Major urban transport expenditure initiatives: Where are the returns likely to be strongest and how significant is social exclusion in making the case

Stanley, John; Hensher, David A.; Wei, Edward; Wen, Liu

doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100731

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At this social break-even boarding rate, those projected benefits consist of: 6 1. Benefits from reduced exclusion A$80.08 = 62.5% of total benefits, based on a value of $22.75/trip for at-risk people [64], increased by 10% to reflect household income of bus users being less than Melbourne's mean household income; 2. Benefits from reduced road congestion costs = A$24 (18.7% of total benefits), with average congestion cost savings of A$6 per bus trip 7 applied to half the at-risk group (assuming half of the at-risk people would have relied on another to drive them if there was no bus service) and, very conservatively, to half all other bus users (assuming a little over half of whom would have used a car without the new bus service; car occupancy rates are only marginally over one in Melbourne); and, 3.…”

Section: Application Case Study 1: Informing Social Transit Service L...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stanley et al [64] developed census-based indicators as proxies for the survey-based indicators of exclusion from Stanley et al [57]. These proxies were used to identify Greater Sydney locations where increased trip making, resulting from transport infrastructure/service improvements, was more likely to reduce exclusion.…”

Section: Application Case Study 2: Sydney Transport Infrastructure/se...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Supporting Social Goal Achievement for More Sustainable Land Use Transport Policy and Planning

Stanley,

Leong,

Goh

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The meaning of a good social outcome in land use transport policy/planning has been relatively underdeveloped, compared to economic and environmental sustainability goals, but this is now changing. Cities are increasingly prioritizing reducing social exclusion, with the allied intent of providing all residents with equitable access to the benefits of their city. However, in jurisdictions that use cost-benefit analysis to guide government decision-making, this poses a challenge: monetization of the benefits of reducing social exclusion is poorly developed. An evaluation gap thus confronts benefit-cost based assessment of initiatives intended to reduce social exclusion, compared to initiatives directed towards societal economic and environmental goals. This is a particular problem for public transport services that primarily enable people at risk of mobility-related social exclusion to access more opportunities in their society (social transit). The benefits of reducing social exclusion associated with these services have not been monetized, so social transit initiatives are poorly placed to argue their merits against competing initiatives where benefit monetization is more advanced (e.g., mass public transport and roads). The paper summarizes Australian research that has developed monetized measures for the value of increased trip making, bridging/bonding social capital, sense of community and several conceptions of wellbeing, and of reducing neighbourhood disadvantage, as these contribute to reducing social exclusion. New Singaporean research on the value of trip making to support reduced exclusion is also presented, affirming the Australian trip values. Trip values are then used in case study examples to show they can make a material difference to the societal worth of initiatives intended to reduce exclusion. Using these trip values, and other pathway values linked to reducing social exclusion, closes or at least substantially reduces the evaluation gap confronting social goal achievement in land use transport policy and planning, strengthening the case for reducing exclusion. These values will assist jurisdictions that are seeking to provide their residents with more equitable access to the benefits of their city.

show abstract

Section: Application Case Study 1: Informing Social Transit Service L...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Application Case Study 2: Sydney Transport Infrastructure/se...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting Social Goal Achievement for More Sustainable Land Use Transport Policy and Planning

Stanley,

Leong,

Goh

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This literature base suggests that, in transport land use settings, social exclusion may result from disadvantages or inequities in one or more of a number of areas, such as socio-demographic circumstances (e.g., age, personal abilities, language, income) [39,40,52,53], transport system characteristics (e.g., availability, accessibility, affordability) [43,[54][55][56] and land use/built environment characteristics (e.g., terrain, footpaths, service availabilities) [57][58][59], many elements of which are amenable to policy influence and many of which are apparent through more or less trip-making, social capital or wellbeing or area socio-economic advantage/disadvantage [60][61][62]. Of course, there may be personal issues that impact on a person's desire to use the capabilities established through mobility policies (or other social policies), with a variable ability to convert resources to outcomes they value [26,31].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion

Stanley

2023

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enabling people to be socially included is a high-priority goal for many governments but monetised benefit measures applicable to initiatives intended to reduce social exclusion risk are lacking in land use transport, and other, policy arenas. In settings where the decision-making process seeks guidance from cost-benefit analysis, this is likely to disadvantage initiatives intended to reduce exclusion. This is a particular problem for public transport services intended to enable people to access more of the opportunities available in their society (‘social transit’). This paper develops a monetised measure of the value of improved mobility as it contributes to reducing risk of social exclusion, showing this to make a material difference to benefit estimates from social transit service improvements. It also develops monetised benefit estimates for some other potential pathways for reducing risk of social exclusion, particularly changes in bridging and bonding social capital, sense of community, subjective wellbeing and neighbourhood disadvantage. The research thus provides an opportunity to significantly strengthen appraisal tools linked to reducing social exclusion, which should encourage more integrated approaches to reducing exclusion and improve implementation prospects for initiatives with that purpose. Reduced social exclusion is a likely outcome.

show abstract

The link between service frequency and patronage: A short note

Hensher,

Wei,

Liu

et al. 2024

Case Studies on Transport Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Major urban transport expenditure initiatives: Where are the returns likely to be strongest and how significant is social exclusion in making the case

Cited by 6 publications

References 9 publications

Supporting Social Goal Achievement for More Sustainable Land Use Transport Policy and Planning

Supporting Social Goal Achievement for More Sustainable Land Use Transport Policy and Planning

Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion

The link between service frequency and patronage: A short note

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About