This paper applies an integrated modeling approach to the case of Spain; the approach is based on a random utility-based multiregional input–output model and a road transport network model for assessing the effect of introducing longer and heavier vehicles (LHVs) on the regional consumer price index (CPI) and on the transportation system. The approach strongly supports the concept that changes in transport costs derived from the LHV allowance as well as the economic structure of regions have direct and indirect effects on the economy and on the transportation system. Results show that the introduction of LHVs might reduce prices paid by consumers for a representative basket of goods and services in the regions of Spain and would also lead to a reduction in the regional CPI. In addition, the magnitude and extent of changes in the transportation system are estimated by using the commodity-based structure of the approach to identify the effect of traffic changes on traffic flows and on pollutant emissions over the whole network.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HummelsD.Transportation Costs and International Trade in the Second Era of Globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2007, pp. 131–154.
2.
CombesP. P., and LafourcadeM.Transport Costs: Measures, Determinants, and Regional Policy Implications for France. Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 5, No. 3, Feb. 2005, pp. 319–349.
3.
JanicM.Modelling the Full Costs of an Intermodal and Road Freight Transport Network. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 12, No. 1, Jan. 2007, pp. 33–44.
4.
BanisterD., and BerechmanY.Transport Investment and the Promotion of Economic Growth. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 9, No. 3, Sept. 2001, pp. 209–218.
5.
RephannT. J.Highway Investment and Regional Economic Development: Decision Methods and Empirical Foundations. Urban Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, March 1993, pp. 437–450.
6.
BoskinM. J., DulbergerE. R., GordonR. J., GrilichesZ., and JorgensonD. W.Consumer Prices, the Consumer Price Index, and the Cost of Living. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1998, pp. 3–26.
7.
DiewertW.The Consumer Price Index and Index Number Purpose. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement, Vol. 27, No. 3-4, 2001, pp. 167–248.
8.
AschauerD.Is Public Expenditure Productive?Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 23, No. 2, March 1989, pp. 177–200.
9.
MunnellA. H.Why Has Productivity Growth Declined: Productivity and Public Investment. New England Economic Review, Jan./Feb, 1990, pp. 2–33.
10.
VenablesA.New Economic Geography. In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd ed. (DurlaufS. N., and BlumeL. E., eds.), Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2008, pp. 1–12.
11.
KrugmanP.What's New About the New Economic Geography?Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2, June 1998, pp. 7–17.
12.
BanisterD.Quantification of the Non-Transport Benefits Resulting From Rail Investment (Korea Railroad Research Institute, ed.), 2007, pp. 1–30.
13.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Transport Forum ITF. The Wider Economic Benefits of Transport: Macro-, Meso- and Micro-Economic Transport Planning and Investment Tools, ITF Round Tables, OECD Publishing, Boston, Mass., 2008.
14.
GkritzaK., SinhaK. C., LabiS., and ManneringF. L.Influence of Highway Construction Projects on Economic Development: An Empirical Assessment. The Annals of Regional Science, Vol. 42, No. 3, Dec. 2007, pp. 545–563.
15.
KimT. J., HamH., and BoyceD. E.Economic Impacts of Transportation Network Changes: Implementation of a Combined Transportation Network and Input–Output Model. Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 81, No. 2, Jan. 2002, pp. 223–246.
16.
WeisbrodG. E., and BeckwithJ.Measuring Economic Development Benefits for Highway Decision Making in Wisconsin. In Transportation Research Record 1262, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 57–68.
17.
RussoF., and MusolinoG.A Unifying Modeling Framework to Simulate the Spatial Economic Transport Interaction Process at Urban and National Scales. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 24, Sept. 2012, pp. 189–197.
18.
CombesF., and LeurentF.Advances in Freight Transport Demand Modeling: An Assessment with Research Perspectives (Proc., European Transport Conference 2007, Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands.
19.
De CeusterG., BreemerschT., Van HerbruggenB., VerweijK., DavydenkoI., KlingenderM., JacobB., ArkiH., and BereniM.Effects of Adapting the Rules on Weights and Dimensions of Heavy Commercial Vehicles as Established Within Directive 96/53/EC.TML, Transport & Mobility Leuven, Brussels, Belgium, 2008, pp. 1–315.
20.
Study on the Effects of the Introduction of LHVs on Combined Road–Rail Transport and Single Wagonload Rail Freight Traffic. K+P Transport Consultants and ISI Fraunhofer, Freiburg/Karlsruhe, Germany, 2011, pp. 1–117.
21.
