Benefits of Campus Transit Pass

Abstract

The problem of estimating the expected net benefits of an unlimited-access campus transit pass, which would also fund an increase in critically needed services, is an example of the problem of estimating the value of a public good. Students at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, used a referendum-format contingent valuation survey to measure students’ willingness to pay (WTP) for a mandatory transit pass. Responses by 935 students (a 44.7% response rate) were analyzed with censored logistic regression and revealed a mean WTP of $32.08 per academic quarter (corrected for estimated self-selection bias) for the proposed program. The program could actually be provided by contract with the local transit agency for $20.00 per student per quarter. Thus the estimated net benefit per student per quarter is $12.59, or $428,624 across the campus population. On-campus residents and those who commute via bus or bicycle showed higher WTP. WTP was substantially lower for those who live more than 10 mi from campus. Frequencies of “yes” votes showed majorities supporting the pass up to the $35.00 per quarter fee level, and strong majorities up to the $20.00 level, suggesting the proposal would pass easily by a student vote. Content analysis of reasons given for support, lack of it, or indecision showed that students were persuaded by nighttime bus service, safety, monetary savings, and environmental benefits. Doubts were raised by the mandatory nature of the proposed fee, services not meeting needs, and opposition to more student fees.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Toor

and Havlick

. Transportation and Sustainable Campus Communities: Issues, Examples, Solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2004.

Remsen

Dexter

and Tollefson

. Transportation Planning. Western Washington University Student Report. Western Washington University, Bellingham, Wash., 1999. www.ac.wwu.edu/∼sustwwu/trans/remsen/transp.toc.html. Accessed February 2005.

Brown

Hess

and Shoup

. Unlimited Access. Transportation, Vol. 28, No. 3 2001, pp. 233–267.

Miller

J. H.

TCRP Synthesis 39: Transportation on College and University Campuses: A Synthesis of Transit Practice. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.

Transpo Group, Inc. WWU Origin-Destination Survey Findings. Report prepared for Western Washington University. Transpo Group, Inc., Kirkland, Wash., 2004.

Poinsatte

and Toor

. Finding a New Way: Campus Transportation for the Twenty-first Century. University of Colorado Environmental Center, Boulder, Colo., 1999.

Litman

and Lovegrove

. UBC TREK Program Evaluation: Costs, Benefits and Equity Impacts of a University TDM Program. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, B.C., 1999. www.vtpi.org/utrek.pdf. Accessed February 2005.

Carson

R. T.

Flores

N. E.

and Meade

N. F.

. Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 19, No. 2 2001, pp. 173–210.

Mitchell

R. C.

and Carson

. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 1989.

10.

Cameron

T. A.

A New Paradigm for Valuing Non-market Goods Using Referendum Data: Maximum Likelihood Estimation by Censored Logistic Regression. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 15, No. 3 1988, pp. 355–379.

11.

Patterson

D. A.

and Duffield

J. W.

. Comment on Cameron's Censored Logistic Regression Model for Referendum Data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 20, No. 3 1991, pp. 275–283.