Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Background to the intervention 2.1. Wider policy context 2.2. Need for action 2.3. Description of the intervention 2.4. Baseline and points of comparison 3. Implementation / State of play of the UMP measures 3.1. Developments after 2013 3.2. Implementation of the EU-level measures 3.3. Implementation of UMP measures by Member States 3.3.1. Urban mobility approaches across all EU Member States 3.3.2. Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) 3.3.3. Uptake of EU support for urban mobility 3.3.4. Urban vehicle access regulations 3.3.5. Urban road safety 3.3.6. Urban Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) 3.3.7. Urban logistics 4. Method

4.1. Short description of methodology 4.2. Limitations and robustness of findings 5. Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1. Relevance 5.1.1. Relevance of problems identified in the UMP 5.1.2. Relevance of the UMP objectives 5.1.3. Relevance of the main pillars of the UMP 5.1.3.1. Relevance of SUMP 5.1.3.2. Relevance of UVARs, urban logistics, ITS and road safety 5.1.3.3. New and emerging areas to be taken into account 5.1.3.4. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on resilience, health and safety in urban mobility 5.2. Effectiveness 5.2.1. Contribution of the Urban Mobility Package towards a more competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility in the EU 5.2.2. Effectiveness of the EU-level UMP measures 5.2.2.1. Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (SUMP) 5.2.2.2. Coordinating public and private sector intervention – guidance documents 5.2.2.3. Reinforcing EU support 5.2.3. Contributing and hindering factors 5.2.4. Assessment of whether the same results would have been realised without the Urban Mobility Package 5.2.5. Promotion of EU concepts and tools at national local level

5.2.6. Allocation of responsibility between the EU and Member States with respect to the current needs and capacities at local level 5.2.7. Effectiveness of the Member State-level UMP measures and UMP contribution to it 5.2.8. EU financing for urban mobility since the implementation of the Urban Mobility Package 5.2.8.1. Facts and figures 5.2.8.2. Effectiveness of EU financial support in the area of urban mobility 5.2.9. Unintended effects of the Urban Mobility Package 5.3. Efficiency 5.3.1. Main beneficiaries of the Urban Mobility Package 5.3.2. Cost and benefits associated with the implementation of the Urban Mobility Package 5.3.2.1. EU-level costs 5.3.2.2. Costs borne by Member States and regional authorities 5.3.2.3. Costs associated with the development and implementation of SUMPs 5.3.3. Efficiency of UMP measures 5.3.4. Extent to which the costs of the UMP as a whole have been justified given the benefits that have been achieved 5.3.5. Room for simplification in order to reduce regulatory burden 5.4. Coherence 5.4.1. Internal coherence 5.4.2. External coherence 5.4.2.1. Coherence with National Energy and Climate Plans 5.4.2.2. Coherence with EU environmental policy

5.4.2.3. Coherence with transport and infrastructure EU policy 5.4.2.4. Coherence with digital EU policy 5.4.2.5. Coherence with social and employment EU policy 5.4.2.6. Coherence with the principles of the EU single market 5.4.2.7. Coherence with funding and financing mechanisms for urban mobility 5.4.2.8. Synthesis of findings on the external coherence of the UMP 5.5. EU Added Value 5.5.1. Evidence of direct EU added value 5.5.2. Evidence of indirect EU added value 5.5.3. The impact of EU-level funding on the added value of the UMP 5.5.4. The need for EU intervention 5.5.5. Implications of withdrawing the existing EU intervention 6. Conclusions 6.1. Conclusion 1: Action on sustainable urban mobility is still urgently needed to achieve ambitious climate and environmental targets and commitments 6.2. Conclusion 2: The UMP has made some contribution towards its original objectives, but there is a need to update them 6.3. Conclusion 3: There is a significant variation in the degree to which UMP measures have been implemented by Member States 6.4. Conclusion 4: EU support is important and necessary for capacity building, sharing of information and experience, and fostering collaboration and cooperation in the area of urban mobility 6.5. Conclusion 5: The UMP has not managed to engage Member States as intended 6.6. Conclusion 6: The coordination of the public and private sector interventions has been sub-optimal and requires updating 6.7. Conclusion 7: EU funding has been instrumental in the implementation of urban mobility measures in cities, but strong link with SUMPs has been lacking

6.8. Conclusion 8: The support for SUMPs has made an important contribution to the evolution of mobility planning at the city level; however, further work is needed to ensure SUMP implementation and quality 6.9. Conclusion 9: Urban mobility data collection and availability is of insufficient quality, and requires more effort in particular from Member States Overview of annexes: Annex 1: Procedural Information Annex 2: Summary of public and stakeholder consultation Annex 3: Methodology: reconstructed intervention logic and evaluation questions matrix Annex 4: Architecture of the Urban Mobility Package Annex 5: Overview of policy areas that are directly or indirectly linked to urban mobility Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition CEF Connecting Europe Facility EC European Commission COM European Commission Communication EIP-SCC European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities EIB European Investment Bank ELTIS European Local Transport Information Service, www.eltis.org (European Urban Mobility Observatory) EMW European Mobility Week, EU awareness-raising campaign on sustainable urban mobility ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESI European Structural and Investment Fund EGUM Member States Expert Group on Urban Mobility set up by the European Commission GHG Greenhouse Gas IA Impact Assessment, a process examining whether there is a need for EU action and analysing the possible impacts of available solutions ITS Intelligent Transport Systems, transport solutions utilizing state-of-the-art information and telecommunications technologies KPI Key Performance Indicator, a type of performance measurement LEZ Low Emission Zone (a type of urban vehicle access regulations) MaaS Mobility as a Service, the integration of various forms of transport services into a single mobility service accessible on demand NECP National Energy and Climate Plan, a 10-year integrated plan for 2021-2030 under Regulation on the governance of the energy union and climate action (EU)2018/1999 NOx Nitrogen oxides, collective term used to refer to nitrogen monoxide (nitric oxide or NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), air pollutants produced during combustion including by motor vehicles PM Particulate Matter, a collective name for fine solid or liquid particles added to the atmosphere by processes at the earth's surface, a pollutant considered to be one of the most harmful to human health pkm Passenger-Kilometre, unit of measurement representing the transport of one passenger by a defined mode of transport over one kilometre Shared mobility It refers in this document to shared use of transport modes, such as sharing of vehicles for rental (e.g. bikes, scooters, cars), ride-sharing/car-pooling (i.e. shared space within a vehicle) as well as transport-on-demand services (e.g. ride hailing services like taxis or Uber). SWD Staff Working Document, preparatory/auxiliary document of the European Commission, usually accompanying legislative proposals SUMI Sustainable Urban Mobility Indicators, a set of indicators developed by a pilot project funded by the European Commission to support cities to perform a standardised evaluation of their mobility system and to measure improvements SUMP Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, a strategic plan designed to satisfy the mobility needs of people and businesses in cities and their surroundings for a better quality of life tkm Tonne-Kilometre, unit of measure of freight transport which represents the transport of one tonne of goods by a given transport mode over a distance of one kilometre TEN-T Trans-European Transport Network, Europe-wide network of railway lines, roads, inland waterways, maritime shipping routes, ports, airports and urban nodes UMP Urban Mobility Package, an EU policy basis of 2013 comprising te Communication "Together towards competitive and resource efficient urban mobility" and annexes UVAR Urban Vehicle Access Regulation, a form of traffic management that regulates access in specific urban locations according to vehicle type, age, emissions category – or other factors such as time of day or day of the week vkm Vehicle-Kilometre, unit of measurement representing the movement of a road motor vehicle over one kilometre WHO World Health Organisation



1.Introduction This evaluation examines whether the EU urban mobility policy is fit for purpose and delivers as intended. It concerns the Urban Mobility Package (hereinafter “UMP”), consisting of the Communication “Together towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility” as well as the accompanying annex: "A Concept for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans and four Commission Staff Working Documents: -‘A call to action on urban logistics’, -‘Targeted action on urban road safety’, -‘A call for smarter action on urban access regulations’, and -‘Mobilising Intelligent Transport Systems for EU cities’ . The Impact Assessment accompanying the Urban Mobility Package foresees an evaluation by 2020 of the uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches in the European Union. In November 2018 the Commission therefore published a Roadmap outlining its plans for this evaluation. An external support study to this evaluation was carried out and is published alongside this report. The evaluation covers all EU Member States and the period since the adoption of the UMP in 2013 until 2018.

This evaluation aims to provide the analysis of the findings, along with evidence-based conclusions and recommendations for any further decisions on the development of the European urban mobility policy. In doing so, it complies with the requirements defined in the Better Regulation Guidelines through the assessment of the following criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and EU added value. 2.Background to the intervention 2.1.Wider policy context A large majority of people in Europe (74.9%) live in urban areas, compared to just over 50% in 1950, making Europe one of the most urbanised regions in the world. The growth of the urbanisation rate in Europe is expected to continue, with the proportion of the population residing in urban areas projected to reach 83.7% in 2050. The expansion of population numbers both within and around some of the metropolises in the European Union (EU) is accompanied by a range of complex challenges, such as issues relating to sustainability, social cohesion, an ample supply of housing, or the provision of efficient transport services. Some cities in the EU, however, will have to cope with declining population, and an ageing EU population that will require further adaptation of urban infrastructure and services. The ageing of the population has a strong correlation with the number of persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, and will require more emphasis on accessibility for those groups as well as the provision of safe, secure, reliable and adaptable transport services with appropriate solutions for them. Urban mobility, in particular public transport, plays a key role in local economy and in post-Covid green recovery. Urban and suburban public transport services carry approximately 185 million passengers on an average working day across the EU, providing the backbone of urban mobility in many EU cities. The public transport sector is amongst the largest employers at local level, employing 2 million people in the EU, i.e. 20 percent of the 10 million people employed in the overall transport industry. The Urban Mobility Package is the EU policy instrument in place that aims at helping urban areas address, in a joint and systematic manner, the needs and challenges of modern urban mobility systems and their transition to sustainability. Before the adoption of the UMP in 2013, there were a number of other EU initiatives the field, as summarised below: European Mobility Week (EMW) was introduced in 2002, calling on European cities and towns to devote one week every year to sustainable mobility, while promoting initiatives and permanent measures throughout the year. The ultimate aim of EMW is to incite behavioural change by raising awareness and promoting sustainable urban mobility. The Green Paper on Urban Mobility , adopted in 2007, identifies traffic congestion leading to increased delays and pollution as the main challenge. The proposed solutions, among others, include the promotion of walking, cycling and a less car-dependent lifestyle through enhancing sharing services, and the adoption of new technologies. The Ambient Air Quality Directives provide the current framework for the control of air pollutant concentrations in ambient air in the EU. The Directives require that where levels exceed limit or target values, an air quality plan needs to be established to address the sources responsible and to ensure compliance with the limit or target value. Such air quality plans shall set out appropriate measures, so that the exceedance period can be kept as short as possible. In urban settings, air quality plans often include measures targeting specifically emissions from transport. The first comprehensive EU initiative in the field was the 2009 Action Plan on Urban Mobility with 20 actions under the umbrella of six themes, based on the Green Paper consultation. A 2013 review of the 2009 Action Plan on Urban Mobility showed that progress had been observed, however in some cases greater effort at national level was needed to move from declaration of intent to commitment to action to increased uptake . Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) can significantly contribute to a cleaner, safer and more efficient transport system, including in urban areas. The EU framework in this regard, the ITS Directive , was adopted in 2010 to accelerate the deployment of these innovative transport technologies across Europe. The Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, inclusive, and sustainable growth highlighted the importance of a modernised and sustainable European transport system for the future development of the Union and stressed the need to address the urban dimension of transport. The 2011 White Paper set out a strategic vision for the entire EU transport system, with the specific aim of reducing the dependence of Europe on imported oil and at the same time cutting carbon emissions in transport by 60% by 2050. Forty initiatives are included, with some in the area of urban mobility covering urban road pricing and access restriction schemes, Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, zero-emission urban logistics and travel information to promote alternatives to individual conventional transport. 2.2.Need for action The development of the Urban Mobility Package was based on a review of the implementation of the 2009 Action Plan, and on the results of a public consultation launched in 2012. During this evaluation process, the Commission has re-constructed the reasons which led to the adoption of the UMP. The UMP intervention logic (see Annex 3) links the underlying problems identified in the market with the objectives set and the measures intended to address the causes of the problems and achieve the objectives. The starting point for the intervention logic was the 2013 impact assessment and its elements have been completed where not entirely specific, in light of the Commission’s experience in monitoring the application of the Package. The impact assessment identified accessibility, congestion, road collisions, air pollution, noise and CO2 emissions as main challenges affecting EU urban mobility. It also indicated significant external costs of transport in urban areas linked to the current model of mobility, estimated in 2013 at about EUR 230 billion annually. Of this amount, EUR 80 billion was attributed to congestion, EUR 80 billion to accidents, EUR 40 billion to noise, EUR 20 billion to air quality, and EUR 7 billion to CO2 emissions. The analysis also pointed out that the general problem was one of regulatory failure at the urban level and that market mechanisms alone are not able to address this situation. This was further exacerbated by the lack of an integrated urban mobility approach (see below) leading to a lack of effective action at local level. As a result, mobility within cities had become increasingly difficult and inefficient. The fragmented approaches – lacking common standards or joint procurement – also negatively affected development of the single market for innovative urban mobility solutions. The root causes/barriers for the uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches identified in the 2013 impact assessment were the following: ·Lack of cooperation between sectors, particularly transport and land use, and lack of coordination between different levels of government;

·Lacking or low capacity of public authorities, including insufficient knowledge of the integrated urban mobility concept and scientific state of the art; ·Little political will or lack of political interest, in some cases linked with no public pressure; ·Scarcity of funding for the preparation of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans and for implementation of actions; ·Existing car-infrastructure orientation within the community (linked with legacy / culture, lobbies and other factors); ·Resistance from established planning and engineering officials. The general objective of the UMP was to reinforce EU support to European cities, where such support offers added value and while respecting the distribution of competences and responsibilities, for tackling urban mobility challenges so that cities could develop their mobility along a more sustainable path and so that EU goals for a competitive and resource-efficient European transport system were met. As indicated above, the formation of an integrated urban mobility approach in the EU was considered essential in that regard. The central element of the UMP was therefore the concept of sustainable urban mobility planning (SUMP)in which the cities could address land use, transport behaviour and transport infrastructure in a comprehensive way in order to deal with the identified challenges and render transport more sustainable, safe and efficient. At the same time, the need for multi-level governance and partnership, as well as the important role of Member States was recognised; they were encouraged to take more decisive and better coordinated action to help cities in this regard. The proposed integrated urban mobility approach would facilitate the achievement of general EU transport policy goals such as: -better accessibility and seamless mobility along the TEN-T network; -reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from transport (60% reduction called for by the 2011 White Paper, with urban areas accounting for a high share (23% at the time of adoption) of all CO2 emissions from transport); -reduction of air and noise pollution; and -improvement of road safety in cities, with cities accounting for 38% of EU's road fatalities and vulnerable users such as pedestrians being particularly exposed. In addition, it was also intended to help develop the single market for innovative urban mobility solutions. The general objective translates into two operational objectives: Operational objectives of the UMP 1. To provide EU cities with, and stimulate the uptake of, a policy framework encompassing important policy issues necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 2020. 2. To provide EU urban areas with a framework encompassing all procedures and processes necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 2020. The importance of the above objectives was reflected in the results of the 2013 Eurobarometer survey, which demonstrated that a strong majority of citizens considered congestion, the cost, and the negative environmental and human health impact of urban mobility and transport patterns to be important problems; furthermore, most respondents were rather pessimistic about the prospects for improving the traffic situation in their cities. It also showed that considerable differences existed across the EU, with an increasing 'urban mobility gap' between Europe's few advanced cities and the majority trailing behind. Taking the above into account and in line with the 2011 White Paper policy objectives, the 2013 impact assessment considered that the way forward for cities was to undertake an integrated urban mobility approach (i.e. sustainable urban mobility planning, SUMP) through which the most effective and efficient measures were identified and subsequently implemented as a package. The integrated urban mobility approach was developed in the analysed policy options, starting with the lowest level of EU intervention: 0.Baseline (business as usual: research&development, funding, best practice, campaigns, local capacity building); 1.Non-binding recommendation on sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs); 2.Mandatory development of SUMPs by Member States-defined urban areas;

3.Mandatory development of SUMPs by EU-defined urban areas. The assessment of options based on their effectiveness, efficiency and coherence indicated that, overall, options 2 and 3 would have had the highest positive impact. The legislative options were deemed more likely to reduce the risk that EU cities would not achieve the key EU transport objectives (as defined in the 2011 White Paper) in comparison with the non-legislative options. However, as they were estimated to also be more demanding to implement, option 1 was chosen. Finally, as EU cities were very different in all respects, including on mobility, the specific targets that each city could realistically achieve may vary. It was deemed appropriate that the proposed initiative should be flexible and allow for the differences across EU cities and the different planning and institutional frameworks in the individual Member States. A similar degree of variation in the measures put in place was to be expected and thus the UMP did not include dedicated targets related either to overall objectives such as CO2 reduction or specific objectives such as a more sustainable modal split. 2.3.Description of the intervention Catalysing joint action towards more sustainable urban mobility and reinforcing the support provided to European cities through coordinated measures at EU level and in the Member States was at the heart of the intervention. Responsibility for the implementation of the UMP objectives was allocated to the European Commission and the Member States. The UMP is structured around four main pillars: ·Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP); ·Coordinating public and private-sector intervention, in particular when it comes to the four fields of urban mobility (see specific recommendations below); ·Reinforcing EU support by (a) providing a forum for sharing experience, showcasing best practice, and fostering cooperation; (b) focusing research and innovation on delivering solutions for urban mobility challenges; (c) providing targeted financial support; (d) reinforcing the international dimension; ·Involving Member States in the urban mobility field. Moreover, specific recommendations (chosen, among others, based on the feedback received from stakeholders) were put forward for coordinated action between all levels of government and between the public and the private sector in four fields (which actually correspond to separate documents accompanying the main Communication): ·Urban logistics; ·Urban vehicle access regulations (UVAR); ·Urban Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); ·Urban road safety. In order to deliver, the main pillars were operationalised through a number of measures intended for implementation by the Commission and Member States. When it came to the measures under the responsibility of the Commission, they concerned the dissemination and uptake of best practice and provision of dedicated guidance in relation to the four fields identified above. The Commission was also tasked to set-up and/or launch initiatives and platforms facilitating the achievement of the UMP goals: -a European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans to coordinate EU cooperation on developing the concept and tools further, and provide a one-stop shop; -a Member States’ Expert Group on Urban Mobility to foster an exchange on how national and EU policies on urban mobility and transport can be strengthened and better coordinated;

-a reinvigorated CIVITAS 2020 Initiative under Horizon 2020; -European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities. Moreover, the Commission committed to: -provide targeted financial support through European Structural and Investment Funds, as well as Connecting Europe Facility (the latter for urban nodes on the Trans-European Network – Transport (TEN-T)); -strengthened support for the Urban Mobility Observatory; -continue to support the development of an Urban Mobility Scoreboard by identifying harmonised indicators to benchmark and compare the progress of urban areas across the EU, and explore how the quality and availability of data and statistics for urban mobility can be improved. When it came to measures for implementation by Member States, they revolved around them developing a coordinated approach to urban mobility on their territory, and in particular a SUMP framework to coordinate deployment of local transport plans and their integration into a wider urban or territorial development strategy. In that regard, Member States were expected to review – and amend where necessary – the technical, policy-based, legal, financial and other tools at the disposal of local planning authorities. In relation to coordinating action between the public and the private sector in the fields of urban logistics, road safety, UVAR and ITS, Member States were requested to ensure that these issues were given proper consideration in their national approaches to urban mobility and in SUMPs, and to provide relevant frameworks and platforms for cooperation and exchange of information. The Package has also an international dimension, notably when it comes to supporting sustainable urban mobility policies in Commission cooperation activities, focusing on developing regions and at the same time paving the way for the export of European expertise and technologies in the field. Finally, the Commission and Member States were expected to jointly facilitate the creation of a single market for innovative urban transport solutions, e.g. by developing common standards and technical specifications or by facilitating joint and clean procurement. 2.4. Baseline and points of comparison The baseline describes those developments (throughout the evaluation period) that could have been expected in the absence of the UMP. It is the hypothetical scenario against which any actual effective changes, attributable to the initiative, are measured. The Impact Assessment identified the situation in 2013 before the UMP was adopted. It concluded that the legislation that was already in place was expected to bring a gradual improvement in certain areas such as emissions and noise levels, increased road safety, but their impact towards an integrated urban mobility approach would remain uncertain. It also assumed that the percentage of cities without any form of integrated urban mobility approach will decrease. However, the Impact Assessment did not provide for a quantification of the policy options tested which would have allowed to assess the future situation in the absence of the UMP. Furthermore and as explained in section 3.1, a number of policy and legal initiatives have occurred since the adoption of the UMP, which have an impact on the same (or parts of) policy area. Therefore the impact of the UMP is hard to evaluate because it is based on diffuse actions being taken by multiple actors and in different contexts, usually on a voluntary basis which means that there was little systematic reporting. There have been a number of positive results, but it is difficult to attribute them with certainty specifically to measures taken under the UMP alone. An additional important limitation stems from the fact that data on urban transport activity is neither systematically nor coherently collected by EU Member States. This is a serious underlying flaw and underlined by the Court of Auditors in their recent report. For this reason, model estimates have been used instead, which take into account the implementation of the UMP, complemented by a qualitative assessment. The support study contains further details on the approach adopted using best practice examples where relevant. With those qualifying remarks, the paragraphs below show how the trends related to developments in the area of urban mobility have evolved over the past decade. Under the current economic and legal framework, the main trends identified in the Impact Assessment of 2013 in the absence of the EU intervention are confirmed, as illustrated by the estimated evolution of a number of key performance indicators between 2010 and 2018: ·Urban transport activity has continued to increase: goods transport volumes rose by nearly 13% and passenger transport volumes by almost 8%; also as expected, transport demand and modal choice differ widely between European cities, and depend on a wide range of factors. In the same period the urban population increased from 72.9% to 74.5% of the total population in the EU.

·Motorised urban passenger transport represents a stable share of the total land transport activity across Europe (around 28%).This trend is confirmed by the fact that passenger car ownership in Europe continued to grow (in particular in EU-13), with 477 676 passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants in 2010 versus 515 682 of them in 2017 for EU-28 on average; at the same time, the share of diesel cars in the total passenger car fleet rose from 35,2% to 42%. ·Over the last decade there has been no significant change in the modal share of transport modes, with nearly 80% of urban passenger-kilometres being made by private car. ·CO2 emissions from different transport modes at urban level have remained at roughly the same level in the last decade, with passenger transport responsible for a much larger share (75%) than freight; private cars remain the single biggest source, responsible in 2018 for almost 70% of the total CO2 emissions from urban transport; urban emissions represent approximately a quarter of total transport emissions and they are clearly not on track to reach the decarbonisation ambitions of the European Green Deal. ·On air quality, there has been a significant decrease in nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions over the last decade (mostly due to improved vehicle technology), but insufficient to reach air quality limit and target values in line with EU legislation; concentrations of NO2 and PM10 continue to exceed EU limit values, as confirmed in the European Environment Agency 2020 Air Quality report, with cities (including port cities) facing the biggest challenges and 74% of the EU urban population remaining exposed to harmful (including carcinogenic) PM2,5 concentrations above WHO air quality guidelines. ·Regarding road safety, the decrease in (urban) road casualties has stagnated since 2014, and casualties among vulnerable road users have not decreased at the same rate as other road casualties; almost 23 000 persons still die every year on European roads, among them nearly 9 000 in urban areas. Pedestrians and cyclists have therefore risen as a proportion of total casualties; the elderly are also overrepresented in urban road casualties. Currently, 38% of road fatalities in the EU occur in urban areas, 70% of which are vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists). When it comes to congestion, it is mainly due to high transport demand and the predominant reliance on private cars (with an average 1.3 person occupancy per trip) and usually happens in and around urban areas. Therefore this problem affects the majority of EU citizens. Observations indicate that, overall, the situation across EU cities has not improved since 2013 and, in many places, has worsened, with very considerable costs to the society. The most common indicator of traffic congestion relates to the difference in average speed between free-flow conditions (usually recorded at night) and those observed at different times of day, converted to an increase in average travel time. As put by the Court of Auditors in their report, ‘In the absence of a significant shift to other forms of transport, rising congestion is an indication that urban mobility is deteriorating for road users’. The Court has confirmed that congestion has worsened in the cities from four Member States it analysed as well as in 25 out of 37 urban nodes. The problem of congestion is closely linked to accessibility, understood in this context as the total number of destinations that can be reached within a fixed period of time. The goal of more sustainable urban mobility supporting better accessibility and seamless mobility along the TEN-T network, envisaged in 2013, has not fully materialised, with in particular congestion in urban nodes remaining a persistent challenge. Accessibility by car depends, to a large extent, on how urbanised an area is. Accessibility by walking and cycling tend to be the highest in cities with dense road networks, higher densities of population and fewer steep slopes. In virtually all EU cities at least 80 % of the population has easy access to public transport. The Court of Auditors also analysed the issue of accessibility by car and public transport in EU cities and concluded that in seven out of eight analysed cities, it generally remains more time-efficient to use a private vehicle than public transport. At the same time, it observed that – largely thanks to EU funding for sustainable urban mobility – the coverage and accessibility of public transport within cities has been improving. This concerns, in particular, inner cities where the public transport coverage is at a very high level (for the analysed cities). However, the situation is much worse in peripheral areas, showing that significant parts of the population have sub-optimal coverage by public transport. Regarding barrier-free accessibility, i.e. accessibility of transport for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility, there are about 87 million persons with different kinds of disabilities in the EU(27). With ageing societies (and women in particular), this number is expected to grow, affecting future mobility patterns. While EU passenger rights legislation grants persons with disabilities or reduced mobility the right to transport, transport infrastructure and rolling stock are still widely inaccessible, notably in rural or remote areas. The European Accessibility Act, adopted in April 2019, provides for accessibility requirements improving access to transport for persons with disabilities. The challenging situation in rural, peripheral and remote areas is linked to the issue of availability of transport. The Eurobarometer on Mobility and Transport shows that the less urbanised the respondent’s environment is, the more likely they are to say there is no alternative to taking the car: 46% who live in rural villages say this, compared to 25% living in large towns. The private car dependency coupled with diminishing or lacking public transport options result in reduced connectivity, including to nearby cities, especially challenging for the impoverished groups. A study focusing on smart transport services in rural areas concluded the predominant problem is the absence of specific policies for rural transport coupled with very few obligations to provide rural mobility services. This issue has also negative repercussion on urban areas, as the increased inflow of private motorised vehicles from outside contributes to the severity of congestion, poorer air quality and more road crashes. Affordability of transport remains an important issue. Consumer prices for the operation of private transport equipment and for public transport services have increased at a faster pace between 2005 and 2018 than overall consumer price inflation while the share of transport in final household expenditure on consumption (13%) has remained in this period mostly unchanged. The European Pillar of Social Rights, proclaimed by the EU institutions in November 2017, places transport among the essential services to which everyone has the right to access (Principle 20): ‘Support for access to such services shall be available for those in need.’ At-risk groups for transport poverty include households with low incomes, women, the unemployed, ethnic minority members, and households with children. Finally, in June 2019 Commission services revised their calculations of the societal and environmental impact of transport. The total external environmental costs of transport (linked to greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollution, noise, energy production, habitat damage), as well as the costs of congestion and crashes add up to almost €1 trillion annually within the EU, with the urban share estimated to be at least 50%. Road transport causes more than 80% of such external costs (approximately € 620 billion caused by passengers and € 200 billion by freight), including road crash costs (some € 280 billion), congestion costs (some € 270 billion) and environmental costs linked to greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollution, noise, energy production and habitat damage (some € 270 billion). This is a very substantial increase in relation to calculations included in the 2013 Impact Assessment, where the total external costs of transport were estimated at € 420 billion annually, with the urban share estimated at € 230 billion. The trends above are coherent with recent Eurostat findings from a pilot project covering 10 Member States which show that urban trips (trips of less than 100 km within the same urban area) represent a substantial proportion of daily short-distance mobility (less than 300 km) and that the private car is the dominant transport mode. 3.Implementation / State of play of the UMP measures 3.1.Developments after 2013 In the last few years, we have witnessed important societal, scientific and technological developments with direct and indirect impact on urban mobility, such as: ·A further increase in economic and political importance of cities and urbanised areas coupled with migration (to the EU and into cities) and rising importance of social inclusion; ·Mounting scientific evidence on accelerating tempo of climate change (increasingly caused by the high and growing share of transport emissions (25% of total) and of road transport in particular (20%)) and related (new or revised) EU-level objectives and initiatives on decarbonisation, with direct and important influence on cities and their transport systems; urban mobility is responsible for about 23% of EU's greenhouse gas emissions from transport. ·Disruptive changes and innovations in transport and mobility of both a technological nature (digitalisation, automation, "Mobility as a Service", new propulsion systems etc.) and of a societal nature (increasing popularity of shared and active mobility, greater orientation towards “quality of life” issues, raising awareness of negative consequences of reliance on private cars and related insufficient levels of physical activity, rise of e-commerce, etc.).; ·Increased awareness of interplay between mobility choices, air quality and health, and of negative impact of poor air quality on human health, in the context of continued non-compliance with EU air quality standards in the majority of EU Member States and in the wake of the vehicle emissions scandal of 2015, also known as Dieselgate. Despite improvements over the last decade, the large majority of the urban population in the EU continues to be exposed to pollutant concentrations above the levels of WHO recommendations, and over 400 000 premature deaths are attributed to air pollution in the EU per year. Road transport (mostly due to individual cars) contributes a significant share to it, in particular when it comes to nitrogen oxides (NOx), where road transport is the sector with the highest contribution (39%) what is especially problematic in cities as the most densely populated areas;

