EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 30.9.2009 
SEC(2009) 1211 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
accompanying the   
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
Action Plan on Urban Mobility 
  
Impact Assessment  
 
 
{COM(2009) 490} 
{SEC(2009) 1212}
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
 1.1 Organisation and timing  
 1.2 Consultation 
2. P ROBLEM DEFINITION  
 2.1 Fragmentation of local, regional and national approaches  2.2 Lack of initiative, lack of knowledge and experience  2.3 Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent?   2.4 What would happen if nothing were done?   2.5 The EU’s right to act 
3. O
BJECTIVES  
4. P OLICY OPTIONS  
 4.1 From the long list to the shortlist  4.2 Stakeholder support 
5. A
NALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE SHORTLISTED OPTIONS  
6. C OMPARING AND ASSESSING THE OPTIONS  
 6.1 Fine-tuning the shortlisted options  6.2 Assessment of shortlisted options a nd identification of possible actions 
 6.3 Towards the Action Plan on Urban Mobility 
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
ANNEXES 
ANNEX I: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION 
ANNEX II: OVERVIEW OF EXISTING EU  INITIATIVES AND LEGISLATION 
ANNEX III: THE BASELINE SCENARIO ANNEX IV: THE EU’s RIGHT TO ACT ANNEX V: FROM THE LONG LI ST TO THE SHORTLIST 
ANNEX VI: DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPACT  OF SHORTLISTED POLICY OPTIONS 
 
EN 3   EN 1. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
1.1. Organisation and timing  
This impact assessment prepares the ground for an Action Plan on Urban Mobility. The 
objective is to identify policy options and in struments forming a basis for proposals for 
specific actions in the Action Plan. This selec tion process includes a subsidiarity test, an 
assessment of effectiveness and efficiency a nd an indicative assessm ent of the impact.  
The Action Plan on Urban Mobility follows the publication of a Green Paper on urban 
mobility1 on 25 September 2007. The Action Plan  on Urban Mobility is part of the 
Commission’s work programm e for 2008 (ref. 2008/TREN/0362). 
This impact assessment has been prepared by the Directorate-General for Energy and 
Transport (DG TREN). The following Directorates -General participated in the Interservice 
Group that contributed to the preparations: the Secretariat- General, DG ECFIN, DG EMPL, 
DG ENTR, DG ENV, DG MARKT, DG INFSO, DG REGIO, DG RTD, DG SANCO and 
DG TAXUD. This report commits only the Commi ssion departments involved in preparing it. 
Support was obtained under a study contra ct awarded to ECORYS Transport3.  
This impact assessment in no way prejudg es the final decision to be taken by the 
Commission.  
The Impact Assessment Board gave its opinion on the first draft of the impact assessment on 
23 July 2008. The comments of the Board were incorporated in a second draft. The revised 
draft took a more detailed look at how EU act ion can contribute to solving urban mobility 
problems at local and regional levels. The leve l of ambition was clarif ied. Subsequently, the 
objectives made it clearer that the EU primarily wants to facilitate and not regulate action at 
local and regional level.  
Furthermore, the structure of the impact asse ssment was revised to link the policy options 
more directly to the objectives and to make the document easier to read. In addition, more 
insight was provided on the measures recomm ended in the Action Plan on Urban Mobility. 
The assumptions and policy measures in the baseline scenario were clarified. Finally, in Chapter 6, possible actions for the Action Plan were clustered and the estimated costs and 
benefits were indicated.  
The Impact Assessment Board gave its opinion on  the second draft of the impact assessment 
on 1 October 2008. Its comments were incorporated in a third draft. In this new draft, the 
problem definition was better focused. The value added by the Action Plan to existing 
initiatives was better explained and the objectiv es adjusted, so that they give a clearer 
reflection of local, regional a nd national responsibilities.  
                                                
 
1 Towards a new culture for urban mobility: COM(2007) 551. 
2 The roadmap includes “no EU ac tion on transport”, “baseline” and “proposing a coherent package of 
actions”, including identification of synergies, as policy scenarios. The “no EU action” scenario was 
dropped because there was very little  difference from the baseline. 
3 Contract number TREN/07/MD/S07.80061. 
 
EN 4   EN Furthermore, the link between the impact assess ment and the Action Plan was strengthened. 
The explanation of policy devel opments taken into account in th e baseline was elaborated. It 
was not possible to undertake a new modelling exercise and assess the impact of some 
specific recent policy proposals. However, TREMOVE does include a series of policy 
measures that, in response to a judgment made in 2005, are likely to be implemented.  
Because the actions in the Action Plan are of a soft or exploratory nature, and the fact that 
local, regional and national authorities will have  flexibility and freedom to apply them, it was 
not possible to assess their impact against the tr ends in the baseline scenario. Another reason 
is that the lack of data on urban mobility  makes quantitative assessment very difficult.  
The Impact Assessment Board gave its opinion on  the third draft of the impact assessment on 
4 November 2008. Its comments have been incorporated in this final impact assessment. Further evidence on the costs of the lack of harmonisation and of the benefits of 
harmonisation and more coherent solutions were provided. Objective 1 and the related 
monitoring indicator were redr afted. Plans for future impact assessments were clarified. A 
comparison of Member States that have harmoni sed rules and Member States that do not was 
not possible within the scope of this impact assessment.  
1.2. Consultation  
The consultation of interested parties was divided into two phases. The first phase consisted 
of a consultation to prepare the Green Paper on  urban mobility during the first six months of 
2007. The second followed after adoption of the Green Paper, between 25 September 2007 and 15 March 2008.  
The consultation to prepare the Green Paper comprised conferences, workshops, meetings and 
an internet-based questionnaire. The results  are set out in a Commission staff working 
document on the consultation
4 that accompanied the Green Paper on urban mobility.  
The Green Paper included 25 questions to steer the consultation and focus the responses from 
interested parties. The stakeholde rs were also invited to respond to the genera l issues raised in 
the Green Paper. The results of the Green Paper consultati on are summarised in Annex I5. The 
minimum standards for consultation have been met.  
The European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the Green Paper on 9 July 20086. The 
Committee of the Regions adopted an Opinion on the Green Paper on 9 April 20087. The 
European Economic and Social Committee a dopted an Opinion on the Green Paper on 
29 May 20088. The Council also discussed the Green Paper on urban mobility9. The European 
Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee 
have all provided valuable input and recognise d the added value of action at EU level.  
The overall conclusion from the consultation is that there is broad agreement among 
stakeholders and interested parties that there is a role for the EU in the field of urban mobility 
                                                 
4 SEC(2007) 1209. 
5 A report on the stakeholder consultation will be made public on the Commission’s website before the 
Action Plan is adopted. 
6 A6-0252/2008/P6_TA-PROV(2008)0356. 
7 CdR 236/2007. 
8 TEN/320 - CESE 982/2008.  
9 http://www.ue2008.fr/PFUE/lang/en/accueil/PFUE-09_2008/PFUE-1.09.2008/Informelle_Transports. 
 
EN 5   EN in the form of action to support the local, re gional and national levels. While there were 
varying views expressed about which specific ac tions at the EU level could add value, the 
consultation has helped to identify 'common ground'.  
2. P ROBLEM DEFINITION  
The three overarching problems related to sust ainable mobility and transport in Europe’s 
urban areas are (1) road congest ion and the resultant costs; (2 ) harmful emissions, including 
greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and noise and their impact on health; and 
(3) imbalanced development with an impact on  social exclusion and economic growth. They 
are influenced by the challenges outlined in the Green Paper on urban mobility. Market forces 
are unable to solve these problems on their own.  Cities, regions and national governments are 
therefore all trying to identify th e right forms of intervention.  
In line with the principles and policies en shrined in the Treati es, the EU can, when 
appropriate, provide national, re gional and local authorities w ith policy guidance, frameworks 
and practical tools to help them achieve thei r objectives in the fiel d of sustainable urban 
mobility. At the same time, it can complement in itiatives taken at those levels with specific 
action to make them more coherent and support implementation.  
2.1. Fragmentation of local, regional and national approaches 
Looking at the various initia tives taken across the EU, a picture emerges of broad 
diversification of policies, action and fi nancing solutions. This is not a problem per se , but in 
some cases this fragmentation may not be cost -efficient or may pose risks to EU principles 
and to implementation of EU legislation. 
Member States and regional and local government s have therefore taken action themselves to 
overcome fragmentation. However, in some cases , action at EU level ca n add extra value by 
developing and suggesting coherent solutions or by helping to implement them more rapidly. 
In others, fragmentation at national level ha s an impact across borders. In some cases 
individual authorities have a direct  interest in addressing it, in ot hers they have not or they see 
a role for the Commission to take action. 
Fragmentation is an issue in demand manageme nt policies. Urban pr icing and road user 
charging, for example, sometimes in a hybrid form in combination with access regulations, 
has been introduced or is envisaged in differe nt forms in about 10 urban areas in Europe. 
Often, exemptions or discounts are offered for ce rtain types of vehicle. Authorities use their 
own criteria for these exemptions or discount s. The means of enforcement also vary.  
Low-emission environmental zones are a reveali ng example. Such zones are currently being 
established in about 70 cities in  the EU, with differ ent access rules and different enforcement 
methods. In some Member States, the rules ar e determined by national legislation while in 
others cities or regions can set their own rules.  
The access criteria  vary widely and include: 
• Euro pollutant emission standards; 
• Emission level for particulates only; 
• Equipment of vehicles with a particulate fi lter (without checks on actual emission levels); 
 
EN 6   EN • Equipment of vehicles with  a catalytic converter; 
• Weight, with local classi fications, varying for diffe rent vehicle categories; 
• Age, differentiated by vehicle category; 
• Vehicle technology (petrol, diesel, natural gas, LPG or electric); 
• Vehicle number plates (odd/even). 
Access criteria also vary across different e nvironmental zones in the same country. For 
example, in early 2008 Italy had si x different schemes with differe nt sets of access criteria in 
place. 
Access regulation  differs from one scheme to another.  Some schemes bar access of certain 
vehicles completely, others allow access up on payment of entrance fees, sometimes 
differentiated in line with locally  defined vehicle classifications. 
Enforcement  too uses different schemes and technologies. 
• London has installed an optical number plat e recognition system based on extensive 
camera observation and digital imag e processing. All foreign vehicl es need to register with 
Transport for London prior to entering the London low-emission zone that started on 
4 February 2008. Vehicles not re gistered have to pay pena lties of up to £1 000 per day. 
Vehicles in default wi ll be pursued by private tracking companies. 
• Most other cities rely on manual enforcement by the police. To facilitate this, vehicles need 
to be equipped with special plates, stickers, etc.  
The Commission receives regular reports from citizens, stakeholders and the European 
Parliament10 that this fragmentation limits freedom of movement of freight operators and 
travellers and, in some cases, leads to unequal treatment between local residents and other EU 
citizens.  
Fragmentation is also an issue for traveller in formation. It prevents intermodal travel where 
different modes are combin ed in a single journey.11. Long-distance rail or bus travellers find it 
difficult to obtain information on timetables or  fares for connecting local and regional public 
transport services. Car drivers on the long-dist ance TEN-T road network are confronted with 
non-harmonised travel information on connections with public tran sport services. This lack of 
information prevents travellers from making the shift from car to public transport for part of 
the journey.  
Another field where fragmentation is an issu e is mobility of persons with disabilities12.They 
are confronted with urban infrastructures, publi c transport systems and traveller services that 
                                                 
10 In 2008 about ten letters and two questions and a petition from the European Parliament have been 
received. These numbers might seem low, but th ey probably represent a much higher number of 
concerns that are not communicated to the Commission 
11 See “Towards passenger intermodality in the EU”, Report 3 (Recommendations), Dortmund, 2004. 
12 A person with reduced mobility or a disabled pe rson is every person whose mobility when using 
transport is reduced due to any physical disability (sensory or locomotor, permanent or temporary), 
intellectual, sensory disability or impairment, or any other cause of disability, or as a result of age, and 
 
EN 7   EN have been developed according to varying natio nal, regional and local standards. The Action 
Plan should fully address the needs of persons with reduced mobility a nd aim at eliminating 
obstacles and barriers to accessibility13.  
Fragmentation is costly for economic operators . Freight distributors have to match their 
delivery schedules with a vari ety of conditions and time windows for freight deliveries that 
are defined by each city or region individually. For example, a Dutch study14 estimated the 
additional costs of distribution to supermarke ts caused by local regulations at €100 million per 
year in the Netherlands. One third of the additio nal costs were caused by vehicle-type related 
restrictions, two thirds by time windows.  
Another study15 on freight transport includes various examples of environmental zones from 
across the EU. In one case, th e study refers to a potential significant increase of vehicle 
operator costs which, depending on the access rules introduced, can range between 0.1 and 
70% of vehicle operating costs. 
This fragmentation also brings cost s for manufacturers and operators. A study16 on the 
benefits of common requirements and standards fo r urban rail-based transport systems in the 
EU estimates the gains for the rail supply indus try at in the range of  €4.5 billion up until 2020. 
A report17 on the benefits of interchangeability of components and regulation in the light rail 
and metro market points to reductions in procurem ent costs of up to 25% as a result of joint 
procurement and 10% from lower production costs.  
Finally, fragmentation can be a barrier to i nnovation and market entr y of new technologies. 
Competition between specific innovative solutions  and new technologies is a good thing as it 
may drive competition. However, it may also  result in unnecessary costs. Spreading 
development costs over several pa rties with the aid of joint de velopment leads to economies 
of scale. It also allows parties to start implementation earlier, which brings additional 
financial benefits18.  
For example, the costs of implementation an d operation of an environmental zone in 
Copenhagen have been estimated at €50 – 110 million19. The investment costs for the 
congestion charge scheme in London were n early €205 million and the annual operating costs 
are in the range of €115 million20. Other cities could benefit si gnificantly from the work that 
                                                                                                                                                         
whose situation needs appropriate attention and adaptatio n to his particular needs of the service that is 
provided to all passengers 
13 Article 9 of the UN Convention on the rights of pers ons with disabilities mentions that parties, which 
include all Member States and the European Community , shall take appropriate measures to ensure to 
persons with disabilities access on equa l basis with others to transpor tation, including in urban areas, 
and that those measures shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to 
accessibility to inter a lia transportation. 
14 Research by TNO for the CBL (Centraal  Bureau Levensmiddelenhandel) in 2003. 
15 BESTUFS project, deliverable D 1.4, Policy and Research Recommendations,  2008. 
16 UNIFE Impact Assessment of a future  EU Directive on Urban Rail, 2004. 
17 Obstacles to the Internal Market in Rail Mass Transit, 2000. 
18 For example, earlier additional revenue in the case of charging schemes, parking management systems 
or flexible ticketing schemes for public transport. 
19 BESTUFS project, deliverable D 1.4, Policy and Research Recommendations,  2008. 
20 Costs of around £162 million were incurred in preparing the congestion charge scheme in London 
before it was launched in 2003. The major items of expenditure were for traffic management measures, 
communications and public information on the sche me, systems set-up and management. In 2005 the 
congestion charge revenue consisted of charge payments of £120 million and penalty payments of 
 
EN 8   EN has already been done and the experience ga ined with innovative schemes like in London. 
Joint procurement is another means of reduc ing costs and pushing market take-up of new 
technology. The Action Plan coul d look at how EU mechanisms can provide stronger support 
for the introduction of innovative solutions and new technologies. 
These examples might, however, create the impr ession that policy-makers have to choose 
between promoting harmonisation or promoting innovation. But it is not a matter of choice. 
Both approaches are usually considered importa nt in their own right and, at the same time, 
can strengthen each other, especially in cases where broad rules are laid down, but the details 
are shaped by innovation and compet ition between solutions. This is also the approach that 
Member States often follow for urban mobility policies. 
The examples given above suggest that cities, re gions and Member States apply solutions that 
might bring unnecessary cost s, hamper cross-border transport or affect efficient functioning of 
the internal market. This is the reason for furt her investigation of developments at local, 
regional and national levels. It also provides a basis for identifying tools and mechanisms at 
EU level that can support policy-making at  local, regional and national levels.  
2.2. Lack of initiative, lack of knowledge and experience 
Besides fragmentation of approaches, inaction or inappropriate action by local, regional and 
national authorities may have an impact across borders.  
According to the Green Paper, the delays a nd pollution caused by ch ronic congestion cost 
almost 1% of the EU’s GDP. Road congestion in the EU has been considered mainly an 
“urban problem”21. Also according to the Green Paper, tra ffic in urban areas is responsible for 
40% of CO 2 emissions and for 70% of other pollutants from road transport. One out of every 
three fatal road accidents takes place in an urban area. 
Road safety, economic efficiency, social inclusion and the fight against climate change are all 
issues on which Member States have decided to act jointly. In the field of urban mobility, the 
European Union can play a leading role in fo cusing attention on these issues and facilitating 
action by local, regional a nd national authorities. 
Collecting and sharing data and statistics are necessary for the proper design of policies. 
There is no comprehensive information on de velopments in urban mobility, for example 
regarding the urban public transport and freight markets22, including on the quality of 
services, emissions and social in clusion. This lack of data can be partly explained by the fact 
that some cities and regions do not have th e resources or expertise to collect them.  
                                                                                                                                                         
£70 million, i.e. £190 million in total. Transport for London’s direct operating costs were around 
£5 million. In addition, it paid the service providers that operate the scheme around £85 million. 
Source: Central London Congestion Charging Scheme: ex-post evaluation of the quantified impacts of 
the original scheme, 29 June 2007. 
21 COMPETE study (2003). 
22 See NPF urban transport final report:  
 http://www.transport-research.info/web/proj ects/project_details.cfm?id=2796&page=contact. 
 
EN 9   EN There is also a lack of definitions, data-sharing mechanisms and trend analysis. The result is 
that relevant local, regional and national trends23 cannot be monitored and compared 
effectively by policy-makers at all levels.  
Information-sharing can be an effective means to support policy-making at local, regional and 
national levels. There is currently no compre hensive and consolidated overview of practice 
and experience on urban mobility and transport at  EU level. Cities with less experience, 
knowledge and financial resources find it difficult to make use of the practice and experience 
built up by cities that are more advanced in the area of sustainable urban mobility for lack of information-sharing tools. The EU lacks effect ive information platforms to provide insights 
into relevant EU legislation and funding opport unities. This means that, for example, the 
opportunities provided by the regional policy fi nancial instruments and the European 
Investment Bank are not fully seized.  
The Action Plan could offer tool s to improve this situation.  
2.3. Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent?  
Mobility and transport bring ma ny benefits to society and to the economy. At the same time, 
problems caused by urban mobility affect businesses and the majority of European citizens who live in or travel to and from urban areas.  
Emissions and noise result in illness and premature deaths of EU citizens
24. They also damage 
the EU economy and have a negative effect on bus iness, which is confronted with congestion.  
Urban transport is the service of general interest with which consumers in the EU are least 
satisfied and consumers in the new Member States  are even less satisfie d with urban transport 
than other EU citizens25. Furthermore, consumers have to deal with fragmented information 
systems and non-streamlined solutions. Persons with reduced mobility don't always have access on an equal basis with others to urban transport. 
Without an appropriate dissemination of tested  solutions, policy-makers develop solutions 
with unnecessarily high costs, design policies that take insuffi cient account of experience 
elsewhere or propose solutions that could conf lict with EU principles or legislation.  
Policy-makers in new Member States face sp ecific challenges. Economic development is 
leading to rapidly rising car ow nership and use. The lack of sufficiently adapted tools means 
that the improvements made to urban transpor t do not always meet the minimum standards 
required for sustainable deve lopment and social cohesion. 
2.4. What would happen if nothing were done?  
To gain an insight into the most important mobility, economic, social and environmental 
trends and challenges in the field of urban m obility and transport at EU level, an indicative 
                                                
 
23 For example, coherent data sets at EU or national level are not available on “contexts” (population 
density, car ownership, etc.), “input s” (investments, quality of fleets, etc.) and “outcomes” (modal split, 
passenger-km, tonne-km, safety, etc.). 
24 Impact Assessment of the Thematic Strategy on Ai r Pollution and the Directive on Ambient Air Quality 
and Cleaner Air for Europe, 21 September 2005. 
25 European Commission consumer  satisfaction survey (2007): 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/serv_gen/cons_satisf/consumer_service_finrep_en.pdf. 
 
EN 10   EN baseline scenario was developed using input from the TREMOVE26 model and from other 
sources. An overview of the baseline scenario is given in Annex III. It incorporates the policy 
initiatives in the “partial impl ementation” scenario of the late st publicly available version of 
TREMOVE (version 2.7)27.  
This means that the existing direction of EU policies28 that have an impact on urban mobility 
remains unchanged and that no “trend breaks” are foreseen.  
If nothing were done at EU level, individual solutions at local and regional level would 
continue to develop. This is not a problem as such, as different approaches are often also 
followed at Member State level. However, auth orities, citizens and businesses could benefit 
from the tools and guidance that the EU could offer them. 
If nothing were done at EU leve l, freight distributors, for ex ample, would continue to be 
constrained by the varying conditions and time wi ndows for freight deliveries that have been 
set by each city or region individually. Long-d istance passengers would continue to suffer 
from the lack of understandable travel inform ation on connecting local transport services, on 
parking and access regulations, on access rules for persons with reduced mobility, etc. 
Moreover, in some cases they would still be co nfronted with schemes that apply to locally 
registered vehicles only. This would hamper the smooth functioning of the internal market 
and fluid mobility within the EU.  
If nothing were done at EU leve l, due to lack of working together and uncertainty about 
standardisation, the market take-up of new tech nologies would be slower  than policy-makers 
would like and authorities would invest unnece ssary resources in their own developments. 
Furthermore, it would remain difficult to share best practice and monitor trends, leading to 
ineffective policy-making and imperfect insights into market developments. This would also 
prevent benchmarking, which is considered a good means for policymakers to learn and 
improve.  
2.5. The EU’s right to act  
The Treaties delimit the range of powers of the EU. The subject of urban mobility and 
transport falls under Article 70 of the Treaty which provides for a common transport policy29. 
Articles 71(c) and 71(d) are releva nt to urban mobility and trans port. They state that for the 
                                                 
26 http://www.tremove.org/index.htm. 
27 See Annex III. 
28 Urban mobility cuts across various policy areas inside the Commission. For example, it is linked to 
areas of the common transpor t policy such as public service obligations in public transport, road safety, 
intelligent transport and successful development of th e trans-European transport network. It is linked 
with energy and climate change policies on promo tion of energy efficiency in transport and of 
alternative fuels. It is linked with environment and health policy in fields such as air pollution and 
noise. Investments in urban transport contribute to economic development and territorial cohesion, the 
prime objectives of regional policy. Urban mobility is also linked with research and innovation policy in connection with the development of clean technologies and policy-related RTD. Advanced transport 
infrastructure and electronic services are part of the wider information society agenda. Urban mobility 
is linked with the social agenda via issues such as inclusion and mobility for all. It is linked with 
enterprise and industrial policy, for example in the cases of emission limits of vehicles, standardisation 
and tourism policy. And, via public procurement, it is linked to policy on the internal market. 
29 The Commission can also make specific proposals on the basis of articles other than Article 70. For 
example, to address specific problems related to urban mobility and transport it could use articles 
covering environment policy (Articles 174 and 175) or economic and social cohesion (Article 158). 
 
EN 11   EN purpose of implementing Article 70 the Council and the European Parliament will lay down 
measures to improve transport safety and any other appropriate provisions. Responsibility for 
transport is shared between the EU and Me mber States. The arguments set out below 
demonstrate that the problem cannot be solved  in an optimum way by the Member States 
alone (necessity test) and that the objectives can be better achieved at EU level (added value test). More extensive material is presented in Annex IV. 
The right to act at EU level in the field of urban mobility also stems from the Commission’s 
obligation to achieve and protect the f undamental goals set out in the Treaty . EU legislation 
and financial instruments directly affect local,  regional and national deci sions in the field of 
urban mobility. The Commission is therefore empowered to ensure that these decisions are in line with EU legislation and to help authorities to implement EU policies and make best use of EU funding. In addition, action taken in the field of urban m obility at local, regional and 
national levels directly affects freight operators and travellers from other countries. This 
cross-border impact justifies EU action to en sure smooth functioning of the single market and 
proper implementation of EU policies and legi slation, for example in the field of the 
environment, State aid, the social age nda or research and development.  
As mentioned above, market failures in the fi eld of urban mobility make public intervention 
necessary in order to address the problem s of congestion, pollution and imbalanced 
development. The EU has a right to ensure that  this public intervention is in line with EU 
legislation and coherent with EU policies . EU policies in areas other than transport, such as 
the environment, regional policy or energy, have  in the past already developed measures 
related to urban mobility. Insufficient attention ha s been paid to the possible impact of these 
policies on urban mobility and transport. An nex II provides an in itial overview of EU 
initiatives and legislation of relevance to urba n mobility. In some cases, appropriate tools and 
instruments to support authoritie s have not been made availabl e, have not been taken up or 
have not taken sufficient accoun t of urban mobility issues. Now it is important to propose 
actions that add value, streng then coherence and support imple mentation of such past and 
present EU initiatives.  
The EU also has a right to act to address those problems wh ere public intervention at EU level 
brings added value.  Without impinging on the powers of the local, regional or national 
authority in charge, the EU can bring added value to local action in different ways30. The EU 
can offer authorities a toolbox with  tried and tested solutions to  address the risks caused by 
fragmentation of local, regional and national approaches. The EU can help to correct 
regulatory failures, for example in the form of  insufficient collection and sharing of market 
data, which prevents comprehensive monitoring of relevant trends. It can support data and 
information exchange, offer financial support and launch RTD activities. It can help to 
promote efficient use of public resources, for example by avoiding reinventing the wheel or 
by joining forces in benchmarking, procurement or  information provision. It can also help to 
promote innovation and standards and to create markets for industry.  
                                                 
30 The basis for the EU action in urban areas is strengthened by the Thematic Strategy on the Urban 
Environment (COM(2005) 718), which was mandated by the Council and European Parliament through 
the 6th  Environment Action Programme.  
 
EN 12   EN  
3. O BJECTIVES  
The EU faces the general challenge of facilitating and stimulating sustainable and more 
streamlined development of urban mobility to  meet fundamental economic, environmental 
and social objectives. The general and specific objectives are outlined below. They contribute 
to the strategic objectives set by the Lis bon Strategy and the Sustainable Development 
Strategy. They also contribute to policy objectives in sectors such as the environment, energy, 
health, cohesion, the internal market and social policy.  
General objective 
The general objective is to contribute to progress towards sustainable urban mobility in the 
EU which fosters competitiveness, does not harm the environment and promotes a more 
cohesive and inclusive society.  
Specific objectives 
The following specific objectives in the area of sustainable urban mobility were identified in 
the Green Paper and confirmed in the consultation process: 
(1) Provide local, regional and national authorities with tools that can help to strengthen, 
when appropriate, the coherence of local solutions and reduce duplication of effort. 
These tools can support authorities, work ing closely with stakeholders, with 
achieving: 
 1.1 Free-flowing towns and cities;  1.2 Greener towns and cities;  1.3 Smarter urban transport;  1.4 Accessible urban transport;  1.5 Safe and secure urban transport. 
 
(2) Strengthen EU support for local, regional and national authorities’ efforts to 
contribute to EU objectives and for the development and implementation of integrated policy in the area of urban mobility, by: 
 2.1 Improving information exchange, da ta collection and knowledge-building; 
 2.2 Focusing EU financial instruments.  
 
 
EN 13   EN  
4. P OLICY OPTIONS  
Different policy options are avai lable to achieve the specific objectives. This chapter provides 
an overview of the screening process that star ted with a long list of possible policy options 
and ended with a shortlist of policy options. The screening process consis ted of three steps:  
- Step 1: Identification of policy options; 
- Step 2: Screening on subsidiarity;  - Step 3: Screening on efficiency, effectiveness and consistency.  In addition, this chapter offers information on the level of support from stakeholders for each 
option. However, stakeholder support is not considered in the screening process.  
Background material is in cluded in Annex V.  
4.1. From the long list to the shortlist 
Step 1: Identification of policy options
 
A long list of possible polic y options was compiled, drawing on various sources:  
(1) past and ongoing work carried out in the framework of policy initiatives, RTD 
activities and best practice exchange, for example CIVITAS31 and ELTIS32; 
(2) work carried out and contributions received to support preparation of the Green Paper 
on urban mobility; 
(3) contributions received during the stakeh older consultation on the Green Paper on 
urban mobility; 
(4) outcome of the technical workshops and conf erence held as part of the consultation 
process; 
(5) discussions in the European Parliament, the Council, the Committee of the Regions 
and the European Economic and Social Committee; 
(6) desk research under the study contract;  
(7) input from European Commission staff.  
This broad approach made it possible to review a wide variety of polic y options, ranging from 
a more strategic to a more practical level. The long list includes options that may not seem 
likely or desirable but that were  put forward by stakeholders. This means that some of the 
policy options might seem problematic, because of  the subsidiarity principle or because they 
might not seem efficient or effective. However,  for reasons of transparency, they were not 
excluded in advance.  
                                                 
31 www.civitas-initiative.eu. 
32 www.eltis.org. 
 
EN 14   EN 
 
EN 15   EN Table 1: Overview of the long list of policy options 
Free-flowing towns and cities 
1. Require cities to set modal split targets 
There are many ways in which cities can in fluence modal split, i.e. the relative shares  of each mode of tr ansport. This policy 
option proposes to require cities to set modal split targets, in cluding larger shares for sustainable modes, but leaving them 
free to decide how to achieve them. The objective would be to  increase the share of sustainable modes in urban mobility and 
transport.  
2. Ban private car use in city centres 
Many cities have banned cars from their ce ntres, for example by means of pedestrian isation schemes, physical restrictions 
or regulatory measures. These have improved environmenta l quality and liveability in those city centres. Some cities are 
gradually extending these areas. This policy option proposes to require all cities to ban cars from their centres (although 
allowing exceptions) in areas that do not comply with EU e nvironmental legislation. The objective would be to obtain a 
substantial improvement in environmental quality and liveability in city centres. 
3. Ban on-street parking in city centres 
Many cities are banning on-street parking in their centres. This is  done either to improve the traffic capacity or to widen the  
pavements or install cycle infrastructure. The latter improves environmental quality and liveability in those streets. This 
policy option proposes to require all cities to ban on-street pa rking in their centres, which implicitly would push for more 
carparks and more parking on private properties. The objective would be to obtain a substantial improvement in 
environmental quality and liveability in city centres. 
4. Recognise efforts of cities to  improve sustainable urban mobility 
A labelling scheme could be used to re cognise the efforts of pioneering cities to combat congestion and improve living 
conditions. Recognition at European level of serious efforts made by cities can be expected to act as a stimulus. And it could 
serve as a magnet to attract funding and for industries and bu sinesses looking for new locations for their activities. European  
recognition could be combined w ith an award and/or financial grant for the “best” cities.  
5. Provide information on access limit ations for road users in cities 
An increasing number of cities are introdu cing limitations on access to urban areas for motor vehicles in the form of 
environmental zones or road user charging. Both measures should reduce pollutant emissions and contribute to meeting the 
obligations arising from EU air quality legislation. Road  use charging and parking pricing are also seen by some 
stakeholders as an effective way to raise revenue for transport investments and to manage demand. In addition, they could 
fit into the broader policy perspective of internalisation of external costs. Many different schemes are appearing. The 
objective would be to provide information to citizens, transport providers and decision-makers.  
6. Promote more efficient urban f reight distribution and logistics 
Urban freight transport is sometimes forgotten by local policy-makers. This policy action would incorporate the urban 
activities included in the 2007 Freight Logistics Action Pl an (dissemination of best practice, recommendations on 
benchmarks and indicators and reinforcement of CIVITAS) . Additional activities could, however, be launched and 
recommendations for policy-makers prepared.  
Greener towns and cities 
7. Internalise the external costs of urban transport 
Transport imposes external costs on society that are not fully paid for by those benefiting from the services. The objective of  
this policy option would be to make the users in all urban areas pay for the external costs that they cause to others and to 
society in general. As a first step, this policy option could focus on developing information material for cities, information 
exchange and networking activities. 
 
EN 16   EN 8. Require cities to set targets for CO 2 emissions from urban transport 
Some local authorities have expressed the wish to take resp onsibility for addressing climate change. They can influence the 
vehicles used in their city and implement policy measures th at lead to more energy-effici ent urban mobility. This action 
proposes to require all local authorities to set targets for CO 2 emissions from urban mobility and transport, leaving them free 
to decide how to achieve them. The objective would be to lower CO 2 emissions from urban mobility and transport.  
9. Require zero CO 2 propulsion for urban public transport 
City and urban authorities have extensive influence over the vehi cles used in public transport, either because they own them 
or because they write the specifications in the public service contracts. This policy option pr oposes to require cities to work  
towards zero CO 2 emissions from urban public transport by a given date in the long term, leaving them free to decide how 
to achieve this. The objective would be to lower CO 2 emissions from urban mobility and transport. 
10. Promote “green” procuremen t by public authorities 
Joint public procurement of vehi cles will speed up, in a cost-effective way, repl acement of older vehicles operated by public 
authorities or by private operators under public service contract s. The aim of this policy option would be to bring potential 
buyers together in consortia so that lower prices can be obtai ned as a result of economies of scale. In addition, possible 
administrative barriers at national, regional and local levels to  joint procurement would be overcome. This contributes to the 
objective of more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly urban mobility.  
11. Promote take-up of clean and energy-effici ent vehicle technology and alternative fuels 
Reduction of pollutant emissions and energy consumption from ve hicles are key objectives of EU policy. EU legislation has 
progressively lowered the limits for polluta nt emissions from motor vehicles. But lead times for mandatory compliance are 
long and the latest Euro 6 standard will not start to apply until 2014. Member States, however, can use incentives to 
stimulate earlier uptake. Market introduction of alternative fuels has been promoted in Community policy. Member States, 
however, have used different measures, with the focus on diffe rent alternative fuels, leadin g in some cases to fragmented 
markets and limitations in vehicle operation across Europe due to heterogeneous infrastructure. This option proposes to 
provide information on support schemes for clean and energy-e fficient vehicles and alternativ e fuels along with a product 
overview. This contributes to the objective of more ener gy-efficient and environmentally friendly urban mobility. 
12. Require designation of “green” zones in sensitive areas 
An increasing number of cities are designating environmenta l or “green” zones in sensitive areas, for example to tackle 
environmental problems. This policy option proposes requiring all cities to designate such zones in a harmonised way for 
sensitive areas that do not comply with EU environmental legislation, for example in the field of air quality. The objective would be to obtain a substantial improvement in en vironmental quality and liveability in urban areas. 
13. Harmonise rules for environmental zones 
However laudable the initiatives are, the fragmentation that is resulting from the local initiatives to address the 
environmental problems by means of environmental zones is confusing travellers and freight operators and might run 
counter to the philos ophy of the internal market. The ob jective would be to have rules for access and vehicle identification 
that are coherent and easily understood by  all citizens and businesses in the EU for cities interested in using this policy too l. 
Smarter urban transport 
14. Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport 
Improving the interoperability, which could in volve standardisation, of ticketing and payment systems is aimed at allowing 
seamless use of the public transport system by passengers paying to use the system and also by users of other transport 
infrastructure (for example, car users who are charged for ro ad use or who use park-and-rid e to combine car and public 
transport or cyclists who pay for guarded bicycle stands at stations). The objective of this policy action would be to make it 
easier to use public transport and to  combine private and public modes. 
 
EN 17   EN 15. Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information 
Harmonisation and provision of travel information across differe nt transport modes and cities will promote use of public 
transport by different kinds of short- and long-distance travellers. This policy option proposes to make it easier for non-
regular users to use public transport, for example by providing information on the internet and by more user-friendly signs. 
This should be seen against the backgrou nd of the changing expectations of different societal groups. The objective would 
be to make public transport easier to use for non-regular users and for visitors.   
Accessible urban transport 
16. Require transport impact assessments as  a precondition for planning permission 
Urban development is often decided without sufficient cons ideration of the consequences for urban mobility and the 
transport system. This policy option would aim at imposing an ob ligation on authorities to assess this impact before granting 
planning permission. This would ensure that the consequences  of spatial developments on urban mobility, such as extra 
traffic on the roads or developments at locations that are difficult to reach by public transport or by bicycle, would be 
known before a decision is taken on planning permission. The overall obj ective would be to improve accessibility and 
mobility in urban areas. 
17. Require establishment of urban mobility authorities 
The division of transport planning resp onsibilities is inefficient in many cases and often does not permit solutions that are 
necessary to meet urban mobility needs and solve urban transp ort problems in an integrated way. In addition, spatial 
development, transport planning, economic development and operation of transport services extend across city boundaries. Requiring establishment of urban mobility authorities in all major urban areas might help solve these problems.  
18. Require adoption of SUTPs as  a condition for EU funding 
The idea of promoting sustainable urban transport plans (SUTPs) was launched by the European Commission as part of the 
Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment. Under this polic y option, any city or region requesting EU financial support 
for urban mobility projects from the regional policy instrument s, the RTD Framework Programme  or any other EU financial 
programme would be required to adopt such a plan. This might give a significant stimulus to comprehensive, integrated 
planning for sustainable urban mobility. The objective would be to achieve more sustainable patterns of land use and mobility in urban areas. 
19. Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport 
This policy option combines the ideas behind options 17 and 18 but would aim at promoting use of sustainable urban 
transport or mobility plans in combination with setting up  the appropriate structures for voluntary cooperation. The 
objective would be to provide guidance, information and suppor t to authorities which want to prepare integrated plans.  
20. Improve coordination between ur ban mobility and land-use planning 
Land-use patterns and intensity have clear implications for the demand for mobility and for how the demand for mobility 
can be met. This policy option would support stakeholders  in improving coordination between mobility and land-use 
planning at an early stage, resulting in reducing the demand for mobility and transport and in more rational development of 
the transport network. This would contri bute to reducing congestion and pollution and lowering costs for infrastructure 
development and public transport services  per passenger- and freight-kilometre. 
21. Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport 
One of the barriers to use of public tran sport is that users often have little or no redress when services are interrupted, whe n 
scheduled services are late or in other cases of non-delivery by the operator. On the other hand, public transport providers 
have to bear the costs of passengers who damage their vehicles, trains, etc. This policy option would bring together a set of 
basic rights and obligations in a common framework. This would contribute to improving the image and quality of public 
transport. The overall objective would be to raise the quality of urban public transport and make it more attractive to 
travellers. 
 
EN 18   EN 22. Improve accessibility of public transport 
There are two dimensions to accessibility: geographic and physical. The pu blic transport system s hould be available to all 
citizens, not just citizen s living in certain areas. The pub lic transport system should also be accessible to all citizens, 
regardless of their physical, cultural and socio-economic status. The objective of this policy option would be to improve the accessibility of public transp ort for all city residents, allowing better and easier access to all activities. 
23. Require operators to accept bicy cles in urban public transport 
The option for travellers to take their bi cycle onto public transport vehicles offers  a flexible way to facilitate door-to-door  
travel, even if the origin and/or destination are not near a public transport stop. In congested areas, this combination of 
modes can outperform the private car, for example in terms of  speed. Some public transport operators accept bicycles on 
certain vehicles, some only outside rush hours and some not at all. This policy option proposes to require all operators to 
accept bicycles at certain harmonised pe riods. The objective would be to impr ove the competitive po sition of public 
transport and the bicycle ag ainst private car use.  
Safe and secure urban transport 
24. Promote safe walking and safe cycling 
Walking and cycling are two separate modes of transport. Each of them has its own strengths and weaknesses and has 
different potential both as a “single mode” and as one link in a trip-chain. However, in gene ral terms, walking and cycling 
are well suited for short trips (under 5 km) and in urban areas a very large proportion of all trips are shorter than 5 km. 
There are still many short-distance car trips that could be made on foot or by bicycle. The objective would be to encourage 
authorities to improve the conditions for safe walking and safe cy cling. One aspect that could be looked at is separation of 
traffic flows. 
25. Raise the minimum age for driving licences to 25 
Young car drivers and motorcycle riders are involved in a disproportionate number of tr affic accidents. As their age 
increases, drivers become more careful. This policy option pr oposes to require national authorities to increase the minimum 
age for the final driving test from 18 to 25 years. After an in itial test, persons between 18 and 25 years could be issued with  
a temporary licence that could easily be withdrawn. The objective would be to improve urban road safety.  
Cross-cutting issues 
26. Improve data harmonisation, co llection, validation and reporting 
Accurate, timely, comparable and relevant information is the basis for making effective polic y choices. Currently, there is 
no single source of information on the situation of urban mobility  and transport in all Europe’s cities. The objective of this 
policy option would be to provide policy-makers with such information, strengthening the basis for policy-making on urban 
mobility and transport. This initiative will have to add value to  existing data and information platforms and will need to take  
account of financial and organisational limit ations. In the longer term, working cl osely with other Commission departments 
such as EUROSTAT and DG REGIO, the action c ould result in a permanent monitoring system. 
27. Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice 
A wealth of knowledge and experience on urban mobility has been built up using local, regional, national and EU funding. 
This policy option aims to improve access and use and to increase the amount and the quality of the information available. It 
could include compilation of an overview of relevant legislation and funding opportunities. 
28. Intensify research, development and demonstration activities 
Innovative solutions already play a key role in operation and the performance of the urban mobility and transport system. 
RTD could be intensified to play an even bigger role in helping to address the mobility problems in urban areas. One area 
that could be given specific attention is RTD to support development of intelligent Galileo applications. Another area could 
cover integrated demonstration initiatives such as CIVITAS.  The objective of this policy option would be to promote 
innovation in urban mobility and transport. 
 
EN 19   EN 29. Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving 
Key factors that influence energy consumption and emissions and that can help to optimise use of the transport system are 
modal choice, travel behaviour and driving style. These can be influenced by information, communication and marketing campaigns, organising services and coordination activities. Th is policy option includes, for example, mobility management, 
awareness campaigns and stimulating eco-driving with the ai d of awareness-raising activitie s and, where appropriate, 
training for driving licences. Th e objective would be to make better use of ex isting capacity and reduce energy consumption 
and emissions with the aid of more  sustainable travel behaviour.  
30. Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport 
This policy option would aim at increasing cities’ access to EU financial mechanisms  for urban transport measures. Further 
opening-up of existing instruments or development of additional funding opportunities could also be considered, perhaps in 
cooperation with the EIB. The Commission could also address use of the Structural Funds for improving not only integrated 
urban transport and public transport systems but also connections between urban transport systems and the TEN-T network. 
The objective would be to stimulate investment in renewal and innovation in urban transport, especially in new Member 
States.  
31. Require implementation of a “value-capture tax” 
Transport improvements often lead to an increase in the market value of properties that are served by the improvement. This 
gain normally accrues to the owners, wherea s the costs are borne by the authorities or  the transpor t providers. Some city 
authorities use various financial instruments to make the benefiting proprietors contribute (part of) the costs of the improvements. This policy option proposes to require introduction of a harmonised tax to capture the value increases of 
property as a result of improvements in urban transport. The objective would be to lower the cost of transport improvements 
for authorities. 
 
Step 2: Screening on subsidiarity  
Each policy option on the long list was scr eened on subsidiarity at the level of each 
instrument that could (theoretically) be used fo r implementation. If the op tion failed this test, 
it was no longer taken into account and no further analysis was carried out. Details are provided in Annex V.  
Step 3: Screening on efficiency, effectiveness and consistency 
 
Each policy option that successfully passed st ep 2 was screened against the efficiency, 
effectiveness and consistency crit eria. The policy options that su ccessfully passed step 3 were 
put on the shortlist. A detailed explanation of the scoring is provided in Annex V.  
The screening on subsidiarity and on efficienc y, effectiveness and consistency reduced the 
long list of 31 options to a shortlist of 18 policy options. Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 
18, 23, 25 and 31 were discarded.  
The following policy options were ke pt on the shortlis t (see Table 2):  
 
EN 20   EN Table 2: Overview of the shortlisted policy options 
Free-flowing towns and cities 
5 Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities 
6 Promote more efficient urban fr eight distribution and logistics 
Greener towns and cities 
7 Internalise the external costs of urban mobility 
10 Promote “green” procurement by public authorities 
11 Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficien t vehicle technology and alternative fuels  
13 Harmonise rules for environmental zones  
Smarter urban transport 
14 Improve the interoperability of ticketi ng and payment systems for public transport 
15 Improve harmonisation and provisi on of travel information  
Accessible urban transport 
19 Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport  
20 Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning 
21 Strengthen the rights and obligatio ns of users of public transport 
22 Improve accessibility of public transport 
Safe and secure urban transport 
24 Promote safe walking and safe cycling 
Cross-cutting issues 
26 Improve data harmonisation, colle ction, validation and reporting 
27 Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice 
28 Intensify research, developmen t and demonstration activities 
29 Promote awareness and behaviour al change, including eco-driving 
30 Promote investment in integrated urba n transport, including public transport 
 
4.2. Stakeholder support 
The support from stakeholders for each polic y option gives valuable background information 
for the decision-making process but is not c onsidered in the formal screening process. 
Therefore, the level of acceptability of the different policy options by stakeholders was 
assessed. This assessment was based on the re sults of the stakehol der consultation on the 
Green Paper on urban mobility. All policy options on the long lis t were assessed.  
 
EN 21   EN Annex I provides a summary of the level of su pport for the policy optio ns from stakeholders. 
However, as stated earlier, st akeholder support is not taken into account in  the selection 
process. Only Chapter 6, where shortlisted policy options are discussed and possible action 
identified, gives information on stakeholder support.  
5. A NALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE SHORTLISTED OPTIONS  
This chapter analyses the impact of the shor tlisted policy options. The assessment is based on 
indicators covering mobility, c ongestion, energy, the environment,  economic and social issues 
and policy-making. These indicators are consistent  with the indicators used in the baseline 
scenario and show the contribution made to wards achieving the relevant objective.  
Table 3 presents an overview of the shortlisted policy options , of the indicat ors and of the 
fields on which they have an  impact. A detailed descripti on of the impact of each policy 
option, in qualitative and/ or quantitative terms, is  provided in Annex VI.  
It should be borne in mind that each kind of im pact is considered independently, but that in 
reality different impacts are inter-related. This might lead to synergie s or could result in 
contradictory impacts33. Impacts are also influenced by the instrument selected for 
implementation once the actions are decided. For this reason, this impact assessment cannot 
be exhaustive. Every kind of impact is given th e same weight. Indirect impacts have not been 
taken into account.  
Some general conclusions can be drawn from th e impact analysis. It is assumed that policy 
options that receive a large num ber of ticks in Table 3 under a specific cluster of indicators 
(such as mobility or congestion) make the mo st integrated contribution. This does not imply 
that a large number of ticks means that a gi ven policy option makes th e best contribution.  
–  Most integrated c ontribution overall:  
– Policy option 7 (internalisa tion of external costs); 
– Policy option 20 (coordination of planning); 
– Policy option 30 (investment). 
These options contribute to a particul arly wide range of indicators.  
–  Most integrated contributi on to the economic indicators: 
– Policy option 6 (urban freight); 
– Policy option 11 (vehicles and fuels); 
– Policy option 13 (environmental zones); 
– Policy option 14 (ticketing interoperability). 
The positive economic impact of these policy opti ons stems from the lower costs for operators 
due to fewer freight vehicle-kilometres and to nne-hours lost (option 6), a better investment 
climate (option 6), increased industrial producti on resulting from higher demand (options 11 
and 14), a stronger competitive position for the EU industry (options 11 and 14) and lower 
administrative costs (option 13).  
                                                 
33 See Section 6.1 for a discussion of synergies. 
 
EN 22   EN  
–  Most integrated contribution to  the environmental indicators: 
– Policy option 6 (urban freight); 
– Policy option 7 (internalisation); 
– Policy option 10 (green procurement); 
– Policy option 11 (vehicles and fuels); 
– Policy option 20 (coordination of planning); 
– Policy option 22 (accessibility); 
– Policy option 24 (walking and cycling); 
– Policy option 29 (awareness); 
– Policy option 30 (investment). 
The positive environmental impact of these policy options stems from lower emissions caused 
by a reduction of vehicle-kilome tres (options 6, 7 and 20), a higher market share of 
environmentally friendly vehicl es (options 10 and 11), lower emissions caused by smoother 
driving (option 29) and a modal shift towa rds public transport (options 29 and 30).  
–  Most integrated contributi on to the social indicators: 
– Policy option 6 (urban freight); 
– Policy option 7 (internalisation); 
– Policy option 11 (vehicles and fuels); 
– Policy option 22 (accessibility); 
– Policy option 24 (walking and cycling); 
– Policy option 29 (awareness). 
The positive social impact of these policy options  stems from the positive impact on health as 
a result of lower emission levels (options 6, 7, 11, 24 and 29), increased road safety (options 
7, 9 and 24) and higher levels of social inclusion (option 22).  
–  Best contribution to public transport use:  
The assessment also provides a means of id entifying policy options that make a positive 
contribution to one specific indicator. For ex ample, policy options 7 (internalisation), 14 
(ticketing interoperability), 15 (travel inform ation), 19 (integrated pl anning), 20 (coordination 
of planning), 21 (user rights), 22 (accessibility) and 30 (investments) all contribute to an 
increase in public transp ort passenger-kilometres.  
–  Best contribution to social inclusion: 
Positive contributions are made to the social inclusion indicator by policy options 15 (travel 
information), 19 (integrated planning) and 30 (investment) and the public-transport-related 
options 14 (ticketing interoperability), 21 (use r rights) and 22 (accessibility). These public-
transport-related options should, however, be de veloped in a way that attracts existing car 
drivers and not pedestrians or cyclists. If the m easures were mainly to attract the latter, their 
impact would be less positive. 
– - Best contribution to policy-making:  
Policy options 5 (information on access limitations), 26 (data), 27 (dissemination) and 28 
(research) contribute specifically to providi ng a stronger basis for policy-making. The same 
also applies to policy options 10 (green procurement), 13 (environmental zones), 19 
(integrated planning), 20 (coordinati on of planning) and 29 (awareness). 
 
EN 23   EN Table 3: Overview of policy options on the shortlist, indicators and impact  Policy option number Indicators J  
Decline in private car vehicle-km 
Increase in public transport passenger-km 
Increase in non-mo torised vehicle-km 
Decline in passenger-hours lost 
Decline in tonne-hours lost 
Decline in energy consumption in Mtoe 
Decline in GHG emissions 
Decline in air-polluting emissions 
Impact on admin. costs for business 
Increased competition in internal market 
Improvement of social inclusion 
Decrease in traffic fatalities 
Improvement of health impact of emissions 
Improvement of health impact of noise 
Stronger basis for policy-making 
  Mobility Congestion Ener
gy Environment Economy Social Policy 
Free-flowing towns and cities 
5 Provide information on access limitations for 
road use rs in cities               √ 
6 Promote more efficient urban freight 
distribution and logistics     √ √ √ √ √ √  √ √ √  
Greener towns and cities 
7 Internalise the external costs of urban 
transport√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √    √ √ √  
10 Promote “green” procurement by public 
authorities      √ √ √     √  √ 
11 Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient 
vehicle technology and alternative fuels       √ √ √ √ √  √ √ √  
13 Harmonise rules for environmental zones          √ √     √ 
Smarter urban trans port 
14 Improve the interoperability of ticketing and 
payment systems for public transport √ √  √     √ √ √     
15 Improve harmonisation and provision of travel 
information  √ √  √ √      √   √  
Accessible urban transport 
19 Promote integrated planning for urban 
mobility and transport √ √ √ √ √ √     √ √   √ 
20 Improve coordination between urban mobility 
and land-use planning √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √  √   √ √ 
21 Strengthen the rights and obligations of users 
of public transport √ √         √     
22 Improve accessibility of public transport √ √  √ √ √ √ √   √  √ √  
Safe and secure urban transport 
24 Promote safe walking and safe cycling √  √ √ √ √ √ √   √ √ √ √  
Cross-cutting issues 
26 Improve data harmonisation, collection, 
validation and reporting               √ 
27 Improve dissemination of knowledge and best 
practice               √ 
28 Intensify research, development and 
demonstration activities               √ 
29 Promote awareness and behavioural change, 
including eco-driving      √ √ √    √ √ √ √ 
30 Promote investment in integrated urban 
transport, including public transport √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √   √     
 
 
EN 24   EN 6. C OMPARING AND ASSESSING THE OPTIONS  
6.1. Fine-tuning the sh ortlisted options  
This section analyses the most appropriate instrument to implement each of the 18  shortlisted 
options. This analysis assessed the eight follo wing instruments against the criteria: cost-
effectiveness, proportionality, consistency with  other inter-institution al or sector-related 
developments and administrative burden. Details of the analysis are gi ven in Annex V and the 
results are summarised in Section 6.2.  
Overview of instruments34: 
1. Self-regulation (monitoring); 
2. Open method of coordination; 
3. Information and guidelines; 
4. Market-based instruments;  
5. Direct public-sector financial intervention; 
6. Co-regulation; 
7. Framework directive; 
8. Prescriptive regulatory action (re gulation, directive or decision). 
As part of the analysis, possibl e actions for the forthcoming Actio n Plan were considered, also 
using the feedback received during the consultation process. Possible synergies35 were 
identified.  
To achieve coherence, coordina tion should be ensured between the individual actions in the 
Action Plan, between the actions in the Action Plan and other EU initiatives and, whenever 
possible, between actions in the Action Plan and activities outside an EU framework, for 
example at the level of stakeholders.  
The actions in the Action Plan should be cons istent with the following Commission activities 
and initiatives: 
• ITS-related actions should be coordinated w ith the actions in the new ITS Action Plan.  
• Actions related to urban freight  distribution should be in li ne with the Freight Logistics 
Action Plan. 
• Actions on eco-driving should be in line with the Energy Efficiency Action Plan and 
should build on experience from the Intelligent Energy Europe programme. 
                                                 
34 Source: the Commission’s im pact assessment guidelines. 
35 There are three types of synergy between policy op tions or possible actions. First, there could be 
possible synergies between individual policy options or actions addressing similar challenges. To 
harness these possible synergies, the policy options have been clustered in line with the specific challenges described in the Green Paper. Second, there could also be possible synergies between 
specific policy options or actions on the one hand and cross-cutting policy options or actions on the 
other. Third, there could be possible synergies between instruments. 
 
EN 25   EN • Actions related to raising awareness should ta ke into account the initiatives taken in the 
framework of the European Mobility Week, the Green Week and the EU Sustainable 
Energy Week. 
• Actions related to data colle ction should take into account the work by EUROSTAT, the 
Urban Audit and the RTD Framework Programme. 
• Actions related to inte rnalisation of ex ternal costs should be in line with the Commission’s 
“Greening of transport” package.  
Most of the options recommended in this imp act assessment can be taken up directly in the 
Action Plan. This is particularly the case wh ere objectives and tools for focused dissemination 
of information and best practice have been id entified. In other cases, additional stages of 
consultation with the stakeholders and specific impact assessments will be necessary. In these cases, the Action Plan should then propose appr opriate preparatory action to clarify, in 
concertation with the parties concerned, the way forward and build up broad support for 
dedicated EU action.  
6.2. Assessment of shortlisted options and identification of possible actions 
As mentioned in section 4.1, options 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25 and 31 were not 
shortlisted. 
Option 5: Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities  
This option covers urban road user charging and access limitations and would support the 
wider agenda of internalisation of external co sts. This option will make a positive contribution 
to better policy-making. Many stakeholders support EU initiatives  in this field.  
Taking into account stakeholde rs’ varying and sometimes co nflicting views on binding rules 
for urban road user charging and access restrictions, further expl oration is needed. Therefore, 
initially, a non-regulatory approach is proposed . To harness synergies between the possible 
actions, this option could be considered toge ther with option 13. The possible action could 
explore, together with stak eholders, the most appropriate  way forward in the area of 
environmental zones. Possible action could also  include exchanges of information on urban 
road user charging.  
Option 6: Promote more efficient urb an freight distribu tion and logistics 
This option addresses th e problem that urban freight transp ort and distribution services are 
sometimes not well integrated into local tran sport policies. This pol icy option will make a 
positive contribution to a wide range of mobility, congestion, energy, environmental, economic and social objectives. Most stake holders support this . Taking into account 
proportionality arguments, a non-regulatory appro ach should be followed that could include 
information and guidelines and/or targeted financial intervention.  
Possible actions need to add va lue to the ini tiatives launched under th e Logistics Action Plan. 
One particular result of the Green Paper consul tation is that stakeholde rs emphasised the need 
for policy-makers to pay more attention to ur ban freight. Therefore, possible actions could 
include active engagement with stakeholders , collection of information and provision of 
guidelines in the form of a recommendation. 
 
EN 26   EN Option 7: Internalise the ext ernal costs of urban transport 
This option aims at making transport users in al l urban areas pay for the external costs that 
their use causes to others and to society in general. This policy option will make a positive 
contribution to mobility, congestion, energy, environmental and social objectives. Stakeholders are divided in their support for an EU initiative in this field. A regulatory 
approach could be used, perhaps in combin ation with market-based instruments.  
However, before deciding further steps, the inter-institutional process on the recently 
launched general method for interna lisation of external costs needs to be finalised first. Once 
the EU framework with the new method is in place, a basis will exist to consider the way 
forward for mobility and transport in urba n areas. The possible action could focus on 
information-gathering and further assessment in the form of a study. Among other things, this 
study should pay attention to the public accepta bility and availability of ITS tools.  
Option 10: Promote “green” procur ement by public authorities  
As a follow-up to the proposal for a Directive on  the promotion of clean and energy-efficient 
road vehicles, this option aims to bring potential buyers of public service vehicles together in 
buyers-consortia. This policy option will make a positive contribution to energy, environmental and social objectives. It will also support the competitive position of the EU 
industry. Many stakeholders support this polic y option. A variety of instruments could be 
used, for example provision of struct ured information or co-regulation.  
Before considering the need for additional steps, the proposed Directive should enter into force and its impact should be assessed first.  The possible action for the short term should 
therefore support implementation of the Direc tive. The action could take the form of 
provision of information to potential buyers of public service vehicles with the aid of an 
internet-based guide. 
Option 11: Promote take-up of clean and energy-e fficient vehicle technology and alternative 
fuels  
This option aims at stimulating the early take -up of new vehicle stan dards and alternative 
fuels. It will make a positive contribution to  energy, environmental, economic and social 
objectives. Many stakeholders sup port it. A variety of instrume nts could be used for this 
option, for example providing information on support schemes and/or available vehicle 
technology, market-based instruments, fi nancial interventi on or regulation.  
Before considering the need for additional steps, the proposed Directive should enter into 
force and its impact should be assessed first. In  order to harness synergies, this option could, 
in the short term, be considered in combination with option 10 and focus on provision of information. 
Option 13: Harmonise access rules for environmental zones  
This option addresses the local initiatives taken to reduce environmental problems and 
improve the quality of urban life. The objective will be to agree streamlined and easily understandable rules for access and vehicle iden tification. The harmonisa tion proposed in this 
option will contribute to envi ronmental and economic objectiv es, better functioning of the 
internal market and better policy-making. Regulatory instruments could be used.  
However, taking into account st akeholders’ varying and sometimes conflicting views, further 
exploration and discussion with stakeholders is needed to sp ecify the exact scope of the 
 
EN 27   EN option. Therefore, initially, a non-regulatory approach is pr oposed. In order to harness 
synergies between the possible actions, in the sh ort term this option could be considered in 
combination with option 5. Besides active engage ment with experts and stakeholders, possible 
action could take the form of a study to identif y the most appropriate way forward in relation 
to the available instruments (information, guidelines, recommendation or regulation). 
Option 14: Improve the interoperability of ti cketing and payment systems for public transport  
This option helps to make it easier to use public transport and comb ine private and public 
modes. This policy option will make a po sitive contribution to mobility, congestion, 
environmental, economic and social objectives. Mo st stakeholders suppor t this. A variety of 
instruments could be used, but the most promis ing direction would be a regulatory approach 
(standards).  
One possible obstacle lies, however, in the co mplexity of harmonising existing and future 
local ITS systems, defining interfaces betw een them and involving a broad range of 
stakeholders. Therefore, initially, a non-regul atory approach should be followed. Possible 
action could include a study to identify current practices and issues, collection of information 
and provision of EU guidelines in the form of a recommendation. 
Option 15: Improve harmonisation and pr ovision of travel information  
This option aims at harmonisati on and provision of travel info rmation across different modes 
of transport and cities. It wi ll promote use of public transpor t by different categories of 
traveller. This policy option will make a pos itive contribution to mobility, congestion and 
social objectives. Most stakeholders support th is. A variety of instru ments could be used, 
including information and guideli nes, co-regulation and a regulat ory approach (standards).  
One possible obstacle lies, however, in the co mplexity of harmonising existing and future 
urban ITS systems, defining interfaces betw een them and involving a broad range of 
stakeholders. Therefore, initially, a non -regulatory approach should be followed.  
Possible action could start “top-d own” with provision of trav el information via a single 
European “entrance portal” on the internet36. The portal would offer access to existing local 
and regional information systems. Information pr oviders could be invited to become actively 
involved in implementing it. In the longer term a nd in combination with ot her initiatives, this 
could be a first step towards “soft” harmoni sation of travel information across the EU.  
Option 19: Promote integrated planni ng for urban mobility and transport  
This option focuses on the concept of sustainable urban transport mobility plans. The aim is to 
provide practical guidance, information and s upport to authorities. It  could also include 
coordination and networking activities. This option will make a positive contribution to a wide range of mobility, congestion, energy and social objectives. It will also contribute to 
better policy-making. Most stake holders support an EU ini tiative in this field. A non-
regulatory approach would be most  effective and proportionate.  
The possible action could incl ude provision of EU guide lines in the form of a 
recommendation on sustainable urban trans port mobility plans. Preparation of the 
                                                
 
36 Subject to confirmation of its importance relative to other Commission priorities in the field of 
information technology. 
 
EN 28   EN recommendation could be supporte d by collecting information and providing practical support 
with the aim of better coordinating approaches  across cities, regions and Member States.  
Option 20: Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning  
This option helps to ensure mo re thorough consideration of the impact of urban development 
and restructuring on mobility and transport de mand. It will make a positive contribution to 
congestion, energy, environmental, economic and social objectives. Stakeholders are divided 
in their support. A non-regulatory approach should be followed for any new action, for 
example in the form of self regulation or provision of information and guidelines.  
Given the limited powers of the EU over pla nning, the added value of any new initiative on 
top of existing ones would probably be limite d. The focus is therefore on continuing the 
cooperation with Member States to foster be tter coordination between urban development and 
spatial planning in the framework of the Firs t Action Programme implementing the Territorial 
Agenda and implementation of the Leipzig Char ter. In addition, specifi c attention could be 
paid to urban planning in the RTD Framework Programme.  
In order to harness synergies, in the short term  this option could be considered in combination 
with option 19. Possible action could therefore incl ude provision of EU guidelines in the form 
of a recommendation. Specific initiatives co uld be launched to support preparation and 
implementation of the guidelines.  
Option 21: Strengthen the rights and obligat ions of users of public transport 
This option contributes to improving the quality  of public transport. It makes a positive 
contribution to the mobility and social objectives . In general, stakehol ders are cautious and 
point to the initiatives alrea dy being undertaken by the sector. A group of stakeholders from 
the urban public transport sector recently de veloped a voluntary customer charter. This 
approach should be given time to mature.  
Possible action at this stage c ould therefore consist of supporting and mon itoring this self-
regulation at sector level. Part icular attention should be paid to how authorities and users’ 
organisations will get involved in  the initiative and to how strong the sector’s voluntary 
commitments will be. Further EU action, such as  preparation of specifi c legislative proposals, 
will depend on the results of  this self-regulation.  
Option 22: Improve accessibili ty of public transport 
This option aims at improving the accessibility of  public transport for al l city residents to 
allow better and easier access to the activities relevant to them . This policy option will make a 
positive contribution to mobility, energy, e nvironmental and social objectives. Many 
stakeholders support an initiative by the EU in  this field. A variety of instruments could be 
used, but the most promising direct ion seems a regulatory approach.  
In order to harness synergies between the possibl e actions, this option could, in the short term, 
be considered in combination with option 21.  Possible action could therefore consist of 
supporting and monitoring self-regulation at sector al level, while ensu ring that accessibility 
issues are incorporated in the customer charter.  
Option 24: Promote safe wa lking and safe cycling 
This option encourages authorities to improve th e conditions for safe walking and safe cycling 
in urban areas. This policy option will make a positive contribution to mobility, congestion, 
 
EN 29   EN environmental, energy and social objectives. Most stakeholders support an EU initiative. For 
proportionality reasons, a non-regulatory appr oach is proposed that could include 
coordination, information, guideline s and/or financial intervention.  
Because of the limited availability  of financial resources in the short term and the fact that 
stakeholders have emphasised the need for policy-makers to pay more attention to safe walking and safe cycling,  action could include collection of information, followed by 
provision of EU guidelines in the form of a recommendation. 
Option 26: Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting  
This option helps to improve decision-making about  urban mobility and transport at all levels 
of government. It will make a positive co ntribution to better policy-making. Most 
stakeholders support an EU initiative in this fi eld as long as it does not become a bureaucratic 
exercise. A range of instruments could be us ed, including coordination, financial intervention 
and/or regulatory action.  
The extent to which the quality and availability  of data will improve depends on the scale and 
scope of the exercise, the f unds made available to suppor t it and how clear ly the data 
requirements are formulated. Possible action co uld therefore take the form of a study which 
should explore the data needs, data availab ility, costs of data collection and possible 
implementing mechanisms. 
Option 27: Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice 
This option will make a positive contribution to better policy-making at all levels of 
government. Most stakeholders support it. A non-regulatory approach is proposed, for 
example by means of coordination, informa tion, guidelines and/or financial intervention. 
Direct public-sector interventi on is expected to facilitate involvement of stakeholders. 
Possible action could include organising a regular  event on urban mob ility and facilitating 
exchanges of information between stakeholders a nd experts. It could also  include provision of 
information, best practice and kno wledge via an internet-based  guide. In order to harness 
synergies, this internet-based guide coul d be linked with the information and support 
initiatives under options 19 and 20. 
Option 28: Intensify research, develo pment and demonstra tion activities  
This option helps to promote innovation and will have a positive influence on the quality of 
policy-making and implementation. Many stakeholders support an EU initiati ve in this field. 
This option could be implemented most eff ectively by means of financial intervention.  
Possible action could include supporting target ed RTD action with a financial contribution 
from the RTD Framework Programme. To ensure  that the results of RTD will actually be 
used, active involvement of users and good dissemina tion of results are imper ative. In order to 
harness synergies between the possible actions, the event and the inte rnet-based guide under 
option 27 might play a role in dissemination. 
Option 29: Promote awareness and behav ioural change, including eco-driving 
This option  will take the form of promoting activitie s to raise awareness of urban mobility 
and/or energy issues. This option will make a positive contribution to energy, environmental and social objectives (e.g. road safety) a nd to better policy-making. Many stakeholders 
support this. A variety of instruments could be used, including financial intervention, 
 
EN 30   EN information, guidelines, coordination and/or  a regulatory approach. A non-regulatory 
approach would be most effective and proportionate.  
Therefore, possible action could include financ ial support for an awareness-raising campaign 
on sustainable urban mobility at EU level. The action could also include a mechanism to coordinate local, regional and national activi ties related to the European campaign and could 
focus on integration of issues related to driving behaviour  in education.  
Option 30: Promote investment in integrated urban transport,  including public transport 
This option aims at increasing cities’ a nd regions’ access to ex isting EU financial 
mechanisms. This policy option will cont ribute to mobility, congestion, energy, 
environmental and social objectives. Many stakeholders support this. A non-regulatory 
approach should be followed, for example in the form of provision of information and 
guidelines on sources of funding or targeted EU financial intervention.  
Possible action could include collection of information, followed by provision of EU 
guidelines in the form of a recommendation on i nvestment in urban mobility and the link with 
cohesion policy. In addition, a ta rgeted financial contribution might be provided to pilot 
projects. In order to harness synergies between the possible ac tions, the internet-based guide 
under option 27 could provide information on fina ncing instruments. At this stage, the 
benefits of additional instruments, either from  Commission sources or from the EIB, could be 
investigated with a view  to a specific EU initiative in the longer term. 
 
EN 31   EN  
6.3. Towards the Action Plan on Urban Mobility 
Table 4 provides an overview of the possible actions identified by this impact assessment 
structured by the themes of the Green Pape r on urban mobility. Th e table also includes 
preliminary indications of th e timing, costs and benefits, th e administrative burden and the 
contribution which the options could make to th e main objectives set out in the Green Paper. 
On the basis of the 18 shortlisted policy options , by exploiting synergie s between contents and 
between instruments, and by optimising the ident ity, visibility and mana geability of individual 
actions, 20 proposals for possible actions at EU level have b een developed. The preliminary 
timing indicated for each possible action allo ws for an effective interaction between 
individual actions and for an efficient use of resources. The interacti on and synergies between 
the actions, and their multiple contributions to addressing the main challenges posed by sustainable urban mobility, suggest a coherent  presentation of a package of 20 possible 
actions in the form of an integrated Action Plan. 
The suggestions for the possible actions have provided the basis for the preparation of the 
Action Plan on Urban Mobilit y. During the preparatory process for the Action Plan the 
actions will be specified, prioritised and po litically validated, taking into account –among 
other things– the available resources.The EU  can support national,  regional and local 
authorities, when appropriate, w ith policy directions, incentiv es, frameworks and practical 
tools to help them achieve their objectives in the field of sustainable urban mobility. This can 
also help to ensure that, at local, regional a nd national levels, appropriate initiatives are taken 
and diversification does not turn  into unnecessary fragmentation. 
With the Action Plan, the Commission wants to  facilitate the work of local, regional and 
national authorities. EU-wide dissemination a nd replication of tested  solutions can give 
authorities the possibility to achieve more, be tter and at lower cost. Local, regional and 
national authorities have flexib ility and freedom to select so lutions appropriate to their 
specific situation. 
Because of the nature of the proposed actions an d the flexibility of thei r application, plus the 
lack of data, a quantitative assessment of impact s of the actions against the baseline scenario 
is not feasible. However, it can be assumed that the package of 20 possible actions will make a positive contribution to mobility, congestion, energy, environmental, economic and social 
objectives. This has been demonstrated by EU-funded projects. 
For example, an integrated approach prom oted by the proposed ac tions, which combines 
transport policy measures with the introduction of clean vehicle technologies and alternative 
fuels, has been tested successfully in CIVI TAS cities. It has brought reductions in CO2 
emissions of up to 20 – 22 %
37. As almost half of all car trips are below five kilometres, 
modal shift policies that expl oit the potential of cycling, wa lking and public transport can 
reduce congestion and bring environmental, energy and health benefits. With two out of three 
of all road accidents  happening in urban areas, invest ments in safe urban transport 
infrastructure will lead to a reduction of pedestrians and cyclists accidents.  
The package of actions can also contribute to economic objectives. With an important part of 
congestion in the EU being located in and ar ound urban areas, congestion relief measures, for 
example through public transport improvements, will bring economic benefits. In addition, 
                                                 
37 A policy assessment of the CIVITAS Initiative. September 2006. 
 
EN 32   EN there are estimates that 30 jobs are created with every €1 milli on invested in public transport 
infrastructure. And finally, the package of actions  can help to bridge the gap between citizens' 
expectations and the perceived quality of ur ban transport. This impact assessment has 
demonstrated that there is clear overall support fo r action at EU level. This support also exists 
among the other European inst itutions. While there were va rying views expressed about 
which actions at the EU level could add value, the consultation has helped to identify 'common ground' where EU action could add value to the action taken at local, regional and 
national levels.  
Implementation of the actions will be closel y monitored and assessed to ensure that 
subsidiarity and proportionality concerns are addr essed and that all alternatives to regulatory 
action will be explored for futu re initiatives. This impact assessment in no way prejudges the 
outcome of impact assessments for specific pro posals that might be made in the future. For 
example, in line with the relevant procedures, a dedicated impact assess ment is envisaged for 
each Commission recommendation.  
 
EN 33   EN Table 4: Overview of the possible acti ons launched by the European Commission 
Action Instrument Timing 
(launch) Costs Benefits Admin. 
burden Contribution to objectives 
Free-flowing towns and cities  
1. Stakeholder 
conference on urban 
freight 
(Option 6)  Event 2010 Low Better understanding of urban fr eight issues; exchanges and 
dissemination of practice  EC: very low  • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Smarter urban transport 
• Improving knowledge and data 
collection 
2. Recommendation on 
urban freight  
(Option 6) Recommendation 2012 Low Greater efficiency, fewer tonne-km , less congestion, less pollution, 
increased competition EC: very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Smarter urban transport 
Greener towns and cities 
3. Study on access rules 
for green zones 
(Options 5 and 13) Study 2009 Low Better understanding among authorities, travellers and businesses, 
better policy-making, time and cost gains for visitors and businesses EC: low 
Local, 
regional and 
national 
authorities: 
low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
4 .Exchange of 
information on urban 
pricing schemes 
(Option 5) Expert network 2009 Low Dissemination of knowledge on urban pricing, better understanding of 
context variables EC: very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
• Improving knowledge and data 
collection 
5. Study on urban 
aspects of internalisation 
of external costs 
(Option 7) Study 2011 Low Better understanding of specific urban context of internalisation, in 
particular impact on behaviour and the environment and social and 
economic impact EC: very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
6. Internet guide on clean 
and energy-efficient 
vehicles 
(Options 10 and 11) Internet guide 2009 Very 
low Facilitate market uptake leading to  increased use of clean vehicles 
resulting in less pollution and higher energy efficiency EC: very low • Greener towns and cities 
7. Recommendation on 
energy-efficient driving as 
part of driving education Recommendation 2012 Low Lower fuel consumption and emissions EC: very low • Greener towns and cities 
 
EN 34   EN Action Instrument Timing 
(launch) Costs Benefits Admin. 
burden Contribution to objectives 
(Option 29) Member 
States: very 
low 
Smarter urban transport 
8. Recommendation on 
ITS for urban mobility 
(Option 14) Recommendation 2012 Low Easier travel and more efficient services leading to less congestion, 
less pollution and increased safety. EC: very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Smarter urban transport 
• Accessible urban transport 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
9. Web portal to improve 
access to public transport 
information 
(Option 15) Web portal  2009 Very 
low Better informed travellers will lead to higher use of public transport, 
which will result in less congestion, less pollution and increased 
safety. EC: very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Smarter urban transport 
• Accessible urban transport 
Accessible urban transport  
10. Recommendation on 
sustainable urban mobility 
plans 
(Options 19 and 20) Recommendation 2012 Low Facilitate integrated planning and policy-making, including target-
setting, monitoring and evaluation and better stakeholder involvement EC: very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Accessible urban transport 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
11. Dialogue on 
passenger rights in urban 
public transport 
(voluntary) 
(Options 21 and 22) Stakeholder 
network 2010 Low/ 
very 
low  Better-quality public transport will lead to increased use of public 
transport and stronger consumer protection EC: low 
Stakeholders: 
very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Accessible urban transport 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
Safe and secure urban transport  
12. Recommendation on 
safe walking and safe 
cycling 
(Option 24) Recommendation 2011 Low Fewer accidents, fewer fatalities and increase in walking/cycling EC: very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
 
EN 35   EN Action Instrument Timing 
(launch) Costs Benefits Admin. 
burden Contribution to objectives 
Cross-cutting issues  
13. Internet guide on 
legislation, funding and 
best practice 
(Options 19, 20, 27 
and 30) Internet guide 2009 Low Providing better information leads to better targeted use of funding 
and better informed decisions EC: very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Smarter urban transport 
• Accessible urban transport 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
• Improving knowledge and data 
collection 
14. Study on harmonised 
data collection 
(Option 26) Study 2010 Low Better informed decisions and better monitoring leading to better and 
faster policy responses EC: low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Smarter urban transport 
• Accessible urban transport 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
• Improving knowledge and data 
collection 
15. Annual forum on 
urban mobility 
(Option 27) Event 2010 Low Better dissemination of urban mobility practice EC: very low; 
Local, 
regional and 
national 
authorities: 
very low 
Stakeholders: 
very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Smarter urban transport 
• Accessible urban transport 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
• Improving knowledge and data 
collection 
16. Targeted RTD 
activities on urban 
mobility 
(Options 27 and 28) Funding 2011 Depen
ding 
on 
imple
mentat
ion Facilitating policy implementation, better understanding of integrated 
planning, demographic changes, trends , vehicle technologies, Galileo 
applications, behaviour, innovat ive public transport, etc. EC: low; 
Local 
authorities: 
low 
Stakeholders: 
very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Smarter urban transport 
• Accessible urban transport 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
• Improving knowledge and data 
collection 
17. Campaign on 
sustainable mobility 
behaviour 
(Option 29) Campaign 2010 Low Less congestion, lower fuel cons umption and emissions, increased 
safety EC: very low
Member 
States: very 
low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
• Improving knowledge and data 
collection 
18. Call for proposals for 
action on sustainable 
urban mobility Funding 2009 Low Increased safety, integration of freight into urban mobility policy, 
improved understanding of access control, less fragmented payment 
systems and better knowledge of demand-responsive transport EC: low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Smarter urban transport 
• Accessible urban transport 
 
EN 36   EN Action Instrument Timing 
(launch) Costs Benefits Admin. 
burden Contribution to objectives 
(Option 30) systems • Safe and secure urban transport 
• Focusing EU financial instruments 
19. Study on dedicated 
support for urban mobility 
(Option 30) Study 2010 Low Facilitating policy implementati on, promoting and highlighting 
advanced practices and high lighting priorities Depending 
on 
implement-
ation • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Smarter urban transport 
• Accessible urban transport 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
• Focusing EU financial instruments 
20. Recommendation on 
sustainable urban mobility 
and regional policy 
(Option 30) Recommendation 2011 Low Better information on policy priorities and access to funding, 
highlighting role of urban mobilit y in economic and social cohesion EC: very low • Free-flowing towns and cities 
• Greener towns and cities 
• Smarter urban transport 
• Accessible urban transport 
• Safe and secure urban transport 
• Focusing EU financial instruments 
 
 
EN 37   EN 7. M ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
To monitor implementation of the Action Plan and its individual actions, the Commission will 
look at trends in urban mobility and transpor t with a focus on the performance of policies, 
tools, markets, regulatory frameworks and administrative capacity. It will do so in close consultation with stakeholders. This chapte r outlines preliminary thoughts on monitoring the 
development of urban mobility and transport in the EU and the performance of EU action. 
The following possible indicators, which will need  to be further specified, are suitable for 
measuring progress and are li kely to be available. 
 
Objective Possible indicator(s) 
Sustainable urban mobility Modal split for passenger transport 
Modal split for freight transport 
Improve coherence of solutions Number of cities with coherent access rules 
Support for policy-making  Availa bility of coherent data 
Number of cities with sust ainable urban transport plans 
Deciding policy and launching actio n at local, regional, national  and EU levels requires good 
data and information covering a wider spectrum  than the indicators set out above. The data 
and information needed to provide an accurate , complete and consistent picture of urban 
mobility in the EU are not avai lable, however. One prerequisite for measuring progress in the 
field of urban mobility and transport is therefor e establishment of a coherent and comparable 
monitoring system, as proposed in option 26.  
With the Action Plan, the Commission intends to f acilitate the work of policy-makers at local, 
regional and national levels. The overall success of the Action Plan wi ll depend largely on the 
take-up by local, regional and na tional authorities, the private sector and citizens. Efficient 
implementation by the Commission will also depend on the resour ces made available by the 
Commission38.  
The Commission will monitor implementation of th e Action Plan and will continue to consult 
stakeholders and promote information excha nge, for example via the Joint Expert Group on 
Transport and Environment. In 2012 the Commission will conduct a review of the 
developments and of the impact of this Action Plan and will assess the ne ed for further action.  
                                                 
38 Estimates suggest that implementation of the Ac tion Plan will require the allocation of 3 extra AD 
officials, and 2 AST officials. 
 
EN 38   EN  
ANNEXES 
 
EN 39   EN ANNEX I: SUMMARY OF THE RE SULTS OF THE CONSULTATION  
The Commission received a total of 431 responses  to the Green Paper consultation. The main 
conclusion from analysis of the responses is that there is a broad consensus among stakeholders that there is added value in actio n at EU level. Stakeholders want to see the 
Commission help, facilitate and support cit y, regional and national governments in their 
efforts to achieve the goals of sustainable urban mobility. 
While the potentially positive role of th e Commission is widely acknowledged by the 
respondents, there is some concern that Comm ission initiatives could result in additional 
bureaucracy, with the risk of limiting the creativ ity and flexibility needed for dealing with 
urban mobility issues at local level. The respond ents were divided about the kind of initiatives 
(legislative, voluntary, etc.) that  the Commission should take.  
To a large extent, the respondents to the Green Paper consultation made suggestions such as 
facilitating exchanges of best practice, fina ncing and supporting research and improving the 
harmonisation, collection and availa bility of data and information. Other suggestions include 
harmonising policy processes, developing gui delines and recommendations, harmonising 
technical standards and improving the availabil ity of finances for innovative projects that 
contribute to sustainable urban mobility goals. 
As part of the Green Paper consultation an d in preparation for the Action Plan, the 
Commission organised a confer ence under the banner “Towards a new culture for urban 
mobility” on 31 January 2008. Around 300 stakeholders participated in the event. In addition, 
eight technical stakeholder workshops we re organised on 5, 6, 11 and 12 March 2008 in 
Brussels. Five of them dealt with each of th e five main challenges identified in the Green 
Paper, two covered the cross-cutting topics of  financing and a new culture for urban mobility 
and the final, concluding, workshop, brought toge ther the discussions at the previous seven 
workshops. A total of 172 persons participated.  
The vast majority of the comments made during the conference an d workshops clearly 
suggested that the EU can offer added value in the field of urban mob ility and has a role to 
play. Potential roles for the EU could includ e harmonisation and standardisation of various 
technologies, practices and po licies relevant to urban mobility, possibly also by means of 
legislation. 
It was also concluded that a number of the in itiatives that the Commission was already taking 
should be continued and, if necessary, inte nsified. The Commission should also consider 
facilitating and initiating new actions, for exam ple on collecting data, assessing the impact of 
transport, raising awareness an d social marketing. Finally, th e Commission was requested to 
conduct a comparison of mobility problems in Eu ropean cities and to conduct an assessment 
of policy alternatives.  
During the debates, it was pointed out that so me areas had received insufficient attention in 
the Green Paper. These include, for instance, ur ban freight distribution and the link between 
strategic urban planning and tr ansport planning. It was also suggested that the EU could 
particularly help the new Member States to find ways to balance long-term thinking with 
short-term investment pressure and that the EU  could help facilitate  transfers of know-how. 
The results of the Green Paper consultation are summarised in Table 4. Scores range from 1 
(low: most stakeholders do not support the idea) to 3 (medium: stakeholders are divided) and 
 
EN 40   EN then up to 5 (high: most stak eholders support the action). Re levant comments have been 
added. “n.a.” means not applicable.  
Table 4: Stakeholder support for polic y options (long list) with comments 
Option  Score 
Require cities to set modal split targets 1 
Support for such a requirement is very limited and was suggested only a few times. 1 
Ban private car use in city centres 2 
Banning use of private cars in city centre s is not supported by stakeholders; this is 
considered a decision for local authorities. 1 
Ban on-street parking in city centres 3 
Prohibiting on-street parking in city centre s is not supported by stakeholders; this is 
considered a decision for local authorities. 1 
Recognise efforts of cities to improve sustainable urban mobility 4 
The feasibility of this policy option is questioned (because of the comparability of cities and 
availability of reliable data), but the general idea is supported. 4 
Provide information on access limitations for road users  in cities 5 
There is strong opposition to mandatory road user  charges. However, providing information, 
harmonisation, dissemination of best practice, etc. could help cities that have decided (or 
are considering whether) to take such measures.  4 
Promote more efficient urban fr eight distribution and logistics 6 
Most stakeholders support such measures. Th ey underline the economic importance of 
urban freight, but mention the role of the private sector. 5 
Internalise the external costs of urban transport 7 
There is support for standards, harmonisation and internalisation in the field of urban 
charging in general, but no support for mandatory measures. 3 
Require cities to set targets for CO 2 emissions from urban transport 8 
There is no support for such requirements. 1 
Require zero CO 2 propulsion for urban public transport 9 
There is little support fo r this policy option. 1 
Promote “green” procurement by public authorities 10 
Facilitation by the Commission of green procur ement is supported, although internalisation 
of external costs is considered more effective. 4 
Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient  vehicle technology and alternative fuels 11 
There is support for this option on conditi on that modes and technologies are treated 
equally. Intensified use of existing instruments is preferred. 4 
Require designation of “green”  zones in sensitive areas 12 
Mandatory green zones are not supported by stakeholders; the decision to implement such 
zones should be left to the local authorities. 1 
 
EN 41   EN Harmonise rules for environmental zones 13 
Stakeholders favour a certain degree of harmoni sation of such zones, as long as local 
authorities can decide on introduction. Usi ng Euro standards is seen as a means of 
harmonisation. 4 
Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport 14 
There is support for this policy option. Howe ver, local flexibility remains a condition. 5 
Improve harmonisation and provis ion of travel information 15 
Not many stakeholders oppose this, as long as  access, user-friendliness, accuracy and 
design are taken into account.  5 
Require transport impact assessments as  a precondition for planning permission 16 
There is little support for conditionality, bu t promotion and research would be favoured. 2 
Require establishment of urban mobility authorities 17 
This requirement meets opposition, but th ere is support for voluntary establishment  of such 
authorities. The Commission should s upport best practice, research, etc. 2 
Require adoption of SUTPs as a condition for EU funding 18 
Conditionality is not supported widely; onl y a few stakeholders propose criteria for 
sustainability (which are less specific). 1 
Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport 19 
Assistance in the form of dissemination of best practice, etc. by the Commission to cities 
with the aim of integrated planning is supported. 5 
Improve coordination between ur ban mobility and land-use planning 20 
The need to improve coordination is re cognised, but support would depend on the 
instrument chosen. Binding m easures receive less support. 3 
Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport 21 
The Commission is advised to take no new steps  in this direction, given the ongoing 
initiatives. In general, support appears to be lacking for what is feared to be a rigid, 
ineffective policy option. 1 
Improve accessibility of public transport 22 
Stakeholders support this, but some stress that this should not come at the expense of 
private transport. Interfaces with other  modes should be included in this option. 4 
 
Require operators to accept bicycles in urban public transport 23 
Support from only a small and specific section of stakeholders; no comments from the vast 
majority. However, there is strong support for strengthening the co-modality chain. 2 
Promote safe walking and safe cycling 24 
Promotion of walking and cycling is supported,  e.g. by disseminating best practice and 
promoting intermodal interfaces. 
 5 
25 Raise the minimum age for driving licences to 25 n.a 
 
EN 42   EN This policy option was not proposed explicitly  by stakeholders, nor did stakeholders raise 
the issue. 
Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting 26 
The need for better data is fully recognised,  but stakeholders demand as little bureaucracy 
as possible. 5 
Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice 27 
There is consensus amongst stakehol ders that a great deal of information is available, but 
that it should be made more accessible. 5 
Intensify research, development and demonstration activities 28 
Research is called for in certain fields, but p ilot projects should also  receive support. Strong 
support for (continuation of exis ting) demonstration networks. 4 
Promote awareness and behavioural  change, including eco-driving 29 
There is general support for awareness-raising acti vities. Promotion of eco-driving is seen 
as valuable, as long as the benefits to users are stressed.  4 
Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport 30 
There is support for investment in int egrated solutions. Stakeholders ask for “equal 
treatment” of modes, but support for public tr ansport is recognised as  important. Financial 
support could help cities to select  and implement the best solution. 4 
Require implementation of a “value capture tax” 31 
Very little support for taxation-related measures. 1 
 
 
EN 43   EN ANNEX II: OVERVIEW OF EXISTING EU INITIATIVES AND LEGISLATION  
TRANSPORT 
 Relevance Status 
Public service obligations    
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by 
rail and by road and repeali ng Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 
1191/69 and 1107/70  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
State aid   
Community guidelines on State ai d for railway undertakings 
(OJ C 184, 22.7.2008)  Direct Adopted 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 
declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common 
market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) (OJ L 214, 9.8.2008)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (OJ C 
82, 1.4.2008) Indirect Adopted 
Important State aid decisions on  public service obligations   
C 58/06 (ex NN 98/2005) of 20 Decem ber 2006, Germany – State aid 
for public transport Stadt Langenf eld/Verkehrsverbund Rhein Ruhr 
(OJ C 74, 31.3.2007)  Indirect Implemented
C 16/07 (ex NN 55/2006) of 30 May 2007, Austria – Official support 
for Postbus in the Lien z district (OJ C 162, 14.7.2007)  Indirect Implemented
C 31/2007 (ex NN 17/2007) of 18 July  2007, Ireland – State aid to 
Córas Iompair Éireann Bus Companies (OJ C 217, 15.9.2007)  Indirect Implemented
C 47/07 (ex NN 22/2005) of 23 October 2007, Germany – Public 
service contract between Deutsche  Bahn Regio AG and the Länder of 
Berlin and Brandenburg (OJ C 35, 8.2.2008)  Indirect Implemented
C 54/07 (ex NN 55/2007) of 28 November 2007, Germany – 
Hülsmann GmbH (Rail) v. Emsländische Eisenbahn GmbH  (not yet 
published in the OJ)  Indirect Implemented
C 3/08 (ex NN 102/05) of 26 Nove mber 2008, Czech Republic - 
public service compensations for Southern Moravia Bus Companies (OJ C 7032, 16.4.2009) Indirect Implemented
 
EN 44   EN Important State aid decisions on  other improvements to public 
transport   
N63/2005 – Programme for energy ec onomies and use of alternative 
fuels in the transport sector, Czech Republic (OJ C 83, 6.4.2006)  Indirect Implemented
N604/2005 – Satzung zur Unterstü tzung eigenwirtschaftlicher 
Verkehrsleistungen im Landkreis Wittenberg, Germany (OJ C 209, 30.8.2006)  Indirect Implemented
N556/2005 – Subsidieverordening I nnovatie openbaar vervoer van 
provincie Gelderland, Netherlands (OJ C 207, 30.8.2006)  Indirect Implemented
Passenger rights   
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations 
(OJ L 315, 3.12.2007)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Proposal for a Regulation of the Eur opean Parliament and of the Council on 
the liability of carriers of passengers by  sea and inland waterways in the 
event of accidents (COM(2005) 592)  Indirect Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 
Proposal for a Regulation of the Eu ropean Parliament and of the Council 
concerning the rights of passengers wh en travelling by sea and inland 
waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation 
between national authorities responsible  for the enforcement of consumer 
protection laws (COM(2008) 0816) Direct Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 
Proposal for a Regulation of the Eur opean Parliament and of the Council on 
the rights of passengers in bus  and coach trans port and amending 
Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities 
responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws 
(COM(2008)0817) Direct Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 
TEN-T   
Regulation (EC) No 807/2004 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 21 April 2004 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 laying down general rules fo r the granting of Community 
financial aid in the field of tr ans-European networks (OJ L 143, 
30.4.2004) Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Charging   
Directive 1999/62/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42), as last amended by 
Directive 2006/38/EC (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Indirect Legislation 
 
EN 45   EN amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the c harging of heavy goods vehicles for 
the use of certain infr astructures (COM(2008) 436) proposed, but 
not yet adopted 
Directive 2001/14/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 26 February 2001 on the alloca tion of railway infrastructure 
capacity and the levying of ch arges for the use of railway 
infrastructure and safety  certification (OJ L 75, 15.3.2001) Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Strategy for the internalisation of external cost s (COM(2008) 435) Indirect Adopted 
Public procurement   
Directive 2004/17/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 31 March 2004 coordinating the proc urement procedures of entities 
operating in the water, energy, trans port and postal services sectors 
(OJ L 134, 30.4.2004)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2004/18/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of  procedures for the award of 
public works contracts, public supp ly contracts and public service 
contracts (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Commission Decision 2008/963/EC  of 9 December 2008 amending 
the Annexes to Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement procedures, as regards their lists of  contracting entities and contracting 
authorities (OJ L 349, 24.12.2008)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2009/…/EC of the Europe an Parliament and the Council on 
the promotion of clean and energy  efficient road transport vehicles 
(OJ L…..) Direct Legislation 
adopted, but not yet implemented 
Competition   
Council Regulation (EC) No 169/2009 of 26 February 2009 applying 
rules of competition to transport by rail, road and inland waterway (JO 
L 61 du 5.3.2009) Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Transport of dangerous goods    
Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods (JO L 260 du 30.9.2008) Indirect Legislation 
adopted, but not yet transposed 
ENERGY 
   
Fuels   
 
EN 46   EN European Parliament and Council Directive 94/63/EC of 20 December 
1994 on the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions resulting from the storage of petrol  and its distribution from terminals 
to service stations (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction 
in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive 93/12/EEC (OJ L 121, 11.5.1999, p. 13), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003 (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1) and Directive 2005/33/EC of the European Parliament  and of the Council of 6 July 
2005 (OJ L 191, 22.7.2005)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 98/70/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council of 
13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and 
amending Council Directive 93 /12/EEC (OJ L 350, 28.12.1998), as 
amended by Directive 2003/17/EC  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2003/30/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels and other 
renewable fuels for transport (OJ L 123, 17.5.2003, p. 42)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the 
Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ L 283, 31.10.2003), as amended  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2009/…/EC of the Europe an Parliament and of the Council 
on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (OJ 
L…) Direct Legislation 
adopted, but 
not yet 
implemented 
Energy efficiency   
Council Directive 89/106/EEC  of 21 December 1988 on the 
approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of 
the Member States relating to  construction products (OJ L 40, 
11.2.1989) Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Council Directive 93/76/EEC of 13  September 1993 to limit carbon 
dioxide emissions by improving en ergy efficiency (SAVE) (OJ L 237, 
22.9.1993)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2002/91/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 16 December 2002 on the energy perf ormance of buildings (OJ L 1, 
4.1.2003)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
 
EN 47   EN Directive 2005/32/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products and amending Council Directive 92/42/EEC and Directiv es 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 191, 22.7.2005) Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2006/32/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use effi ciency and energy services and 
repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC (OJ L 114, 27.4.2006)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
ENVIRONMENT 
   
Air quality   
Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27  September 1996 on ambient air 
quality assessment and management (OJ L 296, 21.11.1996)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Council Directive 1999/30/EC  of 22 April 1999 relatin g to limit values 
for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ L 163, 29.6.1999)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2000/69/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 16 November 2000 relating to lim it values for benzene and carbon 
monoxide in ambient air (OJ L 313, 13.12.2000)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2004/107/EC of the Europ ean Parliament and of the Council 
of 15 December 2004 relating to ar senic, cadmium, nickel and 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons  in ambient air (OJ L 23, 26.1.2005)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 
L 152, 11.6.2008) Direct Legislation 
adopted, but not yet transposed 
Noise   
Directive 2002/49/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise – Declarat ion by the Commission in the 
Conciliation Committee on the Directive relating to the assessment 
and management of environmental noise (OJ L 189, 18.7.2002)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2002/30/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with 
regard to the introduction of noise -related operating restrictions at 
Community airports (OJ L 85, 28.3.2002)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Water   
 
EN 48   EN Directive 2000/60/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 23 October 2000 establishing a fr amework for Community action in 
the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000) Indirect 
 Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2008/105/EC of the Eur opean Parliament and of the Council 
of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/ EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 
86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008)  Indirect Legislation 
adopted, but not yet transposed 
Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessmen t and management of flood risks 
(OJ L 288, 6.11.2007)  Indirect Legislation 
adopted, but not yet transposed 
Natural habitats    
Council Directive 92/43/EC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of 
natural habitats and of wild  fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Environmental assessment    
Council Directive 85/337 /EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of 
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985), as amended  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 
85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and 
private projects on the environment (JO L 73 du 14.3.1997) Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and 
programmes on the environment (OJ L 197, 21.7.2001) Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2003/35/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 26 May 2003 providing for public pa rticipation in respect of the 
drawing up of certain plans a nd programmes relating to the 
environment and amending with rega rd to public participation and 
access to justice Council Directiv es 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ L 
156, 25.6.2003)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
VEHICLE STANDARDS    
Regulation No 100 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the 
United Nations (UNECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of battery electric vehi cles with regard to specific 
requirements for the construction, functional safety and hydrogen emission (revision 2) (OJ L 45, 14.2.2009) Direct 
 Legislation 
implemented 
 
EN 49   EN Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 20 June 2007 on type a pproval of motor vehicles with 
respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles 
(Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ L 171, 29.6.2007) [This Regulation will apply from 3 
January 2009, with the exception of Articles 10(1) and 12 which apply 
with effect from 2 July 2007] Direct 
  Legislation 
implemented 
Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 of 18 July 2008 implementing and amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on type-approval of  motor vehicles with respect to 
emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and 
Euro 6) and on access to vehicle re pair and maintenance information 
(OJ L 199, 28.7.2008) Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Regulation (EC) No 79/2009 of the Eu ropean Parliament and of the 
Council of 14 January 2009 on type-approval of hydrogen-powered 
motor vehicles, and amending Directive 2007/46/EC (OJ L 35, 
4.2.2009) Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Proposal for a Regulation of the Eur opean Parliament and of the Council on 
type-approval of motor vehicles and engi nes with respect to emissions from 
heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and 
maintenance information (SEC(2007)1718, SEC(2007)1720 and COM(2007) 
851 final) Direct 
 Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 
Regulation (EC) N°…/2009 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council setting emission perfor mance standards for new passenger 
cars as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO2 
emissions from light-duty vehicles (OJ L…) Direct Legislation 
adopted, not 
yet 
implemented 
Council Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 1992 on the installation 
and use of speed limitation devices  for certain categories of motor 
vehicles in the Community (OJ L 57, 2.3.1992)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Proposal for a Council Directive on passenger car related taxes 
(COM(2005) 261 final)  Direct Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 
Directive 2001/85/EC relating to sp ecial provision for vehicles used 
for the carriage of passengers comprising more than eight seats (OJ L 42, 13.2.2002)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2001/16/EC on the interope rability of the trans-European 
conventional rail system (OJ L 110, 20.4.2001)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2002/7/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council of 
18 February 2002 amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down 
for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised wei ghts in international traffic ( OJ L 67, Direct 
  Legislation 
implemented 
 
 
EN 50   EN 9.3.2002)  
SAFETY    
Directive 2004/49/EC of the Europ ean Parliament and the Council 
of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/E C on the licensing of railway 
undertakings and Directive 2001/14/ EC on the allocation of railway 
infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) (OJ L 164, 30.4.2004); Corrigendum to Directive 
2004/49/EC
 (OJ L 204, 4.8.2007) Direct 
 Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2006/126/EC of the Eur opean Parliament and of the 
Council of 20 December 2006 on driv ing licences (Recast) (OJ L 
403, 30.12.2006)  Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2008/96/EC of the of th e European Parliament and of the 
Council of 19 November 2008 on road infrastructure safety 
management  (OJ L 319, 29.11.2008) Direct 
 Legislation 
adopted, but not yet transposed 
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY    
Directive 2004/52/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability  of electronic road toll systems 
in the Community (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2000/46/EC of the European  Parliament and of the Council 
of 18 September 2000 on the taking up, pursuit of and prudential supervision of the business of elect ronic money institutions (OJ L 275, 
27.10.2000) Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market amending Directives 97/7/ EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 
2006/48/EC and repealing Directi ve 97/5/EC (OJ L 319, 05/12/2007) Indirect Legislation 
adopted, but not yet transposed  
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 
laying down the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport 
Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport 
modes (COM/2008/0887) Direct Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 
REGIONAL POLICY    
Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Indirect Legislation 
 
EN 51   EN Council of 5 July 2006 on the Europ ean Social Fund and repealing 
Regulation (EC) No  1784/1999 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006)  implemented 
Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 5 July 2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006) Indirect Legislation 
implemented 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund and repealing Regu lation (EC) No 1164/94 (OJ L 210, 
31.7.2006)  Direct Legislation 
implemented 
RTD AND INNOVATION    
Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the Eur opean Parliament and of the 
Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Comm unity for research, technological 
development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (OJ L 412, 
30.12.2006) Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the Eur opean Parliament and of the 
Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007 to 2013) (OJ L 310, 9.11.2006) Direct Legislation 
implemented 
Council Regulation (EC) No 521/2008 of 30 May 2008 setting up the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Join t Undertaking (OJ L 153, 12.6.2008) Direct Legislation 
implemented 
 
 
EN 52   EN ANNEX III: THE BASELINE SCENARIO  
This annex contains background information a bout the choice of the TREMOVE model, the 
assumptions made in the baseline scenario and the modelling results. 
The choice of TREMOVE  
Given that the aim of this assessment is to quant ify the baseline scenario as much as possible, 
the TREMOVE model was selected, based on the following arguments: 
– TREMOVE covers all EU citie s and metropolitan areas and ev ery mode of transport, 
including walking and cycling;  
– TREMOVE draws a distinction between urba n (metropolitan and other urban) and non-
urban areas;  
– TREMOVE calculates emissions; 
– the TREMOVE forecasts are based on assumptions and data that are validated and 
accepted; and 
– the results of modelling with TREMOVE are considered scientifically acceptable. 
It would be difficult to use individual city m odels to model urban mobility at EU level. 
Organisationally, this would be  a large, resource-intensive and time-consuming exercise. It 
would entail gaining access to  the available scientifically validated models owned by 
individual cities which would be (1) mainly the large and capital cities and (2) mainly located 
in northern and western parts of the EU.  
Furthermore, making the results of such an ex ercise comparable and integrating them would 
also be resource-intensive and time-consum ing. An alternative would be to limit the 
modelling exercise to just a few European citie s. This option was ruled out, however, because 
the results would just cover individual cities and not urba n mobility for the whole EU. 
The other option was to use an other existing European mode l. Besides TREMOVE, three 
other European models were consider ed: SCENES, EXPEDITE and TRANSTOOLS. 
However, these three models were developed primarily to model long- distance transport in 
the EU and to support development of TEN-T policy. None of the models except TREMOVE 
is currently able to provide results for ci ties, urban areas or metropolitan regions.  
SCENES, EXPEDITE and TRANSTOOLS are, how ever, capable, in varying degrees, of 
providing results that could be used as a proxy for urban mobility. However, each has serious 
shortcomings that prevented its use. For ex ample, EXPEDITE provides forecasts of total 
passenger- and tonne-kilometres by distan ce bands (i.e. length of trip).  
Trips shorter than, for example, 50 km coul d be taken as a proxy for urban mobility. The 
problem, however, is that average trip lengths differ from one city  to another. This makes use 
of a single European average va lue for trip length problema tic. The SCENES model does not 
include an emissions module. TRANSTOOLS draws no distinction between urban and non-
urban areas. 
 
EN 53   EN Therefore, TREMOVE proved to be the most suitable model. TREMOVE has the advantage 
that it produces results specifically for the categ ories “metropolitan”, “other cities” and “non-
urban.” Furthermore, TREMOVE recently produced a forecast of future transport demand and supply that takes into account future non-transp ort-related policy developments. This forecast 
of future demand has been accepted by the Commission as valid.  
To be consistent with recent DG TREN studi es, the possibility of using the IMPACT 1 
baseline scenario was assessed.  It was decided not to use th e IMPACT 1 baseline scenario 
because this scenario uses TREMOVE Vers ion 2.52. For this assessment Version 2.7, the 
most recent version of TREMOVE, was available. Apart from being more recent, this version 
made it possible to include cities from all 27 Member States in the baseline scenario.  
The assumptions and policy meas ures in the baseline scenario  
The TREMOVE baseline scenario is estimated from the results of the SCENES run for the 
ASSESS
39 study. This run is based on the assumptions made in the “partial implementation” 
scenario. This partial implemen tation scenario is described in  the ASSESS study reports and 
is considered the most likely future scenario.  
The TREMOVE baseline scenario includes the following assumptions on fuel efficiency40: 
Mode Period Assumptions 
Before 
1990 Improvement in fuel efficiency of 1% per year. 
1990–
1995 No significant improvements in fuel efficiency. 
1995–2002
 Derived from the figures in the monitoring reports for the CO 2 voluntary 
agreement. 
2002–
2009 Based on voluntary agreements between the European Commission and car 
manufacturers (the ACEA, JAMA and KAMA agreements). The main commitment made by the manufacturers was to improve fuel efficiency, by means 
of technological improvements, to an average of 140 g CO
2/km by 2008. The 
TREMOVE base case assumes that this 140 g/km target is reached in 2009. The 
related 2002-2009 fuel efficiency improvements by car type are derived from data and projections reported in the TNO CO
2CAR Task A study. 
2009–
2012 TREMOVE assumes, on average, no further im provements in car fuel efficiency 
after 2009. The related 2009-2012 fuel efficiency changes by car type are also derived from data and projec tions reported in the TNO CO
2CAR Task A study. Cars 
2012 
onwards  The baseline does not include any further ch anges in the fuel efficiency of new 
cars beyond 2012. 
Other 
road 1995–
2009 For all other road vehicles, the 1995-20 09 base case fuel efficiency increases were 
initially taken from the Auto Oil II progr amme, in which improvement estimates 
                                                 
39 Assessment of the contribution of the TEN and other transport policy measures to the mid-term review 
of the White Paper on the European Transport Policy for 2010. 
40 TREMOVE Final Report, Chapter V (2007). 
 
EN 54   EN vehicles  were agreed with the manufacturers’ representatives. After 2009, no further 
increases in fuel efficiency were assumed,  as this assumption is needed for correct 
assessment of post-2009 EU policies on CO 2 emissions from road vehicles. For 
light commercial vehicles (N1) TREMOVE diverges from TNO estimates as it is calculated using the Copert method. For heavy duty trucks the 1995-2009 fuel efficiency improvement rates have been removed from the base case (from version 2.44 onwards). This change was suggested by the European Commission to bring the TREMOVE base case more into line with the PRIMES energy scenarios.  
The partial implementation scenario includes polic y measures that, in response to a judgment 
made in 200541, are likely to be implemented. This mean s either that the policy measures have 
been implemented already or that there are clear indications that they will be soon. The latter 
is the case when approved EU directives set deadlines for Member States to adapt their 
national legislation accordingly. 
The central components of the part ial implementation scenario are: 
• Macroeconomic assumptions, population growth, transport demand and transport costs are 
updated, based on the latest pr edictions for 2010 and 2020. The fuel consumption and 
emission module is based on the Copert 4 met hod for calculating road transport emissions. 
The baseline takes account of th e new technologies up to Euro 5 and 6. Assumptions have 
been made on fuel efficiency trends42. 
• All policy measures that have been followe d up by a directive approved by the European 
institutions and that has to be implemen ted by the Member States before 2010 (or 2020) 
are included in the partial implem entation scenario for 2010 (or 2020). 
• Policy measures that have been followed up by a proposal that is awaiting approval by the 
European institutions are included in the partial implementation scenario for 2010 (or 
2020) only if they have a realistic chance of being approved before 2010 (or 2020). This 
expectation is based on the number of times th at a particular proposal has already been 
rejected and on the debate about th e policy objective in the media. 
• All TEN-T projects that, according to the es timates published in 2004, are scheduled to be 
completed before 2010 (or 2020) are included in the partial implementation scenario for 
2010 (or 2020). 
The following policy fields and measures relevant to urban mobility and covering the period 
after 2005 are included in the pa rtial implementation scenario: 
                                                 
41 Based on the preliminary results of the policy review up to 2005 described in Annexes I to IV to the 
ASSESS study. 
42 In the period 2005-2010, fuel efficiency improvements for road vehicles lead to a limited downward 
trend in overall fuel consumption by transport. This is mainly the result of the voluntary agreement with 
the car industry to limit test-cycle CO 2 emissions from cars to 140 grammes per km by 2008/2009. The 
resulting decrease in specific fuel consumption coun terbalances the increase in  transport demand. After 
2010, no further fuel efficiency improvements fo r new vehicles are modelled. Old vehicles, however, 
will increasingly be replaced by newer, fuel-efficient ones. This increasing share of more fuel-efficient 
vehicles, however, does not offset the increase in transport demand. The net result is an increase in 
greenhouse gas emissions after 2009. 
 
EN 55   EN • In the road sector, the measures on driver tr aining, harmonisation of so cial legislation and 
introduction of the digital tachograph are implemented. However, the further 
harmonisation of driving times and weekend ba ns on lorries have not been implemented.  
• The European rail freight sector has been liberal ised and the quality of freight services has 
been improved. Liberalisation of passenger tran sport is starting and will be completed in 
the (partial implementation) scenario fo r 2020 only. Rail safety has been improved by 
technical harmonisation and in teroperability of the high- speed rail network has been 
improved.  
• The regulation on the award of public service contracts for public passenger transport has 
been adopted and more contracts for public pass enger transport services will be granted by 
competition. 
• There have been experiments to improve an d promote combined transport. Integrated 
ticketing and baggage handling have been im proved in the air and rail sectors.  
• There is an EU action programme on road sa fety. However, road safety remains the 
responsibility of the Member St ates and efforts to harmonise legislation and penalties have 
not yet been effective. 
• There is an EU policy on charging for the use of infrastructure but its impact is limited. 
The revision of the Eurovignette Direct ive includes only some possibilities of 
differentiating charges for some sensitive areas  and for the most polluting vehicles. There 
is no harmonisation of fuel taxes.  
• Clean urban transport is promoted by EU-fund ed research and demonstration activities. 
The impact on EU scale is limited. 
This means that the possible impact of so me specific recent Commission proposals, for 
example the Greening Transport Package or in the field of air quality, has not been fully taken into account.  
 
EN 56   EN The modelling results 
The baseline scenario presented in this Annex describes how the urban mobility problems will 
evolve if there is no change in the EU approach. This does not mean that no policy changes 
can occur. It means that the direction of EU policies that have an impact on urban mobility 
remains unchanged. In other words, what would happen if no action were taken? 
To start the description of the baseline scenari o, indicators or parameters relevant to urban 
mobility and transport were selected, based on the specific objectives set out in Chapter 3. 
The indicators in the baseline scenario are listed below: 
Indicators included in the baseline scenario  
Topic Indicator Source 
Mobility Motorised vehicle-kilometres 
Modal share TREMOVE 
TREMOVE 
Congestion Passenger-hours lost 
Tonne-hours lost TREMOVE 
TREMOVE 
Energy  Mtoe consumption TREMOVE/DG TREN 
Environment CO 2 emissions  
Methane emissions  
CO emissions 
NO x emissions 
N2O emissions 
PM emissions Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
SO
2 emissions TREMOVE 
TREMOVE 
TREMOVE 
TREMOVE 
TREMOVE 
TREMOVE TREMOVE 
TREMOVE 
Economy Impact on administrative costs (qualitative description) 
Competition on internal market (qualitative description) Desk research 
Desk research 
Social Impact on social inclusion (qualitative description) 
Traffic fatalities 
Road accidents 
Impact of emissions on health Impact of noise on health Desk research 
DG TREN 
DG TREN 
TREMOVE TREMOVE 
 
EN 57   EN TREMOVE provides values for most of thes e indicators for 2012 and 2020. Total transport 
flows and emissions in each country in TREMOVE are allocated to three model regions: a metropolitan area, an aggregate of  all other cities and an aggreg ate of all non-urban areas. The 
aggregate of all other cities is referred to as  “other urban”. Other s ources (DG TREN and desk 
research) provide information for the indicators not included in TREMOVE. 
Mobility 
 
Mobility is a broad concept. One indicator for mobility is the total number of vehicle-
kilometres (both passenger vehicles and freigh t vehicles). This parameter indicates that 
mobility in metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas has been growing at a rate of nearly 
20% over the last 10 years. TREMOVE estimates that this growth will continue, albeit at a 
declining rate. The expected growth between 2005 and 2020 in total ve hicle-kilometres is 
19.5% or, on average, about 6.5% every five year s. The growth rate seems to be higher in 
metropolitan and other urban areas than in non-urban areas. 
Vehicle-kilometres in EU-27 (1995-2025) 
05001.0001.5002.0002.5003.0003.5004.0004.5005.000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025vehicle kms (x 10^9)
Metrop+Urban Non-urban Total+8,1%+11,0%
+11,8%+8,7%
+8,2%+8,6%+6,3%
+5,8%
+8,1%+6,2%
+6,0%
+6,9%+5,9%
+5,6%
+6,8%
 
In metropolitan and other urban areas the e xpected growth is 22.4%  between 2005 and 2020 
(source: TREMOVE) or, on average, about 7.5% every five years. This can be seen in the next figure, which also demonstr ates that vehicle-kilometres during both the peak and the off-
peak period are increasing. 
 
EN 58   EN Peak and off-peak vehicle-kilometres in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27 (2005, 
2012 and 2020) 
020040060080010001200
2005 2012 2020Vehicle kms (x 1,000,000,000)
Metropolitan (peak) Metropolitan (off-peak) Other urban (peak) Other urban (off-peak)+8.0%+9.6%+9.9%+11.8%
+10.3%+11.6%+10.4%+11.9%
 
In order to gain a better view of the di fferences between passengers and freight in 
metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas, the next two figures show the trends in 
passenger-kilometres and freight tonne-kilometre s. Like vehicle-kilometres, passenger- and 
freight tonne-kilometres are al so based on totals from TREM OVE, which means including all 
trip distances, networks, periods, trip purposes and freight commodities.   
Both for metropolitan and other urban and for no n-urban passenger-kilometres, the trend lines 
show steady growth of approximately 7% ever y five years. The sh are of metropolitan and 
other urban passenger-kilometres decreases slightly, from 25.0% in 1995 to 23.7% in 2020. 
Passenger-kilometres in EU-27 (1995-2020) 
01.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.0007.0008.0009.000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Passenger kms (x 10^9)
Metrop+Urban Non-urban Total+6,6%+10,8%
+12,2%+8,5%
+7,1%+8,2%+8,5%
+8,2%
+9,2%+7,6%
+7,8%
+7,0%+7,8%
+7,9%
+7,2%
 
 
EN 59   EN A clear difference can be seen between urban and non-urban freight tonn e-kilometres. Freight 
tonne-kilometres in non-urban areas continue to grow, but at a decreasing rate, whereas 
freight tonne-kilometres in metropolitan and ot her urban areas show a stagnation after 2005. 
As a result, the share of metropolitan and other urban freight tonne-kilometres decreases from 
1.7% in 1995 to 1.2% in 2020. Note  that 98% to 99% of total freight tonne-kilometres are 
clocked up in non-urban areas.  
Freight tonne-kilometres in EU-27 (1995-2020) 
05001.0001.5002.0002.5003.0003.5004.000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Ton kms (x 10^9)
Metrop+Urban Non-urban Total+14,4%+15,7%
+15,7%+12,1%
+10,1%+12,0%+11,0%
+11,3%
-4,9%+10,5%
+10,7%
+0,9%+9,9%
+10,0%
+1,8%
 
Little change can be seen in the modal shares  for personal transport in metropolitan and other 
urban areas (peak, off-peak and added together).  The share taken by the car is above 70% and 
still increasing. It can be assume d that this is mainly due to the increase in car ownership in 
new Member States.  
Modal share in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020)  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
2005 2012 2020Modal share
Walking, cycle, moped car bus metro/tram train 
 
EN 60   EN Congestion  
As a result, congestion in metropolitan and ot her urban areas will increase. A good indicator 
of congestion is the number of  passenger-hours lost. This numb er can be calculated as the 
difference between the total travel time of all travellers during the p eak period and the total 
travel time for the same travellers in a (hypothe tical) situation in which their speed is equal to 
the off-peak speed. It is assumed that ther e is no congestion duri ng the off-peak hours.  
TREMOVE estimates that the passenger-hours  lost between 2005 and 2020 will increase by 
nearly 20% in metropolitan, other urban and non- urban areas. Since the number of kilometres 
travelled outside urban areas is much higher than in urban areas, c ongestion in non-urban 
areas therefore “outscores” congestion in ur ban areas. This figure gives no indication of 
“hours lost per km”, which is  higher in urban areas.  
Passenger hours lost in metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas in EU-27 (2005, 2012 
and 2020) 
0500100015002000250030003500
2005 2012 2020Passenger hours lost (x 1,000,000)
Metropolitan Other urban Non-urban+8.0%+9.5%
+9.7%+9.4%+7.3%+10.2%
 
However, not only passengers suffer from conges tion. Freight transport also suffers from it. 
For this sector, the numbe r of freight tonne-hours lost is a suitable indicator of the level of 
congestion.  
 
