Spain allows cities to ban single-occupant cars

Spanish government enables bans on single-occupant vehicles

The new Article 37 bis of the General Traffic Regulation, included in a draft Royal Decree the Executive aims to approve, provides municipalities with a legal basis to restrict urban traffic using non-environmental criteria. The most striking one is the number of vehicle occupants. In practice, a town can limit access to specific urban areas or sections to cars carrying only one person. This measure complements Low Emission Zones but opens a new front: congestion and inefficient private car use.

The text goes further. Municipal ordinances may also discriminate based on driver assistance technology (automatic emergency braking, blind spot detection, lane departure warning) and the service purpose of the vehicle. This effectively prioritizes public transport, medical, school, essential goods, or reduced mobility services. Towns must report zone boundaries and applied criteria to the National Access Point of the Dirección General de Tráfico (DGT), while the Central Traffic Headquarters will prepare a joint technical document with municipalities.

Changes compared to low emission zones

Until now, closing city centers relied on air quality standards. The new article breaks this framework: restrictions do not replace environmental measures but complement them by adding criteria unrelated to emissions. A clean-label car could be banned if it carries only one person. An older car might enter if it has three occupants. The logic shifts from what the vehicle emits to who is inside and for what purpose.

The most common parallel is High Occupancy Vehicle lanes on interurban highways, which already require minimum occupants. The novelty is applying this scheme to city streets using cameras and ordinances. The first practical issue arises here: how to verify a car has only one occupant? Technical solutions like automatic license plate reading already work in some residential restricted-access neighborhoods.

Road safety argument versus control concerns

The official rationale is twofold: improving road safety and rationalizing urban space, aligning with European Commission recommendations for efficient mobility. Proponents argue that rewarding technologically safer cars and penalizing unnecessary solo trips reduces accidents and frees up land. Optimistic calculations suggest many solo trips are avoidable through carpooling, public transport, or skipping the journey entirely.

Critics offer a less friendly view. Some see the text as a delegation to municipalities of responsibilities the State avoids handling alone, while others suspect revenue-raising motives. The most repeated objection is logistical, not ideological: What happens to families driving children to school, dropping off colleagues, or accompanying relatives to the airport before returning alone? Empty return trips are also single-occupant journeys.

Winners and losers under the measure

The text outlines clear winners: public transport, health and school services, essential goods delivery, and adapted vehicles. Cars with more embedded technology also benefit, acting as an urban passport. Losers include individual drivers, classic or historic plate vehicles, and indirectly, businesses in affected areas: if avoiding fines means sharing rides or taking buses, the third option is not going at all.

The impact on local commerce remains unquantified. Experience with perimeter closures shows passing traffic drops, but it is unclear how much translates into lost customers. Furthermore, the measure arrives without a timeline or thresholds: each municipality decides whether, where, and with which exceptions to apply it, anticipating a multi-estimulante ilegal urban map.

---

With this design, a trickle of municipal ordinances is expected rather than massive simultaneous implementation. The question is not whether any town hall will dare, but which will be the first to charge for driving alone and how long until others copy it.