Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 106–113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Analysis

Transport transitions in Copenhagen: Comparing the cost of cars

and bicycles
Stefan Gössling a,b,c,⁎, Andy S. Choi c,d
a
School of Business and Economics, Linnaeus University, 391 82 Kalmar, Sweden
b
Department of Service Management and Service Studies, Box 882, 25108 Helsingborg, Sweden
c
UQ Business School, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
d
National Institute of Ecology, Seocheon, Choongnam 325-813, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In many cities of the world, bicycle infrastructure projects are implemented to foster more sustainable transpor-
Received 24 June 2014 tation systems. However, such projects have often raised questions regarding their public funding, as they entail
Received in revised form 24 November 2014 considerable costs. This paper reviews cost–benefit analysis (CBA) frameworks as these are presently used to as-
Accepted 10 March 2015
sess bicycle infrastructure projects. Specific focus is on the CBA framework developed in Copenhagen, Denmark, a
Available online 23 March 2015
self-declared “city of cyclists”. In this framework, costs and benefits of car and bicycle, the two major urban trans-
Keywords:
port modes, have been assessed and are compared across accidents, climate change, health, and travel time. The
Bicycles analysis reveals that each km travelled by car or bike incurs a cost to society, though the cost of car driving is more
Cars than six times higher (Euro 0.50/km) than cycling (Euro 0.08/km). Moreover, while the cost of car driving is likely
Copenhagen to increase in the future, the cost of cycling appears to be declining. The paper concludes with a discussion of the
Cost–benefit analysis applicability of the Copenhagen CBA framework to advance sustainable transport planning and to motivate and
Sustainable transport justify urban restructuring.
Urban transport transition © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction depend on more fundamental shifts in transport cultures (Aldred, 2013;

Many cities in the world seek to change their transport systems in
favour of buses, trams, trains, cycling, and walking, as a result of increas-
ing levels of local air pollution, emissions of greenhouse gases, acci-
dents, and congestion (e.g., EC, 2011). Policy makers seem particularly
keen to increase the share of cyclists, as this transport mode incurs a
wide range of benefits compared to vehicles with internal combustion
engines, such as comparably high speeds, minimum area requirements
both with regard to tracks and parking, as well as no pollution, fewer ac-
cidents, and considerable health benefits (Heinen et al., 2010; Horton
et al., 2007; Pucher et al., 2010). While cities in Asia have seen a signif-
icant decline in cyclist numbers due to transport policies favouring cars
(Zhang et al., 2014), bicycling has become a major component of visions
of sustainable urban transport systems in Europe, supported by market-
based instruments, command-and-control approaches, as well as soft pol-
icy measures (Heinen et al., 2010; Pucher et al., 2010). As outlined by
Pucher et al. (2010), any measure to support bicycling is likely to result
in some degree of transport mode change, but significant changes will
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Service Management and Service Studies,
Box 882, 25108 Helsingborg, Sweden.
E-mail addresses: stefan.gossling@ism.lu.se (S. Gössling), hmakerc@gmail.com
(A.S. Choi).
URL's: http://www.lnu.se, http://www.ism.lu.se (S. Gössling),
http://www.tourism.uq.edu.au (A.S. Choi).
Heinen et al., 2010; Jones and Novo de Azevedo, 2013; Kenworthy, 2007).
Recent research indicates that urban transport transformations, i.e.,
profound changes in transport mode choices, ultimately require new
urban transport cultures favouring bicyclist identities (Aldred, 2013;
Kåstrup, 2009). However, bicycle cultures only evolve where the con-
cerns and expectations of cyclists regarding notions of safety, speed, and
comfort are taken into consideration (Aldred, 2013; Cycling Embassy of
Denmark, 2012). To improve traffic safety, and to provide better and
faster cycle conditions, a wide range of interventions in favour of cyclists
have been implemented in cities, including measures as diverse as two-
way travel on one-way streets, separated or elevated exclusive bicycle
tracks, shared bus/bike lanes, signed bicycle routes, coloured lanes,
bike boxes, bicycle phases/traffic signals, bicycle stations, or bike share
programmes (for the whole spectrum of measures see e.g., Cycling
Embassy of Denmark, 2012; Pucher et al., 2010; Fishman et al., 2013).
Notably, the attractiveness of cycling is inversely linked to the at-
tractiveness of car driving, and measures to re-designate car lanes
and car parking are both psychologically important to support cy-
clist identities, and physically necessary to accommodate growing
cyclist populations (Aldred, 2010, 2013; Kåstrup, 2009; Pucher and
Buehler, 2008). As a consequence, interventions require substantial
urban re-design (Forsyth and Krizek, 2011; Larsen et al., 2013), and
considerable planning and building efforts incurring costs (Hutton,
2013).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.006
0921-8009/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 S. Gössling, A.S. Choi / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 106–113
Many cities face considerable difficulties in implementing new
transport systems due to financial constraints (Hutton, 2013; Meschik,
2012). Various authors have thus sought to understand costs and bene-
fits associated with cycling and car driving, indicating that progress has
been made in the assessment of the social and private costs of different
transport systems (Becker et al., 2012; CE Delft et al., 2011; Hopkinson
and Wardman, 1996; Ortuzar et al., 2000; Krizek, 2007; Meschik,
2012; Rabl and de Nazelle, 2012; Rank et al., 2001). In Copenhagen,
the implementation of sustainable transport infrastructure is part of
the city's ambition to become a leading ‘eco-metropolis’ (City of
Copenhagen, 2008). To achieve this, environmental economics are in-
creasingly used in decision-making (City of Copenhagen, 2012a,
2012b), including the consideration of various externalities linked to
the car and bicycle as the two major transport modes in Copenhagen.
For this purpose, a cost–benefit analysis (CBA) methodology was devel-
oped and subsequently refined to assess infrastructure projects with re-
gard to transport costs, security, comfort, branding effects & tourism,
transport times and health (City of Copenhagen, 2009a). The analysis
revealed that cycling entails considerably lower costs to society than
car driving (COWI and Københavns Kommune, 2009), and is now
used for assessments and the implementation of infrastructural change
in favour of the bike.
In light of this, the paper has various objectives. First of all, it presents
the various CBA approaches developed internationally in the context of
cycling, as far as these have been reported in the literature, as well as the
CBA and its underlying methods as currently used in Copenhagen. Sec-
ondly, it discusses whether the CBA used in Copenhagen is holistic, and
which implications its use has had for urban transport planning and pol-
icy making in Copenhagen. The purpose of the paper is thus both the
presentation of the CBA framework used in Copenhagen, as well as
the discussion of the consequences of adopting complex CBA frame-
works in urban re-design, i.e., weighing different transport modes' so-
cial and environmental costs in comparative assessment, rather than
focusing on social benefits of new infrastructure alone, as is often the
case in transport economics.
2. Cost–Benefit Analysis and Transport Policy Frameworks
The use of CBA in project assessments is widespread, guiding invest-
ment decisions in most public spending contexts (e.g., Boardman et al.,
2010; Hanley and Spash, 1993). The use of CBA implicates that mone-
tary value is assigned to the advantages and disadvantages of a project,
which results in a net cost or benefit of the project to society. In practice,
this is fraught with difficulties, as no market values may exist for many
of the aspects to be included in the analysis, and in some cases, dis-
advantages may be incommensurable (Hanley and Spash, 1993). This
has led to a widespread critique of CBA, both with regard to how
economic value is derived in neoclassical economic frameworks, and
specifically with regard to the valuation of the environment (for discus-
sion see e.g., Bithas, 2011; Hutton, 2013; Parks and Gowdy, 2013). A
persistent problem of CBA is thus the difficulty to identify all project
impacts, both current and future, and to assign monetary value to
these, considering principles of fairness and value incommensurability.
As outlined by Hanley and Spash (1993), inputs to CBA models often de-
pict “likely”, rather than “actual” values. Yet, the use of CBA methodolo-
gies remains widespread.
Given the importance of CBA for transport projects (Annema et al.,
2007; Hutton, 2013; Knudsen and Rich, 2013), there is a specific body
of literature dealing explicitly with transport CBA-methodology. For
instance, Grant-Muller et al. (2001) compare evaluation frameworks
as used in different European countries, finding that there are consider-
able differences in the number of variables considered, as well as the
economic values assigned to these variables. A number of European
countries were also found to complement CBA with multicriteria analysis
(MCA), indicating that there are diverse approaches in use. In recent
years, extended CBA processes have gained importance in Europe as a
107
result of various efforts to implement more sustainable transport systems
and growing concerns about the significance of externalities to society.
For instance, the European Environment Agency (2003) estimated the ex-
ternal costs of transport to be in the order of 8% of GDP in the EU plus
Norway and Switzerland. More recently, CE Delft, Infras and Fraunhofer
ISI (CE Delft et al., 2011) suggested that transport externalities amount
to €500 billion in the EU27 plus Norway and Switzerland, or 4% of total
GDP (value for 2008; CE Delft et al., 2011). The European Commission
now uses a Handbook on the External Costs of Transport to assess exter-
nalities (EC, 2014). Irrespective of limitations, these assessments suggest
that externalities, including accidents, noise, air pollution and climate
change, are significant, deserving better integration in transport infra-
structure planning, taxation and decision making frameworks (see EC,
2012).
While the European Union thus appears to regularly use CBA in
transport assessments, there is a notable absence of any discussion of
the cost or benefit of cycling. Krizek (2007) identified 25 journal articles
and reports assessing bicycling from economic viewpoints, of which 7
relate to urban contexts. In chronological order, Nelson (1995) discusses
the implementation of bicycle access ways, including the cost of air pol-
lution, congestion, or noise. Sharples (1995) presents a framework for
the evaluation of bicycle facilities. Litman (1999) examines cost savings
from non-motorized transport. Buis (2000) provides cost–benefit calcula-
tions for cycling in Amsterdam, Bogotá, Delhi and Morogoro. Wittink
(2001) investigates the effectiveness of non-motorized transport in rela-
tion to various parameters, such as economic growth, poverty reduction
and quality of urban life in the Netherlands. Saelensminde (2002) dis-
cusses CBAs for walking and cycle-track networks in Hokksund, Hamar
and Trondheim, Norway. Lindsey and Knaap (1999) examine a greenway
system in Indianapolis, Indiana, providing an account of the different
values of greenways and techniques to measure their value. Where ratios
of benefits to costs of bicycling are presented (Buis, 2000; Saelensminde,
2002), these conclude that the benefits of bicycling far outweigh the costs.
However, only two of the studies attempt to provide frameworks of
aspects to be considered in CBA. Specifically, Litman (2004), in focusing
on walking, includes liveability, accessibility and transportation costs,
health, external costs, efficient land use, economic development, and
equity; while Lindsey (2003) suggests to include recreation, health/
fitness, transportation, ecological biodiversity and services, amenity vi-
sual/aesthetic, and economic development. As Krizek (2007) concludes,
methods and units are different in the studies, and considerable
improvements in data collection and methodology need to be achieved
in order for such frameworks to guide sound policy decisions for in-
vestments in cycling, as well as to make these comparable. Such im-
provements have been presented in various more recent papers (e.g.,
Börjesson et al., 2012; Börjesson and Eliasson, 2012; Tilahun et al.,
2007) and summarized in policy documents (e.g., CE Delft et al.,
2011). Studies by Meschik (2012) or Rabl and de Nazelle (2012) have
used this data to present CBAs for the benefits incurred in switching
from car driving to bicycling (per individual or km cycled).
The purpose of the following sections is to present a comparison of
the social welfare associated with the use of cars and bicycles in Copen-
hagen (City of Copenhagen, 2009a). This includes a discussion of cycling
and city planning in Copenhagen, and the CBA framework used to guide
urban transport planning and the restructuring of urban space to imple-
ment more sustainable transport systems.
3. Cycling and City Planning in Copenhagen
The bicycle has been, particularly throughout Europe, the most impor-
tant means of transport at the turn of the 20th century. In Copenhagen, it
became a means of mass transportation that remained important
throughout the World War II and to the 1950s, due to the rationing of
oil, fuel and rubber in the post-war effort to rebuild European cities
(Agervig Carstensen and Ebert, 2012; Gade Jeppesen, 2012). It was not
before the 1960s that cars became more important than bicycles, but
108 S. Gössling, A.S. Choi / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 106–113
this phase of expansion lasted only for a short period of time. In the 1970s,
Copenhagen had to give up several car-focused modernization projects
due to the oil crisis and ensuing economic recession, stimulating mass-
demonstrations for better cycling conditions in the 1980s, and resulting
in the publication of Copenhagen municipality's first bicycle strategy in
2002, the ‘Cycle Policy 2002–2012’ (City of Copenhagen, 2002).
The bicycle strategy provided the first comprehensive vision for a bi-
cycle city (City of Copenhagen, 2002), and was followed by various
strategy documents, such as the Bicycle Track Priority Plan 2006–2016
(City of Copenhagen, 2009b), and the Bicycle Strategy 2011–2025
(City of Copenhagen, 2011b). Progress is monitored in biannual ‘Bicycle
Accounts’ assessing key performance indicators such as accident risk
(e.g., City of Copenhagen, 2006, 2011a). In 2007, Copenhagen an-
nounced its ambition to become the ‘world's best city for cyclists’ (City
of Copenhagen, 2007). Specifically, this included the goal to achieve,
by 2015, at least 50% of Copenhageners to commute by bike to their
place of work or education, and a reduction of at least 50% of serious
traffic accidents involving cyclists. Furthermore, the policy document
included the objective to increase bicycle travel speed to improve com-
petitiveness with the car.
According to the Bicycle Account 2012 (City of Copenhagen, 2012c)
considerable progress was made to achieve growth in cycling. As report-
ed by the city, 1.27 million km were cycled in 2012, probably the highest
amount since the early 1960s. Satisfaction with Copenhagen as a cycling
city is now 95%, but only 76% of cyclists are satisfied with the amount of
cycle tracks. In particular, the width of cycle tracks is perceived as a
problem (50% approval), as the growing number of cyclists has led to
congestion. In comparison, 76% of cyclists feel safe (goal: 80% by
2015), 61% are satisfied with the condition of cycle tracks (70% by
2015), and 73% are satisfied with the bicycle culture's benefit to city
life (75% by 2020).
However, to achieve some of the goals outlined in Copenhagen's bi-
cycle strategy 2011–2025, the share of the population cycling to work
would have to increase from 36% to 50% by 2015. As the City of
Copenhagen (2012c: 6) outlines, this would require a “dramatically in-
creased municipal commitment.” Likewise, the goal to reduce the num-
ber of seriously injured cyclists from 102 in 2012 to 56 in 2015 would
require “increased municipal commitment”. Notably, several goals,
such as the reduction in seriously injured cyclists or the expansion of
the fast track network with three lanes, have even more ambitious targets
towards 2025. To achieve these, additional infrastructure development ef-
forts are needed. In 2013 alone, Euro 33.61 million were invested in the
improvement of cycling conditions in Copenhagen, and further funds
will be needed in consecutive years (City of Copenhagen, 2012c). To jus-
tify such investments, and to allocate them to the projects with the
greatest social welfare effects, a CBA manual was developed by the Minis-
try of Transport (Trafikministeriet, 2003; Transportministeriet, 2013),
outlining procedures for the assessment of cycle projects and the compar-
ison of the cost of different transport modes, i.e., specifically bicycle and
car. Bicycle-focused projects are now essential parts of the city's goal to
better integrate environmental issues in city planning and economic eval-
uation (City of Copenhagen, 2011a).
4. Cost–Benefit Analysis in Copenhagen
To better understand the economic impact of cycle projects, the
Ministry of Transport developed a CBA manual, which is annually
updated (Trafikministeriet, 2003). CBA frameworks as used in
Copenhagen need to consider three key aspects: a) a decision on the
parameters to be included in calculations, b) agreement on unit costs,
and c) an assessment of traffic effects (i.e., changes in the number of
kilometres cycled, transport time changes, and other indirect chang-
es in the traffic system resulting out of the project). The following
sections outline how these dimensions are assessed and considered
in Copenhagen.
4.1. Profiles of Costs and Benefits
Table 1 provides an overview of the parameters included in the CBA
in Copenhagen, the methodologies used to quantify traffic effects, and
data requirements. Parameters include vehicle operating costs, time
costs, accident costs, pollution and externalities, recreational value,
health benefits, safety, and discomfort (Table 1). Methods to quantify
the effects of the various parameters include contingent valuation, he-
donic pricing, travel cost method, avoided social costs, health costs,
and shadow pricing (COWI and Transportministeriet, 2010). These are
calculated on the basis of cost reviews, traffic and accident counts, inter-
views with cyclists/car drivers, and/or modelling in cases where there is
no data, insufficient data, or where other assumptions have to be made
(COWI and Københavns Kommune, 2009; COWI and
Transportministeriet, 2010; Miljøstyrelsen, 2002; Modelcenter, 2007).
Effects are measured in changes in the number of kilometres trav-
elled with bicycle or car, as well as changes in travel time or accident
numbers.
The inclusion of parameters such as ‘pollution and other externali-
ties’ (see further discussion below) indicates that there have been at-
tempts to provide a holistic framework for assessment. Hutton (2013:
219) critically remarks that “[transport] sustainability does not, and
cannot, have a commercial value”, an issue also raised in other, more
global contexts (e.g., Costanza et al., 1997, 2014). Yet, as the Copenhagen
CBA framework shows, it is possible to consider a wide range of as-
pects related to the sustainability of the transport system, as long as
political consensus can be reached regarding the parameters to be
included and their quantification: The existence of such a political
consensus may consequently be seen as a specific and unique achieve-
ment in Copenhagen.
4.2. Quantification of Various Effects
To calculate unit costs, the Ministry of Transport had to review
the existing literature on costs/benefits, and derive values deemed
adequate in the Copenhagen context, representing market costs
where feasible (all current values as depicted in Transportøkonomiske
Enhedspriser 1.4; Trafikministeriet, 2003; Transportministeriet, 2013).
Note that all values represent a cost of bicycling/car driving and unit
prices are characterised as either being positive (+) for costs or
negative (−) for benefits. Quantification is based on market values,
and complemented with values derived from contingent valuation,
hedonic pricing, travel cost method, and shadow pricing. Note that
values presented refer to the most recent year for which values are
available. As unit costs are seen to change over time, also reflecting
an evolving knowledge base, for instance with regard to pollutants
and their health implications, as well as changing social preferences,
the definition, calculation and allocation of unit costs are seen as
a process. This process began in 2003 with the publication of a na-
tional economics manual summarising methods used worldwide to
calculate the costs and benefits of transport projects, with the ex-
plicit goal to be used as a basis for the Copenhagen CBA approach
(Trafikministeriet, 2003). Unit costs are annually updated, and con-
sider developments in costs (e.g., fuels and energy costs) and GDP,
net price indices, discounting, and taxes/fees, as well as new insights
regarding externalities. This allows for extrapolation, and values are
available up to the year 2090. Parameters are compared in Euro per
km cycled or driven.1
As outlined by the Ministry of Transport (Transportministeriet,
2013), social costs are generally depending on geography (i.e.,
where these occur), the time of the day (rush-hour/mid-day/
1
All values in the original documents are calculated in Danish Crowns. For this paper,
they have been transferred to Euro at an exchange rate of DKK 1 to Euro 0.134 to make
the values accessible for a broader readership. The Danish crown is bound to the Euro,
and the exchange value is thus constant over time.
 S. Gössling, A.S. Choi / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 106–113
Table 1
Parameters used in Copenhagen's transport CBA.
Source: COWI and Københavns Kommune (2009).
CBA parameter Methodology to quantify effect
Vehicle operating costs Change in vehicle kilometre by mode, i.e., for different motorized
vehicles, public transportation and bicycles.
Time costs Change in transport time by transport mode.
Accident costs Change in the number of accidents with and without bicycles involved.
Pollution and related externalities Change in vehicle kilometres for each mode of transportation.
Recreational valuea Change in cycle kilometres and cyclists' statements.
Health benefits Change in cycle kilometres.
Safetya Change in the number of accidents, cyclist statements and change
in cycle kilometres.
Discomforta Change in cycle kilometres.
Branding, tourism, and open land valuea Not considered to be traffic effects
a
Not included/measured in the CBA.
night), and the environmental performance of the car in question.
Costs are thus highly situation specific. The Ministry reports to
have had a starting point for the quantification of social costs in a re-
view of current European studies on externalities (External Costs of
Transport, 1st Report; Transportministeriet, 2004a), which have since
then been updated in various reports (COWI and Københavns
Kommune, 2009; COWI and Transportministeriet, 2010; Miljøstyrelsen,
2002; Modelcenter, 2007), though uncertainties persist. For this rea-
son, ‘low’ and ‘high’ assumptions are made, and average values cal-
culated. These are presented below in shortened form.
4.2.1. Vehicle Operating Costs
Vehicle operating costs comprise the cost of driving a car, including
fuel and engine oil, tires, repair and maintenance, taxes, and deprecia-
tion. Costs are calculated as market prices per km driven, considering
the Danish car fleet and current market prices (Table 2). Private and
business car use is distinguished. Table 2 also shows that significant
car taxes are charged in Denmark.
In comparison, bicycle operating costs are comparably lower, even
though updates on calculations are on-going. Currently, the Ministry
of Transport (Transportministeriet, 2013) only provides average market
values for 2013, i.e., Euro 0.039/km (excluding taxes) or Euro 0.048/km
(including taxes), as operating costs of cycling.
4.2.2. Time Cost
Time is the highest cycling-related cost, due to the lower speed of
this transport mode, and is considered in CBA assessments at Euro
0.672/km. This value is derived from the population's willingness to
pay for time, based on the Danish Value of Time Study (DTF, 2007).
The study measures the value of changes in length in travel time for
both private and work related travel time. People's willingness to pay
typically increases with increasing prosperity (De Hartog et al., 2010),
and the value assigned to time would consequently be different in
other societies. In the Danish context, public transport, car travel and cy-
cling are distinguished. Average speeds are calculated at 16 km/h for cy-
clists, and 50 km/h for cars. For cars, driving time is considered to imply
an average cost of Euro 15.19 per hour and delays of Euro 22.86 per
hour, while for cyclists, the average cost is somewhat lower at Euro
12.10 per hour and Euro 18.28 per hour, respectively (2008 values;
2013 values very similar). Time costs can be translated into per km
costs as a function of distances travelled per hour, i.e., including the
cost of travel time and delays.
4.2.3. Accident Cost
Accident costs are founded in market values, and comprise public
services (police, rescue and treatment), the loss of net productivity,
premature deaths, minor and major injuries, and the cost of material
damage. Costs are calculated in comparison to number of accidents
related to cars/bicycles, and interpolated by the number of km
driven/cycled. Accidents entail a cost of Euro 0.022/km for driving
109
Data requirement
Traffic counts and/or modelling.
Traffic counts and/or modelling.
Accident registrations, traffic counts and/or modelling.
Traffic counts and/or modelling.
Interviews and traffic counts and/or modelling.
Traffic counts and/or modelling.
Accident registrations, interviews and traffic counts
and/or modelling.
Traffic counts and/or modelling.
–
and Euro 0.106/km for cycling (COWI and Køpenhavns Kommune,
2009; Transportministeriet, 2010). Even though accidents involving
cyclists entail lower material damage costs, overall costs are higher, as
cyclists are more exposed and hence affected by accidents. As outlined
by Transportministeriet (2013), there remains considerable uncertainty
regarding average accident costs for cyclists.
4.2.4. Air Pollution
Air pollution comprises particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides
(NOx), sulphur oxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons
(HC), which affect human health, agriculture and forestry, as well as
buildings (Transportministeriet, 2004a, 2004b). In calculations, which
are based on health costs related to increased mortality as identified
by the World Health Organisation (1999), only human health effects
as the most significant component of air pollution are included. Air pol-
lution also implies ecological impacts, but these are difficult to quantify
and excluded; thus constituting an underestimation of true costs. Factor
costs for health are calculated on the basis of an Impact Pathway Meth-
odology, which assesses traffic volumes, associated emissions of pollut-
ants, the exposure of the population to these pollutants, and resulting
damages and social costs (Transportministeriet, 2004b). Health costs
are based on assessments originally published by the World Health
Organisation (1999) and include asthma medicines, coughing, breathing
problems, acute asthma, hospitalization, ‘symptom’ days, days with limit-
ed activity levels, chronic bronchitis and coughing related to PM, SO2, SO4,
NO3, O3, and CO, as far as these interrelationships are understood
(Transportministeriet, 2010). While bicycles do not contribute to air
pollution, costs from cars are measured on the basis of averaged (city/
countryside) emission factors, i.e., the amount of pollutant emitted per
km, and the health cost of each pollutant. These are, for urban traffic in
2009, Euro 0.205 per kg of PM2.5, Euro 6.298 per kg of NOx, Euro 28.274
per kg of SO2, Euro 0.003 per kg of CO and Euro 0.348 per kg of HC emitted
(Transportministeriet, 2010). The weighted average amounts to Euro
0.004/km. Overall, air pollution is thus a significant factor in car-related
costs, but uncertainties remain, for instance with regard to fine particles
or cancer-inducing substances (Transportministeriet, 2010). The estimate
of air pollution effects is consequently conservative.
Table 2
Vehicle operating costs, 2010.
Source: Transportministeriet (2013).
Average excluding taxes Average including taxes
(Euro per km) (Euro per km)
Fuel 0.045 0.103
Engine oil 0.003 0.004
Tires 0.005 0.006
Repair and maintenance 0.050 0.064
Owner tax – 0.028
Depreciation 0.053 0.133
Total 0.157 0.339
110 S. Gössling, A.S. Choi / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 106–113
4.2.5. Climate Change
Climate change is a result of a wide range of greenhouse gases,
which are usually compared on the basis of CO2-equivalents (‘basket
of six’ long-lived greenhouse gases; cf. IPCC 2013). In road transport,
emissions other than CO 2 are assumed to be negligible
(Transportministeriet, 2004a), and focus is on CO2 emissions
alone. Unit costs for this gas are calculated based on the market
value of the trade in CO2 within the European Union emission trad-
ing scheme (EU ETS) (Transportministeriet, 2010). As the price of
CO2 in the carbon market is based on EU-wide climate policy, the as-
signment of quota to the largest businesses, and willingness-to-pay
by business in light of expected future climate policy, the cost of car-
bon (Euro 9.00 per ton CO2 in 2009; Transportministeriet, 2010) is
not a correct representation of the social cost of climate change, at
Euro 0.001/km. This value is based on a weighted average fuel use
in the 2010 Copenhagen car mix of petrol cars (7.3 L/100 km), diesel
cars (4.6 L/100 km); and electric cars (13.8 kWh/100 km), and a
modal split of 67.2% petrol cars, 32.8% diesel and 0.02% electric
(Transportministeriet, 2013). As outlined, average carbon costs per
km are calculated as a function of emissions and carbon price, i.e.,
about 0.170 kg CO 2 per km, at a carbon cost of Euro 0.009 per kg
CO2. Cycling does not incur a climate change cost, according to this
assessment.
4.2.6. Noise
Noise incurs both nuisance/discomfort and health costs. Discomfort
is calculated based on an investigation of house prices in comparison to
noise exposure, and including various methods, i.e., both contingent
valuation and hedonic pricing (updated by Transportministeriet
(2004a), based on Miljøstyrelsen, 2003a). The analysis finds exponen-
tial growth in discomfort in relation to noise levels, with a decline in
house prices by 1.2% per dB in excess of 55 dB (Transportministeriet,
2010). Health issues related to traffic noise are based on national health
assessments (Miljøstyrelsen, 2003b), and include the cost of health ser-
vices, sick days, and cases of premature death, estimated at Euro 10.5
million per year (treatment cost), Euro 0.9 million (sick leave), and
Euro 223 million (premature death) (Miljøstyrelsen, 2002). Integrated
with the number of km driven by cars per year in Copenhagen, these re-
sult in costs of noise in the order of Euro 0.007/km for cars. Bicycles are
not entailing noise-related costs (Transportministeriet, 2013).
4.2.7. Congestion
Congestion is defined as the discomfort mutually caused by traffic
participants through reduced movement, and measured as the cost of
the delay to drive an additional km for other traffic participants in com-
parison to a situation of free traffic flow. Congestion costs are consequent-
ly time and location specific, and calculated on the basis of the cost of
delays per hour, as outlined in Section 4.2.2 (Transportministeriet,
2010). Averaged congestion costs are in the order of Euro 0.062/km driv-
en by cars, while cycling does not incur congestion costs due to the lower
amount of space used by cyclists (Transportministeriet, 2013).
4.2.8. Road Deterioration
The cost of road deterioration is based on infrastructure lifetimes
and the cost of renewal and repairs, infrastructure use fees, and distribu-
tion and sales costs. Costs are calculated as averages, but are largely de-
pending on the specific projects carried out, as they are based on the
amount of money paid for service contracts (Transportministeriet,
2010). Road deterioration amounts to Euro 0.001/km for cars, and
does not incur costs for cycling (Transportministeriet, 2013).
4.2.9. Life Expectancy & Health
Cycling improves health and life expectancy. Benefits to society in-
clude reduced costs for medical treatments and fewer days of sick
leave, while the cyclist profits from better health and longer life expec-
tancy (Table 3). Cycling is calculated to increase life expectancy by
0.025 years per year of cycling, corresponding to 2592 km per year or
3 h of cycling per week (COWI and Københavns Kommune, 2009). Life
expectancy and health benefits are calculated on the basis of avoided
costs as a result of physical exercise, i.e., in juxtaposition to the costs
of physical inactivity (based on Statens Institut for Folkesundhed,
2006). The latter include, for the whole of Denmark in 2008, the cost
of treatment (Euro 453.9 million), premature deaths (Euro 20.5 million)
and avoided future costs as a result of premature deaths (Euro −53.5
million); as well as the costs of sick leave (Euro 451.6 million), prema-
ture pensions (Euro 476.4 million) and premature deaths (Euro 241.2
million) (COWI and Københavns Kommune, 2009). Integrated with
the number of km cycled, society yields benefits from improved health
in the order of Euro − 0.242/km, though there is also a small cost in-
curred in greater life expectancy (Euro 0.008/km) due to prolonged
pension payments. Cyclists gain in terms of life expectancy (Euro
− 0.358/km) and better health (Euro − 0.149/km). Overall, cycling
yields a benefit of Euro − 0.741/km (COWI and Københavns
Kommune, 2009).
4.2.10. Perceived Safety & Discomfort
Cycling is believed to incur a cost for the feeling of being at risk
in traffic, but this cost has not as yet been quantified (COWI and
Københavns Kommune, 2009). Also, cycling is associated with discom-
fort, for instance in connection to air pollution (smell) or other factors.
The basis for including these costs is not as yet developed, and thus
not included in the analysis (COWI and Københavns Kommune, 2009).
4.2.11. Branding & Tourism
There is evidence that Copenhagen's bicycle strategy generates a
branding value for the city, as well as having positive effects for tourism.
COWI and Københavns Kommune (2009) outline, for instance, how
Copenhagen is mentioned in lifestyle magazines and the Wall Street
Journal, and refer to a study by VisitDenmark that suggests that some
14% of all guest nights spent in Denmark are related to cycling; it is ac-
knowledged, however, that it is unclear how many tourists would not
choose Denmark as a destination if good opportunities for cycling did
not exist. COWI and Københavns Kommune (2009) estimate that the
2008 branding and tourism value of being a bicycle country is Euro 7.2
million per year, representing 450,000 of a total of 22.5 million guest
nights of international visitors, at a value of Euro 32 per night. These
benefits are compared to a study of the cost of tourism-related invest-
ments yielding the same branding and tourism effects, based on the as-
sumption that one million Euro is needed to increase tourism turnover
by Euro 15 million. Based on this assumption, the value of cycling for
tourism in Denmark is Euro 2.7 million. Integrated with the number of
km cycled, branding and tourism effects are assumed to constitute a
benefit of Euro − 0.003/km.
5. Overview and Discussion of CBA for 2008
Table 3 summarizes unit prices as used in calculations by the City of
Copenhagen, in an overview by COWI and Københavns Kommune
(2009) for 2008. It is evident that not all parameters of Table 1 have
been included in the CBA, which for instance excludes recreational
value or the value of open urban spaces, both assumed to constitute
benefits. Transport costs are based on the assumption of average speeds
of 16 km/h for cyclists and 50 km/h for motorists, and both private and
social costs are considered. Private costs refer to the individual's trans-
port mode choice. Social costs represent the costs of the individual's
choice for society as a whole. As the table indicates, private costs include
value of time, vehicle attrition, fuel for cars, and health, while social
costs include expenses to society related to traffic accidents, hospital
costs, environmental impacts, or congestion. Where social costs are neg-
ative, these represent a benefit to society, as in the case of branding
effects.
 S. Gössling, A.S. Choi / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 106–113 111

Table 3
Average cost per kilometre for cycling/car, summary for 2008 (Euro).
Source: COWI and Københavns Kommune (2009).

Cycling (16 km/h) Car (50 km/h)

Private Social Total Private Social Duties Total

Time costs (travel time) 0.672 0 0.672 0.215 0 0 0.215

Vehicle operating costs 0.044 0 0.044 0.296 0 −0.159 0.137
Prolonged life −0.358 0.008 −0.348 0 0 0 0
Health −0.149 −0.242 −0.391 0 0 0 0
Accidents 0.034 0.073 0.105 0 0.030 0 0.030
Perceived safety + (?) 0 + (?) ? ? 0 ?
Discomfort ? 0 + (?) ? ? 0 ?
Branding/tourism 0 −0.003 −0.003 ? ? 0 ?
Air pollution 0 0 0 0 0.004 0 0.004
Climate change 0 0 0 0 0.005 0 0.005
Noise 0 0 0 0 0.048 0 0.048
Road deterioration 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0.001
Congestion 0 0 0 0 0.062 0 0.062
Total 0.243 −0.164 0.081 0.511 0.152 −0.159 0.503

Note: Car occupancy is 1.54 persons per car (DTU Transport and COWI, 2010); external values for cars are reported for gasoline cars in the city during off-peak hours. Cycling's health ben-
efits are split into private and social benefits, it is assumed that 50% of the gain is own consumption and thus internalized. The rest is taxes, etc. In cases where unit prices cannot be es-
timated as yet, the table contains question marks (?). Plusses indicate where these are expected to entail a cost.

Table 3 also shows that there is a general difference in the distribu-
tion of private and social costs with regard to air pollution, climate
change, noise, road deterioration and congestion, all of which represent
costs of car driving. In contrast, health benefits and a prolonged life are
only relevant for cyclists as mostly private benefits. When all aspects are
included, the cost of a km cycled is Euro 0.08, while a km driven by car is
Euro 0.50. Considering only social costs, each bicycle km is a gain to so-
ciety (Euro 0.16), while each car km represents a cost (Euro 0.15). The
analysis (COWI and Københavns Kommune, 2009) also outlines, how-
ever, that there are limitations to the calculation of perceived safety
and discomfort of cyclists, recreational values and more open space,
and the negative effects of car driving on branding and tourism. More-
over, results are averaged, and may be fundamentally different for spe-
cific sections of transport infrastructure and during different times of
the day. For instance, during peak hours, car externalities are estimated
to be considerably higher (Euro 0.89/km) (COWI and Københavns
Kommune, 2009). The most significant costs of cycling are time (travel)
and accident costs, both of which are higher than for car driving. Other
major costs include operational costs that are larger for car driving.
6. Discussion
While CBA is used frequently to assess transport projects (Annema
et al., 2007; Knudsen and Rich, 2013), there is limited evidence of a con-
sideration of bicycling in such assessments (Börjesson and Eliasson,
2012; Meschik, 2012; Saelensminde, 2004). To the contrary, sustainable
traffic infrastructure development is often contested and not prioritized
by politicians, while any investment decisions favouring cycle tracks or
other bicycle-related infrastructure appear to be in need of careful justi-
fication. Against this background, this paper investigates recent devel-
opments in Copenhagen, where a constantly improved and updated
CBA framework has been developed over the past decade to compare
the costs and benefits of cycling with car driving, and to justify infra-
structure development and re-allocation of urban space throughout
the city. This is a fundamentally new approach to urban planning, as
the importance of CBA for justifying urban restructuring has neither
received much attention in the scientific literature on cycling (Horton
et al., 2007; Pucher and Buehler, 2012); nor has cycling been considered
in European/urban transport CBA (Annema et al., 2007; CE Delft et al.,
2011; Knudsen and Rich, 2013). Notable exceptions remain Rabl and
de Nazelle (2012), focusing on health impacts of cycling in comparison
to car driving, and Meschik (2012), who provides an overview of exter-
nalities and their cost in Vienna, Austria. However, Copenhagen appears
to remain the only example of a city where comparative,
comprehensive (externality-focused) CBA assessments have been
used to guide and implement policy.
CBA as used for transport infrastructure planning in Copenhagen
shows that it is possible to use such comparative frameworks for policy
making in the context of urban transport planning, even though it is
necessary to simplify, limit, and to include a number of assumptions.
Yet, as the understanding of the costs and benefits involved in bicycle
systems have constantly improved in recent years, CBA analyses are
becoming increasingly accurate. This is also the case in Copenhagen,
where unit costs are constantly adjusted to reflect the latest develop-
ments in economic assessments, based on recommendations by eco-
nomic review committees. Even though CBA can realistically never be
truly holistic, given issues of incommensurability, the case of Copenhagen
shows that where political consensus can be reached regarding the CBA
framework, unit costs, and the acceptance of results, these can
guide decision-making and investments, with far-reaching conse-
quences for urban development. In the future, the Copenhagen
CBA may be improved; for instance, multi-criteria analysis may be
helpful to supplement CBA, both to identify preferences among
CBA parameters and to evaluate effects not as yet estimated by
CBA. CBA may then also be used to assess the costs and benefits of
road construction as compared to bicycle lanes.
The case of Copenhagen also suggests that where CBA frameworks
are used, the high cost of car driving in comparison to the cost of cycling
becomes more obvious, a result that also needs to be seen in the light of
the fact that many assumptions in the Copenhagen CBA appear to favour
cars. For instance, spillover externalities (e.g., Jansson, 1994) are impor-
tant in the comparison of cars and bicycles, and it may be argued that
since cars cause most cycling accidents, their cost should be attributable
to cars rather than bicycling, as is currently the case. In other words, as
bicyclists engender less risk on other street users than cars, while
accident risks are in no small part related to traffic density and crowding
effects mostly attributable to cars, the Copenhagen CBA may be biased
in favour of cars. This is of particular importance as accident costs are
significant, and without these, cycling costs would be negative. Similar
arguments could also be put forward with regard to other aspects: for
instance, while better health due to cycling is considered, the impact
of car driving on disease as a result of for instance reduced physical ac-
tivity may also be added as a cost. Where bicycling removes cars from
roads, car speeds will tend to increase, another benefit that would be at-
tributable to bicycling, while this would in all likelihood also improve
pedestrian conditions.
With regard to carbon costs, it would seem more appropriate to base
estimates on the social cost of carbon, rather than European ETS prices
that fluctuate considerably over time. Road deterioration is considered
112 S. Gössling, A.S. Choi / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 106–113
in the Copenhagen CBA, but not the cost of road construction, which is
likely to be significantly lower for bicycling. All of these aspects are
not as yet included in the Copenhagen CBA, which may be improved
in this regard in the future. Yet, findings help argue for an expansion
of cycling systems, even though it needs to be noted that economically
motivated decisions need to be embedded in soft policy campaigns to
prepare for change even culturally (Aldred, 2013; for the specific situa-
tion in Copenhagen see Gössling, 2013; Kåstrup, 2009).
Experiences with CBA in Copenhagen convincingly show that invest-
ments in bicycle infrastructure, safety and policies favouring bicycling
are economically justified, yielding a high rate of return. Currently,
societal benefits of cycling in Copenhagen are calculated to be in the
order of Euro 228 million per year (City of Copenhagen, 2011b). Rates
of return may even increase over time, as costs of fuel as well as exter-
nalities (e.g., air pollution, climate change, accidents, noise) continue
to increase, while cycling becomes faster due to continued infrastruc-
ture expansion and in particular “bicycle highways”, reducing the cost
of time for travel. This is of importance, as the two major externalities
for bicycling are travel time and accidents. However, 56% of cyclists
state that the bicycle is faster than other transport modes, while cycling
is also increasingly safe: the average number of cyclist deaths in trans-
port accidents has been declining from 5.8 per one million residents per
year in the period 2007–2012 to 3.3 per year in the period 2009–2012
(City of Copenhagen, 2012b). Furthermore, externalities not currently
included in the Copenhagen CBA (e.g., perceived safety, discomfort)
may be incorporated in the future. For instance, if noise can be measured
by non-market valuation techniques (e.g., hedonic pricing or contingent
valuation), it should also be possible to quantify the discomfort effect
from ‘exposure to smell’ (diesel combustion fumes). As demonstrated
by TEEB (2010), various forms of externalities such as ecosystem services
and biodiversity are now measured using valuation methods at a large
scale. These may also be incorporated into CBA analyses in the future.
Some problems with CBA will remain, however. For instance, a per-
sistent problem is the calculation of externalities such as premature
deaths related to air pollution or accidents, which are, globally, consid-
erable in number (Rojas-Rueda et al., 2012). These are particularly prob-
lematic, as for instance premature deaths related to air pollution are
difficult to assess, while it is even more elusive to put a value on second
order effects such as posttraumatic stress disorder or depression
resulting out of the loss or severe injury of beloved ones (cf. Lee,
2006). Notable ethical issues include that the costs of premature deaths
in low GDP per capita societies have less severe economic consequences
than in high per capita GDP societies. Similar uncertainties arise out of
climate change related cost assessments based on CO2-quota market
prices, an approach that does not necessarily represent the full cost of
carbon (e.g., Jenkins, 2014).
In summary, while CBA frameworks are evolving to reflect changing
social preferences, they may remain an imperfect tool to compare the
cost of different transport modes. Yet, as shown for Copenhagen and
in available other studies (Becker et al., 2012; Meschnik, 2012; Rabl
and de Nazelle, 2012), even where the costs of different transport
modes – in this case car driving and cycling – are compared on the
basis of imperfect and conservative CBA frameworks, there is a clear
case to be made for infrastructural change in favour of cycling.
7. Conclusions
Only limited attention has been paid to the economics of cycling in
urban restructuring efforts to implement more sustainable transport sys-
tems. This paper has reviewed the CBA framework used in Copenhagen.
The Danish capital appears to be the only city in the world justifying in-
vestments in bicycle infrastructure using CBA. CBA still has – and will al-
ways have – fundamental limitations, mostly in terms of costs that are
difficult to quantify and to integrate in CBA, including, for instance, safety
perceptions, discomfort, or incommensurable aspects, such as effects of
injury or death, including posttraumatic stress disorder or depression of
those surviving a person killed in traffic. Yet, as the example of Copenha-
gen shows, CBA can be a useful methodology to investigate advantages
and disadvantages of bicycle projects, which are essential to foster bicycle
cultures, i.e., lasting and significant changes in transport cultures (Aldred,
2013; Forsyth and Krizek, 2011; Garrad et al., 2008).
Overall, there is evidence that economic advantages of cycling
far outweigh car travel, and despite limitations, CBA can thus be an
important tool to provide an economic justification for investments,
complementing technology-supported approaches to identifying key
priorities to restructuring (e.g., Larsen et al., 2013; Snizek et al., 2013).
As the example of Copenhagen shows, a key factor in the success of
CBA is to reach political consensus on the parameters to be included
as well as their unit costs. Where this has been achieved, with a consid-
erable body of literature now providing a basis for assessments, CBA is
likely to provide a powerful argument for the restructuring of transport
systems: in the case of Copenhagen, the cost of a km driven by car is
more than six times higher than the cost of a km cycled. Notably, the
Copenhagen CBA as well as the CBA frameworks used in other studies
(CE Delft et al., 2011; Meschik, 2012) identify travel time as the largest
cost component for cycling, which can be significantly reduced through
infrastructure development and urban restructuring in favour of bicy-
clists. Further research into so far less established costs of CBA parame-
ters, and the expansion of CBA use for transport infrastructure decisions
is thus supported by the results of this paper.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the insightful comments provided by three anon-
ymous reviewers on earlier versions of this paper.
References
Agervig Carstensen, T., Ebert, A.-K., 2012. Cycling cultures in Northern Europe: from
‘Golden Age’ to ‘Renaissance’. In: Parkin, J. (Ed.), Cycling and Sustainability. Bingley,
Emerald, pp. 23–58.
Aldred, R., 2010. ‘On the outside’: constructing cycling citizenship. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 11 (1),
35–52.
Aldred, R., 2013. Incompetent or too competent? Negotiating everyday cycling identities
in a motor dominated society. Mobilities 8 (2), 252–271.
Annema, J.A., Koopmans, C., Van Wee, B., 2007. Evaluating transport infrastructure invest-
ments: the Dutch experience with a standardized approach. Transp. Res. A Transl.
Transdiscipl. J. 27 (2), 125–150.
Becker, U.J., Becker, T., Gerlach, J., 2012. The True Costs of Automobility: External Costs of
Cars. Overview on Existing Estimates in EU-27. Available from: http://www.greens-
efa.eu/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Studies/Costs_of_cars/The_true_costs_of_cars_EN.
pdf (Accessed 1 May 2014).
Bithas, K., 2011. Sustainability and externalities: is the internationalization of externalities
a sufficient condition for sustainability? Ecol. Econ. 70, 1703–1706.
Boardman, A., Greenberg, D., Vining, A., Weimer, D., 2010. Cost–Benefit Analysis. Concepts
and Practice. 4th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Börjesson, M., Eliasson, J., 2012. The value of time and external benefits in bicycle appraisal.
Transp. Res. A 46, 673–683.
Börjesson, M., Fosgerau, M., Algers, S., 2012. On the income elasticity of the value of travel
time. Transp. Res. A 46 (2), 368–377.
Buis, J., 2000. The Economic Significance of Cycling: A Study to Illustrate the Costs and
Benefits of Cycling Policy. Interface for Cycling Expertise, Den Haag.
CE Delft, Infras, Fraunhofer ISI, Infras, Fraunhofer ISI, 2011. External Costs of Transport in
Europe. Available from: http://ecocalc-test.ecotransit.org/CE_Delft_4215_External_
Costs_of_Transport_in_Europe_def.pdf (Accessed 1 May 2014).
City of Copenhagen, 2002. Cycle Policy 2002–2012. Copenhagen: Københavns Kommune,
Bygge- og Teknikforvaltningen. Vej & Park.
City of Copenhagen, 2006. Copenhagen, City of Cyclists. Bicycle Account 2006.
Available from: http://www.kk.dk/da/Om-kommunen/Indsatsomraader-og-politikker/
Publikationer.aspx?mode=detalje&id=817 (Accessed 20 May 2014).
City of Copenhagen, 2007. Miljømetropolen Vores Vision CPH 2015 [Eco Metropolis.
Our Vision for Copenhagen 2015]. Available from: http://www.kk.dk/da/Om-
kommunen/ Indsatsomraader-og-politikker/Publikationer.aspx?mode=detalje&id=
524 (Accessed 20 May 2014).
City of Copenhagen, 2008. Eco-Metropolis. Our Vision for Copenhagen 2015. City of
Copenhagen, Copenhagen.
City of Copenhagen, 2009a. . Available from: http://subsite.kk.dk/sitecore/content/
Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/CityAndTraffic/
CityOfCyclists/CycleStatistics/socioeconomicbenefits.aspx (Accessed 5 May 2014).
City of Copenhagen, 2009b. Cykelprioriteringsplanen [Bicycle Priority Plan] 2006–2016.
Available from: http://www.kk.dk/da/Om-kommunen/Indsatsomraader-og-politikker/
Publikationer.aspx?mode=detalje&id=819 (Accessed 5 May 2014).
 S. Gössling, A.S. Choi / Ecological Economics 113 (2015) 106–113
City of Copenhagen, 2011a. KØBENHAVNS MILJØREGNSKAB 2011. Available from: www.
kk.dk/miljoeregnskab (Accessed 5 May 2014).
City of Copenhagen, 2011b. Fra God til Verdens Bedste. Københavns cykelstrategi 2011–2025
(Good, Better, Best. The City of Copenhagen's Bicycle Strategy 2011–2025).
Available from: http://www.kk.dk/da/Om-kommunen/Indsatsomraader-og-politikker/
Publikationer.aspx?mode=detalje&id=818 (Accessed 20 December 2012).
City of Copenhagen, 2012a. Københavns Miljøregnskab 2011 [Copenhagen's Environmental
Balance Sheet]. Available from: http://www.kk.dk/da/Om-kommunen/Indsatsomraader-
og-politikker/Publikationer.aspx?mode=detalje&id=872 (Accessed 20 December
2012).
City of Copenhagen, 2012b. Københavns Miljøregnskab – samlet udgave (Copenhagen's
Environmental Balance Sheet — Collected Issue). Available from: http://www.kk.dk/~/
media/Om-kommunen/Indsatsomraader-og-politikker/Natur-miljoe-og-affald/
Miljoeregnskab/MiljoeregnskabDec2012.ashx (Accessed 5 May 2013).
City of Copenhagen, 2012c. Copenhagen City of Cyclists. Bicycle Account 2012. Available
from: http://subsite.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/Subsite
Frontpage/LivingInCopenhagen/CityAndTraffic/~/media/4ADB52810C484064B508
5F2A900CB8FB.ashx (Accessed 22 November 2014).
Costanza, R., dArge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem,
S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of
the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.
Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I.,
Farber, S., Turner, R.K., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 26, 152–158.
COWI and Københavns Kommune, 2009. Samfundsøkonomiske analyser af cykeltiltag -
metode og cases, Januar 2009. Available from www.kk.dk (Accessed 20 May 2014).
COWI and Transportministeriet, 2010. Værdisætning af transportens eksterne
omkostninger. Available from www.trm.dk (Accessed 20 November 2014).
Cycling Embassy of Denmark, 2012. Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012. Authors: Troels
Andersen, Fredericia Municipality Frits Bredal, Danish Cyclists' Federation Marianne
Weinreich, VEKSØ, Niels Jensen, City of Copenhagen Morten Riisgaard-Dam, Aros
Kommunikation Malene Kofod Nielsen, COWI. Cycling Embassy of Denmark,
Copenhagen.
De Hartog, J.J., Boogaard, H., Nijland, H., Hoek, G., 2010. Do the health benefits of cycling
outweigh the risks? Environ. Health Perspect. 118 (8), 1109–1116.
DTF (Danmarks Transportforskning), 2007. The Danish Value of Time Study. Available
from: www.transport.dtu.dk (Accessed 14 May 2014).
EC, 2011. White Paper. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area — Towards a Com-
petitive and Resource Efficient Transport System. COM (2011) 144 final. European
Commission, Brussels.
European Commission, 2012. An Inventory of Measures for Internalising External Costs in
Transport. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/sustainable/studies/
doc/2012-11-inventory-measures-internalising-external-costs.pdf (Accessed 1 May
2014).
European Commission, 2014. Update of the handbook on external costs of transport. Final
Report (Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/sustainable/studies/
doc/2014-handbook-external-costs-transport.pdf Accessed 1 May 2014).
European Environment Agency, 2003. Available from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-
and-maps/indicators/external-costs-of-transport-1 (Accessed 1 May 2014).
Fishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N., 2013. Bike share: a synthesis of the literature.
Transp. Rev. A Transl. Transdiscipl. J. 33 (2), 148–165.
Forsyth, A., Krizek, K., 2011. Urban design: is there a distinctive view from the bicycle?
J. Urban Des. 16 (4), 531–549.
Gade Jeppesen, J., 2012. Cyklen og byen. En undersøgelse af cyklens tekniske og
brugsmæssige udvikling samt analyse af cyklismens interaktion med byudvikling
og byplanlægning (Bicycle and City. An Investigation of Bicycling's Technical and
Use Development, as well as Bicycling's Interaction With the Development and
Planning of the City). Master of Science, Aarhus Universitet, Institut for Historie og
Områdestudier.
Garrad, J., Rose, G., Lo, S.K., 2008. Promoting transportation cycling for women: the role of
bicycle infrastructure. Prev. Med. 46, 55–59.
Gössling, S., 2013. Urban transport transitions: Copenhagen, city of cyclists. J. Transp.
Geogr. 33, 196–206.
Grant-Muller, S., Mackie, P., Nellthorp, J., Pearman, A., 2001. Economic appraisal of
European transport projects — the state of the art revisited. Transp. Rev. 21 (2),
237–261.
Hanley, N., Spash, C.L., 1993. Cost Benefit Analysis and the Environment. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham, UK.
Heinen, E., Van Wee, B., Maat, K., 2010. Commuting by bicycle: an overview of the literature.
Transp. Rev. 30 (1), 59–96.
Hopkinson, P., Wardman, M., 1996. Evaluating the demand for new cycle facilities. Transp.
Policy 3 (4), 241–249.
Horton, D., Rosen, P., Cox, P. (Eds.), 2007. Cycling and Society. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Hutton, B., 2013. Planning Sustainable Transport. Earthscan from Routledge, Oxon.
Jansson, J.W., 1994. Accident externality charges. J. Transp. Econ. Policy 28, 31–43.
Jenkins, J.D., 2014. Political economy constraints on carbon pricing policies: what are the
implications for economic efficiency, environmental efficacy, and climate policy de-
sign? Energy Policy 69, 467–477.
Jones, T., Novo de Azevedo, L., 2013. Economic, social and cultural transformation and the
role of the bicycle in Brazil. J. Transp. Geogr. 30, 208–219.
Kåstrup, M., 2009. Identity and bicycle culture — a Danish perspective. Paper Presented at
the Cycling and Society Seminar 2009, 7th of September. Department of Built Envi-
ronment, University of Bolton.
Kenworthy, J., 2007. Urban planning and transport paradigm shifts for cities of the post-
petroleum age. J. Urban Technol. 14 (2), 47–70.
113
Knudsen, M.A., Rich, J., 2013. Ex post socio-economic assessment of the Oresund Bridge.
Transp. Policy 27, 53–65.
Krizek, K., 2007. Estimating the Economic Benefits of Bicycling and Bicycle Facilities: An
Interpretive Review and Proposed Methods. Essays on Transportation Economics.
Physica-Verlag HD, Leipzig, Germany.
Larsen, J., Patterson, Zachary, El-Geneidy, Ahmed, 2013. Build it. But where? The use of
geographic information systems in identifying locations for new cycling infrastruc-
ture. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 7 (4), 299–317.
Lee, R., 2006. Childhood trauma and personality disorder: toward a biological model. Curr.
Psychiatry Rep. 8, 43–52.
Lindsey, G., 2003. Sustainability and urban greenways: indicators in Indianapolis. J. Am.
Plan. Assoc. 69 (2), 165–180.
Lindsey, G., Knaap, G., 1999. Willingness to pay for urban greenway projects. J. Am. Plan.
Assoc. 65 (3), 297–301.
Litman, T., 1999. Traffic Calming. Benefits, Costs and Equity. Victoria Transport Policy
Institute. Available from: http://www.vtpi.org/calming.pdf (Accessed 20 May 2014).
Litman, T., 2004. Economic value of walkability. World Transp. Policy Pract. 10 (1), 5–14.
Meschik, M., 2012. Reshaping city traffic towards sustainability. Why transport policy
should favor the bicycle instead of car traffic. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 48, 495–504.
Miljøstyrelsen, 2002. Prissætning af transportens eksterne effekter. En gennemgang af
metoderne til prissætning samt danske og internationale prissætningsstudier (Avail-
able from:).
Miljøstyrelsen, 2003a. Hvad koster støj?. Miljøprojekt nr. 795, 2003
Miljøstyrelsen, 2003b. Forslag til strategi for begrænsning af vejtrafikstøj. Vejstøjgruppen.
Modelcenter, 2007. Transportøkonomiske Enhedspriser. Overførsel til regneark. Available
from www.transport.dtu.dk (Accessed 22 November 2014).
Nelson, A.C., 1995. Private provision of public pedestrian and bicycle access ways: public
policy rationale and the nature of public and private benefits. Transp. Res. Rec. 1502,
96–104.
Ortuzar, J., Iacobelli, S., Valeze, C., 2000. Estimating demand for a cycle-way network.
Transp. Res. A 34 (5), 353–373.
Parks, S., Gowdy, J., 2013. What have economists learned about valuing nature? A review
essay. Ecosyst. Serv. 3, e1–e10.
Pucher, J., Buehler, R., 2008. Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Netherlands,
Denmark, and Germany. Transp. Rev. 28 (4), 495–528.
Pucher, J., Buehler, R., 2012. City Cycling. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press,
Cambridge, MA, Cambridge.
Pucher, J., Dill, J., Handy, S., 2010. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling:
an international review. Prev. Med. 50, S106–S125.
Rabl, A., De Nazelle, A., 2012. Benefits of shift from car to active transport. Transp. Policy
19 (1), 121–131.
Rank, J., Folke, J., Homann Jespersen, P., 2001. Differences in cyclists and car drivers expo-
sure to air pollution from traffic in the city of Copenhagen. Sci. Total Environ. 279,
131–136.
Rojas-Rueda, D., de Nazelle, A., Teixidó, O., Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J., 2012. Replacing car trips
by increasing bike and public transport in the greater Barcelona metropolitan area:
a health impact assessment study. Environ. Int. 49, 100–109.
Saelensminde, K., 2002. Walking- and cycling-track networks in Norwegian cities: cost–
benefit analyses including health effects and external costs of road traffic. Oslo, Inst.
Transp. Econ. 50.
Saelensminde, K., 2004. Cost–benefit analyses of walking and cycling track networks tak-
ing into account insecurity, health effects and external costs of motorized traffic.
Transp. Res. A 38 (8), 593–606.
Sharples, R., 1995. A framework for the evaluation of facilities for cyclists — part 1. Traffic
Eng. Control 142–149.
Snizek, B., Sick Nielsen, T.A., Skov-Petersen, H., 2013. Mapping bicyclists' experiences in
Copenhagen. J. Transp. Geogr. 30, 227–233.
Statens Institut for Folkesundhed, 2006. Risikofaktorer og folkesundhed i Danmark,
udarbejdet for Sundhedsstyrelsen.
TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Econom-
ics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of
TEEB. http://us-cdn.creamermedia.co.za/assets/articles/attachments/30310_teeb_
synthreport_09_2010_online.pdf.
Tilahun, N.Y., Levinson, D.M., Krizek, K.J., 2007. Trails, lanes, or traffic: valuing bicycle
facilities with an adaptive stated preference survey. Transp. Res. A 41, 287–301.
Trafikministeriet, 2003. Samfundsøkonomisk manual. Anvendt metode og praksis på
transportområdet. Trafikministeriet, København.
Transportministeriet, 2004a. External costs of transport. 2nd Report — Marginal External
Cost Matrices for Denmark. Transportministeriet, Copenhagen.
Transportministeriet, 2004b. External costs of transport. 1st Report — Review of European
Studies. Transportministeriet, Copenhagen.
Transportministeriet, 2010. Værdisætning af transportens eksterne omkostninger.
Rapport Juni 2010. COWI A/S, Kongens Lyngby, Danmark.
Transportministeriet, 2013. Transportøkonomiske Enhedspriser. Transportministeriet,
Copenhagen.
WHO, 1999. Health costs due to road traffic-related air pollution. An Impact Assessment
Project of Austria, France and Switzerland. Economic Evaluation. Technical Report on
Economy, Federal Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communica-
tions, Bureau for Transport Studies, Bern, Switzerland.
Wittink, R., 2001. Promotion of mobility and safety of vulnerable road users. SWOV
Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam. The Netherlands, Report Number
D-2001-3.
Zhang, H., Shasheen, S.A., Chen, X., 2014. Bicycle evolution in China: from the 1900s to the
present. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 8 (5), 317–335.