5 Case Study III: Car Bans in Mexico City

Chapter Overview

This chapter critically compares the implications of plate-based car restrictions in Mexican and Chinese cities for addressing traffic congestion and air pollution. First, drawing on Mexico City’s No Driving Day Program (Hoy No Circula), this chapter critically examines the implications of exemptions granted to new and fuel-efficient cars, including the rise of car ownership and replacing vehicles with more recent models. Next, the chapter examines behavioral responses to driving restrictions enacted by low-income drivers to circumvent rules. Finally, this chapter examines the equity implications of car restrictions that disproportionately burden low-income drivers who own older vehicles but drive significantly less than wealthier drivers.

What are License Plate-Based Restrictions?

In the last few decades, policies such as license plate-based restrictions have become more prevalent in many countries in the Global South. These policies act based on the last digit of vehicles’ license plate numbers to ban cars from being used in specific urban areas during particular times of the day or week. While there have been other policies, such as congestion charging or vehicle quotas (Nie, 2017), license plate-based restrictions are more common and accepted for targeting traffic congestion and air pollution. However, despite the popularity of supporting plate-based restriction policies, there is not enough evidence to prove that these policies successfully reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. The findings are mixed since studies may use different outcome measures and methodologies. Also, policy design, city context, behavioral responses, and enforcement levels in different cities and geographical areas may impact the the outcomes of studies on the effectiveness of license plate-based driving restrictions. Besides, studies may consider cities with varying policy limits regarding the type of vehicle affected by driving conditions. As a result, these studies may yield mixed findings.

Several studies found that people are encouraged to replace their old and high-polluting vehicles by the policies supporting exemptions for newer and low-emission vehicles (Barahona et al., 2020; Guerra & Millard-Ball, 2017; Rao, 2020; Xiong & Qin, 2020). However, These policies impact people of different socioeconomic backgrounds unevenly, as purchasing new, low-emission vehicles is often only feasible for higher-income individuals. Additionally, there is limited understanding of how these policies influence travel behavior and traffic patterns within cities. Data shows that after NAFTA and because of economic growth, many residents could buy a car for the first time. However, this was not the case for many other residents. Also, many people moved to the fringe, a movement that increased car ownership but did not increase car usage among low-to-moderate-income residents. The following graph (Figure 5.1) illustrates the 1984-1993 difference in gasoline consumption increase during the economic recession (1984-1988) and after (1989-1993) during economic growth.

Guerra and Reyes evaluated the impact of license plate-based restrictions (Hoy No Circula) on people’s lives and travel behavior in Mexico City using three different methods of data collection, including 1) an extensive household travel survey (INEGI, 2017), 2) interviews in moderate-income neighborhoods, and 3) a focus group with moderate-income drivers. The collected data is combined and analyzed to explore how people with different socioeconomic conditions may react to Mexico City’s Hoy No Circula driving restrictions. In its first years of implementation (beginning in late 1989), Hoy No Circula only included private cars in the restriction plan. Therefore, public transportation and state-owned vehicles were excluded from the restrictions. At that time, personal cars were prohibited from circulating in Mexico City and surrounding municipalities of Mexico State for one weekday per week from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. The restrictions provided by this policy have changed throughout history. The following table (Table 5.1) summarizes the history of the Hoy No Circula policy.

Moreover, the following graph summarizes the significant changes in the policy throughout the last two decades. Accordingly, it could be concluded that the government shifted its discourse from reducing car travel in the MCMA to solely renovating and improving the car fleet.

