Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — Urban Mobility Package
Date: 2014-06-25
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: air quality, health care, innovation, motor vehicle pollution, noise protection, road safety, sustainable mobility, town traffic, transport accident








C_2014271EN.01001801.xml










19.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/18





Opinion of the Committee of the Regions — Urban Mobility Package
2014/C 271/04








Rapporteur



:


Albert Bore (UK/PES), Member of Birmingham City Council





Reference documents



:


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 — COM(2013) 913 final
A call to action on urban logistics — SWD(2013) 524 final
Targeted action on urban road user safety — SWD(2013) 525 final
A call for smarter urban vehicle access regulations — SWD(2013) 526 final
Mobilising Intelligent Transport Systems for EU cities — SWD(2013) 527 final




I.   GENERAL COMMENTS







1.


Sustainable urban transport systems produce a better quality of life for European citizens and are important for the economic competitiveness of cities, regions and the European Union as a whole. Cities are the home of 70 % of European citizens and important centres of economic activity, where over 80 % of the Union’s GDP is generated.










2.


Urban mobility and urban transport are a competence of local and regional authorities, who are in charge of designing and implementing urban mobility policies and for providing public transport in their territory. Decisions to be taken at a local level often relate to a framework set by national policy and within a new EU Urban Agenda. Indeed, an Urban Mobility agenda is seen by many as a component of the Smart Cities agenda.










3.


The Committee of the Regions has issued policy recommendations in its previous opinions on urban mobility, in particular in its opinion on the Green Paper on Urban Transport (1), in the two opinions on the Action Plan on Urban Mobility (2), and, finally, in the opinion on the White Paper ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area’ (3). These recommendations advocated sustainable urban mobility policies that take into account economic, environmental and social dimensions.










4.


Within the Urban Mobility Package there is complete understanding of the subsidiarity principle, with focused actions where there is EU added value, particularly in fostering cooperation, sharing of best practice and guidance. There are also recommendations to Member States to introduce measures in respect of urban logistics, urban access regulations, deployment of ITS solutions and urban road safety.










5.


Underlines the importance of a comprehensive European Union policy on urban areas based on the ideas and suggestions expressed in the Committee’s parallel and complementary opinions on an integrated urban agenda, on the 7th Environment Action Programme’s focus on sustainable cities and on the urban mobility.




II.   POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS


Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs)








6.


Underlines that for urban development a sustainable and holistic approach must be followed. Urban mobility problems cannot be solved with a sectorial approach only. Account has to be taken in particular of the link between the urban dimension of transport policy and the broader concept of spatial planning, not only to improve urban transport and infrastructure but also to combat urban sprawl and rethink the relationship between cities and their surrounding (urban/rural) environment. For further proposals on sustainability, the CoR refers to the opinion on The Seventh Environment Action Programme and the Sustainable City (4);










7.


Considers it necessary for there to be measures (awareness-raising campaigns, incentives, etc.) at Member State level that can change people’s attitudes towards using modes of transport that consume less energy;










8.


Believes that SUMPs need to be closely integrated with land use policies. Poorly planned development which is not effectively integrated with the transport network results in higher levels of transport demand and leads to over reliance on the private car for many journeys;










9.


Accepts that sustainable urban mobility plans are an appropriate strategic instrument for developing such an integrated approach to urban mobility aimed at all modes and forms of transport in the entire functional area of a city or urban agglomeration: public and private; taxis; passenger and freight; motorised and non-motorised; moving and parking — all of which should take into account the gender and mobility aspects of the population. The elaboration of sustainable urban mobility plans for all cities, remains a key demand of the CoR, with the design and implementation of urban mobility plans being the responsibility of the cities themselves;










10.


Regrets that although sustainable mobility plans have already been produced in many cities and have proven to be an excellent basis for discussion and implementing measures for improving mobility in urban areas, a common Europe-wide definition of the concept of sustainable urban mobility plans has until now not been available;










11.


