ITEM-1 is a quantitative transport planning tool constructed within the research project OPERATION ORIGIN-DESTINATION financed in 1999-2001 by the National Science and Engineering Council (NSERC/CRSNG) and the Railway Association of Canada (RAC/ACFC). Some data by jurisdiction, programming and other implementation requirements are partly funded by the BMMQ project financed by Transport Québec since the end of 1999 or by the IMPETUS project financed by Transport Canada from March to November 2000.

ITEM : an Integrated Transport Economy Modelling System

Government Transport Policy Accountability

under the Canadian Transportation Act of 1996 and the Kyoto Protocol of 1997

by

Marc Gaudry

Agora Jules Dupuit (AJD) Centre de recherche sur les transports (CRT) Montréal

Département de sciences économiques Université de Montréal Montréal

Bureau d’économie théorique et appliquée (BETA) Université Louis Pasteur Strasbourg

Canadian Transportation Act Review ITEM Project Submission Déposition Projet-ITEM à L’Examen de la

Loi sur les transports au Canada

(Final Version)

Agora Jules Dupuit Publication AJD-6 Centre de recherche sur les transports Publication CRT-2000-45

4th May, 2001

Table of contents

1. Executive introduction

2. Technical Annex:

Gaudry, M., Laferrière, R., Préville, E. and C. Ruest

“Key Features of Some Documented Publicly Available Infrastructure Road Cost and Revenue Allocation Studies in Canada”

Agora Jules Dupuit, Centre de recherche sur les transports Version 5, 4th May 2001

ii

1. Executive introduction 1. Accountability. The Canadian Government has agreed to be accountable in two ways concerning transportation activity. The first is the set of obligations arising from Section 52 of The Transportation Act of 1996. The second obtains from the Kyoto Protocol of December 1997. They overlap on the measurement and treatment of environmental costs. The legal requirements belong to three themes.

A. Level playing economic field efficiency. Section 52 (a, b and c) obliges the Minister to

report to Parliament on the financial viability of the modes and on all resources provided directly or indirectly at public expense to all carriers and modes of transportation.

B. The environment. A broad view of requirement (A) could include “ the environmental

subsidy ” calculated in some way. But the Kyoto protocol requires Canada in any case to have in place a national system of measuring greenhouse emissions to furnish data “ to be reviewed by expert review teams ”.

C. The economy. Section 52 (a) obliges the Minister to report, for each mode, “ on its

contribution to the Canadian economy... ”. And the Kyoto protocol requires Canada to “ formulate, implement, publish and regularly update ” programs to mitigate climate change in “ the energy, transport and industry sectors, as well as agriculture, forestry and waste management ”.

2. Derived mandates. In addition to these legal requirements, a number of natural extensions arise, or can be construed in those terms. For instance, the mandate of the CTA Review to consider electronic commerce and logistics issues of an international nature can be read as a requirement to consider explicitly the link between transport and communications under (C). The evidence on this is that transport and communications are complements, thereby increasing the role of transport and the harm done by transport system distortions. 3. No back of the envelope way out. Tools are needed to do satisfy these requirements. The natural way to do this is twofold.

i) First, accounts by transportation mode and user class are unavoidable for (A).

Here, difficult issues about the tax expenditures associated with public provision of infrastructure arise, as the Auditor General stated in October 2000 concerning the insufficiency of rents paid by users at Canadian airports owned by the Crown, including those devolved to Local Airport Authorities since 1992. They have to be met.

Also, costs and subsidies have to be attributed to the different classes of users of this infrastructure or control system, by mode. Otherwise we fly blind. Under the broad view of direct resource costs associated with the provision of transport services, it is possible to include in these accounts quantity and money valuations for environmental nuisances, as was done by the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation (Minister, 1992) for the national intercity national passenger networks of 1991.

iii

Are there subsidies? When measures of cost recovery are computed from these accounts, very large subsidies are typically found for different modes and user classes. For instance air travelers benefit from a subsidy primarily because they do not pay commercial rents for airports and pay no green taxes on noise and pollution. Also, heavy trucks are found to be heavily subsidized as there is no reasonable way to allocate all road system costs and revenues to road users without finding such subsidies, as results derived from the Royal Commission accounts (Lawson, 1993) for the national road network of 1991 and for the Quebec road networks of 1994 (Gaudry et al., 1996), and of 1999 below, have demonstrated. Worse than previously thought. Recent data on the actual loads and axle weight of heavy trucks show that the financial subsidies (to say nothing about the environmental nuisances of heavy trucks) are rather larger than estimated previously with the information available in these studies and previous studies done for Ontario rural highways for 1987 (Toms, 1991). When these data are used to establish sets of accounts avec les ressources du bord, it is clear for instance that the yearly subsidies to heavy trucks have increased between 1991 and 1999, as shown in Table 16, Table 17 and Table 18 of the technical annex below, and are now in the multi-billion dollar range. Not only roads: air and rail also. It also appears from our estimates that there are huge efficiency and equity issues of an intermodal nature because, in addition to the problems of airports mentioned above (without loss of generality─there are others that will not be addressed here that are associated with the way in which devolution to local authorities has been effected1 since 1992), there are important issues for the rail mode: this mode more appears to recover much more than its infrastructure and environmental costs, either nationally or for Quebec, as demonstrated in Tables 22 and 23 below. 4. Et tu Brute! Currently, the Annual Report published by Transport Canada contains data from public accounts and other sources, as it did before 1996, but in no way measures even financial subsidies by mode and user class as would be normal under (A) using a common satisfactory methodology that could meet, for instance, the criticisms of the Auditor General for airports or other infrastructure provided at public expense. Quantities of various transport pollutants and other nuisances may be measured in a piecemeal fashion by different ministries, committees and round tables, but there is yet no formal deposit in parliament by the minister of transport of environmental accounts that would satisfy the obligations under (B).

ii) Both The Transportation Act, 1996, and the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, require reporting on the link between the transport sector and the economy in ways that could be defended with better than “back-of-the envelope” calculations or procedures.

5. Credibly linking the Economy and Transportation. Analytically, it is both difficult and imperative to do this properly. It is difficult because a full representation of the economy must be provided if double counting and anecdotal measurements are to be avoided. It is important for the transport sector because (a) it is expensive to further reduce emissions from transport and (b) any tradable permit scheme would see both Canada and the transport sector as net purchasers of permits, thereby implying large transfers from the Canadian transport sector to others locally or

iv

1 Many are mentioned in Gaudry (2001a or 2001b).

abroad. Also, the ecologically more efficient modes would see their position relatively improved by a meaningful tradable permits scheme, as would the non-polluting Canadian sectors and regions. That is of course the point with polluter pay policies. As with laws against murder, they discriminate against…someone.

Although this environmental accountability requirement does not directly accrue to the transport minister, it is part and parcel of the commitments of the Government of Canada and clearly touches upon legal requirement (C) under the Transportation Act, 1996. The annual Report of Transport Canada could not, in its present form, be used as a transport sector policy justification tool or defence to be presented to foreign experts under the Kyoto Protocol.

6. Team work on ITEM tools and implementation. Since 1999, and previously, the current author has been developing with a multi-university research team the analytical tools to make it easier to satisfy the accountability requirements of both Section 52 of the Transportation Act, 1996, and of the Kyoto Protocol, 1997, as they pertain explicitly to the transport sector of national economies. The ITEM-1 methodological and tool making project, called OPERATION ORIGIN-DESTINATION, has been funded (1999-2001) by the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) in cooperation with The Railway Association of Canada (RAC). In addition, since its inception, it has been possible to aim at the implementation of these tools, which requires specific data of a high quality, programming and other technology transfer inputs, through the support of the small scale BMMQ project financed by Transport Québec since the end of 1999 or, by the IMPETUS project financed by Transport Canada between March and November of 2000. This contribution to the review process is effected to distribute results of relevance to the mandate immediately at hand.

7. References Gaudry, M., « Airport Subsidies and Congestion in North America : the Need for Accounts and a

Regulator within Virtual World Trade Organisation Rules », Journal of Air Transport Management, 7, 1, 35-41, 2001a.

Gaudry, M. « Subventions aéroportuaires et congestion aérienne en Amérique du Nord: plaidoyer pour un régulateur et pour l'établissement d'une comptabilité collective », in C. Henry et E. Quinet, Conférences Jules Dupuit de l’École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées et de l’École Polytechnique, L’Harmattan, Paris, Forthcoming 2001b.

Gaudry, M., Mallet, S. and C. Marullo, "BRQ-1: Un premier bilan intégré des coûts et revenus du réseau routier au Québec et du transport public de la grande région de Montréal", Publication CRT-96-43, Centre de recherche sur les transports, Université de Montréal, 927 p., 1996. - Tome I. Les comptes virtuels de deux agences (256 p.). - Tome II. Les sources logiques et statistiques (266 p.). - Tome III. La répartition: méthode d'origine et application à l'année 1994 (405 p.).

Minister of Supply and Services, [Hyndman, L.D. et al.], "Directions: The Final Report of the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation", Ottawa, Canada, 1718 p., 1992.

Lawson, J., “Highway Infrastructure Costing and Revenue Costs: Cost Comparisons”, Unpublished manuscript used in a departmental seminar, Economic Analysis, Transport Canada, 23 p., 19th March 1993.

Toms, D.B., “Highway User Charges: Are Truckers Paying Their Way?”, Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, 32, 1, 61-72, 1991.

v

2. Technical Annex to CTA Panel ITEM Project Submission

ITEM-1 is a quantitative transport planning tool constructed within the research project OPERATION ORIGIN-DESTINATION financed in 1999-2001 by the National Science and Engineering Council (NSERC/CRSNG) and the Railway Association of Canada (RAC/ACFC). Some data by jurisdiction, programming and other implementation requirements are partly funded by the BMMQ project financed by Transport Québec since the end of 1999 or by the IMPETUS project financed by Transport Canada from March to November 2000.

ITEM : an Integrated Transport Economy Modelling System

Key Features of Some Documented Publicly Available

Infrastructure Road Cost and Revenue Allocation Studies in Canada

by Marc Gaudry 1,2,3

Richard Laferrière 1 Emmanuel Préville 1,2

Carl Ruest1,2

1 Agora Jules Dupuit (AJD) Centre de recherche sur les transports (CRT) Montréal

2 Département de sciences économiques Université de Montréal Montréal

3 Bureau d’économie théorique et appliquée (BETA) Université Louis Pasteur Strasbourg

This paper, part of the methodological work towards the establishment of MAST procedures within the ITEM system, is forthcoming in Gaudry M. and S. Proost, Integrated Transport Economy Modelling Studies-I:Top European and North American Models, 2003. Please send comments to: marc.gaudry@.umontreal.ca. Département de sciences économiques, Université de Montréal, B.P. 6128, Succursale Centre Ville, Montréal, QC, Canada H3C 3J7.

Agora Jules Dupuit

4th May, 2001 (Version 5)

vi

Table of Contents

1. Introduction : why do accounts of virtual road agencies matter? ............................................1

1. A. Are some of our roads permanently reducing our GNP? ................................................1 1. B. How much value added, and who pays, in new toll road cases? .....................................3 1. C. Embryonic agencies.........................................................................................................4

2. Intent: direct cost and revenue accounts ..................................................................................5 2. A. Revenues: from charging roads to charging for roads ....................................................5 2. B. Costs: from the cost of roads to road costs......................................................................8

3. Results of road cost and revenue studies................................................................................15 3. A. The Ontario rural highway study (1987 data) ...............................................................15 3. B. The RCNPT study of the Canadian intercity road network (1991 data) .......................15 3. C. The BRQ-1 study of the Quebec network (1994 data)..................................................17

4. Potential improvements..........................................................................................................18 4. A. Framework issues ..........................................................................................................18 4. B. From average to individual trucks .................................................................................18

5. New national intercity road and rail results for 1999.............................................................21 5.1. Road results for the national RCNPT intercity network .................................................21 5.2 Road results for the complete 1999 Quebec road network ..............................................25 5. 3. Results for the Canadian and Quebec rail freight modes ...............................................29

6. Conclusion..............................................................................................................................32 7. References ..............................................................................................................................32

List of Tables

Table 1. GNP increasing and GNP reducing roads.....................................................................1 Table 2. Traffic, Length and Average Costs, Intercity Canadian Network of 1991 ................2 Table 3. Highway 407 ETR Tolls (May 1, 2000)..........................................................................3 Table 4. Value of Canadian road capital stock according to various sources, $ BN 1994.......4 Table 5. Costs and Revenues of the Road System in Quebec, 1994...........................................7 Table 6. Splitting pavement deterioration between traffic and the weather ..........................12 Table 7. RCNPT Infrastructure and traffic control cost allocation in brief .........................13 Table 8. Logical structure of infrastructure and control cost allocation by user class..........14 Table 9. Cost recovery ratios for rural Ontario highways, 1987 ..........................15 Table 10. System-wide annual infrastructure & control costs of intercity domestic road

modes, paid by users and others, 1991, in 1991 dollars, Canada....................................16 Table 11. Infrastructure cost recovery for trucks, RCNPT, 1991 in 1991 dollars .................16 Table 12. Cost and revenue structure for individual trucks, RCNPT, 1991, in 1991 dollars16 Table 13. Infrastructure cost recovery, Quebec road network for the three network

jurisdictions, 1994, in 1994 dollars .....................................................................................17 Table 14. Intercity truck weight distribution in Canada, 1995.............................18 Table 15. Weight and ESAL distribution by heavy truck category ........................................19 Table 16. Infrastructure & control and externality costs of the national intercity road

mode, paid by users and others, 1991, in 1999 dollars (RCNPT) ...................................22 Table 17. Infrastructure & control and externality costs of the national intercity road mode,

paid by users and others, 1999, in 1999 dollars (RCNPT network) ................................23 Table 18. Infrastructure & control and externality costs of the national intercity road mode,

paid by users and others, FHWA weather deterioration assumptions, 1999, in 1999 dollars (RCNPT network) ...................................................................................................24

vii

Table 19. Infrastructure cost allocation, complete Quebec road network, RCNPT Weather Deterioration Assumptions, 1999, in 1999 dollars.............................................................26

