Economic Impacts of Walking & Bicycling in Sonoma County January 2013 Prepared for the Sonoma County Transportation Authority Valerie Brown, Chair, Sonoma County Mike McGuire, Sonoma County Shirlee Zane, Sonoma County Tom Chambers, Healdsburg Laurie Gallian, Sonoma Pat Gilardi, Cotati Sarah Gurney, Sebastopol Jake Mackenzie, Rohnert Park Tiffany Renee, Petaluma Carol Russell, Cloverdale Sam Salmon, Windsor Gary Wysocky, Santa Rosa Authored by Lynne March, SCTA Transportation Planner Table of Contents CHAPTER PAGE 1. Introduction 1 Background 1 Report Purpose and Impact Categories 2 2. Bicyclists & Pedestrians 3 Health Benefit 3 - 4 Mobility Options Benefit 5 - 8 3. Businesses 9 Tourism Profits Benefit 9 - 11 Sales Profits Benefit 11 - 12 Profitability of Ambiance Benefit 12 - 13 Property Value Benefit 13 Business Workforce Benefit 13 - 14 4. Government 15 Revenue Generation Benefit 15 - 16 Cost Savings Benefit 16 - 18 5. Residents (Society at Large) 19 Jobs Benefit 19 Property Value Benefit 19 - 20 Environmental Benefit 20 - 22 6. Summary 23 Acknowledgements 24 Appendices Appendix A: 2012 Events 26 - 27 Appendix B: Bike Businesses 28 Introduction ______________________________________________ Background this results, in part, from travel survey practices The Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) Board of Directors directed staff to which overlook many short and non-motorized investigate the economic impacts of bicyclist trips” (Evaluating Non-Motorized Transport Benefits and Costs, Victoria Transport Policy and pedestrian activity in Sonoma County. Institute, September 2012). Likewise U. S. Elected decision makers are constantly charged Census data tends to distort the importance of with evaluating which policies and investments non-motorized trips. Frequently cited mode will best serve the public interest. In an era of share Census statistics are based on the longest constrained resources at all levels of government it is especially important that leg of adults’ commute trips. The shorter walking and bicycling legs of transit trips are not public money be used where positive benefit to captured; nor are the majority (+80%) of trips, cost ratios will be achieved. Economic analysis because commute trips account for less than helps in assessing the relative benefits of 20% of all trips. Non-peak, non-work, children’s actions. The aim of this paper is to provide school trips and those for pleasure, sport, information about the economic benefits of investing in bicycling and pedestrian events, shopping, and errands are not included. For the non-motorized infrastructure, and supporting 2010 Census 1.2% were recorded as commuting by bicycle in the County; and 3.1% by walking. amenities and activities. The evaluation methodologies, and most A useful resource just published states that pointedly the conventional thinking placing conventional project evaluation methods tend priority on mobility and congestion relief from to overlook and undervalue non-motorized transportation. Author Todd Litman makes the which they arose, must yield to new thinking about transportation. Much focus has been case that “Conventional travel statistics imply placed on commute trips, comprising that only a small portion of total travel is by approximately 20% of all trips. Twenty plus non-motorized modes (typically about 5%), but years ago Congestion Management 1 Agency (CMA) legislation revealed the priority relative to land use; resource use; quality of life placed on mobility. This emphasis assumes factors including health; and planetary impacts. faster throughput and longer trips are superior Each such aspect adds new layers of economic to slower, shorter trips. Non-motorized trips impact. The new considerations change the were categorized as: 1. “Transportation” (or equation of which trips are to be considered utilitarian) trips (focused on commute travel), important --- now all trips matter, not just those and 2. “Recreational” trips --- this despite the for taking people to jobs by car in peak hour fact that all trips that provide mobility involve traffic. transport of people to desired destinations. Report Purpose and During the last decade the ideas about transportation have gradually evolved and Impact Categories become more complex, because transportation This report will attempt to add information to is recognized as being an integral component of balance the undervaluing of the pedestrian and decisions that must consider not only vehicular bicycling modes. It will also attempt to integrate throughput, but system accessibility for diverse the consideration of bicycling and walking into users (including multi-modal connectivity), and the context of the broadened conversation the environmental, social equity, economic regarding