Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Session 51 Stefan Flügel


Published on

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Session 51 Stefan Flügel

  1. 1. Stefan Flügel, Nils Fearnley, Marit Killi TØI, Norway Cost Benefit Analyses: Passengers Valuations of Universal Design for Public Transport Transportforum, Linkjøping, 14. January 2010 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 1
  2. 2. 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 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 2
  3. 3. 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) © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 3
  4. 4. UD includes an extensive set of provisionAccess to station Facilities at station Information (at station and on-board) Access to vehicle Facilities on-board © Transportøkonomisk institutt 1/15/2010 Side 4
  5. 5. 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 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 5
  6. 6. Existing provisions in the three cities City Drammen (3 Kristiansand Oslo (One bus bus lines) (2 bus lines) line and 2 tram lines) Provisions at the stop: Easy access to the stop is without physical barriers X X X Tactile paving (rough tracks on the ground for blind and X X X vision impaired) Shelter at the stop X X X Sitting places at the stop X X X Real time information systems X Elevated kerbs to reduce vertical gap X X X Provisions on the bus/tram: Bus/tram clearly marked with destination and route id on X X X the outside Bus/tram has space for pram, bicycle, wheelchair X X X Announcement of next stop on board the bus/tram X X Announcement of next stop on screen on board the X X bus/tram © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 6
  7. 7. 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 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 7
  8. 8. 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 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 8
  9. 9. Structure of questionaire Reporting the reference trip  Exclusion of    and main attributes in Respondents N=453ChoiceExperiments (CE) CE1: Cost, In‐Vehicle Time,  Information at station N=417In each CE:6 choices per respondent CE2: Cost, Information on  between board, Accessibility to vehicle2 alternatives N= 411 Random  allocation CE3a: Cost, Shelter, Cleanness   CE3b: Cost, Shelter, Ice/Snow  N= 225 removal N=183 CV Questions and Final  questionnaire N=406 © Transportøkonomisk institutt 15.01.2010 Side 9
  10. 10. Presentation of alternatives in CE1 1. Introduction of attributes and levels 3. Presentation of alternatives2. Explaining the choice decision Choices: Definitely A, Probably A, Probably B, Definitely B © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 10
  11. 11. Presentation of alternatives in CE2 Explaining the accessibility levels Enhancing the gap between floor and Pilot station ground in the main study © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 11
  12. 12. Presentation of choices in CE2 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 12
  13. 13. Presentation of alternatives in CE3 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 13
  14. 14. 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 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 14
  15. 15. Valuation of information at station WTP for information at the station (from a situation with just a NOK USD timetable) Map over local area 0,43 0,08 Speaker about changes in departure 0,69 0,12 Screen with real-time information 4,05 0,72 All 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 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 15
  16. 16. Valuation of information on-board (CE2) WTP for information on board (from a situation without any NOK USD information) Next station via speaker 3,63 0,64 Next station via screen 3,68 0,65 Next station via speaker and screen 4,20 0,74 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 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 16
  17. 17. Valuation of improved accessibility on-board WTP for accessibility improvements (from a situation without any NOK USD adjustments) Lowered vehicle floor 1,67 0,30 Lowered vehicle floor and adjusted ground at the station 2,07 0,37 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 in USD ALL Respondents with physical problems (*) or heavy baggage (**) N=2466 N=594 Lowered vehicle floor 1,67 2,88 Lowered vehicle floor and adjusted 2,07 4,01 ground at station*) limited moveability, walking stick or crutched, pregnant  **) big/heavy luggage, a lot of shopping bags, trolley, small kidsThe 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. © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 17
  18. 18. Valuation of attributes in CE3 WTP for a shelter (average value of CE3a and CE3b) NOK USD Shelter without sitting place 3,12 0,55 Shelter with sitting place 5,10 0,90 WTP for satisfactory cleanness and ice/snow removal Cleanness 3,62 0,64 Ice/snow removal 4,97 0,88 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 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 18
  19. 19. Comparison between CE and CV CV CE CE CE Total valuation for Valuation on a Valuation on a Valuation on a transport the package price transport line transport line with line with relatively high (list of provisions) without UD (just relatively low standard of UD timetable) standard of UD Information devices at the 4,62 4,19 (*) (assuming0,14 (**) (assuming that station: map, speaker and that there is a map there is a map and a real- real-time information via at the station”) time information at the screen station”) Information devices on 4,2 0,57 (assuming no 0,57 (assuming no board : Announcement of speaker, but a speaker, but a screen) next station via screen) Low-floor bus and 2,07 2,07 (assuming no 0,40 (assuming low-floor elevation of bus station low-floor bus) bus but no elevation of station Shelter with sitting place 5,10 1,98 (Assuming 1,98 (Assuming shelter shelter but no sitting but no sitting place) place) Cleanness 3,62 Assuming cleanness Assuming cleanness Ice/snow removal 4,97 Assuming ice Assuming ice removal removal Sum 4,35 NOK 24,56 NOK 8,81 NOK 3,09 NOK © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 19
  20. 20. Comparison with former recommended values Provisions Old values (2005 From this study (2009 values) values) Real time information at bus stop 2.10 4.05 Local map at bus stop 0.70 0.43 Speaker with info of changes, disruptions 2.10 0.69 All three information devices: map, speaker and 4.62 RTI Sign on board in bus indicating next stop 2.43 3.67 Next stop information announced by driver 1.22 3.62 Both: next stop via speaker and screen 4.20 Bus shelter 1.05 - without seating 3.12 - with seating 5.10 Clean bus stop 2.56 3.62 Snow and ice removal at stop 2.56 4.97 Lights at bus stop 0.67 2.82 Lowfloor bus 0.61 1.67 Elevated curb for level-free boarding 0.31 0,40Old values based on a review of international studies conducted 1996-2002 (Nossum/Killi (2006))UD publically discussed in Norway in recent years; Increased purchase powerHigh standard of UD on investigated bus/tram lines -> we might actually measure compensation prices, that are often found to behigher than purchasing prices (reference dependency) Problem of self selection due to low response rate (?)15/01/2010 Page 20
  21. 21. 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 © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 21
  22. 22. Improved welfare case for UD with new values UD investments with standardised cost assumption (Fearnley 2007) Benefit cost ratio over 25 years by passengers per year Old values New values15/01/2010 Page 22
  23. 23. 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 socioeconomically profitable © Transportøkonomisk institutt15.01.2010 Side 23