Table 20. Infrastructure cost allocation, complete Quebec road network, FHWA Weather Deterioration Assumptions, 1999, in 1999 dollars.............................................................27

Table 21. FHWA American road network recovery rates ......................................................28 Table 22. Infrastructure & control and externality costs of the national rail freight network,

paid by users and others, 1999, in 1999 dollars .................................................................30 Table 23 Infrastructure & control and externality costs of the Quebec rail freight network,

paid by users and others, 1999, in 1999 dollars .................................................................31 Table 24. Appendix 1. Taxes incluses et exclues dans BRQ-1 (1979-1994).............................36 Table 25. Appendix 2. Weight distribution per axle group and vehicle category, Canada...36

List of Figures Figure 1. Various highway cross sections (Byrne, 1892) ............................................................9 Figure 2. Presentation a multi-layered pavement structure (1994).........................................11 Figure 3. Actual, average and average group weight ESAL values by category of vehicle .20

viii

1. Introduction : why do accounts of virtual road agencies matter? Documented and public studies. In this paper2, we provide an overview of the key features of four documented and publicly available Canadian road cost and revenue allocation studies. Studies of road investments, occurring within or at the border of the public domain, should be adequately documented and publicly available, but that is not always the case. We focus on those that are transparent and consequently provide readers with grounds for potential disagreement as to data, methods or results. Public interest. It might be asked why road accounts matter. The simple answer is that a road is a plant and that it can have accounts, like any plant. These accounts can focus on the financial, economic and ecological direct costs of the plant in question, as is the case for any plant in the economy. To illustrate the interest of the question, consider two hypothetical questions of interest to taxpayers.

1. A. Are some of our roads permanently reducing our GNP? From economic value addition to value subtraction. As governments are reshuffling priorities and redrawing the border between the private and public sectors, it is important to ask about our roads the same questions one asks about any plant in the economy. Consider for this purpose the standard economic representation of a plant’s contribution to value added, or GNP, in an economy, shown in Table 1, where we have adapted a design and wording originally applied to firms (The Economist, 1991).

Table 1. GNP increasing and GNP reducing roads

Costs Revenues

↕ Profit

Cost of Value

↕ Loss

capital added Value Loss Cost of added labour

↕ ↕ ↕ Value subtracted

Cost of inputs Resource Profitable Loss-making A value-subtracting Costs Road Road Road 1 2 3 In this example, meant to apply to the infrastructure and control costs of a road, but to exclude the costs of vehicle services, the resource costs (net of taxes) are compared to the specific revenues received by the road agency. If, as in Column 2 of Table 1, the road revenues are less than the sum of wages, capital costs and the cost of material inputs (raw materials, parts, energy, etc.), then the road simply makes a loss. However if, as

1

2 We draw heavily from and build on the contents of the Brussels June 11, 1998, full-day seminar given by one of the authors to the Fifth Framework Programme research planning committee of the Directorate General for Transportation (DG VII) of the European Commission, as summarized in Gaudry (1999).

in Column 3, road income is less than value of the material inputs, then gravel, salt, asphalt, fuel, vehicle parts and other inputs are transformed into services worth less than the sum of these elements: in that case, the road is a value-destroyer: each year, as input costs exceed output values, this value-subtracting road permanently reduces GNP. Total cost rules of thumb. These material inputs used up in the operation (guidance, policing, incident management) and in the maintenance (routine, pavement and structural) of roads, are not typically measured separately from the labour and capital costs. Consider for instance the values listed by the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation (abbreviated RCNPT), as documented in its final report (Hyndman et al., 1992), for the maintenance costs of its intercity network and shown in Table 2. These “expenditure needs” are typical and constitute “rules of thumb” of sorts derived from estimated theoretical levels of funding calculated by the Roads and Transportation Association of Canada (1990).

Table 2. Traffic, Length and Average Costs, Intercity Canadian Network of 1991

Road class Average Costs per 2-lane km (1989 dollars) Network Traffic Maintenance Resurfacing Reconstruction Length AADT Freeways 10 355 3 333 5 769 13 441 12 000 Paved urban 4 554 3 077 5 301 13 000 Paved rural -busiest 10% 9 292 3 333 5 128 13 000 6 000 -medium volume 30 %

7 743 2 821 4 359 39 000 2 000

-low volume 60 % 7 485 2 821 4 103 78 000 700 Surface-treated 4 901 1 345 5 003 32 968 350 Gravel 4 509 321 1 010 109 622 50 Earth 3 663 0 374 4 908 10

Source: Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) and RCNPT. The cost data denote expenditure needs to maintain an acceptable minimum standard. Comparable data for paved urban roads are 4554, 3077 and 5391 $/2-lane km, respectively. AADT denotes Average Annual Daily Traffic. Degrading roads? Such data are currently used by provinces, for instance to decide whether some currently paved roads should, or should not, have their asphalt layer removed and be returned to gravel or surface-treated status. We do not know of any explicit analysis of these de-asphalting options that would clearly distinguish input from other costs for decision-making: as taxpayers, it would be good to know which roads merely make a loss and which, in addition to moving money from Peter to Paul, effectively impoverish Peter and Paul taken together by reducing total output. Qui perd gagne. As provincial road departments start asking the questions of import to decide whether to degrade some roads, will GNP increase because value-destroyers are identified and re-gravelled? Will the leader province simply reduce its road budget deficit or will it simultaneously increase its GNP? The follower provinces might have some more time to answer question like this one and win by a better analysis. If road agencies with a credible accounting system existed, it would be possible to answer those questions with an appropriate analytical accounting system.

2

1. B. How much value added, and who pays, in new toll road cases? User classes; payer classes. Of course, road agency perspectives can be more or less precise. For instance, consider the following three questions that a taxpayer might ask about the Highway 407 Express Toll Route (ETR) in Toronto:

Question 1. Profit. When the Government of Ontario authorized the construction of Highway 407 in 1993, was public profitability (taking into account specific automotive fuel taxes and a share of registration revenues) considered as well as private profitability (whereby tolls must suffice to cover all financial obligations)? Comment 1. Clearly, calculations of private firm profitability based solely on toll revenues greatly underestimate the true profitability of this road investment because specific road revenues3 associated with it are left out of the calculation.

Question 2. Cross-subsidies. Under the tolling scheme adopted for Highway 407, shown in Table 3, are

heavy trucks subsidized by cars? Comment 2. How could any credible cost allocation mechanism, where vehicle footprint determines capacity costs and axle-weights cause pavement damage costs according to an exponential function of weights, yield a toll structure where heavy trucks pay only three times the price of cars? To the extent that the highway reverts to government “as new”, resurfacing and reconstruction costs have to be faced “downfront” (before reversion), and recovered during the length of the BOT contract. Is the firm running the highway allowed to exclude heavy trucks from using the facility? Or is it required to accept heavy trucks and forced to balance its books on the back of cars and light trucks? If the pavement design was optimized, and very heavy vehicles actually cover their costs, what is the excess burden incurred by automobiles and lighter trucks?

Table 3. Highway 407 ETR Tolls (May 1, 2000)

Vehicle Class Day Rate Night Rate Light (< 5000 kg) 0,105 $/km 0,05 $/km Heavy (> 5000 kg)– Single-Unit 0,210 $/km 0,10 $/km Heavy (> 5000 kg)– Multiple-Unit 0,315 $/km 0,15 $/km

Question 3. Risk sharing with taxpayers. If the decision by a multinational consortium to commit a

reported $ 3 Billion in the Spring of 1999 for the sets of rights (including allowed real price increases) and obligations associated with the prolongation, maintenance and transfer of Highway 407 ETR turns out to have been unwise4, one of the members of this consortium,

3 There are no shadow tolls paid by government to the firm for taxes on fuel consumed on this road or as a share of registration fees of drivers or vehicles.

3

4 In the early 1980’s, 9 out of 10 French and 3 of the Spanish private highway concessions companies went bankrupt due to the oil shocks of 1973-1974 and 1979, and consequent recessions, and had to be bailed out by the State; the others survived through new arrangements, especially tailored in Spain to help in 1984 the 9 surviving firms. In our case, the sequence of payments implied by an apparent obligation of the operator to extend the current 69 km to 108 and to build or finish interchanges before paying back debt, combined with another oil crisis, could prove disastrous for shareholders. Consider the impact of a major recession, due for instance to the price of oil doubling from its current (May 2001) level and reaching 70 $ (US) a barrel—the equivalent of the price reached in October 1973—, occurring at the moment of highest cumulative debt following the extensions: could the maximum allowable revenue stream support a peak debt of say 8-10 Billion $ and still turn in a profit?

the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec will have lost money. It should not be thought that 407 ETR is a riskless investment.

Comment 3. If bankruptcy occurs, to which extent do Quebec pensioners and Ontario taxpayers carry the risk of last resort?

Transparency. Clearly, accountability to taxpayers requires regulated private road agencies to provide sufficient accounts: this means both an allocation of costs and revenues by user class (i.e. for cars, buses, light trucks, heavy trucks, motorcycles, etc.) and a divulgation of the assignment of capital risks. In Quebec, for instance there was in 1999 no public debate about the wisdom of investing pension funds in the Highway 407 Express Toll Route.

1. C. Embryonic agencies The agency perspective is unavoidable. It goes under different names, such as “earmarking of revenues and costs”, “corporatization of roads” and involves different mechanisms, including the maintenance of accounts of a virtual agency, “infrastructure revolving funds”, etc. Our approach here is that of virtual road agencies in the sense that we reconstruct the books of hypothetical agencies or firms. The need for this arises from the general absence of such institutions in Canada, even if a case can be made that embryonic agencies exist for international bridges5, toll highways or the Prince Edward Island bridge, and that some provinces have established transport financing agencies or the seeds of their legal form (e.g. for Quebec, see Assemblée Nationale, 1996). With a plant of the size and value of the Canadian road network, there should be accounts. In Table 4, one can find estimates of the value of this road stock made by Haritos (1973a, 1982) and Transport Canada (1983), by the RCNPT, and by Richardson (1996).

Table 4. Value of Canadian road capital stock according to various sources, $ BN 1994

Haritos RCNPT Richardson

Network of year: 1979 1991 1993 Intercity Canadian - 61,5 ** - Total Canadian 81,7 *** - 37,553*

* Excludes land costs. The construction price index was used to transform all values into 1994 $ values. ** Includes land costs. *** Excludes contribution of other public services sharing road rights-of-way.

After all, if the stock of road capital in Canada is important, as indicated by various estimates of its value found in Table 4, one would hope that some information on key factors required for profitability calculations is extant. Let it come forth to enrich our short list, barely sufficient to isolate key features of interest for our methodological concerns.

4

5 Three Niagara bridges are owned by Ontario and New York State. The Federal Government owns bridges with New York State (the Buffalo and Fort Erie bridge, the Thousand Island bridge) or Michigan (the Sarnia Blue Water bridge). The Ambassador bridge in Windsor is private. The Windsor tunnel and the Sault Ste-Marie bridge to Michigan were private but reverted to the City of Windsor in 1990. These bridges pay property taxes in Canada and identical numbers of US dollars to the United States (although under US legislation these bridges are exempt). The cost of Canadian customs is carried by the Canadian bridge authorities.

2. Intent: direct cost and revenue accounts Road firms reborn. Road firms started in Britain in 1663. They required specific Acts of Parliament until the General Turnpike Act of 1773. By 1830, more than 1100 trusts, responsible for administering 23 000 miles of road, were in operation in England and Wales. In North America, from about 1790 to 1830, 18 000 turnpikes were constructed by private sector entrepreneurs. They were then slowly competed out of existence, first by informal routes, known as shunpikes, bypassing the toll gates and later by the 5 000 railways. In Canadian provinces, the remaining ones were progressively withdrawn in the early 20th Century around the cities where they had survived, such as Montreal. Had this been otherwise, there might now exist road accounts, as there are railway accounts for the surviving rail firms6. Income and expenditure sides. For accounts, one needs some measure of income and of expenditure, as occurs within a firm. In addition, firms take actions to insure their congruence in their attempt to survive and profit. In the United States, the Highway Trust fund gives an idea of fuel tax receipts from road users, but no precise idea of road expenditures and costs. In Canada, as there is yet no such hypothecation of specific automotive fuel taxes, an additional clarification of the income side is useful, as one must somehow “justify” the notion of road accounts, as if the firm’s virtual existence made it more difficult to understand.

2. A. Revenues: from charging roads to charging for roads Are various payments made in the course of using roads interpretable as income of the virtual firm? Under which conditions do road charges become charges for roads? Ancient times. Road charges are as old as taxation, but these charges were generally thought about simply as one way of raising income. Their existence as formal fees–as opposed to exactions imposed by road gangs–required some stability of government, combined with sufficient population densities and the presence of dominant paths in networks. Under these conditions, at prevailing service levels, some paths or “roads” were so very much better than the competing itineraries (in terms of time, availability of supplies and security), that princes and other tribal warlords intuitively exploited the low price elasticities of demand to fill their coffers or to reward their supporters and cronies by the attribution of monopoly rights over privileged locations such as bridges, sometimes used as gracious rewards for services rendered. For instance, King Salomon, who reigned from 970 to 931 B.C., apparently used highway taxes on caravans to finance the construction of the first temple7, a very ambitions project for a medium-size kingdom standing, fragile, between temporarily and simultaneously weakened empires to the North, East and South. But road charges were always particularly unpopular: they are reputed to have contributed to the dissatisfaction upon which Oliver Cromwell built his armed revolt (1642-1645) against the English Crown8. Often, imperial roads afforded a high level of security, even without road charges9, a conscious benefit of military presence. In North America, we have not found examples of road charges among pre-Columbian Indians. Of course, mobile (often nomadic) tribes typically without land ownership, living in low density environments without the horse (introduced by Spaniards around 1550) or the wheel, used trails, footpaths and rivers for transport: these conditions afforded few opportunities for profitable road charges. In Canada, wampum belts made as 6 Some 54 railroads belong to the Railway Association of Canada, a number that is growing with the development of short lines purchased from principal trunk railroads. 7 He clearly used available international administrators and temple builders: in I Kings, 4, 1-6, many names are Egyptian. 8 In 1839, the peasants of south-west Wales, dressed in their wives’ nighties, started tearing down the detested toll gates on the roads. The riots were named the Rebecca riots after the nom de guerre of their leader (Tomkins, 1993).

5

9 The security level along the highway linking Spanish colonies in the Americas was probably higher than that found currently along the same road, as in Mexico.

treaties were concluded between indigenous and European tribes or nations, showing Indians in one canoe and Europeans in another going down the same river, are not travel documents or passports. They apparently simply confirm the treaty rights of each group to freely access all land and waterways under The Great Spirit. Beyond local government and private turnpike funding. In Canada, under the French and British North America régimes, as summarized in Owram (1991), roads were financed locally, primarily by statutory labour (“corvées”), without resorting to local road taxes or assistance from the higher governments. Higher-level government funding was very exceptional: exceptions occurred in Quebec after 1720 for “Chemins royaux”, in Nova Scotia in the early 19th Century, in Lower Canada after the War of 1812 and in Upper Canada from 1792 until 1796 under Governor Simcoe (1752-1806). The most significant exception to the practice of local responsibility was the funding of some colonization roads, both before and after Confederation, in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and British Columbia. Charging for roads with specific taxes. Financing through vehicle registration started in Ontario in 1903 and through fuel taxes in Alberta in 1922. In most provinces, taxes on gasoline were explicitly adopted to support roads, but were eventually assigned to general revenue during or after the Second World War. As in many countries, the question arose as to which of the taxes assigned to the General Revenue Fund should be considered as road revenues. The definitive answer to this question was given by Prest (1963): the taxes that are specific to road use should be considered as road revenues. Since then, no serious academic or official economic study has included general taxes (sales taxes, etc.) as road income10, the RCNPT (1992) and BRQ-1 studies (Gaudry et al., 1996) naturally followed the seminal practice established by Prest. The question of interest is then: what is a specific tax? As everything produced in an economy, roads included, is paid for by someone, there can be a grey areas in the identification of user charges. It is tempting, for instance, to include some municipal forms of income (property taxes, or other) as a specific road charge, especially if it is identified as such on the municipal tax bill11. But property taxes are not road charges: they provide income to pay for roads, among other things. Neither are any other municipal income sources used to pay for roads, such as per capita contributions from provinces to municipalities, to be understood as road charges. To qualify as specific, user charges have to be unambiguously linked to road use. An example of such charges is found in Table 5, where a summary, done by Lake et al. (1999), of the reference12 results of the BRQ-1 study for the year 1994 is provided. As was done by the RCNPT, this study naturally includes the federal excise tax on fuels, in contrast with some authors (e.g. Toms, 1991) who like to give the reader the option of deciding whether that tax is a specific tax and present two sets of cost recovery figures. The detailed list of taxes aggregated in Table 5 is found in Table 24. Appendix 1. Road rights of way. As road rights of way are shared by other utilities, such as electricity, telecommunication, sewage, gas and water delivery systems, a very difficult issue in the allocation of road cost is that of the proper share that should be paid to the road agency, assumed to hold the accounts for the right-of-way13. Existing income from these utilities constitute an income of the road agency and the absence of such income constitutes a claim on them or direct benefit provided to nonusers of the road system. Similarly, the absence of local (property) taxes on roadways should be treated as an account payable by the

10 An exceptions, such as that of Kahn (1993) is found in a study for the trucking association of Canada. The GST since 1992 makes it harder to confuse specific and general taxes on fuels. 11 See Boucher (1995, 1996). 12 In that study, the reference results are to be distinguished from the recommended results.

6

13 Similar issues of allocation of common costs arise in other modes. In Canada, CN uses its rail rights of way to provide, since 1997, a corridor for the fibre optic communications network of Fonorola. Sometimes, this sharing is anticipated, as in France where rail tracks for the first high speed rail line put into service between Paris and Lyon in 1980 were put one meter off the centre of the right of way in anticipation of future communications networks, as this very straight corridor, shorter by 90 km than the old train line, clearly provided a shortest path between the cities.

road authority to the extent that international bridges, airports, railway rights of way and harbours are subjected to such taxes. Table 5 contains a factual amount for the “easements” provided by the former14, but none for the “tax expenditure” involved15 in the latter.

Table 5. Costs and Revenues of the Road System in Quebec, 1994

ALL RATES AND FEES COLLECTED BY GOVERNMENTS FROM USERS, BY USER CATEGORY

(in millions of 1994 dollars)

TOTAL

AUTOMOBILE

TRUCK

OTHER

FEDERAL Fuel excise tax 733 576 131 26 Other revenue 1 1 0 0

Total 734 577 131 26 PROVINCIAL Fuel tax 1 267 854 401 12 Registration and licenses 550 421 97 32 Input tax1 160 0 144 16 Fines 64 57 7 0 Tolls (ferry)2 3 3 0 0 SAAQ surplus and shortfall3 -124 -110 -13 -1

Total 1 920 1 225 636 59 MUNICIPAL Fines 157 151 3 3 Right of way easement4 195 n.a. n.a. n.a. Parking 15 15 0 0 Transfers (Québec government) 161 137 11 13

Total 528 303 14 16 TOTAL - RATES AND FEES 3 182 2 105 781 101

1) Tax on inputs which trucking and bus firms were required to pay from 1991 to 19942) The revenues and expenditures of certain marine ferries were considered part of the road system since they play the same role as a bridge.

3) The SAAQ achieves surpluses in some years, and shortfalls in others. For 1994 the shortfall is considered an account receivable from users (negative revenue).

4) The municipalities indirectly collect property taxes from companies which use road rights of way for their natural gas, electricity or telecommunications network. These revenues are classed as easements and were considered in part as revenues associated with the road. Source: Lake et al., 1999.

14 We understand that the Quebec Government decided in 2000 to keep for itself the full value of this tax, as a part of the reform of municipal taxation, thereby reducing municipal revenues associated with road rights of way.

7

15 Tax expenditures (“réfractions de taxes”) by local authorities who discriminate in favour of their own roads are a different issue from that of whether other infrastructure facilities pay local taxes, or contributions “in lieu of taxes”, on a fair basis. Consider the case of the City of Dorval which, in 1992, apparently succeeded in doubling the local taxes paid yearly by the Dorval Airport from approximately 6,5 $ Million to 13 $ Million, following which the Airport then succeeded in making the Federal Government pay most of that increase (about 5 $ Million). Does this mean that the implicit local tax expenditure on the roads of the Municipality of Dorval doubled? Is the payment made by Transport Canada fair in respect to the relative value of Dorval and other airports, for instance Pearson?

2. B. Costs: from the cost of roads to road costs It took a very long time for the cost of roads to be analyzed as road costs. This is in part due to the fact that, for centuries, roads competed with cheaper (and often faster) sea communications. Apart from roads built for military purposes, road supply awaited technological innovations in the late 18th Century to improve, causing the relative costs of road and sea transport to change, inducing new supply opportunities and giving rise to cost analysis. Maritime transport costs and supply. Road transport of old always competed against maritime transport, with the later having decisive advantages in costal areas and along rivers. A first wave of technological improvements between 1500 and 1800 increased still further the existing advantage of maritime over land transport. These improvements of seagoing ships16 prompted complementary improvements in canals, as sea access links. Although the leadership in the construction of canals was apparently taken by France, with the famous 241 km Canal du Midi built between 1666 to 1681 to link the Mediterranean and the Atlantic17, geography favoured England where the construction of canals from 1760 to 1790 effectively put every village in England within 9 miles of a canal, a development that effectively ended famines in that country, as wheat market areas expanded and wheat prices fell. The high wave of construction of canals occurred later still in Germany, where canals are still viewed today as freeing landlocked activities: in the early 1990s, the State of Bavaria refused money from the German Government18 which had to construct the Rhine-Main-Danube canal link promised in one of the annexes of the Versailles treaty (1919), as Bonn failed to convince Munich to accept generous compensation…for an outdated 80-year old Rhein-Main-Donau treaty clause. It is hard to resist the suggestion that, in the 16th Century, the dramatic fall in maritime transport costs, without excluding the role of other factors, had further dramatic effects on the trade and standards of living of coastal cities or regions, relative to those cities centered on land. Blum and Dudley (1999) point out, following Bairoch et al. (1988), that between 1500 and 1750, the size distribution of cities in the north of Europe (the British Isles, the northern Low Countries, Scandinavia and northern Germany) and in the south of Europe (in Italy, Spain, France, the southern Low Countries and southern Germany) changed dramatically, along with the standards of living in northern cities. In northern Europe as a whole, “all but one of the top dozen cities in 1750 had more than quadrupled their population relative to that of 1550”, in contrast with southern Europe, where only two had succeeded in doing so. They also point out, citing Allen (1998), that, starting from equal levels in 1550, in the next two centuries to 1750 real wages rose by an average of 25 % in three northern cities (London, Amsterdam and Leipzig) and fell by 20 % in nine southern cities (Paris, Naples, Vienna, Madrid, Milan, Antwerp, Valencia, Strasbourg and Augsbourg). In Canada, well into the 19th Century, the relative role of maritime communications was perhaps even greater here than in Europe, and dominated policy for a longer time, as in 1841 the Chairman of the Board of works concluded: “the necessity of opening fully our water communications to the Ocean […] is considered indispensable”. And indeed, “the real effort went into water transportation […]: under the union of Upper and Lower Canada that inaugurated the most expansive era of transportation to date, more that 82 % of government transportation expenditures went to canals and related works from 1841 to 1846” (Owram, 1991). Road costs and supply in ancient times. Not much is known about road supply in ancient times, except for the famous roman highways, and even there nothing much of an economic nature. This despite the fact that Rome, the inventor of property rights and formal wills, had sophisticated and extensive centralized statistical 16 It is estimated that, from 1500 to 1600, the new Dutch ships reduced sea going shipping cost by two thirds. 17 It starts in Toulouse and ends near Agde, effectively linking the Garonne and Étang de Thau.

8

18 Chancellor Kohl (1983-1998), came from the Rhineland-Palatinate area that had been renounced by Bavaria in 1919. It appears that Bavaria, losing access to the Rhine in that area, wanted it again from the Danube. The last link, north of Nuremberg involved strong slopes and expensive locks that Kohl tried to “trade” against money.

systems, including every five years a census of the net worth (tabulae publicae, maintained by Censors) of individual citizens to calculate their taxes owed, precise welfare rolls to insure monthly distribution of subsidized wheat to hundreds of thousands of registered beneficiaries (out of a city population that reached about one million in the 1st Century), and detailed public accounts available to senators from publicans, these documents have all disappeared (Nicolet, 2000). There are no financial data, for instance, for one of the most famous of Roman highways, and the first true international highway, the “Via Domitia” created by the Roman Senate in the year –118 to link Italy and Spain by the Montgenèvre19 pass (just north of Briançon) and the Panissars pass in the Pyrénées and simultaneously create two cities (Narbonne and Montbazin), lay the foundation of the Provincia Romana (the name currently denotes the much smaller Provence) and provide the trunk road for soldiers and elephants20 used in the gradual conquest of Gaul. In Gaul, road building consisted of flattening the ground to allow the passage of a chariot, but the Roman norms were much higher, requiring cutting through terrain, land filling and other techniques to allow traffic to go straight, fast and outside of water. Modern roads, or lower costs of road supply. Apart from such predominantly military purposes, increased road supply had to await a technical breakthrough, illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Various highway cross sections (Byrne, 1892)

It came in a first wave with Pierre Marie Jérôme Trésaguet (1716-1796) who “fixed the principles of modern road making which endured until highway engineers came at last to the use of cohesive materials. He began to formulate his technique in 1764, a year in which the famous Scottish builders John Loudon McAdam (1756-1836) and Thomas Telford (1757-1834) were boys of seven and eight. He systematically improved upon the foundations of the Romans and finished his roadway with broken stone carefully graded in size, lessening the total depth to some 10 inches; Trésaguet […] relied on the final layer to consolidate the road […] and insisted on systematic maintenance. […]. [More than a generation later,] McAdam’s construction was seldom more that 6-8 inches thick, i.e. thinner than Trésaguet’s or Telford’s and his unique contribution was his insistence that the subsoil be thoroughly drained: […] if it were dry, there would be no need for deep foundations” (Kirby et al., 1956).

19 This easy pass, with a nice flat field of about 1 km2 on its highest point, has been the favourite path for the yearly migratory trips of cattle from Italy to France for thousands of years. It is where the Romans were waiting for Hannibal to cross the Alps in –218. He apparently used a pass about 40 km south, the Malaure Pass (Renaud, 1994) and unexpectedly appeared behind the Roman armies.