·New data on external costs of transport (totalling to almost EUR 1 trillion/year in the EU, with the urban share estimated to be at least 50%) demonstrating increasingly impact of the current model, with a heavy negative toll on EU economy, human health and the environment, in particular in urban areas;. ·Growing evidence that vulnerable road users (particularly pedestrians and cyclists) were forming a larger part of urban road safety casualties and the number of road deaths in urban areas is not declining at the same pace as on other type of roads; currently, 38% of road fatalities in the EU occur in urban areas, 70% of which are vulnerable road users. ·Changing employment conditions such as new forms of work (notably people working for online platforms), increased use of teleworking; intra- and cross-border mobility of workers as well as increased students exchanges. Such societal, scientific and technological developments are also reflected in the CIVITAS Advisory Group Policy Paper of 2020 addressed to the Commission that identified eight key game changers already affecting (or to affect soon) urban mobility: (1) electrification, (2) increased automation and use of C-ITS, (3) growth of data economy, (4) new business concepts for freight and passenger transport, (5) shared mobility, (6) growth of active mobility, (7) changing mind-sets and behavioural patterns, and (8) integrated space management. When it comes to regulatory and political developments, there has been a number of EU legal acts adopted in 2013 and afterwards which address policy areas that are directly or indirectly linked to urban mobility. Annex 5 summarises how the following acts are linked with the UMP: ·the TEN-T Regulation and its associated funding instrument the Connecting Europe Facility ; ·The Clean Air for All communication in 2018; ·the revised Clean Vehicles Directive ; ·the Energy Efficiency Directive ; ·the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive ; ·Europe on the Move packages (I , II and III ). In addition, some significant political developments have taken place since 2013, including the Urban Agenda for the EU , adopted in 2016 and based upon the premises of the Europe 2020 Strategy. It placed cities and the new approach to governance at the forefront of EU policy design and implementation and is structured around (initially) 12 priority themes and Partnerships, with urban mobility being one of them. It resulted in the Action Plan of the Partnership for Urban Mobility . The more stringent CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new vans for 2025 and 2030, adopted in 2019 as well improved testing procedures on emissions standards within the framework of Euro 6 (‘Real Driving Emissions’), are also of high relevance to the identified challenges affecting urban mobility. As of 1 September 2017, new car models have to pass new and more reliable emissions tests in real driving conditions as well as an improved laboratory test before they can be driven on European roads. From 2021, the EU fleet-wide average emission target for new cars will be 95 g CO2/km, which corresponds to a fuel consumption of around 4.1 l/100 km of petrol or 3.6 l/100 km of diesel. Finally, the European Green Deal (EGD) presented in December 2019, is the new EU growth strategy through climate neutrality and sustainable economy. It includes ambitious and specific objectives of high relevance for urban transport, such as to ‘transform the EU into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use’. It also states that “transport should become drastically less polluting, especially in cities. A combination of measures should address emissions, urban congestion, and improved public transport. Achieving sustainable transport means putting users first and providing them with more affordable, accessible, healthier and cleaner alternatives to their current mobility habits.” The 2030 Climate Target Plan, adopted in September 2020, delivers on the European Green Deal commitment and proposes to raise the EU's ambition on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to at least 55% below 1990 levels by 2030. The European Climate Law Regulation, also proposed by the Commission in 2020, aims to enshrine into EU law the 2050 climate-neutrality target. Regarding innovation-related initiatives, an important development is the publication in September 2020 of 100 climate-neutral cities by 2030 - by and for the citizens, a report by the Horizon Europe Mission board for climate-neutral and smart cities. It considers an “efficient mobility for all, clean, safe and accessible including carbon free and alternative fuels, promotion of public transport, walking and cycling, smart multi-modal solution such as mobility as a service (MaaS), and automation” a key area in reaching the climate neutrality of cities. A new Sustainable and Smart Transport Strategy, adopted on 9 December 2020, aims to operationalise the European Green Deal when it comes to decarbonising transport and lays the foundation for how the EU transport system can achieve its green and digital transformation and become more resilient to future crises. The strategy identifies 82 initiatives in 10 key areas for action (“flagships”). The flagship on ‘Making interurban and urban mobility healthy and sustainable’ is one of them and includes a milestone of having at least 100 climate-neutral cities in Europe by 2030. It also states that the Commission will engage with Member States to ensure all cities that are urban nodes on the TEN-T network put in place their own sustainable urban mobility plans by 2030 and that active modes will be promoted with the aim of deploying over 5000km of new bike lanes in the next decade. Figure 1 below presents a timeline with all policy developments relevant to the field of urban mobility before adoption of the UMP until first half of 2020.

