|
First principles assessment
Why introduce regulatory restrictions?
Demand impacts
Short and long run demand responses
Supply impacts
Financing requirements
Expected impact on key policy objectives
Expected impact on problems
Expected winners and losers
Barriers to implementation
Why introduce regulatory restrictions?
Regulatory restrictions on car use aim to reduce the traffic congestion
and improve traffic flow in urban areas. Reducing the volume of vehicles
aims to improve the quality of environment and the level of air pollution.
There are many ways of reducing congestion for car travel. Regulatory restrictions
are often easier to influence than other measures to reduce car use in urban
areas. Physical restrictions
are sometimes difficult to implement given the urban fabric or structure.
If the city lacks adequate ring roads regulatory restrictions are better
ways to reduce through traffic in a city centre. Information provision basically
requires more technological methods and pricing measures need to obtain
acceptance of the general public. Regulatory restrictions need human power
to manage but are easy to implement permanently as well as in experimental
implementation. Therefore many cities in the world implement them, particularly
permit systems.
Demand impacts
The demand impacts of regulatory restrictions are mainly on the demand for
car travel and demand for alternatives. Most changes in the demand are decreases
for car travel and conversely increases for public transport, walking and
cycling. The demand response is different by type of measure: permit systems
or number plate restrictions. It also depends on the service level of public
transport. This will contribute to transport policy objectives seeking to
reduce congestion and the associated negative impacts.
|
=
Weakest possible response, |
|
=
strongest possible positive response |
|
= Weakest
possible negative response, |
|
= strongest
possible negative response |
|
= No response
|
Short and long run demand responses
Demand responses in the short run may differ from those which might take
place in the long run, because it takes time to decide where to live and
whether or not to own a car. However, some high income car-users may consider
whether or not to buy a second car with another licence number in order
to drive a car everyday under implementing the number plate restrictions
(Ogunsanya, 1984). The number of owned vehicles dramatically increased
due to this measure in Mexico City (Goddard, 1997). Biezus et al (1999)
concluded that "Numberplate circulation restriction must be considered
an emergency tool to be used temporarily until other measures can be implemented
to provide the required level of mobility". A system of number plate
restriction needs careful experiment for confirming whether it can be
an effective tool in the long run.
Permit systems
Demand responses |
Responses |
|
1st year |
2-4 years
|
5 years |
10+ years |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
Change job location |
|
|
|
|
|
Shop elsewhere |
|
|
|
|
|
Compress working week |
|
|
|
|
|
Trip chain |
|
|
|
|
|
Work from home |
|
|
|
|
|
Shop from home |
|
|
|
|
|
Ride share |
|
|
|
|
|
Public transport |
|
|
* |
* |
|
Walk/cycle |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
=
Weakest possible response, |
|
=
strongest possible positive response |
|
= Weakest
possible negative response, |
|
= strongest
possible negative response |
|
= No response
|
*With regard to modal shift to public transport there may be a big shift
in the short term. However, this is unlikely to increase shift in the
long run if traffic congestion becomes unchanged or worse before.
Number plate restriction
Demand responses |
Responses |
|
1st year |
2–4 years
|
5 years |
10+ years |
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
Change job location |
|
|
|
|
|
Shop elsewhere |
|
|
|
|
|
Compress working week |
|
|
|
|
|
Trip chain |
|
|
|
|
|
Work from home |
|
|
|
|
|
Shop from home |
|
|
|
|
|
Ride share |
|
|
|
|
|
Public transport |
|
|
* |
* |
|
Walk/cycle |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|
|
|
=
Weakest possible response, |
|
=
strongest possible positive response |
|
= Weakest
possible negative response, |
|
= strongest
possible negative response |
|
= No response
|
*With regard to modal shift to public transport there may be a big shift
in the short term. However, this is unlikely to increase shift in the
long run if traffic congestion becomes unchanged or worse before.
Level of response
As with other measures, the price elasticity of demand varies with context.
