COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Together towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility

Table of Contents

1............ General policy context 1

1.1......... Background in the development of the proposal 1

1.2......... European policy context 1

1.3......... Existing European initiatives. 3

1.4......... International policy context 4

2............ Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties. 5

2.1......... Organisation and timing. 5

2.2......... Consultation and expertise. 5

2.3......... Results of the consultation of the Impact Assessment Board. 7

3............ Problem definition. 7

3.1......... The problem.. 7

3.1.1...... Urban mobility challenges endangering the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses 9

3.1.2...... The lack of an integrated approach to urban mobility in many European urban areas. 11

3.1.3...... The link between the urban mobility challenges endangering the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses & the lack of an integrated urban mobility approach. 15

3.2......... Stakeholders points of view on the problem.. 16

3.3......... Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent 17

3.4......... The baseline scenario. 17

3.4.1...... Existing legislation. 17

3.4.2...... Autonomous developments towards an integrated urban mobility approach. 18

3.4.3...... Urban developments and trends. 19

3.5......... The EU's right to act 21

4............ Objectives. 24

4.1......... General, specific and operational objectives. 24

4.2......... Mapping problems and objectives. 24

4.3......... Consistency with horizontal objectives of the EU.. 25

5............ Policy options. 25

5.1......... Description of the retained policy options. 25

5.1.1...... Option 0B: Business as usual scenario (comprehensive policy framework, minimum governance framework) 26

5.1.2...... Option 1B: Non-binding recommendation on SUMPs (comprehensive policy framework, minimum governance framework) 26

5.1.3...... Option 2A: Mandatory development of SUMPs by Member States-defined urban areas (minimum policy and governance framework) 27

5.1.4...... Option 3A: Mandatory development of SUMPs by EU-defined urban areas (minimum policy and governance framework) 28

5.1.5...... Schematic overview of the retained policy options and implementation. 28

5.2......... Stakeholders points of view on the retained policy options. 28

6............ Analysis of impacts of policy options. 30

6.1......... Effect of the policy options on the uptake of SUMPs. 30

6.2......... Link between the uptake of SUMPs and the economic, social and environmental impacts of this initiative 32

6.3......... Economic impacts. 35

6.3.1...... Impact on congestion and the free movement of people and goods. 35

6.3.2...... Impact on the TEN-T (Trans-European transport network) 36

6.3.3...... Impact on modal shift 37

6.3.4...... Impact on research & innovation, economic development and competitiveness of EU industry 38

6.3.5...... Impact on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) 40

6.3.6...... Administrative burden and cost savings. 41

6.3.7...... Territorial impact 42

6.4......... Social impacts. 43

6.4.1...... Impact on road safety. 43

6.4.2...... Impact on health. 44

6.4.3...... Impact on employment and social inclusion. 45

6.4.4...... Impact on civil society. 45

6.5......... Environmental impacts. 46

6.5.1...... Impact on air quality. 46

6.5.2...... Impact on energy consumption and CO2 emissions in transport, including possible territorial effects 47

6.5.3...... Impact on noise pollution. 49

6.5.4...... Impact on other environmental indicators (e.g. biodiversity, water quality, soil quality, renewable sources, waste management 49

6.6......... Impacts on affected stakeholders. 50

6.7......... Summary of the aggregate economic, environmental and social impacts. 50

7............ Comparison of the policy options. 51

7.1......... Effectiveness. 51

7.2......... Efficiency. 52

7.3......... Coherence. 52

7.4......... Stakeholder support 53

7.5......... Summary on the comparison of policy packages. 53

7.6......... Conclusions and preferred policy option. 53

8............ Monitoring and evaluation. 54

Appendix 1: Assessment of the application of the minimum consultation standards. 55

Appendix 2: Results of consultation with interested parties. 57

Appendix 3: The baseline scenario. 66

Appendix 4: State of the art of the concept for an Integrated Urban Mobility approach in Europe 77

Appendix 5: Comprehensive definition of the Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning concept 86

Appendix 6: Illustration of measures within the Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning concept 92

Appendix 7: Quantifying the effect of the sustainable urban mobility planning concept on CO2 emissions 95

Appendix 8: Reference documents. 102

Appendix 9: Glossary. 104

Appendix 10: International Energy Agency guidance on urban transport systems. 106

Appendix 11: Case Studies For The Problem Definition. 109

Appendix 12: Identification of the retained policy options. 114

Summary sheet

A. Need for action

Why? What is the problem being addressed?

1. Many of the EU objectives that are crucial for a competitive and sustainable transport systems are at risk. Those include: seamless mobility along the TEN-T, improved road safety, reduced CO2 emissions and noise pollution and improved air quality. This negatively impacts the well-being of citizens and the effectiveness of businesses in urban areas. The cause identified for this problem is that there is regulatory failure at the urban level, due to a lack of an integrated urban mobility approach, which market mechanisms alone are not able to address. The lack of an integrated urban mobility approach can be further decomposed into a too narrow scope in terms of the policy issues being addressed and/or inadequate procedures and processes. Amongst the drivers for this are: a lack of political will or interest, a lack of funding, a lack of knowledge of the concept and its benefits, car-oriented communities and planning culture and tradition. The most affected stakeholders are EU citizens in general, businesses, transport operators and users, and local, regional and national authorities.

What is this initiative expected to achieve?

2. The general objective is to unlock the full potential of urban areas to contribute to a more competitive and resource-efficient transport system. The specific objective is to ensure the uptake of an integrated urban mobility approach by EU urban areas. The operational objectives are to provide urban areas with and stimulate the uptake of a policy framework encompassing all policy issues and of a governance framework encompassing all procedures and processes to ensure such an approach.

What is the value added of action at the EU level?

3. The EU added value consists of ensuring a more effective and coordinated policy-making in an by the European urban areas, by providing national authorities with a policy and governance framework for the development of integrated mobility approaches in urban areas, in full respect of subsidiarity. As a result, urban mobility policies should be implemented in a more effective way, achieving better impacts on the well-being of citizens and the effectiveness of businesses in urban areas, on top of meeting local, national and EU policy targets and comply with relevant EU legislation. The coordinated EU action will also be more effective at ensuring free flow of goods and people, a seamless mobility along the TEN-T and increasing the innovation potential of the EU.

B. Solutions

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why?

4. The considered policy options are: a business as usual scenario to continue and improve existing EU activities in urban mobility planning, non-binding recommendations on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs), and a mandatory EU framework on SUMPs. A mandatory framework could be considered for urban areas either defined by the Member States themselves, or defined at EU level. Regarding the level of ambition, recommendations are based on comprehensive requirements for the policy framework while a mandatory approach is based on minimum requirements for the policy framework. The preferred policy option is non-binding recommendations with comprehensive requirements for the policy framework (option 1B). This option scores best overall on effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and stakeholder support. Given the large diversity of urban mobility planning approaches at Member States level and given the current limited availability of comparable data and statistics, non-binding recommendations come out as the optimal way forward at this point in time.

Who supports which option?

5. Local/regional authorities, city networks, members of the Committee of the Regions and a broad range of EU experts and associations support the continuation and improvement of existing EU initiatives (business as usual option) and of the non-binding recommendations options. This was also the result of the public consultation. In the public consultation, only workers' and passengers' associations supported a mandatory approach. Stakeholders and experts supported minimum requirements on the policy and governance framework, except for a requirement on certification, which they rejected.

C. Impacts of the preferred option

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?

6. Voluntary recommendations on SUMPs will stimulate the uptake of SUMPS in EU urban areas. The more cities implement a full SUMP, the higher the potential environmental, social and economic benefits will be for citizens, consumers, businesses and authorities. The main expected benefits of the introduction of a full SUMP are reduced congestion, a better mobility along the TEN-T, cost savings due to a more coordinated, effective and efficient combination of measures within a SUMP, increased research and innovation potential, increased road safety, increased social inclusion and accessibility of work places, better air quality, reduced CO2 emissions and noise pollution. The preferred option stimulates the use of comprehensive policy requirements for a SUMP. Therefore, the impact could even be higher. By respecting the subsidiarity principle and by refraining from imposing specific measures and/or targets on cities, the preferred option leaves flexibility to the Member States and its regional/local authorities.

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?

7. Local and regional authorities are affected due to higher administrative costs for developing and implementing a SUMP in comparison with traditional transport and infrastructure plans. In France the minimum average costs of developing a SUMP for cities between 100,000 and 200,000 inhabitants were estimated at €80,000 and the maximum average costs at €550,000. However, these authorities will benefit from large costs savings due to the implementation of a more coordinated, effective and efficient combination of measures. Results from the first round on Local Transport Plans in the UK indicate that the benefits of integrated transport schemes are likely to be significant relative to the costs and offering value for money.

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected?

8. Businesses located in urban areas will have an easier access to services and resources. The implementation of a SUMP will lead to reduced congestion, time and costs savings, thereby improving accessibility and therefore the attractiveness of the location and improve business opportunities. The overall impact of SUMPs on SMEs is expected to be positive as the costs of running business in urban areas, related mainly to congestion would decrease and accessibility would improve. Reduced congestion through SUMPs in urban areas will be positive for the TEN‑T logistics, by improving access to motorways and better linkages with main transport hubs (ports, airports) located in urban areas.

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations?

9. The impact on national budgets and administrations will not be significant. National administrations will be involved in developing national frameworks on SUMPs to guide and assist their urban areas.

Will there be other significant impacts?

10. Developing a SUMP framework at the EU level could strengthen the competitiveness of the EU industry. If the EU is successful in tackling urban mobility challenges, the acquired know-how and technologies could be further exported and companies leading the innovation in transport mobility solutions could expand to foreign markets. Moreover, the SUMP framework can bring additional positive results to the competitiveness of the EU industry, as one of the underlying objectives of SUMPs is to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of transportation of persons and goods.

D. Follow up

When will the policy be reviewed?

The Commission services will evaluate by 2020 the uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches in the European Union. Based on this, the Commission services shall assess the need for further action on integrated urban mobility.

1. General policy context

1.1. Background in the development of the proposal

11. In 2010, the Europe 2020 Strategy[1] 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 in this context the need to focus also on the urban dimension of transport. Consequently, urban mobility is an important focal area in the 2011 Transport White Paper[2] and several relevant initiatives were announced.

12. The Transport White Paper has already described the set of Commission actions that are needed to improve urban mobility, in addition to already developed related and targeted EU legislation and policy measures. These urban mobility actions would help to realise the key EU Transport White Paper objective of a modernised, resource efficient and more competitive European transport system.

Despite existing EU legislation and policies with impact on urban mobility (e.g. on Trans-European Network for Transport (TEN-T), road safety, climate change, air quality, noise) many cities in Europe still face common challenges that affect not only the competitiveness of the EU transport system but also the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses. To tackle these urban mobility challenges the Transport White Paper suggests that an integrated urban mobility approach is needed.

Over the last decades and especially in recent years a growing focus on sustainability has given rise to the need to rethink traditional urban mobility approaches in order to achieve improvement. Given local specificities, planning cultures and experiences, different degrees of sophistication of urban mobility planning exist throughout Europe.

13. According to the White Paper a greater coordination of all authorities having an influence on the transport system is highly desirable, as well as extension of the coordination of such authorities beyond the strict city borders[3]. In the White Paper it is therefore announced in Initiative 31 that the Commission will "examine the possibility of a European support framework for a progressive implementation of Urban Mobility Plans in European cities, establish procedures and financial support mechanisms at European level for preparing Urban Mobility Audits, as well as Urban Mobility Plans, set up a European Urban Mobility Scoreboard based on common targets, and examine the possibility of a mandatory approach for cities of a certain size, according to national standards based on EU guidelines". It is also proposed to "link regional development and cohesion funds to cities and regions that have submitted a current, and independently validated Urban Mobility Performance and Sustainability Audit certificate".

1.2. European policy context

Already in 2002 the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) pointed out in their report on 'Implementing sustainable urban travel policies'[4] that cities face problems and barriers regarding planning, and measures setting and implementation. A package of complementary policy instruments needs to be developed to help cities moving towards sustainability. Better integration of land-use and transport planning is necessary, and a multi-sectorial and integrated approach is required.

14. Urban mobility is a shared responsibility between the EU and the Member States at national, regional and local level. This was recognised through the adoption of the Green Paper[5] and Action Plan[6] on Urban Mobility. The Action Plan includes 20 actions from 2009 until 2012 to support local, regional and national authorities to make urban mobility more sustainable. The concept of promoting integrated urban mobility policies through accelerating the take up of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs), which are strategic plans building on existing planning practices and based on integration, participation and evaluation principles[7], was reflected in Action 1 of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility "Accelerating the take-up of sustainable urban mobility plans". Several EU initiatives have been realised to establish and disseminate good practice (see section 1.3).

The Action Plan on Urban Mobility was reviewed, in a way proportionate to its scope. It came out clearly that SUMPs was the most mature topic with clear stakeholders support and that further action should be taken after the completion of the Action Plan: "The encouragement of Member States to provide platforms that would foster the development of sustainable urban mobility policies has not been fully reached. It has been difficult to obtain widespread take-up because necessary 'multiplication and dissemination' at Member States level has not taken place. (…) Via the ELTISplus project a working definition of a SUMP has been provided. However there is no official EU document with a definition of a SUMP". This is in line with Initiative 31 of the White Paper.

15. In 2008[8] the European Parliament adopted a resolution on urban mobility. The Parliament underlined that better coordination is essential for improving urban transport and mobility. It called for a better coordination between neighbouring local authorities, and considered it necessary for urban development and planning to be carried out on an integrated basis.

16. In 2010 the Council "welcomed the Action Plan on Urban Mobility; and invited the Commission to ensure that the new Transport White Paper contains targets and policies for promoting more efficient, sustainable, safe and healthy urban mobility"[9].

17. The European Economic and Social Committee[10] and the Committee of the Regions[11] both adopted in 2010 an opinion on the Action Plan on Urban Mobility, and the Committee of the Regions recommended an integrated approach to urban policies.

18. The Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and Demonstration activities[12] addresses sustainable urban mobility, including innovative urban management and planning practices through the CIVITAS initiative[13]. Other projects on sustainable urban mobility planning have been carried out, for example the PILOT project[14], the ELTISplus project[15] and other related activities under the Intelligent Energy Europe/STEER programme[16].

1.3. Existing European initiatives

EU action over the past years has contributed to making urban mobility more competitive and sustainable and mitigating its negative impacts. The current EU policy is a project-based, bottom-up approach, which helps pro-active, interested cities, local authorities and citizens.

Since 2002, the EU is running the CIVITAS programme under the Framework Programme for Research. CIVITAS supports demonstration activities related to urban mobility. It has so far provided funding to 59 cities and around 200 cities are members of the CIVITAS Forum Network to learn from the lead cities. The CIVITAS programme will continue under the next financial framework 2014-2020.

The EU is also conducting a large number of awareness-raising activities for stakeholders and the general public. The most important one is the annual European Mobility Week, which encourages local authorities to introduce and promote sustainable transport measures and to invite citizens to try out alternatives to car use. Close to 8000 permanent measures have been implemented as a result of the campaign. In 2012, 2.158 cities registered their participation, covering 29.2% of the total EU population. The "Do The Right Mix[17] campaign" for its part supports sustainable urban mobility campaigners and promotes the advantages of combining different modes of transportation.

In addition to campaigns there are useful websites including 1) the ELTISplus website[18], that facilitates the exchange of information, knowledge and experiences in the field of urban mobility between individuals working in the field of transport and related disciplines; 2) the sustainable urban mobility plans website[19] that supports local authorities in developing SUMPs and is complemented by guidelines, events and training workshops on how to develop and implement SUMPs and 3) the LEZ (Low Emission Zones) website[20] that allows citizens and businesses to find out the emissions standard of the LEZ they wish to travel into, and of their vehicle.

Looking forward, the Commission will set up a European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, which will coordinate the activities of all EU programmes related to urban mobility planning. It will integrate the above-mentioned websites and link with the CIVITAS initiative. It will act as a virtual knowledge and competence centre, consolidating relevant experiences and information across the EU. This will help tackle implementation issues at city level. It will also include the sharing of relevant data and statistics and the elaboration of common indicators on urban mobility performance.

It should also be mentioned that the development and deployment of sustainable urban mobility measures and plans is supported by the structural funds and the TEN-T funds.

1.4. International policy context

19. Heads of State and Government meeting at the 2012 United Nations (UN) Conference on Sustainable Development 'Rio+20' recognised the importance of sustainable transport for economic growth and sustainable urban development and agreed, inter alia on "the need to promote an integrated approach to policy making at the national, regional and local levels for transport services and systems to promote sustainable development[21]."

Moreover, the International Energy Agency (IEA) also emphasises that urgent energy-efficiency policy attention in relation to urban transport systems will be needed to mitigate associated negative noise, air pollution, congestion, climate and economic impacts, all of which can cost countries billions of dollars per year. According to the IEA the pathway to improving the urban transport systems includes four stages: planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluation. As such, the IEA also argues for an integrated approach to urban mobility[22]. More information can be found in Appendix 10.

20. Around the world there is increased attention to integrated urban mobility, particularly in rapidly urbanising countries. The 2012 Brazilian urban mobility law[23] requires the preparation of an urban mobility plan for all Brazilian cities with more than 20,000 inhabitants. In India a National Urban Transport Policy has been defined in 2006. Under this policy cities have been asked to develop Comprehensive Mobility Plans. These action plans have begun to evolve in a few metropolitan cities to address pollution and congestion[24]. In Mexico the state government is responsible for general mobility and transport policies, plans and programs, including sustainable mobility plans. In 2011 the OECD concluded that the lack of coordination of efforts between different level of government, various authorities and transport operators in Mexico can be a major obstacle faced to transport modernisation[25]. In China urban master plans are required by the state for all cities for a 20 years period[26]. The central government outlines the form and procedures and the municipality develops the contents of the plan. The plan covers a wide range of topics including transport. However, with the focus on short term construction it is difficult to develop sustainable transport systems through an integrated urban mobility approach. Coordinated policy making will not be achieved in the near future. The OECD recommends China to strengthen the synchronization of central government with local government on sustainable transport strategy and enhance the capacity of local government[27].