Welcomes that the European Commission actively involved the Committee of the Regions in the impact assessment process for the Urban Mobility package and in particular the fact that DG MOVE has taken on board key concerns of the Committee of the Regions with regard to the elaboration of a non-binding proposal;










12.


Wonders about the process by which the Commission intends to ensure that the goals and measures outlined in the Urban Mobility Package are properly achieved, knowing that in the European area there are towns and regions where the definition and implementation of plans for urban areas are at different stages of maturity. This can concern people mobility or measures for urban logistics, regulation and smarter monitoring of access in urban areas, the establishment of smart urban transport systems and urban road safety;










13.


Notes the concept as non-binding guidance, as well as the clarification that it can and should be adapted to the particular circumstances of the Member States and urban areas;










14.


Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to support the development and the promotion of the concept, in particular the proposal to set up a European Platform on SUMPs and the commitment to support national, regional and local authorities developing and implementing SUMPs, including through funding instruments. There should be an absolute commitment by the European Commission for representatives of local and regional authorities to be involved in the European Platform;










15.


Urges that the Commission’s proposal to set up a Member States’ Expert Group on Urban Mobility and Transport should also involve local authority or city representatives and so provide an input to the proposed European platform;










16.


Asks that SUMPs should be promoted at national level, encouraging Member States to prepare the legislative changes needed to ensure the necessary framework conditions are in place to allow local and regional authorities to create and successfully implement local urban mobility strategies;










17.


Points out that towns are hubs where different modes come together and where journeys usually start and end. This is why they need to be seen as a very important and inseparable part of all transport networks and why, consequently, sufficient attention should be paid to urban mobility;






Urban Vehicle Access Regulations








18.


Believes that urban access regulations and road user charging can be effective instruments to manage the competing demands for urban road space and to address crucial problems such as congestion, pollution and urban sprawl. This is in line with the user/polluter pays principle and contributes towards a shift towards the use of more sustainable transport modes;










19.


Notes that the principle of subsidiarity would require a decision of local authorities to implement urban access regulations and road user charging schemes. Such schemes need to be tailored to the specific local circumstances and needs, so there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution. This can only be done at the local level by local and regional authorities;










20.


Notes that in recent years a wide diversity of schemes have been implemented across the EU but suggests that this heterogeneity can sometimes make travel across Europe more difficult, in particular because of the widespread lack of information about how to comply with the various local schemes;










21.


Points out that the regulation of access in urban areas should be based on clear rules which are as universal as possible in terms of objectives such as traffic reduction, fewer pollution emissions and incentives to encourage the use of other, more sustainable forms of transport;










22.


Accordingly, in this regard and in line with the 2009 CoR opinion on the Action Plan on Urban Mobility (5), accepts that there needs to be a minimum level of harmonisation and coherence at the EU-level, in particular with regard to vehicle categorisation, emission class and road signs; and this needs to be undertaken in partnership between local, national and EU authorities;










23.


Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to foster an exchange with Member States and experts on urban access regulations and to prepare non-binding guidance to help cities implement access regulation schemes effectively;










24.


Suggests that with Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) there is a need for common technical standards to ensure interoperability in order to prevent new technical barriers to free movement within the EU;






Urban Road Safety








25.


Regrets that the number of road fatalities in the EU, with 26  000 deaths in 2013, remains unacceptably high. Very worrying is the fact that vulnerable road users, like cyclists, pedestrians and in particular elderly people, are most affected. It is particularly concerned that the number of cyclists killed has even risen compared to 2010;










26.


Emphasises the importance of road safety in securing sustainable modes of transport, such as cycling and walking, and the positive impact for the health agenda through supporting more people to engage in active travel. These matters should be an integral part of SUMPs and further guidance on achieving this would be beneficial;










27.


Urges that appropriate road safety education for individuals is also promoted, given that there is a direct relationship between road safety education and road traffic accidents;










28.


Recalls that the CoR has previously endorsed the objectives on road safety laid down in the 2011 Transport White Paper to move close to zero fatalities in road transport by 2050, and to aim at halving road casualties by 2020 as compared to the numbers in 2010;










29.