Figure 1. Timeline of policy developments with relevance to urban mobility

3.2.Implementation of the EU-level measures All measures foreseen have been implemented to a significant degree, mostly through enabling a framework for discussion and exchanges, the publication of guidance materials or reports and the adoption of specific legislation. In order to better coordinate public and private sector interventions under the four pillars identified in the UMP, a number of guidance documents and studies supporting local authorities and stakeholders were issued. These include: -a study on urban logistics and a dedicated SUMP topic guide on urban logistics; -a study on UVARs, a dedicated SUMP topic guide on UVARs (in addition, the Urban Access Regulations website was established); -good practice guidelines on safer roads and a dedicated SUMP topic guide on urban road safety; -a topic guide on the role of ITS in sustainable urban mobility planning. The above was supplemented by legislation in some of the fields. Under the ITS Directive, a Commission Delegated Regulation on the provision of EU-wide real-time traffic information services was adopted and the Urban ITS standardisation mandate M/546 was launched and is currently ongoing. To facilitate the procurement of clean vehicles (including for logistics), the existing legislation on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles was revised in 2019. Support for UMP across the EU was strengthened by sharing experience, showcasing best practice, and fostering cooperation. In particular, the website of ELTIS – the EU urban mobility observatory, was revamped to include the Mobility Plans section, which serves as a single point of reference for SUMPs, including the uropean Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. The Commission set up the Expert Group on Urban Mobility (EGUM), composed of Member States representatives. A reinvigorated CIVITAS 2020 Initiative was launched as well as the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities. Since 2014, the annual CIVITAS Forum Conference and European Conference on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans took place, gathering several hundred policymakers, local authorities, academics, NGOs, urban transport practitioners and urban planners. The European exchange and learning programme URBACT III is currently ongoing with an increased budget compared to URBACT II. The Sustainable Urban Mobility Indicators project with a benchmarking tool was finalised and is available online. The EU funding available for urban mobility (including ITS and cycling/walking) through the European structural and investment (ESI) funds has increased from €11.2 billion in the 2007-2013 programme period to €16.3 billion for 2014‑2020, and CEF has provided EUR 214 million for urban nodes since 2014. Horizon 2020 funding in the area of smart, green and integrated transport increased from €55.8 billion in period 2007-2013 to €77 billion in 2014-2020. Besides funding urban transport projects, national, regional and local authorities have received support to develop and implement SUMPs. Regarding the international dimension, the ‘Mobilise Your City’ partnership supports, inter alia, the development of SUMPs worldwide and has 60 partner cities in 32, mostly developing, countries. 3.3.Implementation of UMP measures by Member States The analysis of the implementation of UMP measures by Member States has been more challenging and based on limited data. While some Member States collect and publish detailed information, this is not consistent across all Member States. Therefore, to avoid introducing a bias towards the Member States that have well documented information, EU-level sources were used to ensure a uniform approach. A summary per category of measures is provided below. 3.3.1.Urban mobility approaches across all EU Member States The assessment of national urban mobility approaches covers the existence of national urban mobility plans that are in place in the form of guidance or national laws, and other measures intended to facilitate the development of SUMPs at the local or regional levels.. The majority of Member States have a relevant national plan that included provisions for the development of SUMPs in place but six of them were identified as having no clear measure including provisions for the development of SUMPs, while one Member State (Cyprus) was in the process of developing a national urban mobility plan. It is important to note that the characteristics of these plans vary significantly across Member States, with some Member States having adopted legislation to enforce the implementation of SUMPs at the municipal level, while others have opted for a softer form of governance through guidelines and targeted support for the development of SUMPs. There are significant differences between the Member States that only provided administrative support – such as translation of the EU level guidelines into their respective languages –compared to more targeted support. This included consultation and educational tools, municipal-level coaching by quality advisors, national and local-level promotion activities and methodological guidance. In addition to the legal and policy tools, financial instruments or tools were found in almost all Member States; however the use of national and EU-level funding varies between Member States and internally between local and national levels.

It should be noted that ELTIS – the urban mobility observatory includes an overview of Member State profiles regarding SUMPs as well as a dedicated SUMP practitioner briefing on SUMP national support frameworks. 3.3.2.Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) The degree of implementation has been assessed based on the number and characteristics of the SUMPs that are publicly available through the ELTIS database as well as on the results of relevant EU-funded projects. It should be noted that there are a number of cities with transport plans that are not officially called “SUMPs” but clearly have a number of SUMPs characteristics, and these have also been taken these into account wherever possible. The approach used was to review the plans that were available per Member State on the ELTIS database and assess to what degree the principles of UMP pillars were incorporated into each plan. Overall, the number of adopted SUMPs since the implementation of the UMP has grown from 800 in 2013 to 1 028 in 2020 and, in the second half of 2020, 122 SUMPs are in development. The Member States that have developed the largest number of SUMPs in this period are Belgium, France, Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. This data was, for the most part, correlated with the findings from the four case studies of the evaluation support study that covered Belgium, Bulgaria, Sweden and Portugal. Both sets of data reaffirm that despite the growing number of SUMPs, many EU cities – in particular the smaller ones – do not yet have a fully developed SUMP. It should be noted, nevertheless, that the SUMP City Database on Eltis includes over 550 towns and cities with a population of over 100 000 inhabitants, indicating that an overwhelming majority of medium and bigger cities in the EU have a SUMP (or another transport plan) in place. 3.3.3.Uptake of EU support for urban mobility This was assessed on the basis of the extent to which cities have participated in EU-level urban mobility initiatives and fora (such as URBACT, CIVITAS projects and the CIVITAS Forum), as well as have used the EU funding for urban mobility. To compare the information between Member States, the uptake of EU support was assessed on the number of cities participating in European urban mobility projects weighted against the number of inhabitants in each Member State. The analysis has shown that cities from every EU country have benefitted, with Greece, Slovenia, Lithuania, Portugal, Cyprus, Denmark and Croatia being the Member States with the biggest number of cities receiving the support. 3.3.4.Urban vehicle access regulations The analysis of this pillar of the UMP was based on the presence of a national programme to support the implementation of UVAR, inclusion of UVAR measures in SUMPs in respective cities and on the number of different UVAR types implemented. These types are: low emission zones (LEZs), urban road tolls (URT), pollution emergency scheme (PES), and other urban access regulations (UARs) – for example, limited traffic zones, limitations for heavier vehicles/lorries, ‘superblocks’ and others. 3.3.5.Urban road safety Improving road safety in urban areas is a key issue for all Member States and there have been numerous initiatives and measures to reduce the number of serious injuries and road fatalities already prior to the implementation of the UMP. In the EU-27, there were more than 8 600 lives lost on urban roads in 2018, representing 38% of all road fatalities. To analyse the state of implementation, the number of urban road fatalities per number of inhabitants in the latest reported year and the availability of a national plan to reduce the number of urban road fatalities, were taken into account. Overall, all of the Member States have a national road safety plan in place and EU-wide the number of fatalities in urban areas fell by 21% between 2010 and 2018. However, there has been a stagnation observed in the last few years, in line with the overall trend in road death statistics. Over the period 2010-2018, the number of cyclists killed on urban roads actually increased by 6%. While the average number of urban road deaths in the EU is 21 per million population, the rate ranges from 8 in Sweden to 61 in Romania (excluding small countries for whom the figures are relatively low and tend to fluctuate from year to year). EU-wide, around 70% of fatalities in urban areas involve vulnerable road users and it was observed that the number of urban road fatalities is generally higher in the Member States in the east and south of Europe. This is therefore a key area of focus when considering measures to tackle road safety. In this regard, two European capitals, Helsinki and Oslo, achieved the milestone of zero pedestrian and cyclist deaths in 2019. Both Oslo and Helsinki cite speed reductions as essential to progress, as well as the work done to encourage cycling. Enforcement remains crucial in both cities.

3.3.6. Urban Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) Urban Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) refer to systems that help to optimise the use of existing infrastructure through a variety of means, such as traffic signals, journey planners, smart ticketing or cooperative systems (including vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication systems). They foster the coordinated management of access restriction schemes, smooth the operation of city logistics and enhance road safety measures. To assess the state of implementation of urban ITS across Member States the following data was used: 1.The presence of a national approach or plan which includes provisions to ensure the implementation of the UMP urban ITS measures; 2.The relative number of reported good practices; 3.The share of SUMPs in each Member State that includes provisions for the implementation urban ITS. Overall, a majority (19) of Member States were found to have a national plan in place. Five of them (France, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Ireland) have well-established and integrated forms of urban ITS that incorporated the related measures set out in the UMP. In addition, they reported several cases of good practice and include ITS measures in the majority of SUMPs. 3.3.7.Urban logistics Urban logistics may be defined as meaning the movement of goods, equipment and waste into, out, from, within or through an urban area. To assess the state of implementation of urban logistics approach across Member States, similar data as above – having a national plan in place, number of reported good practice examples and the share of SUMPs with urban logistics provisions – was taken into account. The analysis shows that almost half (13) Member States have a national scheme to support the implementation of urban logistics measures, and a majority of Member States have cities that have actively implemented the UMP measures on urban logistics. In particular, this area was also found to be included in the majority of SUMPs in most of the Member States. Three Member States (France, Portugal and Austria) were found to be leading in this field as having relevant and available national support schemes, a high number of good practice examples and a high percentage of SUMPs with provisions for urban logistic measures. 4.Method 4.1.Short description of methodology The evaluation of the UMP started in November 2018 with the publication of the roadmap and was overseen by an Inter-Service Steering Group (see Annex 1). The evaluation questions were linked to the five criteria defined by the Better Regulation Guidelines and further operationalised into sub-questions with corresponding indicators and judgement criteria. Baseline: The main source used to define the baseline in this evaluation is the 2013 impact assessment. Publicly available data was complemented by PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model projections. External support study: This evaluation builds in particular on the findings of an external support study, which collected data and provided an analysis of the evidence from the consultation activities and the available literature. Evidence for the evaluation support study was gathered through a wide combination of data sources: a targeted survey of key stakeholders interviews, a literature and statistical information review, workshops and 4 case studies for Belgium, Bulgaria, Portugal and Sweden. The case studies allow for an in-depth analysis of the implementation of UMP measures in 12 selected cities (3 per Member State). They aim to explore the link between the introduced measures and achieved outcomes, and to assess them, taking into account drivers, barriers and alternative explanations (contribution analysis). Public Consultation: The Commission organised an online public consultation to support this evaluation. The consultation ran from 11 September 2019 to 4 December 2019. The questionnaire of the public consultation was made available on the Commission's Public Consultation Portal “Have your say” in all EU languages. The survey was answered by a total of 207 respondents, 86 of which were individuals and the rest replying on behalf of an organisation. A summary of consultation activities can be found in Annex 2.

EGUM: The Expert Group on Urban Mobility is composed of representatives of all EU Member States and Norway and was set up in 2014 as a result of the UMP. Its main aim is to facilitate the exchange of information and the cooperation on urban mobility issues between Member States and the Commission. The Commission has regularly updated the Group on the progress with the UMP evaluation over the last 2 years. At a dedicated meeting on 3 June 2020, attended by 18 Member States (plus Norway), the emerging results of the draft support evaluation study were presented. It was followed by a discussion, focusing on country fiches and case studies, thus contributing to improving the quality of the study. CIVITAS Advisory Groups: two Advisory Groups were set up in 2018– on the Future of Urban Mobility Policy and on Game Changers in Urban Mobility. They were composed by experts and academics in the field and delivered two policy notes which supported the findings of the evaluation. Court of Auditors report on the EU urban mobility policy and funding: published on 3 March 2020, the report examines whether EU legislative and financing support have helped to make mobility in urban areas more sustainable, and whether cities have made progress since the Urban Mobility Package. The report provides an analysis of public transport, pollution and congestion developments in eight cities in four Member States: Hamburg and Leipzig in Germany, Naples and Palermo in Italy, Łódź and Warsaw in Poland, and Barcelona and Madrid in Spain. In preparing this document, the Commission services also relied on internal data collection. 4.2.Limitations and robustness of findings The analysis carried out has encountered a number of limitations, in particular the limited availability of comparable data (linked with the problem of lacking systematic urban mobility data collection in the EU), low number of replies to a part of the consultation and reliance on stakeholder views for some findings, and the existence of other (EU) interventions impacting on the urban mobility field that made it difficult to disentangle the effects of the UMP. Efforts were taken to mitigate these limitations. One of the persisting challenges was evaluating the real impact of the UMP because of its nature as a non-binding policy instrument which relies on actions by multiple actors and which interacts with other EU measures, including legislative acts, as well with various national and local initiatives. Therefore determining the true effect that the UMP had across each of the four areas (UVARs, urban ITS, urban logistics and urban road safety) remains challenging, and even more so when it comes to attributing UMP impact on higher-level indicators and trends such as CO2 emissions. The limitations regarding the low number of replies to the surveys conducted in the framework of the support study were mitigated to considerable extent by additional consultation activities (public consultation and interviews). However, while some of the information for the indicators (collected during the support study) was easily available, the availability of well-documented and consistent data was limited. In most instances there were no indicators available and where they were available, the information did not have the correct geographical scope (with a country instead of city/urban area focus) or date range as desired. This was exacerbated by the fact that some impacts affecting sustainable urban mobility take longer than the evaluation period to materialise. The mitigation measure was to rely more on qualitative data and on stakeholder consultation activities. Further limiting factors included the local nature of information, the wide range of expert estimates and the large range of other influencing factors. Regarding stakeholder consultations, data collection was hampered by a lack of specific knowledge or awareness of the Urban Mobility Package among a part of interviewees. Despite all this, and in particular the lack of comparable quantifiable data, the presence and collection of qualitative data has enabled some relevant and valid conclusions to be drawn. 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 5.1.Relevance This section discusses the relevance of the UMP, at the level of the objectives and measures, with relation to the problems, needs and challenges of stakeholders and cities, and in light of relevant post-2013 developments. 5.1.1.Relevance of problems identified in the UMP The main problem originally identified in the UMP – namely that mobility within cities is increasingly inefficient and unsustainable – is still relevant. This applies as well to the main drivers: lack of/insufficiently integrated urban mobility approaches, both in relation to policy making and processes, and the underlying root causes. This finding is supported by data and observations regarding the related main negative consequences: urban congestion (affecting accessibility and transport performance), deaths and injuries due to road crashes in urban areas, poor air quality, noise and CO2 emissions. This is demonstrated by the key indicators and trends related to developments in the area of urban mobility (presented in Section 2), and confirmed during the stakeholder consultation, with problem drivers and causes assessed as highly relevant or relevant as shown in figure 2 below. Source: Combined stakeholder totals from the targeted interviews, targeted survey and public consultation 5.1.2.Relevance of the UMP objectives

As stated in Section 2, the main UMP objective is to reinforce the support to European cities for tackling urban mobility challenges so that they develop along a more sustainable path, in particular by ensuring the uptake of an integrated urban mobility approach across the EU. This would contribute to achieving the wider EU goals for a competitive and resource-efficient European transport system, which would lead to reduction of CO2 and air emissions, congestion and road deaths and injuries. The analysis and the evidence from the targeted consultation indicate that the objectives were appropriate for meeting the identified needs and are, overall, to large extent relevant. However, some views expressed during the stakeholder consultation as well as recommendations from the CIVITAS Advisory Group on Game Changers as well as more ambitious climate and social objectives included in the European Green Deal outline the need for further support to cities and to better grasp recent (technological, societal, environmental and policy) changes/disruptions. In particular, a number of stakeholders highlighted the need to strengthen the focus on social and equality issues, especially with relation to impoverished groups (that cannot afford available modes of transportation) and persons with disabilities or reduced mobility groups, as well as the redefinition of the concept of quality of life to include different policy priorities, such as liveable cities. In addition, with aging societies and a predominately female older population, the specific needs of women need to be better taken into account in terms of time and purpose of travel, route, travel distance as well as safety considerations. Equally, the identified ‘game changers’ call for a more suitable EU framework that would, inter alia, more properly capture the quickly evolving nature of new, shared mobility services, propose more effective incentives for safe and accessible public and active transport, and more decisively respond to the climate emergency in relation to local transport. The need to better address the connectivity with rural areas and a regional approach as well as closer alignment with land-use planning in the context of SUMP was also raised. In a similar vein, the importance to better take into account long distance transport networks – in particular railways – as they are important to meeting needs of people living in suburbs and in a wider region, was highlighted. Emerging conclusions from EU-funded project SMARTA seem to confirm the above, indicating that rural public transport services (including connections with urban areas) in Europe are under stress. A combination of factors including austerity measures and demographic change (ageing, immigration and depopulation) leads to absence of a range of services, including mobility. These demographic trends are estimated to continue, with in 2050, only 16 % of the European population living in rural areas compared to the current value of 27%. The lack of qualitative public mobility services has resulted in private car dependency and reduced connectivity, meaning that those without a car have reduced possibilities to participate in society, penalising the impoverished groups and negatively affecting the urban areas by contributing to congestion, air pollution and road crashes. Findings from the SMARTA project also show that EU countries lack dedicated policies to rural mobility with specific national commitments to provide transportation services. Finally, an important finding, based on stakeholders views (in particular local authorities), is the difference in the problems and related needs between large, medium and small-sized cities, as well between small, concentrated high density cities and widespread, less dense, sprawling conurbations. Small cities within low-density areas, for example, often do not exhibit the same severity of problems as in dense urban areas (such as air quality, emissions, congestion and urban road safety). On the other hand, the sprawling conurbations and agglomerations with many people commuting from outside often exhibit challenges with proper connectivity, in particular from the nearby rural and per-urban areas. There are some main issues of particular relevance for smaller and less densely populated municipalities (including those surrounding bigger cities and agglomerations) emerging from the interviews: -Eligibility and access to funding: funding is often linked with urban mobility policies that focus heavily on decarbonisation and low emission mobility objectives; while it is recognised that planning should be aligned with those, it appears that not all cities or urban areas have the same needs when it comes to funding, and in case of smaller cities in particular, the access to funding was limited due to staffing, know-how and related issues. -Guidance for planning and implementation of measures: the objectives, needs and guidance associated with the urban mobility initiatives are often perceived as more relevant in the context of metropolitan areas and therefore it is less clear to stakeholders from small municipalities what the measures will bring to their cities; thus, guidance and measures specifically created for cities of smaller dimensions and low densities would provide additional support and value. -Demand-responsive solutions for public transport: they are understood as being more suitable to improve supply and demand of public transport in low-density areas in urban and peri-urban environments. The recent Commission report on the quality of life in the European cities provides interesting data illustrating some of the above differences and needs. Car use clearly declines with city size and in most countries, the capital city has the lowest car use. On the other hand, the usage of public transport increases with city size, indicating a negative correlation with car use, and in most countries, the share of public transport use is highest in capital cities. A correlation can be also observed between a city size and accessibility. Analysing at regional level how many people living in a 120-kilometre radius can be reached within a 90-minute drive by car, a working paper from the Commission estimates that within the EU it depends, to large extent, on how urbanised it is. On average, cities outperform rural areas although not all cities perform that well; cities in eastern EU Member States achieve a lower performance, especially the smaller ones. A similar trend is visible also in relation to accessibility by public transport: access to high-frequency departures is highest in cities with at least 1 million inhabitants and considerably lower in cities with fewer than 250 000 inhabitants, although some cities perform much better or worse than their size implies. Walking and cycling perform well in cities with dense road networks, higher densities and fewer steep slopes; cycling accessibility may be lower in case of poor road or safety conditions. Therefore, for the UMP objectives to remain fully relevant and comprehensive, these new developments and needs should be considered to address the underlying issues of designing and implementing effective urban strategies. 5.1.3.Relevance of the main pillars of the UMP 5.1.3.1. Relevance of SUMP The concept of SUMP is the best known element of the UMP, and its role in achieving the objectives of the Package is widely recognised. The high relevance of SUMP has been confirmed by public and stakeholder consultation, by the members of the Member States Expert Group on Urban Mobility, by the high demand for SUMP capacity-building programmes among local authorities, as well as by the Court of Auditors. The latter has explicitly included SUMP in both of its recommendations which call the Commission to: -carry out an impact assessment and, subject to the positive outcome of this process, propose legislation requiring Member States to collect and submit regularly relevant data on urban mobility and on the adoption of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) in all EU urban nodes of the core and comprehensive TEN-T networks, including their surrounding areas. -link EU funding with SUMPs. In addition, the policy notes of the CIVITAS Advisory Groups confirm the value and relevance of sustainable urban mobility planning in tackling the challenges cities are facing, and include recommendations to further reinforce it. Finally, the relevance of SUMP was also confirmed by the positive reception and popularity of the European guidelines from 2014. In order to better reflect the most recent trends in mobility, technology, and society, and to integrate the rich experience of implementing the SUMP concept since 2013, a major revision was undertaken in 2019. On top of revising the original guidelines (focused on the process of SUMP preparation, consultation, implementation and evaluation), new, dedicated guidance material was published. This additional guidance material includes comprehensive planning recommendations on topics of relevance, such as: linking transport and health in SUMPs; sustainable urban logistics planning; planning for electric road transport in the SUMP context; or supporting and encouraging cycling within a SUMP. The very high demand for this focused and topic-specific practical guidance indicates its high relevance for urban mobility. In addition, the high uptake of two new topic guides published in recent months: Addressing gender equity and vulnerable groups in SUMPs and COVID-19 SUMP Practitioner Briefing supports the claim from the previous sub-section regarding the need to better capture new developments of relevance for the UMP.

5.1.3.2. Relevance of UVARs, urban logistics, ITS and road safety The evaluation has found that UVARs and low emission zones (LEZs) continue to be important policy tools for a number of cities because they enable them to act on a range of issues already discussed, in particular air quality and congestion. It is important to acknowledge that the Ambient Air Quality Directive has been a driver for Member States and local authorities to consider LEZs. The developments such as the persistent non-compliance with air quality standards, ‘dieselgate’ and rising awareness of the impact of air quality on human health, seem to even further reinforce the relevance of low emission zones in particular, with increasing number of cities implementing or envisaging implementation of such schemes. It was confirmed also by the stakeholders, who further connect those measures to parking policy and public space management. UVARs also have interlinkages with urban ITS, urban road safety (pedestrianisation, traffic management and routing, etc.) and urban logistics (access time, vehicle characteristics, load factors 87,,), as well as citizens’ awareness of environmental and decarbonisation policies. On top of it, civil society organisations highlighted in the interviews that UVAR is an area which should be strengthened, particularly through political support in order to facilitate their implementation, while private sector actors stressed challenges that reduce LEZs effectiveness. The relevance of the urban ITS has been confirmed, with technological developments of recent years further extending both the range and effectiveness of these measures (and thus, indirectly, also their relevance). Increased automation and use of C-ITS, growth of data economy and shared mobility are ITS-related ‘game changers’ as identified by the CIVITAS Advisory Group and whose importance – and relevance – has been rising. The importance of road safety and reduction of injuries and deaths resulting from traffic crashes has been rising over the past years, with local, national and EU authorities raising the ambitions in that regard. This was confirmed, inter alia, by the Valetta Declaration adopted in 2017 by EU Transport Ministers, the Commission’s Strategic Action Plan on Road Safety of 2018 and policies of many cities, all aiming for ‘Vision Zero’ when it comes to road fatalities. In addition, it has been explicitly characterised as being very important and relevant by many stakeholders, especially with relation to vulnerable road users and new transport modes (e.g. e-scooters, silent electric cars and buses, heavy vehicle traffic through cities, etc.). This was confirmed as well by the findings of the Advisory Group on Game Changers, in particular in its recommendations concerning shared mobility and the growth of active mobility. It is therefore a highly relevant policy area. The relevance of the four main pillars of the UMP was also reinforced by the fact that there is widely known dedicated SUMP guidance covering all of them by 2019, and by the stakeholders. Overall, all UMP pillars are considered to be relevant, with more emphasis on the measures related to SUMPs. It should also be noted that, according to some stakeholders, regardless of the relevance of individual UMP measures, the overall inspiration, motivation to progress and reality check of actions provided by the UMP, as well as the accumulated experience and expertise from previous programmes and projects, are very relevant and beneficial. It was also stated that in some cases the UMP has been used as an effective lever for change with both decision-makers and the public, resulting in SUMPs entering the political agenda: a number of SUMPs have been developed with the support of national or EU funds. 5.1.3.3.New and emerging areas to be taken into account Technological developments during the past decade have been both disruptive and game changing. The transport and mobility sector has been profoundly impacted by changes in innovation with implications for the economy, society, environment and institutions. However, there is another side of innovation that should not be left out, namely institutional innovation (legislation, regulation, governance, business models, etc.). Over the years, decarbonisation and climate change have been progressively and increasingly integrated into policy priorities at European, national and local level. With the Paris Agreement and the United Nations’ sustainable development goals, the pressure on governments, including at local level, has stimulated significant changes in policies and strategies. This has also been supported by public awareness and societal impetus for individual lifestyle changes and active advocacy for sustainable mobility. The increased interest in young generations towards sharing mobility schemes, instead of ownership of vehicles, is a practical example of the change in mobility and environmental culture. A number of interviewed stakeholders at the local level confirmed this argument. From a political and regulatory perspective, the European Green Deal (described in more details in Section 3.1) and the diesel scandal and its aftermath seem to be particularly relevant as they have triggered important changes impacting also on urban mobility. The first initiative is of key importance as it sets the EU on a new path towards reaching net zero climate emissions by 2050 which assumes a fundamental transport transformation, including at urban level. The objectives of the European Green Deal go beyond the UMP not only in relation to CO2 emissions reduction but also when it comes to decreasing the negative impact of transport on health and the environment while stressing that the transition has to be just and inclusive. The diesel scandal is considered to have put in the public spotlight the issue of vehicles emissions, their link with air quality in urban areas (and with related negative health consequences of exceeding the limit values of air pollutant concentrations), and the urgency to tackle them. It has, finally, changed the relevant regulations, leading, among others, to “real driving” emissions testing. Therefore, in addition to the four main pillars of UMP, a number of additional relevant areas can be put forward for possible future consideration in future urban mobility policies, as supported by many stakeholders. Equally, the Court of Auditors and both CIVITAS Advisory Groups identified fields that either have not yet been sufficiently covered by the UMP and/or which should be better grasped due to rapid technological, societal and political developments and in order to meet the EU-level objective, in particular concerning decarbonisation. The most salient of those areas are public transport and active mobility. Public transport-related aspects such as multimodal information systems and smart ticketing were also mentioned as relevant areas. In addition, efficient public transport systems were recognised as a key challenge by respondents in the public consultation. Public space reallocation in favour of active modes has been raised as an additional area of relevance for urban mobility policy by the stakeholders during the consultation. Its importance and relevance has been, however, greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, with local authorities taking numerous measures to help people move safely during the lockdown. It included the temporary reallocation of road space to create pop-up bike lanes and enlarged pavements, some of which will become permanent. Section 5.1.3.4. tackles this in more detail. The following additional issues were also identified: ·Infrastructure development (including for electric vehicles) as part of the planning; ·Transport and mobility services such as on-demand transport, multimodality, service integration, urban/interurban and cross-border commuting (some having an impact on the working conditions); ·Technology-enabled services (e.g. Mobility-as-a-Service, ride sharing apps, etc.); ·Integrated space and mobility management, ·Digitalisation, big data and growth of e-commerce.

