Bijlage 6 Effecten impact lucht geluidskwaliteit

CPB

Improving the Quality of Walking and Cycling in Cities Summary and Conclusions

193

Roundtable

Corporate Partnership Board

193

Roundtable

Improving the Quality of Walking and Cycling in Cities Summary and Conclusions

The International Transport Forum The International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 66 member countries. It acts as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is the only global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous and administratively integrated with the OECD. The ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy. The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and prenegotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promote exchange among transport decision makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is the world’s largest gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy.

The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Türkiye, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uzbekistan. International Transport Forum 2 rue André Pascal F-75775 Paris Cedex 16 contact@itf-oecd.org www.itf-oecd.org

ITF Roundtable Reports ITF Roundtables bring together international experts to discuss specific topics on economic and regulatory aspects of transport policies in ITF member countries. Findings of ITF Roundtables are published in a Summary and Conclusions paper. Any findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Transport Forum or the OECD. Neither the OECD, the ITF nor the authors guarantee the accuracy of any data or other information contained in this publication and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. This document and any maps included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries or to the name of any territory, city or area. Cite this work as: ITF (2024), Improving the Quality of Walking and Cycling in Cities: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports, No. 193, OECD Publishing, Paris.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements This report expands on the expert discussions during the ITF Roundtable on Increasing Walking and Cycling in Cities held in Paris and virtually on 28-29 November 2022. It formulates targeted advice to national and other policy makers on effectively framing and deploying pro-active mobility measures that contribute to four over-arching policy goals: equity, enjoyment, environment, and efficiency. Lake Sagaris (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) chaired the Roundtable discussions. At the ITF, John P. Pritchard and Philippe Crist drafted the report with inputs from Roundtable participants. John P. Pritchard, Philippe Crist and Marcio Deslandes organised the event. Charlotte Bracke and Mila Iglesias provided administrative support to the Roundtable. David Prater copy-edited the report and prepared it for publication. Jagoda Egeland reviewed the report. Special thanks are due to the Roundtable discussants who prepared short presentations: Maria Attard, Audrey de Nazelle, Henk-Jan Dekker, Gail Jennings, Samuel Nello-Deakin and Angela van der Kloof. We would also like to thank the rest of the Roundtable participants who are listed in Annex A. Their insight was invaluable. We would also like to thank the experts who reviewed the report: Giulio Mattioli, Samuel Nello-Deakin, Angela van der Kloof, Maria Attard, Rita Jacinto Baptista, and Bronwen Thornton.

This Roundtable Report is part of the ITF’s core Programme of Work for 2022-23, co-ordinated by Jagoda Egeland, and has been approved by the ITF’s Transport Research Committee.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents Glossary ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ 8 Key messages .................................................................................................................................. 8 Main findings ................................................................................................................................... 8 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 9 What is active travel? ................................................................................................................... 11 The benefits of active travel ......................................................................................................... 13 Efficiency-related benefits of active travel .................................................................................... 13 Environmental benefits of active travel ........................................................................................ 16 Accounting for people: The distribution of active travel benefits and disbenefits ........................

23 Why improving the quality of walking and cycling is so challenging in many modern cities ............ 25 How the car became the norm in cities ........................................................................................ 26 How moto-normativity shapes our view of mobility in cities ........................................................ 28 How moto-normativity influences transport appraisal ................................................................. 32 Creating safe and inviting cities to walk and cycle requires addressing broader societal issues ...... 35 Understanding how travel decisions are made ............................................................................. 35 Recognising the potential of other factors beyond infrastructure ................................................ 36 Considering the potential deterrent of fear, violence and stress .................................................. 39 How to re-centre mobility spaces on people ................................................................................. 42 Focus policies on improving the quality of walking and cycling in cities ....................................... 43 Democratise mobility space to ensure citizens can safely and securely travel in more ways .......

44 Incorporate violence reduction as a critical transport policy goal ................................................ 45 Remove car blinders from project appraisal and consider a broader range of alternatives ......... 46 Remove moto-normative policies to increase the effectiveness of active mobility policies ......... 47 Ensure access to high-quality collective transport to enable better walking and cycling ............. 47 Decouple active mobility to focus on the different needs of pedestrians and cyclists.................. 48 Tailor active mobility solutions to local contexts........................................................................... 50 References ................................................................................................................................... 52 Annex. List of Roundtable participants.......................................................................................... 68

4

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figures Figure 1. Energy efficiency of active travel compared to an electric car ......................................... 14 Figure 2. Cities where bicycles are as fast or faster than peak-hour car speeds in urban cores ....... 15 Figure 3. Carbon-emission impacts of mode shift and cycling trip changes in seven European cities17 Figure 4. Prevalence of insufficient physical activity by country, population and income group ..... 18 Figure 5. Disease burdens attributed to physical inactivity by world income region ....................... 19 Figure 6. Review of health impact assessments of shifting to more active travel............................ 22 Figure 7. Travel decision-making considerations ........................................................................... 36 Figure 8. Road traffic fatalities matrix in urban areas in the European Union, 2021 ....................... 38 Figure 9. How systemic violence mediates daily mobility .............................................................. 40 Figure 10. Strategies for avoiding assault or harassment in the European Union, by gender .......... 41 Figure 11. Distribution of walking and cycling within active mode shares in the European Union ... 49

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

5

GLOSSARY

Glossary Active travel

Travel undertaken by foot, bicycle or other human-powered modes.

Car

A motorised road vehicle, other than a moped or a motorcycle, primarily designed to carry one or more persons. This includes sports utility vehicles.

Car blindness

A form of cognitive processing bias which results in focusing on certain elements of the urban scene while large, motorised vehicles are pushed to the back of peoples’ perception to the point of becoming “invisible”.

Car blinders

While car blindness renders automobiles effectively invisible, the idea of the car is also so entrenched that it can become difficult to see beyond the car. This inability to identify alternatives to the car can be described as a “blinder”.

Collective transport

Transport services designed for groups to travel simultaneously, and which are available to the general public. It includes transport by bus, metro, tram and train, regardless of whether it is privately or publicly operated, or the way the service is delivered.

Cost–benefit analysis (CBA)

A systematic method for summing all the expected benefits and costs arising from a particular action (e.g. a proposed transport project) and comparing them using discounting to make benefits and costs accruing at different times comparable.

Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)

A measure of degraded life years combining years lost due to premature deaths as well as years of ill health.

“Decide and provide”

A vision-led approach to transport planning that involves making infrastructure investment decisions in response to stated goals.

E-bike

An electrically assisted or electrically propelled bicycle-like vehicle. Regulatory distinctions regarding different classes of e-bikes are typically based on speed and whether the rider must be pedalling for the electric motor to engage.

Kick scooter

A human-powered street vehicle with a handlebar, deck and wheels propelled by a rider pushing off the ground. Models exist with two, three or four wheels. Standing scooters are distinguished from skateboards by the presence of a central control column and a set of handlebars.

Monetise

To convert a benefit or cost into an equivalent monetary value.

6

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

GLOSSARY

Moto-normativity

Decisions about motorised transport, by individuals and policy makers, that show unconscious biases due to cultural assumptions about the role of private cars and which may systematically distort policy decisions and prevent addressing the role of the car objectively. It can result in a built-in acceptance of risks and harms from motor vehicles.

Pedelec

A type of pedal-assisted electric bicycle where the electric assistance cuts off when the vehicle reaches approximately 25 km/h (exact limit depends on local regulations). A pedelec only provides assistance when the user is pedalling.

Systemic violence

The harm people suffer due to social structures or the institutions sustaining and reproducing it. Much of this violence is not deviant, neither departing from usual and accepted standards nor necessarily intending to cause harm.

“Predict and provide”

An approach to transport planning that involves making infrastructure investment decisions in response to existing or projected demand.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive summary Key messages Overcome car-centric thinking Decades of car-centric development have made its assumptions the unquestioned norm. As a result of this “moto-normativity”, risks and harms from motor vehicles may be accepted when they are unacceptable in other contexts. Many cities have begun to question this approach. Think beyond infrastructure Focusing on infrastructure is not enough to ensure pedestrians and cyclists will feel safe and secure and enjoy walking and cycling. Policies must also target street violence, social disadvantage and other factors. Redesign planning processes Processes for transport investments have traditionally prioritised car-centric options. A vision-led approach can provide the basis for redesigning these processes, and help ensure active travel contributes to more inclusive, sustainable cities. Work in progress across a number of cities worldwide suggests such a shift is possible.

Main findings Walking, cycling and other active mobility solutions can benefit cities and urban environments. In addition to the positive health benefits of active travel, these modes and the facilitation of their use can be valuable levers for improving city life. Active travel contributes to four overarching policy objectives: increased efficiency of movement and access, improved environmental quality and performance, greater life enjoyment and fulfilment for people, and an equitable distribution of benefits (and burdens). The major mobility challenge is creating compelling travel conditions and high-quality travel experiences for people walking and cycling and ensuring that both are linked to equally high-quality forms of collective motorised transport. This challenge applies particularly to those who are already actively travelling but can potentially encourage others to incorporate more walking and cycling in some of their trips. This extends to future generations who can grow up in an environment where they can choose to travel actively without being disadvantaged or exposed to elevated risks. Encouraging people to walk and cycle and ensuring they can do so safely and enjoyably goes beyond infrastructure provision and must necessarily reach outside the transport system. Transport measures such as reducing speeds in urban areas contribute to this goal.

However, other measures are needed to encourage walking and cycling. This includes better land-use planning which can foster more activities to be reached on foot or through cycling. Additionally, seamless integration with public transport can ensure that accessibility to more remote opportunities is maintained.

8

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Reshaping urban planning frameworks, away from a car-focus can help redirect investment to better outcomes for pedestrians and cyclists. Additionally, it is essential to reduce systemic violence which constrains mobility in many contexts (e.g. traffic violence and gender-based violence). While the underlying causes for these societal issues, and their solutions are broader than the purview of transport authorities, improving the quality of walking and cycling in cities requires physical safety and social safety. As such, successful walking and cycling policies must be embedded within the broader social context. Local contexts should always be considered. Understanding what the local population wants and needs is essential.

Recommendations Focus on improving the quality (not quantity) of walking and cycling in cities Calls for a general increase in walking and cycling are welcome, but at the same time may not be the most helpful departure point to achieve better walking and cycling outcomes. Such an approach can show a lack of awareness of the diverse lived experiences of different individuals and groups worldwide. In many contexts, particularly in low- and middle-income countries and among disadvantaged groups, individuals seek to reduce the burden associated with their mobility. Ensuring the dignity, safety and wellbeing of those already walking and cycling, even under adverse conditions, would put conditions in place for others to walk or cycle more. Democratise mobility space to ensure citizens can travel more safely, healthily and in comfort Current moto-normative mobility systems in cities with one dominant mode (the car) and all other alternatives relegated to the margins have created an environment of fear while systematically restricting the mobility of those who cannot, or choose not to, move by car. Moto-normative policies expose other road users to elevated physical and emotional risks, negatively impact well-being and contribute to the exclusion of those who cannot fully participate in motorised hypermobility.

Pedestrians suffer the most under these conditions, but the negative impacts extend across society. A more democratic mobility system would allow citizens to travel in more ways without compromising their safety, health and comfort. Incorporate violence reduction as a critical transport policy goal Systemic violence – including gender-based violence, road-traffic violence, criminal violence and policing violence – impacts who travels as well as how, when and where citizens travel. It acts as a barrier to walking or cycling. Despite this, transport planners and policy makers often fail to carefully consider the impacts of violence in transport policies. Identifying the extent to which different forms of violence are present in local contexts, and incorporating violence reduction as a critical transport policy goal, contribute to delivering better transport outcomes. Remove car blinders from transport appraisal methods and consider a broader range of alternatives A vision-led approach to policy making in transport will help ensure that car “blinders” are not embedded in the processes underpinning policy and investment decisions with respect to our transport systems. Moreover, appraisal frameworks should aim to capture a broader range of impacts and evaluate costs and benefits to all groups of interest, particularly vulnerable or underprivileged groups.

A robust consultation process incorporating a broad range of stakeholders can help ensure that the right projects are considered and ultimately chosen.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Remove moto-normative policies to increase the effectiveness of new pro-walking and cycling policies Incorporating active mobility policies in contexts that favours individual motorised mobility often puts walking and cycling at odds, creating a dangerous environment where they compete for the limited space leftover from the allocation to motorised transport. It is not enough to add new policies and measures; existing policies that define the aim, allocation and use of mobility space around maximising (motorised) vehicle throughput and flows must also be reconsidered and removed. This includes reducing speeds in urban areas. Decouple walking and cycling to focus on the different needs of pedestrians and cyclists Active mobility policies should clearly distinguish between walking and cycling and avoid conflating both to the detriment of each. Walking and cycling share many similarities and benefits, including their active component, which contributes to better health outcomes. Still, they are also vastly different modes that different groups use for various purposes. They require different infrastructure and policies to ensure they can be done safely, securely and enjoyably.

Ensure access to high-quality collective transport to enable better walking and cycling The scale of today’s cities often makes it necessary for people to travel further and faster to maintain access to destinations and opportunities. Walking, cycling and other active modes have more limited temporal and geographical scales than motorised transport. As such, improving pedestrian conditions and designing effective walking, cycling and public transport integration are vital to maintaining accessibility while still encouraging more people to walk or cycle in an enjoyable, safe and secure manner that improves the liveability of cities and reduces the environmental impact of urban transport. Tailor active mobility solutions to local contexts Local populations are best positioned to understand their own needs and wants. It is essential to clearly define policy goals and interventions to ensure desirable outcomes for the people most directly affected. Learning from other cities, regions and countries is essential for developing good active mobility frameworks worldwide. However, governments should avoid top-down approaches and imported solutions without local engagement. Failing to include local communities in meaningful policy coconstruction processes will likely ensure that policies do not achieve their intended goals.

10

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

WHAT IS ACTIVE TRAVEL?

What is active travel? Walking, cycling and other forms of active travel benefit people and urban environments in ways that other, more sedentary modes cannot. The potential positive health benefits of active modes, coupled with policies that facilitate their use, can be valuable levers for improving cities’ liveability and environmental quality. Nonetheless, different active modes may require tailored infrastructure and policies to encourage safe, secure and enjoyable travel. Active travel is “travel in which the sustained physical exertion of the traveller directly contributes to their motion” (Cook et al., 2022). Active travel modes require continued physical input. When they involve vehicles, they act as “convivial” technologies that work with rather than instead of humans (Illich, 1973). Whether or not travel includes active human physical exertion is a policy-relevant differentiator between travel modes since active travel confers important individual and societal benefits not shared by other, more sedentary travel modes. These primarily relate to the health and accessibility impacts of active travel. Active travel describes many other forms of travel beyond walking and cycling (e.g. manual wheelchairing, kick-scooting, skateboarding, skating, running, and skiing). Nonetheless, walking and cycling comprise the vast bulk of active travel in most contexts.

Of these two, walking is the dominant active travel mode in many urban contexts – particularly in the Global South and countries with low motorisation rates (Sagaris et al., 2022). When comparing countries with similar motorisation and income levels, the relative share of walking versus cycling may vary significantly – high-cycling countries tend to be low-walking countries and vice versa (Pisoni, Christidis, and Navajas Cawood, 2022). The intensity of physical exertion is a factor to consider when assessing benefits, but establishing minimum thresholds may unnecessarily exclude certain modes. What matters is the sustained nature of the physical exertion necessary for travel (Cook et al., 2022). Using kick-scooters or e-pedelecs are forms of active travel (i.e. they cannot advance without continued human physical exertion). In contrast, e-kick scooters and throttled e-bikes are not active travel modes since they are designed to advance without continued human exertion. Some may also experience active travel as a constraint rather than a positive addition to their lives. For example, in various contexts, people need to walk or cycle excessive distances because of a lack of affordable alternatives. In others, the quality, safety and security of the travel environment itself is poor.

Regardless of whether active travel is seen as a benefit or a constraint, a major challenge worldwide is to create compelling travel conditions and high-quality travel experiences for people walking and cycling. Similarly, links to high-quality collective transport are a prerequisite for truly liveable cities. The number of people engaged in active travel is significant in many global contexts, but especially in countries with lower levels of motorisation. Historically, however, increases in income, road infrastructure development, direct and indirect support mechanisms and subsidies have fuelled the growth of individual motorisation at the expense of active travel. These developments have marginalised those who do not have access to – or wish not to use – personal motorised transport for their everyday mobility.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

11

WHAT IS ACTIVE TRAVEL

The re-configuration of the built environment to favour motorised travel speeds has brought benefits to some but has crowded out active travel as a viable option for many. Car travel results from a “system of provision” (Mattioli et al., 2020) that delivers a compelling experience for those able to travel by car. Unlocking and maintaining the potential benefits of active and sustainable forms of travel will require a similar vision-based system of provision. The construction of the car-based system did not occur all at once. Creating high-quality active travel experiences must account for both “necessary” and “sufficient” conditions (Wiersma, Bertolini and Harms, 2021). Sufficient conditions only become relevant only once the necessary conditions are met. For example, safe cycling and pedestrian streets will only have the potential to significantly improve the likelihood of cycling or walking if opportunities or destinations are within walkable or rideable distances. Examples include basic necessities (e.g. healthcare access), economic activities (e.g. work and shopping), opportunities for social interactions with friends and family, leisure (including undirected strolls), and collective transport stops and stations.

What role can policy play in resolving the tension between the positive outcomes of active travel and the range of challenges and barriers to its maintenance or uptake? This report investigates how cities have developed and changed over the past century, becoming captive to personal motorised transport, and how pervasive moto-normative frameworks have created self-reinforcing conditions that make it difficult to look beyond the car. It highlights the inherent systemic violence that maintains moto-normativity, i.e. the pervasive, largely unconscious assumptions that make car-centric development appear coherent, natural and privileged (Walker, Tapp and Davis, 2022). This includes road-traffic violence, gender-based violence, policing violence and criminal violence. The report addresses how walking and cycling can contribute to better cities that are healthier, safer and more enjoyable, providing residents with benefits that improve their well-being and contribute to larger environmental goals. It offers actionable policy advice on improving the quality of walking and cycling in cities. The report’s recommendations focus on those who are already walking and cycling or travelling by other active modes, but also on ways to encourage others to further incorporate active travel for some of their trips.

12

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL

The benefits of active travel Active travel contributes to many desired societal outcomes, and its benefits are clear, compelling and well-documented. Nonetheless, they often fail to motivate the kind of meaningful policy action their magnitude would imply. This is partly due to the gap between what these benefits promise in theory and what they deliver in practice. How much and under what conditions can active travel’s potential plausibly be achieved? Understanding the benefits of active travel helps guide policy, prioritise actions and ensure that decisions lead to greater gains than losses. Some of these benefits can be easily captured and used in traditional transport appraisal and project and policy assessments, including cost–benefit analysis (CBA). Others, while important and sometimes even dominant, are harder to capture in existing transport decisionmaking processes and thus are often left out of consequential policy or investment decisions. While understanding the benefits of active travel is essential to increasing its uptake, it is not sufficient, especially against the backdrop of sunk investments and systemic inertia working against more walking, cycling and other forms of active travel. This section describes the benefits of active travel and discusses how, where and under what conditions they appear.

The remainder of the report explores how to close the gap between potential and practice. Active travel contributes to four over-arching policy objectives: 1. increased efficiency of movement and access 2. improved environmental quality and performance 3. greater life enjoyment and fulfilment for people 4. more equitable distribution of benefits (and burdens). These four endpoints are interlinked and overlapping. For example, living a fulfilled life because of improved health is not only important to individuals but is also important to society since good health and life satisfaction improve overall productivity and generate economy-wide cost savings. Likewise, improving the quality of spatial access afforded by foot or cycling generates both societal and individual benefits. However, the methodological basis for assessing benefits relating to enjoyment and equity is less advanced than that for assessing efficiency-related or environmental benefits.

Efficiency-related benefits of active travel Efficiency is an inherent public policy objective since it maximises productive outcomes for any given resource input. In transport, efficiency typically refers to the use of infrastructure (e.g. vehicle or pedestrian flow), energy (e.g. travel output by unit of energy input) or time (e.g. speed, travel-time savings and the maximisation of monetary value or the number of opportunities that can be accessed within a set amount of time) (ITF, 2019; Piatkowski and Marshall, 2018). It can also refer to the use of space (ITF, 2022a). IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

13

THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL

Efficiency can also refer to outcomes that go beyond transport – for example, the number of social interactions per trip or improvement in health outcomes per hour of walking or cycling. These are not always included in policy appraisals focusing on transport-specific outcomes but are nevertheless important. In the case of health, such benefits may outweigh countervailing disbenefits such as those linked to crashes and exposure to air pollution. “Efficiency” is a measure of performance that is tied to a specific productive outcome. There are many productive outcomes that are relevant for transport or for public policy more broadly. For example, a street designed for average motor vehicle operating speeds may be efficient in moving vehicles but inefficient in moving people in vehicles since each motor vehicle requires more space than a person walking or cycling. Common metrics for assessing traffic efficiency (e.g. vehicles per hour, peak-hour service levels, peak-hour congestion or delay and travel-time losses) are all designed to evaluate a specific measure of traffic efficiency: moving motor vehicles. As such, they are not necessarily easy to apply to active modes or even relevant for planning and developing policies supporting active travel (Piatkowski and Marshall, 2018).

At a minimum, benchmarks for assessing the contribution of active travel to overall transport activity should be assessed on a per-person rather than a per-vehicle basis. Indeed, in specific circumstances, active modes may be more efficient than other modes (see Figure 1). For example, active travel represents the most energy-efficient of all travel modes. In practice, however, the attractiveness of walking, bicycling and e-biking drops off as travel distances get longer despite their inherent energy efficiency. Figure 1. Energy efficiency of active travel compared to an electric car

150 Wh/km

Electric car (speed=45 km/h) Baseline

14 Wh/km

10 Wh/km

5.5 Wh/km

E-bike (speed=25km/h) 11 times less energy

Walking (speed = 4km/h) 15 times less energy

Bicycle (speed=18km/h) 27 times less energy

Source: Based on de Bortoli and Christoforou (2020).

14

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL

When most people are travelling, active travel is often fast enough. While active travel may not generally compare favourably to motorised modes in terms of travel speeds, this may not hold at peak travel times, in congested conditions or for certain trip distances. On average, bicycles, e-bikes/pedelecs, speed pedelecs and kick-scooters have lower operating speeds than average motor vehicle operating speeds. Nonetheless, in urban cores, especially when dedicated infrastructure is provided, and street networks are more permeable to active modes than motor vehicles, travel speeds converge (see Figure 2). In many cities around the world – but especially in the largest and most congested conurbations – peakhour bicycle speeds match or even surpass motor vehicle speeds. This does not mean that active travel is a viable option for all longer-distance urban trips or all contexts. Public transport is still the most space and energy-efficient mode for these trips. However, the bulk of urban travel is not comprised of long-distance trips but of short trip segments. Many of these trips could be walked or cycled (for longer distances) if streets were less inhospitable and motorised traffic levels were lower. Related to time or speed efficiency is the delay required to initiate a trip.

Walking can start instantaneously and, to a lesser extent, so too can cycling trips (depending on how near the bicycle is parked). This spontaneity may be matched by motor vehicles in certain contexts but in urban cores and away from residential locations, motor vehicles are rarely parked directly where people commence their travel. Another measure of efficiency is the amount of space consumed by travel. Such space is at a premium in core urban areas. Space consumption metrics must account for the amount of time-space exclusively occupied. For travel, this means accounting for both the static (parking or pick-up/drop-off time) and dynamic (on-street movement) elements of travel. The ITF (2022a) uses the square-metre-hour metric (m2.h), which captures both elements. This indicator underscores the space efficiency of active and well-used collective transport compared to other travel modes. For specific trip distances, active travel – particularly cycling – is also competitive compared to car travel in terms of speed (see Figure 2). Figure 2. Cities where bicycles are as fast or faster than peak-hour car speeds in urban cores

18 km/h

Bicycle Brussels London Lyon Munich Palermo Paris Boston

Chicago New York City Philadelphia Washington, DC Bogota Quito

21 km/h

28 km/h

Speed pedelec

Pedelec Dublin Marseille Turin Baltimore San Francisco Stamford Belo Horizonte

Cali Medellin Mexico City Bangkok Jakarta Cape Town Johannesburg

Athens Belfast Berlin Bristol Bucharest Budapest Galway Istanbul Manchester Nice Nottingham Poznan Rome Warsaw

Wroclaw Atlanta Austin Dallas Denver Houston Miami New Orleans Portland Providence Sacramento Seattle Sao Paulo

Source: Adapted from INRIX (2022); Schleinitz et al. (2017); Twisk et al. (2021, 2022).

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

15

THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL

Environmental benefits of active travel Maintaining or increasing active travel contributes to improving the environmental performance of everyday mobility. This should be evaluated both in relative (how much better is active travel for the environment than alternative modes?) and absolute terms (what is the overall contribution of active travel to reducing environmental pressures?). It should also be evaluated on how well active travel contributes to less impactful lifestyles more generally. For example, does a pro-active travel environment enable people to use their cars less? The answers to these questions depend on the actual lifecycle performance of active travel modes. No travel mode is zero-emission on a lifecycle basis. Furthermore, the extent to which trips are either substituted or generated by improved active travel conditions also plays a role. Plausible trip-replacement rates (i.e. the number of car trips that could be replaced by walking or cycling) provide valuable information when assessing the lifecycle environmental impacts of increasing active travel rates. The bulk of trips in urban contexts (including in town and village centres) are short (i.e. less than five kilometres). In high-income countries, most short trips are made by car (Beckx et al., 2013; Castro et al., 2019; Keall et al., 2018; Neves and Brand, 2019).

Not all of these trips can be substituted by walking. Similarly, not all longer-distance trips can plausibly be cycled or e-cycled. Longer-distance trip chains can be challenging to break up. Mobility constraints and the need to carry objects, children or pets can impact whether trips can be plausibly replaced. Nonetheless, most urban contexts have a significant reservoir of potentially walkable or cyclable trips. Transferring these trips away from cars to active travel may have disproportionate positive environmental impacts (Beckx et al., 2013; De Nazelle et al., 2010). Active travel reduces carbon dioxide emissions

A recent assessment of the climate-related impacts of changes in active travel accounting for trip substitution effects shows significant relative impacts on lifecycle carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (Brand et al., 2021). Accounting for trip-related emissions from longitudinal panel data in seven European cities, the study found that changes in daily travel behaviour (frequency and length of trips) and mode choice had significant active travel CO2 reduction benefits. Increases in walking and cycling consistently reduced overall lifecycle CO2 emissions, indicating that active travel trips replaced more polluting ones. Figure 3 shows the change in CO2 emissions resulting from shifts to and from walking and cycling and the impact of more or less cycling trips as compared to baseline cycling levels. These are significant changes on a per-person basis. For example, a person riding one more bicycle trip per day and driving one fewer car trip per day for 200 days per year would emit approximately one-half ton less travel-related CO2 on a lifecycle basis. This represents about 7% of the annual per-capita CO2 emissions for people living in the European Union. These specific CO2 reductions are significant. However, in absolute terms, longer-distance travel constitutes the bulk of passenger-related CO2 emissions – and, by extension, the bulk of environmental damage – from road transport.

Urban passenger emissions account for only 32% of all passenger transport emissions and 17% of all transport emissions, including freight (ITF, 2023b). Intercity, regional and international longer-distance travel accounts for the majority of passenger emissions.

16

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL

Figure 3. Carbon-emission impacts of mode shift and cycling trip changes in seven European cities Change in Kg CO2/day compared to baseline cycling trips

Change in Kg CO2/day compared to baseline mode choice 9.25

4.09 1.70

1.30 -1.73

-3.72

-2.43

-9.28 Car

Active travel

Active travel

Car

Public Active transport travel

Active Public travel transport

Baseline

More bicycle trips

Baseline Far more bicycle trips

Baseline

Fewer bicycle trips

Baseline Far fewer bicycle trips

Source: adapted from Brand et al. (2021).

Active travel contributes to enjoyment, life fulfilment and health

While many things contribute to enjoyable and fulfilling lives, their relative importance depends on specific life conditions and contexts. Nonetheless, good physical and mental health ranks consistently highest as a contributor to happiness across diverse global contexts and populations (IPSOS, 2022). Active travel incorporates and maintains physical activity in everyday life, contributing to good health and happiness. By definition, active travel involves physical activity, which is positively correlated to multiple health endpoints. However, active travel also exposes people to risks which may erode some of the benefits of physical activity. These principally relate to crashes and physical trauma, and exposure to air pollution. Nevertheless, on balance and on average, active travel’s positive contribution to good health is orders of magnitude greater than the negative health impacts of crashes and air pollution. At the same time, this benefit is not uniformly distributed across populations, which has equity implications. Insufficient physical activity imposes significant burdens on people and society

Good health is elusive for many. Physical trauma injuries and communicable diseases are significant sources of poor health and early mortality, but the global burden of non-communicable diseases is large and growing. Insufficient physical activity and sedentarism – particularly prolonged sitting – are important but addressable risk factors for non-communicable diseases and poor mental-health outcomes. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting increase the risk of obesity, coronary heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, depression and dementia (ITF, 2013; Nikitara et al., 2021; WHO, 2022a, 2022b). It is the fourth-highest risk factor for mortality, contributing to approximately 3.2 million premature deaths per year. Physical inactivity also results in 32.1 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per year. In 2016, approximately one-quarter (27.5%) of all adults were insufficiently physically active, engaging in less than 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week (Guthold et al., 2018; WHO, 2022b). Factors contributing to this physical inactivity include more sedentary work, a lack of public space in which to be active, increased road traffic, degraded air quality and increased dependence on passive travel modes (Lorenzo et al., 2020).

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

17

THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL

More inactive

Figure 4. Prevalence of insufficient physical activity by country, population and income group 70

1 000 000 000

60

100 000 000 10 000 000 1 000 000

Population size

Prevalence of insufficient physical activity

50

40

Trend line within each country income group

30

20

Less inactive

10

Low income 0

100

Lower middle income 1000

Upper middle-income 10000

High income 100000

Gross national income per capita (2016 purchasing power parity – log scale) Source: Adapted from Guthold et al. (2018).

Levels of adult inactivity vary (see Figure 4), but wealthier countries generally display higher levels of insufficient activity than lower-income countries – with a slight drop off in the wealthiest countries (Guthold et al., 2018; WHO, 2022a). Average rates of insufficient adult physical activity range from 36.8% in upper-income countries to 26.0% and 16.2% in middle and lower-income countries, respectively (Guthold et al., 2018). This disparity is due to higher work and travel-related physical activity rates in lower-income countries and an increased prevalence of sedentary work and motorised transport in higher-income countries. Men displayed lower average rates of physical inactivity globally than women (23.4% and 31.7%, respectively). Rates of physical inactivity are stable or growing in most countries, irrespective of income (Guthold et al., 2018). Adolescent rates of physical inactivity (defined as less than one hour daily of moderate to vigorous activity) are elevated and less correlated to income across all countries and income groups, displaying rates ranging from 79.4% in upper-income countries to 83.9%, 79.3% and 84.9% in upper-middle, lower-middle and low-income countries, respectively in 2016 (Guthold et al., 2020). Insufficiently active people have a 20-30% greater risk of premature death than people who meet the WHO minimum activity guidelines (WHO, 2022b).

Physical inactivity is responsible for up to 8% of all noncommunicable diseases globally. It also accounts for 7% of all deaths and 7% of deaths from cardiovascular disease (Katzmarzyk et al., 2022). Physical inactivity significantly contributes to many non-communicable diseases – especially cardiovascular disease, certain kinds of cancer, dementia and depression.

18

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL

30 Low income (16.2% adults insufficiently active)

25

Middle income (26.0 adults insufficiently active)

20

High income (36.8 adults insufficiently active)

15

3.6

2.8

3.9

1.8

1.7

2.6

3.6

4.3

4.9

4.3

4.2

6.8 4.3

1.7

Depression

2.6

Dementia

1.3

Type 2 diabetes

Stroke

Coronary heart disease

Cardiovascular disease mortality

2.9

Renal cancer

2.0

2.7

1.0

0 -5

4.2

9.3

7.7

6.8

6.6

Gastric cancer

1.5

2.2

Oesophageal cancer

3.0

Endometrial cancer*

3.0

5.9

4.7

4.7

4.6

4.3

6.5

Colon Cancer

6.5

10.5

9.3

9.0

6.8

Breast cancer*

7.2

Hypertension

5

6.8

9.3

9.9

9.3

Bladder cancer

10

All-cause mortality

% of cases attributable to physical inactivity

Figure 5. Disease burdens attributed to physical inactivity by world income region

Source: Adapted from Katzmarzyk et al. (2022).

The global burden of insufficient physical activity is not uniformly distributed (see Figure 5). High-income countries displayed almost twice as many deaths attributed to physical inactivity compared to low-income countries (9.3% and 4.3%, respectively). Similarly, high-income countries consistently displayed twice as many deaths as low-income countries for each of 14 specific risk factors. Middle-income countries accounted for the highest number of deaths as well as cardiovascular disease-related deaths attributable to insufficient physical activity (69% and 74%, respectively). While the highest relative burden is in highincome countries, the greatest number of people affected by diseases linked to insufficient physical activity live in middle-income countries which account for the bulk of the world’s population (Katzmarzyk et al., 2022; WHO, 2022a, 2022b). According to a conservative estimate, the cumulative burden of direct healthcare costs, indirect costs, DALYs and lost productivity amounted in 2013 to INT$ 67.5 billion. Direct costs due to insufficient physical activity amounted to INT$ 53.8 billion, INT$ 31.2 billion was paid by the public sector, INT$ 12.9 billion by the private sector and the remaining INT$ 9.7 billion by households (Ding et al., 2016). This burden has not decreased as rates of physical inactivity have remained stable.

The societal burden is unevenly distributed, with higher-income countries bearing a larger share of direct medical costs and productivity losses and lower-income countries bearing the brunt of the disease burden, as measured in DALYs (Ding et al., 2016). Active travel maintains and improves health outcomes

The antidote to physical inactivity is simply to become more physically active. Increased physical activity reduces poor health outcomes and premature death associated with low activity levels and attenuates the negative health impact of excessive sedentary activities and sitting time (Ekelund et al., 2016). Despite a simple and straightforward “treatment”, efforts to increase global and regional levels of physical activity have not met with much success. The WHO General Assembly target of a 15% reduction in physical

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

19

THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL

inactivity by 2030 remains in jeopardy (Andersen et al., 2016; Cardon and Salmon, 2020; Reis et al., 2016; WHO, 2022a, 2022b). Increasing levels of physical activity will require expanding beyond traditional health sector interventions. A multi-sectoral and multilevel approach to reducing physical inactivity must involve schools, sports and recreation, urban planning and transport (Reis et al., 2016; WHO, 2022a). However, while exercise- and leisure-based interventions have delivered as expected, gains have proven difficult to maintain. One explanation for this is that humans, by nature and physiology, have evolved to avoid unnecessary exertion – this means that although exercise is good for people, it is often difficult to keep up (Lieberman, 2021). Another reason is that in many low- and middle-income countries, people are already physically active, and the added benefit of physical activity through “exercise” may not be relevant. Nonetheless, rates of physical inactivity are growing in all world income regions, so there is merit in establishing policies that support maintaining or increasing moderate amounts of physical activity in everyday life. Daily active travel is fundamental to physically active and healthy lives. It thus directly contributes to better life enjoyment and fulfilment by attenuating multiple non-communicable disease burden risks.

The contribution of active travel to multiple health endpoints is extremely robust and well-documented (de Hartog et al., 2010; Götschi, Garrard and Giles-Corti, 2016; ITF, 2013; Lorenzo et al., 2020; Matthews et al., 2007; Mueller et al., 2015; Nieuwenhuijsen et al., 2016; Rabl and De Nazelle, 2012; Reiner et al., 2013; Rojas-Rueda, De Nazelle et al., 2011; Saunders et al., 2013; Vancampfort et al., 2018; Vogel et al., 2009; Wanjau et al., 2023; Wanner et al., 2012; Woodcock et al., 2011). These endpoints cover all those identified in reviews of the health impacts of increased physical activity (see Figure 5) and are indicative of causal and not just correlative associations. Active travel actively contributes to reducing health risks. Evidence on an additional health risk factor – obesity and elevated body mass index (BMI) values – is mixed, with some studies finding a strong but not causal correlation and others finding that BMI values decrease among physically active people (Dons et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2021). A crucial question is whether active travel decreases travellers’ BMI or whether people with lower BMI are more inclined to walk or cycle. Evidence indicates that the latter holds: people with elevated BMI levels are less predisposed to walk or cycle, whereas people with lower BMI values are more likely to walk or cycle (Kroesen and De Vos, 2020).

This underscores the need to address obesity from a whole of society perspective – including diet – since reducing BMI delivers broad health benefits from the uptake of active travel and other forms of physical activity. Recent evidence strongly suggests that active travel improves mental health and cognitive function. Here too, the developing evidence supporting a correlation between active travel-induced physical activity and improved health outcomes is robust. People walking or cycling for work-based commuting report higher levels of life satisfaction and lower incidence of degraded mental health and depression (Avila-Palencia et al., 2018; Fyhri et al., 2023; Humphreys, Goodman and Ogilvie, 2013; Knott et al., 2018; Martin, Goryakin and Suhrcke, 2014; Singleton, 2019; Wild and Woodward, 2019). While much of the evidence on the linkage between active travel and mental health comes from higher-income countries, there is supporting evidence for the mental health benefits of active travel in lower-income populations (Mason, Curl and Kearns, 2016) and lower- and middle-income countries as well (Chen et al., 2021; Syahputri et al., 2022). The health improvement effect of active travel is conditioned by whether the physical activity incurred by travel substitutes or is additional to other forms of physical activity (Möller et al., 2020).

It is also not linear across most health endpoints, with the greatest health improvement experienced as people with sedentary or low physical activity lifestyles start increasing their levels of physical activity (de Nazelle et al., 2011; Hollingworth, Harper and Hamer, 2015; ITF, 2013; Mueller et al., 2015; Rabl and de Nazelle, 2012; Rojas-Rueda et al., 2011; Saunders et al., 2013). 20

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL

Active travel nonetheless confers benefits to those who are already physically active. The overall contribution of active travel to health shifts from health improvement to maintenance of good health as levels of physical activity increase (Hollingworth, Harper and Hamer, 2015). The intensity of physical exertion is a factor as well, although health benefits already manifest themselves at the WHO minimum physical activity recommended level of 150 minutes of moderate physical activity per week for adults. Higher levels of physical exertion, such as faster cycling or walking, or active travel in hilly environments, deliver benefits more quickly or deliver greater benefits for the same amount of travel time. The health benefits of active travel outweigh its negative impacts

Any assessment of the overall impact of active travel on health must account for some of the health risks associated with walking, cycling and other forms of active travel. These risks include exposure to air pollution – particularly fine particulate matter from fuel combustion and car brake pad and tyre wear – and the risk of injuries or death due to crashes (ITF, 2013). Exposure to ambient air pollution is typically less for those walking or cycling in or near traffic than for car occupants and decreases significantly as pedestrians and cyclists move away from the roadway. Fine particulate matter deposition in the lungs – and thus the final negative health impact – is nonetheless greater for cyclists due to their increased ventilation rate (ITF, 2013). Individual travellers face increased air pollution-related risks, but when their trips replace more polluting modes (e.g. cars or low-occupancy diesel public transport) the countervailing impact of overall reduced levels of air pollution determines the final societal health impact. Light, severe and fatal injuries also mitigate the overall health benefits of active transport. These injuries and deaths occur at lower rates as more people walk or cycle (ITF, 2013), although the causality of this relationship is unclear.

It may be that there are “numbers in safety” – more people walk and cycle in safe and secure environments – rather than “safety in numbers” – an increase in people walking makes traffic environments safer (Bhatia and Wier, 2011). As with air pollution, people walking and cycling are exposed to crash risks, but when their trips replace trips by larger, faster and more deadly vehicles, the overall societal crash risk may decrease, all else held equal. Health-impact assessments (HIAs) establish the balance of positive and negative health impacts at both the individual and societal levels to guide policy. HIAs consistently show significantly positive health benefit–risk or benefit–cost (when impacts are monetised) ratios in favour of active travel (de Nazelle et al., 2011; Holm, Glümer and Diderichsen, 2012; Lindsay, Macmillan and Woodward, 2011; Mueller et al., 2015, 2018; Rojas-Rueda et al., 2011; Rojas-Rueda et al., 2012, 2013; Woodcock et al., 2013, 2014).These range from -2 to 360, with a median value of nine times more benefits than risks in 30 studies analysed by Mueller et al. (2015). Figure 6 shows the net benefits calculated for all studies covering multiple health pathways. In all but one, the health benefit from physical activity outweighs the negative health impacts of air pollution and traffic injuries and deaths.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

21

THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL

Figure 6. Review of health impact assessments of shifting to more active travel

Source: Adapted from Mueller et al. (2015).

More recent HIAs support these findings, although they find walking and cycling have different overall health impacts. The overall cost–benefit ratio for monetised health benefits versus disbenefits examined in seven European cities was overwhelmingly positive for cycling. In Rome, for example, the ratio was EUR 70:1, with lower ratios recorded in Zurich (EUR 62:1), Barcelona (EUR 35:1), Vienna (EUR 22:1) and London (EUR 8:1) (Mueller et al., 2018). For Barcelona, the overall average annual economic benefits, including observed shifts to walking and cycling, have been estimated at EUR 47.3 million per year for walking and EUR 4.7 million per year for cycling (Pérez et al., 2017). In Italy, estimates of the average overall monetised health benefit of active travel across nine cities of more than 300 000 inhabitants has been estimated at EUR 0.32/km for walking and EUR 0.06/km for cycling, dropping to EUR 0.02/km for e-bikes (Mela and Girardi, 2022). Differences between walking and cycling in HIA outcomes are linked to the greater impact of air pollution and crashes on cyclists on a per-kilometre basis. Most active travel HIAs have been undertaken in Europe and North America; therefore, their applicability to other global contexts may vary.

Nonetheless, HIAs undertaken in lower-income countries also report similar positive outcomes for walking and cycling (de Sá et al., 2017; Woodcock et al., 2009). There is also evidence that the same associations between environments that encourage active travel, ensuing levels of active travel and the health benefits realised from active travel-related physical activity in higher-income countries hold in lower-income countries (Benton et al., 2023; G. Ferrari et al., 2020; Ferrari et al., 2020; Siqueira Reis et al., 2013). Beyond HIAs, CBA exercises can help guide policy decisions if they account for the unique characteristics and benefits of active travel. Adapted CBA must account for the health impacts of active travel and should also capture effective travel speeds, especially at times when most travel occurs (Mulley et al., 2013). An expansive CBA exercise adapted for active travel accounting for climate change, air pollution, noise, soil and water quality, land use and infrastructure, traffic infrastructure maintenance, material resource requirements, vehicle operation costs, travel time, congestion, health benefits, crashes, perceived safety and discomfort and quality of life and tourism finds that walking and cycling generates a benefit of EUR 0.37 and EUR 0.18 per kilometre in the EU.

Conversely, each kilometre driven by car in the EU imposes an external cost of EUR 0.11 (Gössling et al., 2019).

22

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WALKING AND CYCLING IN CITIES © OECD/ITF 2024

THE BENEFITS OF ACTIVE TRAVEL