Abstract In the context of recent plans for public sector expenditure, the value for money provided by rural public transport is an important issue in Britain and elsewhere, and one aspect of this is the option and non-use value placed on public transport by residents. Whilst there are a small number of studies which have estimated option and non-use values, they rest largely on contingent valuation methods which are subject to dangers of bias, and concentrate on commuter services into cities rather than truly rural services. This paper seeks to overcome these problems by conducting a Stated Preference (SP) experiment in rural communities, which values the provision of rail services and compares this against Post Office provision. We believe that using this approach, and allowing respondents to compare willingness to pay for rail services with that for another important rural service subject to threatened cuts, should produce more reliable results; moreover we achieve this using self completion questionnaires rather than much more expensive interviews. Our results show much lower values for rail than previous studies, though this is to be expected in truly rural areas where the likelihood of commuting by rail is much lower. Other non-use values are greater than option values in this context.

Highlights • Our paper adds to the small number of existing studies in the field of rail non-use and option values. • We conduct a Stated Preference (SP) experiment which values the provision of rural rail services. • We use up to date discrete choice modelling approaches to derive these valuations. • We show how the location of respondents affects their valuations. • We find using self completion questionnaires rather than face to face interviews still yields robust results.