Onondaga, County of and CSEA Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Onondaga County Local 843

In the matter of the fact-finding between the Onondaga County, employer, and the CSEA Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Onondaga County Local 843, union. PERB case no. M2013-298. Before: Michael G. Whelan, fact finder

Size and sign of time savings

INTRODUCTION The conventional approach in the U.K. has been to value all travel time changes at a constant rate regardless of their size or direction. This ‘constant unit value’ approach was supported by the 1980-86 UK DoT Value of Time Study (MVA/ITS/TSU, 1987). However, there has always remained a vocal body of opinion critical of this approach (see Welch and Williams, 1997, for references and discussion). Some of the main objections have been the following: i. small amounts of time are less useful than large amounts; ii. small time savings (or losses) might not be noticed by travellers and any that are not noticed cannot be valued by those affected and so should not be valued by society; iii. small time savings are said to often account for a large proportion of scheme benefits, so that small errors in measurement might mean that the scheme is really of no benefit to anyone; iv. allowing small time savings to have ‘full’ value is said to inflate the measured total of benefits and so lead to schemes (often road schemes) being wrongly found to have sufficient net benefit to justify implementation; v. time savings are less highly valued than are time losses, according to surveys, and so should have a lower unit value when evaluating schemes. Both aspects relate to the possible non-constancy of the value of time for a given journey made for a given purpose (clearly, it is much less controversial, and indeed standard practice, to allow for variation by purpose and traveller type). The practical difficulties are twofold. On the one hand, it is difficult to overcome the lay reaction that small time savings have little or no value, as well as the feeling that losses are more important than gains. On the other hand, if these points have any empirical relevance, they cause major problems for the cost-benefit calculus, as losses and gains will not cancel out, and time savings cannot be directly aggregated. Although they do not recommend that values differentiated by size and sign should be used for appraisal, the HCG/Accent (1999) Report (AHCG) notes that [p 259] "For any level of variation around the original journey time, gains (savings) are valued less than losses. For non-work related journeys, a time savings of five minutes has negligible value." A recent paper by Gunn (2001) notes that corroborative results are available from a reanalysis of the 1988 Dutch value of Time study. For reasons which will be carefully rehearsed in this paper, we do not believe that the conclusion on the differences between gains and losses is safe. This is based on an extensive re-analysis of the AHCG data. We have found it harder to reach a conclusion on the issue of small time savings, we agree with AHCG that their data undoubtedly implies a lower valuation: we have some concerns, nonetheless, as to the interpretation which should be placed on this

Size and sign of time savings

INTRODUCTION The conventional approach in the U.K. has been to value all travel time changes at a constant rate regardless of their size or direction. This ‘constant unit value’ approach was supported by the 1980-86 UK DoT Value of Time Study (MVA/ITS/TSU, 1987). However, there has always remained a vocal body of opinion critical of this approach (see Welch and Williams, 1997, for references and discussion). Some of the main objections have been the following: i. small amounts of time are less useful than large amounts; ii. small time savings (or losses) might not be noticed by travellers and any that are not noticed cannot be valued by those affected and so should not be valued by society; iii. small time savings are said to often account for a large proportion of scheme benefits, so that small errors in measurement might mean that the scheme is really of no benefit to anyone; iv. allowing small time savings to have ‘full’ value is said to inflate the measured total of benefits and so lead to schemes (often road schemes) being wrongly found to have sufficient net benefit to justify implementation; v. time savings are less highly valued than are time losses, according to surveys, and so should have a lower unit value when evaluating schemes. Both aspects relate to the possible non-constancy of the value of time for a given journey made for a given purpose (clearly, it is much less controversial, and indeed standard practice, to allow for variation by purpose and traveller type). The practical difficulties are twofold. On the one hand, it is difficult to overcome the lay reaction that small time savings have little or no value, as well as the feeling that losses are more important than gains. On the other hand, if these points have any empirical relevance, they cause major problems for the cost-benefit calculus, as losses and gains will not cancel out, and time savings cannot be directly aggregated. Although they do not recommend that values differentiated by size and sign should be used for appraisal, the HCG/Accent (1999) Report (AHCG) notes that [p 259] "For any level of variation around the original journey time, gains (savings) are valued less than losses. For non-work related journeys, a time savings of five minutes has negligible value." A recent paper by Gunn (2001) notes that corroborative results are available from a reanalysis of the 1988 Dutch value of Time study. For reasons which will be carefully rehearsed in this paper, we do not believe that the conclusion on the differences between gains and losses is safe. This is based on an extensive re-analysis of the AHCG data. We have found it harder to reach a conclusion on the issue of small time savings, we agree with AHCG that their data undoubtedly implies a lower valuation: we have some concerns, nonetheless, as to the interpretation which should be placed on this

Rolling stock quality - Improvements and user willingness to pay.

