Vancouver City Council |
Funding of Cycling Infrastructure,
Comparison to Other Cities
Index
o Background
o Assumptions
o Summary of Potential Funding Levels based on Various Municipalities
o Funding Level Strategies – Supportive Information
o How Much do Cyclists Want a Comprehensive, Quality Cycling Infrastructure?
o Comments
o Justification for supporting a higher level of cycling infrastructure funding in the 2006-2008 Capital Program
Towards Active Lifestyle
Towards Active Transportation
Towards an Environmentally Sustainable City
Towards an Environmentally Friendly Winter Olympics 2010
City of Vancouver cycling infrastructure funding history
(Based on City of Vancouver data – J. Hall, 2004-11-05, updated 2004-11-09 and on reference MCS-6a)
Year |
City of Vancouver Funding |
City and Matching Funding |
City Funding – per Capita |
City and Matching Funding – per Capita | |
Historical Funding Levels for Cycling Infrastructure – City and Matching Funds (TransLink, Province, Federal) | |||||
1990-1999 |
$4.6 million |
$5.9 million |
$8.96 per capita |
$11.52 per capita | |
2000-2002 |
$2.0 million
|
$2.0 million
|
$3.67 per capita
|
$3.67 per capita
| |
2003-2005 |
$10.0 million |
(17% of Street / Transportation Budget) |
$11.6 million |
$18.33 per capita |
$21.23 per capita |
Including |
|||||
· Burrard Bridge |
$5.0 million |
||||
· Greenway |
$2.2 million |
||||
· Bicycle Network |
$2.8 million |
||||
2006-2008 – Staff Proposal |
$4.3 million |
$7.6 million |
$7.11 per capita |
$12.56 per capita | |
Year |
City of Vancouver Funding |
City and Matching Funding |
City Funding – per Capita |
City and Matching Funding – per Capita | |
Summary – Cycling infrastructure funding: | |||||
Funding 1990 – 2005 (including 2003-2005 Capital Plan) |
$23.6 million |
(including funding for the Burrard Bridge improvements) |
$26.5 million |
$43.76 per capita |
$48.58 per capita |
Funding 1990-2008 (including proposed Staff 2006-2008 Capital Plan) |
$27.9 million |
(including funding for the Burrard Bridge improvements) |
$34.1 million |
$46.13 per capita |
$56.37 per capita |
Per capita per year expenditures in cycling infrastructure – Planned and Staff Proposed | |||||
· 1990-2005 |
$2.70 per capita per year |
$3.04 per capita per year | |||
· 1990-2008 |
$2.43 per capita per year |
$2.97 per capita per year | |||
Summary – Cycling infrastructure funding
| |||||
Funding 1990-2008 (including proposed BAC Recommendation for the 2006-2008 Capital Plan) |
$46.1 million |
$76.21 per capita | |||
$4.01 per capita per year | |||||
(1) City of Vancouver Population - Statistics Canada, Census 2001, Population and Dwelling Counts, for Canada, Census Metropolitan Areas, Census Agglomerations and Census Subdivisions (Municipalities), 2001 and 1996 Censuses
While a potential strategy may be that the timing for completion of the City of Vancouver program should be coordinated with completion of TransLink’s 10-Year outlook in 2013, for this discussion it will be assumed that a cycling friendly infrastructure should be completed in time for the environmentally green Winter Olympics of 2010.
Summary of Potential Funding Levels based on Various Municipalities
Cycling Infrastructure Investment – 3-Year |
Strategies |
Cycling Infrastructure Investment - per Capita
|
Cycling Infrastructure Investment - per Year
|
Funding Status (Completed, Budgeted, In-Plan, Master Plan) | ||
Benchmark funding level | ||||||
$4,300,000 ($7,600,000) |
City of Vancouver Staff Proposed Funding Level · 2006-2008 no matching funds (with matching funds) |
$2.37 per capita per year ($4.19 per capita per year) |
$1,430,000 ($2,530,000) |
Staff proposal | ||
$38,000,000 to $83,000,000 – 20% modal share
|
Achieve cycling mode split target of 20% or target of 10% - Benchmarked against other municipalities cost per million to achieve cycling traffic growth |
$23.19 to $51.01 per capita per year – 8 years for 20% cycling mode share
|
($100 to 220 million for attaining a 20% cycling mode split)
|
|||
$9,000,000 to $60,000,000 |
Benchmarked against other municipalities cycling infrastructure plans |
$3 to $14 per year |
$3 to $20 million per year |
Master Plans | ||
$13,000,000 to $20,000,000 |
Benchmarked against other municipalities annual budgets – Cities with significant more cycling participation than Vancouver –European (Mode Share - Cycling) |
$8 to $12 per capita per year |
$4,400,000 to $6,700,000 – based on City of Vancouver population |
Completed, Budgeted | ||
(Numbers still being researched) |
Benchmarked against other municipalities annual budgets – North American cities with similar or lower cycling participation (Mode Share - Cycling) |
Budgeted | ||||
0.20 times the 2006-2008 Transportation Capital Program 0.10 times the 2006-2008 Transportation Capital Program |
Cycling infrastructure funding based on fair share of total transportation capital funding – potential cycling mode split portion. (20% or 10%) |
2006-2008 City of Vancouver Capital Transportation Program Budget | ||||
0.033 times the 2006-2008 Transportation Capital Program |
