Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for...
-
Upload
horace-long -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for...
![Page 1: Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds Revenue use from.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072111/56649ebc5503460f94bc4f9e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of
EdinburghProf Chris Nash
Institute for Transport Studies
University of Leeds
Revenue use from transport pricinghttp://www.revenue-eu.org
![Page 2: Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds Revenue use from.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072111/56649ebc5503460f94bc4f9e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Research Questions
What would a system of revenue sharing that maximised social welfare within the local political and institutional constraints look
like for Edinburgh– Who should set the charges?
– Who should collect the revenue?
– How should the revenue be spent?
![Page 3: Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds Revenue use from.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072111/56649ebc5503460f94bc4f9e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Transport Policy in Scotland
• Devolved to the Scottish Parliament:– Legal provision for promoting RUC in
Scotland lies with local authorities; • Require approval of Scottish parliament • RUC revenue must be earmarked for
transport • But they can only influence local transport
(local roads, buses and trams)
– But vehicle and fuel tax is a matter reserved for Westminster
![Page 4: Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds Revenue use from.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072111/56649ebc5503460f94bc4f9e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Case Study Approach• Confined to local authority decisions:
– Level of charges (fixed cordons), earmarking, investment in local public transport (buses and trams)
• Analysis of 3 types of regulation schemes:– Package to optimise regional welfare; – Package to optimise welfare of Edinburgh citizens; and– Edinburgh’s proposed RUC and investment package
• Tool:– MARS model
• Multi-modal strategic urban model of Edinburgh, Lothians and Fife
• Land use responses• Zonal model• Optimisation routine for policy instruments (tolls, bus freq.)
![Page 5: Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds Revenue use from.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072111/56649ebc5503460f94bc4f9e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Edinburgh: MARS model study area
![Page 6: Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds Revenue use from.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072111/56649ebc5503460f94bc4f9e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Regional welfare
• To maximise regional welfare– Cordon charges more than 3 times higher than
proposed (€10 peak, €5 off-peak);
– Invest in LRT
– Invest in urban bus services (not region wide)
• BUT– Revenue generation is very high (PVF is £3
billion)
– Insufficient ‘good’ transport projects for revenue surplus to be earmarked
![Page 7: Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds Revenue use from.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072111/56649ebc5503460f94bc4f9e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
City of Edinburgh Welfare
• To maximise Edinburgh citizens welfare:– Cordon charges more than 12 times higher
than proposed (€40 peak, €20 off-peak);
– No LRT and no increased bus services• Investment and operating costs + fares > greater
than Edinburgh residents’ user benefits
![Page 8: Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds Revenue use from.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072111/56649ebc5503460f94bc4f9e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Equity
• Ability to tax residents of other LAs means:– Inequitable outcome is possible if
Edinburgh citizens control price setting and revenue use with no form of constraint
• However– Distributing revenue between local
authorities in proportion to trip origin is much more equitable
![Page 9: Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds Revenue use from.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072111/56649ebc5503460f94bc4f9e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
What happened?• CEC responsible for setting charges and
revenue allocation BUT proposed– Charges below level that maximised Edinburgh
residents welfare– A revenue sharing scheme
• Possible reasons why:– Consequence of excessive charges on retail and
business?– Subject to higher authority (PLI and Scottish
Executive approval)?– Only a limited number of good transport projects?– Acceptability?
![Page 10: Cordon charges and the use of revenue – a case study of Edinburgh Prof Chris Nash Institute for Transport Studies University of Leeds Revenue use from.](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022072111/56649ebc5503460f94bc4f9e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Conclusion• Price setting and revenue use:
– Some form of control should rest with a higher authority
• Earmarking of revenues:– reduces efficiency & leads to a lower optimal
toll charge • Revenue distribution
– In proportion to trip origin seems pragmatic solution
• Price and revenue use for Edinburgh given local institutional constraints
– CEC proposals were efficient and equitable– BUT still not acceptable