Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Use of public and private transport in the urban and periurban environment'
Date: 2000-04-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee, Provisional data
Subjects: environmental protection, means of public conveyance, public transport, urban transport

16.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 168/3

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Use of public and private transport in
the urban and periurban environment’

(2000/C 168/02)

On 21 October 1999 the Economic and Social Committee decided, under Rule 23(3) of the Rules of
Procedure, to draw up an opinion on the above-mentioned subject.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
drawing up the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 April 2000. The rapporteur
was Mr Tosh.

At its 372nd plenary session (meeting of 27 April 2000), the Committee adopted the following opinion
unanimously.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
This own-initiative opinion comes as a response to the
Committee’s concern as to the level of congestion now being
experienced in virtually all urban and periurban environments
to greater or lesser degrees, the key impact of high traffic
levels, the relatively random patterns of car usage and the
adequacy and responsiveness of public services. Specifically
concerning are:

1.3.
The Committee’s opinion signals its concern, together
with its observations and suggestions, which should merit
consideration in the formulation of policy and budget priorities
for transportation in the next spending round, both for
Member States and, importantly, for enlargement candidate
countries.

2. Underlying features of the present situation

— the impact and proximity of emissions and noise on the
most densely populated areas reducing the air quality for
both residents and commuting workers;

The Committee recognises the complexity of

2.1.
the
matrix components that have subscribed to the current status
of transport and traffic flows in urban and periurban areas.
Principally:

— the impact on the economy where both journey times and
congestion gridlock have increased transportation costs
and decreased performance and de facto damaged competi-
tiveness;

— the impact on mobility for individuals where access times
for work, social and leisure pursuits are lengthening and
where current modes perform indifferently.

1.2.
The Committee considers the right of access to urban
transport a basic right of all individuals (1). Where constraints
become necessary due to social, economic, environmental or
other reasons, the trade-offs must be designed to recognise the
need to improve the urban environment and create an
environment where business can sustain and co-exist competi-
tively with people whose quality of
living is measurably
enhanced. Access to mobility does not necessarily imply
unbridled mobility by car.

— wider car ownership and the affinity to car usage for

personal transport with its perceived advantages;

— the legacy of insufficient investment in infrastructure and
public transport modes in some Member States, at times
resulting from a lack of provisional planning. Logistics
management systems for moving goods and people should
be optimised in all Member States in order to create
genuine options as demand has changed;

— the nature of spatial planning with re-generation concepts
slowly beginning to re-define urban environments where
hitherto urban sprawl prevailed. Recognition of the inter-
dependency of spatial and transport planning is funda-
mental;

— the increased affluence in different regional urban environ-
ments, which permits lifestyles with wider choices and
attendant mobility requirements;

(1) See also ESC opinion on ‘Services of general interest’, OJ C 368,

20.12.1999.

— the concern for personal safety in urban areas, where such
fears are confirmed by rising crime statistics and survey
outcomes;

C 168/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2000

— the scarcity of available space, where supply is constrained.
Pricing mechanisms and/or fiscal measures will become
necessary to assure a balance between use, demand and
supply of road or fixed track space available.

2.2.
The Committee faces difficulty in measuring the extent
and character of congestion and the outcomes and costs
attributable to it. There are various interest group evaluations,
e.g. those of the Confederation of British Industry who claims
that the additional cost to UK business from congestion is
£ 16 bn annually.

2.3.
It should be recognised that congestion results not
only from network overload, which may well account for only
one third albeit almost all in urban and periurban areas, but
also from unsatisfactory traffic management, road-works,
accidents, special events, weather conditions, public demon-
strations, etc.

The Committee realises that solutions will be unique
2.4.
to each region’s urban areas and that
there can be no
overall panacea. For this reason regional local dialogue should
influence decisions. The following elements of this opinion
comment on priorities the Committee believes to be relevant
but do not attempt to feature every issue exhaustively.

3. Traffic Features

The compound aggregate growth in new vehicle
3.1.
registrations experienced in the 1960s through to the 1990s
at annual levels of 6 % in Member States has now fallen to, at
present, 4 % and is predicted by the Commission to decrease
further to 1-2 % during the next 10 years. The reductions are
not uniform and contain wide deviations. In faster growing
countries such as Greece, Spain and Ireland 12 % annual
growth in passenger cars per 1 000 inhabitants appears in the
1990s. In the UK and Germany car growth remained in the
4-6 % range annually up to 1997 (see appendix).

3.1.1.
The evidence that a plateau in vehicle density is
approaching at 500 cars per 1 000 inhabitants is less than
convincing. Vehicle number registrations have seen a 250 %
growth in the 30 years to 1999 and EU projections show a
30 % compound growth from today to 2020. The present
congestion problems may not be accelerating to gridlock but
nevertheless remain serious, because Europeans live in urban
and periurban environments.

3.2.
Improvements can be noted in vehicle safety standards
and engine performance where new cars must meet more
stringent pollutant and CO2 emission limits (e.g.140mg/km
for CO2 by 2008). Lower pollutant emissions will progressively
deliver improved air quality to urban areas but without it
becoming satisfactory.

