Skip to main content
Log in

Generalised time and the problem of equity in transport studies

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The generalised time expenditure on travel,g t, may be defined asg t =t +m/λ where t is the amount of time spent, m is the amount of money spent, and λ is the value of time. Generalised time is expressed in units of time, unlikeg c, the generalised cost (g c =m + λt), which measures the same quantities in units of money.

Data on all trips from two studies are analysed to show that, as household income increases, the money spent per mile travelled increases, but the time spent per mile decreases. The use of generalised time gives a different picture of the relationship between income and the total time and money spent on travel to that given by the use of generalised cost. The choice between using generalised time and generalised cost in evaluation is fundamentally a choice between assuming that the marginal utility of time and that of money is constant. The procedures at present recommended by the Department of the Environment in U.K. have elements of both assumptions, with some loss of consistency.

There are some a priori reasons for expecting constant marginal utility of time to be a more plausible assumption than constant marginal utility of money. Time is, by its nature, equitably and unalterably distributed, not subject to the accidents of inheritance, theft, chance, inflation, social system or government decree. Everybody starts off with 24 hours a day. Although the amount of “free” time varies, of course, it probably varies within a much smaller range than the amount of wealth, certainly for the employed population. In allocating time between various activities, the use of words likespend, save, waste, lose, gain, and so on is a reflection of how deeply rooted in language and thought is the concept of time as a fundamental currency.

This approach is strengthened by recent developments in two areas where generalised cost has been found to be a useful tool of analysis — (a) in explaining and predicting the behaviour of travellers, and (b) in evaluating the social costs and benefits arising from transport projects. Only non-working time will be considered here. It is suggested that in some circumstances generalised time would allowbehaviourally correct relationships between non-working time and money to be used in evaluation.

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

  • Barrell, D. W. F., and Hills, P. J. (1972). “The Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Transport Investment Projects in Britain,”Transportation. 1 (1) May.

  • Clark, C. (1973). “The Marginal Utility of Income,”Oxford Economic Papers. July.

  • Costinett, P. J. (1973). “Model Split; Theory and Practice,”Proc. 4th Annual Symposium “Promoting Public Transport” University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, April.

  • Down, D. W. (1971). Land Use/Transportation Studies Data Bank. “M.A. U. Note 225.” London, Department of the Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman Fox, Wilbur Smith & Associates (1968).West Midland Transportation Study. Birmingham, England.

  • Goodwin, P. B. (1971). “The Value of Time and the Distribution of Income,”Proc. Conference of Universities Transport Study Group. Sheffield, January.

  • Goodwin, P. B. (1973). “Time, Distance and Cost of Travel by Different Modes of Transport;”Proc. Conference of Universities Transport Study Group. London, January.

  • Harrison, A. J. and Quarmby, D. A. (1969). “The Value of Time in Transport Planning,”Sixth Round Table on Transport Economics. Paris.

  • Lipsey, R. G. (1966).An Introduction to Positive Economics, (2nd Edition). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGillivray, R. G. (1970). “Demand and Choice Models of Modal Split,”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 3 (1) May.

  • McIntosh, P. T., and Quarmby, D. A. (1970). Generalised Cost and the Estimation of of Movement Costs and Benefits in Transport Planning. “M.A. U. Note 179.” London, Department of the Environment, December.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, N. W. (1969). “Recreational Trip Generation,”Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 2 (1) May.

  • Marshall, A. (1890).Principles of Economics (8th edition). London: McMillan & Co., 1938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Labour (1966).Family Expenditure Survey for 1965. H.M.S.O.

  • Ministry of Transport (1967).Highway Statistics 1966. H.M.S.O.

  • Pigou, A. C. (1920).The Economics of Welfare. Macmillan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins, L. (1938). “Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility,”Economic Journal. December.

  • Tanner, J. C. (1961). Factors Affecting the Amount of Travel, “Technical paper 51.” Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne (U.K.), H.M.S.O.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagon, D. J. and Wilson, A. G. (1971). “The Mathematical Model,”Technical Working Paper No. 5, SELNEC Transport Study. Manchester, July.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This paper — which is a revised version of “A Hypothesis of Constant Time Outlay on Travel” (Paper F29: Planning and Transport Research and Computation Ltd. Sussex, June 1973) — is based upon work carried out with the financial support of the Social Science Research Council.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Goodwin, P.B. Generalised time and the problem of equity in transport studies. Transportation 3, 1–23 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02351839

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02351839

Keywords

Navigation