Date post: | 20-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | kellie-simpson |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Ort, DatumAutor
Introduction to the REVENUE Interurban Case Studies
Heike Link (DIW)
Final Conference Revenue Use from Transport Pricing Brussels, 29-30 November 2005
Objectives
– Testing options of using revenues from different pricing schemes in a set of 7 interurban case studies
– Comparison of theoretical recommendations on optimal use of revenues with existing/planned schemes
– Recommendations on use of revenues that is:• efficient• equitable• legally and institutionally feasible• acceptable
Key questions on use of revenues
– Welfare effects of different pricing regimes in combination with options of using revenues?
– Earmarking to transport sector?
– Cross-subsidisation between modes?
– Cross-subsidisation between new (tolled roads) and existing (non-tolled) roads?
– Maintenance versus new construction?
– Public versus private procurement?
– Acceptability of specific options for using revenues?
1. Motorway Case Study Finland
0 50 km
3 4 6
7
501 E18
E18E12 E75
25Suomenlahti
Loviisa
Porvoo
Hyvinkää
KotkaHam ina
Salo
Helsinki
TurkuNaantali
Lohja
M uurlaLohjanharju
3
R autatie
Tienum ero
Valta tie
Lentoasem a
Satam a >1 M t
Satam a >5 M t
M oottoritie
Raja-asem aM oottori-liikennetie
M oottoritiesuunnitte illa / rakente illa
New 60km long motorway section of E18
- Financing investment for a new 60 km section of the motorway E18 (part of the „Nordic Triangle“) by different combinations of pricing schemes and use of revenues
- Public versus private procurement
2. HGV Charging German Motorways
- Earmarking - motorways vs. secondary
roads - intermodal revenue use - maintenance vs. new
investment- Public vs. Private
procurement
3. Swiss Rail Investment Fund
GotthardLötschberg
-
2/31/3
Cantons („States“)
Heavy vehicle fee:
Revenues: 600 mill. € / year
Reimbursements: 75 mill. € / year
Costs: 45 mill. € / year
Net revenues: 480 mill. € / year
New railway tunnels:
Lötschberg 2.700 mill. €
Gotthard 6.240 mill. €
Other 1.330 mill. €
Total cost 10.270 mill. €
23% foreign vehicles
77% domestic vehicles
-Optimal degree of earmarking HFV revenues-Cross-subsidisation road rail versus investments in both
modes
4. Motorway + Road/Rail Case Study France
– Financing new motorway projects from motorway dividends and land fees of existing motorways (AFITF)
– Financing the Lyon-Turin rail link from charging revenues of alpine motorway
Origin : Transport MinistryLegend :
Centre Europe Atlantique Road A 75 motorway
A 20 motorwayNational Road RN 7Estuaires Motorway
5. Zürich Airport Case Study
Use of revenues from:
a) noise/emission depending landing charges (noise funds)
b) SMCP
c) Ramsey pricingRunway extension at Zurich airport under the “optimisation Scenario”
Left: extension of runway 10/28 in the west. Right: extension of runway 14/32 in the north. Source: ARV 2004.
6. Rotterdam Port Case Study
– Existing + planned options of pricing, use of revenues and investment at the competing ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp
7. Acceptability of HGV Charges
a) Key informant survey - Transit traffic through CH and Db) Internet-based company survey - HGV charging
scheme D
Approach of the CS: What is a regulation scheme?
Scope Pricing InvestmentRevenue use &
financing
RulesWhat sectors / sub-sectors are
covered?
Which pricing rule?
What use of revenues, what
financing?
Which investment rule?
What actors are involved, with
what functions?
Who sets prices? Who decides on revenues use and financing?
Who makes investment decisions?
Regulatoryframework
Private or public provision?
Payment?Enforcement?
Exeptions?
Revenues collection &
management?
Tenders?Contracts?
Procurement & Imple-mentation
Approach of the Case Studies
Finland motor-way
D
HGV tolls
CH
rail/ road
CH
urban fund
France road/
rail
Zurich airport
Rotter-dam port
Accept-ability
Efficiency
MOLINO Other model Qualitative / Quanti-tative analysis
Equity
MOLINO Qualitative / Quanti-tative analysis
Technical and org. feasibility
Acceptability
The MOLINO model
– Partial equilibrium model with:
a) Transport market module (demand/supply by considering pricing and contracting of operations)
b) Investment module (investments as a function of transport benefits, expected profits, costs of capital)
c) Financing reporting module (incomes and expenditures, assets and liabilities, tpye of investment financing)
d) Infrastructure fund (income from/subsidies to different modes, accumulation over time)
– 2 competing transport options can be analysed (road/road, road/rail etc.)
Main findings
1. Welfare effects of SMCP– SMCP welfare superior but fails to recover costs.– French CS suggests combination of SMCP with
subsidies from the interurban fund AFITF.– In general: Transport pricing, investment, and
revenue use must be considered together for sound conclusions on efficiency.
– Overall positive effect may have winners and losers: Sound analysis of distributional effects necessary.
Main findings (cont.)2. Earmarking and intermodal cross-subsidisation
German HGV charging study: Revenues to general budget = welfare superior, but if
earmarking required: – Revenues should be earmarked to road, no cross-
subsidies to rail.– Supported by acceptability study: Hauliers ...
.... prefer use within road sector,
.... would even accept higher charge if revenues used for road.
Swiss and French case studies: Welfare increases by cross-subsidisation from road to rail
Main findings (cont.)
3. Cross-subsidisation between roads– French CS: Cross-subsidisation between existing
tolled motorways (dividends, Land fees) and new motorways increases welfare
– German CS: Use revenues from HGV charging at motorways for the motorways, not for other roads