Benefits of Bicycling: Climate Change and Beyond

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 11

7400 Sand Point Way NE Bldg 138 Seattle, WA 98102

Benefits of Bicycling
Climate Change and Beyond

The humble bicycle is making a 21st century comeback as a clean, fashionable, and inexpensive transportation solution that can help you reduce your citys carbon emissions. The renewal of interest in this remarkable transportation mode could not come at a better time for American cities and the planet. We are faced with a growing population, increased automobile congestion, and a climate crisis. The good news is that bicycling investments are cheap to implement and yield significant side benefits. While bicycles alone cannot solve the problem of climate disruption, cities around the world are demonstrating that investments in bicycle infrastructure and education can help keep local dollars in the community while improving safety and cutting emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the leading greenhouse gas. In this paper, we will examine the potential of bicycling to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and look at some of its social benefits. We will also show how bicycling rates can be influenced through public policies and programs.

Transportation and global warming


Human-caused climate disruption is upon us, and accelerating at a pace that is alarming the experts. Climate scientists agree that dramatic cuts in our greenhouse gas emissions are needed if we are to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate disruption. Defining dangerous climate disruption as a global temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius or more, most climate scientists and a growing number of governments are calling for carbon reductions to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. That figure based is on the assessments published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the worlds preeminent scientific body tasked with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity. As a sector, transportation is a major contributor to the United States total emissions. Global warming emissions from cars and trucks in the U.S. accounted for about 22% of this countrys greenhouse gas emissions in 2005 (1). We have a larger-than-average responsibility to reduce our automobile emissions: U.S. drivers release 45% of the worlds automotive carbon despite hosting only 5% of the worlds population (2). If we are to reach our goal of an 80% reduction by 2050, we must include transportation reforms as part of our climate protection strategy. New technology alone will not solve the problem Unfortunately, we cannot rely completely on biofuels or plug-in hybrids to eliminate our transportation sector greenhouse gas emissions. That is because, in addition to vehicle efficiency and fuel type, emissions from Americas vehicle fleet are influenced by a third factor: the total amount of driving (also known as vehicle miles traveled or VMT). Together, these three factors are sometimes referred to as the three-legged stool of transportation carbon emissions. Clean cars shore up the first two legs (efficiency and, potentially, fuel type), but our stool collapses for weakness in the third; until every car on the road is 100% non-polluting, our collective rate of driving will influence the amount of carbon we emit.

And Americans are driving more each year. Even if the United States immediately mandates aggressive fuel efficiency standards for the automobile industry, projected increases in VMT will likely overwhelm any resulting emissions reductions. This is the finding of Growing Cooler (3), an Urban Land Institutepublished review of recent transportation, development, and energy trends. The Figure 1. Vehicle efficiency alone will not be enough to reduce carbon authors of Growing Cooler emissions (Source: Urban Land Institute) note that with decisive Congressional action the efficiency of the United States vehicle fleet could rise 12% by 2030, but that vehicle miles traveled are predicted to increase by 59% over the same period. If nothing is done to curb driving rates, CO2 from transportation sources will jump dramatically by 2030 even with a cleaner vehicle fleet (see Figure 1). An effective solution must address all three legs of the stool. We need to embrace new technology but also look past it to plan for a reduction in the number of miles we drive. To do that, we will have to explore new approaches for how we plan for population growth and manage our transportation infrastructure. A successful response to global warming will involve the cultivation of compact neighborhoods and an empowerment of residents to choose transportation modes beyond the private automobile. Fortunately, there is a readily-available transportation mode that is well suited to the compact neighborhoods of the future. It is affordable and takes up little space. It addresses all three legs of the stool, emitting no pollution whatsoever and cutting driving rates. Parking is a breeze. It is the bicycle.