Acknowledges that efforts to improve safety through vehicle design and the use of ITS, such as driver assistance systems (especially V2I and V2V solutions), will reduce the level of accidents but suggests more needs to be done by local and regional authorities to encourage safer vehicle designs to be used, e.g. through procurement processes;










30.


Recommends that solutions based on ITS should also explore how promoting a real change in driving behaviour will provide environmental, road safety and energy efficiency gains;










31.


Welcomes the European Commission’s proposal to address urban road safety within the framework of the urban mobility package and notes that there is the commitment from the European Commission to gather and disseminate good practice examples on road safety planning, and to analyse measures for reducing the number of serious road traffic injuries in urban areas. This should not be limited to the next two years, as suggested, but continued if appropriate;










32.


Welcomes the European Commission’s recommendation that Member States ensure proper gathering of data on road safety indicators at the most detailed level possible and encourages local authorities to use such data for local analysis and road safety planning. It is acknowledged that engineering interventions are ultimately limited in their impact and that, by using road safety data, it is possible to identify the particular communities who figure most in road traffic collisions. This will enable more focused and targeted campaigns and behaviour programmes on road safety;










33.


Emphasises that, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and multilevel governance, local and regional authorities have the responsibility to draw up road safety policies within a remit that focuses on resolving local problems, tailored to local circumstances. SUMPs could be an effective instrument to promote an integrated approach to road safety at the local level;






Urban logistics








34.


Highlights that the role of freight and logistics cannot be underestimated. Although urban logistics make up a relatively small share of urban traffic, it takes a considerable amount of urban road space, e.g. for loading and unloading, thus contributing to congestion and other problems. Urban freight vehicles also contribute disproportionally to air and noise pollution, and are often involved in severe accidents with vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. In this regard, an optimisation of urban logistics would positively impact on the urban transport system as a whole;










35.


Stresses that there is significant potential in regard to the introduction of new technologies, e.g. alternative fuel solutions. It is acknowledged that such development and early deployment of clean vehicles in cities can have immediate benefits in terms of the reduction of oil dependence, as well as health benefits through improved air quality and noise reduction. The objective of the 2011 Transport White Paper to achieve almost CO2-free city logistics in major urban centres by 2030 is again supported by the CoR;










36.


Notes that, especially for smaller-scale operators, the economic sustainability of introducing cleaner vehicles into the urban logistics fleet may need incentive mechanisms based on gains associated with externalities. In this respect, quantified targets should be established for public and private vehicle fleets;










37.


Welcomes the inclusion of the issue of urban logistics in the urban mobility package, particularly since urban logistics is largely neglected in city transport planning;










38.


Welcomes the commitment of the European Commission to take action as regards the dissemination and uptake of urban logistics best practice, in particular to provide guidance documents on how to improve the performance of urban logistics and to facilitate the procurement of cleaner and safer vehicles by reviewing the scope of the Clean Vehicle Portal (www.cleanvehicle.eu);










39.


Acknowledges that there is still a lack of data and information around freight flows to help urban areas plan more effectively for freight movements within their area. Linked to ITS applications, such data and information would enable urban authorities to better understand urban logistic requirements, help to improve the efficiency of movements and identify more appropriate routes for vehicles resulting in lower emissions;










40.


Accepts the European Commission position that urban logistics should be given proper considerations in Member States’ national approaches to urban mobility and in particular to SUMPs;






Urban Intelligent Transport Systems








41.


Acknowledges again the potential that ITS offers with regard to optimising urban mobility and achieving policy objectives, such as increased safety and lower congestion. Information technologies play a key role in supporting new mobility patterns based on the combined use of all modes of transport (e.g. real-time multimodal travel and traffic information, integrated multimodal electronic ticketing systems, car and bike sharing schemes);










42.


