More on the benefits of nonmotorized transportation
July 26th, 2008,Back on July 8 I mentioned a 2004 paper, “Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Transportation for Achieving Mobility Management Objectives,” by Todd Litman of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. I decided to read the paper more closely in preparation for a session on July 28 with our local city council to discuss the work plan for our task force on nonmotorized transportation.
The article provides an excellent summary of the many benefits of nonmotorized transportation, and it attempts to quantify some of them. Litman conservatively estimates that trips shifted from motor vehicles to walking or biking can yield a benefit of about 50 cents to about 5 or 6 dollars, and probably the benefits are much greater than this. Presumably some of these benefits accrue to an individual, while others accrue to a government or society in general.
Here are the main benefits that I would mention to decision makers in terms of how nonmotorized transportation can be an economic benefit to my city:
- Roadway cost savings: walking and biking do less damage to roads and lead to lower road maintenance costs
- Vehicle cost savings: driving a motorized vehicle is more expensive than walking or biking; money spent on vehicles and fuel typically leaves a community
- Air pollution reductions: these have a positive impact on health
- Health benefits from exercise
Here are some excerpts from the paper:
[S]mart growth supports nonmotorized travel and nonmotorized travel supports smart growth. As a result, mobility management programs that increase nonmotorized transport usually leverage reduced motorized travel, causing proportionately larger reductions in vehicle-miles, although exactly how much depends on the situation. (p. 4)
Recent studies indicate that residents of more walkable communities exercise more and are less likely to be overweight than residents of automobile-oriented communities (Ewing, Schieber and Zegeer, 2003; Frank, 2004). (p. 15)
Nonmotorized facilities (trails and sidewalks) can increase nearby property values and help attract residents and industries that value environmental quality, physical fitness and outdoor recreation (NBPC, 1995; LGC, 2001)…. Reducing automobile expenditures tend to increase regional employment and business activity because fuel, vehicles and parts are generally imported from other areas (Litman and Laube, 1998; “TDM and Economic Development,” VTPI, 2004). (p. 16)
Automobile-oriented transport tends to result in community development patterns that are suboptimal for other community objectives (Forkenbrock and Weisbrod, 2001). Wide roads and heavy traffic tend to degrade the public realm (public spaces where people naturally interact) and in other ways reduce livability. Reduced vehicle traffic tends to increase neighborly interactions and community involvement (Appleyard, 1981). Untermann and Vernez Moudon (1989) comment,
“A deeper issue than the functional problems caused by road widening and traffic buildup is the loss of sense of community in many districts. Sense of community traditionally evolves through easy foot access–people meet and talk on foot, which helps them develop contacts, friendships, trust, and commitment to their community. When everyone is in cars there can be no social contact between neighbors, and social contact is essential to developing commitment to neighborhood.” … (p. 17)
This analysis indicates that typical trips shifted from automobile to walking or cycling provide benefits worth at lease $0.46 to $5.50, and probably much more considering all benefits, including those unsuited for monetization, and leveraged vehicle mileage reductions. If seven motor vehicle-miles are reduced for each increased mile of nonmotorized travel through broader changes in transportation and land use patterns, as the data suggest, then benefits exceed $3.29 per walking trip and $38.50 per cycling trip. Of course, actual benefits vary depending on the type of trip and travel conditions. (p. 20)