Vehicle Restrictions
Limiting Automobile Travel At Certain Times and Places
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TDM
Encyclopedia
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
March 8, 2007
Vehicle Restrictions include various regulatory strategies to limit automobile travel at a particular time and place.
·
Some cities discourage or prohibit automobile traffic on certain roads
at certain times to create pedestrian-oriented commercial area (Car-Free Planning).
·
Some cities have Auto-Restricted Zones that limit automobile access,
for example, to residents and commercial vehicles. These often have features of
Car-Free Planning, Pedestrian
Improvements, Traffic Calming and Location
Efficient Development.
·
Some cities are divided into traffic cells that have direct walking, cycling
and transit connections, but require a longer trip to travel between by private
automobile.
·
Some cities have cordon Road Pricing, where
motorists must pay to drive in a certain area as a traffic congestion reduction
strategy.
·
Road Space Reallocation can increase the
portion of road rights-of-way devoted to walking, cycling, HOV, transit and
freight transport, giving them Priority over
general automobile traffic.
·
Driving can be restricted based on vehicle license plate numbers. For
example, vehicles with license numbers ending in 0 or 1 are prohibited from
driving on Mondays, and other numbers limit driving during other weekdays. This
is typically implemented as a temporary measure during air pollution
emergencies, or to reduce traffic congestion during major events.
Vehicle Restrictions usually include various exemptions. For example, certain types of vehicles may be allowed in car-free areas or be exempted from no-drive days. Such exemptions may be controversial because those who qualify sometimes abuse their privileges. For example, if vehicles used by people with disabilities are allowed to drive in car-free areas, people may exaggerate a minor disability to quality, and those who have such vehicles may lend them to able-bodied friends. If medical professionals are exempt from car-free days, they may use them for leisure travel as well as critical professional trips. Motorists who do not qualify for exemptions may sometimes have a critical need to drive. One solution to this problem is to provide each resident with a limited number of exemptions (for example, giving each household five tickets each year that allow one vehicle trip that would otherwise be prohibited) or by allowing motorists to drive under otherwise restricted conditions if they pay a special toll. This gives motorists additional flexibility.
Travel impacts depend on how restrictions are applied and
the quality of transport alternative. By reducing vehicle traffic such
restrictions allow more Clustering which can help
create more Accessible, less Automobile
Dependent communities.
·
Many trips are simply deferred, not eliminated. If a motorist planned
to go shopping by car, they will simply put it off until the next day,
resulting in no actual reduction in mileage or emissions.
·
Many wealthier households purchase a second car with another license
number, so they have one available every day. These tend to be cheap, older,
high polluting vehicles.
·
A large portion of vehicles must be exempted, including any vehicle
used for business (taxis, delivery vehicles, vehicles used for construction
work, etc.), and many professionals (doctors, salespeople, consultants, etc.)
demand exceptions based on their professional needs.
For these reasons, a program that prohibits each vehicle from driving 20% of days does not necessarily result in a 20% reduction in total vehicle travel. Actual travel reductions are likely to be half that amount or less.
Table 1 Travel Impact Summary
|
Travel
Impact |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
1 |
Depends on measures
implemented. |
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
2 |
For time-based
restrictions. |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
2 |
“ |
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
2 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
1 |
Reduced traffic can improve
cycling and walking conditions. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
1 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
3 |
|
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
1 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
Freight vehicles are
usually exempt from such restrictions. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Most vehicle restrictions are implemented by local or regional governments, often as part of a downtown revitalization program or neighborhood traffic management plan, or during a period of exceptional traffic congestion or pollution.
When they are effective, vehicle restrictions can reduce
traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, crash risk, pollution
emissions and local environmental impacts. They can improve community Livability. Restricting urban vehicle traffic can have Safety benefits (
Costs include program and enforcement expenses, increased travel costs and reduced mobility for motorists, and possible spillover effects (such as increased driving at other times or in other areas). An ineffective vehicle restriction programs that reduces access in urban areas may increase sprawl by encouraging businesses and residents to choose suburban locations.
Table 2 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Can reduce automobile use. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
2 |
“ |
|
Consumer Savings |
0 |
Mixed. Increases motorists’
costs, reduces costs for other modes. |
|
Transport Choice |
0 |
Limits driving, improves other
modes. |
|
Road Safety |
2 |
Reduces traffic. |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
Reduces traffic. |
|
Efficient Land Use |
1 |
Can reduce sprawl if
effective, can increase sprawl if ineffective. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Reduces local traffic
impacts and increases local access. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Some people consider vehicle restrictions, such as no-drive days based on license numbers, to be more equitable than pricing to reduce automobile travel (since restrictions force all residents to reduce driving, not just those with lower incomes), but in practice many higher-income motorists avoid travel reductions by purchasing a second car or hiring a taxi.
Area restrictions impact some groups more than others: Some businesses and residents may benefit, while others are made worse off, depending on how much they depend on automobile travel. Vehicle use restrictions in one area my cause spillover impacts in other areas, such as increased traffic and parking congestion on nearby roads. Vehicle restrictions that are successful at reducing total vehicle traffic (rather than just shifting it to other times or routes) tend to reduce external costs of motor vehicle traffic. Vehicle restrictions that improve conditions for other modes (walking, cycling and public transit) are likely to increase vertical equity, because lower income and transportation disadvantaged people tend to rely heavily on alternative modes. If vehicle restrictions do not include appropriate exemptions for motorists with special needs, some transportation disadvantaged people (e.g., motorists with physical disabilities) may be made worse off. If vehicle restrictions include appropriate exemptions, they can increase basic access by favoring people with special needs and higher value trips.
Table 3 Equity Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
-2 |
This is often a major
issue. |
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
2 |
Reduces external costs of
driving. |
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
2 |
Can improve walking,
cycling and transit. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
3 |
Can improve walking,
cycling and transit. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
2 |
Depends on program details. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Different types of vehicle restrictions have different applications. Most are most applicable by regional or municipal governments in urban areas and resort communities.
Table 4 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
2 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial
government. |
1 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
2 |
Regional government. |
2 |
|
Town. |
2 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
1 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
2 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
1 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
2 |
Developer. |
1 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
2 |
Neighborhood association. |
2 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
2 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Incentive to Reduce Driving
Many other TDM strategies are supported by vehicle travel restrictions, including Car-Free Planning, Nonmotorized Planning, Public Transit Improvements, Traffic Calming, Smart Growth, Location Efficient Planning and Commute Trip Reduction programs.
Most vehicle restrictions are implemented by local or regional governments, with administrative responsibilities given to transportation and law enforcement agencies. Business and residents in affected areas are often significantly impacted by restrictions. Neighborhood and business associations are often involved in traffic restriction planning.
Political acceptability is usually a major barrier to vehicle restrictions. Motorists and some businesses are likely to oppose vehicle restrictions. Ineffective planning, administration and enforcement can also present barriers.
· Vehicle restrictions should
be implemented in conjunction with other TDM strategies, including improvements
in alternative travel options and other disincentives to reduce driving.
· Restrictions based on
license numbers or similar systems should only be implemented briefly, or
motorists are likely to find ways to circumvent them, such as purchasing second
cars.
|
Riddles Q.
How do you put an elephant in a refrigerator? A.
You open the door, pick up the elephant, place it inside, and close the door. Q.
How do you put a giraffe in a refrigerator? A.
You open the door, take out the elephant, and replace it with the giraffe. Q.
If you have a party for all the animals, which animal would not be there? A.
The giraffe. It’s still in the refrigerator. Q.
How many bears can you put in a car? A.
Four. Two in the front seats, and two in the back seats. Q.
How many lions can you put in a car? A.
None. Its still full of bears. |
By Beth Kassab,
Its
high-priced, lakefront homes maintain Windermere as one of
In a radical move to grapple with crippling morning and afternoon traffic, the
town of 2,200 has come up with a plan to keep outsiders from jamming its side
streets. With barricades of construction barrels, the town would like to bar
nonresidents from many of its public roads during daily rush hours. Drivers
without Windermere addresses who are pulled over on a blocked street could be
fined $200. Will access to certain roads become the next status symbol in
“If we only had to deal with Windermere residents, we wouldn’t have a traffic
problem,” said Jim Willard, a Town Council member and attorney for an
“It’s not that at all,” Willard said. “It’s a simple traffic-control measure.
There are very little alternatives or other measures available to us. I think
we’re doing the best we can in a difficult situation.”
Town officials say they are trying to keep sandy streets safe from speeders who
cut through to avoid bumper-to-bumper waits at the four-way stop at
Windermere, where the median home price last year was more than $480,000, has
just three paved roads and no traffic lights. When it comes to development, it
just wants to be left alone. “We don’t want to grow,” said Mayor Gary Bruhn.
“All we want to do is protect what we have.”
Early next year the town expects to spend $3 million on its first major
construction project downtown, which will add two traffic roundabouts on
“We’ve turned one-lane, dirt streets into thoroughfares. It’s not only a bad
idea, but an unsafe idea,” council member Dean Fresonke said. “The town’s roads
were never designed for the amount of traffic flowing through them right now.”
Paving
more roads or installing a stoplight are not up for discussion. “That’s the
whole point of being in Windermere,” Willard said of the rustic, shabby-chic
flavor inside the town limits, where mansions butt up against simple
Cracker-style homes. It contrasts with the ostentatious, nouveau riche flair of
neighboring Isleworth, where sports celebrities such as Shaquille O’Neal live
just over its border. In July, the council decided to limit traffic on four of
its side streets during rush hours. Last week the members voted to expand that
to more than a dozen.
Local Traffic Only
The barrels hold signs that warn “Local Traffic Only” and threaten the $200 penalty
from 7 to 9 a.m. and 3 to 6 p.m. So far, the town’s police force of 12
full-time officers has issued hundreds of warnings, but no fines. The council
voted to continue the warning period for several more months while its attorney
researches the legality of defining “local” as Windermere residents.
Nonresidents are exempt if they are visiting a Windermere home or business,
council members agreed.
Creating that distinction raised the eyebrows of some council members. “How do
we say that these Windermere residents can use the streets and others can’t?
The answer is I don’t know,” said City Attorney Cliff Shepard, who says he is
still researching the issue. The town may face an even larger problem. An
advisory opinion from Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist’s office earlier
this year suggests that putting up “No Thru Street” signs on public roads is
illegal. It referred to an attempt, not unlike Windermere’s, by the city of
State law does not authorize cities “to limit the right of the public to use
such roadways for the exclusive benefit of the homeowners in the area and their
invitees,” the opinion states. Shepard pointed, however, to the same state
traffic manual referenced in the opinion. It allows for signs similar to
Windermere’s that read, “Road Closed -- Local Traffic Only.”
Town
residents’ only complaints about the effort center on the “hideous” and
“aesthetically painful” barricades that now sit at the entrance of most side
streets. One resident suggested using wine barrels instead. “They’re so ugly,”
Denise Laden said. “They’re eyesores,” chimed in her husband, Jim. Because
“prettier barrels” are not a likely option, the council’s decision calls for
them to be removed in 90 days with the warning signs posted on the roadsides.
The
city of
In
the early 1960s, the city of
The city of
The
central goal of the Dutch National Environment Plan (NEPP) is to decouple
economic growth from the growth in fuel consumption and the use of
non-renewable resources. In passenger transport the Dutch are successfully
constraining the growth in car use and ensuring that an average of 28% of all
passenger transport trips are made by bicycle with that increasing to 34% of
trips by 2010. Without the NEPP it was expected that car kms would increase by
72% over the period 1986 to 2010. With the NEPP this increase will be lowered
to 48%. As a result, greenhouse gas emissions from the car fleet are declining.
The
Sally
Carfree Cities Network Website (www.carfree.com).
Carfree Day Website (www.ecoplan.org/carfreeday).
Suzanne Corwhurst Lennard & Henry Lennard (1995),
Livable Cities Observed, Gondolier (
Haynes Goddard
(1997), “Using Tradable Permits
to Achieve Sustainability in the World’s Large Cities, Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 10, 1997, pp. 63-99.
Leo Lemmers (1995), “How
OECD (1995), Urban Travel and Sustainable Development, OECD (www.oecd.org), pp. 114-115.
Vukan R. Vuchic (1999), Transportation for Livable Cities, CUPR Press (www.policy.rutgers.edu/cupr).
This
Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help
improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing
project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#33