1. MEASURING THE EFFECTS OF A KILOMETRIC ALLOWANCE FOR CYCLING COMMUTERS
Christian GIORIA, Consultant, INDDIGO

2. CONTEXT
Actual Fiscal scheme for cycling
No obligatory or facultative cycling reimbursement scheme in France
Only the costs of subscriptions to public bike hiring systems can be reimbursed (50% min.)
 fiscal incentives for home-work travel mainly concentrate on car use
2014 : A new national scheme for active mobilities including project pilot for kilometric allowance for cycling commuters
Few elements to unterstand the context of the cycling kilometric allowance

3. CONTEXT We started an evaluation with two objectives
Experimentation with selected companies (volunteer programme)
18 companies
Around employees
Objective : Convince the government to approve this measure
We started an evaluation with two objectives

4. CALENDAR
April to June 2014 : Companies selection (only private sector)
June to December 2014 : Experimentation
June 2014 : all employees survey
October : Survey nearby those who had an allowance
A first one to understand travel habits and test the volunteers to participate
A second survey to evaluate the impacts of the experimentations on health, modal splits and environment

5. TECHNICAL AND FISCAL SPECIFICATIONS
A mileage allowance at the level of 0.25 € / km
Including in the current fiscal regime with
tax and social security contributions (for companies and employees)
 Reimbusement to 0.25 € / km for employees to 0.43 € / km with real costs
This value is including

6. TECHNICAL AND FISCAL SPECIFICATIONS
No mode-neutral solutions or « Mobility Budget »
Employees have to make a choice between
Reimbursement at least 50% of the costs for public transport subscriptions
Or kilometric allowance for cycling commuters
The travels for commuting made with a bike shared system (or a public bike) are excluded
Companies can choose a mensual limit
Generally situed between 35 € et 50 € a month
In coherence with public transport reimbursement
No mode neutral solutions… that is to say

7. WHY THIS EVALUATION And now, why this evaluation ? Feedback about
Impacts on modal share
Impacts on health
What about new cyclists ?
And now, why this evaluation ?

8. MAIN RESULTS – Modal share impact
BEFORE
DECEMBER
Cyclists
200
419
Cyclists (including frequencies of use)
176
296
MODAL SHARE 2%
3.6%
People who are already cyclist cycling more than the new one
The second line includ frequencies of use
Growth of 70% of modal share but
5 to 8% cycling for other reasons (summer, …)
10% stop the practice during the test
 50% growth

9. MAIN RESULTS - Modal share impact
To estimate bicycle modal share, necessity to take into account the level of use / frequencies during the week
Less
1 or 2 times a week
3 or 4 times a week
Every day
Already Cyclists
New Cyclists

10. MAIN RESULTS - Modal share impact
Increase of cycling for others purposes (shopping, leisure, …)
Already Cyclists
New Cyclists
New cyclists practice too for other purposes : 30 % of the new cyclist use their bike for other purposes since the experimentation NO
YES
YES, but not linked with kilometric allowance

11. MAIN RESULTS - Modal share impact
Where are the new cyclists coming from ?

12. MAIN RESULTS - PROFILES
New Cyclists
Strong attractiveness nearby Men and between 26 and 55 years old
Already Cyclists
Men public
Women public

13. MAIN RESULTS – New Advantages of cycling
New Cyclists
Already Cyclists
People who are already cyclist use their bike because it is
Health
Recreation
Environment
Economic
Convenient
Fast
No stress

14. MAIN RESULTS – SOME REASONS TO USE OTHERS MODES
Already Cyclists
New Cyclists
Weather
We said that new cyclist don’t use their bike often.
With this graph we have some reasons as the weather for the main reason or the program of the day for people already cycling
The fiscal scheme seems to be important for new cyclist beaucse 15% of them stop cycling when they touch the top of the mensual reimbursement
According to my work program
Detour
Problems on my bike
Change of time table
Mood
Charge
Top of the reimbursement

15. MAIN RESULTS – URBAN DIFFERENCES
Less impact in big cities (Lyon / Paris) because of using public transport for others purposes
 Ile de France : growth of 10% (average of 50%)
At the opposite, in small places (under inhabitants area)
 Growth of 70%

16. MAIN RESULTS – HEALTH IMPACT
Estimated with Ricci et Gagnon test
Objective : Measure all activity
for commuting travel
Activities for other purposes of travel
Others activities
Good enough Physical activity
Not Good enough
A test used by the world health organization. Ricci and Gagnon are from the montreal univerity
Activities for other purposes
Others activities (sportiv or physical activites as gardening)
Before
After

17. MAIN RESULTS – ECONOMIC IMPACT
New Cyclists
Already Cyclists
Perform my cyclist equipment (clothes for winter, raincoat, …)
Repair my bike
I don’t know
Integration in my general budget
Buy a new bicycle
A last question : How do the beneficiaries want to use their money

18. NEXT STEP
Currently
Some companies follow the experimentation
The others wait for the governement decision
Following of the evaluation
New survey in June 2015 (What’s new after 1 year all seasons included ?)
Focus group with employees
Analysis of other factors
Car park facilities
Impact of reimbursements of car use
8 companies follow (in the actual fiscal scheme with social cotisations for companies and tax for employees

19. Qualitative impacts Qualitative impacts
Some difficulties for all companies to prepare the evaluation (because of they have to put in the current fiscal scheme)  allowance included in the pay statement
All companies agreed with the 0.25 € / km provided that the future allowance become tax-free
Declarative system (paper, Excel, expensive invoices) with no mistakes observed
Pay statement (bulletin de paie)
For the last point : on board technology to control home-work travel.

20. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Christian GIORIA
Mail :
INDDIGO :
Velo-city Nantes coordinator