 0 0.220368
2038 19.73 0 0.05 20.75596 0 0.217938
2039 19.49 0 0.05 20.50348 0 0.215287
2040 19.22 0 0.05 20.21944 0 0.212304
69
Benefits from Fuel and Non-Fuel vehicle Operating cost
From
petrol
cars
From
diesel
cras
From
electric
cras petrol diesel electric Petrol diesel electric
2011 246.372 156.1175 0.031136 11.54543 8.699674 0.003238 2.15641 1.624891 0.000364 24.03
2012 468.6416 331.6973 0.133437 22.17198 18.29887 0.012951 4.140773 3.417442 0.001457 48.04348
2013 671.8473 522.2554 0.31573 31.88011 28.79717 0.02914 5.953223 5.377522 0.003278 72.04043
2014 843.2048 720.0513 0.578337 40.67022 40.19413 0.051804 7.593893 7.504997 0.005828 96.02088
2015 995.6101 933.7203 0.911094 48.54278 52.48934 0.080943 9.062916 9.799738 0.009106 119.9848
2016 953.0121 936.3567 1.877091 47.63971 53.14624 0.161886 8.891837 9.919618 0.018211 119.7775
2017 910.7871 937.634 2.855535 46.73805 53.802 0.242829 8.721111 10.03921 0.027317 119.5705
2018 868.9252 937.5879 3.739858 45.8378 54.45661 0.323773 8.550738 10.15852 0.036422 119.3639
2019 827.7122 936.2544 4.80475 44.93896 55.11009 0.404716 8.380718 10.27754 0.045528 119.1576
2020 787.1869 933.6701 5.967108 44.04153 55.76242 0.485659 8.211051 10.39628 0.054633 118.9516
2021 765.4137 907.0194 8.120513 44.11463 55.21523 0.645521 8.219186 10.28739 0.072617 118.5546
2022 744.211 881.0384 10.20084 44.18728 54.6695 0.805384 8.227201 10.17888 0.0906 118.1589
2023 723.6248 855.7794 12.14529 44.25948 54.12523 0.965247 8.235097 10.07076 0.108584 117.7644
2024 703.6356 831.1567 14.41534 44.33122 53.58242 1.125109 8.242872 9.963023 0.126567 117.3712
2025 684.1691 807.2811 16.74537 44.40251 53.04105 1.284972 8.250527 9.855673 0.144551 116.9793
2026 673.8262 786.5737 20.33876 44.28838 52.33048 1.565238 8.220048 9.712684 0.176079 116.2929
2027 663.6711 766.2822 24.17098 44.1742 51.62307 1.845503 8.189555 9.570517 0.207607 115.6105
2028 653.6471 746.5135 27.68636 44.05996 50.9188 2.125769 8.159047 9.42917 0.239135 114.9319
2029 643.8043 727.1411 30.79713 43.94567 50.21769 2.406034 8.128524 9.288645 0.270663 114.2572
2030 634.1384 708.212 34.40964 43.83132 49.51973 2.6863 8.097987 9.148941 0.302191 113.5865
2031 630.6732 702.7809 34.32017 43.83132 49.51973 2.6863 8.097987 9.148941 0.302191 113.5865
2032 627.2269 697.3915 34.16447 43.83132 49.51973 2.6863 8.097987 9.148941 0.302191 113.5865
2033 623.7995 692.0434 33.9762 43.83132 49.51973 2.6863 8.097987 9.148941 0.302191 113.5865
2034 620.3908 686.7363 33.73909 43.83132 49.51973 2.6863 8.097987 9.148941 0.302191 113.5865
2035 617.0007 681.4699 33.45351 43.83132 49.51973 2.6863 8.097987 9.148941 0.302191 113.5865
2036 613.6291 676.2439 33.10342 43.83132 49.51973 2.6863 8.097987 9.148941 0.302191 113.5865
2037 610.276 671.058 32.72211 43.83132 49.51973 2.6863 8.097987 9.148941 0.302191 113.5865
2038 606.9412 665.9118 32.27713 43.83132 49.51973 2.6863 8.097987 9.148941 0.302191 113.5865
2039 603.6246 660.8051 31.8016 43.83132 49.51973 2.6863 8.097987 9.148941 0.302191 113.5865
2040 600.3261 655.7376 31.27951 43.83132 49.51973 2.6863 8.097987 9.148941 0.302191 113.5865
20617.33 22152.52 551.0815 1263.914 1441.197 44.11502 234.6126 267.5109 4.962651 3256.312
43320.93 3256.312
Year
Total Fuel VOC Total Non-Fuel VOC
Benefits from fuel
consumption cost saved (£)
Benefits from Non-fuel
working VOC
Benefits from Non-fuel non
working Total
Non-fuel
VOC
70
APPENDIX G: Indirect Tax Calculation
Petrol
p/lt
Diesel
p/lt
Petrol
p/lt
Diesel
p/lt fuel
electri
city
