Social welfare analysis of investment public–private partnership approaches for transportation projects

This paper has two objectives: (i) to introduce a new approach in order to gain widespread support for road pricing; and (ii) to develop a detailed social welfare analysis for road pricing schemes. We first describe our novel approach that stimulates public support for road pricing, which we refer to as an investment public–private partnership, or IP3. This approach returns a significant portion of the economic value created by road pricing back to the citizens who own the newly priced facility. We then present a social welfare framework that estimates the benefits and costs of using the IP3 approach on an urban transportation network. A P3 project’s impact on overall social welfare provides a more comprehensive evaluation criterion than the often-used Value for Money (VfM) analysis. Apart from several theoretical studies, a detailed social welfare analysis that includes all major P3 project stakeholders is absent from the literature. We use Fresno, California as our case study in order to conduct a welfare analysis on IP3s. Our results show that system-optimal tolling favors average users, but that government—and consequently taxpayers—should pay for costly tolling systems (negative profits). In contrast, unlimited profit-maximizing tolls raise substantial profits for government, for the infrastructure’s citizen-owners, and for the private sector, but the average user is worse off. From a social-welfare perspective, one should search for a Pareto improvement under which all major stakeholders are better off. Our estimates indicate that a mixed public and private tolling scheme offers such an improvement.     

限行措施对居民出行的影响及其有效性分析

为解决北京市的拥堵问题,北京城市交通管理部门自2008年起先后施行了不同的限行措施.本文通过问卷调查的方式,来分析这些限行措施对北京市居民出行的影响以及这些措施的有效性.调查结果显示,限行措施改变了人们的出行方式,一些有私家车的居民将出行方式转移到了公共交通上.通过分析近年来路面机动车变化数量、限行为人们的节约的出行时...     

外来务工人员聚居村社区建设中互动参与模式的思考

外来务工人员聚居村社区建设中存在多方利益相关者,主要有政府、村委会、雇主、社区居民。各方虽有不同的利益诉求,却是一荣俱荣、一损俱损的利益共同体。但遗憾的是,在社区建设中,彼此却未能求同存异,亲密合作。社区建设潜藏着社会不平等、不稳定等因素。本文主张,各利益主体应本着平等、互助的精神,实行政府引导,村委会负责,雇主协同,社区居民参与的互动参与模式,整合社区分散的力量,形成合力,共建和谐社区。