MEMORANDUM TO: Secretarial Officers

 Modal Administrators

From: Peter Rogoff

Acting Under Secretary for Policy, x64540

Prepared by: Roberto Ayala

 Economist, Office of Economic and Strategic Analysis; x64825 

Subject: Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of Travel Time in

Economic Analysis

________________________________________________________________________

The value of travel time is a critical factor in evaluating the benefits of transportation 

infrastructure investment and rulemaking initiatives. Reduction of delay in passenger or 

freight transportation is a major purpose of investments, and rules to enhance safety 

sometimes include provisions that slow travel. As the Department expands its use of 

benefit-cost analysis in evaluating competitive funding applications under such programs 

as the TIGER Grant program and the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program, it is 

essential to have appropriate, well-reasoned guidance for valuing delays and time savings.

This version of the guidance updates the value of travel time savings with median 

household income information from the 2012 US Census Bureau and salary information 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Handbook 2012. The household income 

data are drawn from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and are not 

released until the September following the year in which they are collected; the 2012 data 

are thus the most recent data available. The percentages of earnings used to determine the 

value of travel time savings (shown in tables 1 and 2) remain unchanged. The revised 

dollar values of travel time savings are shown in tables 3, 4, and 5. We have also revised 

our estimate of future growth in real incomes based on revised projections from the 

Congressional Budget Office (see page 14).

DOT published its first guidance on this subject, "Departmental Guidance for the 

Valuation of Travel Time in Economic Analysis," on April 9, 1997, to assist analysts in 

developing consistent evaluations of actions that save or cost time in travel. That 

memorandum recommended an array of values for different categories of travel, according 

to purpose, mode and distance. For each category, the Guidance specified a percentage of 

hourly income that would normally be used to determine the value per hour of savings in 
2

travel time, a range of percentages defining upper and lower bounds about the normal

value for sensitivity testing, and an average hourly income level. Special values were 

assigned to walking and waiting time, travel by general aviation, and truck drivers.

Revised guidance, labeled as “Revision 1,” was issued on February 11, 2003. A further 

revision, labeled “Revision 2,” was issued on September 28, 2011 and adjusted these 

values for use in 2011, incorporated some additional values and procedures, and redefined

the sources of data. In particular, time savings in high-speed rail travel were identified as 

equivalent to those in air travel and distinguished from intercity travel by conventional 

surface modes. Although we found no need to alter the normal percentages of hourly 

income and the ranges of percentages that were assigned in the 1997 memorandum, more 

recent and appropriate sources were used to specify hourly incomes. In particular, the 

income data used in that guidance were derived from public and regularly updated sources 

that allow the Department to update the values annually. Also, the revised guidance 

projected higher values of time in future years to reflect reasonably anticipated growth in 

real incomes. This revision also included a bibliography of documents available online 

that provide an overview of the research literature in the field and the recommendations 

developed by experts in several countries.

A link to this revised guidance will be found on the Office of Transportation Policy 

website at: http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/reports.htm. Questions should be addressed to 

Roberto Ayala, (202) 366-4825 or roberto.ayala@dot.gov in the Office of Transportation 

Policy.

Attachment 

cc: Regulations Officers and Liaison Officers
The Value of Travel Time Savings:

Departmental Guidance for Conducting Economic Evaluations

Revision 2 (2014 Update)

Introduction

Many actions by the Department of Transportation and other governmental agencies are 

designed to benefit travelers by reducing the time spent in traveling. Actions in pursuit of 

other goals such as improved safety may also have the intended or unavoidable 

consequence of slowing travel. The purpose of this document is to state the procedures 

approved for use by all administrations within DOT when evaluating reductions or 

increases in passenger travel time that result from such actions. The value of travel time 

savings (VTTS) derived here is to be used in all DOT benefit-cost or cost-effectiveness 

analyses. 

Governments employ benefit-cost analysis to ensure that their regulatory actions and 

investments in transportation infrastructure will use society’s resources most efficiently 

and to promote transparency in decision-making. Doing so often requires assigning 

money values to factors that lack observable market prices. As one of the most important 

of these factors, travel time has been the subject of research in many countries over 

several decades. Individual experts and official panels have reviewed and summarized 

this literature repeatedly as it has grown, and this document draws on that body of 

research and interpretation to establish procedures for use in valuing travel time 

consistently throughout DOT. 

These expert summaries represent only a rough consensus about relevant variables and 

relationships among values. Because VTTS varies widely, standard values for 

government decisions must ignore or simplify many important factors. A complete 

model of real travel choices would require a large number of variables and associated 

coefficients, yet there are no sources for most of these variables, and the coefficients 

estimated from available data vary between studies and are subject to considerable 

uncertainty and interpretation. Combining individual decisions to draw conclusions for 

an entire society implies subjective assumptions about the influence of incomes and other 

personal characteristics. Therefore, the object of this guidance must be seen as 

construction of a useful framework for assigning values to government actions, rather 

than distilling precise scientific conclusions from the literature or predicting travel 

behavior.

The initial Departmental guidance for the valuation of travel time in economic analysis 

was published on April 9, 1997, and the first tables of revised values were published on 

February 11, 2003. Part of the reason for the long intervals between revisions was that 

certain data were available only from private sources or updated infrequently. The

resulting delay and lack of transparency was inconvenient, confusing, and a potential 

cause of economic inefficiency. Consequently, we revised our guidance in 2011 to 

derive VTTS from public and regularly published data that permits the Department to 
2

issue annual updates. We use median income levels, rather than means, as consistently as 

possible. We believe that this approach reflects the valuations of typical travelers in 

diverse populations more reliably and yields conclusions that are less sensitive to 

fluctuations in extreme values. We also include a method by which analyses of actions 

that have long-term impacts should incorporate expected growth in VTTS.

General concepts

The demand for travel is generally derived from the demand for activities it permits at 

either end of the trip, just as sporting equipment is valued only for the complementary 

sport it permits. In contrast, travel time must be conceived as having a negative demand, 

a consumer’s willingness to pay to have less of it. This too is derived, not from 

complements, but from substitutes, i.e., the time available for activities at origin or 

destination, which may vary greatly in urgency. The value of time saved from travel will 

depend on the traveler, the circumstances of the trip, and the available transportation

options. There can be no assurance in principle that these factors will be stable. A large 

share of individual trips, however, particularly commuting to work, have similar purposes 

and are repeated on daily and weekly schedules. By focusing on a few choices of mode 

and route (e.g., rail transit vs. private auto, toll highway vs. parallel free thoroughfare)

researchers have approximated explanations of travelers’ decisions with a manageable 

number of variables yet with some confidence that their conclusions can be applied to a 

reasonably large share of travel by the larger community.

The values so derived are broadly representative and practically useful for estimating 

social benefits—the purpose for which this guidance is intended. They cannot be used to 

predict the number of travelers who would choose a specific mode or route, however. 

Such predictions depend on the distribution of time values over the population, rather 

than the most common value, and on the number of travelers who are close to the margin 

in deciding between alternatives.

The value of reducing travel time expresses three principles. First, time saved from travel 

could be dedicated to production, yielding a monetary benefit to either travelers or their 

employers. Second, it could be spent in recreation or other enjoyable or necessary leisure 

activities for which individuals are willing to pay. Third, the conditions of travel during 

part or all of a trip may be unpleasant and involve tension, fatigue, or discomfort. 

Reducing the time spent while exposed to such conditions may be more valuable than 

saving time on more comfortable portions of the trip. These principles underlie the 

distinctions among values recommended in this guidance. 
3

Specific topics

Reliability

Closely associated with VTTS, reliability has long been viewed as a source of utility 

distinct from reduction of the expected trip time. If travelers are uncertain about travel 

time, they typically include a “buffer” in their schedules, leaving early and sacrificing a 

known amount of time at the origin to insure against a more costly delay in arriving at the 

destination. This insurance will be frequently unnecessary or excessive and occasionally 

inadequate. Alternatively, insuring against delay may mean choosing a more reliable 

route or mode with a slower expected speed or a higher monetary cost. 

There are several ways to measure the travelers’ experience and define their perception of 

future delay risks, including standard deviation of trip time, difference between the 90th

percentile trip time and the median (or between other convenient points on the 

distribution), or the probability of lateness beyond a fixed target. Furthermore, variation 

of travel time over some period will differ between origin-destination pairs, depending 

both on the reliability of travel on each trip segment and on the correlation of delays 

between segments. 

Thus, a “value of reliability” is much more complex to estimate than an average VTTS, 

since it requires knowledge of the joint distribution of travel times and of the rates of 

change of value at the margins, rather than just the means. Studies have been conducted 

in several countries, using different measures of reliability, and suggestive results have 

been produced. Although it may be possible to derive estimates for specific cases, we are 

not yet prepared to provide guidance for routine valuation of reliability. In contrast to 

differences in reliability among modes or routes, however, improvements in reliability on 

a single route will often be linked to reductions in expected travel time, so that one 

possible approach is to add an allowance to VTTS to reflect the value of improved 

reliability.

Size of time change

Another subject of discussion has been whether VTTS should be ignored below some 

threshold increment of time saved. Some research has suggested the conclusion that 

discrete, small savings may have negligible benefits. See Australia Bureau of Transport 

Economics, Fosgerau et al., Mackie et al. (2001, 2003). 

There is no persuasive evidence of where such a threshold might be for any population or 

how it could be used to predict an appropriate threshold for another. A more important 

problem is that all changes in travel time resulting from government actions are 

composed of many smaller changes, and it would be impossible to identify particular 

changes considered big enough to affect each individual decision. To evaluate the 

aggregate impact of any action, therefore, we must assume that the value of each minute 

of saved time is constant, regardless of the total time required for a trip. 
4

Value of Time in Freight Transportation

Most of the VTTS literature focuses on passenger travel, rather than freight 

transportation. Estimates have been made of the labor costs of freight vehicle operators 

(e.g., truck drivers or locomotive engineers) and of the operating costs of freight vehicles 

that would be affected by changes in travel time. The value of time to shippers (i.e., the 

owners of the freight that is being transported) cannot be estimated so easily, however. 

Because freight in transit represents unproductive capital that incurs an interest cost, part 

of the benefit of saved time will be proportional to the time saved, the interest rate, and 

the value of the freight. The principal obstacle to estimating this value is likely to be the 

heterogeneity and uncertainty of freight categories affected by any specific time saving. 

Each corridor or mode would thus require a specific estimate of the composition of 

freight carried. The cost of freight transportation time will also be influenced by factors 

independent of value, such as how quickly products become obsolete (because of fashion 

or technological obsolescence), whether the products spoil over time (as do agricultural 

commodities), and whether some production process is dependent upon timely delivery. 

Various reasons, then, explain why products may be “perishable” in the sense that their 

value declines appreciably while they are in transit. The cost to shippers may also 

depend on business practices, such as the amount of inventory kept on hand, and the 

likelihood of running out of inventory because of shipment delays. 

The value of time in freight transportation is thus considerably more complex than is the 

case in passenger travel. Although we are not yet prepared to offer guidance on this 

issue, we are conducting research, and hope that additional information will permit 

concrete recommendations in the future. 

Determinants of VTTS

Research into VTTS is conducted, not merely to understand the motives of travel 

decisions taken by the sampled individuals, but to estimate the influence of measurable 

factors on other groups, often remote in time and place. Each estimate depends on the 

demographic characteristics of the traveling population, the mode, time, location, and 

purpose of travel, and the menu of available alternatives, so the selected explanatory 

variables must be important for these decisions, practically observable or published, and 

also obtainable for new samples. Not all relevant factors can be controlled for in a single 

study or measured consistently for new studies or populations affected by government 

actions. Our object is therefore to express VTTS in terms of a limited number of 

variables that have been used in empirical research and are likely to be available for

application in new analyses. The sources of variation will inevitably be simplified and 

distorted, but the result may be a realistic approximation. The variables discussed here 

are those that are most common in the primary research literature and have been found 

most useful for applied evaluations. 
5

Trip purpose

The principal distinction in trip purpose is that between “on-the-clock” business travel 

time, for which a market wage is paid, and personal or leisure time allocated according to 

the traveler’s preferences. In some cases, commuting is treated as a separate category, 

intermediate between personal and business, but more frequently it is included in 

personal travel. Research has typically found VTTS for personal travel to be lower than 

the hourly earning rate. This conclusion does not imply that leisure is less intrinsically 

desirable than paid work. In theory, a worker’s hourly wage is equal to his marginal 

value of time, but with an institutionally fixed working day, this concept can be no better 

than an approximation. People who earn a salary may have few opportunities to convert 

saved time into added income, which they would have to do to equate VTTS on and off 

the clock. Inclusion of commuting in personal travel is consistent with the hypothesis of 

fixed hours for salaried work. Personal travel may also be undertaken to enjoy the 

passing scenery or the qualities of a particular mode: a sports car, cruise ship, or steam 

railroad. In such a case, VTTS could actually be negative, the individual being willing to 

pay to spend more time traveling.

In business travel, though it may seem paradoxical, the treatment of commercial drivers 

(whose travel time is spent working) and travelers who are unable to perform work en 

route should be identical. In either case, savings in travel time are made available for 

additional productive work. When work can be performed during travel by means of a 

laptop computer, a mobile telephone, documents on paper, or discussion among travelers, 

time savings may increase productivity only slightly, if at all, implying a lower VTTS.

Personal characteristics

Demographic variables such as age, sex, education, and employment are widely 

incorporated as explanatory variables in social and economic research and may well 

influence VTTS. While they are sometimes included in empirical studies, they are 

unlikely to be practical for appraising the impact of government actions. More closely 

associated with VTTS are the distinctions between drivers and passengers and between 

parents and children. Clearly, in a public transit vehicle or a car pool, each passenger 

may have an independent value of time, and the value of speeding the trip can be 

conceived as the sum of values for individual vehicle occupants. In private vehicles, the 

case is more ambiguous. Adult or child passengers may be “along for the ride” and have 

no pressing business that would influence the driver’s decisions. Alternatively, the 

driver’s motive for speeding travel may be altruistic or joint with the passengers’ (rushing 

a child to the emergency room or a group to a show). Without the possibility of 

distinguishing the composition or motives of ridership, it must be assumed that all 

travelers’ VTTS are independent and additive. 
6

Hourly income

In theory, hourly income influences VTTS through two channels. The simplest model 

evaluates savings in paid business travel time. While workers are assumed to be 

indifferent between travel and other ways to spend time for which they are compensated, 

employers perceive their employees’ gross compensation (including payroll taxes and 

fringe benefits) as the value of the productivity sacrificed to travel. In general practice, 

VTTS for business-related travel is not estimated empirically but is defined by the gross 

compensation. 

VTTS for personal travel lacks such a theoretical formulation, and leisure time is seen 

instead as an object of consumption that can be substituted for other desirable objects 

according to individual preferences. In general, VTTS is estimated to be lower for 

personal than for business travel. See Mackie et al. (2001). 

Suggested reasons include:

• Employers’ compensation costs include taxes and benefits excluded from 

workers’ disposable income;

• Working hours are typically fixed by employers, preventing workers from earning 

more by saving personal travel time;

• Compensation is spread over several family members, including non-earners.

While such rationales are plausible, circumstances may dictate high or low willingness to 

pay for faster travel by either working travelers or dependents, and only empirical 

research can yield quantitative estimates. Neither specifying a model of household travel 

decisions nor obtaining the appropriate data for estimation is a straightforward process.

Households include varied numbers of earners and dependents for whom work, school, 

child care, and other demands on time and income may influence VTTS in unknown 

ways. Travel by families incurs joint costs of lost time that cannot be assigned to 

particular members. Besides compensation, unearned income from investments or 

annuities contributes to travel budgets. Among all of these factors, the compensation

level of an individual traveler may not be the most important or the most accessible 

variable. Research tends to use either a few broad household income bands stated by 

sampled travelers or the median household incomes of the geographic areas studied. See, 

e.g., Asensio and Matas (2008) and Small et al. (2005).

To adjust past estimates for application to new populations, we require income measures 

that are nationwide, comparable and stable in definition, and regularly updated and 

published. The most reliable variable for projecting business VTTS is the median hourly 

wage for all occupations. Since median fringe benefits are not published, the median 

wage can be scaled upward to approximate the median gross compensation by 

multiplying by the ratio of mean gross compensation (including fringe benefits and 

payroll taxes) to mean money wages. The best variable for projecting personal VTTS is 

annual median household income. In order to present business and personal VTTS on a 
7

practical and comparable basis, annual household income is scaled to an hourly rate by 

dividing by 2,080 hours per year, although it should not be inferred that travelers prorate 

their household incomes by the hour to make decisions. 

In using hourly income as a scaling factor to transfer VTTS estimates to new times and 

locations it has been common to assume an income elasticity of 1.0 (a one percent 

increase in VTTS per one percent increase in income), implying a constant proportional 

relationship. Some recent studies have yielded lower elasticities for personal travel, 

although they have not been unchallenged. Such studies tend to be based on crosssectional models, which compare travelers of different incomes at the same time and 

location. Apart from the credibility of particular results, the assumption that parameters 

derived from cross-section studies are valid for time series is problematic. Furthermore, 

use of non-unitary income elasticities would raise a serious question. If VTTS for 

business travel is defined as equal to the cost of employment, it must display a unitary 

elasticity, growing at the same rate as growing incomes, while VTTS in personal travel, 

with a smaller elasticity, would display slower growth. As a result, an ever-larger 

discrepancy would emerge between VTTS for business and personal travel, negating the 

hypothesis of a stable ratio between them. VTTS could then be defined only for the 

period of each study and extrapolated to the present or the future only by complex and 

arbitrary calculations. Instead, we retain the assumption of fixed VTTS relationships for 

different trip purposes and an income elasticity of 1.0 for all. Beyond updating VTTS 

estimates to the present, it is appropriate to use this elasticity with the projected rate of 

real income growth to obtain estimates of future VTTS, particularly when government 

actions are expected to have long-lasting impacts. 

Where travelers of distinct income levels use modes that are not close substitutes, VTTS 

may be associated with an expected income for each mode. If there are wide and 

overlapping income ranges in substitutable modes, it is preferable not to differentiate 

VTTS estimates on the basis of travelers’ incomes but to use a single value for all.

