Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on Green paper on urban transport
Date: 2008-04-09
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: air quality, common transport policy, environmental protection, financing, new technology, public transport, sustainable development, transport infrastructure, transport safety, urban transport

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/17

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘Green paper on urban transport’

(2008/C 172/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

— calls for coordinated action to effectively tackle the problems of congestion and pollution affecting all
European towns and cities. Such action should be underpinned by an integrated approach to the
issues involved, with the EU playing a significant role, while at the same time leaving local and
regional authorities with control over the practical solutions to be adopted;

— asks the EU to encourage local and regional authorities to develop long-term mobility plans based on
a partnership between towns and cities and their respective conurbations, in order to find solutions
adapted to local circumstances (parking at the entrances to cities, development of cleaner transport
modes, optimised public transport etc.) These mobility plans could include Clear Zones (i.e. areas with
low levels of congestion and pollution), thus also giving priority to investment to support them;

— recognising the quantum of investment funding needed, proposes that these mobility plans be under-
pinned by broad-based partnerships, also involving the private sector, and urges the EU, working in
collaboration with the EIB, to develop innovative financial instruments to fund the requisite infrastruc-
ture and cleaner technology;

— calls for an EU-level reporting mechanism to be established in order to report back on progress. This
process should be started with an EU-funded benchmark study looking at cities across the EU and
their approaches to meeting these challenges.

C 172/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2008

Rapporteur: Councillor Sir Albert BORE, Member of Birmingham City Council, (UK/PES)

Reference document

Green Paper: Towards a New Culture for Urban Mobility

COM(2007) 551 final

Policy recommendations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Key Messages

1.
welcomes the EU's commitment to continuing its efforts
to raise the competitiveness of the European economy as well as
to tackling sustainability and climate change. These key issues as
formalised in the Lisbon Agenda, the Gothenburg Agreement
and the Climate Change Action Plan are vital for the future of
the Union. The CoR's political priorities recognise the vital
importance of competitiveness for economic growth, particu-
larly in urban centres and, as stated in the Lisbon objectives,
together with its contribution to territorial cohesion;

notes that the division of powers between local, regional
2.
and national authorities varies across Member States.
is
important that the measures laid down by the Commission in
the forthcoming action plan do not presuppose certain organi-
sational solutions;

It

3.
underlines that these issues of growth and environment
are being faced by cities on a daily basis. However, increasing
environmental problems will hinder this growth. Cities and
urban areas offer the potential for raising competitiveness and
tackling climate change. In order to do this, cities and major
urban areas must take measure to improve accessibility and
solve the environmental issues. The opportunity of significantly
decoupling growth from negative climate change impacts can
first of all be realised in city regions, as it is above all in dense
urban areas that alternative modes of travel become quickly
viable;

4.
calls for coordinated action in order to effectively tackle
the significant problems of transportation derived congestion
and environmental issues affecting cities to achieve decarbonisa-
tion of road transport by 2050. There have been individual
cities where action has been successful. A more comprehensive
strategy is needed respecting the subsidiarity and proportionality
principles;

5.
recognises the fundamental role that local and regional
authorities play in the planning and implementation of urban
transport policy and concurs with the Commission that
rethinking urban mobility involves organising ‘co-modality’
between all public and private modes of transport with a view
to a shift towards environmentally friendly modes of transport;

The EU should pursue an integrated policy targeted at the
to which the

spatial planning and mobility,

6.
environment,
following EU-level actions are key:

1. To improve air quality and reduce noise pollution the EU
must pursue a more stringent policy for tackling at source
the problems associated with traffic. Technological improve-
ments and cleaner fuels will lead to cleaner, quieter and more
economical vehicles.

2. In the interests of

traffic safety,

the EU must encourage

advances in vehicle technology.

3. The EU must promote the development of the technologies

needed to underpin regional and local pricing policies.

4. The EU must promote links between urban areas by high-

speed train and tram lines and networks.

5. The EU should push for uniform road signs for environ-
mental zones, while leaving towns with as much freedom as
possible to introduce environmental zoning.

6. The EU should promote the construction of non-motorised
traffic routes, thus making it safe to walk, cycle or use other
environmentally friendly forms of transport.

7.
asks the EU to encourage the regions and especially the
cities to tackle the problems by developing comprehensive long-
term mobility plans to deal with congestion and mitigate
climate change by developing alternative methods of transport
and providing choice to travellers, with a view to redressing the
balance of modalities towards more sustainable modes. Within
these plans, Clear Zones, i.e. newly designated areas with low
levels of pollution and congestion (as distinct from the Green
Zones which are areas with low levels of pollution only) should
be encouraged through the award of Clear Zone status and
investment to support these prioritised;

recognises that accessing the quantum of

8.
investment
funding needed to support such Clear Zones may prove challen-
ging for some Member States. There is a role for the EU,
working in close collaboration with the European Investment
Bank, to develop innovative financial
instruments capable of
funding the necessary sustainable mobility infrastructure and
into low carbon vehicles. This could be taken
investment
forward as an extension of
the CIVITAS programme, or
following the conclusion of CIVITAS in 2009, be incorporated
within a successor EU funded programme;

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/19

9.
calls for an EU-level mechanism to be established in order
to report-back on progress in the field of urban transport and
also on tried and tested procedures which can serve as an
example for others. This process should be started with an EU-
funded benchmark study looking at cities across the EU and
their
environmental
enhancements and the provision of more sustainable modes of
transportation. The annual progress report on the Lisbon goals
given at the annual Spring Councils should provide a timetable
for reporting back;

to congestion reduction,

approaches

10.
recommends that the Commission issues guidelines in
the form of common standards with regard to methodologies
for calculating the full costs and benefits of transport modes
(including externalities
environmental
inclusion, and effects on employment and the
damage, social
social viability of city centres) as the basis for promoting co-
modality; and also the establishment of consumer friendly eco-
standards for vehicles which reflect whole-life environmental
costs;

congestion,

such as

11.
urges the Commission to support and award networks of
best practice (with which the CoR should be associated) in order
to widen their take-up in areas such as multi-element packages
which provide an alternative to car ownership and the active use
thereof and through the expansion of initiatives such as Demon-
stration Cities showcasing innovative pricing mechanisms and
the establishment of Clear Zones;

encourages the Commission to capitalise on the achieve-
12.
ments of award schemes, where it is recognised that there is a
need to fund the showcasing of the expertise gained, by using
awards as a marketing tool for the city regions concerned and a
target for other city regions to aspire to;

the efforts it

13.
calls for the EU to use best-practice and model cities to
is
illustrate, both within Europe and beyond,
making to search for and implement innovative and complex
solutions to our current problems and opportunities and calls
for Mobility Plans to be developed by city regions over at least a
20-year horizon. The plans could cover funding needs, new
technologies to be explored and piloted,
infrastructure needs,
innovative procurement to stimulate innovation etc. With the
plan led approach to all EU cities through a significantly
expanded Civitas or possibly through a new programme and
with both the exemplar cities and demonstration cities, the EU
could showcase within Europe and globally how it is seeking
and implementing innovative and challenging solutions to our
current problems and our current opportunities;

stimulate innovation. The EU could support
this action by
promoting best practice networks for green procurement and
for stimulating innovation in the transport technology field,
drawn from regions and localities actively involved in produ-
cing, researching and supporting developments in transporta-
tion technologies. These two actions would stimulate both
demand and supply of new technologies for the benefit of cities;

15.
stresses that the role of the private sector in the future
provision of alternative transport modes and the decoupling of
improved accessibility from increase in vehicle kilometrage
needs to be more fully understood and therefore as part of the
above mentioned EU-wide benchmarking study, an element
should look at the role of private finance and companies in
current innovative solutions and what incentives can be given
to maximise their effective role;

16.
points out that the Green Paper is timely as additional
resources at all levels will be necessary to tackle the problems.
The EU already spends significant resources on mobility and
transport issues through TEN -T and also importantly for urban
areas through the Convergence Regions under the structural
funds. Cities are an important and integral component of trans-
port networks since they are hubs where different modes come
together and where journeys usually start and end. For this
reason transport in cities must be given the same attention as
transport networks. We must look to the longer term and long-
term plans must also be met. Rather than waiting for problems
to become acute, towns and regions should adopt a proactive
approach. Therefore at all levels when resources are allocated,
the aim should be not only to correct problems that have
already arisen, but also to earmark extra resources for towns
and regions that tackle potential problems at an early stage;

