This paper explores reforms of pricing of private and public transport in Paris. Paris has used a policy of very low public transport prices and no road pricing. The Paris transport network is represented as a stylized concentric city with the choice between car, rapid rail, metro and busses as well as two income classes and different transport motives. The model is used to test what are the efficiency gains of introducing road pricing and of increasing public transit prices in the peak. Are both reforms reenforcing each other or are they largely substitutes? We find that a zonal pricing scheme for the center of Paris combined with higher public transport fares in the peak perform best. The benefits of an overall capacity extension of public transport supply are much lower than the benefits of pricing reforms and could very well not pass the cost benefit test.

No abstract

This paper assesses the economic justification for the selection of priority projects defined under the auspices of the Trans-European transport network. In analyzing the current list of 30 priority projects, we apply three different transport models to undertake a cost-benefit comparison. We find that many projects do not pass the cost-benefit test and only a few of the economically justifiable projects would need European subsidies to make them happen. Two remedies are proposed to minimize the inefficiencies in future project selection. The first remedy obliges each member state or group of states to perform a costbenefit analysis (followed by a peer review) and to make the results public prior to ranking priority projects. The second remedy would require federal funding to be available only for projects with important spillovers to other countries, in order to avoid pork barrel behaviour. 1 The authors acknowledge the support of the EC-VI th framework program of DG-TREN, FUNDING consortium. Only the authors are responsible for the views that are expressed in this paper. Dunkerley acknowledges the support of the FWO-Flanders project on political economy.

This paper assesses the economic justification for the selection of priority projects defined under the auspices of the Trans-European transport network. In analyzing the current list of 30 priority projects, we apply three different transport models to undertake a cost-benefit comparison. We find that many projects do not pass the cost-benefit test and only a few of the economically justifiable projects would need European subsidies to make them happen. Two remedies are proposed to minimize the inefficiencies in future project selection. The first remedy obliges each member state or group of states to perform a costbenefit analysis (followed by a peer review) and to make the results public prior to ranking priority projects. The second remedy would require federal funding to be available only for projects with important spillovers to other countries, in order to avoid pork barrel behaviour. 1 The authors acknowledge the support of the EC-VI th framework program of DG-TREN, FUNDING consortium. Only the authors are responsible for the views that are expressed in this paper. Dunkerley acknowledges the support of the FWO-Flanders project on political economy.

No abstract