Accordingly, vehicles with catalytic converters were included as exempted vehicles by 1997. After two years, all cars under two years old plus cars aged between 2-9 years that passed an exemption test were allowed by law to be excluded from the restrictions. To recognize the exempted vehicles, people were responsible for using stickers with hologram numbers associated with differing exemptions from the policy on their vehicle’s windshield. In 2017 (when the study was conducted), four government-issued holograms were used to differentiate between restrictions for weekdays, Saturdays, and temporary pollution-emergency days. Data regarding these holograms were collected in the household travel survey. Table 5.2 shows how other holograms work on different days. Accordingly, on a non-pollution-emergency day:

• Holograms “0” and “00” are exempt.
• Hologram “1” is banned one weekday per week and one Saturday per month (5 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
• Hologram “2” is forbidden one weekday per week and all Saturdays (5 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
• Bans apply to all vehicles entering Mexico City and the surrounding municipalities of the metropolitan area.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoy_No_Circula 

The license plate-based restriction policies have been evaluated by many scholars (Blackman et al., 2018; Davis, 2008, 2017; Eskeland & Feyzioglu, 1997; Gallego et al., 2013; Guerra & Millard-Ball, 2017); however, previous studies did not examine how and to what extent people’s travel behavior, air pollution, and congestion have been affected by Hoy No Circula. Previous studies assume that drivers generally comply with the policy and thus buy an extra second-hand vehicle to get to places during the restrictions, adversely affecting traffic congestion and pollution (Davis, 2008; Eskeland & Feyzioglu, 1997). However, recent studies challenged this compliance assumption. Guerra and Millard-Ball (2017) found that many commuters do not comply with the exemption policy. Instead of purchasing a new car, which would be expensive, they find more reasonable behavioral adjustments to avoid the procedure and the restrictions (Guerra & Millard-Ball, 2017). Also, people who own old and restricted vehicles may discover other solutions, such as only using their car for a few days during the week. Data reveals that only 3% of residents own non-exempt vehicles. This highlights the need for qualitative research to better understand how lower-income people respond to license plate-based driving restrictions, given the diverse reactions to exemption policies.

Restrictions limiting the number of cars on the streets will help reduce air pollution; however, many focus group participants complain about rules for old cars but poor regulations for old and inefficient buses and cargo trucks. According to the following graph (Figure 5.3), there is a positive association between car use and air pollution. Accordingly, after the economic recession ended in 1990, there was a spike in air pollution due to people’s ability to buy more cars (Figure 5.3)

Behavioral Responses to License Plate-based Driving Restrictions

Research suggests that drivers have different behavioral responses to restriction policies. Therefore, car restrictions may work in certain places, for certain people, and for various reasons. However, at the same time, they are not 100% successful in all cases. Therefore, people’s responses regarding purchasing new vehicles and their travel behavior on restricted and unrestricted days would differ depending on many factors. Below, we review some behavioral responses to car restrictions documented in Mexico City and Beijing.

Vehicle purchases

Data shows that most residents living in cities with driving restrictions, such as Mexico City and Beijing, do not own private vehicles. Some studies have discussed that if the regulations reduce the car value in cases like Mexico City, some residents would prefer to sell their cars and not purchase new ones (Blackman et al., 2018). For example, a study in 1997 in Mexico City discussed that in response to Hoy No Circula’s initial implementation, most of the residents who owned a car stopped using their vehicle rather than buying a second car (Eskeland & Feyzioglu, 1997). However, some other residents may buy another vehicle (as a second car) and use it as the exempted vehicle, resulting in more driving (Davis, 2008; Eskeland & Feyzioglu, 1997). Therefore, buying and using a second car to frustrate the restriction could be one of the main reasons the driving restriction policies have not successfully controlled congestion and air pollution.

The responses of residents in other cities with driving restrictions may be different. For instance, in Beijing, Santiago, or Bogota, the population owning more than one car is less than 5%, and those with multiple vehicles typically have higher incomes. On the other hand, people may prefer to buy vehicles with lower emission rates to respond to the driving restriction policies in some cities. For example, Santiago has more restrictions on older and high-polluting vehicles (Barahona et al., 2020). Also, many of the cities in China have developed policies that exempt electric cars and, thus, have increased the sale of electric vehicles (Diao et al., 2016; Lu et al., 2020; Rao, 2020; N. Wang et al., 2017).

According to the collected data, while in Beijing, only 2.2% of households owned more than one car (Gu et al., 2017), in Mexico City, only 1.2% held at least two vehicles, likely subject to driving restrictions. Additionally, less than 5% of households in Santiago own more than one car, and many wealthier families own newer, exempt vehicles. Also, in Bogota, 3.3% of households reported having two or more cars or pickups on the 2011 household travel survey.

Driving on restricted days

Residents who own non-exempt vehicles will respond differently to driving restriction policies. Some people prefer to use other transportation modes, such as transit, taxis, or bicycles, for their trips. Therefore, these policies will result in more public transit, taxi, bike share, or bicycle use (Campbell et al., 2016; de Buen Kalman, 2021; Gu et al., 2017; Mohan et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2018), which is expected to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. However, the findings are mixed and not wholly aligned with the expectations. Some other studies discussed that the increase in using different modes (public transit, taxi, and bicycle) did not reduce pollution or congestion (Davis, 2008, 2017; Guerra & Millard-Ball, 2017). Therefore, we must consider that the congestion caused by other transportation modes, such as taxis or low-occupancy forms of transit, might be the same or even more than that caused by private cars. Additionally, in China, the potential replacement for personal vehicles may vary from city to city (Zhang et al., 2019) and neighborhood (Cheng et al., 2020), depending on the available options and people’s socioeconomic conditions. Therefore, in areas with lower public transit quality or people of higher income, it is more probable that people will use taxis than public transit (Cheng et al., 2020).

Another response from residents is to shift their trips to hours/day with no restrictions. While it is not very common to drive before or after restriction hours to respond to the policy mandates (de Grange & Troncoso, 2011; Gu et al., 2017; Guerra & Millard-Ball, 2017), many drivers choose to shift their trips to the days that their vehicles are not restricted (Gu et al., 2017; Guerra & Millard-Ball, 2017). However, not all families could use this approach to respond to the policy restrictions. Therefore, employing this solution is more prevalent among people who use their cars irregularly and are from moderate-income families owning one non-exempt vehicle in Mexico City (Guerra & Millard-Ball, 2017). Finally, a typical behavioral response to the restriction from drivers is to use their cars with no attention to the restricting policies (Guerra & Millard- Ball, 2017; Liu et al., 2018, 2020; Mohan et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2014). These behaviors are specifically common in areas with less enforcement, such as peripheral locations (Wang et al., 2014).

DRIVING ON UNRESTRICTED DAYS

Another significant reason these restrictions are not necessarily reducing congestion or pollution is that when drivers switch their trips from restricted to non-restricted days, the total driving is unlikely to be reduced. Some studies revealed that drivers are more likely to use roads that would reduce their travel time and consume the additional capacity of the streets (Cervero & Hansen, 2002; Downs, 2004; Duranton & Turner, 2011). Also, restricting specific vehicles on roads could significantly increase other types of vehicles. For instance, data shows that temporary restrictions for particular cars in Delhi, India, were compensated by increased travel from exempt auto-rickshaws, motorcycles, and buses (Mohan et al., 2017).

OTHER BEHAVIORAL RESPONSES

One of the other behavioral responses to the restrictions is cheating. While Davis (2008, 2017) assumes universal compliance, other scholars find evidence of noncompliance. For instance, Wang (2014) finds that nearly half of the regulated car owners violated the restriction rules in metropolitan Beijing and that violations are more likely to occur during peak hours, on social trips, and on trips outside of the city center, where presumably enforcement is weaker (Wang,2014). Also, Liu et al. (2020) examined license plate detection data and found 12% and 6% of vehicles are in violation during odd-even and one-day-per-week bans, respectively (Liu et al., 2020).

In addition, shuffling trips is another practice that residents use to respond to the restrictions. Some scholars, such as Gu et al. (2017) and Guerra and Millard-Ball (2017), found evidence that households shuffle their schedules around the banned days. This response is particularly convenient in Mexico City, where families use a prohibited vehicle on average fewer than two weekdays per week (Guerra and Millard-Ball,2017).

Therefore, in general, the following behavioral responses are detected to be practiced by people in response to the restriction policies:

• Shift time-of-day of travel
• Network effects (a fundamental law of traffic congestion)
• Buy a newer exempt car
• Shift to equally polluting taxis.

