Valuing the social impact of bus travel

Jo Baker, Andrew Gordon, Mott MacDonald

Mark Wardman, Richard Batley, ITS Leeds

Contents

Background

Methodology

Results

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)

Context – Conventional sustainability appraisal structure

Economy

Social

Environ-

ment

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

Project definition of social impact

“…the value bus users enjoy from accessing particular services that they would not otherwise have had easy access to”

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.

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.

Project phases

Literature review

Pilot SP study

Main SP study

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

Main SP study - locations

© OpenStreetMap contributors

LIVERPOOL

BIRMINGHAM SHREWSBURY

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

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

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%

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%

Results: effect of purpose on “not go”

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%

% b

us tr

ips

with

“no

t go”

as

best

alte

rnat

ive

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

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)

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

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

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)

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?

Summary

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

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-benefits-of-buses-valuing-the-social-impacts jo.baker@mottmac.com www.mottmac.com