session 51 stefan flügel

15.01.2010 © Transportøkonomisk institutt Side 1

Cost Benefit Analyses:

Passengers' Valuations of Universal Designfor Public Transport

Stefan Flügel, Nils Fearnley, Marit Killi

TØI, Norway

Transportforum, Linkjøping, 14. January 2010

Outline

Introduction: Universal Design

The Valuation Study About the project Choice Experiments New recommended unit values

Briefly: Use of values in cost benefit analyses Summary

15.01.2010 Side 2 © Transportøkonomisk institutt

Definition of “Universal Design” (UD)for public transportation

Adopted by the Norwegian Road Authorities:

“The design of infrastructure, transportation systems or their surroundings to accommodate the widest range of potential users regardless of their impairments or special needs”

Focus: UD has potential value for all passengers -> Applicable for cost benefit analyses (CBA)


1/15/2010 Side 4 © Transportøkonomisk institutt

UD includes an extensive set of provision

Access to station

Facilities at station

Information (at station and on-board)

Access to vehicle Facilities on-board

Project Main goal: Obtain monetary unit values for different UD

provisions

On behalf of the Norwegian Public Roads Administration

Conducted in three Norwegian cities in 2009

Two parts of the study Qualitatively: focus interviews, on-board study Quantitatively: valuation study


Existing provisions in the three cities


City Drammen (3 bus lines)

Kristiansand(2 bus lines)

Oslo (One bus line and 2 tram lines)

Provisions at the stop:Easy access to the stop is without physical barriers X X XTactile paving (rough tracks on the ground for blind and vision impaired) X X X

Shelter at the stop X X XSitting places at the stop X X XReal time information systems XElevated kerbs to reduce vertical gap X X XProvisions on the bus/tram:Bus/tram clearly marked with destination and route id on the outside X X X

Bus/tram has space for pram, bicycle, wheelchair X X XAnnouncement of next stop on board the bus/tram X XAnnouncement of next stop on screen on board the bus/tram X X

Qualitative Part

Focus interviews: Terms and notions like “universal design”, “real-time information”

mostly unknown -> use pictures for illustration in the study Real-time information by screen very popular

On-board study: About 1/3 of the passengers noticed upgraded UD A majority view UD provisions as beneficial for all passengers and

not only for people with special needs UD would lead to more public transport trips However, price, reliability and frequency are ranked higher than UD

on an average score


Valuation study Stated Preferences (SP) study to find monetary value of

different UD provisions Recruitment: invitation cards on-board (bus and tram lines)

with log-in information to self-administrated internet survey Pilot: May 2009 Main study: July 2009 in the same 3 cities as on-board study

Sample size and response rates Pilot: 103 (11%) Main study: 350 ( 5,3%) , big difference between cities Merging pilot and main study



Random allocation

Reporting the reference trip

N=453

CE1: Cost, In‐Vehicle Time, Information at station

N=417

CE2: Cost, Information on board, Accessibility to vehicle

N= 411

CE3a: Cost, Shelter, Cleanness N= 225

CE3b: Cost, Shelter, Ice/Snow removal

N=183

CV Questions and Final questionnaire N=406

Exclusion of Respondents

In each CE:6 choices per respondentbetween2 alternatives

Structure of questionaire and main attributes in ChoiceExperiments (CE)


Choices: Definitely A, Probably A, Probably B, Definitely B

1. Introduction of attributes and levels

2. Explaining the choice decision

3. Presentation of alternatives

Presentation of alternatives in CE1



Enhancing the gap between floor and station ground in the main study

Explaining the accessibility levelsPilot

Presentation of choices in CE2


Estimation approaches Paradigm: Random utility maximisation (RUM) Multi-nominal logit (MNL)

Fixed coefficients in utility function ; Monetary valuation for UD as the marginal rate of substitution between the cost and changes in UD

MNL for unit value determination most comprehensible and robust

Mixed logit models (ML) Random coefficient model; unobserved heterogeneity; panel structure Estimating mean and standard deviation of the predefined parameter

distribution function Results depended on distribution assumption and on further assumptions

about truncating and censoring

-> General estimation results Expected sign and order (MNL) for all parameters ; significant different fro

zero with just a few exceptions Taste heterogeneity in the light of mixed logit results high



Valuation of information at station WTP for information at the station (from a situation with just a timetable)

NOK USD

Map over local area 0,43 0,08Speaker about changes in departure 0,69 0,12Screen with real-time information 4,05 0,72All three information devices 4,62 0,81

Real-time information system is clearly the most valuable information source at the station; consistent with on-board study and focus interviews

Relatively low monetary valuations for map over the local area and a speaker about deviating departure times

Package price of all three lower than the sum of the single provisions Loudspeaker seems almost unessential when screen with real time information

is available as the valuation of map and screen almost equals the valuation of all three information devices

However, special needs (e.g. reduced sight) not accounted for


Valuation of information on-board (CE2)

If the next station is announced via screen or speaker seems equally beneficial, around 3,65 NOK is the estimated monetary valuation

The additional information adds only 55 øre in value For the average user (with good hearing and sight) one information seems to be

sufficient

WTP for information on board (from a situation without any information)

NOK USD

Next station via speaker 3,63 0,64Next station via screen 3,68 0,65Next station via speaker and screen 4,20 0,74


Valuation of improved accessibility on-board

In comparison with other UD provisions the values seem relatively low Lowered floor has an average value of 1,87 NOK, an additional adjustment

(elevation) of the station ground is valued 0,4 NOK Valuation of persons with special needs:

WTP for accessibility improvements (from a situation without any adjustments)

NOK USD

Lowered vehicle floor 1,67 0,30Lowered vehicle floor and adjusted ground at the station 2,07 0,37

WTP in USD ALL Respondents with physical problems (*) or heavy baggage (**)

N=2466 N=594Lowered vehicle floor 1,67 2,88Lowered vehicle floor and adjusted ground at station

2,07 4,01

*) limited moveability, walking stick or crutched, pregnant **) big/heavy luggage, a lot of shopping bags, trolley, small kids

The WTP for “steppless” access on the bus or tram is valued up to an average valueof 4,01 for people with “physicals problems” or heavy baggage.


Valuation of attributes in CE3

Valuation of shelter seems relatively high (3,12 NOK), if the shelter has a sitting place the value increases to 5,1 NOK

Satisfactory cleanness is valued at 3,62 NOK Ice/snow removal has an estimated value of 4,97 NOK

The values seem high but can be (partly) explained with the high standard of cleanness and ice removal in Norway so that dirt and missing removal can course high disutility and thereby a relatively high monetary valuation

Additional analysis: Men value cleanness and snow/ice removal less than women

WTP for a shelter (average value of CE3a and CE3b) NOK USDShelter without sitting place 3,12 0,55Shelter with sitting place 5,10 0,90WTP for satisfactory cleanness and ice/snow removalCleanness 3,62 0,64Ice/snow removal 4,97 0,88


Comparison between CE and CVCV

Total valuation for the package price (list of provisions)

CE Valuation on a transport line

without UD (just timetable)

CE Valuation on a

transport line with relatively low

standard of UD

CE Valuation on a transport line with relatively high

standard of UD

Information devices at the station: map, speaker and real-time information via screen

4,62 4,19 (*) (assuming that there is a map

at the station”)

0,14 (**) (assuming that there is a map and a real-time information at the

station”) Information devices on board : Announcement of next station via

4,2 0,57 (assuming no speaker, but a

screen)

0,57 (assuming no speaker, but a screen)

Low-floor bus and elevation of bus station

2,07 2,07 (assuming no low-floor bus)

0,40 (assuming low-floor bus but no elevation of

station Shelter with sitting place 5,10 1,98 (Assuming

shelter but no sitting place)

1,98 (Assuming shelter but no sitting place)

Cleanness 3,62 Assuming cleanness Assuming cleanness Ice/snow removal 4,97 Assuming ice

removal Assuming ice removal

Sum 4,35 NOK 24,56 NOK 8,81 NOK 3,09 NOK

15/01/2010

Provisions Old values (2005 values)

From this study (2009 values)

Real time information at bus stop 2.10 4.05Local map at bus stop 0.70 0.43Speaker with info of changes, disruptions 2.10 0.69All three information devices: map, speaker and RTI

4.62

Sign on board in bus indicating next stop 2.43 3.67Next stop information announced by driver 1.22 3.62Both: next stop via speaker and screen 4.20Bus shelter - without seating- with seating

1.053.125.10

Clean bus stop 2.56 3.62Snow and ice removal at stop 2.56 4.97Lights at bus stop 0.67 2.82

Lowfloor bus 0.61 1.67Elevated curb for level-free boarding 0.31 0,40

Old values based on a review of international studies conducted 1996-2002 (Nossum/Killi (2006))UD publically discussed in Norway in recent years; Increased purchase power High standard of UD on investigated bus/tram lines -> we might actually measure compensation prices, that are often found to be higher than purchasing prices (reference dependency)Problem of self selection due to low response rate (?)

Comparison with former recommended values


Cost Benefit Analyses Systematic evaluation of a projects’ benefits and costs measured both in

monetary units With this study we provide monetary values for passengers benefits of UD

investments In addition: possible benefits for other passengers and the operators

E.g. Low-floor buses lead to time-savings for all passengers and obtain efficiency effects for bus companies

Subtracting the present value of costs (mainly investment and maintenance costs ) from present value of benefits gives the net present value (NPV) Projects with a positive NPV are socioeconomically profitable As different profitable project might be competing for government

money, the NPV is divided by the share of finance through government budget to obtain a measure (“Benefit-cost-ratio”) that can rank different projects

15/01/2010

Improved welfare case for UD with new values

Benefit cost ratio over 25 years by passengers per yearOld values

New values

UD investments with standardised cost assumption (Fearnley 2007)


Summary

Universal Design is beneficial for all passengers Possible to derive monetary values for single provisions with

straightforward choice experiments Estimation results indicate that the former recommended

values might have been too low assessed for Norway Using the new values in CBA increases the calculated NPV

of UD provisions. Relatively low numbers of passengers are required to make investments in UD socioeconomicallyprofitable

session 51 stefan flügel

Business

study realtime information

popular onboard study

ud mnl

valuation of information

onboard study sample

preferences sp study

stopxx x

majority view ud provisions