Cost-Benefit Appraisal of Universal Design in Public Transport and Walking/Cycling Infrastructure.

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.