Cranfield University Alice Maynard The economic appraisal of transport projects: the incorporation of disabled access School of Management Doctor of Business Administration Cranfield University School of Management Centre for Logistics and Supply Chain Management Doctor of Business Administration Academic year 2006 – 2007 Alice Maynard The economic appraisal of transport projects: the incorporation of disabled access Supervisor: Dr John Towriss August 2007 © Cranfield University, 2007. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright holder. Abstract The importance for disabled people of accessible transport is now widely recognised, as is the reality that this also benefits many non-disabled people. Many previous commentaries offer a qualitative perspective, but quantitative evidence, particularly of benefits to the population as a whole, has been lacking. This research, underpinned by the Social Model of disability, established that the absence of such evidence creates a barrier to the inclusion of disabled people in mainstream transport. Further, it demonstrates that there is a way to remove this barrier: by applying stated preference techniques, the benefits of providing access to transport systems can be robustly monetised and successfully incorporated into the economic appraisal of transport projects. A multiple-case study of tram systems investigated how practitioners currently incorporate disabled access into project appraisals. Analysis showed that isomorphic forces identified by new institutional theory have led to similarity in practice, with the effect that ways of incorporating the costs of disabled access are well established, but ways of incorporating the benefits remain unclear. Resulting benefit:cost ratios, often apparently unfavourable, may be misleading. A systematic literature review catalogued methods for valuing non-market goods, and from these identified methods transferable to disabled access. Stated preference, a method of monetisation common in the transport environment, emerged as an appropriate method, with discrete choice modelling a suitable technique. A discrete choice experiment enabled calculation of monetary values for platform-to- platform access at stations. Using a cross-section of the population and addressing socioeconomic factors such as age, disability, and attitudes to disabled people, willingness-to-pay figures were derived for access methods suited to disabled people‘s needs. Finally, these willingness-to-pay figures were incorporated into two appraisals. The amended benefit:cost ratios more accurately represent the value of access provision, and the figures incidentally enable the relative values of different access options to be distinguished. i ―I love it when people say to me, ‗‗Susan, in Washington DC, they have elevators in every tube station. How much did that cost?‘‘ I say, ―I do not know. How much did the escalators cost for lazy walkers?‖ Somebody could throw a nice rope down and let them climb down. If they‘re so able, why can‘t they climb down a rope?‖ Susan Daniels, former US Deputy Commissioner for Disability and Income Security Employers‘ Forum on Disability Independence Day Celebrations 4th July 2000 ii Acknowledgements Writing a thesis is not something one does on one‘s own, as evidenced by the long list of people here. There are myriad others involved in the process, and my thanks are due to all of them. First and foremost I want to thank my supervisor, John Towriss, who has encouraged me through the process, and rekindled my enthusiasm for the project when I was flagging, and without whom this thesis could not have been completed. Together, he and my supervisory panel, Val Singh and Richard Kwiatkowski, have helped to shape the research and guide me in the right direction. I also want to thank Barbara Birtles, DBA administrator, and Heather Woodfield and Anita Beale, of the Kings Norton library, who helped with the practical aspects of doing a DBA. Throughout the research work, I have met with many people who have helped me to think creatively about what I should (and should not!) do. Just some of them are listed here, and I apologise if I have missed anyone out. For the systematic literature review, thanks are due to: Ann Frye, Ian Black, Viki Holton and Mark Brown, who formed the advisory panel, and David Denyer who provided assistance with the review process. For tram case study, thanks are due to my interviewees: Chris Deas, Richard Wood, John Devonport, Pat Armstrong, Phil Haywood, Dave Carter, Les Buckman, Catherine Hallett, Mike Bartram and Phil Hewitt. For the stated preference experiment, thanks are due to: Stephen Golden, Carol Smales, Sarah Wardle and Chris Smith formed the advisory group. I would also like to thank the staff at Accent Marketing and Research, who supported me in the design and development of the experiment and organised the fieldwork: Rob Sheldon, Chris Heywood, Teresa McGarry and Dee Chudasama. In March 2006 I attended a course on discrete choice modelling run by four professors: Michel Bierlaire, Moshe Ben-Akiva Denis Bolduc and Joan Walker. I particularly want to thank Professor Joan Walker for her patience with me during the workshop sessions; without her support I would have been on the first flight home! My thanks also go to Adrian Saunders, who was responsible for taking the photographs of the platform-to-platform access methods (though he didn‘t know it at the time). Most of the work of incorporating the figures into appraisals was done by staff at Crossrail and Transport for London, and I would like to thank Stewart Hayden, iii Richard Meeks, Abiola Imoukhuede, Ryan Taylor, Andrea Burton and Josie Drath for their assistance with this. It‘s not just about the research – one‘s private life is also wholly disrupted by an endeavour like this. I am grateful to family and friends who have excused me from ‗playing out‘ for four years and forgiven me for neglecting them all too often. I would also like to thank my Personal Assistants (of the independent living kind) who have supported me by accompanying me to Cranfield and other places, and by adjusting their working times to the needs of my studies, especially in the final throes of thesis drafting. Finally, I would like to express my enormous gratitude to Andrew Nash, who painstakingly edited the drafts for me, without whom the end result would have been much harder to read, and who is probably groaning inwardly at the construction of this sentence! iv Contents Abstract ........................................................................................ i Acknowledgements .......................................................................... iii Part 1: From practice to research ................................................. 1 Chapter 1. Rationale .................................................................... 2 1.1. Structure of the thesis ....................................................... 2 1.1.1. Thesis outline.................................................................................... 2 1.1.2. Diagrammatic layout ....................................................................... 5 1.2. Background ........................................................................... 6 1.2.1. Research area ................................................................................... 6 1.2.2. Research motivation ....................................................................... 6 1.3. Social Model perspective ................................................ 11 1.3.1. The Social Model and appraisal ................................................ 11 1.3.2. ‗Disabled access‘ ........................................................................... 12 1.4. Importance to managers ................................................. 12 1.5. Research questions and approach ................................ 14 1.5.1. Overall research question .......................................................... 14 1.5.2. Appraisal in practice: the tram case study ............................. 14 1.5.3. Methods of monetisation: the systematic literature review ................................................................................................... 14 1.5.4. Willingness-to-pay: the stated preference experiment ....... 15 1.5.5. Applying the results: putting a value on disabled access .... 15 1.6. Principal contribution of the research ......................... 16 1.6.1. Principal contribution to knowledge ........................................ 16 1.6.2. Principal contribution to practice ............................................. 16 1.7. A note on chronology ..................................................... 16 Chapter 2. Theoretical perspectives ...................................... 18 2.1. The Social Model of disability ........................................ 18 2.1.1. Outline of the Social Model ....................................................... 18 2.1.2. Towards a theory of disability ................................................... 19 2.1.3. Classifying people as ‗disabled‘ ................................................. 21 v 2.1.4. The Social Model and language ................................................. 22 2.2. Institutional theory ........................................................... 23 2.3. Welfare economics ........................................................... 27 2.3.1. Utility ..............................................................................................