Cycling infrastructure funding based on fair share of total transportation capital funding – exiting cycling mode split portion. (3.3%)
|
2006-2008 City of Vancouver Capital Transportation Program Budget | ||||
$17,000,000 plus funds for upcoming cycling needs
|
Complete existing cycling infrastructure plans by 2008 and provide additional funding for upcoming cyclists needs (bike route upgrades, RAV line, etc.) |
|||||
$17,000,000 (GR - 1) |
Complete existing cycling infrastructure plans by 2008 |
$10.38 per capita per year |
$5.7 million |
Estimate | ||
$3,300,000 |
Funding level sufficient to maximize any co-funding opportunities |
$2.59 to $4.15 per capita per year |
$1.1 million per year (GR 1)
|
|||
Funding Level Strategies – Supportive Information:
Cycling Infrastructure Investment – 3-Year |
Strategies |
Cycling Infrastructure Investment - per Capita
|
Cycling Infrastructure Investment - per Year
|
Funding Status (Completed, Budgeted, In-Plan, Master Plan) |
Benchmark funding level | ||||
$4,300,000 ($7,600,000) |
City of Vancouver Proposed Funding Level · 2006-2008 no matching funds (with matching funds) |
$2.31 per capita per year ($4.19 per capita per year) |
$1,430,000 ($2,530,000) |
Staff proposal |
Strategies: |
||||
Preferred funding level – · Directed towards achieving Continental European level of cycling mode share (range - 10% to 40%), and also
| ||||
$38,000,000 to $83,000,000 – 20% modal share
|
Achieve cycling mode split target of 20% - Benchmarked against other municipalities cost per million to achieve cycling traffic growth |
$23.19 to $51.01 per capita per year – 8 years for 20% cycling mode share
|
($100 to 220 million for attaining a 20% cycling mode split)
|
|
· London, Berlin, Munich – Cycling trip growth at .35% per £1,000,000 |
$613 to $1,348 per daily cyclist traffic increase |
Completed – Berlin, Munich | ||
$9,000,000 to $60,000,000 |
Benchmarked against other municipalities cycling infrastructure plans |
$3 to $14 per year |
$3 to $20 million per year |
Master Plans |
· London |
£2.93 per year
|
Average £21 million pounds
|
Master Plan | |
· Houston |
(Plan - $116 per capita) |
(Plan - $228 million) |
Master Plan | |
· Portland |
$13.90 per capita per year |
$7.5 million
|
Master Plan | |
· Toronto |
$2.94 per capita per year
|
$7.3 million
|
Master Plan | |
· TransLink – 10 years |
$2.54 per year average
|
$3 to $6 million per year
|
Planned – 3-Year Financial Plan, 10-Year Outlook | |
Funding levels - For encouraging cycling mode share growth | ||||
$16,500,000 |
Benchmarked against other municipalities annual budgets – Cities with significant more cycling participation than Vancouver –European (Mode Share - Cycling) |
$10 per capita per year |
$5,450,000 – Based on City of Vancouver population |
Completed, Budgeted |
· Amsterdam (28%) |
$10 per capita per year |
|||
Funding levels - Competitive with other North American cities | ||||
(Numbers still being researched) |
Benchmarked against other municipalities annual budgets – North American cities with similar or lower cycling participation (Mode Share - Cycling) |
Budgeted | ||
· Houston (0.36%) |
||||
· Montreal (1.30%) |
||||
· New York (0.9%) |
||||
· Portland (0.80%) |
||||
· San Francisco (1.40%) |
||||
· Toronto (0.80%) |
||||
Bare minimum supportable cycling funding levels | ||||
0.20 times the 2006-2008 Transportation Capital Program |
Cycling infrastructure funding based on fair share of total transportation capital funding – potential cycling mode split portion. (20%) |
2006-2008 City of Vancouver Capital Transportation Program Budget | ||
0.033 times the 2006-2008 Transportation Capital Program |
Cycling infrastructure funding based on fair share of total transportation capital funding – exiting cycling mode split portion. (3.3%)
|
2006-2008 City of Vancouver Capital Transportation Program Budget | ||
$17,000,000 plus funds for upcoming cycling needs
|
Complete existing cycling infrastructure plans by 2008 and provide additional funding for upcoming cyclists needs (bike route upgrades, RAV line, etc.) |
|||
$17,000,000 (GR - 1) |
Complete existing cycling infrastructure plans by 2008 |
$10.38 per capita per year |
$5.7 million |
Estimate |
$3,300,000 |
Funding level sufficient to maximize any co-funding opportunities |
$2.59 to $4.15 per capita per year |
$1.1 million per year (GR - 1)
|
|
· TransLink |
About $1.65 per capita per year |
About $0.9 million per year |
3-Year Financial Plan | |
· BC – Cycling Network Improvement Program |
About $0.37 per capita per year |
About $0.2 million per year |
Announced | |
Memo – What are cyclists willing to pay for quality, friendly cycling facilities that will attract drivers, less confident cyclists, and those cyclists that have stopped cycling · Funding level based on cyclists’ preference – willing to pay in addition to current municipal tax levels (from a limited, spot survey) | ||||
$9,000,000 to $24,000,000 plus |
Benchmark against cyclists support for comprehensive, quality cycling infrastructure – based on willingness to pay additional special purposes municipal taxes |
