Content uploaded by Todd Litman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Todd Litman on Jul 16, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements
43
Valuing Transit Service Quality
Improvements
Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
Abstract
is article investigates the value transit travelers place on qualitative factors, such
as comfort and convenience, and practical ways to incorporate these factors into
transport planning and project evaluation. Conventional evaluation practices gener-
ally assign the same time value regardless of travel conditions, and so undervalue
comfort and convenience impacts. More comprehensive analysis of transit service
quality tends to expand the range of potential transit improvement options, and jus-
tify more investments in transit service quality improvements. is article examines
the value passengers place on transit service quality, summarizes research on travel
time valuation, explores how transit service quality factors affect travel time values
and transit ridership, and discusses implications of this analysis.
Introduction
Albert Einstein once illustrated the relativity of time by saying, “When a man sits
with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove
for a minute and it’s longer than any hour.” Similarly, a minute spent in unpleasant
conditions waiting for a bus may seem like an hour, while an hour spent working,
resting, or conversing while traveling on a comfortable bus or train may seem
pleasant or even delightful.
Qualitative factors such as travel convenience, comfort, and security affect travel
time unit costs, the value users assign to their travel time, measured in cents per
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008
44
minute or dollars per hour. Various studies summarized in this article indicate that
inconvenience and discomfort often double or triple average travel time costs.
is has important implications for transportation planning since travel time costs
are a major factor in transport project evaluation. How travel time is measured can
significantly affect planning decisions.
Unfortunately, conventional planning practices tend to overlook and undervalue
service quality impacts. e indicators used to identify transportation problems
(such as roadway level-of-service ratings) and the models used to evaluate potential
transport improvements focus on quantitative factors (speed, operating costs, and
crash rates), and ignore qualitative factors (convenience, comfort, and prestige).
is is particularly important for transit planning because transit service quality
varies from awful to good, and sometimes even delightful, and because nearly all
transit service quality decisions are made in a formal planning process. A motorist
who values convenience and comfort can pay extra for a vehicle with features such
as automatic navigation systems, extra comfortable seats, optional safety equip-
ment, sophisticated sound systems, and even heated cupholders. On the other
hand, public transit is usually provided as a basic level of service. It is not usually
possible to pay extra for higher quality service, such as a nicer waiting area or a less
crowded vehicle. Such service quality improvements are made only if planners are
able to demonstrate their value.
ese omissions undervalue many cost-effective transit service improvements,
such as more comfortable vehicles, reduced crowding, nicer stations, improved
walkability, better user information, improved security, and marketing and pro-
motion. Improving transit service quality:
• benefits existing transit passengers (who would use transit even without
the improvements);
• benefits new transit passengers (who would only use transit if service is
improved);
• benefits society by reducing traffic problems (congestion, roadway and
parking costs, consumer costs, accidents, energy consumption, and pollu-
tion emissions);
• provides scale economies (increased ridership can create a positive feedback
cycle of improved service, increased public support, more transit-oriented
land use, and further ridership increases); and
• benefits transit agencies by increasing fare revenue.
Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements
45
is article investigates the value passengers place on transit service quality,
summarizes research on travel time valuation, examines how transit service qual-
ity factors affect travel time values, discusses implications of this analysis, and
recommends additional research. is information should be useful for planners
interested in finding cost-effective ways to improve transit service and increase
transit ridership.
Quantifying Travel Time Values
Numerous studies have quantified and monetized (measured in monetary units)
travel time costs (Mackie et al. 2003; Wardman 2004). Travel time unit costs are
generally calculated relative to average wages, with variations reflecting different
factors discussed below (Waters 1992; Litman 2006).
• Commercial (paid) travel costs should include driver wages and benefits,
and the time value of vehicles and cargo reflecting efficient use of assets
and ability to meet delivery schedules.
• Personal (unpaid) travel time unit costs are usually estimated at 25 to 50
percent of prevailing wage rates.
• Travel time costs tend to be higher for uncomfortable, unsafe, and stressful
conditions (Brundell-Freij 2006).
• Travel time costs tend to increase with income, and tend to be lower for
children and people who are retired or unemployed (put differently, people
with full-time jobs usually have more demands on their time and so tend
to be willing to pay more for travel time savings).
• A moderate amount of daily travel often has little or no time cost, since
people generally seem to enjoy a certain amount of daily travel (Mokhtar-
ian 2005). Recreational travel and errands that involve social activities often
have minimal cost or positive value.
• Unit time costs tend to increase if trips exceed about 20 minutes in duration
or total personal travel exceeds about 90 minutes per day.
• Travel time costs increase with variability and arrival uncertainly (Cohan and
Southworth 1999), and tend to be particularly high for unexpected delays
(Small et al. 1999).
• Walking and waiting time unit costs are two to five times higher than
in-vehicle transit travel time (Pratt 1999, Table 10-12). Transfers tend to
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008
46
impose extra costs (called a transfer penalty) due to the additional effort
they require, typically equivalent to 5 to15 minutes of in-vehicle travel time
(Horowitz and Zlosel 1981; Evans 2004).
• Under pleasant conditions walking, cycling, and waiting can have low or posi
-
tive value, but under unpleasant conditions (walking along a busy highway
or waiting for a bus in an area that seems dirty and dangerous) their costs
are significantly higher than in-vehicle time.
• People have diverse mobility needs and preferences, so improved options
allows individuals to choose the best one for each trip. For example, some
people prefer driving while others prefer transit travel; having both available
allows people to select the option that minimizes costs, including travel
time costs, and maximizes benefits (Novaco and Collier 1994).
e following two factors are particularly important for analysis in this article:
1. Transit travel conditions, and therefore transit travel time unit cost values,
are extremely variable. Under pleasant conditions (comfortable, clean, quiet,
and safe vehicles and waiting areas), transit travel time unit costs are lower
than driving because passengers experience less stress and are able to rest
or use their time productively. However, if transit conditions are unpleasant,
transit travel times are significantly higher than automobile travel.
2. In most communities a portion of transit travelers are captive—people
who are unable to drive and so are forced to use transit regardless of service
quality. However, transit will only attract discretionary travelers (those who
could drive for a particular trip, also called choice riders) if high service qual-
ity reduces unit travel time costs relative to automobile travel.
ese factors have significant implications for transit project evaluation, as sum-
marized in Table 1. More accurate analysis of these impacts tends to increase the
recognized costs of degraded transit service quality, and increase the recognized
benefits of transit service quality improvements.
Li (2003) describes how these factors tend to favor automobile commuting:
An auto commute is attractive in most courses of perceived travel time, com-
pared to a public transportation commute. It is most likely a door-to-door
service, thus minimizing the number of commute stages [transfers]. It spends
time predominantly on the ride episode, usually with seats secured and
even entertainment (e.g., music) of the commuter’s choice. It demands the
Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements
47
commuter’s (i.e., driver’s) continuous attention to road conditions and motor
operation, rather than temporal cues or information, and hence exploits the
cognitive resource for nontemporal information processing. Also, it avoids
the temporal and monetary losses due to unreliable public transportation
services. All these may result in a given journey perceived as shorter for an
auto commute, and hence the commute experience to be more positively
evaluated than for a commute with public transportation.
However, under optimal conditions transit travel can have lower unit time costs
than driving, particularly if travelers can select the mode that best meets their
needs and preferences. A survey of New Jersey commuters found that train users
experienced less stress and fewer negative moods than drivers making similar trips,
indicating the reduced effort and greater predictability of train travel (Wener,
Evans, and Lutin 2006). Train commuter stress levels declined significantly after
service improvements reduced their need to transfer.
Table 1. Factors Affecting Travel Time Costs
Source: Pratt 1999; Li 2003; Litman 2006.
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008
48
A survey of U.K. rail passengers found that many use their time for productive
activities such as working or studying (30% some of the time and 13% most of the
time), reading (54% some of the time and 34% most of the time), resting (16%
some of the time and 4% most of the time), and talking to other passengers (15%
some of the time and 5% most of the time), and so place positive utility on such
time (Lyons, Jain, and Holley 2007). When asked to rate their travel time utility,
23 percent indicated that “I made very worthwhile use of my time on this train
today,” 55 percent indicated that “I made some use of my time on this train today,”
and 18 percent indicated that “My time spent on this train today is wasted time.”
e portion of travel time devoted to productive activity is higher for business
travel than for commuting or leisure travel, and increases with journey duration.
Service Quality Valuation
e value transit users (and potential users) place on service quality can be mea-
sured using stated preference surveys (which ask people how much they value a
particular feature) and revealed preference studies (which evaluate the choices
people actually make when facing trade-offs between various attributes). One
example of this type of analysis is described below.
Research for RailCorp (an Australian rail company) surveyed train riders to assess
the value they place on various service attributes. Table 2 summarizes vehicle ser-
vice values, measured by the additional fares or time travelers would willingly bear
in exchange for a 10 percent improvement (from 50%–60% acceptability ratings).
For example, travelers indicated that they would willingly pay 5.6¢ per minute or
tolerate a 0.38-minute increase in onboard travel times in exchange for such a 10-
point improvement in train layout and design.
Table 3 presents the additional fare or onboard time train travelers would be will-
ing to pay for a 10 percent improvement of various station attributes. For example,
travelers expressed willingness to pay 2.4¢ per minute or tolerate a 16-minute
increase in their onboard travel times in exchange for such a 10-point improve-
ment in train layout and design.
Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements
49
Table 2. Value of Train Improvements
Source: Douglas Economics 2006.
Table 3. Value of Station Improvements
Source: Douglas Economics 2006.
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008
50
Riders were also surveyed concerning their perceived cost of crowding. Crowded
seating increases travel time costs by 17 percent, as shown in Table 4. us, 20
minutes of crowded seating would increase the generalized journey time by 3.4
minutes (20 x 0.17). In dollar terms, crowded seating adds 2¢ per minute if time is
valued at $9.46/hr.
Table 4. Value of On-Train Crowding
Source: Douglas Economics 2006.
Crowding factors were expressed as a function of train passenger load factors (pas-
sengers divided by seats). Below an 80 percent load factor (80 passengers per 100
seats) no crowding costs are incurred. At 80 percent, crowding begins to impose
costs. At 100 percent, the additional crowding factor is 0.1, increasing onboard
travel time unit costs by 10 percent, from 14.08¢ per minute (the uncrowded seat-
ing value of time) to 15.49¢ per minute, an increase of 1.41¢ per minute. Loads of
160 percent add an additional crowding factor of 0.6 minutes or 8.45¢. At 200 per-
cent loading (the maximum number of passengers CityRail trains are considered
to be able to carry), the additional crowding factor is 0.74 or 10.43¢ per minute.
Above 200 percent, passengers must wait for another train.
The UK Passenger Demand Forecasting Council reached similar conclusions
concerning the costs of passenger discomfort and delay (PDFC 2002). e PDFC
recommends that train load factors of 1.20 to 1.40 (120–140 passengers per 100
seats) result in crowding factors of 0.14 to 0.26, compared with a 0.17 crowding
factor calculated for Sydney (Douglas Economics 2006).
Crowding in accessways, stations, and platforms makes walking and waiting time
less pleasant. Table 5 indicates adjustment factors for low, medium, high, and very
high crowding conditions. A minute of time spent waiting under high crowding
conditions is valued at 3.2 minutes of onboard train time whereas walking time is
valued at 3.5 times higher (reflecting the additional discomfort and effort involved,
but not the reduced walking speed caused by crowding).
Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements
51
Table 5. Value of Platform Waiting and Access Time
PSM = Passengers per square meter.
Source: Douglas Economics 2006.
Fruin developed six station environment crowding levels-of-service (LOS) rat-
ings, ranging from A (no crowding) to F (extreme crowding). ese costs begin to
increase significantly when crowding exceeds LOS D, which occurs at a density of
0.7 passengers per square meter (PSM). Crowding has an even greater impact on
walking, since it both increases costs per minute and reduces walking speeds. Level
of service F, characterized by the breakdown of passenger flow, imposes crowding
costs 10 times greater than level of service A.
In some situations, increased crowding costs may reduce the benefits of other
transit improvements or incentives that increase peak-period ridership. For
example, transit fare reductions or improved rider information may increase rider-
ship, increasing crowding costs. ese additional costs should be considered when
evaluating such strategies.
Valuing Transit Passenger Information Improvements
Transit user information includes bus stop signs, printed and posted schedules,
conventional and automated telephone services, transit websites (including
websites designed to accommodate cellular telephones and PDAs), changeable
signs or monitors at stations and stops, and announcements. Some newer systems
use real-time information on the location of individual buses and trains, so signs,
monitors, and websites can predict when the next vehicle will arrive at a particular
stop or destination.
Many transit systems now offer real-time information (Infopolis 2 Consortium
2000; CIty-VITAlity-Sustainability 2006). is information reduces waiting stress
and allows passengers to better use their time and coordinate activities (Turnbull
and Pratt 2003). Dziekan and Vermeulen (2006) evaluated the effects real-time
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008
52
information has on tram passenger perceived wait time, feelings of security, and
use in e Hague, the Netherlands. One month before, 3 months, and 16 months
after implementation, the same sample of travelers completed a questionnaire.
e researchers found that perceived wait time decreased by 20 percent and
noted no effects on perceived security and ease of use.
Turnbull and Pratt (2003) tested real-time information signs in 1984 at several
platforms on the London Underground Northern Line. e signs gave order of
arrival information for the next three trains, route and terminal destination, and
the number of minutes before expected arrival. e previous signs had supplied
the first two of these elements of information, but not predicted arrival time. Pas-
senger value these systems: 95 percent of respondents indicated it was useful and
65 percent reported it helped reduce waiting uncertainty. e information was
used by 12 percent to select what train to take, with passengers reporting that
they employed the time until arrival in selecting transfer points or choosing to
wait for a close behind train that might be less crowded.
Travel Time Valuation Summary
is analysis indicates that if transit service is convenient and comfortable, unit
transit travel costs are lower than for driving, since transit travelers experience less
stress and can use their time to rest or work. Under such conditions, transit travel
time is typically valued at 25 to 35 percent of prevailing wages, compared with 35
to 50 percent for drivers. However, disamenities such as crowding, noise, and dirt
significantly increase travel time unit costs. For example, transit travel time can
be valued at about 25 percent of wage rates when sitting, 50 percent of wages
when standing, 100 percent of wages in a crowded bus or train, and 175 percent
of wages when waiting under unpleasant conditions, such as an unsheltered bus
stop adjacent to a busy roadway.
Increased transit travel speeds can be valued based on average time costs, but
improvements in reliability should be valued at a higher rate, reflecting the higher
unit costs of unexpected delay. Each minute of delay beyond the published
schedule should be valued at three to five times the standard in-vehicle travel
time (perhaps excepting a two- or three-minute grace period considered to be a
“normal” delay).
Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements
53
Time spent walking to and waiting for transit vehicles generally has unit costs aver-
aging two to five times higher than in-vehicle time, or 70 percent to 175 percent
of prevailing wages. Improved walking and waiting conditions, such as transit area
pedestrian improvements, and improved transit stop area cleanliness and security,
reduces these relatively high unit costs, such as from 175 percent down to 70 per-
cent of wage rates (from the higher to the lower end of the typical estimated cost
range of these activities) or even lower, to 50 percent of wage rates if conditions
are particularly pleasant, such as at an attractive transit station with real-time
information, shops and services, and other convenience features. Although the
value of travel time is generally lower for children than for adults, reflecting the
lower opportunity cost of their time, discomfort should be valued at the same rate
as adults or even higher. For example, under poor waiting conditions children’s
time should probably be valued at 175 percent of wage rates, or even greater, the
same value applied to adult travelers under the same conditions, reflecting adults
concern for their children’s comfort and security.
Transfers are estimated to impose penalties equivalent to 5 to 15 minutes of in-
vehicle time. is implies, for example, that a typical passenger would choose a
40-minute transit trip over a 30-minute trip that requires a transfer. is premium
reflects the physical and mental effort involved, plus the relative discomfort and
insecurity at a typical transit stop or station, and so may be reduced with more
comfortable waiting conditions and better user information.
Table 6 illustrates “default” travel time unit cost values. ese values are calculated
relative to prevailing wages, adjusted to reflect LOS ratings. Roadway LOS rates are
widely used for evaluating automobile travel conditions. In recent years similar
rating systems have been developed for walking, cycling, and public transit service
(Phillips, Karachepone, and Landis 2001; Kittleson & Associates 2003a and 2003b;
Litman 2005; Victoria Transport Policy Institute 2006). e Florida Department of
Transportation (2002) developed the LOSPLAN computer program to automate
these calculations.
Real-time transit vehicle arrival signs reduce perceived wait times by approximately
20 percent. ese signs also reduce unit costs of the time spent waiting because
passengers experience less stress and are better able to organize their trips. A 20
percent savings therefore represents the lower bound value of cost savings from
such systems, provided that the information is easy to access and reliable.
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008
54
Table 6. Recommended Travel Time Values
Source: Based on Waters 1992; Litman 2006.
Table 7 describes how to value the travel time savings of various types of transit
service improvements. Such improvements can be particularly effective at shifting
travel from automobile to transit if implemented in conjunction with other incen-
tives such as commute trip reduction programs, parking cash-out, and marketing
programs (Victoria Transport Policy Institute 2006).
Table 7. Valuing Service Improvements
Travel Impacts
Many examples exist of specific service improvements that increase transit rider-
ship and reduce automobile travel (Evans 2004; Wall and McDonald, 2007). Dis-
cretionary transit users (people who have the option of driving) tend to be partic-
Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements
55
ularly sensitive to comfort and convenience improvements (Phillips, Karachepone,
and Landis 2001; Litman 2004; DfT 2006).
Transport modelers use generalized cost (total monetary and time costs) coef-
ficients to predict how changes in vehicle operating costs, fares, and travel speeds
affect travel behavior. e Transportation Research Laboratory (2004) calculates
generalized cost elasticities of –0.4 to –1.7 for urban bus transit, –1.85 for London
underground, and –0.6 to –2.0 for rail transport. Dowling Associates (2005) esti-
mate that in Portland, Oregon, the elasticity of transit travel with respect to transit
travel time is –0.129, and the cross elasticity with car travel is 0.036, meaning that
a 10 percent reduction in transit travel time increases transit ridership by 1.29
percent and reduces automobile travel by 0.36 percent. Such elasticities tend to be
highly variable, depending on specific demographic and geographic factors. Addi-
tional analysis is therefore needed to calibrate the impacts of transit service quality
improvements on transit ridership and automobile travel in specific situations.
e elasticity of transit use with respect to service frequency (called a headway
elasticity) averages about 0.5, meaning that each 1 percent increase in transit ser-
vice frequency increases ridership by 0.5 percent. is can be used to evaluate how
reductions in waiting time unit costs are likely to affect ridership.
Currently, public transit is usually supplied with low service quality and fares to
provide basic mobility for physically, economically, and socially disadvantaged
people. Because most public transit service relies on direct public financial sub-
sidies (unlike automobile travel, which relies on more indirect subsidies, such as
the value of public lands devoted to road rights-of-way, free parking provided
by governments and businesses, and external accident risk and pollution costs),
public officials are reluctant to fund transit service improvements that may be
considered excessive and wasteful.
As a result, transit fails to satisfy the demands of travelers willing to pay more for
higher service quality. Market studies indicate that a portion of current automo-
bile users will shift to transit if the service is comfortable and convenient (Project
for Public Spaces and Multisystems 1999; TranSystems Corporation 2005), and
are willing to pay higher fares. Where public transit offers basic quality service
with low fares, it is used mainly by transit-dependent people, typically represent-
ing 5 to 10 percent of its potential market. However, where service quality is high
(comfortable vehicles and stations, reliable and frequent service, walkable neigh-
borhoods, etc.), a significant portion of discretionary travelers (people who could
drive) will choose transit.
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008
56
Example
Table 8 summarizes the cost reductions that result from improving the conve-
nience and comfort of a transit trip from LOS E to LOS C by improvements such as
adding sidewalks and attractive bus stop shelters, and providing seats in vehicles.
