http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "Cycling's benefit-to-cost ratio is off the scale, discovers DfT" en Mon, 18 May 2026 16:06:22 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13889#post-171485 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 16:04:54 +0000 crowriver 171485@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Here are some arguments we can use to hit the Scottish transport minister over the head with. He might then hit his minions at Transport Scotland over the head with it in turn, and ask what are they going to do about it?</p> <p>Oh wait. It's Keith Brown. The man who turns targets into aspirations, and then into shared aspirations, and eventually into "nowt to wi' me, I'm just interested in trunk roads".</p> <p>Forget it then! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13889#post-171475 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 12:14:29 +0000 Instography 171475@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>For me, too much of the benefit comes from the conceptually dubious "journey ambience" but even if you take that out, the benefits still exceed the cost by a long way (4.4 instead of 5.1). Most of the benefits come from two sources: physical fitness and reduced congestion. </p> <p>But the most interesting thing about it is that some of the schemes covered by the analysis are self-financing solely on the basis of reduced congestion. The value of the benefit from reduced congestion is as much as, or more than, the total cost of the scheme (see below).</p> <p>If you were looking for a car-friendly justification for cycling infrastructure, you couldn't get much better than reduced congestion. And if it pays for itself, and helps the Government meet some of its own targets (see it's Reduced Traffic Congestion national indicator <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/Performance/scotPerforms/indicator/congestion">here</a>) so much the better.</p> <p>Value of reduced congestion as a % of scheme costs.</p> <p>Birmingham 28%<br /> Bristol 211%<br /> Cambridge 97%<br /> Leeds 46%<br /> Manchester 166%<br /> Newcastle 37%<br /> Norwich 11%<br /> Oxford 0%<br /> Overall 105% </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13889#post-171473 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 11:00:02 +0000 I were right about that saddle 171473@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@gembo</p> <p>The great advantage of dictatorships is that they can behave rationally without fear of the irrational electorate? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13889#post-171467 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 10:17:14 +0000 RJ 171467@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There's no reason to think that things would be massively different in Scotland. Still, it's a "report", which is not the same as "policy". I don't imagine Transport Scotland would radically change existing cycling policy without at least one report of their own. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13889#post-171466 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 10:04:32 +0000 gembo 171466@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Does this apply to SNP? See other thread about strict liability </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13889#post-171465 Sat, 08 Nov 2014 09:56:08 +0000 chdot 171465@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"</p> <p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348943/vfm-assessment-of-cycling-grants.pdf">A new statistical report from the Department for Transport</a> shows that investing in cycling brings huge economic, social and health benefits, with some cycling schemes having a benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) of up to 35 to 1. The newly-funded cycling schemes have BCRs of 5.5:1 – the Department for Transport said this means that "for every £1 of public money spent, the funded schemes provide £5.50 worth of social benefit."</p> <p>"</p> <p><a href="http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/dft-discovers-cycling-s-benefit-to-cost-ratio-is-off-the-scale/017088" rel="nofollow">http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/dft-discovers-cycling-s-benefit-to-cost-ratio-is-off-the-scale/017088</a> </p>