Bike lanes are a better return on money invested in public health than many other measures, a new study has found.
Researchers who looked at cycle infrastructure in New York found that every $1,300 spent on it could equate to an additional quality-adjusted life year, or QALY, for every one of the city’s residents.
By contrast, the authors showed that a health treatment like dialysis costs $129,000 for one QALY, while vaccines have a return of one QALY per $100 spent.
The report, published in the Journal of Injury Prevention, concluded that “investments in bicycle lanes come with an exceptionally good value because they simultaneously address multiple public health problems.
“Investments in bike lanes are more cost-effective than the majority of preventive approaches used today.”
Coauthor Dr. Babak Mohit of the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University in New York said that New York built 45.5 miles of bike lanes in 2015, with an investment of about $8 million. This increased the probability that residents would ride a bike by 9 percent.
“For bike lanes the cost per QALY is $1,300, a little bit higher than vaccines but way lower than most medical interventions that we have in healthcare,” Mohit said.
“We’re finding more and more of these social interventions are not directly medically related but have an extremely positive effect on giving us more life years.
“I definitely think there’s room for expansion of bike lanes, the city spends $67,000 per QALY for Medicaid and we think spending $1,300 per QALY buys you a lot more life for a lot less money,” he added.
Earlier this year we reported how people who drive as their main form of transport are, on average, 4kg heavier than those who cycle, according to an ongoing Europe-wide study that adds further evidence to the benefits of active travel.
Researchers from the EU-funded Physical Activity through Sustainable Transport Approaches (PASTA) project have, so far, monitored 11,000 volunteers in seven European cities, looking at how they get around the city and how much time they spend travelling.
Researchers asked participants to record their height and weight, and to provide information about their attitudes towards walking and cycling. Initial data analysis found those who drive cars as their main form of transport are, on average, 4kg heavier than those who cycle; researchers are looking for more participants in Antwerp, Barcelona, London, Orebro in Sweden, Rome, Vienna and Zurich.
Imperial University’s project lead, Dr Audrey de Nazelle, from the Centre for Environmental policy, said: “We don’t have cause and effect yet, but we hope this first finding will encourage more people to take part in the survey so that we can get more data over time and make a link between transport decisions and health.”
“Our research shows that factors like urban design, how we move in cities, and the use of cars, bikes or walking could all play an important role in determining the level of people’s daily physical activity.”
Add new comment
4 comments
It's an interesting report, and I'm not surprised that bike lanes are a good investment.
On a different subject, I'm increasingly finding that road.cc doesn't load well in my browser. There seems to be so much crap to load - advertising.this, and tracking.that - that half the time the browser just seizes up. I know I don't pay for this, and they have to make money, but it gets to a point where it is counter-productive.
I think a bit from column A, and a bit from column B...
Politicians are short-termist; action that saves the NHS money in 10 years will be way down the list if alternatives can mean tax coming in next year.
They're also ideological creatures and avoid evidence-based policy wherever possible. With transport, there's the added complication that it can help to occasionally be illogical; since the Victorians, train and rail investment has defied business cases - it's an 'if you build it, they will come' kind of thing, which some of them use to justify HS2.
There are very few votes in kicking motorists, none of them (especially Tories) want to be The Mail or Sun's target of the month, and cyclists are a pretty disorganised minority and it's fine with most if we keep losing.
@legalfun
I wonder if that is the reason though. I mean, logically bringing in tax revenue shouldn't help if its offset by the greater expenditure cars also require (which outwieghs the tax income by some margin). But then again, governments are rarely logical, and maybe greater income and spending means bigger empires and a greater sense of importance for those running things.
There must be a deep reason for how irrational transport policy is. It's path-dependent, I think, we took a wrong turn somewhere, got stuck and can't back-up so everyone keeps on going, ploughing into the mud.
But maybe its simpler, and its just that so many politicians personally love driving (or being driven)?
Its really a different isssue but a sugar-tax might not be a bad idea (13% isn't a bad result!), though the one that has been announced here is so small and limited that it's just a token gesture.
We all know why the government doesnt invest in cycling infrastructure for health reasons..
Cars raise huge tax revenue for the government. VAT on new cars, car spares and repairs, fuel duty and VAT on fuel, insurance premium tax and the small amount raised by VED (so-called road tax).
Oh and unhealthy people need drugs for obesity related health problems like high blood pressure, diabetes and heart attacks. Those drugs earn huge money for pharmaceutical companies, who pay taxes, but are also run by politicians best friends.
Instead, the UK government introduces a new money earner... sugar tax.
Wont achieve much, IIRC, mexico reduced obesity by just 13%. Then again, it will bring in more money!
Maybe it's time to put on my tin hat and go back to looking at conspiracy theories about how Donald Trump's hair is actually a hamster called Nigel.