Transcript FIS Projektleitersitzung

Using the Revenues from the German HGV Toll - Economic
Efficiency and Long-Term Dynamics
Claus Doll
REVENUE Final Seminar
Brussels, 29.-30. November 2005
Background
2000:
Final report of the governmental commission on transport infrastructure financing:
Recommendation to replace tax finance of federal roads by a system of user
charges to ensure good network quality.
2001:
Decision of federal cabinet to replace the EuroVignette-System by distancedepending motorway charges according to DIR 199962/EC.
2001:
Tendering of toll collection.
2002:
Contract to the Toll Collect Consortium (DaimerChrysler, German Telekom) to install
and operate a satellite-based toll system.
2003:
Parliament and council pass the act on use of toll revenues and on the foundation of
an infrastructure financing society (VIFG).
2005:
Toll system went into operation after a delay of 18 months without major problems.
Design of the German HGV toll system
Average tariff 12.4 ct./km differentiated by emission standards and axles according to
DIR 1999/62/EC.
Of total revenues Toll Collect receives an annual sum of 620 mill. € for operation and
enforcement. The contract runs until 2015.
Toll Collect has guaranteed a minimum of 90 % of recognising free riders. Per year 10 million
vehicles are checked by Toll collect and by the Federal Office for Goods Transport.
According to council legislation of 5 / 2003 charges are transferred to the Transport
Infrastructure Financing Society (VIFG) which is obliged to distribute them to
- road (50 %),
- rail (38 %) and to
- inland waterways`(12%).
Research Questions
Primary research questions:
1. Should revenues be re-invested in new infrastructure capacity or in maintenance?
2. Should there be a cross-subsidisation between modes or road classes?
3. Should revenues be partly or fully transferred to the state?
Secondary research questions:
4. How should revenues between motorways and trunk roads be allocated?
5. Which role do different pricing rules play with revenue allocation decisions?
Dual Model
Approach
Synthesis and Interpretation
MOLINO:
Partial transport sector
equilibrium model
Social welfare measures
Equity by income groups
Accounts of agents
Demand,
Networks
etc.
ASTRA:
Integrated transport-economic
system dynamics model
Economic, environmental and
Finanical indicators over time
Detailed modes, sectors
and areas
Charging + revenue spending scenarios
Scenario treatment by assessment tool
MOLINO
ASTRA
Q1: Maintenance vs. New
construction
Modelling with
external inputs
No – but possible
Q2: Cross-subsidisation of
rail/IWW
Investment in rail/IWW
infrastructure
Rail investments in
tracks and vehicles
Proportional tax reform;
sensitivity with Swiss MCF
With limited
scenarios
50% maintenance
expenditures
No – but possible
ACP HGVs / all vehicles /
MCP all vehicles
No internal MCPcomputation possible
Q3: Revenue transfer to the
general budget
Q4: Cross-financing of
secondary road network
Q5: General budget allocation
with different pricing rules
Use of the MOLINO welfare model
Scope:
Pricing of all inter-urban surface transport modes (road, rail/IWW) with focus
on average cost pricing of HGVs on motorways.
Geography:
Consideration of entire networks.
Modes:
Federal roads (motorways + trunk roads) vs. mass transport (rail + IWW).
(IWW freight only, others passenger + freight).
Institutions:
Infrastructure charging instead of final user charging;
distinction between infrastructure investor and infrastructure operator.
MOLINO Pricing Rules
Scheme A: Reference case, no road charging, rail/IWW as current.
Scheme B: Current pricing scheme: HGV motorway charges calculated from
average costs of constructing, maintaining and operating the
networks. Road operation public, rail/IWW operation private (with
public subsidies).
Scheme C: Average infrastructure cost pricing for all vehicles on all road network
types.
Scheme D: SMCP on all modes.
Pricing, management and investment under public procurement in all scenarios.
Decisive welfare determinants
Elasticities of substitution: Calibration by studies on market reactions of transport
on pricing measures.
The marginal cost of public funds: Value for Germany taken out of Kleven and
Krainer (2003). Values for Germany (2.21) are very high compared to other OECD
countries (average 1.55).
3
Costs of public funds for proportional tax refoorm in OECD countries
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SA
U
.
pa
n
Ja
Ze
al
ew
ec
e
N
G
re
lia
da
st
ra
Au
an
a
C
ai
n
Sp
K
U
it z
er
l.
Sw
la
nd
Ic
e
It a
ly
rtu
ga
l
ay
Po
N
or
w
b.
m
Lu
xe
e
la
nd
Ire
nc
Fr
a
ar
k
n
en
m
D
ed
e
Sw
st
ri a
Au
l.
d
et
he
r
N
la
n
Fi
n
an
y
m
G
er
Be
lg
i
um
0
Set-up of the ASTRA model
ASTRA is an aggregated system-dynamics model for the EU-15 with several network levels,
4 functional regions per country and 25 economic sectors.
It does not compute neoclassical welfare measures but models economic processes more
detailed than MOLINO.
Single pricing rule: Average infrastructure cost pricing for all inter-urban road users.
Three revenue spending scenarios:
•
Road: Re-investment of all revenues in the road sector.
•
Cross: Cross-subsidisation of rail investments and maintenance.
•
DT: Reduction of direct taxes.
Research question 1:
Maintenance vs. new investments
Consideration by MOLINO only.
External modelling of:
•
time-variant asset deterioration required.
•
level of maintenance requirements and maintenance costs.
•
speed to maintenance elasticity.
Results:
•
Total welfare (society as a whole) prefers maintenance activities in order to prevent future reinvestment costs and in order not to provoke induced traffic with all its negative implications
(environment, congestion, etc.).
•
Users (low and high income) prefer new investments due to reduced time and resource costs.
ACP of HGVs on motorways,
full earmarking for transport, 50% road / 50% rail/IWW
Welfare (mill. € 2000-2020)
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
75%
50%
25%
Share of revenues used for maintenance measures
Total welfare
High income users
Low income users
Research question 2:
Road vs. cross-subsidisation of rail/IWW
Consideration by MOLINO and ASTRA.
Results:
Effect of marginal capacity
extension
Rail-IWW /
road
Change in travel speed by
extra capacity unit
0.85
•
MOLINO recommends the earmarking of funds for the
road sector from the perspective of total welfare as well
as from the users' point of view.
Time saving per trip by extra
capacity unit
1.33
•
Reason: Rail investments are more cost-effective but
road has much higher demand => preference will
improve as rail share increases.
Capacity unit per investment
amount
1.32
•
Considering several indicators (GDP, GVA, exports, etc.)
ASTRA also results in slightly more positive values in
case of earmarking revenues to road.
Demand
0.48
•
This preference of the ASTRA model is, however,
negligible.
Total travel time savings
0.86
ACP of HGVs on motorways,
full earmarking for transport, 50% maintenance expenditures
Welfare (mill. € 2000-2020)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
100%
75%
50%
25%
Share of revenues earmarked to road transport
Total welfare
High income users
Low income users
Change of GDP in Germany
compared to BAU scenario
0.0
[%] change to BAU
-0.5
-1.0
Interurban-Road
Interurban-Cross
-1.5
Interurban-DT
-2.0
-2.5
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Research question 3:
Earmarking for transport vs. transfer to public hand
This question has been investigated by both models.
Assumption: state uses revenues to lower (direct) taxes proportional to income.
Alternative ways of revenue use (investment in education, health sector support, etc.) are out
of the scope of the models.
Direct use of "marginal cost of public funds" (MOLINO) vs. endogenous computation of costs
of public funds via behavioural consumption models (ASTRA).
Results:
•
MOLINO clearly recommends the transfer of all revenues to the state.
•
Results are much less expressed when using alternative MCPF-values.
•
In the long run ASTRA finds much better results when earmarking revenues to transport
due to incentives for productivity improvements.
Welfare (mill. € 2000-2020)
ACP of HGVs on motorways,
50% of transport expenditures for road, 50% for maintenance
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
100%
75%
50%
25%
Share of revenues earmarked for the transport sector
Total welfare
High income users
Low income users
Change of Disposable Income in Germany
compared to BAU scenario
0.5
0.0
[%] change to BAU
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Interurban-Road
Interurban-Cross
-2.0
Interurban-DT
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Change of GVA of chemicals and trade sector in
Germany compared to BAU scenario
0.5
[%] change to BAU
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
Chemicals Interurban-Road
Chemicals Interurban-DT
Chemicals Interurban-Cross
Trade Interurban-Road
Trade Interurban-Cross
Trade Interurban-DT
2018
2020
Conclusions (1)
MOLINO and ASTRA agree in the following items:
1. In general average cost pricing has a negative impact on total welfare.
•
From the perspective of transport users this, however, looks different.
•
MOLINO finds positive welfare measures for MSCP.
2. If revenues are to be earmarked to transport, maintenance activities in road should be
prioritised.
•
This MOLINO result holds for society in total.
•
In contrast, transport users would prefer investments in capacity extension.
Conclusions (2)
The models disagree in the welfare effect of transferring revenues to the general budget.
•
MOLINO and ASTRA short run results prefer transferring revenues to the public
household.
•
In the log run incentive and productivity effects make the re-investment cases perform
much better in the ASTRA framework.
•
MOLINO: Appropriate to model welfare effects on a limited local level.
•
However, more research is required on the effects of cross-subsidising other sectors
(e.g. health, social security or education).
•
Conclusion: The transfer of transport pricing revenues to the general budget is to be
considered with care.
Additional material
Molino decision tree in the multi-modal case "M"
Level 3
Utility
Level 2
Transport
Level 1
Level
Peak
Road
Rail/IWW
In-house production´/
Domestic markets
Off-peak
Road
Rail/IWW
Molino decision tree
the
road level case "R"
"R": Multi-Network-Level
Casemulti
DecisioninTree
Analysis in Road Transport
Level 3
Utility
Level 2
Level 1
Level
In-house production´/
Domestic markets
Other modes
Transport
Off-peak
Peak
Motorways
Trunk
roads
Motorways
Trunkroads
Agents and their inter-relations
Users individual and public transport
operators (car users, hauliers, train
service operators, shippers)
The infrastructure operators take
decisions on maintenance activities
and bears the costs of network capital
and maintenance costs, which they
can charge to the users. .
The network managers (=owners or
investors) take decisions on capacity
expansions and bear the respective
costs for new investments which they
can charge to the operators.
Local
government
Vehicle
Registration tax
Users
Fuel tax
Central
government
State subsidy
or allocation to
public sector
Infrastructure
fund
Loss, prifit or
Profit tax
Revenues –
operation
contributions
Investment
contribution
Infrastructure
Use tolls
Infrastructure
operators
Infrastructure
Investment
charges
Infrastructure
investors
ASTRA Modules and Main Interfaces
Population Change
Potential Labour Force
Structure of the ASTRA
system-dynamics model
POP
Population Structure
GDP, (Un-)Employment, Sectoral Output
VFT
REM
FOT
Generalized Cost OD
Transport Expenditure,
Performance, Time
Transport Demand OD
TRA Transport Cost, Time OD
VAT Revenue
Fuel Tax Revenue
GDP, Employment, ....
Fuel Price
Fleet Structure
ENV
Emissions, Noise,
Accidents
WEM
Car Fleet
Emphasis on transport sector.
Exports, Imports
Sectoral Goods Flows
VKT
Geographical coverage: EU15 (25) with 4
functional zones per country.
GDP, Productivity
Fuel
Price
Feedback loops and reaction delay
functions aim at capturing second-round
effects of policy measures (e.g.
endogenous generation of costs of public
funds).
MAC
Consumption, Investment in Vehicles, VAT
Disposable Income
8 modules which are interfering in every
time step (3 months).
Abbreviations:
POP = Population Module
MAC = Macroeconomics Module
REM = Regional Economics Module
FOT = Foreign Trade Module
TRA = Transport Module
ENV = Environment Module
VFT = Vehicle Fleet Module
WEM = Welfare Measurement Module
Determination of MOLINO
input parameters
Speed-Flow relationship by road network type
140
Network speed-flow curves:
•
Road: Network model outputs
for different demand levels
100
60
Motorways
40
Trunk roads
All roads
0
Rail/IWW: Network impacts of
big investment projects
Marginal costs of capacity
expansion: 50% of network
replacement costs to capture the
effect of targeted investments in
bottlenecks.
80
20
0,50
0,70
0,90
1,10
1,30
1,50
Relative level of demand
Speed-Flow relationships rail
140
120
Travel speed (kph)
•
120
Average speed (kph)
Demand: Levels and growth rate
by federal investment plan
100
80
60
40
Iso-Elastic speeds:
20
Linear speeds:
0
0
0,5
1
1,5
relative level of demand
2
2,5
Question 4:
Different forms of ACP vs. MSCP
Assessment by MOLINO only.
Pricing regimes:
•
ACP HGVs >12t on motorways (0.58 ct./tkm)
•
ACP cars (1.88 ct./pkm) and HGVs (1.55 ct./tkm) on all roads#
•
MSCP on roads (11-18 ct./pkm, 10-13 ct./tkm) and rail/IWW
(13-18 ct./pkm, 3-10 ct,/tkm)
Results:
•
Pricing schemes matter much more than revenue allocation rules.
•
Welfare results extreme for MSCP, driven by positive effect of reduced traffic.
•
User-specific results contradict positive total welfare with MSCP.
Welfare (mill. € 2000-2020)
ACP on roads vs. MSCP for all modes,
100% of revenues for transport, 50% for road, 50% for maintenance
3'000
2'500
2'000
1'500
1'000
500
0
-500
-1'000
-1'500
ACP HGVs
on motorways
Total welfare
ACP all vehicles
all roads
High income users
MSCP all vehicles
all modes
Low income users
Question 5:
Public administration vs. private sector operation
Investigated by MOLINO only.
Here only presentation of cases with full earmarking of revenues to transport.
Different levels of cross-subsidisation between (both private) modes.
Profit-maximising price regime (Nash equilibrium) due to elasticities of substitution < 1 not
possible => ACP raised by 50% to simulate profit margin.
Results:
•
For 100% as well as for 50% earmarking of revenues for road public sector involvement
is much worse than public administration of the road network.
•
Remarkably, cross-subsidisation of rail/IWW is favoured even by private sector.
•
Results are confirmed by user-specific welfare measures.
Welfare (mill. € 2000-2020)
ACP all road vehicles,
100% of revenues for transport, 50% for maintenance
100
0
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
Public
administration,
100% road
Total welfare
Private
operation,
100% road
Public
administration,
50% road
High income users
Private
operation,
50% road
Low income users
Question 6:
Investment in motorways vs. trunk roads
Assessment with MOLINO only.
Assumptions: 100% earmarking of revenues to transport, 50% us3e for maintenance
activities.
Results:
•
Total welfare perspective: 75% use for motorways optimal.
•
User perspective: 25% for motorways, 75% for motorways.
•
Explanation: Detouring traffic causes environmental, noise and safety problems.
ACP of HGVs on motorways,
full earmarking for transport, 50% maintenance expenditures
Welfare (mill. € 2000-2020)
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
100%
75%
50%
25%
Share of revenues earmarked for motorways
Total welfare
High income users
Low income users
Change of Export in Germany
compared to BAU scenario
0,2
0,0
[%] change to BAU
-0,2
-0,4
-0,6
Interurban-Road
Interurban-Cross
-0,8
Interurban-DT
-1,0
-1,2
-1,4
-1,6
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Change of Employment in Germany
compared to BAU scenario
0,5
[%] change to BAU
0,0
-0,5
-1,0
Interurban-Road
Interurban-Cross
Interurban-DT
-1,5
-2,0
-2,5
-3,0
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
2018
Change of Consumption in Germany
compared to BAU scenario
0.5
0.0
[%] change to BAU
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Interurban-Road
Interurban-Cross
-2.0
Interurban-DT
-2.5
-3.0
-3.5
-4.0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Change of Transport CO2 Emissions in Germany
compared to BAU scenario
0,0
[%] change to BAU
-1,0
-2,0
Interurban-Road
Interurban-Cross
-3,0
Interurban-DT
-4,0
-5,0
-6,0
2000
2003
2006
2009
2012
2015
2018