Specifically, in the early period of policy implementation (before 2014), the effect was not obvious because part-time drivers may not have had a deep understanding of the purpose of the implementation and the significance of the APCF policy, thereby resulting in a continuous increase in AMVT due to sharp increase in motor vehicle ownership.
Following further analysis, the AMVT exhibited a marginal decreasing effect following an increase in APCF from curve 1 to curve 6, especially in curves 3-6, which indicates that a larger APCF is not always better.
In conclusion, the APCF value range was observed within the interval of [30, 50] based on the above analysis from the perspective of AMVT reduction (alleviate traffic jam) as well as APMG and ANOG emission reduction.
The AMVT exhibited a continuous decrease following an increase in APCF, which indicates the ability of this policy to restrict increases in AMVT.
In addition, the change was very limited as the APCF exceeded 50 yuan/day x vehicle.
Therefore, an effective APCF range of [30, 50] was chosen based on the development trends analysis of the change rates of the main variables.
Following the adoption of the low charge policy, e.g., APCF = 5 yuan/day x vehicle, the AMVT (curve 1) exhibited a decrease since about 2014, as exhibited in Figure 6(a).
According to Figure 6(f), curve 1 first exhibited a slow rise (before 2013) and a subsequent sharp descent following the adoption of the high charge policy (APCF = 50 yuan/day*vehicle).
According to Figures 6(a)-6(f), the APCF exhibited a continuous increase, thereby generating a change in the rules of all the curves as follows:
Within a certain range, the increase in APCF aided in the descent of the AMVT, thereby further alleviating the traffic pressures.
ARB noted that the California Auto Dealers Exchange paid $62,416 to APCF
for selling off-road vehicles with non-certified engines at dealer-only auto auctions throughout California in 2004, while Homelite paid $500,000 for a group of new engines at its certification emissions test facilities in South Carolina that did not comply with ARB requirements.