Petrol Diesel Electricity Total
2011 56.89 56.89 59.84828 59.84828 20 5 12877.71 7859.757 0.010228 20737.4811
2012 56.47 56.47 59.40644 59.40644 20 5 24038.69 16132.07 0.040866 40170.8004
2013 57.96 57.96 60.97392 60.97392 20 5 34740.18 25615.57 0.091848 60355.8453
2014 57.96 57.96 60.97392 60.97392 20 5 43399.48 35147.53 0.163106 78547.1675
2015 58.58 58.58 61.62616 61.62616 20 5 51268.32 45603.91 0.254574 96872.4867
2016 59.44 59.44 62.53088 62.53088 20 5 49194.13 45849.77 0.507569 95044.413
2017 60.16 60.16 63.28832 63.28832 20 5 47068.94 45972.34 0.758993 93042.0368
2018 60.73 60.73 63.88796 63.88796 20 5 44902.85 45967.31 1.008853 90871.1707
2019 61.16 61.16 64.34032 64.34032 20 5 42719.73 45845.73 1.257157 88566.7172
2020 61.44 61.44 64.63488 64.63488 20 5 40526.87 45603.54 1.503912 86131.9099
2021 61.56 61.56 64.76112 64.76112 20 5 39259.18 44128.75 1.984758 83389.9184
2022 61.68 61.68 64.88736 64.88736 20 5 38030.6 42698.55 2.458699 80731.6124
2023 61.8 61.8 65.0136 65.0136 20 5 36839.95 41311.64 2.92581 78154.5185
2024 61.92 61.92 65.13984 65.13984 20 5 35686.07 39966.78 3.386165 75656.2341
2025 62.04 62.04 65.26608 65.26608 20 5 34567.84 38662.74 3.839835 73234.4261
2026 62.16 62.16 65.39232 65.39232 20 5 33915.01 37520.85 4.621682 71440.4827
2027 62.28 62.28 65.51856 65.51856 20 5 33274.38 36408.34 5.384377 69688.1088
2028 62.4 62.4 65.6448 65.6448 20 5 32645.73 35324.52 6.128266 67976.3809
2029 62.52 62.52 65.77104 65.77104 20 5 32028.84 34268.7 6.853687 66304.3952
2030 62.65 62.65 65.9078 65.9078 20 5 31428.5 33245.53 7.560976 64681.5904
2031 62.77217 62.77217 66.03632 66.03632 20 5 31256.76 32990.58 7.541317 64254.8813
2032 62.89457 62.89457 66.16509 66.16509 20 5 31085.96 32737.58 7.52171 63831.0658
2033 63.01722 63.01722 66.29411 66.29411 20 5 30916.1 32486.53 7.502154 63410.1238
2034 63.1401 63.1401 66.42339 66.42339 20 5 30747.16 32237.4 7.482648 62992.0354
2035 63.26322 63.26322 66.55291 66.55291 20 5 30579.14 31990.18 7.463193 62576.7807
2036 63.38659 63.38659 66.68269 66.68269 20 5 30412.04 31744.85 7.443789 62164.34
2037 63.51019 63.51019 66.81272 66.81272 20 5 30245.86 31501.41 7.424435 61754.6938
2038 63.63404 63.63404 66.94301 66.94301 20 5 30080.58 31259.83 7.405131 61347.8226
2039 63.75812 63.75812 67.07355 67.07355 20 5 29916.21 31020.11 7.385878 60943.7072
2040 63.88245 63.88245 67.20434 67.20434 20 5 29752.74 30782.23 7.366675 60542.3284
Total 21054.1548
Fuel duty (2010
price level) Fuel duty (2011) VAT Rate (%)
Year
Indirect taxation revenue loss
Indirect tax
revenue
each year
71
APPENDIX H: Accident Reduction Benefits
Cyclists shifting from Other Routes:
Year Users
Proportion
shifted
Slight
injury
reduced
Serious
injury
reduced
Slight Serious Slight Serious
2011 119 25.823 0.000594 0.000103 21641.12 207638.1 12.85329 21.44735
2012 230 49.91 0.001148 0.0002 21660.59 207825 24.86485 41.49017
2013 341 73.997 0.001702 0.000296 21937.85 210485.1 37.33671 62.30107
2014 452 98.084 0.002256 0.000392 22372.22 214652.7 50.47021 84.21599
2015 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 22886.78 219589.7 64.31032 107.31
2016 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 23420.04 224706.2 65.80875 109.8103
2017 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 23918.89 229492.4 67.21048 112.1493
2018 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 24308.77 233233.1 68.30601 113.9773
2019 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 24707.43 237058.2 69.42623 115.8465
