1 / 21

CBA for cycling Love Cycling Go Dutch Bert van Wee Delft University of Technology Birmingham, UK,

CBA for cycling Love Cycling Go Dutch Bert van Wee Delft University of Technology Birmingham, UK, 26-09-2013. Main conclusion: CBA for cycling very well possible, but one can easily do it wrong! Content: 1. What is CBA? 2. Cycling and CBA

sanjiv
Download Presentation

CBA for cycling Love Cycling Go Dutch Bert van Wee Delft University of Technology Birmingham, UK,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CBA for cycling Love Cycling Go Dutch Bert van Wee Delft University of Technology Birmingham, UK, 26-09-2013

  2. Main conclusion: CBA for cycling very well possible, but one can easily do it wrong! Content: 1. What is CBA? 2. Cycling and CBA 3. The limitations of CBA: an ethical discussion 4. Conclusions

  3. What is CBA? • Method to evaluate welfare effects op (candidate) policy options. • List of pros and cons • Quantified as much as possible • Expressed in monetary values • Analysis: Final indicator: Benefits minus costs, Benefit-Cost ratio, Return on Investment

  4. Only integration of input • Bad model? Bad evaluation! CBA, MCA, Score card, … • Price tags as much as possible based on consumer preferences • Exceptions: CO2, nature, ….

  5. Usual or even obliged in many countries • To some extent impact on decision making, but varying (e.g. Sweden more than Norway

  6. 2. Cycling and CBA Increasingly receives attention No reason to reject CBA for cycling policies Costs: relatively well known Mainly infrastructure (relatively cheap if expressed as percentage of infrastructure investments, or costs per cyclist / cyclists km

  7. 2. Cycling and CBA Travel times for other modes: + (less congestion, less crowded public transport) or – (road capacity) Risk: + and -

  8. Benefits: • travel times for cyclists, • accessibility benefits, • health benefits (exercise, intake of pollutants), • environment (CO2, pollution, noise, maybe barrier effect of infrastructure)

  9. However: one can easily make mistakes!

  10. Bad model? Bad inputs! Cycling poorly modelled, even in the Netherlands and Denmark • Aggregate statistics can be misleading, especially in case of risks • Cars? Comparable trips. Exclude motorways and differences much smaller

  11. Include risks for other, not only persons cycling or not • Average risks versus additional risks (marginal): marginal risks around zero

  12. Risks versus health: include intake, exercise. NL: positive (De Hertog et al., 2010) Double counting: health effects partly included in choices of travellers (Borjesson and Eliasson) but uncertain to what extent Urban quality difficult to quantify, and express in monetary terms Valuing accessibility in addition to travel times / travel behaviour changes

  13. The importance of context: national, regional, local. De results apply to the specific case? • ‘Indirect effects’: policies may have positive effects elsewhere (‘good examples’), but avoid double counting • How to communicate policies and effects? Visualizations?

  14. Conclusion section 2: most ‘errors’ work out negatively for cycling policies more research is needed: accessibility, urban quality, desaggregation, transferability of results

  15. 3. The limitations of CBA • Good policies: effective, efficient, fair (equity) • CBA not meant to evaluate equity • Important: • Distribution effects. • Is willingness to pay best method for valuation? School going children (WTP of parents not a good substitute) • Energy / CO2 emissions: intergenerational justice. Discounting reduces future generations to almost zero

  16. Conclusions • CBA nice method • Also applicable to cycling policies • One can easily make mistakes, at the cost of cycling policies • Some unknown questions • There is more than welfare effects / utility

More Related