DollC., FiorelloD., PastoriE., ReynaudC., KlausP., LückmannP., HesseK., and KochsiekJ.Long-Term Climate Impacts of the Introduction of Mega-Trucks: Study for the Community of European Railways and Infrastructure Companies (CER).The Fraunhofer-Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI), Karlsruhe, Germany, 2009, pp. 1–156.
22.
WegenerM.Transport Geography and Spatial Systems: Overview of Land Use Transport Models. In Handbook in Transport (ButtonK. J., and HensherD. A., eds.), Pergamon/Elsevier Science, Kidlington, United Kingdom, pp. 127–146.
23.
EcheniqueM.Econometric Models of Land Use and Transportation. In Handbook of Transport Geography and Spatial Systems. Vol. 5 of Handbook in Transport (HensherD. A., ButtonK. J., HaynesK. E., and StopherP. R., eds.), Elsevier Science Ltd., Kidlington, United Kingdom, pp. 185–202.
24.
DuX., and KockelmanK. M.Tracking Transportation and Industrial Production Across a Nation: Applications of RUBMRIO Model for U.S. Trade Patterns. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2269, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 99–109.
25.
CascettaE., MarzanoV., and PapolaA.Multi-Regional Input–Output Models for Freight Demand Simulation at a National Level. In Recent Developments in Transport Modelling: Lessons for the Freight Sector (Ben-AkivaM., MeersmanH., Van de VoordeE., eds.), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, London, pp. 93–116.
26.
HuangT., and KockelmanK. M.The Introduction of Dynamic Features in a Random-Utility-Based Multiregional Input–Output Model of Trade, Production, and Location Choice. Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Vol. 47, No. 1, Oct. 2010, pp. 23–42.
27.
GuzmanA. F., and VassalloJ. M.Methodology for Assessing Regional Economic Impacts of Charges for Heavy-Goods Vehicles in Spain: An Integrated Approach Through a Random Utility-Based Multiregional Input–Output and Road Transportation Network Models. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2378, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 129–139.
28.
ZhaoY., and KockelmanK. M.The Random-Utility-Based Multi regional Input–Output Model: Solution Existence and Uniqueness. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 38, No. 9, Nov. 2004, pp. 789–807.
29.
Consortium DESTINO, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Universidad Autonóma de Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, CSIC-IRNASA, CYLSTAT S.A., and Grupo Enarcar S.A. Proyecto DESTINO: Desarrollo de Metodologías de Evaluación del Impacto Económico del Sistema de Transportes Mediante Tablas Input–Output Interregionales.MICINN–Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Madrid, Spain, 2011, pp. 1–200.
30.
Ministerio de Fomento–MFOM. Encuesta Permanente de Transporte de Mercancías por Carretera 2007.Ministerio de Fomento, Madrid, Spain, 2008, pp. 1–206.
31.
McFaddenD.Quantitative Methods for Analyzing Travel Behavior of Individuals: Some Recent Developments. In Behavioural Travel Modelling (HensherD. A., and StopherP. R., eds.), Croom Helm, London, pp. 279–318.
32.
KockelmanK. M.Documentation for Application of Kockelman, et al.'s Random-Utility-Based Multi-Regional Input–Output (RUBMRIO) Model.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, 2008.
33.
Encuesta Permanente de Transporte de Mercancías por Carretera 2010.Ministerio de Fomento–MFOM, Madrid, Spain, 2011, pp. 1–226.
34.
Fundación de los Ferrocarriles Españoles FFE and Ministerio de Fomento–MFOM. Informe 2010—Observatorio del Ferrocarril en España.Fundación de los Ferrocarriles Españoles, Madrid, Spain, 2011, pp. 1–231.
35.
Mapa de Tráfico 2007.Ministerio de Fomento–MFOM, Madrid, Spain, 2008, pp. 1–53.
36.
GutiérrezJ., Condeço-MelhoradoA., MartinJ. C., and RománC.Impacto de la Tarificación en Carreteras en el Acceso a los Mercados: El Caso de la Euroviñeta. (Congreso Panamericano de Ingeniería de Tránsito, Transporte y Logística, eds.), 2012, pp. 1–20.
37.
Travel Model Improvement Program–TMIP. Travel Model Validation and Reasonability Checking Manual, 2nd ed. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Mass., 2010.
38.
Travel Model Improvement Program–TMIP. Model Validation and Reasonableness Checking Manual.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Mass., 1997.
39.
OrtegaA., and VassalloJ. M.El Megatruck en España: ¿Camino Hacia una Mejora Energética y Medioambiental? (de OñaJ., CalvoF., de OñaR., and LópezG., eds.), Granada, Spain, 2012, pp. 1–13.