21. In the developed economies an integrated approach to urban mobility is also gaining importance. The USA Federal legislation[28] requires each state to prepare a transportation plan considering all transport modes and based on at least a 20-year forecast period, which may include a financial plan. Under SAFETEA-LU, the policy for the metropolitan planning process is to promote consistency between transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns. Metropolitan Planning Organizations cooperate with the state in developing transportation plans and programs for the urbanized area. The plans are to provide for the development of all transportation facilities (including walking and cycling) and serve as an intermodal system for the state, metropolitan areas, and the nation[29]. In Canada a national transit framework including elements such as multi-stakeholder dialogue, policy integration with health, environment and urban planning and public transit funding, has not been adopted or implemented yet[30]. However, the city of Sherbrooke in the province of Québec is one of the first cities who formally adopted a SUMP in February 2012, after a process of intensive stakeholder and public consultation since 2008[31]. Finally, in Australia the concept of an integrated approach to urban mobility is known and SUMP guidelines were published in 2012[32].

2. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties

Lead DG: Directorate General for Mobility and Transport

Agenda planning: 2013/MOVE/026

EU framework for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans ('Urban Mobility Package')

2.1. Organisation and timing

22. This Impact Assessment was elaborated by DG MOVE, assisted by a Commission Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) on Urban Mobility re-established in November 2011[33]. The IASG met on 11 December 2012 and on 19 February 2013. The third IASG meeting took place on 20 June 2013 and the fourth and last IASG took place on 10 July 2013. A final version incorporating the comments made during this meeting was circulated on 19 July 2013.

2.2. Consultation and expertise

Process of consultation

23. An on-line stakeholder consultation was carried out between 18 June and 7 September 2012 as part of the study “Panteia/NEA (2013), Review of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility” MOVE C1/319-1/2011 and attracted 116 contributions with 62 contributions on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans.

24. An on-line public consultation on the urban dimension of EU transport policy, including the issue of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, has run between 17 September 2012 and 17 December 2012 and attracted 206 participants. 195 participants replied to the questionnaire and are included in the statistics, the others sent position papers. A summary report of the contributions received from stakeholders during the public consultation on the urban dimension of EU transport policy is available on the Commission website[34].

25. For both consultations, it should be noted that although the number of respondents is high enough to draw learnings and conclusions, it is not enough to claim representativeness, especially when breaking down answers under the different categories of respondents.

26. A high level conference on urban mobility took place on 17 September 2012 and a meeting with representatives from EU Member States on urban mobility took place on 12 December 2012. A dedicated expert consultation was carried out on 29 January 2013[35]. A stakeholder consultation meeting on urban mobility was held on 21 May 2013, and a similar meeting with the Committee of the Regions' members took place on 13 June 2013.

27. A special Euro barometer citizen survey into 'Attitudes of Europeans towards urban mobility' took place between 24 May and 9 June 2013. 26,680 face-to-face interviews were held in EU 28 Member States[36].

28. Input from stakeholders has been taken into account in this impact assessment study. Appendix 1 demonstrates that the minimum consultation standards have been respected. The details of all public, stakeholder, expert and member states consultations are provided in Appendix 2.

External expertise

29. External expertise was used to assess the various options available to develop and implement integrated urban mobility approaches, including aspects raised during the public and stakeholder consultations[37]. The study has revealed that European cities are on the move towards integrated urban mobility approaches and this trend is likely to continue. However, few cities implement a full integrated urban mobility approach. With a view to the mobility, social and environmental challenges the urban transport system faces, the lack of coordinated and target policy action in cities is a particular challenge.

The relevant social partners have also been consulted throughout the entire process. This concerned IRU (International Road Transport Union), UITP (Union Internationale des Transports Publics), CER (Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies), CEEP (European Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public services) and ETF (European Transport Workers' Federation). Their views are taken into account in this report in so far as they are directly relevant to the issue at hand.

Principal relevant findings of the public consultation

30. 87 % of the registered participants believe that there is a lack of coordination between authorities and other actors in the use of various policy instruments, and that integrated urban mobility planning could be an answer to tackle this issue. 5% of the respondents disagree.

86% of the registered participants believe that EU-support for the development of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) would contribute to the broader take up of these plans in urban areas. 74% is of the opinion that best practices on SUMPs should be developed and exchanged at EU level. Moreover, 66% finds that the EU should provide a platform for this. 57% of the respondents support the development of guidelines and recommendations. Furthermore, 58% believes that the EU should give financial support for the development of SUMPs, whereas 57% believes that the EU should fund R&D projects related to urban mobility planning. 29% of the registered respondents, especially workers' and passengers' associations, point to a mandatory framework for SUMPs in EU cities.

31. The principal objectives of SUMPs, as ranked by the participants, are improving air quality, liveability, leisure, recreation and accessibility. The two preferred topics such a plan should address are walking and cycling, closely followed by a public transport plan, including travel information, ticketing and payment systems. Around 67% of the registered respondents said that urban planning does not give sufficient consideration to urban freight logistics.

32. 67% of the registered participants are in favour of linking the access to EU funding for urban transport projects to the existence of SUMPs to ensure that supported projects are in line with relevant local, national and EU policies and to avoid waste of financial resources. About 22% of the registered participants are against the idea of making a SUMP a condition for funding as this could lead to unfair discriminations between cities and countries and more administrative burden.

Overall, the results of the public consultation show that there is a keen desire among stakeholders for an integrated urban mobility scheme and stronger EU commitment[38].

Principal relevant findings of the Eurobarometer citizen survey

A very large majority of all Europeans think that urban air and noise pollution accidents and congestion, are important challenges and nine out of ten Europeans encounter problems when travelling within cities that limit their access to important goods and services. Travelling costs are also considered to be an important issue in a large majority of Member States. Importantly 72% think that the situation will stay the same or get worse. A clear majority thinks that city authorities are mainly responsible for taking action to address urban mobility challenges.

2.3. Results of the consultation of the Impact Assessment Board

The Impact Assessment Board (hereafter "the Board") gave a positive overall opinion with a number of comments to be integrated. The Board asked for a more streamlined problem definition by focusing on the key issues to be tackled by this initiative. This point has been addressed by linking the key issues better to the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses. Also in answer to comments from the Board, it is clarified how the results of previous EU initiatives were used, including the Action Plan on Urban Mobility; how the benchmark approach was developed and how SUMPs implementation issues will be dealt with. Moreover, the baseline scenario in terms of the existing relevant EU initiatives and their expected results, and the demonstration of the EU-added value is strengthened. In response to the Board's comments, a more concrete definition of the objectives and a simplified presentation of the options is put forward. Furthermore, a clearer definition of the impacts with regard to how they address the main barriers for the uptake of integrated urban mobility planning and to how the options are expected to deliver on the objectives is presented. Last, the Board asked for a better distinction between the different types of stakeholders when presenting their views. This issue is addressed within the limits of the available data.

3. Problem definition

3.1. The problem

In 'A resource-efficient Europe - Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 strategy'[39] a key component related to transport was identified. It emphasised the need for a vision for a low-carbon, resource-efficient, secure and competitive transport system that removes all obstacles to the internal market for transport, promotes clean technologies and modernises transport networks. The Transport White Paper translated this into a vision for a competitive and sustainable transport system.

However, despite existing EU policies and legislation tackling individual policy areas with impact on urban mobility (e.g. Trans-European Network for Transport (TEN-T), road safety, climate change, air quality, noise), and related action in the Member States, many cities in Europe still face common challenges. They are struggling with congestion and accessibility[40], seamless mobility along the TEN-T, traffic accidents on urban roads, air pollution, CO2 emissions and noise pollution.

This is resulting in large costs for the society as a whole: the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of transportation of persons and goods is suboptimal, having negative impacts on the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses. This also creates a missed opportunity to further increase the innovation potential of the EU. The momentum is not seized to further develop innovative solutions for urban mobility challenges. As a result, the EU as a whole is missing an opportunity to export know-how and technologies, thereby not realising the full competitiveness potential of the EU industry.

Therefore, the main problem identified is that the EU objectives crucial for a competitive and sustainable transport system - i.e. seamless mobility along the TEN-T, improved road safety, reduced CO2 emissions and noise pollution, and improved air quality - are at risk because of transport developments in urban areas[41]. This consequently negatively affects the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses located in urban areas.

Notwithstanding local factors, the general root cause of this problem- identified through EU activities and stakeholders and experts opinions - is linked to regulatory failure at the urban level and the fact that market mechanisms alone are not able to address this situation.

The regulatory failure is linked to the fact that many local authorities are not effective in their actions due to a lack of an integrated urban mobility approach. They tackle the individual policy areas separately, without necessarily looking for possible synergies or conflicts between those individual policy areas. For example on land use planning, accessibility and air quality: by building a large shopping mall outside a city centre without linking it sufficiently to public transport, air quality and congestion could deteriorate because of a rise in car trips. In this respect, one could argue that currently, many European cities face a "missing link", which would ensure an integrated urban mobility approach.

Besides, the market mechanisms in urban areas do not lead to the achievement of the EU objectives mentioned above, because of difficulties with attributing market value to the identified challenges, insufficient economic incentives and requirements for substantive initial investments that do not guarantee returns in the near future. This market failure is to a large extent also a consequence of legal uncertainty and unclear long-term transport policies in many urban areas.