Benefits of Bicycling
Climate protection Along with walking, bicycling is the climate protection champion of the transportation world. While a solo driver in an average car releases about 1.1 pounds of CO2 per mile, a bicyclist releases none (beyond the negligible amount of carbon in her breath). Thus every trip shifted to bicycle results in an effectively 100% reduction in direct greenhouse gas emissions. Even a Toyota Prius releases about .6 pounds of CO2 per mile (see Figure 2). In the Puget Sound region 3

there were about 81,534,000 vehicle miles traveled per day in 2006 (4). If just 5% of those trip-miles were shifted to bicycle, we would prevent the release of 4,484,370 pounds of CO2 every day. Over the course of a year, thats like taking 160,000 cars off the road (1). Improved safety Increasing the number of cyclists on your streets can save lives. That is what Peter Jacobsen found in his 2003 report Safety in Numbers, in which he noted that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people Figure 2. (Source: Sightline Institute) walking and bicycling, leading to a reduction in the rate of collisions between motorists and bicyclists and walkers (5). Recent data from the Portland Office of Transportation reinforced Jacobsens finding: cycling rates soared since the early 1990s while the crash risk per rider dropped by about 70% (see Figure 3).

Economic prosperity Small increases in the cycling rate can mean big money for your city. Why? Because cars are an extraordinarily expensive form of travel when compared to bikes, even when one only considers the costs that the drivers themselves bear. An Figure 3. (Source: Portland Department of Transportation) average midsize car driven 10,000 miles in a year costs its driver about $.76 per mile, or $7,574 for the year. The estimate includes gasoline, oil, maintenance, tires, insurance, license, registration, taxes, depreciation, and finance charges (6). Unfortunately, the $.76 figure only tells part of the story. Automobiles incur many costs that are not covered directly by the driver, including time lost to congestion, health expenses from air 4

pollution-caused illnesses, road construction, and crashes. Called externalities, they boost the true cost of driving a car to about $1.20 per mile, according to one estimate (7). Replacing driving with bicycling saves money for the public. Gary Barnes at the University of Minnesota tallied the economic benefits of cycling to his state. In a state of about 5 million people, his conservative estimate found that Minnesotas modest rate of bicycling about 1.5% of adult trips and 5% of trips by children led to fiscal benefits in excess of $300 million per year (8). Todd Litman and the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (VTPI) in British Columbia calculate that for every mile of travel shifted from automobile to bicycle, society saves an average of 24 cents (7). Using VTPIs methodology, we find that if 5% of car trips in the greater Seattle area were shifted to bicycle, the public would save an average of $970,000 per day in automobilerelated costs, not counting the substantial savings to drivers from reduced spending on fuel and maintenance.

Boosting bicycling in your city


Cycling rates vary widely amongst cities in the developed world, even in areas with similar wealth, populations, and climate. What does it take to create a culture of cycling? Governments and citizen groups seeking to promote bicycle transportation in the United States traditionally have employed what are known as the Five Es: engineering (bike lanes, parking), education (cycling classes, motorist awareness programs), enforcement (holding motorists and cyclists accountable to the law), evaluation and planning (benchmarking, goal-setting), and encouragement (events, promotion campaigns). The Five Es frame bicycle promotion as a comprehensive endeavor, requiring a combination of approaches to realize lasting gains in cycling. In the following sections we will review evidence supporting a few of Es, including engineering, education and encouragement, and also an important variable that is not currently counted among the Five Es: land use. Engineering When cities build multiuse paths and bicycle lanes, people use them. That is the finding of a series of studies in recent years, beginning with Nelson and Allens aptly-name study If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them (9). The authors found that every new mile of bikeway per 100,000 people is associated with a .069 percent increase in bicycle commuting, though they stopped short of interpreting the correlation as a cause-effect relationship.

More recent investigations by Dill and Carr (10) and Barnes (11) strengthen the case that bike lanes lead to more people riding more often. Both studies found significant increases in bicycle traffic where facilities were installed. In fact, bikeways have been found to stimulate riding beyond the facilities themselves; Krizek and Barnes found Figure 4. Portland saw a dramatic increase in cycling as they built their bikeway increased bike trips up to network (Source: Portland Department of Transportation) 1.5 miles from the ends of recently installed bikeways (12). Conversely, it appears that the installation of new automobile capacity can depress walking, biking, and transit rates (13). Bicycle lanes have benefits beyond merely stimulating riding. They contribute to more traffic flow (14), are liked by cyclists (15), and create a safer riding environment (16). Education and Encouragement While new bikeways can make bicycling easier and safer, a major increase in cycling rates must involve education and encouragement. Education and encouragement programs give travelers support as they explore new transportation options and offer them the skills they need to do so safely. That is why education is a major component of Cascade Bicycle Clubs work. We offer bicycle education programs for all ages, including, free and low-cost community helmet sales, riding classes, and Bicycle Ambassadors at community events who provide maps, fit helmets, and offer advice and tips. While Cascade Bicycle Club does not have a statistical measurement of how our programs affect cycling rates across our service area, anecdotal evidence suggests that our classes and outreach activities are encouraging people to ride more safely and more often. The State of Washingtons Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) program is another example of education and encouragement, and its success is quantified. Mandated by the state legislature in 1991, CTR requires large employers to develop and implement a program to encourage employees to choose modes of travel other than the single-occupant motor vehicle, with the goal of reducing traffic congestion, air pollution, and energy use. In workplaces with over 100 fulltime employees , one person is designated as an employee transportation coordinator, and he

or she distributes informational material about transportation options and company-led incentives for non-single occupant vehicle commuting. CTR appears to work. Since the CTR program began in Washington State in 1993, bicycling rates at program sites increased 51% while the percentage of people driving alone dropped from 71% to 65% (17). Over the same time frame, Washington States overall drive alone rate remained roughly unchanged at around 74% and national rates increased significantly. On a municipal level, the Portland Office of Transportation SmartTrips program (based on the pioneering TravelSmart in Perth, Australia) has also been successful in increasing bicycling and reducing driving. Under SmartTrips, each year the Office of Transportation selects a Portland neighborhood. In spring, residents in that neighborhood receive a door hanger (delivered by bicycle) with an offer of more information about non-driving travel options. If they send in the attached postcard, they are delivered customized bus schedules, walking and biking maps, and an incentive gift of a tote bag. Interested participants can also receive one-on-one consultations with Portland Transportation Department staffers and other transportation freebies. SmartTrips has significantly increased bicycling and reduced single-occupant driving in Portland neighborhoods where it was conducted (18). After the programs most recent deployment to the citys Northeast corner (March through November 2006), the Portland Department of Transportation found that the percentage of all trips made by single drivers dropped by 8.2%. Among program participants that figure was 12.8%. The share of all trips in the area taken by bicycle increased 1.5% -- a dramatic increase for a mode that accounted for between 2 and 4% of trips before the program began. In follow up evaluations of deployments in other parts of the city, Transportation Department officials have found that SmartTrips results tend to hold over time. Land Use A growing body of evidence suggests that land use features can significantly influence the rates of driving, bicycling and walking in a city. Density or the number of people or jobs in a given area is a key determinant of driving and bicycling rates. Numerous studies have documented that fact that the denser a city, the less its residents tend to drive and the more they tend to walk, bike, or use transit (19) (20) (21). Part of this phenomenon is due to the variability in distances between origins (homes) and destinations (employment, commerce, or recreation). In a typical suburban environment, the distances