$0 to $15 to $100 per person per year |
$3 to $8 to $55 million per year |
Spontaneous, informal, unscientific, quick-reaction limited market survey |
· Funding should come from exiting transportation budget |
$0 per person per year |
|||
· Low end |
$6 to $15 per person per year |
$3 to $8 million |
||
· High end |
$100 to $200 per person per year |
$55 million to $110 million. |
||
(2) Data from staff letter (J. Hall) of 2004-11-05
How Much do Cyclists Want a Comprehensive, Quality Cycling Infrastructure?
What are cyclists prepared to pay in additional taxes to fund such an infrastructure?
Some responses:
· $0 per person, funding should come from current sources.
· $6 to $15 per person
· $100 to $200 per person
· One response was in excess of $2,000 per year for off-road and on-road physically separated cycling facilities.
So far, approximately 10 dedicated cyclists were asked for their opinion.
One of the ways of trying to assess what a quality cycling infrastructure is worth to individual cyclists is to try to determine how much a person is willing to contribute out of one’s own pocket towards a municipality installing such facilities.
So, a question is posed:
“How much are you prepared to pay in additional municipal taxes each year for the municipality to install a comprehensive, high quality cycling infrastructure?”
In responding the following should be considered:
· A “high quality cycling infrastructure” should be interpreted as one that would:
· encourage motorists to leave their cars or SUV at home and cycle instead on their next trip for the full distance or combine the trip with public transit, or
· encourage people that used to cycle to return to cycle as their primary means of transportation, or
· encourage existing cyclists to choose to cycle more frequently than relying on their personal motorized vehicle,
· appeal to people that are less confident, less risk taking, or less skilled in cycling to cycle more frequently, and
· result in a significant increase of the cycling mode split (order of magnitude – cycling mode split of 10% to 20 % or more).
In responding, the following assumption should be considered
· No other sources of public funds are available for significant improvement and expansion of the cycling facilities and any investments would have to come from an increase in municipal taxes or levy.
· If one rented a home, then the increase in taxes for cycling facilities would be passed through to the renter either in increase in the rent to the amount that one is willing to pay for cycling facilities or as a surcharge or levy to the rent.
· If one owns a home, the municipal taxes would be increased by an equivalent amount as one would be prepared to pay for better cycling facilities.
· The increase would last for 10 years.
· The increase in municipal taxes per property would be about twice one’s willingness to pay, as the number of people per household in the Vancouver is just under 2 people per household.
Justification for supporting a higher level of cycling infrastructure funding in the 2006-2008 Capital Program
A recommendation to Council for a significant shift in funding for a program or initiative should be accompanied with a rational and a justification for such increased funding level. Such justification should include cover advantages for the municipality in implementing its strategic directions and programs, financial economic contributions to the community and offsetting investment credits, benefits to the residents, and improvements to the environment.
Index
o Daily Cycling Trips Within the City of Vancouver
o Does Investment in Cycling Infrastructure Increase Cycling Ridership?
o Determining the Optimum Cycling Mode Split Target
o Cost of Growing the Cycling Potion of the Transportation Mode Split
o Fit to Changes in the World
o Realistic and Achievable
Daily Cycling Trips Within the City of Vancouver
Summary Estimates:
· Number of daily cycling trips originating, terminating, or passing through the City of Vancouver – 45,000.
· Number of cyclists originating, terminating, or passing through the City of Vancouver daily – 13,000 to 23,000
(If better estimates are available, would appreciate that information.)
In trying to determine the level of municipal tax funding that could be justified to be spent on a cycling infrastructure, one should understand the effect of such expenditures on the growth of cycling within the municipality. The starting point of such an analysis normally is with the daily average number of cyclists and the number of daily trips taken by them. Then, normally, some growth objective is laid over that, as a step towards determining the economic and social benefits of any capital expenditures.
How many cyclists are out there on a day cycling within the City of Vancouver? How many trips on the average do they make in a day? One try at these questions uses the following approach and is based on the data provided by the references below.
Data on the City of Vancouver population and cycling level within the City and the GVRD
Population – City of Vancouver (SP-1) 546,671
Cycling Mode Split – City of Vancouver (MSC – 1a) 3.3%
Cycling trips that end within the GVRD – 24-hour, all purpose trips 90,500 (MSC – 2a)
would suggest that the number of trips, on the average, that originates, ends, or passes through the City of Vancouver would be in the range of about 45,000.
Cycling trips that are generated by residents of the City of Vancouver – 24-hour, all purpose trips (MCS – 1a, SP – 1a) 32,655
Cycling trips that are generated within the GVRD and ending in the City of Vancouver – 24-hour, all purpose trips (MCS – 2d) 16,290
Cycling trips that end within the City of Vancouver – 24-hour, all purpose trips (MSC – 2b)
45,250
GVRD data would indicate that a vehicle makes 3.5 trips per day (MCS - 3). This may apply to bicycles as well. A more conservative number for bicycles may be 2 trips per day, assuming that most people cycling to work also cycle home and do not make any additional cycling trips in each day, on the average. This data may lead to a projection that on an average day there may be 13,000 to 23,000 cyclists on the road within the City, a small number considering there are about 545,000 people residents within this City.
If the cycling mode split target for the future is set at 10% within 6 years and one assumes that there is no growth in the population, then the number of people that need to change their mode of transportation to cycling and be induced by a high quality, comprehensive infrastructure would be:
Cycling Mode Split Increase in Number of
Trips cyclists
(based on trips per person per day)
2 3.5
10% 66,000 33,000 19,000
20% 165,000 83,000 47,000
Does Investment in Cycling Infrastructure Increase Cycling Ridership?
Vancouver cycling facilities investment results in cycling traffic growth of 175% to 375% on the upgraded roads within 5 years. (sc-3)
On City of Vancouver roads on which cycling facilities had been implemented, a review of cycling traffic growth over a 5 to 10 year period revealed cycling growth models of 375% for arterial bike routes and 175% for secondary and neighbourhood bike routes. The pacesetter, the Adanac Bike Route showed growth of 500% over an 11 year period. Using these cycling growth models on cycling facilities that have been implemented so far and those that will be implemented as part of the 2002-2005 Capital Plan, the Staff’s proposed 2006-2008 Capital Plan, and the Greenway initiatives, it can be anticipated that cycling traffic on these bikeways would about triple by 2010. On these bikeways the cycling traffic will increase from about 13,000 to about 38,000. It should be noted that cycling traffic growth does not directly translate into cycling trip growth or number of people cycling growth as a cyclist may take more than 1 bike route on a trip.
Swedish study shows cycling infrastructure improvements have positive effect on cycling growth and reduction of car trips. (sc-4)
A study of 4 Swedish cities showed cycling usage increased between 15% to 30% and car usage dropped by 10% to 20% after cycling infrastructure improvement. The study comments on the increase size of the catchment area for transit stations, such as commuter trains.
London studies of Berlin and Munich cycling investments estimates that will cost £1 million of capital investment to achieve growth of 0.35% increase in cycling level. (MSC - 9
London’s research of 11 European cities has determined that there is a clear relationship between investment and increased cycling levels. In the study periods, these cities have experienced cycling traffic growth in the 1.2% to 7.0% range. Also, cycling mode share increased in the 0.2% to 1.3% per year range. London’s research seems to indicate a capital investment per cyclist growth ratio of £613.
Toronto study shows cycling growth of plus 23% after two years of implementing bike lanes. (SC – 5)
Review of cycling growth of six roads after installation of bike lanes showed an average growth of 23%. The growth band was from a low of 4% to a high of 42%, with half of the roads showed growth of 31% plus. The other two roads were in the 10% to 13% range. Cycling traffic on these roads varied from 600 to 1,450 per day before the bike lanes, growing to the 950 to 1,900 range. Average cycling traffic rose from 1,000 per day to 1,230 per day. Motorized traffic did not change for 4 of the roads, increased by 7% (+1,000 vehicles) for the 5th road that also cycling traffic grow by 36% (400 cyclists) and decreased by 6% on the road with the lowest cycling traffic growth of 45. Average motorized traffic for the 6 roads stayed at 17,800 vehicles per day. Bike lanes were implemented in the 1993 to 1997 period.
Australia aims for 20% increase in cycling trips annually. (MCPV – 1)
A recent update to the Australian (Austroads) National Cycling Strategy includes a vision for increasing cycling for transportation, recreation and tourism purposes to enhance the well being of all Australians with a target of increasing cycling trips by 20% annually.
Determining the Optimum Cycling Mode Split Target
The City of Vancouver’s current cycling share of the Transportation Mode Share has been stated as 3.3% (MCS – 1a). It has been suggested that a new cycling mode share target of 10% by 2010 and 20% in the long term would be appropriate. Is this a reasonable target? Should it be lower or higher? It could be suggested that a test of reasonableness for a new Cycling Mode Share target that the Bicycle Advisory Committee might want to recommend to Council should meet the City’s strategic directions and programs. It might be worthwhile to test such target against the following City directions:
· Accommodating growth in residency and business within the City that has maxed out its street capacity for motorized vehicles
· Kyoto Protocol commitments
· Cool Vancouver
· World class city (comparison of cycling mode split to other cities)
· Sustainable city strategy
· Active Transportation strategy - health
For discussion purposes a cycling mode share of 20% will be used as a basis of testing. It will also be assumed that any growth of cycling mode share will be realized by people leaving their personal motorized vehicles at home and cycling or intermodal commuting by bicycle and public transit. Further, it will be assumed that the growth in cycling will be basically in the commute to work segment which, most likely, mean 2 trips per day.
Accommodating growth in residency and business within the City that has maxed out its street capacity for motorized vehicles
Population forecast for the City of Vancouver indicates a growth above the national average of 21% for the period of 1990 to 2012 (GHG – 1b). For the period from 1991 to 2007, GVRD’s population estimates for the City of Vancouver would indicate a growth of approximately 125,000 people or about 26% of the 1991 population. For the period of 2001 to 2007, GVRD estimates a population increase by 50,000. The capability for the City to increase road capacity is at its limit. Transportation for population growth will need to be provided by transit, cycling, and walking. The infrastructure needs to be in place in advance to accommodate such growth. At this time there is only a very basic cycling network infrastructure in place that lacks city-wide coverage and has gaps in its linkages.
Kyoto Protocol commitments
The City of Vancouver is committed towards meeting Vancouver’s share of the federal 6% reduction target for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 1990 levels by 2012(GHG – 1a) . This is a firm number and not only does it mean a reduction from the 1990 GHG emission level but also absorbing the impact of any additional GHG emission resulting from both residential growth or business growth through the future years (GHG – 1b).
A 20% cycling mode share would result in 165,000 less trips being made by motorized vehicles and would result in a reduction in the order of 150,000 tonnes of GHG emission per year or 37% of City of Vancouver “fair share” of the national target for GHG reduction. (GHG – 1c.)
Cool Vancouver
Cool Vancouver’s Action Plan calls for, as one of six key initiatives, transportation alternatives to contribute 91,000 tonnes per year towards GHG emission reduction (GHG – 1d.).
The reduced GHG emission production from a 20% mode split would exceed Cool Vancouver’s transportation alternative target reduction of 91,000 tonnes in total by about 60,000 tonnes, which would be a significant contribution (about 25%) towards the reductions required beyond that addressed by the 6 key initiatives (GHG – 1d.).
World class city
The City of Vancouver talks about wanting to achieve a world-class city. Now, how does this City’s cycling mode split compare to world class cities? How much does this split need to grow by to be at a level of a world-class city?
City |
Country |
Population |
Year |
Cycling Mode Split – All Trips |
Munster |
Germany |
280,000 |
1992 |
43.0% |
Delft |
The Netherlands |
96,000 |
1985 |
43.0% |
Amsterdam |
The Netherlands |
739,977 |
28.0% | |
Copenhagen |
Denmark |
501,285 |
20.0% | |
Freiburg |
Germany |
200,000 |
1992 |
20.0% |
Hanover |
Germany |
515,219 |
1990 |
16.0% |
Graz |
Austria |
305,000 |
1991 |
14.0% |
Munich |
Germany |
1,227,958 |
2002 |
13.0% |
Strasbourg |
France |
250,000 |
2002 |
12.0% |
Zurich |
Switzerland |
364,558 |
2001 |
11.0% |
Berlin |
Germany |
3,388,434 |
2002 |
10.0% |
Vienna |
Austria |
1,550,123 |
1999 |
4.5% |
City of Vancouver |
Canada |
545,671 |
1996 |
3.3% |
London |
UK |
7,172,036 |
2003 |
2.6% |
Sustainable city strategy
An aggressive cycling mode split will fit well with a Sustainable City strategy and its economic services products.
Sustainability Principles (excerpts from City Council minutes)
“Much has been written about the consequences of continuing urban and economic development patterns which use resources faster than they can be replaced thereby contributing to pollution and poverty. The "Sustainable Development Movement" is a program of actions for local and global reform to develop, test, and disseminate ways to change how development occurs and services are delivered such that the ecosystems and community systems (cities, neighbourhoods, and families) that contribute to our quality of life are not lost.
Local governments are major players in sustainability. Cities build and maintain infrastructure, and set standards, regulations, taxes, and fees. Local governments produce "products" that are "sold" to the market. These products include environmental services (water, waste management, land use control), economic services (e.g. transportation infrastructure) and social services (e.g. community facilities, public safety, literacy, youth and drug response programs). Sustainable development requires that local governments ensure that municipal services can be sustained and equitably distributed today and for future generations. Achieving this objective requires a strategic approach that equally factors long-term community, ecological, and economic concerns into the development and provision of today's municipal services.”