The underlying cause of the main problem, i.e. the inadequate regulatory approach to integrated urban mobility in many European urban areas can be further explained by two problem drivers:

1. Problem driver 1: Policy making in many European urban areas often fails to address all policy issues essential to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility

2. Problem driver 2: Procedures and processes in many European urban areas are often inadequate to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility

According to experts the major barriers for the uptake of an integrated approach to urban mobility in many EU urban areas[42] and the related (sub)problem(s) identified above can be found in the following areas: lack of political will or interest, lack of funding (for development and implementation of actions), lack of knowledge of concept and of its benefits, car oriented communities, and planning culture and tradition. In city case studies the lack of funding, possibly related to the current economic situation, and planning tradition were ranked as the most important barriers.

This initiative will tackle all the barriers, to the exception of the lack of funding, as it will not release any additional budget for the development and implementation of integrated approaches to urban mobility (although feedback from the UK indicates that more attention to integrated urban mobility helps local authorities take the decision to dedicate more funds to this important policy area, see section 6.3.6).

The following sections present evidence for the main problem and its drivers. First of all, it will be demonstrated that in many European urban areas the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses is at risk, due to persisting problems with accessibility, congestion and its relation to seamless mobility along the TEN-T, traffic accidents on urban roads, air and noise pollution and CO2 emissions (see section 3.1.1). Secondly, it will be demonstrated that many European urban areas do not have an integrated urban mobility approach, as they do not address all policy issues and/or do not have the optimal procedures and processes (see section 3.1.2). Lastly, the link between these two issues will be clarified (see section 3.1.3).

3.1.1. Urban mobility challenges endangering the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses

33. The share of the population residing in predominantly and intermediate urban areas is currently around 76% of the EU population[43]. Demographic trends have an impact on the requirements on urban mobility and transport, especially regarding the mobility and accessibility needs of elderly people. Around a sixth of EU population has a disability[44]. Over a third of people aged over 75 have disabilities that restrict them to some extent, and over 20% are considerably restricted. These numbers are set to rise as the EU's population ages[45].

34. Economy activity is even more spatially concentrated than population. Around 85% of the EU's GDP is generated in cities[46]. Services represent about 72% of the total EU gross value added. Proximity of people and activities and a shift towards a knowledge based and service based economy will continue to drive urbanisation in the EU[47].

Congestion in the EU is often located in urban areas and regions. Congestion costs in urban areas are currently estimated at around €80 billion per year[48]. Congestion creates stress and loss of time for the citizens and reduces the effectiveness of businesses that rely on transport for supplies and/or sales. Heavy congestion increases vehicle fuel consumption by 30%[49]. Urban congestion has a negative impact on inter-urban and cross-border travel, as most transport starts and ends in urban areas. Urban congestion is linked to accessibility of a city, especially regarding the last mile to and from main nodes on the TEN-T network[50], both for passenger and freight transport. As recognised by the TEN-T policy, connectivity within and between the regions often translates to connections among the main cities in and beyond the regions. The TEN-T chain is only as strong as its weakest link: the efficiency of urban transport is essential to achieve a seamless mobility along the TEN-T. The TomTom congestion index based on GPS measurements shows significant delays in the monitored cities, especially in peak hours. Most cities in this index belong to the urban nodes in the TEN-T network[51].

35. In 2011, 38% of all fatal road traffic accidents is reported to take place in urban areas in the EU, meaning 11,600 deaths. 70% of all reported road traffic accidents (fatal and non-fatal) take place in urban areas, meaning for the EU total for 2011 around 775,000 accidents. Pedestrians make up the largest share of victims and elderly people are over-represented in fatal accidents in urban areas. The number of urban fatalities now constitutes a greater part of all road fatalities, from nearly 36% in 2001 to 38% in 2011[52].

36. Together with the increase in energy use of the transport sector in the EU, CO2 emissions for transport have increased by 28% between 1990 and 2010. The transport sector has increased its share of total CO2 emissions from 20% in 1990 to 29% in 2010[53],[54]. Urban transport is responsible for about 23% of total CO2 emissions from transport[55]. This is impacting the well-being of virtually all populations, including those living in cities.

37. Many European cities[56] are plagued by air quality problems, with pollutant concentrations well above the limit values for PM10 and NO2 set by EU legislation[57] for health protection reasons. Transport is a main source of PM10 and NOx emissions (which contributes to ozone creation) and the emission of air pollutants in cities is particularly linked to road traffic exhaust. As such, air quality is also closely related to traffic congestion. Although emissions of air pollutants from road transport have declined since 1990, air quality is still an issue in cities across Europe. About 6-27 % of the urban population in the EU was potentially exposed to ambient nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations above the EU limit value set for the protection of human health (40 microgram NO2/m3 annual mean) between 2001-2010. Even a higher share, about 18-41 % of the urban population in the EU, was potentially exposed to ambient concentrations of particulate matter (PM10) in excess of the EU limit value set for the protection of human health (50 microgram/m3 daily mean not to be exceeded more than 35 days a calendar year) between 2001-2010 and there is no apparent trend over this period[58]. Obviously, air quality has a direct impact on health and therefore well-being.

38. Around 40 million people across the EU are exposed to noise levels above 50 decibel from roads within areas during the night.[59] The WHO night noise guidelines for Europe describe levels above 55 decibel during the night as increasingly dangerous to public health, increasing the risk for cardio-vascular diseases[60]. The external costs of noise in the EU amount to at least 0.35 % of its GDP and mostly due to road traffic. Urbanisation, growing demand for motorised transport and inefficient urban planning are described as the main driving forces for environmental noise exposure[61].

39. The above assessment of mobility and sustainability challenges has shown that many EU cities are far from having solved their urban mobility challenges and from achieving a healthy and effective environment for their citizens and businesses. The total costs linked to congestion, accidents, noise, air pollutions and CO2 emissions impose a large burden on society as a whole. If no action is taken, it will continue to be a burden for future generations. The challenges are also endangering a more competitive and resource-efficient transport system, which is the key EU Transport White Paper objective. The future prosperity of the EU will depend on the ability of all its regions to remain fully and competitively integrated in the world economy. As most transport of goods and people starts and ends in a urban areas, connectivity within and between the regions often translates to connections among the main cities in and beyond the regions. Taking into account that the majority of population lives in urban areas, it becomes obvious that the efficiency of urban transport goes beyond the local level and affects mobility in general.

3.1.2. The lack of an integrated approach to urban mobility in many European urban areas

Given local specificities, planning cultures and experiences, different degrees of sophistication in urban mobility planning exist throughout Europe. However, the current urban mobility practices reveal many gaps with regard to elements that are necessary for achieving a true integrated urban mobility approach. In line with the view of a large majority of experts and stakeholders[62] and with evaluation experience from the ELTISplus and CIVITAS initiatives[63], the most successful urban areas have applied integrated approaches to tackle the multi-sectorial problems in policy-making linked to their transport system. Therefore the concept of an integrated urban mobility approach emerged. This integrated approach tries to address all challenges and complexities of urban transport system by ensuring adequate policy elements and governance principles in policy actions at city level (see Appendices 4, 5 and 6).

Based on agreed common elements of an integrated urban mobility approach from those previous EU initiatives, a "benchmark integrated urban mobility concept" has been developed through an extensive consultation process, both with stakeholders and experts[64]. The tables in Appendix 4 provide a justification of the elements included in the benchmark concept. It incorporates specific elements - on (a) policy elements and (b) processes and procedures - necessary to achieve well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses, and the EU objective of a competitive and resource efficient transport system. Those specific elements focus on the need to tackle the main urban challenges identified before (accessibility, congestion and seamless mobility along the TEN-T, traffic accidents, air and noise pollution, CO2 emissions). On the geographical scope this "benchmark" concept covers all movements of goods and people to, from, through and within an urban area, being the urban agglomeration or functional city[65].

The elements identified for the policy framework for cities' policy making (cfr. problem driver 1 on policy issues) to ensure the effectiveness and coherence of an integrated approach are the following:

· address both freight and passenger transport

· address all transport modes

· address the following topics: public transport services, non-motorised transport, city logistics, mobility management, integration of transport modes (multi-modality), and the road network and motorised transport (including moving and stationary traffic)

40. The elements identified related to the governance framework (in terms of processes and procedures of cities' policymaking) (cfr. problem driver 2) are more fixed. The following can be considered:

· Contains pledge to sustainability (3 dimensions: economic, social and environmental)

· Includes or is built on long-term strategy

· Identifies objectives and sets targets in line with EU policies

· Provides short-term implementation plan (timetable + budget plan; allocation of responsibilities)

· Integrates different relevant policy areas, in particular land-use and transport planning

· Considers all transport to, through and within the urban agglomeration area and coordination between different authority levels

· Includes baseline analysis including performance audit

· Is developed in a participatory approach

· Includes impact assessment on proposed measures

· Is based on integrated planning and implementation

· Is formally adopted

· Foresee mechanisms for monitoring of implementation and performance

· Foresee mechanisms for review and update of plans

· Includes a conformity check on requirements

Based on the elements in the model benchmark concept on an integrated urban mobility approach, an assessment has been made of the current situation in the Member States. See table 1 (COWI, 2013). Appendix 4 provides an extensive justification for this assessment. An overall conclusion is that some European cities implement to a certain degree an integrated urban mobility approach, but that in most cases they do not reach the level of a full "benchmark" integrated urban mobility approach. Below some further illustrations of countries and specific elements are given:

Integrated urban mobility strategies have evolved in France and the UK where respectively the "Plans de Déplacements Urbains" (PDUs) and the Local Transport Plans (LTPs)[66] have been introduced. In these countries it has been concluded that the development of such integrated approaches – at least for the larger urban areas – is an important prerequisite for the achievement of policy objectives and targets. Competent authorities have been designated and charged with the development of these integrated strategies by national legislation. But even in these countries it appears that more needs to be done to develop more coordinated and integrated approaches with targeted policy actions[67].

In several other Member States (e.g. those who have last joined the EU), however, traditional (fragmented) urban mobility approaches persist or are only slowly evolving. They remain too limited in scope to address appropriately all the issues identified under the problem definition. Furthermore, their planning processes and procedures are not adequate to ensure a proper coordination of the actions deployed by different authorities. Apart from France and the UK the approaches in other countries do not always cover the whole urban agglomeration. Freight transport is less covered than passenger transport[68]. Cities in Member States that have last joined the EU are generally less advanced than in old Member States, although some cities undertake urban mobility approaches at a high level. According to experts and respondents to the public consultation process insufficient coordination on urban mobility is a persisting problem.

Table 1: Assessment of current level of integrated urban mobility approach (IUMA) in EU 28[69]

Country || No of cities* || Population in cities || No IUMA || Low/ Medium IUMA || Medium/ High IUMA || Full IUMA

Austria || 5 || 2,642,423 || None || Some || Some || None

Belgium || 7 || 2,306,490 || None || Few || Many || None

Bulgaria || 7 || 3,330,714 || None || Many || None || None

Croatia || 3 || 613,111 || Some || Some || None || None

Cyprus || 2 || 577,300 || Few || Many || None || None

Czech Republic || 6 || 2,227,034 || Few || Many || Few || None

Denmark || 4 || 1,597,610 || None || Some || Some || None

Estonia || 1 || 401,140 || None || Many || None || None

Finland || 8 || 1,848,032 || Some || Some || Few || None

France || 54 || 28,768,438 || None || Few || Many || None

Germany || 81 || 29,148,473 || Few || Some || Some || None

Greece || 7 || 4,408,762 || Some || Some || None || None

Hungary || 9 || 3,229,655 || Few || Many || Few || None

Ireland || 2 || 1,309,209 || Some || None || Some || None

Italy || 41 || 19,166,051 || Few || Some || Some || None

Latvia || 1 || 806,993 || None || Many || None || None

Lithuania || 4 || 1,198,585 || Some || Some || Few || None

Luxemburg || 1 || 143,697 || None || Many || None || None

Malta || 1 || 5,784 || None || Many || None || None

Netherlands || 20 || 8,338,566 || Few || Some || Many || None

Poland || 39 || 13,476,139 || Few || Many || Few || None

Portugal || 6 || 4,412,536 || None || Many || Few || None

Romania || 19 || 5,708,596 || Some || Many || None || None

Slovakia || 2 || 768,562 || Some || Some || None || None

Slovenia || 2 || 375,155 || Some || None || Some || None

Spain || 51 || 19,438,047 || Few || Many || Few || None

Sweden || 6 || 2,040,531 || None || Some || Some || None

United Kingdom || 66 || 29,808,427 || None || Few || Many || None

Total || 455 || 188,096,060 || Few || Some || Some || None

Note: It cannot be excluded that few cities might have reached a level of approach that includes all benchmark elements and resembles a full IUMA

* Urban areas above 100,000 inhabitants

Example: cities' suboptimal approach to urban logistics

Although urban logistics makes up a relatively small share of urban traffic (e.g. 17% of all vehicle.km on London's roads in 2010[70]), they make a major contribution to the success of cities. It is clear that cities are places for the exchange of goods and information which are at the heart of our economy and way of life. For cities to be successful they need to optimise the exchange of goods and information while remaining attractive places to live and work.

But throughout Europe there are significant problems with the movement of goods in urban areas. Congestion has a negative impact on productivity and competitiveness of urban economies, causes inefficiencies in logistics operations and so increases costs. The costs of the 'first' and 'last mile' of supply chains are too high and present a barrier to growth in some sectors. Finally the environmental impacts of urban logistics operations can be high contributing to air and noise pollution, road damage and CO2 emissions. Due to the proximity and density of people in urban areas the external costs of urban freight transport can be high.

While the technical knowledge to solve most of these problems is available, the root cause of the continued problem is the lack of understanding and political attention to urban logistics amongst national and local decision makers. While most people acknowledge the importance of the movement of goods and services to cities and the economy - "urban logistics" is very often neglected in the integrated urban mobility approach. In a survey of Swedish cities 43% did not spend any time working on freight transport issues despite 65% identifying freight transport as a problem[71].

3.1.3. The link between the urban mobility challenges endangering the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses & the lack of an integrated urban mobility approach

To substantiate the main problem identified for this initiative it is necessary to link it to the lack of an integrated approach to urban mobility in many European cities.

Ideally, this should be demonstrated by a clear statistical correlation: cities with a good tradition in relation to integrated urban mobility approaches would have to score better in relation to congestion and accessibility, seamless mobility along the TEN-T, traffic accidents on urban roads, air pollution, CO2 emissions and noise pollution, and vice versa for cities without an integrated urban mobility approach. However, several other factors impede the trustworthiness of such a linear link (COWI, 2013). First of all, urban issues such as congestion and accessibility, road safety, air pollution, CO2 emissions and noise pollution are influenced by many other factors and policy initiatives. As such, singling out the impact of one influencing factor – an integrated urban mobility approach – would be problematic. Moreover, other elements could impede a clear statistical correlation, such as the lack of historical recorded data that can show long term trends, the time lag between the initiation of an integrated planning approach and the possible resulting outcome, certain planned measures might not have been implemented, the more advanced integrated urban mobility approaches are only recently being implemented and therefore it is still too early to draw conclusions from it. Even more important is the fact that different cities all have a different starting point. Certain cities might historically have suffered heavily from congestion, accessibility problems, CO2 emission and noise pollution. Although the implementation of a true integrated urban mobility approach might have significantly improved their situation, these cities might still be worse off than other cities which because of historical developments encountered much less problems with congestion, accessibility problems, and environmental pollution. It could be that these historically better performing cities in relation to the European objectives might not have a very well developed integrated urban mobility tradition. This difficulty in demonstrating a clear causal linkage is furthermore hampered by the fact that the effectiveness of an integrated urban mobility approach also depends on its implementation, i.e. the actual measures that are put in place. An in theory perfectly integrated urban mobility approach, could due to implementation failure nevertheless not generate the desired results.

For all these reasons, it is not possible to demonstrate a 100% clear linkage between the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses issue and the existence of a true integrated urban mobility approach. However, based on anecdotal evidence and the view of experts, this link can nevertheless be substantiated by providing strong indications of the benefits of an integrated urban mobility approach. This is done in Appendix 11 by the elaboration of case studies of good and mixed practice on integrated urban mobility approaches, in combination with the opinion of relevant experts.

The main conclusion that can be drawn from those case studies is that the examples of good practice show that the implementation of packages of interlinked and coherent measures through an integrated urban mobility approach contribute towards achieving specific EU targets on road safety and air quality, helps reducing congestion, and leads to cost savings. Thus, they contribute to more well-being for citizens and more effectiveness for businesses. The Vienna example also demonstrates that urban congestion was not efficiently tackled due to a lack of an integrated approach in the beginning, but new transport plans and the implementation of future-oriented measures including both urban and regional aspects have compensated the adverse effects.

3.2. Stakeholders points of view on the problem

41. In 2008 the European Parliament called it essential to adopt a new approach to strategic planning for urban areas in order to anticipate the coming environmental, energy and mobility challenges, and considered it necessary for urban development and planning to be carried out on an integrated basis[72]. At the high level conference on urban mobility in September 2012 representatives from the Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament raised the importance of a holistic and comprehensive approach for urban mobility. In 2010 the Council encouraged the coordination of transport infrastructure and service planning with town and country planning, including land use planning; and recognised that local and regional transport infrastructures should be improved and properly interconnected with national long-distance networks and the TEN-T Network[73].

42. In the Review of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility stakeholders only regard the current EU approach on integrated urban mobility as a first step. Continuation of support by the EU in the exchange of best practice and knowledge, as well as through the development of guidelines is strongly welcomed to improve awareness, knowledge and the quality of data. Furthermore, stakeholders feel that the integration of various policy sectors within these plans should be strengthened[74].

The results of the public consultation on the urban dimension of EU transport policy show that there is a strong wish amongst stakeholders to see an integrated urban mobility scheme, and a more pronounced involvement of the European Union. 87% of the registered participants believe that there is a lack of coordination between authorities and other actors in the use of various policy instruments[75]. This support is valid for all categories of stakeholders (e.g. civil society, local and regional public authorities, companies), although the number of respondents may not always be representative enough for some of those categories.