3.3.
Noise level growth and the visual impact of car-jammed
roads, especially in periurban areas, remain as unattractive
impinging features.

3.4.
Public transport options are of serious concern to the
Committee but instead of anticipating both cross-urban and
intra-urban mobility they tend in practice to operate along
radial routes. Only minibuses and taxis seem to move to
demand and this is the attraction for car use also. Public
systems could similarly be more flexible and demand-led. The
possibilities of navigational management systems such as GPS
and Galileo to improve average journey speed and to improve
allocation and prioritisation of road space for public modes
remain largely unexploited. Champions do exist in Munich,
Turin, Zurich, Vienna, Grenoble, Copenhagen and Amsterdam.

4. Land-use Planning

4.1.
The growth of cities has lead to much more complex
journey patterns with much suburb to suburb traffic which is
not congenial to fixed route public transport.

4.2.
Expedient planning decision-making or the lack of it
has seen urban sprawl contributing to and inducing increased
mobility needs, to access schools, hospitals, shopping centres
and new housing markets. The relationship between design,
density, land-use mix, energy consumption and mobility is
poorly understood. However, the compact city, or its urban
form with its various self-sufficient subcentres, contributes to
shorter journey lengths and substantial reductions in individual
car use.

Recommendations

5. Environmental

The Committee believes:

that tough standards for air quality and noise levels
5.1.
in urban environments should be enforced and deviations
addressed with the appropriate benchmark remedies;

16.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 168/5

5.2.
that town centre management needs to embrace and
champion transportation as a key success entity. The wider
use of closed-circuit television monitoring and community
policing will help increase safety;

consideration should be given to preferential status
5.3.
and/or limited access to inner urban areas for public transport
and low emission vehicles whose whole-life impact of energy
consumption and emission levels will be the determinant
choice factors.

6. Congestion

The Committee believes that the EU should seek to influence
Member States to:

6.1.
create a uniform measure by which urban and periur-
ban congestion will be determined and set minimum regional
levels of service for both public and private transportation
modes. Quantitative measures of the cost to the economy, of
mobility levels, air quality and noise levels associated with
such aspirations will serve to convey their value to the public;

6.2.
extend current best practice initiatives to develop
telematics (1) to improve management of roads and rail assets
for urban areas and through traffic;

6.3.
seek to capture the interest and commitment of local
Communities to encourage and assist modifications in journey
patterns to work and school in order to balance resource use;

balance the allocation of road area for all users — cars,
6.4.
delivery vehicles, buses, motor-cyclists, cyclist and pedestrians
— stagger use over a wider daily time-frame and optimize
allocation to public modes;

employ more sophisticated urban delivery systems and

6.5.
practices and utilise logistics for all goods movements;

use best

affordable

6.6.
construction and surfacing
materials and maintain them properly. Pavements should
incorporate ‘smart’ provisions to recognise their role for utility
services;

engineer realistic shifts to walking and cycling for

6.7.
appropriate journeys;

6.8.
adopt and enforce priority measures including high-
occupancy vehicle lanes and other lane-management measures
on motorways which can represent an alternative to road user
charges by facilitating the allocation of limited road space
favouring most efficient modes;

consider introducing zonal parking space charges and

6.9.
restrictions on parking duration;

review the possibility for public transport and/or
6.10.
pedestrian-only areas in inner cities where this is the only
sustainable option.

7. Land-use Planning

The Committee’s concerns would be allayed if regions:

7.1.
sensitively addressed the development and re-gener-
ation of urban areas and made it possible to recover marginal
brown-field industrial lands for next generation investment
locations;

7.2.
advocated the evolution of subcentres and suburban
development where mixed housing, entertainment and leisure
facilities, retailing and general services were provided to re-
establish urban and periurban communities, which would be
largely self sustaining and planned for public transport;

7.3.
reflected on the extension of out of town shopping
and leisure centres, particularly to motorway served greenfield
sites, which are obviously private car-use inducing and difficult
to service with buses, excluding non-car owners in the process.
This evolution is reminiscent of American sprawl with its
attendant high energy consumption and environmentally
damaging land-use. The availability of low-price fuel in the
precincts of these out of town shopping centres further
increases their attraction.

8. Green Modes

The Committee sees simple and low-cost improvements which
are available to Member States through the:

(1) See ESC opinion on ‘Telematics applications for transport in

Europe’, OJ C 18, 22.1.1996.

8.1.
creation of cycle ways and the improvement of walking
surfaces, where possible located apart from motorised modes;

C 168/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2000

8.2.
encouragement of children and parents to develop
walking habits, e.g. on the way to school where this is
demonstrably safe;

10. Final Comments

8.3.
encouragement of employers to adopt incentives/best
practice methods for workers to car-share or use public
transport and discourage ‘sole occupancy’ of company car
parking spaces. The example of orange travel cards subsidised
by employers can be seen operative in Ile de France.

