تاثیرات اتهامات کاربر جاده ای بر روی رفاه فردی - اکتشاف قبل از افتتاح برای آلمان

This paper analyzes different road pricing schemes concerning their equity and social acceptability for Germany. Two pricing scenarios (time- vs. distance-based) and two compensation measures are assessed. The analysis is based on individual mobility diaries. In contrast to other studies, households are grouped by their equivalized disposable income levels as proxy for the household's social status and as recommended by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It is found that the distributional impact varies significantly depending on the implemented pricing scheme and the compensation measures. Assuming unchanged behavior patterns, the present study shows the potential benefits of implementing mileage-based user charges combined with compensation measures on social equity.

Road pricing as a mechanism for infrastructure financing, for the internalization of external costs as well as for congestion reduction has come into public focus for the last decades. The motivation for the introduction of road pricing has changed over time. In the late 1990s, the main question was to achieve efficient capacity utilization by introducing first best pricing based on short term social marginal costs. These days, the connection between public budget and infrastructure expenses and the precarious public household situation as well as the current debt crisis of many OECD countries with still public and free of charge road infrastructures has further brought road pricing into discussion as additional revenue source. In the general case, pricing schemes aiming at achieving cost recovery are second best solutions. When designing and appraising such second best pricing schemes, a multi-dimensional goal system including efficiency and equity effects aspects could be applied. Discussions on road user charges are always very controversial and a fundamental disagreement about their potential regressive or progressive impacts is still observed: Proponents argue for higher quality infrastructures, reduced travel times as well as the implementation of the cost-by-cause principle. Opponents point out social exclusion, rip-off of automobilists and restrictions in the freedom of mobility. The present paper develops a general approach to measure the distributional impact of road pricing schemes on households. In addition to other studies, which are based on a classification of households by income, this paper also considers the detailed composition of the households when calculating the effects of road pricing and compensation schemes on individual welfare. The methodology is applied to the case of Germany where several road pricing schemes especially for the motorways (Autobahn) are currently discussed. Real data of a German household and mobility survey are used and can serve as guideline also for other countries. The paper is organized as follows: after these introductory remarks, Section 2 gives a brief review of literature on road pricing issues. The third section describes the methodology and data sources utilized for the analysis of welfare impacts on German households. Section 4 presents the results of the analysis and discusses them with respect to previous studies. Final conclusions and recommendations for further work are given in the last section.

Proponents of road user charges stress the expected welfare gains of a charge concerning the efficient usage of the infrastructure and its contribution to a sustainable financing. In the practical discussion, the impossibility to perfectly fulfill both goals is often neglected. A pragmatic charging system considers different goal achievements where it is possible to add fairness aspects. The latter aspect is particularly important since practical experiences show that social concerns are major obstacles for public acceptance and thus, against a successful implementation of road user charges. The German case shows that if a time-based scheme (e.g. Vignette) is implemented, social concerns of road pricing opponents can be confirmed by the present results: users with lower car mileages are relatively charged higher by a Vignette than those who use motorways more frequently. In Germany, benefits for frequent drivers are equivalent to charging richer households relatively lower (see Table 1 and Table 2). Considering the household compositions across income groups in Germany, the beneficiaries of a time-based road user charge are usually well-situated single- and couple-households. Both scenarios that apply time-based road pricing schemes (Scenarios A and B) can be considered to be implemented without greater effort. However, because of their regressive effects they might fail to achieve social acceptance as well as political majorities. Furthermore, time-based schemes do not have sustainable impacts on car use and as a consequence on the environment as well. The present analysis disproves the widespread perception that a distance-based road pricing scheme has regressive impacts and especially affects the lower and middle income groups and the families with children, even if tax reductions are considered. The reason for this contradiction is (i) the classification of households into income groups according to their EDI which is recommended by the OECD, (ii) the differentiated analysis of trips and (iii) balanced compensation measures: those households, whose trips have a high share on motorways, are affected the most negatively by the mileage-dependent toll. These are mainly households with a relatively high income and a small number of household members. In contrast, the share of mileage traveled by the two lowest income groups on motorways is rather low, but at the same time, they profit from a lower fuel tax and from the reduction of the motor vehicle tax. A road pricing scheme based on a distance based toll does not only assure that infrastructure costs are paid by those who use the infrastructure according to the “user-pays principle”, but with compensation measure it also can be regarded as comparatively social equitable.