3.3. Who is affected, in what ways, and to what extent

43. Local and regional authorities are affected as they currently develop less cost-effective solutions with unnecessarily high costs and/or inconsistency with EU policy targets or legislation.

44. Local, regional and national authorities, transport operators and users, and businesses are affected by congestion leading to less accessibility of/within cities, unpredictable and longer travel times and higher costs due to lost time and inefficiencies.

45. As a consequence of inappropriate planning approaches, businesses have fewer opportunities to develop innovative transport and mobility technologies and services and less 'economies of scale' and export opportunities.

46. Tax payers are affected due the development and implementation of a less coordinated and targeted combination of measures including unnecessarily high costs.

47. EU citizens in general are affected due to the impact on their health of air quality pollutant concentrations well above the limit values set by EU legislation, of high urban traffic noise levels, and of serious traffic accidents in urban areas.

3.4. The baseline scenario

This section describes how the problem will evolve, if no additional policy action is taken. First it will be assessed what legislation is already in place and how the approach of cities towards integrated urban mobility will evolve. Third, urban developments and trends at unchanged policy will be analysed.

3.4.1. Existing legislation

48. Legislation that is already in place for making urban mobility more competitive and sustainable and mitigating its negative impacts is:

49. 1) For reducing CO2 emissions, the EU has established CO2 performance requirements for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles[76]. It has also put in place rules for clean public procurement through the Clean Vehicles Directive[77]. The effects are however difficult to measure as there are many other drivers behind CO2 emissions than the performance of the vehicles' engines (for example heating of houses and offices is another important driver).

2) The EU has also implemented a Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) policy aimed at connecting European cities while taking transit traffic out of urban centres. This is also leading to a gradual improvement of especially congestion in urban areas, although this is often counter-balanced by an increase in traffic due to the ever increasing concentration of population and business activities in urban areas.

3) Recently, the Commission has proposed a Directive for the development of the refuelling infrastructure for alternative, cleaner fuels[78], the development of which is particularly beneficial to urban areas.

50. 4) EU legislation on noise[79] also seeks to protect EU citizens especially in built-up areas, in public parks or other quiet areas in areas. However, many urban areas still do not succeed to be at or below the maximum daily noise levels while 90% of the noise is caused by road traffic.

5) EU legislation on air quality[80] seeks to protect EU citizens from harmful exposure to air-borne pollutants and particulate matter. But a large proportion of urban areas, more than 30%, do not succeed to comply with the legislation while road-traffic related emissions are the main cause of poor air quality.

3.4.2. Autonomous developments towards an integrated urban mobility approach

51. As demonstrated above, until now relatively few European countries and their cities have developed a true integrated urban mobility approach. Several factors will influence the current state of play, even if no additional policy action is taken, and will act as drivers or barriers of the uptake of a true integrated urban mobility approach.

Based on the assessment of the effects of the overall economic situation, existing EU legislation and policies, EU support programmes and other initiatives, and considering other drivers and barriers for improved coordination and targeted policy actions an overall estimate of the baseline level can be developed[81].

As developed in section 1.3, existing European policy in relation to integrated urban mobility is essentially focused on 1) Exchange of best practice (ELTISplus website, mobility plans website), 2) Awareness raising on sustainable urban mobility, 3) Research and Development on sustainable urban mobility (CIVITAS programme) and 4) Funding for the development and deployment of sustainable urban mobility measures and plans. It is expected that those activities will contribute to the increase in the spontaneous development and implementation of SUMPs, leading by 2030 to approximately 65% of the EU urban areas having a SUMP of medium/high quality (COWI, 2013, see table 2 below). However, this is only a very gradual increase and the level of quality and therefore effectiveness would not be optimal.

Also, as developed under section 3.4.1, exiting EU legislation is also brining a gradual improvement in certain areas such as emissions and noise levels. However, it is unrealistic to realise the necessary step-change with the current EU activities and legislation alone.

With regard to the overall economic situation, it is likely that the economic downturn will slow down the transition towards more integrated urban mobility due to budgetary constraints, both for the development of an integrated mobility approach, as for its implementation. However, even in case of lower economic growth, transport demand is expected to increase, making the urban transport challenges and therefore the need for achieving sustainable urban mobility even more pressing, possibly resulting in a higher uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches. It is likely that the legislation on air quality and noise will lead to specific action plans and measures on road traffic and congestion reduction. The targets and (voluntary) initiatives related to CO2 reduction are also likely to lead to specific action plans and measures on energy savings and CO2 . The same applies for road safety targets and related plans and measures.

The impact of all these specific plans and measures on coordination towards an integrated mobility approach remains uncertain. Other factors could further influence this process. Cities might compete about being attractive cities and might therefore be keener to improve their transport system in a sustainable way. Access to (national) co-funding could be another driver towards a more integrated approach. However, planning traditions and a lack of knowledge might go against this trend. Existing EU and national support programmes on integrated urban mobility might to some extent mitigate and counter some of these barriers.

From this analysis it is clear that certain developments point towards a future increased take-up of integrated urban mobility approaches, but that the other factors mentioned above could mitigate this effect[82]. On this basis COWI (2013) has developed a baseline scenario. The results can be found in table 2. They build on the same categorisation as used in table 1, and as further explained in appendix 4[83]. This baseline assessment is based on the assumption that more cities will develop some form of integrated urban mobility approach, but will not go all the way towards the "benchmark" integrated urban mobility approach. It is assumed that the percentage of cities without any form of integrated urban mobility approach will decrease, as these cities are assumed to move towards a more integrated approach and consequently move into the low or medium category in table 1. Moreover, it is assumed that certain cities that were up to now underperforming will improve the quality of their current practices and will therefore develop integrated urban mobility approaches of medium to high quality. However, it needs to be noted that the baseline scenario, as developed by COWI (2013) can serve as estimation only. Exact, quantified and historical data on the uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches are lacking, and as such no clear trends for the future could be identified. The estimations as presented in table 2 are therefore to be interpreted as a possible evolution in the future, representing an expert view, based on extensive literature review and consultation with experts and stakeholders.

Table 2: Estimation on the uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches (IUMA) in Europe (COWI, 2013), baseline year 2030

|| No of cities* || Population in cities in million || No IUMA || Low/ Medium IUMA || Medium/ High IUMA || Full IUMA

Current situation || 455 || 188 || Few || Some || Some || None

Current situation || 455 || 188 || 10-15% || 30-35% || 50-55% || 0%

Baseline || 455 || 188 || 0-5% || 30-35% || 60-65% || 0%

Note: See table 1 and appendix 4 for more information on the classification of IUMAs

3.4.3. Urban developments and trends

52. The Commission services have carried out a modelling analysis of possible future developments in a scenario at unchanged policies, the so-called baseline scenario. The ‘Reference scenario’ is a projection of developments in the absence of new policies beyond those adopted by March 2010. This ‘Reference scenario’ was used in the impact assessments accompanying the White Paper on Transport[84], the Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050[85], and the Energy Roadmap 2050[86].

In order to take into account the most recent developments, such as higher energy prices and additional policies on infrastructure and energy taxation adopted by November 2011, an additional scenario (Scenario 1) has been modelled to serve as a business-as-usual scenario for the present impact assessment. Scenario 1 builds on a modelling framework including the PRIMES energy model and its transport model (PRIMES-TREMOVE)[87], the PROMETHEUS and GEM-E3 models[88]. A detailed elaboration of the baseline scenario, the methodology and the assumptions used is provided in Appendix 3. Below a summary is given of the resulting urban developments and trends.

Demographic trends in the EU point towards increasing urbanisation and an ageing population, which will have an impact on the requirements on urban mobility and transport, especially regarding the mobility needs of elderly people. The proportion of the EU population residing in predominantly and intermediate urban areas, currently around 76%[89], is expected to increase by about 5 percentage points by 2030 and an additional 5 percentage points by 2050[90]. Furthermore, elderly people aged 65 years and over would represent about 29% of the EU-27 population by 2050[91]. The share of services in economic activity is expected to increase to 76% by 2050 and continue to drive the urbanisation in the EU.

Overall, at EU level, urban transport activity is expected to continue growing in line with the economic activity in the long-run. Passenger transport would increase by 27% between 2010 and 2030, and an additional 11% by 2050. Freight transport is projected to grow by 28% by 2030 and an additional 15% between 2030 and 2050. Transport demand and modal choice differ widely between European cities, and depend to a large extent on urban design and infrastructure but may be also influenced by other factors such as income, family size and structure, employment, speed, culture and behaviour. Passenger cars transport activity in urban areas is projected to increase by about 39% between 2010 and 2050, at higher rate than in the inter-urban area (about 32% during the same time period). Passenger cars would maintain their dominant role in urban transport.

Transport accounts today for over 30% of final energy consumption and urban transport provides almost 30% of the transport sector final energy consumption. In the context of growing demand for transport, energy demand by transport in urban areas is projected to decrease by about 7% by 2030 and an additional 8% by 2050. The improvements in specific fuel consumption are mainly driven by the implementation of the Regulations setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars and vans[92] and by the increasing fossil fuel prices for heavy duty vehicles[93]. The costs of congestion in urban areas of the EU are projected to increase by almost 40% by 2030 and by over 65% by 2050. By 2050, the external cost of accidents associated with urban transport would increase by some 40%.

Overall, total CO2 emissions from transport would still be 31% higher than their 1990 level by 2020, and 23% higher by 2050 owing to the fast rise in the transport emissions during the 1990s. At EU level, urban transport is responsible for about 23% of total CO2 emissions from transport[94],[95]. CO2 emissions from passenger transport services at urban level are projected to decrease by about 39% by 2050, while CO2 emissions from road freight would increase by almost 5%. Overall, urban transport CO2 emissions would shrink by about 16% by 2030 and by about 25% by 2050 both compared to 2010 levels, mainly due to the Regulation setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars. The use of renewable energy sources would play a more limited role in Scenario 1 by 2050[96].

53. An important share of EU’s urban population is exposed to air pollution concentration exceeding the EU air quality limits[97],[98]. The NOx emissions and PM attributed to urban transport are projected to drop by 70% between 2010 and 2050, driven mainly by the reductions in the permissible EURO standards emission limits for type approval of new cars and heavy duty vehicles. However, the expected magnitude of the decline may be reduced by higher real world emissions and slower turn-over rates of the vehicle fleet than expected, in particular in the period up until 2020.

About half of the citizens in the EU-15 are estimated to live in areas which do not ensure acoustical comfort for residents. Increasing traffic volumes in absence of additional policies may exacerbate the existing problems. Noise-related external costs for urban transport are projected to increase by about 26% by 2030 and an additional 8% by 2050.

3.5. The EU's right to act

54. The right for the EU to act in the field of transport is set out in Articles 90-91 of the TFEU, in Title VI, which makes provisions for the Common Transport Policy, and in Articles 170-171 of the TFEU, Title XVI on the trans-European networks[99]. According to Articles 90-91 of the TFEU, the Common Transport Policy needs to contribute to the broader objectives of the Treaties. Its main objectives are to complete the internal market for transport, ensure sustainable development, improve road safety and promote a better territorial cohesion and integrated spatial planning. In the present case on urban mobility the subsidiarity principle, as set out in Article 5 (3) of the Treaty on the European Union, has to be respected. This involves assessing two aspects: the problem cannot be solved in an optimum way by Member States alone (the necessity test) and the objectives can be better achieved at EU level (the added value test)[100].

55. The necessity to take action at EU level on urban mobility is linked to the fact that urban transport systems are integral elements of the European transport system and therefore also of concern for the Common Transport Policy[101]. Consumers, citizens and transport users are interested in pan-European mobility, as emphasised by the TEN-T policy. As most transport of goods and people starts and ends in a city, the urban dimension linked to the TEN-T cannot be neglected. No action by the EU in this field, or inconsistent actions of individual Member States, could lead to sub-optimal solutions. As a consequence the smooth functioning of the internal market and fluid mobility within the EU could be hampered[102]. The TEN-T chain is only as strong as its weakest point: the efficiency of urban transport is essential to achieve a seamless mobility along the TEN-T.

56. Urban congestion and poor accessibility affects enterprises situated or operating in urban areas, both enterprises within a Member State as from other Member States. Businesses locate in urban areas to have easy accessibility to services and resources. Congestion reduces this accessibility and increases costs, thereby reducing the attractiveness of the location and the business opportunities. Furthermore, increasing integration of the value chains and cooperation among European enterprises can be reinforced by the smooth functioning of transport infrastructure and services in urban areas. Some cities are important transport and logistics hubs and sub-optimal functioning of their urban transport systems can also negatively affect the competitiveness of enterprises located outside of them, even abroad.

57. Urban transport has a large influence on the achievement of EU-wide goals, such as on resource efficiency and reduction of oil dependency. Urban transport accounts for around 23% of transport emissions[103] and there is a lot of untapped potential at urban level to improve the efficiency in this respect. Besides, the problem of CO2 emissions from road traffic in urban areas is critical for the EU climate change policy and has a clear transnational dimension. Some of the new technologies aiming at reduction of oil dependency (e.g. electric vehicles) are most economically justified in urban areas, so their deployment could not be successful without focus on measures and incentives at urban level.

58. Finally, urban traffic results in around 40 million people across the EU being exposed to noise levels above 50 decibel during the night[104]. This is in contrast to the EU goals in this field. Thus, the measures aimed at increasing road safety in the EU need to address the fact that with the increasing traffic volumes, the risk of serious road traffic accidents could rise in EU urban areas. Although currently road safety figures are improving the EU targets have not yet been met.

59. It is therefore important for the achievement of those EU-wide goals that urban areas have access to the necessary tools that will contribute to the achievement of those goals.

EU action can bring value added by providing a more coordinated policy framework to the European cities for their integrated urban mobility planning, thus making their actions more effective. The current initiatives at the local and Member States level have led to mixed results. Local authorities, which are the most competent to address the identified problems, slowly discover the benefits of an integrated approach to urban mobility planning but often do not cover all elements crucial from the EU perspective in their policies. The Member States also give different prioritisation and incentives to cities to address urban mobility challenges, what also contributes to suboptimal and insufficient efforts in urban areas.

60. Considering its overreaching position, the EU can give a clear political message (whether through recommendations or legislation) that should translate into stronger political will at national, regional and local level. Thanks to its scale, action at EU level also has the potential to leverage greater results and magnify the efforts in domains such as dissemination of information and knowledge, expansion of the knowledge base, capacity building, practical guidance and support to authorities, networking, research, and exchanges of best practice in the area of promoting integrated urban mobility approaches. This will avoid duplication of work and fragmentation of resources and allow decision-makers to benefit from the broadest, most diverse experience possible. There is also clear added value in action at EU level on information and data collection and monitoring[105]. In the field of urban mobility and 'integrated approaches' the EU already supports various initiatives in the Member States (see section 1.3 Existing European intiatives).

61. Up until now, action at EU level has focused on the voluntary sharing of best practices and on funding. Progress has been made, but the current approach only benefits cities that are already convinced by the advantages of sustainable urban mobility and are spontaneously seeking support. There is a clear opportunity for a step-change in order to give as many cities as possible an incentive and the tools to implement sustainable urban mobility planning.

As a consequence of this initiative urban mobility policies should be implemented in a more consistent way, be more cost-effective and – especially – be more effective at increasing the well-being of citizens and the effectiveness of businesses. They will also be more fit to meet local, national and EU policy targets and comply with relevant EU legislation. In addition, the coordinated EU action will be more effective in ensuring free flow of goods and people and a seamless mobility along the TEN-T (Article 36 of the revised draft TEN-T Guidelines[106] identifies clear priorities in the development of the urban nodes of the comprehensive network).

This initiative will help to even out geographical imbalances between higher performing Member States such as France and the UK and lower performing Member States, will give Member States more leverage with local actors and will create peer pressure among Member States to act.

62. The current initiative gives a lot of consideration to local circumstances and refrains from imposing arbitrarily specific measures on cities. It will be directed towards supporting national authorities with a framework on an integrated urban mobility approach, in full respect of subsidiarity and of different organisational structures at the local level.

4. Objectives

4.1. General, specific and operational objectives

63. The general objective of this initiative is to unlock the full potential of urban areas to contribute to a more competitive and resource-efficient transport system. This general objective can be translated into a specific objective, which is to ensure the uptake of an integrated urban mobility approach by EU urban areas. The specific objective can be translated into two operational objectives:

· To provide EU urban areas with a policy framework encompassing all policy issues necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 2020.

· To provide EU urban areas with a governance framework encompassing all procedures and processes necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 2020.

The operational objectives have been limited to what could realistically be aimed at with this initiative at EU level. It aims at providing urban areas the tools (a policy framework and a governance framework) that are instrumental in achieving a competitive and resource-efficient transport system. The indirect derived impacts at city level, i.e. the achievement/improvement on certain targets (such as road safety, congestion, noise, CO2 emissions) have not been retained as operational objectives in line with the subsidiarity principle. As already demonstrated in section 3.1.3, this is also because a clear statistical correlation between an integrated urban mobility approach and these targets at city level cannot be provided. Moreover, common indicators on urban mobility performance are lacking[107]. Consequently no realistic targets/objectives of this kind could be set for the urban areas or for the aggregated EU level. Therefore, it was considered not appropriate to introduce more specific and measurable operational objectives.

4.2. Mapping problems and objectives

Table 3: Linking the identified problem, its drivers and the objectives

Problem The EU objectives crucial for a competitive and sustainable transport system - i.e. seamless mobility along the TEN-T, improved road safety, reduced CO2 emissions and noise pollution, and improved air quality - are at risk because of transport developments in urban areas. This consequently negatively affects the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses located in urban areas. || General objective To unlock the full potential of urban areas to contribute to a more competitive and resource-efficient transport system ||

Problem driver 1 Policy making in many European urban areas often fails to address all policy issues necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility || Specific objective To ensure the uptake of an integrated urban mobility approach by EU urban areas || Operational objective 1 Provide EU urban areas with and stimulate the uptake of a policy framework encompassing all policy issues necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 2020

Problem driver 2 Procedures and processes in many European urban areas are often inadequate to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility || Operational objective 2 Provide EU urban areas with and stimulate the uptake of a governance framework encompassing all procedures and processes necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 2020

4.3. Consistency with horizontal objectives of the EU

64. The Europe 2020 strategy, the Single Market Act and the Sustainable Development Strategy have set the scene for the transport sector. The Europe 2020 Strategy, under the Flagship initiative 'A resource efficient Europe', aims at supporting the shift towards a resource efficient and low carbon economy through the reduction of CO2 emissions, the improvement of energy efficiency, as well as through increased competitiveness. In the strategy the need is stressed to focus also on the urban dimension of transport. The policy objectives set out above work towards the aims of the above-mentioned initiative. These objectives are also consistent with other objectives defined in priority areas of the Europe 2020 strategy such as innovation, high employment, and social and territorial cohesion.

