Submission on the

Proposal to Incorporate the Health Benefits of Cycling into Transfund�s Project Evaluation Procedures

(October 2001)

About CAN

The Cycling Advocates' Network of NZ (CAN) Inc is this country's national network of cycling advocates.� It is a voice for all cyclists - recreational, commuter and touring. We work with central government and local authorities, on behalf of cyclists, for a better cycling environment. We have affiliated groups and individual members throughout the country, and links with overseas cycling organisations.� In addition, some territorial local authorities, and one consultancy, are supporting organisations.

The national committee of the group has prepared this submission.� You can find our names on the websitehttp://www.can.org.nz/ under �contacts -> office holders�.�

Our postal address is: PO box 6491; Wellesley St; Auckland

Our e-mail address is: secretary@can.org.nz

Executive Summary

CAN is very supportive of the proposed inclusion of general health benefits in the Project Evaluation Manual (PEM), with a clear preference for �Alternative A�.� We recommend that Transfund adopt a higher value for the benefits than stated in the proposal.� The most important step, however, is to include the general health benefits in the PEM as soon as practical, with some adjustment to the value being possible at a later stage.

General Comments

CAN is very pleased that Transfund staff have followed up on the suggestion of incorporating general health benefits into the Project Evaluation Manual (PEM).� We believe this is a significant step in the right direction to address funding inequalities in the transport sector.� General health benefits may well be the most significant tangible benefit of cycling.� Transfund staff are to be commended for their open approach to cycling funding issues.

CAN believes that further work is required on other aspects of benefit determination for projects that assist cyclists, both present and possible approaches.� The previous reports for Transfund by SKM, BCHF, and Opus highlight a number of opportunities and difficulties in this area, and we would welcome ongoing dialogue with Transfund, separate from this exercise.

CAN is also concerned that there is still a dearth of practical guidance for practitioners to enable them to prepare a submission for funding a cycling-related project.� This continues to limit the number of projects funded, more than any constraint at Transfund�s end.� We regret that the proposed establishment of a cycling planning/engineering course could not be funded through Transfund this year, as it would have assisted in this regard.

The alternative in the short term is to consider what changes to the PEM documentation could be provided to assist practitioners identify all of the key benefits attributable to a cycling project.� It may be that, for more rapid assessment at the project investigation stage, a cycling-specific simplified worksheet should be incorporated into the PEM, in the same way that other worksheets are already present for other specific project types.

Choice of Alternative

Two alternative proposals are given:

Alternative A � All Cyclists

Alternative A proposes applying a generic value to both new and existing cyclists in cycle project evaluations.� Alternative A is Transfund�s preferred option.

Alternative B � New Cyclists

Alternative B proposes applying a value to induced cycling traffic that results from cycle facility improvements.�

CAN�s Preference

CAN is strongly in favour of Alternative A, for the following reasons:

�         All cyclists experience general health benefits, not just people taking up cycling as a result of a new or improved facility.� This is the key finding of the groundbreaking work undertaken by Mayer Hillman [1] , to which the Transfund proposal also makes reference [2] .

• It should also be acknowledged that some of those currently cycling 
  may be put off in the future by the existing conditions, and that a new or 
  improved facility could induce them to continue cycling. The benefit from 
  their continued activity should therefore be included.

�         Induced traffic is complicated enough to determine for roading projects, with no generally agreed upon methodology available for induced cycle traffic.� Having to quantify induced cycle traffic would almost certainly result in general health benefits not being available for the vast majority of projects, as the evaluation would become too complex.

�         The two values of the alternatives (10cents/km and 16.5cents/km, respectively) suggest that in order to produce the same benefits, Alternative B requires an increase in cycling of just over 60% due to the new or improved facility [3] .� This seems to be an overly ambitious value that is difficult to achieve through the implementation of isolated improvements, but may be more realistic for network-wide improvements.�

Hence, based on the two proposed benefit values, CAN expects that Alternative A would result in a greater amount of funding being paid out by Transfund (due to a higher number of projects being submitted for funding, and Alternative B being based on a very ambitious increase in cycling in order to achieve the same project benefits as Alternative A).

Ratio of Health Benefits to Crashes

The work of Mayer Hillman is famous for its ratio of �years gained through cycling� versus the �years lost due to cycle crashes� being 20:1. The concept was first raised in the report by the British Medical Association, with the above ratio first presented in a paper given shortly thereafter at the annual PTRC Conference.� Even if it was assumed that Hillman may have been overly optimistic and was perhaps out by 50%, the resulting 10:1 ratio is still a very compelling figure.� It is obviously interesting to analyse the respective New Zealand values and the resulting ratio.� Indeed, it would be interesting to repeat the British research here to confirm a true local figure.�

We acknowledge that the British research quoted here is in terms of �years gained� and �years lost�, whereas the New Zealand comparison is in terms of �general health benefits� and �social crash costs�, and thus not strictly the same.

The Transfund proposal draws on a report by BCHF (1999) [4] .� The average approximate social cost of cycle crashes is given as $1.00 per cycle kilometre, with a range by city of approximately $0.50 to $1.50 (ibid, page 14).� The health benefits, as derived from different sources, range from $0.05 to $0.40 per kilometre cycled, with the suggestion of taking $0.15, based on a conservative position (ibid, page 24).� Hence, the ratio of the recommended benefits ($0.15 per km) and the social crash costs ($1.00 per km) is 1:6.7 (or 0.15), which is approximately the inverse ratio to the findings by Hillman.� The ratio of these two findings is 133 (20:0.15), or in other words, the results differ by two magnitudes.� This is astounding and requires some further discussion.

The following possibilities exist, or any combination thereof:

�         The findings of the British Medical Association could be too optimistic.� As mentioned above, even if the estimate was out by 50%, a ratio of 10:1 would still remain.