9. Public Transport

This opinion focuses on initiatives to combat congestion and
improve mobility and would comment that:

it has been asserted in previous opinions (1) that better
9.1.
quality public transport is an imperative to support mobility
per se, and it needs asserting;

9.2.
some restrictions including clear regulatory measures
on car access to inner cities must be seriously considered
alongside improved park and ride facilities with exceptions for
special cases. Other forms of inter-modality such as ‘hybrid’
solutions and new forms of car ownership as they are found
in Germany and Edinburgh, are equally important;

9.3.
links that recognise the greater complexity of journey
patterns need to be established using appropriate buses or
public modes. Public transport operates effectively only as a
system. There is need for co-ordination and co-operation
between operators and/or modes to offer potential customers
the high quality of service the car provides;

9.4.
the establishment and subsequent surveillance of pri-
ority routes and bus lanes at the edge of and into urban areas
would ensure greater reliability and predictability in public
transport performance and enhance it as an option. Consider-
ation of prioritising through-traffic on freeways in the precincts
of urban areas, would ensure their optimal use.

(1) See ESC opinion on ‘Developing the Citizens’ Network — Why
good local and regional passenger transport is important, and
how the European Commission is helping to bring it about’
(COM(1998) 431 final), OJ C 138, 18.5.1999.

10.1.
The Committee would signal that operating in the
21st century requires urban transportation solutions that
reflect where and how society believes it must position itself,
with mobility and the quality of air and life occupying prime
consideration alongside sustainable competitive industry.
Selective application of private car road and parking space user
charges must be embraced in areas experiencing intractable
congestion and/or severe environmental degradation, and
where political, financial or economic constraints limit road
capacity. Such areas would include both commercial and
residential centres, historic cities etc.

10.2.
Universal service obligations to provide transpor-
tation can not be overlooked. Solutions must distinguish
between car ownership and car use to avoid demonising the
use of the car given its role in generating mobility into work
for those impaired and those living in rural environments
where no public transport is available, and the social experience
linked to the private car. For these reasons reliance on pricing
methods alone is unlikely to be either fair or effective.

10.3.
The Committee would further signal that if and when
road pricing is adopted, then the excess funds generated locally
should be ring-fenced for investment in transport initiatives in
that local domain, whereby the process of hypothecation will
ensure widest value impact for all urban users and prevent the
diluting and diverting of funds for other purposes. Precedents
exist in the German S-Bahn model.

10.4.
It is all too routinely recognised that public transport
is uncomfortable, under-developed, under-performing and
failing in its role as prime people mover. Mending this needs
equal measures of political will and public-private finance
partnerships to back regionally developed infrastructure and
systems investment which in turn dove-tail
into national
and EU plans that further coherently environment-friendly
transport. Regional fora that exist to manage socio-economic
development should be the responsible management bodies.
In this context the Committee supports the Commission in its
planned revision of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 and the
introduction of quality criteria for public transport. This
opinion also intends to be a basic paper for the coming
updating of the Commissions’ Citizens’ Network Initiative.
Special attention must be given to the situation in the Central
and Eastern European countries.

16.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 168/7

10.5.
Integrated regional planning decisions need to show
rigorous evaluation of the provisions and standards of use for
public transportation for the lifetime of the submitted plans,
which will include sensitivity analyses of the limits of use and
standards that can be maintained.

10.6.
The Committee believes that research, modelling the
impact of Internet shopping, home-working, increased leisure

journey patterns, just-in-time deliveries, the development of
social conscience and greening values on transport, in particu-
lar for urban areas, will be essential if the EU is to give positive
direction to future policy. It would be unthinkable that ‘old’
experience would be applied to the transport spend for
enlargement. The prospect that hyper-mobility might evolve
unplanned as the monster to gridlock our major conurbations
would be profiled and avoided.

Brussels, 27 April 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

APPENDIX

to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee

Motorization

Number of passenger cars per 1 000 inhabitants

B

DK

D

EL

E

F

IRL

I

L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK

EU15

Index
1970
=100

1970

214

218

194

1980

321

271

330

26

89

70

234

133

189

212

197

160

202

341

217

313

353

322

298

49

94

155

284

214

184

100

257

347

277

291

158

1990

388

309

447

171

309

466

227

483

480

368

387

187

389

421

360

401

218

1991

397

309

460

173

322

474

233

501

496

369

397

204

384

420

360

410

223

1992

400

310

471

177

336

476

241

518

512

373

410

205

384

414

360

418

227

1993

408

312

479

189

344

479

249

520

523

376

421

224

370

409

366

423

231

1994

422

312

488

199

351

478

262

540

540

383

433

242

368

409

372

432

235

1995

428

319

495

211

362

478

265

553

559

364

447

258

372

411

374

437

238

1996

435

330

500

223

376

477

272

571

558

370

458

277

379

413

388

447

243

1997

441

338

504

238

389

478

310

577

565

372

469

297

377

419

399

454

247

Source: DG Transport calculations