what transportation is. The economic stimulus, and health impacts. Furthermore, the impacts of walking and walkability, and need to take action to protect the climate is bicycling and bikeability, will be examined. now a major driver of transportation policy These economic impacts are diverse, significant, decisions. The Sustainable Communities overlapping, and multi-faceted. In considering Strategy is a statement of policy direction that these impacts it will be useful to examine them demands a much more sophisticated and by category, even though there is crossover complicated thinking about transportation between categories. The categories are: 1.) Pedestrians & Bicyclists 2.) Businesses 3.) Government 4.) Residents (Society at Large) 2 Pedestrians & Bicyclists ______________________________________________ Pedestrians and bicyclists are direct beneficiaries of investments in non-motorized infrastructure, amenities, events, and programs. Such investment makes it possible for these users to reap the physical and mental health benefits associated with active lifestyle choices; and makes alternative mobility options more attractive. The categories of benefit are: 1. Health, and 2. Mobility Options. Health Benefit The benefits of exercise for virtually all age groups are well documented by the medical profession. Exercise is in fact a keystone of preventative medicine --- and considering the monetary, social and human costs of illness and chronic disease, an overwhelmingly cost effective one. Exercise not only strengthens muscles but can cut rates of obesity, heart “Adolescents who bicycle are 48% less likely to disease, cancer, hypertension, osteoporosis, be overweight as adults” (Bikes Belong: stroke, dementia and depression, among other Menschik, D, et al., 2008). The Rails-to-Trails conditions (Peter Tuckel and William Milczarski, Conservancy determined the cost/benefit of Population Shifts and Implications for Walking Portland Oregon’s $57 million investment in a in the United States, Hunter College, July 2012, 300-mile bicycle network. As infrastructure was plus multiple other sources). “Adults who bike built “From 1991 through 2008, bicycling to work have better weight, blood pressure, increased exponentially at an annual rate of and insulin levels” (Bikes Belong: Gordon- 10%, and at annual rates of 15 to 20% more Larsen, P., et al., 2009). “Women who bike 30 recently.” “… by 2008, Portlanders had saved … minutes a day have a lower risk of breast $10 million in health care costs from the cancer” (Bikes Belong: Luoto, R., et al., 2000). increase in biking.” 3 Positive health outcomes are likewise a major Walking and bicycle riding are among the most goal of safe routes to school programs --- affordable and available means of exercise. particularly aimed a reducing rates of childhood User monetary costs are minimal for walkers, obesity with the associated risks of increased i.e., perhaps shoes can be regarded as diabetes, heart and other diseases. These equipment. For bicyclists, costs involve programs encourage bicycling and walking to purchasing and maintaining bicycles, helmets, and from school, as was much more customary and perhaps specialized riding attire; which is for past generations. Among students living far less than automobile ownership. Per the within 1 mile of school, the percentage of walkers League of American Bicyclists the cost of fell from 90% to 31% between 1969 and 2001 operating a bicycle for a year is only $120 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2003, Travel (bicyclinginfo.org). and environmental implications of school siting, EPA 231-R-03-004). According to the Centers for As with all transportation users there are injury Disease Control and Prevention, only 13% of risk costs. Any actions, projects, programs or children walk to school today compared with 66% enforcements that contribute to greater safety in 1970. The health impacts of obesity are of for non-motorized users will enhance the such seriousness that, if not curbed, the overall cost-benefit of walking and bicycling. predictions that the current generation of Users themselves can significantly reduce their children will die at a younger age than their personal risk by adopting safety practices parents may come true. The associated human (proper equipment, following rules of road, and economic costs are staggering. being visible and unimpaired). Research has reported that “... the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks by a factor of 20 to one” (Bikes Belong: Hillman, M., 1992). Additionally, as the number of bicyclists and walkers grows, safety increases --- the more there are, the safer it is (Injury Prevention: Jacobsen, P., 2003). 4 Mobility Options Benefit 2012 government reimbursement rate of