Conclusion

To answer the question of “Who drives in Mexico City?” the data collected and analyzed by Guerra and Reyes’ (2022) study, as well as the observations in the city, show that the higher-income population owns most new cars (Hoy- No-Circula exempt), and low-capacity buses fill the city’s roads. Only a trickle of old vehicles can be observed circulating in the metropolitan area during the day (Figure 5.4).

Highlights of Mexico City’s car ban policy can be summarized as follows:

• Hoy No Circula does not improve air pollution or reduce traffic congestion. However, it has indirectly enabled the upgrading of the vehicle fleet owned by wealthier residents, while lower-income households have been unable to purchase a newer car to be exempted from the policy. The policy exempts only a specific subset of the population from driving restrictions.
• The policy disproportionately burdens lower-income drivers more likely to drive older, restricted vehicles.
• While some suburban households interviewed switch from car to transit on restricted days, most either:

1. 1. Drive infrequently
   2. Shuffle trips to other days or times of day
   3. Drive in specific locations and roads to avoid enforcement
   4. Bribe police or technicians.

References

Barahona, N., Gallego, F. A., & Montero, J.-P. (2020). Vintage-specific driving restrictions. The Review of Economic Studies, 87(4), 1646–1682. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdz031

Barneuvo, Y. M. (2018, June 21). Renew America’s nonprofit grant program. [Fact sheet].  Environmental and Energy Study Institute. https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-%20high-speed-rail-development-worldwide

Blackman, A., Alpízar, F., Carlsson, F., & Planter, M. R. (2018). A contingent valuation approach to estimating regulatory costs: Mexico’s day without driving program. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 5(3), 607–641. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep15020

California High-Speed Rail Authority. (2021, November 18). California high-speed rail authority construction update. https://hsr.ca.gov/2021/11/18/news-release-california-high-speed-rail-releases-fall-2021-construction-update/

Campos, J., & de Rus, G. (2009). Some stylized facts about high-speed rail: A review of HSR experiences worldwide. Transport Policy, 16(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.02.008

Campbell, A. A., Cherry, C. R., Ryerson, M. S., & Yang, X. (2016). Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 67, 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.03.004

Cervero, R., & Hansen, M. (2002). Induced travel demand and induced road investment: A simultaneous equation analysis. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 36(3), 469–490. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20053915

Cheng, X., Huang, K., Qu, L., Zhang, T., & Li, L. (2020). Effects of vehicle restriction policies on urban travel demand change from a built environment perspective. Journal of Advanced Transportation. Volume 2020, Article 9848095. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/9848095

Chester, M., & Horvath, A. (2010). Lifecycle assessment of high-speed rail: The case of California. Environmental Research Letters, 5(1), Article 014003. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014003

Chipindula, J., Du, H., Botlaguduru, V. S. V., Choe, D., & Kommalapati, R. R. (2021). Life cycle environmental impact of a high-speed rail system in the Houston-Dallas I-45 corridor. Public Transport, 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-021-00264-2

Davis, L. W. (2008). The effect of driving restrictions on air quality in Mexico City. Journal of Political Economy, 116(1), 38–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/529398

Davis, L. W. (2017). Saturday driving restrictions fail to improve air quality in Mexico City. Scientific Reports, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41652

De Buen Kalman, R. (2021). Can’t drive today? The impact of driving restrictions on bike-share ridership in Mexico City. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102652

De Grange, L., & Troncoso, R. (2011). Impacts of vehicle restrictions on urban transport flow: The case of Santiago, Chile. Transport Policy, 18(6), 862–869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.06.001

Diao, Q., Sun, W., Yuan, X., Li, L., & Zheng, Z. (2016). Life-cycle private-cost-based competitiveness analysis of electric vehicles in China considering the intangible cost of traffic policies. Applied Energy, 178, 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.116

Downs, A. (2004). Still stuck in traffic: Coping with peak-hour traffic congestion. Brookings Institution Press. 472. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt1vjqprt

Duranton, G., & Turner, M. A. (2011). The fundamental law of road congestion: Evidence from U. S. cities. American Economic Review, 101(6), 2616–2652. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.6.2616

