A meta-analysis and synthesis of public transport customer amenity valuation research

ABSTRACT This paper synthesises published research concerned with the valuation of public transport customer amenities. It includes normalisation of published values to equivalent terms, a meta-analysis of factors influencing these values, a review of valuation methods and issues faced in applying these methods, and an identification of gaps in knowledge. Some 57 separate research publications in this area were identified. Valuation methods adopted included stated preference, revealed preference, customer ratings, priority evaluator, maximum difference scaling and benefit/value transfer. Of these, stated preference was the most common published approach, however in practice benefit/value transfer is the most common method to apply values in project appraisal. Key issues associated with valuation include substantial variation in values (which are often context dependant) and the adoption of different units for expressing values, thereby limiting their transferability. Some 556 separate customer amenity values were identified relating to 97 separate amenity types. Almost all valuations were below 2 minutes of equivalent in-vehicle travel time value. Meta-analysis identified five types of significant predictors of values (R2 = 0.23): study location (Scandinavia), valuation method (stated preference), mode (train/metro), amenity group (access) and journey stage (boarding/alighting). Future research needs to disaggregate valuations by market segment.

[1]  I. Victoria.  Moving from Evaluation to Valuation: Improving project appraisals by monetising more social and environmental impacts , 2016 .

[2]  N. Douglas,et al.  Developing a suite of demand parameters for Inner Sydney public transport , 2016 .

[3]  N. Douglas.  Pricing strategies for public transport , 2016 .

[4]  Sonja Haustein,et al.  European mobility cultures: A survey-based cluster analysis across 28 European countries , 2016 .

[5]  David Banister,et al.  How to Write a Literature Review Paper? , 2016 .

[6]  N J Douglas.  Valuing public transport service quality using a combined rating and stated preference survey , 2015 .

[7]  Hani S. Mahmassani,et al.  Making time count: Traveler activity engagement on urban transit , 2015 .

[8]  J. Elíasson,et al.  Measuring the patronage impact of soft quality improvements in urban public transport , 2015 .

[9]  Dimitris A. Tsouknidis,et al.  Liquidity Effects and FFA Returns in the International Shipping Derivatives Market , 2015 .

[10]  J. Elíasson,et al.  Measuring the patronage impact of soft quality factors in urban public transport , 2015 .

[11]  Dave Schmitt,et al.  Characteristics of Premium Transit Services that Affect Choice of Mode , 2014 .

[12]  Graham Currie,et al.  Experience with value-for-money urban public transport system enhancements , 2013 .

[13]  Zhi Dong,et al.  The estimation of changes in rail ridership through an onboard survey: did free Wi-Fi make a difference to Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor service? , 2013 .

[14]  N. Crossman,et al.  Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units , 2012 .

[15]  F. Ramjerdi,et al.  Passengers' valuations of universal design measures in public transport , 2011 .

[16]  D. Hensher,et al.  Crowding and public transport: A review of willingness to pay evidence and its relevance in project appraisal , 2011 .

[17]  M. Wardman,et al.  Twenty Years of Rail Crowding Valuation Studies: Evidence and Lessons from British Experience , 2011 .

[18]  B. Taylor,et al.  Hate to Wait , 2011 .

[19]  Todd Litman.  Valuing transit service quality improvements: Considering comfort and convenience in transport project evaluation. , 2010 .

[20]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Assessing systematic sources of variation in public transport elasticities: Some comparative warnings , 2008 .

[21]  Mark Wardman,et al.  The effects of station enhancements on rail demand , 2008 .

[22]  Johan Holmgren,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Public Transport Demand , 2007 .

[23]  Karl Kottenhoff,et al.  Dynamic at-stop real-time information displays for public transport: effects on customers , 2007 .

[24]  National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia Introduction to the Guidelines and Framework , 2007 .

[25]  Bhargab Maitra,et al.  Willingness-to-pay and preference heterogeneity for rural bus attributes , 2007 .

[26]  J. Preston,et al.  The demand for public transport: The effects of fares, quality of service, income and car ownership , 2006 .

[27]  Bhargab Maitra,et al.  Valuing Urban Bus Attributes: An Experience in Kolkata , 2006 .

[28]  H. Timmermans,et al.  Traveler expectations and willingness-to-pay for Web-enabled public transport information services , 2006 .

[29]  Vincent Marchau,et al.  Wireless internet on trains: impact on performance of business travelers , 2006 .

[30]  J. Preston,et al.  The demand for public transport: a practical guide , 2004 .

[31]  D. Hensher,et al.  A Service Quality Index for Area-wide Contract Performance Assessment , 2002 .

[32]  M. Wardman.  A REVIEW OF BRITISH EVIDENCE ON TIME AND SERVICE QUALITY VALUATIONS , 2001 .

[33]  Mark Wardman,et al.  Valuation of improved railway rolling stock: A review of the literature and new evidence , 2001 .

[34]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Environmental value transfer: state of the art and future prospects , 2000 .

[35]  Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development,et al.  Organisation for economic cooperation and development , 1998 .

[36]  P Jones,et al.  Measuring bus passenger preferences , 1997 .

[37]  F McGrath,et al.  ASSESSING THE COMMERCIAL BENEFITS OF IMPROVING STATION FACILITIES AND INFORMATION PROVISION , 1993 .

[38]  D. Pearmain.  THE MEASUREMENT OF USERS' WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR IMPROVED RAIL FACILITIES , 1992 .

[39]  M. Wardman,et al.  Evaluation of the use and non-use benefits of public transport: report no 1 - development of a survey methodology , 1991 .