Journal of Korean Society of Transportation (대한교통학회지)

Korean Society of Transportation (대한교통학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of the Causes of the Welfare Gain Achieved by Congestion Pricing and Transit Subsidies

혼잡통행료와 대중교통 보조금의 효용개선 원인 분석

  • Rhee, Hyok-Joo (Department of Public Administration, Seoul National University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Yu, Sang-Gyun (Department of Urban Engineering, Daejin University)
  • 이혁주 (서울과학기술대학교 행정학과) ;
  • 유상균 (대진대학교 도시공학과)
  • Received : 2012.12.13
  • Accepted : 2013.04.24
  • Published : 2013.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

We analyze the efficiency of congestion pricings and transit subsidies in the spatial micro-economic model based on a general equilibrium environment. In this setting, we decompose the total welfare change into component factors and identify the reason of the change in the efficiency caused by policy instruments; these component factors are divided into indirect factors and direct factors including of origin-destination and mode choices. We set up the model as adding mode choice to the standard format in the fashion of Anas and Kim (1996) and extend the methodology proposed by Yu and Rhee (2011) and Rhee (2012) for deriving theoretical and analytical solution. Most of welfare gain comes from the modal shift from car to bus. The relative efficiency of subsidies in relation to the first-best pricing is lower than it of congestion pricings although the change in bus share by subsidies is similar to it by congestion pricing. Subsidies give rise to more modal shift from a car to a bus for long-distance commuting than it caused by congestion pricings. As the increase of bus share for long-distance commuting leads to the increase of cross-commuters passing through CBD, the welfare gain by subsidies is lower than it by congestion pricings.

본 연구는 혼잡통행료 징수와 보조금 지급의 후생개선 효과를 일반균형조건을 충족하는 공간모형에서 비교하고 이들이 발생시키는 후생개선 효과를 분해한 후 후생개선 효과의 원인을 규명하고 있다. 본 연구는 Anas and Kim (1996)를 기원으로 구축된 확률균형모형에 수단선택 조건을 추가한 후, Yu and Rhee (2011)와 Rhee (2012)가 제안하는 연구방법론을 응용하여 후생개선 효과를 간접효과와 직접효과 중 입지요인과 수단요인으로 구분하여 관찰한다. 최선의 정책수단(First-best pricing)에 대한 혼잡통행료 부과 또는 보조금 지급의 상대적 효율성은 혼잡통행료 부과의 경우가 보조금 지급에 비하여 높은 것으로 나타났다. 우리는 후생개선 효과의 분해를 통해 이들 효과의 대부분은 수단요인에 의해 달성된 것임을 확인하였다. 대중교통 보조금의 지급은 혼잡통행료 부과에 비하여 장거리 대중교통 분담률을 더욱 증가시키고, 이러한 현상은 혼잡통행료 징수에 비하여 입지요인으로 인한 더욱 많은 후생감소 효과를 유발하여 후생개선 효과는 상대적으로 낮게 나타난다. 이에 대한 원인은 혼잡통행료 부과에 비하여 보조금 지급이 도심 내 과다한 통과교통을 유발했기 때문이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Anas A., Kim I. K. (1996), General Equilibrium Models of Polycentric Urban Land Use with Endogenous Congestion and Job Agglomeration, Journal of Urban Economics, 40, pp.232-256. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1996.0031
  2. Anas A., Rhee H. -J. (2006), Curbing Excess Sprawl with Congestion Tolls and Urban Boundaries, Regional Science and Urban Economics 36, pp.510-541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2006.03.003
  3. Anas A., Rhee H. -J. (2007), When are Urban Growth Boundaries not Second-best Policies to Congestion Tolls?, Journal of Urban Economics 61, pp.263-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.09.004
  4. Arnott R. (2007), Congestion tolling with agglomeration externalities, Journal of Urban Economics 62, pp.187-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2007.03.005
  5. Basso L. J., Guevara A. C., Gschwender A., Fuster M. (2011), Congestion pricing, transit subsidies and dedicated bus lanes: Efficient and practical solutions to congestion, Transport Policy 18, pp.676-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.01.002
  6. Basso L. J., Jara-Diaz S. R. (2012), Integrating congestion pricing, transit subsidies and mode choice, Transportation Research Part A, Vol.46, No.6, pp.890-900.
  7. Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S. R. (1985), Discrete Choice Analysis, MIT Press.
  8. Borck R., Wrede M. (2008), Commuting subsidies with two transport mdoes, Journal of Urban Economics 63, pp.841-848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2007.06.002
  9. Downs A. (1962), The law of peak-hour expressway congestion, Traffic Quarterly 16, pp.393-409. Reprinted in Downs A. (1968), Urban problems and prospects, Markham: Chicago.
  10. Han S. -Y. (2007), A Comparative Analysis on Transfer Effects to Public Transit by Regulatory and Incentive Systems, Journal of Regulation Studies, Vol.16, No.1, pp.221-254.
  11. Han S. -Y., Lee S. W. (2006), Analysis of Effectiveness on Subsidizing Commuting Cost for Public Transit User, J. Korean Soc. Transp., Vol.24, No.1., Korean Society of Transportation, pp.59-72.
  12. Karlaftis M., McCarthy P. (1998), Operating subsidies and Performance in Public Transit: An Empirical Study, Transportation Research Part A 32, pp.359-375.
  13. Kim T. G., Ahn H. C., Kim S. G. (2009), Predictive Modeling of the bus arrival time on the arterial using real-time BIS data, Journal of the Korean Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.29, No.1D.
  14. Kockelman K. M., Lemp J. D. (2011), Anticipating new-highway impacts: Opportunities for welfare analysis and credit-based congestion pricing, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45, pp.825-838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2011.06.009
  15. Korea Development Institute (2008), A study on Standard guidelines of Preliminary Feasibility Test for Road and Railroad projects.
  16. Kraus M. (2012), Road pricing with optimal mass transit, Journal of Urban Economics, 72, pp.81-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2012.04.002
  17. Maruyama T., Harata N. (2006), Difference between area-based and cordon-based congestion pricing: investigation by trip-chain-based network equilibrium model with non-additive path costs. Transportation Research Record 1964, pp.1-8. https://doi.org/10.3141/1964-01
  18. Maruyama T., Sumalee A. (2007), Efficiency and equity comparison of cordon-and area-based road pricing schemes using a trip-chain equilibrium model, Transportation Reaserch Part A 41, pp.655-671.
  19. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2007), The 2006 Metropolitan household travel survey I, II, IV (2006 수도권 가구통행실태조사 I, II, IV).
  20. Ministry of Construction and Transportation (2005), Korea Highway Capacity Manual (도로용량편람), Republic of Korea.
  21. Mogridge M. (1997), The self-defeating nature of urban road capacity policy: a review of theories, disputes and available evidence, Transport Policy, 4(1), pp.5-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-070X(96)00030-3
  22. Mohring H. (1972), Optimization and scale economies in urban bus transportation, American Economic Review 62, pp.591-604.
  23. Mun S. -i., Konishi K. -j, Yoshikawa K. (2003), Optimal Cordon Pricing, Journal of Urban Economics 54, pp.21-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0094-1190(03)00022-6
  24. Mun S. -i., Konishi K. -j, Yoshikawa K. (2005), Optimal Cordon Pricing in Non-Monocentric City, Transportation Research Part A 39, pp.723-736.
  25. Parry I. W. H., Bento A. M. (2001), Revenue Recycling and the Welfare Effects of Road Pricing, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 103, pp.645-671. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9442.00264
  26. Parry I. W. H., Small K. A. (2009), Should urban transit be reduced?, American Economic Review, 99, pp.700-724.
  27. Rhee H. -J. (2012), Welfare Function of Theory-Based Spatial Equilibrium Models and Congestion Tolls, The journal of Korea Planners Association, Vol.47, No.4, pp.183-192.
  28. Seoul city Transportation Headquarter (2007), 2006 Travel Speed of Motor Vehicle in Seoul (2006년도 서울시 차량통행속도).
  29. Seoul Metropolitan Government (2007), 2006 Seoul statistical yearbook.
  30. Thomson J. M. (1997), Great Cities and their Traffic, Gollancz, London. (Peregrine edition p.165).
  31. Tisato P. (1998), Service unreliability and bus subsidy, Transportation Research Part A 32, pp.423-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(98)00010-1
  32. Tscharaktschiew S., Hirte G. (2012), Should subsidies to urban passenger transport be increased? A spatial CGE analysis for a German metropolitan area, Transportation Research Part A 46, pp.285-309.
  33. Verhoef E. T. (2002), Second-best congestion pricing in general networks, Heuristic algorithms for finding second-best optimal toll levels and toll points, Transportation Research Part B 36, pp.707-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(01)00025-X
  34. Verhoef E. T. (2005), Second-best Congestion Pricing Schemes in the Monocentric City, Journal of Urban Economics 58, pp.367-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2005.06.003
  35. Vickrey W. (1980), Optimal transit subsidy policy, Transportation 9, pp.389-409.
  36. Yu S. -g., Jung C. -M., Rhee H. -J. (2009), Comparison of Area pricing and Cordon pricing in General Equilibrium model, J. Korean Soc. Transp., Vol.27, No.2., Korean Society of Transportation, pp.145-155.
  37. Yu S. -g., Rhee H. J. (2011), A study of the welfare Function of a spatial Equilibrium Model and the Implications, The journal of Korea Planners Association, Vol.46, No.4, pp.199-208.
  38. Yu S. -g., Rhee H. -J., Kim H. -K. (2010), Development of Land Use-Transportation Model with Route Choice, The journal of Korea Planners Association, Vol.45, No.1, pp.123-137.

Cited by

  1. 혼잡통행료 징수와 대중교통 차내 혼잡수준의 관계 vol.34, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7470/jkst.2016.34.6.510