This report was commissioned to provide a review of the literature on the value of cycling. It focuses on evidence of the wider economic benefits of cycling as a mode of transport, such as retail revenue, employment effects, and public spending efficiencies. The aim of the research is to collate the evidence base which outlines the benefits and disbenefits of investment in cycling as a mode of transport. Existing appraisal methods already take into account health benefits (reduced mortality), decongestion benefits (including generalized reduction in traffic collisions), and personal journey amenity benefits. Searches of the academic and grey literature were undertaken. These searches centred on the impacts of cycling at the individual, neighbourhood, town/city, regional and national levels, with a view to developing an understanding of the benefits of cycling and the value associated with the mode. The findings of the review suggest that there is evidence of the value of cycling as a mode of transport. However, it is less clear what the exact nature of that value would look like: the valuation and monetization of the complete range of potential benefits of cycling do not appear to have been widely considered. This is not unexpected. It is relatively easy to assign financial and economic values to investment in infrastructure but the monetization of social and individual impacts is much more challenging. The findings show that cycling has largely positive impacts for people and the places where they live. It can improve their well-being, lessen their spend on travel, and enhance the liveability of their environment. In terms of public spending, cycling and related infrastructure have been found to be substantially lower cost than other transport modes. At the same time, there are benefits to businesses of cycling, both as a utility and leisure mode, as well as the benefit of running a business in an area which is conducive to cycling. These effects appear to have received more detailed economic valuation than individual impacts. Cycling has been shown to benefit both the employer and the employee. While it would appear that the benefits in terms of sick leave are relatively low, the role of cycling facilities for attracting staff seems to hold great potential. Moreover, for the prospective employee, ease of physical access to work opportunities is central to the ability to gain employment and cycling provides a tool by which joblessness due to transport exclusion may be overcome for some social groups. The literature suggests that cycling can assist in meeting strategic goals in diverse areas such as helping to introduce parity of access to employment opportunities, contribute to retail and other business vitality, and create vibrant spaces. There is a concern in the literature that the currently widely-used appraisal methods do not incorporate the full extent of benefits associated with cycling and this means that, as the mode competes for funding, it may always be seen as less viable than other options. Furthermore, there is little recognition of the disbenefits of non-cycling modes of transport in current appraisal methods. In conclusion, there is substantial discourse about the benefits of cycling. These benefits are found across a range of thematic spheres (e.g. improving accessibility, increasing employment access, contributing to vibrant communities and individual well-being) and geographic scales (neighbourhood, local, regional, national). However, despite assertions of various positive impacts, the literature is less forth-coming about the ways in which these may be realistically captured. The nuanced impacts that go beyond mainstream economic measures are difficult to harness into substantiated and replicable metrics. For cycling’s potential to be realised and infrastructure schemes to be financed, there is a need to give priority to developing appraisal methods that incorporate the full range of relevant cost and benefits that relate to cycling, and indeed consistently across all modes of transport. Social accounting and audit may be one approach that offers a framework for exploring the broader scope of assessment as it concerns itself with more than economic impacts and is not solely expressed in financial terms. It accepts the use of qualitative input, incorporates multiple perspectives, and includes social, economic and environmental impacts. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting