Should I tax or should I trap? Traffic fines, tax exporting, and speed limits

A local government that keeps traffic-fine revenue can use speed enforcement to export taxes. The model has one entry point and three traveller groups. Drivers know the posted limit and fine schedule and choose speed and whether to travel. The locality counts resident surplus and crash losses borne locally; a global planner also counts non-resident surplus and losses borne elsewhere. This difference can favour a lower local limit or higher fines, but only when the burden imposed on non-residents outweighs the safety benefit the locality omits. The enforcement condition separates revenue paid by outsiders, savings in tax distortion, local safety benefits, and collection costs. Under stated conditions, more non-resident crossing demand raises enforcement and the share of expenditure financed by fines. Extensions consider stepped fines, restricted speed-limit choices, and temporary information gaps after a limit change. The welfare comparison survives these extensions, although the smooth speed-choice derivatives need not.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Economics of Transportation
Published
2026-11-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecotra.2026.100473
Primary Topic
Local Government Finance and Decentralization
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Should I tax or should I trap? Traffic fines, tax exporting, and speed limits

David Matthew Levinson
Economics of Transportation
Local Government Finance and Decentralization
article

Should I tax or should I trap? Traffic fines, tax exporting, and speed limits

David Matthew Levinson
article en

Abstract

A local government that keeps traffic-fine revenue can use speed enforcement to export taxes. The model has one entry point and three traveller groups. Drivers know the posted limit and fine schedule and choose speed and whether to travel. The locality counts resident surplus and crash losses borne locally; a global planner also counts non-resident surplus and losses borne elsewhere. This difference can favour a lower local limit or higher fines, but only when the burden imposed on non-residents outweighs the safety benefit the locality omits. The enforcement condition separates revenue paid by outsiders, savings in tax distortion, local safety benefits, and collection costs. Under stated conditions, more non-resident crossing demand raises enforcement and the share of expenditure financed by fines. Extensions consider stepped fines, restricted speed-limit choices, and temporary information gaps after a limit change. The welfare comparison survives these extensions, although the smooth speed-choice derivatives need not.

Economics of TransportationVol. 48
The University of Sydney (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Local Government Finance and Decentralization
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
Should I tax or should I trap? Traffic fines, tax exporting, and speed limits — David Matthew Levinson · Economics of Transportation (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS