Knut Veisten

The e-scooter is a relatively new transport mode that primarily has replaced other modes. However, e-scooters have also generated some new travel. A meta-analysis was carried out on 192 outcomes of retrospective estimates of the proportion of current e-scooter trips that would not have been carried out of e-scooters were not available. The meta-analysis estimate of induced travel is about four percent, based on the 192 survey outcomes from 95 case-areas. Meta-regression shows that the proportion of induced travel due to e-scooters tends to be higher in areas where travel by car dominates.

Universal design (UD) relates to many aspects of public transport (PT), comprising the vehicles/wagons, stops/stations, and access/egress to/from stops. While some UD elements are decisive for relatively few, others enhance the overall PT quality and subsequently improve the well-being of many users. If the service quality is improved, some users will be willing to pay more, either in terms of ticket price or travel time. Improved UD elements in PT therefore increase social benefits for public transport users, in economic terms, even if ticket costs are maintained unchanged. PT users in Norway have been asked to choose between journey alternatives with varying levels of UD elements between the alternatives. These UD elements comprised: a) on-board facilities and driver quality; b) stop/station qualities: shelter, seating, safety, lighting, information; and c) the qualities of the area surrounding stops/stations: road surface quality / icing, lighting, facilities/amenities, information. In total, 25 UD qualities were assessed, in addition to travel time. Fare was one of the varying elements in the journey alternatives, enabling estimation of willingness to pay (WTP) for UD quality improvements. The WTP yields benefit estimates of improvements that can be assessed against the costs of upgrading, maintaining, and running these UD-related elements in PT. More than 2000 respondents participated in our web-based survey. Almost one in five reported special needs when travelling by PT. Comparing those reporting special needs against those not reporting needs/difficulties, we find that their WTP is similar for most UD qualities, but WTP differs on some particular UD elements. Those reporting needs/difficulties show higher WTP for improved cleaning and air quality on board, and for benches and highly visible real-time departure info at stops/stations. All PT users have high WTP for improved access, without detours, to stops/stations, that have shelter and de-iced road surface. Overall, our findings provide a case for increased focus on UD in economic assessments of PT.

Public budgets are limited and priorities must be made between competing projects. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is the standard tool to assess projects and prioritise between them, as is done, e.g., in national transport plans. Universal design (UD) is typically a legal requirement in new investments and their benefits and contribution in CBA have usually not received much attention. Therefore, there is a risk that benefits are underestimated in projects that include UD elements and that these projects are subsequently ranked lower than what they ought to according to CBA performance. In this paper, we develop a user-friendly methodology for CBA of UD projects in public transport and walk/cycle infrastructure which aligns with national handbooks and guidelines for project appraisal. It contains five core elements: 1. User benefit. User benefit stems from valuation studies and are summarized and discounted over an assessment period, which in Norway is 40 years. This includes annual real price adjustments and the use of a discount rate according to guidelines. 2. Non-user effects. The degree to which UD projects affect other travellers, this (dis)benefit is accounted for. 3. Costs. Budget costs include investment and possible reinvestment at the end of economic life and annual operation and maintenance costs. These are summarized and discounted over the analysis period. Residual value after 40 years is subtracted. 4. Demand. Increases in walking and cycling have health benefits. Moreover, demand diverted from motorized transport and car to public transport, walking and cycling will affect external costs of road congestion, emissions, and accidents. 5. Shadow prices. According to Norwegian practice, the use of public funds has an inefficiency cost. Therefore, we add a shadow price on money from the public purse. With worked examples, we demonstrate that UD projects in transport are indeed available for CBA appraisal. What is more, they compete surprisingly well with alternative uses of public budgets. In fact, UD projects outperform most other transport projects in Norway when considering their cost-benefit performance. Money spent on UD gives more welfare back to society than most other uses within the transport sector. This means that UD need not only be a legal requirement in new installations. UD can also compete with, and be prioritized over, other transport investments and projects.