This study has estimated monetary valuations of various types of rolling stock and stock related attributes in relation to each other. It has used a combination of Revealed Preference (RP) and Stated Preference (SP) methods. The estimated monetary valuations of different types of rolling stock do not vary greatly and this contrasts with most of the previous quantitative research findings in this area. The largest valuation of one stock type in relation to another was 39 pence per single trip for the comparison of Wessex electrics and Sprinters. This valuation is equivalent to 4.3% of the average fare paid. With regard to specific rolling stock attributes, this study has examined seating comfort, seating layout, ride quality, ambience, ventilation and noise. The most important attributes were found to be seating comfort, ride quality and ambience. The largest valuation obtained for seat comfort differences was 17 pence per single trip for the comparison of Networkers and Sprinters. This is equivalent to 1.9% of the average single fare. The corresponding figure for ride quality was 13 pence for the comparison of Wessex electrics and Sprinters and for ambience it was 10 pence for the comparison of Networkers and Sprinters. The maximum differences between stock types in terms of seating layout, ventilation and noise were all valued at less than five pence. The results can be generalised to stock types not covered in this research by obtaining ratings on a ten point scale of the relevant train types or specific rolling stock attributes and entering these into the estimated model

Market segmentation analysis

INTRODUCTION This working paper presents the findings of research aimed at assessing differences in the value of time by market segment. It draws on findings presented in AHCG’s final report to DETR (AHCG, 1996) and previous research conducted during the course of this research contract (Bates and Whelan, 2001) and it is intended that this document be read in conjunction with those two reports. The paper describes the estimation of a base model for each journey-purpose (business, commuting and other) and shows how each is influenced by: income, journey distance, cost reimbursement, congestion, vehicle occupancy, trip sub-purpose, occupation, age group, gender, household type, ‘free time’, respondent type, time constraints and geographical region. The findings of this analysis are then drawn together to develop a final set of models that allow the value of time to vary across a range of market segments. All models are estimated using GAUSS (Aptech Systems) without taking account of the repeat observations nature of the stated preference data

Engineering a Conformant Probabilistic Planner

We present a partial-order, conformant, probabilistic planner, Probapop which competed in the blind track of the Probabilistic Planning Competition in IPC-4. We explain how we adapt distance based heuristics for use with probabilistic domains. Probapop also incorporates heuristics based on probability of success. We explain the successes and difficulties encountered during the design and implementation of Probapop

Economic Standards for Pedestrian Areas for Disabled People: Results from Observation Work

1.1.1 The Institute for Transport Studies was invited by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory to submit a research proposal, with costs, aimed at establishing suitable "Ergonomic Standards for Pedestrian Areas for Disabled People". The project commenced on 1st July, 1986 and was split into two parts, with part one involving four months' work over the period to 31st December, 1986 and part two finishing on 30th April, 1988. 1.1.2 The -objectives of the study laid down in the design brief by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory were: a) To produce a guide to good practice for the design and maintenance of footways and pedestrianised areas; b) To provide, where possible, recommended standards for design and maintenance. The good practice guide and the recommended standards were to be primarily aimed at disabled people and the elderly, but the requirements of the able-bodied were also to be considered, as were conflicts between the needs of different groups of user. The economic implications of implementation and maintenance were also to be detailed. (Continues..

A Cost-effective Satellite-aircraft-drogue Approach for Studying Estuarine Circulation and Shelf Waste Dispersion

The author has identified the following significant results. Satellites, such as ERTS-1, can be used to obtain a synoptic view of current circulation over large coastal areas. Since in turbid coastal regions suspended sediment acts as a natural tracer, cost is minimized by eliminating the need for expensive injections of large volumes of dye such as Rhodamine-B. One of the principal shortcomings of satellite imaging of coastal currents was its inability to determine current magnitude and to penetrate beyond the upper few meters of the water column. These objections were overcome by complementing satellite observations with drogues tracking currents at various selected depths. By combining the satellite's wide coverage with aircraft or shore stations capable of tracking expendable drogues, a cost effective, integrated system was devised for monitoring currents over large areas, various depths, and under severe environmental conditions

Ergonomic Standards for Pedestrian Areas for Disabled People: Results from Observation Work

1.1.1 The Institute for Transport Studies was invited by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory to submit a research proposal, with costs, aimed at establishing suitable "Ergonomic Standards for Pedestrian Areas for Disabled People". The project commenced on 1st July, 1986 and was split into two parts, with part one involving four months' work over the period to 31st December, 1986 and part two finishing on 30th April, 1988. 1.1.2 The -objectives of the study laid down in the design brief by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory were: a) To produce a guide to good practice for the design and maintenance of footways and pedestrianised areas; b) To provide, where possible, recommended standards for design and maintenance. The good practice guide and the recommended standards were to be primarily aimed at disabled people and the elderly, but the requirements of the able-bodied were also to be considered, as were conflicts between the needs of different groups of user. The economic implications of implementation and maintenance were also to be detailed. (Continues..