EN 61   EN  
Freight tonne-hours lost in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020) 
05101520253035
2005 2012 2020Ton Lost Hours (x 1,000,000)
Metropolitan Other urban-7.1%-9.0%
+1.4%+2.1%
 
This decrease in freight tonne-hour s lost is an unexpected result.  It is caused by the apparent 
decrease in tonne-kilometres in ge neral, as can be seen from th e next figure. This result is 
counter-intuitive, but no satisfact ory explanation has been found.  
Tonne-kilometres in peak and off-peak hours in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27 
(2005, 2012 and 2020) 
051015202530354045
2005 2012 2020Ton kms (x 1,000,000,000)
Metropolitan (peak) Metropolitan (off-peak) Other urban (peak) Other urban (off-peak)-6.8%-2.6%-6.2%-5.5%
-0.6%+2.5%+1.6%+2.2%
 
 
EN 62   EN Use of energy  
In 2005, about 31% of total energy consumption in the EU was rela ted to transport. Of these 
362 Mtoe, TREMOVE estimates that about 84.7%, or 306 Mtoe, was used by road and rail transport. Of these 306 Mtoe, TREMOVE esti mates that about 22.0% (or 67.5 Mtoe) was 
used by road and rail transport in metropolitan and other urban areas. The next figure shows 
the energy consumption of the transport sector  in metropolitan, other urban and non-urban 
areas
43.  
Energy consumption in Mtoe by transport in EU-27 (1990–2020) 
050100150200250300350
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Energy consumption (Mtoe)
Metrop+Urban trend Metrop+Urban Non-urban trend
Non-urban Total trend Total 
There is a strong policy focus on incr easing the fuel efficiency of tr ansport. This is a result of 
increasing fuel costs, concerns about security of  supply and awareness of the scarcity of fossil 
fuels and of the impact of CO 2 emissions on climate change. In the medium term (towards 
2012) a fuel efficiency gain of about 9% is expected and towards the long term (2020) an 
additional gain of 6.5%44. As a result, energy consumption in metropolitan and other urban 
areas is set to increase from 67.5 Mtoe in  2005 to 68.7 Mtoe in 2012 and 72.5 Mtoe in 2020.  
Environment  The CO
2 emissions are proportional to the amount of  fuel used by the transport sector in 
metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas. The in crease in fuel efficiency discussed in the 
previous section is not enough to compensate fu lly for the increase in demand for fuel caused 
by the increase in vehicle-kilometres. As a result, the CO 2 emissions as a result of fuel use 
will rise by 1.7% between 2005 and 2012 and another 5.5% towards 2020. The main reason is that fuel efficiency will not increase as much between 2012 a nd 2020 as in the period between 
2005 and 2012. 
                                                
 
43 Source for historic data: Eurostat. Conversio n to urban and metropolitan areas based on vkm 
comparison from TREMOVE. 
44 TREMOVE, based on CO 2 emission trends. Does not include the recent EU energy goals for 2020. 
 
EN 63   EN CO 2 emissions (Mt) by transport in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020)  
0100200300400500600
2005 2012 2020CO2 emission  (Mton)
Exhaust (metrop+urban) Well-to-tank (metrop+urban) Exhaust (non-urban) Well-to-tank (non-urban) 
Emissions of methane (CH 4), another greenhouse gas, in me tropolitan and other urban areas 
are expected to drop by about 27% between 2005 and 2020.  
Methane emissions (kt) by transport in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020) 
010203040506070
2005 2012 2020CH4 emission  (kton)Well-to-tank
Exhaust
 
The next figure displays the e xpected trends in emissions of other pollutants in metropolitan 
and other urban areas between 2005 and 2020. Th e following observations can be made:  
– as a result of better technology (more effici ent burning of fuel), emissions of carbon 
monoxide (CO) are expected to decline by almost 80%; 
 
EN 64   EN – the expected reduction of emi ssions of nitrogen oxides (NO x) during the exhaust phase is 
67%; 
– emissions of nitrous oxide (N 2O) are expected to remain almost constant. Note that the 
amount of emissions has been multiplied by a factor of 10 in the figure below; 
– emissions of fine particles (PM) during the e xhaust phase are expected to decline to 73% 
of the 2005 level. Note that the amount of em issions has been multiplied by a factor of 10 
in the figure below; 
– VOC emissions are expected to d ecrease by 84% between 2005 and 2020; 
– total emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO 2) are expected to remain almost constant. 
Well-to-tank and exhaust emissions (kt) by transport in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020) 
01.0002.0003.0004.0005.0006.000
05
12
20
05
12
20
05
12
20
05
1220
05
12
20
05
12
20Emisson  (kton)
Exhaust Well-to-tankCO NO x N2O (x10) PM (x10) VOC SO 2
 
Note that the number of km outsi de urban areas is much higher than in urban areas. Emissions 
in non-urban areas therefore “o utscore” emissions in urba n areas. This figure gives no 
indication of “emissions per km”, wh ich are higher in urban areas.  
Economy  
The expected growth in GDP is 16% be tween 2005 and 2012 and 18% between 2012 and 
2020. As a result, the total expected growth between 2005 and 2020 is 37%45. It has been 
estimated that just under 85% of the EU’s GDP is created in cities and towns.  
It is very difficult to assess the trends in admini strative costs at EU level from the trends in 
urban mobility. However, due to an increase in operating costs as a result of increasing congestion and of the introducti on of congestion charging scheme s, the administrative costs 
                                                
 
45 “Long-term labour productivity and GDP projections for the EU25 Member States: a production 
function framework”, European Economy. Economic Papers No 253, June 2006, page 39:  
 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication_summary688_en.htm . 
 
EN 65   EN for businesses can be expected to increase. Th e information needed in order to analyse the 
administrative costs of congestion charging and other similar schemes is not available.  
There is, however, some evidence about the administrative costs of the London congestion 
charge scheme. According to Transport for L ondon (TfL), the administrative and time costs 
for all people paying the charge (both business and personal users) total £15 million per year. 
However, the London Assembly Transport Committee noted: “On the evidence we heard, this figure is likely to be far too low”.  
Although no indicative aggregate figu re for total direct and indire ct costs was available, a CBI 
(Confederation of British Industry) study found that  “direct costs of paying for the charge [for 
some companies] run into hundreds of thousa nds of pounds” and several organisations have 
had to employ an extra person to d eal with the complex administration
46. London First (a 
lobby group focusing on keeping the London economy competitive) noted that the requirement for travellers and businesses to main tain records, particularly reconciling fleet 
movements, “can be quite burdensom e for business in that sector”
47. 
At this stage, it is not possibl e to estimate the imp act of congestion charging on administrative 
costs in any meaningful manner. What can be sa id is that the administrative costs are large 
enough that they cannot be ignored. Furthermor e, if congestion charging and other similar 
schemes proliferate without any standardisa tion or harmonisation, th e administrative burden 
of complying with the charging systems coul d potentially become quite significant for 
multinationals operating in cities across Europe. 
Increased transport costs caused, for example, by congestion can be expected to have an 
impact on competition on the internal market . Increasing transport costs can reduce the 
catchment area in which producers can compete competitively. However, it should be borne in mind that there are also opposite trends, causing catchment areas to expand. The overall 
effect depends on the share taken by transport in  the total cost of a product. Likewise, as 
consumers can travel fewer kilometres with  their transport budget,  some might buy their 
products in a smaller radius. Both eff ects reduce competition between companies. 
Social
 
Social exclusion, and the impact of transport on  it, is a complicated subject and very difficult 
to address for the whole of the EU. This section considers the i ssue of social exclusion in an 
urban context. It describes the challenges f acing European cities and the importance of 
transport and mobility in responding to them. 
Broadly speaking, European cities face two main challenges: the pains that accompany 
growth and the symptoms of stagnation or decline48. A rapidly growing city brings with it a 
whole range of problems. In several Europe an cities experiencing rapid growth (Dublin, 
London, Amsterdam, Madrid, Barcel ona and the Central and East ern European capitals of 
Prague, Budapest and Tallinn) the upward pressure on the hous ing market has resulted in a 
                                                 
46 London Assembly Transport Committee, 26 November 2003. 
47 London Assembly Transport Committee, 26 November 2003. 
48 European Commission, DG REGIO (2007), State of European Cities Report. 
 
EN 66   EN lack of affordable housing and is contributing to urban sprawl, longer commuting distances, 
traffic congestion and en vironmental degradation49.  
Construction of new business and shopping centr es on the outskirts of  cities is further 
exacerbating suburban sprawl and increasing dependence on the automobile50. 
The conclusions of a recent European Comm ission report on social exclusion are worth 
quoting at length51: 
“An increasing share of the urban population is living alone, particularly in the core 
city areas, while families are migrating to the suburbs . Although city dwellers are 
better educated than the population at large,  the benefits from the economic wealth 
generated in cities are not evenly distributed. Many urban residents face the uncertainties of unemployment, social exclusion and poverty, and these problems are 
strongly concentrated in par ticular neighbourhoods. Life exp ectancy is also lower in 
urban areas, and this can be partially blamed  on pollution of the living environment. 
Clearly creating and maintaining prosperi ty while ensuring social cohesion and 
tackling environmental probl ems continues to be the central challenge facing 
Europe’s cities today.” 
Another recent study analysing th e problems facing European cities  and the strategies used to 
respond to them concluded that one of the comm on elements in the strategies to combat the 
problems facing cities was improving public transport and trans port infrastructure
52. The 
cities included in this st udy were suffering from massive  depopulation, economic downturn 
due to the decline of manufacturing, job lo sses, urban sprawl, city centre decay and 
polarisation of neighbourhoods, with knock-on effects on education, the tax base and 
provision of services. 
“Over a period of 30 years up to 2000, all th e cities lost their core rationale, 
economic prominence and political weight. As producer cities, they had been central to their countries’ prosperity – now th ey were increasingly seen as obsolete 
industrial ‘left-overs’ with a shrinking place in the new economy based on services and ‘new knowledge industries’. Civi c pride was damaged along with urban 
landscapes, and social exclusion came to reflect a deep and mu lti-faceted form of 
separation from mainstream society. Civic leadership, often still embedded in the 
fading realities of the industrial era, lost  its way. Skills mi smatches seriously 
impeded recovery.”  
This report concluded that upgrading and im proving public transport infrastructure and 
services has been an important factor in the recovery of th ese cities and their success in 
combating the social exclusion problems that they were facing. The transport strategies 
included: 
                                                
 
49 Ibid. 
50 Ibid. 
51 Ibid. 
52 Power, A., Plöger, J. and Winkl er, A. (2008): Transforming Cities Across Europe, An Interim Report 
on Problems and Progress, London School of Economic s and Political Science, CASE Report 49. The 
seven cities included in this study were Leipzig, Br emen, Sheffield, Belfast, Bilbao, Turin and Saint 
Étienne. 
 
EN 67   EN • upgrading public transport to  overcome the dominance of tr affic and the expansion of 
roads which were dissecting cities and destroying urban spaces and communities;  
• providing new and upgraded tram lines in She ffield and Saint Étienne and a modernised 
metro system in Bilbao;  
• restricting car access and car pa rking in Leipzig and Bremen;  
• expanding pedestrian areas in all seven cities, to increase pedest rian street activity and the 
attractions of city-cen tre living and shopping; 
• providing fast transport links from the cities  to the surrounding re gions and nearby major 
cities by both train and road to increase employment opportunities by expanding the labour 
market, making it easier to attract inward invest ment and helping the cities to benefit from 
the stronger growth of larger, neighbouring ci ties. Lyon and Leeds are examples of large 
second-tier regional centres  near Saint Étienne and Sheffield respectively. 
To conclude, social exclusion is clearly a problem in most European cities (although the 
causes differ from one city to another). It is equally clear that mobility and transport are key 
factors in explaining and combating social exclus ion in cities. Finally, it is difficult to forecast 
the extent and sever ity of social exclusion in  European cities in 2020. However, it can be said 
with some degree of confiden ce that, given the long time it takes for urban redevelopment 
plans to be implemented and to have an imp act, the problem of social exclusion in urban 
environments is unlikely to go away. On the c ontrary, given the growth  of urban populations, 
the uneven growth of cities across Europe a nd the uneven growth of neighbourhoods within 
cities, the problems are likely to get worse unless steps are taken to counteract these 
developments. 
Road fatalities have been dropping steadily since 1990. In 2006, 42 953 road fatalities 
occurred compared with 75 977 in 1990: a decrease of 43%53. According to the mid-term 
review of the Transport White Paper, one third or 33% of these fatalities occur in cities. The 
next figure indicates the number of road fatalities in cities, assuming a constant share of 33% 
of all road fatalities. 
                                                 
53 DG TREN, Statistical Pocketbook 2007, Road Fatalities for EU-27. 
 
EN 68   EN Road fatalities in cities in EU-27 (1995–2020) 
05.00010.00015.00020.00025.00030.000
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Road fatalities in cities  (per year)
 
However, this linear trend is unlikely to continue indefinitely. Some slowdown can be 
expected, but the rate is unknown. If the linear trend continues until 2020, the number of road 
fatalities in cities will have dropped to under 6 000 per year. If  the curve is quadratic, the 
number will have dropped to approximately 9 500 per year. 
The number of road accidents also shows a decline, especi ally between 2000 and 2020. The 
quality of recording of accidents is expected  to be more consistent from 2000 onwards. 
Therefore two trend lines have been included in the figure below. The red line indicates a 
linear trend from 1990 to 2020 and results in a d ecrease in road accidents from over 1 500 000 
in 1990 to under 1 200 000 in 202 0. The blue line indicates a non-linear polynomial trend 
from 2000 to 2020 and results in a decrease in road  accidents from 1 500 000 in 2000 to under 
800 000 in 2020. Note that these figu res are totals and do not specif ically indicate  accidents in 
urban areas. 
 
EN 69   EN Possible trends in road accidents  
7008009001.0001.1001.2001.3001.4001.5001.600
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025Number of road accidents involving 
personal injury (*1000 per year) 
 
Transport is one of the factors outside the he althcare sector that is known to influence 
health54. The damaging effects of transport on huma n health include injuries from traffic 
accidents, the effects of noise pollution, air pol lution, stress and anxiety, danger, loss of land 
and reduced social use of outdoor space because of traffic and other tr ansport infrastructure 
leading to obesity55. Here, the consequences of transpor t-related air polluti on on human health 
will be examined. 
A number of components of tra ffic-related air pollution have b een demonstrated to have an 
impact on health, notably particulates (PM 10), ozone, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and 
nitrogen dioxide56. The effects of air pollution on health  include a variety of respiratory and 
cardiovascular problems such as  coughing, wheezing, asthma att acks, congestive heart failure 
and certain forms of cancer. The parts of the population most at  risk are the elderly, the young 
and the population groups with the highest risk of exposure to  traffic-related air pollution.  
                                                 
54 Kavanagh, P., Doyle, C. and Metcalf, O. (2005): H ealth Impacts of Transport, A Review, Institute of 
Public Health in Ireland; World Health Organisatio n (1999): Health Costs due to Traffic-related Air 
Pollution. 
55 Ibid. 
56 Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP): Quantification of the effects of air 
pollution on health in the United Kingdom, London, HMSO, 1998; European Commission: 
Externalities of Energy (ExternE). The final report  of the ExternE Core Transport Project, Brussels, 
European Commission, 2000; Watkiss, P., Brand, C., Hurley, F., Pilkington, A., Mindell, J., Joffe, M. 
et al:  Informing transport health impact assessment in London, London, Research and Development 
Directorate, NHS Executive, 2000; World Health Organisation: Health aspects of air pollution with 
particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Report of a WHO working group. Available at: 
http:www.who.dk/document/e79097.pdf. 
 
EN 70   EN Although other sources, such as industry and energy production, are impor tant, transport is a 
large source of many chemicals contributing to air pollution. A study estimated that in the UK 
transport contributes 74% of all carbon monoxide, 61% of a ll lead, 48% of all nitrogen 
dioxide, 23% of all pa rticulate matter (PM 10) and 2% of all sulphur dioxide57.  
A study of the health costs of air pollution in Austria, Switzerland and France estimated that 
the total per capita air-pollution- related health costs averaged €830 in Aust ria, €667 in France 
and €589 in Switzerland58. Of these totals, €359, €371 and €313 were attributable to traffic-
related air pollution. 
Long-term exposure to traffic-related emissions  leads to early deat hs, mainly caused by 
bronchial tube disorders. The i ndividual health risk is small, but since a large fraction of the 
population is exposed (in the Netherlands about  5% of the population lives close to a busy 
road), the effect on public health  in general is still  considerable, despite  the improvements in 
air quality over the last few years59. 
TREMOVE estimated that the air pollution cost s of passenger cars and he avy duty vehicles in 
metropolitan and other urban areas will decr ease by about 4.5% between 2005 and 2012 and 
then increase slightly.  
Air pollution costs for passenger cars and heavy duty vehicles in metropolitan and other urban 
areas in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020) 
010.00020.00030.00040.00050.00060.00070.00080.00090.000100.000110.000120.000
2005 2012 2020Air pollution costs (€ *1,000,000 per year)
Passenger cars in EU27 Heavy Duty Vehicles in EU27+12.9% +13.7%-4.6%+0.9%
 
                                                 
57 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999): The air quality strategy for 
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. London, The Stationery Office. 
58 World Health Organisation (1999): Health Costs due to Traffic-related Air Pollution, An impact 
assessment of Austria, France and Switzerland. 
59 Beelen, R. (2008): Effects of long -term exposure to traffic-related ai r pollution on mortality and lung 
cancer. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. 
 
EN 71   EN  
In 2000, about 44% of the EU-2560 population (over 210  million people) were exposed to 
road traffic noise le vels above 55 dB(A)61 – the WHO guide value fo r outdoor noise levels 
and the threshold for serious annoyance. Acco rding to a recent study, more than 55 million 
people were exposed to road traffic noise le vels over 65 dB(A), ten times louder than the 
WHO guide value.  
Turning to rail, in 2000 approximately 35 million pe ople in EU-25 were exposed to rail traffic 
noise above 55 dB and 7 million of them to over 65 dB. It must be added that most European 
countries do not report on the number of pe ople exposed to noise levels below 55 dB.  
Nevertheless, noise levels below 55 dB can stil l trigger adverse effect s like annoyance, sleep 
disturbance and reduced cognitive  ability. The actual number of people exposed to levels of 
traffic noise that are po tentially dangerous to th eir health will thus be  higher than the above-
mentioned figures.  
German research suggests that excessive noise causes 1 800 premature deaths in the EU every 
year — mostly in urban areas62. The number of people who suffe r from noise nuisance will be 
many times higher. The social costs of noise (above 55 dBi) in EU-2263 have been estimated 
at between €38 billion and €46 billion per year64. 
The external costs of noise from passenger ca rs in metropolitan and other urban areas, 
according to the results from the TREMOVE a nd IMPACT studies, are shown in the figure 
below, which indicates a significant and constant increase in noise costs.  
                                                 
60 EU-27 excluding Cyprus and Malta. 
61 Den Boer, L. C. and Schroten, A. (2007): Traffic Noise Reduction in Europe. Health effects, social 
costs and technical policy options to reduc e road and rail traffic noise, CE Delft. 
62 ECMT, 2006: Implementing sustainable urban travel policies: Applying the 2001 key messages. 
ECMT/CM (2006)3/Final, ECMT, 2006. 
63 EU-27 excluding Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta. 
64 Infras/IWW (2004): External Costs of Transport, Update Study; Link, H. (2000): The Accounts 
approach, UNITE (Unifi cation of accounts and marginal co sts for transport efficiency). 
 
EN 72   EN  
Noise costs attributable to passenger cars in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27 
(2005, 2012 and 2020) 
 
02.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000  12.000  14.000  
2005 2012 2020 (€ *1 000 000 per year)  
 Noise costs in EU-27  Noise cost 
 
EN 73   EN ANNEX IV: THE EU’s RIGHT TO ACT  
The EU has been dealing with urban mobility and transport issues for many years, fully 
respecting the subsidiarity principle. Since publication of its first Green Paper and Action 
Plan to develop a Citizens’ Network65 about ten years ago, some progress has been made. 
Steps to promote exchanges of information, be nchmarking and research have been initiated 
under the common transport policy.  
But in recent years, new challenges have emerge d and EU policies other than transport have 
taken measures, sometimes in isolation, which have consequences for urban mobility. This 
was the reason for preparation of the Green Paper on urban mobility which aimed at defining the added value of current and possible new actions at EU level. 
This annex assesses the EU’s ri ght to act on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty on the functioning 
of the European Union and on the basis of the current Treaty establishing the European Community and includes some concluding rema rks on the instruments that can be used.  
Assessment on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty  on the functioning of the European Union 
This assessment of the EU’s right to act is  based on the Lisbon Treat y on the functioning of 
the European Union (TFEU) as it stands. It must, however, be borne in mind that the 
ratification process of the TFEU is ongoing and th at it is not yet fully clear how the TFEU 
provisions will influence interpretation of the EU’s  right to act and the subsidiarity principle 
in future. 
Two conditions have to be met in order to de termine whether the EU has the right to act: 
• the problem must be linked to at l east one article of the Treaty; and 
• if the problem falls in an area where competen ce is shared between Member States and the 
Union, the Commission must demo nstrate that it cannot be so lved sufficiently at Member 
State level. 
In order to satisfy the second of  these conditions, action at EU le vel can be justified when the 
conditions of the “necessity test” are met. These include:  
• the existence of transnational aspects that cannot be satisfactorily regulated by Member 
States;  
• action by one or more Member States alone would conflict with the requirements of the 
Treaty; and 
• action by Member States, or lack of EU action, would significantly damage Member 
States’ interests. 
Once the “necessity test” is passe d, next action at EU level must  satisfy the “added value test” 
(i.e. the objectives can be better achieved at EU  level) and the “boundar y test” (i.e. action at 
EU level must be limited to what cannot be achieved by the Member States alone). 
                                                
 
65 The Citizens’ Network: COM(95) 601 and COM(1998) 431. 
 
EN 74   EN In conclusion, this means that the EU’s right to act has to be asse ssed on the basis of two 
criteria: the problem must be linked to at least one article of the Treaty  and there should be a 
necessity to act at EU level. In addition, there should be added value in action at EU level and 
this action must be limited to what ca nnot be achieved by the Member States.  
The subject of urban mobility and transpor t falls under Article 90 of the TFEU which 
provides for a common transport policy. Articles 91( c) and 91(d) of the TFEU are relevant to 
urban mobility and transport. They state that  for the purpose of implementing Article 90 the 
European Parliament and Council will lay down m easures to improve transport safety and any 
other appropriate provis ions, respectively.  
Article 4 of the TFEU lists transport as one of the areas of shared comp etence between the EU 
and Member States. Given that the same article lists trans-European netw orks separately, this 
means that transport can be understood as meaning not only long-distance transport. 
Urban mobility and transport cover a wider domain than transport alone and touch upon 
different Titles and Artic les in the Treaty. For example, with  regard to emissions from road 
traffic and noise, Article 11 of the TFEU re quires the EU to incorporate environmental 
protection requirements in its policies and acti on. Article 168 of the TFEU requires EU policy 
to aim at obviating sources of danger to physi cal and mental health. Article 153 provides for 
the EU to act to combat social exclusion and Articles 174 and 175 for the EU to promote 
harmonious development and strengthening of its economic and social cohesion and reduce 
disparities between regions.  
On the basis of the above assessment, it can be  concluded that urban mobility and transport 
are linked to at least one article of the Treaty.  
The next step is the “necessity test”. There are several examples conf irming the necessity to 
take action at EU level. One of the problems related to urban mobility and transport are emissions from road traffic, including emissions that contribute to clim ate change. This is a 
problem with a clear transnational dimension, where action by individual Member States, for 
example to set new limit values, introduce fina ncial incentives or impl ement their own access 
restriction rules, could be in violation of EU legislation. Ur ban congestion affects enterprises 
from other Member States.  
Addressing the problem of impe rfect information on market developments, monitoring the 
fragmentation of policies, targets and objectives and assessing urban mobility trends at local, regional and national levels is so mething that can only be done efficiently and effectively at 
EU level. No action by the EU in this field, or action by just a few individual Member States, 
could lead to less informed decisions and da mage the financial and policy interests of 
Member States.  
These examples provide a sufficient basis to co nclude that urban mobility and transport pass 
the “necessity test”. 
The “added value” test requires that the EU mu st act only if the objectives can be better 
achieved at Union level. For example, dissemination of information and knowledge, 
expansion of the knowledge base and exchanges of  best practice in the area of urban mobility 
are best carried out at EU leve l. This will avoid duplication of work and fragmentation of 
resources and allow decision-makers to benefit from the broadest, most  diverse experience 
possible. 
 
