AnalysisThe Social Cost of Automobility, Cycling and Walking in the European Union
Introduction
Transport systems need to change in very significant ways to become aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Creutzig et al., 2015; The Lancet, 2017; UNFCCC, 2015; World Health Organization, 2011, World Health Organization, 2016). To reduce levels of local air pollution, accidents, and congestion is a long-standing policy goal in the European Union (EU) (EC, 2011). Negative externalities of transportation congregate in cities, with a widely held consensus that these can only be resolved on the basis of new urban transport cultures in which cycling and walking have to perform important roles (Aldred, 2013; Hall et al., 2017; Pucher and Buehler, 2017). Only where the role of the car declines is it realistic to reduce traffic density and air pollution, even in a scenario where electric, autonomous automobility diminishes noise levels and collision risks (Zuurbier et al., 2010).
In European cities, cycling and walking are becoming increasingly more common (Hall et al., 2017; Pucher and Buehler, 2017). These transport modes can replace trips by car, specifically in cities, where a majority of trips are short (Blickstein and Hanson, 2001). Evidence suggests that cycling levels increase where physically separated cycle tracks have been built (Frondel and Vance, 2017), where trips are short, and where safe routes to school exist. In contrast, perceived traffic dangers, exposure to exhaust and noise, or longer trip distances all represent barriers to cycling (Fraser and Lock, 2011; Gössling et al., 2019). As a result, cities seeking to increase cyclist numbers need to redesign urban environments (Buehler et al., 2017; Forsyth and Krizek, 2011; Larsen et al., 2013), as bicycle cultures will only evolve where the concerns and expectations of cyclists regarding safety, speed, and comfort are taken into consideration (Aldred, 2013). These insights also apply to walking, with ‘walkable’ environments being defined as traversable, compact, physically enticing, and safe (Forsyth, 2015). Apart from the politically difficult decision to treat cyclists and pedestrians preferentially in traffic, the greatest barrier to urban redesign is the issue of costs (Gössling and Choi, 2015). This assigns critical importance to cost-benefit analyses (CBA), which guide decision making in all major transport construction projects.
CBA involves the assessment of potential impacts of a policy across a specific time horizon, their monetary valuation, and the comparison of net benefits and costs (Hanley and Spash, 1993). Inclusion of negative externalities in the CBA can highlight ‘hidden’ cost issues (Bithas, 2011). This is never straightforward, as the selection of aspects to include in the CBA, as well as their valuation, is influenced by the ideological orientation of the actors involved in the analysis (Söderbaum, 2007). Yet, where the selection of analysis criteria is stated explicitly, in particular comparative approaches to transport CBA can contribute to greater consistency and transparency, providing a more informed basis for decision-making (Gössling and Choi, 2015).
Given the cost of implementing new transport infrastructure (Hutton, 2013; Meschik, 2012), as well as the importance assigned to the various transport modes in contemporary city planning, various studies have addressed the cost associated with in particular the car (Becker et al., 2012; CE Delft et al., 2011; Hopkinson and Wardman, 1996; Ortuzar et al., 2000; Krizek, 2007; Meschik, 2012; Rabl and de Nazelle, 2012; Rank et al., 2001). However, to date, a comparative CBA framework to juxtapose the cost of different transport modes appears to only be used in Copenhagen (COWI and City of Copenhagen, 2009). Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to review CBA frameworks for transport infrastructure development, to discuss the comprehensiveness of the parameters included, and to develop a comparative CBA framework for car, bicycle, and walking, along with unit cost estimates.
Section snippets
Cost-benefit Analysis and Its Use in Transport Contexts
Traffic infrastructure development commonly relies on CBA to guide investment decisions in public spending contexts (e.g. Boardman et al., 2010; Hanley and Spash, 1993). The use of CBA implicates that monetary value is assigned to the advantages and disadvantages of a project, which results in a net cost or benefit to society. Decisions regarding the desirability of specific investments become more transparent, as CBA helps to determine whether an investment is economically sound, or whether an
Comparative Cost-benefit Analysis
CBA frameworks need to consider two key aspects, the decision on the parameters to be included in calculations, as well as justified unit costs. Comparative CBA can be used to assess the economic cost of a kilometer driven, cycled or walked, as well as to assess (ex ante or ex post) changes in transportation costs as a result of urban re-design or infrastructure change. The current transport system is the basis for assessments, in which costs may be external or private. The validity of any CBA
Parameters for Comparative CBA
Standard parameters in transport CBAs include travel time, vehicle operating costs, accidents, noise, air pollution, and climate change. These are commonly considered basis requirements for CBA, even though they do not represent all externalities that constitute a cost or benefit of transportation. Where CBA compares transport modes, it is also important to consider how these incur mutual, interdependent costs. As an example, cyclists or pedestrians are exposed to various negative externalities
Results & Discussion
Table 2 provides an overview of findings for the EU. Values represent approximations, confirming that the car represents a cost to society, at an average of €0.11/pkm (Table 2). This value is higher in countries with a higher GDP. The most important external cost factors are infrastructure construction, parking land provisions, roadway land use and climate change. The private cost of the car is eight times higher, at €0.85/pkm. This is largely owed to congestion and the value of travel time.
Conclusions
This paper reviewed different transport CBA frameworks, concluding that these omit important cost parameters. As these represent significant negative externalities, a central conclusion is that transport investment projects in the European Union systematically underestimate the cost of automobility. To become more inclusive, CBA frameworks need to be expanded. Furthermore, in urban transport planning contexts where transport mode choices are often substitutable, CBA assessments should be
References (0)
Cited by (112)
Riding the green wave – How countdown timers at bicycle traffic lights impact on cycling behavior
2024, Travel Behaviour and SocietyKnowledge integration in policy development and assessment for sustainable passenger transport transformation
2024, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and EnvironmentDevelopment of a credit scheme for managing mobility in university communities: Results from a feasibility study
2024, Research in Transportation Business and ManagementCar harm: A global review of automobility's harm to people and the environment
2024, Journal of Transport GeographySidewalk networks: Review and outlook
2023, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems