Optimal regulation on building size and city boundary: An effective second-best remedy for traffic congestion externality
This paper numerically evaluates the efficiency of regulations on building size and city size in a congested closed city by comparing welfare gain with that achieved under a first-best toll regime. Results show that whereas the urban growth boundary (UGB) is a poor substitute for the toll regime as expected, an optimal regulation on building size in the presence of a suitably chosen UGB yields significant welfare gain, producing an effective substitute for a first-best toll regime. Moreover, the optimal regulation on the building size requires not only downward adjustment to the market population density at the boundary locations but also upward adjustment at the central locations.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Richard Arnott & James G. MacKinnon, 1976.
"Market and Shadow Land Rents with Congestion,"
250, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Bertaud, Alain & Brueckner, Jan K., 2005. "Analyzing building-height restrictions: predicted impacts and welfare costs," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 109-125, March.
- Joshi, Kirti Kusum & Kono, Tatsuhito, 2009. "Optimization of floor area ratio regulation in a growing city," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 502-511, July.
- Brueckner, Jan K., 2007.
"Urban growth boundaries: An effective second-best remedy for unpriced traffic congestion?,"
Journal of Housing Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 16(3-4), pages 263-273, November.
- Jan K. Brueckner, 2005. "Urban Growth Boundaries: An Effective Second-Best Remedy for Unpriced Traffic Congestion?," Working Papers 050610, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
- Wheaton, William C., 1998. "Land Use and Density in Cities with Congestion," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 258-272, March.
- Kanemoto, Yoshitsugu, 1977. "Cost-benefit analysis and the second best land use for transportation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 483-503, October.
- Anas, Alex & Rhee, Hyok-Joo, 2007. "When are urban growth boundaries not second-best policies to congestion tolls?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 263-286, March.
- Harberger, Arnold C, 1971. "Three Basic Postulates for Applied Welfare Economics: An Interpretive Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 785-97, September.
- Anas, Alex & Pines, David, 2008. "Anti-sprawl policies in a system of congested cities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 408-423, September.
- King, David & Manville, Michael & Shoup, Donald, 2007. "The political calculus of congestion pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9js9z8gz, University of California Transportation Center.
- King, David & Manville, Michael & Shoup, Donald, 2007. "The political calculus of congestion pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 111-123, March.
- Arnott, Richard J., 1979. "Unpriced transport congestion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 294-316, October.
- Lin, C.-C.Chu-Chia & Mai, Chao-Cheng & Wang, Ping, 2004. "Urban land policy and housing in an endogenously growing monocentric city," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 241-261, May.
- Arnott, Richard J. & MacKinnon, James G., 1977.
"Measuring the costs of height restrictions with a general equilibrium model,"
Regional Science and Urban Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 359-375, November.
- Richard Arnott & James G. MacKinnon, 1976. "Measuring the Costs of Height Restrictions with a General Equilibrium Model," Working Papers 242, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
- Pines, David & Sadka, Efraim, 1985. "Zoning, first-best, second-best, and third-best criteria for allocating land for roads," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 167-183, March.
- Rouwendal, Jan & Verhoef, Erik T., 2006. "Basic economic principles of road pricing: From theory to applications," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 106-114, March.
- Tatsuhito Kono & Takayuki Kaneko & Hisa Morisugi, 2010. "Necessity of minimum floor area ratio regulation: a second-best policy," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 44(3), pages 523-539, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:regeco:v:42:y:2012:i:4:p:619-630. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.