COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Together towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility
Date: 2013-12-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: environmental protection, health care, innovation, motor vehicle pollution, public-private partnership, road safety, sustainable mobility, town traffic, transport accident, urban area













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0528 - EN











|



52013SC0528

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Together towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility /* SWD/2013/0528 final */









COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Accompanying the document
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Together towards competitive and
resource-efficient urban mobility
Table of Contents 
1............ General policy context 1
1.1......... Background in the development of the proposal 1
1.2......... European policy context 1
1.3......... Existing European initiatives. 3
1.4......... International policy context 4
2............ Procedural issues and consultation of
interested parties. 5
2.1......... Organisation and timing. 5
2.2......... Consultation and expertise. 5
2.3......... Results of the consultation of the
Impact Assessment Board. 7
3............ Problem definition. 7
3.1......... The problem.. 7
3.1.1...... Urban mobility challenges endangering the
well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses  9
3.1.2...... The lack of an integrated approach to urban
mobility in many European urban areas. 11
3.1.3...... The link between the urban mobility
challenges endangering the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of
businesses & the lack of an integrated urban mobility approach. 15
3.2......... Stakeholders points of view on the
problem.. 16
3.3......... Who is affected, in what ways, and to
what extent 17
3.4......... The baseline scenario. 17
3.4.1...... Existing legislation. 17
3.4.2...... Autonomous developments towards an
integrated urban mobility approach. 18
3.4.3...... Urban developments and trends. 19
3.5......... The EU's right to act 21
4............ Objectives. 24
4.1......... General, specific and operational
objectives. 24
4.2......... Mapping problems and objectives. 24
4.3......... Consistency with horizontal objectives
of the EU.. 25
5............ Policy options. 25
5.1......... Description of the retained policy
options. 25
5.1.1...... Option 0B: Business as usual scenario
(comprehensive policy framework, minimum governance framework) 26
5.1.2...... Option 1B: Non-binding recommendation on
SUMPs (comprehensive policy framework, minimum governance framework) 26
5.1.3...... Option 2A: Mandatory development of SUMPs
by Member States-defined urban areas (minimum policy and governance framework) 27
5.1.4...... Option 3A: Mandatory development of SUMPs
by EU-defined urban areas (minimum policy and governance framework) 28
5.1.5...... Schematic overview of the retained policy
options and implementation. 28
5.2......... Stakeholders points of view on the
retained policy options. 28
6............ Analysis of impacts of policy options. 30
6.1......... Effect of the policy options on the
uptake of SUMPs. 30
6.2......... Link between the uptake of SUMPs and the
economic, social and environmental impacts of this initiative  32
6.3......... Economic impacts. 35
6.3.1...... Impact on congestion and the free movement
of people and goods. 35
6.3.2...... Impact on the TEN-T (Trans-European
transport network) 36
6.3.3...... Impact on modal shift 37
6.3.4...... Impact on research & innovation,
economic development and competitiveness of EU industry  38
6.3.5...... Impact on Small and Medium Enterprises
(SMEs) 40
6.3.6...... Administrative burden and cost savings. 41
6.3.7...... Territorial impact 42
6.4......... Social impacts. 43
6.4.1...... Impact on road safety. 43
6.4.2...... Impact on health. 44
6.4.3...... Impact on employment and social inclusion. 45
6.4.4...... Impact on civil society. 45
6.5......... Environmental impacts. 46
6.5.1...... Impact on air quality. 46
6.5.2...... Impact on energy consumption and CO2 emissions
in transport, including possible territorial effects  47
6.5.3...... Impact on noise pollution. 49
6.5.4...... Impact on other environmental indicators
(e.g. biodiversity, water quality, soil quality, renewable sources, waste
management 49
6.6......... Impacts on affected stakeholders. 50
6.7......... Summary of the aggregate economic,
environmental and social impacts. 50
7............ Comparison of the policy options. 51
7.1......... Effectiveness. 51
7.2......... Efficiency. 52
7.3......... Coherence. 52
7.4......... Stakeholder support 53
7.5......... Summary on the comparison of policy
packages. 53
7.6......... Conclusions and preferred policy option. 53
8............ Monitoring and evaluation. 54
Appendix 1:
Assessment of the application of the minimum consultation standards. 55
Appendix 2: Results
of consultation with interested parties. 57
Appendix 3: The
baseline scenario. 66
Appendix 4: State of
the art of the concept for an Integrated Urban Mobility approach in Europe  77
Appendix 5:
Comprehensive definition of the Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning concept 86
Appendix 6:
Illustration of measures within the Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning concept 92
Appendix 7:
Quantifying the effect of the sustainable urban mobility planning concept on CO2 emissions  95
Appendix 8:
Reference documents. 102
Appendix 9: Glossary. 104
Appendix 10:
International Energy Agency guidance on  urban transport systems. 106
Appendix 11: Case
Studies For The Problem Definition. 109
Appendix 12:
Identification of the retained policy options. 114
Summary sheet 
 A. Need for action 
 Why? What is the problem being addressed? 
 1.           Many of the EU objectives that are crucial for a competitive and sustainable transport systems are at risk. Those include: seamless mobility along the TEN-T, improved road safety, reduced CO2 emissions and noise pollution and improved air quality. This negatively impacts the well-being of citizens and the effectiveness of businesses in urban areas. The cause identified for this problem is that there is regulatory failure at the urban level, due to a lack of an integrated urban mobility approach, which market mechanisms alone are not able to address. The lack of an integrated urban mobility approach can be further decomposed into a too narrow scope in terms of the policy issues being addressed and/or inadequate procedures and processes. Amongst the drivers for this are: a lack of political will or interest, a lack of funding, a lack of knowledge of the concept and its benefits, car-oriented communities and planning culture and tradition. The most affected stakeholders are EU citizens in general, businesses, transport operators and users, and local, regional and national authorities. 
 What is this initiative expected to achieve? 
 2.           The general objective is to unlock the full potential of urban areas to contribute to a more competitive and resource-efficient transport system. The specific objective is to ensure the uptake of an integrated urban mobility approach by EU urban areas. The operational objectives are to provide urban areas with and stimulate the uptake of a policy framework encompassing all policy issues and of a governance framework encompassing all procedures and processes to ensure such an approach. 
 What is the value added of action at the EU level? 
 3.           The EU added value consists of ensuring a more effective and coordinated policy-making in an by the European urban areas, by providing national authorities with a policy and governance framework for the development of integrated mobility approaches in urban areas, in full respect of subsidiarity. As a result, urban mobility policies should be implemented in a more effective way, achieving better impacts on the well-being of citizens and the effectiveness of businesses in urban areas, on top of meeting local, national and EU policy targets and comply with relevant EU legislation. The coordinated EU action will also be more effective at ensuring free flow of goods and people, a seamless mobility along the TEN-T and increasing the innovation potential of the EU. 
 B. Solutions 
 What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why? 
 4.           The considered policy options are: a business as usual scenario to continue and improve existing EU activities in urban mobility planning, non-binding recommendations on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs), and a mandatory EU framework on SUMPs. A mandatory framework could be considered for urban areas either defined by the Member States themselves, or defined at EU level. Regarding the level of ambition, recommendations are based on comprehensive requirements for the policy framework while a mandatory approach is based on minimum requirements for the policy framework. The preferred policy option is non-binding recommendations with comprehensive requirements for the policy framework (option 1B). This option scores best overall on effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and stakeholder support. Given the large diversity of urban mobility planning approaches at Member States level and given the current limited availability of comparable data and statistics, non-binding recommendations come out as the optimal way forward at this point in time.  
 Who supports which option? 
 5.           Local/regional authorities, city networks, members of the Committee of the Regions and a broad range of EU experts and associations support the continuation and improvement of existing EU initiatives (business as usual option) and of the non-binding recommendations options. This was also the result of the public consultation. In the public consultation, only workers' and passengers' associations supported a mandatory approach. Stakeholders and experts supported minimum requirements on the policy and governance framework, except for a requirement on certification, which they rejected. 
 C. Impacts of the preferred option 
 What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?                                
 6.           Voluntary recommendations on SUMPs will stimulate the uptake of SUMPS in EU urban areas. The more cities implement a full SUMP, the higher the potential environmental, social and economic benefits will be for citizens, consumers, businesses and authorities. The main expected benefits of the introduction of a full SUMP are reduced congestion, a better mobility along the TEN-T, cost savings due to a more coordinated, effective and efficient combination of measures within a SUMP, increased research and innovation potential, increased road safety, increased social inclusion and accessibility of work places, better air quality, reduced CO2 emissions and noise pollution. The preferred option stimulates the use of comprehensive policy requirements for a SUMP. Therefore, the impact could even be higher. By respecting the subsidiarity principle and by refraining from imposing specific measures and/or targets on cities, the preferred option leaves flexibility to the Member States and its regional/local authorities. 
 What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)?                                      
 7.           Local and regional authorities are affected due to higher administrative costs for developing and implementing a SUMP in comparison with traditional transport and infrastructure plans. In France the minimum average costs of developing a SUMP for cities between 100,000 and 200,000 inhabitants were estimated at €80,000 and the maximum average costs at €550,000. However, these authorities will benefit from large costs savings due to the implementation of a more coordinated, effective and efficient combination of measures. Results from the first round on Local Transport Plans in the UK indicate that the benefits of integrated transport schemes are likely to be significant relative to the costs and offering value for money. 
 How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? 
 8.           Businesses located in urban areas will have an easier access to services and resources. The implementation of a SUMP will lead to reduced congestion, time and costs savings, thereby improving accessibility and therefore the attractiveness of the location and improve business opportunities. The overall impact of SUMPs on SMEs is expected to be positive as the costs of running business in urban areas, related mainly to congestion would decrease and accessibility would improve. Reduced congestion through SUMPs in urban areas will be positive for the TEN‑T logistics, by improving access to motorways and better linkages with main transport hubs (ports, airports) located in urban areas. 
 Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
 9.           The impact on national budgets and administrations will not be significant. National administrations will be involved in developing national frameworks on SUMPs to guide and assist their urban areas. 
 Will there be other significant impacts? 
 10.         Developing a SUMP framework at the EU level could strengthen the competitiveness of the EU industry. If the EU is successful in tackling urban mobility challenges, the acquired know-how and technologies could be further exported and companies leading the innovation in transport mobility solutions could expand to foreign markets. Moreover, the SUMP framework can bring additional positive results to the competitiveness of the EU industry, as one of the underlying objectives of SUMPs is to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of transportation of persons and goods. 
 D. Follow up 
 When will the policy be reviewed? 
 The Commission services will evaluate by 2020 the uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches in the European Union. Based on this, the Commission services shall assess the need for further action on integrated urban mobility. 
1.           General policy context
1.1.        Background in the development of the proposal
11.         In 2010, the Europe 2020
Strategy[1]
for smart, inclusive, and sustainable growth highlighted the importance of a
modernised and sustainable European transport system for the future development
of the Union and stressed in this context the need to focus also on the urban
dimension of transport. Consequently, urban mobility is an important focal area
in the 2011 Transport White Paper[2]
and several relevant initiatives were announced. 
12.         The Transport White Paper
has already described the set of Commission actions that are needed to improve
urban mobility, in addition to already developed related and targeted EU
legislation and policy measures. These urban mobility actions would help to
realise the key EU Transport White Paper objective of a modernised, resource
efficient and more competitive European transport system. 
Despite existing EU legislation and policies with
impact on urban mobility (e.g. on Trans-European Network for Transport (TEN-T),
road safety, climate change, air quality, noise) many cities in Europe still face
common challenges that affect not only the competitiveness of the EU transport
system but also the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses. To
tackle these urban mobility challenges the Transport White Paper suggests that an
integrated urban mobility approach is needed. 
Over the last decades and especially in recent years a
growing focus on sustainability has given rise to the need to rethink
traditional urban mobility approaches in order to achieve improvement. Given
local specificities, planning cultures and experiences, different degrees of
sophistication of urban mobility planning exist throughout Europe.
13.         According to the White
Paper a greater coordination of all authorities having an influence on the
transport system is highly desirable, as well as extension of the coordination
of such authorities beyond the strict city borders[3]. In the White Paper it
is therefore announced in Initiative 31 that the Commission will "examine
the possibility of a European support framework for a progressive
implementation of Urban Mobility Plans in European cities, establish procedures
and financial support mechanisms at European level for preparing Urban Mobility
Audits, as well as Urban Mobility Plans, set up a European Urban Mobility
Scoreboard based on common targets, and examine the possibility of a mandatory
approach for cities of a certain size, according to national standards based on
EU guidelines". It is also proposed to "link regional development and
cohesion funds to cities and regions that have submitted a current, and
independently validated Urban Mobility Performance and Sustainability Audit
certificate". 
1.2.        European policy context
Already in 2002 the European Conference of Ministers
of Transport (ECMT) pointed out in their report on 'Implementing sustainable
urban travel policies'[4]
that cities face problems and barriers regarding planning, and measures setting
and implementation. A package of complementary policy instruments needs to be
developed to help cities moving towards sustainability. Better integration of
land-use and transport planning is necessary, and a multi-sectorial and
integrated approach is required. 
14.         Urban mobility is a shared
responsibility between the EU and the Member States at national, regional and
local level. This was recognised through the adoption of the Green Paper[5]
and Action Plan[6]
on Urban Mobility. The Action Plan includes 20 actions from 2009 until 2012 to
support local, regional and national authorities to make urban mobility more
sustainable. The concept of promoting integrated urban mobility policies
through accelerating the take up of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs),
which are strategic plans building on existing planning practices and based on
integration, participation and evaluation principles[7], was reflected in
Action 1 of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility "Accelerating the take-up of
sustainable urban mobility plans". Several EU initiatives have been
realised to establish and disseminate good practice (see section 1.3). 
The Action Plan on
Urban Mobility was reviewed, in a way proportionate to its scope. It came out
clearly that SUMPs was the most mature topic with clear stakeholders support
and that further action should be taken after the completion of the Action
Plan: "The encouragement of Member States to provide platforms that would
foster the development of sustainable urban mobility policies has not been
fully reached. It has been difficult to obtain widespread take-up because
necessary 'multiplication and dissemination' at Member States level has not
taken place. (…) Via the ELTISplus project a working definition of a SUMP has
been provided. However there is no official EU document with a definition of a
SUMP". This is in line with Initiative 31 of the White Paper.
15.         In 2008[8] the European Parliament
adopted a resolution on urban mobility. The Parliament underlined that better
coordination is essential for improving urban transport and mobility. It called
for a better coordination between neighbouring local authorities, and
considered it necessary for urban development and planning to be carried out on
an integrated basis.
16.         In 2010 the Council
"welcomed the Action Plan on Urban Mobility; and invited the Commission to
ensure that the new Transport White Paper contains targets and policies for
promoting more efficient, sustainable, safe and healthy urban mobility"[9].
17.         The European Economic and
Social Committee[10]
and the Committee of the Regions[11]
both adopted in 2010 an opinion on the Action Plan on Urban Mobility, and the
Committee of the Regions recommended an integrated approach to urban policies.
18.         The Seventh Framework
Programme for Research and Technological Development and Demonstration
activities[12]
addresses sustainable urban mobility, including innovative urban management and
planning practices through the CIVITAS initiative[13]. Other
projects on sustainable urban mobility planning have been carried out, for
example the PILOT project[14],
the ELTISplus project[15]
and other related activities under the Intelligent Energy Europe/STEER
programme[16].
1.3.        Existing European initiatives
EU action over the past years has
contributed to making urban mobility more competitive and sustainable and
mitigating its negative impacts. The current EU policy is a project-based,
bottom-up approach, which helps pro-active, interested cities, local authorities
and citizens. 
Since 2002, the EU is running the CIVITAS
programme under the Framework Programme for Research. CIVITAS supports
demonstration activities related to urban mobility. It has so far provided
funding to 59 cities and around 200 cities are members of the CIVITAS Forum
Network to learn from the lead cities. The CIVITAS programme will continue
under the next financial framework 2014-2020.
The EU is also conducting a large number of awareness-raising
activities for stakeholders and the general public. The most important one is
the annual European Mobility Week, which encourages local authorities to
introduce and promote sustainable transport measures and to invite citizens to
try out alternatives to car use. Close to 8000 permanent measures have been
implemented as a result of the campaign. In 2012, 2.158 cities registered their
participation, covering 29.2% of the total EU population. The "Do The
Right Mix[17] campaign" for its part supports sustainable urban mobility
campaigners and promotes the advantages of combining different modes of
transportation.
In addition to campaigns there are useful websites including 1) the
ELTISplus website[18], that facilitates the exchange of information, knowledge and
experiences in the field of urban mobility between individuals working in the
field of transport and related disciplines; 2) the sustainable urban mobility
plans website[19] that supports local authorities in developing SUMPs and is
complemented by guidelines, events and training workshops on how to develop and
implement SUMPs and 3) the LEZ (Low Emission Zones) website[20] that allows citizens and businesses to find out the emissions
standard of the LEZ they wish to travel into, and of their vehicle.
Looking forward, the Commission will set up
a European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, which will coordinate
the activities of all EU programmes related to urban mobility planning. It will
integrate the above-mentioned websites and link with the CIVITAS initiative. It
will act as a virtual knowledge and competence centre, consolidating relevant
experiences and information across the EU. This will help tackle implementation
issues at city level. It will also include the sharing of relevant data and
statistics and the elaboration of common indicators on urban mobility
performance.
It should also be
mentioned that the development and deployment of sustainable urban mobility
measures and plans is supported by the structural funds and the TEN-T funds. 
1.4.        International
policy context
19.         Heads of State and
Government meeting at the 2012 United Nations (UN) Conference on Sustainable
Development 'Rio+20' recognised the importance of sustainable transport for
economic growth and sustainable urban development and agreed, inter alia on
"the need to promote an integrated approach to policy making at the
national, regional and local levels for transport services and systems to
promote sustainable development[21]."
Moreover, the International Energy Agency
(IEA) also emphasises that urgent energy-efficiency policy attention in relation
to urban transport systems will be needed to mitigate associated negative
noise, air pollution, congestion, climate and economic impacts, all of which
can cost countries billions of dollars per year. According to the IEA the pathway to improving the urban transport systems includes four
stages: planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluation. As such, the IEA
also argues for an integrated approach to urban mobility[22]. More information can be found in Appendix 10.
20.         Around the world there is
increased attention to integrated urban mobility, particularly in rapidly
urbanising countries. The 2012 Brazilian urban mobility law[23] requires the
preparation of an urban mobility plan for all Brazilian cities with more than
20,000 inhabitants. In India a National Urban Transport Policy has been defined
in 2006. Under this policy cities have been asked to develop Comprehensive
Mobility Plans. These action plans have begun to evolve in a few metropolitan
cities to address pollution and congestion[24].
In Mexico the state government is responsible for general mobility and
transport policies, plans and programs, including sustainable mobility plans.
In 2011 the OECD concluded that the lack of coordination of efforts between
different level of government, various authorities and transport operators in
Mexico can be a major obstacle faced to transport modernisation[25].  In China urban master plans are required by the state for all cities
for a 20 years period[26].
The central government outlines the form and procedures and the municipality
develops the contents of the plan. The plan covers a wide range of topics
including transport. However, with the focus on short term construction it is
difficult to develop sustainable transport systems through an integrated urban
mobility approach. Coordinated policy making will not be achieved in the near
future. The OECD recommends China to strengthen the synchronization of central
government with local government on sustainable transport strategy and enhance
the capacity of local government[27].
21.         In the developed economies
an integrated approach to urban mobility is also gaining importance. The USA Federal
legislation[28]
requires each state to prepare a transportation plan considering all transport
modes and based on at least a 20-year forecast period, which may include a
financial plan. Under SAFETEA-LU, the policy for the
metropolitan planning process is to promote consistency between transportation
improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns.
Metropolitan Planning Organizations cooperate with the state in developing
transportation plans and programs for the urbanized area. The plans are to
provide for the development of all transportation facilities (including walking
and cycling) and serve as an intermodal system for the state, metropolitan
areas, and the nation[29].
In Canada
a national transit framework including elements such as multi-stakeholder
dialogue, policy integration with health, environment and urban planning and
public transit funding, has not been adopted or implemented yet[30]. However, the city of Sherbrooke in the province of Québec is one
of the first cities who formally adopted a SUMP in February 2012, after a
process of intensive stakeholder and public consultation since 2008[31]. Finally, in Australia the concept of an integrated approach to
urban mobility is known and SUMP guidelines were published in 2012[32].
2.           Procedural issues and consultation of interested
parties
Lead
DG: Directorate General for Mobility and Transport
Agenda
planning: 2013/MOVE/026
EU
framework for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans ('Urban Mobility Package')
2.1.        Organisation and timing
22.         This Impact Assessment was
elaborated by DG MOVE, assisted by a Commission Impact Assessment Steering
Group (IASG) on Urban Mobility re-established in November 2011[33].
The IASG met on 11 December 2012 and on 19 February 2013. The third IASG
meeting took place on 20 June 2013 and the fourth and last IASG took place on
10 July 2013. A final version incorporating the comments made during this
meeting was circulated on 19 July 2013.
2.2.        Consultation and expertise
Process of
consultation
23.         An on-line stakeholder
consultation was carried out between 18 June and 7 September 2012 as part of
the study “Panteia/NEA (2013), Review of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility”
MOVE C1/319-1/2011 and attracted 116 contributions with 62 contributions on
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. 
24.         An on-line public
consultation on the urban dimension of EU transport policy, including the issue
of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, has run between 17 September 2012 and 17
December 2012 and attracted 206 participants. 195 participants replied to the
questionnaire and are included in the statistics, the others sent position
papers. A summary report of the contributions received from stakeholders during
the public consultation on the urban dimension of EU transport policy is
available on the Commission website[34].
25.         For both consultations, it
should be noted that although the number of respondents is high enough to draw
learnings and conclusions, it is not enough to claim representativeness,
especially when breaking down answers under the different categories of
respondents.
26.         A high level conference on
urban mobility took place on 17 September 2012 and a meeting with
representatives from EU Member States on urban mobility took place on 12
December 2012. A dedicated expert consultation was carried out on 29 January
2013[35].
A stakeholder consultation meeting on urban mobility was held on 21 May 2013,
and a similar meeting with the Committee of the Regions' members took place on
13 June 2013. 
27.         A special Euro barometer
citizen survey into 'Attitudes of Europeans towards urban mobility' took place
between 24 May and 9 June 2013. 26,680 face-to-face interviews were held in EU
28 Member States[36].
28.         Input from stakeholders has
been taken into account in this impact assessment study. Appendix 1
demonstrates that the minimum consultation standards have been respected. The
details of all public, stakeholder, expert and member states consultations are
provided in Appendix 2.
External expertise
29.         External expertise was used
to assess the various options available to develop and implement integrated
urban mobility approaches, including aspects raised during the public and
stakeholder consultations[37].
The study has revealed that European cities are on the move towards integrated
urban mobility approaches and this trend is likely to continue. However, few
cities implement a full integrated urban mobility approach. With a view to the
mobility, social and environmental challenges the urban transport system faces,
the lack of coordinated and target policy action in cities is a particular
challenge.
The relevant social
partners have also been consulted throughout the entire process. This concerned
IRU (International Road Transport Union), UITP (Union Internationale des
Transports Publics), CER (Community of European Railway and Infrastructure
Companies), CEEP (European Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public
services) and ETF (European Transport Workers' Federation). Their views are
taken into account in this report in so far as they are directly relevant to
the issue at hand.
Principal relevant findings
of the public consultation
30.         87 % of the registered participants
believe that there is a lack of coordination between authorities and other
actors in the use of various policy instruments, and that integrated urban
mobility planning could be an answer to tackle this issue. 5% of the
respondents disagree.
86% of the registered participants believe that
EU-support for the development of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) would
contribute to the broader take up of these plans in urban areas. 74% is of the
opinion that best practices on SUMPs should be developed and exchanged at EU
level. Moreover, 66% finds that the EU should provide a platform for this. 57%
of the respondents support the development of guidelines and recommendations. Furthermore,
58% believes that the EU should give financial support for the development of
SUMPs, whereas 57% believes that the EU should fund R&D projects related to
urban mobility planning. 29% of the registered respondents, especially workers'
and passengers' associations, point to a mandatory framework for SUMPs in EU
cities.
31.         The principal objectives of
SUMPs, as ranked by the participants, are improving air quality, liveability,
leisure, recreation and accessibility. The two preferred topics such a plan
should address are walking and cycling, closely followed by a public transport
plan, including travel information, ticketing and payment systems. Around 67% of the registered respondents said that urban planning
does not give sufficient consideration to urban freight logistics. 
32.         67% of the registered
participants are in favour of linking the access to EU funding for urban
transport projects to the existence of SUMPs to ensure that supported projects
are in line with relevant local, national and EU policies and to avoid waste of
financial resources. About 22% of the registered participants are against the
idea of making a SUMP a condition for funding as this could lead to unfair
discriminations between cities and countries and more administrative burden.
Overall, the results of the public consultation show
that there is a keen desire among stakeholders for an integrated urban mobility
scheme and stronger EU commitment[38].

Principal relevant findings
of the Eurobarometer citizen survey
A very large majority
of all Europeans think that urban air and noise pollution accidents and congestion,
are important challenges and nine out of ten Europeans encounter problems when
travelling within cities that limit their access to important goods and
services. Travelling costs are also considered to be an important issue in a
large majority of Member States. Importantly 72% think that the situation will
stay the same or get worse. A clear majority thinks that city authorities are
mainly responsible for taking action to address urban mobility challenges.
2.3.        Results of the consultation
of the Impact Assessment Board
The Impact Assessment
Board (hereafter "the Board") gave a positive overall opinion with a
number of comments to be integrated. The Board asked for a more streamlined
problem definition by focusing on the key issues to be tackled by this
initiative. This point has been addressed by linking the key issues better to
the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses. Also in answer to
comments from the Board, it is clarified how the results of previous EU
initiatives were used, including the Action Plan on Urban Mobility; how the
benchmark approach was developed and how SUMPs implementation issues will be
dealt with. Moreover, the baseline scenario in terms of the existing relevant
EU initiatives and their expected results, and the demonstration of the
EU-added value is strengthened. In response to the Board's comments, a more
concrete definition of the objectives and a simplified presentation of the
options is put forward. Furthermore, a clearer definition of the impacts with
regard to how they address the main barriers for the uptake of integrated urban
mobility planning and to how the options are expected to deliver on the
objectives is presented. Last, the Board asked for a better distinction between
the different types of stakeholders when presenting their views. This issue is
addressed within the limits of the available data. 
3.           Problem definition
3.1.        The problem 
In 'A
resource-efficient Europe - Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 strategy'[39] a key component
related to transport was identified. It emphasised the need for a vision for a
low-carbon, resource-efficient, secure and competitive transport system that
removes all obstacles to the internal market for transport, promotes clean
technologies and modernises transport networks. The Transport White Paper
translated this into a vision for a competitive and sustainable transport
system.  
However, despite existing EU policies and legislation tackling
individual policy areas with impact on urban mobility (e.g. Trans-European
Network for Transport (TEN-T), road safety, climate change, air quality, noise),
and related action in the Member States, many cities in Europe still face
common challenges. They are struggling with congestion and accessibility[40], seamless mobility
along the TEN-T, traffic accidents on urban roads, air pollution, CO2
emissions and noise pollution. 
This
is resulting in large costs for the society as a whole: the efficiency and
cost-effectiveness of transportation of persons and goods is suboptimal, having
negative impacts on the well-being of citizens and
effectiveness of businesses.  This also creates a missed opportunity to
further increase the innovation potential of the EU. The momentum is not seized
to further develop innovative solutions for urban mobility challenges. As a
result, the EU as a whole is missing an opportunity to export know-how and
technologies, thereby not realising the full competitiveness potential of the
EU industry. 
Therefore, the main problem identified is that
the EU objectives crucial for a competitive and sustainable transport system -
i.e. seamless mobility along the TEN-T, improved road safety, reduced CO2
emissions and noise pollution, and improved air quality - are at risk because
of transport developments in urban areas[41]. This consequently negatively affects the
well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses located in urban areas.
Notwithstanding local factors, the general root cause
of this problem- identified through EU activities and stakeholders and experts opinions - is linked to regulatory failure at the urban
level and the fact that market mechanisms alone are not able to address this
situation. 
The regulatory failure is linked to the fact that many
local authorities are not effective in their actions due to a lack of an
integrated urban mobility approach. They tackle the individual policy
areas separately, without necessarily looking for possible synergies or
conflicts between those individual policy areas. For example on land use
planning, accessibility and air quality: by building a large shopping mall
outside a city centre without linking it sufficiently to public transport, air
quality and congestion could deteriorate because of a rise in car trips. In
this respect, one could argue that currently, many European cities face a
"missing link", which would ensure an integrated urban mobility
approach. 
Besides, the market mechanisms in urban areas do not
lead to the achievement of the EU objectives mentioned above, because of
difficulties with attributing market value to the identified challenges,
insufficient economic incentives and requirements for substantive initial
investments that do not guarantee returns in the near future. This market
failure is to a large extent also a consequence of legal uncertainty and
unclear long-term transport policies in many urban areas.
The underlying cause of the main problem, i.e. the
inadequate regulatory approach to integrated urban mobility in many European urban
areas can be further explained by two problem drivers:
1.                      
Problem driver 1: Policy making in many European urban areas often fails to address
all policy issues essential to ensure an integrated
approach to urban mobility 
2.                      
Problem driver 2: Procedures and processes in many European urban areas are often
inadequate to ensure an integrated approach to urban
mobility 
According to experts
the major barriers for the uptake of an integrated approach to urban mobility
in many EU urban areas[42]
and the related (sub)problem(s) identified above can be found in the following
areas: lack of political will or interest, lack of funding (for development and
implementation of actions), lack of knowledge of concept and of its benefits,
car oriented communities, and planning culture and tradition. In city case
studies the lack of funding, possibly related to the current economic
situation, and planning tradition were ranked as the most important barriers. 
This initiative will
tackle all the barriers, to the exception of the lack of funding, as it will
not release any additional budget for the development and implementation of
integrated approaches to urban mobility (although feedback from the UK
indicates that more attention to integrated urban mobility helps local
authorities take the decision to dedicate more funds to this important policy
area, see section 6.3.6). 
The following sections present
evidence for the main problem and its drivers. First of all, it will be
demonstrated that in many European urban areas the well-being of citizens and
effectiveness of businesses is at risk, due to persisting problems with accessibility,
congestion and its relation to seamless mobility along the TEN-T, traffic
accidents on urban roads, air and noise pollution and CO2 emissions
(see section 3.1.1). Secondly, it will be demonstrated that many European urban
areas do not have an integrated urban mobility approach, as they do not address
all policy issues and/or do not have the optimal procedures and processes (see
section 3.1.2). Lastly, the link between these two issues will be clarified
(see section 3.1.3).
              3.1.1. Urban
mobility challenges endangering the well-being of
citizens and effectiveness of businesses
33.         The share of the population
residing in predominantly and intermediate urban areas is currently around 76%
of the EU population[43].
Demographic trends have an impact on the requirements on urban mobility and
transport, especially regarding the mobility and accessibility needs of elderly
people. Around a sixth of EU population has a disability[44]. Over a third of
people aged over 75 have disabilities that restrict them to some extent, and
over 20% are considerably restricted. These numbers are set to rise as the EU's
population ages[45].
34.         Economy activity is even
more spatially concentrated than population. Around 85% of the EU's GDP is
generated in cities[46].
Services represent about 72% of the total EU gross value added. Proximity of
people and activities and a shift towards a knowledge based and service based
economy will continue to drive urbanisation in the EU[47].
Congestion in the EU is
often located in urban areas and regions. Congestion costs in urban areas are
currently estimated at around €80 billion per year[48]. Congestion creates stress and loss of time for the citizens and
reduces the effectiveness of businesses that rely on transport for supplies
and/or sales. Heavy congestion increases vehicle fuel consumption by 30%[49].
Urban congestion has a negative impact on inter-urban and cross-border travel,
as most transport starts and ends in urban areas. Urban congestion is linked to
accessibility of a city, especially regarding the last mile to and from main
nodes on the TEN-T network[50],
both for passenger and freight transport. As recognised by the TEN-T policy,
connectivity within and between the regions often translates to connections
among the main cities in and beyond the regions. The TEN-T chain is only as
strong as its weakest link: the efficiency of urban transport is essential to
achieve a seamless mobility along the TEN-T. The TomTom congestion index based
on GPS measurements shows significant delays in the monitored cities,
especially in peak hours. Most cities in this index belong to the urban nodes
in the TEN-T network[51].

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

36.         Together with the increase
in energy use of the transport sector in the EU, CO2 emissions for
transport have increased by 28% between 1990 and 2010. The transport sector has
increased its share of total CO2 emissions from 20% in 1990 to 29%
in 2010[53],[54]. Urban transport
is responsible for about 23% of total CO2 emissions from transport[55]. This is impacting the
well-being of virtually all populations, including those living in cities.
37.         Many European cities[56] are plagued by air
quality problems, with pollutant concentrations well above the limit values for
PM10 and NO2 set by EU legislation[57] for health
protection reasons. Transport is a main source of PM10 and NOx
emissions (which contributes to ozone creation) and the emission of air
pollutants in cities is particularly linked to road traffic exhaust. As such,
air quality is also closely related to traffic congestion. Although emissions
of air pollutants from road transport have declined since 1990, air quality is
still an issue in cities across Europe. About 6-27
% of the urban population in the EU was potentially
exposed to ambient nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations above the
EU limit value set for the protection of human health (40 microgram NO2/m3
annual mean) between 2001-2010. Even a higher share, about 18-41 % of the urban
population in the EU, was potentially
exposed to ambient concentrations of particulate
matter (PM10) in excess of the EU limit
value set for the protection of human
health (50 microgram/m3 daily mean not to be exceeded more than 35
days a calendar year) between 2001-2010 and there is no apparent trend over
this period[58].
Obviously, air quality has a direct impact on health and therefore well-being.
38.         Around 40 million people
across the EU are exposed to noise levels above 50 decibel from roads within
areas during the night.[59]
The WHO night noise guidelines for Europe describe levels above 55 decibel
during the night as increasingly dangerous to public health, increasing the
risk for cardio-vascular diseases[60].
The external costs of noise in the EU amount to at least 0.35 % of its GDP and
mostly due to road traffic. Urbanisation, growing demand for motorised
transport and inefficient urban planning are described as the main driving
forces for environmental noise exposure[61].

39.         The above assessment of
mobility and sustainability challenges has shown that many EU cities are far
from having solved their urban mobility challenges and from achieving a healthy
and effective environment for their citizens and businesses. The total costs
linked to congestion, accidents, noise, air pollutions and CO2 emissions
impose a large burden on society as a whole. If no action is taken, it will
continue to be a burden for future generations. The challenges are also
endangering a more competitive and resource-efficient transport system, which
is the key EU Transport White
Paper objective. The future prosperity of the EU will depend on the ability of
all its regions to remain fully and competitively integrated in the world
economy. As most transport of goods and people starts and ends in a urban
areas, connectivity within and between the regions often translates to
connections among the main cities in and beyond the regions. Taking into
account that the majority of population lives in urban areas, it becomes
obvious that the efficiency of urban transport goes beyond the local level and
affects mobility in general. 
              3.1.2. The lack of an
integrated approach to urban mobility in many European urban areas
Given local specificities, planning
cultures and experiences, different degrees of sophistication in urban mobility
planning exist throughout Europe. However, the current urban mobility practices
reveal many gaps with regard to elements that are necessary for achieving a
true integrated urban mobility approach. In line with the view of a large
majority of experts and stakeholders[62]
and with evaluation experience from the ELTISplus and CIVITAS initiatives[63], the most successful urban
areas have applied integrated approaches to tackle the multi-sectorial problems
in policy-making linked to their transport system. Therefore the concept of an
integrated urban mobility approach emerged. This integrated approach tries to
address all challenges and complexities of urban transport system by ensuring
adequate policy elements and governance principles in policy actions at city
level (see Appendices 4, 5 and 6). 
Based on agreed common elements of an
integrated urban mobility approach from those previous EU initiatives, a "benchmark
integrated urban mobility concept" has been developed through an
extensive consultation process, both with stakeholders and experts[64]. The tables in
Appendix 4 provide a justification of the elements included in the benchmark
concept. It incorporates specific elements - on (a) policy elements and (b)
processes and procedures - necessary to achieve well-being of citizens and
effectiveness of businesses, and the EU objective of a competitive and resource
efficient transport system. Those specific elements focus on the need to tackle
the main urban challenges identified before (accessibility, congestion and
seamless mobility along the TEN-T, traffic accidents, air and noise pollution, CO2
emissions). On the geographical scope this "benchmark" concept covers
all movements of goods and people to, from, through and within an urban area,
being the urban agglomeration or functional city[65]. 
The elements identified for the policy
framework for cities' policy making (cfr. problem driver 1 on policy
issues) to ensure the effectiveness and coherence of an integrated approach are
the following:
·        
address both freight and passenger transport
·        
address all transport modes
·        
address the following topics: public transport
services, non-motorised transport, city logistics, mobility management,
integration of transport modes (multi-modality), and the road network and
motorised transport (including moving and stationary traffic)  
40.         The elements identified related
to the governance framework (in terms of processes and procedures of
cities' policymaking) (cfr. problem driver 2) are more fixed. The following can
be considered: 
·        
Contains pledge to sustainability (3 dimensions:
economic, social and environmental)
·        
Includes or is built on long-term strategy
·        
Identifies objectives and sets targets in line
with EU policies
·        
Provides short-term implementation plan
(timetable + budget plan; allocation of responsibilities)
·        
Integrates different relevant policy areas, in
particular land-use and transport planning
·        
Considers all transport  to, through and within
the urban agglomeration area and coordination between different authority
levels
·        
Includes baseline analysis including performance
audit 
·        
Is developed in a participatory approach
·        
Includes impact assessment on proposed measures
·        
Is based on integrated planning and
implementation
·        
Is formally adopted
·        
Foresee mechanisms for monitoring of
implementation and performance
·        
Foresee mechanisms for review and update of
plans
·        
Includes a conformity check on requirements
Based on the elements in the model
benchmark concept on an integrated urban mobility approach, an assessment has
been made of the current situation in the Member States. See table 1 (COWI, 2013).
Appendix 4 provides an extensive justification for this assessment. An overall
conclusion is that some European cities implement to a certain degree an
integrated urban mobility approach, but that in most cases they do not reach
the level of a full "benchmark" integrated urban mobility approach. Below
some further illustrations of countries and specific elements are given: 
Integrated urban mobility strategies have evolved in France
and the UK where respectively the "Plans de Déplacements Urbains"
(PDUs) and the Local Transport Plans (LTPs)[66]
have been introduced. In these countries it has been concluded that the
development of such integrated approaches – at least for the larger urban areas
– is an important prerequisite for the achievement of policy objectives and
targets. Competent authorities have been designated and charged with the
development of these integrated strategies by national legislation. But even in
these countries it appears that more needs to be done to develop more
coordinated and integrated approaches with targeted policy actions[67].
In several other Member States (e.g. those
who have last joined the EU), however, traditional (fragmented) urban mobility
approaches persist or are only slowly evolving. They remain too limited in
scope to address appropriately all the issues identified under the problem
definition. Furthermore, their planning processes and procedures are not
adequate to ensure a proper coordination of the actions deployed by different
authorities. Apart from France and the UK the approaches in other countries do
not always cover the whole urban agglomeration. Freight transport is less
covered than passenger transport[68].
Cities in Member States that have last joined the EU are generally less
advanced than in old Member States, although some cities undertake urban
mobility approaches at a high level. According to experts and respondents to
the public consultation process insufficient coordination on urban mobility is
a persisting problem.
Table 1:                Assessment of
current level of integrated urban mobility approach (IUMA) in EU 28[69]
 Country || No of cities* || Population in cities || No IUMA || Low/ Medium IUMA || Medium/ High IUMA || Full IUMA 
 Austria || 5 ||  2,642,423 || None || Some || Some || None 
 Belgium || 7 ||  2,306,490 || None || Few || Many || None 
 Bulgaria || 7 ||  3,330,714 || None || Many || None || None 
 Croatia || 3 ||  613,111 || Some || Some || None || None 
 Cyprus || 2 ||  577,300 || Few || Many || None || None 
 Czech Republic || 6 ||  2,227,034 || Few || Many || Few || None 
 Denmark || 4 ||  1,597,610 || None || Some || Some || None 
 Estonia || 1 ||  401,140 || None || Many || None || None 
 Finland || 8 ||  1,848,032 || Some || Some || Few || None 
 France || 54 ||  28,768,438 || None || Few || Many || None 
 Germany || 81 ||  29,148,473 || Few || Some || Some || None 
 Greece || 7 ||  4,408,762 || Some || Some || None || None 
 Hungary || 9 ||  3,229,655 || Few || Many || Few || None 
 Ireland || 2 ||  1,309,209 || Some || None || Some || None 
 Italy || 41 ||  19,166,051 || Few || Some || Some || None 
 Latvia || 1 ||  806,993 || None || Many || None || None 
 Lithuania || 4 ||  1,198,585 || Some || Some || Few || None 
 Luxemburg || 1 ||  143,697 || None || Many || None || None 
 Malta || 1 ||  5,784 || None || Many || None || None 
 Netherlands || 20 ||  8,338,566 || Few || Some || Many || None 
 Poland || 39 ||  13,476,139 || Few || Many || Few || None 
 Portugal || 6 ||  4,412,536 || None || Many || Few || None 
 Romania || 19 ||  5,708,596 || Some || Many || None || None 
 Slovakia || 2 ||  768,562 || Some || Some || None || None 
 Slovenia || 2 ||  375,155 || Some || None || Some || None 
 Spain || 51 ||  19,438,047 || Few || Many || Few || None 
 Sweden || 6 ||  2,040,531 || None || Some || Some || None 
 United Kingdom || 66 ||  29,808,427 || None || Few || Many || None 
 Total || 455 || 188,096,060 || Few || Some || Some || None 
Note:
It cannot be excluded that few cities might have reached a level of approach
that includes all benchmark elements and resembles a full IUMA  
*
Urban areas above 100,000 inhabitants
Example: cities' suboptimal approach to urban
logistics
Although urban logistics makes up a relatively small share of urban
traffic (e.g. 17% of all vehicle.km on London's roads in 2010[70]), they make a major contribution
to the success of cities. It is clear that cities are places for the exchange
of goods and information which are at the heart of our economy and way of life.
For cities to be successful they need to optimise the exchange of goods and
information while remaining attractive places to live and work.
But throughout Europe there are significant
problems with the movement of goods in urban areas. Congestion has a negative
impact on productivity and competitiveness of urban economies, causes
inefficiencies in logistics operations and so increases costs.  The costs of
the 'first' and 'last mile' of supply chains are too high and present a barrier
to growth in some sectors. Finally the environmental impacts of urban logistics
operations can be high contributing to air and noise pollution, road damage and
CO2 emissions. Due to the proximity and density of people in urban
areas the external costs of urban freight transport can be high. 
While the technical knowledge to solve most of
these problems is available, the root cause of the continued problem is the
lack of understanding and political attention to urban logistics amongst
national and local decision makers. While most people acknowledge the
importance of the movement of goods and services to cities and the economy - "urban
logistics" is very often neglected in the integrated urban mobility
approach. In a survey of Swedish cities 43% did not spend any time working on
freight transport issues despite 65% identifying freight transport as a problem[71].
              3.1.3. The link between
the urban mobility challenges endangering the well-being of citizens and
effectiveness of businesses & the lack of an integrated urban mobility
approach
To substantiate the main problem identified
for this initiative it is necessary to link it to the
lack of an integrated approach to urban mobility in many European cities. 
Ideally, this should be
demonstrated by a clear statistical correlation: cities with a good tradition
in relation to integrated urban mobility approaches would have to score better
in relation to congestion and accessibility, seamless
mobility along the TEN-T, traffic accidents on urban roads, air pollution, CO2
emissions and noise pollution, and vice versa for cities without an integrated
urban mobility approach. However, several other factors impede the
trustworthiness of such a linear link (COWI, 2013). First of all, urban issues
such as congestion and accessibility, road safety, air pollution, CO2
emissions and noise pollution are influenced by many other factors and policy
initiatives. As such, singling out the impact of one influencing factor – an
integrated urban mobility approach – would be problematic. Moreover, other
elements could impede a clear statistical correlation, such as the lack of
historical recorded data that can show long term trends, the time lag between
the initiation of an integrated planning approach and the possible resulting
outcome, certain planned measures might not have been implemented, the more
advanced integrated urban mobility approaches are only recently being
implemented and therefore it is still too early to draw conclusions from it.
Even more important is the fact that different cities all have a different
starting point. Certain cities might historically have suffered heavily from congestion,
accessibility problems, CO2 emission and noise pollution. Although
the implementation of a true integrated urban mobility approach might have
significantly improved their situation, these cities might still be worse off
than other cities which because of historical developments encountered much
less problems with congestion, accessibility problems, and environmental
pollution. It could be that these historically better performing cities in
relation to the European objectives might not have a very well developed
integrated urban mobility tradition. This difficulty in demonstrating a clear
causal linkage is furthermore hampered by the fact that the effectiveness of an
integrated urban mobility approach also depends on its implementation, i.e. the
actual measures that are put in place. An in theory perfectly integrated urban
mobility approach, could due to implementation failure nevertheless not
generate the desired results.
For all these reasons, it is not possible
to demonstrate a 100% clear linkage between the well-being of citizens and
effectiveness of businesses issue and the existence of a true integrated urban
mobility approach. However, based on anecdotal evidence and the view of
experts, this link can nevertheless be substantiated by providing strong
indications of the benefits of an integrated urban mobility approach. This is
done in Appendix 11 by the elaboration of case studies of good and mixed
practice on integrated urban mobility approaches, in combination with the
opinion of relevant experts. 
The main conclusion that can be drawn from
those case studies is that the examples of good practice show that the
implementation of packages of interlinked and coherent measures through an
integrated urban mobility approach contribute towards achieving specific EU
targets on road safety and air quality, helps reducing congestion, and leads to
cost savings. Thus, they contribute to more well-being for citizens and more
effectiveness for businesses. The Vienna example also demonstrates that urban
congestion was not efficiently tackled due to a lack of an integrated approach
in the beginning, but new transport plans and the implementation of
future-oriented measures including both urban and regional aspects have
compensated the adverse effects. 
3.2.        Stakeholders points of view
on the problem
41.         In 2008 the European
Parliament called it essential to adopt a new approach to strategic planning
for urban areas in order to anticipate the coming environmental, energy and
mobility challenges, and considered it necessary for urban development and
planning to be carried out on an integrated basis[72]. At the high level
conference on urban mobility in September 2012 representatives from the
Committee of the Regions and the European Parliament raised the importance of a
holistic and comprehensive approach for urban mobility. In 2010 the Council
encouraged the coordination of transport infrastructure and service planning
with town and country planning, including land use planning; and recognised
that local and regional transport infrastructures should be improved and
properly interconnected with national long-distance networks and the TEN-T
Network[73].
42.         In the Review of the Action
Plan on Urban Mobility stakeholders only regard the current EU approach on
integrated urban mobility as a first step. Continuation of support by the EU in the exchange of best practice
and knowledge, as well as through the development of guidelines is strongly
welcomed to improve awareness, knowledge and the quality of data. Furthermore,
stakeholders feel that the integration of various policy sectors within these
plans should be strengthened[74].
The results of the public consultation on
the urban dimension of EU transport policy show that there is a strong wish amongst stakeholders to see an
integrated urban mobility scheme, and a more pronounced involvement of the
European Union. 87% of the registered participants believe that there is a lack
of coordination between authorities and other actors in the use of various
policy instruments[75].
This support is valid for all categories of stakeholders (e.g. civil society,
local and regional public authorities, companies), although the number of
respondents may not always be representative enough for some of those
categories.
3.3.        Who
is affected, in what ways, and to what extent
43.         Local and regional authorities
are affected as they currently develop less cost-effective solutions with
unnecessarily high costs and/or inconsistency with EU policy targets or
legislation. 
44.         Local, regional and national
authorities, transport operators and users, and businesses are affected by
congestion leading to less accessibility of/within cities, unpredictable and
longer travel times and higher costs due to lost time and inefficiencies.
45.         As a consequence of
inappropriate planning approaches, businesses have fewer opportunities to
develop innovative transport and mobility technologies and services and less
'economies of scale' and export opportunities. 
46.         Tax payers are affected due
the development and implementation of a less coordinated and targeted
combination of measures including unnecessarily high costs.
47.         EU citizens in general are
affected due to the impact on their health of air quality pollutant
concentrations well above the limit values set by EU legislation, of high urban
traffic noise levels, and of serious traffic accidents in urban areas.
3.4.        The baseline scenario
This section describes
how the problem will evolve, if no additional policy action is taken. First it
will be assessed what legislation is already in place and how the approach of
cities towards integrated urban mobility will evolve. Third, urban developments
and trends at unchanged policy will be analysed. 
              3.4.1. Existing
legislation
48.         Legislation that is already
in place for making urban mobility more competitive and sustainable and mitigating
its negative impacts is:
49.         1)       For reducing CO2
emissions, the EU has established CO2 performance requirements for
passenger cars and light commercial vehicles[76].
It has also put in place rules for clean public procurement through the Clean
Vehicles Directive[77].
The effects are however difficult to measure as there are many other drivers
behind CO2 emissions than the performance of the vehicles' engines
(for example heating of houses and offices is another important driver).
2)
   The EU has also implemented a Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) policy
aimed at connecting European cities while taking transit traffic out of urban
centres. This is also leading to a gradual improvement of especially congestion
in urban areas, although this is often counter-balanced by an increase in
traffic due to the ever increasing concentration of population and business
activities in urban areas.
3)
   Recently, the Commission has proposed a Directive for the development of the
refuelling infrastructure for alternative, cleaner fuels[78], the development of
which is particularly beneficial to urban areas.
50.         4)       EU legislation on
noise[79]
also seeks to protect EU citizens especially in built-up areas, in public parks
or other quiet areas in areas. However, many urban areas still do not succeed
to be at or below the maximum daily noise levels while 90% of the noise is
caused by road traffic.
5)    EU legislation on air quality[80]
seeks to protect EU citizens from harmful exposure to air-borne pollutants and
particulate matter. But a large proportion of urban areas, more than 30%, do
not succeed to comply with the legislation while road-traffic related emissions
are the main cause of poor air quality. 
              3.4.2. Autonomous
developments towards an integrated urban mobility approach
51.         As demonstrated above,
until now relatively few European countries and their cities have developed a
true integrated urban mobility approach. Several factors will influence the
current state of play, even if no additional policy action is taken, and will
act as drivers or barriers of the uptake of a true integrated urban mobility
approach. 
Based on the assessment of the effects of the overall
economic situation, existing EU legislation and policies, EU support programmes
and other initiatives, and considering other drivers and barriers for improved
coordination and targeted policy actions an overall estimate of the baseline
level can be developed[81].

As developed in section 1.3, existing European policy
in relation to integrated urban mobility is essentially focused on 1) Exchange
of best practice (ELTISplus website, mobility plans website), 2) Awareness
raising on sustainable urban mobility, 3) Research and Development on
sustainable urban mobility (CIVITAS programme) and 4) Funding for the
development and deployment of sustainable urban mobility measures and plans. It
is expected that those activities will contribute to the increase in the
spontaneous development and implementation of SUMPs, leading by 2030 to
approximately 65% of the EU urban areas having a SUMP of medium/high quality
(COWI, 2013, see table 2 below). However, this is only a very gradual increase
and the level of quality and therefore effectiveness would not be optimal.
Also, as developed under section 3.4.1, exiting EU
legislation is also brining a gradual improvement in certain areas such as
emissions and noise levels. However, it is unrealistic to realise the necessary
step-change with the current EU activities and legislation alone.
With regard to the overall economic situation, it is
likely that the economic downturn will slow down the transition towards more
integrated urban mobility due to budgetary constraints, both for the
development of an integrated mobility approach, as for its implementation.
However, even in case of lower economic growth, transport demand is expected to
increase, making the urban transport challenges and therefore the need for
achieving sustainable urban mobility even more pressing, possibly resulting in
a higher uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches. It is likely that the
legislation on air quality and noise will lead to specific action plans and measures
on road traffic and congestion reduction. The targets and (voluntary)
initiatives related to CO2 reduction are also likely to lead to
specific action plans and measures on energy savings and CO2 . The
same applies for road safety targets and related plans and measures. 
The impact of all these specific plans and measures on
coordination towards an integrated mobility approach remains uncertain. Other
factors could further influence this process. Cities might compete about being
attractive cities and might therefore be keener to improve their transport
system in a sustainable way. Access to (national) co-funding could be another
driver towards a more integrated approach. However, planning traditions and a
lack of knowledge might go against this trend. Existing EU and national support
programmes on integrated urban mobility might to some extent mitigate and counter
some of these barriers.
From this analysis it is clear that certain
developments point towards a future increased take-up of integrated urban
mobility approaches, but that the other factors mentioned above could mitigate
this effect[82].
On this basis COWI (2013) has developed a baseline scenario. The results can be
found in table 2. They build on the same categorisation as used in table 1, and
as further explained in appendix 4[83].
This baseline assessment is based on the assumption that more cities will
develop some form of integrated urban mobility approach, but will not go all
the way towards the "benchmark" integrated urban mobility approach. It
is assumed that the percentage of cities without any form of integrated urban
mobility approach will decrease, as these cities are assumed to move towards a
more integrated approach and consequently move into the low or medium category
in table 1. Moreover, it is assumed that certain cities that were up to now
underperforming will improve the quality of their current practices and will
therefore develop integrated urban mobility approaches of medium to high
quality. However, it needs to be noted that the baseline scenario, as developed
by COWI (2013) can serve as estimation only. Exact, quantified and historical
data on the uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches are lacking, and as
such no clear trends for the future could be identified. The estimations as
presented in table 2 are therefore to be interpreted as a possible evolution in
the future, representing an expert view, based on extensive literature review
and consultation with experts and stakeholders.
Table
2:  Estimation on the uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches (IUMA) in
Europe 
(COWI, 2013), baseline year 2030
   || No of cities* || Population in cities in million || No IUMA || Low/ Medium IUMA || Medium/ High IUMA || Full IUMA 
 Current situation || 455 || 188 || Few || Some || Some || None 
 Current situation || 455 || 188 || 10-15% || 30-35% || 50-55% || 0% 
 Baseline || 455 || 188 || 0-5% || 30-35% || 60-65% || 0% 
Note: See table 1 and appendix 4 for more information
on the classification of IUMAs
              3.4.3. Urban developments and trends
52.         The Commission services have
carried out a modelling analysis of possible future developments in a scenario
at unchanged policies, the so-called baseline scenario. The ‘Reference
scenario’ is a projection of developments in the absence of new policies beyond
those adopted by March 2010. This ‘Reference scenario’ was used in the impact assessments
accompanying the White Paper on Transport[84],
the Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050[85],
and the Energy Roadmap 2050[86].

In order to take into
account the most recent developments, such as higher energy prices and
additional policies on infrastructure and energy taxation adopted by November
2011, an additional scenario (Scenario 1) has been modelled to serve as a
business-as-usual scenario for the present impact assessment. Scenario 1 builds
on a modelling framework including the PRIMES energy model and its transport
model (PRIMES-TREMOVE)[87],
the PROMETHEUS and GEM-E3 models[88].
A detailed elaboration of the baseline scenario, the methodology and the
assumptions used is provided in Appendix 3. Below a summary is given of the
resulting urban developments and trends. 
Demographic trends in
the EU point towards increasing urbanisation and an ageing population, which
will have an impact on the requirements on urban mobility and transport,
especially regarding the mobility needs of elderly people. The proportion of
the EU population residing in predominantly and intermediate urban areas,
currently around 76%[89],
is expected to increase by about 5 percentage points by 2030 and an additional
5 percentage points by 2050[90].
Furthermore, elderly
people aged 65 years and over would represent about 29%
of the EU-27 population by 2050[91].
The share of services in economic activity is expected to increase to 76% by
2050 and continue to drive the urbanisation in the EU. 
Overall, at EU level,
urban transport activity is expected to continue growing in line with the
economic activity in the long-run. Passenger transport would increase by 27%
between 2010 and 2030, and an additional 11% by 2050. Freight transport is
projected to grow by 28% by 2030 and an additional 15% between 2030 and 2050.
Transport demand and modal choice differ widely between European cities, and
depend to a large extent on urban design and infrastructure but may be also
influenced by other factors such as income, family size and structure,
employment, speed, culture and behaviour. Passenger cars transport activity
in urban areas is projected to increase by about 39% between 2010 and 2050, at
higher rate than in the inter-urban area (about 32% during the same time
period). Passenger cars would maintain their dominant role in urban transport.
Transport accounts today for over 30% of final
energy consumption and urban transport provides almost 30% of the transport
sector final energy consumption. In the context of growing demand for
transport, energy demand by transport in urban areas is projected to decrease
by about 7% by 2030 and an additional 8% by 2050. The improvements in specific
fuel consumption are mainly driven by the implementation of the Regulations
setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars and vans[92]
and by the increasing fossil fuel prices for heavy duty vehicles[93]. The costs of
congestion in urban areas of the EU are projected to increase by almost 40% by
2030 and by over 65% by 2050. By 2050, the external cost of accidents associated with urban transport
would increase by some 40%. 
Overall, total CO2 emissions
from transport would still be 31% higher than their 1990 level by 2020, and 23%
higher by 2050 owing to the fast rise in the transport emissions during the
1990s. At EU level, urban transport is responsible for about 23% of total CO2
emissions from transport[94],[95]. CO2
emissions from passenger transport services at urban level are projected to
decrease by about 39% by 2050, while CO2 emissions from road freight
would increase by almost 5%. Overall, urban transport CO2 emissions
would shrink by about 16% by 2030 and by about 25% by 2050 both compared to
2010 levels, mainly
due to the Regulation setting emission performance standards for new passenger
cars. The use of renewable energy sources would play a
more limited role in Scenario 1 by 2050[96].

53.         An important share of EU’s
urban population is exposed to air pollution concentration exceeding the EU air
quality limits[97],[98]. The NOx
emissions and PM attributed to urban transport are projected to drop by 70%
between 2010 and 2050, driven mainly by the reductions in the permissible EURO
standards emission limits for type approval of new cars and heavy duty vehicles.
However, the expected magnitude of the decline may be reduced by higher real
world emissions and slower turn-over rates of the vehicle fleet than expected,
in particular in the period up until 2020. 
About half of the citizens in the EU-15 are estimated to live in areas
which do not ensure acoustical comfort for residents. Increasing traffic
volumes in absence of additional policies may exacerbate the existing problems.
Noise-related external costs for urban transport are projected to increase by
about 26% by 2030 and an additional 8% by 2050. 
3.5.        The EU's right to act 
54.         The right for the EU to act
in the field of transport is set out in Articles 90-91 of the TFEU, in Title
VI, which makes provisions for the Common Transport Policy, and in Articles
170-171 of the TFEU, Title XVI on the trans-European networks[99]. According
to Articles 90-91 of the TFEU, the Common Transport Policy needs to contribute
to the broader objectives of the Treaties. Its main objectives are to complete
the internal market for transport, ensure sustainable development, improve road
safety and promote a better territorial cohesion and integrated spatial planning.
In the present case on urban mobility the subsidiarity principle, as set out in
Article 5 (3) of the Treaty on the European Union, has to be respected. This
involves assessing two aspects: the problem cannot be solved in an optimum way
by Member States alone (the necessity test) and the objectives can be better
achieved at EU level (the added value test)[100].

55.         The necessity to take
action at EU level on urban mobility is linked to the fact that urban transport
systems are integral elements of the European transport system and therefore
also of concern for the Common Transport Policy[101]. Consumers,
citizens and transport users are interested in pan-European mobility, as
emphasised by the TEN-T policy. As most transport of goods and people starts
and ends in a city, the urban dimension linked to the TEN-T cannot be
neglected. No action by the EU in this field, or inconsistent actions of individual
Member States, could lead to sub-optimal solutions. As a consequence the smooth
functioning of the internal market and fluid mobility within the EU could be
hampered[102].
The TEN-T chain is only as strong as its weakest point: the efficiency of urban
transport is essential to achieve a seamless mobility along the TEN-T. 
56.         Urban congestion and poor
accessibility affects enterprises situated or operating in urban areas, both
enterprises within a Member State as from other Member States. Businesses
locate in urban areas to have easy accessibility to services and resources.
Congestion reduces this accessibility and increases costs, thereby reducing the
attractiveness of the location and the business opportunities. Furthermore,
increasing integration of the value chains and cooperation among European
enterprises can be reinforced by the smooth functioning of transport infrastructure
and services in urban areas. Some cities are important transport and logistics
hubs and sub-optimal functioning of their urban transport systems can also
negatively affect the competitiveness of enterprises located outside of them,
even abroad. 
57.         Urban transport has a large
influence on the achievement of EU-wide goals, such as on resource efficiency
and reduction of oil dependency. Urban transport accounts for around 23% of
transport emissions[103]
and there is a lot of untapped potential at urban level to improve the
efficiency in this respect. Besides, the problem of CO2 emissions
from road traffic in urban areas is critical for the EU climate change policy
and has a clear transnational dimension. Some of the new technologies aiming at
reduction of oil dependency (e.g. electric vehicles) are most economically
justified in urban areas, so their deployment could not be successful without
focus on measures and incentives at urban level. 
58.         Finally, urban traffic results in around 40 million
people across the EU being exposed to noise levels above 50 decibel during the
night[104].
This is in contrast to the EU goals in this field. Thus, the measures aimed at
increasing road safety in the EU need to address the fact that with the
increasing traffic volumes, the risk of serious road traffic accidents could
rise in EU urban areas. Although currently road safety figures are improving
the EU targets have not yet been met. 
59.         It is therefore important
for the achievement of those EU-wide goals that urban areas have access to the
necessary tools that will contribute to the achievement of those goals.
EU action can bring
value added by providing a more coordinated policy framework to the European
cities for their integrated urban mobility planning, thus making their actions
more effective. The current initiatives at the local and Member States level
have led to mixed results. Local authorities, which are the most competent to
address the identified problems, slowly discover the benefits of an integrated
approach to urban mobility planning but often do not cover all elements crucial
from the EU perspective in their policies. The Member States also give
different prioritisation and incentives to cities to address urban mobility
challenges, what also contributes to suboptimal and insufficient efforts in
urban areas. 
60.         Considering its
overreaching position, the EU can give a clear political message (whether
through recommendations or legislation) that should translate into stronger
political will at national, regional and local level. Thanks to its scale,
action at EU level also has the potential to leverage greater results and
magnify the efforts in domains such as dissemination of information and
knowledge, expansion of the knowledge base, capacity building, practical
guidance and support to authorities, networking, research, and exchanges of
best practice in the area of promoting integrated urban mobility approaches.
This will avoid duplication of work and fragmentation of resources and allow
decision-makers to benefit from the broadest, most diverse experience possible.
There is also clear added value in action at EU level on information and data
collection and monitoring[105].
In the field of urban mobility and 'integrated approaches' the EU already
supports various initiatives in the Member States (see section 1.3 Existing
European intiatives). 
61.         Up until now, action at EU
level has focused on the voluntary sharing of best practices and on funding.
Progress has been made, but the current approach only benefits cities that are
already convinced by the advantages of sustainable urban mobility and are
spontaneously seeking support. There is a clear opportunity for a step-change
in order to give as many cities as possible an incentive and the tools to
implement sustainable urban mobility planning.
As a consequence of
this initiative urban mobility policies should be implemented in a more consistent
way, be more cost-effective and – especially –  be more effective at increasing
the well-being of citizens and the effectiveness of businesses. They will also
be more fit to meet local, national and EU policy targets and comply with
relevant EU legislation. In addition, the coordinated EU action will be more
effective in ensuring free flow of goods and people and a seamless mobility
along the TEN-T (Article 36 of the revised draft TEN-T Guidelines[106] identifies clear priorities
in the development of the urban nodes of the comprehensive network).
This initiative will
help to even out geographical imbalances between higher performing Member
States such as France and the UK and lower performing Member States, will give
Member States more leverage with local actors and will create peer pressure
among Member States to act.
62.         The current initiative
gives a lot of consideration to local circumstances and refrains from imposing
arbitrarily specific measures on cities. It will be directed towards supporting
national authorities with a framework on an integrated urban mobility approach,
in full respect of subsidiarity and of different organisational
structures at the local level. 
4.           Objectives
4.1.        General, specific and operational objectives
63.         The general objective of
this initiative is to unlock the full potential of urban areas to
contribute to a more competitive and resource-efficient transport system. This
general objective can be translated into a specific objective, which is to ensure the uptake of an integrated urban mobility
approach by EU urban areas. The specific objective can be translated
into two operational objectives:  
·        
To provide EU urban areas with a policy
framework encompassing all policy issues necessary
to ensure an integrated approach to urban
mobility, at the latest by 2020.
·        
To provide EU urban areas with a governance
framework encompassing all procedures and processes necessary to ensure an integrated
approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 2020. 
The operational
objectives have been limited to what could realistically be aimed at with this
initiative at EU level. It aims at providing urban areas the tools (a policy
framework and a governance framework) that are instrumental in achieving a
competitive and resource-efficient transport system. The indirect derived
impacts at city level, i.e. the achievement/improvement on certain targets
(such as road safety, congestion, noise, CO2 emissions) have not
been retained as operational objectives in line with the subsidiarity
principle. As already demonstrated in section 3.1.3, this is also because a
clear statistical correlation between an integrated urban mobility approach and
these targets at city level  cannot be provided. Moreover, common indicators on
urban mobility performance are lacking[107]. Consequently no realistic targets/objectives of this kind could be
set for the urban areas or for the aggregated EU level. Therefore, it was
considered not appropriate to introduce more specific and measurable
operational objectives.
4.2.        Mapping problems and objectives
Table 3: Linking the identified problem,
its drivers and the objectives
 Problem The EU objectives crucial for a competitive and sustainable transport system - i.e. seamless mobility along the TEN-T, improved road safety, reduced CO2 emissions and noise pollution, and improved air quality - are at risk because of transport developments in urban areas. This consequently negatively affects the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of businesses located in urban areas. || General objective To unlock the full potential of urban areas to contribute to a more competitive and resource-efficient transport system ||   
 Problem driver 1 Policy making in many European urban areas often fails to address all policy issues necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility || Specific objective To ensure the uptake of an integrated urban mobility approach by EU urban areas || Operational objective 1 Provide EU urban areas with and stimulate the uptake of a policy framework encompassing all policy issues necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 2020 
 Problem driver 2 Procedures and processes in many European urban areas are often inadequate to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility || Operational objective 2 Provide EU urban areas with and stimulate the uptake of a governance framework encompassing all procedures and processes necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 2020 
4.3.        Consistency with horizontal objectives of the EU
64.         The Europe 2020 strategy,
the Single Market Act and the Sustainable Development Strategy have set the
scene for the transport sector. The Europe 2020 Strategy, under the Flagship
initiative 'A resource efficient Europe', aims at supporting the shift towards
a resource efficient and low carbon economy through the reduction of CO2
emissions, the improvement of energy efficiency, as well as through increased
competitiveness. In the strategy the need is stressed to focus also on the
urban dimension of transport. The policy objectives set out above work towards
the aims of the above-mentioned initiative. These objectives are also consistent
with other objectives defined in priority areas of the Europe 2020 strategy
such as innovation, high employment, and social and territorial cohesion.
65.         The policy objectives
listed above will address congestion and pollution within cities, creating
opportunities for more efficient urban transport networks, skilled jobs and
more markets for smart and clean technologies, which are in line with the
ambition to create a stronger, deeper and extended Single Market as set out in
the Single Market Act[108].
66.         The overall objective of
the Sustainable Development Strategy[109] on sustainable transport is “to ensure that our transport systems
meet society’s economic, social and environmental needs whilst minimising their
undesirable impacts on the economy, society and the environment”. The related operational
objectives are: achieving sustainable levels of transport energy use and
reducing transport CO2 emissions; reducing pollutant emissions from
transport to levels that minimise impacts on human health and/or the
environment; reducing transport noise both at source and through mitigation
measures to ensure overall exposure levels minimise impacts on human health;
and increasing road safety by improving road infrastructure, encouraging road
users to be more responsible and by making vehicles safer.
5.           Policy options
5.1.        Description of the retained policy options
67.         The public consultation,
the expert and stakeholder meetings, independent research, experiences from
past initiatives (e.g. CIVITAS, ELTISplus) and own analysis have allowed the
Commission services to identify a set of policy options having the potential to
reach the identified key EU Transport White Paper objective. The following
process was applied for establishing the policy options:
1.            STEP 1 AND 2:  A
set of elements for the policy and governance framework for urban areas (=step
1) tackling problem driver 1 and 2, and possible instruments at EU level (=step
2) have been identified to address the identified problem. Moreover, all items
presented in step 1 and 2 are pre-screened and checked for feasibility, and
discarded where appropriate. 
1.     STEP 3: The retained elements for the policy and governance
framework and instruments at EU level have been combined into policy options
constituting viable and coherent policy alternatives for achieving the overall
objective. Where appropriate, certain combinations have been discarded after a
first assessment. 
The details of this 3-step process are
given in Appendix 12. The results, i.e. the retained policy options, are
presented below. 
5.1.1.     Option
0B: Business as usual scenario (comprehensive policy framework, minimum
governance framework)
3.           The EU would support a
bottom-up approach (the business-as-usual scenario) to promote integrated urban
mobility planning. The Commission would continue present activities, such as:
·        
Funding for development of SUMPs and deployment
of Sustainable Urban Mobility measures[110];
·        
Supporting Research and Development on SUMPs; 
·        
Facilitating the development and sharing of best
practice examples; e.g. by providing European urban areas with a platform for
exchange and cooperation (e.g. through the website www.mobilityplans.eu);
·        
Raising awareness on sustainable urban mobility;

·        
Supporting local capacity building;
·        
Setting up an urban mobility observatory. 
In this approach, the Commission would further stimulate by its
activities the uptake of SUMPs, with an emphasis on a comprehensive policy
framework and a minimum governance framework. See section 5.1.2 for a
description of these policy and governance frameworks.
5.1.2.     Option
1B: Non-binding recommendation on SUMPs (comprehensive policy framework,
minimum governance framework)
4.           The EU would seek to
enhance voluntary development and implementation of SUMPs by the competent
authorities in the Member States by providing recommendations on this topic. The
recommendations will encourage Member States to set up national policy
frameworks to encourage the development and implementation of SUMPs in their
urban areas. 
The recommendations would promote a comprehensive policy
framework on SUMPs which encompasses the following elements: 
·        
both freight and passenger transport
·        
all transport modes
·        
the following topics: public transport services,
non-motorised transport, city logistics, mobility management, integration of
transport modes (multi-modality), the road network and motorised transport
(including moving and stationary traffic)
·        
the assessment of the introduction of  the
following 'promising' instruments: low emission zones and urban pricing (urban road
user charging/congestion charging, parking pricing and public transport
pricing)
·        
the assessment of the introduction of clean
technologies and alternative fuels
·        
interoperability and/or consistency in use of
instruments across  the EU
With regard to the governance framework for SUMPs, the
recommendations would promote the following minimum requirements:
·        
Contains pledge to sustainability (three
dimensions: economic, social and environmental)
·        
Includes or is built on long-term strategy
·        
Provides short-term implementation plan
(timetable + budget plan; allocation of responsibilities)
·        
Integrates different relevant policy areas, in
particular land-use and transport planning
·        
Considers all transport  to, through and within
the urban agglomeration area and coordination between different authority
levels
·        
Includes baseline analysis including performance
audit
·        
Is developed in a participatory approach
·        
Includes impact assessment on proposed measures
·        
Is based on integrated planning and
implementation
·        
Is formally adopted
·        
Identifies objectives and sets targets in line
with EU policy objectives
·        
Foresee mechanisms for monitoring in the MS
·        
Foresee mechanisms for review in the MS
·        
Conformity check on requirements  in the MS
5.1.3.     Option
2A: Mandatory development of SUMPs by Member States-defined urban areas
(minimum policy and governance framework)
5.           The EU would make
mandatory the development and implementation of SUMPs by the competent
authorities in the Member States for certain urban areas categories. In option
2A the Member States need to freely define themselves the urban areas (e.g.
based on population size) for which they esteem a mandatory development and implementation of
SUMPs necessary to reach the goal of this initiative. This mandatory approach
would only cover the minimum requirements, both for the policy and the
governance framework. 
The minimum
requirements for the policy framework include:
·        
both freight and passenger transport
·        
all transport modes
·        
the following topics: public transport services,
non-motorised transport, city logistics, mobility management, integration of
transport modes (multi-modality), the road network and motorised transport
(including moving and stationary traffic)
The minimum
requirements related to the governance framework are those as identified in
section 5.1.2.
6.           This mandatory EU level
framework would by nature have to take the form of a legal instrument. As to
respect the subsidiarity principle and as to take into account the different
situation in cities and Member States, a Directive - and not a Regulation –
would be the appropriate instrument in this case.
5.1.4.     Option
3A: Mandatory development of SUMPs by EU-defined urban areas (minimum policy
and governance framework)
7.           The EU would make
mandatory the development and implementation of SUMPs by the competent
authorities in the Member States for certain urban areas categories. In option
3A the EU level defines the urban areas for which a SUMP needs to be developed
and implemented (e.g. based on population size). 
8.           This mandatory approach
would only cover the minimum requirements, both for the policy and the
governance framework, as described in section 5.1.3 above. For the same reasons
as for option 2A, option 3A would take the form of a Directive.
5.1.5.     Schematic
overview of the retained policy options and implementation
The table below provides a schematic
overview of the retained policy options.
Table 4: Retained policy options
 (for all options: governance framework: minimum) || A Policy framework MINIMUM || B Policy framework COMPREHENSIVE 
 0) Business as usual: R&D, funding, best practice, campaigns, local capacity building || N/A || Option 0B 
 1) Non-binding recommendation on SUMPs || N/A || Option 1B 
 Make mandatory the development and implementation of SUMPs: ||     ||   
 2) Member States need to define themselves the urban areas (e.g. based on population size)  for which a SUMP needs to be developed and implemented || Option 2A || N/A 
 3) The EU level defines the urban areas for which a SUMP needs to be developed and implemented (e.g. based on population size) || Option 3A || N/A 
As far as implementation at city level is
concerned, the success of introducing a SUMP will to a large extent depend on
local circumstances and characteristics. This initiative is striving to
maximise the rate and level of success by providing relevant guidelines based
on best practice both regarding the scope or content of a SUMP and the process
by which it should be developed and implemented. Remaining implementation
issues will be dealt with through the information and support tools the EU is
offering such as the upcoming European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plans, and through those the Member States are or will be offering.
5.2.        Stakeholders points of
view on the retained policy options
9.           In 2008 the European
Parliament called for the development of an integrated approach to urban
mobility, giving a clear stimulus to cities and urban areas to establish SUMPs.
The Parliament called for examination how to link these plans to EU
co-financing of transport projects in cities over 100,000 inhabitants and to EU
legislation, decisions and targets on the reduction of accidents, CO2
emissions, air pollutants and noise[111].
In 2010 the Council supported the development of SUMPs for cities and
metropolitan areas and encouraged the development of incentives for their
creation[112].
In 2010 the Economic and Social Committee welcomed Commissions' support for
implementing SUMPs[113].
In 2010 the Committee of the Regions supported the development of SUMPs for, at
least, the larger cities and believed the Commission should encourage MS to
make such plans mandatory for all large urban areas and create suitable
incentives for local authorities to draw them up[114].
10.         In the Review of the Action
Plan on Urban Mobility[115]
stakeholders welcome continuation of support by the EU in the exchange of best
practice and knowledge, and the development of guidelines to improve awareness,
knowledge and the quality of data on SUMPs. Furthermore, stakeholders feel that
the integration of various policy sectors within these plans should be
strengthened.
11.         In the public consultation[116] 91% of the registered
participants seem to agree that integrated urban mobility planning is a useful
tool to promote coordination at local and regional levels. 86% of the registered participants believe that
EU-support for the development of SUMPs would contribute to the broader take up
of these plans in urban areas. 74% is of the opinion that best practices on
SUMPs should be developed and exchanged at EU level. Moreover, 66% finds that
the EU should provide a platform for this. 57% of the respondents support the
development of guidelines and recommendations. Furthermore, 58% believes that
the EU should give financial support for the development of SUMPs, whereas 57%
believes that the EU should fund R&D projects related to urban mobility
planning. 29% of the registered respondents, especially those who live and work
in urban areas, point to a mandatory framework for SUMPs in EU-cities.
Regarding the mandatory approach some participants suggest to establish a
threshold of cities with over 100,000 inhabitants. 7% of registered respondents
disagree that EU support for integrated urban mobility planning is important,
as this infringes the subsidiarity principle. The decision on whether to
implement a SUMP or not should
be left to the cities themselves, as EU-cities face different types of
challenges. The 22% opposed to the option of linking access to EU funding
mention the arguments of additional administrative burden and unfair
discrimination.
12.         At the consultation of
experts on SUMPs[117]
there was broad agreement that the Commission should put forward a list of
topics which a SUMP should consider to address, but no requirements for
specific sub-plans and no requirements on specific measures to include, as
packages of measures have to be suited to the individual cities characteristics
and needs. Furthermore, SUMPs should cover the functional city rather than
merely the administrative city. 
13.         Regarding the level of
ambition of SUMPs there was support at the stakeholder consultation[118] for the minimum
requirements for the policy framework of cities' policy making, and for the
minimum requirements on the governance framework. It was questioned if
inclusion of a minimum requirement on certification would be needed because of
the lack of justification and the costs involved. It was suggested to include a
requirement on political engagement. Furthermore, SUMPs should cover the functional
city, and city logistics should be included. Regarding the instruments to be used
at EU level strongest support was expressed for the exchange of best practice,
financial support for the development of SUMPs, guidance on quality control and
for recommendations (options 0 and 1). Regarding a mandatory approach (options
2-3) concern was raised about higher administrative burden and the fact that
cities are different and therefore need flexibility in their urban mobility
approaches. Stakeholders feel that EU action should be a driver to quickly
develop and implement SUMPs, and not be a barrier. 
14.         In general and because of
subsidiarity, Committee of the Regions' members supported a non-legislative
approach (options 0 and 1) at their consultation meeting on 13 June 2013. They
expressed support for the development of SUMPs in the form of technical
assistance for those countries that need guidance. The Covenant of Mayors could
play a role in SUMP uptake, as a SUMP delivery mechanism. Regarding
conditionality to funding one member mentioned to prefer an incentive approach
instead of a stick approach.
6.           Analysis of impacts of policy options
15.         This section assesses the
impact of the policy options on the uptake of SUMPs and analyses how this has
an effect on possible economic, social and environmental impacts. The analysis
is supported by literature review, case studies, academic research and
quantitative figures where possible. The analysis is mainly of a qualitative
nature, supported by case studies which illustrate the possible benefits of a
SUMP for a certain impact indicator. 
16.         Given the nature of the
policy options to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility, the lack of
available data sets and the difficulty in extrapolating city data to the
European level, it has not been possible to carry out a detailed modelling
exercise which could have allowed us to present credible, justified estimates
of the impacts for all policy options. Moreover, in line with the reasoning in
section 3.1.3, a clear statistical correlation
between the policy options that influence the uptake of SUMPs and the specific
economic, environmental and social impacts could not be proven for several
reasons. First of all, urban issues such as congestion and accessibility,
road safety, air pollution, CO2 emissions and noise pollution are
influenced by many other factors and policy initiatives. As such, singling out
the impact of one influencing factor – a SUMP – would be problematic. Section
3.1.3 provides further reasoning as to why it is difficult to demonstrate a
100% clear linkage between the options and the economic, social and
environmental impacts. However, based on anecdotal evidence and the view of
experts, this linkage can nevertheless be substantiated. For these reasons a
qualitative analysis is presented below, presenting quantitative data for illustration
purpose only where possible and grounded.
6.1.        Effect of the policy options on the uptake of SUMPs
This section addresses how the different
retained options deliver on the specific objective of ensuring the uptake of an
integrated urban mobility approach by EU urban areas, through the operational
objectives that address the problem drivers i.e. 1) providing EU urban areas
with a policy framework and 2) providing them  with a governance framework.
This assessment is based on how the policy
options relate to the underlining barriers or sub-problems for the uptake of
SUMPs. The barriers, as identified in chapter 3.1 are a lack of funds, both for
planning and implementation of the measures, a lack of planning culture and
tradition for integration and coordination, a lack of knowledge of the concept
and the benefits of SUMPs, and a lack of political will (COWI 2013). 
In the business as usual scenario it is
unlikely that these barriers will be tackled significantly (see section 3.4).
The key benefit of recommendations (option 1B) compared to the business as
usual scenario is to help cities overcome the barriers of knowledge and
planning traditions in the short run. In the long run good experience on
sustainable urban mobility plans improves political will, and leads to more
funding. Indeed, evidence from the UK shows that a Local Transport Plan (LTP)
leads local authorities to give more priority to sustainable urban mobility
then before, also in terms of spending (see 6.3.6). Option 1B will however only
have limited effects on the lack of political will. A mandatory approach
(option 2A and 3A) also addresses the barriers of knowledge, planning culture in
the short run, but in addition it addresses also the lack of political will by
imposing a legal obligation. Therefore option 2A and 3A are expected to lead to
a faster uptake of SUMPs compared to the voluntary approach and to the business
as usual scenario. Moreover, the impact on funding would be more evident in the
short run and also in the long run, based on the above mentioned UK evidence
with LTP's. 
A schematic summary of the above described
effects of the various options on the barriers for the uptake of SUMPs is given
in table 5.
Table 5: Summary of assessments of effect of options
on uptake of SUMPs
 Option || Lack of political will || Lack of knowledge || Planning tradition || Lack of funding 
 0: Business as Usual || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 1B: Recommendations || 0/+ || ++ || + || 0/+ 
 2A: Mandatory, cities covered decided at Member State level || ++ || ++ || ++ || + 
 3A: Mandatory, cities covered decided at EU level || +++ || ++ || ++ || + 
("+"
refers to the intensity of a positive correlation, "0" refers to a
neutral correlation)
Source: own assessment based on COWI (2013)
A translation of this assessment into the uptake of
the benchmark integrated urban mobility approach (according to the ranking in
table 1), a SUMP, is demonstrated in table 6 below. As such, the scoring of
cities implementing full SUMPs emerges. The estimations as presented are to be
interpreted as a possible evolution in the future, representing an expert view,
based on extensive literature review and consultation with experts and stakeholders.
Compared to the business as usual scenario, the mandatory approach (options 2A
and option 3A) is assumed to lead to a much higher uptake of full SUMPs. The voluntary
approach (option 1B) leads to a more moderate increase in uptake of full SUMPs,
depending on the local situation and incentives in place, such as
national/regional funding opportunities for SUMPs and/or their measures or
local politicians who compete with each other with liveable cities in order to
attract inhabitants. Compared to the voluntary framework, it can be expected
that the mandatory approach scores better also on the quality of the SUMPS, as
certain minimum standards on the policy and governance framework would need to
be respected. 
Within the mandatory approach, it could be reasonably
argued that the uptake of SUMPs would be slightly higher for option 3A than for
option 2A. This is because the
EU definition of cities to implement SUMPs is more likely to have a wider
coverage[119]. The EU is more likely to ask more urban
areas to have a SUMP because the larger scope will better deliver on the
objectives. It could be assumed that Member States would cover a smaller share
of the urban areas, as their commitment to the EU-wide goals could be less
strong.
Table 6:                 Uptake by cities
of the benchmark integrated urban mobility approach (IUMA = SUMP)[120] 
 Uptake of an integrated urban mobility approach || 17.          No/limited IUMA || 18.          Low/Medium IUMA || 19.          Medium/High IUMA || 20.          High/Complete IUMA = SUMP 
 21.         0: Business as Usual || 22.         Few cities || 23.         Some cities || 24.         Some cities || 25.         None cities 
 26.         1B: Recommendations || 27.         Few cities || 28.         Some cities || 29.         Some cities || 30.         Few cities 
 31.         2A: Mandatory, cities covered decided at Member State level || 32.         No cities || 33.         Few cities || 34.         Some cities || 35.         Many cities 
 36.         3A: Mandatory, cities covered decided at EU level || 37.         No cities || 38.         Few cities || 39.         Few cities || 40.         Many cities 
Source: own assessment based on COWI (2013), 
see tables 1, 2 and appendix 4 for more information on
the classification of the different categories
As far as implementation at city level is concerned, the success of
introducing a SUMP will to a large extent depend on local circumstances and
characteristics. This initiative is striving to maximise the rate and level of
success by providing relevant guidelines based on best practice both regarding
the scope or content of a SUMP and the process by which it should be developed
and implemented. Remaining implementation issues will be dealt with through the
information and support tools the EU is offering such as the upcoming European
Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, and through those the Member
States are or will be offering.
6.2.        Link
between the uptake of SUMPs and the economic, social and environmental impacts
of this initiative
As concluded in the previous section, it is
estimated that option 1B, 2A and 3A will positively influence the uptake of the
benchmark SUMP in the EU. Whereas for option 1B the effect is moderate, option
2A and even more option 3A will lead to a high uptake of SUMPS by European
cities. It can be assumed that the more cities implement a full SUMP, the
higher the potential environmental/social/economic impacts will be. In this respect,
it can be said that option 3A will have the largest potential impacts, closely
followed by option 2A. Option 1B, and even more option 0B, will have more
moderate effects. However, the fact that option 1B covers the comprehensive
policy framework of SUMPs while the mandatory options only cover the minimum
policy framework, will partially shift this balance.   
For options 2A and 3A the total impact will
depend on the definition of urban areas to be covered by the mandatory SUMP.
Depending on which thresholds[121] will be chosen by the national (option 2A) or EU level (option 3A),
the uptake of SUMPs will be lower or higher or, thereby also influencing the
economic, social and environmental impacts of this initiative. 
The following two case studies illustrate
potential effects of packages of measures within SUMPs on urban mobility. Both
case studies show that alternative packages of measures have different profiles
of effect tailor made to circumstances in different cities: 
Case study 1:
estimation of the effects of SUMPs on urban mobility challenges
Owing to the fact that the problems related to urban
mobility are always specific to cities, it is very challenging to estimate a
magnitude of the aggregated impacts of SUMPs for any group of cities at EU
level. The implementation of a SUMP could have different effects for urban
agglomerations of similar size due to different starting points. Furthermore,
the real impact of a SUMP depends on its correct implementation. Consequently, in
this case study the magnitude of possible impacts of SUMPs is assessed by
analysing the situation in selected urban agglomerations. In the absence of
full SUMPs, this analysis could be done by looking at the impacts of specific
measures which one would consider to be intrinsic to a full SUMP. 
This approach can be applied to the Creutzig et al
(2012) study which has assessed alternative scenarios in four European cities
and used model simulations to estimate the potential impacts on key parameters[122]. The comprehensive scenario from this
research corresponds in the level of ambition to a full SUMP and could be
treated as an illustration of the possible effects of SUMP measures on the
mobility and environmental external costs. The table below provides an
illustration of the potential effects of a SUMP on the external costs of air
pollution, accidents, noise, congestion and the level of GHG emissions. 
Creutzig et al’s
(2012) comprehensive scenario assumed to deliver full effects of a SUMP
Source: COWI (2013) report after Creutzig et al (2012)
For example, in Barcelona the external costs of air
pollution would decrease by about 59% by 2040 due to the adoption of a SUMP
relative to developments under current trends and policies. Relatively similar
effects on the external costs of air pollution are estimated for Sofia (about
60% reduction) while the decrease in the external costs is lower in Freiburg
(-37%) and higher in Malmo (-75%). Quite similar potential reductions in
external costs of air pollution, accidents, noise, congestion and the level of
GHG are observed in Barcelona and Sofia relative to developments under current
trends and policies. An explanation may be the similar transport volumes per
capita in these two cities (28.7 vkm/cap/day in Barcelona versus 29.2
vkm/cap/day in Sofia) despite some higher modal share of motorized individual
transport in Sofia relative to Barcelona (34% in Sofia versus 24% in
Barcelona). 
Although the table above cannot be used to approximate
the effects in other European cities, it still illustrates that a significant
possible improvement could be achieved by implementing the relevant measures
identified in a SUMP. 
Case study 2:
estimation of the macro- economic effects of alternative packages of mobility
measures 
The Fraunhofer/Infras study (2013) [123]  consideres the effects of five
alternative mobility concepts on e.g. health, environment, and macro-economic
effects such as GDP, employment and investments. The table below provides a
summary of the results. The assessment was carried out by applying different
types of transport and economic models. Although the assessment covers Germany
as a whole, a lot of the measures and benefits are linked to the urban
agglomerations, and are in line with measures of a SUMP. As such, the mobility
concepts M1 to M4 described below may serve as an illustration of the possible
impact of a SUMP. These mobility concepts however only address measures to
reduce traffic emissions. Therefore, as a SUMP covers a broader range of
measures (e.g. accessibility) the potential impact of a SUMP could be higher in
magnitude. 
The M1 scenario describes measures to promote modal
shift to non-motorised transport, M2 to increase the use of local public
transport, M3 to shorten the average distances travelled by car and M4 to
promote more efficient private car use. The M5 scenario with measures to
promote a modal shift to rail freight transport looks at the inter-urban
situationand is therefore less appropriate for alignment with a SUMP, which
focus lies on the urban area.
As indicated in the table below, the overall
macro-economic effects on GDP and employment of the different mobility concepts
are not large, but all but one have positive impacts on GDP and on the level of
employment. This takes into account that the measures reducing car use have
negative impacts on the car manufacturing industry and lead to declining
investments in road construction. However this is more than balanced by the
effect of the additional infrastructure investments to promote a modal shift
towards non-motorised transport and public transport.  
Effects of the mobility concepts on GDP, employment
and investments
Source: COWI (2013) report after Fraunhofer/Infras (2013)
Moreover, in the
Fraunhofer/Infras study (2013) the investments costs linked to the mobility concepts
have been estimated and compared to the potential gain in external costs to
society. In all cases it was concluded that the net benefit is positive: the
different mobility concepts do represent value for money with positive net
effects on society as a whole. 
In the following sections (6.3 to 6.5), the
possible economic, environmental and social impacts of this initiative will be
qualitatively described. They will be illustrated by case studies mainly from
urban areas in France and the UK, demonstrating the potential benefits of
SUMPs. The case studies from France and the UK are based on a mandatory
approach (for both countries corresponding to policy option 2A, as they have
national legislation on SUMPs in place and decide themselves which urban areas
should develop one). As these countries do not have full SUMPs (according to table
1) in place, the impact of a full SUMP could even be higher. A similar level of
impacts of a SUMP in an urban area could also be realised on an individual
basis through the application of recommendations (policy option 1B), although
in general the uptake of SUMPs is expected to be less than with a mandatory
approach. The business as usual scenario (policy option 0) will have less
impact than the case studies shown as the barrier of knowledge has not been
addressed as effectively in comparison with the other options. 
6.3.        Economic impacts 
              6.3.1. Impact on congestion and the free movement of
people and goods
41.         People and businesses
locate in urban areas to have easy accessibility to jobs, services and
resources. Congestion reduces this accessibility and therefore also the
attractiveness and business opportunities of the location. The development and
implementation of a SUMP, including closer coordination between land-use and
transport planning, good access to and increased efficiency of public transport
and the use of intelligent transport systems, will result in a decrease in (the
growth of) congestion. Travel times will become more predictable and fewer
passenger-hours and tonne-hours will be lost, allowing households, the public
sector and businesses to save time and costs. The following case studies of
France and the UK, and the specific experience of West England in chapter
3.1.3, illustrate this benefit:  
Case
study 3: the effects of the Local Transport Plans (LTP) on congestion in the UK
The analysis of the impacts of the first
round of LTPs (2001/02-2005/06 in the UK showed that a reduction in traffic
volume had been reported in some city centres, despite the overall trend of
increased traffic[124].
In Manchester an overall reduction in congestion on 15 key routes (3.3 %
improvement in person journey times on key routes in 2008/09) has been achieved
in line with meeting the LTP2 target of a 0% increase target in congestion over
these routes by the end of the LTP2 period (2006/07-2010/11).[125] This has been
achieved through investments in the bus network and improvement of its
punctuality, the creation of a third platform at the the airport rail station,
opening of park and ride facilities and advancements in school travel plans. Also
the experience of East Sussex showed that the implementation of the LTP led to
a level of congestion being contained and even reduced. This was achieved by
sensible demand management and balanced transport and land use planning[126]. Similarly, the
assessment of the implementation of the measures of the LTP in West Midlands,
which set a target of limiting congestion on nineteen major routes, indicated
reduced journey times of over 8%,  reliability improvements of up to 40% and
bus journey time reductions and reliability improvements of up to 21% and 30%
(during the LTP 2006-2011)[127].
Case
study 4: the effects of the Plans de Déplacements Urbains (PDU's) on congestion
in France 
The evidence from the evaluation of certain
PDUs in France shows a positive impact on congestion. In Nantes it was possible
to shift the traffic from the congested centre to the peripheries[128]. In Bordeaux some
positive results of the PDU aiming at better management of car travels could be
concluded. The observations showed a fall in traffic from the main ring to the
city (as well in the opposite direction) by around 15% between 2000 and 2008,
while the traffic among the main arteries in the city fell by 25%[129].
Given that the benchmark SUMP goes even
further in the ambition than the UK LTP or the French PDU, one can assume that
the impact of SUMPs on congestion can be even more positive, especially in the
areas that have not introduced any actions in this area. 
The improvement potential depends on the
level of uptake of SUMPs in cities where the congestion costs are the most
pertinent. Given that congestion generates costs in almost all cities, it can
be assumed that the wider the uptake of SUMPs the higher the impact.
Consequently, option 3A would lead to the highest reduction of
congestion costs, followed by option 2A, option 1B and option
0.
              6.3.2. Impact on the
TEN-T (Trans-European transport network)
The large urban areas are also the main
nodes of the core and comprehensive TEN‑T. Thus, congestion problems in
the urban nodes are also important for the performance of transport corridors.
Most of the trips start and finish in cities and often these stretches are the
most problematic ones. Besides, road transport, for which most of the
European-wide network is realised, is expected to grow, but will be hampered mainly
by congestion problems around major nodes. Given that traffic in cities is
closely interlinked with traffic on cities' rings and bypasses, SUMPs will also
affect the adjacent transport network. 
Reduction of traffic congestion through
SUMPs in urban areas will be positive for the TEN‑T logistics, by
improving, for instance, access to motorways, better linkages with main
transport hubs (ports, airports) located in urban areas or better organisation
of city logistics in general. As SUMPs also look at the ways of improving the
attractiveness of cities, they would also focus on proper incorporation of city
transport system into the regional, national and international transport
network.
Nonetheless,
there is also a potential negative impact of SUMPs on the TEN-T. Integrated
urban mobility planning might diverge traffic from the city centres to the
bypasses and rings outside of cities. These are usually already heavily
congested routes and increased congestion on them might be negative for the
performance of TEN-T corridors passing next to the urban areas. However, as
SUMPs do also promote public transport and non-motorised transport, this effect
could be mitigated.
Consequently, the overall impact of SUMPs
on TEN-T is not straightforward, but one can expect that benefits will
outweight substantially the costs. Improved access to transport hubs is key for
international multimodal transport and smooth transit via urban nodes in the
TEN‑T network. Moreover, transport corridors around the cities are in
many cases also part of the larger urban agglomeration areas and consequently
are often part of the integrated urban mobility approach. Thus, the risk of
shifting congestion from city centres to the outskirts will in many cases be
taken into consideration in a SUMP and be lower than if no integrated approach
was applied.
Considering the overall positive impact of
SUMPs, the wider the uptake the more positive impact on TEN-T can be assumed.
This means that option 3A would lead to the highest benefits for the
TEN-T, followed by option 2A, option 1B and option 0B.
 Case study 5: incorporating TEN-T issues into the urban
mobility planning in Vienna[130] 
The Transport Master Plan Vienna 2003 tried
to address specifically Vienna's role within Europe as a TEN-T node. The plan
acknowledged that in order to strengthen the regional economic basis and
further develop export competence, the accessibility from outside and within
the Vienna region must be assured. This resulted in linking city planning with
European and national transport policies and the harmonisation of spatial
planning and traffic development in the Vienna region. 
To further develop the Vienna's capacity
as a TEN-T node the plan envisaged improvements for the necessary commercial
traffic (delivery journeys, stopping and parking places) and giving it priority
over private car journeys. The development of the TEN-T was also to be
stimulated by a range of measures aiming at improvement of the infrastructure
in the Vienna region. This included expansion of the railway lines and
establishment of high-throughput goods terminals. The strengthening of the
“logistics competence” of Vienna as a commercial location became a central
negotiation aspect of the city’s transport and economic policies. The area of city
logistics, which should basically function as part of the private economy, was
intended to be strengthened by Vienna by reducing obstructions to traffic and ensuring
logistics locations by the urban planning policies.  
The plan also identified that an essential
prerequisite for the development of Vienna as an attractive location was the
optimum incorporation in particular of rail station and terminal facilities
into the TEN-T. Thus absolute priority was given to the expansion of the TEN-T to
include rail connections to Vienna airport – Eisenstadt – Sopron and the rail
destinations Paris – Munich – Vienna – Budapest and Berlin – Prague – Vienna –
Trieste. The most important aspects of the road network were the regional line
S1, the integration of the A5 and the incorporation of the A6 –
Kittsee/Bratislava link road – into the TEN-T. 
Together with the planned highway
extensions, Vienna was also to become an attractive transit and transfer point
for passenger travel (long-distance travel, personal public transport). For
this purpose a need for a central bus station for international bus connections
was emphasized. Regarding frequency, the range of services to the centres of
the regional capitals and long-distance services to EU entry stations was to be
substantially improved.
              6.3.3. Impact on modal shift
42.         Introduction of SUMPs will
have a positive effect on the modal shift as they promote walking and cycling
as well as public transport. The main change in the modal split would be away
from the motorised transport. Making SUMPs mandatory (options 2A and 3A)
would ensure that all aspects related to stimulate the modal shift are taken
into account and consequently, are expected to have a bigger overall effect
than the voluntary approach with recommendations (option 1B) or business
as usual (option 0). On the other hand, inclusion of the specific
measures on transport pricing (option 1B) could have additional impact
if these measures were introduced, by making passenger car transport a less
financially attractive alternative. Again, the wider the coverage of urban
areas imposed by the policy options, the bigger their impact on overall modal
shift, i.e. option 3A is expected to have the highest impact. The
following case study of the French city of Nantes and the evaluation of French
PDUs in chapter 3.1.3., illustrate this benefit. 
 Case study 6: the effects of the Plans de Déplacements
Urbains (PDUs) on modal shift in France 
The experience of PDUs in France showed that
introduction of integrated planning in French cities had a visible contribution
to the reduction of the modal share of cars. For instance, in Nantes in the
period 2002-2008 the number of journeys increased, but the share of cars in
transport fell by 4.6 percentage points and increased for walking, public
transport and cycling (by 3.4, 1.1 and 0.1 percentage points respectively)[131]. In Nantes modal
shift was promoted through measures such as an increased availability of high
quality public transport services, with higher frequencies, integrated
ticketing, and better accessibility for people with reduced mobility, and
through the creation of additional bike infrastructure and shared bike services[132].
The evaluation report for the Paris PDU has even made
an attempt to quantify the positive impact of the PDU on the modal shift. The
comparisons were made for two scenarios – maintaining the status quo i.e. no
changes beyond the measures adopted up to 2010 and implementing all the actions
of the PDU for l'Ile-de-France area. The projections show a clear shift from
cars and motorcycles to public transport and walking and cycling, accommodating
the entire increase in the number of journeys. 
Comparison of the evolution
of the number of journeys per mode according to two scenarios between 2006 and
2020 (journey during a working day)
Source: revised PDUIF 2012[133] (modélisation STIF)
              6.3.4. Impact
on research & innovation, economic development and competitiveness of EU
industry
43.         As a consequence of the
development and implementation of SUMPs, businesses opportunities for
developing innovative transport and mobility services will be created.
Innovations in services and procedures could be developed. More new firms would
be established (entrepreneurship) and more jobs created.
Developing a SUMP framework at the EU level
could give Europe leadership in the integrated urban mobility planning know-how
and thereby strengthen the competitive position of the EU industry. As
explained in chapter 1.3 the urban mobility challenges of EU cities are present
in almost all urban areas around the globe and the solutions proposed in the EU
cities will also be applicable to cities in other regions of the world. SUMPs
provide a useful framework that requires innovation and research as tools for
developing solutions for urban mobility challenges. If the EU is successful in
tackling urban mobility challenges, the acquired know-how and technologies
could be further exported and companies leading the innovation in transport
mobility solutions could expand to the foreign markets. The following case
study on export of EU expertise on planning illustrates this benefit.
Case
study 7: export EU expertise[134]
In 2007, the New York City Government issued a plan
for how to make transport more sustainable. The plan included actions in a wide
range of mobility, safety and environmental and urban life aspects. One of the
key elements was the promotion of non-motorised traffic and to support the
development of that aspect. In the end, the New York City Government contracted
a Danish architectural and urban planning consultant. This company's experience
from a number of European cities in combination with an innovative approach on
urban life surveys was stated as the motivation for hiring it to support the
development of the urban mobility strategy in New York. The company worked
among others in Brighton, London and Norwich (UK), Apeldoorn and Rotterdam
(NL), Dublin (IE), Gothenburg (SE) and Copenhagen (DK) on sustainable urban
mobility aspects as part of urban planning projects. For example, in Norwich
the company was involved in land use planning including sustainable mobility in
the design of the new urban development. Stakeholder consultation and local
community involvement was part of the planning and design process. The Danish
company has also conducted similar work for other cities outside of the EU. For
example, it supported Mexico City in developing a bicycle mobility strategy.
Moreover, the SUMP framework can bring
additional positive results to the competitiveness of the EU industry, as one
of the underlying objectives of SUMPs is to improve efficiency and
cost-effectiveness of transportation of persons and goods (see section 6.3.5).
This leads to benefits for companies in form of lower transportation costs,
fewer delays and better logistics. This is positive for companies providing
transportation and logistics services, as well as for those firms that rely in
their business activities on transportation of goods or people.
For many companies heavy congestion has
made urban areas more difficult to operate in, when they rely on transport
services. Consequently, the business opportunities have to be offset by the
high costs related to congestion. The fact that SUMPs also pay attention to
city logistics is vital for many companies. Besides, by improving passenger
mobility the labour supply could also get extended, as people from further
areas would be able to commute to working places in various points of urban
areas. All these factors improve the competitive position of the companies
located in these urban areas, by reducing real and opportunity costs related to
sub-optimal functioning of the urban transportation system. 
With the wider uptake of SUMPs in the EU,
the research and innovation activities to tackle mobility challenges will
increase, the acquired know-how and technologies could be further exported and
companies leading the innovation in transport mobility solutions could expand
to the foreign markets leading to more economic growth and job creation. By
making the SUMP framework mandatory under option 2A and 3A the push for
research and innovation activity will be even more imminent and substantial. In
case of option 1B and option 0B the impacts would be
substantially lower, due to the fact that the demand for new technologies in
urban transportation could not be ensured even if wider scope would be
recommended. 
Nonetheless,
some companies could be negatively affected if their business model would
require adaptation due to the new requirements related to a SUMP and its
measures e.g. a restricted access for Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV) in certain
urban areas would raise adaptation costs for enterprises using these vehicles
in cities.
The case study of the UK area of
Greater Nottingham illustrates the benefit of a SUMP on economic growth and
competitiveness:
Case
study 8: the effects of the Local Transport Plans (LTP) for Greater Nottingham
2001/2 – 2005/6 on economic development [135]
The delivery report LTP 2001/2 – 2005/6 of Greater
Nottingham of July 2006 describes the sustained economic growth between
2001-2006 by a reduction of the number of people registered as unemployed, see
the figure below. The Greater Nottingham economy is the biggest commercial
centre in the East Midlands. The key drivers for economic success are
enterprise and innovation, employment, learning and skills, and the creation of
a climate for investment. According to the report "The LTP has
contributed towards the creation of a climate for investment. The influence of
the LTP is demonstrated in the reduction of congestion leading to improved
competitiveness through e.g. the implementation of measures that contribute to
modal shift such as more use of public transport, an improved access to
employment by a special bus service to the airport as economic centre, and
encouraging economic growth through a network of pedestrian routes". Some main
indicators are displayed in the graph below, e.g. unemployment and traffic.
              6.3.5. Impact on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs)
The overall impact of
SUMPs on SMEs is expected to be positive as the costs of running business in
cities, related mainly to congestion, would decrease. SUMPs could also make
cities more attractive and offer new business opportunities for SMEs by improving
accessibility to certain city areas, reducing the external costs of transport
activities and better spatial development. 
As an example, many small logistic service
providers that deliver parcels in Europe depend on "the performance and
affordability of the delivery system as a key driver of the sustainability of
their business models, and in particular of their ability to serve their
customers. As SMEs are the driving forces of innovation and growth in Europe,
improving the overall delivery system for goods ordered online in Europe can be
expected to yield very significant results in terms of growth and jobs"[136]. 
However, specific SMEs can be affected in various ways by introduction of
SUMPs. Those SMEs which are dependent on urban transportation systems will be
affected to the extent their business relies on a specific type of
transportation services. These changes can be both positive, if the
improvements in urban transportation benefit the business models of some SMEs
(e.g. providing home delivery service becomes faster and cheaper due to reduced
congestion), or negative if the changes required by a SUMP and its measures are
costly or difficult to implement (e.g. extra charges or permits are required to
enter a specific time window in the city centre). 
City logistics
companies are the most likely ones to be affected, but again they can both
benefit or bear additional costs. If access regulation measures will be applied
within a SUMP to conventional vans and HDV's in a specific city, this leads to
costs of changing the fleet, adapting the schedules and delivery routes, and/or
administrative costs due to permits. The benefits of a SUMP could be lower
congestion and also new business opportunities coming from a new approach to
city logistics such as bike services, support for electric vehicles or more
efficient planning. A large logistics depot might be moved to the outskirts and
smaller and more flexible companies could be better positioned to provide
doorstep deliveries.
Consequently, even if
it is difficult to quantify the overall impact of SUMPs on SMEs, the benefits
should outweigh the costs, due to reduced congestion and related costs, and
improved accessibility and attractiveness of cities. Since the general impact
on SMEs would be positive, the option covering larger number of urban areas
would have higher impact i.e. option 3A, followed by option 2A, option
1B and option 0B.
              6.3.6. Administrative
burden and cost savings  
44.         Administrative burden and
costs
45.         Local, regional and
national authorities are affected due to higher administrative costs for
developing and implementing a SUMP in comparison with traditional transport and
infrastructure plans. Table 7 and 8 below show estimates of extra staffing
required per year to develop and manage LTP's in the UK and total costs
estimates of the development of French PDU's[137].
In France costs appear to increase with the city size, probably due to higher
complexity of coordination and stakeholder management. The tables should be
seen as examples of cost levels associated with developing a SUMP. 
46.         Furthermore, there are
costs of the actual implementation of the measures defined by a SUMP. In the
first round of LTP's (2001-2006) over £26 billion were invested in local
transport. An LTP leads local authorities to give more priority to sustainable
urban mobility then before, also in terms of spending[138]. Moreover, the
administrative costs could increase in case of cities with no tradition or
know-how in integrated planning. There, building capacities, trainings and changing
the administrative procedures could add substantially to the total costs of
developing a SUMP.
Table
7: Extra staffing required to develop and manage Local Transport Plans in
England[139]
 Study || Minimum extra staffing required || Type of authority 
 Atkins (2007) || 5 || Rural county, population 756,000 
   || 4 || Urban unitary, population 182,000 
   || 12 || Mixed rural/urban unitary, no information on population. 
Source: COWI (2013) based on Atkins (2007)
Table 8:
Costs of developing a SUMP[140]
   || Minimum cost, Euro, average over interview cities || Maximum cost, Euro, average over interview cities 
 <100,000 population || 59,500 || 300,000 
 100,000 – 200,000 population || 80,000 || 550,000 
 >200,000 population || 90,836 || 668,654 
 <450,000 population without public transport in segregated alignment || 200,000 || 700,000 
 >450,000 with public transport in segregated alignment population || 185,000 || Not available 
Source: COWI (2013) based on Gart (2009)
The administrative
costs are expected to be the highest for the option requiring mandatory SUMPs 
on the basis of the EU decision (option 3A), because some cities would
need to develop measures that have not necessarily been in place before. Option
2A could be expected to have lower administrative costs, if the countries
take the cost of implementation into account when setting their population
threshold for the cities required to develop a SUMP. The administrative costs
resulting from option 1B would be the lowest as the uptake of SUMPs in
this option will be the lowest. Moreover, as the voluntary approach leaves the
cities more freedom in choosing the appropriate framework, fitted to the local
circumstances, also on the governance side of a SUMP, stakeholders argue that
there could be a reduced administrative burden stemming from possibly redundant
legal requirements, without losing out on effectiveness.
47.         Other administrative burden
The development and
implementation of SUMPs could lead to additional administrative burden, e.g.
for logistic service providers that deliver goods on a regular or daily basis
in different inner cities. For example, access regulations measures will lead
to additional permits to enter the vehicle time window or the low emission zone
in a specific city, leading to more administrative costs[141]. As the specific
measures taken within a SUMP will be tailor made to the local situation it is
difficult to quantify this additional burden.
48.         Cost savings
49.         On the other hand, local,
regional and national authorities will save costs due to the development and
implementation of a more coordinated, effective and efficient combination of
measures within a SUMP. The case study below gives an illustration of possible
cost savings: 
Case
study 9: Value for money of the Local Transport Plans (LTP)[142]
The report
on the first round of LTPs recognises that quantifying the value for money of
integrated transport schemes has proven difficult within the constraints of the
data available. However, results from the first round on LTP's indicate that
the benefits[143]
of integrated transport schemes are likely to be significant relative to the
costs and offering "value for money". Some examples were given in the
study. The research suggests that "every £1 spent on well-designed soft
measures could bring about £10 of benefit in reduced congestion alone with
further potential gains from environmental improvements and other effects,
provided that the tendency of induced traffic to erode such benefit is
controlled". Moreover, the study shows that "7,230 casualty
reduction schemes were delivered across 57,282 authorities, at a cost of £195
million. These schemes reduced the number of personal injury accidents by 21%,
based on a comparison of data for three years prior and post scheme
implementation. The cost per accident saved across these authorities is
£23,000, but ranges from £2,000 to £184,000 within individual authorities. In
contrast the average value of casualty prevention is £45,000 per person,
suggesting an overall Benefit : Cost ratio of 2". However, in the
study it is emphasised that the results have to be treated with extreme care as
the model used is based on a crude understanding of the specific outcomes which
can be expected from individual integrated transport schemes.
              6.3.7. Territorial
impact
SUMPs
improve the functioning of urban transportation and consequently improve the
connectivity of urban centres with other parts of the region and connectivity
between the regions. The regional impact of SUMPs will be most substantial for
predominantly urban[144]
and intermediate regions[145]
dependent on an urban centre. Using other typology, the territorial impact of
SUMPs will be the highest in metro regions[146].
Depending on the coverage of the city sizes by a SUMP framework, the impact
could be limited to predominantly capital city regions or second-tier metro
regions. Thus the territorial impact depends largely on the number of cities
where SUMPs will be implemented, i.e. it would be the highest for option 3A,
than option 2A, followed by option1B and option 0. In
general, the territorial impact of SUMPs is positive by improving the
functionality of urban areas and their connectivity to nearby rural areas.
However, the quantification of this impact is very challenging and no anecdotal
evidence exists on the impact of SUMPs on the economic performance of a
specific region. Option 1B could be more effective than options 2A
and 3A, as the comprehensive policy requirements specifically address
measures on transport pricing, which have a potential to reduce congestion and
improve modal shirt.
6.4.        Social
impacts 
              6.4.1. Impact on road safety
50.         Taking measures within a
SUMP to increase road safety will reduce the high costs of traffic accidents on
society as well as on individuals. Road accident costs (such as material
damage, hospital and emergency services costs, loss of workforce and loss of
quality-adjusted life years, insurance costs, costs related to disabilities and
rehabilitation) make up one of the largest shares of the costs of transport.
Saving lives and reducing serious injuries is a cost-efficient investment,
whereas the costs of status quo in EU total today for the serious traffic
accidents amount to around 2% of EU GDP[147].

51.         The case study of the UK
area of Greater Nottingham and Manchester illustrate the benefit of improving
road safety through the implementation of an LTP (see case study 10 below).
Policy options 1B, 2A and 3A will result in a higher impact on
road safety than option 0B as the level of uptake of SUMPs will be
higher, even more in the mandatory than in the voluntary approach. Regarding
the policy framework the differences between options 1B, 2A and 3A
will be small on road safety, as the comprehensive requirements in option 1B
do not specifically address road safety measures.
Case study 10: the effects of the Local Transport
Plans (LTP) on in the UK on road safety[148][149]
Manchester achieved a reduction of the
numbers of people killed or
seriously injured (KSI) by 23% on the '94-'98 average and a reduction of
accidents by 48% from 2000-03 to 2005-07, despite the already very low KSI
casualty rate per head of population as a starting point. This has been
achieved by measures within the LTP such as campaigns, speed awareness driver
courses and incorporation of road safety in school travel plans. Enforcement of
speed limits is important to keep these results. 
An interesting key success of the Greater Nottingham
LTP is the improvement of road safety as one of the four key achievements of
the plan. Road casualties in terms of numbers of people killed or seriously
injured have reduced by 35%, meaning the authorities are ahead of the schedule
of meeting the national target. This success has been achieved through the
implementation of a comprehensive package of road safety measures such as
pedestrian friendly streets and reduced traffic speeds, campaigns and education
activities on the relation between speed and casualties, and a move towards the
use of more innovative casualty reduction strategies such as digital speed
cameras and safer routes to school schemes. The figure below presenting actual
and projected figures on the road safety indicator concerning the numbers of
people KSI in Greater Nottingham illustrates this trend.
              6.4.2. Impact on health
The implementation of a SUMP and its
measures, such as access restriction zones and speed limits, will have an
impact on emissions of air pollutants. Improved air quality will lead to less
people with respiratory diseases and weak hart conditions suffering from air
pollution and therefore to reduced health costs. For more information see
chapter 6.5.1 and relevant case studies. 
Measures to promote a modal shift to
walking and cycling will contribute to a more active life style and reduce
levels of obesity. Measures to promote a modal shift to public transport will
contribute to improved accessibility. The following case study of Manchester
illustrates the benefit on accessibility of public transport:
 Case study 11: the effects of the Local Transport Plan of
Manchester (LTP) on accessibility of public transport (including for people
with reduced mobility)[150]
In the first two years of the LTP2 period
(2006/07-2010/11) Manchester realised an increase in
the percentage of accessible buses from 64% in 2006/07 to 71% in 2007/08.
Furthermore an increase in the percentage of accessible bus stops was realised
from 53% in 2006/07 to 79% in 2007/08. This was achieved by e.g. major access
and upgrade of facilities at  the central station, service improvements in
busses, Sunday services, pedestrian friendly schemes and extension and
improvement of demand responsive services, e.g. by improvement of booking and
scheduling services through ITS, 
Taking measures within a SUMP, such as
speed limits or isolation measures, will lead to reduced noise exposure leading
to reduced health costs (as noise exposure increases the risk of
cardio-vasculair diseases). Case study 12 of Strasbourg illustrates this
benefit.  
Policy options 1B, 2A and 3A will
result in a higher impact on air and noise pollution reduction than option 0B
as the level of uptake of SUMPs will be higher, even more in the mandatory than
in the voluntary approach. Regarding the policy framework the differences
between option 1B on the one hand, and options 2A and 3A on the
other hand will be bigger, as the comprehensive requirements in option 1B specifically
address measures on clean technology, alternative fuels and access restriction
schemes. However, the comprehensive scope will only be implemented on a
voluntary basis.
Case
study 12: the effects of the "Plan de Déplacements Urbains (PDU) de
Strasbourg" on noise pollution[151]
The environmental evaluation of the revised PDU de
Strasbourg (started in December 2008) has estimated the impact of this PDU on
noise emissions with a time horizon 2015. The WHO night noise guidelines for
Europe describe levels above 55 decibel during the night as increasingly
dangerous to public health. In Strasbourg 5% of the population (about 23.000
persons) live near the motorway A35 where the average night noise level is
above the 55 decibel limit. In order to reduce the noise pollution various
measures have been incorporated in the PDU, such as dynamic traffic management
and speed limits, 30 km zones, traffic reduction on certain axes, rerouting of
HGVs away from the city centre, realisation of two new ring roads to relieve
the city centre and isolation measures. All these measures have an estimated
effect of 50% reduction of traffic leading to a significant reduction of the
noise level of -2dBA.
              6.4.3. Impact on employment
and social inclusion.
52.         Taking measures within a SUMP
to improve accessibility to economic centres by investments in public transport
networks will reduce congestion and pollution due to less commuting by car, and
create more job opportunities for individuals. Social inclusion of citizens
living in peri-urban areas will be improved by providing better access to
public transport, making potential destinations for economic activities closer
to their houses. Social inclusion of citizens who do not have a car will also
improve by providing more alternative transport modes. By providing access to services
and opportunities people's quality of life will be improved. The following case
study of Ile-de-France illustrates this benefit.  
53.         Policy options 1B, 2A and
3A will result in a higher impact on employment and social inclusion than
option 0B as the level of uptake of SUMPs will be higher, even more in
the mandatory than in the voluntary approach. Regarding the policy framework
the differences between option 1B on the one hand, and options 2A and
3A on the other hand will be bigger, as the comprehensive requirements
in option 1B specifically address measures, e.g. on clean technology and
alternative fuels, that could create research, innovation and business
opportunities for developing innovative transport and mobility services.
However, the comprehensive scope will only be implemented on a voluntary basis.

Case
study 13: the effects of the "Plan de Déplacements Urbains d'Ile-de-France
(PDUIF)" on accessibility to economic centres and employment in
L'Ile-De-France[152]
L'Ile-de-France, one of the 27 administrative regions
of France covering the metropolitan area of Paris, has from 2007 onwards
revised its "Plan de Déplacements Urbains d'Ile-de-France (PDUIF)"
2000. The revised PDUIF 2012 contains model estimations of impact on modal
shift and use of public transport, and of improved access to jobs and to
economic centres in the region through public transport. Where in the reference
scenario of the PDUIF evaluation the development of the number of journeys on
workdays by public transport between 2006 and 2020 is estimated at +6%, in the
revised PDUIF scenario it is estimated at +20%. The number of journeys on
workdays by active modes between 2006 and 2020 is estimated at +4%, and in the
revised PDUIF scenario it is estimated at +10%. In contrast, the number of
journeys on workdays by car between 2006 and 2020 is estimated at +8% in the
reference scenario, and in the revised PDUIF scenario it is estimated at -2%.
In 2010 multiple areas with job opportunities are situated away from public
transport networks in Ile-de-France, Due to new infrastructure foreseen in the
revised PDUIF 2012 this situation will improve by 2020. In the inner ring of
Paris in 2006 63% of jobs were located at walking distance of public transport
networks, whereas in 2020 80% of jobs will be located at walking distance. For
the bigger ring of Paris in 2006 27% of jobs were located at walking distance from
public transport networks, whereas in 2020 36% will be located at walking
distance.   
              6.4.4. Impact on civil society
The participatory approach used within a sustainable
urban mobility planning process will strengthen civil society. The improvement
of social dialogue is an important benefit of SUMPs in the Member States who
have last joined the EU[153].
Case study 14: involving citizens in
mobility issues in Zagreb[154]
The Eltis urban mobility portal presents the following
case study from Zagreb: "In Zagreb, discussions on mobility issues were
previously mostly limited to professionals without involving the public.
 However a new scheme, developed within the CIVITAS ELAN project, was
designed to change this through the following aims: to raise citizens’ interest
and understanding of mobility issues, to encourage them to actively contribute
to the improvement of local mobility conditions and to teach them how to best
communicate with the authorities. A further aim was to establish a public
dialogue on mobility issues and to convince authorities, other mobility actors
and planners that involving citizens in the decision making process offers great
advantages. As well as continuous communication with different media, the
project utilized various measures for information dissemination to effectively
reach the target groups of citizens and stakeholders. The project showed the
benefits of continual communication among different stakeholders, the value of
consultation when looking for concrete mobility solutions and the necessity for
efficient coordination of all mobility actors."
6.5.        Environmental impacts 
              6.5.1. Impact on air quality
54.         The implementation of a
SUMP and its measures, such as access restriction zones and speed limits, will
have an impact on emissions of air pollutants. Improved air quality will lead
to reduced environmental damage and reduced health costs. 
55.         Policy options 1B, 2A and
3A will result in a higher impact on air pollution than option 0B as
the level of uptake of a full SUMP will be higher, even more in the mandatory
than in the voluntary approach. Regarding the policy framework the differences
between option 1B on the one hand, and options 2A and 3A
on the other hand will be bigger, as the comprehensive requirements in option 1B
specifically address measures on clean technology, alternative fuels and access
restriction schemes, which have a high potential in relation to air pollutant
reduction. However, the comprehensive scope will only be implemented on a
voluntary basis. The following case studies of Ile-de-France and Marseille
illustrate the possible benefits of a SUMP:  
Case
study 15: the effects of the "Plan de Déplacements Urbains d'Ile-de-France
(PDUIF)" on air quality in Ile-De-France[155]
L'Ile-de-France, one of the 27 administrative regions
of France covering the metropolitan area of Paris, has tried to estimate the
possible impact of its "Plan de Déplacements Urbains d'Ile-de-France
(PDUIF)" on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions in its region with a
time horizon 2020. The study reveals that in the "status quo"
scenario, i.e. the scenario without any additional action, emissions affecting
the air quality, e.g. NOx, PM2.5 and PM10, would decrease significantly due to
the technologic evolution of motorised transport, one of the biggest air
polluters in the region.  In the scenario of extra action on improving modal
shift, and a fortiori in the scenario where all proposed PDUIF measures are
implemented, extra reductions could be achieved. The study concludes that at
least 1 to 2 % less people would be potentially exposed to NO2
levels exceeding the legal maximum thresholds. In practice this would result in
improved air quality for 30,000 to 40,000 people in Paris and 80,000 to 100,000
people in l'Ile-de France. However, even with these improvements, on still half
of the Paris' surface the thresholds for NO2 and PM2.5 will be
exceeded, and about one fifth for PM10. 
Case
study 16: the effects of the "Plan de Déplacements Urbains (PDU) de
Marseille" on air quality[156]
Le rapport environnemental du PDU de
Marseille-Provence Metropole 2013-2023 estimates the possible impact of the PDU
of Marseille on air quality with a time horizon 2023. For both the
"Metropolitan area" (Aubagne, Vitrolles, Pays de Martigues, Pays de
Salon de Provence) and for the "Bassin centre" (Marseille, Allauch,
Plan de Cuques, une grande partie de Septèmes les Vallons et une petite partie
de celles des Pennes-Mirabeau) air polluants (NOx, PM) linked to transport will
decrease, even in a scenario where no further policy action is taken. However,
in all scenarios examined, the European norms linked to NOx and PM would not be
achieved.  Nevertheless, for the metropolitan area, it is estimated that with
the measures of the PDU, instead of 24% reduction of NOx, a reduction of 32%
could be realised with the implementation of the PDU. The same is true for the
PM emissions, where in the business as usual scenario a reduction of 18% could
be achieved, and in the PDU scenario a reduction of 31%. The results for the
"Bassin centre" are similar. Results will be achieved through a
reduction of road traffic due to measures such as the promotion of modal shift
to public transport, walking and cycling, awareness raising campaigns, parking
policies and more efficient city logistics.
              6.5.2. Impact
on energy consumption and CO2 emissions in transport, including
possible territorial effects
The implementation of a SUMP and its
measures, such as the promotion of non-motorised transport modes, alternatives
for the car and good access to public transport, are likely to result in a
decrease in (the growth of) energy consumption and reduce emissions of CO2. 

Policy options 1B, 2A and 3A will
result in a higher impact on greenhouse gas emissions than option 0B as
the level of uptake of a full SUMP will be higher, even more in the mandatory
than in the voluntary approach. Regarding the policy framework the differences
between option 1B on the one hand, and options 2A and 3A on the
other hand will be bigger, as the comprehensive requirements in option 1B
specifically address measures on clean technology, alternative fuels and access
restriction schemes, which have a high potential in relation to greenhouse gas
emissions reduction. However, the comprehensive scope will only be implemented
on a voluntary basis.
56.         Below, an extract is
presented from a Joint Research Centre (JRC) report[157]. The results of the
JRC report could be regarded as an illustration of possible territorial impacts
of a SUMP on CO2 emissions reduction
potentials. The JRC carried out an assessment of impacts at EU level,
with focus on the territorial dimension. Different types
of urban profiles were identified for NUTS3 regions in Europe. These profiles
were used to differentiate potential impacts of various policy measures within
a SUMP by NUTS3 region, accounting for the wide range of different types of
cities in Europe. A scoring system, drawing on several studies[158], was used for
assessing the impacts of policy measures within a SUMP[159],[160].  For more
information on the list of identified measures and on the expert scoring method
used in the JRC report see annexes 6 and 7.  The CO2 emissions
reduction potential for each type of policy measure within a SUMP is reported
relative to projections under current trends and policies for 2030. 
57.         The overall impacts of the
policy measures within a SUMP are evaluated for different city profiles in
NUTS3 regions. When considering all potential policy measures within a SUMP the
assessment shows that by 2030 the CO2 emission reduction potential
at EU level is in a range of 7% to 8.8%, relative to projections under
current trends and policies[161].
Case
study 17: territorial impact of SUMPs by JRC 
The JRC assessed the impacts of a list of identified
policy measures within a SUMP for the defined NUTS 3 profiles on potential CO2
emissions reduction, see the figure below[162].
 
Moreover, case studies from Strasbourg, Ile
de France and Marseille further illustrate the potential benefits of a SUMP:
Case
study 18: the effects of the "Plan de Déplacements Urbains (PDU) de
Marseille" on GHG emissions[163] 
"Le rapport environnemental du PDU de
Marseille-Provence Metropole 2013-2023" has estimated the impact of the
PDU of Marseille on greenhouse gas emissions with a time horizon 2023. For both
the "Metropolitan area" (Aubagne, Vitrolles, Pays de Martigues, Pays
de Salon de Provence) and for the "Bassin centre" ("Marseille,
Allauch, Plan de Cuques, une grande partie de Septèmes les Vallons et une
petite partie de celles des Pennes-Mirabeau") total GHG emissions will
decrease, even in a scenario where no further policy action is taken, due to
the technologic evolution of motorised transport. However, the full potential
of technological improvement, e.g. the development of electric cars and the
time needed to change the whole car fleet (about 25 years), can only be
realised on the long term. In the "Metropolitan area", total GHG
emissions would go down with 11% if no further action is taken. However, if the
PDU 2013-2023 will be implemented, GHG emissions could go down with 22%,
representing an additional 11% gain. In the "Bassin centre", total
GHG emissions would go down with 11% if no further action is taken. However, if
the PDU 2013-2023 will be implemented, GHG emissions could go down with 21%,
representing an additional 10% gain. These gains can be realised through the
implementation of measures in the PDU to promote modal shift to public
transport and non-motorised modes (to reduce road traffic), and e.g. parking
policies and more efficient city logistics distribution. 
Case
study 19: the effects of the "Plan de Déplacements Urbains (PDU) de la
Communauté Urbaine de Strasbourg" on energy consumption in road transport[164]
The urban agglomeration of Strasbourg has
estimated the impact of its PDU on the energy consumption in transport (leading
to an impact on CO2 emissions). In relation to the figures for
2009, and compared to the business as usual situation (the situation in which
there would be no additional action), the PDU measures will enable an
additional reduction of 7% of energy consumption in transport by 2025 (see the
graph below). In the business as usual scenario energy consumption in transport
would already substantially go down due to technological progress of motorised
transport which increases its energy efficiency and introduces cleaner cars,
e.g. hybrids. The PDU measures would create additional positive effects thanks
to the reduced mileage of total car trips and a modal shift to public transport
and non-motorised transport modes. 
Evolution
of energy consumption in transport in the Strasbourg agglomeration:
Case
study 20: the effects of the "Plan de Déplacements Urbains d'Ile-de-France
(PDUIF)" on CO2 in Ile-De-France[165]
The PDUIF study as mentioned in the case study above
concluded that in the "status quo" scenario, i.e. the scenario
without any additional action, CO2 emissions would decrease by 12%,
compared to the 2005 figures due to the technologic evolution of motorised
transport which will offset the potential increase of local transport. Taking
into account the measures as proposed in the PDUIF, it is estimated that an
extra 8% reduction in CO2 emissions could be achieved, bringing the
total reduction to 20%.
              6.5.3. Impact
on noise pollution
Taking measures within a SUMP, such as
speed limits or isolation measures, will lead to reduced noise exposure leading
to reduced health costs. For more information see chapter 6.4.2 and relevant
case study of Strasbourg. 
Policy options 1B, 2A and 3A
will result in a higher impact on noise pollution than option 0B as the
level of uptake of a full SUMP will be higher, even more in the mandatory than
in the voluntary approach. Regarding the policy framework the differences
between option 1B on the one hand, and options 2A and 3A
on the other  hand will be bigger, as the comprehensive requirements in option 1B
specifically address measures on clean technology, alternative fuels and access
restriction schemes, which have a high potential in relation to noise
reduction. However, the comprehensive scope will only be implemented on a
voluntary basis. 
              6.5.4. Impact on other environmental indicators (e.g.
biodiversity, water quality, soil quality, renewable sources, waste management
Taking measures within a SUMP, such as
reduction of (heavy) road traffic, speed limits, a promotion of modal shift and
more efficient city logistics will lead to reduced environmental damage, such
as of water and soil quality, and better preservation of biodiversity (e.g.
through less particles of tyres, less spill of oil, less air pollution).
Policy options 1B, 2A and 3A
will result in a higher impact on air pollution, biodiversity, water and soil
quality than option 0B as the level of uptake of a full SUMP will be
higher, even more in the mandatory than in the voluntary approach. Regarding
the policy framework the differences between option 1B on the one hand,
and options 2A and 3A on the other hand will be bigger, as the
comprehensive requirements in option 1B specifically address measures on
clean technology, alternative fuels and access restriction schemes, which have
a high potential in relation to air pollution and road traffic reduction with a
positive impact on biodiversity, water and soil quality. However, the
comprehensive scope will only be implemented on a voluntary basis. 
Case
study 21: the effects of the Plan de Déplacements Urbains d'Ile-de-France (PDUIF)
on other environmental indicators[166]
The revised PDUIF 2012 concluded that the impacts on
the other environmental indicators of the PDUIF with a time horizon 2020 are
generally positive. Some negative consequences are foreseen, e.g. on
biodiversity, water resources, fragmentation of land and less open space, due
to the creation of infrastructure. However these effects are limited as most of
the new infrastructure is foreseen in urbanised zones on existing roads.
6.6.        Impacts on affected
stakeholders 
58.         Local and regional
authorities will benefit from reduced congestion, reduced environmental
pollution, less accidents and better accessibility of/within cities. This leads
to more liveable and attractive cities for people and businesses to live and
work in, contributing to job creation and economic growth. Overall this will
lead to costs savings for the society as a whole with relatively limited
additional administrative burden. 
59.         Local, regional and
national authorities, transport operators and users, and businesses will
benefit from reduced congestion and a better flow of goods and people leading
to better accessibility of/within cities, more predictable and shorter travel
times and costs savings due to gained time and efficiencies.
60.         Businesses will have more
opportunities to develop innovative transport and mobility technologies and
services, and better 'economies of scale' and export opportunities. 
61.         Tax payers will benefit due
to the development and implementation of better coordinated and targeted
combination of urban mobility measures leading to overall cost savings.
62.         EU citizens in general will
benefit due to a positive impact on their health of reduced air pollution,
reduced urban traffic noise levels, reduced traffic accidents in urban areas,
and a more active lifestyle.
6.7.        Summary of the aggregated
economic, environmental and social impacts
In sections 6.3 to 6.5 the economic, social
and environmental impacts of the policy options have been described and
illustrated. Most impacts, and especially the aggregate impact, are expected to
be positive. This is reflected in table 9 below. On the basis of the analysis
in section 6.1 and 6.2 it has been assumed that options 2A and 3A
("++" or  "- -") will have a more pronounced effect than
option 1B ( "+" or "-"). Option 2A and 3A have been scored
equally in this schematic summary, as section 6.2 states that option 3A will
have the largest potential impacts, however likely to be closely followed by
option 2A.
Table 9: Summary of the aggregate economic,
environmental and social impacts 
 Impact compared to the baseline (=option 0B) || option 1B || option 2A || option 3A 
 Economic impacts || + || ++ || ++ 
 Reduced congestion and free movement of people and goods || + || ++ || ++ 
 Innovation and research/external dimension || + || ++ || ++ 
 Territorial impact || + || ++ || ++ 
 Modal shift (a "+" means a shift to non-motorised and public transport) || + || ++ || ++ 
 Competitiveness EU industry || + || ++ || ++ 
 SMEs || + || ++ || ++ 
 Administrative costs ( a "-" means an increase in adminstrative costs) || - || - - || - - 
 Cost savings (a "+" means an increase in cost savings) || + || ++ || ++ 
 Social impacts || + || ++ || ++ 
 Road safety || + || ++ || ++ 
 Health || + || ++ || ++ 
 Employment and social inclusion || + || ++ || ++ 
 Civil society || + || ++ || ++ 
 Environmental impacts || + || ++ || ++ 
 Air quality || + || ++ || ++ 
 Reduced energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from transport ( a "+" means less energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions) || + || ++ || ++ 
 Reduced noise pollution ( a "+" means less noise pollution) || + || ++ || ++ 
 Other environnemental indicators (e.g. biodiversity, water quality, soil quality, renewable sources, waste mangement) || + || ++ || ++ 
("+" refers to the intensity of a
positive correlation, "-" refers to a negative correlation)
7.           Comparison of the policy
options
7.1.        Effectiveness
In comparison to the
baseline scenario (option 0B), all other policy options will more effectively
help to unlock the potential of urban areas to improve the well-being of
citizens and the effectiveness of businesses and to contribute to a more
competitive and resource-efficient transport system, as they all stimulate the
uptake of SUMPs for which the added value in relation to those objectives has
been demonstrated in previous sections. However, as indicated before (see
sections 6.1 and 6.2), the effects of the mandatory policy options (2A and 3A)
will be higher than for option 1 B, which would introduce non-binding recommendations
on SUMPs. This is because it is assumed that the uptake of SUMPs will be higher
for the former. 
Certain elements could
shift this balance in favour of non-binding recommendations (option 1B),
especially if seen at city level, and not at an aggregate EU level. First of
all, the voluntary option 1B covers the comprehensive requirements for the
policy framework of SUMPs, whereas the mandatory options only cover the minimum
requirements for the policy framework of a SUMP and could therefore be less effective
if seen from a single city point of view. Moreover, in the voluntary option the
guidance given at cities for the development and implementation of a SUMP could
be more detailed and thus more effective than when taking recourse to a legal
instrument. Also, the buy-in of all stakeholder categories is likely to be
higher under the voluntary option. In this respect it could be argued that
non-binding recommendations on SUMPs could be more effective than a mandatory
legal framework if a single city develops and implements a SUMP. However, in
general, the uptake of SUMPs will be higher in the mandatory options and this
scale effect at EU level will outweigh the comparative advantage of non-binding
recommendations at a single city level. 
For the mandatory options, policy option 3A could be
slightly more effective than policy option 2A as it is assumed that the scope
of application of SUMPs would be slightly higher under option 3A than for 2A. This
is because the EU definition of cities to implement SUMPs is more likely to
have a wider coverage. Therefore, policy option 3A is likely to be more
effective than option 2A. 
7.2.        Efficiency 
All policy options are
efficient: they bring value (effectiveness) for their money (costs) (see
section 6.3.7). No matter whether a SUMP is implemented based on a mandatory
approach or on a voluntary basis, the development and implementation costs will
be similar, relative to the estimated benefits. The difference between minimum
(option 2A and 3A) or comprehensive requirements  (option 1B) for the policy
framework  of a SUMP will not significantly influence this balance, as the
higher absolute costs for the comprehensive approach should be outweighed by
its increased effectiveness. However, as the voluntary approach leaves the cities
more freedom in choosing the appropriate framework, fitted to the local
circumstances, also on the governance side of a SUMP, stakeholders argue that
there could be a reduced administrative burden stemming from possibly redundant
legal requirements, without losing out on effectiveness. Therefore, policy
option 1B is likely to be more efficient than policy option 2A and 3A. 
7.3.        Coherence
All the options are
coherent with the overarching objectives of EU policy. As explained in section
4.3, all policy options are in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, the Single
Market Act, the White Paper on Transport and the Sustainable Development
Strategy. All policy options bring about net positive economic, social and
environmental gains. As such, the policy options are not expected to represent
a trade-off between the economic, social and environmental field. All policy
options advocate the uptake of SUMPs. As the ultimate goal of a SUMP is an
integrated approach to urban mobility in order to ensure a competitive and a
sustainable transport system, it is inherent to a SUMP that the three criteria
for sustainability (economic, social and environmental aspects) are taken into
account when implementing a SUMP at regional/city level. 
Certain implementing
measures in a SUMP could imply a certain trade-off between economic, social and
environmental impacts. For example, the introduction of urban road user charges
with a view of lowering urban emissions could have a negative impact on the
financial situation of citizens, and could for lower income categories even
decrease the accessibility of the urban area. However, this could be
counterbalanced by measures promoting a more reliable and affordable public
transport system or with appropriate park and ride strategies. A SUMP would
ensure that all these aspects are taken into account, in order to ensure a net
positive economic, environmental and social impact of the entire package of
implementing measures. Despite this possible trade-off between implementing
measures of a SUMP, a SUMP as a whole should offset this trade-off and
counterbalance possible negative effects of individual implementing measures. 
Moreover, policy option
2A and 3A will ensure a coherent framework on SUMPs as there will be an
obligation on certain cities to implement the reference SUMP framework. In
option 1B this reference SUMP framework is only there as guidance and cities
will not be obliged to implement all components. As such, option 1B risks to
bring about a less coherent development and implementation of SUMPs throughout
the EU. Therefore, it can be concluded that although all policy options are
coherent, policy option 2A and 3A are slightly more coherent than policy option
1B.    
7.4.        Stakeholder support
As already touched upon
in section 5.2, stakeholders have been consulted on the various policy options.
86% of all stakeholders answering to the online public consultation are in
favour of EU-support for the development of SUMPs. Stakeholders as such clearly
indicate the added value of EU action. The respondents to the public
consultation are to a large extent in favour of EU support measures in relation
to option 0. 74% is of the opinion that best practices on SUMPs should be
developed and exchanged at EU level. Moreover, 66% finds that the EU should
provide a platform for this. 58% believes that the EU should give financial
support for the development of SUMPs, whereas 57% believes that the EU should
fund R&D projects related to urban mobility planning. 57% of the
respondents support option 1B on the development of guidelines and
recommendations. However, only
29% of the registered respondents point to a mandatory framework for SUMPs in
EU cities (options 2 and 3). 
63.         Regarding the level of
ambition of SUMPs there was support at the stakeholder consultation meeting for
the minimum requirements for the policy framework of cities' policy making, and
for the minimum requirements on the governance framework (option A). Regarding
a mandatory approach (options 2A and 3A) concern was raised about higher administrative
burden and the fact that cities are different and therefore need flexibility in
their urban mobility approaches. A two-step approach was suggested by starting
first with a non-mandatory approach and become more restrictive over time. A
consultation with Committee of the Regions' members revealed that they also
support a non-legislative approach (options 0 and 1). 
7.5.        Summary
on the comparison of policy packages
A summary of the
comparison of options is given in table 10. As explained in section 7.1 to
section 7.4 the following conclusions can be drawn. All policy options are
effective, but policy option 2A and 3A (++/+++) are more effective than policy
option 1B (+). All policy options are efficient as they represent value for
money. However, policy option 1B (+ / ++) is likely to be more efficient that
option 2A and 3A (+). Furthermore, all policy options are coherent. However,
policy option 2A and 3A (++) are likely to be more coherent that option 1B (+).
Lastly, it is clear that option 1B (++) is supported by a vast majority of
stakeholders, whereas option 2A and 3A are heavily contested (- -) by the
stakeholders.
Table
10: Effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of the policy packages (PPs),
compared to the baseline scenario (option 0B)
 OPTION || Option 1B || Option 2A || Option 3A 
 Effectiveness || + || ++ || ++ / +++ 
 Efficiency || +/++ || + || + 
 Coherence || + || ++ || ++ 
 Stakeholder support || ++ || -  - || - - 
("+"
refers to the intensity of a positive correlation, "-" refers to a negative
correlation)
7.6.        Conclusions and preferred policy option
Based on the analysis of impacts and the
comparison of the options it is concluded that the preferred policy option is option
1B (non-binding recommendations on SUMPs with
comprehensive requirements for the policy framework of a SUMP). This
because it is effective in reaching the objective of this initiative, is
slightly more efficient than the other policy options, is coherent and because
it is the only option which in addition to the baseline scenario is supported
by a majority of the stakeholders. From the consultation process it is clear
that at this point in time option 2A and 3A (the "mandatory" options)
are not supported by stakeholders and neither by experts. 
The advantages of non-binding
recommendations over a legal approach are multiple. A much more detailed
guidance can be given to cities, resulting in more flexibility and enhanced
effectiveness. Moreover, the buy-in of all stakeholder categories is likely to
be higher under the voluntary option. Given the large diversity on urban
mobility approaches at Member State level and given the current limited
availability of comparable data and statistics, non-binding recommendations on
the development and implementation of SUMPs are therefore the optimal way
forward at this point in time. At a later stage, based on the reinforced
monitoring and evaluation arrangements (see section 8), e.g. the development of
common indicators on urban mobility performance, the necessity for further
action on integrated urban mobility at EU level can be explored. 
8.           Monitoring
and evaluation
The Commission services will monitor the
implementation and effectiveness of this initiative through a set of instruments.
The Commission services will monitor inter alia the number of national
frameworks on SUMPs in place and the number of urban areas covered by it.
Moreover, it will monitor the number of urban areas developing and implementing
a SUMP. Data will be gathered in close consultation with Member States and
stakeholders, e.g. through the future European Platform on Sustainable Urban
Mobility Plans, in line with current EU activities[167]. The future European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans
will act as a virtual knowledge and competence centre, consolidating relevant experiences
and information across the EU, including the sharing of relevant data and
statistics and the elaboration of common indicators on urban mobility
performance with a view to setting-up a common urban mobility scoreboard. Based
on this, monitoring indicators for the implementation by Member States and
local authorities could be developed. 
The Commission services will evaluate by
2020 the uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches in the European Union,
inter alia based on the monitoring arrangements described above. If possible,
based on improved data collection in the field of urban mobility and the
elaboration of a common urban mobility scoreboard, the impacts at city level on
the result indicators can be identified (e.g. impact on air quality, noise,
CO2, road safety, congestion). Based on these elements, the Commission services
shall assess the need for further action on integrated urban mobility.
Appendix 1:
Assessment of the application of the minimum consultation standards
Aim and content of the consultation
process
64.         The White Paper “Roadmap to a Single European Transport
Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System”[168] announces that the
Commission will "examine the possibility of a European support framework
for a progressive implementation of Urban Mobility Plans in European cities, establish
procedures and financial support mechanisms at European level for preparing
Urban Mobility Audits, as well as Urban Mobility Plans, and set up a European
Urban Mobility Scoreboard based on common targets, and examine the possibility
of a mandatory approach for cities of a certain size, according to national
standards based on EU guidelines". It is also proposed to "link
regional development and cohesion funds to cities and regions that have
submitted a current, and independently validated Urban Mobility Performance and
Sustainability Audit certificate". 
65.         The aim of the consultation
was to gather the views of the EU citizens and stakeholders on this initiative.
66.         The consultation process
has been structured as follows:
(1) Stakeholder
consultation as part of the study “Review of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility”
MOVE C1/319-1/2011; 
(2) Public
consultation on “The urban dimension of EU transport policy”; 
(3) Consultation
of representatives of the Member States; 
(4) Targeted
experts' and stakeholders' consultation under “COWI (2013), Study to support an
Impact Assessment on Urban Mobility Package 2013”;
(5) A Euro
barometer citizen survey into 'Attitudes of European towards urban mobility';
(6) Consultation
of Committee of the Regions' members.
67.         The General Principles and
Minimum Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission were
respected in the elaboration and presentation of the consultation
questionnaire.
Publication
68.         All reports have been
published on the Commission website at the following addresses: (to be
completed when available)
Time limits for participation
69.         An on-line stakeholder
consultation as part of the study “Panteia/NEA (2013), Review of the Action Plan
on Urban Mobility” MOVE C1/319-1/2011 was published on 18 June 2012. The
questionnaire was available on-line until 7 September 2012, respecting the
minimum consultation standard period of at least twelve weeks.
70.         A public on-line
consultation on “The urban dimension of EU transport policy” was published on
17 September 2012. The questionnaire was available on-line until 17 December
2012, respecting the minimum consultation standard period of at least twelve
weeks.
71.         The consultation of
representatives of Member States took place in December 2012.
72.         The consultation of experts
and stakeholders under the “COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment
on Urban Mobility Package 2013” took place between January and May 2013.
73.         The Euro barometer citizen
survey took place between 24 May and 9 June 2013.
74.         The consultation of the
Committee of the Regions' members took place on 13 June 2013.
Acknowledgement and feedback
75.         As to the on-line
stakeholder consultation as part of the study “Panteia/NEA (2013), Review of
the Action Plan on Urban Mobility” MOVE C1/319-1/2011, Panteia/NEA requested
and obtained the approval of all stakeholders before publishing the relevant
contributions in the final report. 
76.         As to the public
consultation on “The urban dimension of EU transport policy”, stakeholders were
informed on-line that their contributions would be handled by a consultant and
used by the Commission services, and a summary of the consultation’s results
would be published on the Commission’s website.
Appendix 2: Results of consultation with
interested parties
The
consultations on the urban dimension of EU transport policy, including
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, carried out in 2012 and the first half of
2013 with stakeholders and experts from national, regional and local public
authorities, companies, transport operators; academia, civil society (associations
or NGOs) and the public, have arrived at the conclusion that that integrated
urban mobility planning is a useful tool to fostering coordination at local and
regional level. Furthermore, a vast majority believes that EU-support for the
development of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans would contribute to the broader
take up of SUMPs in urban areas. 
Furthermore,
the majority of respondents:

 Supports further EU action to stimulate the
     development and implementation of SUMPs in the MS. 
 In general believes that EU support should be
     based on a non-legislative approach.
 Considers that support mechanisms (such as the
     exchange of best practice and providing a platform for that, technical
     assistance, financial support for the development of SUMPS, supporting
     R&D projects on SUMPS and guidance through recommendations) should be
     set-up to promote the development and implementation of SUMPS.
 Considers that SUMPs should pay sufficient
     attention to city logistics. 
 Raise concern about a possible lack of quality
     control on SUMPs
 Believe that benchmarking of cities could be
     useful to raise awareness among politicians and support EU support to
     elaborate common indicators on urban mobility performance

Stakeholders’ consultation concerning the review of the Action Plan
on Urban Mobility
An
on-line stakeholder consultation took place between 18 June 2012 and 7
September 2012, as part of the study “Panteia/NEA (2013), Review of the Action
Plan on Urban Mobility” MOVE C1/319-1/2011. In total 116 responses were
received, including 62 respondents providing contributions on the first action
of the Action Plan related to Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. 20 of the specific
replies on integrated urban mobility planning came from professional
organisations, academia and research, 19 of the replies came from
representatives of local and regional authorities and city networks, 11 replies
came from NGOs, and 12 replies came from member states representatives,
transport operators, workers and consumers organisations.
The
report is available at: (to be completed when available).
The main findings from the consultation regarding the take-up of
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans are as follows[169]:

 The EC provided guidance
     material, promoted best practice exchange and supported educational
     activities for urban mobility professionals. Through these activities the
     relevant action of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility has been implemented
     and local authorities are supported in developing Sustainable Urban
     Mobility Plans.
 Freight transport in Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans has so
     far not really been addressed.
 The ELTISplus guidelines
     aimed at developing and implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan
     provide a good understanding of what such a plan should be. However, no
     official document to date offers an exhaustive definition of a Sustainable
     Urban Mobility Plan.
 Some stakeholders support to
     link regional development and cohesion funds to cities and regions that
     have submitted a current, independently validated Urban Mobility
     Performance and Sustainability Audit Certificate.
 The encouragement of Member
     States to provide platforms that would foster the development of
     sustainable urban mobility policies has not been (fully) reached. 
 An urban mobility dimension
     in the Covenant of Mayors has been introduced. However, more cooperation
     between the interrelated topics of Sustainable Energy Action Plans and Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans is
     necessary.

Public consultation on the urban
dimension of EU transport policy
An on-line public consultation on the urban
dimension of EU transport policy has run between 17 September and 17 December
2012. 206 respondents took part in the consultation: 195 replied to the
questionnaire and are included in the statistics, the other 11 sent position
papers. The topics addressed in the public consultation were Sustainable Urban
Mobility Plans, access restriction and urban pricing schemes, EU financial
support for urban transport projects, urban logistics and other issues.
Most of the replies came from respondents
who participated in personal capacity (88), while the second highest number of
replies (58) came from respondents representing civil society (associations or
NGOs). These two groups together represent about ¾ of the total 195 records.
Local and regional public authorities provided 24 reactions and companies
provided another 14. Hardly any respondents came from national public
authorities and academia. 
Most of the respondents are based in Germany (21.5%), Belgium (14.4%),
where many European policy stakeholder organisations have their offices, and
Italy (11.2%). These three Member States together represent almost half of the
respondents. Spain and France follow with respectively 11% and 10%. Close to
51% of the contributions came from respondents who live and work in an urban
area where an access restriction scheme has been introduced or is considered.
The report[170] is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/studies/doc/2013-a032862-urban-mobility-public-consultation-report.pdf
The main findings are the following: 
1) A vast
majority of respondents (87%) think that there is a lack of coordination
between authorities and other actors and that integrated urban mobility
planning could be an answer to tackle this issue. 
In particular:

 The principal objectives of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans,
     as ranked by the respondents, are improving air quality, liveability,
     leisure, recreation and accessibility;
 Several respondents state that a European vision on sustainable
     urban mobility planning is needed as part of a coordinated EU approach to
     achieve a sustainable and efficient EU transport system;
 A specific stakeholder state that "urban areas should
     provide efficient interconnection points for the TEN-T network";
 Another specific stakeholder comments "it is proven that
     success stories of integrated mobility plans also have a good integration
     between authorities and other actors, but this is still lacking in many
     regions/cities";
 IRU considers that from a commercial road transport operator
     perspective "urban mobility planning is one of the areas where the
     demand for more coordination at all decision levels is most urgent. The
     current patchwork of access restriction and charging schemes in European
     cities result from the lack of a coordinated and integrated approach to
     urban mobility at national and EU level";
 5% of respondents opposed integrated
     urban mobility planning mainly on the grounds that it foils the
     subsidiarity principle: "The decision on which policy options to
     pursue should be left to the cities themselves, as EU-cities face
     different types of challenges".

2) A vast
majority of respondents (91%) agree that integrated urban mobility planning is
a useful tool for promoting coordination at local and regional levels. 
In particular:

 Respondents underline that there are important factors of urban
     mobility, such as noise and air pollution, which cannot be appropriately
     handled at local level or contained within borders. Hence they call for a
     coordinated EU-led approach;
 Respondents also stress that one size does not necessarily fits
     all and that EU transport policy instruments should reflect regional
     differences. They also point out that each Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan
     needs to be tailored to local circumstances and that there should not be a
     top-down approach;
 Respondents also underline that political commitment and public
     participation is required for success and that attention should be paid to
     technical, procedural and commercial barriers;
 2% of respondents oppose integrated
     mobility plans mainly on the ground that they would be a duplication of
     existing plans and that the diversity of the situations calls for
     different approaches.

3) A vast majority
of respondents (86%) see that EU-support for the development of Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) would contribute to the broader take-up of SUMP in
urban areas. 
In particular:

 Some respondents claim that defining binding rules at EU level would
     help realise SUMPs faster, more efficiently and sustainably;
 Other respondents point out that EU support could be expressed
     through funding, practical guidance and/or sharing of best practice and
     oppose a legislative approach which they believe could stifle innovation
     and may not be suited to specific needs;
 Last, some respondents also underline
     that benchmarking on EU level could be useful and provide an incentive.

4) The five most popular EU-support schemes respondents would like
to see implemented are:The development and exchange of best practice (74%)
·        
Providing a platform for cities to exchange
best practice (66%)
·        
Financial support for the development of
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (58%)
·        
Supporting R&D projects on urban mobility
planning (57%)

 Development of guidelines and
     recommendations (57%)

Figure 1: Which
support should be provided at EU level to facilitate the development of
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans? (% of respondents)
Source:
own calculations based on COWI(2013) stakeholder report
Noteworthy, 29% of the respondents call for
mandatory development of SUMPs for all cities in the EU.
Interestingly, while some of the schemes,
such as the development and exchange of best practice, are amongst the
preferred options for all types of respondents, passenger associations are
clearly in favour of the mandatory development of SUMPs for all cities and
workers associations are in favour of the mandatory development of SUMPs for
cities in certain situations. Environmental and safety associations for their
part support the definition of the minimum scope and content of SUMPs.
Other tools suggested by respondents include:

 Developing decision support tools such as simulation tools and
     traffic models;
 Issuing certificates or labels for cities that perform up to
     certain standards;
 Defining quality parameters that can be
     used for assessing a SUMP.

5) The seven
topics that most respondents think Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans should give
the highest weight to are:
·        
Walking and cycling (11.4%)
·        
Public transport plan including travel
information (11.2%)
·        
Integration of transport and mobility
services (7.6%)
·        
Urban logistics (7.6%)
·        
Coherence with urban development and land-use
planning (7.1%)
·        
Access restriction schemes (6.8%)

 Parking management (6.5%)

 In particular:

 Most respondents say that all the 17 topics a Sustainable Urban
     Mobility Plan could address, as put forward in the public consultation,
     could be part of such a plan. However, the choice and combination depend
     on the local situation and on political priorities;
 Some respondents believe that Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans
     should pay special attention to safe mobility, particularly to vulnerable
     road users;
 Other topics not offered in the list but
     mentioned by respondents as important include: inclusion of the wider
     functional area beyond city boundaries, stricter speed management, the use
     of renewable energy in transport and multimodality and commuting. 

6) A majority
of respondents (67%) are in favour of linking the access to EU funding for
urban transport projects to the existence of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans
(SUMPs) in order to provide a safeguard that supported projects are in line
with relevant local, national and EU policies. 
In particular:

 Some respondents (e.g. Union of Public Transport, France)
     suggested that the linking should be limited to cities over 100,000
     inhabitants, as the elaboration of SUMPs may become too costly and
     burdensome for small cities. Furthermore, big cities are confronted with
     more important problems in terms of congestion and pollution;
 Other comments in favour of linking access to funding with the
     existence of SUMPs include the avoidance of wasting resources and the
     assurance of greater effectiveness as well as the assurance that SUMPs are
     compatible with EU policies;
 Those who oppose such a link (22% of
     respondents) mainly argue that it may lead to discrimination against
     smaller cities and that it would increase bureaucracy especially for those
     cities who already have a SUMP (if they need to adapt the content and/or
     process).

7) A majority
of respondents (67%) state that the current urban transport planning does not
give sufficient consideration to urban freight logistics.
In particular:

 Policy actions at EU level suggested by respondents amongst a
     pre-defined list to make urban freight transport more efficient includes:

Figure 2: Which
support should be provided at EU level to make urban freight transport more
efficient?
 Policy actions || Number of times actions were ticked (respondents were allowed to tick all that apply) 
 Development and exchange of best practice || 125 
 Support R&D Projects || 99 
 Development of guidelines and recommendations || 97 
 Provide a platform for stakeholders to exchange best practice || 89 
 Development of standards on ICT applications || 88 
 Legislation (e.g. on interoperability of equipment) || 82 
 No action needed at EU level || 12 
 Other || 5 
·        
As far as the development and exchange of best
practice is concerned, respondents highlighted that existing initiatives such
as ELTIS and CIVITAS provide the right framework to improve urban freight
logistics, that there should be more R&D projects and that the links with
long-distance freight should also be taken into account;

 In addition, respondents from the logistics sector stress that
     the following actions would improve urban logistics:
  increase the number of safe and legal loading facilities,
      including parking spaces;
  develop a network of pick-up and drop-off loading points;
  set up specific arrangements for out-of-peak hour deliveries;
  allow use of bus and taxi lanes;
 Respondents from the logistics sector
     also express concern that the legal obligation to have professional
     drivers for low-emission vans exceeding 3.5t hampers the deployment of
     such low-emission vans and plead for the removal of this obligation.

High level Conference 
A
high level conference on urban mobility took place on 17 September 2012. At the
conference high level representatives from the Committee of the Regions and the
European Parliament raised the importance of a holistic and comprehensive
approach for urban mobility. Integrated mobility solutions are fundamental to
face local challenges.  Integrated strategies and the plans for delivery should
be tailor made to local circumstances. Experience in the CIVITAS programme (RENAISSANCE[171]) showed that thanks
to an integrated vision of mobility, Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans have
been developed in three of the five partner cities. Political feasibility is
mentioned as a barrier to implement Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans.
Meeting with Member States
A meeting with Member States was held in
Brussels at 12 December 2012 at an early stage in the preparation of an Urban
Mobility Package, to help identify priorities and expectations in the Member
States in relation to the topics outlined above, and to help identify how to
address them in the Package. 
Items raised during the discussion on Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plans are the following:
·        
Funding for urban mobility planning relevant to
small/medium-sized cities: there is no intention to needlessly burden local
authorities with additional obligations; instead guidance and technical support
are offered where relevant. The CIVITAS programme has also long focused on
small/medium-sized cities. A discussion is welcome regarding the next financial
planning to see how much support should go to urban areas, to
small/medium-sized cities, and to such areas as climate change. 
·        
The importance of modal shift was raised,
especially for families/inter-urban commuters and young drivers. The EC
mentioned that one of the aims of the 2011 Transport White Paper is 'to phase
out conventionally-fuelled cars by 2030, and for them to be entirely replaced
with more sustainable modes by 2050'. This aim is also supported by the urban
package.
·        
Countries with a culture of mobility planning
have seen a huge modal shift from private cars to public transport, cycling and
walking.
·        
The specific transport needs of senior citizens
were discussed; and concern was raised that a large number of remote villages
would become 'deserted' when the younger generation moved to cities.
·        
Specific concerns were raised regarding the
achievement of modal shift by EU Member States that joined in 2004-7, and in
particular by lower income groups. 
·        
The importance of reclaiming urban areas for
citizens was highlighted, with examples of access restriction schemes, low
environment zones, the expansion of public transport, car/bike-sharing schemes,
park and ride schemes, and awareness-raising campaigns. 
·        
The EC's sustainable urban mobility campaign was
presented by the EC as a complementary campaign to European Mobility Week. It
does not vilify car drivers but encourages the public to make the correct
transport choice for each trip.  
·        
For further information on SUMP best practice,
participants were encouraged by the EC to consult/share the ELTISplus website.
Expert and stakeholder consultation
A
dedicated consultation of experts in the field of Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plans took place on 29 January 2013. There was broad agreement that the
Commission should put forward a list of topics which a SUMP should consider to
address, but no requirements for specific sub-plans and no requirements on
specific measures to include, as packages of measures have to be suited to the
individual cities characteristics and needs. Another point was that SUMPs
should cover the functional city rather than merely the administrative city.
The
expert consultation provided input on the SUMP developments in the Member
States. It appears to be the case that cities are increasingly taking up SUMPs
on a voluntary basis, which seems a strong indicator of success. The benefits
of SUMPs are better planning processes with shared goals and stakeholder
involvement, the coherence, coordination and prioritisation of actions related
to cost effectiveness, and the strengthening of civil society. Among
significant barriers to the take-up of SUMPs are a lack of funding, lack of
awareness of benefits, lack of competences, a lack of coordination, silo thinking,
and a lack of political will.
77.         A consultation with
stakeholders on the 'Urban Mobility Package' took place on 21 May 2013.
Regarding the level of ambition of SUMPs stakeholders support the minimum
requirements for the policy framework of cities' policy making, as well as the
minimum requirements on the governance framework. It was questioned if
inclusion of a minimum requirement on certification would be needed because of
the lack of justification and the costs involved. It was suggested to include a
requirement on political engagement. Furthermore, SUMPs should cover the functional
city, and city logistics should be included. There was no support expressed for
the comprehensive requirements, which were regarded as overambitious.
Regarding the instruments to be used at EU
level strongest support was expressed for the exchange of best practice,
financial support for the development of SUMPs, guidance on quality control,
and for recommendations (options 0 and 1). Regarding conditionality to funding
concern was raised on the possible lack of quality control on SUMPs. Regarding
a mandatory approach (options 2-3) concern was raised about higher
administrative burden and the fact that cities are different and therefore need
flexibility in their urban mobility approaches. A two-step approach was suggested
by starting first with a non-mandatory approach and become more restrictive
over time. Stakeholders feel that EU action should be a driver to quickly
develop and implement SUMPs, and not be a barrier. Regarding possible EU action
on benchmarking of urban mobility performance it was said that the EU is not
ready yet for a common scoreboard. First work is necessary on common indicators
and a common baseline before a scoreboard can be developed.
78.         A consultation with
Committee of the Regions' members took place on 13 June 2013. Committee of the
Regions' members support the development and implementation of integrated urban
mobility approaches, such as SUMPs. In general and because of subsidiarity,
Committee of the Regions' members support a non-legislative approach to
stimulate the development and implementation of SUMPs (options 0 and 1). They
expressed support for the development of SUMPs in the form of technical
assistance for those countries that need guidance. Regarding conditionality to
funding one member mentioned to prefer an incentive approach instead of the
proposed stick approach. The overall EU approach should be to stimulate the
uptake of SUMPs in all MS, not to focus on a perfect SUMP in a few MS. Benchmarking
of cities on urban mobility performance could be useful to raise awareness among
politicians, hereto common indicators would first need to be developed.
Mandatory requirements for cities with a well-established mobility system can
be seen as counterproductive and burdensome. In the IA territorial impacts, and
a costs benefits analysis should be included. The Covenant of Mayors could play
a role in SUMP uptake, as a SUMP delivery mechanism. Finally multilevel
governance should be reinforced and local and regional authorities should be
involved in the decision making process.
Special Euro barometer citizen survey – 'Attitudes of European
towards urban mobility' 
79.         Between 24 May and 9 June
2013 a special Euro barometer citizen survey was conducted into 'Attitudes of
European towards urban mobility'. Some 27.680 citizens, making up a
representative sample of European citizens over 15 in all of the 28 EU Member
States, were asked a series of questions about their attitudes to urban
mobility. 46% of Europeans travel in cities every day, with wide variations in
the modes of transport used. For example in many MS over 45% of people use
public transport several times a week – but in Cyprus only 3% of respondents
use public transport daily and 43% of Dutch citizens ride a bike every day
where in Malta 93% never ride a bike. A very large majority of all Europeans
think that urban air and noise pollution, accidents and congestion are
important challenges and nine out of ten Europeans encounter problems when
travelling within cities that limit their access to important goods and
services. Travelling costs are also considered to be an important problem in a
large majority of MS. There is very strong support for improved public
transport (better and cheaper) along with improved walking and cycling
facilities. 68% think that vehicle access restrictions would improve travel in
cities. Importantly 72% think that the situation will stay the same or get
worse. A clear majority thinks that city authorities are mainly responsible for
taking action to address urban mobility challenges.  
Own initiative contributions
Several
stakeholders sent relevant position papers on own initiative. These
contributions are included in the consultation process as well as in the public
consultation report.
 Appendix 3: The baseline scenario
Business-as-usual developments 
Overall description 
80.         The Commission has carried out an analysis of possible
future developments in a scenario at unchanged policies, the so-called baseline
scenario or ‘Reference scenario’. This ‘Reference scenario’ was used in the
following Impact Assessments (IAs):
(1)              
the IA accompanying the White Paper - Roadmap to
a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient
transport system[172];

(2)              
the IA accompanying A Roadmap for moving to a competitive
low carbon economy in 2050[173];
and 
(3)              
the IA accompanying the Energy Roadmap 2050[174].

81.         Accordingly, the ‘Reference
scenario’ has been extensively described in:
(1)              
the IA accompanying the White Paper - Roadmap to
a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient
transport system, Appendix 3 (pages 130-152). The list of policy measures
included in the ‘Reference scenario’ is provided in Appendix 4: Inventory of
policy measures relevant for the transport sector included in the 2050
Reference scenario (pages 153-155);
(2)              
the IA accompanying A Roadmap for moving to a
competitive low carbon economy in 2050;
(3)              
the IA accompanying the Energy Roadmap 2050,
Part A of Annex 1, which describes assumptions, results and sensitivities with
respect to the Reference scenario (pages 49-97)[175].
82.         The ‘Reference scenario’ is
a projection of developments in the absence of new policies beyond those
adopted by March 2010. In order to take into account the most recent
developments, such as higher energy prices and additional policies on
infrastructure and energy taxation adopted by November 2011, an additional
scenario (Scenario 1) has been modelled to serve as a business-as-usual
scenario for the present IA. Scenario 1 was used in the IA accompanying the
proposal for a Regulation to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 target
to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars and the proposal for
a Regulation to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2
emissions from new light commercial vehicles[176]
and for the IA accompanying the proposal for a Directive on the deployment of
alternative fuels infrastructure[177].
83.         The starting point for
developing Scenario 1 is the ‘Reference scenario’. Similarly to the ‘Reference
scenario’, Scenario 1 builds on a modelling framework including the PRIMES
energy model and its transport model (PRIMES-TREMOVE)[178], the PROMETHEUS and GEM-E3 models[179]. 
84.         The differences between Scenario 1
and the ‘Reference scenario’ have been presented in the IA accompanying the proposal for a Regulation to define the
modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from
new passenger cars and the proposal for a Regulation to define the modalities
for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from new light
commercial vehicles (pages 39-50 of the Annex).
85.         Main
assumptions
86.         In
light of the references listed above, we will focus on the main assumptions and
the most relevant information with respect to the subject of this IA. For the
purposes of this IA, Scenario 1 is considered as an illustration of
developments under Policy Option 1.
87.         The population and
macro-economic assumptions used in Scenario 1 are common with those used in
the ‘Reference scenario’, and are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Population and macroeconomic assumptions
 Annual growth rates (%) || 2010-2020 || 2020-2030 || 2030-2040 || 2040-2050 
 Population || 0.29 || 0.12 || 0.00 || -0.09 
 GDP || 2.21 || 1.74 || 1.50 || 1.45 
88.         The population projections
draw on the EUROPOP2008 convergence scenario[180]
from Eurostat, which is also the basis for the 2009 Ageing Report[181]. The key drivers for
demographic change are higher life expectancy, low fertility and inward
migration.
89.         The recent economic crisis
is assumed to have long-lasting effects, leading to a permanent loss in GDP.
The macro-economic projections show that the recovery from the crisis is not
expected to be sufficiently vigorous to compensate for the current GDP losses.
In this scenario, growth prospects for 2012 are subdued. However, the economic
recovery enables higher productivity gains, leading to somewhat faster growth
from 2013 to 2015. After 2015, GDP growth rates mirror those of the 2009 Ageing
Report. Hence the pattern of the ‘Reference scenario’ is consistent with the
intermediate scenario 2 “sluggish recovery” presented in the Europe 2020
strategy[182].
The medium
and long term growth projections follow the “baseline” scenario of the 2009
Ageing Report. 
90.         The assumptions on
energy import prices for the EU-27 in Scenario 1 are common with those used
in the ‘Reference scenario’, and are shown on Table 2. 
Table
2: Energy import prices
 $’10 per boe (*) || 2010 || 2020 || 2030 || 2040 || 2050 
 Oil || 85.2 || 89.0 || 106.6 || 116.9 || 127.6 
 Gas (NGV) || 53.8 || 62.5 || 77.1 || 87.4 || 99.0 
 Coal || 22.8 || 28.9 || 32.8 || 32.8 || 33.7 
91.         Note:
(*) $’10 = U.S Dollar in 2010 prices; boe = barrel oil equivalent
92.         These price assumptions are
the result of world energy modelling using the PROMETHEUS stochastic world
energy model[183],
which derives price trajectories for oil, gas and coal under a conventional
wisdom view of the development of the world energy system. This stochastic
model is particularly well suited given the great uncertainty regarding future
world economic developments and the extent of recoverable resources of fossil
fuels. The price development to 2050 is expected to take place in a context of
economic recovery and resuming GDP growth without decisive climate action in
any world region. 
93.         Scenario 1 includes all
policy measures included in the ‘Reference scenario’ and adopted by March 2010.
The list of these policy measures is provided in the IA accompanying the White
Paper on Transport[184],
while the additional policy measures, included in Scenario 1 relative to the ‘Reference
scenario’ are provided in Table 3.  These are measures adopted by
November 2011.
Table 3: Additional policy assumptions relative to
the ‘Reference scenario’
 Area || Measure || How it is reflected in the model 
 Efficiency standards || Update of the CO2 standards for vans according to the adopted regulation[185] || Implementation of CO2 standards for vans (175 g of CO2 per kilometre by 2017, phasing in the reduction from 2014, and to reach 147g CO2/km by 2020). 
 Pricing and taxation 
 Taxation || Energy Taxation Directive (proposal for revision 2011) || Changes to minimum tax rates to reflect the switch from volume-based to energy content-based taxation and the inclusion of a CO2 tax. Where Member States tax above the minimum level, the current rates are assumed to be kept unchanged. For motor fuels, the relationships between minimum rates are assumed to be mirrored at national level even if the existing rates are higher than the minimum rates. Tax rates are kept constant in real terms. 
 Internalisation of local externalities || Eurovignette Directive (Directive 2011/76/EU) || Reflected through the introduction of infrastructure charges in Poland (starting with 2011) and the announced introduction of distance based infrastructure charges in Denmark and Belgium (from 2014). 
 Infrastructure || TEN-T guidelines (revision 2011) and Connecting Europe Facility. || Reflected through the increase in the capacity and performance of the network resulting from the elimination of bottlenecks and addition of missing links, and increase in the train length (to 1.5 km) and maximum axle load (to 22.5 tonnes), reflected through decreases in operation costs and time costs and higher load factors for freight. 
 Internal market || Recast of the first railway package (2010) || Reflected through a reduction of average operating costs for railway undertakings. 
 Other assumptions 
 Energy import prices ||   || Short-term increase to reflect the evolution of prices up to 2010 as in the Energy Roadmap 2050. 
 Technology assumptions || Developments in national support measures and the intensification of previous action programmes and incentives, such as funding research and technology demonstration (RTD) projects to promote alternative fuels. || Slightly higher penetration of EVs. One private connector per electric vehicle and one public AC connector per 10 vehicles is assumed by 2020. Around 120 existing hydrogen refuelling stations mainly located in Denmark, Germany, the Benelux states and the United Kingdom. Existing and planned LNG/L-CNG stations. 
94.         Urbanisation has followed a
clear trend in the past decades, which is expected to continue: the proportion
of the EU population residing in urban areas and intermediate regions is expected
to increase by about 5 percentage points by 2030 and an additional 5 percentage
points by 2050[186],[187].
Economic activity in the EU is far more concentrated than the population. In a
knowledge-based economy, knowledge spillovers, which require proximity, become
important. Services are also spatially concentrated because they tend to use
less land per employee and because of external economies[188]. Services already
represent about 72% of the EU gross value added and their share is projected to
increase in Scenario 1 to 76% by 2050. Therefore, proximity of people and
activities as well as the shift towards a knowledge-based and services-oriented
economy are major sources of advantages that will continue to drive
urbanisation in the EU.
Main results
95.         Overall, at EU level,
urban transport activity is expected to continue growing in line with the
economic activity in the long-run, even though the negative effects of the
recent economic crisis were visible for 2008-2009. Passenger transport would
increase by 27% between 2010 and 2030, and an additional 11% by 2050. Freight
transport is projected to grow by 28% by 2030 and an additional 15% between
2030 and 2050. The annual growth in transport activity by mode is provided in Table 4[189].
Table 4: Annual growth in urban transport activity
in Scenario 1
 EU27 - Annual growth rates (in %) || 2010-2020 || 2020-2030 || 2030-2040 || 2040-2050 
 Urban transport activity  
 Passenger transport activity in Gpkm || 1.5% || 0.9% || 0.6% || 0.4% 
 Public road transport || 1.8% || 1.2% || 0.4% || 0.2% 
 Passenger cars & LCVs || 1.5% || 0.8% || 0.6% || 0.4% 
 Powered two wheelers || 1.5% || 1.3% || 0.6% || 0.4% 
 Rail & metro-tram || 1.3% || 1.3% || 0.7% || 0.5% 
 Freight transport activity in Gtkm || 1.7% || 0.8% || 0.8% || 0.6% 
 Trucks (HDVs) & LCVs || 1.7% || 0.8% || 0.8% || 0.6% 
Note:
LCV stands for light commercial vehicles and HDV for heavy duty vehicles
Source:
PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model, E3Mlab (ICCS) NTUA
96.         Transport demand and modal
choice differ widely between European cities, and depend to a large extent on
urban design and infrastructure (i.e. the location of facilities necessary on a
daily basis and their accessibility by different transport modes influences the
travel patterns)[190]
but may be also influenced by other factors such as income, family size and
structure, employment, speed, culture and behaviour[191].
97.         
98.         
Source: EEA (2010) based on
Urban Audit database (Eurostat, 2010)
99.         Urban sprawl is the main
challenge for urban transport, as it brings about a greater need for individual
transport modes, thereby generating congestion, environmental problems and land
take for roads and parking areas. Individual transport by car provides a major
share of urban transport in most cities[192].
According to the Urban Audit database[193] the share of journeys to work by car in certain city can be as high
as 80% (i.e. Charleroi, Liege, Mülheim a.d.Ruhr, etc.). In Scenario 1 passenger
cars transport activity in urban agglomerations is projected to increase by
about 39% between 2010 and 2050, at higher rate than in the inter-urban area
(about 32% during the same time period). Passenger cars would maintain their
dominant role in urban transport.
100.       Transport accounts today for
over 30% of final energy consumption and urban transport provides almost
30% of the transport sector final energy consumption. In the context of growing
demand for transport, energy demand by transport in urban agglomerations is
projected to decrease by about 7% by 2030 and an additional 8% by 2050.  
101.       The energy use of passenger
cars and LCVs in urban agglomerations would drop by about 18% between 2010 and
2030 mainly due the implementation of the regulations setting emission
performance standards for new passenger cars and vans[194], and by an
additional 15% by 2050.
102.        Figure
1: Evolution of transport
activity, energy demand and CO2 emissions of passenger transport
in urban agglomerations 
103.       
104.       Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE
transport model, E3Mlab (ICCS) NTUA
Figure 2:
Evolution of transport activity, energy demand and CO2 emissions of
freight transport in urban agglomerations
Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE
transport model, E3Mlab (ICCS) NTUA
105.       Energy consumption by heavy
duty vehicles (HDVs) and freight LCVs for urban transport is projected to increase
by almost 12% between 2010 and 2030, and to roughly stabilise afterwards,
mainly driven by the transport activity growth. HDVs undergo improvements in
specific fuel consumption as an effect of increasing fossil fuel prices. Fuel
costs represent a relative important share of operational costs and thus HDVs
manufacturers have the minimisation of these costs among their main objectives,
achieved by improvements in technology related i.e. to vehicle design, vehicle
powertrain, etc.
106.       In Scenario 1, the EU
transport system would remain extremely dependent on the use of fossil fuels.
Oil products would still represent 91% of the EU transport sector needs in 2020
and about 88% by 2050. Almost 30% of final demand of oil products in transport
originates from urban transport.
107.       The use of alternative fuels
(LPG, CNG, electricity and hydrogen) is expected to remain limited in Scenario
1. Renewables would represent 10% of total energy consumption in transport by
2020, reflecting the implementation of the Renewables Directive[195]. The highest
contribution for achieving the 2020 renewables target would be provided by
biofuels which would represent about 8% of transport energy consumption by 2020
and slightly increase their share to 11% by 2050. The overall uptake of
electric vehicles (battery and plug-in hybrids) is projected to be limited:
0.5% in 2020, about 4% in 2030 and 14% of the total vehicle stock by 2050. Fuel
cells do not make significant inroads. The availability of charging
infrastructure acts as a limiting factor, in addition to the technology
developments.
108.       Overall, total CO2
emissions from transport would still be 31% higher than their 1990 level by
2020, and 23% higher by 2050 in Scenario 1, owing to the fast rise in the
transport emissions during the 1990s. This trend is not compatible with the
objective of a low-carbon, competitive economy that would meet the long-term
requirements for limiting climate change to 2 °C.  
109.       At EU level, urban transport
is responsible for about 23% of total CO2 emissions from
transport[196],[197]. CO2
emissions from urban transport are projected to be about 16% lower in 2030
and around 25% lower in 2050 relative to 2010, mainly due to the Regulation
setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars. About two thirds of the CO2 emissions from urban
transport come from passenger cars and LCVs and about one third from goods
transport vehicles. By 2050, goods transport vehicles are projected to
contribute about 45% of CO2 emissions from urban transport.
The decrease in CO2 emissions is higher than the reduction in energy
consumption due to the use of biofuels and the uptake of electric vehicles[198].

110.       An important share of EU’s
urban population is exposed to air pollution concentration exceeding the EU air
quality limits. Sensitive groups, including people with respiratory diseases or
heart conditions and older adults suffer from air pollutants even at moderate
concentrations. In many European urban studies air pollution, especially
particulate matter and O3, has been associated with increases in morbidity and
mortality. Transport is a main source of PM10 and NOx emissions
(which contributes to ozone creation) together with industry, commercial and
residential sources.
111.       About 6-27
% of the urban population in the EU was potentially
exposed to ambient nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations above the
EU limit value set for the protection of human health (40 microgram NO2/m3
annual mean) between 2001-2010. A decreasing trend has been observed over this
period, including for 2009-2010 (see Figure 3). Even a higher share, about 18-41 % of the urban
population in the EU was potentially
exposed to ambient concentrations of
particulate matter (PM10) in
excess of the EU limit value set for the protection of human health (50 microgram/m3
daily mean not to be exceeded more than 35 days a calendar year) between
2001-2010 (see Figure 4)[199] 
and there is no apparent trend over this period.
Figure 3:
Percentage of population exposed to NO2 annual concentrations in urban
agglomerations, 2001-2010 (EU27)
Source: EEA (2012) - exceedance of air
quality limit values in urban agglomerations (Indicator CSI 004)
Figure 4:
Percentage of urban population resident in areas for days per year with PM10
concentration exceeding daily limit value, 2001-2010 (EU27)
Source: EEA (2012) - exceedance of air
quality limit values in urban agglomerations (Indicator CSI 004)
112.       The reductions in the permissible
EURO standards emission limits for type approval of new cars and heavy duty
vehicles have resulted in important declines in NOx and PM emissions from
transport over the last ten years (39% decrease in NOx emissions between 2001
and 2010, 28 % for PM10 and 40 % for PM2.5) despite the large increase in the
number of vehicles and total traffic activity[200]. The EURO 6 emission limits which
come into force from 31 December 2013 for the registrations and sale of new
types of heavy duty vehicles and 1 January 2015
for the registration and sale of new types of cars are expected to drive
further reductions. NOx emissions and
particulate matter attributed to urban transport are projected to drop by 70%
between 2010 and 2050 in Scenario 1. As a result, external costs related to air
pollutants would also decrease by about 70% by 2050 assuming a full implementation of
current EURO standards.
113.       About half of the citizens in the
EU-15 are estimated to live in areas which do not ensure acoustical comfort for
residents: 40% of the population is exposed to road traffic noise exceeding 55
dB(A) during daytime, and 20% to levels exceeding 65 dB(A). At night, more than
30% are exposed to sound levels that disturb sleep (>55 dB(A)). The WHO Night
Noise Guidelines for Europe[201] describe levels above 55 dB Lnight
as ‘increasingly dangerous to public health. However, for the primary
prevention of sub-clinical adverse health effects related to night noise, the
guidelines recommend that the population should not be exposed to night noise
levels greater than 40 dB Lnight outside. This can thus be considered a
health-based limit. The target of 55 dB Lnight outside is not a health-based
limit, being equivalent to the lowest observed adverse effect level, and should
be considered only as an interim target for situations where the achievement of
the guidelines is not feasible in the short run. Existing studies show that
noise exposure increases the risk for high blood pressure and heart attacks.
Surveys also show that (environmental) noise is a relevant reason for people
moving out of cities into the suburban area (e.g. for every third household
moving out of Cologne, noise and air pollution in the city was a crucial
reason)[202]. In Scenario 1, increasing traffic volumes
in absence of additional policies may exacerbate the existing problems.
Noise-related external costs for urban transport are projected to increase by
about 26% by 2030 and an additional 8% by 2050. 
114.       Congestion that is prevalent in areas
and in their access routes is the source of large costs in terms of delays and
higher fuel consumption. Denser cities are better served by collective modes of
transport but the availability of land and public acceptability to construct
new infrastructures for public or alternative means of transport remains a
great challenge. Urban congestion also negatively impacts on inter-urban and
cross-border travel because most freight and passenger transport starts or ends
in urban agglomerations. High congestion levels are expected to seriously
affect road transport in several Member States by 2030 and beyond in the
absence of effective countervailing measures such as road pricing. Urban
congestion will mainly depend on car ownership levels which are projected to
further increase, urban sprawl and the availability of public transport
alternatives[203].
115.       Estimating the costs of congestion is
not straightforward, because it occurs mostly during certain times of the day,
often caused by specific bottlenecks in the network. In Scenario 1, congestion
costs are projected to increase by over 65% by 2050. Over the same time
horizon, the external cost of accidents associated with urban transport would
increase by some 40%. 
Appendix 4: State of the art of the
concept for an Integrated Urban Mobility approach in Europe 
116.       Definition of a benchmark
framework for an integrated urban mobility approach and its justification 
The benchmark framework
in tables 1 and 2 is based on the concept developed by COWI (2013) on the basis
of agreed common elements on an integrated urban mobility approach from
previous EU initiatives and projects[204],
experience from third countries[205]
and based on extensive expert and stakeholder consultations. The tables provide
a justification of the elements included in the benchmark framework.
Table 1:
Benchmark framework of an integrated urban mobility approach - possible
elements for a policy framework (content and scope)
 Content and scope || Justification 
 Addresses both freight and passenger transport || To achieve the objective of a competitive and resource efficient transport system both freight and passenger transport needs to be covered. The experience from existing practise suggests that freight distribution is not always covered. The stakeholder meeting has confirmed that freight transport is very often neglected in current planning and should be included. 
 Addresses all transport modes || It is essential that all transport modes are addressed, as demonstrated by the review of cites by COWI (2013) with integrated approaches, and also clearly confirmed through the consultations. 
 Public transport || Public transport is important for both increasing accessibility and for realising a shift towards more sustainable transport modes. The stakeholders have ranked this element high. Current practises suggest that public transport is often not sufficiently coordinated. 
 Non-motorised transport || Non-motorised transport is important for realising a shift towards more sustainable transport modes to achieve sustainability. It is the topic most respondents point to. For bicycle transport integrated measures are in particular important in order to achieve the benefits.[206] 
 Road transport and infrastructure || Both moving and stationary traffic should be addressed. Road infrastructure is typically included in all existing transport plans and optimising the use of existing infrastructure should be part of an integrated plan. Reallocation of road space to other modes of transport will be addressed to contribute to a shift towards more sustainable transport modes and to reach sustainability. 
 City logistics || City logistics is included as a specific urban mobility action area in the White Paper. The stakeholders in the public consultation specifically point to the importance of this topic[207] and the need to cover both passenger and freight transport. The stakeholder meeting confirmed that currently city logistics is not getting sufficient attention.  The efficiency and pollutant, CO2 and noise emissions of city logistics should be addressed to achieve sustainability. 
 Mobility management || Mobility management is a more recent instrument to review and possible reduce the overall transport demand by companies. Examples from the city review by COWI (2013) highlight the importance of this element. 
 Integration of transport modes / Intermodality || The possibility for multimodality – combining car and public transport or cycling and public transport etc. is one of key elements of changing the transport system to a more sustainable one. The integration of transport modes is crucial for achieving the objective of a resource efficient and competitive transport system, as recognised in previous initiatives and by stakeholders. The COWI (2013) city examples and consultations all confirm the importance of this element. 
Table 2: Benchmark framework of an integrated urban
mobility approach - possible elements for the governance framework (process and
procedure)
 Processes and procedures || Justification 
 Contains pledge to sustainability (environmental, social and economic dimensions) || Sustainability is societal consensus and it needs to be an explicit driving force. To achieve the objective of a competitive and resource efficient transport system the economic, environmental and social dimensions all need to be covered. 
 Includes or is built on long-term strategy || The transition to a sustainable transport system requires time and therefore a long term perspective is needed, e.g. to achieve CO2 objectives related to emissions. This has been recognized by experts and included in the ELTISplus recommendations. 
 Identifies objectives and sets targets in line with EU policy objectives || The long term strategy needs to be made operational by specific and quantified targets. To achieve the overall EU objective, the specific targets needs to be aligned with the EU and relevant national objectives. It was a key part finding that in current SUMPs targets are not always quantified and that is of one main reason creating the risk of not achieving the objectives of a SUMP. 
 Includes baseline analysis including performance audit || This element should be seen in combination with the next element on impact assessment. Only by considering where the city current is, identify the specific problems and estimate what the impacts of proposed measures will be, it is possible to define a combination of measures that can achieve the objective effectively and efficiently. Against a baseline future progress can be measured. 
 Includes impact assessment on proposed measures || As above. 
 Provides short-term implementation plan (timetable + budget plan; allocation of responsibilities) || Implementation is often the weakest element if timetables, budgets and implementation responsibilities are not clearly defined. It has been demonstrated in the COWI (2013) review of cities that often not all measures are implemented. 
 Integrates different relevant policy areas, in particular land-use and transport planning || This element should be seen in combination with the element below on integrated planning and implementation. Interdepartmental consultation and cooperation should ensure consistency and complementarity between different policies to reach the overall EU objective. E.g. land use and transport are intimately linked and careful land-use planning can reduce the demand for transport. Stakeholders and experts confirm the importance of this element. 
 Considers all transport  to, from, through d within the urban agglomeration area and coordination between different authority levels || It is a key element of the integrated approach that the integrated urban mobility approach does cover the functional city[208] so that commuting is considered in the planning. The legal requirement in France and UK explicitly requires the plans to cover the relevant agglomeration.  The need to cover the agglomeration – in fact the functional city – has been confirmed by experts and through the stakeholder meeting. Besides commuting a good connection with the hinterland is important and the link between the long distance TEN-T network and the last mile. 
 Is developed in a participatory approach || The requirement to develop the integrated urban mobility approach in a transparent and participatory way is based on the need to reflect the stakeholder's needs and to get a high level of acceptance and support of stakeholders to secure effective implementation. 
 Is based on integrated planning and implementation || The integration covers, in addition to the spatial dimension, the coordination and consultation between transport and environmental authorities and the coordination between authorities responsible for road infrastructure, public transport etc. The integration and coordination between the transport, health and environment authorities is crucial for achieving the "sustainability" of urban mobility. Improvements on safety, on social distribution of accessibility, on the environment can only be achieved through the integrated and coordinated approach. The stakeholder and expert consultation have confirmed the importance of the integrated approach. The assessment of the impacts and benefits of integrated urban mobility approaches in France and England has further demonstrated how the integration has led to more improvements. This is a core element of the integrated urban mobility approach and its importance has been pointed to in COWI (2013) city review where many cities points to traditional sector planning as barrier for improvement. 
 Is formally adopted || The plan needs to be approved by all the relevant authorities, governing bodies and decision makers in order to implement it. Political adoption is a validated basis for implementation of a plan. 
 Monitoring of implementation and performance || Successful implementation requires that a process is monitored in order to timely correct where necessary. For a next planning cycle better data on performance with facilitate the development of an effective and efficient plan. Currently there is lack of monitoring of data. 
 Regular review and update of plans || The sustainable urban mobility plans will need to be regularly reviewed in order to accommodate change in external factors as well as in response to monitored performance. 
 Conformity check of the plan || The current practice does not always include this element of quality control. It is important that the plans and the processes are checked against the requirements so that all the key elements are included. Given some of deficiencies identified in existing urban mobility approaches this requirement could potentially increase the quality of the plans. 
Justification of
assessment of uptake of an integrated urban mobility approach in some EU MS
Table 3 provides a
justification of the categories on integrated urban mobility approaches and the
ranking of cities. 
Table 3: Justification of status categories and
scoring of cities in EU MS
 Status categories || Number of cities scoring 
 (i) Limited coordination and targeted policy actions Cities that are using traditional transport planning with no or very few of benchmark framework elements (ii) Low/Medium coordination and targeted policy action Cities that apply some of the key benchmark characteristics both regarding coordination and targeted policy actions (iii) Medium/high level of coordination and targeted policy action Cities that apply many of the benchmark elements regarding coordination and targeted policy actions (iv) High level of coordination and targeted policy action Cities that have developed and fully implemented all the benchmark framework elements regarding coordination and targeted policy actions || (i) None No cities, or only an insignificant number (ii) Few Only few cities (iii) Some Between more than a few and up to as many as half of all cities (iv) Many From the majority of cities and up to all cities 
Table 4 provides a
justification of the assessment of the integrated urban mobility approaches in
some EU MS.
Table 4: Justification of assessment on an integrated
urban mobility approach in EU MS based on COWI (2013) country and city reports[209]  
 Member State || Basis 
 Austria || The COWI country assessment suggests some cities have or are developing urban mobility approaches. The review of Vienna and Graz indicates that many elements are included though not all of the environmental aspects. Based on sources such as CIVITAS, ELTISplus and EPOMM it is assumed that there is a mix with some cities being more advanced than others. Hence, cities are categorised as medium/high. 
 Belgium || The COWI country assessment indicates that most cities have developed integrated approaches and that they include most of the relevant elements. Hence, most cities are categorised as medium/high. 
 Bulgaria || Some cites have developed integrated approaches as part of preparing the application for EU funding of urban transport projects. The approaches focused on the elements for which funding was requested and they have not been part of participatory approach. The COWI city survey indicates insufficient coordination. Hence, the majority of cities are categorised as low/medium. 
 Croatia || Based on information from CIVITAS and ELTISplus projects, some cities are in the process of implementing integrated planning approaches. The cities are categorised as mostly low. 
 Cyprus || Based on information from the CIVITAS and ELTIS projects, there is some progress of implementing integrated urban mobility approaches, but it is in an initial stage. The cities are categorised as limited to low. 
 Czech Republic || Information from CIVITAS and EPOMM indicates overall insufficient integration and coordination, though some cities have implemented specific sustainable mobility measures. The COWI city survey indicates example of progress but deficiencies in setting quantitative targets and in implementation due to lack of funds. Focus is on improvement of public transport. Hence, the majority of cities are categorised as low to medium. 
 Denmark || The COWI country assessment indicates that all the included cities have implemented some or many of the key urban mobility approaches elements. Hence, the cities are categorised as medium or medium/high. 
 Estonia || The COWI country assessment has indicated that there are no integrated urban mobility approaoches applied in Estonia. The capital (only city above population threshold) is a CIVITAS city and has undertaken several mobility measures. Based on these sources, the city is categorised as low. 
 Finland || Based on information from CIVITAS, ELTISplus and EPOMM only the capital region has developed an integrated urban mobility approach, while the other cities seem to be in the initial stage of introducing one. One city included in the city survey also indicates insufficient coordination. Hence, the majority of cities is categorised in the low to medium categories. 
 France || Almost all benchmark elements are included. The COWI city survey indicates differences across cities. The French CERTU evaluation indicates that coordination is not always sufficient. French cities are generally very close to the concept integrated urban mobility approach and the majority of cities are therefore in the category 'medium/high'. The country assessment (see Appendix B) indicates that all city areas have implemented integrated urban mobility plans as it is legally required. The assessment also indicates that almost all benchmark elements are included in plans. 
 Germany || A study from 2009 indicates that there is large variation in the quality of the integrated urban mobility approaches. City survey and case review suggests that some cities have developed advanced integrated urban mobility approaches. Cities are distributed over the 'no' integrated urban mobility approach to 'medium/high' with the majority in the 'low/medium' category. 
 Greece || The COWI country assessment indicates that the two largest cities are in progress of making urban mobility approaches, but focus is on infrastructure planning with not all relevant element included. Hence, the cities are categorises as limited or low. 
 Hungary || The COWI country assessment indicates that most integrated urban mobility approaches are focused on public transport and hence fail on several key elements. The approaches have been developed as part of the ERDF funding application as the Transport Operational Programme included urban transport with a focus on improvement of the public transport systems. The approaches have been developed to support funding applications and hence are focused on assessing the specific project including the funding application. Hence the majority of cities are categorised as low/medium. 
 Ireland || The COWI country assessment indicates there is a legal required in Ireland for the greater Dublin area to develop a strategic transport plan. It includes most of the required elements and it is assessed as medium/high. The other cities do not have a sustainable urban mobility approach though some sustainable measures have been introduced.  
 Italy || A number of cities have applied an integrated urban mobility approach. It is not mandatory, however required to get national funding for transport infrastructure. This incentive means that most cities have made some developments. However, the COWI assessment is that a limited number of cities have developed more comprehensive approaches and implemented the planned measures. The cities are distributed over the categories with the majority in the low/medium category and some in the medium/high category. 
 Latvia || Based on CIVISTAS and EPOMM it is assessed that integrated urban mobility approaches are only in an early stage. Only the capital is in the process of developing one. The capital is categorised in the low/medium category. 
 Lithuania || The COWI city survey has included two cities. One has developed an integrated approach with many of the benchmark elements, while the other is less advanced with a focus on improving public transport. This assessment is further supported by evidence from CIVITAS and EPOMM. The cities are categorised in the limited to low categories and the capital as medium. 
 Luxembourg || There is integrated transport planning at national level. It considers the different transport modes in an integrated way but does not include specific targets on the environmental aspects. Hence, the categorisation is low/medium. 
 Malta || The COWI country assessment indicates the capital has developed a strategy with some of urban mobility elements included. It is categorised as low/medium. 
 The Netherlands || Most Dutch cities have developed integrated urban mobility approaches. It is not mandatory at the city level, but it is required for the 12 provinces and the 7 city regions to have an integrated transport plan. The plans include many of the key elements, but for example quantified targets and objectives are often defined for only some of the issues. The majority of cities are therefore categorised as medium/high. 
 Poland || Most integrated urban mobility approaches are focused on public transport and hence fail on several key elements. A few cities have developed more comprehensive approaches, e.g. Krakow. The majority of cities are in category 'low/medium'. 
 Portugal || Based on CIVITAS, ELTISplus and EPOMM, it is assessed that some cities are developing integrated urban mobility approaches while others have done less in terms of integrated planning. One city included in the COWI city survey suggests that key elements are missing and the level of coordination is insufficient. Cities are categorised as low to medium. 
 Romania || Some Romanian cities have started to apply integrated approaches as part of EU funded activities. The COWI city indicates a lack of coordination, also implementation elements are weak. The cities are categorised as limited to low/medium. 
 Slovakia || The COWI country assessment indicates that the level of applying integrated mobility approaches is low. There is currently a project on development of a sustainable urban mobility plan on going in the capital. A detailed review of that project assesses the level of coordination and integration as low. Overall this suggests that integrated mobility approaches are in an initial stage and hence the cities have been categorised as limited or low. 
 Slovenia || Based on information from CIVATAS and EPOMM, it is assessed that the capital is in the process of developing an integrated urban mobility approach with most of the key elements included. The other city above the population threshold is indicated not to have an integrated urban mobility approach. Hence, one city is categorised as medium and one as limited.  
 Spain || Some cities have applied integrated mobility approaches. There are regional differences, e.g. in some regions it is mandatory to have a sustainable urban mobility plan. Generally, it is required in order to receiving funding for public transport projects. Hence, the cities are distributed over the categories from limited/low to medium/high and with the majority in the low/medium category. 
 Sweden || The COWI country assessment indicates that several Swedish cities have developed or are in process of developing integrated urban mobility approaches which include most of the key elements. Hence the cities are categorised as either low/medium or medium/high. 
 UK || Almost all UK cities have an LTP[210] which includes most of the elements of the concept integrated urban mobility approach. Not all elements are mandatory. The COWI city review indicates some gaps, e.g. city logistics is not always included, not all targets are quantified and generally most targets are short term targets. The majority of cities are categorised as medium/high. 
Appendix 5: Comprehensive definition of the Sustainable Urban
Mobility Planning concept 
117.       Traditional planning
compared to an integrated urban mobility approach through a Sustainable Urban
Mobility Plan (SUMP)
1.           Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plans differ from traditional transport plans, while the latter one is mostly
defined as a traditional transport and infrastructure based plan and could vary
widely among the EU-27. 
2.           The following table
summarises the main differences between SUMPs and traditional transport plans:
Table 1: Comparison of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans and
traditional transport plans[211]
3.           
4.           A comprehensive definition
of the Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning concept
I.          Subject Definition:
1.             
A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan is a strategic
document developed and implemented in compliance with the present common
framework by the designated Local Planning Authority.
2.             
The Plan guides the future development of an
urban area's transport system and covers all movements of goods and people to,
from, through and within the greater urban area. 
3.             
A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall foster a
balanced development of all relevant transport modes, while encouraging a shift
towards more sustainable modes.
4.             
It addresses both transport infrastructure and
transport and mobility services. 
5.             
A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan contributes to
an urban development along a sustainable path. It meets local requirements and
contributes to the achievement of key EU policy objectives.
6.             
It is embedded in an overall sustainable
development strategy with a long-term perspective (ca. 20-30 years) and
includes a plan for short-term delivery.
7.             
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan is developed in
an integrated, intergovernmental, and cross-sectorial approach by the Local
Planning Authority. It is developed and implemented in a participatory
approach, in close consultation with the public, businesses, industry and all
other relevant stakeholders.
II.        Goal and General
Objectives
8.             
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan has as its
central goal improving accessibility of urban agglomerations and providing
high-quality and sustainable mobility and transport to, through and within the
urban area.
9.             
In pursuit of this goal, a Sustainable Urban
Mobility Plan seeks to contribute to preserving and enhancing an urban
transport system which
(a.)             
Is accessible and meets the basic mobility needs
of all users;
(b.)             
Balances and responds to the diverse demands for
mobility and transport services by citizens, businesses and industry; 
(c.)             
Guides a balanced development and better
integration of the different transport modes;
(d.)            
Meets the requirements of sustainability,
balancing the need for economic viability, social equity, and environmental
quality;
(e.)             
Optimises efficiency and cost effectiveness;
(f.)              
Makes better use of urban space and of existing
transport infrastructure and services;
(g.)             
Enhances the attractiveness of the urban
environment, quality of life, and public health;
(h.)             
Improves traffic safety and security;
(i.)               
Reduces air and noise pollution, greenhouse gas
emissions, and energy consumption; and
(j.)               
Contributes to a better overall performance of
the trans-European transport network and the Europe's transport system as a
whole. 
III.       Policy framework (scope
and content)
10.         
A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall foster a
balanced development of all relevant transport modes, while encouraging a shift
towards more sustainable modes. The plan shall put forward an integrated set of
technical, infrastructure, policy-based, and soft measures to improve
performance and cost-effectiveness with regard to the declared goal and
specific objectives. The following topics shall be addressed:
(a.)             
Public transport:
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall provide a strategy to enhance the
quality, security, integration and accessibility of public transport services,
covering infrastructure, rolling stock, and services.
(b.)            
Non-motorised transport: Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall incorporate a plan to raise
attractiveness, safety and security of walking and cycling. Existing
infrastructure shall be assessed and improved where necessary. The development
of new infrastructure should be envisaged not only along the itineraries of
motorised transport. Dedicated infrastructure should be considered for cyclists
and pedestrians to separate them from heavy motorised traffic and to reduce
travel distances, where appropriate. Infrastructure measures shall be
complemented by other technical, as well as policy-based, and soft measures.
(c.)             
Inter-modality: A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall
contribute to a better integration of the different modes, thereby supporting a
broader range of mobility and transport patterns. To this end, a Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plan shall identify measures aimed specifically at facilitating
seamless and multi-modal mobility and transport.
(d.)            
Road transport (flowing and stationary): For the road network and motorised transport, a Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plan shall address moving and stationary traffic. Measures should
aim at optimising the use of existing road infrastructure and improving the
situation in the identified 'hot-spots' and overall. The potential for
reallocating road space to other modes of transport or other, not
transport-related, public functions shall be explored. 
(e.)             
Urban logistics: A Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plan shall present measures aimed at improving the efficiency of urban
logistics, including urban freight delivery, while reducing related emissions
of CO2, pollutants and noise. 
(f.)             
Mobility management: A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall
include action aimed at fostering a change towards more sustainable mobility
patterns. Citizens, employers, schools, and other relevant actors shall be
engaged. 
III.       Governance framework
(processes and procedures): 
10.        
Integrated planning and implementation: The development and implementation of a Sustainable Urban Mobility
plan should follow an integrated approach with a high level of
inter-governmental and inter-departmental cooperation, coordination and consultation.
Relevant venues and procedures shall be established and administered by the
Local Planning Authority.
Integrated
planning and implementation encompasses
(a.)             
Interdepartmental consultation and cooperation
at the local level to ensure consistency and complementarity of a Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plan with local policies, strategies and measures in related
policy areas (such as transport; land-use and spatial planning; social
services; health; education; enforcement and policing, etc.). 
(b.)            
Close exchange with the relevant authorities (i)
at the different levels of administration and government (e.g. district,
municipality, agglomeration, region, and MS) and (ii) in neighbouring urban
agglomerations. This exchange shall involve in particular those bodies and
authorities with responsibility for transport and mobility services and
infrastructure inside or leading to the urban area. 
(c.)             
Familiarity with and due consideration for
policy objectives and relevant development and/or transport plans, which are
already existing or currently being developed and which impact on the concerned
urban area.
11.        
Participatory approach: A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall follow a transparent and
participatory approach. The Planning Authority shall establish appropriate
venues and procedures for involving the relevant actors - citizens, as well as
representatives of civil society and economic actors – in the development and
implementation of the plan from the outset and throughout the process to ensure
a high level of acceptance and support.
12.        
Long-term strategy: A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall present, or be linked to
an existing, long-term strategy for the future development of the urban area
and, in this context, for the future development of transport and mobility
infrastructure and services.
13.        
A delivery plan: 
A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall include a delivery plan for short-term
implementation of the strategy.
14.        
Status analysis and baseline: A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall provide a comprehensive
review of the current situation and the establishment of a baseline, through an
'urban mobility performance audit'', against which future progress can be
measured. The status analysis shall equally include a review of the current
institutional set-up, planning process and delivery mechanisms. It will also
include an Impact Assessment on the proposed measures.
15.        
Performance indicators: Suitable indicators shall be identified to describe the current
status of the urban transport system from the relevant policy perspectives:
quality and accessibility of transport services and infrastructure; land-use
and spatial development; safety and security; environment; social inclusion and
gender equity; economic development; health; education; etc.)  A Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plan shall identify 'hotspots' within the urban agglomerations
where performance of the present transport system is particular poor with
regard to any of above policy perspectives. 
16.        
Specific objectives: A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall identify specific performance
objectives, which are realistic in view of the current situation in the urban
area, as established by the status analysis, and ambitious with regard to the
goal and general objectives of a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan.
17.        
Targets: A
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall set measurable targets, which are based
on a realistic assessment of the baseline and available resources. These
targets shall reflect the specific objectives of a Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plan. Targets shall reflect both long-term and intermediate objectives. The
Specific Indicators shall be used to set targets and measures progress towards
them.
18.        
Timetable and budget plan: The delivery plan shall include a timetable for implementation as
well as a budget plan. Sources for the requisite funding should be
identified. The delivery plan should cover a period of 5-10 years.
19.        
Responsibilities and resources: A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall provide a clear allocation
of the responsibilities for the implementation of the policies and measures set
out in the plan and identify the required resources for each actor.  
20.        
Monitoring, review, reporting: The implementation of a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan shall be
monitored by the competent authority. The progress towards the goal and specific
objectives of the plan and meeting the targets shall be assessed regularly on
the basis of the selected indicators. To this end, appropriate action shall be
taken to ensure timely access to the relevant data and statistics. A monitoring
report shall provide the basis for a review of the Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plan implementation (every 1-2 years.)
21.        
Quality assurance, adoption: Local planning authorities should ensure appropriate mechanisms to
ensure the quality and validate compliance of the Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plan with the requirements of the present framework. A Sustainable Urban
Mobility Plan shall be duly adopted through the appropriate procedures and
receive formal endorsement from the relevant decision makers at the political
level. 
Appendix 6: Illustration of measures
within the Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning concept
5.           The possible measures in
combination with minimum requirements for the policy framework of a Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plan are presented in the following table.
6.           Table 1: Measures in
combination with minimum requirements on the policy framework of a Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plan
 Topics minimum requirements for the policy framework of a SUMP || Measures minimum requirements for the policy framework of a SUMP 
 Public transport services || Infrastructure investment and maintenance, including safety, security and accessibility Rolling stock investment and maintenance, including safety, security and accessibility Travel information provision systems Interoperable ticketing and payment systems Public transport frequencies Public transport coverage (line density, stop density, walking distances between stops) Information and marketing campaigns Taxi services Collective taxi transport services 
 Non-motorised transport || Dedicated walking and cycling infrastructure investment and maintenance Bike sharing schemes Information and marketing campaigns 
 City logistics and distribution || Freight distribution centres Freight delivery points Improvement of the efficiency of city logistics by the use of ICT Measures to improve the energy efficiency and environmental performance of vehicles  (fleet renewal, silent trucks) Measures to improve the energy efficiency of the drivers (eco-driving) Use of alternative modes like cycle logistics, freight delivery boats, Internet shopping 
 Mobility management || Corporate mobility plans (or workplace travel plans) School mobility plans Personalised travel plans Car sharing Carpooling schemes Teleworking Teleconferencing Information and marketing campaigns 
 Integration of transport modes || Multimodal connection platforms Multimodal travel information provision Park and Ride areas 
 Road transport (moving and stationary) || Road network investment and maintenance Reallocation of road space to other modes of transport, e.g. dedicated bus lanes Parking management Dynamic traffic management measures Low speed zones Promotion of eco-driving Green procurement by public authorities 
7.           
8.           
9.           The possible measures in
combination with comprehensive requirements for the policy framework of a
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan are presented in the following table.
10.         Table 2: Measures in
combination with comprehensive requirements on the policy framework of a
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan
 Topics comprehensive requirements for the policy framework of a SUMP || Measures comprehensive requirements for the policy framework of a SUMP 
 Access restriction schemes || Congestion charging zones (area and cordon charging) Low emission zones 
 Introduction of clean technologies and alternative fuels || Investment in infrastructure for alternative fuels (e.g. electric charging points) Introduction of vehicles on alternative fuels (e.g. natural gas busses, electric vehicles, hydrogen vehicles) 
 Urban pricing || Road user charging and congestion charging parking pricing public transport pricing 
 Ensures interoperability and/or consistency in use of instruments across the EU ||  Not applicable 
Appendix 7: Quantifying the effect of the sustainable urban mobility
planning concept on CO2 emissions
The EC Joint Research Centre (JRC) carried
out an impact assessment analysis for different territories in Europe[212]. A summary of this
analysis can be found below.
Overview
 In an effort to counteract negative
effects stemming from urban transport activities, many cities in Europe have
engaged in planning for the sustainability of urban mobility. As with any change
concerning the transport sector, uneasiness about the prospect of having to
change the way cities are currently organized -in order to cut down on
transport-linked nuisances- has generated a great number of questions on the
best way to achieve sustainability in urban transport. 
The European Commission is considering
proposing a European support framework for the implementation of Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plans in their MSes. This consideration is consistent with the
2011 White Paper proposal to increase coordination between transport
authorities and transport policy deciders. Consequently, an interest on how different
urban measures can be used in order to render transport activities more
sustainable has given way to research concerning the impacts and effects that
policy measures might have on socio-ecological systems. These studies rely,
mainly, on experts' opinions and past experiences in order to develop a common
scorecard on how a transport system might react to different measures. 
The technical note uses the expert scoring
information available in current scientific literature in order to explore the
impacts and effects that different urban measures may have in planning for
sustainability on a European wide level.
The five steps of the assessment: 

 Identify
     scientific literature sources for urban transport measure scorings (based
     on expert knowledge).
 Create a single
     template that gathers and normalizes the scores found in the literature
     concerning impacts and effects of urban transport measures.
 Assess the average
     urban profile of cities within NUTS3 zones according to current transport behaviour trends based on:

·        
Transport activity
·        
Population
·        
Employment in NUTS3 
·        
Commuting rates
·        
Rail and Road
Accessibility
·        
Urbanization rates
·        
Density

 Establish an tailored
     weighting system for the effects and impacts of urban measures according
     to the individual profile of each NUTS3 
 Quantify the potential
     range of effects of policy measures on CO2 emissions -for each NUTS3 zone-
     using transport demand and CO2 estimation results (MODEL-T, JRC) for the
     year 2030.

Methodology
Various studies on urban measure scorings
have been carried over the years and each  developed a different approach
pertaining to the scope of study of each report. As such, the studies consulted
in the literature review for this note have different ways of scoring impacts
and effects of measures (five different studies where chosen as sources for
this note: KONSULT, TRANSPORD, VTPI, EC-Freight and EPOMM –values from these
studies in annex). These differences are twofold, firstly different studies
have different scoring scales; secondly different studies have different
approaches as to how the effects and impacts of measures are scored. Thus, the
challenge, for this technical note, consists in its ability to clearly identify
the common elements in each study in order to develop a general scoring
template that normalizes scores coming from various sources. This normalization
is particularly tedious since it needs to be consistent across scoring
categories and scoring scales. In order to achieve this normalization, scores
on effects and impacts of urban measures from different sources were categorized
into a single scoring template where their effects are defined through their
ability to: 

 avoid unsustainable transport practices, 
 shift from unsustainable to sustainable
     transport modes, 
 improve on current behaviour in transport
     activities. 