65. The policy objectives listed above will address congestion and pollution within cities, creating opportunities for more efficient urban transport networks, skilled jobs and more markets for smart and clean technologies, which are in line with the ambition to create a stronger, deeper and extended Single Market as set out in the Single Market Act[108].

66. The overall objective of the Sustainable Development Strategy[109] on sustainable transport is “to ensure that our transport systems meet society’s economic, social and environmental needs whilst minimising their undesirable impacts on the economy, society and the environment”. The related operational objectives are: achieving sustainable levels of transport energy use and reducing transport CO2 emissions; reducing pollutant emissions from transport to levels that minimise impacts on human health and/or the environment; reducing transport noise both at source and through mitigation measures to ensure overall exposure levels minimise impacts on human health; and increasing road safety by improving road infrastructure, encouraging road users to be more responsible and by making vehicles safer.

5. Policy options

5.1. Description of the retained policy options

67. The public consultation, the expert and stakeholder meetings, independent research, experiences from past initiatives (e.g. CIVITAS, ELTISplus) and own analysis have allowed the Commission services to identify a set of policy options having the potential to reach the identified key EU Transport White Paper objective. The following process was applied for establishing the policy options:

1. STEP 1 AND 2: A set of elements for the policy and governance framework for urban areas (=step 1) tackling problem driver 1 and 2, and possible instruments at EU level (=step 2) have been identified to address the identified problem. Moreover, all items presented in step 1 and 2 are pre-screened and checked for feasibility, and discarded where appropriate.

1. STEP 3: The retained elements for the policy and governance framework and instruments at EU level have been combined into policy options constituting viable and coherent policy alternatives for achieving the overall objective. Where appropriate, certain combinations have been discarded after a first assessment.

The details of this 3-step process are given in Appendix 12. The results, i.e. the retained policy options, are presented below.

5.1.1. Option 0B: Business as usual scenario (comprehensive policy framework, minimum governance framework)

3. The EU would support a bottom-up approach (the business-as-usual scenario) to promote integrated urban mobility planning. The Commission would continue present activities, such as:

· Funding for development of SUMPs and deployment of Sustainable Urban Mobility measures[110];

· Supporting Research and Development on SUMPs;

· Facilitating the development and sharing of best practice examples; e.g. by providing European urban areas with a platform for exchange and cooperation (e.g. through the website www.mobilityplans.eu);

· Raising awareness on sustainable urban mobility;

· Supporting local capacity building;

· Setting up an urban mobility observatory.

In this approach, the Commission would further stimulate by its activities the uptake of SUMPs, with an emphasis on a comprehensive policy framework and a minimum governance framework. See section 5.1.2 for a description of these policy and governance frameworks.

5.1.2. Option 1B: Non-binding recommendation on SUMPs (comprehensive policy framework, minimum governance framework)

4. The EU would seek to enhance voluntary development and implementation of SUMPs by the competent authorities in the Member States by providing recommendations on this topic. The recommendations will encourage Member States to set up national policy frameworks to encourage the development and implementation of SUMPs in their urban areas.

The recommendations would promote a comprehensive policy framework on SUMPs which encompasses the following elements:

· both freight and passenger transport

· all transport modes

· the following topics: public transport services, non-motorised transport, city logistics, mobility management, integration of transport modes (multi-modality), the road network and motorised transport (including moving and stationary traffic)

· the assessment of the introduction of the following 'promising' instruments: low emission zones and urban pricing (urban road user charging/congestion charging, parking pricing and public transport pricing)

· the assessment of the introduction of clean technologies and alternative fuels

· interoperability and/or consistency in use of instruments across the EU

With regard to the governance framework for SUMPs, the recommendations would promote the following minimum requirements:

· Contains pledge to sustainability (three dimensions: economic, social and environmental)

· Includes or is built on long-term strategy

· Provides short-term implementation plan (timetable + budget plan; allocation of responsibilities)

· Integrates different relevant policy areas, in particular land-use and transport planning

· Considers all transport to, through and within the urban agglomeration area and coordination between different authority levels

· Includes baseline analysis including performance audit

· Is developed in a participatory approach

· Includes impact assessment on proposed measures

· Is based on integrated planning and implementation

· Is formally adopted

· Identifies objectives and sets targets in line with EU policy objectives

· Foresee mechanisms for monitoring in the MS

· Foresee mechanisms for review in the MS

· Conformity check on requirements in the MS

5.1.3. Option 2A: Mandatory development of SUMPs by Member States-defined urban areas (minimum policy and governance framework)

5. The EU would make mandatory the development and implementation of SUMPs by the competent authorities in the Member States for certain urban areas categories. In option 2A the Member States need to freely define themselves the urban areas (e.g. based on population size) for which they esteem a mandatory development and implementation of SUMPs necessary to reach the goal of this initiative. This mandatory approach would only cover the minimum requirements, both for the policy and the governance framework.

The minimum requirements for the policy framework include:

· both freight and passenger transport

· all transport modes

· the following topics: public transport services, non-motorised transport, city logistics, mobility management, integration of transport modes (multi-modality), the road network and motorised transport (including moving and stationary traffic)

The minimum requirements related to the governance framework are those as identified in section 5.1.2.

6. This mandatory EU level framework would by nature have to take the form of a legal instrument. As to respect the subsidiarity principle and as to take into account the different situation in cities and Member States, a Directive - and not a Regulation – would be the appropriate instrument in this case.

5.1.4. Option 3A: Mandatory development of SUMPs by EU-defined urban areas (minimum policy and governance framework)

7. The EU would make mandatory the development and implementation of SUMPs by the competent authorities in the Member States for certain urban areas categories. In option 3A the EU level defines the urban areas for which a SUMP needs to be developed and implemented (e.g. based on population size).

8. This mandatory approach would only cover the minimum requirements, both for the policy and the governance framework, as described in section 5.1.3 above. For the same reasons as for option 2A, option 3A would take the form of a Directive.

5.1.5. Schematic overview of the retained policy options and implementation

The table below provides a schematic overview of the retained policy options.

Table 4: Retained policy options

(for all options: governance framework: minimum) || A Policy framework MINIMUM || B Policy framework COMPREHENSIVE

0) Business as usual: R&D, funding, best practice, campaigns, local capacity building || N/A || Option 0B

1) Non-binding recommendation on SUMPs || N/A || Option 1B

Make mandatory the development and implementation of SUMPs: || ||

2) Member States need to define themselves the urban areas (e.g. based on population size) for which a SUMP needs to be developed and implemented || Option 2A || N/A

3) The EU level defines the urban areas for which a SUMP needs to be developed and implemented (e.g. based on population size) || Option 3A || N/A

As far as implementation at city level is concerned, the success of introducing a SUMP will to a large extent depend on local circumstances and characteristics. This initiative is striving to maximise the rate and level of success by providing relevant guidelines based on best practice both regarding the scope or content of a SUMP and the process by which it should be developed and implemented. Remaining implementation issues will be dealt with through the information and support tools the EU is offering such as the upcoming European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, and through those the Member States are or will be offering.

5.2. Stakeholders points of view on the retained policy options

9. In 2008 the European Parliament called for the development of an integrated approach to urban mobility, giving a clear stimulus to cities and urban areas to establish SUMPs. The Parliament called for examination how to link these plans to EU co-financing of transport projects in cities over 100,000 inhabitants and to EU legislation, decisions and targets on the reduction of accidents, CO2 emissions, air pollutants and noise[111]. In 2010 the Council supported the development of SUMPs for cities and metropolitan areas and encouraged the development of incentives for their creation[112]. In 2010 the Economic and Social Committee welcomed Commissions' support for implementing SUMPs[113]. In 2010 the Committee of the Regions supported the development of SUMPs for, at least, the larger cities and believed the Commission should encourage MS to make such plans mandatory for all large urban areas and create suitable incentives for local authorities to draw them up[114].

10. In the Review of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility[115] stakeholders welcome continuation of support by the EU in the exchange of best practice and knowledge, and the development of guidelines to improve awareness, knowledge and the quality of data on SUMPs. Furthermore, stakeholders feel that the integration of various policy sectors within these plans should be strengthened.

11. In the public consultation[116] 91% of the registered participants seem to agree that integrated urban mobility planning is a useful tool to promote coordination at local and regional levels. 86% of the registered participants believe that EU-support for the development of SUMPs would contribute to the broader take up of these plans in urban areas. 74% is of the opinion that best practices on SUMPs should be d