International Comparison of Japan, France, and Switzerland on the Reallocation of Space and Financial Resources between Automobiles and Public Transport in the context of Sustainable Urban Transport Policies

Mots-clés:

Résumé:

[Purpose]
Motorization has spurred economic and industrial development, yet it has also incurred significant social costs. Environmental issues, urban sprawl, and the decline of public transport due to private car ownership, leaving people with reduced mobility (PRM) and low-income individuals without adequate transport options—are notable problems. Furthermore, motorised transport inherently requires vast amounts of land for roads, car parks, and similar infrastructure. Estimates suggest that if private car ownership continues to rise unchecked, the world would eventually need parking space equivalent to the land area of Switzerland.
Another serious problem is urban sprawl. Even if efforts are made to shift from private cars to public transport for environmental reasons, if residential, commercial and workplace locations spread widely into the suburbs, public transport cannot function as a rational means of travel. Therefore, to achieve a shift from private cars to public transport, it is necessary to aim for compact cities, incorporating not only policies within the transport sector but also policies related to spatial planning and location, such as urban planning.
Securing funding is crucial when pursuing policies to promote compact urban planning and strengthen public transport systems like railways. Primary funding sources include user charges for public transport, national and local government finances (general revenues and earmarked taxes), and charges borne by motor vehicle users. For a long time in many countries, roads were developed using public funds, whereas public transport, primarily railways, operated under an Independent Profit System where costs were covered solely by fares paid by users. However, due to motorization and urban sprawl, this Independent Profit System for public transport became unsustainable outside high-density metropolitan areas, necessitating public funding for public transport. From an environmental economics perspective, policies involving the imposition of environmental taxes on car use, with the revenue allocated to maintaining and enhancing public transport, were deemed rational.
This study therefore focuses on the cases of Japan, France, and Switzerland, which are particularly proactive in promoting compact city development. It compares policies concerning the spatial and financial resource reallocation between cars and public transport in the context of advancing compact city development.

[Methodology (design)]
Primarily from the perspectives of public finance, transport economics, and environmental economics, it undertakes an international comparison of compact city policies (spatial reallocation) and the systems for funding public transport construction and operational costs. This study compares the policies of Japan, France, and Switzerland. These three countries were selected because, while they share the common goal of achieving compact cities through revitalising and regenerating public transport, they exhibit significant differences in the strength of regulations concerning the redistribution of space and financial resources, leading to variations in the actual implementation of their approaches.
Concerning spatial redistribution for compact cities, we compare the three countries' systems, focusing on the coordination between spatial planning and transport planning. Here, we compare differences in the public sector implementing policy (municipal versus state level), differences in the obligation to implement policy, and differences in the strength of authority. We also highlight any distinctive initiatives within spatial policy.
　From the perspective of financial resource redistribution, we first compare the funding sources for each country's public transport systems (such as railways). This involves comparing firstly, user charges (including the financial status of rail operators); and secondly, the means of funding procurement by national and local governments. Furthermore, as a third perspective, we conduct a comparative analysis of mechanisms requiring private car users to contribute to public transport funding.

[The main results (findings)]
　(Spatial redistribution policies aiming for compact cities)
All three countries have introduced systems promoting compact cities through the coordination of spatial and transport planning. Obligations and powers differ.
・France obliges urban municipalities to formulate hierarchical spatial plans, including transport plans, and emphasises coordination between these plans. The top-level plan is the SCoT (Territorial Cohesion Scheme), a metropolitan master plan. The intermediate level is the PDM (Mobility Plan), the transport plan. The lowest level is the PLU (Urban Local Plan), the district-specific plan for individual municipalities. Lower-level plans must meet the requirements set out in higher-level plans. Municipalities implementing these plans are granted strong powers.
・Switzerland adopts a model where cantons (states) lead spatial planning formulation, with municipalities subsequently implementing measures. The federal government sets broad policy guidelines, while each canton establishes its planning system through cantonal legislation to formulate plans. The federal policy framework is the ‘Raumkonzept Schweiz’ (Spatial Concept Switzerland).
・Japan encourages municipalities to formulate the Location Normalisation Plan (aiming for compact cities) and the Local Public Transport Plan in an integrated manner. Legally, both plans are subject to best-efforts obligations, and coordination between them is not mandated. Municipal authority, particularly regulatory power over public transport operators, has weakened. However, imposing strong planning obligations on municipalities with weak authority creates implementation difficulties. Thus, Japan's transport planning system, limited to best-efforts obligations, represents a design optimised for this institutional environment of weak municipal authority.
・France introduced strong regulations to prevent urban sprawl through legislation in 2021. This mandates net zero artificialisation of land (Zéro artificialisation nette, ZAN), requiring that the total area of artificial land (land covered by buildings, paved surfaces such as roads and car parks, and railway land) must not increase during development. If green space is converted to artificial soil during development, an equivalent area of artificial soil must be converted back to green space. Green space includes forests, lakes, wetlands, farmland, and parks.
　(Fiscal Mechanisms)
・Japan operates on a self-financing basis. This is feasible because major metropolitan railways exist where demand is high and fare revenue exceeds costs. Funding systems for core cities and regional railways are inadequate, often leaving local governments struggling to secure resources.
・France legislated the right to transport and abandoned the independent profit model. Urban municipalities can levy urban transport taxes, resulting in robust finances. Conversely, prefectures and regions (departments) lack such tax mechanisms, creating disparities in funding capacity between different levels of local government.
・Switzerland has a well-balanced system. Clear rules govern the sharing of financial burdens between the federal government, cantons, and municipalities. Funding sources, such as railway funds, are secured, enabling effective management of railways and public transport across various sectors.
(Cost-sharing for public transport by motorists)
・Japan has long funded road construction and maintenance through the Road Specific Revenue System, relying on driver contributions such as petrol taxes. Funding for roads and public transport is entirely separate; motorists do not fundamentally bear the cost of public transport. However, projects to eliminate level crossings by elevating or tunnelling railway lines are funded from the road budget, thus imposing a burden on motorists.
・France has no formal institutional framework requiring drivers to bear public transport costs (though the Paris metropolitan area receives some compensation from fuel taxes, the revenue amount is small). The urban transport tax system also requires companies with car commuters to pay, meaning the tax burden ultimately falls on motor vehicle users.
・Switzerland utilises petrol taxes as a funding source for infrastructure investment (petrol tax revenue funds road maintenance, railway infrastructure funds, and metropolitan area development). It also has parking charging systems in places like Basel.

[Their significance (practical and theoretical implications)]
In France and Switzerland, where municipal authorities vigorously pursue spatial redistribution policies, robust land regulation mechanisms exist within the national institutional framework. Conversely, Japan's approach remains limited to obligations to endeavour, with weak regulatory authority over land use. This directly influences the pace of spatial redistribution within each country. Fiscal strength is directly linked to the ease of implementing policy. The lack of progress in introducing light rail transit (LRT) in Japan is particularly symbolic. Taxation or levies on private cars should be considered as a promising source of funding.