The research, from the University of Otago, Wellington and Victoria University, studied the impact of new cycling and walking paths built in New Plymouth and Hastings in 2011.
In the three years after the development of the new infrastructure, it was found there was a reduction of 1.6% in vehicle kilometres travelled and an associated 1% drop in carbon emissions.
It is the first study internationally to demonstrate that investing in cycle paths and walkways leads to a reduction in emissions.
"This is good news for our agenda to reduce carbon emissions, which is essential to meet our international targets and of course to contribute to stabilising the climate," lead author Associate Professor Michael Keall said.
Bike Auckland chairwoman Barb Cuthbert said she welcome the research results "as more compelling evidence why building safe and attractive walking and cycling routes is productive and valuable in major centres across NZ".
Co-author Dr Caroline Shaw, said the 1% reduction in carbon emissions is likely to be a conservative estimate, as shorter car trips - those most likely to be replaced by walking or cycling - typically had higher per kilometre emissions.
"It is also important to note that we would expect the more extensive networks of cycle lanes which some councils are now putting in, to have an even bigger response," she said.
If the same level of investment was made nationwide, it could reduce the country's carbon dioxide emissions by at least 0.23 million tonnes over three years, the researchers said.
Building new cycle paths and walkways also appeared to reduce car ownership in the two cities.
The researchers used a variety of methods to collect information on car usage, conducting face-to-face interviews with householders, analysing odometer readings from licensing data and reviewing details on car ownership from the New Zealand Household Travel Survey.
The data from New Plymouth and Hastings were compared with information from Whanganui and Masterton - two cities which received no additional government funding for cycle ways or walking paths.
Dr Shaw said the research clearly demonstrates that people are prepared to substitute cycling and walking for car journeys.
"We already know that putting in cycling and walking infrastructure reduces congestion and makes cities nicer places to live, as well as being highly cost effective. We now also know that it reduces carbon emissions."
Comments
So after 7 years there has only been a 1.6% decrease in car kms and they somehow know that tiny amount is solely due to the new cycleways; yeah right. In my opinion an impossible claim to make when when things like warmer weather (climate change) and high fuel prices probably have a stronger influence on these figures.
So I guess Dunedin with it's incredibly steep terrain could expect a reduction in vehicular traffic by 0.01%..? Or is that too optimistic?!
Didn't the ODT run an article a few months back stating Caversham Valley Road traffic had increased by nearly 14% in fours years? I wonder how much of that increase came via the central business district?...
Never mind statistics anyway! That's the direction Mayor Dave has decided this city will take, and accordingly Dunedin will continue to suffer chronic traffic congestion and increasing conflict between drivers and cyclists.
Thanks Dave.
No wonder car traffic over Caversham Valley Road has increased in last 4 years: there's a brand new Lookout Point bridge which was opened in 2016. Only confirms same truth: build for traffic that you want, not for traffic that you have. Do we want even more cars? I don't and my kids neither.
Here is a link (Thanks ODT) to the story:
https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/queenstown/huge-spike-traffic-some-otagos-...
It shows an increase in many Otago roads.
Tiny Allanton has a 19.87% increase. So clearly, the Lookout Point bridge isn't the reason. It's construction is a positive reaction to increased traffic volumes.
Merely sticking your head in the sand and pretending that putting in cycles lanes will alter the vehicular choices Dunedin residents make to transit the city, is insane and will not reduce traffic volumes. It will however, increase anger at our civic leaders and create more tension on Dunedin roads. And that's the LAST thing we need!
Do you have numbers for number of bicycles on city roads to make a fair comparison? I don't but as a regular bike commuter I can tell that number is on the steady rise especially number of electric bikes has exploded (think hills). So maybe a cycle lanes are also a positive reaction to increased traffic volumes?
As for sticking one's head in the sand - building more roads for cars is by no means a long term answer. Cars always consume whatever is built and want more, and paradoxically traffic only gets worse not better.
Sure it makes sense when the city is flat or very gentle slopes. The study can not be extrapolated to Dunedin- we have hills. [ps I regularly rode from a western hill suburb to the CBD area as a school & university student. But I could count on 1 hand the number of students that did this. I can not see the majority of today's youth doing such a thing, even with a cycle lane, let alone being allowed by a protective parent]
Anybody who ever tried electric bike knows that hills is not a problem. E-bikes could have been a bit cheaper but with current poor infrastructure it's still a niche thing for enthusiasts i.e. there's no point to sell them much cheaper than a used car.
“It is the first study internationally to demonstrate that investing in cycle paths and walkways leads to a reduction in emissions.”
Why would we be the first to require such a study, if it wasn’t such a debacle In the first place?
The answer to that is simple !!!
No where else do they put the cyclists on the main thoroughfare of the city, so everyone could appreciate the option. They made it attractive and plesent, not a forced ideological driven arrogance that shows total disrespect to the rights of others to go about their business efficiently.
Lime Scooters will prove how big a waste of money Dunedin’s efforts were, once they arrive in town.
Apparently jumping to the conclusion that a slight difference in data over three years can be attributed only to the introduction of the cycle lanes. Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Surely 3 NZ universities wouldn't make such an obvious mistake? And could be expected to have rigorous respect for the scientific method.
I would need to read the study to see what the methodology was, but it's hard to see how such a tiny result (1.6%) could be seen as valid, considering so many factors might be involved. And even if it was true, 1.6% is supposed to be a good result? I mean, that's a rounding error or margin of error. Not very impressive.