Return on investment is a concept usually associated with private companies: how much is the return on investment for each euro invested? For a territorial authority, the logic is different. Public investment does not aim to generate profit, but to improve the quality of public service, to meet the needs of users and to manage territorial policies effectively.
In this context, the ROI of a transit counter is not calculated in terms of turnover generated, but in terms of value created for decision making. This value can take several forms: the ability to obtain grants that would not have been accessible without data, savings achieved by avoiding the over-sizing of infrastructure, strengthened credibility with funders and citizens, or even optimization of future investments thanks to a better understanding of real uses.
Presenting the purchase of meters as an “expense” is a framing error. It is an investment in a management tool that reduces uncertainty and increases the probability of success of development projects. Just like a design office or a project management mission, counting produces information that has a strategic value much greater than its acquisition cost.
Many public funding programs — AVELO (bicycle), CRTE (contracts for recovery and ecological transition), European FEDER funds, calls for projects from ADEME or regions — now require attendance data to process applications. Funders want to know how many people are actually using existing infrastructure, and how many are likely to use the infrastructure you are proposing to create.
Without objective data, a grant application is based on estimates. However, the instructors know the difference between an estimate (“we think that 200 cyclists per day will use this route”) and a factual measure (“we counted 150 cyclists per day on the current route, with a growth of 12% per year for the last three years”). The second approach increases the chances of obtaining financing.
A permanent counting network also makes it possible to produce impact assessments after the project has been completed, which reinforces the credibility of the community for the following issues.
An undersized layout generates saturation problems, conflicts of use and user dissatisfaction. Oversized development mobilizes public funds for underused infrastructure, which is difficult to justify politically and financially.
Counting data makes it possible to size projects as close as possible to real needs. The cost of a network of a few sensors (between 3,000 and 10,000 euros depending on the size) is negligible compared to the cost of oversizing (wider pavement, additional work) or undersizing (resumption of work, conflicts of use to manage). A sizing error can represent several tens of thousands of euros in additional costs or loss of efficiency.
Elected officials and technical services need to be able to justify their choices to citizens, political opposition and the media. Saying “we created a bike path because we think it's useful” is weak. Saying “we have measured 300 cyclists per day on average on this route since it opened, an increase of 180% compared to the old route” is unquestionable.
Attendance data also makes it possible to respond to criticisms. When a development is contested (“this greenway is useless to anyone”), the counting figures put an end to the subjective debate. This legitimation function is particularly important in contexts where investments in favour of active mobility (cycling, walking) are still under debate.
A community that has several years of traffic data on its bike paths, trails or public spaces gradually builds a territorial memory. She knows what types of facilities work, which axes are saturated, which periods require reinforcement, which areas are under-frequented despite investments.
This accumulated knowledge becomes a strategic asset. It makes it possible to prioritize future investments, to replicate proven patterns and to avoid reproducing past mistakes.
This capitalization of knowledge also has value in terms of the continuity of public action. The elected officials are changing, the technical teams are evolving, but the data remains.
Cost-benefit calculation framework (10-sensor network/5 years)
Learn more about our rates and services included ↗
The expected benefit can be measured on several axes:
Remember: The benefit/cost ratio is largely favorable in the majority of cases. Arbitrage is not “can we afford to invest? but “can we afford to continue investing without objective data? ”
To make the case tangible, here are concrete examples of decisions informed by attendance data:
In all of these cases, the initial investment in counting results in better calibrated decisions, more efficient services and strengthened legitimacy.
Step 1: Contextualize the issue. Recall current or planned development projects and emphasize that their success depends on the quality of diagnosis and follow-up.
Step 2: Identify the current problem. Explain that decisions are now made on the basis of estimates, which generates a risk: over-sizing, under-sizing, difficulty in justifying choices.
Step 3: Present the solution. Describe the metering network envisaged: number of sensors, strategic location, technology selected, methods of exploiting the data.
Step 4: Quantifying the investment. Present the total cost over 5 years in a transparent manner.
Step 5: Demonstrate the expected benefit. Quantifying or qualifying the gains: achievable grants, potential savings, strengthened credibility. Use concrete examples.
Step 6: Propose a pilot phase if necessary. Deploy 3 to 5 sensors on strategic axes for one year to demonstrate value before generalizing.
This approach puts elected officials in a position to make an informed decision, with all the elements to arbitrate.
Without counting, decisions are made based on estimates, perceptions, or approximate benchmarks. These methods involve a significant risk of error. An oversized development mobilizes public funds that could have been allocated elsewhere. An undersized layout generates dissatisfaction and requires corrective work afterwards.
Without data, it is difficult to justify a project to a demanding funder. Grant applications based on estimates are less competitive than those based on objective measures.
Without data, it is also difficult to legitimize choices among citizens. Oppositions can always challenge the figures put forward if they are not supported by a reliable measure.
The cost of the absence of data is real: missed opportunities, sizing errors, weakened legitimacy. Investing in counting is an insurance against these risks.
Faced with this cost, investing in a metering network appears to be a form of insurance: a moderate cost that significantly reduces the risk of costly errors.
If you are carrying out a project to measure attendance and want to structure a budgetary argument adapted to your context, Kiomda can assist you in building the file.
.svg){kind=small}
.avif)