Eskeland, G. S., & Feyzioglu, T. (1997). Rationing can backfire the “Day without a Car” in Mexico City. The World Bank Economic Review, 11(3), 383–408. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3990252.pdf

European Court of Auditors. (2018). A European high-speed rail network: Not a reality but an ineffective patchwork. (Special report No 19, 2018). European Union Publications Office. https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_19/SR_HIGH_SPEED_RAIL_EN.pdf

Gallego, F., Montero, J. P., & Salas, C. (2013). The effect of transport policies on car use: Evidence from Latin American cities. Journal of Public Economics, 107, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.08.007

Gu, Y., Deakin, E., & Long, Y. (2017). The effects of driving restrictions on travel behavior evidence from Beijing. Journal of Urban Economics, 102, 106–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2017.03.001

Guerra, E., & Millard-Ball, A. (2017). Getting around a license-plate ban: Behavioral responses to Mexico ‘City’s driving restriction. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 55, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.06.027

Guerra, E., & Reyes, A. (2022). Examining behavioral responses to Mexico City’s driving restriction: A mixed methods approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103191

James, R. (2009, April 20). A brief history of high-speed rail. Time. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892463,00.html

License plate-restricted cities in China. (2022). International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 16(1), 57-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1847369

Liu, Z., Li, R., Wang, X., & Shang, P. (2020). Noncompliance behavior against vehicle restriction policy: A Langfang, China case study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 1020–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.01.005

Liu, Z., Li, R., Wang, X., & Shang, P. (2018). Effects of vehicle restriction policies: Analysis using license plate recognition data in Lang Fang, China. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 118, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.09.001

Lu, T., Yao, E., Jin, F., & Pan, L. (2020). Alternative incentive policies against purchase subsidy decrease for battery electric vehicle (BEV) adoption. Energies, 13(7), 1645. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071645

Manata, M. (2021, January 21). High-speed rail in California moves along but slowly. Capradio. https://www.capradio.org/161688

Mohan, D., Tiwari, G., Goel, R., & Lahkar, P. (2017). Evaluation of odd–even day traffic restriction experiments in Delhi, India. Transportation Research Record, 2627(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.3141/2627-02

Nie, Y. M. (2017). On the potential remedies for license plate rationing. Economics of Transportation, 9, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecotra.2017.01.001

Patrick M. (2021, July 11). California high-speed rail (CHSR) project. https://constructionreviewonline.com/news/california-high-speed-rail-chsr-project/

Rao, Y. (2020). New energy vehicles and sustainability of energy development: Construction and application of the multi-level perspective framework in China. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suscom.2020.100396

The California High-Speed Rail (2021). High-Speed Rail in California. California High-Speed Rail. https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/

Wang, L., Xu, J., & Qin, P. (2014). Will a driving restriction policy reduce car trips? The Beijing, China case study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 67, 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.07.014

Wang, N., Tang, L., & Pan, H. (2017). Effectiveness of policy incentives on electric vehicle acceptance in China: A discrete choice analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 105, 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.08.009

Xiong, Y., & Qin, S. (2020). Differences in consumers’ product attribute preferences and willingness to pay for new energy vehicles: A comparison between the license plate- and non-license plate-restricted cities in China, Journal of Taylor & Francis Online, 16(1), 57 –72. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2020.1847369

Xu, Y., Zhang, Q., & Zheng, S. (2015). The rising demand for the subway after private driving restriction: Evidence from Beijing’s housing market. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 54, 28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2015.06.004

Yang, J., Lu, F., Liu, Y., & Guo, J. (2018). How does a driving restriction affect transportation patterns? The medium-run evidence from Beijing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 204, 270–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.069

Zhang, L., Long, R., & Chen, H. (2019). Do car restriction policies effectively promote the development of public transport? World Development, 119, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.03.007

Vickerman, R. (1997). High-speed rail in Europe: Experience and issues for future development. The Annals of Regional Science, 31(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001680050037

Xinhua. (2021, January 9). China’s high-speed rail lines topped 37,900 km at the end of 2020. Xinhuanet. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-01/09/c_139654709.html