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.

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