| Literature DB >> 24496244 |
Alexandra Macmillan1, Jennie Connor, Karen Witten, Robin Kearns, David Rees, Alistair Woodward.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shifting to active modes of transport in the trip to work can achieve substantial co-benefits for health, social equity, and climate change mitigation. Previous integrated modeling of transport scenarios has assumed active transport mode share and has been unable to incorporate acknowledged system feedbacks.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24496244 PMCID: PMC3984216 DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1307250
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Health Perspect ISSN: 0091-6765 Impact factor: 9.031
Transport strategic targets relevant to commuter bicycling from the Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010–2040 (Auckland Regional Council 2010).
| Strategic objective | Current level | Quantified target for 2040 |
|---|---|---|
| Road traffic injury | 2005–2007 average: 74 deaths and 537 serious injuries | Reduction in road deaths to ≤ 40/year and serious injuries to ≤ 288/year |
| Congestion on the road freight network | 2006–2009 average delay: 0.53 min/km | No increase |
| Walking and bicycling mode share | 2010: walking 14%, bicycling < 1% | Combined walking and cycling mode share of 35% |
| Perception of bicycling safety | 2010: 19% of survey respondents considered bicycling to be “always or mostly” safe | 80% of people consider bicycling “always or mostly” safe |
| Transport greenhouse gas emissions | 2007: 3.1 metric tons per capita from commuting | Halve per capita emissions from domestic transport compared with 2007 |
| Current levels were reported in the Strategy, except 2007 commuting greenhouse gas emissions, which were simulated using VEPM 5.0 (Auckland Regional Council 2011). | ||
Figure 1Causal loop diagram for bicycle commuting developed from stakeholder interviews and workshops, literature review, and data incorporation. Dotted lines denote loops identified by stakeholders and the literature, but where local data suggests they are currently inactive. Arrows with a positive sign (+) indicate that a change in the originating variable leads to a corresponding change in the variable at the arrowhead. Arrows with negative signs (–) indicate that a change in the originating variable leads to a change in the opposite direction for the arrowhead variable (R, reinforcing or positive feedback loop; B, balancing or negative feedback loop).
Effects used in the simulation model for the policy scenarios.
| Policy scenario and effects modeled | Studies used | Estimate of effect |
|---|---|---|
| RCN: On-road lanes | ||
| Risk of collision with a motor vehicle | Elvik et al. 2009; Jensen 2008; Reynolds et al. 2009 | 0.9 |
| Perception of bicycling safety | Garrard et al. 2008; Jensen et al. 2007; Kingham et al. 2011 | 4% increase per 10% of network treated |
| Perception of bicycle commuting | Dill and Carr 2003; Jensen 2008 | 3% increase per 10% of network treated |
| RCN: Off-road shared bicycle and foot paths | ||
| Risk of collision with a motor vehicle | Aultman-Hall and Hall 1998; Aultman-Hall and Kaltenecker 1999; Elvik et al. 2009 | 1.0 |
| Perception of bicycling safety | Garrard et al. 2008; Goldsmith 1992 | 5% increase per 10% of network treated |
| Perception of bicycle commuting | Aultman-Hall et al. 1997; Buehler and Pucher 2011; Kingham et al. 2011; Larsen 2010 | 2% increase by doubling km/100,000 population |
| RCN: Shared bus and bicycle lanes | ||
| Risk of collision with a motor vehicle | Newcombe and Wilson 2011 | 1.0 at mean lane width |
| ASBL | ||
| Risk of collision with a motor vehicle | Elvik et al. 2009; Gårder et al. 1998; Jensen 2008; Lusk et al. 2011; Turner et al. 2011 | 0.72 midway collisions, 0.8 intersection treatments |
| Perception of bicycling safety | Garrard et al. 2008; Jensen et al. 2007; Kingham et al. 2011; | 6% increase per 10% of network treated |
| Perception of bicycle commuting | Dill and Carr 2003; Jensen 2008 | 4% increase every 10% of network treated |
| SER | ||
| Mean local road vehicle speed | Charlton et al. 2010 | Proportional increase up to 15 km/hr |
| Risk of collision with a motor vehicle | Bunn et al. 2003; Charlton et al. 2010; Elvik 2009; Grundy 2009; OECD and European Conference of Ministers of Transport 2006 | 10-km/hr reduction in speed reduces collisions by 60% |
| Vehicle volume on local roads | Charlton et al. 2010; Elvik 2009 | Proportional increase to 25% reduction |
| Proportion of bicycle trip distance on local roads | Modest effects based on local expertise | Proportional increase from 50% to 70% |
| Perception of bicycling safety | Modest effects based on local expertise | Proportional increase up to 10% |
| Perception of bicycle commuting | Modest effects based on local expertise | Proportional increase up to 10% |
| Perception of light vehicle convenience | Modest effects based on local expertise | Proportional decrease up to 30% |
Figure 2Dynamic model outputs 1991–2051. (A) Commuter bicycling mode share. (B) Annual serious and fatal injuries to commuter cyclists due to collisions with light vehicles. (C) Commuter cyclist injury rate per 1,000 cyclists. (D) Mortality due to air pollution from the commuting light vehicle fleet.
Cumulative outcomes projected from the simulation of active policy scenarios compared with the business-as-usual scenario.
| Outcome | RCN (monetized) | ASBL (monetized) | SER (monetized) | ASBL + SER (monetized) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cycling mode share by 2051 (%) | 5 | 20 | 5 | 40 |
| LV mode share by 2051 (%) | 75 | 65 | 55 | 40 |
| Proportion of people considering cycling always/mostly safe by 2040 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.9 |
| LVKT (billion km) | –3.5 | –7 | –10 | –18.5 |
| Cyclist injuries | ||||
| Fatalities | 200 (620) | 360 (1,100) | 85 (250) | 250 (850) |
| Serious injuries | 4,000 (1,300) | 7,000 (2,300) | 1,600 (500) | 5,000 (1,600) |
| Car crashes | ||||
| Car occupant fatalities | –70 (–220) | –120 (–370) | –170 (–527) | –340 (–1,000) |
| Air pollution | ||||
| Mortality | –10 (–7.5) | –20 (–15) | –40 (–30) | –80 (–60) |
| Hospitalizations | –5 (–0.02) | –15 (–0.04) | –20 (–0.06) | –40 (–0.12) |
| COPD incidence | –10 (–0.75) | –30 (–2.25) | –55 (–4) | –90 (–6.75) |
| Restricted activity days | –12,500 (–1) | –37,200 (–4) | –57,700 (–6) | –112,200 (–11) |
| Air pollution total | (–9) | (–21) | (–40) | (–78) |
| All-cause mortality | –650 (–2,000) | –1,850 (–5,700) | –650 (–2,000) | –4,000 (–12,400) |
| Greenhouse gas emissions (megatons) | –3 (–120) | –8 (–360) | –13 (–520) | –26 (–1040) |
| Fuel cost ($NZ million) | (–600) | (–1,800) | (–600) | (–3,900) |
| Infrastructure cost ($NZ million) | (45) | (250) | (380) | (630) |
| Net benefit ($NZ million) | –770 | –2,550 | –1,780 | –13,090 |
| Benefit–cost ratio | 18 | 18 | 6 | 24 |
| Abbreviations: LV, light vehicle; LVKT, light vehicle kilometers travelled. Numbers with a negative sign represent savings. Monetized figures are given in parentheses and are in millions of New Zealand dollars. Benefit–cost ratios are calculated from the net public health benefits and infrastructure costs shown. | ||||