Automobility: challenges, conflicts, and regulatory policies in the greater Paris metropolitan area

1. Fragmented governance of car mobility in Île-de-France

1.A. A dense road system and fragmented multi-level governance :

Greater Paris, which encompasses Paris, the inner suburbs (Hauts-de-Seine, Seine-Saint-Denis, Val-de-Marne) and part of the outer suburbs, relies on a very dense road network, totalling almost 39,000 km⁴ and carries massive traffic: almost 14.8 million journeys every day, 90% of which are made by car outside Paris, exacerbating congestion. A dense road system and fragmented multi-level governance.
The management of this network is divided between several levels: the State manages the national roads and motorways, the départements manage the departmental roads, and the communes or inter-municipalities manage the local roads. The MAPTAM law (loi de modernisation de l’action publique territoriale et d’affirmation des métropoles) of 2014 created the Greater Paris Metropolis (MGP) and structures known as Établissements publics territoriaux (EPT), which have been given certain responsibilities for roads. However, these transfers of responsibilities are partial and uneven: in 2023, only 4 of the 11 EPTs located outside Paris will manage roads of territorial interest, and 3 will deal partly or wholly with communal roads. This heterogeneity is the result of local trajectories and political choices specific to each territory.
This fragmented organisation hampers regional coordination. The Île-de-France Region, which has no direct control over roads, has little involvement in road management. Unlike other metropolises, the MGP has no powers over transport or roads, which reduces its scope for action. In practice, it is mainly the mayors, who are responsible for traffic and local planning, who retain most of the levers, which fuels tensions, particularly in Paris where decisions have a metropolitan impact.

Finally, the funding of road mobility involves a number of different players (Region, State, Île-de-France Mobilités, départements, inter-municipalities), with no centralised coordination. This institutional architecture produces interdependencies and conflicting priorities, making it difficult to develop a coherent policy at regional level¹.

B. A controversial shift in the regional political agenda

Since the 1990s, mobility policies have gradually incorporated environmental issues, changing their priorities. This development has resulted in a diversification of policy levers: promotion of alternatives to the private car, stricter control of its use (speed, parking, access), energy transition, and better links between urban planning and mobility (Debrie et al., 2020).
Until 2015, the Region, then run by a Socialist majority, focused its policies on reducing car use and developing public transport, in line with the Grenelle laws. The Regional Master Plan of 2013 and the Urban Transport Plan of 2014 gave priority to limiting car use, particularly in central areas, through disincentives such as lower parking charges and support for active mobility. These choices, which are close to the Parisian strategy, have nevertheless met with resistance, particularly from the opposition and outlying areas.
From 2015, with the arrival of the right-wing majority led by Valérie Pécresse, the regional approach changed. The fight against cars is no longer central; the emphasis is on modernising the road network, the technological transition of vehicles (electrification), and traffic management measures such as car-sharing and reserved lanes. This new direction symbolises a ‘return of the road’ to the regional agenda. It also shifts tensions: these are now being expressed more clearly between the Region and the City of Paris, who are at odds over road extension projects that have been strongly criticised by environmental movements.

The 2020 municipal elections, with the arrival of ecologist teams in several major cities, have reinforced these divisions. In Paris, Anne Hidalgo’s policy aims to significantly reduce the use of cars in favour of public transport and soft mobility. In the suburbs, however, there is still a high level of dependence on road transport, in the absence of credible alternatives, accentuating the divide between the centre and the suburbs⁵.

II. The spatial dimension of automobile conflicts: three case studies

Against this backdrop of fragmented governance, a number of policies aim to reduce the use of cars in the Île-de-France region. The 2014 PDUIF gives priority to public transport, active modes of transport and the upgrading of roads. Applied unevenly, these measures exacerbate tensions between Paris and its suburbs over the sharing of road space. Three examples illustrate these conflicts: the banks of the Seine, the ring road and the LEZs⁶.

A. Closing the banks of the Seine

The banks of the Seine in Paris are a good illustration of the controversies surrounding car policies. Built in the 1960s to adapt the city to the car, their function began to change in the 2000s. After the motorway project was abandoned in 1974, under pressure from the public, the City of Paris experimented with temporary closures with ‘Paris Respire’ (2001) and then ‘Paris Plages’ (2002).
Pedestrianisation became permanent in 2013 along 2.3 km of the left bank, then in 2015 along 3.3 km of the right bank, creating the ‘Parc Rives de Seine’, a 10-hectare area dedicated to soft mobility and leisure activities.
This transformation has triggered a lively debate between Paris, the Region and certain départements. Paris wants to reduce the use of cars to improve air quality and provide more public spaces, while the Region is defending these routes, which are essential for people living on the outskirts who are still dependent on the car.
Pedestrianisation was confirmed by the courts in 2019, not for environmental reasons, but to protect a UNESCO World Heritage site. This decision has heightened political tensions, particularly between Anne Hidalgo and Valérie Pécresse.
A study by the Institut des Politiques Publiques (IPP, 2021) has been widely used in the debate. Some see an increase in pollution around the ring road, even though the study acknowledges its limitations, notably the lack of assessment of long-term effects.
The use of contradictory data illustrates the difficulty of accurately assessing impacts, which are divided between immediate local benefits and diffuse effects on a regional scale. This controversy reveals a profound conflict between local ecological ambitions and the day-to-day realities of travel.

B. The debate on the redevelopment of the ring road :

Built in the 1960s to adapt Paris to the car, the ring road, completed in 1973, remains a major thoroughfare with around 1.2 million vehicles a day. However, it is also a major source of pollution, responsible for 20% of fine particles in Paris and affecting almost 150,000 local residents.
Although traffic levels fell by 12% between 2002 and 2017, the ring road remains essential for residents of the inner suburbs, who account for around 50% of its users, and the outer suburbs, which account for 30%. Its management is the responsibility of the City of Paris, but it also depends on a prefectoral agreement, making any reform complex.
The debate crystallises the tensions between Anne Hidalgo and Valérie Pécresse and highlights the ambiguous role of the State, as demonstrated by Clément Beaune’s stance against reducing the speed limit to 50 kph. Citizens’ groups such as ‘Touche pas à mon Périph’’ (Don’t touch my Périph’) are also taking part in the mobilisation.
Fragmented governance, with a Region that has no powers in road management and a Metropole that has no powers in transport, is hampering the coordination of policies. Since 2020, a number of proposals have been put forward, including speed reductions, the creation of dedicated car-sharing lanes and the planting of vegetation along the boulevard.
These proposals reveal three major divisions. On the environmental front, the City of Paris and the ecologists are defending air quality and the well-being of local residents. Socially, the high car dependency of the working classes on the outskirts of the city, who are often overlooked in policies, poses a major challenge. Locally, the City is seeking to limit traffic in order to reclaim public space, while the Region is favouring technological solutions without calling into question the massive use of cars.

In this way, the ring road illustrates a political, social and spatial divide at the heart of Greater Paris, exacerbated by governance that is too fragmented to allow a sustainable compromise¹.

C. The introduction of Low Emission Zones (ZFE) :

The introduction of Low Emission Zones in the Île-de-France region has given rise to intense controversy, once again illustrating the politicisation of the debate on the place of cars in cities. Unlike other countries, France has adopted a ‘top-down’ approach: the LEZs are the result of a national legal obligation (the 2015 Energy Transition Act), which in turn is governed by a European directive on air quality.
These zones concern conurbations that regularly exceed pollution thresholds and have a population of at least 150,000, with a minimum coverage of 50% of the population of the most populous inter-municipality. The Greater Paris metropolitan area, along with ten other regions, has set up an EPZ.
Within Paris, the ban on the most polluting vehicles applies every day from 8am to 8pm. The Greater Paris EPZ has been in force since July 2019, initially banning unclassified and Crit’Air 5 vehicles, then extending the ban to Crit’Air 4 vehicles in 2021. The timetable for Crit’Air 3 has been postponed several times, notably after the Olympic Games, reflecting the tensions surrounding this measure.
Beyond the timetable, the social dimension is at the heart of the debate. The LEZs are sometimes nicknamed ‘high-exclusion zones’, because they mainly penalise low-income households and rural or disadvantaged areas, which are often dependent on old, polluting vehicles. In the Paris catchment area, this means the exclusion of rural communities in Seine-et-Marne and Oise, as well as a significant impact in some working-class communities such as La Courneuve, where almost half the vehicles do not meet the access criteria.
While LEZs aim to protect public health, they are criticised for failing to address the root causes of car dependency, and for posing difficulties in terms of acceptability and control. These controversies show just how much tension the increasing regulation of the car is causing. Even if the Covid-19 crisis has changed certain uses, it has not fundamentally altered these debates, notably because of the economic context and the emphasis placed on decarbonisation rather than on reducing travel.
More recently, on 17 June 2025, the National Assembly approved a ‘simplification’ bill including a controversial measure to abolish the LEZs. The bill is supported by the right, the Rassemblement National and some centrist parties, while the left is strongly opposed. However, the text still has to be examined by a joint committee, which will have to find a compromise⁷.
Finally, surveys carried out in Paris and Brussels show that social issues and inequalities remain largely absent from political discourse and strategies concerning sustainable mobility policies. In this geography of automobile regulation, the social issue is still given very little consideration⁶.

Conclusion: challenges and limitations

The transition to post-car mobility in Île-de-France remains limited by a number of factors. Since 2015, the regional strategy has no longer been aimed at reducing traffic, but at optimising the road network and encouraging the decarbonisation of vehicles. This technical approach, based on electrification, autonomous vehicles and car-sharing, is in line with national guidelines. It seeks to reduce the nuisance caused by cars without calling into question their widespread use¹.
This approach has been criticised for failing to address the structural causes of car dependency, particularly in the inner and outer suburbs where cars remain indispensable. The most modest sections of the population, whose lifestyles are linked to the car, are the most exposed to the effects of transition policies. This is particularly true of the Low Emission Zones (ZFE), designed to improve air quality but perceived as socially unfair. Subsidies for the purchase of less polluting vehicles are not enough to offset inequalities in access to mobility.
Furthermore, mobility policies reveal a strong territorial divide: urban centres such as Paris benefit from numerous alternatives (public transport, cycling, pedestrianisation), while outlying areas remain dependent on the car. This spatial and social divide is still rarely taken into account in the development of public policies.
Finally, the fragmentation of local governance, shared between the City of Paris, the Region, the départements and the State, hinders the implementation of a coherent strategy at the metropolitan level. Political, social and territorial tensions, exacerbated by this fragmentation, complicate the search for lasting compromises.
In conclusion, car regulation in the Île-de-France illustrates the contradictions between ecological ambitions, social justice issues and political rivalries. While the need for more sustainable mobility is now widely recognised, the ways in which it is implemented are giving rise to debate and resistance, revealing the complex dynamics at work in this major European metropolis. In order to move forward, it would seem crucial to integrate the social and territorial dimensions more fully into policies, and to improve institutional coordination, in order to overcome the current divisions and build a fairer and more environmentally-friendly form of mobility.