Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Benefit of building space for cycling far outweighs cost, says DfT

Grants to cities and national parks return five times spend

Does investing in cycling facilities return more value in benefits than it costs? The answer is a big fat yes, according to a new analysis from the Department for Transport (DfT).

The report summarises the benefit-to-cost ratios (BCR) of a number of schemes planned or underway as a result of funding from Cycle City Ambition Grants and Cycling in National Parks Grants. It found that the return on money spent on cycling varied from just above 2:1 to a whopping 35:1.

Not every scheme does that well, of course, but the average benefit is expected to be around £5 for each pound spent.

Of the eight cities given a share of the £77 million city grant, Cambridge and Oxford, which have high levels of cycling already, are expected to benefit most with BCRs of 35.5 :1 and 16.5:1. At the other end of the scale, Leeds and Birmingham do rather less well, but they will still return a little over two pounds in benefits for each pound spent.

Most of the benefits from the grants - 64% - come from increased physical fitness, as increased activity improves the well-being of both city dwellers and people using parks for recreation.

The DfT works out the beneficial effect on health of this spending using the World Health Organisation's HEAT process (health economic assessment tool).

The HEAT tool is based on evidence showing that people who are more physically active have a lower rate of premature death when compared to less active individuals. The tool provides a formula to translate increases in cycling or walking (minutes of activity) into a reduction in the individual's risk of premature mortality.

And that just takes into account fewer premature deaths. The actual health benefits could be higher still. The DfT says: "This approach … does not account for the benefit of improved health itself (reduced morbidity) to either the individual, their employer or the NHS."

In cities, a further 20% of the benefit comes from reduced congestion. Like the overall BCR, this varies widely between cities but the one that stands out is Bristol, which gets over 50% of its 4.1:1 return on spending in congestion. Over all eight cities, each pound spent on cycling returns £1.04 in reduced congestion alone.

In its summary, the DfT says the findings "provide further confirmation that targeted investment into cycling can bring very strong returns to society."

As cycling campaigner Carlton Reid says over on Bikebiz.com, you then have to ask: "Why isn't the DfT spending even more on cycling and walking infrastructure?"

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

8 comments

Avatar
TimC340 | 10 years ago
0 likes

You have to work with the political parties in power, however anti they may be, and reports like this give the ammunition with which to beat them over the head to start doing something positive and productive. Eventually, instead of tokenistic ambitions like '£10 per head', there will be a nationwide presumption (and enforcement) of proper planning for pedestrians and cyclists in all construction schemes.

Avatar
congokid | 10 years ago
0 likes

the return on money spent on cycling varied from just above 2:1 to a whopping 35:1

Fabulous news.

the average benefit is expected to be around £5 for each pound spent.

My maths might not be what it once was, but doesn't that make a super-duper stupendously even more whopping-tastic 500 per cent?

Avatar
cqexbesd replied to congokid | 10 years ago
0 likes
congokid wrote:

the average benefit is expected to be around £5 for each pound spent.

My maths might not be what it once was, but doesn't that make a super-duper stupendously even more whopping-tastic 500 per cent?

500% or 5:1...

Avatar
tritecommentbot | 10 years ago
0 likes

Glad they're putting together the report. Without it we'd have never known that more cycling infrastructure was beneficial..

 22

Avatar
bikebot replied to tritecommentbot | 10 years ago
1 like
unconstituted wrote:

Glad they're putting together the report. Without it we'd have never known that more cycling infrastructure was beneficial..

 22

We may know that, but the level of ignorance amongst a certain part of the population is still staggering. A favourite Daily Fail comment was someone complaining about the cost to the NHS of all the cyclists "needing knee operations", meaning that people with "genuine health problems" have to wait for their treatment.

There may not be a cure for stupid, but reports such as this can be used to club stupid people into silence.

Avatar
tritecommentbot replied to bikebot | 10 years ago
0 likes
bikebot wrote:
unconstituted wrote:

Glad they're putting together the report. Without it we'd have never known that more cycling infrastructure was beneficial..

 22

We may know that, but the level of ignorance amongst a certain part of the population is still staggering. A favourite Daily Fail comment was someone complaining about the cost to the NHS of all the cyclists "needing knee operations", meaning that people with "genuine health problems" have to wait for their treatment.

There may not be a cure for stupid, but reports such as this can be used to club stupid people into silence.

This report will be drowned out and counter-'balanced' by a whole slew of victim blaming articles in the Beeb and mainstream media  39

Avatar
kie7077 | 10 years ago
0 likes

So, the gov't has announced they are going to spend £28 billion on the roads, that's about £436 per head, so why are we doing something really stupid - asking for £10 per head to be spent on cycling infrastructure.

What we should be doing is making sure that new cycling infrastructure meets standards and that every upgrade and addition to road infrastructure has cycling infrastructure designed in as standard.

If you want decent cycling infrastructure in the UK then don't vote Labour or Tory, they've been letting us down for decades.

Having said all that, I most certainly welcome the report and hope that all MPs see it and comprehend it.

Avatar
Paul_C replied to kie7077 | 10 years ago
0 likes
kie7077 wrote:

If you want decent cycling infrastructure in the UK then don't vote Labour or Tory, they've been letting us down for decades.

UKIP won't be any better either as they're anti-cycling..

Latest Comments