Exploring active transportation investments and associated benefits for municipal budgets: a scoping review

Figures & data

Figure 1. Study selection process flow diagram.

Table 1. Study characteristics.

Ref.	Country	Design/analytic approach	Active transportation variable(s) studied	Indirect benefits	Direct benefits
Sohn et al. (2012)	USA	Hedonic regression analysis	(1) Development density; (2) land-use mix; (3) public open space and (4) pedestrian infrastructure	Property values	Not measured
Pivo and Fisher (2011)	USA	Hedonic regression analysis	(1) Walk score	Property values	Not measured
Lee and March (2010)	AUS	Case study	(1) Transport mode (bike)	Consumer spending	Not measured
Poindexter et al. (2007)	USA	Matched pairs longitudinal analysis	(1) Proximity of residential properties to an on-street bike lane or off-street bike path, 3 km radius	Property values	Not measured
Leinberger and Alfonzo (2012)	USA	Hedonic regression analysis	(1) Walk score	Property values	Property
				Consumer spending	Tax revenue
Racca and Dhanju (2006)	USA	Hedonic regression analysis	(1) Proximity of residential properties to a bike path, within 50 m	Property values	Not measured
Karadeniz (2008)	USA	Hedonic regression analysis	(1) Proximity of residential properties to a multipurpose trail, within 1.6 km	Property values	Not measured
Clifton et al. (2013)	USA	Cross-sectional survey	(1) Transport mode (bike, walk and transit)	Consumer spending	Not measured
Fleming et al. (2014)	New Zealand	Case study, cross case comparison	(1) Transport mode (bike, walk and transit)	Consumer spending	Not measured
Rowe (2013)	USA	Case study, pre–post design	(1) Case 1. Reduction in traffic lane, provision of bicycle lane and (2) Case 2. Removal of parking space, painted bike lane	Consumer spending	Not measured
Grabow et al. (2010)	USA	Input–output model, IMpact analysis for PLANning (IMPLAN)	(1) Bicycling person days on roadways, trails and cycle events/tours	Consumer spending	Not measured
Brown et al. (2013)	USA	Input–output model, Rutgers Economic forecasting model (R/ECON^TM)	(1) Bicycle and pedestrian Infrastructure capital costs	Consumer spending	Sales tax revenue
				Job creation
Leinberger (2013)	USA	Multiple case study	(1) Walk score	Property values	Not measured
Cortright (2009)	USA	Hedonic regression analysis	(1) Walk score	Property values	Not measured
Resource Systems Group, Economic and Policy Resources, & Motion (2012)	USA	Input–output model, Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI)	(1) Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure capital costs; (2) cycling and pedestrian-related events and (3) cycling and pedestrian-related businesses	Consumer spending	Sales tax revenue
				Job creation
Garret-Peltier (2011)	USA	Input–output model, IMPLAN version 3	(1) Active transport infrastructure capital costs (bike, multi-use trails and pedestrian)	Job creation	Not measured
Bliesner et al. (2010)	USA	Multiple case study	(1) Walkability	Property values	Not measured
Venegas (2009)	USA	Input–output model, IMPLAN	(1) Walker and cyclist person days on recreational trails	Consumer spending	Sales tax revenue
				Job creation
Mursell (2012)	Canada	Multiple case study	(1) Bicycle trail use by cycling tourists	Consumer spending	Not measured
Bowles et al. (2011)	USA	Input–output model, IMPLAN	(1) Transport mode (bike)	Consumer spending	Not measured
				Job creation
McCann et al. (2012)	USA	Multiple case study	(1) Complete streets	Consumer spending	Sales tax revenue
				Job creation
Birk and Roberts (2008)	USA	Cross-sectional survey	(1) Cycling-related businesses and (2) Cycling-related events	Consumer spending	Not measured
Ginenthal and Birk (2006)	USA	Cross-sectional survey	(1) Cycling-related businesses and (2) Cycling-related events	Consumer spending	Not measured

Table 2. Active transportation setting characteristics.

Ref.	Geographic setting [municipality; state; country]	Devel. type	Description of AT characteristics within setting	Pop. size /density	Active transport investment costs
Sohn et al. (2012)	King County (Urban growth area); Washington; USA	Urban	Not described	Not stated	Not stated
Pivo and Fisher (2011)	USA (nationwide)	Mixed	Not described	Not stated	Not stated
Lee and March (2010)	Lygon Street, Carlton suburb; Melbourne; AUS	Suburban	Mixed land-use (shopping strip with public, retail and residential space);	Not stated	Not stated
			AT infrastructure (bike lanes, 68 bike parking spaces, pedestrian paths)
Poindexter et al. (2007)	Midtown Greenway, Minneapolis, St. Paul; Minnesota; USA	Urban	AT infrastructure (Midtown Greenway: off-street bike path with links to regional bicycle facility network; Minneapolis, St. Paul: combined 96 km on- street and 198 off-street bike facilities)	Not stated	Not stated
Leinberger and Alfonzo (2012)	Washington, DC; USA	Urban	Walkability (sample included all neighbourhoods with walk score of ≥90)	Not stated	Not stated
Racca and Dhanju (2006)	New Castle County; Delaware; USA	Urban	Not described	Not stated	Not stated
Karadeniz (2008)	Hamilton County, Clermont County; Ohio; USA	Suburban	AT infrastructure (70 miles of multipurpose trail; study examined 9.5 mile stretch of trail)	Not stated	Not stated
Clifton et al. (2013)	Portland; Oregon; USA	Urban and suburban	AT infrastructure (2.3 miles of bikeways, 10 bike parking spots, and 0.21 mile distance to nearest low traffic bike facility)	Pop. density within half mile buffer: 13 individuals, per acre; density not stated	Not stated
Fleming et al. (2014)	Auckland, Christchurch, Wellington; New Zealand	Urban and suburban	AT infrastructure (Auckland: 1) Balmoral, Dominion Road, arterial shopping area: pedestrian-focused lighting, mid-block crossings, and signalised intersections; two vehicle traffic lanes in both directions. (2) Eden Valley, Dominion Road, arterial shopping area: limited formal pedestrian crossing areas, flush median provided with some pedestrian islands, no dedicated bike lanes. (3) Hurstmere Road, Takupuna, central shopping area: urban design, landscaping, pedestrian-focused lighting investments; no bike lanes. Christchurch: (1) Colombo Street, central shopping area: pedestrian walkway, bus routes, no bike facilities. (2) Merivale, Papanui Road, arterial shopping area: bus lanes with painted intersection markings, dedicated painted bike lane, signalised pedestrian crossing. (3) Riccarton Road, arterial shopping area: narrow footpaths, single signalised pedestrian crossing area, dedicated painted bike lanes. Wellington: (1) Courtenay Place, central shopping area: wide footpaths, bike parking, no dedicated bike lanes, single lane two-way traffic lanes, bus lanes, on-street parking, defined pedestrian paved areas. (2) Riddiford Street, Arterial shopping area: two-way traffic, pedestrian platforms on side streets, no dedicated bike lanes. (3) The Terrace, Wellington City Centre, arterial shopping centre: single traffic lanes, signalised intersections.	Not stated.	Not stated
Rowe (2013)	Seattle; Washington; USA	Urban	AT infrastructure (1) Greenwood Ave and NW 85th: centre of business district, lane reduction with addition of centre turn lane and bike lane and (2) NE 65th St. at Latona Ave NE: bike lane painted and 12 car parking spaces removed, traffic lanes not changed.	Not stated	Not stated
Grabow et al., 2010)	Wisconsin; USA	Statewide	Not described	Not stated	Not stated
Brown et al. (2013)	New Jersey; USA	Statewide	AT infrastructure (250 AT infrastructure projects implemented in 2011, including: sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, bike lanes, street-scaping, way-finding, waterfront walkways, trails and boardwalks).	Not stated	Total gov’t infrastructure investment of $63,170,000.
Leinberger (2013)	Atlanta; Georgia; USA	Urban and suburban	Mixed land-use (Regionally significant walkable urban places (n = 27) with different proportions of retail, office, rental, and for sale residential spaces were studied. Regionally significant was defined as having at least 1.4 million square feet of retail space).	Average density of the 27 walk-ups: 0.60 gross floor area ratio (FAR), ranging from 0.13 to 2.91 FAR; Pop. size not stated	Not stated
Cortright (2009)	Arlington, Austin, Bakersfield, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Fresno, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Francisco, Seattle, Stockton, Tucson; USA	Urban and suburban	Walkability (Average walk scores of sampled properties ranged 36–79. Average distance of sampled municipality to the central business district ranged 3–13 miles).	Population size of the 15 cities ranged 800,450–9,569,624; density not stated	Not stated
Resource Systems Group, Economic and Policy Resources, & Motion (2012)	Vermont; USA	Statewide	Not described	Not stated	In 2009, AT infrastructure projects cost $9,813,206: federal government contributed $6,780,696 to infrastructure and $912,511 to recreational trail programmes; municipal sources contributed $1,300,000 for annual sidewalk/bike projects and maintenance; and private sector sources contributed $820,000 for sidewalks
Garret-Peltier (2011)	Anchorage, AL; Austin, TX; Bloomington, IN; Baltimore, MD; Concord, NH; Eugene, OR; Houston, TX; Lexington, KY; Madison, WI; Santa Cruz, CA; Seattle, WA; USA	Urban	Not described	Not stated	Not stated
Bliesner et al. (2010)	San Diego; California; USA	Urban	Not described	Not stated	Not stated
Venegas (2009)	Minnesota; USA	Statewide	Not described	Not stated	Not stated
Mursell (2012)	Ottawa, Toronto, St. Catharines-Niagara, Windsor; Ontario; CAN	Urban	Not described	Not stated	Not stated
Bowles et al. (2011)	Iowa; USA	Statewide	Not described	No stated	Not stated
McCann et al. (2012)	Santa Monica, Lancaster, San Diego, Baldwin Park, Davis, Sacramento, San Francisco; California; USA	Urban	AT infrastructure (Projects included: traffic lane reductions, bike lane construction, sidewalk widening, parking reconfiguration, roundabout/central rambla construction; revised lighting and landscaping)	Not stated	In 2010, town of Lancaster invested $10 million into new lighting, landscaping, and trees on Lancaster Boulevard
Birk and Roberts (2008)	Portland; Oregon; USA	Urban	Not described	Not stated	Not stated
Ginenthal and Birk (2006)	Portland; Oregon; USA	Urban	Not described	Not stated	Not stated

*AT = active transport.

Sohn, D., Moudon, A., & Lee, J. (2012). The economic value of walkable neighbourhoods. Urban Design International, 17(2), 115–128. doi: 10.1057/udi.2012.1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pivo, G., & Fisher, J. (2011). The walkability premium in commercial real estate investments. Real Estate Economics, 39(2), 185–219. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6229.2010.00296.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, A., & March, A. (2010). Recognising the economic role of bikes: Sharing parking in Lygon Street, Carlton. Australian Planner, 47(2), 85–93. doi: 10.1080/07293681003767785

 Google Scholar

Poindexter, G., Krizek, K., Barnes, G., & Thompson, K. (2007). Guidelines for benefit-cost analysis of bicycle facilities: Refining methods for estimating the effect of bicycle infrastructure on use and property values (MRUTC 06-07). Madison, WI: Midwest Regional University Transportation Center, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin.

 Google Scholar

Leinberger, C., & Alfonzo, M. (2012). Walk this way: The economic promise of walkable places in metropolitan Washington, DC. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

 Google Scholar

Racca, D., & Dhanju, A. (2006). Property value/desirability effects of bike paths adjacent to residential areas. Newark, DE: Center for Applied Demography & Survey Research, University of Delaware.

 Google Scholar

Karadeniz, D. (2008). The impact of the little Miami scenic trail on single family residential property values. Cincinnati, OH: Izmir Institute of Technology.

 Google Scholar

Clifton, K., Muhs, C., Morrisey, S., Morrissey, T., Currans, K., & Ritter, C. (2013). Examining consumer behavior and travel choices (OTREC-RR-12-15). Portland, Oregon: Transportation Research & Education Consortium.

 Google Scholar

Fleming, T., Turner, S., & Tarjomi, L. (2014). Reallocation of road space (530). Wellington: New Zealand Transport Agency.

 Google Scholar

Rowe, K. (2013). Bikenomics: Measuring the economic impact of bicycle facilities on neighbourhood business districts. College of Built Environments, Seattle: University of Washington.

 Google Scholar

Grabow, M., Hahn, M., & Whited, M. (2010). Valuing bicycling’s economic and health impacts in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: The Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, Centre for Sustainability and the Global Environment, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

 Google Scholar

Brown, C., Hawkins, J., Lahr, M., & Bodnar, M. (2013). The economic impacts of active transportation in New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ: Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Centre, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.

 Google Scholar

Leinberger, C. (2013). The walkup wake-up call: Atlanta. Atlanta, GA: Center for Real Estate and Urban Analysis, The George Washington University.

 Google Scholar

Cortright, J. (2009). Walking the walk: How walkability raises home values in U.S. cities.

 Google Scholar

Resource Systems Group, I., Economic and Policy Resources, I., & Motion, L. (2012). Economic impact of bicycling and walking in Vermont (Final Report). Vermont.

 Google Scholar

Garret-Peltier, H. (2011). Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure: A national study of employment impacts. Amherst, MA: Political Economy Research Institute.

 Google Scholar

Bliesner, J., Bouton, S., & Schultz, B. (2010). Walkable neighborhoods: An economic development strategy. San Diego, CA: JB&F Consulting.

 Google Scholar

Venegas, E. (2009). Economic impact of recreational trail use in different regions of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development.

 Google Scholar

Mursell, L. (2012). Ontario cycle tourism research – 2012 update. Toronto, Ontario: Transportation Options.

 Google Scholar

Bowles, B., Fleming, K., Fuller, F., Lankford, J., & Printz, J. (2011). Economic and health benefits of bicycling in Iowa. Cedar Falls, IA: Sustainable Tourism and Environmental Program, University of Northern Iowa.

 Google Scholar

McCann, B., Meyer, A., Woods, J., & Morfas, C. (2012). It’s a safe decision: Complete streets in California. CA Washington, DC: National Complete Streets Coalition.

 Google Scholar

Birk, M., & Roberts, J. (2008). The value of the bicycle-related industry in Portland. Portland, Oregon: Alta Planning & Design.

 Google Scholar

Ginenthal, L., & Birk, M. (2006). Bicycle-related industry growth in Portland. Portland: Alta Planning & Design.

 Google Scholar