HighLight Heading
June 2005
Benefits and costs of bicycling and bicycle facilities
In a three-year project, researchers from the University of Minnesota developed reliable methodologies for researching bicycle and bicycle facility use in suburban and urban areas across the country.
To help answer critical policy questions regarding the development of bicycle facilities, Gary Barnes, Kevin Krizek, and Paul Mogush of the Humphrey Institute developed a system for estimating demand, costs, and benefits of bicycle facilities. These tools can be used to estimate the benefits for both the cyclists and society. Their work raises a number of important data, measurement, and methodological issues for future researchers endeavoring to predict levels of bicycle use for entire cities or metropolitan areas.
The first step in the research was to determine the demand for bicycle facilities and who would use them. In the Twin Cities, 1.4 percent of the adult population rides a bike daily compared to 0.9 percent nationally. Further, while the researchers found that bicycle facilities are used quite frequently, the correlation between this and daily ridership is weak. This is due to the fact that at least 50 percent of the population rides a bicycle only sometimes. The question, then, Barnes said, became how to estimate the demand for such facilities if you cannot determine the patterns of use by that 50 percent of the adult population that occasionally uses them.
In his research into the demand for bicycle facilities, Barnes divided the bicycle riding population into three categories of usage. He found that 80 percent of bicycle use is for recreation, 15 percent for shopping, and only 8 percent for commuting. Of those commuting on a bicycle, only 40 percent substitute it for a car while others would otherwise carpool, use mass transit, or walk.
Krizek presented the methodology for determining the benefits of bicycle facilities in terms of economic and societal benefits. The benefits to the individual in terms of health and quality of life are high, he said, but because 80 percent of riders do so recreationally, the actual benefit to society in reducing congestion and pollution levels is minimal.
Krizek then compared home sales to the availability of bicycling facilities. Surprisingly, he discovered the facilities often had a negative effect on home sale prices in the area. One possibility is that people have become increasingly concerned with vandalism, crime, and loitering that may accompany the facilities.
Finally, Mogush reported how this research culminated in a Web tool that will allow bicycle planners and community leaders to determine the costs and benefits of proposed bicycle facilities. When the desired facility characteristics are entered, the tool will output capital costs, maintenance costs, and related benefits to the individual and community. The Web tool is currently in the beta testing phase and will be available at www.bicyclinginfo.org/bikecost.