Active Transportation strategy – health
Increased emphasis is being placed by all levels of government on addressing health problems, including obesity and asthma, through focusing on the need for people to undertake more trips by Active Transportation. Cycling is recognized as an excellent option for improving personal health while undertaking the next trip. An aggressive cycling mode split target reinforced by a comprehensive cycling infrastructure which will appeal to all people, including students will support governments’ efforts towards improving personal health of the residents in the City. Conceivably, the proposed target could result in an increase in active lifestyle of up to 7%.
Cost of Growing the Cycling Potion of the Transportation Mode Split
Investment Requirement for Growing the Cycling Mode Split to 10% and to 20%
| Cycling Mode Split | Increase in Trips | Increase in Number of Cyclists (based on trips per person per day) | Investment Requirements | ||
| 2 | 3.5 | From | To | ||
| 20% | 165,000 | 83,000 | 47,000 | $101 million | $222 million |
| Comparison | |||||
| -10% | 66,000 | 33,000 | 19,000 | $41 million | $89 million |
What is the cost to the City for a comprehensive cycling infrastructure of high enough quality to attract people to cycle instead of using their personal motorized vehicles? London took a shot at estimating how much investment would be required on a unit basis to generate a cycling mode split growth (MSP – 1). Their work was based on data from Berlin and Munich. The City of London came forth with a cycling mode split growth investment factor – 0.35% cycling mode share growth for every £1,000,000 investment.
Now, a customary simple economical approach to converting this factor into Canadian dollars would use a pound to dollar conversion factor (based on annual, month, or last day published conversion). This would assume that the conversion factor which is based on a demand / supply factors would be the same as a bread basket approach to estimating the cost of acquiring similar goods and services between the two countries. Touring cyclists know that monetary conversion factors are not good representation in the costs of like goods between countries. Orange juice, motel rooms, meals still tend to cost the same amount in local currency in such countries as Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, as examples. This also tends to hold up for other durable goods.
In converting the London cycling mode split investment factor one would need to know the bread basket costs of what makes up the elements of a good quality cycling facilities including the unit costs of building a bike lane, striping a lane, cyclist activated traffic signals, cycling signage, bike racks, and so on. As this information is not readily available one could approach the conversion as a range with the low side assuming that costs are the same in local currency and the high side using the monetary conversion factors.
Based on London’s level of daily cycling trips at about 300,000, the cycling mode split growth investment factor would vary between about $613 to $1,348 per daily cyclist growth.
Fit to Changes in the World
One factor contributing to higher cycling mode splits in some cities is the cost of operating motorized vehicles. In Vancouver, one element of vehicle operation has seen significant rise in the past few months indicating that existing European cost of operation may be coming to here as well. The price of oil has risen sharply from about $25 to $30 US dollars per barrel to $50. The pump prices for gasoline have risen from 70 cents to the dollar level, a 40% change. With fluctuating economy and labour market of a resource base province, the elasticity of change from one form of transportation to another is more volatile.
The transit strike of 2001 demonstrated the elasticity of modal change to cycling. The strike demonstrated that with introducing a restriction people are prepared to make the move. Significant petroleum price increases alone or in concert with a cyclical downturn in job labour market or a jump in inflation could just provide the incentive to switch. A comprehensive cycling infrastructure would assist in people making the modal change.
Realistic and Achievable
Is a dramatic change in cycling mode share within a short time achievable?
Significant change needs a change agent.
Current direction in implementing a cycling infrastructure (funding, cycling facilities design approach, and marketing of cycling as a transportation alternative) has limited appeal with cycling mode share growth stalled at the 0.2% in 5 years level in the region. Within the City of Vancouver cycling mode share levels of 3.3% across the city and 10% in some pockets have been realized. How much more growth can be accomplished with the current direction – 1%, 2%?
To stimulate a more significant growth level, the next step in cycling facilities design will be needed, similar to that in Europe that has realized 20% and 28% mode share (Denmark, Amsterdam, etc.). A new comprehensive cycling master plan will also be needed that covers not only the physical cycling network but also social, psychological and human behaviour elements that are directed to cause change in people transportation habits. The scope of such a plan can be found in the cycling master plans of such cities as Toronto, San Francisco, Chicago, etc. Supporting such a dramatic move in cycling mode share, internal City staffing is needed focusing exclusively on cycling and acting as an internal advocacy group. Such a group could be modelled after such a similar organization in Toronto, as an example.
