تجزیه و تحلیل هزینه - فایده شبکه های مسیر پیاده روی و دوچرخه سواری با توجه به عدم امنیت حساب کاربری، اثرات بهداشتی و هزینه های بیرونی از ترافیک موتوری

The study presents cost–benefit analyses of walking and cycling track networks in three Norwegian cities. The cost–benefit analyses take into account the benefit of reduced insecurity and the health benefits of the improved fitness the use of non-motorized transport provides. In addition to reductions in health costs, the analyses also take into account that a change from travel by car to cycling or walking means reduced external costs (e.g. air pollution and noise) from motorized traffic and reduced parking costs. The benefits of investments in cycle networks are estimated to be at least 4–5 times the costs. Such investments are thus more beneficial to society than other transport investments. The results of such complete cost–benefit analyses make it possible to calculate the benefits to society that are not realized because motorized traffic prevents people from bicycling or walking as much as they otherwise would prefer. These “barrier costs” attributable to motorized traffic are estimated to be of at least the same magnitude as air pollution costs and more than double the noise costs. Barrier costs should therefore be taken into account in the same way as other external costs, when the issue is to determine the proper level of car taxes or to evaluate different kinds of restrictions on car use.

The CBAs presented are based on high, though realistic cost estimates, and “low” benefit estimates in order to prevent overestimates. The analyses are therefore judged to produce “down-to-earth”, conservative estimates of the profitability to society of building walking and cycling track networks in Norwegian cities. CBAs conducted in this way constitute an adequate platform for politicians and other decision makers for addressing to the overall question of setting priorities and spending scarce public funds. With regard to the applicability of the analyses, profitability to society and perspectives with respect to setting priorities among transport investments, the following conclusions are drawn: (a) Best estimates of future pedestrian and bicycle traffic leave no doubt that building walking and cycling track networks in Hokksund, Hamar and Trondheim is beneficial to society. Net benefit/cost ratios in these cities are approximately 4, 14 and 3, respectively. (b) By implementing high, though realistic, cost estimates in their strategic analyses, planners of walking and cycling track networks have a large set of possibilities when in the next stage a choice must be made of the designs that provide the best overall solutions for the different sections of the network. (c) Compared to the relatively low net benefit/cost ratios for other transport investments (cf. e.g. “The National Transport Plan 2002–2011” from the Ministry of Transport and Communications, 2000), investment in walking and cycle tracks in Norwegian cities is a chance for the transport sector to make investments yielding considerably higher profitability to society than has been seen for a long time. (d) Barrier cost is a large external cost related to motorized traffic. It is therefore important to take barrier cost into account in the same way as other external costs, when the issue is to determine the proper level of car taxes or to evaluate different kind of restrictions on car use. The CBAs of walking and cycling track networks are based on a limited knowledge of many of the benefits and preliminary cost estimates included. In order to reduce uncertainties resulting from this limited knowledge, the following points are suggested as necessary further research: (a) It will be essential to perform new valuation studies to improve valuations of accidents, travel time and insecurity. The relationship between statistical risk reflected in road safety statistics and the more subjectively felt insecurity is one topic that should be investigated in such valuation studies. (b) More information on the relationship between physical activity and the incidence and costs of different diseases and ailments will probably be available in the near future. This will make it possible to include more reliable cost estimates and include more types of severe diseases and ailments without double counting. (c) It is not known whether substituting walking or cycling for car and public transport use will result in more or fewer people injured in traffic accidents. This issue is complicated by the fact that accidents involving single cyclists are underreported in Norwegian accident statistics. Obtaining more accurate information on the number of accidents involving cyclists should therefore have high priority in order to estimate correctly the costs of more bicycle use in the future. (d) In Norway there is limited information on both current and projected future numbers of pedestrians and cyclists. Related to this issue is a need for more information about risk and insecurity related to cycling on dedicated tracks versus cycling on bicycle lanes in the roads and how different designs of cycle routes influence the volume of bicycle use.