2020 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 25112.63 240945.9 70.56482 117.7464
2021 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 25577.22 245403.4 71.87027 119.9247
2022 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 26027.38 249722.5 73.13518 122.0354
2023 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 26488.06 254142.6 74.42968 124.1954
2024 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 26988.69 258945.9 75.8364 126.5427
2025 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 27474.48 263606.9 77.20145 128.8205
2026 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 27974.52 268404.6 78.60652 131.165
2027 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 28486.45 273316.4 80.04502 133.5653
2028 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 29013.45 278372.7 81.52585 136.0363
2029 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 29556 283578.3 83.05038 138.5802
2030 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 30111.65 288909.6 84.61173 141.1855
2031 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 30683.78 294398.9 86.21935 143.868
2032 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 31269.84 300021.9 87.86614 146.6159
2033 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 31904.61 306112.3 89.64983 149.5922
2034 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 32590.56 312693.7 91.5773 152.8084
2035 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 33291.26 319416.6 93.54621 156.0938
2036 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 34007.02 326284.1 95.55745 159.4498
2037 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 34714.37 333070.8 97.54505 162.7664
2038 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 35436.43 339998.7 99.57399 166.1519
2039 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 36173.5 347070.7 101.6451 169.6079
2040 563 122.171 0.00281 0.000489 36962.09 354636.8 103.861 173.3053
Total 6027.110715
Accident value
Benefits from
Injury reduction
72
From Reduction in Car Kilometres:
Slight Serious Fatal
Slight
Injury
incidents
Serious
injury
incidents
Fatal
injury
incidents
2011 5093.393 21641.12 207638.1 1812745 0.006621 0.000876 0.000132 143.2947 181.9041 240.0586
2012 10186.79 21660.59 207825 1814377 0.013243 0.001752 0.000265 286.8474 364.1357 480.5493
2013 15280.18 21937.85 210485.1 1837601 0.019864 0.002628 0.000397 435.7785 553.195 730.0506
2014 20373.57 22372.22 214652.7 1873985 0.026486 0.003504 0.00053 592.5426 752.1977 992.6741
2015 25466.96 22886.78 219589.7 1917087 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 757.7138 961.8728 1269.382
2016 25466.96 23420.04 224706.2 1961755 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 775.3686 984.2844 1298.959
2017 25466.96 23918.89 229492.4 2003541 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 791.8839 1005.25 1326.626
2018 25466.96 24308.77 233233.1 2036198 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 804.7916 1021.635 1348.25
2019 25466.96 24707.43 237058.2 2069592 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 817.9902 1038.39 1370.362
2020 25466.96 25112.63 240945.9 2103533 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 831.4052 1055.42 1392.836
2021 25466.96 25577.22 245403.4 2142449 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 846.7862 1074.945 1418.603
2022 25466.96 26027.38 249722.5 2180156 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 861.6897 1093.864 1443.571
