Generalised time and the problem of equity in transport studies

Goodwin, Phil

doi:10.1007/bf02351839

Cited by 29 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1 There are many different versions of the above-mentioned deterrence function, although the exponential function has gained a very high importance and will be applied below. The integrated generalized costs g ij are composed by travel time and travel cost from origin i to destination j and the value of travel time for monetizing (Goodwin, 1974). Hence, the function can be written:…”

Section: The Doubly Constrained Trip Distribution Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transport user benefits calculation with the “Rule of a Half” for travel demand models with constraints

Winkler

2015

Research in Transportation Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JEL classifiaction: C65 D61 R42 Keywords: Consumer surplus Rule of a Half Travel demand model Multinomial logit model ConstraintsThe importance of user benefits in transport projects assessments is well-known by transport planners and economists. Generally they have the greatest impact on the result of cost-benefit analysis. It is common practice to adopt the consumer surplus measure for calculating transport user benefits. Normally the well-known "Rule of a Half", as a practical approximation for the integral of the demand curve, is used to determine the change of consumer surplus. Changes in travel demand and consumer surplus are influenced by all modeled changing variables, which primarily comprise the generalized costs. However, travel demand models with multiple constraints additionally contain variable "shadow prices", added to the generalized costs. Such models are often used for travel demand modeling of large-scale areas. The most discussed and well-known model in the field of transport modeling is the doubly constrained gravity model. Beside this model with inelastic constraints, there are also more flexible models with elastic constraints. In this paper we enter into the question of whether applying the Rule of a Half with regard only to the generalized costs and neglecting the shadow prices is valid in the case of travel demand models with multiple constraints. For this purpose, a theoretical analysis in this paper provides a mathematical proof.

show abstract

Section: The Doubly Constrained Trip Distribution Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transport user benefits calculation with the “Rule of a Half” for travel demand models with constraints

Winkler

2015

Research in Transportation Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To place a single composite value on these different intangibles, transport economists have developed the concept of 'generalised cost' [5]. Goodwin [6] argued: "The generalised cost of a trip is experienced as a single, usually monetary, measure combining, generally in linear form, most of the important but disparate costs which form the overall opportunity costs of the trip. On occasions a generalised time cost measure may replace the financial index."…”

Section: Principles Underlying the Determination Of Road-user Benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Principles of Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Public Road Projects Followed in South Africa

Pienaar¹

2018

SAJIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the most pertinent principles that underlie the preferred social cost-benefit analysis methodology to evaluate public road projects in South Africa. The 'cost' component of the analysis is the once-off investment cost sacrificed to establish a facility, and the 'benefit' component is the recurring reduction of disutility emanating from the operation, maintenance, and use of a facility. To determine future road-user benefits, the article develops a social surplus criterion that is termed 'socio-economic user surplus'. A procedure is provided of the way that social costbenefit analysis should be supplemented by the application of equity weighting, with a view to indicating both the expected allocative efficiency and distributive efficiency of a proposed road project. Lastly, the article discusses why the economic impacts that may stem from economically justified road projects are not considered in a social cost-benefit analysis. OPSOMMINGIn hierdie artikel word die mees tersaaklike beginsels bespreek wat die metodiek van sosiale kostevoordeelontleding om openbare padprojekte in Suid-Afrika te evalueer, onderlê. Die 'koste'komponent van die ontleding is die eenmalige investeringskoste wat opgeoffer word om 'n fasiliteit te vestig. Die 'voordeel'-komponent van die ontleding is die herhalende vermindering van buitewerkstelling wat uit die bedryf, instandhouding, en gebruik van 'n fasiliteit spruit. Wat toekomstige padgebruikersvoordele betref, ontwikkel die artikel 'n sosiale surplusmaatstaf genaamd 'sosio-ekonomiese gebruikersurplus'. 'n Prosedure word voorsien waarvolgens sosiale kostevoordeelontleding met billikheidsweging aangevul behoort te word, om sowel toewysingsdoeltreffendheid as verdelings-doeltreffendheid van 'n voorgestelde pad projek te toon. Laastens bespreek die artikel waarom die ekonomiese impakte wat uit ekonomies geregverdigde padprojekte kan spruit nie in sosiale kostevoordeelontleding oorweging geniet nie.The incorporation of (a) external costs imposed by road supply and use on non-road users, and (b) distributive efficiency to complement allocative efficiency criteria in SCBA, and the addition of (c) positive spill-over effects in an economic impact analysis supplementary to SCBA, render application of the Scitovsky [12] reversal test superfluous. The warning by Graaff [4] -that "[t]he implications for cost-benefit analysis are quite devastating if the Scitovsky reversal test is ignored" -is counteracted by the incorporation and addition of the three analyses discussed in this work.

show abstract

“…Finally it must be stressed -and I do this because of the discussion in the articles on generalised costs mentioned above, and indeed in a number of other articles on generalised costs (e.g., Goodwin, 1974) -that the generalised cost does not presuppose a cardinal utility function. The entire analysis here has been based on a quasi-concave -i.e., ordinal utility function -and the results are therefore independent of monotonic transformations of the utility function.…”

Section: The Necessity Of Linear Generalised Costmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microeconomic theory and generalised cost

Bruzelius¹

1981

Transportation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a number of articles in this journal the use of generalised cost in travel demand analysis and transport planning has been subject to debate. However, some of the fundamental problems raised in these articles are left unanswered -e.g., the precise relationship between conventional microeconomic consumer demand theory and generalised cost, an issue with which this article is concerned. It is shown here that necessary and sufficient conditions for expressing travel demand in terms of generalised cost are that this cost, when measured in monetary units, is linear, and that the time variable is weighted by a constant marginal value of time. It is also shown that these conditions imply strong assumptions about the consumer's behaviour -e.g., that the willingness to pay to save time whilst travelling is not a function of real income.

show abstract

Generalised time and the problem of equity in transport studies

Cited by 29 publications

References 3 publications

Transport user benefits calculation with the “Rule of a Half” for travel demand models with constraints

Transport user benefits calculation with the “Rule of a Half” for travel demand models with constraints

Principles of Social Cost-Benefit Analysis of Public Road Projects Followed in South Africa

Microeconomic theory and generalised cost

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About