Estimating the Benefits of Bicycle FacilitiesStated 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?

Dimensions to Measuring Bicycle Benefits

For whom?

Using what units or methods?

Which benefits?

At what geographic level or type of facility

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?

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

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

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

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?

(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?

Facilities Compared in this Study

Off Road Bike Lane, No Parking Bike Lane with Parking

No Bike Lane, No Parking No Bike Lane with Parking

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.

Choice Scenario Sample – Bicycle Route Comparison

Travel Time for Route 1 gets longer or shorter based on selection.

Additional minutes willing to travel on an alternate, better quality facility before adjusting for demographic variables

Vs.

AlternateSummer*(Minutes)

Summer**($)

Winter* (Minutes)

Winter** ($)

9.86 $1.97 6.15 $1.23

13.98 $2.80 10.27 $2.05

16.26 $3.25 12.54 $2.51

20.38 $4.08 16.66 $3.33

Vs.

Vs.

Vs.

Base

Additional Minutes willing to travel on Alternate Facility before adjusting for demographic variables

Vs.

Base AlternateSummer*(Minutes)

Summer**($)

Winter* (Minutes)

Winter** ($)

8.29 $1.66 4.57 $0.91

11.71 $2.34 7.99 $1.60

18.02 $3.60 14.30 $2.86Vs.

Vs.

Additional Minutes willing to travel on Alternate Facility before adjusting for demographic variables

Vs.

Base AlternateSummer*(Minutes)

Summer**($)

Winter* (Minutes)

Winter **($)

15.83 $3.17 12.11 $2.42

14.69 $2.94 10.96 $2.19

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.

Revealed Preference

Goal: to measure how much people do they value certain bicycle facility

attributes.

Roadside Bicycle Trail Non-Roadside Bicycle Trail

On-Street Bicycle Lane

Hypothesized Relationship with Home Value

City Residents Suburban Residents

ON-STREET

BICYCLE LANE

NON-ROAD SIDE

BICYCLE TRAIL

ROAD-SIDE

BICYCLE TRAIL

Hypothesized relationships for on-street bicycle trails depend largely on the

ability to control for the quantity and speed of adjacent traffic.

Variable Definition SALEPRIC Sale price of home ($) BEDROOMS Number of bedrooms BATHROOM Number of bathrooms FINISHED Finished square feet of floor space LOTSIZE Size of lot (square meters) AGESTRCT Age of house FIREPLS Number of fireplaces GARAGEST Number of garage stalls CUT100_8 Neighborhood accessibility RET_F24 Regional accessibility CBDNEAR Distance to nearest central business district (meters) HWYNEAR Distance to nearest major highway (meters) BUSYROAD Distance to nearest busy street MCA5_ATT Average composite fifth grade standardized test score in school district HH_DENS Households per square meter in census block group PCTNONWT Percent nonwhite in census tract AVGHHSIZ Average number of persons per household in census tract ACTIVE Distance to nearest active open space (meters) PASSIVE Distance to nearest passive open space (meters) ONTRNEAR Distance to nearest on-street bicycle lane (meters) NRTRNEAR Distance to nearest non-roadside bicycle trail (meters) RSTRNEAR Distance to nearest roadside bicycle trail (meters)

Variables and Descriptions

Regression Results Number of obs = 35002 F( 27, 34871) = 2993.17 Prob > F = 0.0000 R-squared = 0.7928 Adj R-squared = 0.7920 Root MSE = .19634 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ slprceln | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- contrln | -.0004626 .0028138 -0.16 0.869 -.0059777 .0050524 cnrtrln | -.0153318 .0042368 -3.62 0.000 -.0236361 -.0070275 crstrln | .0259228 .0044284 5.85 0.000 .017243 .0346026 sontrln | .0037005 .001283 2.88 0.004 .0011858 .0062153 snrtrln | .0030851 .0013969 2.21 0.027 .0003471 .0058232 srstrln | .0093052 .0017021 5.47 0.000 .0059691 .0126412 cactive | -.0000229 .0000122 -1.87 0.061 -.0000469 1.10e-06 cpassive | -.0000652 7.11e-06 -9.17 0.000 -.0000791 -.0000512 sactive | 6.54e-06 1.65e-06 3.97 0.000 3.31e-06 9.76e-06 spassive | -.0000284 2.21e-06 -12.84 0.000 -.0000327 -.000024 cbusy | .0156477 .0026005 6.02 0.000 .0105507 .0207446 sbusy | .0023194 .0014159 1.64 0.101 -.0004558 .0050947 bedrooms | .0331369 .0015703 21.10 0.000 .030059 .0362147 bathroom | .080062 .0020183 39.67 0.000 .076106 .0840179 homestea | -.0271286 .0034809 -7.79 0.000 -.0339512 -.0203059 ageln | -.0928397 .0017621 -52.69 0.000 -.0962936 -.0893859 lotsize | 3.08e-06 1.41e-07 21.86 0.000 2.81e-06 3.36e-06 finished | .0001677 2.04e-06 82.12 0.000 .0001637 .0001717 firepls | .0687155 .0017685 38.85 0.000 .0652491 .0721818 garagest | .0752871 .0012683 59.36 0.000 .0728011 .0777731 cbdnrln | -.0529725 .0072516 -7.30 0.000 -.0671859 -.0387592 hwynear | 9.49e-06 9.41e-07 10.08 0.000 7.65e-06 .0000113 ret_f24 | 2.17e-07 1.59e-06 0.14 0.892 -2.90e-06 3.34e-06 cut100_8 | -2.53e-06 7.57e-06 -0.33 0.738 -.0000174 .0000123 mca5_att | .0001561 .0000104 14.99 0.000 .0001357 .0001765 pctnonwt | -.0038891 .0001856 -20.96 0.000 -.0042528 -.0035254 avghhsiz | .0390389 .0046252 8.44 0.000 .0299734 .0481043 _cons | 11.29182 .0855183 132.04 0.000 11.1242 11.45943 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- areacode | F(103, 34871) = 55.143 0.000 (104 categories)

Spatial

Structural

Hypothesized Relationship with Home Value

City Residents Suburban Residents

ON-STREET

BICYCLE LANE

NON-ROAD SIDE

BICYCLE TRAIL

ROAD-SIDE

BICYCLE TRAIL

Hypothesized relationships for on-street bicycle trails depend largely on the

ability to control for the quantity and speed of adjacent traffic.

Estimating the Benefits of Bicycle FacilitiesStated Preference and Revealed Preference Approaches

Kevin J. Krizek

Assistant Professor

Director, Active Communities

Transportation (ACT) Research Group

University of Minnesota

Beneficiary

To the User (direct)

To the Community (indirect)

Mobility

-enhanced conditions -shorter travel distance

Health

-increased physical activity -decreased health care costs

Safety

-decreased crashes -increased comfort

External

-decreased congestion -reduced pollution

Livability

-proximity to recreational amenities -increased open space

Fiscal

-increased economic activity -decreased taxes

Example values based on methodologies described in guidelines:

$4.00 /

commute trip / individual

$128 / year / individual

Inconclusive $0.01 / day / individual

$2,500 / household /

home purchase

Depends on circumstance

House Hold and Other Information

The survey also asked household and travel behavior questions.

Results

Facility KeyA – Off-Road TrailB - Designated Bike

Lane, No Side Parking

C – Designated Bike Lane,

Side ParkingD – In-traffic Bicycling, no Side ParkingE – In-traffic Bicycling,

Side Parking

The Model

Tijk = f (attributes of the base facility, improvements of alternate facility, attributes of the person)

Ti= Xi+ Zibi + i

Where,

Xi i = 0+ 1Wi +2Pk + 3Bk +4Oj + 5Pj + 6Bj + 7Ai + 8Si+ 9Hi +10Ii + 11C + i

And

bi ~ N (0,) and i ~ N (0,2I)

Response Variable

Tijk: Additional time individual i is willing to bicycle on facility j over base facility k.

Independent Variables

W: A dummy variable for the season. (Winter=1, Summer=0)

Base Facility Attributes

P: Presence of side parking on base facility

L: Availability of a designated bike lane on base facility

Alternate Facility Attributes

O: Alternate facility is off-road

P: Alternate facility has no parking on the side while the base facility does.

L: Alternate facility provides a bike lane while the base does not.

Attributes of the individual

A: Age of the individual

S: Subject Male or Female (Male = 1, Female = 0)

I: Household income for the individual

H: Household size for the individual

C: A dummy variable to indicate whether the individual is bicycle commuter at least during summer.

j: Fixed effects parameter estimates of the model

i: Within group error where i ~ N(0, 2).

bi: Between groups error where bi ~ N (0,)

Regression ResultsLinear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood

AIC BIC logLik10886.13 10960.62 -5429.06

Random effectsFormula: ~1| subject

(Intercept) ResidualStdDev: 8.396 7.647Fixed effects: TT ~ P + B + O + P + B + A + S + H + I + C + W

Description Value Std.Error t-stat p-value(Intercept) 8.380 3.480 2.408 0.0162 *

PBase Parking?

Yes =1 No = 0 4.121 0.484 8.520 0.0000 ***

BBase Bike lane?

Yes =1 No = 0 -6.396 0.484 -13.224 0.0000 ***

OAlternate Offroad

Yes =1 No = 0 7.879 0.889 8.868 0.0000 ***

P

Alternate has a no parking, base has parking

Yes =1 No = 0 2.187 0.765 2.859 0.0043 **

B

Alternate has Bikelane Base does not

Yes =1 No = 0 3.330 0.765 4.355 0.0000 ***

A Age 0.143 0.065 2.181 0.0306 **

S Sex

Male =1 Female=0 -3.710 1.474 -2.518 0.0128 **

HHousehold Size -1.256 0.601 -2.089 0.0383 *

I

Household Income (=Annual/1000) 0.038 0.019 2.001 0.0471 *

CSummer Cyclist?

Yes =1 No = 0 -1.788 1.694 -1.056 0.2928

W Season

Winter=1 Summer=0 -3.719 1.371 -2.713 0.0074 **

Significance ***0.001 **0.01 *0.05 +0.1

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?