Passengers' valuations of universal design measures in public transport

Research in Transportation Business and Management

Volumn 2, Issue , 2011, Pages 83-91

  Fearnley, Nils ^a   Flügel, Stefan ^b   Ramjerdi, Farideh ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Public transport; Stated preference; Universal design; Valuation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84869089973     PISSN: 22105395     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2011.07.004     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Abrantes, P. A. L., & Wardman, M. R. (2011). Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: An update. Transportation research part A, 45(1), 1-17.
2. Accent, 2002. UK bus priorities modal shift. Final report. London. Referred to in Balcombe et al., 2004.
3. Andersson, P. -G., Ljungberg, C., & Hammarström, J. (2001). High prioritised bus system. KFB report 1998, 30
4. Australian Transport Council (2006). National guidelines for transport system management in Australia. 4 Urban Transport http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/files/National_Guidelines_Volume_4.pdf visited 17 Nov 2010
5. Balcombe, R., Mackett, R., Paulley, N., Preston, J., Shires, J., Titheridge, H., Wardman, M., & White, P. (2004). The demand for public transport: A practical guide. TRL Report TRL (pp. 593).
6. Bates, J., Fowkes, T., Mackie, P., Wardman, M., & Whelan, G. (2001). Three controversies in the valuation of travel time savings. Paper presented to the European Transport Conference (PTRC), Cambridge, UK 2001.
7. Ben-Akiva, M., & Lerman, S. (1985). Discrete choice analysis. Cambridge Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
8. Bierlaire, M. (2003). BIOGEME: A free package for the estimation of discrete choice models. Proceedings of the 3 rd Swiss Transportation Research Conference, Ascona, Switzerland.
9. Bierlaire, M. (2008). An introduction to BIOGEME Version 1.7, biogeme.epfl.ch.
10. Carlsson, F., & Martinsson, P. (2007). How much is too much? An investigation of the effect of the number of choice sets, context dependence and the choice of bid vectors in choice experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 40(2), 165-176.
11. Denstadli, J. M., Engebretsen, Ø., Hjorthol, R., & Vågane, L. (2006). Norwegian Travel Survey - key results. TØI report 844/2006.
12. DeShazo, J. R., & Fermo, G. (2002). Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: The effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 123-143.
13. Duckenfield, A., Higbee, T., & Holt, M. (2010). Measuring the benefits of the Access for All programme. European Transport Conference 2010 Glasgow, October 2010.
14. Fearnley, N., Flügel, S., Killi, M., Leiren, M. D., Nossum, Å., Skollerud, K. H., & Aarhaug, J. (2009a). Passengers' valuation of measures for universal design of public transport. TØI report 1039/2009.
15. Fearnley, N., Leiren, M. D., Skollerud, K. H., & Aarhaug, J. (2009b). Nytte av tiltak for universell utforming i kollektivtransporten ("Benefit ofmeasures for universal design in public transport"). Paper presented to Trafikdage in Aalborg. Refereed Proceedings.
16. Fearnley, N., & Killi, M. (2006). Guidance to cost-benefit analyses of minor public transport projects. TØI report 857/2006.
17. Fleming, C. M., & Bowden, M. (2009). Web-based surveys as an alternative to traditional mail methods. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 284-292.
18. Frye, A., & Dejeammes, M. (2009). Best practice: Innovation and related cost benefit analysis. Deliverable 3.3 of EU FP7 project EuroAccess For a European Accessibility for Public Transport for people with Disabilities http://www.euro-access.org/deliverables/EuroAccess_D3-1_v2.pdf Last accessed April 2011
19. Frye, A., &Golden, S. (2010). Good practice guide. Deliverable 2.2 of EUFP7 projectMediate- Methodology for Describing the Accessibility of Transport in Europe http://www.mediate-project.eu/fileadmin/Deliverables/GoodPracticeGuide.pdf Last accessed April 2011
20. Gunn, H., & Sheldon, R. (2001). The value of time. Paper presented to the Transport Economists' Group University of Westminster. The Transport Economist, Vol.28 No.1, .
21. Hammer, F., & Norheim, B. (1993). Bus passengers' valuation of new services - a stated preference analysis in test cities TromsØ, Tronheim and Kristiansand. TØI report 166/1993.
22. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Kottenhoff, K., & Schmidt, L. (2000). Swedish studies of reasons and scale of the package effects in Stated Preference studies. European Transport Conference (pp. 11-13). September 2000, Cambridge, UK.
24. Litman, T. (2011). Valuing transit service quality improvements: Considering comfort and convenience in transport project evaluation. Victoria transport policy institute 4 February 2011.
25. Marta-Pedroso, C., Freitas, H., & Domingos, T. (2007). Testing for the survey mode effect on contingent valuation data quality: A case study of web based versus in-person interviews. Ecological Economics, 62(3-4), 388-398.
26. Maynard, A., 2007. The economic appraisal of transport projects: The incorporation of disabled access. Doctoral thesis. School of Management, Cranfield University 2007.
27. Maynard, A. (2009). Can measuring the benefits of accessible transport enable a seamless journey?. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2(2), 21-30.
28. Norheim, B. (1996). Better public transport - Documentation and testing of the stated preference method. TØI report 327/1996.
29. Norwegian Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion (2008). Norwegian antidiscrimination and accessibility act of 2008. Unofficial English translation:. http:// www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-20080620-042-eng.pdf
30. Nossum, Å., & Killi, M. (2006). Trafikantenes verdsettinger av enkle kollektivtiltak: DrØftinger og anbefalinger. (Passengers' valuations of public transport quality measures: discussions and recommendations). TØI working document PT/1851/2006 (In Norwegian only). : Institute of Transport Economics.
31. Odeck, J., Fearnley, N., & Hagen, T. (2010). Economic appraisal of universal design in transport: Experiences from Norway. Research in Transportation Economics, 2010, 304-311.
32. OECD (2010). OECD statistics on Purchasing Power Parities (PPP). www.oecd.org/std/ ppp
33. Øvstedal, L.,Øderud, T., Barham, P.,&Jones, S. (2008). Indicators describing the accessibility of urban public transport. Deliverable 2.2 of EU FP7 project mediate - Methodology for describing the accessibility of transport in Europe http://www.mediateproject.eu/fileadmin/Deliverables/MEDIATE_D22_Indicators_for_accessibility_of_urban_public_transport_final.pdf Last accessed April 2011
34. Persson, A., 2000. Informasjon i IT i kollektivtrafiken - Vad tycker resenärerna? [Information and IT in public transport - what are passengers' views?] Lunds Tekniska Högskola, Institutionen för Teknik och samhälle. Avd. Trafikplanering. Thesis 105.
35. Ramjerdi, F., Flügel, S., Samstad, H., & Killi, M. (2010). Value of time, safety and environment - documentation report B: The Norwegian value of time studyl. TØI report 1053B/2010.
36. Rosenkvist, J., Risser, R., Iwarsson, S., Wendel, K., & Ståhl, A. (2009). The challenge of using public transport: Descriptions by people with cognitive functional limitations. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 2(1), 65-80.
37. Sælesminde, K. (2003). Embedding effects in valuation of non-market goods. Transport Policy, 10, 59-72.
38. Sjöstrand, H. (1999). Värdering av kvalitet i lokal kollektivtrafikk med Stated Preferences-metoden [Valuation of quality in local public transport using SP method]. Lund Tekniska Högskola, Institution för Teknikk och samhälle. Avdelning Trafikplanering. Bulletin, 175.
39. Steer Davies Gleave, 1996. Bus passenger preferences. For London buses. London: Steer Davies Gleave. Referred to in: Balcombe et al. 2004. The demand for public transport: a practical guide. TRL593.
40. Tennøy, A., & Leiren, M. D. (2008). Accessible public transport : A view of Europe today - policies, laws and guidelines. Deliverable 1 of EU project EuroAccess downloaded 27 December 2010, http://www.euroaccess.org/deliverables/EuroAccess_D1_v2.pdf.
41. Transport, Department for (2009). The role of soft measures in influencing patronage growth and modal split in the bus market in England. Final report. UK Department for Transport http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/buses/busmarketfactors/pdf/report.pdf Last accessed April 2011
42. Wardman, M., & Whelan, G. (2001). Valuation of improved railway rolling stock: A review of the literature and new evidence. In Transport reviews, 21(4), 415-447.