Commission staff working document accompanying the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Action Plan on Urban Mobility Impact Assessment {COM(2009) 490} {SEC(2009) 1212}
Date: 2009-09-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, air quality, new technology, public transport, sustainable development, transport infrastructure, transport policy, transport safety, urban transport

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 30.9.2009 
SEC(2009) 1211 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

accompanying the  

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

Action Plan on Urban Mobility 

Impact Assessment 

{COM(2009) 490} 
{SEC(2009) 1212}

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1  Organisation and timing  

1.2  Consultation 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1  Fragmentation of local, regional and national approaches 

2.2  Lack of initiative, lack of knowledge and experience 

2.3  Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent?  

2.4  What would happen if nothing were done?  

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

2.5  The EU’s right to act 

OBJECTIVES  

POLICY OPTIONS  

4.1  From the long list to the shortlist 

4.2  Stakeholder support 

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE SHORTLISTED OPTIONS  

COMPARING AND ASSESSING THE OPTIONS  

6.1  Fine-tuning the shortlisted options 

6.2  Assessment of shortlisted options and identification of possible actions 

6.3  Towards the Action Plan on Urban Mobility 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

ANNEXES 
ANNEX I: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION 
ANNEX II: OVERVIEW OF EXISTING EU INITIATIVES AND LEGISLATION 
ANNEX III: THE BASELINE SCENARIO 
ANNEX IV: THE EU’s RIGHT TO ACT 
ANNEX V: FROM THE LONG LIST TO THE SHORTLIST 
ANNEX VI: DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPACT OF SHORTLISTED POLICY OPTIONS 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

1.1. 

Organisation and timing  

This  impact  assessment  prepares  the  ground  for  an  Action  Plan  on  Urban  Mobility.  The 
objective  is  to  identify  policy  options  and  instruments  forming  a  basis  for  proposals  for 
specific  actions  in  the  Action  Plan.  This  selection  process  includes  a  subsidiarity  test,  an 
assessment of effectiveness and efficiency and an indicative assessment of the impact.  

The  Action  Plan  on  Urban  Mobility  follows  the  publication  of  a  Green  Paper  on  urban 
mobility1  on  25  September  2007.  The  Action  Plan  on  Urban  Mobility  is  part  of  the 
Commission’s work programme for 2008 (ref. 2008/TREN/0362). 

This  impact  assessment  has  been  prepared  by  the  Directorate-General  for  Energy  and 
Transport  (DG  TREN).  The  following  Directorates-General  participated  in  the  Interservice 
Group that contributed to the preparations: the Secretariat-General, DG ECFIN, DG EMPL, 
DG  ENTR,  DG  ENV,  DG  MARKT,  DG  INFSO,  DG  REGIO,  DG  RTD,  DG  SANCO  and 
DG TAXUD. This report commits only the Commission departments involved in preparing it. 
Support was obtained under a study contract awarded to ECORYS Transport3.  

This  impact  assessment  in  no  way  prejudges  the  final  decision  to  be  taken  by  the 
Commission.  

The Impact Assessment Board gave its opinion on the first draft of the impact assessment on 
23 July 2008. The comments of the Board were incorporated in a second draft. The revised 
draft  took  a  more  detailed  look  at  how  EU  action  can  contribute  to  solving  urban  mobility 
problems at local and regional levels. The level of ambition was clarified. Subsequently, the 
objectives made it clearer that the EU primarily wants to facilitate and not regulate action at 
local and regional level.  

Furthermore,  the  structure  of  the  impact  assessment  was  revised  to  link  the  policy  options 
more  directly  to  the  objectives  and  to  make  the  document  easier  to  read.  In  addition,  more 
insight  was  provided  on  the  measures  recommended  in  the  Action  Plan  on  Urban  Mobility. 
The  assumptions  and  policy  measures  in  the  baseline  scenario  were  clarified.  Finally,  in 
Chapter  6,  possible  actions  for  the  Action  Plan  were  clustered  and  the  estimated  costs  and 
benefits were indicated.  

The Impact Assessment Board gave its opinion on the second draft of the impact assessment 
on  1  October  2008.  Its  comments  were  incorporated  in  a  third  draft.  In  this  new  draft,  the 
problem  definition  was  better  focused.  The  value  added  by  the  Action  Plan  to  existing 
initiatives  was  better  explained  and  the  objectives  adjusted,  so  that  they  give  a  clearer 
reflection of local, regional and national responsibilities.  

1 
2 

3 

Towards a new culture for urban mobility: COM(2007) 551. 
The roadmap includes “no EU action on transport”, “baseline” and “proposing a coherent package of 
actions”,  including  identification  of  synergies,  as  policy  scenarios.  The  “no  EU  action”  scenario  was 
dropped because there was very little difference from the baseline. 
Contract number TREN/07/MD/S07.80061. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Furthermore, the link between the impact assessment and the Action Plan was strengthened. 
The explanation of policy developments taken into account in the baseline was elaborated. It 
was  not  possible  to  undertake  a  new  modelling  exercise  and  assess  the  impact  of  some 
specific  recent  policy  proposals.  However,  TREMOVE  does  include  a  series  of  policy 
measures that, in response to a judgment made in 2005, are likely to be implemented.  

Because  the  actions  in  the  Action  Plan  are  of  a  soft  or  exploratory  nature,  and  the  fact  that 
local, regional and national authorities will have flexibility and freedom to apply them, it was 
not possible to assess their impact against the trends in the baseline scenario. Another reason 
is that the lack of data on urban mobility makes quantitative assessment very difficult.  

The Impact Assessment Board gave its opinion on the third draft of the impact assessment on 
4  November  2008.  Its  comments  have  been  incorporated  in  this  final  impact  assessment. 
Further  evidence  on  the  costs  of  the  lack  of  harmonisation  and  of  the  benefits  of 
harmonisation  and  more  coherent  solutions  were  provided.  Objective  1  and  the  related 
monitoring  indicator  were  redrafted.  Plans  for  future  impact  assessments  were  clarified.  A 
comparison of Member States that have harmonised rules and Member States that do not was 
not possible within the scope of this impact assessment.  

1.2. 

Consultation  

The consultation of interested parties was divided into two phases. The first phase consisted 
of a consultation to prepare the Green Paper on urban mobility during the first six months of 
2007.  The  second  followed  after  adoption  of  the  Green  Paper,  between  25  September  2007 
and 15 March 2008.  

The consultation to prepare the Green Paper comprised conferences, workshops, meetings and 
an  internet-based  questionnaire.  The  results  are  set  out  in  a  Commission  staff  working 
document on the consultation4 that accompanied the Green Paper on urban mobility.  

The Green Paper included 25 questions to steer the consultation and focus the responses from 
interested parties. The stakeholders were also invited to respond to the general issues raised in 
the Green Paper. The results of the Green Paper consultation are summarised in Annex I5. The 
minimum standards for consultation have been met.  

The  European  Parliament  adopted  a  Resolution  on  the  Green  Paper  on  9  July  20086.  The 
Committee  of  the  Regions  adopted  an  Opinion  on  the  Green  Paper  on  9  April  20087.  The 
European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  adopted  an  Opinion  on  the  Green  Paper  on 
29 May 20088. The Council also discussed the Green Paper on urban mobility9. The European 
Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee 
have all provided valuable input and recognised the added value of action at EU level.  

The  overall  conclusion  from  the  consultation  is  that  there  is  broad  agreement  among 
stakeholders and interested parties that there is a role for the EU in the field of urban mobility 

4 
5 

6 
7 
8 
9 

SEC(2007) 1209. 
A report on the stakeholder consultation will be made public on the Commission’s website before the 
Action Plan is adopted. 
A6-0252/2008/P6_TA-PROV(2008)0356. 
CdR 236/2007. 
TEN/320 - CESE 982/2008. 
http://www.ue2008.fr/PFUE/lang/en/accueil/PFUE-09_2008/PFUE-1.09.2008/Informelle_Transports. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in  the  form  of  action  to  support  the  local,  regional  and  national  levels.  While  there  were 
varying  views  expressed  about  which  specific  actions  at  the  EU  level  could  add  value,  the 
consultation has helped to identify 'common ground'.  

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The  three  overarching  problems  related  to  sustainable  mobility  and  transport  in  Europe’s 
urban areas are (1) road congestion and the resultant costs; (2) harmful emissions, including 
greenhouse  gas  emissions,  energy  consumption  and  noise  and  their  impact  on  health;  and 
(3) imbalanced development with an impact on social exclusion and economic growth. They 
are influenced by the challenges outlined in the Green Paper on urban mobility. Market forces 
are unable to solve these problems on their own. Cities, regions and national governments are 
therefore all trying to identify the right forms of intervention.  

In  line  with  the  principles  and  policies  enshrined  in  the  Treaties,  the  EU  can,  when 
appropriate, provide national, regional and local authorities with policy guidance, frameworks 
and  practical  tools  to  help  them  achieve  their  objectives  in  the  field  of  sustainable  urban 
mobility. At the same time, it can complement initiatives taken at those levels with specific 
action to make them more coherent and support implementation.  

2.1. 

Fragmentation of local, regional and national approaches 

Looking  at  the  various  initiatives  taken  across  the  EU,  a  picture  emerges  of  broad 
diversification of policies, action and financing solutions. This is not a problem per se, but in 
some  cases  this  fragmentation  may  not  be  cost-efficient  or  may  pose  risks  to  EU  principles 
and to implementation of EU legislation. 

Member States and regional and local governments have therefore taken action themselves to 
overcome fragmentation. However, in some cases, action at EU level can add extra value by 
developing and suggesting coherent solutions or by helping to implement them more rapidly. 
In  others,  fragmentation  at  national  level  has  an  impact  across  borders.  In  some  cases 
individual authorities have a direct interest in addressing it, in others they have not or they see 
a role for the Commission to take action. 

Fragmentation  is  an  issue  in  demand  management  policies.  Urban  pricing  and  road  user 
charging,  for  example,  sometimes  in  a  hybrid  form  in  combination  with  access  regulations, 
has  been  introduced  or  is  envisaged  in  different  forms  in  about  10  urban  areas  in  Europe. 
Often, exemptions or discounts are offered for certain types of vehicle. Authorities use their 
own criteria for these exemptions or discounts. The means of enforcement also vary.  

Low-emission environmental zones are a revealing example. Such zones are currently being 
established in about 70 cities in the EU, with different access rules and different enforcement 
methods.  In  some  Member  States,  the  rules  are  determined  by  national  legislation  while  in 
others cities or regions can set their own rules.  

The access criteria vary widely and include: 

•  Euro pollutant emission standards; 

•  Emission level for particulates only; 

•  Equipment of vehicles with a particulate filter (without checks on actual emission levels); 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
•  Equipment of vehicles with a catalytic converter; 

•  Weight, with local classifications, varying for different vehicle categories; 

•  Age, differentiated by vehicle category; 

•  Vehicle technology (petrol, diesel, natural gas, LPG or electric); 

•  Vehicle number plates (odd/even). 

Access  criteria  also  vary  across  different  environmental  zones  in  the  same  country.  For 
example, in early 2008 Italy had six different schemes with different sets of access criteria in 
place. 

Access  regulation  differs  from  one  scheme  to  another.  Some  schemes  bar  access  of  certain 
vehicles  completely,  others  allow  access  upon  payment  of  entrance  fees,  sometimes 
differentiated in line with locally defined vehicle classifications. 

Enforcement too uses different schemes and technologies. 

•  London  has  installed  an  optical  number  plate  recognition  system  based  on  extensive 
camera observation and digital image processing. All foreign vehicles need to register with 
Transport  for  London  prior  to  entering  the  London  low-emission  zone  that  started  on 
4 February  2008.  Vehicles  not  registered  have  to  pay  penalties  of  up  to  £1 000  per  day. 
Vehicles in default will be pursued by private tracking companies. 

•  Most other cities rely on manual enforcement by the police. To facilitate this, vehicles need 

to be equipped with special plates, stickers, etc.  

The  Commission  receives  regular  reports  from  citizens,  stakeholders  and  the  European 
Parliament10  that  this  fragmentation  limits  freedom  of  movement  of  freight  operators  and 
travellers and, in some cases, leads to unequal treatment between local residents and other EU 
citizens.  

Fragmentation  is  also  an  issue  for  traveller  information.  It  prevents  intermodal  travel  where 
different modes are combined in a single journey.11. Long-distance rail or bus travellers find it 
difficult to obtain information on timetables or fares for connecting local and regional public 
transport services. Car drivers on the long-distance TEN-T road network are confronted with 
non-harmonised travel information on connections with public transport services. This lack of 
information prevents travellers from making the shift from car to public transport for part of 
the journey.  

Another field where fragmentation is an issue is mobility of persons with disabilities12.They 
are confronted with urban infrastructures, public transport systems and traveller services that 

10 

11 
12 

In  2008  about  ten  letters  and  two  questions  and  a  petition  from  the  European  Parliament  have  been 
received.  These  numbers  might  seem  low,  but  they  probably  represent  a  much  higher  number  of 
concerns that are not communicated to the Commission 
See “Towards passenger intermodality in the EU”, Report 3 (Recommendations), Dortmund, 2004. 
A  person  with  reduced  mobility  or  a  disabled  person  is  every  person  whose  mobility  when  using 
transport  is  reduced  due  to  any  physical  disability  (sensory  or  locomotor,  permanent  or  temporary), 
intellectual, sensory disability or impairment, or any other cause of disability, or as a result of age, and 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
have been developed according to varying national, regional and local standards. The Action 
Plan should fully address the needs of persons with reduced mobility and aim at eliminating 
obstacles and barriers to accessibility13.  

Fragmentation  is  costly  for  economic  operators.  Freight  distributors  have  to  match  their 
delivery  schedules  with  a  variety  of  conditions  and  time  windows  for  freight  deliveries  that 
are  defined  by  each  city  or  region  individually.  For  example,  a  Dutch  study14  estimated  the 
additional costs of distribution to supermarkets caused by local regulations at €100 million per 
year in the Netherlands. One third of the additional costs were caused by vehicle-type related 
restrictions, two thirds by time windows.  

Another study15 on freight transport includes various examples of environmental zones from 
across  the  EU.  In  one  case,  the  study  refers  to  a  potential  significant  increase  of  vehicle 
operator  costs  which,  depending  on  the  access  rules  introduced,  can  range  between  0.1  and 
70% of vehicle operating costs. 

This  fragmentation  also  brings  costs  for  manufacturers  and  operators.  A  study16  on  the 
benefits of common requirements and standards for urban rail-based transport systems in the 
EU estimates the gains for the rail supply industry at in the range of €4.5 billion up until 2020. 
A report17 on the benefits of interchangeability of components and regulation in the light rail 
and metro market points to reductions in procurement costs of up to 25% as a result of joint 
procurement and 10% from lower production costs.  

Finally, fragmentation can be a barrier to innovation and market entry of new technologies. 
Competition between specific innovative solutions and new technologies is a good thing as it 
may  drive  competition.  However,  it  may  also  result  in  unnecessary  costs.  Spreading 
development costs over several parties with the aid of joint development leads to economies 
of  scale.  It  also  allows  parties  to  start  implementation  earlier,  which  brings  additional 
financial benefits18.  

For  example,  the  costs  of  implementation  and  operation  of  an  environmental  zone  in 
Copenhagen  have  been  estimated  at  €50  –  110  million 19.  The  investment  costs  for  the 
congestion charge scheme in London were nearly €205 million and the annual operating costs 
are in the range of €115 million 20. Other cities could benefit significantly from the work that 

13 

14 
15 
16 
17 
18 

19 
20 

whose situation needs appropriate attention and adaptation to his particular needs of the service that is 
provided to all passengers 
Article 9 of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities mentions that parties, which 
include all Member States and the European Community, shall take appropriate measures to ensure to 
persons with disabilities  access  on  equal basis  with others  to  transportation,  including  in urban  areas, 
and  that  those  measures  shall  include  the  identification  and  elimination  of  obstacles  and  barriers  to 
accessibility to inter alia transportation. 
Research by TNO for the CBL (Centraal Bureau Levensmiddelenhandel) in 2003. 
BESTUFS project, deliverable D 1.4, Policy and Research Recommendations, 2008. 
UNIFE Impact Assessment of a future EU Directive on Urban Rail, 2004. 
Obstacles to the Internal Market in Rail Mass Transit, 2000. 
For example, earlier additional revenue in the case of charging schemes, parking management systems 
or flexible ticketing schemes for public transport. 
BESTUFS project, deliverable D 1.4, Policy and Research Recommendations, 2008. 
Costs  of  around  £162  million  were  incurred  in  preparing  the  congestion  charge  scheme  in  London 
before it was launched in 2003. The major items of expenditure were for traffic management measures, 
communications and public information on the scheme, systems set-up and management. In 2005 the 
congestion  charge  revenue  consisted  of  charge  payments  of  £120  million  and  penalty  payments  of 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
has  already  been  done  and  the  experience  gained  with  innovative  schemes  like  in  London. 
Joint  procurement  is  another  means  of  reducing  costs  and  pushing  market  take-up  of  new 
technology. The Action Plan could look at how EU mechanisms can provide stronger support 
for the introduction of innovative solutions and new technologies. 

These  examples  might,  however,  create  the  impression  that  policy-makers  have  to  choose 
between promoting harmonisation or promoting innovation. But it is not a matter of choice. 
Both  approaches  are  usually  considered  important  in  their  own  right  and,  at  the  same  time, 
can strengthen each other, especially in cases where broad rules are laid down, but the details 
are  shaped  by  innovation  and  competition  between  solutions.  This  is  also  the  approach  that 
Member States often follow for urban mobility policies. 

The examples given above suggest that cities, regions and Member States apply solutions that 
might bring unnecessary costs, hamper cross-border transport or affect efficient functioning of 
the  internal  market.  This  is  the  reason  for  further  investigation  of  developments  at  local, 
regional and national levels. It also provides a basis for identifying tools and mechanisms at 
EU level that can support policy-making at local, regional and national levels.  

2.2. 

Lack of initiative, lack of knowledge and experience 

Besides fragmentation of approaches, inaction or inappropriate action by local, regional and 
national authorities may have an impact across borders.  

According  to  the  Green  Paper,  the  delays  and  pollution  caused  by  chronic  congestion  cost 
almost  1%  of  the  EU’s  GDP.  Road  congestion  in  the  EU  has  been  considered  mainly  an 
“urban problem”21. Also according to the Green Paper, traffic in urban areas is responsible for 
40% of CO2 emissions and for 70% of other pollutants from road transport. One out of every 
three fatal road accidents takes place in an urban area. 

Road safety, economic efficiency, social inclusion and the fight against climate change are all 
issues on which Member States have decided to act jointly. In the field of urban mobility, the 
European Union can play a leading role in focusing attention on these issues and facilitating 
action by local, regional and national authorities. 

Collecting  and  sharing  data  and  statistics  are  necessary  for  the  proper  design  of  policies. 
There  is  no  comprehensive  information  on  developments  in  urban  mobility,  for  example 
regarding  the  urban  public  transport  and  freight  markets22,  including  on  the  quality  of 
services, emissions and social inclusion. This lack of data can be partly explained by the fact 
that some cities and regions do not have the resources or expertise to collect them.  

£70 million,  i.e.  £190  million  in  total.  Transport  for  London’s  direct  operating  costs  were  around 
£5 million.  In  addition,  it  paid  the  service  providers  that  operate  the  scheme  around  £85  million. 
Source: Central London Congestion Charging Scheme: ex-post evaluation of the quantified impacts of 
the original scheme, 29 June 2007. 
COMPETE study (2003). 
See NPF urban transport final report:  
http://www.transport-research.info/web/projects/project_details.cfm?id=2796&page=contact. 

21 
22 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
There is also a lack of definitions, data-sharing mechanisms and trend analysis. The result is 
that  relevant  local,  regional  and  national  trends23  cannot  be  monitored  and  compared 
effectively by policy-makers at all levels.  

Information-sharing can be an effective means to support policy-making at local, regional and 
national  levels.  There  is  currently  no  comprehensive  and  consolidated  overview  of  practice 
and  experience  on  urban  mobility  and  transport  at  EU  level.  Cities  with  less  experience, 
knowledge and financial resources find it difficult to make use of the practice and experience 
built up by cities that are more advanced in the area of sustainable urban mobility for lack of 
information-sharing  tools.  The  EU  lacks  effective  information  platforms  to  provide  insights 
into  relevant  EU  legislation  and  funding  opportunities.  This  means  that,  for  example,  the 
opportunities  provided  by  the  regional  policy  financial  instruments  and  the  European 
Investment Bank are not fully seized.  

The Action Plan could offer tools to improve this situation.  

2.3.  Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent?  

Mobility and transport bring many benefits to society and to the economy. At the same time, 
problems  caused  by  urban  mobility  affect  businesses  and  the  majority  of  European  citizens 
who live in or travel to and from urban areas.  

Emissions and noise result in illness and premature deaths of EU citizens24. They also damage 
the EU economy and have a negative effect on business, which is confronted with congestion.  

Urban  transport  is  the  service  of  general  interest  with  which  consumers  in  the  EU  are  least 
satisfied and consumers in the new Member States are even less satisfied with urban transport 
than other EU citizens25. Furthermore, consumers have to deal with fragmented information 
systems  and  non-streamlined  solutions.  Persons  with  reduced  mobility  don't  always  have 
access on an equal basis with others to urban transport. 

Without  an  appropriate  dissemination  of  tested  solutions,  policy-makers  develop  solutions 
with  unnecessarily  high  costs,  design  policies  that  take  insufficient  account  of  experience 
elsewhere or propose solutions that could conflict with EU principles or legislation.  

Policy-makers  in  new  Member  States  face  specific  challenges.  Economic  development  is 
leading to rapidly rising car ownership and use. The lack of sufficiently adapted tools means 
that  the  improvements  made  to  urban  transport  do  not  always  meet  the  minimum  standards 
required for sustainable development and social cohesion. 

2.4.  What would happen if nothing were done?  

To  gain  an  insight  into  the  most  important  mobility,  economic,  social  and  environmental 
trends and challenges in the field of urban mobility and transport at EU level, an indicative 

23 

24 

25 

For  example,  coherent  data  sets  at  EU  or  national  level  are  not  available  on  “contexts”  (population 
density, car ownership, etc.), “inputs” (investments, quality of fleets, etc.) and “outcomes” (modal split, 
passenger-km, tonne-km, safety, etc.). 
Impact Assessment of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and the Directive on Ambient Air Quality 
and Cleaner Air for Europe, 21 September 2005. 
European Commission consumer satisfaction survey (2007): 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/serv_gen/cons_satisf/consumer_service_finrep_en.pdf. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
baseline  scenario  was  developed  using  input  from  the  TREMOVE26  model  and  from  other 
sources. An overview of the baseline scenario is given in Annex III. It incorporates the policy 
initiatives in the “partial implementation” scenario of the latest publicly available version of 
TREMOVE (version 2.7)27.  

This means that the existing direction of EU policies28 that have an impact on urban mobility 
remains unchanged and that no “trend breaks” are foreseen.  

If  nothing  were  done  at  EU  level,  individual  solutions  at  local  and  regional  level  would 
continue  to  develop.  This  is  not  a  problem  as  such,  as  different  approaches  are  often  also 
followed at Member State level. However, authorities, citizens and businesses  could benefit 
from the tools and guidance that the EU could offer them. 

If  nothing  were  done  at  EU  level,  freight  distributors,  for  example,  would  continue  to  be 
constrained by the varying conditions and time windows for freight deliveries that have been 
set  by  each  city  or  region  individually.  Long-distance  passengers  would  continue  to  suffer 
from the lack of understandable travel information on connecting local transport services, on 
parking  and  access  regulations,  on  access  rules  for  persons  with  reduced  mobility,  etc. 
Moreover,  in  some  cases  they  would  still  be  confronted  with  schemes  that  apply  to  locally 
registered  vehicles  only.  This  would  hamper  the  smooth  functioning  of  the  internal  market 
and fluid mobility within the EU.  

If  nothing  were  done  at  EU  level,  due  to  lack  of  working  together  and  uncertainty  about 
standardisation, the market take-up of new technologies would be slower than policy-makers 
would  like  and  authorities  would  invest  unnecessary  resources  in  their  own  developments. 
Furthermore,  it  would  remain  difficult  to  share  best  practice  and  monitor  trends,  leading  to 
ineffective policy-making and imperfect insights into market developments. This would also 
prevent  benchmarking,  which  is  considered  a  good  means  for  policymakers  to  learn  and 
improve.  

2.5. 

The EU’s right to act  

The  Treaties  delimit  the  range  of  powers  of  the  EU.  The  subject  of  urban  mobility  and 
transport falls under Article 70 of the Treaty which provides for a common transport policy29. 
Articles 71(c) and 71(d) are relevant to urban mobility and transport. They state that for the 

26 
27 
28 

29 

http://www.tremove.org/index.htm. 
See Annex III. 
Urban  mobility  cuts  across  various  policy  areas  inside  the  Commission.  For  example,  it  is  linked  to 
areas of the common transport policy such as public service obligations in public transport, road safety, 
intelligent  transport  and  successful  development  of  the  trans-European  transport  network.  It  is  linked 
with  energy  and  climate  change  policies  on  promotion  of  energy  efficiency  in  transport  and  of 
alternative  fuels.  It  is  linked  with  environment  and  health  policy  in  fields  such  as  air  pollution  and 
noise. Investments in urban transport contribute to economic development and territorial cohesion, the 
prime objectives of regional policy. Urban mobility is also linked with research and innovation policy 
in connection with the development of clean technologies and policy-related RTD. Advanced transport 
infrastructure and electronic services are part of the wider information society agenda. Urban mobility 
is  linked  with  the  social  agenda  via  issues  such  as  inclusion  and  mobility  for  all.  It  is  linked  with 
enterprise and industrial policy, for example in the cases of emission limits of vehicles, standardisation 
and tourism policy. And, via public procurement, it is linked to policy on the internal market. 
The  Commission  can  also  make  specific  proposals  on  the  basis  of  articles  other  than  Article  70.  For 
example,  to  address  specific  problems  related  to  urban  mobility  and  transport  it  could  use  articles 
covering environment policy (Articles 174 and 175) or economic and social cohesion (Article 158). 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
purpose of implementing Article 70 the Council and the European Parliament will lay down 
measures to improve transport safety and any other appropriate provisions. Responsibility for 
transport  is  shared  between  the  EU  and  Member  States.  The  arguments  set  out  below 
demonstrate  that  the  problem  cannot  be  solved  in  an  optimum  way  by  the  Member  States 
alone (necessity test) and that the objectives can be better achieved at EU level (added value 
test). More extensive material is presented in Annex IV. 

The right to act at EU level in the field of urban mobility also stems from the Commission’s 
obligation to achieve and protect the fundamental goals set out in the Treaty. EU legislation 
and financial instruments directly affect local, regional and national decisions in the field of 
urban mobility. The Commission is therefore empowered to ensure that these decisions are in 
line with EU legislation and to help authorities to implement EU policies and make best use 
of EU funding. In addition, action taken in the field of urban mobility at local, regional and 
national  levels  directly  affects  freight  operators  and  travellers  from  other  countries.  This 
cross-border impact justifies EU action to ensure smooth functioning of the single market and 
proper  implementation  of  EU  policies  and  legislation,  for  example  in  the  field  of  the 
environment, State aid, the social agenda or research and development.  

As mentioned above, market failures in the field of urban mobility make public intervention 
necessary  in  order  to  address  the  problems  of  congestion,  pollution  and  imbalanced 
development.  The  EU  has  a  right  to  ensure  that  this  public  intervention  is  in  line  with  EU 
legislation and coherent with EU policies. EU policies in areas other than transport, such as 
the  environment,  regional  policy  or  energy,  have  in  the  past  already  developed  measures 
related to urban mobility. Insufficient attention has been paid to the possible impact of these 
policies  on  urban  mobility  and  transport.  Annex  II  provides  an  initial  overview  of  EU 
initiatives and legislation of relevance to urban mobility. In some cases, appropriate tools and 
instruments  to  support  authorities  have  not  been  made  available,  have  not  been  taken  up  or 
have  not  taken  sufficient  account  of  urban  mobility  issues.  Now  it  is  important  to  propose 
actions  that  add  value,  strengthen  coherence  and  support  implementation  of  such  past  and 
present EU initiatives.  

The EU also has a right to act to address those problems where public intervention at EU level 
brings  added  value.  Without  impinging  on  the  powers  of  the  local,  regional  or  national 
authority in charge, the EU can bring added value to local action in different ways30. The EU 
can offer authorities a toolbox with tried and tested solutions to address the risks caused by 
fragmentation  of  local,  regional  and  national  approaches.  The  EU  can  help  to  correct 
regulatory  failures,  for  example  in  the  form  of  insufficient  collection  and  sharing  of  market 
data,  which  prevents  comprehensive  monitoring  of  relevant  trends.  It  can  support  data  and 
information  exchange,  offer  financial  support  and  launch  RTD  activities.  It  can  help  to 
promote efficient use of public resources, for example by avoiding reinventing the wheel or 
by joining forces in benchmarking, procurement or information provision. It can also help to 
promote innovation and standards and to create markets for industry.  

30 

The  basis  for  the  EU  action  in  urban  areas  is  strengthened  by  the  Thematic  Strategy  on  the  Urban 
Environment (COM(2005) 718), which was mandated by the Council and European Parliament through 
the 6th Environment Action Programme.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

OBJECTIVES  

The  EU  faces  the  general  challenge  of  facilitating  and  stimulating  sustainable  and  more 
streamlined  development  of  urban  mobility  to  meet  fundamental  economic,  environmental 
and social objectives. The general and specific objectives are outlined below. They contribute 
to  the  strategic  objectives  set  by  the  Lisbon  Strategy  and  the  Sustainable  Development 
Strategy. They also contribute to policy objectives in sectors such as the environment, energy, 
health, cohesion, the internal market and social policy.  

General objective 

The  general  objective  is  to  contribute  to  progress  towards  sustainable  urban  mobility  in  the 
EU  which  fosters  competitiveness,  does  not  harm  the  environment  and  promotes  a  more 
cohesive and inclusive society. 

Specific objectives 

The following specific objectives in the area of sustainable urban mobility were identified in 
the Green Paper and confirmed in the consultation process: 

(1)  Provide local, regional and national authorities with tools that can help to strengthen, 
when appropriate, the coherence of local solutions and reduce duplication of effort. 
These  tools  can  support  authorities,  working  closely  with  stakeholders,  with 
achieving: 
1.1  Free-flowing towns and cities; 
1.2  Greener towns and cities; 
1.3  Smarter urban transport; 
1.4  Accessible urban transport; 
1.5  Safe and secure urban transport. 

(2)  Strengthen  EU  support  for  local,  regional  and  national  authorities’  efforts  to 
contribute  to  EU  objectives  and  for  the  development  and  implementation  of 
integrated policy in the area of urban mobility, by: 
2.1 
2.2  Focusing EU financial instruments.  

Improving information exchange, data collection and knowledge-building; 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

POLICY OPTIONS  

Different policy options are available to achieve the specific objectives. This chapter provides 
an  overview  of  the  screening  process  that  started  with  a  long  list  of  possible  policy  options 
and ended with a shortlist of policy options. The screening process consisted of three steps:  

- 

- 

- 

Step 1: Identification of policy options; 

Step 2: Screening on subsidiarity;  

Step 3: Screening on efficiency, effectiveness and consistency.  

In addition, this chapter offers information on the level of support from stakeholders for each 
option. However, stakeholder support is not considered in the screening process.  

Background material is included in Annex V.  

4.1. 

From the long list to the shortlist 

Step 1: Identification of policy options 

A long list of possible policy options was compiled, drawing on various sources:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

past  and  ongoing  work  carried  out  in  the  framework  of  policy  initiatives,  RTD 
activities and best practice exchange, for example CIVITAS31 and ELTIS32; 

work carried out and contributions received to support preparation of the Green Paper 
on urban mobility; 

contributions  received  during  the  stakeholder  consultation  on  the  Green  Paper  on 
urban mobility; 

outcome  of  the  technical  workshops  and  conference  held  as  part  of  the  consultation 
process; 

discussions  in  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions 
and the European Economic and Social Committee; 

(6) 

desk research under the study contract;  

(7) 

input from European Commission staff.  

This broad approach made it possible to review a wide variety of policy options, ranging from 
a  more  strategic  to  a  more  practical  level. The  long  list  includes  options  that  may  not  seem 
likely  or  desirable  but  that  were  put  forward  by  stakeholders.  This  means  that  some  of  the 
policy options might seem problematic, because of the subsidiarity principle or because they 
might  not  seem  efficient  or  effective.  However,  for  reasons  of  transparency,  they  were  not 
excluded in advance.  

31 
32 

www.civitas-initiative.eu. 
www.eltis.org. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Table 1: Overview of the long list of policy options 

Free-flowing towns and cities 

1. Require cities to set modal split targets 

There are many ways in which cities can influence modal split, i.e. the relative shares of each mode of transport. This policy 
option proposes to require cities to set modal split targets, including larger shares for sustainable modes, but leaving them 
free to decide how to achieve them. The objective would be to increase the share of sustainable modes in urban mobility and 
transport.  

2. Ban private car use in city centres 

Many cities have banned cars from their centres, for example by means of pedestrianisation schemes, physical restrictions 
or  regulatory  measures.  These  have  improved  environmental  quality  and  liveability  in  those  city  centres.  Some  cities  are 
gradually  extending  these  areas.  This  policy  option proposes  to require all  cities  to  ban  cars  from  their  centres  (although 
allowing  exceptions)  in  areas  that  do  not  comply  with  EU  environmental  legislation.  The  objective  would  be  to  obtain  a 
substantial improvement in environmental quality and liveability in city centres. 

3. Ban on-street parking in city centres 

Many cities are banning on-street parking in their centres. This is done either to improve the traffic capacity or to widen the 
pavements  or  install  cycle  infrastructure.  The  latter  improves  environmental  quality  and  liveability  in  those  streets.  This 
policy option proposes to require all cities to ban on-street parking in their centres, which implicitly would push for more 
carparks  and  more  parking  on  private  properties.  The  objective  would  be  to  obtain  a  substantial  improvement  in 
environmental quality and liveability in city centres. 

4. Recognise efforts of cities to improve sustainable urban mobility 

A  labelling  scheme  could  be  used  to  recognise  the  efforts  of  pioneering  cities  to  combat  congestion  and  improve  living 
conditions. Recognition at European level of serious efforts made by cities can be expected to act as a stimulus. And it could 
serve as a magnet to attract funding and for industries and businesses looking for new locations for their activities. European 
recognition could be combined with an award and/or financial grant for the “best” cities.  

5. Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities 

An  increasing  number  of  cities  are  introducing  limitations  on  access  to  urban  areas  for  motor  vehicles  in  the  form  of 
environmental zones or road user charging. Both measures should reduce pollutant emissions and contribute to meeting the 
obligations  arising  from  EU  air  quality  legislation.  Road  use  charging  and  parking  pricing  are  also  seen  by  some 
stakeholders as an effective way to raise revenue for transport investments and to manage demand. In addition, they could 
fit  into  the  broader  policy  perspective  of  internalisation  of  external  costs.  Many  different  schemes  are  appearing.  The 
objective would be to provide information to citizens, transport providers and decision-makers.  

6. Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics 

Urban  freight  transport  is  sometimes  forgotten  by  local  policy-makers.  This  policy  action  would  incorporate  the  urban 
activities  included  in  the  2007  Freight  Logistics  Action  Plan  (dissemination  of  best  practice,  recommendations  on 
benchmarks  and  indicators  and  reinforcement  of  CIVITAS).  Additional  activities  could,  however,  be  launched  and 
recommendations for policy-makers prepared.  

Greener towns and cities 

7. Internalise the external costs of urban transport 

Transport imposes external costs on society that are not fully paid for by those benefiting from the services. The objective of 
this policy option would be to make the users in all urban areas pay for the external costs that they cause to others and to 
society in general. As a first step, this policy option could focus on developing information material for cities, information 
exchange and networking activities. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
8. Require cities to set targets for CO2 emissions from urban transport 

Some local authorities have expressed the wish to take responsibility for addressing climate change. They can influence the 
vehicles  used  in  their  city  and  implement  policy  measures  that  lead  to  more  energy-efficient  urban  mobility.  This  action 
proposes to require all local authorities to set targets for CO2 emissions from urban mobility and transport, leaving them free 
to decide how to achieve them. The objective would be to lower CO2 emissions from urban mobility and transport.  

9. Require zero CO2 propulsion for urban public transport 

City and urban authorities have extensive influence over the vehicles used in public transport, either because they own them 
or because they write the specifications in the public service contracts. This policy option proposes to require cities to work 
towards zero CO2 emissions from urban public transport by a given date in the long term, leaving them free to decide how 
to achieve this. The objective would be to lower CO2 emissions from urban mobility and transport. 

10. Promote “green” procurement by public authorities 

Joint public procurement of vehicles will speed up, in a cost-effective way, replacement of older vehicles operated by public 
authorities or by private operators under public service contracts. The aim of this policy option would be to bring potential 
buyers  together  in  consortia  so  that  lower  prices  can  be  obtained  as  a  result  of  economies  of  scale.  In  addition,  possible 
administrative barriers at national, regional and local levels to joint procurement would be overcome. This contributes to the 
objective of more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly urban mobility.  

11. Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and alternative fuels 

Reduction of pollutant emissions and energy consumption from vehicles are key objectives of EU policy. EU legislation has 
progressively lowered the limits for pollutant emissions from motor vehicles. But lead times for mandatory compliance are 
long  and  the  latest  Euro  6  standard  will  not  start  to  apply  until  2014.  Member  States,  however,  can  use  incentives  to 
stimulate earlier uptake. Market introduction of alternative fuels has been promoted in Community policy. Member States, 
however, have used different measures, with the focus on different alternative fuels, leading in some cases to fragmented 
markets  and  limitations  in  vehicle  operation  across  Europe  due  to  heterogeneous  infrastructure.  This  option  proposes  to 
provide information on support schemes for clean and energy-efficient vehicles and alternative fuels along with a product 
overview. This contributes to the objective of more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly urban mobility. 

12. Require designation of “green” zones in sensitive areas 

An  increasing  number  of  cities  are  designating  environmental  or  “green”  zones  in  sensitive  areas,  for  example  to  tackle 
environmental problems. This policy option proposes requiring all cities to designate such zones in a harmonised way for 
sensitive areas that do not comply with EU environmental legislation, for example in the field of air quality. The objective 
would be to obtain a substantial improvement in environmental quality and liveability in urban areas. 

13. Harmonise rules for environmental zones 

However  laudable  the  initiatives  are,  the  fragmentation  that  is  resulting  from  the  local  initiatives  to  address  the 
environmental  problems  by  means  of  environmental  zones  is  confusing  travellers  and  freight  operators  and  might  run 
counter to the philosophy of the internal market. The objective would be to have rules for access and vehicle identification 
that are coherent and easily understood by all citizens and businesses in the EU for cities interested in using this policy tool. 

Smarter urban transport 

14. Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport 

Improving the interoperability, which could involve standardisation, of ticketing and payment systems is aimed at allowing 
seamless  use  of  the  public  transport  system  by  passengers  paying  to  use  the  system  and  also  by  users  of  other  transport 
infrastructure  (for  example,  car  users  who  are  charged  for  road  use  or  who  use  park-and-ride  to  combine  car  and  public 
transport or cyclists who pay for guarded bicycle stands at stations). The objective of this policy action would be to make it 
easier to use public transport and to combine private and public modes. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
15. Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information 

Harmonisation  and  provision  of  travel  information  across different  transport  modes  and  cities  will  promote  use  of public 
transport  by  different  kinds  of  short-  and  long-distance  travellers.  This  policy  option  proposes  to  make  it  easier  for  non-
regular users to use public transport, for example by providing information on the internet and by more user-friendly signs. 
This should be seen against the background of the changing expectations of different societal groups. The objective would 
be to make public transport easier to use for non-regular users and for visitors.  

Accessible urban transport 

16. Require transport impact assessments as a precondition for planning permission 

Urban  development  is  often  decided  without  sufficient  consideration  of  the  consequences  for  urban  mobility  and  the 
transport system. This policy option would aim at imposing an obligation on authorities to assess this impact before granting 
planning  permission.  This  would  ensure  that  the  consequences  of  spatial  developments  on  urban  mobility,  such  as  extra 
traffic  on  the  roads  or  developments  at  locations  that  are  difficult  to  reach  by  public  transport  or  by  bicycle,  would  be 
known  before  a  decision  is  taken  on  planning  permission.  The  overall  objective  would  be  to  improve  accessibility  and 
mobility in urban areas. 

17. Require establishment of urban mobility authorities 

The division of transport planning responsibilities is inefficient in many cases and often does not permit solutions that are 
necessary  to  meet  urban  mobility  needs  and  solve  urban  transport  problems  in  an  integrated  way.  In  addition,  spatial 
development, transport planning, economic development and operation of transport services extend across city boundaries. 
Requiring establishment of urban mobility authorities in all major urban areas might help solve these problems.  

18. Require adoption of SUTPs as a condition for EU funding 

The idea of promoting sustainable urban transport plans (SUTPs) was launched by the European Commission as part of the 
Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment. Under this policy option, any city or region requesting EU financial support 
for urban mobility projects from the regional policy instruments, the RTD Framework Programme or any other EU financial 
programme  would  be  required  to  adopt  such  a  plan.  This  might  give  a  significant  stimulus  to  comprehensive,  integrated 
planning  for  sustainable  urban  mobility.  The  objective  would  be  to  achieve  more  sustainable  patterns  of  land  use  and 
mobility in urban areas. 

19. Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport 

This  policy  option  combines  the  ideas  behind  options  17  and  18  but  would  aim  at  promoting  use  of  sustainable  urban 
transport  or  mobility  plans  in  combination  with  setting  up  the  appropriate  structures  for  voluntary  cooperation.  The 
objective would be to provide guidance, information and support to authorities which want to prepare integrated plans.  

20. Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning 

Land-use patterns and intensity have clear implications for the demand for mobility and for how the demand for mobility 
can  be  met.  This  policy  option  would  support  stakeholders  in  improving  coordination  between  mobility  and  land-use 
planning at an early stage, resulting in reducing the demand for mobility and transport and in more rational development of 
the  transport  network.  This  would  contribute  to  reducing  congestion  and  pollution  and  lowering  costs  for  infrastructure 
development and public transport services per passenger- and freight-kilometre. 

21. Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport 

One of the barriers to use of public transport is that users often have little or no redress when services are interrupted, when 
scheduled services are late or in other cases of non-delivery by the operator. On the other hand, public transport providers 
have to bear the costs of passengers who damage their vehicles, trains, etc. This policy option would bring together a set of 
basic rights and obligations in a common framework. This would contribute to improving the image and quality of public 
transport.  The  overall  objective  would  be  to  raise  the  quality  of  urban  public  transport  and  make  it  more  attractive  to 
travellers. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
22. Improve accessibility of public transport 

There are two dimensions to accessibility: geographic and physical. The public transport system should be available to all 
citizens,  not  just  citizens  living  in  certain  areas.  The  public  transport  system  should  also  be  accessible  to  all  citizens, 
regardless of their physical, cultural and socio-economic status. The objective of this policy option would be to improve the 
accessibility of public transport for all city residents, allowing better and easier access to all activities. 

23. Require operators to accept bicycles in urban public transport 

The option for travellers to take their bicycle onto public transport vehicles offers a flexible way to facilitate door-to-door 
travel,  even  if  the  origin  and/or  destination  are  not  near  a  public  transport  stop.  In  congested  areas,  this  combination  of 
modes can outperform the private car, for example in terms of speed. Some public transport operators accept bicycles on 
certain vehicles, some only outside rush hours and some not at all. This policy option proposes to require all operators to 
accept  bicycles  at  certain  harmonised  periods.  The  objective  would  be  to  improve  the  competitive  position  of  public 
transport and the bicycle against private car use.  

Safe and secure urban transport 

24. Promote safe walking and safe cycling 

Walking  and  cycling  are  two  separate  modes  of  transport.  Each  of  them  has  its  own  strengths  and  weaknesses  and  has 
different potential both as a “single mode” and as one link in a trip-chain. However, in general terms, walking and cycling 
are  well  suited  for  short  trips  (under  5 km)  and  in  urban  areas a  very  large  proportion of  all  trips  are  shorter  than 5  km. 
There are still many short-distance car trips that could be made on foot or by bicycle. The objective would be to encourage 
authorities to improve the conditions for safe walking and safe cycling. One aspect that could be looked at is separation of 
traffic flows. 

25. Raise the minimum age for driving licences to 25 

Young  car  drivers  and  motorcycle  riders  are  involved  in  a  disproportionate  number  of  traffic  accidents.  As  their  age 
increases, drivers become more careful. This policy option proposes to require national authorities to increase the minimum 
age for the final driving test from 18 to 25 years. After an initial test, persons between 18 and 25 years could be issued with 
a temporary licence that could easily be withdrawn. The objective would be to improve urban road safety.  

26. Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting 

Cross-cutting issues 

Accurate, timely, comparable and relevant information is the basis for making effective policy choices. Currently, there is 
no single source of information on the situation of urban mobility and transport in all Europe’s cities. The objective of this 
policy option would be to provide policy-makers with such information, strengthening the basis for policy-making on urban 
mobility and transport. This initiative will have to add value to existing data and information platforms and will need to take 
account of financial and organisational limitations. In the longer term, working closely with other Commission departments 
such as EUROSTAT and DG REGIO, the action could result in a permanent monitoring system. 

27. Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice 

A wealth of knowledge and experience on urban mobility has been built up using local, regional, national and EU funding. 
This policy option aims to improve access and use and to increase the amount and the quality of the information available. It 
could include compilation of an overview of relevant legislation and funding opportunities. 

28. Intensify research, development and demonstration activities 

Innovative solutions already play a key role in operation and the performance of the urban mobility and transport system. 
RTD could be intensified to play an even bigger role in helping to address the mobility problems in urban areas. One area 
that could be given specific attention is RTD to support development of intelligent Galileo applications. Another area could 
cover  integrated  demonstration  initiatives  such  as  CIVITAS.  The  objective  of  this  policy  option  would  be  to  promote 
innovation in urban mobility and transport. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
29. Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving 

Key factors that influence energy consumption and emissions and that can help to optimise use of the transport system are 
modal choice, travel behaviour and driving style. These can be influenced by information, communication and marketing 
campaigns, organising services and coordination activities. This policy option includes, for example, mobility management, 
awareness  campaigns  and  stimulating  eco-driving  with  the  aid  of  awareness-raising  activities  and,  where  appropriate, 
training for driving licences. The objective would be to make better use of existing capacity and reduce energy consumption 
and emissions with the aid of more sustainable travel behaviour.  

30. Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport 

This policy option would aim at increasing cities’ access to EU financial mechanisms for urban transport measures. Further 
opening-up of existing instruments or development of additional funding opportunities could also be considered, perhaps in 
cooperation with the EIB. The Commission could also address use of the Structural Funds for improving not only integrated 
urban transport and public transport systems but also connections between urban transport systems and the TEN-T network. 
The objective would be  to  stimulate  investment  in  renewal  and  innovation  in  urban  transport,  especially  in  new  Member 
States. 

31. Require implementation of a “value-capture tax” 

Transport improvements often lead to an increase in the market value of properties that are served by the improvement. This 
gain normally accrues to the owners, whereas the costs are borne by the authorities or the transport providers. Some city 
authorities  use  various  financial  instruments  to  make  the  benefiting  proprietors  contribute  (part  of)  the  costs  of  the 
improvements.  This  policy  option  proposes  to  require  introduction  of  a  harmonised  tax  to  capture  the  value  increases  of 
property as a result of improvements in urban transport. The objective would be to lower the cost of transport improvements 
for authorities. 

Step 2: Screening on subsidiarity  

Each  policy  option  on  the  long  list  was  screened  on  subsidiarity  at  the  level  of  each 
instrument that could (theoretically) be used for implementation. If the option failed this test, 
it  was  no  longer  taken  into  account  and  no  further  analysis  was  carried  out.  Details  are 
provided in Annex V.  

Step 3: Screening on efficiency, effectiveness and consistency  

Each  policy  option  that  successfully  passed  step  2  was  screened  against  the  efficiency, 
effectiveness and consistency criteria. The policy options that successfully passed step 3 were 
put on the shortlist. A detailed explanation of the scoring is provided in Annex V.  

The  screening  on  subsidiarity  and  on  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  consistency  reduced  the 
long list of 31 options to a shortlist of 18 policy options. Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 
18, 23, 25 and 31 were discarded.  

The following policy options were kept on the shortlist (see Table 2):  

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
Table 2: Overview of the shortlisted policy options 

Free-flowing towns and cities 

5 

6 

Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities 

Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics 

Greener towns and cities 

7 

10 

11 

Internalise the external costs of urban mobility 
Promote “green” procurement by public authorities 

Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and alternative fuels  

13  Harmonise rules for environmental zones  

Smarter urban transport 

14 

15 

Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport 

Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information  

Accessible urban transport 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport  

Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning 

Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport 

Improve accessibility of public transport 

Safe and secure urban transport 

24 

Promote safe walking and safe cycling 

Cross-cutting issues 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting 

Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice 

Intensify research, development and demonstration activities 

Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving 

Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport 

4.2. 

Stakeholder support 

The support from stakeholders for each policy option gives valuable background information 
for  the  decision-making  process  but  is  not  considered  in  the  formal  screening  process. 
Therefore,  the  level  of  acceptability  of  the  different  policy  options  by  stakeholders  was 
assessed.  This  assessment  was  based  on  the  results  of  the  stakeholder  consultation  on  the 
Green Paper on urban mobility. All policy options on the long list were assessed.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
Annex I provides a summary of the level of support for the policy options from stakeholders. 
However,  as  stated  earlier,  stakeholder  support  is  not  taken  into  account  in  the  selection 
process.  Only  Chapter  6,  where  shortlisted  policy  options  are  discussed  and  possible  action 
identified, gives information on stakeholder support.  

5. 

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE SHORTLISTED OPTIONS  

This chapter analyses the impact of the shortlisted policy options. The assessment is based on 
indicators covering mobility, congestion, energy, the environment, economic and social issues 
and  policy-making.  These  indicators  are  consistent  with  the  indicators  used  in  the  baseline 
scenario and show the contribution made towards achieving the relevant objective.  

Table  3  presents  an  overview  of  the  shortlisted  policy  options,  of  the  indicators  and  of  the 
fields  on  which  they  have  an  impact.  A  detailed  description  of  the  impact  of  each  policy 
option, in qualitative and/or quantitative terms, is provided in Annex VI.  

It should be borne in mind that each kind of impact is considered independently, but that in 
reality  different  impacts  are  inter-related.  This  might  lead  to  synergies  or  could  result  in 
contradictory  impacts33.  Impacts  are  also  influenced  by  the  instrument  selected  for 
implementation once the actions are decided. For this reason, this impact assessment cannot 
be exhaustive. Every kind of impact is given the same weight. Indirect impacts have not been 
taken into account.  

Some  general  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  the  impact  analysis.  It  is  assumed  that  policy 
options that receive a large number of ticks in Table 3 under a specific cluster of indicators 
(such as mobility or congestion) make the most integrated contribution. This does not imply 
that a large number of ticks means that a given policy option makes the best contribution.  

–    Most integrated contribution overall:  

–  Policy option 7 (internalisation of external costs); 
–  Policy option 20 (coordination of planning); 
–  Policy option 30 (investment). 

These options contribute to a particularly wide range of indicators.  

–    Most integrated contribution to the economic indicators: 

–  Policy option 6 (urban freight); 
–  Policy option 11 (vehicles and fuels); 
–  Policy option 13 (environmental zones); 
–  Policy option 14 (ticketing interoperability). 

The positive economic impact of these policy options stems from the lower costs for operators 
due  to  fewer  freight  vehicle-kilometres  and  tonne-hours  lost  (option  6),  a  better  investment 
climate (option 6), increased industrial production resulting from higher demand (options 11 
and  14),  a  stronger  competitive  position  for  the EU  industry  (options  11  and  14)  and  lower 
administrative costs (option 13).  

33 

See Section 6.1 for a discussion of synergies. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–    Most integrated contribution to the environmental indicators: 

–  Policy option 6 (urban freight); 
–  Policy option 7 (internalisation); 
–  Policy option 10 (green procurement); 
–  Policy option 11 (vehicles and fuels); 
–  Policy option 20 (coordination of planning); 
–  Policy option 22 (accessibility); 
–  Policy option 24 (walking and cycling); 
–  Policy option 29 (awareness); 
–  Policy option 30 (investment). 

The positive environmental impact of these policy options stems from lower emissions caused 
by  a  reduction  of  vehicle-kilometres  (options  6,  7  and  20),  a  higher  market  share  of 
environmentally  friendly vehicles (options 10 and 11), lower  emissions  caused by smoother 
driving (option 29) and a modal shift towards public transport (options 29 and 30).  

–    Most integrated contribution to the social indicators: 

–  Policy option 6 (urban freight); 
–  Policy option 7 (internalisation); 
–  Policy option 11 (vehicles and fuels); 
–  Policy option 22 (accessibility); 
–  Policy option 24 (walking and cycling); 
–  Policy option 29 (awareness). 

The positive social impact of these policy options stems from the positive impact on health as 
a result of lower emission levels (options 6, 7, 11, 24 and 29), increased road safety (options 
7, 9 and 24) and higher levels of social inclusion (option 22).  

–   

Best contribution to public transport use:  

The  assessment  also  provides  a  means  of  identifying  policy  options  that  make  a  positive 
contribution  to  one  specific  indicator.  For  example,  policy  options  7  (internalisation),  14 
(ticketing interoperability), 15 (travel information), 19 (integrated planning), 20 (coordination 
of  planning),  21  (user  rights),  22  (accessibility)  and  30  (investments)  all  contribute  to  an 
increase in public transport passenger-kilometres.  

–   

Best contribution to social inclusion: 

Positive contributions are made to the social inclusion indicator by policy options 15 (travel 
information),  19  (integrated  planning)  and  30  (investment)  and  the  public-transport-related 
options  14  (ticketing  interoperability),  21  (user  rights)  and  22  (accessibility).  These  public-
transport-related  options  should,  however,  be  developed  in  a  way  that  attracts  existing  car 
drivers and not pedestrians or cyclists. If the measures were mainly to attract the latter, their 
impact would be less positive. 

–  -  Best contribution to policy-making:  

Policy  options  5  (information  on  access  limitations),  26  (data),  27  (dissemination)  and  28 
(research)  contribute  specifically  to  providing  a  stronger  basis  for  policy-making.  The  same 
also  applies  to  policy  options  10  (green  procurement),  13  (environmental  zones),  19 
(integrated planning), 20 (coordination of planning) and 29 (awareness). 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
Table 3: Overview of policy options on the shortlist, indicators and impact 

m
k
-
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p

t
r
o
p
s
n
a
r
t

c

i
l

b
u
p

n

i

e
s
a
e
r
c
n
I

l

m
k
-
e
c
h
e
v

i

d
e
s
i
r
o
t
o
m
-
n
o
n

n

i

e
s
a
e
r
c
n
I

t
s
o

l

s
r
u
o
h
-
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p
n

i

e
n

i
l

c
e
D

t
s
o

l

s
r
u
o
h
-
e
n
n
o
t

n

i

e
n

i
l

c
e
D

e
o
t
M
n

i

n
o
i
t
p
m
u
s
n
o
c

y
g
r
e
n
e
n

i

e
n

i
l

c
e
D

i

i

s
n
o
s
s
m
e
G
H
G
n

i

e
n

i
l

c
e
D

i

i

s
n
o
s
s
m
e
g
n
i
t
u

l
l

o
p
-
r
i
a
n

i

e
n

i
l

c
e
D

s
s
e
n
s
u
b

i

r
o
f

s
t
s
o
c

i

.
n
m
d
a
n
o
t
c
a
p
m

I

t
e
k
r
a
m

l

a
n
r
e
t
n

i

n

i

n
o
i
t
i
t
e
p
m
o
c

d
e
s
a
e
r
c
n
I

i

n
o
s
u
c
n

l

i

l

i

a
c
o
s

f
o
t
n
e
m
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

s
e
i
t
i
l

a
t
a
f

c
i
f
f
a
r
t
n

i

e
s
a
e
r
c
e
D

i

s
n
o
s
s
m
e
f
o

i

t
c
a
p
m

i

h
t
l
a
e
h
f
o
t
n
e
m
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

i

e
s
o
n
f
o

t
c
a
p
m

i

h
t
l
a
e
h
f
o
t
n
e
m
e
v
o
r
p
m

I

i

g
n
k
a
m
-
y
c

i
l

o
p
r
o
f

i

s
s
a
b
r
e
g
n
o
r
t

S

Mobility 

Congestion 

Ener
gy 

Environment 

Economy 

Social 

Policy 

l

m
k
-
e
c
h
e
v

i

Indicators (cid:74)  

r
e
b
m
u
n
n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
a
c

e
t
a
v
i
r
p
n

i

e
n

i
l

c
e
D

Free-flowing towns and cities 

5 

6 

Provide information on access limitations for 
road users in cities 

Promote more efficient urban freight 
distribution and logistics 

Greener towns and cities 

7 

10 

11 

Internalise 
transport

the  external  costs  of  urban 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

Promote “green” procurement by public 
authorities 

Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient 
vehicle technology and alternative fuels  

13 

Harmonise rules for environmental zones  

Smarter urban transport 

14 

15 

Improve  the  interoperability  of  ticketing  and 
payment systems for public transport 

Improve harmonisation and provision of travel 
information  

Accessible urban transport 

19 

20 

21 

Promote integrated planning for urban 
mobility and transport 

Improve coordination between urban mobility 
and land-use planning 

Strengthen the rights and obligations of users 
of public transport 

22 

Improve accessibility of public transport 

Safe and secure urban transport 

24 

Promote safe walking and safe cycling 

Cross-cutting issues 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

Improve data harmonisation, collection, 
validation and reporting 

Improve dissemination of knowledge and best 
practice 

Intensify research, development and 
demonstration activities 

Promote awareness and behavioural change, 
including eco-driving 

Promote investment in integrated urban 
transport, including public transport 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6. 

COMPARING AND ASSESSING THE OPTIONS  

6.1. 

Fine-tuning the shortlisted options  

This section analyses the most appropriate instrument to implement each of the 18 shortlisted 
options.  This  analysis  assessed  the  eight  following  instruments  against  the  criteria:  cost-
effectiveness,  proportionality,  consistency  with  other  inter-institutional  or  sector-related 
developments and administrative burden. Details of the analysis are given in Annex V and the 
results are summarised in Section 6.2.  

Overview of instruments34: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Self-regulation (monitoring); 

Open method of coordination; 

Information and guidelines; 

Market-based instruments;  

Direct public-sector financial intervention; 

Co-regulation; 

Framework directive; 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision). 

As part of the analysis, possible actions for the forthcoming Action Plan were considered, also 
using  the  feedback  received  during  the  consultation  process.  Possible  synergies35  were 
identified.  

To achieve coherence, coordination should be ensured between the individual actions in the 
Action Plan, between the actions in the Action Plan and other EU initiatives and, whenever 
possible,  between  actions  in  the  Action  Plan  and  activities  outside  an  EU  framework,  for 
example at the level of stakeholders.  

The actions in the Action Plan should be consistent with the following Commission activities 
and initiatives: 

•  ITS-related actions should be coordinated with the actions in the new ITS Action Plan.  

•  Actions  related  to  urban  freight  distribution  should  be  in  line  with  the  Freight  Logistics 

Action Plan. 

•  Actions  on  eco-driving  should  be  in  line  with  the  Energy  Efficiency  Action  Plan  and 

should build on experience from the Intelligent Energy Europe programme. 

34 
35 

Source: the Commission’s impact assessment guidelines. 
There  are  three  types  of  synergy  between  policy  options  or  possible  actions.  First,  there  could  be 
possible  synergies  between  individual  policy  options  or  actions  addressing  similar  challenges.  To 
harness  these  possible  synergies,  the  policy  options  have  been  clustered  in  line  with  the  specific 
challenges  described  in  the  Green  Paper.  Second,  there  could  also  be  possible  synergies  between 
specific  policy  options  or  actions  on  the  one  hand  and  cross-cutting  policy  options  or  actions  on  the 
other. Third, there could be possible synergies between instruments. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Actions  related  to  raising  awareness  should  take  into  account  the  initiatives  taken  in  the 
framework  of  the  European  Mobility  Week,  the  Green  Week  and  the  EU  Sustainable 
Energy Week. 

•  Actions related to data collection should take into account the work by EUROSTAT, the 

Urban Audit and the RTD Framework Programme. 

•  Actions related to internalisation of external costs should be in line with the Commission’s 

“Greening of transport” package.  

Most of the options recommended in this impact assessment can be taken up directly in the 
Action Plan. This is particularly the case where objectives and tools for focused dissemination 
of  information  and  best  practice  have  been  identified.  In  other  cases,  additional  stages  of 
consultation with the stakeholders and specific impact assessments will be necessary. In these 
cases,  the  Action  Plan  should  then  propose  appropriate  preparatory  action  to  clarify,  in 
concertation  with  the  parties  concerned,  the  way  forward  and  build  up  broad  support  for 
dedicated EU action.  

6.2. 

Assessment of shortlisted options and identification of possible actions 

As mentioned in section 4.1, options 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25 and 31 were not 
shortlisted. 

Option 5: Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities 

This  option  covers  urban  road  user  charging  and  access  limitations  and  would  support  the 
wider agenda of internalisation of external costs. This option will make a positive contribution 
to better policy-making. Many stakeholders support EU initiatives in this field.  

Taking into account stakeholders’ varying and sometimes conflicting views on binding rules 
for urban road user charging and access restrictions, further exploration is needed. Therefore, 
initially,  a  non-regulatory  approach  is  proposed.  To  harness  synergies  between  the  possible 
actions,  this  option  could  be  considered  together  with  option  13.  The  possible  action  could 
explore,  together  with  stakeholders,  the  most  appropriate  way  forward  in  the  area  of 
environmental  zones.  Possible  action  could  also  include  exchanges  of  information  on  urban 
road user charging.  

Option 6: Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics 

This  option  addresses  the  problem  that  urban  freight  transport  and  distribution  services  are 
sometimes  not  well  integrated  into  local  transport  policies.  This  policy  option  will  make  a 
positive  contribution  to  a  wide  range  of  mobility,  congestion,  energy,  environmental, 
economic  and  social  objectives.  Most  stakeholders  support  this.  Taking  into  account 
proportionality arguments, a non-regulatory approach should be  followed that  could include 
information and guidelines and/or targeted financial intervention.  

Possible actions need to add value to the initiatives launched under the Logistics Action Plan. 
One particular result of the Green Paper consultation is that stakeholders emphasised the need 
for  policy-makers  to  pay  more  attention  to  urban  freight.  Therefore,  possible  actions  could 
include  active  engagement  with  stakeholders,  collection  of  information  and  provision  of 
guidelines in the form of a recommendation. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Option 7: Internalise the external costs of urban transport 

This option aims at making transport users in all urban areas pay for the external costs that 
their use causes to others and to society in general.  This  policy  option  will  make  a  positive 
to  mobility,  congestion,  energy,  environmental  and  social  objectives. 
contribution 
Stakeholders  are  divided  in  their  support  for  an  EU  initiative  in  this  field.  A  regulatory 
approach could be used, perhaps in combination with market-based instruments.  

However,  before  deciding  further  steps,  the  inter-institutional  process  on  the  recently 
launched general method for internalisation of external costs needs to be finalised first. Once 
the  EU  framework  with  the  new  method  is  in  place,  a  basis  will  exist  to  consider  the  way 
forward  for  mobility  and  transport  in  urban  areas.  The  possible  action  could  focus  on 
information-gathering and further assessment in the form of a study. Among other things, this 
study should pay attention to the public acceptability and availability of ITS tools.  

Option 10: Promote “green” procurement by public authorities  

As a follow-up to the proposal for a Directive on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient 
road vehicles, this option aims to bring potential buyers of public service vehicles together in 
buyers-consortia.  This  policy  option  will  make  a  positive  contribution 
to  energy, 
environmental  and  social  objectives.  It  will  also  support  the  competitive  position  of  the  EU 
industry.  Many  stakeholders  support  this  policy  option.  A  variety  of  instruments  could  be 
used, for example provision of structured information or co-regulation.  
Before  considering  the  need  for  additional  steps,  the  proposed  Directive  should  enter  into 
force  and  its  impact  should  be  assessed  first.  The  possible  action  for  the  short  term  should 
therefore  support  implementation  of  the  Directive.  The  action  could  take  the  form  of 
provision  of  information  to  potential  buyers  of  public  service  vehicles  with  the  aid  of  an 
internet-based guide. 

Option 11: Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and alternative 
fuels  

This  option  aims  at  stimulating  the  early  take-up  of  new  vehicle  standards  and  alternative 
fuels.  It  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  energy,  environmental,  economic  and  social 
objectives.  Many  stakeholders  support  it.  A  variety  of  instruments  could  be  used  for  this 
option,  for  example  providing  information  on  support  schemes  and/or  available  vehicle 
technology, market-based instruments, financial intervention or regulation.  

Before  considering  the  need  for  additional  steps,  the  proposed  Directive  should  enter  into 
force and its impact should be assessed first. In order to harness synergies, this option could, 
in  the  short  term,  be  considered  in  combination  with  option  10  and  focus  on  provision  of 
information. 

Option 13: Harmonise access rules for environmental zones  

This  option  addresses  the  local  initiatives  taken  to  reduce  environmental  problems  and 
improve  the  quality  of  urban  life.  The  objective  will  be  to  agree  streamlined  and  easily 
understandable rules for access and vehicle identification. The harmonisation proposed in this 
option  will  contribute  to  environmental  and  economic  objectives,  better  functioning  of  the 
internal market and better policy-making. Regulatory instruments could be used.  

However, taking into account stakeholders’ varying and sometimes conflicting views, further 
exploration  and  discussion  with  stakeholders  is  needed  to  specify  the  exact  scope  of  the 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
option.  Therefore,  initially,  a  non-regulatory  approach  is  proposed.  In  order  to  harness 
synergies  between  the  possible  actions,  in  the  short  term  this  option  could  be  considered  in 
combination with option 5. Besides active engagement with experts and stakeholders, possible 
action could take the form of a study to identify the most appropriate way forward in relation 
to the available instruments (information, guidelines, recommendation or regulation). 

Option 14: Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport  

This  option  helps  to  make  it  easier  to  use  public  transport  and  combine  private  and  public 
modes.  This  policy  option  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  mobility,  congestion, 
environmental, economic and social objectives. Most stakeholders support this. A variety of 
instruments could be used, but the most promising direction would be a regulatory approach 
(standards).  

One  possible  obstacle  lies,  however,  in  the  complexity  of  harmonising  existing  and  future 
local  ITS  systems,  defining  interfaces  between  them  and  involving  a  broad  range  of 
stakeholders.  Therefore,  initially,  a  non-regulatory  approach  should  be  followed.  Possible 
action could include a study to identify current practices and issues, collection of information 
and provision of EU guidelines in the form of a recommendation. 

Option 15: Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information  

This option aims at harmonisation and provision of travel information across different modes 
of  transport  and  cities.  It  will  promote  use  of  public  transport  by  different  categories  of 
traveller.  This  policy  option  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  mobility,  congestion  and 
social  objectives.  Most  stakeholders  support  this.  A  variety  of  instruments  could  be  used, 
including information and guidelines, co-regulation and a regulatory approach (standards).  

One  possible  obstacle  lies,  however,  in  the  complexity  of  harmonising  existing  and  future 
urban  ITS  systems,  defining  interfaces  between  them  and  involving  a  broad  range  of 
stakeholders. Therefore, initially, a non-regulatory approach should be followed.  

Possible  action  could  start  “top-down”  with  provision  of  travel  information  via  a  single 
European “entrance portal” on the internet36. The portal would offer access to existing local 
and regional information systems. Information providers could be invited to become actively 
involved in implementing it. In the longer term and in combination with other initiatives, this 
could be a first step towards “soft” harmonisation of travel information across the EU.  

Option 19: Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport  

This option focuses on the concept of sustainable urban transport mobility plans. The aim is to 
provide  practical  guidance,  information  and  support  to  authorities.  It  could  also  include 
coordination  and  networking  activities.  This  option  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  a 
wide  range  of  mobility,  congestion,  energy  and  social  objectives.  It  will  also  contribute  to 
better  policy-making.  Most  stakeholders  support  an  EU  initiative  in  this  field.  A  non-
regulatory approach would be most effective and proportionate.  

The  possible  action  could  include  provision  of  EU  guidelines  in  the  form  of  a 
the 
recommendation  on  sustainable  urban 

transport  mobility  plans.  Preparation  of 

36 

Subject  to  confirmation  of  its  importance  relative  to  other  Commission  priorities  in  the  field  of 
information technology. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
recommendation could be supported by collecting information and providing practical support 
with the aim of better coordinating approaches across cities, regions and Member States.  

Option 20: Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning  

This option helps to ensure more thorough consideration of the impact of urban development 
and  restructuring  on  mobility  and  transport  demand.  It  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to 
congestion, energy, environmental, economic and social objectives. Stakeholders are divided 
in  their  support.  A  non-regulatory  approach  should  be  followed  for  any  new  action,  for 
example in the form of self regulation or provision of information and guidelines.  

Given the limited powers of the EU over planning, the added value of any new initiative on 
top  of  existing  ones  would  probably  be  limited.  The  focus  is  therefore  on  continuing  the 
cooperation with Member States to foster better coordination between urban development and 
spatial planning in the framework of the First Action Programme implementing the Territorial 
Agenda  and  implementation  of  the  Leipzig  Charter.  In  addition,  specific  attention  could  be 
paid to urban planning in the RTD Framework Programme.  

In order to harness synergies, in the short term this option could be considered in combination 
with option 19. Possible action could therefore include provision of EU guidelines in the form 
of  a  recommendation.  Specific  initiatives  could  be  launched  to  support  preparation  and 
implementation of the guidelines.  

Option 21: Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport 

This  option  contributes  to  improving  the  quality  of  public  transport.  It  makes  a  positive 
contribution  to  the  mobility  and  social  objectives.  In  general,  stakeholders  are  cautious  and 
point to the initiatives already being undertaken by the sector. A group of stakeholders from 
the  urban  public  transport  sector  recently  developed  a  voluntary  customer  charter.  This 
approach should be given time to mature.  

Possible  action  at  this  stage  could  therefore  consist  of  supporting  and  monitoring  this  self-
regulation  at  sector  level.  Particular  attention  should  be  paid  to  how  authorities  and  users’ 
organisations  will  get  involved  in  the  initiative  and  to  how  strong  the  sector’s  voluntary 
commitments will be. Further EU action, such as preparation of specific legislative proposals, 
will depend on the results of this self-regulation.  

Option 22: Improve accessibility of public transport 

This  option  aims  at  improving  the  accessibility  of  public  transport  for  all  city  residents  to 
allow better and easier access to the activities relevant to them. This policy option will make a 
positive  contribution  to  mobility,  energy,  environmental  and  social  objectives.  Many 
stakeholders support  an  initiative by  the EU in  this  field.  A  variety  of  instruments  could  be 
used, but the most promising direction seems a regulatory approach.  

In order to harness synergies between the possible actions, this option could, in the short term, 
be  considered  in  combination  with  option  21.  Possible  action  could  therefore  consist  of 
supporting  and  monitoring  self-regulation  at  sectoral  level,  while  ensuring  that  accessibility 
issues are incorporated in the customer charter.  

Option 24: Promote safe walking and safe cycling 

This option encourages authorities to improve the conditions for safe walking and safe cycling 
in urban areas. This policy option will make a positive contribution to mobility, congestion, 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
environmental, energy and social objectives. Most stakeholders support an EU initiative. For 
include 
proportionality  reasons,  a  non-regulatory  approach 
coordination, information, guidelines and/or financial intervention.  

is  proposed 

that  could 

Because  of  the  limited  availability  of  financial  resources  in  the  short  term  and  the  fact  that 
stakeholders  have  emphasised  the  need  for  policy-makers  to  pay  more  attention  to  safe 
walking  and  safe  cycling,  action  could  include  collection  of  information,  followed  by 
provision of EU guidelines in the form of a recommendation. 

Option 26: Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting  

This option helps to improve decision-making about urban mobility and transport at all levels 
of  government.  It  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  better  policy-making.  Most 
stakeholders support an EU initiative in this field as long as it does not become a bureaucratic 
exercise. A range of instruments could be used, including coordination, financial intervention 
and/or regulatory action.  

The extent to which the quality and availability of data will improve depends on the scale and 
scope  of  the  exercise,  the  funds  made  available  to  support  it  and  how  clearly  the  data 
requirements are formulated. Possible action could therefore take the form of a study which 
should  explore  the  data  needs,  data  availability,  costs  of  data  collection  and  possible 
implementing mechanisms. 

Option 27: Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice 

This  option  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  better  policy-making  at  all  levels  of 
government.  Most  stakeholders  support  it.  A  non-regulatory  approach  is  proposed,  for 
example  by  means  of  coordination,  information,  guidelines  and/or  financial  intervention. 
Direct public-sector intervention is expected to facilitate involvement of stakeholders. 

Possible  action  could  include  organising  a  regular  event  on  urban  mobility  and  facilitating 
exchanges of information between stakeholders and experts. It could also include provision of 
information,  best  practice  and  knowledge  via  an  internet-based  guide.  In  order  to  harness 
synergies,  this  internet-based  guide  could  be  linked  with  the  information  and  support 
initiatives under options 19 and 20. 

Option 28: Intensify research, development and demonstration activities  

This option helps to promote innovation and will have a positive influence on the quality of 
policy-making and implementation. Many stakeholders support an EU initiative in this field. 
This option could be implemented most effectively by means of financial intervention.  

Possible  action  could  include  supporting  targeted  RTD  action  with  a  financial  contribution 
from  the  RTD  Framework  Programme.  To  ensure  that  the  results  of  RTD  will  actually  be 
used, active involvement of users and good dissemination of results are imperative. In order to 
harness synergies between the possible actions, the event and the internet-based guide under 
option 27 might play a role in dissemination. 

Option 29: Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving 

This  option  will  take  the  form  of  promoting  activities  to  raise  awareness  of  urban  mobility 
and/or energy issues. This option will make a positive contribution to energy, environmental 
and  social  objectives  (e.g.  road  safety)  and  to  better  policy-making.  Many  stakeholders 
support  this.  A  variety  of  instruments  could  be  used,  including  financial  intervention, 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
information,  guidelines,  coordination  and/or  a  regulatory  approach.  A  non-regulatory 
approach would be most effective and proportionate.  

Therefore, possible action could include financial support for an awareness-raising campaign 
on  sustainable  urban  mobility  at  EU  level.  The  action  could  also  include  a  mechanism  to 
coordinate local, regional and national activities related to the European campaign and could 
focus on integration of issues related to driving behaviour in education.  

Option 30: Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport 

This  option  aims  at  increasing  cities’  and  regions’  access  to  existing  EU  financial 
mechanisms.  This  policy  option  will  contribute 
to  mobility,  congestion,  energy, 
environmental  and  social  objectives.  Many  stakeholders  support  this.  A  non-regulatory 
approach  should  be  followed,  for  example  in  the  form  of  provision  of  information  and 
guidelines on sources of funding or targeted EU financial intervention.  

Possible  action  could  include  collection  of  information,  followed  by  provision  of  EU 
guidelines in the form of a recommendation on investment in urban mobility and the link with 
cohesion  policy.  In  addition,  a  targeted  financial  contribution  might  be  provided  to  pilot 
projects. In order to harness synergies between the possible actions, the internet-based guide 
under  option  27  could  provide  information  on  financing  instruments.  At  this  stage,  the 
benefits of additional instruments, either from Commission sources or from the EIB, could be 
investigated with a view to a specific EU initiative in the longer term. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
6.3. 

Towards the Action Plan on Urban Mobility 

Table  4  provides  an  overview  of  the  possible  actions  identified  by  this  impact  assessment 
structured  by  the  themes  of  the  Green  Paper  on  urban  mobility.  The  table  also  includes 
preliminary  indications  of  the  timing,  costs  and  benefits,  the  administrative  burden  and  the 
contribution which the options could make to the main objectives set out in the Green Paper. 
On the basis of the 18 shortlisted policy options, by exploiting synergies between contents and 
between instruments, and by optimising the identity, visibility and manageability of individual 
actions, 20 proposals for possible actions at EU level have been developed. The preliminary 
timing  indicated  for  each  possible  action  allows  for  an  effective  interaction  between 
individual actions and for an efficient use of resources. The interaction and synergies between 
the  actions,  and  their  multiple  contributions  to  addressing  the  main  challenges  posed  by 
sustainable  urban  mobility,  suggest  a  coherent  presentation  of  a  package  of  20  possible 
actions in the form of an integrated Action Plan. 

