1 / 29

Estimating the Benefits of Bicycle Facilities

Estimating the Benefits of Bicycle Facilities. Stated Preference and Revealed Preference Approaches. Kevin J. Krizek Assistant Professor Director, Active Communities Transportation (ACT) Research Group University of Minnesota. Do cyclists need their own facilities?.

taya
Télécharger la présentation

Estimating the Benefits of Bicycle Facilities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Estimating the Benefits of Bicycle Facilities Stated Preference and Revealed Preference Approaches Kevin J. Krizek Assistant Professor Director, Active Communities Transportation (ACT) Research Group University of Minnesota

  2. Do cyclists need their own facilities?

  3. Dimensions to Measuring Bicycle Benefits For whom? Which benefits? At what geographic level or type of facility Using what units or methods?

  4. Introduction • Bicycle facilities are non-market goods • Not bought and sold in an open market • Difficult to attach an economic value • What would economists do?

  5. Stated Preference • Survey instrument • Respondents provided with hypothetical situations, making it feasible to analyze situations that are qualitatively different from the actual ones seen in practice • Individuals’ stated preferences may or may not be similar to the preferences they actually show

  6. Stated Preference • Application to Bicycle Facility Benefits: • Provide survey respondents with hypothetical choices between different types of bicycle trails • Respondents indicate how much extra time they would devote to accessing a preferred facility

  7. Revealed Preference • What people do, rather than what they say. • Identifies the ways in which a non-marketed good influences the actual market for some other good

  8. Revealed Preference • Application to Bicycle Facility Benefits: • The effect of bicycle trails on home sale prices • Are individuals paying more for the option of using bicycle trails?

  9. (Adaptive) Stated Preference Application Goal: to measure how much people say they value certain bicycle facility attributes. How much is a bike lane worth to you? How much is having an off-road facility worth to you? How much is having parking removed from the side street worth to you?

  10. Facilities Compared in this Study Bike Lane, No Parking Off Road Bike Lane with Parking No Bike Lane with Parking No Bike Lane, No Parking

  11. Survey • Adaptive Stated Preference Survey • Choices updated based on previous response. • Bicycling in facility A vs. in B • Compare two bicycle facilities and tradeoff travel time and facility quality.

  12. Choice Scenario Sample – Bicycle Route Comparison Travel Time for Route 1 gets longer or shorter based on selection.

  13. Additional minutes willing to travel on an alternate, better quality facility before adjusting for demographic variables Base Alternate Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs.

  14. Additional Minutes willing to travel on Alternate Facility before adjusting for demographic variables Base Alternate Vs. Vs. Vs.

  15. Additional Minutes willing to travel on Alternate Facility before adjusting for demographic variables Base Alternate Vs. Vs. * Values as shown apply to females. For males, the minutes in each cell should be reduced by 3.71 minutes and dollar values should be calculated from the resulting number. Adjustments for income, house hold size and age should be made using the model coefficients. ** Hourly rate used is $12/hr.

  16. Revealed Preference Goal: to measure how much people do they value certain bicycle facility attributes.

  17. Roadside Bicycle Trail Non-Roadside Bicycle Trail On-Street Bicycle Lane

  18. Variables and Descriptions

  19. Regression Results Spatial Structural

  20. Estimating the Benefits of Bicycle Facilities Stated Preference and Revealed Preference Approaches Kevin J. Krizek Assistant Professor Director, Active Communities Transportation (ACT) Research Group University of Minnesota

  21. House Hold and Other Information The survey also asked household and travel behavior questions.

  22. Results Facility Key A – Off-Road Trail B - Designated Bike Lane, No Side Parking C – Designated Bike Lane, Side Parking D – In-traffic Bicycling, no Side Parking E – In-traffic Bicycling, Side Parking

  23. The Model

  24. Regression Results

  25. Motivations • Encouraging cycling as a viable mode can potentially be easier when you have facilities that people prefer. • Measure how much people value certain facility attributes. • What do people want? • How much is a bike lane worth to you? • How much is having an off-road facility worth to you? • How much is having parking removed from the side street worth to you? • Are there differences across Age, Gender, and Income in preferences?

More Related