9

20 Hannibal had used 37 Asian elephants in the year –218 against the Romans, who started using them with great success in battle against Gallic tribes the year –121. These small elephants (2,5 meters at the withers), not to be confused with the better known larger and less intelligent African elephants, would not have required larger roads.

These techniques greatly reduced the costs of making roads, but had little immediate effect in Canada. Such “macadamized” roads, constructed with this finely graded and systematic broken stone technique defined by Trésaguet, had given France the best roads in Europe for two generations before the French Revolution, and the techniques were in use by 1815 in England and Wales, but (Owram, 1991) “true macadamizing was extremely rare in pre-Confederation British North America, as the great majority of roads that were not made of logs or sawn planks were really only gravelled, except for a few turnpike trusts near Montreal […, in effect, during the whole century,] roads outside the cities were seen primarily as local urban feeders, not as a system: in 1937, an Ontario Royal Commission looking back on its 19th Century road policy characterized road expenditures as “uncertain, relatively small in amount and, for the most part, in connection to works of temporary value”. The emergence of road costs. Although the costs of building roads of a given quality had greatly decreased, and Trésaguet had been adamant about the importance of maintenance, it is not until Arsène-Jules-Émile Juvenal Dupuit (1804-1866) that the idea of systematic engineering and economic analysis arose (Ekelund and Hébert, 1999). The crucial point about the Trésaguet et al. techniques was that traffic, consisting in slow steel-rimmed wagon wheels, only smoothed, compacted and bound the roadway surface more firmly—until the covering itself was worn through. Dupuit (1837, 1842a) conducted experiments and studied21 this wearing of the surface and its implications for the construction of the roadway. He then in effect formally introduced road cost analysis (Dupuit, 1842b) by studying the impact of various traffic on the pavement. Since then, the rate of pavement deterioration has been shown to be a complex function of traffic characteristics (volume, loading, speed), climatic and geological environments, strength (flexible or rigid) and materials of the pavement and cumulative damage (time), as indicated in Equation 0: Equation (0) [ ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )[ ]RigidityTimeStructureGeotechEnvirSpeedLoadingVolumefDamage ,,,.,,),,= . As pointed out by Heggie (1991a)22, “while the structural damaging effect of traffic rises with the fourth power of axle loadings, pavement strength rises with a typically ninth power of thickness and cost (a power of about 5 to 13, depending on materials)”. Although there is no general function known for Equation 0, these factors are therefore decisive in any cost allocation, as higher axle loadings damage curves are conditional both on the assumed values for structural strength and for rigidity, i.e. are “shifted” by changes in the other factors. Power laws and specific vehicle deterioration costs. When one looks at road manuals for France (LCPC and SETRA, 1994) or Canada (TAC/ATC, 1997), one is surprised at how little has changed since Trésaguet in 1764, as Figure 2, drawn from the December 1994 edition of the French manual, suggests. One does not get a very high tech impression from such treatises23. For our purposes perhaps the most important change since the 19th Century is associated with the fact that modern road vehicles wear road surfaces by carving deep ruts into it: fast rubber tired vehicles, in contrast to slow steel-rimmed wagons, “aggress” the pavement, to use the French term. Since the American Association of Highway State Officials (AASHO) Road Test conducted in Illinois during the early 1960s, the prevailing measure of this deterioration is the relative pavement damage of different axle loads. “The equivalent single axle load rating or load equivalent factor of an axle or axle group configuration, “ESAL” or “LEF”, is defined as the number of passes of the standard axle load required to create the same amount of damage as one pass of a candidate axle load” (Nix et al., 1992). These damages

21 He was given the Legion of Honour in 1943 after this book and prize-winning article. 22 In Annex 4, not found in the shortened version (Heggie, 1991b).

10

23 It is not clear whether this low-tech image contributes to the current low popularity of civil engineering, as Professor Michel Pigeon, himself a specialist of concrete structures and current Director of Civil Engineering at Laval University, publicly states.

increase with the power of the axle weight, as indicated in Equation 1 where the standard fourth power appears. The possibility of exploiting scale economies in structural rigidity should therefore lead to an optimization formulation. But, for a given chosen road design, some variant of the power law applies24.

Equation 1 derived from AASHO road tests

Equation 1

4

)(

=

axle loadReference load(x) Axle xESAL

Of course, this means that increasing the weight carried on an axle by 10 multiplies the damage created by 10 000. This standard value of 4 is typical25, although the power actually used varies across countries: for instance, in France, the power 5 is used for flexible pavements and 12 for rigid and concrete pavements. It is also certainly affected by vehicle speeds26. For bridges, the power 3 of Gross Vehicle Weight, not of axle weight, (Fekpe, 1996) is deemed appropriate.

Figure 2. Presentation a multi-layered pavement structure (1994)

1 mPartie supérieure d esterrassem ents

R oulem entLiaison

BaseFondation

C ou ch es de surfa ce

C ou ch es d 'assise

C ou ch e d e form e

Sol supp ort

A rase d e terrassem ent

Plate-form e support d e chaussée

A ccotem ent

Other factors and the weather. It is well known that the rate of deterioration will be influenced by strength

24 According to Wyn Lloyd of the United Kingdom Highways Agency, co-author of Lloyd and Addis (2000), the fourth power law is viewed in the U.K. as a « reasonable compromise » between estimates ranging from the power 3 to the power 8. 25 In September of 1991, Professor Kenneth Small of The University of California, Irvine, communicated to one of the authors new estimates derived from the AASHO data using Box-Cox transformations: although statistical gains were made by the use of these flexible mathematical forms that allow the data to determine the appropriate power value, the results did not differ much from the standard ones. However, fixed-form results obtained by the authors (Small and Zhang, 1991) for rigid pavements (made of portland cement concrete) supported the power 3,1 instead of the power 4 for these pavements.

11

26 A professor at the Technical University of the German army next to Munich considers that, in stop-go traffic, the power is close to 20 and that, in free-flow steady traffic on a good highway it is closer to 3,8.

and materials, or structure27 of the pavement, as is clear from the French numbers just cited, and that an issue is the extent to which the climate matters. As stated by Hutchinson (1991) in his methodological survey done for the RCNPT technical seminar of September 1991, “the Ontario flexible pavement deterioration model, OPAC, provides one of the few pavement deterioration prediction models that separates the load-associated deterioration from the environment deterioration causes”. In that model (Jung et al., 1975), the separation is done by a linear model whereby the two kinds of deterioration (of the road comfort index RCI) occur additively. Under questioning28 by one of the commissioners who challenged this mathematical structure, stating that in nature one would expect interactions between traffic and climate, not additions, Professor Hutchinson agreed, as he agreed to the additional suggestion that a linear model would probably on average overstate the role of climate, as it is certain that, in the absence of vehicular traffic, well constructed pavements have extremely long lives. As the RCNPT used the OPAC based values shown in Table 6, the resulting calculations will in this case assign too low a share to vehicles and increase the implied cost recovery rate of heavy vehicles. The reference results in the BRQ-1 study were obtained with the OPAC based values, but the final recommended values were those proposed by the Quebec Ministry of Transportation, also shown in the same table.

Table 6. Splitting pavement deterioration between traffic and the weather

Road class Pavement deterioration proportions due to environmental (climate) factors (%)

Network Traffic

Ontario Model Based

Quebec Ministry Beliefs29

Length AADT

Freeways 40 16 13 441 12 000 Paved urban 45 18 13 000 Paved rural -busiest 10% 50 20 13 000 6 000 -medium volume 30 % 70 28 39 000 2 000 -low volume 60 % 80 32 78 000 700 Surface-treated 80 32 32 968 350 Gravel 80 32 109 622 50 Earth 80 32 4 908 10

Allocating other costs than road damage costs. Naturally, the determination of infrastructure costs requires the allocation of other costs than road damage costs. The three studies considered here use a common framework, close to that of the RCNPT shown in Table 7, where the classical distinction among the three types of road costs is recognized: (i) ►avoidable : costs that would not exist if the vehicle class were absent. For heavy vehicles some proportion of bridge costs, linked to Gross Vehicle Weights (GVW), and a proportion of maintenance, reconstruction and resurfacing costs associated with Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESAL), are considered as avoidable. All vehicle classes share these costs on the basis of their ESAL value; (ii) ►common : costs that can be assigned to vehicle classes30, such as capacity costs (number and width of lanes, routine maintenance, etc.), distributed according to the passenger car equivalence (PCE), or

27 Defined by « Structural Numbers » or “Equivalent Granular Thickness” concepts. 28 After his presentation, on September 26. 29 Rioux, N., “Rôle des conditions climatiques dans la dégradation des routes”, Lettre à A. Bossé, Directeur du Laboratoire des chaussées, Service des chaussées, Ministère des transports, Québec, le 11 août 1995.

12

30 The issue also arises if one builds a truck-only highway, as the French are considering for the 300 km (North-South) link between Rouen and Alençon. As one still has different categories of trucks, differential charging is required.

« footprint », of vehicles ; (iii) ►joint : costs, such as those associated with damages due to the weather, and many fixed costs, that cannot be assigned on the basis of use. As they must nevertheless be « distributed », vehicle footprint is a reasonable basis for their assignment31, but unweighted kilometrage could be considered. In each of the three studies, in effect, these three types of costs are assigned by weighting vehicle-kilometres according to the logical structure shown in Table 8, each using its own particular values for the various proportions listed in Table 7.

Table 7. RCNPT Infrastructure and traffic control cost allocation in brief

Assignment by vehicle type (6) and road class (4)

Classification

Avoidable Common Joint

Assigned cost Varying with Varying with traffic flow vehicle Fixed Variable

characteristics

Control a

Infrastructure

¤ Capital (built) a

¤ Land a

¤ Administration a

¤ Maintenance

- bridges PBV PBF = 1 - PBV

- roads

° Maintenance

- not related to traffic PNRPT = 1 - PRP - PTR

or pavement

- related PRP . ( 1 - ENVIR ) PRP . ENVIR PTR

° Resurfacing ( 1 - ENVIR ) ENVIR

° Reconstruction ( 1 - ENVIR ) ENVIR

Environment a

Accidents a

Kilometrage weighting [VKT] - ESAL GVW PCE

(in French) [KVD] (ECES) (PTC) (CEVP)

ENVIR : Proportion of pavement deterioration caused by environmental factors ESAL : Equivalent- ECES : Équivalence Single-Axle Load de charge d'essieu

simpleFreeways 40%Paved Highways (rural)

"50 % Hypothesis" busiest 10% 50% GVW : Gross PTC : Poids total medium-volume (30%) 70% Vehicle Weight en charge low-volume (60%) 80%

PBF : Proportion of bridge cost that is fixed ( 58 % ) : complement of PBV PCE : Passenger- CEVP : CoefficientPBV : Proportion of bridge cost that is variable ( 42 % ) : complement of PBF Car-Equivalent d'équivalencePNRPT : Proportion of maintenance costs that are not related to traffic or pavement ( 70% ) : voiture particulière

complement of PRP and PTR

PRP : Proportion of maintenance costs that are pavement related ( 15% )

Externalities

13

31 It is also more related to the time spent on the road (to speed-dependent flow rate) than simple vehicle kilometrage.

Table 8. Logical structure of infrastructure and control cost allocation by user class

Legend :

INPUT

u Vehicle-kilometres per road classOUTPUT TRAFFIC ( derived from average annual

daily traffic, road length and traffic proportions )

PCE : Passenger-Car-Equivalent ESAL : Equivalent-Single-Axle Load

PCE-km per ESAL-km per vehicle category road class

Annual total costCONTROL - regulation Cost per vehicle-kilometre

- police related to footprint

- Value of initial stock of buildings andCAPITAL equipment Cost per vehicle-kilometre

- Annual expenses related to footprint - Opportunity-cost rate of capital assets

LAND - Initial stock value Cost per vehicle-kilometre - Annual expenses related to footprint

MAINTENANCE : fixed MAINTENANCE : variable

Administration GVW : Gross Vehicle Weight

(annual cost) - REFERENCE bridge cost - Variable proportion - Gross Vehicle Weights (GVW)

- REFERENCE bridge cost - Fixed proportion Cost per unit of output

- Average REFERENCE cost Cost per unit of output . Maintenance - Average REFERENCE cost . Resurfacing

. Maintenance . Reconstruction

. Resurfacing - Proportion of costs related . Reconstruction to traffic

- Proportion of costs which - Proportion of costs that are are not related to pavement pavement related and not a function of traffic - Proportion of pavement - Proportion of costs that deterioration not caused by are pavement related environmental factors

- Proportion of pavement deterioration caused by Cost per vehicle-kilometre environmental factors related to axle loads

Cost per vehicle-kilometre Cost per vehicle-kilometre related to footprint related to gross weight

14

3. Results of road cost and revenue studies In this section, we only consider the allocation of infrastructure and control costs, and focus on the cost recovery of user classes for these costs, thereby neglecting accident and other nuisance costs that will be considered further below in tables showing new results, but not discussed at length in a technical way. In the four available public and documented studies, we therefore focus on fully allocated costs (i.e. all costs are allocated, not just variable costs) and use the established Prest approach described above to estimate specific road revenues and infrastructure cost recovery rates. We do not consider the study by Haritos (1973b) for the 1968 road network of Ontario because the data are more than 30 years old and the study does not use the AASHO equations, or factors derived from them32, to assign avoidable road maintenance costs, but simply assigns them in proportion to the number of vehicle axles. The most complete list of cost allocation studies produced (Nix, 2000) does not include other studies based on this universally established methodology (see Heggie, 1991a, 1991b).

3. A. The Ontario rural highway study (1987 data) The study by Toms (1991) produced infrastructure recovery results for rural highways of Ontario. The basic parameters of the allocation were those of the OPAC model and the allocation between cars, representing 80 % of traffic on those roads and trucks, representing 20 % of traffic, using documented data on traffic flows, costs, and vehicle weight data obtained from field surveys conducted by the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario (MTO) as part of its 1987 Commercial Vehicle Survey. The study used car traffic data but only produced cost recovery rates for heavy trucks, as indicated in Table 9. The shaded areas focus on the tucks that currently represent about 80 % of traffic on intercity Canadian roads, as documented below in Table 9.

Table 9. Cost recovery ratios for rural Ontario highways, 1987 Primary highway traffic Secondary highway traffic

Vehicle category Low Medium High Low Medium High Single-units truck 2axle 0,41 0,52 0,60 0,39 0,59 0,72 3axle 0,50 0,64 0,75 0,47 0,74 0,91 Single-trailer truck 5axle 0,61 0,80 0,96 0,57 0,95 1,20 6axle 0,52 0,66 0,76 0,50 0,76 0,92 6axle or + 0,42 0,52 0,58 0,41 0,59 0,68 Multi-trailer truck 7axle 0,59 0,75 0,87 0,56 0,87 1,06 7axle 0,59 0,75 0,87 0,56 0,87 1,06 8axle 0,53 0,65 0,75 0,50 0,75 0,89

Average category recovery rate(%) 52 % 66 % 76 % 50 % 74 % 93 %

3. B. The RCNPT study of the Canadian intercity road network (1991 data) The RCNPT study (Hyndman et al, 1992) reported officially on all intercity passenger modal recovery rates but, as the modes share the use of the road infrastructure, naturally had to calculate simultaneously the truck costs with those of the other road modes. These calculations, found in part in Vol. 2 of the report (page 91)

15

32 Available in convenient form only since 1986.

and extended slightly in Lawson (1993) for the 140 000 km paved intercity highway system (see Table 2), are found in Table 10 where Lawson did not consider registration costs (about 1 000 $ per heavy truck). In the calculations of this table, results for the truck mode are the sum of results for two categories, namely “light” and “heavy” trucks considered as one: the “average” heavy truck is assumed to have a GVW of 23,3 t and an ESAL of 1,5.

Table 10. System-wide annual infrastructure & control costs of intercity domestic road modes, paid by users and others, 1991, in 1991 dollars, Canada

Totals : $ millions Car

(210 billion pass km) Bus

(3,3 billion pass km) Trucks

(21,1 million veh km) Type of cost Users Others Users Others Users Others

Infrastructure & control 0 4 486 0 10 0 1 900Special trans. tax/fee 2 461 9 1 100

Agency profit - 2 025 -1 -800Recovery rate 55 % 90 % 58 %

It is natural to ask whether the subsidy rate of $ 800 million (in 1999 dollars, or about $ 900 in 2000 dollars) is distributed among road and vehicle types. The answer to the first question is given in Table 11.

Table 11. Infrastructure cost recovery for trucks, RCNPT, 1991 in 1991 dollars

By road type for all trucks, (million $) of average Gross weight of 23,3 t Highways Paved rural roads All roads

10 % most useds 30 % average flow 60 % low flow Infrastruct. & control -500 -320 -430 -650 -1 900 Special trans. tax/fee 620 260 140 100 1 100

Agency profit 120 -60 -290 -550 -800 Recovery rate 124 % 81 % 33 % 15 % 58 %

(Royal Commission calculations by J. Lawson , 1993). The second question is harder to answer because the calculations made by the RCNPT pertained to the “average” heavy truck assumed to have 1,5 ESAL of axle loading. However, if one applies equation 1 and calculates costs and revenues for different truck types, the implicit recovery rates are those found in Table 12.

Table 12. Cost and revenue structure for individual trucks, RCNPT, 1991, in 1991 dollars

NET ANNUAL INFRASTRUCTURE INCOME BY TRUCK AND ROAD TYPE ($ 1991) RCNPT

By truck type 3 axle 8 axle Average Allowed load 25 t 62 t 10,3 t Gross vehicle weight 10 t 20 t 30 t 30 t 50 t 70 t 23,3 t 20,000 km/year 40,000 km/ year 60,000 km/ year 80,000 km / year 100,000 km/ year 150,000 km/year

730 470 200 -50

-300 -----

-400 -1 800 -3 200 -4 500 -5 900

-----

-2 800-6 500

-10 300-14 000-18 000

-----

1 700500

-750-2 000-3 200-6 000

0-3 000-6 000-9 000

-12 000-19 000

-2 600 -8 200

-14 000 -19 000 -25 000 -39 000

-500-1 900-3 300-4 800-6 200

----- This means that, for the average straight truck assumed to do 80 000 km per year and the average tractor-trailer configuration assumed to do 160 000 km per year in the Toms study, the Intercity Agency would have

16

made losses if they are assumed to be half loaded, because there is no truck configuration that is recovering its infrastructure and control costs unless either the yearly kilometrage is small, or the load is minimal for the truck category considered. In these circumstance, a fully loaded 62 t 8 axle truck doing more that 150 000 km/year33 received a subsidy of more than $ 40 000 per year (in 1991 dollars).

3. C. The BRQ-1 study of the Quebec network (1994 data) The BRQ-1 study (Gaudry et al., 1996), funded by a university research contract awarded by the Quebec Ministry of Transport, attempted to extend to each of the 3 sub-networks within Quebec (federal, provincial and municipal) the analysis and methods of the RCNPT. It contained both “reference” results obtained with the minimum amount of adaptation of that methodology, and “recommended” results obtained by using parameters or values believed to be more representative of the Quebec network than the values used by the RCNPT for the national intercity network. Also, the BRQ-1 study aimed at giving a more precise evaluation of trucking costs than the RCNPT had done. The summary of the recommended results for infrastructure recovery are shown in Table 13, where distinct calculations for two kinds of trucks (respectively with are aggregated into one and all other modes (bus, motorcycle, utility vehicles, etc.) are aggregated into a third mode.

Table 13. Infrastructure cost recovery, Quebec road network for the three network jurisdictions, 1994, in 1994 dollars

BILAN DES COÛTS ET REVENUS D’INFRASTRUCTURE DU TRANSPORT ROUTIER AU QUÉBEC - 1994 ($ courants)

Type de coût AUTOMOBILES et CAMIONNETTES Usagers Autres Fédéral Provincial Municipal Total

Infrastructure/contrôle 22 725 790 346 721 052 433 449 797 802 896 639

Amortissement 36 889 422 178 267 821 157 138 953 372 296 196

Taxes/Redevances 1 633 993 858 -419 913 819 -934 211 392 -279 868 647 0

Taux de couverture gouv.: 139 %

Type de coût CAMIONS Usagers Autres Fédéral Provincial Municipal Total

Infrastructure/contrôle 25 145 188 421 743 740 548 077 278 994 966 205

Amortissement 41 963 115 218 717 233 200 721 901 461 402 249

Taxes/Redevances 1 272 396 866 -305 237 860 -916 763 449 -50 395 557 0

Taux de couverture gouv.: 87 %

Type de coût AUTRES Usagers Autres Fédéral Provincial Municipal Total

Infrastructure/contrôle 1 099 702 12 916 562 15 509 522 29 525 787

Amortissement 1 838 463 6 702 946 5 683 146 14 224 555

Taxes/Redevances 80 922 297 -9 151 090 -69 253 761 -2 517 446 0

Taux de couverture gouv.: 185 %

Type de coût TOTAL Usagers Autres Fédéral Provincial Municipal Total

Infrastructure/contrôle 48 970 681 781 381 354 997 036 597 1 827 388 631

Amortissement 80 691 000 403 688 000 363 544 000 847 923 000

Taxes/Redevances 2 987 313 022 195 101 000 -734 302 769 -1 920 228 602 -527 882 650 0

Taux de couverture gouv.: 112 %

17

33 Some tractor-trailers do more that 225 000 km/year on the Quebec network.

The calculations are made with trucks defined differently from those of the RCNPT: as pick-up trucks are included with cars (with an ESAL of 0,00001), remaining “light” trucks here have an ESAL of 0, 01 and “heavy” trucks an ESAL of 3,16. In addition, the proportions of pavement damage assumed to be due to the weather are as listed under “Quebec Ministry Beliefs” in Table 6. Finally, the calculation of capital costs differs from that used for Table 11, for complex reasons having to do primarily with the insufficient level of road maintenance demonstrated within the analysis—thereby requiring a measure of depreciation over and above that calculated by the RCNPT “required maintenance” formulae.

4. Potential improvements

4. A. Framework issues Two major issues have been mentioned above but not adequately addressed in the above framework. The first one has to do with the failure to take into account the proper value of contributions, or “easements” that should be made by other services sharing right-of-way with roads, such as public utilities of all kinds. Although this is partly addressed in the BRQ-1 results, where the amount of these contributions is $ 195 million for 1994 (see Table 13), these measurements are inadequate. In the Toms and RCNPT studies, they are inexistent. The second one has to do with the absence of local taxes in the road accounts, even in the RCNPT accounts where the issue clearly arose due to the presence of rail and air modes in the complete tables of results from which the results shown here were drawn.

4. B. From average to individual trucks A complicated and central issue is that of the way in which the ESAL of heavy vehicles are calculated. Because ESALs increase according to the fourth power rule of Equation 1 in all three studies34 summarized above, it is important to know the extent to which the average values assumed in these studies correspond to the actual distribution of ESALs, due to the fact that average of means is not the mean of averages: two identical 20 t trucks do not cause the same damage as a combination of a 10 t truck and a 30 t truck…This question can be partly answered for the intercity network, for which data exist on the actual flows by vehicle and axle group categories, but not for the urban networks. Intercity truck total and per axle weights, Canada 1995. Table 14 contains the distribution of truck weights in Canada, based on the publicly available National Roadside Survey (NRS) of 1995 from the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA). The survey sites were located on heaviest highways in Canada and the surveyed sample includes 36 239 trucks.

Table 14. Intercity truck weight distribution in Canada, 1995 CATEGORY WEIGHT (‘000 kg) Number of vehicles

Mean Sum Freq. N Freq. Single-units truck 2axle 8.09 626,016.7 4.1% 77,397 12.7% 3axle 13.90 586,331.4 3.8% 42,175 6.9% 4axle or + 25.90 212,403.2 1.4% 8,202 1.3%Single-trailer truck 4axle or + 15.55 358,705.4 2.3% 23,065 3.8% 5axle 24.65 6,774,682.1 44.2% 274,826 45.0% 6axle or + 34.98 4,921,339.1 32.1% 140,687 23.0%Multi-trailer truck 5axle or + 22.21 41,879.8 0.3% 1,886 0.3% 6axle 30.26 98,293.0 0.6% 3,249 0.5% 7axle or + 43.52 1,724,403.6 11.2% 39,623 6.5% Group Total 219.06 15,344,054.2 100.0% 611,111 100.0%

18

34 Toms uses tabulated AASHO factors from Yoder and Witczak (1975).

The category single-trailer truck with 5 axles largely dominates others categories: it carries 44.2% of total weight and it represents 45% of all trucks on the road. The second largest truck category is single-trailer with 6 axles or more. Categories match closely those used in Table 9. Table 25. Appendix 2 gives the complete weight distribution per axle group for each vehicle category. Note that NRS does not contain weight per axle but weight per axle group. The distinction is that two axles near (less than 2 m) one to another are treated as one axle group. ESAL by category of vehicle and true ESAL distribution. Table 15 shows weight and the corresponding ESAL distribution from the National Roadside Survey in Canada, 1995. It is aimed at showing the impact on the ESAL distributions of grouping trucks35 into categories, attributed in Column 2.

Table 15. Weight and ESAL distribution by heavy truck category

Truck Weight. Exact Exact Avg. Aggregated Aggregated RCNPTCategory Category PALE ESAL ESAL PALE ESAL ESAL

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) =avg(col.4)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Single-units trucks 2axle 1 4467 0.44 0.75 3579 0.18 1.50 3axle 1 5394 0.94 0.75 4464 0.44 1.50 4axle or + 2 8640 6.22 3.01 7563 3.65 1.50 Single-trailer trucks 4axle or - 1 5294 0.88 0.75 4352 0.40 1.50 5axle 2 6052 1.50 3.01 4976 0.68 1.50 6axle or + 2 7769 4.06 3.01 6221 1.67 1.50 Multi-trailer trucks 5axle or - 2 5696 1.17 3.01 4968 0.68 1.50 6axle 2 6236 1.69 3.01 5601 1.10 1.50 7axle or + 2 7454 3.44 3.01 6306 1.76 1.50

Average 6244 1.96 2.44 5703 0.91 1.50 Average weighted by truck weight 6717 2.72 2.57 5696 1.41 1.50

Column 4 shows the exact ESAL associated to each category of vehicle and is computed with Equation 1 using as reference denominator the weight of the axle group. Equation (1) is computed for each truck36 sampled in the National Roadside Survey. In fact, all numbers in Table 15 are weighted averages of individual ESAL values. But the weighing differs according to the procedure used within each column. Consider first the weight found in Column 3: it is expressed in kilograms but differs from that found in Table 14. It ought to be interpreted as a Per Axle Load Equivalents (PALE) weight for each category of vehicle. To derive it, take the true ESAL values from Column 4 and apply the following to derive PALE’s:

Equation 2 ( ) 4/1/*8182 sESALPALE = ,

35 Category 1 includes truck categories with less than 20,000 kg. in a sample taken from weight-in-motion. Larger trucks are grouped in the residual category. 36 36 For the steering axle, the ESAL value is doubled because reference axle groups assume 4-tire axles. Weight references are 8 182 kg. (single axle), 15 200 kg. (2 axles), 21 800 kg. (3 axles) and 28 340 kg. (4 axles). If we follow Lloyd and Addis (2000), this may understate the damage done to the pavement to the extent that damage, measured by rut depth, increases more than proportionately with reductions in tire contact surface (tire diameter, or width), for a given axle load.

19

where s represents the reference number of axles. In Column 3, s is assumed equal to 5. In Figure 3, changing the reference number s and the reference weight (assumed equal to 8182 kg) would shift the continuous curve to the right or to the left, but the values found in Column 3 would not change.

Column 5 contains an unweighted average ESAL for each group of vehicle, obtained from the true values found in Column 4. Column 6 shows the average weight for each vehicle category. It corresponds to the load per axle for the average vehicle in the category. Column 7 computes ESAL corresponding to the weight distribution per category of vehicle and per axle group, using the distribution shown in Table 25. Appendix 2, always from Equation (1). Finally, Column 8 shows RCNPT ESAL values, i.e. values assumed by the Royal Commission. Comments on averaging ESAL values. First note that Exact ESAL values (Column 4) are systematically greater than the Aggregated ESAL values (Column 7).37 Actually, on average, Exact ESAL values (1.96) are about twice the size of Aggregated ESAL (0.91) values. Note also that the uniform RCNPT-assumed ESAL value (1.5) is exactly the same as the Exact ESAL value for the Single-trailer trucks 5-axle (ESAL=1.5), which is the most important truck category on the road, as shown in Table 14. But in general, the value of 1,5 is too low, as can be seen form the comparison of weighted averages found in the last two lines of Table 15. The most exact comparison is with the true average (1,96: i.e. the group weighted average obtained by using the true distribution) for the Exact ESAL column: 1,50 is 31 % too low. This means that the truck recovery rates shown in Table 10 and Table 11 are too high (and those of other road modes too low) even if one accepts the very high percentage of deterioration due to the weather indicated in Table 7 or in Table 6. Distribution of true and of average ESAL values. To see how the impact of averaging can matter, it may be simpler to consider Figure 3, where the values from columns 4, 6 and 5 of Table 15 are shown.

Figure 3. Actual, average and average group weight ESAL values by category of vehicle

ESAL Distribution, National Roadside Survey, 1995

0,001,002,003,004,005,006,007,00

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Weight measure

Exact distribution Aggregated ESAL Average ESAL

20

37 A standard result when the function follows the non decreasing part of a U-shape, as assumed by Equation 1.

This figure makes obvious the fact that aggregated (by vehicle category) ESAL and PALE values (the square points on the curve) are located lower on the curve than the corresponding values computed from individual data (the lozenge points on the curve). Similar ESAL and PALE computations could be made with recent Quebec data from weight-in-motion stations, in principle available for at least 5 major highways in Quebec (Prophète, 1998). Furthermore, the analysis could be constructed by showing the actual traffic direction (east bound, west bound, north bound, south bound). The question of interest is then : how does this average value of 1,96 ESAL for the 1995 national road network compare with other estimates ? We shall answer the question with RCNPT data and simultaneously reintroduce into the accounts the environmental and accident costs that were included in the original RCNPT accounts produced in 1992. It will then be possible to answer questions not only on infrastructure cost recovery but to answer the more interesting question of the extent to which users cover all of their infrastructure (& control) costs and their accident and pollution coast as well.

5. New national intercity road and rail results for 1999 To see the importance of new data from an agency perspective, we want to update the RCNPT results for the road mode, introduce results for the Quebec network and compare them with data for the rail mode for 1999.

5.1. Road results for the national RCNPT intercity network In order to provide current and updated results, we first reproduced almost exactly the 1991 RCNPT costs per vehicle for the intercity road network drawn from Table 2, using a first version of our Modal Accounting System for Transport (MAST-1). We then made some corrections and derived the total costs for each user class in such a way as to be close enough38 to the original values found in Table 10 before adjustment for inflation since 1991. This yielded Table 16. All input data were then updated and calculations made using the best available information on traffic, road stock of capital, maintenance, accident, emission rates and taxes. In terms of the discussion above on axle loadings, we used the 1995 average Exact ESAL value (1.96) from Table 15 instead of the RCNPT value (1.5) applied to the same trip length distribution of the increased traffic. These ESAL values are lower than that postulated recently by Nix (2000) for the Ontario network (2.3) and much lower than the value he uses for the Toronto-Montreal corridor (2.5 to 3.5 ESALs). But of course our value of 1.96 is based on the national 1995 flows, not on the Ontario or Quebec flows. The results are found in Table 17. The reader comparing Table 16 and Table 17 will note that the recovery rates have changed significantly: the car increased its recovery rate from 82 % to 98 %; by contrast, the subsidy to trucks has increased from $ 1,57 to $1,88 billion─a change of 311 million dollars. In addition, taking into account the footprint of buses in all components of the total cost (including road maintenance costs) has increased the subsidy to this mode from $ 12 million to $ 30 million, but these are small numbers. Table 16 and 17 are based on RCNPT assumptions. One specific and very critical assumption relates to the impact of the weather conditions on road infrastructure deterioration: the higher the proportion of deterioration caused by weather, the smaller the proportion of costs depending on traffic. We obtained from the FHWA recent cost allocation study (1997) deterioration factors used in their study. Recomputed results are found in Table 18. 38 In effect, we used only one definition of traffic (instead of two) and passenger-car equivalent factors to allocate maintenance costs: our results for total costs are consequently not absolutely identical to those of 1991.

21

Table 16. Infrastructure & control and externality costs of the national intercity road mode, paid by users and others, 1991, in 1999 dollars (RCNPT)

COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS OF ROAD TRANSPORTATION IN CANADA - 1991

(in 1999 dollars) CAR (PASSENGERS) Recovery (114, 692, 715, 570 Veh km) 82 %

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 4,715,390,629 4,715,390,629Environment 1,416,517,230 1,416,517,230Accident 8,947,247,451 8,947,247,451Taxes 3,481,811,131 -3,481,811,131 0Total 12,429,058,582 1,416,517,230 1,233,579,498 15,079,155,309

TRUCK (FREIGHT) Recovery ( 20, 631, 744, 720 Veh km) 60 %

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 1,819,839,979 1,819,839,979Environment 911,672,756 911,672,756Accident 1,191,580,298 1,191,580,298Taxes 1,159,295,335 -1,159,295,335 0Total 2,350,875,633 911,672,756 660,544,645 3,923,093,034

BUS Recovery ( 271, 481, 160 Veh km) 65 %

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 11,626,659 11,626,659Environment 8,000,000 8,000,000Accident 13,595,050 13,595,050Taxes 7,819,245 -7,819,245 0Total 21,414,296 8,000,000 3,807,413 33,221,709

TOTAL Recovery ( 135, 595, 941, 450 Veh km) 78 %

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 6,546,857,267 6,546,857,267Environment 2,336,189,986 2,336,189,986Accident 10,152,422,799 10,152,422,799Taxes 4,648,925,712 -4,648,925,712 0Total 14,801,348,510 2,336,189,986 1,897,931,556 19,035,470,052

22

Table 17. Infrastructure & control and externality costs of the national intercity road mode, paid by users and others, 1999, in 1999 dollars (RCNPT network)

COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS OF ROAD TRANSPORTATION IN CANADA - 1999

(in 1999 dollars) CAR (PASSENGERS) Recovery (148, 709, 395, 342 Veh km) 98 %

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 5,038,182,510 5,038,182,510Environment 1,768,328,929 1,768,328,929Accident 8,782,606,827 8,782,606,827Taxes 6,561,808,823 -6,561,808,823 0Total 15,344,415,649 1,768,328,929 -1,523,626,313 15,589,118,266

TRUCK (FREIGHT) Recovery ( 26, 750, 907, 997 Veh km) 61 %

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 2,322,829,568 2,322,829,568Environment 1,202,636,739 1,202,636,739Accident 1,285,460,605 1,285,460,605Taxes 1,649,818,593 -1,649,818,593 0Total 2,935,279,197 1,202,636,739 673,010,975 4,810,926,912

BUS Recovery ( 351, 999, 680 Veh km) 52 %

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 24,087,376 24,087,376Environment 18,618,842 18,618,842Accident 19,154,358 19,154,358Taxes 13,125,670 -13,125,670 0Total 32,280,028 18,618,842 10,961,706 61,860,576

TOTAL Recovery ( 175, 812, 303, 020 Veh km) 89 %

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 7,385,099,454 7,385,099,454Environment 2,989,584,510 2,989,584,510Accident 10,087,221,789 10,087,221,789Taxes 8,224,753,085 -8,224,753,085 0Total 18,311,974,874 2,989,584,510 -839,653,631 20,461,905,754

23

Table 18. Infrastructure & control and externality costs of the national intercity road mode, paid by users and others, FHWA weather deterioration assumptions,

1999, in 1999 dollars (RCNPT network) COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS OF ROAD TRANSPORTATION IN CANADA - 1999

(in 1999 dollars) CAR (PASSENGERS) Recovery (148, 709, 395, 342 Veh km) 109.87%

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 3,414,786,036 3,414,786,036Environment 1,768,328,929 1,768,328,929Accident 8,782,606,827 8,782,606,827Taxes 6,561,808,823 -6,561,808,823 0Total 15,344,415,649 1,768,328,929 -3,147,022,786 13,965,721,792

TRUCKS (FREIGHT) Recovery ( 26, 750, 907, 997 Veh km) 45.57%

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 3,953,238,579 3,953,238,579Environment 1,202,636,739 1,202,636,739Accident 1,285,460,605 1,285,460,605Taxes 1,649,818,593 -1,649,818,593 0Total 2,935,279,197 1,202,636,739 2,303,419,986 6,441,335,923

BUS Recovery ( 351, 999, 680 Veh km) 58.85%

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 17,074,839 17,074,839Environment 18,618,842 18,618,842Accident 19,154,358 19,154,358Taxes 13,125,670 -13,125,670 0Total 32,280,028 18,618,842 3,949,169

TOTAL Recovery ( 175, 812,303, 020 Veh km) 89.49%

TYPE of Cost Users Others Governments Total Infrastructure 7,385,099,454 7,385,099,454Environment 2,989,584,510 2,989,584,510Accident 10,087,221,789 10,087,221,789Taxes 8,224,753,085 -8,224,753,085 0Total 18,311,974,874 2,989,584,510 -839,653,631 20,461,905,754

54,848,038

24

It may sound strange to apply American weather deterioration factors to the Canadian network, since average climatic conditions differ between the two countries. However, the comparison shows the sensitivity of the results to those parameters. Indeed, comparing Table 17 and Table 18, these observations can be made: 1. under the new assumptions, the cost recovery of the category “car” increases from 82% to 110%: cars are

then overtaxed by $1.3 billion since the infrastructure costs allocated to them have been reduced by $1.6 billion.

2. under the new assumptions, the cost recovery of the category “trucks” falls from 61% to 46%: trucks are then subsidized by $3.5 billion since the infrastructure costs allocated to them have increased by $1.6 billion.

These results clearly stress the importance of identifying as accurately as possible the impact of the weather on road deterioration. To the best of our knowledge, this topic might has been too neglected despite the recognized importance of the issue and the dubious credibility of the RCNPT assumptions on this point (See Footnote 28). Of course, under the mandate and time constraints of that commission, it was more important in 1992 to state the problem than to obtain the most exact estimates: for a road network of the size and value of that found in Canada, this task requires significant resources with a clear legal mandate and matching administrative diligence from all parties, federal and other.

5.2 Road results for the complete 1999 Quebec road network The RCNPT network is defined essentially for interurban traffic. The next application of MAST-1 procedures to the Quebec road network uses all road traffic: freight, passenger, interurban, urban. First, we use the same assumptions as those found in Table 17, and then examine the impact of using FHWA weather damage assumptions, as in Table 18. In the first case, as shown in Table 19, the total recovery rate of the road infrastructure is lower (83%) than that of the national network (89%). Compared to the national network, “car” and “trucks” categories also have lower recovery rates of 92% and 52%, respectively, as compared to 98% and 61%. By contrast, the category “bus” has a higher recovery rate, 81% instead of 52%. Since this Quebec application allowed us to have full traffic and costs information about the road network, we are more confident about this result for the “bus” category than we are about those contained in Table 17. It is interesting that results of the same order of magnitude were obtained for the categories “car” and “trucks”, despite great differences between the Canadian intercity network and the complete Quebec network. Similar recovery rates hide a different level of infrastructure and tax costs. For instance, according to Table 19 the social infrastructure subsidy allocated to the “trucks” category is $1.1 billion. Stated differently, the annual subsidy per truck is about $ 3450. As discussed in the previous section, changing the assumption regarding the weather deterioration factors has a drastic impact on the cost allocation. As shown in Table 20, it means a transfer of about $650 million from “car” infrastructure costs to “truck” infrastructure costs. The end result being that “car” category is paying its social infrastructure costs (100% recovery rate) and the “trucks” category is receiving a 58% subsidy (42% recovery rate): one mode increases by ten percentage points and the other falls by ten percentage points.

25

Table 19. Infrastructure cost allocation, complete Quebec road network, RCNPT Weather Deterioration Assumptions, 1999, in 1999 dollars

AUTOMOBILES ET CAMIONNETTES Recovery ( 66, 392, 760, 058 Veh km) 91.85% Type de coût Usagers Autres Municipal Provincial Fédéral Total

Infrastructure 1,037,808,982 712,200,231 103,729,297 1,853,738,510Environnement 1,316,991,008 1,316,991,008Accident 4,366,013,464 4,366,013,464Taxes 2,556,398,960 -346,776,743 -1,442,226,320 -767,395,897 0Total 6,922,412,424 1,316,991,008 691,032,239 -730,026,089 -663,666,600 7,536,742,981

CAMIONS Recovery ( 10, 769, 072, 810 Veh km) 52.11%

Type de coût Usagers Autres Municipal Provincial Fédéral Total Infrastructure 639,598,904 511,682,495 41,785,565 1,193,066,964Environnement 851,719,889 851,719,889Accident 249,389,077 249,389,077Taxes 946,002,020 -42,063,270 -753,489,936 -150,448,814 0Total 1,195,391,096 851,719,889 597,535,634 -241,807,440 -108,663,249 2,294,175,930

BUS Recovery

( 388, 959, 429 Veh km) 80.99% Type de coût Usagers Autres Municipal Provincial Fédéral Total Infrastructure 11,996,214 8,738,175 1,349,043 22,083,433Environnement 40,711,567 40,711,567Accident 14,991,078 14,991,078Taxes 48,008,239 -1,968,524 -35,627,766 -10,411,949 0Total 62,999,317 40,711,567 10,027,690 -26,889,591 -9,062,906 77,786,078

TOTAL Recovery ( 77, 550, 92, 297 Veh km) 82.56% Type de coût Usagers Autres Municipal Provincial Fédéral Total Infrastructure 1,689,404,100 1,232,620,902 146,863,905 3,068,888,907Environnement 2,209,422,464 2,209,422,464Accident 4,630,393,619 4,630,393,619Taxes 3,550,409,219 -390,808,537 -2,231,344,022 -928,256,660 0Total 8,180,802,838 2,209,422,464 1,298,595,563 -998,723,120 -781,392,755 9,908,704,990

26

Table 20. Infrastructure cost allocation, complete Quebec road network, FHWA Weather Deterioration Assumptions, 1999, in 1999 dollars

AUTOMOBILES ET CAMIONNETTES Recovery ( 66, 392, 760, 058 Veh km) 99.21%

Type de coût Usagers Autres Municipal Provincial Fédéral Total Infrastructure 675,495,312 518,119,247 101,190,879 1,294,805,438Environnement 1,316,991,008 1,316,991,008Accident 4,366,013,464 4,366,013,464Taxes 2,556,398,960 -346,776,743 -1,442,226,320 -767,395,897 0Total 6,922,412,424 1,316,991,008 328,718,568 -924,107,073 -666,205,018 6,977,809,910

CAMIONS Recovery ( 10, 769, 072, 810 Veh km) 41.81%

Type de coût Usagers Autres Municipal Provincial Fédéral Total Infrastructure 1,005,770,502 707,884,118 44,351,067 1,758,005,688Environnement 851,719,889 851,719,889Accident 249,389,077 249,389,077Taxes 946,002,020 -42,063,270 -753,489,936 -150,448,814 0Total 1,195,391,096 851,719,889 963,707,233 -45,605,818 -106,097,747 2,859,114,654

BUS Recovery

( 388, 959, 429 Veh km) 87.77% Type de coût Usagers Autres Municipal Provincial Fédéral Total Infrastructure 8,138,286 6,617,536 1,321,959 16,077,781Environnement 40,711,567 40,711,567Accident 14,991,078 14,991,078Taxes 48,008,239 -1,968,524 -35,627,766 -10,411,949 0Total 62,999,317 40,711,567 6,169,762 -29,010,230 -9,089,990 71,780,426

TOTAL Recovery ( 77, 550, 792, 297 Veh km) 82.56%

Type de coût Usagers Autres Municipal Provincial Fédéral Total Infrastructure 1,689,404,100 1,232,620,902 146,863,905 3,068,888,907Environnement 2,209,422,464 2,209,422,464Accident 4,630,393,619 4,630,393,619Taxes 3,550,409,219 -390,808,537 -2,231,344,022 -928,256,660 0Total 8,180,802,838 2,209,422,464 1,298,595,563 -998,723,120 -781,392,755 9,908,704,990

27

Table 21 reproduces the recovery rates coming from the latest cost allocation study done by the FHWA. More specifically, it shows the ratio of highway user fees to highway-related expenditures/obligations estimated for the three levels of government in 2000. Overall, the recovery rate is estimated to be 80%. This is very close from the recovery rate that we obtained at a national level and for the Quebec province of 89% and 82%, respectively. However, comparisons might be difficult to establish between the two studies because the FHWA includes a cost component for congestion, which is not taken into account in MAST. As vehicles are heavier they are more subsidized. This result is consistent with results obtained with the MAST procedure.

Table 21. FHWA American road network recovery rates

Table VI-21. Ratios of year 2000 User Fee Payments to Allocated Costs for All Levels of Government, USA

Federal All levels of Vehicle Class Federal State and State Local Government

Autos 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.7

Pickups and Vans 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.1 0.9

Buses 0.1 0.8 0.5 0 0.4

All Passenger Vehicles 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.8

Single Unit Trucks <25,000 pounds 1.4 2.2 1.9 0.1 1.5

25,001-50,000 pounds 0.6 1.0 0.8 0 0.6 >50,001pounds 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0.4

All single Unit Trucks 0.8 1.2 1.1 0.1 0.8 Combination Trucks

<50,000 pounds 1.4 1.7 1.6 0.1 1.3 50,001-70,000 pounds 1.0 1.3 1.1 0.1 0.9 70,001-75,000 pounds 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.8 75,001-80,000 pounds 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.8

>80,000 pounds 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.7 All Combinations 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.8

All trucks 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.8

All Vehicles 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.1 0.8

28

5. 3. Results for the Canadian and Quebec rail freight modes We applied our methodology to rail freight39 at the national level for all freight railway services in Canada by CN, CPR and Short Lines in 1999. The results for Canada, found in Table 22 include, like those of Table 10, system-wide annual infrastructure & control costs, 1999: but they pertain to rail freight costs. The results for the Quebec rail network are shown in Table 23. But this table differs from Table 10 in several respects: (i) the column “Others” of Table 10 has been broken up to isolate governments from the rest of non-rail freight transportation users; (ii) two rows have been added to identify externalities. The “Environment” row identifies air pollution costs associated with rail freight transportation. The “Accident” row accounts for accidents occurring on the rail freight infrastructure. Injury costs are borne by rail users and fatalities are accounted for under the heading “Others”; (iii) total traffic has been divided into 4 broad classes of vehicle, namely “Flat cars”, “Hoppers and gondolas”, “Intermodal” and “Other” ; the latter regroups 4 types of rail cars. For the different kinds of rail vehicles, we effected the calculations with a linear axle weight damage function (using the power 1, not 4, in Equation 1) on the different kinds of tracks and yards: this favours the heavy kinds of train wagons, at the expense of the lighter ones, but can be easily changed in MAST-0. It is anticipated that, based on Robert et al. (1997), a nonlinear relationship with an exponent around 2 would be more appropriate40. Appropriate hypotheses were made for footprints and numerous other input requirements. As the data base becomes more precise, these first cut illustrative results can be refined: they reflect the state of our ITEM project data base as of the end of April 200141. On the specific revenue side, we used the established Prest (1963) rule mentioned above and assigned the specific taxes (fuel, local and special) according to rules to be documented with recommended MAST user defined and default options. As we could not yet locate reliable and significant infrastructure or control subsidies42 from governments to rail networks, there are, as a first approximation, no infrastructure costs incurred43 by governments on behalf of rail in Table 22 and Table 23. The externality costs were calculated for the different emission valuations of the RCNPT: we did not use the higher values of life implied in our recent methodological work (Gaudry, 2000) on the Quebec road accident data: in that sense, our estimates of accident costs favour the road modes. As it stands now, Table 22 indicates that specific transportation taxes received by governments amount to $ 984 million. However, externalities (accident and air pollution) produced by rail freight transportation account for $ 444 million. In other words, railways overpay governments through taxes by $ 540 million. This excess amount represents 14.6% of the total infrastructure costs. 39 As data for passenger trains become available, this will add another type of wagon to the 3 kinds found in « Others » in and .

Table 22Table 23

40 We are currently preparing a literature survey on this topic. 41 Sources of information include: (i) CP and CN complete annual reports (TP12753) submitted to Transport Canada; (ii) Rail in Canada, Statistics Canada STC 52-216; (iii) Transport Canada Annual Report (TP13199); (iv) environmental data from the Champagne model of Natural Resources Canada; (v) Uniform Classification of Accounts from the Canadian Transportation Agency; (vi) Rail capital stock information received from Transport Canada; (vii) Confidential data received from CN, CP and short lines operating in Quebec. 42 Subsidies to services are a different matter, but we have not included the own vehicle costs yet.

29

43 Clearly, as pointed out by the RCNPT in its discussion of High Speed Rail, rail crossings (and perhaps special grade crossing safety enhancements) are a common cost of the transport system that could be distributed among the modes in a more refined calculation application of the MAST-1 procedure. Alternatively, some safety expenditures can be viewed independently from the transport system as a common cost of the State, as declared by the French Constitutional Court.

Table 22. Infrastructure & control and externality costs of the national rail freight network, paid by users and others, 1999, in 1999 dollars

COST AND INCOME ANALYSIS OF RAIL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION IN CADADA 1999

FLAT CARS Recovery COST TYPES ( 0.35 billion veh.-km) 103% Users Others Gov. Total Infrastructure 242,723,165 242,723,165Environment 10,245,411 10,245,411Accident 29,633,226 29,633,226Taxes 39,684,254 -39,684,254 0Total 291,013,220 31,272,836 -39,684,254 282,601,802 HOPPERS AND GONDOLAS Recovery COST TYPES ( 0.93 billion veh.-km. ) 105% Users Others Gov. Total Infrastructure 908,328,113 908,328,113Environment 31,093,414 31,093,414Accident 60,369,368 60,369,368Taxes 120,436,255 -120,436,255 0Total 1,046,296,270 73,930,881 -120,436,255 999,790,895 INTERMODAL Recovery COST TYPES ( 0.85 billion veh.-km.) 103% Users Others Gov. Total Infrastructure 1,366,773,464 1,366,773,464Environment 39,799,476 39,799,476Accident 89,721,201 89,721,201Taxes 154,158,045 -154,158,045 0Total 1,546,987,493 103,464,694 -154,158,045 1,496,294,141 OTHERS Recovery COST TYPES ( 5.49 billion veh.-km.) 109% Users Others Gov. Total Infrastructure 4,643,494,855 4,643,494,855Environment 173,018,740 173,018,740Accident 81,240,597 81,240,597Taxes 670,165,368 -670,165,368 0Total 5,337,253,350 230,666,210 -670,165,368 4,897,754,192 TOTAL Recovery COST TYPES ( 7.58 billion veh.-km.) 107% Users Others Gov. Total Infrastructure 7,161,319,597 7,161,319,597Environment 254,157,041 254,157,041Accident 260,964,393 260,964,393Taxes 984,443,922 -984,443,922 0Total 8,221,550,332 439,334,621 -984,443,922 7,676,441,031

30

Table 23. Infrastructure & control and externality costs of the Quebec rail freight network, paid by users and others, 1999, in 1999 dollars

COST AND INCOME ANALYSIS OF RAIL FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION IN QUEBEC, 1999 FLAT CARS Recovery COST TYPES 287,221,171 veh-km. 0.99 Users Others Gov. Total Infrastructure 284,901,211 284,901,211Environment 10,223,808 10,223,808Accident 11,951,567 11,951,567Taxes 8,569,174 -8,569,174 0Total 305,421,952 10,223,808 -8,569,174 307,076,586 HOPPERS AND GONDOLAS Recovery COST TYPES 55,628,863 veh-km. 1.00 Users Others Gov. Total Infrastructure 69,881,386 69,881,386Environment 1,978,574 1,978,574Accident 2,314,774 2,314,774Taxes 1,659,674 -1,659,674 0Total 73,855,833 1,978,574 -1,659,674 74,174,733 INTERMODAL Recovery COST TYPES 59,546,379 veh-km. 1.00 Users Others Gov. Total Infrastructure 171,729,260 171,729,260Environment 4,406,244 4,406,244Accident 5,150,872 5,150,872Taxes 3,693,132 -3,693,132 0Total 180,573,263 4,406,244 -3,693,132 181,286,375 OTHERS Recovery COST TYPES 179,730,547 veh-km. 1.00 Users Others Gov. Total Infrastructure 182,484,097 182,484,097Environment 4,110,960 4,110,960Accident 4,805,687 4,805,687Taxes 3,445,637 -3,445,637 0Total 190,735,421 4,110,960 -3,445,637 191,400,744 TOTAL Recovery COST TYPES 582,126,961 veh-km. 1.00 Users Others Gov. Total Infrastructure 708,995,953 708,995,953Environment 20,719,585 20,719,585Accident 24,222,900 24,222,900Taxes 17,367,616 -17,367,616 0Total 750,586,469 20,719,585 -17,367,616 753,938,438

31

6. Conclusion There are two important difficulties that we have not discussed in a technical manner in our road agency perspective: the many ways of valuing externalities, such as noise, emissions and the value of human life; and the idea of optimizing the supply and demand interaction within the control of the agency. This idea is built into recent works, such as the Highway Design and Maintenance Standards Model (HDM-III) model by the World Bank (Watanatada et al., 1987) and an American study (Small et al., 1989) explicitly linking the demand and supply sides of agency road accounts. In a sense, the agency perspective is coming of age, as charging for roads has become road charging and bearing the cost of roads has become charging users for road costs obtained by infrastructure cost allocation (by user class) and the costing of all resources used up (by user class) in providing road services. In Canada there are relatively few studies using that explicit perspective in a documented and public way, as is done for instance in the U.S. (1997). We hope that more will be forthcoming. In particular, we have shown, for the national road network, that “best practice” results obtained with currently available data44 to update the most extensive and authoritative road cost allocation study available in Canada―that of the RCNPT―reveal that the infrastructure (and the full direct cost) recovery rates of heavy trucks have been overestimated by the RCNPT. If these costs and recovery rates are compared to those of the rail mode (excluding passengers), major equity and efficiency questions arise as there is no reason why a neutral transport policy would treat the modes differently. These results also have been confirmed at the level of the Province of Quebec, through a detailed analysis of the modes, with the various players distinguished by level of government. As the road infrastructure deficit is associated with roads of relatively low traffic, moving towards full road cost recovery by user class would raise road charges in low density regions; and moving towards intermodal equity would imply a realignment of charges on the various modes. Such a major redirections can only be taken if an institutional change, or agency perspective, is adopted in reality, as opposed to virtually as we have done and resources proportionate to the value of the capital stock are used to plan for its proper use. Does anyone know how many of our roads not only make deficits but permanently reduce GNP? There is only one way to find out.