EN 75   EN Emission and noise limits are best set at EU level in order to avoid adoption of different 
standards in different Member  States, which would add to the regulatory burden. Other 
examples include setting technical standards,  e.g. for intelligent travel information and 
payment systems, including Galileo-based applic ations. As mentioned earlier, there is also 
clear added value in action at EU level on in formation and data collection and monitoring.  
Based on the above observations, there is a basis to conclude that there is “added value” in 
EU action in the field of urban mobility and transport. 
Finally, it is important to bear in mind that , in contrast to the existing Treaty, the TFEU 
includes stronger recogniti on of the local and regional governme nt levels in development and 
implementation of EU policy and legislation. Fo r example, the TFEU explicitly recognises the 
principle of  local and regional self-government . The definition of subsid iarity is extended to 
include the local and regiona l levels. The Commission shoul d consult local and regional 
governments more effectively. And, finally, the obj ectives of the EU woul d include territorial, 
economic and social cohesion66. 
Assessment on the basis of the Treaty establishing the European Community 
Many of the arguments set out above also apply to the current Treaty.  
The subject of urban mobility and transpor t falls under Article 70 of the Treaty which 
provides for a common transport policy. Article s 71(c) and 71(d) are relevant to urban 
mobility and transport. They state that for the purpose of implementing Article 70 the Council 
and the European Parliament will lay down measures to improve transport safety and any other appropriate provisions, respectively. Urba n mobility and transport cover a wider domain 
than transport alone and touch upon different Titles and Articl es in the Treaty, for example 
Articles 174 and 175 (environment) and 158 (economic and social cohesion).  
Article 5 of the Treaty deals with the subsidiari ty principle and applies to urban mobility and 
transport. Several examples confirming the nece ssity to take action at EU level have been 
given already. These examples provide a suffici ent basis to conclude that, under the current 
Treaty, urban mobility and transport pass the “ne cessity test” and the “added value test”.  
                                                
 
66 Commentators consider that this objective applies at all levels of government. 
 
EN 76   EN  
Conclusion 
In conclusion, the EU has a basic right to act in the area of urban mobility and transport, but 
the subsidiarity principle applies. This impact assessment is linked to development of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility and supports the selection of possible actions for the Action 
Plan at EU level. The answer to the ques tion whether the “boundary test” is passed will 
depend on the specification and area of applic ation of each individual action proposed for the 
Action Plan.  
In the light of the above assessment, all eight EU  instruments can, in principle, be used in the 
field of urban mobility and transport.  
These instruments
67 are:  
1. Self-regulation (monitoring); 2. Open method of coordination; 3. Information and guidelines; 4. Market-based instruments;  5. Direct public-sector financial intervention; 
6. Co-regulation; 
7. Framework directive; 
8. Prescriptive regulatory action (re gulation, directive or decision). 
                                                
 
67 These are the categories given in the Impact Assessment Guidelines of  15 June 2005, as updated on 
15 March 2006 (SEC(2005) 791). 
 
EN 77   EN ANNEX V: FROM THE LONG LIST TO THE SHORTLIST  
Screening the policy options on subsidiarity, efficiency, effectiveness and consistency  
 
Policy option 
number 
Instrument 
number 
 
Subsidiarity 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Consistenc y 
Total score 
Free-flowing towns and cities  
1  Require cities to set modal split targets 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 2 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination –     
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 2 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments –     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention –     
 6 Co-regulation –     
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
2  Ban private car use in city centres 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination n.a     
 3 Information and guidelines n.a     
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation –     
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
3  Ban on-street parking in city centres 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination n.a     
 3 Information and guidelines n.a     
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 
EN 78   EN Policy option 
number 
Instrument 
number 
 
Subsidiarity 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Consistenc y 
Total score 
 6 Co-regulation –     
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
4  Recognise efforts of cities to improve sustainable urban mobility 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination n.a     
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments (rating bureau) + 1 1 3 – 
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 2 2 2 6 
 6 Co-regulation n.a     
 7 Framework directive n.a     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) n.a     
5  Promote information on access limitations for road users in cities 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination n.a.     
 3 Information and guidelines + 2 2 3 7 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation + 3 3 2 8 
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
6  Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination n.a     
 3 Information and guidelines + 3 3 3 9 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 3 3 3 9 
 6 Co-regulation n.a     
 
EN 79   EN Policy option 
number 
Instrument 
number 
 
Subsidiarity 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Consistenc y 
Total score 
 7 Framework directive n.a     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) n.a     
Greener towns and cities  
7  Internalise the external costs of urban transport 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 1 1 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 1 1 1 – 
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 1 – 
 4 Market-based instruments + 3 3 3 9 
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation + 3 2 2 7 
 7 Framework directive + 3 2 2 7 
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) + 3 2 1 6 
8  Require cities to set targets for CO 2 emissions from urban transport 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 2 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination –     
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 2 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments –     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention –     
 6 Co-regulation –     
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
9  Require zero CO 2 propulsion for urban public transport 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination n.a     
 3 Information and guidelines n.a     
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation + 2 1 3 6 
 
EN 80   EN Policy option 
number 
Instrument 
number 
 
Subsidiarity 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Consistenc y 
Total score 
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
10  Promote “green” procurement by public authorities  
 1 Self-regulation + 2 2 1 5 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6 
 3 Information and guidelines + 2 2 3 7 
 4 Market-based instruments + 2 2 2 6 
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 2 1 2 5 
 6 Co-regulation + 3 2 2 7 
 7 Framework directive + 3 1 1 5 
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) + 3 1 1 5 
11  Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and alternative fuels 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6 
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments + 3 2 2 7 
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 3 2 3 8 
 6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6 
 7 Framework directive + 3 1 1 5 
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) + 3 2 3 8  
12  Require designation of “green” zones in sensitive areas 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination n.a     
 3 Information and guidelines n.a     
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation + 1 1 3 – 
 7 Framework directive –     
 
EN 81   EN Policy option 
number 
Instrument 
number 
 
Subsidiarity 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Consistenc y 
Total score 
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
13  Harmonise rules for environmental zones  
 1 Self-regulation + 1 1 2 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 1 1 2 – 
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 2 – 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 1 1 2 – 
 6 Co-regulation + 3 2 2 7 
 7 Framework directive n.a     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) + 3 2 2 7 
Smarter urban transport  
14  Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7 
 3 Information and guidelines + 2 1 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 2 2 2 6 
 6 Co-regulation + 3 2 2 7 
 7 Framework directive + 3 3 1 7 
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) + 3 3 1 7 
15  Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information  
 1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7 
 3 Information and guidelines + 2 2 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 1 1 3 – 
 6 Co-regulation + 2 2 3 7 
 7 Framework directive + 3 2 1 6 
 
EN 82   EN Policy option 
number 
Instrument 
number 
 
Subsidiarity 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Consistenc y 
Total score 
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) + 3 2 1 6 
Accessible urban transport  
16  Require transport impact assessments as a precondition for planning permission 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination n.a     
 3 Information and guidelines n.a     
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation –     
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
17  Require establishment of urban mobility authorities 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6 
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 2 1 3 6 
 6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6 
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
18  Require adoption of SUTPs as a condition for EU funding 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination n.a     
 3 Information and guidelines n.a     
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6 
 7 Framework directive –     
 
EN 83   EN Policy option 
number 
Instrument 
number 
 
Subsidiarity 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Consistenc y 
Total score 
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
19  Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport  
 1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7 
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation + 1 1 2 4 
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
20  Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning 
 1 Self-regulation + 2 2 3 7 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6 
 3 Information and guidelines + 2 2 3 7 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention –     
 6 Co-regulation –     
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
21  Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport 
 1 Self-regulation + 2 2 3 7 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6 
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 2 – 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6 
 7 Framework directive + 2 2 1 5 
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) + 2 2 1 5 
 
EN 84   EN Policy option 
number 
Instrument 
number 
 
Subsidiarity 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Consistenc y 
Total score 
22  Improve accessibility of public transport 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7 
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 2 2 3 7 
 6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6 
 7 Framework directive + 3 3 1 7 
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) + 3 3 1 7 
23  Require operators to accept bicycles in urban public transport  
 1 Self-regulation + 1 2 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 1 2 3 – 
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 2 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 1 2 3 – 
 6 Co-regulation –     
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
Safe and secure urban transport  
24  Promote safe walking and safe cycling 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 1 1 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6 
 3 Information and guidelines + 2 3 3 8 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 3 2 2 7 
 6 Co-regulation –     
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
 
EN 85   EN Policy option 
number 
Instrument 
number 
 
Subsidiarity 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Consistenc y 
Total score 
25  Raise the minimum age for driving licences to 25 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 3 2 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 1 3 2 – 
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 3 2 – 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation + 1 3 2 – 
 7 Framework directive + 2 1 1 – 
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) + 2 1 1 – 
Cross-cutting issues  
26  Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 7 
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 2 2 3 7 
 6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6 
 7 Framework directive n.a     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) + 3 3 3 9 
27  Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 3 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7 
 3 Information and guidelines + 3 3 3 9 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 3 2 3 8 
 6 Co-regulation n.a     
 7 Framework directive n.a     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) n.a     
 
EN 86   EN Policy option 
number 
Instrument 
number 
 
Subsidiarity 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Consistenc y 
Total score 
28  Intensify research, development and demonstration activities 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6 
 3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 – 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 3 2 3 8 
 6 Co-regulation n.a     
 7 Framework directive n.a     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) n.a     
29  Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving 
 1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 – 
 2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7 
 3 Information and guidelines + 2 3 3 7 
 4 Market-based instruments + 2 2 3 7 
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6 
 7 Framework directive + 3 2 2 7 
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) + 3 2 2 7 
30  Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination n.a     
 3 Information and guidelines + 2 2 3 7 
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention + 3 2 3 8 
 6 Co-regulation + 2 2 1 5 
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
31  Require implementation of a “value-capture tax” 
 
EN 87   EN Policy option 
number 
Instrument 
number 
 
Subsidiarity 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
Consistenc y 
Total score 
 1 Self-regulation n.a     
 2 Open method of coordination n.a     
 3 Information and guidelines n.a     
 4 Market-based instruments n.a     
 5 Direct public-secto r financial intervention n.a     
 6 Co-regulation + 2 2 1 5 
 7 Framework directive –     
 8 Prescriptive regulatory action (r egulation, directive or decision) –     
• A plus (+) in the subsidiarity column means that the policy option using this instrument 
passes the subsidiarity test and that taking action at EU level can therefore have added 
value. A minus (–) means that action using this  instrument can better be taken at national, 
regional or local levels. For some instruments, th is test is not applicable, in which case this 
is indicated as “n.a.” Policy options which fail the subsidiarity  test are no longer taken into 
account and no further analysis of them will be carried out. 
• Each combination of a policy option with an inst rument that passes the subsidiarity test is 
awarded a score for efficiency, effectivene ss and consistency, ranging from 1 (low) to 3 
(high). The total score is indicated in the last column. However, if the score for effectiveness is 1, no total score is given, because the co mbination is no longer perceived 
as a viable option.  
• Policy options which score a tota l of 6 or lower for all instru ments are considered unviable. 
This was the case for 12 options. 
 
EN 88   EN ANNEX VI: DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPACT OF SHORTLISTED POLICY 
OPTIONS  
This annex describes the different kinds of imp act of the shortlisted policy options, in either 
quantitative or qua litative terms.  
Option 5: Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities  
An increasing number of cities are introducin g demand management schemes in urban areas 
for motor vehicles in the form of environm ental zones or road use charging. This policy 
option provides a stronger basis for policy-making in this area at  all levels of government. It 
can contribute to better informed decisions. In  the longer term an initiative at EU level can 
also help to reduce costs by reducing fr agmentation in use of resources.  
The impact of the London congestion charge scheme68 includes a 21% reduction in traffic 
entering the original charging z one, a 43% increase in cycling within the zone and reductions 
in accidents and key traffic pollutants, with the retail sector now outperf orming the rest of the 
UK and significant income raised. The imp act of the Stockholm congestion charging 
scheme69 includes a 10-15% reduction in traffic volume to/from the inner city, 30-50% less 
traffic and reductions in pollutant emissions of 14% in the inner city and of 2.5% in 
Stockholm county as a whole. The cost of operating the schemes is a concern.  
For this option, a non-regulatory approach could be  put in place by the EU in order to assess 
whether the local initiatives are in line with developments and existing legislation at EU level 
or whether the rules for vehicles entering from other parts of the country and from abroad are 
clear and interoperable.  
There are few guarantees that the information generated by this option will actually be used. 
This influences its effectiveness. This obstacle can be overcome by ensuring active involvement of users and good dissemination of information. This option has no impact on 
specific groups, nor are th ere any obstacles to compliance. It is difficult to pr edict the impact, 
given that use of the information is not mandatory.  
Option 6: Promote more efficient urba n freight distribution and logistics  
Urban freight transport is sometimes forgot ten by local policy-makers. This policy option 
would incorporate the urban ac tivities included in the 2007 Frei ght Transport Logistics Action 
Plan. Additional activities could, however, be launched and recommendations for policy-
makers prepared. This policy option will make a positive contribution to a wide range of congestion, energy, environmental, economic and social objectives. 
The measures in the urban chapter of the Freigh t Transport Logistics Acti on Plan are likely to 
result in a decline in motorised vehicle-ki lometres (as fewer truc k movements would be 
necessary), a decline in  tonne-hours lost (as freight moveme nt would be more efficient), a 
decline in the energy and environmental imp act (as a result of the decrease in truck 
movements), a positive impact on the investment and competition indicators (as the efficiency 
                                                
 
68 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roaduser s/congestioncharging/6723.aspx. 
69 http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/upload/Ra pporter/Expert_group_summary_060621.pdf. 
 
EN 89   EN of businesses in cities is incr eased), a decrease in traffic fata lities and an improvement in the 
health impact of emissions (following  the decrease in truck movements).  
In the START project70 Bristol City Council, in partnershi p with experts from DHL Exel, has 
been successfully operating a consolidation cen tre since May 2004 with th e aim of helping to 
reduce pollution and congestion in central Bristol. Streamlining deliveries and cutting the 
number of vehicles deliveri ng to the Broadmead shopping centre has helped achieve this, 
whilst at the same time providing an improved de livery service to retailers. The scheme has 
reduced delivery vehicle movements by 77%. This means a saving of 5 374 lorry trips 
equating to 106 556 lorry-kilometres with resulting reductions of 13.3 tonnes in CO 2 
emissions, 426 kg in NOx and 12.8 kg in PM 10.  
The EU could opt for a non-regulatory approach that could include info rmation and guidelines 
and/or financial intervention. Both these instruments would have the above-mentioned 
impact, although it is most likely to be stronger in the case of direct public intervention. The 
risk of non-compliance is negligible .  
Option 7: Internalise the extern al costs of urban transport  
This policy option is intended to make travellers  in urban areas pay for the full external costs 
that they impose on society. The external costs of transport include congestion, air emissions, 
noise and traffic fatalities. These external cost s vary across locations, but are higher in areas 
with higher population density, ty pically urban areas. This polic y option will make a positive 
contribution to mobility, congestion71, energy, environmental and social objectives. 
Charging for external costs has an impact on trans port costs which in turn influences transport 
volume (trips, tonnes carried and passenger- and t onne-kilometres). This impact is expected to 
differ across modes which would change modal sh ares and lead to modal shift. In addition, 
this option will lead to a reduction in demand fo r transport, in energy use and in vehicle-
kilometres. In the longer term, there might be increased demand for cleaner, safer and quieter vehicles.  
Congestion charging is expected to have a strong  impact on traffic flows. The extent to which 
demand for transport is reduced is determ ined by the price elasticity of demand. The 
percentage change in demand in response to a 1% increase in price is shown in the table 
below
72:  
 Short term Long term 
Fuel consumption (total) -0.25 -0.64 
Fuel consumption (per vehicle) -0.08 -1.1 
Vehicle-kilometres (total) -0.10 -0.29 
Vehicle-kilometres (per vehicle) -0.10 -0.30 
Vehicle stock -0.08 -0.25 
 
                                                 
70 www.start-project.org. 
71 The costs of avoiding congestion should be added to the direct costs of suffering congestion by adding a 
precautionary margin to the trip start and to the costs derived from the loss of reliability in the eyes of clients. 
72 Goodwin, P., Dargay, J. and Hanly, M. (2003): El asticities of Road Traffic and Fuel Consumption With 
Respect to Price and Income: A Review, University College London. 
 
EN 90   EN The social impact of this policy option includes the impact on mobility (slight change) and on 
health (decrease in  accident rates).  
A regulatory approach could be used by the EU , perhaps in combination with market-based 
instruments, to follow up current initiatives on in ternalisation of external costs in transport. 
One potential obstacle to compliance is the resi stance from part of th e public and businesses 
to increasing the cost of car use in certain places and periods. The availability and reliability of the ITS tools for vehicle location, registra tion and payment collectio n in urban areas is 
another cause for concern.  
Option 10: Promote “green” procu rement by public authorities  
This policy option will make a positive contri bution to energy, environmental and social 
objectives. Joint public procurement of “green” vehicles will also sp eed up replacement of 
vehicles operated by public authorities or by pr ivate operators under public  service contracts. 
The objective of this policy option would be to bring potential buyers toge ther in consortia so 
that lower prices can be obtaine d as a result of economies of  scale. In addition, possible 
administrative barriers at national, regional or  local levels to joint procurement would be 
overcome.  
Experience in Stockholm
73 shows that the number of clean vehicles in the fleet does not 
automatically increase after introduction of a clean vehicles scheme . In Stockholm, the 
opposite happened when the municipal vehicle fleet was outsourced to  a private leasing 
company in 2002 and vehicle purchasing decisions  were decentralised. This resulted in a 
smaller share of clean cars  in the municipal fleet. 
In the CIVITAS-Trendsetter project the city of Stockholm reversed this negative trend by 
offering incentives for purchasing clean vehi cles, introducing a joint procurement programme 
and arranging information activiti es and test-drives for procurement officers. By the end of 
2005, Stockholm was operating 465 clean vehicles. This is 43% of the to tal municipal fleet. 
Among other things, this cut energy consumption by around 25% and also reduced CO 2 
emissions and fuel costs for the biogas vehicles . Some 80% of the drivers are very satisfied. 
The disadvantage has been a 5% increase in maintenance costs, mainly because biogas 
vehicles need more maintena nce and repair. Lille Metropole74 has similar experience.  
A variety of instruments could be used, for example dissemina tion of best practice or co-
regulation. This policy option is likely to lead to  fleet renewal, resultin g in a larger share of 
environmentally friendly vehicles. These could be vehicles owned (or tendered out for) by 
local authorities, such as public transport ve hicles, waste collection trucks, police cars and 
public works vehicles. The higher share of envir onmentally friendly vehicl es in urban traffic 
is likely to result in en ergy savings and have a positive environmental impact. The 
competitive position of the EU industry is likely to improve. 
Option 11: Promote take-up of clean an d energy-efficient vehicle technology and 
alternative fuels  
This policy option is in line with  the EU’s policy to increase th e share of alternative fuels and 
reduce pollutant emissions from road vehicles. Cleaner technologies cost more. Market-based 
                                                 
73 CIVITAS, http://www.trendsetter-europe.org/index.php?ID=585. 
74 CIVITAS, http://www.trendsetter-europe.org/index.php?ID=959. 
 
EN 91   EN instruments, such as taxing fuels or vehicles or  favouring use of cleaner fuels or vehicles, will 
have a direct impact on users. This optio n will have an economic impact on the vehicle 
manufacturing and servicing industries.  
Other kinds of impact are on energy and on th e environment. The cleaner engines may use 
less energy, but this depends on the type of fuel  used. The environmental impact will clearly 
be a reduction in air pollutant emissions whic h will make a positive contribution to social 
(health) objectives. The impact on noise will be less certain, as this depends on the engine 
technology and a large part  of the noise from cars is alre ady caused by factor s other than the 
engine. One source of uncertainty  is the unpredictab ility about the market take-up of the 
engines and fuels.  
Member States have national st rategies and coherence between  action at loca l, regional, 
national and EU levels must be ensured. The UK’s national strategy for promoting clean vehicles and fuels includes a CO
2-linked company car tax and ve hicle excise duty, three-year 
duty incentives for cleaner fuels, financial incen tives for biofuels, grants for consumers and 
fleet operators and a Technology Fund to finance RTD.  
For EU action a variety of instruments could be used, for example dissemination of 
information, market-based instruments, fina ncial intervention (e.g. from the cohesion 
instruments or under State aid policy) or re gulation (e.g. implementation of the proposed 
Directive on the promotion of clean and en ergy-efficient road transport vehicles).  
Market-based instruments may have a direct impact on vehicle sales, as long as the tax 
changes are sufficient to counter-balance the pr ice differences. In the car manufacturing and 
servicing industries, investment will have to in crease to make the transition to different fuels 
and engines. It is not clear if this will lead  to more employment in these industries. The 
competitive position of the car, bus and truck manuf acturing industry in the EU is likely to 
improve against other countries. Obst acles to compliance are not likely. 
Option 13: Harmonise rules for environmental zones  
This policy option does not addr ess the impact of environmen tal zones themselves, but only 
the impact of ending the separa te and unrelated regul ations that have emerged over the past 
across the EU. The EU could use a regulatory instrument. The objective of the initiative 
would be to ensure the use of harmonised ru les for access and vehicle identification in all 
cities that have installed, or are considering, such  a zone. This is likely to be a long process, as 
there would be many parties involved in a jo int effort with the EU. This option would 
contribute to economic objectives and provi de a stronger basis for policy-making.  
One uncertainty would be whether every country w ould be interested in joining this process. 
Each national government would have to convince its cities to apply the harmonised rules. The ability to do so varies from one country to another. Resistance might come from cities 
that want to limit access for specific types of car s , e.g. SUVs, if there were no room for this 
in the harmonised rules.  On the other hand, if the harmonised rules were to leave room for too 
many exceptions, this would defeat  the purpose, as it would no l onger be easy for non-regular 
 
EN 92   EN users to understand the rules.  There would be lower administrative costs for users and 
governments75. 
The indirect impact is likely to be that, on ce the harmonised rules are in place, it would be 
easy for freight operators and non-regular visitors, i.e. principally those from elsewhere in the 
country and from abroad, to understand the rule s on access to the environmental zone. This 
would save time and costs for those vis itors, for cars and for freight trucks.  
The main impact of any EU initiative would, ho wever, be political. It  would send out a signal 
that the EU is serious about the internal market and the fr ee movement of people and goods.  
Option 14: Improve the interoperability of  ticketing and payment systems for public 
transport  
The objective of this policy opt ion would be to make it easier to combine private and public 
modes of transport (for example,  car or bicycle with public transport), to use the services of 
different operators or to understand how the tr ansport system works in different cities and 
even in different Member States. This option targets private and prof essional users of the 
transport system. This policy option will make a positive contribution to mobility, congestion, 
economic and social objectives. 
Improved interoperability would in crease the accessibility  of public transport,  in terms of both 
geographical range and ease of use by travellers currently finding it difficult to use the 
system. Car kilometres will be replaced by public  transport which will reduce the number of 
motorised vehicle-kilometres. This can ha ve a positive impact on congestion. Energy 
consumption and emissions will also be reduc ed. However, some of today’s non-motorised 
trips could also be attract ed to public transport.  
One economic benefit of modern interoperable systems is that they significantly reduce the 
costs associated with ticketing, payments and handling cash . Development of the ITS systems 
needed is likely to improve th e competitive position of European industry against the rest of 
the world.  
A variety of instruments could be used, bu t the most promising direction would be a 
regulatory approach (standards). One uncertainty, and possible obsta cle, lies in the complexity 
of implementing ITS projects involving many stak eholders. Involvement of the stakeholders 
from the beginning would ensure be tter take-up of the results. 
Option 15: Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information  
This policy option is intended to make public transport more attrac tive and improve its 
integration with other modes. It  should follow a user perspective and pay pa rticular attention 
to the changing expectations of society caused, for example, by ageing and an increasingly multi-cultural population. This policy option w ill make a positive contribution to mobility, 
congestion and social objectives. 
The difficulty of finding one’s way around the public  transport system is one of the principal 
causes for the negative image that public transport has in the eyes of ma ny car users. This is 
                                                
 
75 One specific problem is the limited possibility for cross-border enforcement by local authorities in the 
event of traffic violations related to environmen tal zones and other zones with access restrictions. 
 
EN 93   EN particularly the case when se rvices are disrupted. Finding one ’s way in an unknown city by 
car has been made easier by in-car navigation systems. Public transport cannot yet match 
these systems with a user -friendly alternative.  
The primary impact of providing travel informati on is to enable individuals to plan their trips 
better and make coordinated use of different m odes. The result is to optimise the transport 
chain by making use of the best-suited mode fo r each leg of the journey. Estimates suggest 
that providing harmonised travel information could increase the average throughput capacity 
of road infrastructure by 3% to 7%, increase its overall capacity by 3% to 22%, decrease accidents by 3% to 30% and re duce travel time by up to 20%.  
Different instruments could be used, including information and guidelines, co-regulation and 
a regulatory approach. One possi ble obstacle might be that implementing ITS projects may 
involve many stakeholders. For non-regulatory  instruments this risk is negligible. 
Involvement of stakeholders from the beginning would ensure better take-up of the results.  
Option 19: Promote integr ated planning for urban mobility and transport  
This policy option covers a range of measures , including public-trans port-oriented land-use 
development, short-distance structure land-use development and car-restricted oriented development. The direct impact of these meas ures would be to transform land-use patterns 
and transport networks and serv ices. More indirect kinds of impact, depending on the measure 
chosen, would be a decline in (the growth of) motorised vehicle-kilometres and an increase in 
non-motorised kilometres. The reason is that the need for car trips would diminish and a shift towards environmentally friendly modes could be expected. 
This option will make a positive contribution to a wide range of mobility, congestion, energy, 
environmental and social objectives. It will al so provide a better basis for policy-making. The 
EU should follow a non-regulatory approac h, which could include coordination and 
networking.  
All social groups in urban areas could be af fected, but the degree would depend on the exact 
development plans. The economic sector most affected will be the one most present in urban areas, i.e. the tertiary sector. Retail businesses that rely heavily on greenfield shopping malls 
(this is more pronounced in some Member Stat es than in others) may find it necessary to 
adapt their distribution systems. Others may not be affected much. The impact could be 
essentially local, with usually a lim ited impact in other countries
76.  
The measures will result in a decrease in (t he growth of) congestion. Fewer passenger-hours 
and tonne-hours are likely to be lost, allowi ng households and businesses to save time. One 
indirect impact could be that so me of the time gained will be used to visit destinations farther 
away, thereby nullifying part of the positive impact. 
The measures are likely to resu lt in a decrease in (the grow th of) energy consumption. The 
shift towards non-motorised mode s will result in a decrease  in energy consumption. The 
impact on emissions of air pollutants will vary  in the same way as energy consumption, all 
other things being equal. The impact on noise is  less clear as this wi ll depend very much on 
                                                 
76 One exception could be the impact of the Øresund Bridge on the development of Malmø and 
Copenhagen. 
 
EN 94   EN local conditions. Fewer vehicle-ki lometres mean less noise but hi gher densities lead to greater 
noise exposure per vehicle-kilometre. 
The impact is likely to be strongest on social groups who live (or want to live) in peri-urban 
areas. This includes an improvement in social in clusion, as potential destinations for activities 
will be closer. Dwellers in densely populated areas are not likely to experience much 
difference, except that the quality (frequency and speed) of public transport could also 
improve for them. The number of traffic fatalities could decrease.  
One uncertainty is introduced by the 5–10 year time span before the impact of changes in 
land-use patterns becomes visible. These changes usually take more than one election cycle to 
complete. Continued awareness of the problem s and a consensus among politicians and voters 
can help reduce this uncertainty.  
Option 20: Improve coordination between  urban mobility and land-use planning  
One trend in European urban areas is that new developments often take place on the outskirts 
of cities. Often they ar e only connected by road  and lack good public tr ansport links. In many 
cases their layout and density make cycling una ttractive. This makes the car the only viable 
means of transport. In addition, developments  on the periphery result in longer travel 
distances. Finally, there is a tr end to concentrate shops and se rvices in malls located on the 
outskirts. This in turn stimulat es car use. The overall result is more and longer car trips and 
fewer possibilities for non-motorised transport.  
Requiring new developments explicitly to consider  and plan for alternatives to the car would 
help to reduce dependen ce on the car as the primary means of  transport. This would result in 
fewer private kilometres and more non-motori sed and public transport passenger-kilometres. 
The reduction in private kilometres will have an  impact on the level of congestion and have a 
positive impact on energy consumption and the environment (emissions of air pollutants and noise). Provision of viable alternatives to the car can also contribute to  social inclusion of 
citizens who either do not own or do not want to  use a (second) car. It  will also provide a 
stronger basis for policy-making.  
Closer coordination between land-use and transpor t planning has the potential significantly to 
reduce per capita energy consumption and emi ssions of pollutants by reducing per capita 
vehicle travel
77. Communities that are hi gh-density, have mixed land use, cluster centres of 
activity, implement parking management policies,  have a high level of street connectivity, 
have good access to public transport and provide facilities for cycli ng and walking have, on 
average, 20% to 40% less car use than more auto-centric cities78.  
The EU should follow a non-regulatory approach for this policy option. The strong market 
forces in the real estate sector  and the shortage of adequate housing in many European cities 
are two possible obstacles to this policy option. 
                                                 
77 Mindali, O., Raveh, A. and Salomon, I. (2004): Urban density and energy consumption: a new look at 
old statistics, Transportation Research, Vol. 38, No 2, pp. 143-162. 
78 Litman, T. (2007): Evaluating Transportation Land  Use Impacts, Victoria Transport Policy Research 
Institute. 
 
EN 95   EN Option 21: Strengthen the rights and obli gations of users of public transport  
This policy option addresses public transport operators and users. It will make a positive 
contribution to mobility and social objectives . The obligation to provide compensation if 
operators fail to meet the agreed standards may help to strengthen the image of public 
transport and improve public transport services. If this were to happen, the effect is likely to be greater use of public transport and some decr ease in car use (with th e associated impact on 
congestion, energy and the environm ent). Also some shift from bi cycle use to public transport 
can be expected. Introducing st ricter rules for users may lo wer vandalism-related costs for 
operators.  
A variety of instruments could be used by th e EU, including monito ring self-regulation. The 
impact is likely to be small, though, as many ot her factors play a role in opting for public 
transport. The improvement in the quality of  public transport would also have a positive 
impact on social inclusion. One potential obstacl e to compliance is resistance from the public 
transport operators and also from the contractin g authorities, who would ultimately bear the 
costs of the compensation. 
Option 22: Improve accessibi lity of public transport  
This policy option aims at improving both the geographical coverage of  public transport and 
ease of use by travellers  who find it difficult to use the syst em (for example,  passengers with 
luggage, small children or a physical disability), as part of an in tegrated approach to achieve a 
more accessible urban transport system. This policy option will make a positive contribution to mobility, energy, environmental and social objectives.  
The option will attract new users to the system. The strongest impact is on social inclusion 
and mobility. Some kilometres by car will be re placed by public transport (which is also 
motorised), but as public transport vehicles ha ve higher occupancy, the number of motorised 
vehicle-kilometres and congestion will decreas e. Also, energy consumption and emissions 
will be reduced. However, some of today’s non- motorised trips could also be attracted to 
public transport (this effect bei ng stronger in cities where bicycl es take a high share than in 
those with a low share). 
A variety of instruments could be used by th e EU, but the most promising direction is a 
regulatory approach. Increased coverage woul d mean that public transport supply would 
increase. The public transport network would al so become more accessible for people with 
reduced mobility, which could for example mean  using appropriate equi pment for physically 
disabled persons, addressing the specific needs of cognitive and sensory disabled persons, and providing special services for el derly and disabled persons. Di rect financial intervention by 
the EU would probably have a direct effect. But coordination between Member States or 
regulation at EU level would ha ve to be ensured first.  
One potential obstacle could be insufficient funds. There is a risk of failing to meet travellers’ 
expectations due to the long transition period. R easons for this long transition phase are, for 
example, that public transport vehicles ar e replaced over long periods and interchange 
facilities will have to be adapte d at relatively high prices.  
 
EN 96   EN Option 24: Promote safe wa lking and safe cycling  
Walking and cycling are two separa te modes of transport. Each of them has its own strengths 
and weaknesses and has different potential. This  policy option would enc ourage authorities to 
create safer conditions for walk ing and cycling. If such impr ovements were to be made, the 
strongest impact would be on mobility. In partic ular, it would result in an increase in non-
motorised kilometres. This option would make a wide range of positive contributions to mobility, energy, environmental and social ob jectives and would also make a positive 
contribution to congestion by reducin g motorised vehicle-kilometres.  
An increase in the number of people cyclin g and walking can be achieved by means of 
targeted marketing campaigns. However, long-t erm behavioural change is only possible with 
the aid of an integrated programme to improve  the infrastructure for non-motorised road 
users, financial incentives and adequate facilities at the end of the trip (for example, showers 
and changing rooms). A study estimated that this  package to stimulate cycling could increase 
cycling rates for commuting trips in the UK from 6% to almost 20%
79.  
Recently, an advertising company introduced a sy stem in Paris that offers anyone who wants 
to use a bicycle the opportunity to  do so for a nominal fee. Acco rding to one source, provision 
of bicycles at various points in the city combined with a marketing campaign (and some 
problems with public transport) increased the numbe r of cycle trips in Paris from 0% to 3% in 
one year.  
Given that most bicycle trips and walks are over short distances, i.e. under 7 km, the effect of 
any increase in non-motorised kilometres on vehicle-km is unlikely to be very large. 
However, a small decline in vehicle-km (and s hort-distance trips) ha s a disproportionately 
large impact on the volume of emissions of harm ful pollutants. The reason is that starting and 
stopping engines causes relatively high emissions. Each 1% shift (in k ilometre terms) from 
motorised to non-motorised transport reduces energy use and emissions by between 2% and 
4%80.  
There would be a positive impact on health as a result of lower obesity and pollution levels. 
As for road safety, the presence of more bicy cles on the roads makes car drivers more aware 
of them and therefore also more careful. Moreover, develo pment of dedicated infrastructure 
for non-motorised modes can contribute to reduci ng the number of conflicts and, hence, the 
number of accidents and traffic fatalitie s. The results of an extensive study81 suggest that the 
risks of an accident while riding a bicycle are far outweighed by the health benefits, at least 
for commuters who regularly cycle to work.  
The EU should follow a non-regulatory approach. This means that the risk of non-compliance 
is negligible .  
                                                 
79 Wardman, M., Tight, M. and Page, M. (2007): Fact ors influencing the propensity to cycle to work, 
Transportation Research, Vol. 41, Issue 4, May 2007, pp. 339-350. 
80 Litman T., Victoria Transport Policy Institute (200 7): Walking and Cycling Encouragement, Strategies 
that Encourage People to Use Non-motorised Tr ansportation, Transport Demand Management (TDM) 
Encyclopedia. 
81 Anderson, L. B. et al.  (2000) All-cause mortality associated with physical activity during leisure time, 
work, sports and cycling to work, Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 160, No 11, pp. 1621-1628. 
 
EN 97   EN Option 26: Improve data harmonisation,  collection, validation and reporting  
This policy option has one kind of impact, na mely providing a stronger basis for policy-
making at all levels of government. A wider range of higher quality data and information can contribute both to better informed decisions re lating to the objective of sustainable mobility 
and to implementation thereof (with the aid of m onitoring). In the longer term an initiative at 
EU level can also help to lower costs by re ducing fragmentation in use of resources.  
A range of instruments could be used at EU level, including coordination, financial 
intervention and/or regulatory action. The extent  to which the quality and availability of data 
will improve depends on the scale and scope of  the exercise, the funds made available to 
support it and how clearly the data requirements are formulated.  
There are two potential obstacles to complia nce. First, local, regional and national 
circumstances differ across the EU and, thus, th e data requirements for policy-making are also 
likely to differ. And second, local, region al and national governments with economic 
problems are unlikely to be able to find the ne cessary resources. These obstacles need to be 
taken into account when se lecting the instrument.  
Option 27: Improve dissemination of  knowledge and best practice  
This policy option has one kind of impact, na mely providing a stronger basis for policy-
making at all levels of government. Improving dissemination of knowledge and best practice 
can contribute to better informed decisions re lated to the overarching objective of sustainable 
mobility. In the longer term an in itiative at EU level can also help to lower costs by reducing 
fragmentation in use of resources.  
The EU should follow a non-regulatory approach for this policy option.  Direct public-sector 
intervention is likely to facilitate involvem ent of stakeholders. This option has no impact on 
specific groups, nor are th ere any obstacles to compliance. It is difficult to pr edict the impact, 
given that use of the knowledge and best practice is not mandatory.  
An ambitious approach should be followed in te rms of the size and prof ile of this option in 
order to address the needs and promote use by as many potential users as possible. Ensuring 
the active participation of users, promoti ng networking between them and offering users 
individual support and tools to pr epare the take-up of knowledge or  best practice will increase 
the likelihood that the information disseminated will actually be used for policy-making and lead to implementation. 
Option 28: Intensify research, develo pment and demonstration activities  
This policy option has one kind of impact, na mely providing a stronger basis for policy-
making at all levels of government. Intensifyi ng research, development and demonstration 
activities can contribute to better-informed d ecisions related to the overarching objective of 
sustainable mobility and to implementation ther eof. In the longer term an initiative at EU 
level can also help to lower costs by reducing fr agmentation in use of resources. The results of 
research, development and demonstration activi ties can contribute to  reducing congestion, 
improving energy efficiency and reducing the environmental impact of transport.  
For example, RTD on applications of urban ITS (intelligent transport systems) can help to 
reduce congestion by increasing the capacity of existing transport infrastructure in urban 
areas. RTD on new public transport concepts can help to make public transport more 
 
EN 98   EN attractive. RTD on transport propu lsion technologies can help to make automobiles more fuel-
efficient and RTD on alternative fuels can help to reduce emissions of harmful pollutants.  
Estimates suggest that the fuel efficiency of  passenger cars can be improved by between 40% 
and 50% by 2030 by means of technological im provements to engine and drive-train 
technologies82. Second-generation biofuels  based on wooden biomass or  organic waste have a 
CO 2 reduction potential of almost 90%. For both first- and second-generation biofuels the 
CO 2 reduction costs are a few hundred euros per tonne of CO 283. 
RTD activities in the area of vehicle design ca n help to make vehicles safer and thereby 
reduce traffic fatalities in urban areas. Policy-related RTD in the field of urban mobility and transport, usually involving local authorities in research and demonstrations, can help to 
assess policy tools and identify solutions to overcome barriers to implementation. This option should be implemented with the aid of financial intervention. 
In the long run, increasing RTD activities in th e field of urban mobility and transport can 
contribute to increasing the competitiveness of the EU as a whole. For example, it can 
contribute to the global competitiveness of th e EU industry in the field of intelligent 
technology or public transport ve hicles. Direct public-sector fi nancial intervention can be 
justified for activities that w ould find it difficult to attract commercial funding because they 
are too risky or for policy-related RTD where the results are of interest mainly to policy-
makers and not to stakeholders  with commercial interests.  
However, there are few guarantees that the resu lts of the RTD will actually be used. This 
influences the effectiveness of  this option. This obstacle can be overcome by ensuring active 
involvement of users and good dissemination of results.  
Option 29: Promote awareness and behavi oural change, including eco-driving  
Modal choice, travel behaviour and drivin g style influence energy consumption and 
emissions. These can be influenced by awaren ess-raising activities and information and 
marketing campaigns. This policy option will make a positive contribution to energy, environmental and social objectives (road safety). It will also he lp to provide a stronger basis 
for policy-making.  
One example is promotion of eco-driving. This is  a particularly promising concept to promote 
to road transport users, taki ng into account the high fuel prices. Eco-driving leads to no 
perceptible loss of travel time a nd, therefore, is not likely to have an impact on mobility. The 
direct impact is a clear decl ine in energy consumption per vehicle-kilometre, causing a 
decline in emissions of air pollu tants and noise. No clear economic impact is likely and there 
will be no change in administrative costs. The social impact will be that a more defensive driving style is likely to lead to a decrease in traffic fatalities, while the decrease in emissions 
is likely to improve the impact on health.  
Another example is provision of information re lated to modal choice via social marketing 
campaigns. Well designed campaigns can influence both the attitudes and the intentions of the 
target group. Patterns of car use, walking, cycling and public transport us e can be changed by 
                                                
 
82 Smokers, R. T. M., den Boer, L. C. and Faber, J. F. (2007): State of the Ar t CO2 en Mobiliteit, input 
voor gezamenlijk adviesproject va n Raad V&W, VROM-Raad en AER. 
83 Ibid. 
 
EN 99   EN awareness campaigns combined with other initiatives84. In specific cases, the reduction in 
urban car traffic has been estima ted in the range of 5% and in work-related car traffic at above 
10%85. The costs of achieving this reduction would be 0.2 to 3.2 eurocents per car-km86. 
While these figures are not representative, they  give an indication of what is achievable. 
For this policy option the EU could use a va riety of instruments, including financial 
intervention, information, guidelines, coor dination and/or a regul atory approach. The 
obstacles to compliance are related to the instruments. For non-regulatory instruments this risk is negligible.  
Option 30: Promote investment in integr ated urban transport, including public 
transport  
The urban mobility system must be seen as an integrated system that consists of the users of 
different transport modes, the interfaces between  modes, the infrastructure of each mode and 
the services and systems that allow the mobilit y system to function – such as information, 
management and payment systems. This policy op tion aims at promoting investment in urban 
transport, with special emphasis on public transport.  
Investment in urban transport, notably in th e new Member States, has been recognised as 
important by many policy-makers. This opti on will have a positive impact on mobility, 
congestion, energy consumption and the environment. The kinds of impact can include a 
modal shift towards public  transport, away from the car but also from non-motorised modes 
(mainly cycling). In cities in wh ich cycling does not have a large share (as is the case in most 
cities in the new Member States) this impact  would be limited. Funding will also stimulate 
urban regeneration (which can include measures to increase density), infrastructure-upgrading 
and fleet renewal. 
The improvement in access to public transport w ill be the most important, but there will also 
be an improvement in social inclusion as tr avel opportunities increase . A decrease in traffic 
fatalities will be achieved, along with improveme nts in the impact on health, as car traffic 
decreases.  
There is a clear relationship betw een provision of public transpor t, the population density of a 
city and the cost of tr ansport. The higher the density in a c ity well served by public transport, 
the lower the cost of transport. Conversely low-density cities lacking good public transport 
spend a higher share of their GDP on transport.  This difference is estimated at €2000 per year 
per city resident for cities with well developed public transport and infrastructure for alternative modes of transport
87. Translated into energy consum ption, the difference in energy 
consumption between high-density European ci ties with good public transport and sprawling 
American and Australian cities can range fr om 14 000 megaJoules to over 18 000 megaJoules 
per person, per year88.  
                                                 
84 Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson C., Anable J., Kirkbride, A. and Goodwin, P. (2005): Smarter Choices – 
Changing the Way We Travel, Department for Transport (DfT), London. 
85 Ibid. 
86 Ibid. 
87 UITP (2005): Mobility in Cities Database. 
88 Ibid. 
 
EN 100   EN On congested roads, even a small reduction in traffic volume can signifi cantly increase traffic 
speeds. For example, on a highway lane in the USA carrying 2 000 vehicles per hour a 5% 
reduction in traffic volumes will typically increase traffic speeds by about 20 miles per hour and eliminate stop-start conditions
89. The role of the EU could either be financial or consist of 
providing information or guidelines. The uncerta inties and the obstacles to compliance will be 
small.  
                                                 
89 TRL (2004), The Demand for Public Transit: A Prac tical Guide, Transportation Research Laboratory, 
Report TRL 593 (www.trl.co.uk).