The trucking industry and others have expressed concern that targeted tolling and pricing and comprehensive pricing can have negative impacts on goods movement in the form of added net costs because of limited pricing flexibility, differences in tolling equity between national and local tolling and pricing initiatives, and disruptions to the competitive balance among different types of carriers. Targeted tolling and pricing, depending on how they are implemented, could lead to net increases in the direct costs for the goods movement industry, but so too would raising the truck fees currently going into the Highway Trust Fund. But if tolling and pricing reduce congestion and provide other benefits to the industry, it is possible they could lead to net decreases in overall costs. There are three key issues to consider with respect to these potential increased costs.
First, if targeted tolling and pricing raises costs for all users of the system-cars as well as trucks-in an equitable, across-the-board manner, and if the revenue raised is invested to improve transportation infrastructure, then the costs by definition would not unfairly be borne by the trucking industry. If the tolls are charged in a discriminatory fashion or the revenue is not invested in transportation, however, then the trucking industry could be unfairly disadvantaged, especially in relation to other freight modes.
Second, targeted tolling may raise prices on the overall trucking industry or specific segments of the industry in particular. If prices are set based on costs imposed on the system, then the trucking industry may be charged more than it is now. Even if the overall revenues from trucking are the same, some segments of the industry or kinds of trucks could pay more (while others pay less). To ensure that charges are appropriate and encourage efficient use, prices must be established through a sound analytical process that considers the findings from cost allocation studies as well as broader policy considerations. Unfortunately, this price setting objective can be difficult to achieve in practice (see the section on "Challenges to Setting Efficient Tolls and Road Prices").
Even if these two concerns are mitigated, some representatives of the freight industry argue that the industry may not have the same flexibility as individual drivers to adjust to pricing. Specifically, they argue that their current business models do not readily allow drivers or carriers to benefit directly from higher speeds or improved trip reliability created by congestion pricing, nor can they always pass on added costs associated with tolling and pricing. Moreover, they argue that because shippers, not truckers, schedule product deliveries, truckers often do not have the ability to adjust system use in response to pricing signals. The pricing and scheduling inflexibility of truckers, however, is far from absolute. A study in New York found that, while they were influenced by the willingness of receivers to accept off-peak deliveries, some in the trucking industry do have some ability to change travel times in response to tolls.61
While the industry may not be able to pass along all the costs of targeted tolls to customers in the short run, especially under weak economic conditions, truckers should be able to do so in the moderate and long term if the tolls are stable or changed with sufficient advance notice. Indeed, a Transportation Research Board report argued that these costs could be passed on to customers,62 and a study of the German heavy-vehicle toll system suggested that, overall, the trucking industry was able to do so.63 In other words, stable, nondiscriminatory pricing, possibly supported by national information systems that let truckers and shippers know the likely costs of tolls for any particular route, should not adversely affect the trucking industry as a whole.
Third, a more significant issue concerns how targeted tolling and pricing is implemented. Certainly some states could implement tolls that are unreasonably high and targeted to out-of-state travelers, including long-haul truckers. As noted earlier, valid concern necessitates careful federal oversight accompanying wide-scale expansion of targeted tolling on the national network.
Many of the trucking industry concerns about targeting tolling and pricing and comprehensive pricing lie in how pricing is used and revenues are spent. Overall, if revenues from tolling and pricing lead to increased investment and improved system performance, it could increase truck productivity and efficiency in several ways. This, in turn, should lead to less congestion, improved traffic flow, and increased reliability-a key factor for successful use in just-in-time delivery. The U.K. Eddington Commission found that the trucking industry would be a modest net beneficiary of targeted congestion pricing (with charges set at the marginal social cost of an extra vehicle on that section of road), even accounting for their increased payments. If some of these funds were also used to expand highway capacity, particularly on routes used more | If revenues from tolling and pricing lead to increased investment and improved system performance, it could increase truck productivity and efficiency in several ways. |
extensively by the trucking industry, the productivity benefits would be even larger. For example, truck-only toll lanes on a regional or larger scale that allow truckers to use heavier vehicles but make fewer trips provide a clear benefit. The opportunity to gain from these benefits, however, is not necessarily uniform across the trucking industry. Specifically, some truckers employ drivers at an hourly wage and therefore may see a cost reduction from travel time reductions, but others pay drivers by the mile or by the trip and would only realize a cost benefit if the time savings were large enough to allow another load to be carried. | |
Likewise, per-mile pricing would create incentives to combine shipments in ways that minimize trip mileage. For example, the German heavy-vehicle comprehensive road pricing system has led to a 10 percent drop in empty trucks on long-distance trips, a 7 percent increase in containers moved by train, and a 6 percent increase in the purchase of truck tractors that emit less pollution.64 While the Commission does not make a direct comparison of the impacts on the German and U.K. freight industries to the impact on the United States of a comprehensive system (due to the differences in the freight and logistics systems of each country), this is an area that deserves attention and study as part of a transition to a comprehensive system.