The type of trip, type of traveller, price elasticity of related goods
and services, and whether the elasticity accounts for short term or long
term demand responses are important influential factors in the calculation
and interpretation. If the permit systems are required to purchase the
permission which changes the price according to the vehicles or people,
the price elasticity depends on the size of the price change.
Supply impacts
There will be no increase in the supply of road space, except where regulatory
restrictions include additional provision for alternatives, for example
promoting public transport, providing parking lots and facilities for
walking and cycling.
Financing requirements
Operating regulatory restrictions needs many enforcement staff for the
checking the validity of vehicles' permits unless access control technology
is used. This may particularly happen where this measure is implemented
on occasional day such as air pollution emergencies or a Car-free day.
Permanent permit systems impose a cost to issue permits. If the city can
operate an access control technology they need only investment cost for
the enforcement of the technological system.
Expected impact on key policy objectives
Regulatory restrictions are implemented to reduce traffic congestion and
to develop sustainable mobility. They encourage people to reduce their
overall level of car-use in the city centre by switching from car to other
transport modes. Also, they will contribute to a liveable and attractive
city centre. However, a large number of permits and weak enforcement will
not lead to reduce traffic congestion, but to keep the original levels
or increase it.
|
= Weakest
possible positive contribution, |
|
= strongest
possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest
possible negative contribution |
|
= strongest
possible negative contribution |
|
=
No contribution |
Expected impact on problems
Regulatory restrictions would reduce car use in the defined area, hence
they have the potential to contribute to the alleviation of a number of
key problems.
|
= Weakest
possible positive contribution, |
|
= strongest
possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest
possible negative contribution |
|
= strongest
possible negative contribution |
|
=
No contribution |
Expected winners and losers
One would not expect everybody to benefit equally from any transport measure.
Indeed, those who are exempted from restrictions should benefit from reduced
congestion. However, there can be many winners if effective measures of
public transport and parking management are included as part of a package.
Winners and losers |
Group |
Scale of contribution |
Comment |
Large scale freight and commercial
traffic |
|
High value journeys - less
time spent in congestion the greater the vehicle utilization - relatively
small proportion of journey distance in urban conditions. In addition,
usually exempted from restrictions. |
Small businesses |
|
Where these are local and reduced
car use encourages use of local amenities. However, where prohibited
from entering may become less attractive in city centre. |
High income car-users |
|
High income associated with
high value of time and thus continued car use for high value journeys
by sometime purchasing a second car or permitted car. These journeys
will benefit from reduced congestion. |
People with a low income |
|
Where prohibited or restricted
entering their vehicles into the city centre. This may benefit from
reduced congestion, but not solve problems associated with low income
car users. |
People with poor access to public
transport |
|
Reduced congestion will improve
public transport reliability, but not solve problems associated with
poor access for public transport users. |
All existing public transport
users |
|
Reduced congestion will improve
public transport reliability. In addition, where increased demand
for alternatives results in increased quality and volume of service.
|
People living adjacent to the
area target |
|
Where prohibited or restricted
entering their vehicles into the city centre and increasing in diverted
traffic on the peripheral area. |
People making high value, important
journeys |
|
These journeys will have higher
values of time and may continue to be made by car and usually be exempted
from restrictions. |
The average car users |
|
Where they may benefit from
reduced congestion. |
|
=
weakest possible benefit, |
|
=
strongest benefit |
|
= weakest
possible disbenefet, |
|
= strongest
possible disbenefit |
|
= neither
wins nor loses |
Barriers to implementation
Scale of barriers |
Barrier |
Scale |
Comment |
Legal |
|
As regulatory restrictions are
usually based on the road traffic laws or the air pollution control
laws, there are no barriers to implementation. However we need to
ensure the right of mobility among those who own a private car. |
Finance |
|
If permit systems implemented
as permanent measures, checking systems such as a tollgates are required.
|
Political |
|
The car users in commuting or
businesses, usually not exempted from restriction, are likely to oppose
regulatory restrictions and therefore they might be politically unacceptable.
|
Feasibility |
|
Acceptance of public and cooperation
of relative institutions is the key feasibility issue. |
|
=
minimal barrier, |
|
=
most significant barrier |
|