2023 25466.96 26488.06 254142.6 2218744 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 876.9416 1113.225 1469.122
2024 25466.96 26988.69 258945.9 2260679 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 893.5158 1134.265 1496.888
2025 25466.96 27474.48 263606.9 2301371 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 909.5991 1154.682 1523.832
2026 25466.96 27974.52 268404.6 2343256 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 926.1538 1175.697 1551.566
2027 25466.96 28486.45 273316.4 2386137 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 943.1024 1197.213 1579.959
2028 25466.96 29013.45 278372.7 2430281 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 960.5498 1219.361 1609.189
2029 25466.96 29556 283578.3 2475727 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 978.5121 1242.163 1639.281
2030 25466.96 30111.65 288909.6 2522271 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 996.9081 1265.516 1670.099
2031 25466.96 30683.78 294398.9 2570194 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 1015.849 1289.56 1701.831
2032 25466.96 31269.84 300021.9 2619285 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 1035.252 1314.191 1734.336
2033 25466.96 31904.61 306112.3 2672456 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 1056.268 1340.869 1769.543
2034 25466.96 32590.56 312693.7 2729914 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 1078.977 1369.698 1807.588
2035 25466.96 33291.26 319416.6 2788607 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 1102.175 1399.146 1846.451
2036 25466.96 34007.02 326284.1 2848562 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 1125.872 1429.228 1886.15
2037 25466.96 34714.37 333070.8 2907812 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 1149.29 1458.956 1925.382
2038 25466.96 35436.43 339998.7 2968295 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 1173.196 1489.302 1965.43
2039 25466.96 36173.5 347070.7 3030035 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 1197.598 1520.28 2006.311
2040 25466.96 36962.09 354636.8 3096090 0.033107 0.00438 0.000662 1223.706 1553.422 2050.048
Total
Slight
Injury
incidents
Serious
injury
incidents
Fatal
injury
incidents
Incident Reduction Benefits
104888.3531
Year
Car
Kilometr
es saved
Accident values
73
APPENDIX I: Cost Benefit Analysis
Present Value of Cost
Cost
Year Construction cost Indirect tax
revenue PV of indirect
tax Maintenance
1 1,050,000 20737.48 20036.21 9661.836
2 40170.8 37499.87 9335.107
3 60355.85 54437.51 9019.427
4 78547.17 68449.32 8714.422
5 96872.49 81564.03 8419.732
6 95044.41 77318.69 8135.006
7 93042.04 73130.2 7859.91
8 90871.17 69008.62 7594.116
9 88566.72 64984.14 7337.31
10 86131.91 61060.53 7089.188
11 83389.92 57117.57 6849.457
12 80731.61 53426.83 6617.833
13 78154.52 49972.32 6394.042
14 75656.23 46739.04 6177.818
15 73234.43 43712.94 5968.906
16 71440.48 41200.15 5767.059
17 69688.11 38830.48 5572.038
18 67976.38 36595.84 5383.611
19 66304.4 34488.61 5201.557
20 64681.59 32506.76 5025.659
21 64254.88 31200.3 4855.709
22 63831.07 29946.38 4691.506
23 63410.12 28742.9 4532.856
24 62992.04 27587.81 4379.571
25 62576.78 26479.18 4231.47
26 62164.34 25415.12 4088.377
27 61754.69 24393.86 3950.122
28 61347.82 23413.66 3816.543
29 60943.71 22472.88 3687.482
30 60542.33 21569.92 3562.784
Total (£) 13033.02 183920.5
Total PVC 1,246,953
74
Present Value of Benefits
Tim
e sa
vin
gsV
OC
fuel
VO
C N
on
-
fuel
97.7
910
.19
5.09
41.7
6581
8511
5.59
704
402.
5207
24.0
310
447.
395
2598
198.
237
524.
3920
429
34.3
0064
565.
2574
834
2609
867.
0125
2161
1
197.
6220
.37
10.1
985
.568
994
231.
4021
547
800.
4724
48.0
4348
2089
4.79
2600
536.
616
1049
.727
991
66.3
5502
1131
.532
4326
2387
4.80
2449
415
299.
4930
.56
15.2
813
1.40
9526
535
1.54
6153
411
94.4
1872
.040
4331
342.
185
2633
823.
484
1594
.746
765
99.6
3778
1719
.024
068
2668
855.
1624
0715
4
403.
4040
.75
20.3
717
9.28
7416
478.
0090
2315
63.8
3496
.020
8841
789.
5826
8597
3.18
921
68.4
3033
413
4.68
6223
37.4
1432
627
3271
2.87
2381
401
509.
3450
.93
25.4
722
9.20
2662
561
1.25
4038
119
30.2
4111
9.98
4852
236.
975
2747
750.
573
2772
.880
2917
1.62
0329
88.9
6856
928
0623
6.85
2362
776
514.
4350
.93
25.4
721
9.01
5877
562
5.49
6257
218
91.2
4611
9.77
7552
236.
975
028
37.4
884
175.
6191
3058
.611
537
5852
0.83
4760
6.73
519.
5350
.93
25.4
720
8.82
9092
563
8.81
9327
518
51.2
7711
9.57
0552
236.
975
028
97.9
2690
317
9.35
9731
23.7
5996
358
549.
3246
019.
24
524.
6250
.93
25.4
719
8.64
2307
564
9.23
2082
518
10.2
5311
9.36
3952
236.
975
029
45.1
6311
218
2.28
3331
74.6
7725
5856
0.65
4447
1.63
529.
7150
.93
25.4
718
8.45
5522
565
9.87
9488
717
68.7
7111
9.15
7652
236.
975
029
93.4
6378
718
5.27
2832
26.7
4195
758
572.
8242
976.
69
534.
8150
.93
0.00
178.
2687
375
670.
7015
123
1726
.824
118.
9516
5223
6.97
50
3042
.556
593
188.
3112
3279
.660
525
5856
0.02
4151
4.3
539.
9056
.03
0.00
178.
2687
375
683.
1094
902
1680
.554
118.
5546
5223
6.97
50
3098
.843
8919
1.79
533
40.3
3424
558
592.
2340
132.
5
544.
9961
.12
0.00
178.
2687
375
695.
1322
173
1635
.45
118.
1589
5223
6.97
50
3153
.383
542
195.
1706
3399
.124
128
5862
3.48
3879
6.04
550.
0966
.21
0.00
178.
2687
375
707.
4360
575
1591
.55
117.
7644
5223
6.97
50
3209
.198
431
198.
6251
3459
.288
625
5865
7.49
3750
5.84
555.
1871
.31
0.00
178.
2687
375
720.
8065
9915
49.2
0811
7.37
1252
236.
975
032
69.8
5228
120
2.37
9135
24.6
6918
5869
8.97
3626
3.15
560.
2776
.40
0.00
178.
2687
375
733.
7811
178
1508
.196
116.
9793
5223
6.97
50
3328
.709
623
206.
0219
3588
.113
225
5873
9.58
3506
1.11
570.
4676
.40
0.00
178.
2687
375
747.
1359
341
1480
.739
116.
2929
5223
6.97
50
3389
.292
138
209.
7715
3653
.416
886
5879
5.56
3390
7.75
580.
6576
.40
0.00
178.
2687
375
760.
8085
217
1454
.124
115.
6105
5223
6.97
50
3451
.316
184
213.
6104
3720
.274
415
5885
4.15
3279
3.76
590.
8376
.40
0.00
178.
2687
375
774.
8834
794
1427
.847
114.
9319
5223
6.97
50
3515
.165
533
217.
5622
3789
.099
491
5891
5.31
3171
7.71
601.
0276
.40
0.00
178.
2687
375
789.
3738
004
1401
.742
114.
2572
5223
6.97
50
3580
.899
129
221.
6306
3859
.955
652
5897
8.94
3067
8.23
611.
2176
.40
0.00
178.
2687
375
804.
2140
279
1376
.76
113.
5865
5223
6.97
50
3648
.220
032
225.
7972
3932
.522
818
5904
5.63
2967
4.32
616.
3076
.40
0.00
188.
4555
225
819.
4940
944
1367
.774
113.
5865
5223
6.97
50
3717
.536
213
230.
0874
4007
.240
752
5913
6.52
2871
4.97
621.
3976
.40
0.00
198.
6423
075
835.
1464
316
1358
.783
113.
5865
5223
6.97
50
3788
.541
155
234.
482
4083
.779
0559
229.
4727
787.
54
626.
4976
.40
0.00
208.
8290
925
852.
0999
042
1349
.819
113.
5865
5223
6.97
50
3865
.448
5423
9.24
241
66.6
7976
559
329.
6526
893.
28
631.
5876
.40
0.00
219.
0158
775
870.
4200
521
1340
.866
113.
5865
5223
6.97
50
3948
.555
684
244.
3857
4256
.263
3859
437.
4026
031.
03
636.
6776
.40
0.00
229.
2026
625
889.
1340
833
1331
.924
113.
5865
5223
6.97
50
4033
.449
631
249.
6443
47.7
7304
259
547.
3525
197.
28
636.
6776
.40
0.00
229.
2026
625
908.
2504
6613
22.9
7611
3.58
6552
236.
975
041
20.1
6879
825
5.00
7344
41.2
5016
359
644.
2324
384.
81
636.
6776
.40
0.00
229.
2026
625
927.
1420
757
1314
.056
113.
5865
5223
6.97
50
4205
.868
309
260.
3114
4533
.628
166
5973
9.91
2359
7.99
636.
6776
.40
0.00
229.
2026
625
946.
4266
309
1305
.13
113.
5865
5223
6.97
50
4293
.350
3726
5.72
5946
27.9
2763
259
837.
7522
837.
34
636.
6776
.40
0.00
229.
2026
625
966.
1123
048
1296
.231
113.
5865
5223
6.97
50
4382
.652
057
271.
253
4724
.188
527
5993
7.83
2210
1.97
636.
6776
.40
0.00
229.
2026
625
987.
1735
531
1287
.343
113.
5865
5223
6.97
50
4478
.193
872
277.
1663
4827
.175
836
6004
5.55
2139
2.93
1615
1.15
1884
.56
178.
2756
33.2
921
450.
0243
320.
9332
56.3
114
6263
5.30
1326
6282
.10
9730
5.42
6027
.11
1048
88.3
5To
tal P
VB
1249
0416
BC
R10
.016
75
No
ise
Air
q
ual
ity
Gre
enh
ou
se
gase
sJo
urn
ey
amb
ien
ceH
ealt
h
Ab
sen
teei
sm
Acc
iden
t R
edu
ctio
n
TEE
(Co
nsu
mer
s)TE
E B
usi
nes
s
Use
rs
Con
gest
ion
Be
ne
fits
Tota
l B
enef
its
PV
B