Ort, Datum

1
Introduction to the REVENUE Interurban Case
StudiesHeike Link (DIW)Final Conference
Revenue Use from Transport Pricing Brussels,
29-30 November 2005
2
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

3
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?

4
1. Motorway Case Study Finland
5
2. HGV Charging German Motorways

• Earmarking
• motorways vs. secondary roads
• intermodal revenue use
• maintenance vs. new investment
• Public vs. Private procurement

6
3. Swiss Rail Investment Fund
7
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

8
5. Zürich Airport Case Study

• Use of revenues from
• noise/emission depending landing charges (noise
  funds)
• SMCP
• Ramsey pricing

9
6. Rotterdam Port Case Study

• Existing planned options of pricing, use of
  revenues and investment at the competing ports of
  Rotterdam and Antwerp

10
7. Acceptability of HGV Charges
11
Approach of the CS What is a regulation scheme?
12
Approach of the Case Studies
13
The MOLINO model

• Partial equilibrium model with
• Transport market module (demand/supply by
  considering pricing and contracting of
  operations)
• Investment module (investments as a function of
  transport benefits, expected profits, costs of
  capital)
• Financing reporting module (incomes and
  expenditures, assets and liabilities, tpye of
  investment financing)
• Infrastructure fund (income from/subsidies to
  different modes, accumulation over time)
• 2 competing transport options can be analysed
  (road/road, road/rail etc.)

14
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.

15
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

16
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