The  suggestions  for  the  possible  actions  have  provided  the  basis  for  the  preparation  of  the 
Action  Plan  on  Urban  Mobility.  During  the  preparatory  process  for  the  Action  Plan  the 
actions  will  be  specified,  prioritised  and  politically  validated,  taking  into  account  –among 
other  things–  the  available  resources.The  EU  can  support  national,  regional  and  local 
authorities,  when  appropriate,  with  policy  directions,  incentives,  frameworks  and  practical 
tools to help them achieve their objectives in the field of sustainable urban mobility. This can 
also help to ensure that, at local, regional and national levels, appropriate initiatives are taken 
and diversification does not turn into unnecessary fragmentation. 

With  the  Action  Plan,  the  Commission  wants  to  facilitate  the  work  of  local,  regional  and 
national  authorities.  EU-wide  dissemination  and  replication  of  tested  solutions  can  give 
authorities  the  possibility  to  achieve  more,  better  and  at  lower  cost.  Local,  regional  and 
national  authorities  have  flexibility  and  freedom  to  select  solutions  appropriate  to  their 
specific situation. 

Because of the nature of the proposed actions and the flexibility of their application, plus the 
lack of data, a quantitative assessment of impacts of the actions against the baseline scenario 
is not feasible. However, it can be assumed that the package of 20 possible actions will make 
a  positive  contribution  to  mobility,  congestion,  energy,  environmental,  economic  and  social 
objectives. This has been demonstrated by EU-funded projects. 

For  example,  an  integrated  approach  promoted  by  the  proposed  actions,  which  combines 
transport policy measures with the introduction of clean vehicle technologies and alternative 
fuels,  has  been  tested  successfully  in  CIVITAS  cities.  It  has  brought  reductions  in  CO2 
emissions  of  up  to  20  –  22  %37.  As  almost  half  of  all  car  trips  are  below  five  kilometres, 
modal  shift  policies  that  exploit  the  potential  of  cycling,  walking  and  public  transport  can 
reduce congestion and bring environmental, energy and health benefits. With two out of three 
of  all  road  accidents  happening  in  urban  areas,  investments  in  safe  urban  transport 
infrastructure will lead to a reduction of pedestrians and cyclists accidents.  

The package of actions can also contribute to economic objectives. With an important part of 
congestion in the EU being located in and around urban areas, congestion relief measures, for 
example  through  public  transport  improvements,  will  bring  economic  benefits.  In  addition, 

37 

A policy assessment of the CIVITAS Initiative. September 2006. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
there are estimates that 30 jobs are created with every €1 milli on invested in public transport 
infrastructure. And finally, the package of actions can help to bridge the gap between citizens' 
expectations  and  the  perceived  quality  of  urban  transport.  This  impact  assessment  has 
demonstrated that there is clear overall support for action at EU level. This support also exists 
among  the  other  European  institutions.  While  there  were  varying  views  expressed  about 
which  actions  at  the  EU  level  could  add  value,  the  consultation  has  helped  to  identify 
'common ground' where EU action could add value to the action taken at local, regional and 
national levels.  

Implementation  of  the  actions  will  be  closely  monitored  and  assessed  to  ensure  that 
subsidiarity and proportionality concerns are addressed and that all alternatives to regulatory 
action will be explored for future initiatives. This impact assessment in no way prejudges the 
outcome  of  impact  assessments  for  specific  proposals that might be made in the future. For 
example, in line with the relevant procedures, a dedicated impact assessment is envisaged for 
each Commission recommendation.  

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
Table 4: Overview of the possible actions launched by the European Commission 

Action 

Instrument 

Timing 

(launch) 

Costs 

Benefits 

Admin. 
burden 

Contribution to objectives 

1. Stakeholder 
conference on urban 
freight 

(Option 6) 

2. Recommendation on 
urban freight  

(Option 6) 

3. Study on access rules 
for green zones 

(Options 5 and 13) 

4 .Exchange of 
information on urban 
pricing schemes 

(Option 5) 

5. Study on urban 
aspects of internalisation 
of external costs 

(Option 7) 

6. Internet guide on clean 
and energy-efficient 
vehicles 

(Options 10 and 11) 

7. Recommendation on 
energy-efficient driving as 
part of driving education 

Free-flowing towns and cities 

Event 

2010 

Low 

Better  understanding  of  urban 
dissemination of practice 

freight 

issues;  exchanges  and 

EC: very low 

Recommendation 

2012 

Low 

Greater  efficiency,  fewer  tonne-km,  less  congestion,  less  pollution, 
increased competition 

EC: very low 

Greener towns and cities 

Study 

2009 

Low 

Better  understanding  among  authorities,  travellers  and  businesses, 
better policy-making, time and cost gains for visitors and businesses 

EC: low 
Local, 
regional and 
national 
authorities: 
low 

Expert network 

2009 

Low 

Dissemination of knowledge on urban pricing, better understanding of 
context variables 

EC: very low 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Smarter urban transport 
• 

Improving  knowledge  and  data 
collection 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Smarter urban transport 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 
• 

Improving  knowledge  and  data 
collection 

Study 

2011 

Low 

Better  understanding  of  specific  urban  context  of  internalisation,  in 
particular  impact  on  behaviour  and  the  environment  and  social  and 
economic impact 

EC: very low 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 

Internet guide 

2009 

Very 
low 

Facilitate  market  uptake  leading  to  increased  use  of  clean  vehicles 
resulting in less pollution and higher energy efficiency 

EC: very low 

•  Greener towns and cities 

Recommendation 

2012 

Low 

Lower fuel consumption and emissions 

EC: very low 

•  Greener towns and cities 

EN 

33 

EN 

 
  
Action 

Instrument 

Timing 

(launch) 

Costs 

Benefits 

Contribution to objectives 

Admin. 
burden 

Member 
States: very 
low 

(Option 29) 

8. Recommendation on 
ITS for urban mobility 

(Option 14) 

9. Web portal to improve 
access to public transport 
information 

(Option 15) 

10. Recommendation on 
sustainable urban mobility 
plans 

(Options 19 and 20) 

11. Dialogue on 
passenger rights in urban 
public transport 
(voluntary) 

(Options 21 and 22) 

12. Recommendation on 
safe walking and safe 
cycling 

(Option 24) 

Smarter urban transport 

Recommendation 

2012 

Low 

Easier  travel  and  more  efficient  services  leading  to  less  congestion, 
less pollution and increased safety. 

EC: very low 

Web portal  

2009 

Very 
low 

Better  informed  travellers  will  lead  to  higher  use  of  public  transport, 
which  will  result  in  less  congestion,  less  pollution  and  increased 
safety. 

EC: very low 

Accessible urban transport 

Recommendation 

2012 

Low 

Facilitate  integrated  planning  and  policy-making,  including  target-
setting, monitoring and evaluation and better stakeholder involvement 

EC: very low 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Smarter urban transport 
•  Accessible urban transport 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Smarter urban transport 
•  Accessible urban transport 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Accessible urban transport 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 

Stakeholder 
network 

2010 

Low/ 
very 
low  

Better-quality  public  transport  will  lead  to  increased  use  of  public 
transport and stronger consumer protection 

EC: low 

Stakeholders: 
very low 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Accessible urban transport 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 

Safe and secure urban transport 

Recommendation 

2011 

Low 

Fewer accidents, fewer fatalities and increase in walking/cycling 

EC: very low 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 

EN 

34 

EN 

 
  
Action 

Instrument 

Timing 

(launch) 

Costs 

Benefits 

Cross-cutting issues 

Admin. 
burden 

Contribution to objectives 

13. Internet guide on 
legislation, funding and 
best practice 

(Options  19,  20,  27 
and 30) 

14. Study on harmonised 
data collection 

(Option 26) 

15. Annual forum on 
urban mobility 

(Option 27) 

16. Targeted RTD 
activities on urban 
mobility 

(Options 27 and 28) 

17. Campaign on 
sustainable mobility 
behaviour 

(Option 29) 

18. Call for proposals for 
action on sustainable 
urban mobility 

Internet guide 

2009 

Low 

Providing  better  information  leads  to  better  targeted  use  of  funding 
and better informed decisions 

EC: very low 

Study 

2010 

Low 

Better informed decisions and better monitoring leading to better and 
faster policy responses 

EC: low 

Event 

2010 

Low 

Better dissemination of urban mobility practice 

Funding 

2011 

Depen
ding 
on 
imple
mentat
ion 

Facilitating policy implementation, better understanding of integrated 
planning, demographic changes, trends, vehicle technologies, Galileo 
applications, behaviour, innovative public transport, etc. 

Campaign 

2010 

Low 

Less congestion, lower fuel consumption and emissions, increased 
safety 

EC: very low; 
Local, 
regional and 
national 
authorities: 
very low 
Stakeholders: 
very low 

EC: low; 
Local 
authorities: 
low 
Stakeholders: 
very low 

EC: very low
Member 
States: very 
low 

Funding 

2009 

Low 

Increased safety, integration of freight into urban mobility policy, 
improved understanding of access control, less fragmented payment 
systems and better knowledge of demand-responsive transport 

EC: low 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Smarter urban transport 
•  Accessible urban transport 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 
• 

Improving  knowledge  and  data 
collection 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Smarter urban transport 
•  Accessible urban transport 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 
• 

Improving  knowledge  and  data 
collection 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Smarter urban transport 
•  Accessible urban transport 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 
• 

Improving  knowledge  and  data 
collection 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Smarter urban transport 
•  Accessible urban transport 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 
• 

Improving  knowledge  and  data 
collection 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 
• 

Improving  knowledge  and  data 
collection 

•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Smarter urban transport 
•  Accessible urban transport 

EN 

35 

EN 

 
  
Action 

Instrument 

Timing 

(launch) 

Costs 

Admin. 
burden 

Contribution to objectives 

Benefits 

systems 

(Option 30) 

19. Study on dedicated 
support for urban mobility 

(Option 30) 

20. Recommendation on 
sustainable urban mobility 
and regional policy 

(Option 30) 

Study 

2010 

Low 

Facilitating policy implementation, promoting and highlighting 
advanced practices and highlighting priorities 

Depending 
on 
implement-
ation 

Recommendation 

2011 

Low 

Better information on policy priorities and access to funding, 
highlighting role of urban mobility in economic and social cohesion 

EC: very low 

•  Safe and secure urban transport 
•  Focusing EU financial instruments 
•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Smarter urban transport 
•  Accessible urban transport 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 
•  Focusing EU financial instruments 
•  Free-flowing towns and cities 
•  Greener towns and cities 
•  Smarter urban transport 
•  Accessible urban transport 
•  Safe and secure urban transport 
•  Focusing EU financial instruments 

EN 

36 

EN 

 
  
 
7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

To monitor implementation of the Action Plan and its individual actions, the Commission will 
look  at  trends  in  urban  mobility  and  transport  with  a  focus  on  the  performance  of  policies, 
tools,  markets,  regulatory  frameworks  and  administrative  capacity.  It  will  do  so  in  close 
consultation with stakeholders. This chapter outlines preliminary thoughts on monitoring the 
development of urban mobility and transport in the EU and the performance of EU action. 

The  following  possible  indicators,  which  will  need  to  be  further  specified,  are  suitable  for 
measuring progress and are likely to be available.  

Objective 

Possible indicator(s) 

Sustainable urban mobility 

Modal split for passenger transport 

Modal split for freight transport 

Improve coherence of solutions 

Number of cities with coherent access rules 

Support for policy-making  

Availability of coherent data 

Number of cities with sustainable urban transport plans 

Deciding policy and launching action at local, regional, national and EU levels requires good 
data  and  information  covering  a  wider  spectrum  than  the  indicators  set  out  above.  The  data 
and  information  needed  to  provide  an  accurate,  complete  and  consistent  picture  of  urban 
mobility in the EU are not available, however. One prerequisite for measuring progress in the 
field of urban mobility and transport is therefore establishment of a coherent and comparable 
monitoring system, as proposed in option 26.  

With the Action Plan, the Commission intends to facilitate the work of policy-makers at local, 
regional and national levels. The overall success of the Action Plan will depend largely on the 
take-up  by  local,  regional  and  national  authorities,  the  private  sector  and  citizens.  Efficient 
implementation by the Commission will also depend on the resources made available by the 
Commission38.  

The Commission will monitor implementation of the Action Plan and will continue to consult 
stakeholders and promote information exchange, for example via the Joint Expert Group on 
Transport  and  Environment.  In  2012  the  Commission  will  conduct  a  review  of  the 
developments and of the impact of this Action Plan and will assess the need for further action.  

38 

Estimates  suggest  that  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  will  require  the  allocation  of  3  extra  AD 
officials, and 2 AST officials. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEXES 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX I: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION 

The Commission received a total of 431 responses to the Green Paper consultation. The main 
conclusion  from  analysis  of  the  responses  is  that  there  is  a  broad  consensus  among 
stakeholders  that  there  is  added  value  in  action  at  EU  level.  Stakeholders  want  to  see  the 
Commission  help,  facilitate  and  support  city,  regional  and  national  governments  in  their 
efforts to achieve the goals of sustainable urban mobility. 

While  the  potentially  positive  role  of  the  Commission  is  widely  acknowledged  by  the 
respondents,  there  is  some  concern  that  Commission  initiatives  could  result  in  additional 
bureaucracy,  with  the  risk  of  limiting  the  creativity  and  flexibility  needed  for  dealing  with 
urban mobility issues at local level. The respondents were divided about the kind of initiatives 
(legislative, voluntary, etc.) that the Commission should take.  

To a large extent, the respondents to the Green Paper consultation made suggestions such as 
facilitating exchanges of best practice, financing and supporting research and improving the 
harmonisation, collection and availability of data and information. Other suggestions include 
harmonising  policy  processes,  developing  guidelines  and  recommendations,  harmonising 
technical  standards  and  improving  the  availability  of  finances  for  innovative  projects  that 
contribute to sustainable urban mobility goals. 

As  part  of  the  Green  Paper  consultation  and  in  preparation  for  the  Action  Plan,  the 
Commission  organised  a  conference  under  the  banner  “Towards  a  new  culture  for  urban 
mobility” on 31 January 2008. Around 300 stakeholders participated in the event. In addition, 
eight  technical  stakeholder  workshops  were  organised  on  5,  6,  11  and  12  March  2008  in 
Brussels.  Five  of  them  dealt  with  each  of  the  five  main  challenges  identified  in  the  Green 
Paper, two covered the cross-cutting topics of financing and a new culture for urban mobility 
and  the  final,  concluding,  workshop,  brought  together  the  discussions  at  the  previous  seven 
workshops. A total of 172 persons participated.  

The  vast  majority  of  the  comments  made  during  the  conference  and  workshops  clearly 
suggested that the EU can offer added value in the field of urban mobility and has a role to 
play.  Potential  roles  for  the  EU  could  include  harmonisation  and  standardisation  of  various 
technologies,  practices  and  policies  relevant  to  urban  mobility,  possibly  also  by  means  of 
legislation. 

It was also concluded that a number of the initiatives that the Commission was already taking 
should  be  continued  and,  if  necessary,  intensified.  The  Commission  should  also  consider 
facilitating and initiating new actions, for example on collecting data, assessing the impact of 
transport, raising awareness and social marketing. Finally, the Commission was requested to 
conduct a comparison of mobility problems in European cities and to conduct an assessment 
of policy alternatives.  

During the debates, it was pointed out that some areas had received insufficient attention in 
the Green Paper. These include, for instance, urban freight distribution and the link between 
strategic  urban  planning  and  transport  planning.  It  was  also  suggested  that  the  EU  could 
particularly  help  the  new  Member  States  to  find  ways  to  balance  long-term  thinking  with 
short-term investment pressure and that the EU could help facilitate transfers of know-how. 

The results of the Green Paper consultation are summarised in Table 4. Scores range from 1 
(low: most stakeholders do not support the idea) to 3 (medium: stakeholders are divided) and 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
then  up  to  5  (high:  most  stakeholders  support  the  action).  Relevant  comments  have  been 
added. “n.a.” means not applicable.  

Table 4: Stakeholder support for policy options (long list) with comments 

Option 

Score 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Require cities to set modal split targets 

Support for such a requirement is very limited and was suggested only a few times. 

Ban private car use in city centres 

Banning  use  of  private  cars  in  city  centres  is  not  supported  by  stakeholders;  this  is 
considered a decision for local authorities. 

Ban on-street parking in city centres 

Prohibiting  on-street  parking  in  city  centres  is  not  supported  by  stakeholders;  this  is 
considered a decision for local authorities. 

Recognise efforts of cities to improve sustainable urban mobility 

The feasibility of this policy option is questioned (because of the comparability of cities and 
availability of reliable data), but the general idea is supported. 

Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities 

There is strong opposition to mandatory road user charges. However, providing information, 
harmonisation,  dissemination  of  best  practice,  etc.  could  help  cities  that  have  decided  (or 
are considering whether) to take such measures.  

Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics 

Most  stakeholders  support  such  measures.  They  underline  the  economic  importance  of 
urban freight, but mention the role of the private sector. 

Internalise the external costs of urban transport 

There  is  support  for  standards,  harmonisation  and  internalisation  in  the  field  of  urban 
charging in general, but no support for mandatory measures. 

Require cities to set targets for CO2 emissions from urban transport 

There is no support for such requirements. 

Require zero CO2 propulsion for urban public transport 

There is little support for this policy option. 

Promote “green” procurement by public authorities 

Facilitation by the Commission of green procurement is supported, although internalisation 
of external costs is considered more effective. 

Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and alternative fuels 

There  is  support  for  this  option  on  condition  that  modes  and  technologies  are  treated 
equally. Intensified use of existing instruments is preferred. 

Require designation of “green” zones in sensitive areas 

Mandatory green zones are not supported by stakeholders; the decision to implement such 
zones should be left to the local authorities. 

1 

1 

1 

4 

4 

5 

3 

1 

1 

4 

4 

1 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Harmonise rules for environmental zones 

Stakeholders  favour  a  certain  degree  of  harmonisation  of  such  zones,  as  long  as  local 
authorities  can  decide  on  introduction.  Using  Euro  standards  is  seen  as  a  means  of 
harmonisation. 

Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport 

There is support for this policy option. However, local flexibility remains a condition. 

Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information 

Not  many  stakeholders  oppose  this,  as  long  as  access,  user-friendliness,  accuracy  and 
design are taken into account.  

Require transport impact assessments as a precondition for planning permission 

There is little support for conditionality, but promotion and research would be favoured. 

Require establishment of urban mobility authorities 

This requirement meets opposition, but there is support for voluntary establishment of such 
authorities. The Commission should support best practice, research, etc. 

Require adoption of SUTPs as a condition for EU funding 

Conditionality  is  not  supported  widely;  only  a  few  stakeholders  propose  criteria  for 
sustainability (which are less specific). 

Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport 

Assistance  in  the  form  of  dissemination  of  best  practice,  etc.  by  the  Commission  to  cities 
with the aim of integrated planning is supported. 

Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning 

The  need  to  improve  coordination  is  recognised,  but  support  would  depend  on  the 
instrument chosen. Binding measures receive less support. 

Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport 

The  Commission  is  advised  to  take  no  new  steps  in  this  direction,  given  the  ongoing 
initiatives.  In  general,  support  appears  to  be  lacking  for  what  is  feared  to  be  a  rigid, 
ineffective policy option. 

Improve accessibility of public transport 

Stakeholders  support  this,  but  some  stress  that  this  should  not  come  at  the  expense  of 
private transport. Interfaces with other modes should be included in this option. 

Require operators to accept bicycles in urban public transport 

Support from only a small and specific section of stakeholders; no comments from the vast 
majority. However, there is strong support for strengthening the co-modality chain. 

Promote safe walking and safe cycling 

4 

5 

5 

2 

2 

1 

5 

3 

1 

4 

2 

Promotion  of  walking  and  cycling  is  supported,  e.g.  by  disseminating  best  practice  and 
promoting intermodal interfaces. 

5 

25 

Raise the minimum age for driving licences to 25 

n.a 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

This  policy  option  was  not  proposed  explicitly  by  stakeholders,  nor  did  stakeholders  raise 
the issue. 

Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting 

The need for better data is fully recognised, but stakeholders demand as little bureaucracy 
as possible. 

Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice 

There is consensus amongst stakeholders that a great deal of information is available, but 
that it should be made more accessible. 

Intensify research, development and demonstration activities 

Research is called for in certain fields, but pilot projects should also receive support. Strong 
support for (continuation of existing) demonstration networks. 

Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving 

There is general support for awareness-raising activities. Promotion of eco-driving is seen 
as valuable, as long as the benefits to users are stressed.  

Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport 

There  is  support  for  investment  in  integrated  solutions.  Stakeholders  ask  for  “equal 
treatment” of modes, but support for public transport is recognised as important. Financial 
support could help cities to select and implement the best solution. 

Require implementation of a “value capture tax” 

Very little support for taxation-related measures. 

5 

5 

4 

4 

4 

1 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX II: OVERVIEW OF EXISTING EU INITIATIVES AND LEGISLATION 

TRANSPORT 

Relevance  Status 

Public service obligations  

Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by 
rail  and  by  road  and  repealing  Council  Regulations  (EEC) Nos 
1191/69 and 1107/70 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

State aid 

Community  guidelines  on  State  aid 
(OJ C 184, 22.7.2008) 

for  railway  undertakings 

Direct 

Adopted 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  800/2008  of  6  August  2008 
declaring  certain  categories  of  aid  compatible  with  the  common 
market  in  application  of  Articles 87  and  88  of  the  Treaty  (General 
Block Exemption Regulation) (OJ L 214, 9.8.2008) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (OJ C 
82, 1.4.2008) 

Indirect 

Adopted 

Important State aid decisions on public service obligations 

C 58/06 (ex NN 98/2005) of 20 December 2006, Germany – State aid 
for  public  transport  Stadt  Langenfeld/Verkehrsverbund  Rhein  Ruhr 
(OJ C 74, 31.3.2007) 

Indirect 

Implemented

C 16/07 (ex NN 55/2006) of 30 May 2007, Austria – Official support 
for Postbus in the Lienz district (OJ C 162, 14.7.2007) 

Indirect 

Implemented

C  31/2007  (ex  NN  17/2007)  of  18  July  2007,  Ireland  –  State  aid  to 
Córas Iompair Éireann Bus Companies (OJ C 217, 15.9.2007) 

Indirect 

Implemented

C  47/07  (ex  NN  22/2005)  of  23  October  2007,  Germany  –  Public 
service contract between Deutsche Bahn Regio AG and the Länder of 
Berlin and Brandenburg (OJ C 35, 8.2.2008) 

Indirect 

Implemented

C  54/07  (ex  NN  55/2007)  of  28  November  2007,  Germany  – 
Hülsmann  GmbH  (Rail)  v.  Emsländische  Eisenbahn  GmbH  (not  yet 
published in the OJ) 

Indirect 

Implemented

C  3/08  (ex  NN  102/05)  of  26 November  2008,  Czech  Republic  - 
public  service  compensations  for  Southern  Moravia  Bus  Companies 
(OJ C 7032, 16.4.2009) 

Indirect 

Implemented

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Important  State  aid  decisions  on  other  improvements  to  public 
transport 

N63/2005  –  Programme  for  energy  economies  and  use  of  alternative 
fuels in the transport sector, Czech Republic (OJ C 83, 6.4.2006)  

Indirect 

Implemented

N604/2005  –  Satzung  zur  Unterstützung  eigenwirtschaftlicher 
Verkehrsleistungen  im  Landkreis  Wittenberg,  Germany  (OJ  C  209, 
30.8.2006) 

Indirect 

Implemented

N556/2005  –  Subsidieverordening  Innovatie  openbaar  vervoer  van 
provincie Gelderland, Netherlands (OJ C 207, 30.8.2006) 

Indirect 

Implemented

Passenger rights 

Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations 
(OJ L 315, 3.12.2007) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
the  liability  of  carriers  of  passengers  by  sea  and  inland  waterways  in  the 
event of accidents (COM(2005) 592) 

Indirect 

Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
concerning  the  rights  of  passengers  when  travelling  by  sea  and  inland 
waterway  and  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  2006/2004  on  cooperation 
between  national  authorities  responsible  for  the  enforcement  of  consumer 
protection laws (COM(2008) 0816) 

Direct 

Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 

Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
the  rights  of  passengers  in  bus  and  coach  transport  and  amending 
Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities 
responsible 
laws 
(COM(2008)0817) 

consumer  protection 

enforcement  of 

the 

for 

Direct 

Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 

TEN-T 

Regulation (EC) No 807/2004 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  21  April  2004  amending  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
2236/95  laying  down  general  rules  for  the  granting  of  Community 
financial  aid  in  the  field  of  trans-European  networks  (OJ  L  143, 
30.4.2004) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Charging 

Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of 
certain infrastructures (OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42), as last amended by 
Directive 2006/38/EC (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 

Indirect 

Legislation 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for 
the use of certain infrastructures (COM(2008) 436) 

Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  26 February  2001  on  the  allocation  of  railway  infrastructure 
capacity  and  the  levying  of  charges  for  the  use  of  railway 
infrastructure and safety certification (OJ L 75, 15.3.2001) 

Indirect 

proposed, but 
not yet adopted 

Legislation 
implemented 

Strategy for the internalisation of external costs (COM(2008) 435) 

Indirect 

Adopted 

Public procurement 

Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities 
operating  in  the  water,  energy,  transport  and  postal  services  sectors 
(OJ L 134, 30.4.2004) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of 
public  works  contracts,  public  supply  contracts  and  public  service 
contracts (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Commission  Decision  2008/963/EC  of  9  December  2008  amending 
the  Annexes  to  Directives  2004/17/EC  and  2004/18/EC  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  public  procurement 
procedures, as regards their lists of contracting entities and contracting 
authorities (OJ L 349, 24.12.2008) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2009/…/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on 
the  promotion  of  clean  and  energy  efficient  road  transport  vehicles 
(OJ L…..) 

Direct 

Legislation 
adopted, but 
not yet 
implemented 

Competition 

Council Regulation (EC) No 169/2009 of 26 February 2009 applying 
rules of competition to transport by rail, road and inland waterway (JO 
L 61 du 5.3.2009) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Transport of dangerous goods  

Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods (JO 
L 260 du 30.9.2008) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
adopted, but 
not yet 
transposed 

ENERGY 

Fuels 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/63/EC of 20 December 
1994  on  the  control  of  volatile  organic  compound  (VOC)  emissions 
resulting from the storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals 
to service stations (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction 
in  the  sulphur  content  of  certain  liquid  fuels  and  amending  Directive 
93/12/EEC  (OJ L 121,  11.5.1999,  p.  13),  as  amended  by  Regulation 
(EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
29  September  2003  (OJ  L  284,  31.10.2003,  p.  1)  and  Directive 
2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 
2005 (OJ L 191, 22.7.2005) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and 
amending  Council  Directive  93/12/EEC  (OJ  L  350,  28.12.1998),  as 
amended by Directive 2003/17/EC 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  8  May  2003  on  the  promotion  of  the  use  of  biofuels  and  other 
renewable fuels for transport (OJ L 123, 17.5.2003, p. 42) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Council  Directive  2003/96/EC  of  27  October  2003  restructuring  the 
Community  framework  for  the  taxation  of  energy  products  and 
electricity (OJ L 283, 31.10.2003), as amended 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2009/…/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
on  the  promotion  of  the  use  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  (OJ 
L…) 

Direct 

Legislation 
adopted, but 
not yet 
implemented 

Energy efficiency 

the 
Council  Directive  89/106/EEC  of  21  December  1988  on 
approximation  of  laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  of 
the  Member  States  relating  to  construction  products  (OJ  L  40, 
11.2.1989) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Council  Directive  93/76/EEC  of  13  September  1993  to  limit  carbon 
dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency (SAVE) (OJ L 237, 
22.9.1993) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ L 1, 
4.1.2003) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  6 July  2005  establishing  a  framework  for  the  setting  of  ecodesign 
requirements  for  energy-using  products  and  amending  Council 
Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 191, 22.7.2005) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and 
repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC (OJ L 114, 27.4.2006) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

ENVIRONMENT 

Air quality 

Council  Directive  96/62/EC  of  27  September  1996  on  ambient  air 
quality assessment and management (OJ L 296, 21.11.1996) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values 
for  sulphur  dioxide,  nitrogen  dioxide  and  oxides  of  nitrogen, 
particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ L 163, 29.6.1999) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2000/69/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 16 November 2000 relating to limit values for benzene and carbon 
monoxide in ambient air (OJ L 313, 13.12.2000) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2004/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  15 December  2004  relating  to  arsenic,  cadmium,  nickel  and 
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air (OJ L 23, 26.1.2005) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 
L 152, 11.6.2008) 

Direct 

Legislation 
adopted, but 
not yet 
transposed 

Noise 

Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  25  June  2002  relating  to  the  assessment  and  management  of 
environmental  noise  –  Declaration  by  the  Commission  in  the 
Conciliation  Committee  on  the  Directive  relating  to  the  assessment 
and management of environmental noise (OJ L 189, 18.7.2002) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  26 March  2002  on  the  establishment  of  rules  and  procedures  with 
regard  to  the  introduction  of  noise-related  operating  restrictions  at 
Community airports (OJ L 85, 28.3.2002) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Water 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in 
the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field 
of  water  policy,  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council 
Directives  82/176/EEC,  83/513/EEC,  84/156/EEC,  84/491/EEC, 
86/280/EEC  and  amending  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008) 

Indirect 

Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks 
(OJ L 288, 6.11.2007) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
adopted, but 
not yet 
transposed 

Legislation 
adopted, but 
not yet 
transposed 

Natural habitats  

Council  Directive  92/43/EC  of  21  May  1992  on  the  conservation  of 
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Environmental assessment  

Council Directive  85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the  assessment of 
the  effects  of  certain  public  and  private  projects  on  the  environment 
(OJ L 175, 5.7.1985), as amended 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Council  Directive  97/11/EC  of  3  March  1997  amending  Directive 
85/337/EEC  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  public  and 
private projects on the environment (JO L 73 du 14.3.1997) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and 
programmes on the environment (OJ L 197, 21.7.2001) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  26  May  2003  providing  for  public  participation  in  respect  of  the 
drawing  up  of  certain  plans  and  programmes  relating  to  the 
environment  and  amending  with  regard  to  public  participation  and 
access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ L 
156, 25.6.2003) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

VEHICLE STANDARDS 

Regulation  No 100  of  the  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  of  the 
United  Nations  (UNECE)  —  Uniform  provisions  concerning  the 
approval  of  battery  electric  vehicles  with  regard 
to  specific 
requirements  for  the  construction,  functional  safety  and  hydrogen 
emission (revision 2) (OJ L 45, 14.2.2009) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  20  June  2007  on  type  approval  of  motor  vehicles  with 
respect  to  emissions  from  light  passenger  and  commercial  vehicles 
(Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance 
information (OJ L 171, 29.6.2007) [This Regulation will apply from 3 
January 2009, with the exception of Articles 10(1) and 12 which apply 
with effect from 2 July 2007] 

Regulation  (EC)  No  692/2008  of  18  July  2008  implementing  and 
amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  715/2007  of  the  European  Parliament 
and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to 
emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles  (Euro 5  and 
Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information 
(OJ L 199, 28.7.2008) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Regulation  (EC)  No  79/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  14  January  2009  on  type-approval  of  hydrogen-powered 
motor  vehicles,  and  amending  Directive  2007/46/EC  (OJ  L  35, 
4.2.2009) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to emissions from 
heavy  duty  vehicles  (Euro  VI)  and  on  access  to  vehicle  repair  and 
maintenance information (SEC(2007)1718, SEC(2007)1720 and COM(2007) 
851 final) 

Direct 

Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 

Regulation  (EC)  N°…/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  setting  emission  performance  standards  for  new  passenger 
cars  as  part  of  the  Community's  integrated  approach  to  reduce  CO2 
emissions from light-duty vehicles (OJ L…) 

Direct 

Council  Directive  92/6/EEC  of  10  February  1992  on  the  installation 
and  use  of  speed  limitation  devices  for  certain  categories  of  motor 
vehicles in the Community (OJ L 57, 2.3.1992) 

Direct 

Proposal 
(COM(2005) 261 final)  

for  a  Council  Directive  on  passenger  car  related 

taxes 

Direct 

Directive  2001/85/EC  relating  to  special  provision  for  vehicles  used 
for the carriage of passengers comprising more than eight seats (OJ L 
42, 13.2.2002) 

Direct 

Legislation 
adopted, not 
yet 
implemented 

Legislation 
implemented 

Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive  2001/16/EC  on  the  interoperability  of  the  trans-European 
conventional rail system (OJ L 110, 20.4.2001) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2002/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
18 February 2002 amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down 
for  certain  road  vehicles  circulating  within  the  Community  the 
maximum  authorised  dimensions  in  national  and  international  traffic 
and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic (OJ L 67, 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9.3.2002) 

SAFETY  

Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and the Council 
of  29  April  2004  on  safety  on  the  Community's  railways  and 
amending  Council  Directive  95/18/EC  on  the  licensing  of  railway 
undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway 
infrastructure  capacity  and  the  levying  of  charges  for  the  use  of 
railway  infrastructure  and  safety  certification  (Railway  Safety 
Directive)  (OJ  L  164,  30.4.2004);  Corrigendum  to  Directive 
2004/49/EC (OJ L 204, 4.8.2007) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive  2006/126/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  20  December  2006  on  driving  licences  (Recast)  (OJ  L 
403, 30.12.2006) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2008/96/EC of the of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  19 November  2008  on  road  infrastructure  safety 
management (OJ L 319, 29.11.2008) 

Direct 

Legislation 
adopted, but 
not yet 
transposed 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY  

Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems 
in the Community (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2000/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  18  September  2000  on  the  taking  up,  pursuit  of  and  prudential 
supervision of the business of electronic money institutions (OJ L 275, 
27.10.2000) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of  13 November  2007  on  payment  services  in  the  internal  market 
amending  Directives  97/7/EC,  2002/65/EC,  2005/60/EC  and 
2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ L 319, 05/12/2007) 

Indirect 

Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council 
laying  down  the  framework  for  the  deployment  of  Intelligent  Transport 
Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport 
modes (COM/2008/0887) 

Direct 

Legislation 
adopted, but 
not yet 
transposed 

Legislation 
proposed, but 
not yet adopted 

REGIONAL POLICY 

Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund 
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the  Indirect 

Legislation 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Council  of  5  July  2006  on  the  European  Social  Fund  and  repealing 
Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006) 

implemented 

Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  5  July  2006  on  a  European  grouping  of  territorial 
cooperation (EGTC) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006) 

Indirect 

Legislation 
implemented 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a 
Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 (OJ L 210, 
31.7.2006) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

RTD AND INNOVATION  

Decision  No  1982/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  18 December  2006  concerning  the  Seventh  Framework 
Programme  of  the  European  Community  for  research,  technological 
development  and  demonstration  activities  (2007-2013)  (OJ  L  412, 
30.12.2006) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Decision  No  1639/2006/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  24 October  2006  establishing  a  Competitiveness  and 
Innovation  Framework  Programme  (2007  to  2013)  (OJ  L  310, 
9.11.2006) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

Council Regulation (EC) No 521/2008 of 30 May 2008 setting up the 
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (OJ L 153, 12.6.2008) 

Direct 

Legislation 
implemented 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX III: THE BASELINE SCENARIO 

This annex contains background information about the choice of the TREMOVE model, the 
assumptions made in the baseline scenario and the modelling results. 

The choice of TREMOVE 

Given that the aim of this assessment is to quantify the baseline scenario as much as possible, 
the TREMOVE model was selected, based on the following arguments: 

–  TREMOVE  covers  all  EU  cities  and  metropolitan  areas  and  every  mode  of  transport, 

including walking and cycling;  

–  TREMOVE  draws  a  distinction  between  urban  (metropolitan  and  other  urban)  and  non-

urban areas;  

–  TREMOVE calculates emissions; 

–  the  TREMOVE  forecasts  are  based  on  assumptions  and  data  that  are  validated  and 

accepted; and 

–  the results of modelling with TREMOVE are considered scientifically acceptable. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  use  individual  city  models  to  model  urban  mobility  at  EU  level. 
Organisationally,  this  would  be  a  large,  resource-intensive  and  time-consuming  exercise.  It 
would  entail  gaining  access  to  the  available  scientifically  validated  models  owned  by 
individual cities which would be (1) mainly the large and capital cities and (2) mainly located 
in northern and western parts of the EU.  

Furthermore, making the results of such an exercise comparable and integrating them would 
also  be  resource-intensive  and  time-consuming.  An  alternative  would  be  to  limit  the 
modelling exercise to just a few European cities. This option was ruled out, however, because 
the results would just cover individual cities and not urban mobility for the whole EU. 

The  other  option  was  to  use  another  existing  European  model.  Besides  TREMOVE,  three 
other  European  models  were  considered:  SCENES,  EXPEDITE  and  TRANSTOOLS. 
However,  these  three  models  were  developed  primarily  to  model  long-distance  transport  in 
the EU and to support development of TEN-T policy. None of the models except TREMOVE 
is currently able to provide results for cities, urban areas or metropolitan regions.  

SCENES,  EXPEDITE  and  TRANSTOOLS  are,  however,  capable,  in  varying  degrees,  of 
providing results that could be used as a proxy for urban mobility. However, each has serious 
shortcomings  that  prevented  its  use.  For  example,  EXPEDITE  provides  forecasts  of  total 
passenger- and tonne-kilometres by distance bands (i.e. length of trip).  

Trips  shorter  than,  for  example,  50  km  could  be  taken  as  a  proxy  for  urban  mobility.  The 
problem, however, is that average trip lengths differ from one city to another. This makes use 
of a single European average value for trip length problematic. The SCENES model does not 
include an emissions module. TRANSTOOLS draws no distinction between urban and non-
urban areas. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
Therefore, TREMOVE proved to be the most suitable model. TREMOVE has the advantage 
that it produces results specifically for the categories “metropolitan”, “other cities” and “non-
urban.” Furthermore, TREMOVE recently produced a forecast of future transport demand and 
supply that takes into account future non-transport-related policy developments. This forecast 
of future demand has been accepted by the Commission as valid.  

To  be  consistent  with  recent  DG  TREN  studies,  the  possibility  of  using  the  IMPACT  1 
baseline  scenario  was  assessed.  It  was  decided  not  to  use  the  IMPACT  1  baseline  scenario 
because  this  scenario  uses  TREMOVE  Version  2.52.  For  this  assessment  Version  2.7,  the 
most recent version of TREMOVE, was available. Apart from being more recent, this version 
made it possible to include cities from all 27 Member States in the baseline scenario.  

The assumptions and policy measures in the baseline scenario 

The  TREMOVE  baseline  scenario  is  estimated  from  the  results  of  the  SCENES  run  for  the 
ASSESS39 study. This run is based on the assumptions made in the “partial implementation” 
scenario. This partial implementation scenario is described in the ASSESS study reports and 
is considered the most likely future scenario.  

The TREMOVE baseline scenario includes the following assumptions on fuel efficiency40: 

Mode  Period  Assumptions 

Cars 

Before 
1990 

Improvement in fuel efficiency of 1% per year. 

1990–
1995 

1995–
2002 

2002–
2009 

No significant improvements in fuel efficiency. 

Derived  from  the  figures  in  the  monitoring  reports  for  the  CO2  voluntary 
agreement. 

Based  on  voluntary  agreements  between  the  European  Commission  and  car 
manufacturers  (the  ACEA,  JAMA  and  KAMA  agreements).  The  main 
commitment made by the manufacturers was to improve fuel efficiency, by means 
of  technological  improvements,  to  an  average  of  140  g  CO2/km  by  2008.  The 
TREMOVE base case assumes that this 140 g/km target is reached in 2009. The 
related 2002-2009 fuel efficiency improvements by car type are derived from data 
and projections reported in the TNO CO2CAR Task A study. 

2009–
2012 

TREMOVE assumes, on average, no further improvements in car fuel efficiency 
after  2009.  The  related  2009-2012  fuel  efficiency  changes  by  car  type  are  also 
derived from data and projections reported in the TNO CO2CAR Task A study. 

2012 
onwards 

The  baseline  does  not  include  any  further  changes  in  the  fuel  efficiency  of  new 
cars beyond 2012. 

Other 
road 

1995–
2009 

For all other road vehicles, the 1995-2009 base case fuel efficiency increases were 
initially taken from the Auto Oil II programme, in which improvement estimates 

39 

40 

Assessment of the contribution of the TEN and other transport policy measures to the mid-term review 
of the White Paper on the European Transport Policy for 2010. 
TREMOVE Final Report, Chapter V (2007). 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
vehicles 

were  agreed  with  the  manufacturers’  representatives.  After  2009,  no  further 
increases in fuel efficiency were assumed, as this assumption is needed for correct 
assessment  of  post-2009  EU  policies  on  CO2  emissions  from  road  vehicles.  For 
light commercial vehicles (N1) TREMOVE diverges from TNO estimates as it is 
calculated  using  the  Copert  method.  For  heavy  duty  trucks  the  1995-2009  fuel 
efficiency improvement rates have been removed from the base case (from version 
2.44 onwards). This change was suggested by the European Commission to bring 
the TREMOVE base case more into line with the PRIMES energy scenarios.  

The partial implementation scenario includes policy measures that, in response to a judgment 
made in 200541, are likely to be implemented. This means either that the policy measures have 
been implemented already or that there are clear indications that they will be soon. The latter 
is  the  case  when  approved  EU  directives  set  deadlines  for  Member  States  to  adapt  their 
national legislation accordingly. 

The central components of the partial implementation scenario are: 

•  Macroeconomic assumptions, population growth, transport demand and transport costs are 
updated,  based  on  the  latest  predictions  for  2010  and  2020.  The  fuel  consumption  and 
emission module is based on the Copert 4 method for calculating road transport emissions. 
The baseline takes account of the new technologies up to Euro 5 and 6. Assumptions have 
been made on fuel efficiency trends42. 

•  All policy measures that have been followed up by a directive approved by the European 
institutions and that has to be implemented by the Member States before 2010 (or 2020) 
are included in the partial implementation scenario for 2010 (or 2020). 

•  Policy measures that have been followed up by a proposal that is awaiting approval by the 
European  institutions  are  included  in  the  partial  implementation  scenario  for  2010  (or 
2020) only if they have a realistic chance of being approved before 2010 (or 2020). This 
expectation  is  based  on  the  number  of  times  that  a  particular  proposal  has  already  been 
rejected and on the debate about the policy objective in the media. 

•  All TEN-T projects that, according to the estimates published in 2004, are scheduled to be 
completed  before  2010  (or  2020)  are  included  in  the  partial  implementation  scenario  for 
2010 (or 2020). 

The following policy fields and measures relevant to urban mobility and covering the period 
after 2005 are included in the partial implementation scenario: 

41 

42 

Based on the preliminary results of the policy review up to 2005 described in Annexes I to IV to the 
ASSESS study. 
In  the  period  2005-2010,  fuel  efficiency  improvements  for  road  vehicles  lead  to  a  limited  downward 
trend in overall fuel consumption by transport. This is mainly the result of the voluntary agreement with 
the car industry to limit test-cycle CO2 emissions from cars to 140 grammes per km by 2008/2009. The 
resulting decrease in specific fuel consumption counterbalances the increase in transport demand. After 
2010, no further fuel efficiency improvements for new vehicles are modelled. Old vehicles, however, 
will increasingly be replaced by newer, fuel-efficient ones. This increasing share of more fuel-efficient 
vehicles,  however,  does  not  offset  the  increase  in  transport  demand.  The  net  result  is  an  increase  in 
greenhouse gas emissions after 2009. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  In the road sector, the measures on driver training, harmonisation of social legislation and 
the  further 

introduction  of 
harmonisation of driving times and weekend bans on lorries have not been implemented.  

implemented.  However, 

tachograph  are 

the  digital 

•  The European rail freight sector has been liberalised and the quality of freight services has 
been improved. Liberalisation of passenger transport  is starting and will be completed in 
the  (partial  implementation)  scenario  for  2020  only.  Rail  safety  has  been  improved  by 
technical  harmonisation  and  interoperability  of  the  high-speed  rail  network  has  been 
improved.  

•  The regulation on the award of public service contracts for public passenger transport has 
been adopted and more contracts for public passenger transport services will be granted by 
competition. 

•  There  have  been  experiments  to  improve  and  promote  combined  transport.  Integrated 

ticketing and baggage handling have been improved in the air and rail sectors.  

•  There  is  an  EU  action  programme  on  road  safety.  However,  road  safety  remains  the 
responsibility of the Member States and efforts to harmonise legislation and penalties have 
not yet been effective. 

•  There  is  an  EU  policy  on  charging  for  the  use  of  infrastructure  but  its  impact  is  limited. 
The  revision  of  the  Eurovignette  Directive  includes  only  some  possibilities  of 
differentiating charges for some sensitive areas and for the most polluting vehicles. There 
is no harmonisation of fuel taxes.  

•  Clean  urban  transport  is  promoted  by  EU-funded  research  and  demonstration  activities. 

The impact on EU scale is limited. 

This  means  that  the  possible  impact  of  some  specific  recent  Commission  proposals,  for 
example the Greening Transport Package or in the field of air quality, has not been fully taken 
into account.  

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
The modelling results 

The baseline scenario presented in this Annex describes how the urban mobility problems will 
evolve if there is no change in the EU approach. This does not mean that no policy changes 
can occur. It means that the direction of EU policies that have an impact on urban mobility 
remains unchanged. In other words, what would happen if no action were taken? 

To  start  the  description  of  the  baseline  scenario,  indicators  or  parameters  relevant  to  urban 
mobility  and  transport  were  selected,  based  on  the  specific  objectives  set  out  in  Chapter  3. 
The indicators in the baseline scenario are listed below: 

Indicators included in the baseline scenario  

Topic 

Indicator 

Mobility 

Congestion 

Motorised vehicle-kilometres 

Modal share 

Passenger-hours lost 

Tonne-hours lost 

Source 

TREMOVE 

TREMOVE 

TREMOVE 

TREMOVE 

Energy  

Mtoe consumption 

TREMOVE/DG TREN 

CO2 emissions  

Methane emissions  

CO emissions 

NOx emissions 

N2O emissions 

PM emissions 

Environment 

Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

SO2 emissions 

TREMOVE 

TREMOVE 

TREMOVE 

TREMOVE 

TREMOVE 

TREMOVE 

TREMOVE 

TREMOVE 

Economy 

Impact on administrative costs (qualitative description) 

Desk research 

Competition on internal market (qualitative description) 

Desk research 

Impact on social inclusion (qualitative description) 

Desk research 

Traffic fatalities 

Social 

Road accidents 

Impact of emissions on health 

Impact of noise on health 

DG TREN 

DG TREN 

TREMOVE 

TREMOVE 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
TREMOVE provides values for most of these indicators for 2012 and 2020. Total transport 
flows  and  emissions  in  each  country  in  TREMOVE  are  allocated  to  three  model  regions:  a 
metropolitan area, an aggregate of all other cities and an aggregate of all non-urban areas. The 
aggregate of all other cities is referred to as “other urban”. Other sources (DG TREN and desk 
research) provide information for the indicators not included in TREMOVE. 

Mobility  

Mobility  is  a  broad  concept.  One  indicator  for  mobility  is  the  total  number  of  vehicle-
kilometres  (both  passenger  vehicles  and  freight  vehicles).  This  parameter  indicates  that 
mobility in metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas has been growing at a rate of nearly 
20% over the last 10 years. TREMOVE estimates that this growth will continue, albeit at a 
declining  rate.  The  expected  growth  between  2005  and  2020  in  total  vehicle-kilometres  is 
19.5%  or,  on  average,  about  6.5%  every  five  years.  The  growth  rate  seems  to  be  higher  in 
metropolitan and other urban areas than in non-urban areas. 

Vehicle-kilometres in EU-27 (1995-2025) 

5.000

4.500

4.000

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

)
9
^
0
1

x
(
s
m
k

e
l
c
i
h
e
v

0
1990

+8,6%

+8,7%

+6,3%

+5,8%

+11,0%

+11,8%

+6,2%

+5,9%

+6,0%

+5,6%

+8,1%

+8,2%

+8,1%

+6,9%

+6,8%

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Metrop+Urban

Non-urban

Total

In metropolitan and other urban areas the expected growth is 22.4% between 2005 and 2020 
(source:  TREMOVE)  or,  on  average,  about  7.5%  every  five  years.  This  can  be  seen  in  the 
next figure, which also demonstrates that vehicle-kilometres during both the peak and the off-
peak period are increasing. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Peak  and  off-peak  vehicle-kilometres  in  metropolitan  and  other  urban  areas  in  EU-27  (2005, 
2012 and 2020) 

)
0
0
0

,

0
0
0

,

0
0
0

,

1

x
(
s
m
k
e

l

i

c
h
e
V

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

+11.8%

+9.9%

+9.6%

+8.0%

+11.9%

+10.4%

+11.6%

+10.3%

2005

2012

2020

Metropolitan (peak) Metropolitan (off-peak) Other urban (peak) Other urban (off-peak)

In  order  to  gain  a  better  view  of  the  differences  between  passengers  and  freight  in 
metropolitan,  other  urban  and  non-urban  areas,  the  next  two  figures  show  the  trends  in 
passenger-kilometres  and  freight  tonne-kilometres.  Like  vehicle-kilometres,  passenger-  and 
freight tonne-kilometres are also based on totals from TREMOVE, which means including all 
trip distances, networks, periods, trip purposes and freight commodities.  

Both for metropolitan and other urban and for non-urban passenger-kilometres, the trend lines 
show  steady  growth  of  approximately  7%  every  five  years.  The  share  of  metropolitan  and 
other urban passenger-kilometres decreases slightly, from 25.0% in 1995 to 23.7% in 2020. 

Passenger-kilometres in EU-27 (1995-2020) 

9.000

8.000

7.000

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

)
9
^
0
1

x
(

s
m
k

r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
P

0
1990

+7,6%

+7,8%

+7,8%

+7,9%

+8,5%

+8,2%

+8,2%

+8,5%

+7,1%

+9,2%

+7,0%

+7,2%

+10,8%

+12,2%

+6,6%

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Metrop+Urban

Non-urban

Total

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A clear difference can be seen between urban and non-urban freight tonne-kilometres. Freight 
tonne-kilometres  in  non-urban  areas  continue  to  grow,  but  at  a  decreasing  rate,  whereas 
freight tonne-kilometres in metropolitan and other urban areas show a stagnation after 2005. 
As a result, the share of metropolitan and other urban freight tonne-kilometres decreases from 
1.7%  in  1995  to  1.2%  in  2020.  Note  that  98%  to  99%  of  total  freight  tonne-kilometres  are 
clocked up in non-urban areas.  