�         The possibility exists that the quoted social costs for New Zealand are too high.� In fact, the Road Safety Strategy (RSS) 2010 [5] consultation document gives social crash costs of $0.30 per km cycled (page 46), rather than $1.00 per km as stated in BCHF (1999).

�         It is also likely that New Zealand�s roads are less safe for cyclists to travel on than roads in Britain.� Fatality rates, as quoted in the BCHF report (page 13), could be used as a proxy for cyclists� safety, with 4.3 and 6.8 fatalities per 10⁸ km of travel given for Britain and New Zealand, respectively.

�         Finally, the possibility exists that the estimate for the health benefits is significantly lower than the British figure.� This would be counter-intuitive, as very similar benefits should be expected for the two populations.� In fact, the BCHF report quotes the benefits to be in the range of $0.05 to $0.40, with the suggested figure of $0.15 per km cycled being described as �a conservative position�.� Nonetheless, the Transfund proposal has seen this already cautious value being lowered to $0.10 per km.

Given these findings, the following calculations could be made for comparing the British estimate and the NZ ratio for general health benefits:

�         A ratio of 10:1 (a conservative revision of the original British estimate of 20:1) could be used as the basis.

�         Using the fatality rates for the two countries as a proxy for road safety, the British ratio could be reduced to 6.3:1 (i.e. 4.3/6.8*10).

�         The LTSA estimate of $0.30 per km cycled could be used as the basis for the social crash costs of cycling.

Based on these assumptions, the following table gives the resulting ratios for New Zealand based on the range of benefits in the BCHF report:

It can be seen that based on the above stated assumptions, there remains a 19-fold difference between the British estimate and the New Zealand assumption if the proposed Transfund benefit value were adopted (i.e. one order of magnitude difference).�

If the BCHF recommendation of a benefit value of $0.15 per km cycled were adopted, the difference between the ratios in the two countries would still be 13-fold.� The upper bound ($0.40 benefits/km) would reduce this difference to 5-fold.

It should also be noted that for the benefits to equal the social crash costs, a figure twice the recommended value in the BCHF report would need to be adopted for the general health benefits of cycling.

The purpose of this discussion is to show that there is a huge discrepancy between the British and New Zealand findings in terms of the general health benefits of cycling.� At first view, the difference is two orders of magnitude. Taking some adjustments into account, a one-order magnitude difference remains.� As there is far more certainty about the social crash costs of cycling than general health benefits, this analysis suggests that the New Zealand benefit assumptions are very conservative indeed.

In view of these findings, CAN encourages Transfund to take a less conservative stance when setting the final benefit levels for general health benefits of cycling.� We also support further local research to confirm this view.

Practical Effects of Introducing Health Benefits for Cycling

CAN concurs with Opus� conclusions that the number of viable cycling projects submitted would not necessarily increase greatly, particularly given the recent increase in B/C cut-off. This expectation is also related to our previous comments about the need for improved training and documentation on evaluation of cycling projects.� An improvement in these areas may in fact result in a desirable increased number of applications.� Given the relatively small amount of cycling work funded by Transfund however (cycleway construction ~0.06% of NRP) it will not significantly impact on other project funding categories.

CAN is also concerned about the difficulty in getting some projects underway because of the co-ordination required between a TLA and Transit NZ.� A classic example is the Auckland North-Western cycleway, where Transit had to lease land to Auckland/Waitakere cities so that they could build the cycleway!� Another example is the Petone-Ngauranga cycleway in Wellington, which straddles two TLAs and runs adjacent to both a State Highway and a railway - this made it difficult to make progress, particularly before the unfortunate death of a cyclist there focussed attention.� The current Transfund requirement for TLAs to submit/fund off-road cycleways needs attention.

CAN also questions the discussion on which projects this benefit can be allowed for.� Should a shoulder widening project count, or a traffic-calming project?� It is pertinent at this point to consider the five-step hierarchy of measures for providing for cyclists (refer IHT [6] ). They are (in order of priority):

�         Reduce traffic volumes, e.g. street closures/restrictions with cycle bypasses, convert to one-way streets with contra-flow cyclists.

�         Reduce traffic speeds, e.g. 30km/h speed zones, traffic calming measures, narrowing of very wide streets, deflection at roundabouts.

�         Traffic management treatments, e.g. intersection treatments, removal of �pinch-points�.

�         Redistribution of carriageway, e.g. on-road cycle lanes, wide shoulders, shared paths.

�         Separation of cyclists, e.g. off-road cycle-ways.

It is notable that the typical �cycling� project of cycle-ways is at the bottom of this list. CAN believes that any project that can assist with the above measures should qualify for cycling health benefits.

Transfund�s proposal suggests not requiring separate evaluation of cycling facilities that are part of a much larger roading project. Although this approach is a pragmatic one, there still needs to be a check that such large projects do not adversely affect cycling, as has sometimes occurred in the past.

CAN believes that there should be a process in place that requires submitters to show in some detail how they have considered the needs of cyclists in their (roading) proposal.� In our opinion, a simple checkbox on the summary form confirming that the submitter has considered provision for cyclists is insufficient.� This is because a simplistic check would allow submitters to easily opt out of their obligation to provide a transport system that is adequate to all road users.

There is a need for RCA�s to be made aware of the positive contribution that cycling health benefits in the PEM can make to the overall BCR of a roading project.

The proposal only mentions the use of these benefits for the PEM; it is not clear why an �Alternatives to Roading� (ATR) project could not also qualify for cycling health benefits, e.g. non-public road cycle facilities, bicycle route information services, an Auckland Harbour Bridge service to transport cyclists by van, or a free �green bike� scheme like in Palmerston North.� CAN suggests that information on cycling health benefits also be provided in the ATR manual.