Figure 5. As residential density increases, driving decreases (Source: Environmental Building News)

between ones home and a series of errand stops can make a bicycle ride impractically long. In a dense, mixed urban neighborhood, common destinations are more likely to be located within a convenient walking or bicycling distance. Other land use factors that can influence bicycling rates include the interconnectedness of the street grid, diversity (mixed uses), building orientation, and parking management. How much change is possible? Obviously, not all automobile trips can be replaced by bicycle rides. Some trips are too long; others involve large amounts of cargo or a number of passengers. Not everyone is physically capable of riding a bicycle. But considering the dramatic advantages of the bicycle in terms of energy efficiency, space efficiency, economic savings, and health impacts, even modest increases in bicycling can result in significant benefits. So what percentage of automobile trips can we reasonably expect to serve with nonmotorized transportation? Cycling rates vary widely across the globe. As one might expect, nations where automobile ownership is out of reach for much of the population have high rates of bicycling and walking. In 2000, 90% of trips in Tianjin, China a city of eight million people were taken on foot or by some sort of nonmotorized conveyance (bicycle, rickshaw, etc) (22). In Dhaka, Bangladesh (pop. 11 million), that figure is 60%.
Car Transit Cycling Walking Other By contrast, Austria 39% 13% 9% 31% 8% wealthy nations Canada 74% 14% 1% 10% 1% tend to have Denmark 42% 14% 20% 21% 3% higher rates of France 54% 12% 4% 30% 0% private Germany 52% 11% 10% 27% 0% automobile Netherlands 44% 8% 27% 19% 1% ownership and Sweden 36% 11% 10% 39% 4% Switzerland 38% 20% 10% 29% 3% lower rates of UK 62% 14% 8% 12% 4% bicycling and USA 84% 3% 1% 9% 2% walking. Nations where the bulk of Figure 6. Bicycling and walking rates have room to grow in the United States development (Source: Pucher and Lefevre 1996) occurred after the emergence of the automobile, including the United States and Canada, have the lowest walking and bicycling rates of all (see Figure 6). Still, we see that among the industrialized nations the popularity of the bicycle as a transportation mode varies considerably, from in the low single digits in the U.S. to about a third of all trips in the Netherlands; prosperity and bicycling are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, as traffic congestions toll on our economy and quality of life grows, bicycling may become indispensible.

Fortunately, nonmotorized transportation rates in industrialized nations are responsive to programs and public policy reforms. In a 2001 report, Roger Mackett of the U.K.s Centre for

Transport Studies found that in the urban areas he studied in England, about 7% of automobile trips could be shifted to walking or biking through infrastructure improvements and social marketing (22). Litman and VTPI found that even more change is possible. They estimate that percentage of trips taken by bike or on foot could be increased to 10-35% if infrastructure improvements and social marketing is combined with market reforms such as accurate pricing parking for cars (23). There are numerous examples of cities and countries around the world which have achieved bicycling and walking rates within this range or higher.

Conclusion
It is perhaps not a coincidence that bicycle planning came into its own over the past fifteen years -- the same time period during which the unfolding climate crisis began to capture the publics attention. Propelled by the need for inexpensive transportation solutions and popular exhaustion with automobile congestion, researchers have given American planners and elected officials a wealth of new bicycle transportation data. We learned that few transportation modes can match the bicycle for carbon emission reductions and multiple social benefits. Engineers refined the standards for bicycle transportation infrastructure elements like bike lanes and trails. A growing nationwide advocacy community grew up around the idea that we have the technology we need to achieve our climate goals. All the pieces are in place for a widespread reinvention of transportation and community in the United States. Together with transit, walking, compact neighborhood design, and better management of existing roads, bicycling has the potential to make us happier and healthier while we do the necessary work of cutting our carbon emissions.