17.
stresses the importance of encouraging urban mobility
actions under the new Operational programmes for Conver-
gence regions. Where this occurs the cities and regions in ques-
tion will need to show that their EU funded actions are seeking
to tackle the key issues;

Towards Free-Flowing Towns and Cities

Concerning Question 1 — on whether a ‘labelling’ scheme
should be envisaged to recognise the efforts of pioneering cities
to combat congestion and improve living conditions:

14.
calls on the authorities at all levels of government and
administration to encourage actions to facilitate joint procure-
ment (public-public or public-private) to promote Clear Zones
(where such joint procurement is not contrary to the wider
public interest.
Joint Procurement has the ability to create a
market for manufacturers investing in new technologies and to

18.
The EU could combine labelling along the lines of the
EU-wide ‘Blue Flag scheme’, awarded on the basis of specific
indicators, with the introduction of a 'Clear Zone Scheme' — an
area with low levels of pollution and congestion. Projects could
be funded in ‘Demonstration Cities’ covering a range of popula-
tion sizes and historical legacies, possibly to link with the aspira-
tion to extend CIVITAS to larger scale actions (See Question
21).

C 172/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2008

19.
An annual report on the implementation of best prac-
tices could accompany the annual progress report on the urban
goals submitted each year to the Spring Council.

Concerning Question 2 — on measures which could be taken
to promote walking and cycling as real alternatives to the car:

20.
The only way to promote walking and cycling as genuine
alternatives to driving is to systematically create or expand
comprehensive, high-quality and unobstructed networks of foot-
paths and cycle paths, which local authorities would be respon-
sible for to help ensure that much wider use is made of the
bicycle as a transport mode within the EU than is currently the
case. The best way for this to happen is to put the ‘compact
city’ concept into practice. A functional approach to the plan-
ning of new settlements can help deep down the distances to be
covered by pedestrians and cyclists. The development of urban
Clear Zones encompassing stringent measures to tackle conges-
tion and air pollution would significantly improve the environ-
ment for walking and cycling. There are many already existing
examples of good practice with regard to promotional
campaigns in schools and communities, and there is a role for
the EU in supporting professional networks, showcasing exem-
plars and celebrating success. Europe should build on the
success of the TAPESTRY (1) programme.

Concerning Question 3 — on what could be done to promote a
modal shift towards sustainable transport modes in cities:

21.
Achieving modal shift requires an integrated approach to
improving journey experience for sustainable modes, making
them more attractive whilst making unsustainable modes less
attractive. Planning measures in the context of action plans to
reduce air and noise pollution and transport
(development)
plans also requires an integrated approach. The forthcoming
revision of the relevant EU directives should insert subsidiarity
and take an integrated approach to planning into account, thus
ensuring legal certainty for local authorities where it is practised.
Particularly in the field of state aid and public contracts, failure
to differentiate in applying Community law often has undesir-
able and unpredictable effects. Whether transport services are
directly provided by a local authority or contracted out must in
future still be decided at local and regional level.

Concerning Question 4 — on how the use of clean and energy
efficient
in urban transport could be further
increased:

technologies

The suggestions put

22.
to
continue to set increasingly more demanding targets through

forward in the Green Paper

progressively more restrictive emissions standards, encouraging
the widespread establishment of Urban Green Zones with
common standards, are supported. There may also be potential
for European targets, perhaps linked to contribution rebates,
tied to proportions of public sector procurement meeting an
agreed ‘eco-rating’. There is also the potential
to encourage
commitment
to ‘eco-standard’ procurement by large private
sector entities using the EU's various business networks.

Concerning Question 6 — on whether criteria or guidance
should be set out for the definition of Green Zones and their
restriction measures, how best to ensure compatibility with free
circulation and on whether there is an issue of cross border
enforcement of local rules governing green zones:

23.
EU guidelines but not guidance on the definition of
Green Zones would be a helpful contribution to clarity and
consistency, especially to establish generally recognised cate-
gories of vehicles based upon energy consumption and emis-
sions ratings. There may be a need for a Europe-wide website
which brings data for cities within the EU together in a standard
format and sign posts specific information for the urban area
concerned. Standard marking of cars entering green zones to
indicate pollution levels would be beneficial both to drivers and
to those implementing green zones in urban areas, provided
that
the same identification features are used for all cars
throughout Europe.