As a result, the generalized cost of the trip declines 41 percent, from $14.66 to
$6.69, compared with $10.14 for an automobile trip on the same corridor. Such
improvements reduce the ratio of transit to automobile costs from 145 percent
down to 86 percent. is represents the upper bound of cost savings from comfort
and convenience improvements alone, since not all transit trips require transfers
or involve travel on crowded vehicles.
Table 8. Travel Time Cost Reductions from Service Quality Improvements
Improvements of this magnitude should increase transit ridership by about 20
percent, assuming an elasticity of transit travel to generalized costs of –0.5, about
half of which would probably substitute for automobile travel. For example, an
urban corridor has 12,000 total daily trips, of which 2,000 are by transit, half of
which occur during peak periods. Table 9 illustrates the benefits from improving
transit service LOS from E to C. ese benefits include travel time cost reductions
to current transit users (off-peak traveler benefits include no in-vehicle benefits,
since these consist largely of reduced crowding, which is a peak-period problem),
consumer surplus gains to travelers who shift mode (calculated by dividing mon-
etized unit benefits by two, based on the rule-of-half), and reduced external costs
(traffic congestion, parking subsidies, and accident risk) from reduced driving,
Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements
57
estimated at $5.00 per trip during peak periods and $2.00 during off-peak periods
(Litman 2005). e results indicate that these improvements would provide ben-
efits that average more than $10,000 per day, or more than $350,000 annually.
Table 9. Monetized Benefits from Service Quality Improvements
Although vehicle traffic reductions may appear small (about 2%), these service
quality improvements can be implemented with other mode shift incentives, such
as improved transit speeds, fare reductions, parking pricing, and commute trip
reduction programs to achieve additional travel impacts and benefits (Victoria
Transport Policy Institute 2006). ese strategies tend to be synergistic, resulting
in larger total benefits when implemented together than the sum of their indi-
vidual impacts.
is illustrates how convenience and comfort improvements can significantly
reduce travel time costs and provide benefits that are virtually invisible to most
current transportation economic evaluation models.
Conclusions
ere are many possible ways to improve transit service quality, including reduced
crowding, increased service frequency, nicer waiting areas, and better user infor-
mation. Current transport evaluation methods tend to focus on quantitative
factors such as speed and price, and undervalue qualitative factors such as com-
fort, convenience and reliability. As a result, cost-effective transit improvement
strategies are overlooked and undervalued, resulting in underinvestment in transit
service quality improvements, making transit less attractive relative to automobile
travel.
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008
58
Service quality improvements that reduce travel time unit costs (cents per min-
ute or dollars per hour) provide benefits comparable to speed improvement that
reduce total travel time. For example, a service quality improvement that reduces
travel time unit costs by 20 percent provides benefits equivalent to an operational
improvement that increases travel speeds by 20 percent. Techniques described
in this article allow service quality to be incorporated into transport planning by
adjusting travel time unit costs to reflect convenience and comfort factors. e
values recommended in this article can be used as defaults, although they should
be calibrated for specific conditions.
is analysis indicates that with high service quality, transit travel unit time costs
are lower than for driving. If service is comfortable and convenient, many people
will choose transit rather than driving for some trips, even if it takes somewhat
more time, since transit travel is less stressful and passengers can rest or work while
traveling. However, transit is often inconvenient and uncomfortable, resulting in
unit travel time costs higher than driving, which reduces transit ridership.
In a modern, affluent society consumers are accustomed to high quality goods
and services. Most travelers place a high value on comfort, convenience, and reli-
ability. Motorists are able to express these values by paying extra for more luxuri-
ous vehicles, more convenient parking, and sometimes higher quality toll roads.
In contrast, individual transit passengers are generally unable to purchase higher
quality service. As a result, transit does not satisfy travelers willing to pay extra for
higher service quality—so they generally shift to driving. Ultimately everybody
loses, since consumer demand is unmet, transit ridership declines, transit becomes
stigmatized, and traffic problems increase.
is is actually good news because it indicates that there are many cost-effective
ways to improve transit service quality and increase ridership that tend to be
overlooked. Many transit comfort and convenience improvements are relatively
inexpensive and provide additional benefits such as improved walking conditions,
improved mobility for nondrivers, and support for more compact, smart growth
development.
With better evaluation techniques planners can identify policies and programs
that more effectively respond to consumer needs and preferences, including tran-
sit service improvements.
Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements
59
Acknowledgments
is research was supported by TransLink, the Vancouver, BC regional transport
agency. Special thanks to Neil Douglas of Douglas Economics for generously shar-
ing information.
References
Brundell-Freij, Karin. 2006. User benefits and time in road investment and mainte-
nance: e role of speed choice and driving comfort. Transportation Research
Board Annual Meeting. Available at www.mdt.mt.gov/research/docs/trb_cd/
Files/06-0158.pdf.
CIty-VITAlity-Sustainability. 2006. Provision of real time passenger information.
www.civitas-initiative.org/measure_sheet.phtml?lan=en&id=271.
Cohan, Harry, and Frank Southworth. 1999. On the measurement and valuation of
travel time variability due to incidents on freeways. Journal of Transportation
and Statistics (December): 123–131.
DfT. 2006. Transport analysis guidance. Integrated Transport Economics and
Appraisal, Department for Transport (www.webtag.org.uk/index.htm).
Douglas Economics. 2004. Value of rail travel time. RailCorp (www.railcorp.info).
Douglas Economics. 2006. Value and demand effect of rail service attributes. Rail-
Corp. Contact George.Karpouzis@railcorp.nsw.gov.au to request document.
Dowling Associates. 2005. Predicting air quality effects of traffic flow improvements:
Final report and user guide. NCHRP Report 535, Transportation Research
Board.
Dziekan, Katrin, and Arjan Vermeulen. 2006. Psychological effects of and design
preferences for real-time information displays. Journal of Public Transporta-
tion 9 (1): 71–89.
Evans, John E. 2004. Transit scheduling and frequency. TCRP Report 95, Transporta-
tion Research Board. Available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/
tcrp_rpt_95c9.pdf.
Florida Department of Transportation. 2002. LOSPLAN Software. www.dot.state.
fl.us/Planning/systems/sm/los/los_sw2.htm.
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008
60
Fruin, John J. 1971. Pedestrian planning & design. New York: Metropolitan Associa-
tion of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners.
Hensher, David, Peter Stopher, and Philip Bullock. 2003. Service quality—Devel-
oping a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts.
Transportation Research A 37 (6): 499–517.
Horowitz, Alan J., and Dennis J. Zlosel. 0981. Transfer penalties: Another look at
transit riders’ reluctance to transfer. Transportation 10 (3): 279–282.
Infopolis 2 Consortium. 2000. Inventory: At-stop display. Passenger Information
on Public Transport (www.ul.ie/~infopolis and www.ul.ie/~infopolis/exist-
ing/stopdisp.html).
Kittleson & Associates. 2003a. Transit capacity and quality of service manual. Web
document 100, TCRP, Transportation Research Board. Available at www.trb.
org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=2326.
Kittleson & Associates. 2003b. Guidebook for developing a transit performance-
measurement system, Web document 88, TCRP, Transportation Research
Board. Available at www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=1120.
Li, Yuen-wah. 2003. Evaluating the urban commute experience: A time perception
approach. Journal of Public Transportation 6 (4): 41–67. Available at www.nctr.
usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%206-4%20Li.pdf.
Litman, Todd. 2004. Transit price elasticities and cross-elasticities. Journal of Public
Transportation 7 (2): 37–58. Updated version available at www.vtpi.org/trane-
las.pdf.
Litman, Todd. 2005. Evaluating public transit benefits and costs. Victoria Transport
Policy Institute. Available at www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf.
Litman, Todd. 2006. Travel time. Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis. Victoria
Transport Policy Institute. Available at www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0502.pdf.
Litman, Todd. 2007. Valuing transit service quality improvements: Considering com-
fort and convenience in transport project evaluation. Victoria Transport Policy
Institute (www.vtpi.org).
Lyons, Glenn, Juliet Jain, and David Holley. 2007. e use of travel time by rail pas-
sengers in Great Britain. Transportation Research A 41 (1): 107–120.
Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements
61
Mackie, P., et al. 2003. Values of travel time savings in the UK. Institute for Trans-
port Studies, University of Leeds (www.its.leeds.ac.uk), U.K. Department for
Transport (www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_econappr/documents/page/
dft_econappr_610340.hcsp).
Mokhtarian, Patricia L. 2005. Transportation research—special issue: e positive
utility of travel 39A (2–3).
Novaco, Raymond, and Cheryl Collier. 1994. Commuting stress, ridesharing, and
gender: Analysis from the 1993 state of the commute study in Southern Califor-
nia, UCTC 208.
Passenger Demand Forecasting Council. 2002. Passenger demand forecasting hand-
book www.atoc.org/RPDFS/index.asp.
Phillips, Rhonda, John Karachepone, and Bruce Landis. 2001. Multi-modal quality
of service project. Florida Department of Transportation.
Pratt, Richard H. 1999. Traveler response to transportation system changes, interim
handbook. TCRP Web Document 12, Transportation Research Board. Avail-
able at www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1034.
Pratt, Richard, and John Evans. 2004. Bus routing and coverage: Traveler response
to transport system changes, Chapter 10. Report 95, TCRP, Transportation
Research Board. Available at http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_
rpt_95c11.pdf.
Project for Public Spaces and Multisystems. 1999. e role of transit amenities and
vehicle characteristics in building transit ridership. TCRP Report 46, Transpor-
tation Research Board.
Small, Kenneth, et al. 1999. Valuation of travel-time savings and predictability in
congested conditions for highway user-cost estimation. NCHRP 431, Transpor-
tation Research Board.
TranSystems Corporation. 2005. Elements needed to create high ridership transit
systems: Interim guidebook. Transportation Research Board, TCRP Web Docu-
ment 32. Available at http://trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_32.pdf.
Transportation Research Laboratory. 2004. e demand for public transit: A prac-
tical guide. Report TRL 593. Available at www.demandforpublictransport.
co.uk.
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008
62
Turnbull, Katherine F., and Richard H. Pratt. 2003. Transit information and pro-
motion: Traveler response to transport system changes, Chapter 11. TCRP
95; Transportation Research Board. Available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/
onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_95c11.pdf.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2006. Online TDM Encyclopedia (www.vtpi.
org).
Wall, Graham, and Mike McDonald. 2007. Improving bus service quality and infor-
mation in Winchester. Transport Policy 14 (2): 165–179.
Wardman, Mark. 2004. Public transport values of time. Transport Policy 11 (4):
363–377.
Waters, William. 1992. Value of time savings for the economic evaluation of highway
investments in British Columbia. BC Ministry of Transportation (www.th.gov.
bc.ca/publications/repopubs.htm).
Wener, Richard, Gary W. Evans, and Jerome Lutin. 2006. Leave the driving to them:
Comparing stress of car and train commuters. American Public Transportation
Association (www.apta.com/passenger_transport/thisweek/documents/
driving_stress.pdf).
About the Author
Todd Litman (litman@vtpi.org) is founder and executive director of the Victoria
Transport Policy Institute, an independent research organization dedicated to
developing innovative solutions to transport problems. His work helps to expand
the range of impacts and options considered in transportation decision-making,
improve evaluation methods, and make specialized technical concepts accessible
to a larger audience. His research is used worldwide in transport planning and
policy analysis.
Mr. Litman has worked on numerous studies that evaluate transportation costs,
benefits, and innovations. He authored the Online TDM Encyclopedia, a compre-
hensive Internet resource for identifying and evaluating mobility management
strategies; Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and
Implications, a comprehensive study that provides cost and benefit information
in an easy-to-apply format; and the study Rail Transit In America: Comprehensive
Evaluation of Benefits.
Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements
63
Mr. Litman is active in several professional organizations, including the Institute of
Transportation Engineers and the Transportation Research Board. He currently chairs
the TRB Sustainable Transportation Indicators Subcommittee. He is a member of
the Editorial Advisory Board of Transportation Research A.
