Skip to main content
Log in

Scale and context effects in the valuation of transport safety

  • Published:
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown. (1963).The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, B. (1992).Appleton Inquiry Report. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooksey, A. (1992).A Report of the Collision that Occurred on 8th January 1991 at Cannon Street Station. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Dalvi, M.Q. (1988).The Value of Life and Safety: A Search for a Consensus Estimate. London: Department of Transport.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Transport. (1994).Highways Economics Note No. 1. London: Department of Transport.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, D. (1988).Investigation into the King's Cross Underground Fire. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Health and Safety Executive. (1989).Quantified Risk Assessment: Its Input to Decision Making. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidden, A. (1989).Investigation into the Clapham Junction Railway Accident. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • HM Treasury. (1991).Economic Appraisal in Central Government. A Technical Guide for Government Departments. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, R. (1992). “Rational Spending on Safety Brings Results,”Railway Gazette International (May), 345–349.

  • Jones-Lee, M.W. (1989).The Economics of Safety and Physical Risk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Lee, M.W. (1990). “The Value of Transport Safety,”Oxford Review of Economic Policy 6, 39–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kunreuther, H., R. Hogarth, and J. Mezaros. (1992). “Insurer Ambiguity and Market Failure.” Working Paper 91-12-02, Wharton Risk and Decision Processes Center.

  • London Underground Limited. (1991).London Underground Company Plan. London: London Underground Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Viscusi, W.K. (1993). “The Value of Risks to Life and Health,”Journal of Economic Literature 31, 1912–1946.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones-Lee, M.W., Loomes, G. Scale and context effects in the valuation of transport safety. J Risk Uncertainty 11, 183–203 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01207785

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01207785

Key words

JEL code

Navigation