24.
European-wide guidelines are needed on highway code
matters concerning the environment and the more vulnerable
road users. Member States should be encouraged to incorporate
these guidelines
thus
ensuring greater clarity and uniformity across the Union.

in to their national highway codes,

25. Many towns and regions are now introducing their own
environmental zoning, using their own road signs. To avoid
confusing international hauliers and tourists,
the EU should
develop uniform traffic signs. Local and regional authorities
should have as much freedom as possible to introduce environ-
mental zoning.

Cross border enforcement of

26.
is already
possible (Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24
February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual
recognition to financial penalties).

rules

local

(1) TAPESTRY — Travel Awareness, Publicity and Education Supporting a
Sustainable Transport Strategy in Europe. TAPESTRY was a three year
research and demonstration project funded by the European Commis-
sion (DG Energy and Transport) under the 5th RTD Framework
Programme.

The CoR is concerned that the European Commission —
27.
the consultation — in
without awaiting the outcome of
December submitted a completely revised proposal on the
promotion of clean and energy efficient road transport vehicles,
(COM(2007) 817 final.

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/21

Concerning question 5 — on how joint green procurement
could be promoted:

Further benefits could be obtained from the STEER (2)
28.
programme linking this to new European eco-standards based
on the principles of life-time social costs outlined in the Green
Paper. At the EU level, we could promote partnership working
with suppliers, disseminating the concepts of life-time costings
through supplier networks, and promoting common standards
and acceptances, and the translation of pertinent academic
research into innovative, commercially-viable products.

Concerning Question 7 — on how eco-driving could be further
promoted:

The social and financial value of eco-driving could be
29.
promoted and included in driving lessons. What is at issue here
is a change in driving behaviour and habits. These skills could
be and incorporated into national driving tests by establishing
standards of good practice and care. There could be a role for
the EU in sharing best practice in campaign messages and use
of the marketing mix, along the lines of the EU's successful
TAPESTRY initiative. Another way of encouraging eco-driving is
to promote in-car equipment to measure fuel consumption.

Towards Smar ter Urban Transpor t

Concerning Question 8 — on whether better
services for travellers should be developed and promoted:

information

30.
Better information services for travellers both prior to
and during journeys can make significant contributions to
sustainability. European cities already have many examples of
good practice. There is a role at the EU level in encouraging the
expansion and inter-compatibility of existing systems through
the establishment of common systems and common symbols.
There is a role in promoting exemplar systems. The Galileo
importance in this
satellite navigation system is of crucial
respect.

Information services for collective transport users need
31.
to be developed and improved. Real-time information and infor-
mation on disruptions posted on the internet or sent to mobile
telephones and tailored to the individual traveller's needs will do
much to make collective transport more attractive and more
competitive vis-à-vis less sustainable transport modes. Galileo
will play a key role in the development of new information
services. It is important therefore that the EU take responsibility
for ensuring that Galileo is expanded as quickly as possible.

(2) STEER is the vertical action of

the European Intelligent Energy
Programme which focuses on alternative vehicles and fuels, policy
measures for the efficient use of energy in transport and strengthening
the knowledge of local energy agencies in the transport field.

32.
Support should be given in the first instance to projects
for setting up information services which reinforce the network
effect of public transport — i.e. information systems that give
comprehensive information on connections and the situation in
the entire network of
the integrated transport system of a
conurbation and beyond (region, canton, state).

Concerning Question 9 — on whether further actions are
needed to ensure standardisation of interfaces and interoper-
ability of ITS applications in towns and cities, and on which
applications should take priority when actions are taken:

Actions to date to ensure interoperability have been
33.
helpful
in establishing technical standards, and there is an
ongoing role for the EU in this area. More could be done in
encouraging common approaches by groups of cities and
between Member States, for example with systems for online
monitoring and information to prevent serious traffic conges-
tion.

for

systems

As well as

34.
informing transport users,
common systems should be developed as far as possible at
European level to provide, for example, BACT (3) monitoring
transport and planning
systems
purposes.

to provide

statistics

for

Towards Accessible Urban Transpor t

Concerning Question 11 — on how the quality of collective
transport in European towns and cities can be increased:

35.
The EU should encourage the development of equipment
and infrastructure to common standards, underpinning by
research and development aimed at continuous improvement of
service quality. Demand responsiveness could be encouraged by
linking public funding to increased levels of customer satisfac-
tion.

