Valoració de l’impacte social i econòmic de la mobilitat

1,236 views

Published on

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
1,236
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Valoració de l’impacte social i econòmic de la mobilitat

  1. 1. Valuing the social impact of bus travel Jo Baker, Andrew Gordon, Mott MacDonald Mark Wardman, Richard Batley, ITS Leeds
  2. 2. Contents  Background  Methodology  Results
  3. 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. 4. Context – Conventional sustainability appraisal structure Economy Social Environ- ment
  5. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9. Project phases  Literature review  Pilot SP study  Main SP study
  10. 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. 11. Main SP study - locations © OpenStreetMap contributors LIVERPOOL BIRMINGHAM SHREWSBURY
  12. 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. 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. 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. 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. 16. Results: effect of purpose on “not go” 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% %bustripswith“notgo”as bestalternative
  17. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 23. Summary
  24. 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. 25. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-benefits-of-buses-valuing- the-social-impacts jo.baker@mottmac.com www.mottmac.com

×