7. References Allen, R.C., « The Great Divergence : Wages and Prices in Europe from the Middle Ages to the First World

War”, Economics Department, University of British Columbia, 1998. Assemblée Nationale, « Loi instituant le Fonds de conservation du réseau routier », Projet de loi n°38,

Éditeur officiel du Québec, 1996. Bairoch, P., Batou, J. and P. Chèvre, The Population of European Cities, 800-1850, Geneva, Librairie Droz,

1988.

32

44 Commissioned by Transport Canada, Lake et al. (1999) have estimated that a road infrastructure cost allocation, presumably made from detailed existing data supplied by provinces, as well as data data on vehicle kilometres of travel for a complete year (forthcoming from the 1999-2000 National Vehicle Survey) and other sources, would cost about 6 million dollars.

Blum, U. and L. Dudley, “Religion and Economic Growth: Was Weber Right?”. Unpublished manuscript, Département de sciences économiques, Université de Montréal, 29 p., May 4, 1999.

Boucher, M., « État des revenus fiscaux prélevés et des dépenses engagées par le gouvernement du Québec

au chapitre du réseau autoroutier », Manuscrit présenté au Ministère des transports du Québec, 31 janvier 1995.

Boucher, M., « Highway Costs and Revenues in Québec : Evidence and Analysis », Cahier 9604, Centre de

recherche en économie publique (CREP), École nationale d’administration publique, Université du Québec, Québec, 1996. Aussi dans Transport Gateways and Trade Corridors/Portes du transport et Corridors de Commerce., CTRF/GRTC, 1996.

Byrne, Treatise on Highway Construction, 1892. Dupuit, J., Essais et expériences sur le tirage des voitures et sur le frottement de seconde espèce; suivis de

considérations sur les diverses espèces de routes, la police du roulage et la construction de routes. Paris: Carilan-Goeury, 1837.

Dupuit, J., “Mémoire sur le tirage des voitures et sur le frottement de roulement,” Annales des Ponts et

Chaussées. Mémoires et Documents, 2nd Series, III, (1): 261-335, 1842a. Dupuit, J., “Considérations sur les frais d’entretien des routes », Annales des Ponts et Chaussées, 2nd Series,

III, (1): 68-91, 1842b. Ekelund, R.B., Jr., and R. F. Hébert, Secret Origins of Modern Microeconomics: Dupuit and the Engineers,

468 p., The University of Chicago Press, 1999. Fekpe, E., “Bridge Cost Allocation Issues”, Canadian Transportation Research Forum 1996 Proceedings,

Vol, 2, 883-892, May 1996. Gaudry, M., “On Using the Royal Commission-Transport Canada RC-TC 1991 Infrastructure Cost Allocation

Procedures for Integrated Trans-European Network (TEN) Accounts”, Publication CRT-98-48, Centre de recherche sur les transports, Université de Montréal, and Working Paper No 9816, Bureau d’économie théorique et appliquée, Université Louis Pasteur, 22 p., August 1998, Revised August 1999.

Gaudry, M., “Life, Limb and Bumper Trade-Offs Calculable from Road Accident Models: An Empirical

Multimoment Portfolio Analysis and Life Asset Pricing Model (LAPM)”, Unpublished note, May 2000, revised November 2000 and deposited as a brief to the Boiteux Commission (Groupe sur l’actualisation du rapport “Transports: pour un meilleur choix des investissements”, Commissariat Général du Plan, Paris).

Gaudry, M., Mallet, S. and C. Marullo, "BRQ-1: Un premier bilan intégré des coûts et revenus du réseau

routier au Québec et du transport public de la grande région de Montréal", Publication CRT-96-43, Centre de recherche sur les transports, Université de Montréal, 927 p., 1996. - Partie I. Les comptes virtuels de deux agences (256 p.). - Partie II. Les sources logiques et statistiques (266 p.). - Partie III. La répartition: méthode d'origine et application à l'année 1994 (405 p.).

Haritos, Z..J., « Recettes et déboursés des transports au Canada », Rapport numéro 41(bf), Commission

canadienne des transports, 30 pages, Ottawa, décembre, 1973a. Haritos, Z..J., Rational Road Pricing Policies in Canada, Canadian Transport Commission, 182 pages,

Ottawa, 1973b. 33

Haritos, Z.J., « Coûts et recettes associés au transport au Canada, de 1969 à 1979 », Transports Canada,

Direction de la politique stratégique, Rapport TP 3737F, juillet 1982. Heggie, I., User Charging and Accountability for Roads: An Agenda for Reform, The World Bank, 119 p.,

September, 1991a. Heggie, I., Improving Management and Charging Policies for Roads: An Agenda for Reform, Report INU

92, The World Bank, 81 p., December, 1991a. Hutchinson, B.G., « Some Technical Issues in Implementing Road User Pavement Damage Charges », 18 p.,

Infrastructure Pricing, Investment Decisions and Financing, Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation, Technical Seminar, Ottawa, 26-27 September 1991.

Hyndman, L. D. et al.,, «Directions: Le rapport final de la commission royale sur le transport des voyageurs

au Canada », Ministre des approvisionnements et services, Ottawa, Canada, 1946 pages, 1992. Jung, F.W., Kher, R., and W.A. Phang, “Ontario Pavement Analysis of Costs: A Performance Prediction

System”, Research Report 200, Ministry of Transportation and Communications of Ontario, Downsview, Ontario, 1975.

Kirby, R. A., Withington, S., Darling, A. B. and F. Y. Kilgour, Engineering in History, McGraw-Hill, New

York, p. 201, 1956. Lake, R., Hirshhorn, R., Barton, R., Schwier, C., Tardif, L.-P. and D. Hackston, “Road Pricing and Climate

Change. Phase I: Needs Assessment”, Research and Traffic Group, Ottawa, 217 p., February 1999. Lawson, J., “Highway Infrastructure Costing and Revenue Costs: Cost Comparisons”, Unpublished

manuscript used in a departmental seminar, Economic Analysis, Transport Canada, 23 p., 19th March 1993.

LCPC et SETRA, Conception et Dimensionnement des Structures de Chaussée: Guide Technique,

Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées et Service d’Études Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes, Ministère de l’Équipement, des Transports et du Tourisme, 1994.

Lloyd, W. and R. Addis, « Current Road-Vehicle Interaction Research in the UK », Paper presented at the

International Seminar on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions, June 18-22, Saskatoon, 12 p., June 2000.

Nicolet, C., Censeurs et Publicains: Économie et Fiscalité dans la Rome Antique, 506 p., Fayard, 2000. Nix, F.P., “Road Cost Allocation in Canada and the United States”, Paper presented at Workshop 1,

International Workshops on ITEM Studies, October 13-14, Montreal, 13 p., November 2000. Nix, F.P., Boucher, M. and B. Hutchinson, « Road Costs », Report prepared for the Research Division of the

Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation, RES 91-32, 94 p., March 1992. Owram, D.R., « Roads », Report prepared for the Research Division of the Royal Commission on National

Passenger Transportation, RES 91-21, 70 p., December 1991. Prest, A.R., « Some Aspects of Road Finance in the U.K. », The Manchester School of Economics and Social

Studies 31, 223-241, 1963. 34

Prophète, F., «Modèles d’aggressivité de la masse totale des véhicules lourds », Bulletin d’information

technique, Direction du laboratoire des chaussées, Transports Québec, 3, 7, 2 p., juillet 1998. Renaud, J.P., “Reconnaissance de l’Itinéraire d’Hannibal du Rhône au dernier col alpin », Bulletin de la

Société d’étude des Hautes-Alpes, Société d’étude des Hautes-Alpes, Gap, 57-115, 1994. Robert, W. E, Chapman, J. D., and C.D. Martland, “Effects of Axle Loads and Train Capacity on Heavy

Haul Network Performance”, Transportation Research Forum, 39th Annual Meeting, Volume 2, 1997. Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, Canada’s Roadway Infrastructure: Selected Facts and

Figures, RTAC, Ottawa, 1990. Richardson, S., « Évaluation du réseau canadien de routes et d’autoroutes », Transports Canada TP 12794F.,

1996. Small, K. A., Winston, C., and C. A. Evans, Road Works, The Brookings Institution, 128 p., Washington,

1989. Small, K. A. and F. Zhang, “A Reanalysis of the AASHO Road Test Data: Rigid Pavements”, Department of

Economics and Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, 34 p., August 1991. TAC/ATC, Pavement Design and Management Guide, R. Haas, ed., Transportation Association of

Canada/Association des Transports du Canada, Ottawa, 389 p., 1997. The Economist, « Economic Focus: The value-subtractors of Eastern Europe », p. 51, January 5, 1991. Tomkins, R., “Ticket to ride or highway robbery”, The Economist, p. 17, May 5, 1993. Toms, D.B., “Highway User Charges: Are Truckers Paying Their Way?”, Journal of the Transportation

Research Forum, 32, 1, 61-72, 1991. Transports Canada, « Addendum au rapport TP3737 », Transports Canada, Direction de la planification

stratégique, 12 pages, mars 1983. United States Department of Transportation, 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, Washington DC.,

1997. Watanatada, T. et al., The Highway Design and Maintenance Standards Manual, Vols. I and II, Johns

Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1987. Yoder, E.J. and M.W. Witczak, Principles of Pavement Design, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

1975.

35

Table 24. Appendix 1. Taxes incluses et exclues dans BRQ-1 (1979-1994)

INCLUSES Provincial Municipal Fédéral

Taxes sur les carburants: Taxe routière en sus de la taxe de vente - Taxe d’accise Dégrèvement taxes carburants régions frontalières depuis 04/82 oui - - Dégrèvement taxes carburants régions périphériques spéc. 04/86 oui - - Redevance transport en commun 92-94 (30$ par véhicule) oui - - Immatriculation et permis véhicules oui - - Permis de conduire oui - - Péages routiers, sur traversiers et ponts oui - oui Amendes codes sécurité routière et criminel oui oui - Stationnement sur rue - oui - Surplus de la SAAQ (nets ristourne taxe carburants) & redevances oui - - Taxe sur climatiseurs voitures - - oui Non remboursement T.V.Q. sur intrants camionnage/autobus 91-94 oui - - Taxe services publics (télécom., électricité) 60% - oui - Transferts spécifiques de transport routier (nets) oui oui oui

EXCLUES

Taxes sur les carburants: - avant 1.1.91 - après 1.1.91:

Taxe routière égale à taxe de vente T.V.Q.(1) - Taxe de vente

T.P.S..(2) Taxe foncière - - - Taxes de vente sur véhicules/pièces - - - Surtaxe essence 0,015 $/L région métropolitaine après 1.1.96 n.a. n.a. n.a.

(1) S’ajoute à la taxe provinciale sur les carburants, qui est alors réduite d’autant. (2) Remplace la taxe fédérale de vente sur les carburants.

Table 25. Appendix 2. Weight distribution per axle group and vehicle category, Canada

Average weight (kg) per axle group and per vehicle category Axle # Single-units trucks Single-trailer trucks Multi-trailer trucks

Group

of axles

2-axle

3-axle

4-axle or +

4-axle or +

5-axle

6-axle or +

5-axle or +

6-axle

7-axle or +

1 1 3339.6 5131.5 8209.9 3717.4 4765.3 5043.8 4291.9 4730.8 5169.92 1 4890.4 6430.1 7543 5983.6 6730.5 8912.1 6081.8 17500 7266.1 2 9145.4 12083.8 8046.7 10892.3 12988.4 12199.8 11449.2 13156.7 3 17578.8 17150.6 4 27500

3 1 5377.9 7495.2 4106.3 8352.7 8368.7 5427.3 5448.1 7808.7 2 14935.3 6814.2 9836.2 11998.4 6551.1 9959.1 11207.3 3 27500 4915.3 16020.8 17172.6 4 20174.2 22068.8

4 1 17500 6026.6 4752.9 8221.1 4216.7 4734.8 5943.7 2 5597.5 12147.7 7149.3 11183.1 12818.7 3 16761.4 14974.8 4 20589.9 25259.4

5 1 5023.7 8204.2 3632.3 4527.4 5734.1 2 12796.2 9363 3 18764.7 10062.8 4 19184.7

6 1 6714.6 17500 5799.6 2 13703.6 11907.2 3 5500 4

7 1 6847

36