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