New economic research published today makes the case for a fundamental rethink in the way local authorities plan for cycling.

The model shows how a surprisingly small number of additional cyclists will pay for investment in new cycling infrastructure. The model suggests:

* An investment of £10,000 requires one additional regular cyclist
* An investment of £100,000 requires 11 additional regular cyclists

– http://www.bikeforall.net/news.php?articleshow=613

I suspect the model is beyond my comprehension. I am happy to carry on cycling in exchange for a £10,000 tax rebate, if that is really what it proves is needed.

🙂

If an investment of £10K requires one extra cyclist, why does the £100K investment require 11 cyclists (or £11K each) given that same investment could be divided into 10 smaller projects thus lowering the required investment return?

If an investment of £10K requires one extra cyclist, why does the £100K investment require 11 cyclists (or £11K each) given that same investment could be divided into 10 smaller projects thus lowering the required investment return?

Because your maths is wrong 🙂

100000/11 = 9090

back to fields!

Darlington has had £500,000 a year invested for three years, with the same again in the next three years. This has been spend on a mix of physical measures and marketing.

In the first two years, cycling rates went from 1% of trips to 2% of trips. Car trips were down by 10%.

I can now ride from home to the town centre without touching a main road, on a route which I’m happy to let my 5-year-old daughter ride. She rode 10km, with my wife, a couple of Saturdays ago, getting to her swimming lesson, a birthday party and her grandparents. There will shortly be a second possible route to town opening.

4% of trips is apparently a tipping point, so the next couple of years could be interesting.

agree’d, those numbers don’t make sense (at least on their own)

presumabbly theres some account taken for irregular cyclist who use the facilities less than 3x per week.

Yes the word ‘requires’ means that makes no sense.

I think it’s easier to calculate the economic benefits of regular cyclists.

“An investment of £10,000 requires one additional regular cyclist” means that a Council should be able to justify spending £10,000 on cycling facilities if they can show that one extra person will ride three times a week because of it.