36. Measures to reflect direct and indirect costs will also help
in this regard by balancing the factors in the mode choice deci-
sion.

Concerning Question 12 — on whether the development of
dedicated lanes for collective transport should be encouraged:

37. We believe that dedicated lanes for collective transport in
conjunction with ITS should be encouraged. There is a role for
the EU in supporting projects to create dedicated bus and trol-
leybus lanes as well as tram lines, either uniquely for them or in
a separate corridor shared with pedestrian and cycle paths and
developing common signing and designations. Dedicated lanes
may be a good way of securing a more unimpeded traffic flow
for collective transport. Where this involves cutting the number
of lanes open to cars,
it can also lead to a reduction in car
numbers and increased congestion for those cars that do remain
on the road. It may sometimes be difficult to secure under-
standing for such measures and to implement them in practice.

(3) BACT stands for Best Available Control Technology.

C 172/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2008

The EU and the national level can support local decision-makers
in that regard through information and awareness-raising. Other
options include the development of internet-based car-pooling
services and of systems whereby car-pools of at least three
people would be allowed to use the collective transport lanes at
certain times of the day.

42.
Land use at all levels — municipal and higher levels of
government — and mobility planning should go hand in hand
so as to make initiatives in both areas as effective as possible
from an environmental, energy and operational perspective as
the two areas are closely interlinked.

Concerning Question 13 — on whether there is a need to intro-
duce a European charter on the rights and obligations for
passengers using collective transport:

38. We would support an extension to the EU Charter on
fundamental rights concerning the rights and obligations of
passengers using collective transport to improve accessibility,
particularly for the mobility impaired.

Concerning Question 14 — on what measures could be under-
taken to better integrate passenger and freight
in
research and urban mobility planning:

transport

39.
Integration could be incentivised through funding criteria
for research and demonstration projects, particularly relating to
the adoption of energy efficient, environmentally friendly vehi-
cles suited to the urban environment. The setting up of specific
urban emission reduction criteria, linked to the labelling desig-
nations referred to in paragraph 18 (Question 1), could be
considered.

Concerning Question 15 — on how better co-ordination
between urban and interurban transport and land use planning
can be achieved, and what type of organisational structure could
be appropriate:

40. We support the use of voluntarily drawn up mobility
plans integrating wider metropolitan conurbations. It is impor-
tant that appropriate diversion measures are put in place to
remove heavy goods traffic from town and city centres. There is
no single optimal solution, but conurbations should develop
local solutions geared to delivering outcomes prescribed and
incentivised by the EU. These plans could form the basis of
contractual Mobility Agreements between major stakeholder
partners.

41.
The CoR believes that, in order to relieve congestion on
access routes to large cities, and working in cooperation with
municipalities in surrounding areas and, where appropriate,
metropolitan transport authorities, major interchanges should
be constructed at the entrances to cities, with sufficient available
parking (park and ride facilities) to allow those driving into the
city to leave their cars and use public transport, without any
significant time loss. We think it makes sense to support the
creation of integrated transport systems, together with consortia
of
local authorities or similar bodies to manage them, that
respect the natural boundaries of conurbations and movement
of people.

Towards Safe and Secure Urban Transpor t

Concerning Question 16 — on what further actions should be
undertaken to help cities and towns meet their road safety and
personal security challenges in urban transport:

Pedestrians and cyclists are particularly vulnerable in
43.
urban areas, and ongoing improvements to road safety are
imperative if these modes are to be encouraged. Further actions
might
include encouraging demonstration projects featuring
innovative ways of affording pedestrians and cyclists priority
over motorised transport, and encourage early adoption of
safety enhancing technology. Local authorities should be encour-
aged to enter into voluntary joint ventures with private industry
in order to solve these problems. Numerous examples of best
practice solutions already exist.

Concerning Question 17 — on how operators and citizens can
be better informed on the potential of advanced infrastructure
management and vehicle technologies for safety:

44. We consider that well-promoted demonstration projects
are the best mechanism for conveying the potential of these
developments. We commend the work of the European Road
Safety Observatory in publicising new developments in this area
and draw attention to the existing examples of best practice in
European regions.

Concerning Question 18 — on whether automatic radar devices
adapted to the urban environment should be developed, and
whether their use should be promoted:

45.
The EU should promote development of new technology.
A valid role for the EU may be to promote further trials across
Europe to inform a greater understanding of the costs and bene-
fits involved.

Creating a New Urban Mobility Culture

Concerning Question 20 — on whether all stakeholders should
work together in developing a new mobility culture in Europe;
and whether a European Observatory on Urban Mobility based
on the model of the European Road Safety Observatory could
be a useful initiative to support this co-operation:

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/23

46. We believe that this would be a useful model to follow,
given Europe's success in reducing accident rates. The establish-
ment of a European Observatory on Urban Mobility can only be
supported if it offers true added value. We also believe that the
model of cascading targets linked to funding has made a signifi-
cant contribution to the progress made in accident reduction. A
European Observatory on Urban Mobility could assist with the
promotion of good practice, the award of Clear Zone status and
an annual EU reporting mechanism linked to the Spring Coun-
cils.

Financial Resources

Concerning Question 21 — on how existing financial instru-
ments such as the structural and cohesion funds could be better
used in a coherent way to support integrated and sustainable
transport:

There are already significant resources spent on mobility
47.
actions through various programmes, most notably through the
TEN–T programme, in the Structural Funds under the Conver-
gence Regions programmes and through Civitas. It is clear that
in Convergence regions, where EU resources are being delivered
in an urban context, they should be expected to fit in with the
aims of
this Green Paper. The actions financed under the
Convergence programmes should seek to establish a balanced
modality approach based on their respective pollution and
climate impacts. These Convergence resources and those under
the other programmes are not sufficient to stimulate the neces-
sary radical change that is needed across Europe. In addition,
these funds are not generally focused on the areas of real need,
those large urban areas under pressure from growth where
competitiveness is being hampered by environmental issues. The
Green Paper illustrates the need for action. There is an EU role
— in a significantly extended ‘Civitas Plus Plus’ approach or in a
totally new programme, either of which should be focussed on
stimulating the delivery of
this radical change. These funds
should support the development and financing of Clear Zones
and the switch to a more balanced modality approach as stated
in this opinion. It would also help draw in funds from the
private sector and funds from national programmes.

Concerning Question 23 — on how targeted research activities
could help more in integrating urban constraints and urban
traffic development:

The key issues are systems to manage traffic and control
48.
activity, in conjunction with development of housing densities
along strategic public transport corridors. In particular, urban
development must dovetail with the development of
the
communication infrastructure network and other infrastructure

Brussels, 9 April 2008.

networks to avoid the need to integrate them later on. The main
benefit will be achievement of the critical demand threshold for
setting up and running public transport services.

Concerning Question 24 — on whether towns and cities should
be encouraged to use urban charging; whether there is a need
for a general framework and/or guidance for urban charging;
whether revenues should be earmarked to improve collective
urban transport and whether external costs should be interna-
lised:

49.
Urban charging could be a tool open to urban authori-
ties. It would be helpful for the EU to encourage the develop-
ment of best practice models, and learning from those schemes
already established. A general framework and/or guidance could
be of benefit. Standardisation would be desirable but difficult to
achieve. Local and regional authorities must have effective
instruments available to them if they are to solve congestion
and environmental problems. Congestion charges can be a
highly effective tool here. This is why local and regional authori-
ties must be able to decide for themselves on the introduction
of such charges and on how the revenue raised is used. In many
Member States, however, they are unable to do so, since such
matters are decided at national level. It would be helpful for the
EU to encourage the development of best practice models, and
learning from those schemes already established. In the CoR's
view, the Commission can by explaining and raising awareness
do a lot to facilitate the introduction of congestion charges by
local and regional decision-makers.

Concerning Question 25 — on what added value, in the longer
term, targeted European support for financing lean and energy
efficient urban transport could bring:

50.
Targeted support could result in improved performance
against carbon reduction targets, new technology applications
being rolled out faster and wider dissemination and uptake of
best practice. In turn, this could reduce the economic cost of
congestion to the EU and provide leadership in the global
market for sustainable development technologies and methodol-
ogies, and in reconciling economic growth with sustainable
urban transport.

51.
Further added value could be generated by the EU by
using Mobility Agreements to facilitate the establishment of
strong stakeholder alliances capable of bearing the risk asso-
ciated with the substantive levels of commercial borrowing
needed to bring forward sustainable transport infrastructure on
a large scale. Close working with the EIB will be needed to
deliver this outcome.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Luc VAN DEN BRANDE