Economics of Road Network Ownership

This paper seeks to understand the economic impact of centralized and decentralized ownership structures and their corresponding pricing and investment strategies on transportation network performance and social welfare for travelers. In a decentralized network economic system, roads are owned by many agencies or companies that are responsible for pricing and investment strategies. The motivation of this study is two-fold. First, the question of which ownership structure, or industrial organization, is optimal for transportation networks has yet to be resolved. Despite several books devoted to this research issue, quantitative methods that translate ownership-related policy variables into short- and long-run network performance are lacking. Second, the U.S. and many other countries have recently seen a slowly but steadily increasing popularity of road pricing as an alternative to traditional fuel taxes. Not only is the private sector encouraged to finance new roads, this transition in revenue mechanism also makes it possible for lower-level government agencies and smaller jurisdictions to participate in network pricing and investment practice. The issue of optimal ownership is no longer a purely theoretical debate, but bears practical importance. This research adopts an agent-based simulator of network dynamics to explore the implications of centralized and decentralized ownership on mobility and social welfare, as well as potential financial issues and regulatory needs. Components of the simulator: the travel demand model, cost functions, and key variables of pricing and investment strategies, are empirically estimated and validated. Results suggest that road network is a market with imperfect competition. While there is a significant performance lag between the optimal strategy and the current network financing practice in the U.S. (characterized by centralized control, fuel taxes, and budget-balancing investment), a completely decentralized network suffers from issues such as higher-than-optimal tolls and over-investment. For the decentralized ownership structure, appropriate regulation on pricing and investment practices is necessary. Further analysis based on simulation comparisons suggests that with appropriate price regulation, a decentralized road economy consisting of profit-seeking road owners could outperform the existing centralized control, achieve net social benefits close to the theoretical optimum, and distribute a high percentage of welfare gains to travelers. Decentralized control is especially valuable in rapidly changing environments because it promptly responds to travel demand. These results seem to favor the idea of privatizing or decentralizing road ownership on congested networks. Further tests on real-world transportation networks are necessary and should make an interesting future study.Network economics, Modeling network dynamics, Road pricing, Transportation financing, Privatization.

Capacity cost structure, welfare and cost recovery: are transport infrastructures with high fixed costs a handicap?

In this paper, we consider a region that invests in infrastructure used by both local demand and through transport. We then compare transport systems that have, for a given capacity, the same total infrastructure cost but vary in the proportion of fixed costs and variable capacity costs. We show, first, that infrastructure which has (ceteris paribus) a higher share of fixed costs leads to higher welfare for the regional government building it. Contrary to what is commonly believed, it therefore requires less, rather than more, federal subsidies. Second, we find that, even for capacity characterized by, ceteris paribus, very high shares of fixed costs, financing of infrastructure is generally not an important issue as long as regions are allowed to toll through traffic. Third, if member states cannot toll through traffic, or if a federal authority (such as the EU or the USA) can impose pricing at the global marginal social cost, our analysis shows that this reduces investment incentives for the individual regions, and subsidies may be needed. We discuss the policy implications of these findings and illustrate all theoretical results numerically.capacity cost structure, cost recovery, transport investment

Capacity cost structure, welfare and cost recovery: are transport infrastructures with high fixed costs a handicap?.

In this paper, we consider a region that invests in infrastructure used by both local demand and through transport. We then compare transport systems that have, for a given capacity, the same total infrastructure cost but vary in the proportion of fixed costs and variable capacity costs. We show, first, that infrastructure which has (ceteris paribus) a higher share of fixed costs leads to higher welfare for the regional government building it. Contrary to what is commonly believed, it therefore requires less, rather than more, federal subsidies. Second, we find that, even for capacity characterized by, ceteris paribus, very high shares of fixed costs, financing of infrastructure is generally not an important issue as long as regions are allowed to toll through traffic. Third, if member states cannot toll through traffic, or if a federal authority (such as the EU or the USA) can impose pricing at the global marginal social cost, our analysis shows that this reduces investment incentives for the individual regions, and subsidies may be needed. We discuss the policy implications of these findings and illustrate all theoretical results numerically.Capacity cost structure; Cost recovery; Transport investment;

Multilevel Pricing Schemes in a Deregulated Wireless Network Market

Typically the cost of a product, a good or a service has many components. Those components come from different complex steps in the supply chain of the product from sourcing to distribution. This economic point of view also takes place in the determination of goods and services in wireless networks. Indeed, before transmitting customer data, a network operator has to lease some frequency range from a spectrum owner and also has to establish agreements with electricity suppliers. The goal of this paper is to compare two pricing schemes, namely a power-based and a flat rate, and give a possible explanation why flat rate pricing schemes are more common than power based pricing ones in a deregulated wireless market. We suggest a hierarchical game-theoretical model of a three level supply chain: the end users, the service provider and the spectrum owner. The end users intend to transmit data on a wireless network. The amount of traffic sent by the end users depends on the available frequency bandwidth as well as the price they have to pay for their transmission. A natural question arises for the service provider: how to design an efficient pricing scheme in order to maximize his profit. Moreover he has to take into account the lease charge he has to pay to the spectrum owner and how many frequency bandwidth to rent. The spectrum owner itself also looks for maximizing its profit and has to determine the lease price to the service provider. The equilibrium at each level of our supply chain model are established and several properties are investigated. In particular, in the case of a power-based pricing scheme, the service provider and the spectrum owner tend to share the gross provider profit. Whereas, considering the flat rate pricing scheme, if the end users are going to exploit the network intensively, then the tariffs of the suppliers (spectrum owner and service provider) explode.Comment: This is the last draft version of the paper. Revised version of the paper accepted by ValueTools 2013 can be found in Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Performance Evaluation Methodologies and Tools (ValueTools '13), December 10-12, 2013, Turin, Ital

Congestion pricing and network expansion

Over the past decade network industries (such as gas, electricity, and telecommunications) have undergone a dramatic transformation. Competition has been introduced in industries that had long been viewed as textbook examples of natural monopolies. Production and transport have been unbundled to foster the introduction of competition: the capacity provider (the owner of the infrastructure) now often differs from the service provider. Chief among the challenges this raises for economists and policymakers: to design institutions that lead to"optimal"network expansion. Different arrangements have been suggested, ranging from indicative planning to decentralization of investment decisions through congestion pricing. Two questions lie at the core of the debate: Is the infrastructure network still a natural monopoly? And what role should congestion pricing play in ensuring optimal network expansion? The author shows that simple economic principles apply to the use of congestion pricing to induce network expansion: a) If network provision is competitive, congestion pricing leads to optimal investment. b) If network provision is monopolistic, congestion pricing leads to underinvestment. He shows the model applying to power networks as well as to the Internet. Policymakers must therefore assess whether network expansion is indeed competitive and design institutions that ease entry, or design an appropriate regulatory framework.Banks&Banking Reform,Economic Theory&Research,Common Carriers Industry,Transport and Trade Logistics,Markets and Market Access,Common Carriers Industry,Economic Theory&Research,Geographical Information Systems,Banks&Banking Reform,Transport and Trade Logistics

Resource Allocation with Reverse Pricing for Communication Networks

Reverse pricing has been recognized as an effective tool to handle demand uncertainty in the travel industry (e.g., airlines and hotels). To investigate its viability for communication networks, we study the practical limitations of (operator-driven) time-dependent pricing that has been recently introduced, taking into account demand uncertainty. Compared to (operator-driven) time-dependent pricing, we show that the proposed pricing scheme can achieve "triple-win" solutions: an increase in the total average revenue of the operator; higher average resource utilization efficiency; and an increment in the total average payoff of the users. Our findings provide a new outlook on resource allocation, and design guidelines for adopting the reverse pricing scheme.Comment: to appear in IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2016, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (6 pages, 3 figures

Transmission pricing of distributed multilateral energy transactions to ensure system security and guide economic dispatch

In this paper we provide a simulations-based demonstration of a hybrid electricity market that combines the distributed competitive advantages of decentralized markets with the system security guarantees of centralized markets. In this market, the transmission service provider (TSP) guides an electricity market towards the optimal power flow (OPF) solution, even when maximizing its own revenue. End users negotiate with each other to determine an energy price and then submit separate bids for transmission to the TSP. The TSP returns with prices for transmission, allowing end users to respond. In simulations, this hybrid-decentralized market approaches the near-optimal results of fully coordinated and constrained markets. Additionally, this market exhibits properties that remove incentives for the TSP to withhold capacity. This hybrid market leads a market towards the optimum while allowing the TSP and the end users to act out of self-interest. Index Terms₇Electricity markets, transmission, optimum power flow.Supported by the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research