Review of Optimal Transit Subsidies: Comparison between Models
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 131, Issue 2
Abstract
Establishing appropriate subsidies for transit systems is essential to determine levels of investment and operations budgets for such systems. Transit subsidies vary significantly among cities around the world, generally being lowest in Asia and highest in Australia and North America. The potential economic rationale for subsidizing urban transit results from increasing returns to scale, positive externalities, and second-best pricing. In spite of low cross-elasticities of demand among modes, the second-best pricing argument is perhaps the strongest, given the absence of congestion pricing in most cities. Three models for calculating optimal subsidies are compared in terms of their mathematical form, assumptions, and input and output variables. Applying any of the models requires demand modeling and careful definition of costs. One model is identified as being the most practical, another is useful for research, and the third is perhaps better for explaining principles.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Berechman, J. (1993). Public transit economics and deregulation policy, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Berechman, J., and Giuliano, G. (1985). “Economies of scale in bus transit: A review of concepts and evidence.” Transportation, 12, 313–332.
Button, K. J. (1993). Transport economics, Edward Elgar, Cambridge.
Button, K. J., and O’Donnell, K. J. (1985). “An examination of the cost structures associated with providing urban bus services in Britain.” Scottish J. Polit. Econ., 32, 67–81.
Chujoh, U. (1986). “Some circumstances where public transport subsidies are not justified.” Oxford University, Oxford, U.K.
Dodgson, J. S., and Topham, N. (1987). “Benefit-cost rules for urban transit subsidies.” J. Transp. Econ. Policy, 21, 57–71.
Else, P. K. (1985). “Optimal pricing and subsidies for scheduled transport service.” J. Transp. Econ. Policy, 19, 263–280.
Frankena, M. W. (1979). “Urban transportation economics: Theory and Canadian policy.”
Frankena, M. W. (1982). “Urban transportation financing: Theory and policy in Ontario.” Ontario Economic Council 26, Toronto.
Glaister, S., and Lewis, D. (1978). “An integrated fares policy for transport in London.” J. Public Econ., 9, 341–355.
Gomez-Ibanez, J. A. (1985). “Transportation policy as a tool for shaping metropolitan development.” Research in transportation economics, T. E. Keeler, ed., Vol. 2, JAI, Greenwich, Conn.
Henderson, J. V. (1977). Economic theory and the cities: Studies in urban economics, Academic, New York.
HLB Decision Economics. (2001). “The value proposition for transit investment, subsidy and federal involvement.” Canada Transportation Act Review.
McKeown, L. E. (1990). “Urban public transit subsidies: Theory and policy analysis with an assessment of commuter rail in the Greater Toronto area.” PhD thesis, Univ. of Toronto, Toronto.
Mishan, E. J. (1962). “Second-thoughts on second best.” Oxford Economic Papers, 14, 205–217.
Newman, P., and Kenworthy, J. (1999). Sustainability and cities: Overcoming automobile dependence, Island, Washington, D.C.
Obeng, K., Golam-Azam, A. M. H., and Sakano, R. (1997). Modeling economic inefficiency caused by public transit subsidies, Praeger.
Sakano, R., Obeng, K., and Golam-Azam, A. M. H. (1997). “Subsidies and inefficiency: Stochastic frontier approach.” Cont. Econ. Policy, 15(3), 113–127.
Small, K. A. (1992). Urban transportation economics, Harwood Academic.
Viton, P. A. (1980). “On the economics of rapid-transit operations.” Transp. Res., Part A, 14A, 247–253.
Viton, P. A. (1981). “A translog cost function for urban bus transit.” J. Ind. Econ., 29, 287–304.
Viton, P. A. (1983). “Pareto-optimal urban transportation equilibria.” Res. Transp. Econ., 1, 75–101.
Wachs, M. (1989). “U.S. transit subsidy policy: In need of reform.” Science, 244(4912), 1545–1549.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 131 • Issue 2 • June 2005
Pages: 71 - 78
Copyright
© 2005 ASCE.
History
Received: Jan 14, 2004
Accepted: Oct 19, 2004
Published online: Jun 1, 2005
Published in print: Jun 2005
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.