James Odeck Norwegian Public Roads Administration, Po Box 8142, 0033 Oslo-N

1. Economic Appraisal of Universal Design in Transport: Experiences from Norway and Relevance to ICT James Odeck Norwegian Public Roads Administration, Po Box 8142, 0033 Oslo-N 1

2. Background • Economic assessment of Universally Designed (UD) projects is lacking in the literature of transport planning • The concept of UD is not well understood by many in the transport sector and is taken to mean something like “design for the impaired” • Recently, The Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) and the Institute of Transport Economics (TOI) did some collaborative work on universal design that needs to shared with others working with economic assessment of e-Accessibility 2

3. Four objectives: • Give an appropriate definition of UD in the context of road and public transport as adopted in Norway • Describe the types of UD projects and, benefits and costs that accrue to users if they are implemented • Address how the benefits and cost can be valued in monetary term and demonstrate the economic profitability of UD • Point out the similarities between economic assessment of Universal Design in Transport and e-accessibility 3

4. 1. The definition of Universal Design (UD) • Universal Designrefers to transport system or facility designs that accommodate the widest range of potential users, including but not limited to people with mobility and visual impairments (disabilities) and other special needs • The conventional thinking of the concept is that Universally Designed projects are aimed at the few e.g., the disabled or impaired - which is wrong ! • Stated differently, Universal Designbenefits all types of users but is necessary for some 4

5. The Definition adopted by the NPRA Universal Design (UD) is the Design of infrastructure, transportation systems or their surroundings to accommodate the widest range of potential users regardless of their impairments or special needs UD is therefore necessary for some but benefits all users! An illustration follows 5

6. The case of a low-floored bus Foto: Lin Stensrud

7. Foto: Knut Opeide

8. Foto: Knut Opeide

10. An illustration of benefits to all in the case of a low-floored bus A low-floored bus in the first instance benefits wheelchair users and those with baby strollers In the second instance, because wheelchair and stroller users can get faster on board, all others users can also get faster onboard. Third, all others passengers on board also save travel time And finally, bus operators may increase their efficiencies Universal Design in this case benefits all users and not only the impaired! Foto: Lin Stensrud

11. Similarities with eAccessibility from the past and why both Universal Design and eAccesibilty benefits all • Remote control for TVs were designed for the impaired – yet it benefits everybody today • Digital books were designed for the impaired – yet there are a benefit to everybody today • Wide screen TVs and PCs were designed for the impaired yet we all appreciate them • How about lifts in buildings? • How about cars with automatic gears?

12. 2. The types of UD projects and benefits and costs that accrue to users 12

13. Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) of UD projects • Not different from traditional BCA’s given that benefits and cost can be measured in monetary terms • It Involves the comparison of benefits against costs • Two decision rules: • Net Present Value (NPV) = net discounted benefits minus net discounted costs; then the project is economically profitable • Benefit-Cost Ratio = NPV/costs; select the project with the highest ratio

14. 3. Valuing benefits and cost in monetary terms • Traditionally, there is a consensus about valuing impacts of transportation undertakings both in the road and the public transportation sector • Impacts of Universal Design are in many cases similar to those of traditional investments in transportation e.g., time savings. Some values of UD impacts can therefore be derived from existing handbooks • An initial way of deriving values is through literature survey • NPRA has derived values by combining literature survey and existing values. 14

15. Recommended NPRA values for UD projects

16. 3. BCA of three illustrative projects

18. Conclusion and policy implications • Universal Design should be considered seriously by governments as they benefit all users and are necessary for a group of users e.g., the impaired and the burdened. • The benefits and cost of Universal Design projects are possible to measure in monetary terms such that a benefit-cost analysis can be conducted. • The benefit-cost analysis of Universal Design shows that they general are a profitable form investments characterized by high benefits and low investment costs. • Finally, benefit-cost analysis of Universal Design projects are quite possible even though it is not possible to account for all factors which if accounted for will reveal even more of their benefits e.g., the patronage factor.

19. Lessons for economic assessment of eAccessibility • Take the view that eAcessibility is for all and not only for those with special needs. • We need to make people understand (1) by showing examples • A starting point is the identification of the “project” i.e. is it “a web accessibility all”, “Design for all” • The second step is the identification of benefits followed by quantification in monetary terms – all these are possible • ”Study on Economic Assessment for Improving e-Accessibility Services and Products” under SMART 2009 seems to take these into account.