Justification for supporting a higher level of cycling infrastructure funding in the 2006-2008 Capital Program
Index
· Comments
· Effects on Municipal Direction, Strategic Directions, and Programs
· Cool Vancouver Initiative
· Transportation Mode Split
· Impact on Road Transportation and Infrastructure
· Impact on Movement of Goods
· Impact on Transit System
· City Transit Strategy
· Impact on the Local Economy
· Impact on Road Safety (under development)
· Contribution to Personal Health
· Benefits to Individuals
· Contribution to a Better, More Environmentally Sustainable City
· World-Class Sustainable City Strategy
· Contributions to the Province
· Demand on Health Care System and Costs
· Contributions - National
· Kyoto Protocol Commitment and the One Tonne Challenge
· Active Transportation Initiative
· Master Cycling Plan Justification – Other Jurisdictions
Comments
A recommendation to Council for a significant shift in funding for a program or initiative should be accompanied with a rational and a justification for such increased funding level. Such justification should include cover advantages for the municipality in implementing its strategic directions and programs, financial economic contributions to the community and offsetting investment credits, benefits to the residents, and improvements to the environment.
Cycling Mode Split Target – 10% by 2010, Growth to Leading European Cities level Beyond.
10% was suggested at a meeting as a first stage target cycling mode split for this city on its way to reaching cycling at a level experienced by some European cities that are on the forefront of cycling. While it is recognized as an aggressive target, for purpose of discussion a 20% mode split will be used in this paper to highlight the potential benefits that can be attained through realizing such a challenging target.
Currently there are about 32,700 daily cycling trips that are generated from within the city (MCS – 2d). In addition, there are about another 16,300 trips generated from outside of the City that terminated within the City. A cycling mode split of 10% would increase the daily number of cyclist trips generated within the city to about 197,900 or an addition of 165,300 a day.
These additional 165,300 cycling trips would contribute to more cycling – transit intermodal traffic and would reduce the number of private automobile trips by a correspondent number (assumption).
Effects on Municipal Direction, Strategic Directions, and Programs
City of Vancouver’s Vision
Excerpts from the City of Vancouver’s 2001 Downtown Transportation Plan – Executive Summary
“The vision for Vancouver is to be the most liveable city in the world. This vision has been achieved in the recent past and can continue to be achieved in the future (TV – 1). In 1997, the Vancouver Transportation Plan recognized that road capacity is finite and that even if more roads were to be built they would soon be congested with more cars. The solution is to decrease the demand for auto trips by providing additional transportation choices, particularly transit.”
Cool Vancouver Initiative
A 20% cycling mode split would provide 60,000 tonne GHG reduction in excess of Cool Vancouver’s key initiative target for transportation alternative.
Cool Vancouver’s Action Plan calls, as one of six key initiatives, for transportation alternatives to contribute 91,000 tonnes per year towards GHG emission reduction (GHG – 1d.).
The reduced GHG emission production from a 20% mode split would exceed Cool Vancouver’s transportation alternative target reduction of 91,000 tonnes in total by about 60,000 tonnes, which would be a significant contribution (about 25%) towards the reductions required beyond that addressed by the 6 key initiatives (GHG – 1d.).
Transportation Mode Split
A 20% cycling mode split could lead to reduction of the auto mode split from 45.9% to 29% within the City of Vancouver.
The city of Vancouver’s vision and its implication on auto mode split (TV – 1) would be supported by a 20% cycling mode split target, which should result in the auto mode split dropping from 45.9% to a 29% range.
Impact on Road Transportation and Infrastructure
A 20% cycling mode split free up lanes and would allow lane reassignment for Active Transportation use, transit use, and for street beautification and traffic calming opportunities.
Road Infrastructure Investment and Maintenance Cost – Urban Areas
10,000 motorists switching to cycling for their commute would free up in the range of 5 to 10 traffic lanes reducing pressure to build more roads (estimated in the range of $3000,000 to $500,000 per km (C – 1) ). These lanes could be reassigned to active transportation use resulting in reduced annual maintenance costs (estimated at $12,000 per lane-kilometre per year). (C - 2)
Impact on Movement of Goods
A 20% cycling mode split could directionally effect reduction of movement of goods transportation costs in the order of $16 million plus per year.
Movement of Goods Traffic Congestion Costs in Urban Areas
Based on B.C. Trucking Industry estimates for traffic congestion costs to the industry in Vancouver of $22,700 to $54,500 per truck per year (C – 3a), 10,000 motorists deciding to leave their automobiles at home and cycle instead would reduce traffic congestion and save the industry in the range of $2 million to $175 million per year. (E - 5)
Impact on Transit System
City Transit Strategy
Transit Revenue
A 20% cycling mode split could increase cycling – transit intermodal commuting. Assuming 20% of the increase in cycling would intermodal commute, transit revenue could increase by $16 million per year.
For every 10,000 motorists that decide to leave their automobiles at home and cycle to their closest transit station, transit revenue would increase by about $10 million per year.(V-1)
Impact on the Local Economy
Local Employment and Provincial Taxation
A 20% cycling mode split should result in $300 million to $600 million per year available for local shopping, other discretionary purchases, and for other purposes.