Regrets that the uptake of ITS applications is still very fragmented, caused by a lack of both interoperability and effective cooperation. The European Commission’s point of view that ITS can only realise its full potential with wide-scale deployment throughout Europe is accepted. The importance of such coherence and interoperability supports cross-border travel and free movement within the EU. This also applies to urban areas, which are often important nodes on the trans-European transport network;










43.


Calls for support to be given to local authority initiatives to implement ITS. There is a need to speed up the introduction of technical and technological innovations improving the mobility, efficiency, safety and quality of transport in urban areas;










44.


Recalls that work has already been undertaken by the European Commission with regard to interoperable and coherent ITS, in particular the provision of a legal framework with Directive 2010/40/EU (ITS directive) and the establishment of an Expert Group on Urban ITS, which has already developed Guidelines for the deployment of key ITS applications in urban areas;










45.


Against this background, welcomes the undertaking of the European Commission to continue its work in this field and its intention to supplement the existing legislation on access to traffic and travel data, to prepare specifications on real-time traffic information and multimodal information services under the framework of ITS Directive 2010/40/EU, and to facilitate the deployment of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication systems in urban areas. However, with all these matters, data protection and privacy concerns are a prerequisite for the acceptance of such systems and must be fully respected;






Climate Change, Air Quality and Noise Pollution








46.


Regrets that air quality and climate matters are not dealt with adequately within the Communication. As climate change impacts, the number of days on which transport systems are confronted with extreme weather situations will increase. If no measures to adapt our transport systems to handle these events are taken, more disruption and higher social and economic costs can be expected;










47.


Stresses that for many other reasons, air quality is a matter of major concern in many of Europe’s cities and towns, with the human cost of poor air quality being worse than for road traffic accidents, making it the number one environmental cause of premature death in the EU. It also impacts the quality of life arising from asthma or respiratory problems. Air pollution causes lost working days and high healthcare costs, with vulnerable groups such as children, asthmatics and the elderly being the worst affected. It damages ecosystems through excess nitrogen pollution (eutrophication) and acid rain. The direct costs to society from air pollution, including damage to crops and buildings, amount to about EUR 23 billion per year, and the external costs from health impacts alone are estimated at EUR 330-940 billion (3-9 % of EU GDP);










48.


Notes that, due to breaches of the EU-set health-based limits for NO2, many Members State Governments potentially face infraction proceedings by the European Commission, with the possibility of substantial fines which may be passed on to local authorities and public bodies where there has been a failure to take appropriate action using the powers available to them. This nevertheless needs to be managed with caution. It has become clear in the meantime that breaches at local level are often due, amongst other things, to inadequate national and European policy for tackling problems at source. A multilevel approach is required, in which each level of government (European, national, regional and local) takes responsibility and adopts the measures which can and must be adopted by the relevant level;










49.


Suggests that the various elements of SUMPs can all contribute to addressing air quality. ITS solutions deliver more efficient transport movements. Better management of urban logistics reduces noise and congestion and improves journey efficiency; urban vehicle access regulations can be used to ban excessively polluting vehicles and encourage the use of quieter, ultra-low emission vehicles; and, through road safety measures, better driving behaviour can be encouraged which should help to reduce overall emissions whilst reducing the number of accidents on the transport network and the resulting congestion which often accompany them. A number of programmes such as Civitas or Ecostars are good examples of this;










50.


Believes that measures contained within SUMPs should increase the number of people walking, cycling and using public transport, reducing not only emissions and noise from vehicle traffic but also leading to better accessibility for all, improving equality in the transport system, as well as increasing physical activity and improving public health;










51.


Recalls that the existing EU air quality, noise and vehicle taxation legislation are currently being reviewed and urges that they are made consistent with the spirit this Communication;










52.


Believes it is important for cities exposed to the risk of noise pollution to draw up noise zoning plans that categorise areas according to the maximum noise level permitted and identify urban and suburban areas where the noise impact should be lowest, particularly in the vicinity of parks, schools, hospitals and sheltered accommodation for the elderly;










53.


Asks, therefore, that concerns regarding air and noise pollution be translated into actions through SUMPs, both by the EU and by Member States;






Reinforcing EU support








54.


Welcomes the commitment of the European Commission to strengthen EU support for sustainable urban mobility in the areas of cooperation, experience and best-practice sharing, research and innovation, financial support and international cooperation;










55.


In particular, welcomes the intention to improve the existing Urban Mobility Observatory ELTIS by integrating the present Mobility Plans portal and developing it into a comprehensive knowledge centre. This will consolidate information on urban transport planning from across the EU and add to the intended European Platform on SUMPs, providing local and regional authorities with the necessary tools for the successful application of SUMPs;










56.


Endorses the proposal to develop an Urban Mobility Scoreboard, first proposed in the 2011 White Paper on Transport, providing harmonised indicators to benchmark and compare the progress of urban areas across the EU;










57.


Suggests, however, that any scoreboard needs to be carefully developed to ensure that it does not simply become a ranking system. Urban Mobility Scoreboards need to be ‘city specific’ to establish a time related baseline, to include a number of core indicators (e.g. modal split, accessibility, fuel efficient vehicles, air quality and health). Subsequent EU funding applications need to specifically relate to how the project or development will improve/impact on the baseline scoring and scoreboards should be reviewed annually;










58.


Refers to the major burden on cities due to the increasing number of vehicles. The car-sharing services developed in some cities of Europe can ease this situation considerably. However, this has so far been developing very unevenly in European countries even though the European MOMO project has shown great potential. The Commission should expressly take up the sharing model (such as bike sharing, car sharing, car pooling) in its strategies;










59.


Urges that financial support for sustainable urban mobility through the European Structural and Investment Funds should be under-pinned by guidance from the European Commission for local and regional authorities on how the ESI funds could be used more systematically for the funding of integrated packages of measures in the field of urban mobility, including through the new instruments such as Integrated Territorial Investments. Also, guidance is required on how Mobility Plans should be developed to show that they offer value for money for investments and exploit the synergies with other EU funding streams such as Horizon 2020;










60.


Welcomes the Commission’s intention to pay greater attention to small and medium-sized cities which play a fundamental role in the European urban system as a whole. Moreover, these cities offer great potential because of the social, environmental and institutional advantages associated with their smaller size. Urban mobility problems are not limited to large cities, and small and medium-sized cities have the added disadvantage of facing major difficulties in financing projects to improve urban mobility because of their high cost and fewer economies of scale;










61.


Suggests that there is a strong case for linking SUMPs to the actions by EU cities’ within the Covenant of Mayors. The voluntary commitment of cities to the Covenant of Mayors could be a valid model to promote engagement with SUMPs;










62.


Points out that in many towns, especially in the new Member States, economic and social change has brought about radical change in the function of particular urban areas and hence fundamental changes in transport flows. These changes often require a comprehensive and very costly reconstruction of every kind of transport infrastructure. This is why, for these towns, it is essential to first address — and support with ESIF funding — the reconstruction of this essential infrastructure to make it operational and fit for purpose. ESIF support should therefore not be limited to connection to TEN-T networks, but should also be permitted for financing local communications and infrastructure for public and alternative transport that demonstrably contributes to urban mobility;










63.


Believes that, if SUMPs are produced along EU guidelines, then it can be assumed they are shaped around the mobility requirements of the local citizens, with the support of local stakeholders and buy in from local politicians. Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans can ensure that money is integrated into wider planning and programme matters which have political commitment at a local level;










64.


Supports the idea that allocation of regional development and cohesion funds should be coordinated with the submission of a coherent and independently validated Urban Mobility Performance and Sustainability Audit certificate by cities and regions.





Brussels, 25 June 2014


The president of the Committee of the Regions

Ramón Luis VALCÁRCEL SISO




(1)  CdR 236/2007 fin.

(2)  CdR 417/2008 fin; CdR 256/2009 fin.

(3)  CdR 101/2011 fin.

(4)  COR-2013-07987

(5)  CdR 256/2009 fin.