5.1.3.4.Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on resilience, health and safety in urban mobility The impact of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has been significant, as it has shaken up transport, including at local level, in numerous ways. It has led – in particular in the first months – to a massive drop in public transport usage and to an increase in active mobility. Various studies have also indicated a link between air pollution and the risk of virus propagation and severity of its impact and demonstrated that long-term exposure to air pollution might be expected to increase humans’ susceptibility to COVID-19. At the same time increased road safety risks for vulnerable road users were observed. Cities and transport operators have been also struggling to accommodate the necessary social distancing rules due to insufficient space on public transport services, but also for pedestrians and cyclists, thus concerns when it comes to fair sharing of public space in cities have become more visible. The Commission’s Guidelines on the progressive restoration of transport services and connectivity recommend that urban areas could consider temporary enlargements of pavements and increased space for active mobility options, as well as reducing speed limits of motorised vehicles in increased active mobility areas. Similarly, some rail operators used additional rolling stock to allow for more distance between passengers. The guidelines also indicate measures to be put in place to ensure the highest safety for public transport passengers and stress the need to communicate clearly on them, to facilitate their smooth implementation, reassure citizens and maintain their confidence in public transport Walking and cycling have proved to be the preferred mode in many cities during the crisis, combining the ‘active’ element (physical exercise) with the travel objective. This resulted in additional health benefits, reducing physical inactivity, a key risk factor of non-communicable diseases. In addition to being sustainable and active modes, they are also individual, and thus meet physical distancing requirements. As such, the World Health Organization recommended walking and cycling for essential trips whenever feasible. The pandemic has highlighted the role of urban logistics as an essential public service for the city, similar to passenger transport. Public transport has remained the backbone of sustainable mobility and is essential to economic recovery, with public transport drivers being essential workers. COVID-related lockdown measures have also led, at least temporarily, to significantly reduced car traffic and – thus – related air and noise pollution. In consequence, air quality has substantially, though temporarily, improved, with clear health benefits. In a poll, a big majority of Europeans have expressed a clear wish for this to continue, indicating that cities must take effective measures to protect citizens from air pollution, even if it means preventing polluting cars from entering city centres and reallocating public space to walking, cycling and public transport. Since the strict lock-down measures were lifted in most of the EU (in the second half of 2020), many people who had used public transport before have switched to individual modes, with cars usage going up towards pre-pandemic levels; the situation remains dynamic. The relevance of COVID when it comes to its impact on urban mobility was confirmed by publication (in July 2020) of dedicated COVID-19 SUMP guidance material. It includes good practice of cities and recommendations on how to make urban mobility more resilient and sustainable during and after the coronavirus crisis, focusing on active mobility, urban space, and public transport and shared mobility. Even though it is still too early to draw definite conclusions, it is highly likely that the COVID pandemic – with the changes it has brought to work, consumption and mobility patterns – will have a lasting impact on urban mobility. It is also an opportunity for cities to re-define their approaches and roll out measures – in particular those that privilege public and active transport – that have been challenging to implement previously, mostly due to root causes as described in Section 2.2. The experience of the pandemic has demonstrated, finally, that resilience of cities as well as people’s health and safety are of key importance and these aspects should be better integrated in local transport strategies and measures. As such, the impact of COVID should be considered when it comes to urban mobility. 5.2.Effectiveness This section discusses how successful has the UMP been in achieving or progressing towards its objectives. 5.2.1.Contribution of the Urban Mobility Package towards a more competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility in the EU Making a direct link between the UMP and its intended outcomes (i.e. reduced emissions and energy consumption; reduced congestion and better mobility along TEN-T; modal shift towards more sustainable means of transport; improved quality of life in cities; business opportunities for developing innovative transport and mobility services; better-coordinated and effective implementation of urban policies) is challenging. As stated in Section 3, it cannot be established that the mobility situation in EU urban areas has improved significantly as a result of the implementation of the UMP. This finding is supported by the responses to the stakeholder consultation, which indicate that the UMP objectives were very ambitious and over-arching while the measures proposed in the 2013 Communication were only soft and non-binding in nature, without a firm link to EU funding. Additionally, a significant number of the interviewed stakeholders find it difficult to assess the extent to which the UMP has achieved its objectives as they are not familiar with it and could only comment on urban mobility developments in their own cities, and because there are no targets and indicators to measure progress. It is also noted that recording a significant improvement would require some of the UMP measures to be implemented for a longer period of time. Nonetheless, the public consultation and the Court of Auditors report indicate the areas in which the UMP has likely had an impact. The majority of EGUM members who completed the survey stated that the Package has contributed to a modal shift towards sustainable modes of transport, and to improving the quality of life in urban areas to a greater or lesser extent. Local authorities and civil society at the local and regional levels, on the other hand, indicated that in some cases the Package has contributed to an increased coordination in the implementation of urban policies. EU-level stakeholders underscored the role that the UMP has played in establishing a common language, and in streamlining and consolidating the initiatives of the EU in the area of urban mobility. The Court of Auditors has also noted that the coverage and accessibility of public transport in cities and their surrounding areas has been improving, with EU funds playing a role. The Package was seen as an important step in promoting the concept of SUMPs and setting a basis for other EU urban mobility developments. A relevant example was provided by the European Investment Bank (EIB) according to which whether or not a city has a SUMP is a factor taken into consideration when making an investment decision. While this was also done prior to the UMP, its implementation gave legitimacy to this practice. 5.2.2.Effectiveness of the EU-level UMP measures This section presents the evidence with regards to the following aspects of the Package: SUMPs; coordinating public and private sector interventions; and reinforcing EU support. 5.2.2.1. Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (SUMP) The level of awareness of the concept of SUMPs is relatively high, it varies significantly between the EU Member States. While the stakeholders consulted were all familiar with the concept, a survey conducted in 2018 by CIVITAS showed that representatives of 25% of the surveyed countries had limited or clearly insufficient levels of awareness.

The evaluation found that SUMP guidelines were well known and were used, translated or integrated with national best practice in 10 Member States,. Compliance with the SUMP concept and guidelines varied considerably based on the SUMP Self-Assessment, completed by stakeholders as part of the case studies, where the overall scores were generally below 70%. This provides an indication that there is some discrepancy between the recommended and actual SUMP content and processes. It is noteworthy that the development and adoption of a SUMP did not necessarily ensure that it has a high quality or its implementation was guaranteed. Developing and using monitoring and evaluation schemes and employing external quality control assistance were found to be important factors, which likely influenced the SUMP’s effectiveness. This is also confirmed by the observations of the Court of Auditors that noted that ‘In none of the cities we visited in Italy and Spain was there external assessment of the quality of the adopted SUMPs. There is, therefore, a risk that the adoption process may become an administrative formality to get access to funds and that the SUMP may thus not be of the quality needed to drive improvements in urban mobility.’ With respect to implementation, the Bulgarian case study showed that, in that country, in most cases SUMPs were adopted because they were expected to be a prerequisite for access to funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Operational Programmes. It might point to a risk that a number of SUMPs have and will be developed and adopted merely as a formality without making decisive steps toward introducing urban mobility measures. The Court of Auditors in their report suggested that the link between the use of EU funding and the Country-specific Recommendations should be strengthened, also to address this issue. Annex D of the 2019 European Semester Country Reports presents an investment guidance on cohesion policy funding 2021-2027 for each Member State also explicitly mentions SUMPs in 16 of the country reports. The majority of respondents to the public consultation noted that SUMPs were an effective mechanism for planning and delivering sustainable urban mobility. In addition, the SUMP process, which stresses the importance of participatory approach and proper involvement of citizens and stakeholders, has also helped to ensure a high level of acceptance and support for the plans and measures included in it. For example, in Sofia an active citizen participation platform provided citizens with information on the purpose of the city’s SUMP and the progress of its development, whilst allowing them to submit opinions, suggestions and proposals, while in Budapest an ‘interactive two-way communication with high-level decision makers’ activity deepened their knowledge of sustainable urban mobility planning, encouraged their engagement in the process and helped to ensure their higher commitment to SUMP. Similarly, SUMPs have shown to have the potential to effectively contribute to achieving a numerous societal objectives linked with transport, in particular when it comes to reduction of air pollutant and CO2 emissions, reduction of congestion and deaths and injuries from road crashes in urban areas. The following examples illustrate this: -air quality improvements,, with for instance Madrid experiencing a 15% reduction in nitrogen dioxide pollution in three months after establishing low emission zones in its SUMP in November 2018; -reduction of CO2 emissions, with for instance Torino recording 12% decrease in daily emissions from urban logistics thanks to multi-users lanes for freight transport measure included in their SUMP; -reductions in car use, with for example Milan managing – thanks to measures included in its SUMP of 2016 – to bring the number of residents using cars down to 50%, well below the Italian average; -reduced impact of road crashes, with for instance Greater Manchester being successful in reducing deaths and serious injuries to road users thanks to a strategic approach to road safety in its SUMP; -increased active mobility, with for example Tartu (Estonia’s second-largest city) managing to double its modal share of cycling from 4% to 8% in five years through investments in public infrastructure; -increase in public transport, with for instance Klaipeda (Lithuania) aiming to bring it up from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2030 thanks to its SUMP implementation. Moreover, it can be reasonably expected that the additional SUMP topical guidance materials that have started to be published as from October 2019 and which provide comprehensive planning recommendations on the most relevant topics, will further support local authorities in tackling the most salient urban mobility challenges. They will, thus, strengthen the added-value of the SUMP approach and its effectiveness. The effectiveness of SUMPs was also acknowledged by the Court of Auditors in their report, reflecting its importance in both recommendations. The Court has called for systematic collection of data on urban mobility and on the adoption of SUMPs in all EU urban nodes by Member States, and that EU funding should be linked with SUMPs. It has specifically proposed that accessing cohesion and structural funds for urban mobility should be conditional on the existence of a SUMP, and that Connecting Europe Facility should give a higher priority to those projects proposals in urban nodes that are in line with SUMPs. At the time of the publication of the special report, the Commission underlined that it could only partially accept the first recommendation, highlighting, for the Cohesion Fund and ERDF, that “the success [for implementing the Recommendation] would “depend on the cooperation of the Member States” during the discussions on partnership agreements and programmes. All types of stakeholder who participated in the consultation activities agree that the EU support provided to national, regional and local authorities with respect to SUMPs is of great significance. This was shown in the public consultation where a large majority of respondents stated that the EU support to national and regional authorities with respect to SUMPs is largely or moderately important. In addition, more than a third of them noted that EU involvement was necessary in order to provide local authorities with support and funding to enable the scaling up of SUMPs. Similarly, more than half of the EGUM members, who took part in the survey targeting national authorities, indicated that their Member States had benefited from EU support in setting up SUMPs. Finally, the evaluation shows that the European Platform on Sustainable Urban