{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02317970043510069, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010088175272419236, 'mean_word_length': 5.343917928676111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Valuing Public Transport Customer Amenities: International Transit Agency Practice

Public transport customer amenities cover a range of measures that can enhance the quality of the passenger experience, such as information provision and station quality. While much research has determined the value that users place on amenities, there is little understanding of current practice in the use of customer amenity valuations in project appraisal. A survey of transit agencies in 11 cities (Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Auckland, London, Paris, Toronto, Vienna, Oslo and Singapore) was undertaken showing that Australasian cities, albeit Melbourne, generally have widespread inclusion of customer amenities as part of advanced appraisals for all relevant types of public transport projects. Australasian practice tends to include customer amenities more frequently in project appraisal than London, Singapore and Oslo. Paris, Toronto and Vienna, although they adopt advanced appraisals for some projects, rarely (if at all) include customer amenities in these appraisals. While agencies generally use published sources of customer amenity values specific to their country, Toronto and Singapore tend to use customer amenity values from London, highlighting a lack of local customer amenity values.


Introduction
A diverse range of factors can affect the quality of public transport from the customer perspective.
Typically, these elements are classified into "hard" factors (mode, service frequency, right-of-way, operating hours, fares) and "soft" factors (Fearnley et al. 2015). Soft factors are commonly referred to as customer amenities and cover a range of ancillary improvements that are not directly related to operations or service quantity but can enhance the quality of the passenger experience (Currie, Scott, and Tivendale 2013). Examples of customer amenities include information provision, passenger facilities, station/stop quality, and personal security measures. Figure 1 shows a classification of public transport customer amenities.

FIGURE 1.
Classification of public transport customer amenities Source: Public Transport Research Group (2017) A feature of contemporary research innovation is to establish methods for estimating the value that public transport passengers place on different types of customer amenities (Douglas 2016;Fearnley, Flügel, and Ramjerdi 2011;Hensher and Prioni 2002;Molin and Timmermans 2006;Outwater et al. 2014;Phanikumar and Maitra 2006;Preston et al. 2008;Robson 2009;Steer Davies Gleave 2000;Wardman and Whelan 2001;Yoh et al. 2011), with selected values available in published guidelines (Balcombe et al. 2004; NZ Transport Agency 2016;Transport and Infrastructure Council 2017;Transport for London 2014). However, there is limited understanding of current practice across transit agencies in the use of customer amenity valuations in project appraisal. In particular, the extent to which agencies estimate and apply customer amenity values when appraising and evaluating different types of public transport projects is not well understood. A better understanding of current practice can help to establish the relative importance of customer amenity valuations for project appraisal purposes and to determine the extent to which customer amenities are considered across different types of public transport projects. Benchmarking can also be applied to identify areas of advanced practice across agencies, which may then guide the choice of methods adopted elsewhere.
This paper provides an overview of current practice across selected transit agencies in estimating and applying public transport customer amenity valuations. It is part of a wider research program exploring best practices in customer amenity valuation (Public Transport Research Group 2017). Key objectives include the following: • To determine the types of public transport projects that have been planned or delivered by transit agencies in the last 10 years • To understand typical levels of appraisal that public transport projects have generally undergone and to what extent customer amenities have been included • To understand the types of studies that have been undertaken for estimating the value of public transport customer amenities • To understand the extent to which customer amenity values from previous studies have been applied in project appraisal, including the use of any published sources The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The next section provides an overview of the literature as it relates to public transport customer amenity valuation. An outline is then provided of the method used in a survey of transit agencies to determine current practice in estimating and applying public transport customer amenity valuations. Results of the survey are then presented, followed by some concluding remarks and a discussion of implications.

Literature Review
This section provides a brief overview of the literature relevant to public transport customer amenity valuation. Specifically, it covers valuation methods typically used in the field, issues associated with customer amenity valuation, and a high-level summary of reported values. Stated preference has been the dominant method used to estimate the value of public transport customer amenities, although customer ratings have also been relatively common (De Gruyter et al. 2019). Other techniques include the priority evaluator method, revealed preference, and maximum difference (or best-worst) scaling. In some cases, multiple methods have been used to value customer amenities. For example, stated preference has been combined with customer ratings so that the relative importance of different amenities, as rated by customers, can be applied to the willingness to pay estimates for overall vehicle and station/stop quality (Douglas Economics and Sweeney Research 2014).
Despite the advantages of using revealed preference for valuing customer amenities, where consumer behavior is directly observed, relatively few studies have adopted this method given the difficulty in controlling for external factors that may additionally influence the customer experience (Robson 2009;Wardman and Whelan 2001). Notwithstanding the highly quantitative focus of customer amenity valuations, it is noted that other methods, particularly multicriteria analysis, have been commonly used in the appraisal of public transport projects given the need to incorporate benefits in the decisionmaking process that may be more difficult to quantify in practice (Henn et al. 2016).
A range of issues have been identified with the valuation of public transport customer amenities. A key issue relates to the high levels of variability inherent in the values themselves, which can make it difficult to transfer values from one service or city to another (Booz Allen & Hamilton 2000). Differences in values can arise through changes in socioeconomic characteristics such as age, gender, and income, but can also be affected by trip purpose, frequency, length, and time of day (Fearnley et al. 2015;Phanikumar and Maitra 2007). Other key issues include changes in customer expectations and the relevance of amenities over time, which may affect the value ascribed to customer amenities as minimum standards increase and technology replaces some traditional forms of printed customer information (Outwater et al. 2014). As noted by Robson (2009), the quality of customer amenities may need to continually evolve and improve in order to stand still. An additional issue relates to the estimation of inflated valuations associated with the use of stated preference (Bristow et al. 1991).
Survey respondents may overstate their valuations to influence policy or may indicate their preference for certain amenities and lose nothing by doing so, but in practice may not use those amenities at all (Robson 2009).
A high-level summary of public transport customer amenity values is provided in Table 1. This summary resulted from a collation of valuation evidence assembled as part of a wider research program. Some 556 separate customer amenity values were identified relating to 97 separate amenity types (De Gruyter et al. 2019). All the values were collated into a database that is available for free download to assist practitioners in this field (Public Transport Research Group 2017). The highly variable nature of valuations is evident in the relatively large range of values presented in Table 1. All median values are equivalent to less than one minute of in-vehicle time. The implication is that while customer amenities are of clear value to passengers, their value is generally small compared to overall travel time (typically 30-60 minutes). Relatively small differences in median values are found between amenity types, although "access" based amenities tend to be valued less for train/metro and tram/light rail than most other amenity types. In addition, "information" and "environment" based amenities tend to have higher median values for train/metro and bus than other amenity types. While tram/light rail based amenities tend to be valued lower than train/metro or bus, these are based on a much smaller sample of valuations.

Research Method
In order to meet the objectives of this research, a survey of selected transit agencies was undertaken during January -February 2018. The intent of the survey was to understand current practice across transit agencies in estimating and applying public transport customer amenity valuations. A total of 12 cities were targeted for the survey, including Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth, Auckland, London, Paris, Toronto, San Francisco, Vienna, Oslo, and Singapore. Cities were selected that were generally comparable to Melbourne, where the research funding body is located, although some diversity in contexts was also sought.
Considerable time was spent in identifying the most appropriate agency and representative in each city for completing the survey. Existing professional industry contacts were used where possible, along with LinkedIn searches and the Transportation Research Board (TRB) online directory. Some "snowballing" to other contacts suggested by respondents also occurred. Follow-up telephone and email communication confirmed the relevant agency and contact person and ensured a common understanding of the survey questions and terms used. Only one survey completion was sought from each city, so the contacts had to possess sufficient knowledge of the agency methods used for public transport project appraisal, particularly the extent to which customer amenity valuations were considered. This was difficult in practice and some respondents spent time discussing responses within their agencies.
Following identification of the appropriate contact person in each agency, a link to an online version of the survey was sent via email. The survey included 11 questions and took approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. Where necessary, representatives were encouraged to liaise with others within their agency to complete the survey as accurately as possible so it would be representative of overall activity Journal of Public Transportation ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT within that city. Survey questions were designed to align with the objectives of the study by asking agency representatives about the following: • Types of public transport projects that were planned or delivered in their city (with involvement from their agency) in the last 10 years • Typical levels of appraisal those public transport projects have generally undergone and to what extent customer amenities had been included • Details of any studies the agency was involved in that estimated the value of public transport customer amenities in their city • The extent to which customer amenity values from previous studies were applied in project appraisal, and any published sources that were used While agencies may consider customer amenity valuations at different stages in project decision making (e.g., initially as part of considering all benefits vs. later to determine whether customer amenities should be included after a project has been approved), no distinction was made about this in the survey. Table 2 lists the cities and associated agencies that were targeted for the survey and indicates which of these responded to the survey. As shown, a response to the survey was received from 11 out of the 12 cities. While several agency representatives were identified for San Francisco, a response could not be achieved for this city within the timeframe available for the survey. Where responses were provided for other cities, agency representatives often had to coordinate input to the survey from others within their organization, with this process typically taking several weeks. In Brisbane alone, more than 20 transit agency staff were involved in completing the survey.

Results
This section details the results of the survey of transit agencies. It is structured in line with the study objectives by focusing on the following aspects for each city: • Types of public transport projects that have been planned/delivered • Typical levels of appraisal of public transport projects • Extent to which customer amenities are included in project appraisal • Studies undertaken to estimate the value of customer amenities • Extent to which customer amenity values from previous studies have been applied • Published sources of customer amenity values that have been used ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Types of Public Transport Projects That Have Been Planned/Delivered
Agency representatives were asked firstly about the types of public transport projects that have been planned and/or delivered in their city with involvement from their agency in the last 10 years. For each public transport mode (train/metro, tram/light rail, bus including bus rapid transit, ferry), representatives were asked to select from the following project types: • New or upgraded station/stop • New or extended line/route • New or refurbished rolling stock/vehicle • Short-range planning (e.g., changes in frequency, operating hours, fares) • Other project type(s)  When the results are viewed by city, agencies located in Sydney, Auckland, and Oslo were involved in the greatest number of project types (18, 16, and 15 respectively) with representation across all public transport modes, mainly because of their interest in ferries. This contrasts to the agency in Singapore (Land Transport Authority), which was involved only in train/metro and bus projects (total of eight project types).

Typical Levels of Appraisal of Public Transport Projects
For the types of public transport projects that agencies were involved with during the last 10 years, representatives were asked about the typical levels of appraisal that those project types underwent.
Response options for indicating the appraisal levels included the following: • Advanced (e.g., economic evaluation) • Intermediate (e.g., financial evaluation) • Basic (e.g., mostly qualitative) • No appraisal or evaluation Table 4 details the results. Advanced (economic) appraisals are more common for train/metro and tram/light rail projects than for bus or ferry projects. In addition, project appraisals for new or extended lines/routes for train/metro and tram/light rail were generally more advanced than those for refurbished rolling stock or short-range planning projects. While economic evaluation was noted as an example of an advanced appraisal, agencies may have also used other types of advanced appraisals, such as advanced forms of multicriteria analysis (Henn et al. 2016).

Extent to Which Customer Amenities Are Included in Project Appraisal
For the types of public transport projects that agencies had been involved with during the last 10 years, representatives were asked about the extent to which customer amenities were typically included in project appraisal. Response options ranged from "never" to "80-100% of the time." Table 5 details the results, which reveal considerable variation in the extent to which customer amenities are included in appraisals. While customer amenities are considered in project appraisal in Perth, albeit not to the same extent as Sydney/Brisbane, the importance placed on customer amenities in this city was also highlighted: The vast majority of PT project assessment is undertaken within PTA is very focused on the many strands of customer amenity. At a high level, its strategic approach could perhaps best be described that PTA seeks to maintain high standards for amenity in many regards across its existing PT operations, and then ensure these equivalent standards are maintained. Some key points: passenger perceptions are annually measured through Using the results from Tables 4 and 5, Table 6 explores project types where an "advanced" level of appraisal is used (Table 4) and assesses the extent to which customer amenities have been included in those appraisals (e.g., "never" to "80-100% of the time"). The aim is to highlight the extent to which customer amenities are included in advanced levels of appraisal.

Difference Between Advanced Levels of Appraisal and Inclusion of Customer Amenities
In general, the share of appraisals using customer amenities for advanced project appraisals is relatively low. They are illustrated in Table 6 and defined as follows: • The Australasian cities-Sydney, Brisbane, Auckland, and to an extent Perth-generally all have widespread inclusion of customer amenities as part of advanced appraisals for all relevant types of projects. Melbourne stands out relative to other Australasian cities as having customer amenities included less frequently in appraisals of train/tram projects. Australasian practice tends to include customer amenities more frequently in project appraisal than London, which tends to incorporate amenities in a smaller share of advanced appraisals. Table 6 also highlights that Paris, Toronto, and Vienna adopt advanced evaluations for some projects but rarely include customer amenities in these appraisals. Indeed, Paris and to an extent Toronto do not typically include customer amenities in their advanced appraisals.

Studies Undertaken to Estimate the Value of Customer Amenities
Representatives were asked if their agencies had ever been involved in making their own estimates of the value of public transport customer amenities in their cities, either through commissioning external providers or undertaking valuation studies in-house. The results revealed that valuation studies had been commissioned/undertaken by agencies in 7 out of the 11 cities that were surveyed, including Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, London, Paris, Oslo, and Singapore.
Agency representatives in Auckland, Toronto, Perth, and Vienna did not report any original local primary research studies valuing amenities in their cities. Of the agencies that had commissioned or undertaken valuation studies, representatives were asked to provide details for up to five of the most recent studies. Table 7 provides a summary of the results. Key observations from Table 7 include the following: • Sydney and London reported the largest number of valuation studies (5 each), in addition to Brisbane, which reported studies on an ongoing/annual basis, while other cities had only 1-2 studies each; a total of 17 studies were reported across all cities.
• Most valuation studies had been undertaken within the last 5 years (13 out of 17 studies) with almost all studies undertaken within the last 10 years (15 out of 17 studies).
• Most studies considered customer amenities for train/metro (15 studies) and to a lesser extent bus (13 studies) and tram/light rail (11 studies); only 5 studies were concerned with ferry based customer amenities, perhaps reflective of the physical geography (waterways) of the cities.
• "Stated preference" was the most common survey method (used in 11 out of 17 studies); while "other" methods were used in 7 studies, these were often associated with utilization and satisfaction surveys.
• Consultants/contractors primarily undertook the valuations (12 out of 17 studies); the remainder were undertaken in-house or by a university/research institute. Comments were also made regarding the use of ratings as part of valuing customer amenities, as well as the usefulness of customer amenity valuations in public transport project appraisal:

Extent to Which Customer Amenity Values from Previous Studies Have Been Applied
For the types of public transport projects that agencies had been involved with during the last 10 years, representatives were asked about the extent to which customer amenity values from previous studies had been applied for project appraisal purposes (a technique known as benefit/value transfer). Table 8 details the results. Not all agency representatives had enough information/knowledge to answer this question and as a result, responses could be obtained for only 8 out of the 11 cities. While valuation studies have been undertaken in Paris, as noted earlier, the agency representative in this city noted that the results were not sufficiently robust to be incorporated in project appraisal but that customer amenities were still considered in an indirect manner:

Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to provide an overview of current practice across selected transit agencies in estimating and applying public transport customer amenity valuations in project appraisal. A survey of transit agencies across 11 cities was undertaken to achieve this aim. This final section of the paper provides a summary of the results and a brief discussion of the implications for practice.
Agencies in each of the 11 cities reported their involvement in a considerable range of train/metro and bus projects. The extent of involvement in tram/light rail and ferry projects in cities is lower and likely related to whether a city has these modes of public transport. Levels of appraisal (advanced, intermediate, basic) varied across cities and in terms of the type of public transport project being considered. This may in part reflect the findings of Henn et al. (2016), where benefits that are more difficult to quantify in practice tend to be included in public transport project appraisals using more qualitative (basic) methods.
For train/metro and tram/light rail projects, the Australasian cities-Sydney, Brisbane, Auckland, and to an extent Perth-generally have widespread inclusion of customer amenities as part of advanced appraisals for relevant project types. Relative to other Australasian cities, Melbourne included customer amenities less frequently in appraisals of train/tram projects. Australasian practice tends to include customer amenities more frequently in project appraisal than London, which tends to incorporate amenities in a smaller share of advanced appraisals. Paris, Toronto, and Vienna adopt advanced appraisals for some projects, but rarely include customer amenities in these appraisals.
Information relating to 17 valuation studies was provided by agency representatives across seven cities.
Most of the studies were undertaken in the last five years, suggesting a possible greater emphasis on customer amenities by transit agencies. Consultants/contractors undertook most of the valuation studies, which may highlight the need to ensure that agencies have adequate in-house skills and resources to correctly interpret and apply the outputs of such studies. Agency representatives in Auckland, Toronto, Perth, and Vienna did not report any original local primary research studies valuing amenities in their cities.
In general, cities that use amenities in appraisals more commonly adopt values from previous studies.
Published sources of customer amenity values are used by agencies in 7 out of the 11 cities and while agencies generally use sources specific to their country, Toronto and Singapore (and to some extent Sydney) use values from London. This finding may suggest a lack of customer amenity values available in these cities and that local valuation studies are needed to fill this gap. While London's customer amenity values tend to be used internationally, it is noted that Transport for London tends to incorporate customer amenity values in advanced appraisals less than some cities, particularly those in Australasia.
While Transport for London noted that "amenity scores are often quite small in the grand scheme of things," further research should be undertaken to better understand why agencies that have local customer amenity values choose not to use them in some advanced appraisals.
While this research has provided an understanding of current practice across transit agencies in estimating and applying public transport customer amenity valuations, it is limited to the practice of 11 cities. Furthermore, while considerable effort was taken to ensure each survey response represented practice across each agency, the responses are limited to the information and knowledge available by those completing the survey. Further research is needed, potentially using a similar methodology, to better understand the use of customer amenity valuations in other jurisdictions, particularly cities located throughout North America, South America, and Asia. It is also acknowledged that cultural norms and common language may have influenced the research findings, particularly in cities where English is not an official language (Paris, Vienna, Oslo), despite best efforts to ensure that agency representatives had a clear understanding of the survey questions and terms used. Nevertheless, this paper sheds important light on current practice in selected cities in the field of public transport customer amenity valuation and helps to establish the current state of play in this area. Future research is also needed to understand best practice in the field of public transport customer amenity valuation.