Mode and distance

VTTS research is often based on the factors influencing mode choice, including the 

comfort, privacy, and prestige subjectively ascribed to particular modes, as well as travel 

time and cost. Since the conclusions of this research are used primarily to evaluate time 

and cost benefits, analysts must control for the other factors affecting mode choice. The 

question remains whether differences among modes in VTTS are systematic or are 

accidents of specification and the data used. For example, should VTTS differ between 

auto drivers and bus passengers after other factors are taken into account? Should 

income differences between the groups be assumed to affect the comparative benefits of 

time savings? As indicated above, where modes are relatively close substitutes in 

location, purpose, and trip distance, it is appropriate to assume that the incomes and 

preferences of travelers are distributed identically among and within modes, yielding a 

common VTTS.
8

While this uniformity is appropriate among local modes, research has found evidence of a 

moderate rise in VTTS with trip distance. This tendency may be seen as a consequence 

of the limited amount of time available for taking a long trip. In addition, it may reflect 

the high value of time at destinations which justify increased costs of travel and 

complementary food and lodging. Although some governments have derived VTTS from 

an estimated distance elasticity, this is an awkward parameter to use, requiring a specific 

distance for each application, whereas a route segment or mode affected by a government 

action is likely to support trips of widely varying distance. A more practical approach 

differentiates trips by broad categories of local and intercity travel.

Certain modes, particularly airlines and high-speed railways, are not close substitutes for 

conventional surface modes. (High-speed railways are associated with the Core Express 

Corridors defined in the FRA National Rail Plan as connecting large urban areas up to 

500 miles apart with 2-3 hour travel time and speeds between 125 and 250 mph.) Since 

these modes charge higher fares to travelers who place a greater value on time saving, it 

is reasonable to derive a distinct VTTS from the higher incomes of their passengers. 

Although income information on travelers in these markets is limited in detail, estimates 

from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey of the household incomes of air 

passengers on personal and business trips permit construction of expected VTTS specific 

to air travel. Because high-speed rail will often compete with air travel for similar 

consumers, the same VTTS is applied to both modes.

Comfort

Travelers will vary widely in willingness to pay to shorten the time during which they are 

subject to uncomfortable conditions such as walking, bicycling, and standing on 

platforms or in vehicles. Indeed, many other conditions—stressful driving in heavy 

traffic, exposure to weather, crowding, uncomfortable seating, and lack of personal 

security—could be included in this list, but it would be difficult to assign values to all of 

them or measure their severity and duration. VTTS estimates already incorporate 

assumptions about such conditions. Since shortening walking distances and waiting 

times and increasing seating are routine options in transportation planning, we assign 

values to their benefits. A distinction should be noted between actions that shorten the 

time period during which such conditions are experienced (reducing waiting by more 

frequent train service) and those that improve conditions during the whole trip (adding 

cars to permit more passengers to be seated). In the former case, VTTS is fixed at a 

higher level while the travel time varies; in the latter, travel time is constant, but VTTS 

varies.

Research and syntheses

The appended bibliography compiles references, accessible via the Internet, that 

demonstrate the evolution of theoretical and empirical research into VTTS and contain 

even more comprehensive lists of sources. These include reviews of the research 

literature and recommended guidance for government agencies in the U.S. and abroad. 

The history of the economic theory of time valuation is discussed in Mackie et al. (2001) 

and more formally in Jara-Díaz and Guevara (1999). The pioneering articles by Becker 
9

(1965) and DeSerpa (1971) place time-allocation decisions in a context of consumption 

choice based on utility maximization, subject to constraints on income and the minimum 

amount of time required by each activity. With its subsequent extensions, this model 

permits derivation of equilibrium conditions for time allocation and has provided a 

widely-used basis for estimation of the parameters of VTTS. 

Analysts have employed various techniques for estimating travelers’ willingness to pay to 

save time. Where behavioral patterns such as choice of route or mode can be observed 

and other causal factors can be controlled for, estimates are derived from revealed 

preference. More frequently, stated preference methods are employed, using 

questionnaires to elicit hypothetical choices among trips that vary across several 

dimensions. This approach allows consideration of a greater number of behavioral 

alternatives and independent variables. Although revealed preference studies observe 

actual consumer choices, they are subject to error in the specification and measurement of 

the explanatory variables. Stated preference studies, in contrast, specify explanatory 

variables precisely but may be subject to errors when respondents predict their own 

hypothetical behavior unrealistically. Recent research has also combined these methods, 

using questionnaires to elicit information on the factors influencing real travel choices. 

Most research employs discrete choice techniques such as logit analysis to estimate the 

parameters influencing preference for specific modes or routes. As the number of 

published studies has grown, some investigators have also used meta-analysis to estimate 

the causes of variation among the conclusions of separate investigations. 

Although VTTS was first investigated in English-speaking countries, concerted efforts to 

develop national models based on systematic data collection have been undertaken in the 

Netherlands, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries, as well as the United Kingdom 

(U.K.). VTTS has also been the object of research in Latin America and Asia. While 

several of these studies are cited in the bibliography, we will not analyze all of their 

conclusions. 

There is wide agreement that the VTTS for business travel should equal the gross hourly 

cost of employment, including payroll taxes and fringe benefits. Because of international 

differences in tax structures, labor markets, data resources, and analysts’ view of the 

social groups being studied, however, the definition of hourly income varies. In theory, it 

is equal to the worker’s marginal product that would be sacrificed if travel were slower. 

Productivity may vary during work hours, allowing travel to be scheduled to minimize 

losses and, as noted earlier, modern technology can combine work with travel. Still, 

there is no well-accepted basis for estimating how the generalized value of business 

travel time differs from the simple gross compensation or predicting its variation in 

applied evaluation. All of the cited syntheses adopt the assumption that business travel 

time is equal to gross compensation, except for Boiteux and Baumstark (2001), where 

VTTS on business is estimated at 61 percent of the hourly cost of employment or 85 

percent of the employee’s gross salary (relating to the French system of accounts). 

Whether the earnings to which estimates are applied should be averages over broad or 
10

narrow groups (defined by mode, driver/passenger, or type of employment) is often 

unclear.

For personal travel, the range of recommended values is broader, reflecting the absence 

of a theoretically compelling hypothesis. Some studies find lower VTTS for auto 

passengers than for drivers and lower values for shopping or recreational travel than for 

commuting. Application of such distinctions, even if consistently supported by research, 

would require data on the specific characteristics and travel purposes of the population 

affected by government actions. To suggest the values developed in other countries, the 

following table converts VTTS for commuting auto drivers recommended in several 

European studies to dollars of the same years as the estimates and projects them to 2008 

dollars by the growth in U.S. median household income. These values span a range that 

is significant but not so wide as to suggest major specification errors or other 

inconsistencies. It may be observed that the values we now recommend are near the 

center of this distribution.

Commuter VTTS

Country Year

VTTS in 

$/hr.

US 

income 

growth 

to 

2008

Equivalent 

2008 

VTTS

Denmark 2004 $10.98 1.13 $12.46

France 1998 $10.26 1.29 $13.27

Norway 1995 $6.32 1.48 $9.33

Spain 2005 $17.06 1.09 $18.52

Sweden 1994 $4.34 1.56 $6.77

Switzerland 2003 $15.85 1.16 $18.41

UK 2002 $7.71 1.19 $9.15

The U.K. practice, as seen in Mackie et al. (2003) and in the U.K.’s Transport Analysis 

Guidance (TAG) 3.5.6 (the official guidance which Mackie’s work informs), is to 

distinguish modes by mean income but not by distance. VTTS for commuting is set at 

less than 25 percent of the average for business travel and VTTS for other purposes at 90 

percent of the commuting rate. Gwilliam suggests that the World Bank use values of 30 

percent of household income per hour for adults and 15 percent for children. Boiteux 

also recommends 30 percent of total employment cost per hour or 42 percent of gross 

wages (50 percent of the VTTS on business). The value grows with distance at a rate that 

diminishes by distance bands. Austroads (the association of Australian and New Zealand 

road transport and traffic authorities) recognizes a range of 30 to 60 percent of average 

earnings and suggests a standard of 40 percent. Both Concas and Kolpakov and Zhang et 

al. recommend a rate of 50 percent of the national average wage for both commuting and 

other personal trips. Boiteux and Baumstark, Mackie et al. (2003), and Zhang et al. all 

recommend explicit use of income elasticities of personal VTTS over time: 0.7, 0.8, and 

0.75, respectively.
11

Concas and Kolpakov assign a value of only 35 percent of the wage for reducing seated 

riding time on transit vehicles but value standing at 100 percent and waiting under 

unpleasant conditions at up to 175 percent of the wage. Boiteux recommends increasing 

the VTTS in urban transit by 50 percent in crowded conditions and by 100 percent for 

walking or waiting. Gwilliam approves a 50-percent increase for both walking and 

waiting. Both TAG 3.5.6 and Zhang et al. prescribe a VTTS twice the normal value for 

walking or bicycling and 2.5 times the normal value when waiting. 

In sum, there is a broad consensus on the approach adopted and the relevant variables and 

categories, as well as a degree of similarity in the specific values recommended. Still, 

neither the findings of research nor the judgments of expert panels are sufficiently 

uniform to eliminate arbitrariness. 

Values for DOT applications

All studies have acknowledged the necessity of simplifying the many occasions and 

determinants of VTTS into a tractable system corresponding to the information available 

on the sources and targets of valuation. The structure of values that we adopted in 1997 

is broadly consistent with those employed in other countries, and it continues to be useful 

for evaluation of the costs and benefits of government investments or regulations. As 

stated in the introduction, it is not specific enough to predict travelers’ demand for 

particular modes or routes. In the following tables, the proportions of VTTS to income 

for personal vs. business, local vs. intercity, and surface vs. air travel are unchanged from 

our initial guidance of 1997, except for the association of high-speed rail with air travel, 

rather than with conventional surface modes. Similarly, the ranges of high and low 

proportions for conceptual testing are identical. Although valuing local personal travel at 

50 percent of hourly income and intercity travel at 70 percent places our estimate among 

the higher ones examined, it is not beyond the range estimated in several studies and 

commonly viewed as reasonable. 

The principal changes that we adopted in 2011 were the sources of income data to which 

these proportions are applied. We use data exclusively from Federal government sources 

and median income values whenever possible, considering them more representative of 

the incomes of typical travelers than the means. We present separate VTTS estimates for 

different categories of transportation vehicle operators, which can be used together with 

passenger VTTS to derive the benefits to vehicle occupants or combined with estimates 

of freight time value from other sources to derive the benefits of time savings in freight 

shipment. We also calculate hourly values as annual values divided by 2,080, rather than 

2,000, for the sake of consistency with the wage figures published by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS). In addition, we give instructions, omitted in our previous 

guidance, on projecting VTTS to future periods in response to real income growth. 

Categories of VTTS

The ratios of VTTS to hourly incomes in Tables 1 and 2, expressed as percentages, must 

be multiplied by appropriate income estimates to convert them to dollar values. These 
12

estimates are shown in Table 3, and the resulting VTTS estimates appear in Table 4. The 

appropriate ranges of VTTS for comparison of alternative estimates are shown in Table 5. 

The tables present additional rows of “all purposes” values; these are weighted averages 

of the values prescribed for personal and business travel with weights derived from the 

2001 NHTS. Although person-miles of travel are used to weight the surface modes, 

person-trips are more appropriate for air travel because many government actions that 

change air travel time will be independent of trip length. 

The distributions so derived are:

• Local travel by surface modes: 95.4% personal, 4.6% business; 

• Intercity travel by surface modes: 78.6% personal, 21.4% business;

• Intercity travel by air: 59.6% personal, 40.4% business. 

Business travel

For “on-the-clock” business travelers over all distances and by every surface mode, 

VTTS is assumed to be equal to a nationwide median gross compensation, defined as the 

sum of the median hourly wage and an estimate of hourly benefits. The median wages 

are obtained from the BLS National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. 

Median benefits are not available from this source and are approximated by deriving the 

ratio of average total compensation (including fringe benefits) to average wages in the 

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation and applying it to median wages. This 

extrapolation is performed for business travelers on all modes, using the share of benefits 

for all workers. This procedure generates a VTTS estimate of $24.10 (the actual value is 

$24.12; all dollar values are rounded off to the nearest ten cents). For all vehicle 

operators the benefit share applied is derived from the series for transportation and 

material moving occupations. Truck drivers’ wages are estimated for a weighted average 

of heavy and light truck drivers from the National Occupational Employment and Wage 

Estimates. 

In the case of air and high-speed rail travel, high-cost modes used for fast trips over long 

distances, we conclude that use of a distinct wage is justified. The best source for 

incomes of air travelers is the BTS National Household Travel Survey of 2001 (no longdistance travel survey has been conducted since 2001). This survey permits estimation of 

distributions of household money income by trip purpose. The ratio of 2001 median 

household income of business air travelers (approximately $105,000) to the U.S. Census 

Bureau 2001 median household income ($42,228) represents a factor of 2.5 to be 

multiplied by the gross median compensation estimate for surface business travelers. 

Updating median household income information from the 2012 US Census Bureau 

($51,017), the resulting VTTS is $60.00. Recent confidential survey data suggest that 

income levels for high-speed rail travelers are similar to those for air travelers, so we 

apply the same VTTS to high-speed rail travelers.
13

Personal travel

For local personal travel, VTTS is estimated at 50 percent of hourly median household 

income. The nationwide median annual household income, $51,017 in 2012, is divided 

by 2,080 to yield an income of $24.50 per hour. The local VTTS is thus $12.25. We 

distinguish local from intercity personal travel, estimating a VTTS that rises with 

distance. For the latter purpose, we have adopted a ratio of VTTS to hourly income of 70 

percent. The VTTS for intercity personal surface travel is then $17.20 per hour. 

For personal travel by air or high-speed rail, the above estimate of VTTS for personal 

intercity surface travel is multiplied by 1.9, the ratio from the NHTS of the 2001 median 

household income of air travelers on personal business to the nationwide median 

household income in 2001. Updating median household income with 2012 information

from the US Census Bureau yields a VTTS estimate of $32.60.

Special issues

In application, vehicle-hours are to be converted to person-hours by multiplying by 

average passenger occupancy of vehicles. Although riders may be a family with a joint 

VTTS or passengers in a car pool or transit vehicle with independent values, these 

circumstances can seldom be distinguished. Therefore, all individuals are assumed to 

have independent values. 

Except for specific distinctions, we consider it inappropriate to use different income 

levels or sources for different categories of traveler. Neither the incomes associated with 

published research nor the stability of the relationship between income and VTTS are 

certain enough to imply that fine adjustments would yield more realistic estimates. The 

first distinction we recognize is that between personal and business (on-the-clock) travel; 

the second is that between surface travel by conventional modes and travel by air or highspeed rail. While VTTS for business travel is correlated with an estimate of passengers’ 

employment compensation, for vehicle operators on several modes we have provided 

VTTS estimates based on median compensation data by employment category as 

reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The scale of income levels developed here is 

applicable nationwide, and analysts should not attempt to substitute incomes for 

particular modes or locations. Nevertheless, estimates derived by reliable and focused 

research may be superior for predicting behavioral responses in specific cases.

Personal time spent walking or waiting outside of vehicles, as well as time spent standing 

in vehicles or bicycling, should be evaluated at 100 percent of hourly income, with a 

range of 80 to 120 percent to reflect uncertainty. As stated above, reducing the time 

during which uncomfortable conditions are experienced provides a benefit equal to the 

product of this VTTS and the reduction in time, while the benefit of improved travel 

conditions (such as additional seating) is equal to the product of the difference in VTTS 

(50 percent of hourly income) and the total time during which discomfort would have 

been experienced. 
14

Uncertainty in the recommended values

The ratios in Table 1 represent the best single figures for defining VTTS as a fraction of 

hourly income. These figures, like all parameters of travel behavior, are subject to 

uncertainty. Table 2 summarizes a plausible range for each trip category, not necessarily 

symmetric about the point estimates in Table 1. The corresponding high and low dollar 

estimates are shown in Table 5. In addition to evaluations based on the most likely 

estimates, alternative calculations using these ranges should be presented to test the 

sensitivity of analyses to potential errors in estimation. 

Impact of income growth on VTTS

The values presented here are suitable for evaluation of impacts in 2014. As stated 

earlier, we include an income elasticity factor to incorporate the expected growth of 

VTTS in response to projected growth in real incomes. With an assumed elasticity of 1.0 

for both business and personal VTTS and a 1.2 percent projected annual growth rate of 

real median household income over the next 30 years, as used by the Congressional 

Budget Office, future values of benefits of real travel time savings should be augmented 

by 1.2 percent per year before discounting to present values.1

Updating the estimated values

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy will publish annual 

updates of VTTS to reflect growth in hourly incomes, using the data sources cited above. 

No updating of the percentages developed in Tables 1 and 2 is required. We will monitor 

and interpret available research on travel behavior and issue new guidance as appropriate.

 1 Congressional Budget Office, The 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook, Long-Term Budget 

Projections, September 2013 Release (September 17, 2013). CBO staff have informed us 

by private communications that they project that the growth in the median real wage will

be about 0.5 percentage points smaller than the growth in the mean real wage for the 

period 2014-2024, and about 0.3 percentage points smaller than the annual growth in the 

mean real wage during the period 2025-2045.
Table 1 (Revision 2 - corrected)

Recommended Values of Travel Time Savings

(per person-hour as a percentage of total earnings)

Category Surface Modes*

(except High-Speed Rail)

Air and High-Speed 

Rail Travel

Local Travel -

 Personal

 Business

Intercity Travel -

 Personal

 Business

50%

100%

70%

100%

--

--

70%

100%

Vehicle operators- 100% on all modes

* Surface figures apply to all combinations of in-vehicle and other time. Walk 

access, waiting, and transfer time should be valued at 100% of hourly income 

when actions affect only those elements of travel time.
2

Table 2 (Revision 2 - corrected)

Plausible Ranges for Values of Travel Time Savings

(per person-hour as a percentage of total earnings)

Category Surface Modes*

(except High-Speed Rail)

Air and High-Speed 

Rail Travel

Local Travel -

 Personal

 Business

Intercity Travel-

 Personal

 Business

35% - 60%

80% - 120%

60% - 90%

80% - 120%

--

--

60% - 90%

80% - 120%

Vehicle operators- 80%-120% on all modes

* Surface figures apply to all combinations of in-vehicle and other transit time. 

Walk access, waiting, and transfer time should be valued at 80%-120% of hourly 

income when actions affect only those elements of travel time.
3

Table 3 (Revision 2 - corrected)

Recommended Hourly Earnings Rates

for Determining Values of Travel Time Savings

(2012 U.S. $ per person-hour)

Category Surface Modes

(except High-Speed Rail)

Air and High-Speed 

Rail Travel

Local Travel -

 Personal

 Business

Intercity Travel -

 Personal

 Business

$24.50

$24.10

$24.50

$24.10

$46.60

$60.00

Truck Drivers $25.40

Bus Drivers $26.40

Transit Rail Operators $45.20

Locomotive engineers $37.70

Airline Pilots and Engineers $82.30
4

Table 3 (Revision 2, continued)

Sources: 

(1) Local and intercity personal travel by conventional surface modes: median 

income for all U.S. households in 2012 ($51,017), reported in U.S. Census 

Bureau, Table H-8. Median Household Income by State: 1984 to 2012, divided 

by 2,080 hours per year.

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2012/H08_2012.xls

(2) Local and intercity business travel by conventional surface modes: Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, May 2012 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 

median wage for all occupations, http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes_dl.htm

multiplied by the ratio of mean total compensation to mean wage from BLS 

Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, average over four quarters of 

2012, ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ocwc/ect/ececqrtn.pdf

(3) Intercity personal travel by air or high-speed rail: median hourly household

income from (1), multiplied by 1.9.

Intercity business travel by air or high-speed rail: median hourly household 

income from (1), multiplied by 2.5 and by the ratio of median national employee 

compensation to median household income.

(4) Truck Drivers: weighted average of May 2012 median hourly wages of heavyand light-truck drivers ($16.97) from BLS National Occupational Employment and 

Wage Estimates; expanded to total compensation by the ratio of total 

compensation to wages for transportation and material moving occupations from 

the 2012 Employer Cost for Employee Compensation series.

http://stats.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b53-0000

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=cm

Other vehicle operators: May 2012 median hourly wages from BLS National 

Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates; expanded to total compensation 

by the ratio of total compensation to wages for transportation and material 

moving occupations from the 2012 Employer Cost for Employee Compensation 

series.

 
5

Table 4 (Revision 2 - corrected)

Recommended Hourly Values of Travel Time Savings

(2012 U.S. $ per person-hour)

Category Surface Modes*

(except High-Speed Rail)

Air and High-Speed 

Rail Travel

Local Travel-

 Personal

 Business

 All Purposes **

Intercity Travel -

 Personal

 Business

 All Purposes **

$12.30

$24.10

$12.80

$17.20

$24.10

$18.70

$32.60

$60.00

$43.70

Truck Drivers $25.40

Bus Drivers $26.40

Transit Rail Operators $45.20

Locomotive engineers $37.70

Airline Pilots and Engineers $82.30
6

Table 4 (Revision 2, continued)

* Surface figures apply to all combinations of in-vehicle and other time. Walk access, 

waiting, transfer, and standing time should be valued at $24.50 per hour for personal 

travel when actions affect only those elements of travel time.

** Weighted averages, using distributions of travel by trip purpose on various modes. 

Distribution for local travel by surface modes: 95.4% personal, 4.6% business. 

Distribution for intercity travel by conventional surface modes: 78.6% personal, 21.4% 

business. Distribution for intercity travel by air or high-speed rail: 59.6% personal, 

40.4% business. Surface figures derived using annual person-mile (PMT) data from the 

2001 National Household Travel Survey. http://nhts.ornl.gov/. Air figures use persontrip data.

When projecting future benefits of travel time savings, values should be augmented by 

1.2 percent per year before discounting to present values.
7

Table 5 (Revision 2 - corrected)

Plausible Ranges for Hourly Values of Travel Time Savings

(2012 U.S. $ per person-hour)

Category Surface Modes*

(except High-Speed Rail)

Air and High-Speed 

Rail Travel

Low High Low High

Local Travel-

 Personal

 Business

 All Purposes **

Intercity Travel -

 Personal

 Business

 All Purposes **

$8.60

$19.30

$9.10

$14.70

$19.30

$15.70

$14.70

$29.00

$15.40

$22.10

$29.00

$23.60

--

--

--

$28.00

$48.00

$36.10

--

--

--

$41.90

$72.00

$54.10

Low High

Truck Drivers $20.30 $30.50

Bus Drivers $21.10 $31.60

Transit Rail Operators $36.20 $54.20

Locomotive engineers $30.10 $45.20

Airline Pilots and Engineers $65.80 $98.70
8

Table 5 (Revision 2, continued)

* Surface figures apply to all combinations of in-vehicle and other transit time. Walk 

access, waiting, and transfer time in personal travel should be valued at $19.60 - $29.40

per hour when actions affect only those elements of travel time.

** Weighted averages, using distributions of travel by trip purpose on various modes. 

Distribution for local travel by surface modes: 95.4% personal, 4.6% business. 

Distribution for intercity travel by conventional surface modes: 78.6% personal, 21.4% 

business. Distribution for intercity travel by air or high-speed rail: 59.6% personal, 

40.4% business. Surface figures derived using annual person-mile (PMT) data from the 

2001 National Household Travel Survey. http://nhts.ornl.gov/. Air figures use persontrip data.

When projecting future benefits of travel time savings, values should be augmented by 

1.2 percent per year before discounting to present values.
9

Bibliography

Algers, S., J. L. Dillén, Transek consultancy, and S. Widlert. 1995. “The National Swedish Value 

of Time Study.” Östersund, Sweden : Swedish Institute for Transport and Communications 

Analysis (SIKA).

www.trafikdage.dk/td/papers/papers95/metode/algers/algers.pdf

Asensio, J., and A. Matas. 2008. “Commuters’ valuation of travel time variability.” 

Transportation Research Part E, 44, 6, 1074-1085.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554508000136

Australia. Bureau of Transport Economics. 1982. “The Value of Travel Time Savings in Public 

Sector Evaluation.” Canberra : Australian Government Publishing Service.

http:// www.bitre.gov.au/publications/05/Files/OP051.pdf

Axhausen, K.W., A. König, G. Abay, J.J. Bates, and M. Bierlaire. 2006. “Swiss value of travel 

time savings.” Zürich: ETH, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, IVT, Institut für 

Verkehrsplanung und Transportsysteme.

http://e-collection.ethbib.ethz.ch/view/eth:28966

Boiteux, M., and L. Baumstark. 2001. “Transports : choix des investissements et coût des 

nuisances.” France : Commissariat général du plan.

http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/014000434/index.shtml

Concas, S. and A. Kolpakov. 2009. “Synthesis of Research on Value of Time and Value of 

Reliability.” Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/researchcenter/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BD549_46_rpt.pdf

de Jong, G., Y. Tseng, M. Kouwenhoven, E. Verhoef, and J. Bates. 2007 (ongoing). “The Value 

of Travel Time and Travel Time Reliability.” The Hague: The Netherlands Ministry of 

Transport, Public Works and Water Management.

http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/english/kennisplein/page_kennisplein.aspx?id=361151&Doss

ierURI=tcm:249-30843-4

Fosgerau, M., K. Hjorth, S.V. Lyk-Jensen. 2007. “The Danish Value of Time Study: Final report 

(Report 5).” Lyngby, Denmark: Danish Transport Research Institute.

http://www.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/dtu%20transport/pdf_dtf/rapporter/the%20danish%20value

%20of%20time%20study_250208.pdf

Gwilliam, K.M. January, 1997. “The Value of Time In Economic Evaluation of Transport 

Projects: Lessons from Recent Research.” The World Bank: Transport No. OT—5.

http://www4.worldbank.org/afr/ssatp/Open.aspx?id=658

Jara-Díaz, S.R. 2003. “On The Goods-Activities Technical Relations in the Time Allocation 

Theory.” Transportation 30 45-60.

http://www.cec.uchile.cl/~dicidet/sjara/On%20the%20Goods.pdf
10

Jara-Díaz, S.R., and Cristián A. Guevara. 1999. “On the Subjective Valuation of Travel Time 

Savings.” European Transport Conference.

http://www.etcproceedings.org/paper/on-the-subjective-valuation-of-travel-time-savings

King, G.W. 1983. “Mathematical Techniques for Estimation of the Value of Travel Time 

Savings.” Canberra: Bureau of Transport Economics, Australian Government Publishing 

Services. 

http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/13/Files/OP057.pdf

Litman, T.A. 2009. “Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and 

Implications.” Victoria, BC: Victoria Transport Policy Institute.

http://www.vtpi.org/tca/

Mackie, P.J., M. Wardman, A.S. Fowkes, G. Whelan, J. Nellthorp, and J. Bates. 2003. “Values 

of Travel Time Savings in the UK.” Working Paper 567. Institute of Transport Studies, 

University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2079/2/Value_of_travel_time_savings_in_the_UK_protected.pdf

Ramjerdi, F., L. Rand, I-A. F. Sætermo, and K. Saelensminde. December, 1997. “The 

Norwegian Value of Time Study.” Oslo: Transportøkonomisk institutt.

http://www.toi.no/article18334-29.html

Small, K.A., C. Winston, and J. Yan. 2005. “Uncovering the Distribution of Motorists’ 

Preferences for Travel Time and Reliability.” AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory 

Studies, Working Paper 05-02.

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2005/02_motorists_winston.aspx

“Value of Travel Time Savings.” 1997. Sydney: Austroads, Inc. Report AP-119/97. 

http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store/Details.aspx?ProductID=582539

“Values of Time and Operating Costs: TAG Unit 3.5.6.” April 2009. UK Department for 

Transport, Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG).

http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.5.6.php

Zamparini, L. and A. Reggiani. 2007. “Meta-Analysis and the Value of Travel Time 

Savings: A Transatlantic Perspective in Passenger Transport.” Networks and Spatial 

Economics, 7:377–396.

http://springerlink.com/content/h663q51u448078x1/

Zhang, A., A.E. Boardman, D. Gillen, and W.G. Waters II. 2005. “Towards Estimating the 

Social and Environmental Costs of Transportation in Canada.” Centre for Transportation Studies, 

University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/report/fullcostinvestigation/transmodal/t003/t003.pdf
11

The following articles appeared in Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and 

Transportation Review, Volume 37, Issues 2-3, Pages 85-251 (April - July 2001), an issue 

completely devoted to VTTS history, research, and guidance.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236065%232

001%23999629997%23229493%23FLA%23&_cdi=6065&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000

061806&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=3928936&md5=6b2313f7708d652bc02c1b5d2fa

1c062

1. Mark Wardman, W. G. Waters II, Advances in the valuation of travel time savings, 

Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Volume 37, 

Issues 2-3, April-July 2001, Pages 85-90, ISSN 1366-5545, DOI: 10.1016/S1366-

5545(01)00002-3.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VHF-42DH1PT1/2/5d380720937003031c58d4104d919a01)

2. P. J. Mackie, S. Jara-Díaz, A. S. Fowkes, The value of travel time savings in evaluation, 

Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Volume 37, 

Issues 2-3, April-July 2001, Pages 91-106, ISSN 1366-5545, DOI: 10.1016/S1366-

5545(00)00013-2.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VHF-42DH1PT2/2/31009dca2438af945641b3d8cd9f304a)

3. Mark Wardman, A review of British evidence on time and service quality valuations, 

Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Volume 37, 

Issues 2-3, April-July 2001, Pages 107-128, ISSN 1366-5545, DOI: 10.1016/S1366-

5545(00)00012-0.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VHF-42DH1PT3/2/d4e9af9abd1f86b64d64c1c3f9d133d9)

4. David A. Hensher, The sensitivity of the valuation of travel time savings to the 

specification of unobserved effects, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and 

Transportation Review, Volume 37, Issues 2-3, April-July 2001, Pages 129-142, ISSN 

1366-5545, DOI: 10.1016/S1366-5545(00)00015-6.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VHF-42DH1PT4/2/32a11021c1df12e58ed594d7d11671fd)
12

5. Paula Armstrong, Rodrigo Garrido, Juan de Dios Ortuzar, Confidence intervals to bound 

the value of time, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 

Volume 37, Issues 2-3, April-July 2001, Pages 143-161, ISSN 1366-5545, DOI: 

10.1016/S1366-5545(00)00019-3.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VHF-42DH1PT5/2/9b4011d1deac9245d5a2db87858c3624)

6. Hugh Gunn, Spatial and temporal transferability of relationships between travel demand, 

trip cost and travel time, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation 

Review, Volume 37, Issues 2-3, April-July 2001, Pages 163-189, ISSN 1366-5545, DOI: 

10.1016/S1366-5545(00)00023-5.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VHF-42DH1PT6/2/7f4273c9cfed2862695ddaafa6f7d127)

7. John Bates, John Polak, Peter Jones, Andrew Cook, The valuation of reliability for 

personal travel, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 

Volume 37, Issues 2-3, April-July 2001, Pages 191-229, ISSN 1366-5545, DOI: 

10.1016/S1366-5545(00)00011-9.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VHF-42DH1PT7/2/375bf0a8991ed5d9c34008456ff1e9c5)

8. Terence C. Lam, Kenneth A. Small, The value of time and reliability: measurement from 

a value pricing experiment, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and 

Transportation Review, Volume 37, Issues 2-3, April-July 2001, Pages 231-251, ISSN 

1366-5545, DOI: 10.1016/S1366-5545(00)00016-8.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VHF-42DH1PT8/2/0608b6a47f66b5c03969183be918d9f8)