With moneys freed up by motorists leaving their automobiles at home and with cyclists’ penchant for local shopping, the local economy for retailers will see an increase in business and employment which will result in higher taxation flow to the provincial and federal government through the PST / GST, direct business and income tax levies. 10,000 motorists switching to cycling will have $40 million to $70 million per year available for local shopping and other discretionary purchases. (E - 1)
Local Employment and the Tourist Industry
Drawing 10,000 cyclists from within, the continent, abroad, and from afar to tour the province on bicycle instead would enhance local retail, food, and accommodation business revenues anywhere from $5,000 to $0.1 million for local tourists to $0.5 million to $2.5 million for those outside of the touring region. Direct taxation results in increased revenue to the provinces. The Province of Quebec has seen the light. (Velo Quebec studies)(GR - 6, E - 6)
Business Operating Cost
Increased use of bicycles instead of company or employee cars, taxis, and motorized couriers would decrease operating costs for companies in the range of $0.25 to $0.40 per km and decrease investment costs for vehicles in the $20,000 to $40,000 range. (GR – 6,E – 1, E - 7)
Contribution to Personal Health
Personal Health
People are exposed to more pollution when sitting inside their vehicles than cycling beside a vehicle. Exercise, from cycling or other activities, reduces sinus, allergy, asthma, and other health problems. Personal enjoyment of each day is expanded. Personal life is extended. In Vancouver, it is estimated that there would be 15 to 200 less premature deaths per year from the effect of air pollution. (H – 2, H - 3)
Benefits to Individuals
Family Personal Cash Flow and Lifestyle
A 20% cycling mode split should free up $300 million to $600 million per year for other purposes for the families of the motorists that switch from auto trips to cycling.
Leaving a car at home and commuting by bicycle and transit will free up $4,000 per year per vehicle operator for other lifestyle expenditures or for savings for the future. Reducing the family car fleet ownership by one vehicle will free up $7,000 for discretionary expenditures. (Source – 2003 CAA Driving Costs) (E - 1)
Contribution to a Better, More Environmentally Sustainable City
World-Class Sustainable City Strategy
A 20% cycling mode split would position the City of Vancouver among leading European cities such as Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Freiburg, Munster, and Delft
Contributions to the Province
Demand on Health Care System and Costs
Health Care System Costs
A 20% cycling mode split should reduce health care costs in the direction of $300 million at a modest 10% reduction of health care cost per capita resulting from a healthier lifestyles.
With better personal health, the need for medical services and drug prescriptions would reduce. With annual costs for the BC health system of $3,569 per BC Capita, a modest 10% reduction would save the province $3.6 million per 10,000 cyclists. A good contribution from cycling. (H - 4)
About two-thirds of Canadians are physically inactive, resulting in about $2.1 billion of direct health care costs in Canada. (MCS – 5b)
Contributions - National
Kyoto Protocol Commitment and the One Tonne Challenge
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A 20% cycling mode split should reduce GHG emission production by 150,000 tonnes per year within the City of Vancouver.
The province has committed to the Kyoto Protocol and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission by 6% from the 1990 level. If the Lower Mainland is any indication, meeting this objective will demand some real innovative leadership from the province. In the Lower Mainland, as an example, of the 19.6 million tonnes of GHG produced in 2000 about 27% was produced by light-duty vehicles. (E - 4)
Instead of reducing the GHG emission by 6%, it actually grew 23% in the 10 years since 1990. Not the right way to go.
A growth of a 100,000 people cycling to work would decrease GHG production by 1% to 3% to the 1990 benchmark (200,000 to 700,000 tonnes per year). (E – 4)
Active Transportation Initiative
A 20% cycling mode split should increase the number of participants in an active lifestyle by about 80,000 residents of the City of Vancouver or about 15%.
Master Cycling Plan Justification – Other Jurisdictions
London, England (MCP – 1a)
Justification for London’s expenditure aimed at increasing cycling by 80% by 2010 and 200% by 2020 include contributions to the Council and society strategies in the areas of transportation, air quality, economic development, environment, health and lifestyle, economy, business, noise, energy, biodiversity, air quality, noise, children and young people, culture, spatial development, social inclusion, crime and safety, and recreation and tourism.
Houston (MCS – 2, MCS – 3)
Benefits identified in Houston’s regional bicycle plan include opportunity for motorized trip reduction, improved intermodal transportation, air quality, health benefits through increased physical activities, outdoor recreation opportunities, aesthetic and quality of life associated with cycling, and socio-economic impacts providing benefits to all economic sectors.
Toronto (MCS – 5)
Toronto is looking for ways to guide development in a way that is more environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable, as well as less automobile dependant. Cycling is pollution free. Provision of cycling facilities is much less costly than for automobiles. Environmental, health and fitness, economical and social factors are also used in justification of a cycling network.