Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Valoració de l’impacte social i econòmic de la mobilitat

62

Published on

Sr. Jo Baker …

Sr. Jo Baker
Director de desenvolupament de la divisió de transport integrat
Mott MacDonald

El Departament de Transport del Regne Unit (DFT) avalua els impactes econòmics, ambientals i socials dels sistemes de transport. Existeixen tècniques per a la quantificació de les dues primeres categories, però els mètodes per analitzar els efectes socials estan menys desenvolupats. Una nova investigació ha abordat aquest buit de coneixements a través de tècniques d'estudi i d'anàlisi de dades innovadores: s'han pogut establir els valors monetaris dels beneficis socials dels viatges en transport públic. L'enfoc és potencialment transferible tant a altres estats com a nivell mundial. El treball ha estat publicat per l'EPS, amb l'aprovació del Ministeri, i s'utilitzarà com a base per a la nova orientació nacional.

Published in: Engineering
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
62
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Valuing the social impact of bus travel Jo Baker, Andrew Gordon, Mott MacDonald Mark Wardman, Richard Batley, ITS Leeds
  • 2. Contents  Background  Methodology  Results
  • 3. Project team  Client: UK Department for Transport  Project team: – Mott MacDonald (lead) – Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds (SP design and analysis) – Accent Marketing and Research (fieldwork)
  • 4. Context – Conventional sustainability appraisal structure Economy Social Environ- ment
  • 5. Social benefits in UK (WebTAG) Appraisal Social Access to services Travel costs (non- business) Reliability (non- business) Phys. activity Accidents Option values Affordability Journey quality Security Severance
  • 6. Project definition of social impact “…the value bus users enjoy from accessing particular services that they would not otherwise have had easy access to”
  • 7. Guiding principles  Social value comes from the activity undertaken at the destination, not from the act of travelling itself.  Bus travel only has a social impact if, in the absence of bus, the trip would not be made by another mode.
  • 8. Methodology  Use Stated Preference (SP) and willingness to pay to establish the value of activities undertaken by bus users.  Establish which bus trips would not switch mode in the absence of bus, i.e. those for which we can claim a social value.
  • 9. Project phases  Literature review  Pilot SP study  Main SP study
  • 10. Literature review  Confirmed that no suitable values available “off the shelf”  Identified particular groups benefiting from bus travel, usually associated with low car availability/licence holding: – People on low incomes – People with disabilities – Younger and older people – Women – People from BAME communities – Single parents – People living in remote areas
  • 11. Main SP study - locations © OpenStreetMap contributors LIVERPOOL BIRMINGHAM SHREWSBURY
  • 12. Main survey overview  Area types: – Metropolitan City Centre (Liverpool) – Local centre in major conurbation (Perry Barr, W Midlands) – Market town (Shrewsbury) – Rural (Shrewsbury surrounding area)  200 interviews per location  Quotas on age, income and gender
  • 13. Data collected  Mini travel diary of last week’s bus trips – Purpose, destination, travel time, best alternative etc.  Socio-economic data – Age, employment status, income, car availability etc.  Stated preference choices – Bus always made worse (slower, more expensive, less frequent) than current service – Choice between continuing to use bus and specified “best alternative” – Eight pairs of choices for each trip
  • 14. Results: trip purpose split Commute 26,7% Shopping 24,3% Education/training 17,4% Visiting friends/relatives 12,6% Social/recreation 8,3% Personal business 5,7% Getting out and about 2,8% Hospital 1,1% GP 0,7% Not stated 0,2% Employer's business 0,1%
  • 15. Results: best alternative to bus Walk 28,7% Not make the journey at all 16,9% Taxi 15,4% Get a lift 14,6% Train 10,8% Drive self 5,4% Cycle 5,2% Travel to a different destination by bus 1,5% Change job 0,9% Make the journey less frequently 0,4% Travel to a different destination but not by bus 0,2% Combine with another journey 0,2%
  • 16. Results: effect of purpose on “not go” 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% %bustripswith“notgo”as bestalternative
  • 17. Stated preference analysis  Step 1: Simple model with no segmentation  Step 2: Segmentation determined by statistical significance  Step 3: Exclude segmentation variables not likely to be available in practice  After step 3 only significant variable was concessionary travel pass ownership
  • 18. Results: social values  Values per return bus trip, 2010 prices  Concessionary travel pass holders: €4.57  Non-pass holders: €9.72  (Only apply where traveller would “not go” if bus not available)
  • 19. Results: observations  No plausible income effect detected  There is a cost associated with “get a lift”. Is this associated with loss of independence etc.?  We checked demand elasticities and values of time against available evidence
  • 20. Application to scheme appraisal: draft guidance  Estimate number of new bus trips created by intervention  Apply look-up table to estimate what proportion have “not go” as best alternative  Apply estimated social values per return bus trip to this subset
  • 21. Emerging Issues  Our research provides greater information on separating social impacts from travel cost impacts – e.g. net disbenefit of 50c= loss of €8 social benefit, but €7.50 travel cost saving – Benefits may be additional to current estimates – Further research needed  Strategic case: Social impacts may provide useful information, particularly if competing against non-transport schemes (e.g. Structual Fund)
  • 22. Social impacts – what’s missing?  We’ve only looked at “private” benefits to individual  Wider benefits to society, e.g. – Access to employment: savings in benefit payments? – Less social isolation: reduced healthcare costs?
  • 23. Summary
  • 24. Summary  We have estimated social value per bus trip to the individual  Only applies when travellers would not travel in the absence of bus  Consideration of additionality when considered against current appraisal approach based on rule of a half benefits remains an area for debate  Approach is helpful when comparing transport invesment against non-transport schemes in a social welfare context
  • 25. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-benefits-of-buses-valuing- the-social-impacts jo.baker@mottmac.com www.mottmac.com

×