The categorization of measure effects
through the three-pronged A-S-I (for avoid, shift, improve)
approach developed by GIZ in 2011, refers directly to urban measures' potential
effects on transportation activities by identifying how different measures have
different effects on current transport activities.
Furthermore, urban measures effects are not
restricted to changes on the structure of urban transportation; they also have
impacts on the whole socio-economic system. Consequently, scoring exercises
also include information on how different urban measures may have an impact on
economic, social and environmental issues. Thus, this note also aimed at
including the scoring values coming from experts' opinions on these categories in
a single impact matrix using the European Commission's Guidelines on Impact
Assessment by identifying impacts on three levels (E-S-E): 

 economic,
 social,
 environmental.

In order to be able to determine the
potential effects of the different policy measures according to the subject of
study, the note carries out an impact assessment concerning different
territories in Europe by weighting the experts' scorings accordingly to the
current trends in transport behaviour that characterize the different cities in
Europe present in NUTS3 regions. The main logic behind the definition of
weights is summarized by the idea that: since every city in Europe is different
in size, density, population etc., the effects of measures will surely vary
from city to city. Therefore, in order to correctly assess how a determined set
of measures can have an impact on different European cities, it is necessary to
determine how different urban forms and organizational trends may react to the
same set of measures. In other words, it is necessary to apply different weights
to the possible effects of measures accordingly to the urban characteristics of
European cities. 
Results
In order to quantify the impacts that
different measures might have, according to the profiles and weights, it was
necessary to have mobility estimates in 2030 for urban transportation
activities. For this, MODEL-T (JRC) mobility estimates and their inherent CO2
emissions were used. 
The 2030 values for CO2
emissions were used as a reference to calculate the impact that each policy
measure might have in CO2 reductions for different city profiles in
NUTS3 regions according to the effects presented in the experts' scorings and
to its capacity to, avoid, shift or improve unsustainable practices. As these
results are based on scorings pertaining to the potential range of reductions
that each individual measure might entail, these results do not take into
account overlapping effects. In other words, the effects of measures packaging
are not reflected in these results. The following table should be read as the
potential range effects for measures. As such, it is important to underline
that if all measures where to be implemented as a package, the overlapping
effects would entail lower overall results.
Table 1: Potential CO2
Reductions by Measure
 Measure || Potential CO2 reductions in ktons CO2 
 Investment and maintenance, including safety, security and accessibility || 713 - 894 
 Public transport coverage (line density, stop density, walking distances between stops) & public transport frequencies. || 917 - 1 150 
 Interoperable ticketing and payment systems || 471 - 591 
 Travel information provision systems ||  - 
 Taxi services (individual and collective) || 578 - 724 
 Dedicated walking and cycling infrastructure investment and maintenance & Bike sharing schemes || 781 - 979 
 Improvement of the efficiency of city logistics by the use of ICT || 951 - 1 192 
 Measures to improve the energy efficiency and environmental performance of vehicles and/or use of alternative modes. || 612 - 767 
 Corporate, school and personalised mobility plans (or workplace travel plans) || 680 - 852 
 Car sharing & carpooling schemes. || 442 - 554 
 Telecommunications || 1 019 - 1 278 
 Multimodal connection platforms || 306 - 383 
 Multimodal travel information provision || 849 - 1 065 
 Park and Ride areas || 510 - 639 
 Reallocation of road space to other modes of transport, e.g. dedicated bus lanes || 985 - 1 235 
 Parking management || 781 - 979 
 Dynamic traffic management measures || 408 - 511 
 Low speed zones || 476 - 596 
 Information and marketing campaigns || 629 - 788 
 Promotion of eco-driving || 153 - 192 
 Congestion charging zones (area and cordon charging) || 1 495 - 1 874 
 Low emission zones || 849 - 1 065 
 Totals || 14 605 - 18 306 

Furthermore, it was also possible to assess the effects of these policy
measures for the defined NUTS3 profiles. As overlapping effects are not taken
into account in these results, they reflect the potential range of reductions
for measures.
Figure 2: Potential CO2 Reductions by NUTS3
Accordingly it was possible to aggregate
these results –for presentation reasons- and quantify the potential range of
reduction that the complete list of identified urban measures could have in
each European country, without taking into account measure overlaps.
Table 2: Potential CO2
Reductions by Country
 Country- || Urban Emissions 2010 ktons CO2 ||  Urban Emissions 2030 ktons CO2 || Potential Reductions 2030  ktons CO2 || Percentage 
 AT || 3 214 || 2 648 || 179 - 225 || 6.8% - 8.5% 
 BE || 7 816 || 5 921 || 393 - 493 || 6.6% - 8.3% 
 BG || 1 485 || 1 384 || 100 - 125 || 7.2% - 9.0% 
 CY || 257 || 180 || 15 - 19 || 8.3% - 10.3% 
 CZ || 3 482 || 3 686 || 263 - 330 || 7.1% - 9.0% 
 DE || 44 488 || 38 055 || 2 697 - 3 381 || 7.1% - 8.9% 
 DK || 2 761 || 2 153 || 151 - 189 || 7.0% - 8.8% 
 EE || 418 || 507 || 37 - 47 || 7.4% - 9.2% 
 ES || 16 275 || 15 051 || 1 064 - 1 333 || 7.1% - 8.9% 
 FI || 2 554 || 2 350 || 163 - 204 || 6.9% - 8.7% 
 FR || 38 249 || 30 777 || 2 156 - 2 702 || 7.0% - 8.8% 
 GR || 2 633 || 2 850 || 187 - 234 || 6.6% - 8.2% 
 HR || 761 || 1 020 || 70 - 88 || 6.9% - 8.6% 
 HU || 2 085 || 2 365 || 166 - 208 || 7.0% - 8.8% 
 IE || 1 252 || 1 063 || 67 - 84 || 6.3% - 7.9% 
 IT || 37 073 || 31 285 || 2 250 - 2 821 || 7.2% - 9.0% 
 LT || 1 251 || 1 430 || 100 - 125 || 7.0% - 8.7% 
 LU || 418 || 326 || 27 - 34 || 8.2% - 10.3% 
 LV || 615 || 800 || 52 - 65 || 6.5% - 8.1% 
 MT || 177 || 141 || 9 - 11 || 6.3% - 8.0% 
 NL || 7 886 || 6 961 || 478 - 599 || 6.9% - 8.6% 
 PL || 6 918 || 8 934 || 625 - 784 || 7.0% - 8.8% 
 PT || 2 756 || 2 792 || 186 - 233 || 6.6% - 8.3% 
 RO || 1 726 || 2 272 || 163 - 205 || 7.2% - 9.0% 
 SE || 5 685 || 4 335 || 321 - 403 || 7.4% - 9.3% 
 SI || 296 || 284 || 20 - 25 || 6.9% - 8.7% 
 SK || 2 162 || 2 831 || 201 - 252 || 7.1% - 8.9% 
 UK || 45 823 || 36 729 || 2 465 - 3 090 || 6.7% - 8.4% 
 Total || 240 515 || 209 130 || 14 605 - 18 306 || 7.0% - 8.8% 
 
 Appendix 8: Reference documents
1.           AEA Technology Environment (21 April 2005),
Review of National and Regional Obligations for Environmental Management Plans,
Environmental Management Systems, and Sustainable Urban Transport Plans 
2.           ATKINS (2007) Long Term
Process and Impact Evaluation of the Local Transport Plan Policy – Final Report
June 2007
3.           CE Delft, ISI and TTR
(2012), Integrated urban transport plans and cohesion policy, contracted by the
European Parliament
4.           Cereg Territoires
(2012), le rapport environnemental du PDU de Marseille-Provence Métropole
2013-2023
5.           CERTU (2013), Mobility and
Transport, Sheet no. 27, 30 years of PDU's in France
6.           COWI (2013), Study to
support an Impact Assessment of the Urban Mobility Package, Activity 31
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans
7.           COWI (2013), Results of
the public consultation 'The urban dimension of the EU transport policy'
8.           COWI (2013), Expert
workshop report on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans
9.           COWI (2013), Stakeholder
meeting minutes on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans
10.         EEA (2011), Laying the
foundations for greener transport — TERM 2011: transport indicators tracking
progress towards environmental targets in Europe
11.         European Conference
Ministers of Transport/OECD (2002): Implementing sustainable urban travel
policies
12.         European Conference
Ministers of Transport/OECD (2005) – Conference on implementing sustainable
urban travel policies in Russia and other CIS countries, 30 September-1 October
2004 
13.         ECMT/OECD (2007), Managing
Urban Traffic Congestion
14.         European Commission (25
September 2007), Sustainable Urban Transport Plans, Technical Report -2007/018
15.         European Commission (2009),
Action Plan on Urban Mobility and accompanying Impact Assessment.
16.         European Commission (2011),
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation
on the Environmental Noise Directive 
17.         European Commission (2011),
Transport White Paper "Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area –
Towards a Competitive and Resource efficient Transport System" and
accompanying Impact Assessment
18.         Fraunhofer/Infras (2013),
Economic aspects of non-technical measures to reduce traffic emissions, report
No .(UBA-FB) 001728
1.                      
IEA/OECD (2013), Policy pathway: A tale of
renewed cities: a policy guide on how to transform cities by improving energy
efficiency in urban transport systems
20.         JRC (2013), Quantifying the
effects of  Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans 
21.         Knoflacher (2007), Success
and failures in urban transport planning in Europe – understanding the
transport system
22.         Nottingham City Council,
LTP for Greater Nottingham ,delivery report 31 July 2006
23.         OECD/International
Transport Forum (2011) – Key Mobility Challenges in Indian Cities 
24.         OECD/ International
Transport Forum (2011) – Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies in
Mexico
25.         OECD/International
Transport Forum (2011) – Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies in
China
26.         Panteia/NEA (2013), Review
of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility
27.         Roland Ribi &
Associes, PTV France, Interface Transport (2012), Plan de Déplacements Urbains
de la Communauté Urbaine de Strasbourg, Annexe 4 – Evaluation Environnemental 
28.         Rupprecht Consult (October
2005), Sustainable Urban Transport Plans: policies, effects and simulations
29.         Rupprecht Consult (23
September 2011), Eltisplus; Guidelines. Developing and implementing Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plans
30.         Rupprecht Consult
(September 2012), Eltisplus; the State of the Art of Sustainable Urban Mobility
Plans in Europe
31.         SDl KU LEUVEN and UITP
(2013), Study on harmonised data collection or European data and statistics in
the field of urban transport and mobility
32.         STIF, Plan de
Déplacements Urbain Ile de France, Février 2012 
Appendix 9: Glossary
33.         APUM: Action Plan on
Urban Mobility
34.         CARE - Community
database on Accidents on the Roads in Europe
35.         CIVITAS: City-Vitality-Sustainability"
or "Cleaner and Better Transport in Cities"
36.         CO2: Carbon
dioxide
dB: Decibel
37.         DG MOVE: Directorate-General
for Mobility and Transport
EACI: Executive
Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation
EC: European
Commission
ECMT: European
Conference of Ministers of Transport
EEA: European
Environment Agency
ELTIS: The Urban
Mobility Portal
38.         ELTISplus: Three
year contract (May 2010-May 2013) on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans
set up by the EC and managed by EACI
EP: European
Parliament
ESPON: European
Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion
39.         EU: European Union
40.         EU MS: European
Union's Member State
41.         EUROSTAT:
Statistical Office of the European Union
42.         GHG: Green House Gas
HDV: Heavy Duty Vehicles 
IEA: International Energy Agency
IEE/STEER:
Intelligent Energy Europe/Energy in Transport
43.         ISG: Inter-Services
Group
ITF:
International Transport Forum
ITS: Intelligent
Transport Systems
JRC: Joint
Research Centre
LTP: Local
Transport Plan ( UK equivalent for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan)NGO:
Non-Governmental OrganisationNO2: Nitrogen dioxide
NO/NOx: Nitrogen
oxide
OECD:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PDU: Plan de
Déplacements Urbains (French equivalent for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan)
PM10:
Particulate Matter
R&D:
Research and Development
44.         SME: Small and Medium
Enterprise
45.         SUMP: Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plan
46.         SUTP: Sustainable
Urban Transport Plan
TEN-T:
Trans-European Network for Transport
TFEU: Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union
UK: United
Kingdom
UN: United Nations
WHO: World
Health Organisation
Appendix 10: International Energy Agency guidance on 
urban transport systems[213]
The International Energy Agency (IEA) - in
its "Policy pathway: a tale of renewed cities: a policy guide on how to
transform cities by improving energy efficiency in urban transport
systems" - emphasises that urgent energy-efficiency policy attention in relation
to urban transport systems will be needed to mitigate associated negative
noise, air pollution, congestion, climate and economic impacts, all of which
can cost countries billions of dollars per year. Transport currently accounts for half of global
oil consumption and nearly 20% of world energy use, of which around 40% is used
in urban transport alone (IEA,
2011a). The IEA expects urban transport energy consumption to double by 2050,
despite ongoing vehicle technology and fuel-economy improvements. 
According
to IEA/OECD (2013) report the pathway to improving the urban transport systems includes four
stages: planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluation. As such, the IEA
also argues for an integrated approach to urban mobility. The report provides in-depth case studies for three cities
– Belgrade, New York City and Seoul. These case studies demonstrate how common
responses can be applied in very different local contexts to achieve transport
system improvements. A summary of these case studies can be found below. 
Belgrade, New York City & Seoul urban
transport system case studies
Source: OECD/IEA (2013)
Based on the case
studies and the experiences from other cities highlighted in the report, the
IEA/OECD (2013) report proposes ten critical steps that local and national
governments can take to develop, implement and evaluate key urban transport
system policies. The IEA/ OECD (2013) report clarifies that these steps aim at
supporting the development, financing, implementation and evaluation of
policies to improve the energy efficiency of urban transport systems. The
report states that the ten steps reflect a wide variety of urban transport
policies and projects from around the world and that they draw on proven
practices and experiences from practitioners with diverse international
experiences in the development and implementation of urban transport projects. Below
a schematic overview is given of the IEA policy pathway to improve energy
efficiency in urban transport systems.
IEA policy pathway to improve energy
efficiency in urban transport systems
Source: IEA/ OECD (2013)
More detailed
information on the ten steps can be found in the IEA/ OECD (2013) report. When
comparing the IEA "ten step approach" to the EU SUMPs approach as
described in the main text and in appendix 4 and 5 of this impact assessment
study, common trends can be identified. This demonstrates that the European
initiative on SUMPs is in line with the increasing attention the international
community and other countries are paying to integrated urban mobility
approaches.
Appendix 11:
Case Studies For The Problem Definition
In section 3.1.3 the link between the urban
mobility challenges endangering the well-being of citizens and effectiveness of
businesses & the lack of an integrated urban mobility approach in many
European areas was qualitatively explained. This link is further illustrated by
the case studies below. 
Case study 1: Evaluation
of the French "Plans de Déplacements Urbains" (PDUs) [214]   
The French evaluation of
their urban mobility plans (PDUs) over a period of 30 years shows results in
big urban agglomerations, such as less car usage, bikes reappearing in the city
and more frequent use of public transport. A change in modal split away from
motorised transport contributes to achieving a healthier life environment for the
citizens. A graphical illustration of the development in share of cars in total
trips in selected French areas is presented in figure 1 below. The early French
PDU's had their focus on public transport, and policies with car restraints
came later. The changes in modal split must also have been influenced by other
factors than the early French PDU's, such as rising fuel prices and the
development of e-commerce, as French PDU's only became mandatory for areas of
over 100,000 inhabitants by 1996. Legislation on PDU's has become more
prescriptive in recent years with an environmental obligation introduced in
2010 to quantify the effect of PDU measures on CO2
emissions. 
Figure 5: Change in the modal share of cars in
selected areas in France
Case study 2: Evaluation of UK experience
with the Local Transport Plans (LTPs) 
Results from the first round LTP's (2001/02-2005/06) in England and
Wales indicate that "the benefits of integrated transport schemes are
likely to be significant relative to the costs" and offering
"value for money", being important to achieve a more competitive
transport system. For example, "research estimates on specific transport
policy measures indicate that every £1 spent on well-designed soft measures could
bring about £10 of benefit in reduced congestion alone, with further potential
gains from environmental improvements and other effects"[215]. 
The evaluation of the LTPs concludes that "evidence from
various sources suggests that the benefits outweigh the costs of implementing
the LTP programmes"[216].
Moreover, the evaluation from the first round of LTPs demonstrates
"that improvements have been recorded across 8 of the 9 core indicators
relating to national priorities. Progress on the two road safety targets
broadly reflects LTP targets and collectively authorities are on track to meet
the national targets for 2010. However, it is unlikely that the PSA (public
service agreement) target for bus and light rail patronage will be met outside
London by 2010, and there is insufficient evidence to determine the extent of
progress towards the national targets for maintenance. (..) Progress on local
targets has generally been good, with 91% of authorities on track at the end of
2004/05 to meet at least 50% of their local targets[217]".
Case study 3: Evaluation
of specific UK experience of West England
47.         A specific case study on
the assessment of progress of a second round LTP (2006/07-2010/11) in West
England (covering the urban agglomeration of Bristol) reveals that through an
integrated approach with a combination of measures, such as increased bicycle
transport, an increased use of public transport and influencing travel
behaviour, the target set for reduction of congestion has been met. This is
illustrated by the average travel time per mile, see figure 2 below.
Figure 2: Journey times West England related to LTP
target[218]
48.         Also on traffic safety the
implementation of the integrated approach has resulted in achieving the defined
targets, see figure 3 below. 
Figure 3: Journey times West England related to LTP
target[219]
49.         
50.         Of the total of 21
quantified targets in this LTP 15 were met (three targets were not met and for
three others the evidence was not convincing). 
Case study 4: Evaluation
of specific French experience of Caen[220]
In 2007 the PDU 2001 of the Caen urban agglomeration
covering 19 municipalities was evaluated. The evaluation showed that most of
the PDU measures were interrelated and dependant of each other for a successful
implementation to achieve improvements, e.g. large investments in public
transport and supporting actions promoting inter-modality such as ticketing
compatibility. Around 60% of the measures had been implemented, leaving room
for improvement. The PDU 2001 had a positive impact on modal split, leading to
increased walking, with a reduction of the shares of motorised transport and of
public transport. Air quality improved with a reduction of NO concentrations,
see figure 4 below showing the NO concentration by weekday for 1997 and 2007. The
impact on noise pollution was overall positive. Traffic noise reduced in the
city centre (most densely populated area), especially where trams were passing
and because of a recirculation of traffic. In the periphery traffic noise
increased as a consequence, where houses are located further away from the
streets[221].
Figure 4: NO
concentration reduction Caen agglomeration
In the field of road safety strong progress was made
with the number of road accidents decreasing by more than 50% and the number of
fatalities by 26%, see figure 5 below.
Figure 5: Improvement of road safety Caen
agglomeration
Case study 5: Evaluation
of Vienna experience 
In many European cities a
policy was chosen to adapt the city to the car. Existing public transport
systems were removed to give priority to motorised transport. The city of
Vienna can be regarded as a representative example of European cities planning
their car-oriented transport[222].
A new urban motorway was built in the 70s to relieve the congested inner
streets of Vienna. However, with the number of road accidents declining since
the 70s, after opening of the motorway this trend reversed and accident figures
reached its old levels again in 1994 due to higher speed of motorised
transport. Furthermore, shopping centres opened at the fringes of the city,
trips became longer, congestion rose, and air and noise pollution problems got
worse. Today, Vienna is the most congested section of Austria and this example
is given as an indication of a lack of an integrated approach at that time by
"building a motorway as part of the city structure with disastrous
consequences around"[223].

However, with the development of a transport plan and the
implementation of future-oriented measures over the years, large part of the
streets in the city centre became pedestrian areas, cycling was promoted and a
successful parking policy (that prohibited free parking spaces) was introduced,
all leading to compensation of the adverse effects of the motorway and a
recovery of the city[224].
The current 20 years Transport Master Plan Vienna 2003, building on the results
of previous plans, looks at the broad agglomeration of Vienna as TEN-node,
technology metropolis and economic location, covering both urban agglomeration
and regional traffic flows[225].

In general, the ECMT/OECD recommends in 2007 to manage
urban traffic congestion through an integrated approach. Congestion cannot be
managed by only adding road capacity. "Effective land use planning and
appropriated levels of public transport services are essential to deliver high
quality access in congested urban agglomerations. A combination of access,
parking and road pricing measures is required to achieve the benefits from
operational and infrastructural measures to mitigate traffic congestion"[226]. 
Case study 6: an example from outside the EU: Buenos Aires[227]
More than 13 million people live in the metropolitan area of Buenos
Aires, and more than 2 million people commute into the city centre daily. In
2009, 54% of those commuters travelled by private vehicle, amounting to more
than 900 000 cars entering the city daily, and traffic was increasing – at
roughly 16% per year in 2009. To combat growing motorised traffic and its
impacts on the city and its transport system, the city of Buenos Aires
developed a Sustainable Mobility Plan in 2009. The plan outlined four transport
objectives for the city, including; prioritising public transport, creating
healthy mobility, planning for traffic and road safety, and instituting
intelligent mobility. To achieve those objectives, the city implemented
specific policy responses, such as prioritisation of public transport by
redesigning system routes, expanding bus-exclusive lanes, and implementing a
BRT system (Metrobús) and cycling-share programme (Mejor en Bici, or Better by Cycling).
By 2012, Buenos Aires had constructed 25 km of bus-priority lanes, 12 km of
trunk lane for Metrobús and more than 70 km of protected onstreet cycling
lanes. The city also installed 21 Mejor en Bici stations with 600 bicycles
across the city. The results of the initiatives to date are more than 90 000
daily Metrobús users, resulting in an average travel time savings of 40% for
Metrobús passengers. Metrobús has also contributed to improved traffic flow
along the BRT corridor, while bus-priority lanes have led to an average travel
time savings of 20% for the affected bus lines. Cycling in the city grew 128%
in 2011, and Mejor en Bici has an average of 3 500 users per day. Because of
the programmes’ success, Buenos Aires now is studying the potential to add more
than 200 km of new BRT corridors in the city, and it is expanding Mejor en Bici
to 100 stations by 2013.
Appendix 12:
Identification of the retained policy options
51.         The public consultation,
the expert and stakeholder meetings, independent research, experiences from
past initiatives (e.g. CIVITAS, ELTISplus) and own analysis have allowed the
Commission services to identify a set of policy options having the potential to
reach the identified key EU Transport White Paper objective. The following
process was applied for establishing the policy options:
52.          A set of elements for the
policy and governance framework for urban areas (=step 1, see below)
tackling problem driver 1 and 2, and possible instruments at EU level
(=step 2, see below) have been identified to address the identified problem.
Moreover, all items presented in step 1 and 2 are pre-screened and checked for
feasibility, and discarded where appropriate. 
2.     The retained elements for the policy and governance
framework and instruments at EU level have been combined into policy options
constituting viable and coherent policy alternatives for achieving the overall objective.
Where appropriate, certain combinations have been discarded after a first
assessment. See step 3 below.
Step 1: Policy
and governance framework for urban areas
A) Possible elements for a policy and governance framework for urban areas
The possible requirements for the
policy framework for urban areas' policy making, which address problem
driver 1 on policy issues, are presented in the table below. The minimum
requirements have been elaborated from a bottom up approach[228], and are in line
with the "benchmark" integrated urban mobility approach", as
developed in section 3.1.2. The comprehensive requirements have been elaborated
from the Transport White Paper urban policies (e.g. initiative 32 on access
restriction zones) and the Clean Power for Transport initiative. In terms of
geographical scope, the entire urban agglomeration is addressed, including the
mobility patterns of commuters and seamless mobility along the TEN-T network.
Issues such as road safety, the use of intelligent transport systems (ITS)[229] and mobility for all
are horizontally integrated. 
54.         Table 1: Minimum and
comprehensive requirements related to the policy framework
 Minimum requirements related to the policy framework || Comprehensive requirements related to the policy framework 
 Addresses both freight and passenger transport || Addresses both freight and passenger transport 
 Addresses all transport modes || Addresses all transport modes 
 Addresses the following topics: public transport services, non-motorised transport, city logistics, mobility management, integration of transport modes (multi-modality), the road network and motorised transport (including moving and stationary traffic) || Addresses the following topics: public transport services, non-motorised transport, city logistics, mobility management, integration of transport modes (multi-modality), the road network and motorised transport (including moving and stationary traffic) 
   || Assess  the introduction of  the following 'promising' instruments: low emission zones and urban pricing (urban road user charging/congestion charging, parking pricing and public transport pricing) 
   || Assess the introduction of clean technologies and alternative fuels 
   || Ensures interoperability and/or consistency in use of instruments across  the EU 
55.         The possible requirements
and combinations related to the governance framework (in terms of
processes and procedures) of urban areas' policymaking, which address problem
driver 2, are presented in the table below. The minimum requirements have been
elaborated from a bottom up approach[230],
and are in line with the "benchmark" integrated urban mobility
approach", as developed in section 3.1.2. The comprehensive requirements
have been elaborated by the Commission services.
56.         Table 2: Minimum and
comprehensive requirements related to the governance framework 
 Minimum requirements related to the governance framework || Comprehensive requirements related to the governance framework 
 Contains pledge to sustainability (three dimensions: economic, social and environmental) || Contains pledge to sustainability (three dimensions: economic, social and environmental) 
 Includes or is built on long-term strategy || Includes or is built on long-term strategy 
 Provides short-term implementation plan (timetable + budget plan; allocation of responsibilities) || Provides short-term implementation plan (timetable + budget plan; allocation of responsibilities) 
 Integrates different relevant policy areas, in particular land-use and transport planning || Integrates different relevant policy areas, in particular land-use and transport planning 
 Considers all transport  to, through and within the urban agglomeration area and coordination between different authority levels || Considers all transport  to, through and within the urban agglomeration area and coordination between different authority levels 
 Includes baseline analysis including performance audit || Includes baseline analysis including performance audit 
 Is developed in a participatory approach || Is developed in a participatory approach 
 Includes impact assessment on proposed measures || Includes impact assessment on proposed measures 
 Is based on integrated planning and implementation || Is based on integrated planning and implementation 
 Is formally adopted || Is formally adopted 
 Identifies objectives and sets targets in line with EU policy objectives || Identifies objectives and sets targets in line with EU policy objectives, including mandatory targets on urban mobility performance 
 Foresee mechanisms for monitoring in the MS || Foresee mechanisms for monitoring at EU level 
 Foresee mechanisms for review in the MS || Foresee mechanisms for review at EU level 
 Conformity check on requirements  in the MS || Conformity check on requirements  at EU level 
57.         In line with the view of a
large majority of experts and stakeholders, researchers (including ECMT/OECD),
and with experience from initiatives such as CIVITAS the most successful urban
areas use integrated approaches to tackle multi-sectorial problems in policy
making linked to their transport system. In order to improve the related policy
and governance framework of their policy making, several European cities have
in practice implemented these integrated approaches through Sustainable Urban
Mobility Plans (SUMPs). These SUMPs often vary in quality, ambition and
effectiveness. In sections 5,6,7 and 8 of this impact assessment study, the
concept of SUMPs[231]
is used to describe a true "benchmark" integrated urban mobility
approach which encompasses the minimum or comprehensive requirements on policy
and governance framework of cities' policy making, as identified in the above
tables. 
B) Pre-screening
of the possible elements for a policy and governance framework 
Based
on the analysis above, four main categories in relation to the policy and
governance framework for urban areas have been defined: 

 Minimum requirements related to the policy
     framework
 Comprehensive requirements related to the policy
     framework
 Minimum requirements related to the governance
     framework
 Comprehensive requirements related to the
     governance framework

After a pre-screening
the last category, i.e. comprehensive requirements related to the governance
framework, has been discarded. As part of this comprehensive governance
framework, mandatory requirements at EU level on monitoring, review and
conformity check of a SUMP do not meet the subsidiarity and proportionality
principle. The same is true for the mandatory targets set by the EU on urban
mobility. First a common tool for measuring urban mobility performance needs to
be developed. Moreover, this comprehensive governance framework does not have
any support from experts or stakeholders. As a result, only the first three
categories are retained for further analysis. 
Step 2:
Instruments at EU level
58.         
59.         A) Possible instruments at
EU level 
60.         In this step it is explored
what instruments could be used at European level as to ensure that cities will
actually take up the policy and governance framework as identified in step 1.
- No EU action: all on-going European actions (see point 0 below: business as usual
scenario) in relation to integrated urban mobility are stopped.  
61.         - 0: The
business-as-usual scenario: The EU would support a bottom-up approach (the
business-as-usual scenario). The Commission would continue present activities,
such as:
·        
Funding for development of SUMPs and deployment
of Sustainable Urban Mobility measures[232];
·        
Supporting Research and Development on SUMPs; 
·        
Facilitating the development and sharing of best
practice examples; e.g. by providing European urban areas with a platform for
exchange and cooperation (e.g. through the website www.mobilityplans.eu);
·        
Raising awareness on sustainable urban mobility;

·        
Supporting local capacity building;
·        
Urban mobility observatory 
62.         These activities can be
continued in combination with other instruments mentioned below (1, 2,3,4 and
5).
63.         - 1: Non-binding
recommendations on SUMPs: The EU would seek to enhance voluntary
development and implementation of SUMPs by the competent authorities in the
Member States by providing recommendations on this topic. 
64.         - 2 and 3: A mandatory
EU level framework: The EU would make mandatory the development and
implementation of SUMPs by the competent authorities in the Member States for
certain urban areas categories[233],
leading to the following sub options:
·        
2: Member States
need to freely define themselves the urban areas (e.g. based on population size)  for which they esteem
a mandatory development and implementation of SUMPs  necessary to reach the
goal of this initiative
·        
3: The EU level
defines the urban areas for which a SUMP needs to be developed and implemented
(e.g. based on population size). 
65.         This mandatory EU level
framework would by nature have to take the form of a legal instrument. As to
respect the subsidiarity principle and as to take into account the different
situation in cities and Member States, a Directive - and not a Regulation –
would be the appropriate instrument in this case.
- 4: Introduction of an urban mobility scoreboard: the EU would develop an urban mobility scoreboard, including
voluntary targets on urban mobility performance, thereby facilitating
benchmarking of cities by collecting and publishing sharing of current data.
- 5: Financial conditionality: The EU
could create further incentives for the development and implementation of SUMPs
by the competent authorities in the Member States by imposing a financial
conditionality. This would be done through linking access to cities and regions
applying for EU funding (e.g. the structural funds) for urban transport
projects to the existence of a SUMP in the urban area concerned[234]. In the next
programming period from 2020 onwards, financial conditionality could be
included in the legislative proposals and be made obligatory from the EU level.

B) Pre-screening of the possible instruments at EU level
66.         A pre-screening of the
possible instruments at EU level has been performed and some instruments are
discarded at an early stage based on the criteria of subsidiarity,
proportionality and consistency with other EU policies:
·     
The "no EU action" has been
discarded, as to stop all present activities by the EU to support the development
and implementation of integrated urban mobility approaches by the competent
authorities in the Member States is not consistent with other EU  policies and
targets, such as road safety, TEN-T and environmental policies. Moreover, there
is no stakeholders or expert support to stop all EU action in this field.
·     
The introduction of an urban mobility
scoreboard has been discarded, as (in line with the views of stakeholders
and results of the APUM[235])
first a methodology for collection and sharing of relevant data and common
indicators for measuring urban mobility performance would need to be developed
before a future scoreboard could be implemented. 
·     
The financial conditionality has been
discarded as a legislative proposal could only be included in negotiations on a
Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) from 2020 onwards. 
As a result, only the business as usual scenario, non-binding
recommendations on SUMPs and a mandatory EU level framework on SUMPs are
retained as possible instruments at EU level.
Step 3:
Identification of retained policy options
67.         The policy options are made
of possible combinations between the retained elements for the policy
and governance framework (=step 1) and retained instruments at EU level (=step
2). More concretely, this results in policy options that are a combination of:
·        
Minimum or comprehensive requirements related to
the policy framework
and
·        
Business as usual scenario, non-binding
recommendations on SUMPs or a mandatory EU level framework on SUMPs
In relation to the
governance framework, as discussed in step 1, it will always be the minimum
requirements (see table 2) that apply to the policy options, as the
comprehensive requirements on the governance framework are discarded from the
outset. 
The combinations of
retained elements have been analysed, and after a first assessment, some
combinations could be discarded (see point A below). The retained policy
combinations are presented in point B below.
 A) Pre-screening
of possible policy options
In combination with the business as usual scenario (option 0), and
the non-binding recommendations on SUMPs (option 1), only the comprehensive
policy framework has been retained (option 0B and 1B). The voluntary character
of these EU actions justifies this high ambition level. The combinations of
these EU actions with the minimum policy framework have been discarded at a
preliminary stage, as given the voluntary character of these actions a
comprehensive framework gives more guidance, without imposing any legal
obligation.
The combinations of a comprehensive policy framework with a
mandatory framework have been discarded because of the lack of experts' and
stakeholders' support as well as concerns about subsidiarity, proportionality
and feasibility. In the comprehensive requirements for the policy framework
urban areas are asked to consider the introduction of access restriction zones
while at the same time avoiding a patchwork of different regulations based on
different principles and standards, as this could jeopardise the free movement
of goods and people. However, no EU common approach on access restriction
schemes is available yet, and therefore mandatory requirements on this topic
seem not appropriate. Therefore, for the mandatory approach (options 2 to 3)
only the minimum requirements for the policy framework (options 2A and 3A) will
be analysed given the fact that these options will create legally binding
effects and should be in line with the subsidiarity and proportionality
principles.
However, in the voluntary approach (business as usual scenario and
non-binding recommendations) the combination with the comprehensive
requirements is retained. If urban areas consider introducing access
restrictions, they should at least consider relevant schemes used in other
European cities, to avoid fragmentation of the internal market and improve
overall cost effectiveness. In contrast with the mandatory approach there would
be no obligation to ensure compatibility with existing schemes. 
B) Identification of retained policy options
68.         The table below provides a
schematic overview of the retained policy options (option 0B, 1B, 2A and 3A),
for which the components have already been described in step 1 and 2. 
Table 3: Retained policy options
 (for all options: governance framework: minimum) || A Policy framework MINIMUM || B Policy framework COMPREHENSIVE 
 0) Business as usual: R&D, funding, best practice, campaigns, local capacity building || N/A || Option 0B 
 1) Non-binding recommendation on SUMPs || N/A || Option 1B 
 Make mandatory the development and implementation of SUMPs: ||     ||   
 2) Member States need to define themselves the urban areas (e.g. based on population size)  for which a SUMP needs to be developed and implemented || Option 2A || N/A 
 3) The EU level defines the urban areas for which a SUMP needs to be developed and implemented (e.g. based on population size) || Option 3A || N/A 
[1] COM(2010)2020 final
[2] COM(2011)144 
[3] SEC(2011)391, Commission staff working document to the Transport
White Paper "Roadmap to a Single Transport Area",  p90
[4] ECMT (2002), Implementing sustainable urban travel policies, Paris,
OECD, p51. Since 1953 the ECMT was an intergovernmental organisation attached
to the OECD. In May 2006 the ECMT transformed into the International Transport
Forum (ITF), which is an intergovernmental body within the OECD family and
serves as a global platform for transport policy makers and stakeholders. 
[5] COM(2007)551
[6] COM(2009)490
[7] A Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plan is "a strategic plan
designed to satisfy the mobil­ity needs of people and businesses in cities and
their surroundings for a better quality of life. It builds on existing planning
practices and takes due consideration of integration, participation, and
evaluation principles.” (the state-of-the-art of sustainable urban mobility
plans in Europe – Rupprecht Consult, Eltisplus). The concept of
SUMPs will be further explored in section 5, and further information can be
found in appendix 4 to 6. 
[8] European Parliament resolution of 9 July 2008 on 'Towards a new
culture of urban mobility', 2008/2041(INI)
[9] Council Conclusions of 24 June 2010 on the Action Plan on Urban
Mobility
[10] European Economic and Social Committee opinion on the Action Plan
on Urban Mobility of 27 May 2010, TEN/414 
[11] Committee of the Regions opinion on the Action Plan on Urban
Mobility of 27 August 2010, 2010/C 232/05, recommendations on integrated urban
policies approach and SUMPs on p1
[12] http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm
[13] http://www.civitas-initiative.org/index.php?id=69
[14] http://www.pilot-transport.org/index.php?id=47,
supported by DG Environment
[15] http://www.mobilityplans.eu/
[16]
http://www.eaci-projects.eu/iee/page/Page.jsp?op=project_list&searchtype=3
[17] http://dotherightmix.eu
[18] http://www.eltis.org/
[19] http://www.mobilityplans.eu
[20] http://www.lowemissionzones.eu/
[21] United Nations, Resolution 66/288adopted
by the General Assembly: "The future we want" (available at: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/66/288&Lang=E) 
[22] IEA/OECD (2013), Policy pathway: A tale of renewed
cities: a policy guide on how to transform cities by improving energy
efficiency in urban transport systems, p57
[23] Lei Nº 12.587, of 
03/01/2012.
[24] OECD/ITF (2011) – Key Mobility Challenges in Indian Cities, p25.
The ITF is an intergovernmental body within the OECD family.
[25] OECD/ITF (2011) – Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies in
Mexico, pp. 6, 29-30
[26] OECD/ITF (2011) – Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies in
China,  pp. 14-15
[27] OECD/ITF (2011) – Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel Policies in
China, p28
[28] The Surface Transportation Act (TEA-21) and its subsequent
reauthorization acts (SAFETEA-LU) and the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007
[29] http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/transpo/stateregiontrans.aspx#regional
[30] CUTA Transit
Vision 2040 report, pp. 28-33,  http://www.cutaactu.ca/en/publicationsandresearch/resources/CUTABook_Complete_Lowres.pdf
[31] This SUMP aims to
promote modal shift from solo car use to multimodal and clean transport modes
to reduce air and noise pollution, construct new transportation facilities and
new business activities and improve health and well-being of residents by
increased use of active transport modes, see http://www.mobilitedurable.qc.ca/
[32] http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/guidelines_integrated_transport_whole.pdf
[33] The services involved in this group are the Secretariat-General, DG
Climate Action, DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology, DG Economic
Affairs and Financial Affairs, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal
opportunities, DG Energy, DG Enterprise and Industry, DG Environment, DG Health
and Consumers, DG Internal Market and Services, DG Justice, DG Research, DG
Regional Policy, DG Taxation and Customs Union, Joint Research Centre and the
Legal Service.
[34] http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/studies/doc/2013-a032862-urban-mobility-public-consultation-report.pdf
[35] COWI Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans expert workshop report, March
2013
[36] The Eurobarometer citizen survey results are available at: To be completed when available
[37] A study has been carried out by COWI sprl Belgium under one
contract. The "Study to support an Impact Assessment on the Urban Mobility
Package (UMP), activity 31 SUMPs" was launched in December 2012, gathered
further information on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, and assessed different
options to progressively implement such plans in European cities. The report is
available at (To be completed when available)
[38] COWI (2013), Results of the public consultation 'The urban
dimension of the EU transport policy', p12
[39] COM(2011)21
[40] The
term accessibility is used here in a broad sense as people's ability to reach
goods, services and  activities, which can be distinguished between:
accessibility of the urban transport network within the urban area,
accessibility between local urban transport networks and regional, national and
international transport networks for persons and goods, and finally in a more
narrow sense as the prevention and removal of barriers preventing persons with
disabilities, older persons and those with functional limitation from equal access
or participation in accordance with the European Accessibility Act.
[41] The definition of urban agglomeration/functional city could be
based on the harmonised definition of urban
areas agreed by OECD and EU. It is a 4 step approach based on among
other criteria of population density above 1,500 people/km2 in the
"core" city combined with working catchment areas where more 15%
works in the defined core area. Thus, the functional city covers transport to,
from, through and within the urban agglomeration area. When the shorter term of
'cities' is used in the IA report it is used as a synonym for the urban
agglomeration/functional city.
[42] Rupprecht Consult, ELTIsplus State of the Art report on Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plans (September 2012), p. 30 and COWI (2013), Study to support
an Impact Assessment of the UMP, act. 31 SUMPs, p. , and SUMP expert workshop
report 29 January 2013
[43] About 41% of the EU population lives in predominantly urban
regions, 35% in intermediate regions and 23% in rural regions according to
Eurostat NewsRelease 5/12 (March 2012), available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/1-30032012-BP/EN/1-30032012-BP-EN.PDF
[44] SEC(358). p131
[45] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment of the UMP, act.
31 SUMPs, p37.
[46] COM(2009)490, p2
[47] SEC(358) p141
[48] No data is publicly available for the urban congestion costs. The current
estimate is based on the PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model.
[49] SEC(2011)358, pp. 13-14
[50] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment of the UMP, act.
31 SUMPs, p40    
[51] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment of the UMP, act.
31 SUMPs, p42
[52] CARE database http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/statistics/index_en.htm
[53] Total CO2 emissions include international bunkers (aviation and
maritime) but exclude combustion emissions from pipeline transportation, ground
activities in airports and harbours, and off-road activities.
[54] European Commission, EU Transport in Figures, Statistical
Pocketbook 2013
[55] No statistics are available for the share of CO2 emissions from
urban transport. The current estimates are based on the PRIMES-TREMOVE
transport model.
[56] DG Environment
published on its website an updated list of Air Quality Zones (including urban
agglomerations) related to the environmental objectives PM10 and NO2:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/pdf/PM10%202011_TEN.pdf, and http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/legislation/pdf/NO2%202011_TEN.pdf 
[57] Directive 2008/50/EC
[58] EEA, 2012. Air quality in Europe — 2012
report
[59] COM (2011) 321, Report on the implementation of the Environmental
Noise Directive
[60]
http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/publications
[61] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment of the UMP, act.
31 SUMPs, p53
[62] E.g. ELTISplus consultations, Rupprecht Consult ELTIsplus State of
the Art report on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (September 2012)
[63] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment of the UMP, act.
31 SUMPs, based on CIVITAS Guard evaluation 2010 and CIVITAS cities speaks out
2012, pp. 65-66
[64] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment of the UMP,
activity 31 SUMPs p103, COWI SUMP expert workshop report and minutes
stakeholder meeting
[65] See footnote 41 on the definition of an urban
agglomeration/functional city
[66] In the UK there is no common approach on LTP's. In England LTP's
are legally defined. There are different arrangements applying to Wales,
Scotland and Northern Ireland. Wales has a well-established transport planning
framework (Transport Whales Act). Eltisplus State of the Art report 2012, p21  
[67] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment of the UMP, act.
31 SUMPs, p77
[68] In the public consultation around 67% of the registered respondents
say that urban planning does not give sufficient attention to urban freight
logistics. This fact was confirmed by various stakeholders at the meeting of 21
May. In a 2007 survey in Sweden on urban freight transport planning 65% of the
respondents (32.4% of 290 municipalities) consider freight transport to be a
problem in urban agglomerations (noise and safety in smaller cities and
emissions in larger cities). However, few cities have one or more employees
working more than 20% of their time on urban freight and 43% of all cities
indicated they have no time at all to work on urban freight (Linholm (2013),
Enabling sustainable development of urban freight from a local authority
perspective, pp. 7-10). 
[69] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment of the UMP, act.
31 SUMPs, p13
[70] Transport for London
(29 June 2012), London freight data report 2012 update, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/documents/london-freight-data-report-2012.pdf
[71]"Assessing knowledge and awareness of the sustainable urban
freight transport among Swedish local authority policy planners" – Maria
Lindholm and Magnus Blinge, 2006 
[72] European Parliament resolution of 9 July 2008 on 'Towards a new
culture of urban mobility' 2008/2041(INI), pp. 3-4
[73] Council Conclusions of 24 June 2010 on the Action Plan on Urban
Mobility, p3
[74] Panteia/NEA (2013), Review of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility
[75] COWI (2013), Results of the public consultation 'The urban
dimension of the EU transport policy', p21
[76] Regulation 443/2009/EC and Regulation 510/2011/EC
[77] Directive 2009/33/EC
[78] See http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cpt/index_en.htm)
[79] Directive 2002/49/EC
[80] Directive 2008/50/EC
[81] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment on the UMP act.
31 SUMPs , pp. 112-122
[82] Ibidem,
[83] In the previous
section, the current use of an integrated urban mobility approach was estimated
using four different categories where the "full" integrated urban
mobility approach was defined as the "benchmark integrated urban mobility
approach", encompassing all the necessary requirements for reducing the
risk of not achieving the key EU policy objective
towards a more competitive and resource-efficient transport system. 
[84] SEC(2011) 358 final
[85] SEC(2011) 288 final 
[86] SEC(2011) 1565/2
[87] See Annex 3 for more information. A model description is available
at: http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/e3mlab/PRIMES%20Manual/The_PRIMES_MODEL_2010.pdf

[88] See Annex 3 for more information. A model description is available
at: http://147.102.23.135/e3mlab/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=8&Itemid=56&lang=en
[89] About 41% of the EU population lives in predominantly urban
regions, 35% in intermediate regions and 23% in rural regions according to
Eurostat NewsRelease 5/12 (March 2012), available at:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/1-30032012-BP/EN/1-30032012-BP-EN.PDF
[90] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs/Population Division (2011), World urbanisation prospects - The 2011
revision, http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/index.htm
[91] SEC(2011) 358 final
[92] Regulation (EC) 433/2009 and Regulation (EU) 510/2011
[93] Fuel costs represent a relative important share of operational
costs and thus HDVs manufacturers have the minimisation of these costs among
their main objectives, achieved by improvements in technology related i.e. to
vehicle design, vehicle powertrain, etc.
[94] Total CO2 emissions include international bunkers (aviation and
maritime) but exclude combustion emissions from pipeline transportation, ground
activities in airports and harbours, and off-road activities.
[95] No statistics are available for the share of CO2 emissions from
urban transport. The current estimates are based on the PRIMES-TREMOVE
transport model.
[96] Renewable energy sources would cover 10% of the energy needs of
transport by 2020, reflecting the implementation of the Renewables Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC).
[97] About 6-27 % of the urban population in the EU was potentially
exposed to ambient nitrogen dioxide (NO2) concentrations above the EU limit value
set for the protection of human health (40 microgram NO2/m3 annual mean)
between 2001-2010. Even a higher share, about 18-41 % of the urban population
in the EU was potentially exposed to ambient concentrations of particulate
matter (PM10) in excess of the EU limit value set for the protection of human
health (50 microgram/m3 daily mean not to be exceeded more than 35 days a
calendar year) between 2001-2010 (Source: EEA, 2012. Air
quality in Europe — 2012 report).
[98] A technical report from the EEA in 2006 projected that in 2030 the
annual limit value for NO2 (Directive 1999/30/EC)  would only be met in a few
of the 20 European cities investigated (Source: EEA, Air pollution at street
level in European cities, Technical report 01/2006).
[99]Urban mobility and transport cover a wider domain than transport
alone. The Commission can therefore also make specific proposals on the basis
of articles other than Articles 90-91 and Articles 170-171. For example Article
192 of the TFEU also provides a legal basis for addressing the environmental
sustainability of the transport system, including measures affecting town and
country planning.
[100] See in this respect the Impact Assessment accompanying the Action
Plan on Urban Mobility (COM(2009)490 and SEC(2009)1212 Annex IV: The EU's right
to act, pp. 73-75
[101]  SEC(2011)358, p24
[102] SEC(2011)358, pp. 25-26, and see also SEC(2009)1212, p74 
[103] Current estimates based on the PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model
[104] COM (2011)321
[105] SEC(2011)358, p. 26, and see also SEC(2009)1212, p74-75 
[106] http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/revision-t_en.htm
[107] As confirmed by the "Study on harmonised collection of
European data and statistics in the field of urban transport and mobility (2013
– SADL KU LEUVEN and UITP)"
[108] COM(2011)206 
[109] COM(2005)658
[110] In the future programming period the European Regional Development
Fund and the Cohesion Fund would be able to support financially the development
of SUMPs, stemming a thorough analysis of the urban environment, as well as
support networking and exchange on urban planning practices to relieve
congestion and/or reduce carbon and other pollutant emissions from transport.
[111] European Parliament resolution 9 July 2008 'Towards a new culture
of urban mobility' 2008/2041(INI), p4
[112] Council Conclusions of 24 June 2010 on the Action Plan on Urban
Mobility, p3
[113] European Economic and Social Committee opinion on the Action Plan
on Urban Mobility of 27 May 2010, TEN/414, p8
[114] Committee of the Regions opinion on Action Plan on Urban Mobility
27 August 2010, 2010/C 232/05), p1
[115] PANTEIA/NEA (2013), Review of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility
[116] COWI (2013), Results of the public consultation 'The urban
dimension of the EU transport policy', pp. 25-32 
[117] January 2013, COWI SUMP experts workshop report 
[118] COWI, minutes of stakeholder consultation meeting 21 May 2013
[119] It could for example be assumed that Member States would choose to
only apply the mandatory framework to TEN-T urban nodes on their territory, but
that if decided at EU level a larger scope of application would be chosen, e.g.
population size above 250,000, in line with the Air Quality Directive. Under
these assumptions the uptake of SUMPs would be higher in option 3A than in
option 2A.
[120] Interpretation table: if more cities (e.g. "many cities"
in the last column) implement the high/complete IUMA (=SUMP), the uptake of
SUMPs is high. If a "few" or "some" cities have no/limited
or low/medium IUMA, the uptake of SUMPs is low. Moreover, as for option 2A
"some cities" do have a medium/high IUMA, and as for option 3A only
"few cities" have this, it can be deducted from the table that option
3A will have more cities covered under the "high/complete  IUMA =
SUMP" than option 2A.
[121] E.g. as mentioned before, possible thresholds of urban
agglomerations could be: urban agglomerations with a population size of (a)
> 100,000 inhabitants, (b) > 250,000 inhabitants or (c) >1,000,000
inhabitants and for all capitals (TEN-T urban nodes).
[122] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment on the UMP, act.
31 SUMPs, p.154-156
[123] Fraunhofer/Infras (2013), Economic aspects of non-technical
measures to reduce traffic emissions report No. (UBA-FB) 001728, pp. 4-5, 16-17
[124] Atkins, Long Term Process and Impact Evaluation of the Local
Transport Plan Policy, 2007, p3-12
[125] Greater Manchester LTP2 Progress Report, 20118, p3
[126] LTP2
progress: Letter from Government Office for the South East, 2009
[127] West Midlands LTP - Final Delivery Report 2011, 12 March 2012,
p.81.
[128]
Évaluation du PDU2000-2010, Nantes Métropole, 2009, p10
[129] a'urba (2009), Observatoire des effets du plan des
déplacements urbains - décembre 2009, Observatoire de la communauté urbaine de Bordeaux,
p28
[130] Vienna City Administration, Transport Master Plan Vienna 2003, Abridged
Version, November 2003
[131]  Évaluation du PDU2000-2010, Nantes Métropole, 2009, p. 16
(Auran – Nantes Métropole)
[132] Évaluation du PDU2000-2010, Nantes Métropole, 2009, pp. 6-9
[133]Stif (2012), Plan de déplacements urbains de
l'Ile-de-France, http://www.stif.org/IMG/pdf/PDUIF_RIF_2012.pdf, pp. 174-177
[134] COWI (2013) after World Class Streets: remaking  Ney York city's
public realm (available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/WCS_Gehl_08_print.pdf) and http://www.gehlarchitects.com/index.php?id=159110
[135] Local Transport Plan for Greater Nottingham 2001/2-2005/6, delivery
report 31 July 2006, Nottingham City Council pp. 21, 22, 56,77
[136] COM/2012/0698 final (2012), Green Paper An integrated parcel delivery
market for the growth of e-commerce in the EU, pp. 2-3
[137] These costs are a one-time amount and do not include monitoring and
revision of the PDU neither costs of implementation of the measures
[138] COWI (2013), Study to support Impact Assessment on the UMP, act. 31
SUMPs, based on Atkins (2007), p. 82-84
[139] COWI's estimates based on Atkins (2007) performing 12 case studies
of English local authorities who have developed LTP's, COWI (2013), Study to
support an Impact Assessment on the UMP, act. 31 SUMPs, p168
[140] Total costs estimates of developing a PDU made by GART (2009) on
the basis of 84 interviews with French cities who have developed a PDU, COWI
(2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment on the UMP, act. 31 SUMPS, p169
[141] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment on the UMP, act.
32 on Access Regulations, p82
[142] Atkins in association with PWC and Warwick Business School (2007),
for the Department of Transport, Long Term Process and Impact Evaluation of the
Local Transport Plan Policy, p10-2 to 10-3
[143] The benefits taken into account in the
study were accidents and casualty savings, journey time savings, vehicle operating costs, and
emission savings.
[144] Share
of population living in rural areas below 20%
[145] Share
of population in rural areas between 20-50%)
[146] Regions
in which at least 50% of the regional population lives inside larger urban
zones (major cities and their surrounding travel-to-work areas)
[147] WHO (2004), World report on road traffic injury prevention"
[148] Local Transport Plan for Greater Nottingham 2001/2-2005/6, delivery
report 31 July 2006, Nottingham City Council pp. 21, 22, 38, 68, 69, 77
[149] Greater Manchester LTP2 Progress Report, 20118, p6
[150] Greater Manchester LTP2 Progress Report, 20118, p5
[151] Roland Ribi & associes, PTV France,
Interface Transport (2012), Plan de déplacement Urbaine de la Communauté
Urbaine de Strasbourg, évaluation environnementale 
http://media.strasbourg.eu/alfresco/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/1581b03a-70f8-475d-a6e5-19227569e6d8/Annexe4-EvaluationEnvironmtale.pdf
[152] Stif (2012), Plan de déplacements urbains de l'Ile-de-France
http://www.stif.org/IMG/pdf/PDUIF_RIF_2012.pdf,
pp. 174-177
[153] COWI (January 2013), SUMP expert workshop report
[154] http://www.eltis.org/index.php?id=13&lang1=en&study_id=3780
[155]
Airparif (2011), Evaluation des impacts de Plan de Déplacements Urbains
d'Ile-de-France sur la qualité de l'air et les emissions de gaz a effet de
serre à l'horizon 2020, pp. 25-72 
http://www.airparif.asso.fr/_pdf/publications/Rpduif_ges2020_300511.pdf)
[156] Cereg Territoires (2012), Le rapport environnemental
du PDU de Marseille-Provence Metropole 2013-2023, pp. 73-78, (http://www.marseille-provence.com/assets/plugins/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/telechargement/transport/Enquete-publique-PDU/Eval-PDU-MPM_VF_2023_V4.pdf)
[157] JRC technical report (2013), Quantifying the effects of SUMPs
[158] KONSULT, TRANSPORD, VTPI, EC-Freight and EPOMM
[159] The scoring systems are based on current expert knowledge about
policy impacts. Therefore, the results provided do not represent model
estimates.
[160] The results for the overall package, provided at EU level, were
derived without accounting for the overlapping effects between the measures.
[161] JRC technical report (2013), Quantifying the effects of SUMPs, pp.
14 and 68. These figures should be regarded as an upper bound and reflecting
the potential range of reductions of the full list of identified measures,
considering that overlapping effects between the measures have not been taken
into account. 
[162] JRC technical report (2013), Quantifying the effects of SUMPs, pp.
13 and 67. These figures should be regarded as an upper bound and reflecting
the potential range of reductions, considering that overlapping effects between
the measures have not been taken into account. 
[163] Cereg Territoires (2012), Le rapport environnemental
du PDU de Marseille-Provence Metropole 2013-2023, pp. 82-85, (http://www.marseille-provence.com/assets/plugins/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/telechargement/transport/Enquete-publique-PDU/Eval-PDU-MPM_VF_2023_V4.pdf)
[164]
Roland Ribi & associes, PTV France, Interface Transport (2012), Plan de
déplacement Urbaine de la Communauté Urbaine de Strasbourg, Annexe 4 évaluation
environnementale  (http://www.strasbourg.eu/environnement-equalite-de-vie/deplacements/grandes-orientations)
[165]
Airparif (2011), Evaluation des impacts de Plan de Déplacements Urbains
d'Ile-de-France sur la qualité de l'air et les emissions de gaz a effet de
serre à l'horizon 2020, pp. 76-77 
(http://www.airparif.asso.fr/_pdf/publications/Rpduif_ges2020_300511.pdf)
[166] Stif (2012), Plan de
déplacements urbains de l'Ile-de-France http://www.stif.org/IMG/pdf/PDUIF_RIF_2012.pdf, pp. 181
[167] See baseline scenario in chapter 5.1
[168] COM(2011)144 final 
[169]            Panteia/NEA (2013), Review of the Action Plan on Urban
Mobility
[170]            COWI (2013), Results of the public consultation 'The
urban dimension of the EU transport policy'
[171]        CIVITAS
RENAISSANCE is a project between five cities aiming to test and develop an
integrated package of mobility measures to make historic cities cleaner and
safer: Perugia (Italy), Bath (UK), Gorna Oryhavitsa (Bulgaria), Szczecinek
(Poland), and Skopje (Macedonia). http://www.civitas.eu/index.php?id=70&proj_id=13
[172]  SEC(2011) 358 final
[173]  SEC(2011) 288 final
[174]  SEC(2011) 1565/2 
[175] Short-term projections for oil, gas and coal prices were slightly
revised according to the latest developments in the Reference scenario as
compared to the version used in the White Paper -
Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and
resource efficient transport system and A Roadmap for
moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050.
[176]  SWD(2012) 213/2
[177] SWD(2013) 5/2
[178] The PRIMES-TREMOVE
transport model projects the evolution of demand for passengers and freight
transport by transport mode and transport mean, based on economic, utility and
technology choices of transportation consumers. Operation costs, investment
costs, emission costs, taxes and other public policies, utility and congestion
influence the choice of transportation modes and means. The model further
projects the derived fuel consumption and emissions of pollutants. 9. It is
essentially a dynamic system of multi-agent choices under several constraints, which
are not necessarily binding simultaneously. The model consists of two main
modules, the transport demand allocation module and the technology choice and
equipment operation module. The two modules interact with each other and are
solved simultaneously. A more detailed model description is available at:
http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/e3mlab/PRIMES%20Manual/The_PRIMES_MODEL_2010.pdf 
[179] The Prometheus
model is a fully stochastic world energy model used for assessing uncertainties
and risks associated with the main energy aggregates including uncertainties
associated with the impact of policy actions (R&D on specific technologies,
Taxes, standards, subsidies and other supports). The model projects
endogenously to the future the world energy prices, supply, demand and
emissions for 10 World regions. It is a self-contained energy model consisting
of a set of stochastic equations. It contains relations and/or exogenous
variables for all the main quantities, which are of interest in the context of
general energy systems analysis as well as technology dynamics regarding power,
road transport and hydrogen production and use technologies. These include
demographic and economic activity indicators, energy consumption by main fuel,
fuel resources and prices, CO2 emissions, greenhouse gases concentrations,
temperature change, technology uptake and two factor learning curves. 
The GEM-E3 (World and Europe) model is an
applied general equilibrium model, simultaneously representing World regions
and European countries, linked through endogenous bilateral trade flows and
environmental flows. The European model is including the EU countries, the
Accession Countries and Switzerland. The world model version includes 18
regions among which a grouping of European Union states. GEM-E3 aims at
covering the interactions between the economy, the energy system and the
environment. It is a comprehensive model of the economy, the productive
sectors, consumption, price formation of commodities, labour and
capital,investment and dynamic growth. The model is dynamic, recursive over
time, driven by accumulation of capital and equipment. Technology progress is
explicitly represented in the production function, either exogenous or
endogenous, depending on R&D expenditure by private and public sector and
taking into account spillovers effects. The current GEM-E3 version has been
updated to the GTAP7 database (base year 2004).
More detailed model descriptions are
available at:
 http://147.102.23.135/e3mlab/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=8&Itemid=56&lang=en

[180] EUROpean POPulation Projections, base year 2008
[181] European Commission, DG Economic and Financial Affairs, 2009 Ageing
Report: Economic and budgetary projections for the EU-27 Member States
(2008-2060). EUROPEAN ECONOMY 2|2009, available at http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication14992_en.pdf.
The “baseline” scenario of this report has been established by the DG Economic
and Financial Affairs, the Economic Policy Committee, with the support of
Member States experts, and has been endorsed by the ECOFIN Council.
[182] Communication from the Commission: Europe 2020. A strategy for smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth. COM(2010)2020, Brussels, 3.3.2010
[183] Model description available at: http://www.e3mlab.ntua.gr/e3mlab/PROMETHEUS%20Manual/prometheus_documentation.pdf

[184] Idem footnote 172. The list of measures is provided in
Appendix 4: Inventory of policy measures relevant for the transport sector
included in the 2050 Reference scenario (pages 153-155)
[185] Regulation (EU) No 510/2011 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 May 2011, setting emission performance standards for new light
commercial vehicles as part of the Union’s integrated approach to reduce CO2
emissions from light-duty vehicles.
[186] About 41% of the EU population lives in predominantly urban
regions, 35% in intermediate regions and 23% in rural regions according to
Eurostat NewsRelease 5/12 (March 2012), available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/1-30032012-BP/EN/1-30032012-BP-EN.PDF
The Eurostat urban–rural typology is based on a classification of
grid cells of 1 km² as either urban or rural. NUTS 3 regions have been
classified into three groups based on the classification of these grid cells:
- predominantly urban region: population in grid cells classified as
urban make up more than 80% of the total population;
- intermediate region: population in grid cells classified as urban
make up between 50% and 80% of the total population (population in rural cells
between 20% and 50%);
- predominantly rural region: population in grid cells classified as
rural make up 50% or more of the total population.
[187] United Nations, Department of Economic and Social
Affairs/Population Division (2011), World urbanisation prospects - The 2011
revision, http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/index.htm.
[188] World Bank, World Development Report 2009: Reshaping economic
geography.
[189] While there is no fully reliable data on the split of transport
activity between urban and inter-urban at EU level, research shows that about
25% of the passenger transport activity expressed in passenger kilometres and
about 17% of the freight transport activity expressed in tonne-kilometres takes
place in the urban area. Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model.
 
[190] EEA, 2010. The European environment — state and outlook 2010: urban
environment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
[191] Clifton, K., Ewing, R., Knaap, G. and Song, Y., 2008. Quantitative
analysis of urban form: a
multidisciplinary review. Journal of Urbanism. Vol. 1, No. 1, March
2008
[192] EEA, 2010. The European environment — state and outlook 2010: urban
environment. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
[193] Source: Eurostat
[194] Regulation (EC) 433/2009 and Regulation (EU) 510/2011
[195] Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 April 2009 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 140, 5.6.2009, p1–15.
[196] Total CO2 emissions include international bunkers (aviation and
maritime) but exclude combustion emissions from pipeline transportation, ground
activities in airports and harbours, and off-road activities.
[197] No statistics are available for the share of CO2 emissions from
urban transport. The current estimates are based on the PRIMES-TREMOVE
transport model.
[198] The modelling results reflect the accounting method set out in
Commission Decision (2007/589/EC) establishing guidelines for the monitoring
and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council for the use of biofuels. In this Decision,
biomass is considered as CO2 neutral.
[199]  EEA, 2012. Air quality in Europe — 2012
report
[200]  EEA, 2012. Air quality in Europe — 2012 report
[201]  Source:
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43316/E92845.pdf
[202] SILENCE project (Integrated Project
co-funded by the European Commission under the 6th Framework
Programme for R&D): SILENCE Practitioner Handbook for Local
Noise Action Plans,
2008,http://www.silence-ip.org/site/fileadmin/SP_J/Elearning/Planners/SILENCE_Handbook_Local_noise_action_plans.pdf
[203] SEC(2011) 358 final 
[204] E.g. CIVITAS, IEE/STEER and ELTISplus
[205] e.g. Australia published
guidelines on SUMPS building on similar policy elements, such as integrated
policy areas including land use planning and a participatory approach, seeL http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/guidelines_integrated_transport_whole.pdf.

[206] CIVITAS Guard  2010; Cluster Report 3: Cycling and Walking;
Deliverable D 2.2
[207] See also the study on city logistics: ECORYS 2013 Activity 33:
Strategy for near Zero-Emission Urban Logistic.
[208] The definition of urban agglomeration/functional city could be
based on the harmonised
definition of urban agglomerations agreed by OECD and EU. It is a 4 step
approach based on among other criteria of population density above 1,500 people/km2
in the "core" city combined with working catchment areas where more
15% works in the defined core area. 
[209]  COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment on the Urban
Mobility Package, Appendices B, C, D
[210] In the UK there is no common approach. In England LTP's are legally
defined through the Transport Act 2000, amended by the Local Transport Act
2008. In London the plan is called a Local Implementation Plan for transport.
Different arrangements apply to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Wales has
a well established transport planning framework (Transport Wales Act).  
[211] Rupprecht Consult, ELTISplus State of the Art report on Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plans (September 2012), p14
[212] JRC technical report (2013), Quantifying the effects of SUMPs
[213] OECD / IEA (2013), Policy pathway: A tale
of renewed cities: a policy guide on how to transform cities by improving
energy efficiency in urban transport systems (hereafter referred to as OECD/IEA
(2013)), available at: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Renewed_Cities_WEB.pdf
[214] CERTU (March 2013), fiche no. 27, 30 ans de PDU en France,
p. 1 (http://www.certu-catalogue.fr/catalog/product/view/id/1601/?___SID=U&link=2105)
[215] Atkins in association with PWC and Warwick Business School (2007),
for the Department of Transport, Long Term Process and Impact Evaluation of the
Local Transport Plan Policy, p10-2 to 10-3
[216] ibidem, p10-1 to
10-2
[217] ibidem
[218] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment on the UMP, act.
31 SUMPs, based on West of England (2011) 5 years progress review Joint LTP
2006/7-2010/11, p68
[219] ibidem p.
[220] COWI (2013), Study to support an Impact Assessment on the UMP, act.
31 SUMPs, based on AUCAME (2008), évaluation du PDU de l'agglomération de Caen,
pp. 71-72 
[221]
AUCAME (2008) évaluation du PDU de l'agglomération de Caen, pp. 34-35
[222] Sadhana Vol. 32,
Part 4, August 2007, Knoflauher, "Success and
failures in urban transport planning in Europe", p294
[223] Sadhana Vol. 32, Part 4, August 2007, Knoflauher,
"Success and failures in urban transport planning in Europe", p295
[224] ibidem, pp. 294, 295
[225]Transport Master Plan Vienna 2003, pp. 5-7,
http://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/shop/broschueren/pdf/mpv2003-kurzfassung-englisch.pdf
[226] ECMT/OECD (2007) Managing urban traffic congestion, p7
[227] Buenos Aires Ciudad, 2009; Chain, 2011; Dietrich, 2012; ITDP, 2012
[228] The minimum requirements have been elaborated on the basis of the
ELTISplus guidelines on SUMPs (September 2011), experiences of relevant EU
projects (CIVITAS, IEE/STEER) and in consultation with experts (workshop
January 2013) and stakeholders (May 2013).   
[229] ITS measures can for example contribute to reduction of congestion,
modal shift to public transport and less accidents through real time traffic
and travel information, planning and booking, data monitoring and analysis, and
traffic & parking management measures.
[230] The minimum requirements have been elaborated on the basis of the
ELTISplus guidelines on SUMPs (September 2011), experiences of relevant EU
projects (CIVITAS, IEE/STEER) and in consultation with experts (workshop
January 2013) and stakeholders (May 2013).   
[231] Appendix 5 provides an extensive definition of a SUMP
[232] In the future programming period the European Regional Development
Fund and the Cohesion Fund would be able to support financially the development
of SUMPs, stemming a thorough analysis of the urban environment, as well as
support networking and exchange on urban planning practices to relieve
congestion and/or reduce carbon and other pollutant emissions from transport.
[233] Examples of thresholds for urban agglomerations that could be
considered are: urban agglomerations with a population size (a) > 100.000
inhabitants, (b) > 250.000 inhabitants or (c) >1.000.000 inhabitants and for
all capitals (TEN-T urban nodes). The 100.000 threshold (a) is based on French
legislation as a threshold for a mandatory PDU in cities and agglomerations
with more than 100.000 inhabitants.  The 250.000 threshold (b) is based on
Directive 2008/50/EC as a threshold for agglomerations in which air quality
plans are required in case of exceeding target or limit values. The threshold
related to the TEN-T urban nodes (c) is based on COM(2011)650 final/2, annex II
on the urban nodes in the TEN-T guidelines and accompanying planning
methodology. The main nodes for passenger and freight traffic of the core
network have been established on the basis of the following criteria: capital
cities of each EU MS, every MEGA in the ESPON atlas 2006, a conurbation or city
cluster exceeding 1 million inhabitants and the main border crossing point of
each available mode of transport between each EU MS and its non EU neighbours. 
Ideally the mandatory policy options should already differentiate
between the categories of cities that should be covered under the different
options. However, given the limited availability of comparable data and
statistics in the field of urban transport and mobility, such a distinction
could not be made in a justifiable, grounded and statistical underpinned
manner. In view of this, the exact distinction between the different categories
of cities has not been included in the policy options, but will be touched upon
in section 6.2 on the analysis of impacts. The limited availability of
comparable data and statistics in the field of urban transport and mobility was
confirmed by the "Study on harmonised collection of European data and
statistics in the field of urban transport and mobility (2013 – SADL KU LEUVEN
and UITP)". 
[234] In the programming period 2014-2020, the European Regional
Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund would be able to support financially the
development of SUMPs, stemming a thorough analysis of the urban environment, as
well as support networking and exchange on urban planning practices to relieve
congestion and/or reduce carbon and other pollutant emissions from transport.
As regional and urban policy is implemented in a decentralised way, this could
happen if Member States and regions propose such measures in the Operational
Programmes.
[235] Minutes stakeholder meeting 21 May 2013 and APUM action 16, Study
on data and statistics