Freight tonne-kilometres in EU-27 (1995-2020) 

4.000

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

1.500

1.000

500

)
9
^
0
1
x
(
s
m
k
n
o
T

0
1990

+9,9%

+10,0%

+10,5%

+10,7%

+12,0%

+12,1%

+11,0%

+11,3%

+15,7%

+15,7%

+14,4%

+10,1%

-4,9%

+0,9%

+1,8%

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Metrop+Urban

Non-urban

Total

Little change can be seen in the modal shares for personal transport in metropolitan and other 
urban areas (peak, off-peak and added together). The share taken by the car is above 70% and 
still increasing. It can be assumed that this is mainly due to the increase in car ownership in 
new Member States.  

Modal share in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020)  

e
r
a
h
s
l
a
d
o
M

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2005

2012

2020

Walking, cycle, moped

car

bus metro/tram train

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Congestion  

As a result, congestion in metropolitan and other urban areas will increase. A good indicator 
of  congestion  is  the  number  of  passenger-hours  lost.  This  number  can  be  calculated  as  the 
difference between the total travel time of all travellers during the peak period and the total 
travel time for the same travellers in a (hypothetical) situation in which their speed is equal to 
the off-peak speed. It is assumed that there is no congestion during the off-peak hours.  

TREMOVE estimates that the passenger-hours lost between 2005 and 2020 will increase by 
nearly 20% in metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas. Since the number of kilometres 
travelled  outside  urban  areas  is  much  higher  than  in  urban  areas,  congestion  in  non-urban 
areas  therefore  “outscores”  congestion  in  urban  areas.  This  figure  gives  no  indication  of 
“hours lost per km”, which is higher in urban areas.  

Passenger  hours  lost  in  metropolitan,  other  urban  and  non-urban  areas  in  EU-27  (2005,  2012 
and 2020) 

)
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
,
1
x
(

t
s
o

l
s
r
u
o
h
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
P

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

+7.3%

+10.2%

+9.5%

+9.4%

+8.0%

+9.7%

2005

2012

2020

Metropolitan Other urban Non-urban

However, not only passengers suffer from congestion. Freight transport also suffers from it. 
For  this  sector,  the  number  of  freight  tonne-hours  lost  is  a  suitable  indicator  of  the  level  of 
congestion.  

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Freight tonne-hours lost in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020) 

,

,

)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
x
(
s
r
u
o
H

t
s
o
L
n
o
T

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-9.0%

+2.1%

-7.1%

+1.4%

2005

2012

2020

Metropolitan Other urban

This decrease in freight tonne-hours lost is an unexpected result. It is caused by the apparent 
decrease  in  tonne-kilometres  in  general,  as  can  be  seen  from  the  next  figure.  This  result  is 
counter-intuitive, but no satisfactory explanation has been found.  

Tonne-kilometres  in  peak  and  off-peak  hours  in  metropolitan  and  other  urban  areas  in  EU-27 
(2005, 2012 and 2020) 

)
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
,
1
x
(
s
m
k
n
o
T

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5.5%

+2.2%

-6.2%

-2.6%

+1.6%

+2.5%

-6.8%

-0.6%

2005

2012

2020

Metropolitan (peak) Metropolitan (off-peak) Other urban (peak) Other urban (off-peak)

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Use of energy 

In 2005, about 31% of total energy consumption in the EU was related to transport. Of these 
362 Mtoe, TREMOVE estimates that about 84.7%, or 306 Mtoe, was used by road and rail 
transport.  Of  these  306  Mtoe,  TREMOVE  estimates  that  about  22.0%  (or  67.5  Mtoe)  was 
used by road and rail transport in metropolitan and other urban areas. The next figure shows 
the  energy  consumption  of  the  transport  sector  in  metropolitan,  other  urban  and  non-urban 
areas43.  

Energy consumption in Mtoe by transport in EU-27 (1990–2020) 

)
e
o
t
M

(
n
o
i
t
p
m
u
s
n
o
c

y
g
r
e
n
E

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Metrop+Urban trend
Non-urban

Metrop+Urban
Total trend

Non-urban trend
Total

There is a strong policy focus on increasing the fuel efficiency of transport. This is a result of 
increasing fuel costs, concerns about security of supply and awareness of the scarcity of fossil 
fuels  and  of  the  impact  of  CO2  emissions  on  climate  change.  In  the  medium  term  (towards 
2012)  a  fuel  efficiency  gain  of  about  9%  is  expected  and  towards  the  long  term  (2020)  an 
additional  gain  of  6.5%44.  As  a  result,  energy  consumption  in  metropolitan  and  other  urban 
areas is set to increase from 67.5 Mtoe in 2005 to 68.7 Mtoe in 2012 and 72.5 Mtoe in 2020.  

Environment  

The  CO2  emissions  are  proportional  to  the  amount  of  fuel  used  by  the  transport  sector  in 
metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas. The increase in fuel efficiency discussed in the 
previous section is not enough to compensate fully for the increase in demand for fuel caused 
by  the  increase  in  vehicle-kilometres.  As  a  result,  the  CO2  emissions  as  a  result  of  fuel  use 
will rise by 1.7% between 2005 and 2012 and another 5.5% towards 2020. The main reason is 
that fuel efficiency will not increase as much between 2012 and 2020 as in the period between 
2005 and 2012. 

43 

44 

Source  for  historic  data:  Eurostat.  Conversion  to  urban  and  metropolitan  areas  based  on  vkm 
comparison from TREMOVE. 
TREMOVE, based on CO2 emission trends. Does not include the recent EU energy goals for 2020. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
CO2 emissions (Mt) by transport in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020)  

600

500

)
n
o
M

t

400

i

(
n
o
s
s
m
e

i

300

2
O
C

200

100

0

2005

2012

2020

Exhaust (metrop+urban) Well-to-tank (metrop+urban) Exhaust (non-urban) Well-to-tank (non-urban)

Emissions of methane (CH4), another greenhouse gas, in metropolitan and other urban areas 
are expected to drop by about 27% between 2005 and 2020.  

Methane emissions (kt) by transport in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020) 

)
n
o
t
k
(

i

n
o
s
s
m
e

i

4
H
C

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Well-to-tank

Exhaust

2005

2012

2020

The next figure displays the expected trends in emissions of other pollutants in metropolitan 
and other urban areas between 2005 and 2020. The following observations can be made:  

–  as  a  result  of  better  technology  (more  efficient  burning  of  fuel),  emissions  of  carbon 

monoxide (CO) are expected to decline by almost 80%; 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
–  the expected reduction of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) during the exhaust phase is 

67%; 

–  emissions  of  nitrous  oxide  (N2O)  are  expected  to  remain  almost  constant.  Note  that  the 

amount of emissions has been multiplied by a factor of 10 in the figure below; 

–  emissions of fine particles (PM) during the exhaust phase are expected to decline to 73% 
of the 2005 level. Note that the amount of emissions has been multiplied by a factor of 10 
in the figure below; 

–  VOC emissions are expected to decrease by 84% between 2005 and 2020; 

–  total emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) are expected to remain almost constant. 

Well-to-tank and exhaust emissions (kt) by transport in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020) 

6.000

5.000

)
n
o
t
k
(
n
o
s
s
m
E

i

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

5
0

2
1

0
2

5
0

2
1

0
2

5
0

2
1

0
2

5
0

2
1

0
2

5
0

2
1

0
2

5
0

2
1

0
2

CO

NOx

N2O (x10)

PM (x10)

VOC

SO2

Exhaust Well-to-tank

Note that the number of km outside urban areas is much higher than in urban areas. Emissions 
in  non-urban  areas  therefore  “outscore”  emissions  in  urban  areas.  This  figure  gives  no 
indication of “emissions per km”, which are higher in urban areas.  

Economy 

The  expected  growth  in  GDP  is  16%  between  2005  and  2012  and  18%  between  2012  and 
2020.  As  a  result,  the  total  expected  growth  between  2005  and  2020  is  37%45.  It  has  been 
estimated that just under 85% of the EU’s GDP is created in cities and towns.  

It is very difficult to assess the trends in administrative costs at EU level from the trends in 
urban  mobility.  However,  due  to  an  increase  in  operating  costs  as  a  result  of  increasing 
congestion and of the introduction of congestion charging schemes,  the administrative costs 

45 

“Long-term  labour  productivity  and  GDP  projections  for  the  EU25  Member  States:  a  production 
function framework”, European Economy. Economic Papers No 253, June 2006, page 39:  
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication_summary688_en.htm. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
for  businesses  can  be  expected  to  increase.  The  information  needed  in  order  to  analyse  the 
administrative costs of congestion charging and other similar schemes is not available.  

There  is,  however,  some  evidence  about  the  administrative  costs  of  the  London  congestion 
charge scheme. According to Transport for London (TfL), the administrative and time costs 
for all people paying the charge (both business and personal users) total £15 million per year. 
However, the London Assembly Transport Committee noted: “On the evidence we heard, this 
figure is likely to be far too low”.  

Although no indicative aggregate figure for total direct and indirect costs was available, a CBI 
(Confederation of British Industry) study found that “direct costs of paying for the charge [for 
some companies] run into hundreds of thousands of pounds” and several organisations have 
had  to  employ  an  extra  person  to  deal  with  the  complex  administration46.  London  First  (a 
lobby  group  focusing  on  keeping  the  London  economy  competitive)  noted  that  the 
requirement  for  travellers  and  businesses  to  maintain  records,  particularly  reconciling  fleet 
movements, “can be quite burdensome for business in that sector”47. 

At this stage, it is not possible to estimate the impact of congestion charging on administrative 
costs  in  any  meaningful  manner.  What  can  be  said  is  that  the  administrative  costs  are  large 
enough  that  they  cannot  be  ignored.  Furthermore,  if  congestion  charging  and  other  similar 
schemes  proliferate  without  any  standardisation or harmonisation, the administrative burden 
of  complying  with  the  charging  systems  could  potentially  become  quite  significant  for 
multinationals operating in cities across Europe. 

Increased  transport  costs  caused,  for  example,  by  congestion  can  be  expected  to  have  an 
impact  on  competition  on  the  internal  market.  Increasing  transport  costs  can  reduce  the 
catchment area in which producers can compete competitively. However, it should be borne 
in  mind  that  there  are  also  opposite  trends,  causing  catchment  areas  to  expand.  The  overall 
effect  depends  on  the  share  taken  by  transport  in  the  total  cost  of  a  product.  Likewise,  as 
consumers  can  travel  fewer  kilometres  with  their  transport  budget,  some  might  buy  their 
products in a smaller radius. Both effects reduce competition between companies. 

Social 

Social exclusion, and the impact of transport on it, is a complicated subject and very difficult 
to address for the whole of the EU. This section considers the issue of social exclusion in an 
urban  context.  It  describes  the  challenges  facing  European  cities  and  the  importance  of 
transport and mobility in responding to them. 

Broadly  speaking,  European  cities  face  two  main  challenges:  the  pains  that  accompany 
growth and the symptoms of stagnation or decline48. A rapidly growing city brings with it a 
whole  range  of  problems.  In  several  European  cities  experiencing  rapid  growth  (Dublin, 
London,  Amsterdam,  Madrid,  Barcelona  and  the  Central  and  Eastern  European  capitals  of 
Prague,  Budapest  and  Tallinn) the  upward  pressure  on  the  housing  market  has  resulted  in  a 

46 
47 
48 

London Assembly Transport Committee, 26 November 2003. 
London Assembly Transport Committee, 26 November 2003. 
European Commission, DG REGIO (2007), State of European Cities Report. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
lack of affordable housing and is contributing to urban sprawl, longer commuting distances, 
traffic congestion and environmental degradation49.  

Construction  of  new  business  and  shopping  centres  on  the  outskirts  of  cities  is  further 
exacerbating suburban sprawl and increasing dependence on the automobile50. 

The  conclusions  of  a  recent  European  Commission  report  on  social  exclusion  are  worth 
quoting at length51: 

“An increasing share of the urban population is living alone, particularly in the core 
city  areas,  while  families  are  migrating  to  the  suburbs.  Although  city  dwellers  are 
better educated than the population at large, the benefits from the economic wealth 
generated  in  cities  are  not  evenly  distributed.  Many  urban  residents  face  the 
uncertainties of unemployment, social exclusion and poverty, and these problems are 
strongly concentrated in particular neighbourhoods. Life expectancy is also lower in 
urban areas, and this can be partially blamed on pollution of the living environment. 
Clearly  creating  and  maintaining  prosperity  while  ensuring  social  cohesion  and 
tackling  environmental  problems  continues  to  be  the  central  challenge  facing 
Europe’s cities today.” 

Another recent study analysing the problems facing European cities and the strategies used to 
respond to them concluded that one of the common elements in the strategies to combat the 
problems  facing  cities  was  improving  public  transport  and  transport  infrastructure52.  The 
cities  included  in  this  study  were  suffering  from  massive  depopulation,  economic  downturn 
due  to  the  decline  of  manufacturing,  job  losses,  urban  sprawl,  city  centre  decay  and 
polarisation  of  neighbourhoods,  with  knock-on  effects  on  education,  the  tax  base  and 
provision of services. 

“Over  a  period  of  30  years  up  to  2000,  all  the  cities  lost  their  core  rationale, 
economic prominence and political weight. As producer cities, they had been central 
to  their  countries’  prosperity  –  now  they  were  increasingly  seen  as  obsolete 
industrial ‘left-overs’ with a shrinking place in the new economy based on services 
and  ‘new  knowledge  industries’.  Civic  pride  was  damaged  along  with  urban 
landscapes,  and  social  exclusion  came  to  reflect  a  deep  and  multi-faceted  form  of 
separation  from  mainstream  society.  Civic  leadership,  often  still  embedded  in  the 
fading  realities  of  the  industrial  era,  lost  its  way.  Skills  mismatches  seriously 
impeded recovery.”  

This  report  concluded  that  upgrading  and  improving  public  transport  infrastructure  and 
services  has  been  an  important  factor  in  the  recovery  of  these  cities  and  their  success  in 
combating  the  social  exclusion  problems  that  they  were  facing.  The  transport  strategies 
included: 

49 
50 
51 
52 

Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 
Power, A., Plöger, J. and Winkler, A. (2008): Transforming Cities Across Europe, An Interim Report 
on Problems and Progress, London School of Economics and Political Science, CASE Report 49. The 
seven  cities  included  in  this  study  were  Leipzig,  Bremen,  Sheffield,  Belfast,  Bilbao,  Turin  and  Saint 
Étienne. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  upgrading  public  transport  to  overcome  the  dominance  of  traffic  and  the  expansion  of 

roads which were dissecting cities and destroying urban spaces and communities;  

•  providing  new  and  upgraded  tram  lines  in  Sheffield  and  Saint  Étienne  and  a  modernised 

metro system in Bilbao;  

•  restricting car access and car parking in Leipzig and Bremen;  

•  expanding pedestrian areas in all seven cities, to increase pedestrian street activity and the 

attractions of city-centre living and shopping; 

•  providing fast transport links from the cities to the surrounding regions and nearby major 
cities by both train and road to increase employment opportunities by expanding the labour 
market, making it easier to attract inward investment and helping the cities to benefit from 
the stronger growth of larger, neighbouring cities. Lyon and Leeds are examples of large 
second-tier regional centres near Saint Étienne and Sheffield respectively. 

To  conclude,  social  exclusion  is  clearly  a  problem  in  most  European  cities  (although  the 
causes differ from one city to another). It is equally clear that mobility and transport are key 
factors in explaining and combating social exclusion in cities. Finally, it is difficult to forecast 
the extent and severity of social exclusion in European cities in 2020. However, it can be said 
with  some  degree  of  confidence  that,  given  the  long  time  it  takes  for  urban  redevelopment 
plans  to  be  implemented  and  to  have  an  impact,  the  problem  of  social  exclusion  in  urban 
environments is unlikely to go away. On the contrary, given the growth of urban populations, 
the uneven growth of cities across Europe and the uneven growth of neighbourhoods within 
cities,  the  problems  are  likely  to  get  worse  unless  steps  are  taken  to  counteract  these 
developments. 

Road  fatalities  have  been  dropping  steadily  since  1990.  In  2006,  42 953  road  fatalities 
occurred  compared  with  75 977  in  1990:  a  decrease  of  43%53.  According  to  the  mid-term 
review of the Transport White Paper, one third or 33% of these fatalities occur in cities. The 
next figure indicates the number of road fatalities in cities, assuming a constant share of 33% 
of all road fatalities. 

53 

DG TREN, Statistical Pocketbook 2007, Road Fatalities for EU-27. 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Road fatalities in cities in EU-27 (1995–2020) 

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

)
r
a
e
y

r
e
p
(
s
e
i
t
i
c
n

i

s
e
i
t
i
l

a
t
a
f
d
a
o
R

0
1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

However,  this  linear  trend  is  unlikely  to  continue  indefinitely.  Some  slowdown  can  be 
expected, but the rate is unknown. If the linear trend continues until 2020, the number of road 
fatalities  in  cities  will  have  dropped  to  under  6 000  per  year.  If  the  curve  is  quadratic,  the 
number will have dropped to approximately 9 500 per year. 

The number of road accidents also shows a decline, especially between 2000 and 2020. The 
quality  of  recording  of  accidents  is  expected  to  be  more  consistent  from  2000  onwards. 
Therefore  two  trend  lines  have  been  included  in  the  figure  below.  The  red  line  indicates  a 
linear trend from 1990 to 2020 and results in a decrease in road accidents from over 1 500 000 
in  1990  to  under  1 200 000  in  2020.  The  blue  line  indicates  a  non-linear  polynomial  trend 
from 2000 to 2020 and results in a decrease in road accidents from 1 500 000 in 2000 to under 
800 000 in 2020. Note that these figures are totals and do not specifically indicate accidents in 
urban areas. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Possible trends in road accidents  

i

g
n
v
o
v
n

l

i

i

s
t
n
e
d
c
c
a
d
a
o
r

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

)
r
a
e
y
r
e
p
0
0
0
1
*
(
y
r
u
n

j

i

l

a
n
o
s
r
e
p

1.600

1.500

1.400

1.300

1.200

1.100

1.000

900

800

700

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Transport  is  one  of  the  factors  outside  the  healthcare  sector  that  is  known  to  influence 
health54.  The  damaging  effects  of  transport  on  human  health  include  injuries  from  traffic 
accidents, the effects of noise pollution, air pollution, stress and anxiety, danger, loss of land 
and reduced social use of outdoor space because of traffic and other transport infrastructure 
leading to obesity55. Here, the consequences of transport-related air pollution on human health 
will be examined. 

A  number  of  components  of  traffic-related  air  pollution  have  been  demonstrated  to  have  an 
impact on health, notably particulates (PM10), ozone, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and 
nitrogen dioxide56. The effects of air pollution on health include a variety of respiratory and 
cardiovascular problems such as coughing, wheezing, asthma attacks, congestive heart failure 
and certain forms of cancer. The parts of the population most at risk are the elderly, the young 
and the population groups with the highest risk of exposure to traffic-related air pollution.  

54 

55 
56 

Kavanagh, P., Doyle, C. and Metcalf, O. (2005): Health Impacts of Transport, A Review, Institute of 
Public  Health  in  Ireland;  World  Health  Organisation  (1999):  Health  Costs  due  to  Traffic-related  Air 
Pollution. 
Ibid. 
Committee  on  the  Medical  Effects  of  Air  Pollutants  (COMEAP):  Quantification  of  the  effects  of  air 
pollution  on  health  in  the  United  Kingdom,  London,  HMSO,  1998;  European  Commission: 
Externalities  of  Energy  (ExternE).  The  final  report  of  the  ExternE  Core  Transport  Project,  Brussels, 
European Commission, 2000; Watkiss, P., Brand, C., Hurley, F., Pilkington, A., Mindell, J., Joffe, M. 
et al:  Informing  transport  health  impact  assessment  in  London,  London,  Research  and  Development 
Directorate,  NHS  Executive,  2000;  World  Health  Organisation:  Health  aspects  of  air  pollution  with 
particulate  matter,  ozone  and  nitrogen  dioxide.  Report  of  a  WHO  working  group.  Available  at: 
http:www.who.dk/document/e79097.pdf. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Although other sources, such as industry and energy production, are important, transport is a 
large source of many chemicals contributing to air pollution. A study estimated that in the UK 
transport  contributes  74%  of  all  carbon  monoxide,  61%  of  all  lead,  48%  of  all  nitrogen 
dioxide, 23% of all particulate matter (PM10) and 2% of all sulphur dioxide57.  

A study of the health costs of air pollution in Austria, Switzerland and France estimated that 
the total per capita air-pollution-related health costs averaged €830 in Aust ria, €667 in France 
and €589 in Switzerland 58. Of these totals, €359, €371 and €313 
were attributable to traffic-
related air pollution. 

Long-term  exposure  to  traffic-related  emissions  leads  to  early  deaths,  mainly  caused  by 
bronchial tube disorders. The individual health risk is small, but since a large fraction of the 
population  is  exposed  (in  the  Netherlands  about  5%  of  the  population  lives  close  to  a  busy 
road), the effect on public health in general is still considerable, despite the improvements in 
air quality over the last few years59. 

TREMOVE estimated that the air pollution costs of passenger cars and heavy duty vehicles in 
metropolitan and other urban areas will decrease by about 4.5% between 2005 and 2012 and 
then increase slightly.  

Air pollution costs for passenger cars and heavy duty vehicles in metropolitan and other urban 
areas in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020) 

)
r
a
e
y

r
e
p

0
0
0
,
0
0
0
,
1
*

€
(
s
t
s
o
c

n
o
i
t
u

l
l

o
p

r
i
A

120.000

110.000

100.000

90.000

80.000

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0

-4.6%

+0.9%

+12.9%

+13.7%

2005

2012

2020

Passenger cars in EU27 Heavy Duty Vehicles in EU27

57 

58 

59 

Department  of  the  Environment,  Transport  and  the  Regions  (1999):  The  air  quality  strategy  for 
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. London, The Stationery Office. 
World  Health  Organisation  (1999):  Health  Costs  due  to  Traffic-related  Air  Pollution,  An  impact 
assessment of Austria, France and Switzerland. 
Beelen, R. (2008): Effects of long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution on mortality and lung 
cancer. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  2000,  about  44%  of  the  EU-2560  population  (over  210  million  people)  were  exposed  to 
road  traffic  noise  levels  above  55  dB(A)61  –  the  WHO  guide  value  for  outdoor  noise  levels 
and the threshold for  serious  annoyance. According to a  recent  study, more  than 55  million 
people  were  exposed  to  road  traffic  noise  levels  over  65  dB(A),  ten  times  louder  than  the 
WHO guide value.  

Turning to rail, in 2000 approximately 35 million people in EU-25 were exposed to rail traffic 
noise above 55 dB and 7 million of them to over 65 dB. It must be added that most European 
countries do not report on the number of people exposed to noise levels below 55 dB.  

Nevertheless, noise levels below 55 dB can still trigger adverse effects like annoyance, sleep 
disturbance and reduced cognitive ability. The actual number of people exposed to levels of 
traffic noise that are potentially dangerous to their health will thus be higher than the above-
mentioned figures.  

German research suggests that excessive noise causes 1 800 premature deaths in the EU every 
year — mostly in urban areas62. The number of people who suffer from noise nuisance will be 
many times higher. The social costs of noise (above 55 dBi) in EU-2263 have been estimated 
64. 
at between €38 billion and €46 billion per year

The  external  costs  of  noise  from  passenger  cars  in  metropolitan  and  other  urban  areas, 
according to the results from the TREMOVE and IMPACT studies, are shown in the figure 
below, which indicates a significant and constant increase in noise costs.  

60 
61 

62 

63 
64 

EU-27 excluding Cyprus and Malta. 
Den  Boer,  L.  C.  and  Schroten,  A.  (2007):  Traffic  Noise  Reduction  in  Europe.  Health  effects,  social 
costs and technical policy options to reduce road and rail traffic noise, CE Delft. 
ECMT,  2006:  Implementing  sustainable  urban  travel  policies:  Applying  the  2001  key  messages. 
ECMT/CM (2006)3/Final, ECMT, 2006. 
EU-27 excluding Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta. 
Infras/IWW  (2004):  External  Costs  of  Transport,  Update  Study;  Link,  H.  (2000):  The  Accounts 
approach, UNITE (Unification of accounts and marginal costs for transport efficiency). 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Noise  costs  attributable  to  passenger  cars  in  metropolitan  and  other  urban  areas  in  EU-27 
(2005, 2012 and 2020) 

)
r
a
e
y

r
e
p

0
0
0

0
0
0

1
*

€
(

t
s
o
c

e
s
i
o
N

14.000 

12.000 

10.000 

8.000 

6.000 

4.000 

2.000 

0

2005 

2012
 Noise costs in EU-27 

2020 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV: THE EU’s RIGHT TO ACT  

The  EU  has  been  dealing  with  urban  mobility  and  transport  issues  for  many  years,  fully 
respecting  the  subsidiarity  principle.  Since  publication  of  its  first  Green  Paper  and  Action 
Plan  to  develop  a  Citizens’  Network65  about  ten  years  ago,  some  progress  has  been  made. 
Steps  to  promote  exchanges  of  information,  benchmarking  and  research  have  been  initiated 
under the common transport policy.  

But in recent years, new challenges have emerged and EU policies other than transport have 
taken  measures,  sometimes  in  isolation,  which  have  consequences  for  urban  mobility.  This 
was the reason for preparation of the Green Paper on urban mobility which aimed at defining 
the added value of current and possible new actions at EU level. 

This annex assesses the EU’s right to act on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty on the functioning 
of  the  European  Union  and  on  the  basis  of  the  current  Treaty  establishing  the  European 
Community and includes some concluding remarks on the instruments that can be used.  

Assessment on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty on the functioning of the European Union 

This assessment of the EU’s right to act is based on the Lisbon Treaty on the functioning of 
the  European  Union  (TFEU)  as  it  stands.  It  must,  however,  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
ratification process of the  TFEU is ongoing and that it is not yet fully clear how the TFEU 
provisions will influence interpretation of the EU’s right to act and the subsidiarity principle 
in future. 

Two conditions have to be met in order to determine whether the EU has the right to act: 

•  the problem must be linked to at least one article of the Treaty; and 

•  if the problem falls in an area where competence is shared between Member States and the 
Union, the Commission must demonstrate that it cannot be solved sufficiently at Member 
State level. 

In order to satisfy the second of these conditions, action at EU level can be justified when the 
conditions of the “necessity test” are met. These include:  

•  the  existence  of  transnational  aspects  that  cannot  be  satisfactorily  regulated  by  Member 

States;  

•  action  by  one  or  more  Member  States  alone  would  conflict  with  the  requirements  of  the 

Treaty; and 

•  action  by  Member  States,  or  lack  of  EU  action,  would  significantly  damage  Member 

States’ interests. 

Once the “necessity test” is passed, next action at EU level must satisfy the “added value test” 
(i.e. the objectives can be better achieved at EU level) and the “boundary test” (i.e. action at 
EU level must be limited to what cannot be achieved by the Member States alone). 

65 

The Citizens’ Network: COM(95) 601 and COM(1998) 431. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  conclusion,  this  means  that  the  EU’s  right  to  act  has  to  be  assessed  on  the  basis  of  two 
criteria: the problem must be linked to at least one article of the Treaty and there should be a 
necessity to act at EU level. In addition, there should be added value in action at EU level and 
this action must be limited to what cannot be achieved by the Member States.  

The  subject  of  urban  mobility  and  transport  falls  under  Article  90  of  the  TFEU  which 
provides for a common transport policy. Articles 91(c) and 91(d) of the TFEU are relevant to 
urban mobility and transport. They state that for the purpose of implementing Article 90 the 
European Parliament and Council will lay down measures to improve transport safety and any 
other appropriate provisions, respectively.  

Article 4 of the TFEU lists transport as one of the areas of shared competence between the EU 
and Member States. Given that the same article lists trans-European networks separately, this 
means that transport can be understood as meaning not only long-distance transport. 

Urban  mobility  and  transport  cover  a  wider  domain  than  transport  alone  and  touch  upon 
different Titles and Articles in the Treaty. For example, with regard to emissions from road 
traffic  and  noise,  Article  11  of  the  TFEU  requires  the  EU  to  incorporate  environmental 
protection requirements in its policies and action. Article 168 of the TFEU requires EU policy 
to aim at obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health. Article 153 provides for 
the  EU  to  act  to  combat  social  exclusion  and  Articles  174  and  175  for  the  EU  to  promote 
harmonious  development  and  strengthening  of its  economic  and  social  cohesion  and  reduce 
disparities between regions.  

On the basis of the above assessment, it can be concluded that urban mobility and transport 
are linked to at least one article of the Treaty.  

The next step is the “necessity test”. There are several examples confirming the necessity to 
take  action  at  EU  level.  One  of  the  problems  related  to  urban  mobility  and  transport  are 
emissions from road traffic, including emissions that contribute to climate change. This is a 
problem with a clear transnational dimension, where action by individual Member States, for 
example to set new limit values, introduce financial incentives or implement their own access 
restriction rules, could be in violation of EU legislation. Urban congestion affects enterprises 
from other Member States.  

Addressing  the  problem  of  imperfect  information  on  market  developments,  monitoring  the 
fragmentation of policies, targets and objectives and assessing urban mobility trends at local, 
regional and national levels is something that can only be done efficiently and effectively at 
EU level. No action by the EU in this field, or action by just a few individual Member States, 
could  lead  to  less  informed  decisions  and  damage  the  financial  and  policy  interests  of 
Member States.  

These examples provide a sufficient basis to conclude that urban mobility and transport pass 
the “necessity test”. 

The  “added  value”  test  requires  that  the  EU  must  act  only  if  the  objectives  can  be  better 
achieved  at  Union  level.  For  example,  dissemination  of  information  and  knowledge, 
expansion of the knowledge base and exchanges of best practice in the area of urban mobility 
are  best  carried  out  at  EU  level.  This  will  avoid  duplication  of  work  and  fragmentation  of 
resources  and  allow  decision-makers  to  benefit  from  the  broadest,  most  diverse  experience 
possible. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
Emission  and  noise  limits  are  best  set  at  EU  level  in  order  to  avoid  adoption  of  different 
standards  in  different  Member  States,  which  would  add  to  the  regulatory  burden.  Other 
examples  include  setting  technical  standards,  e.g.  for  intelligent  travel  information  and 
payment  systems,  including  Galileo-based  applications.  As  mentioned  earlier,  there  is  also 
clear added value in action at EU level on information and data collection and monitoring.  

Based on the above observations, there is a basis to conclude that there is “added value” in 
EU action in the field of urban mobility and transport. 

Finally,  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that,  in  contrast  to  the  existing  Treaty,  the  TFEU 
includes stronger recognition of the local and regional government levels in development and 
implementation of EU policy and legislation. For example, the TFEU explicitly recognises the 
principle of local and regional self-government. The definition of subsidiarity is extended to 
include  the  local  and  regional  levels.  The  Commission  should  consult  local  and  regional 
governments more effectively. And, finally, the objectives of the EU would include territorial, 
economic and social cohesion66. 

Assessment on the basis of the Treaty establishing the European Community 

Many of the arguments set out above also apply to the current Treaty.  

The  subject  of  urban  mobility  and  transport  falls  under  Article  70  of  the  Treaty  which 
provides  for  a  common  transport  policy.  Articles  71(c)  and  71(d)  are  relevant  to  urban 
mobility and transport. They state that for the purpose of implementing Article 70 the Council 
and  the  European  Parliament  will  lay  down  measures  to  improve  transport  safety  and  any 
other appropriate provisions, respectively. Urban mobility and transport cover a wider domain 
than  transport  alone  and  touch  upon  different  Titles  and  Articles  in  the  Treaty,  for  example 
Articles 174 and 175 (environment) and 158 (economic and social cohesion).  

Article 5 of the Treaty deals with the subsidiarity principle and applies to urban mobility and 
transport.  Several  examples  confirming  the  necessity  to  take  action  at  EU  level  have  been 
given already. These examples provide a sufficient basis to conclude that, under the current 
Treaty, urban mobility and transport pass the “necessity test” and the “added value test”.  

66 

Commentators consider that this objective applies at all levels of government. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Conclusion 

In conclusion, the EU has a basic right to act in the area of urban mobility and transport, but 
the  subsidiarity  principle  applies.  This  impact  assessment  is  linked  to  development  of  the 
Action Plan on Urban Mobility and supports the selection of possible actions for the Action 
Plan  at  EU  level.  The  answer  to  the  question  whether  the  “boundary  test”  is  passed  will 
depend on the specification and area of application of each individual action proposed for the 
Action Plan.  

In the light of the above assessment, all eight EU instruments can, in principle, be used in the 
field of urban mobility and transport.  

These instruments67 are:  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Self-regulation (monitoring); 

Open method of coordination; 

Information and guidelines; 

Market-based instruments;  

Direct public-sector financial intervention; 

Co-regulation; 

Framework directive; 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision). 

67 

These  are  the  categories  given  in  the  Impact  Assessment  Guidelines  of  15  June  2005,  as  updated  on 
15 March 2006 (SEC(2005) 791). 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX V: FROM THE LONG LIST TO THE SHORTLIST  

Screening  the  policy  options  on  subsidiarity,  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  consistency  

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E

y
c
n
e
t
s
s
n
o
C

i

e
r
o
c
s

l

a
t
o
T

1 

2 

3 

– 

1 

2 

3 

– 

n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
e
b
m
u
n

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n
I

r
e
b
m
u
n

1 

Require cities to set modal split targets 

Free-flowing towns and cities 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Ban private car use in city centres 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Ban on-street parking in city centres 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

2 

3 

i

y
t
i
r
a
d
s
b
u
S

i

+ 

– 

+ 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

– 

– 

– 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
e
b
m
u
n

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n
I

r
e
b
m
u
n

4 

5 

6 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Recognise efforts of cities to improve sustainable urban mobility 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments (rating bureau) 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Promote information on access limitations for road users in cities 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E

y
c
n
e
t
s
s
n
o
C

i

e
r
o
c
s

l

a
t
o
T

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

3 

3 

2 

– 

– 

6 

i

y
t
i
r
a
d
s
b
u
S

i

– 

– 

– 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a. 

+ 

2 

2 

3 

7 

3 

3 

2 

8 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

– 

– 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

3 

3 

3 

9 

n.a 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

+ 

3 

3 

3 

9 

Co-regulation 

n.a 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
e
b
m
u
n

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n
I

r
e
b
m
u
n

7 

8 

9 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E

y
c
n
e
t
s
s
n
o
C

i

e
r
o
c
s

l

a
t
o
T

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

2 

2 

1 

– 

– 

– 

9 

7 

7 

6 

1 

2 

3 

– 

1 

2 

3 

– 

i

y
t
i
r
a
d
s
b
u
S

i

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Greener towns and cities 

Internalise the external costs of urban transport 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Require cities to set targets for CO2 emissions from urban transport 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Require zero CO2 propulsion for urban public transport 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

– 

+ 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

Co-regulation 

+ 

2 

1 

3 

6 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
e
b
m
u
n

10 

11 

12 

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n
I

r
e
b
m
u
n

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

i

y
t
i
r
a
d
s
b
u
S

i

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E

y
c
n
e
t
s
s
n
o
C

i

e
r
o
c
s

l

a
t
o
T

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Promote “green” procurement by public authorities 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

– 

– 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

1 

Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and alternative fuels 

1 

2 

1 

3 

3 

2 

3 

3 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Require designation of “green” zones in sensitive areas 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

– 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

2 

3 

2 

3 

2 

1 

3 

5 

6 

7 

6 

5 

7 

5 

5 

– 

6 

– 

7 

8 

6 

5 

8  

1 

1 

3 

– 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
e
b
m
u
n

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n
I

r
e
b
m
u
n

8 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

13 

Harmonise rules for environmental zones  

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

y
c
n
e
t
s
s
n
o
C

i

e
r
o
c
s

l

a
t
o
T

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

– 

– 

– 

– 

7 

i

y
t
i
r
a
d
s
b
u
S

i

– 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

+ 

3 

2 

2 

7 

Smarter urban transport 

Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information  

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

+ 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

– 

7 

– 

6 

7 

7 

7 

– 

7 

– 

– 

7 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

14 

15 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
e
b
m
u
n

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n
I

r
e
b
m
u
n

i

y
t
i
r
a
d
s
b
u
S

i

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E

y
c
n
e
t
s
s
n
o
C

i

e
r
o
c
s

l

a
t
o
T

8 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

+ 

3 

2 

1 

6 

16 

Require transport impact assessments as a precondition for planning permission 

Accessible urban transport 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Require establishment of urban mobility authorities 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Require adoption of SUTPs as a condition for EU funding 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

17 

18 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

– 

– 

– 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

– 

– 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

– 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

6 

– 

6 

6 

2 

2 

2 

6 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
e
b
m
u
n

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n
I

r
e
b
m
u
n

8 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

19 

Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport  

20 

21 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

i

y
t
i
r
a
d
s
b
u
S

i

– 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

– 

– 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

– 

– 

– 

– 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

+ 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

1 

2 

1 

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E

1 

2 

1 

y
c
n
e
t
s
s
n
o
C

i

e
r
o
c
s

l

a
t
o
T

3 

3 

3 

– 

7 

– 

1 

1 

2 

4 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

2 

3 

7 

6 

7 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

7 

6 

– 

6 

5 

5 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
e
b
m
u
n

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n
I

r
e
b
m
u
n

22 

Improve accessibility of public transport 

i

y
t
i
r
a
d
s
b
u
S

i

23 

24 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Require operators to accept bicycles in urban public transport  

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Safe and secure urban transport 

Promote safe walking and safe cycling 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

+ 

– 

– 

– 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

+ 

– 

– 

– 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

y
c
n
e
t
s
s
n
o
C

i

e
r
o
c
s

l

a
t
o
T

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

– 

7 

– 

7 

6 

7 

7 

– 

– 

– 

1 

2 

3 

– 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

– 

6 

8 

3 

2 

2 

7 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
e
b
m
u
n

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n
I

r
e
b
m
u
n

25 

Raise the minimum age for driving licences to 25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Cross-cutting issues 

26 

Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

2 

y
c
n
e
t
s
s
n
o
C

i

e
r
o
c
s

l

a
t
o
T

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

3 

2 

3 

3 

2 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

7 

– 

7 

6 

i

y
t
i
r
a
d
s
b
u
S

i

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

+ 

3 

3 

3 

9 

Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

1 

2 

3 

3 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

– 

7 

9 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

+ 

3 

2 

3 

8 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

27 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

1 

2 

1 

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E

1 

2 

1 

y
c
n
e
t
s
s
n
o
C

i

e
r
o
c
s

l

a
t
o
T

3 

2 

3 

– 

6 

– 

n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
e
b
m
u
n

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n
I

r
e
b
m
u
n

28 

Intensify research, development and demonstration activities 

i

y
t
i
r
a
d
s
b
u
S

i

29 

30 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

+ 

3 

2 

3 

8 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

+ 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

1 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

– 

7 

7 

7 

6 

7 

7 

Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport 

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

2 

2 

3 

7 

3 

2 

2 

2 

3 

1 

8 

5 

n.a 

+ 

+ 

– 

– 

31 

Require implementation of a “value-capture tax” 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
n
o
i
t
p
o

y
c

i
l

o
P

r
e
b
m
u
n

t
n
e
m
u
r
t
s
n
I

r
e
b
m
u
n

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

i

y
t
i
r
a
d
s
b
u
S

i

Self-regulation 

Open method of coordination 

Information and guidelines 

Market-based instruments 

Direct public-sector financial intervention 

Co-regulation 

Framework directive 

Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

n.a 

+ 

– 

– 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f

E

y
c
n
e
c
i
f
f

i

E

y
c
n
e
t
s
s
n
o
C

i

e
r
o
c
s

l

a
t
o
T

2 

2 

1 

5 

•  A  plus  (+)  in  the  subsidiarity  column  means  that  the  policy  option  using  this  instrument 
passes  the  subsidiarity  test  and  that  taking  action  at  EU  level  can  therefore  have  added 
value. A minus (–) means that action using this instrument can better be taken at national, 
regional or local levels. For some instruments, this test is not applicable, in which case this 
is indicated as “n.a.” Policy options which fail the subsidiarity test are no longer taken into 
account and no further analysis of them will be carried out. 

•  Each combination of a policy option with an instrument that passes the subsidiarity test is 
awarded  a  score  for  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  consistency,  ranging  from  1  (low)  to  3 
(high).  The  total  score  is  indicated  in  the  last  column.  However,  if  the  score  for 
effectiveness is 1, no total score is given, because the combination is no longer perceived 
as a viable option.  

•  Policy options which score a total of 6 or lower for all instruments are considered unviable. 

This was the case for 12 options. 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI: DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPACT OF SHORTLISTED POLICY 
OPTIONS 

This annex describes the different kinds of impact of the shortlisted policy options, in either 
quantitative or qualitative terms.  

Option 5: Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities  

An increasing number of cities are introducing demand management schemes in urban areas 
for  motor  vehicles  in  the  form  of  environmental  zones  or  road  use  charging.  This  policy 
option provides a stronger basis for policy-making in this area at all levels of government. It 
can  contribute  to  better  informed  decisions.  In  the  longer  term  an  initiative  at  EU  level  can 
also help to reduce costs by reducing fragmentation in use of resources.  

The  impact  of  the  London  congestion  charge  scheme68  includes  a  21%  reduction  in  traffic 
entering the original charging zone, a 43% increase in cycling within the zone and reductions 
in accidents and key traffic pollutants, with the retail sector now outperforming the rest of the 
UK  and  significant  income  raised.  The  impact  of  the  Stockholm  congestion  charging 
scheme69 includes a 10-15% reduction in traffic volume to/from the inner city, 30-50% less 
traffic  and  reductions  in  pollutant  emissions  of  14%  in  the  inner  city  and  of  2.5%  in 
Stockholm county as a whole. The cost of operating the schemes is a concern.  

For this option, a non-regulatory approach could be put in place by the EU in order to assess 
whether the local initiatives are in line with developments and existing legislation at EU level 
or whether the rules for vehicles entering from other parts of the country and from abroad are 
clear and interoperable.  

There are few guarantees that the information generated by this option will actually be used. 
This  influences  its  effectiveness.  This  obstacle  can  be  overcome  by  ensuring  active 
involvement  of  users  and  good  dissemination  of  information.  This  option  has  no  impact  on 
specific groups, nor are there any obstacles to compliance. It is difficult to predict the impact, 
given that use of the information is not mandatory.  

Option 6: Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics  

Urban  freight  transport  is  sometimes  forgotten  by  local  policy-makers.  This  policy  option 
would incorporate the urban activities included in the 2007 Freight Transport Logistics Action 
Plan.  Additional  activities  could,  however,  be  launched  and  recommendations  for  policy-
makers  prepared.  This  policy  option  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  a  wide  range  of 
congestion, energy, environmental, economic and social objectives. 

The measures in the urban chapter of the Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan are likely to 
result  in  a  decline  in  motorised  vehicle-kilometres  (as  fewer  truck  movements  would  be 
necessary),  a  decline  in  tonne-hours  lost  (as  freight  movement  would  be  more  efficient),  a 
decline  in  the  energy  and  environmental  impact  (as  a  result  of  the  decrease  in  truck 
movements), a positive impact on the investment and competition indicators (as the efficiency 

68 
69 

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6723.aspx. 
http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/upload/Rapporter/Expert_group_summary_060621.pdf. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of businesses in cities is increased), a decrease in traffic fatalities and an improvement in the 
health impact of emissions (following the decrease in truck movements).  

In the START project70 Bristol City Council, in partnership with experts from DHL Exel, has 
been successfully operating a consolidation centre since May 2004 with the aim of helping to 
reduce  pollution  and  congestion  in  central  Bristol.  Streamlining  deliveries  and  cutting  the 
number  of  vehicles  delivering  to  the  Broadmead  shopping  centre  has  helped  achieve  this, 
whilst at the same time providing an improved delivery service to retailers. The scheme has 
reduced  delivery  vehicle  movements  by  77%.  This  means  a  saving  of  5 374  lorry  trips 
equating  to  106 556  lorry-kilometres  with  resulting  reductions  of  13.3  tonnes  in  CO2 
emissions, 426 kg in NOx and 12.8 kg in PM10.  

The EU could opt for a non-regulatory approach that could include information and guidelines 
and/or  financial  intervention.  Both  these  instruments  would  have  the  above-mentioned 
impact, although it is most likely to be stronger in the case of direct public intervention. The 
risk of non-compliance is negligible.  

Option 7: Internalise the external costs of urban transport  

This policy option is intended to make travellers in urban areas pay for the full external costs 
that they impose on society. The external costs of transport include congestion, air emissions, 
noise and traffic fatalities. These external costs vary across locations, but are higher in areas 
with higher population density, typically urban areas. This policy option will make a positive 
contribution to mobility, congestion71, energy, environmental and social objectives. 

Charging for external costs has an impact on transport costs which in turn influences transport 
volume (trips, tonnes carried and passenger- and tonne-kilometres). This impact is expected to 
differ  across  modes  which  would  change  modal  shares  and lead  to modal  shift. In addition, 
this  option  will  lead  to  a  reduction  in  demand  for  transport,  in  energy  use  and  in  vehicle-
kilometres. In the longer term, there might be increased demand for cleaner, safer and quieter 
vehicles.  

Congestion charging is expected to have a strong impact on traffic flows. The extent to which 
demand  for  transport  is  reduced  is  determined  by  the  price  elasticity  of  demand.  The 
percentage  change  in  demand  in  response  to  a  1%  increase  in  price  is  shown  in  the  table 
below72:  

Fuel consumption (total) 
Fuel consumption (per vehicle) 
Vehicle-kilometres (total) 
Vehicle-kilometres (per vehicle) 
Vehicle stock 

Short term 
-0.25 
-0.08 
-0.10 
-0.10 
-0.08 

Long term 
-0.64 
-1.1 
-0.29 
-0.30 
-0.25 

70 
71 

72 

www.start-project.org. 
The costs of avoiding congestion should be added to the direct costs of suffering congestion by adding a 
precautionary margin to the trip start and to the costs derived from the loss of reliability in the eyes of 
clients. 
Goodwin, P., Dargay, J. and Hanly, M. (2003): Elasticities of Road Traffic and Fuel Consumption With 
Respect to Price and Income: A Review, University College London. 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
The social impact of this policy option includes the impact on mobility (slight change) and on 
health (decrease in accident rates).  

A regulatory approach could be used by the EU, perhaps in combination with market-based 
instruments,  to  follow  up  current  initiatives  on  internalisation  of  external  costs  in  transport. 
One potential obstacle to compliance is the resistance from part of the public and businesses 
to increasing the cost of car use in certain places and periods. The availability and reliability 
of  the  ITS  tools  for  vehicle  location,  registration  and  payment  collection  in  urban  areas  is 
another cause for concern.  

Option 10: Promote “green” procurement by public authorities  

This  policy  option  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  energy,  environmental  and  social 
objectives.  Joint  public  procurement  of  “green”  vehicles  will  also  speed  up  replacement  of 
vehicles operated by public authorities or by private operators under public service contracts. 
The objective of this policy option would be to bring potential buyers together in consortia so 
that  lower  prices  can  be  obtained  as  a  result  of  economies  of  scale.  In  addition,  possible 
administrative  barriers  at  national,  regional  or  local  levels  to  joint  procurement  would  be 
overcome.  

Experience  in  Stockholm73  shows  that  the  number  of  clean  vehicles  in  the  fleet  does  not 
automatically  increase  after  introduction  of  a  clean  vehicles  scheme.  In  Stockholm,  the 
opposite  happened  when  the  municipal  vehicle  fleet  was  outsourced  to  a  private  leasing 
company  in  2002  and  vehicle  purchasing  decisions  were  decentralised.  This  resulted  in  a 
smaller share of clean cars in the municipal fleet. 

In  the  CIVITAS-Trendsetter  project  the  city  of  Stockholm  reversed  this  negative  trend  by 
offering incentives for purchasing clean vehicles, introducing a joint procurement programme 
and  arranging  information  activities  and  test-drives  for  procurement  officers.  By  the  end  of 
2005, Stockholm was operating 465 clean vehicles. This is 43% of the total municipal fleet. 
Among  other  things,  this  cut  energy  consumption  by  around  25%  and  also  reduced  CO2 
emissions and fuel costs for the biogas vehicles. Some 80% of the drivers are very satisfied. 
The  disadvantage  has  been  a  5%  increase  in  maintenance  costs,  mainly  because  biogas 
vehicles need more maintenance and repair. Lille Metropole74 has similar experience.  

A  variety  of  instruments  could  be  used,  for  example  dissemination  of  best  practice  or  co-
regulation. This policy option is likely to lead to fleet renewal, resulting in a larger share of 
environmentally  friendly  vehicles.  These  could  be  vehicles  owned  (or  tendered  out  for)  by 
local  authorities,  such  as  public  transport  vehicles,  waste  collection  trucks,  police  cars  and 
public works vehicles. The higher share of environmentally friendly vehicles in urban traffic 
is  likely  to  result  in  energy  savings  and  have  a  positive  environmental  impact.  The 
competitive position of the EU industry is likely to improve. 

Option  11:  Promote  take-up  of  clean  and  energy-efficient  vehicle  technology  and 
alternative fuels  

This policy option is in line with the EU’s policy to increase the share of alternative fuels and 
reduce pollutant emissions from road vehicles. Cleaner technologies cost more. Market-based 

73 
74 

CIVITAS, http://www.trendsetter-europe.org/index.php?ID=585. 
CIVITAS, http://www.trendsetter-europe.org/index.php?ID=959. 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
                                                 
instruments, such as taxing fuels or vehicles or favouring use of cleaner fuels or vehicles, will 
have  a  direct  impact  on  users.  This  option  will  have  an  economic  impact  on  the  vehicle 
manufacturing and servicing industries.  

Other  kinds  of  impact  are  on  energy  and  on  the  environment.  The  cleaner  engines  may  use 
less energy, but this depends on the type of fuel used. The environmental impact will clearly 
be  a  reduction  in  air  pollutant  emissions  which  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  social 
(health)  objectives.  The  impact  on  noise  will  be  less  certain,  as  this  depends  on  the  engine 
technology and a large part of the noise from cars is already caused by factors other than the 
engine.  One  source  of  uncertainty  is  the  unpredictability  about  the  market  take-up  of  the 
engines and fuels.  

Member  States  have  national  strategies  and  coherence  between  action  at  local,  regional, 
national  and  EU  levels  must  be  ensured.  The  UK’s  national  strategy  for  promoting  clean 
vehicles and fuels includes a CO2-linked company car tax and vehicle excise duty, three-year 
duty incentives for cleaner  fuels, financial  incentives  for biofuels, grants for consumers and 
fleet operators and a Technology Fund to finance RTD.  

For  EU  action  a  variety  of  instruments  could  be  used,  for  example  dissemination  of 
information,  market-based  instruments,  financial  intervention  (e.g.  from  the  cohesion 
instruments  or  under  State  aid  policy)  or  regulation  (e.g.  implementation  of  the  proposed 
Directive on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles).  