Resources
This paper is only a brief introduction into the benefits of developing bicycling as a mainstream transportation mode. For more information about any of the information in this document, please contact the author: Patrick McGrath Cascade Bicycle Club PO Box 15165 Seattle, WA 98102 206-957-0689 patrick.mcgrath@cascadebicycleclub.org

Works Cited
1. United States. U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reports: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2005. Washington, DC : Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. #430-R-07002. 9

2. DeCicco, John and Fung, Freda. Global Warming on the Road: The Climate Impact of Americas Automobiles. New York : Environmental Defense, 2006. 3. Reid, Ewing, et al. Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change. Washington : Urban Land Institute, 2007. 4. Puget Sound Regional Council. Vehicle Miles Traveled. Puget Sound Regional Council. Seattle : Puget Sound Regional Council, 2007. 5. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and biking. Jacobsen, Peter. 2003, Injury Prevention, Vol. 9, pp. 205-209. 6. American Public Transportation Association. Automobile Driving Costs. [Online] [Cited: December 18, 2007.] http://www.apta.com/research/stats/fares/drivcost.cfm. 7. Litman, Todd. Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis. Victoria, BC : Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2007. 8. Barnes, Gary. The Benefits of Bicycling in Minnesota. Saint Paul, MN : Minnesota Department of Transportation, 2004. MN/RC 2004-50. 9. If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them: Association Between Bicycle Facilities and Bicycle Commuting. Nelson, A.C. and Allen, D. 1578, Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board, 1997, Transportation Research Record, pp. 79-83. 10. Bicycle Commuting and Facilities in Major U.S. Cities: If You Build Them, Commuters Will Use Them Another Look. Dill, Jennifer and Carr, Theresa. Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board, 2003, Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1828, pp. 116-123. 11. A Longitudinal Analysis of the Effect of Bicycle Facilities on Commute Mode Share. Barnes, Gary, Thompson, Kristen and Kevin, Krizek. Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board, 2006. Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting. #06-2365. 12. Barnes, Gary and Krizek, Kevin. Tools For Predicting Usage and Benefits of Urban Bicycle Network Improvements. Saint Paul, MN : s.n., 2005. Minnesota Department of Transportation Report. MN/RC 2005-50. 13. United States. Expanding Metropolitan Highways: Implications for Air Quality and Energy Use. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, DC : National Academy Press, 1995. Special report : 245. 14. Evaluation of Shared-Use Facilities for Bicycles and Motor Vehicles in Florida. Harkey, David and Stewart, J. Richard. Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 1997, Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1578, pp. 111-118. 15. An Analysis of Commuter Bicyclist Route Choice Using a Stated Preference Survey. Stinson, Monique and Bhat, Chandra. Washington, DC : Transportation Research Board, 2003, Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1828, pp. 107-115. 16. United States. Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Features, Volume VI, Pedestrians and Bicyclists. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC : s.n., 1991. FHWA-RD-91049. 17. State of Washington. CTR Survey Database. [ed.] Edward Hillsman. [Excel spreadsheet]. Olympia, Washington : Washington State Department of Transportation, January 8, 2007. 18. City of Portland. SmartTrips Northeast Hub Comprehensive Evaluation Report. Office of Transportation. Portland, OR : s.n., 2006. 19. Ewing, Reid, Pendall, Rolf and Chen, Don. Measuring Sprawl and its Impacts. Washington, DC : Smart Growth America, 2003.

10

20. Kuzmyak, Richard and Pratt, Richard. Land Use and Site Design: Traveler Response to Transport System Changes. s.l. : Transportation Research Board, 2003. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 95, Chapter 15. 21. United Kingdom. The Demand for Public Transit: A Practical Guide. Berkshire, UK : Transportation Research Laboratory, 2004. TRL 593. 22. World Bank Urban Transport Strategy Review. Pendakur, V. Setty. Yokohama, Japan : s.n., 2000. Asian Consultation Workshop. 23. Policies to attract drivers out of their cars for short trips. Mackett, RL. 1, Oxford : s.n., October 2001, Transport Policy, Vol. 8. 24. Litman, Todd. Transportation Elasticities: How Prices and Other Factor Affect Travel Behavior. Victoria, BC : Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2007. 25. United States. Traffic Safety Facts: 2003 Data. National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Washington, DC : s.n., 2003.

11

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy