This #CyclingScienceSunday, let's take a look at the $$$ savings from health benefits of bike infrastructure in Canada.

TL;DR: even a small increase in cycling saves lives, reduces carbon emissions, and saves money.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246419

#LdnOnt #BikeTO #CycleWR

The authors plugged data from Victoria, Kelowna and Halifax into the WHO's HEAT tool. They assumed either a "moderate" 2 percentage point increase in cycling mode share (although I'd call this "tiny" not "moderate") or a "major" 5pp increase. Cc: @GVCC @IBIKEHFX @BikeMayorHfx

Using these assumptions, they measured the economic benefits of the prevented premature deaths and averted carbon emissions from increases in cycling, then calculated a benefit:cost ratio to determine whether the cycling investment generated an economic benefit.

Infrastructure causing an increase in cycling mode share of just 2 percentage points prevents between 9-18 deaths (depending on the city), stops 87,000-142,000 tonnes of carbon emissions, and generates a benefit:cost ratio of between 1.7:1-2.1:1 over 10 years.

Infrastructure causing an increase in cycling mode share of 5 percentage points prevents between 19-43 deaths, stops 209,000-349,000 tonnes of carbon emissions, and generates a benefit:cost ratio of between 3.9:1-4.9:1 over 10 years.

So investments in cycling infrastructure that cause even a small increase in cycling mode share save lives, reduce carbon emissions, and have a financial benefit worth millions of dollars. I.e., investing bike lanes is fiscally responsible (despite what some people think).

I think this study is particularly helpful to respond to those who say that building bike lanes will only make a small number of people bike more. Biking is just so beneficial that it only takes a small number of people to have a big impact.

Also, for what it's worth, I'm not convinced that investments in cycling need to have an economic benefit to be justified. But it's nice to know anyway.