Market-based  instruments  may  have  a  direct  impact  on  vehicle  sales,  as  long  as  the  tax 
changes are sufficient to counter-balance the price differences. In the car manufacturing and 
servicing industries, investment will have to increase to make the transition to different fuels 
and  engines.  It  is  not  clear  if  this  will  lead  to  more  employment  in  these  industries.  The 
competitive position of the car, bus and truck manufacturing industry in the EU is likely to 
improve against other countries. Obstacles to compliance are not likely. 

Option 13: Harmonise rules for environmental zones  

This policy option does not address the impact of environmental zones themselves, but only 
the impact of ending the separate and unrelated regulations that have emerged over the past 
across  the  EU.  The  EU  could  use  a  regulatory  instrument.  The  objective  of  the  initiative 
would  be  to  ensure  the  use  of  harmonised  rules  for  access  and  vehicle  identification  in  all 
cities that have installed, or are considering, such a zone. This is likely to be a long process, as 
there  would  be  many  parties  involved  in  a  joint  effort  with  the  EU.  This  option  would 
contribute to economic objectives and provide a stronger basis for policy-making.  

One uncertainty would be whether every country would be interested in joining this process. 
Each  national  government  would  have  to  convince  its  cities  to  apply  the  harmonised  rules. 
The  ability  to  do  so  varies  from  one  country to  another.  Resistance  might  come  from  cities 
that want to limit access for specific types of cars , e.g. SUVs, if there were no room for this 
in the harmonised rules. On the other hand, if the harmonised rules were to leave room for too 
many exceptions, this would defeat the purpose, as it would no longer be easy for non-regular 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
users  to  understand  the  rules.  There  would  be  lower  administrative  costs  for  users  and 
governments75. 

The indirect  impact is likely  to be that, once the harmonised rules are in place, it would be 
easy for freight operators and non-regular visitors, i.e. principally those from elsewhere in the 
country and from abroad, to understand the rules on access to the environmental zone. This 
would save time and costs for those visitors, for cars and for freight trucks.  

The main impact of any EU initiative would, however, be political. It would send out a signal 
that the EU is serious about the internal market and the free movement of people and goods.  

Option  14:  Improve  the  interoperability  of  ticketing  and  payment  systems  for  public 
transport  

The objective of this policy option would be to make it easier to combine private and public 
modes of transport (for example, car or bicycle with public transport), to use the services of 
different  operators  or  to  understand  how  the  transport  system  works  in  different  cities  and 
even  in  different  Member  States.  This  option  targets  private  and  professional  users  of  the 
transport system. This policy option will make a positive contribution to mobility, congestion, 
economic and social objectives. 

Improved interoperability would increase the accessibility of public transport, in terms of both 
geographical  range  and  ease  of  use  by  travellers  currently  finding  it  difficult  to  use  the 
system. Car kilometres will be replaced by public transport which will reduce the number of 
motorised  vehicle-kilometres.  This  can  have  a  positive  impact  on  congestion.  Energy 
consumption  and  emissions  will  also  be  reduced.  However,  some  of  today’s  non-motorised 
trips could also be attracted to public transport.  

One  economic  benefit  of  modern  interoperable  systems  is  that  they  significantly  reduce  the 
costs associated with ticketing, payments and handling cash. Development of the ITS systems 
needed is likely to improve the competitive position of European industry against the rest of 
the world.  

A  variety  of  instruments  could  be  used,  but  the  most  promising  direction  would  be  a 
regulatory approach (standards). One uncertainty, and possible obstacle, lies in the complexity 
of implementing ITS projects involving many stakeholders. Involvement of the stakeholders 
from the beginning would ensure better take-up of the results. 

Option 15: Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information  

This  policy  option  is  intended  to  make  public  transport  more  attractive  and  improve  its 
integration with other modes. It should follow a user perspective and pay particular attention 
to  the  changing  expectations  of  society  caused,  for  example,  by  ageing  and  an  increasingly 
multi-cultural  population.  This  policy  option  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  mobility, 
congestion and social objectives. 

The difficulty of finding one’s way around the public transport system is one of the principal 
causes for the negative image that public transport has in the eyes of many car users. This is 

75 

One specific problem is the limited possibility for cross-border enforcement by local authorities in the 
event of traffic violations related to environmental zones and other zones with access restrictions. 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
                                                 
particularly the case when services are disrupted. Finding one’s way in an unknown city by 
car  has  been  made  easier  by  in-car  navigation  systems.  Public  transport  cannot  yet  match 
these systems with a user-friendly alternative.  

The primary impact of providing travel information is to enable individuals to plan their trips 
better  and  make  coordinated  use  of  different  modes.  The  result  is  to  optimise  the  transport 
chain by making  use of the  best-suited  mode for each leg of the journey. Estimates suggest 
that providing harmonised travel information could increase the average throughput capacity 
of  road  infrastructure  by  3%  to  7%,  increase  its  overall  capacity  by  3%  to  22%,  decrease 
accidents by 3% to 30% and reduce travel time by up to 20%.  

Different instruments could be used, including information and guidelines, co-regulation and 
a  regulatory  approach.  One  possible  obstacle  might  be  that  implementing  ITS  projects  may 
involve  many  stakeholders.  For  non-regulatory 
is  negligible. 
Involvement of stakeholders from the beginning would ensure better take-up of the results.  

instruments 

this  risk 

Option 19: Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport  

This  policy  option  covers  a  range  of  measures,  including  public-transport-oriented  land-use 
development,  short-distance  structure  land-use  development  and  car-restricted  oriented 
development.  The  direct  impact  of  these  measures  would  be  to  transform  land-use  patterns 
and transport networks and services. More indirect kinds of impact, depending on the measure 
chosen, would be a decline in (the growth of) motorised vehicle-kilometres and an increase in 
non-motorised kilometres. The reason is that the need for car trips would diminish and a shift 
towards environmentally friendly modes could be expected. 

This option will make a positive contribution to a wide range of mobility, congestion, energy, 
environmental and social objectives. It will also provide a better basis for policy-making. The 
EU  should  follow  a  non-regulatory  approach,  which  could  include  coordination  and 
networking.  

All social groups in urban areas could be affected, but the degree would depend on the exact 
development plans. The economic sector most affected will be the one most present in urban 
areas, i.e. the tertiary sector. Retail businesses that rely heavily on greenfield shopping malls 
(this  is  more  pronounced  in  some  Member  States  than  in  others)  may  find  it  necessary  to 
adapt  their  distribution  systems.  Others  may  not  be  affected  much.  The  impact  could  be 
essentially local, with usually a limited impact in other countries76.  

The measures will result in a decrease in (the growth of) congestion. Fewer passenger-hours 
and tonne-hours are likely to be lost, allowing households and businesses to save time. One 
indirect impact could be that some of the time gained will be used to visit destinations farther 
away, thereby nullifying part of the positive impact. 

The  measures  are  likely  to  result  in  a  decrease  in  (the  growth  of)  energy  consumption.  The 
shift  towards  non-motorised  modes  will  result  in  a  decrease  in  energy  consumption.  The 
impact  on  emissions  of  air  pollutants  will  vary  in  the  same  way  as  energy  consumption,  all 
other things being equal. The impact on noise is less clear as this will depend very much on 

76 

One  exception  could  be  the  impact  of  the  Øresund  Bridge  on  the  development  of  Malmø  and 
Copenhagen. 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
                                                 
local conditions. Fewer vehicle-kilometres mean less noise but higher densities lead to greater 
noise exposure per vehicle-kilometre. 

The impact is likely to be strongest on social groups who live (or want to live) in peri-urban 
areas. This includes an improvement in social inclusion, as potential destinations for activities 
will  be  closer.  Dwellers  in  densely  populated  areas  are  not  likely  to  experience  much 
difference,  except  that  the  quality  (frequency  and  speed)  of  public  transport  could  also 
improve for them. The number of traffic fatalities could decrease.  

One  uncertainty  is  introduced  by  the  5–10  year  time  span  before  the  impact  of  changes  in 
land-use patterns becomes visible. These changes usually take more than one election cycle to 
complete. Continued awareness of the problems and a consensus among politicians and voters 
can help reduce this uncertainty.  

Option 20: Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning  

One trend in European urban areas is that new developments often take place on the outskirts 
of cities. Often they are only connected by road and lack good public transport links. In many 
cases their layout and density make cycling unattractive. This makes the car the only viable 
means  of  transport.  In  addition,  developments  on  the  periphery  result  in  longer  travel 
distances. Finally, there is a trend to concentrate shops and services in malls located on the 
outskirts. This in turn stimulates car use. The overall result is more and longer car trips and 
fewer possibilities for non-motorised transport.  

Requiring new developments explicitly to consider and plan for alternatives to the car would 
help to reduce dependence on the car as the primary means of transport. This would result in 
fewer private kilometres and more non-motorised and public transport passenger-kilometres. 
The reduction in private kilometres will have an impact on the level of congestion and have a 
positive impact on energy consumption and the environment (emissions of air pollutants and 
noise).  Provision  of  viable  alternatives  to  the  car  can  also  contribute  to  social  inclusion  of 
citizens  who  either  do  not  own  or  do  not  want  to  use  a  (second)  car.  It  will  also  provide  a 
stronger basis for policy-making.  

Closer coordination between land-use and transport planning has the potential significantly to 
reduce  per  capita  energy  consumption  and  emissions  of  pollutants  by  reducing  per  capita 
vehicle  travel77.  Communities  that  are  high-density,  have  mixed  land  use,  cluster  centres  of 
activity,  implement  parking  management  policies,  have  a  high  level  of  street  connectivity, 
have good access to public transport and provide facilities for cycling and walking have, on 
average, 20% to 40% less car use than more auto-centric cities78.  

The  EU  should  follow  a  non-regulatory  approach  for  this  policy  option.  The  strong  market 
forces in the real estate sector and the shortage of adequate housing in many European cities 
are two possible obstacles to this policy option. 

77 

78 

Mindali, O., Raveh, A. and Salomon, I. (2004): Urban density and energy consumption: a new look at 
old statistics, Transportation Research, Vol. 38, No 2, pp. 143-162. 
Litman,  T.  (2007):  Evaluating  Transportation  Land  Use  Impacts,  Victoria  Transport  Policy  Research 
Institute. 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option 21: Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport  

This  policy  option  addresses  public  transport  operators  and  users.  It  will  make  a  positive 
contribution  to  mobility  and  social  objectives.  The  obligation  to  provide  compensation  if 
operators  fail  to  meet  the  agreed  standards  may  help  to  strengthen  the  image  of  public 
transport and improve public transport services. If this were to happen, the effect is likely to 
be greater use of public transport and some decrease in car use (with the associated impact on 
congestion, energy and the environment). Also some shift from bicycle use to public transport 
can  be  expected.  Introducing  stricter  rules  for  users  may  lower  vandalism-related  costs  for 
operators.  

A variety of instruments could be used by the EU, including monitoring self-regulation. The 
impact  is  likely  to  be  small,  though,  as  many  other  factors  play  a  role  in  opting  for  public 
transport.  The  improvement  in  the  quality  of  public  transport  would  also  have  a  positive 
impact on social inclusion. One potential obstacle to compliance is resistance from the public 
transport operators and also from the contracting authorities, who would ultimately bear the 
costs of the compensation. 

Option 22: Improve accessibility of public transport  

This policy option aims at improving both the geographical coverage of public transport and 
ease of use by travellers who find it difficult to use the system (for example, passengers with 
luggage, small children or a physical disability), as part of an integrated approach to achieve a 
more accessible urban transport system. This policy option will make a positive contribution 
to mobility, energy, environmental and social objectives.  

The  option  will  attract  new  users  to  the  system.  The  strongest  impact  is  on  social  inclusion 
and  mobility.  Some  kilometres  by  car  will  be  replaced  by  public  transport  (which  is  also 
motorised), but as public transport vehicles have higher occupancy, the number of motorised 
vehicle-kilometres  and  congestion  will  decrease.  Also,  energy  consumption  and  emissions 
will  be  reduced.  However,  some  of  today’s  non-motorised  trips  could  also  be  attracted  to 
public transport (this effect being stronger in cities where bicycles take a high share than in 
those with a low share). 

A  variety  of  instruments  could  be  used  by  the  EU,  but  the  most  promising  direction  is  a 
regulatory  approach.  Increased  coverage  would  mean  that  public  transport  supply  would 
increase.  The  public  transport  network  would  also  become  more  accessible  for  people  with 
reduced mobility, which could for example mean using appropriate equipment for physically 
disabled persons, addressing the specific needs of cognitive and sensory disabled persons, and 
providing  special  services  for  elderly  and  disabled  persons.  Direct  financial  intervention  by 
the  EU  would  probably  have  a  direct  effect.  But  coordination  between  Member  States  or 
regulation at EU level would have to be ensured first.  

One potential obstacle could be insufficient funds. There is a risk of failing to meet travellers’ 
expectations due to the long transition period. Reasons for this long transition phase are, for 
example,  that  public  transport  vehicles  are  replaced  over  long  periods  and  interchange 
facilities will have to be adapted at relatively high prices.  

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
Option 24: Promote safe walking and safe cycling  

Walking and cycling are two separate modes of transport. Each of them has its own strengths 
and weaknesses and has different potential. This policy option would encourage authorities to 
create safer conditions for walking and cycling. If such improvements were to be made, the 
strongest  impact  would  be  on  mobility.  In  particular,  it  would  result  in  an  increase  in  non-
motorised  kilometres.  This  option  would  make  a  wide  range  of  positive  contributions  to 
mobility,  energy,  environmental  and  social  objectives  and  would  also  make  a  positive 
contribution to congestion by reducing motorised vehicle-kilometres.  

An  increase  in  the  number  of  people  cycling  and  walking  can  be  achieved  by  means  of 
targeted marketing campaigns. However, long-term behavioural change is only possible with 
the  aid  of  an  integrated  programme  to  improve  the  infrastructure  for  non-motorised  road 
users, financial incentives and adequate facilities at the end of the trip (for example, showers 
and changing rooms). A study estimated that this package to stimulate cycling could increase 
cycling rates for commuting trips in the UK from 6% to almost 20%79.  

Recently, an advertising company introduced a system in Paris that offers anyone who wants 
to use a bicycle the opportunity to do so for a nominal fee. According to one source, provision 
of  bicycles  at  various  points  in  the  city  combined  with  a  marketing  campaign  (and  some 
problems with public transport) increased the number of cycle trips in Paris from 0% to 3% in 
one year.  

Given that most bicycle trips and walks are over short distances, i.e. under 7 km, the effect of 
any  increase  in  non-motorised  kilometres  on  vehicle-km  is  unlikely  to  be  very  large. 
However,  a  small  decline  in  vehicle-km  (and  short-distance  trips)  has  a  disproportionately 
large impact on the volume of emissions of harmful pollutants. The reason is that starting and 
stopping  engines  causes  relatively  high  emissions.  Each  1%  shift  (in  kilometre  terms)  from 
motorised to non-motorised transport reduces energy use and emissions by between 2% and 
4%80.  

There would be a positive impact on health as a result of lower obesity and pollution levels. 
As for road safety, the presence of more bicycles on the roads makes car drivers more aware 
of them and therefore also more careful. Moreover, development of dedicated infrastructure 
for non-motorised modes can contribute to reducing the number of conflicts and, hence, the 
number of accidents and traffic fatalities. The results of an extensive study81 suggest that the 
risks of an accident while riding a bicycle are far outweighed by the health benefits, at least 
for commuters who regularly cycle to work.  

The EU should follow a non-regulatory approach. This means that the risk of non-compliance 
is negligible.  

79 

80 

81 

Wardman,  M.,  Tight,  M.  and  Page,  M.  (2007):  Factors  influencing  the  propensity  to  cycle  to  work, 
Transportation Research, Vol. 41, Issue 4, May 2007, pp. 339-350. 
Litman T., Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2007): Walking and Cycling Encouragement, Strategies 
that Encourage People to Use Non-motorised Transportation, Transport Demand Management (TDM) 
Encyclopedia. 
Anderson, L. B. et al. (2000) All-cause mortality associated with physical activity during leisure time, 
work, sports and cycling to work, Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 160, No 11, pp. 1621-1628. 

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option 26: Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting  

This  policy  option  has  one  kind  of  impact,  namely  providing  a  stronger  basis  for  policy-
making at all levels of government. A wider range of higher quality data and information can 
contribute both to better informed decisions relating to the objective of sustainable mobility 
and to implementation thereof (with the aid of monitoring). In the longer term an initiative at 
EU level can also help to lower costs by reducing fragmentation in use of resources.  

A  range  of  instruments  could  be  used  at  EU  level,  including  coordination,  financial 
intervention and/or regulatory action. The extent to which the quality and availability of data 
will  improve  depends  on  the  scale  and  scope  of  the  exercise,  the  funds  made  available  to 
support it and how clearly the data requirements are formulated.  

There  are  two  potential  obstacles  to  compliance.  First,  local,  regional  and  national 
circumstances differ across the EU and, thus, the data requirements for policy-making are also 
likely  to  differ.  And  second,  local,  regional  and  national  governments  with  economic 
problems are unlikely to be able to find the necessary resources. These obstacles need to be 
taken into account when selecting the instrument.  

Option 27: Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice  

This  policy  option  has  one  kind  of  impact,  namely  providing  a  stronger  basis  for  policy-
making at all levels of government. Improving dissemination of knowledge and best practice 
can contribute to better informed decisions related to the overarching objective of sustainable 
mobility. In the longer term an initiative at EU level can also help to lower costs by reducing 
fragmentation in use of resources.  

The EU should follow a non-regulatory approach for this policy option. Direct public-sector 
intervention is likely to facilitate involvement of stakeholders. This option has no impact on 
specific groups, nor are there any obstacles to compliance. It is difficult to predict the impact, 
given that use of the knowledge and best practice is not mandatory.  

An ambitious approach should be followed in terms of the size and profile of this option in 
order to address the needs and promote use by as many potential users as possible. Ensuring 
the  active  participation  of  users,  promoting  networking  between  them  and  offering  users 
individual support and tools to prepare the take-up of knowledge or best practice will increase 
the likelihood that the information disseminated will actually be used for policy-making and 
lead to implementation. 

Option 28: Intensify research, development and demonstration activities  

This  policy  option  has  one  kind  of  impact,  namely  providing  a  stronger  basis  for  policy-
making  at  all  levels  of  government.  Intensifying  research,  development  and  demonstration 
activities  can  contribute  to  better-informed  decisions  related  to  the  overarching  objective  of 
sustainable  mobility  and  to  implementation  thereof.  In  the  longer  term  an  initiative  at  EU 
level can also help to lower costs by reducing fragmentation in use of resources. The results of 
research,  development  and  demonstration  activities  can  contribute  to  reducing  congestion, 
improving energy efficiency and reducing the environmental impact of transport.  

For  example,  RTD  on  applications  of  urban  ITS  (intelligent  transport  systems)  can  help  to 
reduce  congestion  by  increasing  the  capacity  of  existing  transport  infrastructure  in  urban 
areas.  RTD  on  new  public  transport  concepts  can  help  to  make  public  transport  more 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
attractive. RTD on transport propulsion technologies can help to make automobiles more fuel-
efficient and RTD on alternative fuels can help to reduce emissions of harmful pollutants.  

Estimates suggest that the fuel efficiency of passenger cars can be improved by between 40% 
and  50%  by  2030  by  means  of  technological  improvements  to  engine  and  drive-train 
technologies82. Second-generation biofuels based on wooden biomass or organic waste have a 
CO2  reduction  potential  of  almost  90%.  For  both  first-  and  second-generation  biofuels  the 
CO2 reduction costs are a few hundred euros per tonne of CO2

83. 

RTD  activities  in  the  area  of  vehicle  design  can  help  to  make  vehicles  safer  and  thereby 
reduce traffic fatalities in urban areas. Policy-related RTD in the field of urban mobility and 
transport,  usually  involving  local  authorities  in  research  and  demonstrations,  can  help  to 
assess policy tools and identify solutions to overcome barriers to implementation. This option 
should be implemented with the aid of financial intervention. 

In  the  long  run,  increasing  RTD  activities  in  the  field  of  urban  mobility  and  transport  can 
contribute  to  increasing  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  as  a  whole.  For  example,  it  can 
contribute  to  the  global  competitiveness  of  the  EU  industry  in  the  field  of  intelligent 
technology  or  public  transport  vehicles.  Direct  public-sector  financial  intervention  can  be 
justified for activities that would find it difficult to attract commercial funding because they 
are  too  risky  or  for  policy-related  RTD  where  the  results  are  of  interest  mainly  to  policy-
makers and not to stakeholders with commercial interests.  

However,  there  are  few  guarantees  that  the  results  of  the  RTD  will  actually  be  used.  This 
influences the effectiveness of this option. This obstacle can be overcome by ensuring active 
involvement of users and good dissemination of results.  

Option 29: Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving  

Modal  choice,  travel  behaviour  and  driving  style  influence  energy  consumption  and 
emissions.  These  can  be  influenced  by  awareness-raising  activities  and  information  and 
marketing  campaigns.  This  policy  option  will  make  a  positive  contribution  to  energy, 
environmental and social objectives (road safety). It will also help to provide a stronger basis 
for policy-making.  

One example is promotion of eco-driving. This is a particularly promising concept to promote 
to  road  transport  users,  taking  into  account  the  high  fuel  prices.  Eco-driving  leads  to  no 
perceptible loss of travel time and, therefore, is not likely to have an impact on mobility. The 
direct  impact  is  a  clear  decline  in  energy  consumption  per  vehicle-kilometre,  causing  a 
decline in emissions of air pollutants and noise. No clear economic impact is likely and there 
will  be  no  change  in  administrative  costs.  The  social  impact  will  be  that  a  more  defensive 
driving style is likely to lead to a decrease in traffic fatalities, while the decrease in emissions 
is likely to improve the impact on health.  

Another  example  is  provision  of  information  related  to  modal  choice  via  social  marketing 
campaigns. Well designed campaigns can influence both the attitudes and the intentions of the 
target group. Patterns of car use, walking, cycling and public transport use can be changed by 

82 

83 

Smokers, R. T. M., den Boer, L. C. and Faber, J. F. (2007): State of the Art CO2 en Mobiliteit, input 
voor gezamenlijk adviesproject van Raad V&W, VROM-Raad en AER. 
Ibid. 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
                                                 
awareness  campaigns  combined  with  other  initiatives84.  In  specific  cases,  the  reduction  in 
urban car traffic has been estimated in the range of 5% and in work-related car traffic at above 
10%85.  The  costs  of  achieving  this  reduction  would  be  0.2  to  3.2  eurocents  per  car-km86. 
While these figures are not representative, they give an indication of what is achievable. 

For  this  policy  option  the  EU  could  use  a  variety  of  instruments,  including  financial 
intervention,  information,  guidelines,  coordination  and/or  a  regulatory  approach.  The 
obstacles  to  compliance  are  related  to  the  instruments.  For  non-regulatory  instruments  this 
risk is negligible.  

Option  30:  Promote  investment  in  integrated  urban  transport,  including  public 
transport  

The urban mobility system must be seen as an integrated system that consists of the users of 
different transport modes, the interfaces between modes, the infrastructure of each mode and 
the  services  and  systems  that  allow  the  mobility  system  to  function  –  such  as  information, 
management and payment systems. This policy option aims at promoting investment in urban 
transport, with special emphasis on public transport.  

Investment  in  urban  transport,  notably  in  the  new  Member  States,  has  been  recognised  as 
important  by  many  policy-makers.  This  option  will  have  a  positive  impact  on  mobility, 
congestion,  energy  consumption  and  the  environment.  The  kinds  of  impact  can  include  a 
modal shift towards public transport, away from the car but also from non-motorised modes 
(mainly cycling). In cities in which cycling does not have a large share (as is the case in most 
cities  in  the  new  Member  States)  this  impact  would  be  limited.  Funding  will  also  stimulate 
urban regeneration (which can include measures to increase density), infrastructure-upgrading 
and fleet renewal. 

The improvement in access to public transport will be the most important, but there will also 
be an improvement in social inclusion as travel opportunities increase. A decrease in traffic 
fatalities  will  be  achieved,  along  with  improvements  in  the  impact  on  health,  as  car  traffic 
decreases.  

There is a clear relationship between provision of public transport, the population density of a 
city and the cost of transport. The higher the density in a city well served by public transport, 
the  lower  the  cost  of  transport.  Conversely  low-density  cities  lacking  good  public  transport 
spend a higher share of their GDP on transport. This difference is estimated at €2000 per year 
per  city  resident  for  cities  with  well  developed  public  transport  and  infrastructure  for 
alternative modes of transport87. Translated into energy consumption, the difference in energy 
consumption between high-density European cities with good public transport and sprawling 
American and Australian cities can range from 14 000 megaJoules to over 18 000 megaJoules 
per person, per year88.  

84 

85 
86 
87 
88 

Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson C., Anable J., Kirkbride, A. and Goodwin, P. (2005): Smarter Choices – 
Changing the Way We Travel, Department for Transport (DfT), London. 
Ibid. 
Ibid. 
UITP (2005): Mobility in Cities Database. 
Ibid. 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
                                                 
On congested roads, even a small reduction in traffic volume can significantly increase traffic 
speeds. For example, on a highway lane in the USA carrying 2 000 vehicles per hour a 5% 
reduction in traffic volumes will typically increase traffic speeds by about 20 miles per hour 
and eliminate stop-start conditions89. The role of the EU could either be financial or consist of 
providing information or guidelines. The uncertainties and the obstacles to compliance will be 
small.  

89 

TRL (2004), The Demand for Public Transit: A Practical Guide, Transportation Research Laboratory, 
Report TRL 593 (www.trl.co.uk). 

EN 

100 

   EN