IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa05p732.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A cost-benefit analysis of tunnel investment and tolling alternatives in Antwerp

Author

Listed:
  • André De Palma

    ()

  • Robin Lindsey

    ()

  • Stef Proost

    ()

  • Saskia Van der Loo

    ()

Abstract

This paper presents and illustrates a comprehensive and operational model for assessing transport pricing and investment policies and regulatory regimes. The approach encompasses intra-modal as well as inter-modal competition, and could be used either by private operators or by the legislator for the purpose of evaluating market conduct. The model combines elements of contract theory, public economics, political economy, transportation economics and game theory. It incorporates a CES-based discrete-choice framework in which user charges and infrastructure investments are endogenously determined for two competing alternatives (air, rail or two parallel roads) that may be used for transportation of passengers and/or freight. The model includes separate modules for demand, supply, equilibrium and the regulatory framework. The demand module for passenger transport features a CES decision tree with three levels: choice between transport and consumption of a composite commodity, choice between peak and off-peak periods, and choice between the two transport alternatives. Elasticities of substitution at each level are parametrically given. Passengers can be segmented into classes that differ with respect to their travel preferences, incomes and costs of travel time. The demand module for freight transport also features three levels. The first level encompasses choice between transport and other production inputs, and the second and third levels are the same as for passenger transport. Freight transport can be segmented into local and transit traffic. The supply module specifies for each transport alternative travel time as a function of traffic volume and a rule for infrastructure maintenance. Operating, maintenance and investment costs are allowed to depend on the contractual form. Given the demand and supply functions, the equilibrium module computes a fixed-point solution in terms of prices and levels of congestion. Finally, the exogenous regulatory framework stipulates for each alternative the objective functions of the operators and infrastructure managers (public or private objectives), the nature of competition, procurement policies, the cost of capital, and the source and use of transport tax revenues. Possible market structures include: no tolls (free access), exogenous tolls, marginal social cost pricing, private duopoly and mixed oligopoly. Public decisions can be made either by local or central governments that may attach different welfare-distributional weights to agents (e.g. low-income vs. high-income passengers, or local vs. transit freight traffic) as well as different weights to air pollution and other (non-congestion) external transport costs. Primary outputs from the model are equilibrium prices, transport volumes, travel times, cost efficiency of operations, toll revenues and financial balances, travellersÂ’ surplus and social welfare. In the final section of the paper the methodology is illustrated with an example of competition in the market for long-distance passenger travel between high-speed rail and air. A simple procedure allows the calibration of the parameters when aggregate data are available. The model is used to evaluate policies (pricing, investment, taxes, inter alia).

Suggested Citation

  • André De Palma & Robin Lindsey & Stef Proost & Saskia Van der Loo, 2005. "A cost-benefit analysis of tunnel investment and tolling alternatives in Antwerp," ERSA conference papers ersa05p732, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p732
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa05/papers/732.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno De Borger & Stef Proost (ed.), 2001. "Reforming Transport Pricing in the European Union," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1822.
    2. Arnott, Richard & Kraus, Marvin, 1998. "When are anonymous congestion charges consistent with marginal cost pricing?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 45-64, January.
    3. Henrik Jacobsen Kleven & Claus Thustrup Kreiner, 2003. "The Marginal Cost of Public Funds in OECD Countries. Hours of Work Versus Labor Force Participation," CESifo Working Paper Series 935, CESifo Group Munich.
    4. Small, Kenneth A. & Gomez-Ilbanez, Jose A., 1998. "Road Pricing for Congestion Management: The Transition from Theory to Policy," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8kk909p1, University of California Transportation Center.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cantos-Sánchez, Pedro & Moner-Colonques, Rafael & Sempere-Monerris, José J. & Álvarez-SanJaime, Óscar, 2011. "Viability of new road infrastructure with heterogeneous users," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 435-450, June.
    2. de Palma, André & Lindsey, Robin & Proost, Stef & Van der Loo, Saskia, 2007. "Chapter 5 Comparing alternative pricing and revenue use strategies with the MOLINO model," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 111-131, January.
    3. de Palma, Andre & Marcucci, Edoardo & Niskanen, Esko & Wieland, Bernhard, 2005. "Introduction," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 31, pages 1-5.
    4. Pedro Cantos-Sanchez & Rafael Moner-Colonques & Jose J. Sempere-Monerris & Oscar Alvarez, 2008. "Viability of a New Road Infrastructure with Heterogeneous Users in Madrid Access," Working Papers 2008-06, FEDEA.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • R41 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Transportation: Demand, Supply, and Congestion; Travel Time; Safety and Accidents; Transportation Noise
    • R48 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Transportation Economics - - - Government Pricing and Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p732. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gunther Maier). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.