Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 183–203 | Cite as

Scale and context effects in the valuation of transport safety

  • M. W. Jones-Lee
  • G. Loomes

Abstract

How can willingness-to-pay-based values of safety for public transport modes, such as London's Underground railway system, be expected to relate to the corresponding value for road safety? This article reports results which suggest that such values should be set at a substantial premium in relation to their roads counterpart. However, this premium appears to derive entirely from considerations of control, voluntariness, and responsibility, and, contrary to popular wisdom, apparently owesnothing whatsoever to the possibility of large-scale “catastrophic” accidents on modes such as the Underground.

Key words

value of life willingness to pay safety public transport large-scale accidents 

JEL code

J17 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown. (1963).The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Appleton, B. (1992).Appleton Inquiry Report. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  3. Cooksey, A. (1992).A Report of the Collision that Occurred on 8th January 1991 at Cannon Street Station. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  4. Cummings, R.G., D.S. Brookshire, and W.D. Schulze. (1986).Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Allanheld.Google Scholar
  5. Dalvi, M.Q. (1988).The Value of Life and Safety: A Search for a Consensus Estimate. London: Department of Transport.Google Scholar
  6. Department of Transport. (1994).Highways Economics Note No. 1. London: Department of Transport.Google Scholar
  7. Fennell, D. (1988).Investigation into the King's Cross Underground Fire. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  8. Health and Safety Executive. (1989).Quantified Risk Assessment: Its Input to Decision Making. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  9. Hidden, A. (1989).Investigation into the Clapham Junction Railway Accident. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  10. HM Treasury. (1991).Economic Appraisal in Central Government. A Technical Guide for Government Departments. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  11. Hope, R. (1992). “Rational Spending on Safety Brings Results,”Railway Gazette International (May), 345–349.Google Scholar
  12. Jones-Lee, M.W. (1989).The Economics of Safety and Physical Risk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Jones-Lee, M.W. (1990). “The Value of Transport Safety,”Oxford Review of Economic Policy 6, 39–60.Google Scholar
  14. Jones-Lee, M.W., and G. Loonies (1994). “Towards a Willingness-to-Pay Based Value of Underground Safety,”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 28, 83–98.Google Scholar
  15. Jones-Lee, M.W., G. Loomes, and P.R. Philips. (1995). “Valuing the Prevention of Non-Fatal Road Injuries: Contingent Valuation vs Standard Gambles,”Oxford Economic Papers, 47, 676–695.Google Scholar
  16. Kunreuther, H., R. Hogarth, and J. Mezaros. (1992). “Insurer Ambiguity and Market Failure.” Working Paper 91-12-02, Wharton Risk and Decision Processes Center.Google Scholar
  17. London Underground Limited. (1991).London Underground Company Plan. London: London Underground Limited.Google Scholar
  18. McDaniels, T.L., M.S. Kamlet, and G.W. Fischer. (1992). “Risk Perception and the Value of Safety,”Risk Analysis 12, 495–503.Google Scholar
  19. Mendeloff, J., and R.M. Kaplan. (1990). “Are Twenty-fold Differences in “Lifesaving”f Costs Justified?: A Psychometric Study of the Relative Value Placed on Preventing Deaths from Programs Addressing Different Hazards.” In L.A. Cox, Jr. and D.F. Ricci (eds.),New Risks. New York, Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, T.R., K.A. Reinert, and B.E. Whiting. (1984).Alternative Approaches to Accident Cost Concepts: State of the Art. Report Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington DC: Granville Corporation.Google Scholar
  21. Savage, I. (1993). “An Empirical Investigation into the Effect of Psychological Perceptions on the Willingness-to-pay to Reduce Risk,”Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 6, 75–90.Google Scholar
  22. Slovic, P., B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein. (1981). “Perceived Risk: Psychological Factors and Social Implications. ” In F. Warner (ed.),The Assessment and Perception of Risk. Proceedings of the Royal Statistical Society 376. London: The Royal Statistical Society, pp. 17–34.Google Scholar
  23. Thomas, K. (1981). “Comparative Risk Perception: How the Public Perceives the Risks and Benefits of Energy Systems.” In F. Warner (ed.),The Assessment and Perception of Risk, Proceedings of the Royal Statistical Society 376. London: The Royal Statistical Society, 35–50.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. (1995).Treatment of the Values of Life and Injury in Economic Analysis. APO Bulletin APO-95-1. Washington: Federal Aviation Administration.Google Scholar
  25. Viollette, D.M., and L.G. Chestnut. (1983).Valuing Reductions in Risk: A Review of Empirical Estimates. Report to the Economic Analysis Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Boulder, CO: Energy and Resource Consultants Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Viscusi, W.K. (1993). “The Value of Risks to Life and Health,”Journal of Economic Literature 31, 1912–1946.Google Scholar
  27. Viscusi, W.K., W.A. Magat, and J. Huber. (1991). “Pricing Environmental Health Risks: Survey Assessments of Risk-Risk and Risk-Dollar Tradeoffs for Chronic Bronchitis.”Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 21, 32–51.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. W. Jones-Lee
    • 1
  • G. Loomes
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Newcastle upon TyneUSA
  2. 2.University of YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations