COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area -Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system
Date: 2021-01-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: common transport policy, maritime transport, oil industry, rail transport, reduction of gas emissions, road safety, road transport, self-sufficiency in energy, trans-European network

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.12.2020  SWD(2020) 410 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area -Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system {SWD(2020) 411 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION – PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION ........................................... 4 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 5 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Context and scope of the 2011 White Paper ........................................... 5 

General and specific objectives ............................................................... 7 

Baseline and points of comparison .......................................................... 8 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY .......................................................................................... 9 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

Single European Transport Area ............................................................. 9 

Investments into research and infrastructure ......................................... 12 

Low-emission mobility ......................................................................... 13 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 15 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.3.1. 

4.3.2. 

Short description of methodology ......................................................... 15 

Data collection and analysis .................................................................. 15 

Limitations and robustness of findings ................................................. 16 

Desk research ........................................................................................ 17 

Field research ........................................................................................ 17 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 18 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

Effectiveness ......................................................................................... 18  

Efficiency .............................................................................................. 40 

Relevance .............................................................................................. 44 

Coherence .............................................................................................. 48 

EU added value  .................................................................................... 53 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 57 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 62 

ANNEX 2: THE TEN HEADLINE GOALS OF THE WHITE PAPER...................................................... 63 

ANNEX 3: INTERVENTION LOGIC OF THE WHITE PAPER 2011 ...................................................... 64 

ANNEX 4: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 66 

ANNEX 5: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS .......................................................................... 75 

ANNEX 6: EVALUATION MATRIX ......................................................................................................... 85 

ANNEX  7:  DIRECT  AND  INDIRECT  RELEVANCE  OF  ACTION  POINTS TO THE  WHITE 

PAPER OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................................ 104 

1 

 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

BEV 

CEF 

Battery electric vehicle 

Connecting Europe Facility 

CEN & CENELEC  European Committee for Standardization (CEN) & European Committee for 

Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) 

CORSIA 

Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation 

EAFO 

ECAC 

ECTRI 

EEA 

ECAC 

European Alternative Fuels Observatory 

European Civil Aviation Conference 

European Conference of Transport Research Institutes 

European Environment Agency 

European Civil Aviation Conference 

ECTRI   

European Conference of Transport Research Institutes 

EGNOS 

ERTMS 

ETCS 

European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System 

European Rail Traffic Management System 

European Train Control System (signalling) 

EU ETS 

EU Emission Trading System 

GHG 

GSM-R 

ICAO 

ILO 

IMO 

INEA 

IPCC 

ITS 

MaaS 

Greenhouse gas 

Global System for Mobile Communications – Railway or GSM-Railway is an 
international wireless communications standard for railway communication and 
applications. 

International Civil Aviation Organization 

International Labor Organization 

International Maritime Organization 

Innovation and Networks Executive Agency 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

Intelligent Transport Systems (for road transport) 

Mobility as a service (A type of service that through a joint digital channel enables 
users  to  plan,  book,  and  pay  for  multiple  types  of  mobility  services.  The  concept 
describes  a  shift  away  from  personally-owned  modes  of  transport  and  towards 
mobility provided as a service.) 

2 

 
 
 
NAIADES 

Navigation And Inland Waterway Action and Development in Europe 

PHEV 

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle 

PPP 

RIS 

SDGs 

SESAR 

SUMP 

TEN-T 

UITP 

UN 

Public Private Partnership 

River Information System 

Sustainable Development Goals 

Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (component of innovation 
and deployment strategy for air traffic management) 

Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan 

Trans-European Network for Transport (infrastructure) 

International Association of Public Transport 

United Nations 

UNECE 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

UNFCCC 

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

3 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION – PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION 

Transport is a fundamental sector for and of the economy. The EU has a key role to play 
in designing and implementing transport policies that address the needs of a Union built 
on the principles of free cross-border movement of people and goods. Transport services 
embrace a complex network of more than a million private and public companies in the 
EU, employing more than 10 million people and providing goods and services to citizens 
and  businesses  in  the  EU  and  its  trading  partners.  Transport  also  provides  mobility  for 
Europeans,  thus  contributing  significantly  to  the  free  movement  of  people  within  the 
internal market.  

Efficient  transport  services  and  infrastructure  are  vital  to  exploiting  the  economic 
strengths  of  all  regions  of  the  European  Union,  to  supporting  the  internal  market  and 
growth,  and  to  enabling  economic  and  social  cohesion.  They  also  influence  trade 
competitiveness,  as  the  availability,  price,  and  quality  of  transport  services  have  strong 
implications  on  production  processes  and  the  choice  of  trading  partners.  With  such  a 
central role, transport is by definition also inter-related with various policy areas, such as 
environmental and social policies. 

Mobility does not come free for those who use it and it is not without consequences to 
our society. Despite important  policy measures,  greenhouse  gas (GHG)  emissions from 
the  EU  transport  sector  have  increased  over  time.  Our  mobility  and  transport  causes 
external  costs,  not  just  in  terms  of  CO2  emissions  and  pollution,  but  also  from  road 
crashes, noise, congestion, etc.  

The  2011  White  Paper  ‘Roadmap  to  a  Single  European  Transport  Area  –  Towards  a 
competitive and resource efficient transport system’1 has identified the need to tackle the 
challenge of breaking the transport system’s dependence on fossil fuel without sacrificing 
its  efficiency  and  compromising  mobility.  As  the  paramount  objective  of  European 
transport  policy,  it  has  set  the  establishment  of  a  transport  system  that  underpins 
European economic progress, enhances competitiveness and offers high quality mobility 
services while using resources more efficiently.  

The specific objectives of the White Paper are to reduce GHG emissions by 60% by 2050 
compared to 1990, limit the growth of congestion and reduce oil dependency for a more 
sustainable  transport  system.  The  White Paper  has  put  forward  a  comprehensive  list  of 
initiatives  to  achieve  these  objectives.  It  also  has  set  ten  goals  for  a  competitive  and 
resource efficient transport system, to serve as benchmarks for achieving the 60% GHG 
reduction objective.  

The  White  Paper  provides  a  framework  for  EU  transport  policy  actions  addressing  the 
challenges outlined above, with a focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, limiting 

1 COM(2011) 144 final. 

4 

 
 
                                                           
the  growth  of  congestion  and  reducing  fossil  fuel  dependency  for  a  more  sustainable 
transport system. 

The  purpose  of  this  Staff  Working  Document  is  to  present  the  findings  of  the  ex-post 
evaluation  of  the  White  Paper.  While  the  White  Paper  defines  a  long-term  vision  until 
2050 for the transport sector, to date, the Commission has acted upon almost all of the 40 
action points of the programme and the large majority of the 132 initiatives planned have 
been delivered by the Commission. Considering also the various important policy, socio-
economic and technological developments since 2011, it has appeared timely to carry out 
an evaluation of the 2011 White Paper. 

The  results  of  the  evaluation  inform  the  forthcoming  sustainable  and  smart  mobility 
strategy  of  the  European  Commission.  In  particular,  the  results  of  this  evaluation  have 
fed into the analysis of the current situation and developments in EU transport carried out 
in the framework of the staff working document accompanying the strategy. 

The evaluation covers all intervention areas of the 2011 White Paper since its adoption. It 
looks  at  the  identified  needs  for  transport  policy,  the  objectives  and  goals  set,  the 
proposed initiatives, reached outcomes of the initiatives under the 40 action points so far 
and their results, as well as the overall impact of the strategy since it was put in place. 

The impact and results of the strategy, until now and estimated until 2050, are assessed in 
view of their effectiveness, efficiency, internal and external coherence, EU added value 
and relevance. 

The geographical scope of the evaluation covers the 27 Member States of the EU. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1.  Context and scope of the 2011 White Paper  

The SWD accompanying the White Paper2 has identified three main problems transport 
was facing in 2011: (i) an increasing oil price and persistent oil dependency, (ii) growing 
congestion and poor connectivity, (iii) a deteriorating climate and local environment (i.e. 
pollution). 

According to the SWD, these problems would need to be addressed in light of increasing 
challenges  and  constraints.  Competition  in  world  transport  markets  and  equipment 
industry  was  expected  to  grow.  Against  the  backdrop  of  tighter  public  budgets  in  the 
aftermath  of  the  financial  crisis  of  2008/09,  the  already  declining  trend  in  transport 
infrastructure financing should further intensify. 

In  response  to  these  trends,  the  Commission  has  adopted  on  28  March  2011  the  White 
Paper  ‘Roadmap  to  a  Single  European  Transport  Area  –  Towards  a  competitive  and 
resource  efficient  transport  system’.  It  sets  out  a  strategy  that  aims  at  introducing 

2 SEC(2011) 391 final. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
profound structural changes to transform the transport sector. It covers four broad areas 
of intervention: 

1.  Single  European  Transport  Area:  a  true  internal  market  for  rail  services, 
completion  of  the  Single  European  Sky,  capacity  and  quality  of  airports,  a 
maritime  “Blue  Belt”  and  market  access  to  ports,  a  sustainable  framework  for 
inland  navigation,  review  legislation  on  road  haulage,  multimodal  transport  of 
goods through e-Freight, a social code for road transport workers, a social agenda 
for maritime transport, a socially responsible aviation sector, an evaluation of the 
EU  approach  to  jobs  and  working  conditions  across  transport  modes,  air  cargo 
and  land  transport  security,  a  ‘zero-vision’  on  road  safety,  civil  aviation  safety, 
rail  safety,  safer  shipping,  transport  of  dangerous  goods,  as  well  as  improved 
passengers’ rights and awareness thereof.3  

2.  Innovation:  acceleration  of  the  deployment  of  alternative  fuels  and  vehicle 
technologies,  and  of  smart  solutions  for  multimodal  traffic  management  and 
transport  information  systems.  A  more  comprehensive  approach  to  innovation 
will bring together planning (urban mobility plans), funding, regulatory, technical 
standards, behavioural aspects (e.g. vehicle labelling for emissions and efficiency, 
eco-driving) and infrastructure aspects. 

3.  Infrastructure  and  smart  funding:  creation  of  a  ‘Core’  TEN-T  Network  as  a 
backbone of a truly multimodal European network, multimodal freight corridors 
for  sustainable  and 
transport  networks,  new  sources  of  and 
mechanisms for funding, smart pricing and taxation.  

intelligent 

4.  External  dimension:  continuation  of  the  efforts  to  open  international  market, 
promote  European  technical  standards  and  defend  with  one  voice  EU  global 
business in maritime and aviation.   

For each of these areas, a programme is defined with 40 action points, containing specific 
initiatives.  Typically,  the  proposed  initiatives  within  each  action  point  are  of  different 
nature, different time horizon and different economic or political relevance.  

On  16  June  2011,  the  Council,  in  its  conclusions,  has  welcomed  the  White  Paper  and 
confirmed the objectives laid down therein for EU transport policy. 

On  15  December  2011,  the  European  Parliament  has  adopted  a  resolution  in  which  it 
approves the 10 goals  for a competitive and resource-efficient transport system and the 
goals  set  in  the  White  Paper  for  2050  and  2030,  but  considers  that  more  specific 
provisions  are  required  for  the  period  to  2020  with  regard  to  funding  and  the  general 
challenges facing transport.  

3  The  Special  Eurobarometer  No  485  (2019)  on  Passenger  Rights  has  highlighted  that  less  than  half  (43%)  of  the 
respondents who had travelled by at least one long-distance mode in the preceding year have been aware of passenger 
rights at EU level. 

6 

 
                                                           
On 9 September 2015, the European Parliament has adopted another resolution in which 
it  reiterates  its  support  for  the  goals  set  out  in  the  White  Paper  and  its  ambition  of 
reaching a competitive and resource-efficient transport system. 

2.2.  General and specific objectives 

The general objective of the policy strategy in the White Paper, in line with the flagship 
initiative  “Resource  efficient  Europe”  set  up  in  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  the  new 
Energy  Efficiency  Plan  2011,  is  to  help  establish  a  transport  system  that  underpins 
European economic progress, enhances competitiveness and offers high quality mobility 
services while using resources more efficiently. In practice, transport has to use less and 
cleaner energy, better exploit a modern infrastructure and reduce its negative impact on 
the environment and key natural assets like water, land and ecosystems. 

This objective requires particular attention to the most pressing challenges faced by the 
transport sector according to the analysis accompanying the White Paper: vulnerability to 
oil  price  increases,  growing  network  congestion  and  GHG  emissions.  The  impact 
assessment accompanying the White Paper4 has identified three specific objectives: 

  A reduction of GHG emissions that is consistent with the overall target for the EU 
of  reducing  emissions  by  80-95%  by  2050  compared  to  1990.  Transport-related 
emissions of CO2 should be reduced by around 60% by 2050 compared to 19905, 
in line with the 2011 Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy 
in 2050 {COM(2011) 112}.  

  A  drastic  decrease  in  the  oil  dependency  ratio  of  transport-related  activities  by 

2050. 

  Limiting the growth of congestion. 

These specific objectives are derived from the analysis of the vision for transport by 2050 
and are translating into ten headline goals (Annex 2). The latter can be considered long-
term objectives for the interventions in the four broad areas of the policy strategy. They 
serve as benchmark for measuring the progress  made in achieving the objectives of the 
White Paper. Some goals refer to the year 2030, others to 2050. 

Thus,  the  evaluation  of  the  2011  White  Paper  assesses  the  performance  of  the  policy 
strategy not only with a view to the achievement of the specific objectives, but also in the 
light of its effect on the other elements of the broader objective of EU transport policy. 

A graphic representation of the intervention logic of the White Paper 2011 can be found 
in Annex 3. 

4 SEC(2011) 358 final. 
5 The 60% emissions reduction target covers aviation, but excludes international maritime. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                           
2.3.  Baseline and points of comparison  

The impact assessment accompanying the White Paper has shown that in the absence of 
additional EU level action total transport activity would continue to grow strongly, after a 
decrease  due  to  the  2008-2009  financial  crisis.  The  various  transport  modes  have  in 
general  been  expected  to  maintain  their  relative  importance  at  EU  level,  with  road 
transport maintaining its dominant role in both passenger and freight transport.  

Energy demand in  transport  has  been predicted to continue to increase by  2050, driven 
mainly by aviation and road freight transport. At the same time, the EU transport system 
has been projected to remain extremely dependent on the use of fossil fuels.  

CO2 emissions from transport6 have been expected to stabilise by 2050 relative to their 
2005 levels, driven by the CO2 standards in place for new passenger cars, some uptake of 
biofuels and electrification of road and rail transport. However, they have been projected 
to  still  be  significantly  higher  than  their  1990  levels.  External  costs  of  transport  have 
been expected to continue growing over time. 

High  congestion  levels  have  been  expected  to  seriously  affect  road  transport  in  several 
EU countries by 2030 in the absence of effective countervailing measures such as road 
pricing.  While  urban  congestion  would  mainly  depend  on  car  ownership  levels,  urban 
sprawl and the availability of public transport alternatives, congestion on the inter-urban 
network would be the result of a growing freight demand across specific corridors at their 
points of intersection with links serving local traffic. 

The impact assessment has concluded that the unsustainable features of the EU transport 
system were likely to worsen in a context of growing transport activity. 

A  Baseline  scenario  has  been  developed  for  the  purpose  of  the  current  evaluation, 
showing the projected developments of the EU transport system up to 2050 without the 
White  Paper  initiatives.  It  builds  on  the  Baseline  scenario  of  the  impact  assessment 
accompanying  the  White  Paper  but  takes  into  account  the  revised  macro-economic 
framework, fuel price projections and changes in technology costs.  

The Baseline scenario shows that despite reductions in technology costs and the revised 
macro-economic  and  fuel  price  framework,  CO2  emissions  from  transport7  would 
stabilise by 2030 and increase by 4% by 2050 relative to 2010, in absence of additional 
policies  beyond  2011.  Compared  to  1990,  the  reference  year  for  the  White  Paper 
objectives, CO2 emissions from transport would still be 29% higher in 2050. 

No significant progress would take place in the oil dependency ratio by 2050 relative to 
2010.  The  oil  dependency  ratio  would  only  decrease  by  about  2  percentage  points 
between 2010 and 2050.  

6 Excluding international maritime, in line with the 2011 White Paper target for 2050. 
7 Excluding international maritime, in line with the 2011 White Paper target for 2050. 

8 

 
                                                           
High  congestion  levels  are  still  projected  by  2050  in  the  Baseline  scenario,  with  delay 
costs  expected  to  increase  by  34%  between  2010  and  2050.  More  details  on  the 
assumptions underpinning the Baseline scenario and its results are provided in Annex 5.  

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

As  already  noted  in  the  implementation  report  of  2016  on  the  White  Paper,8  the 
Commission has made significant progress since the adoption of the White Paper, having 
acted  upon  most  of  the  40  action  points  of  the  programme.  Since  then,  new  initiatives 
have  followed  or  accompanied  those  defined  in  2011  and  they  form  part  of  the  overall 
picture. 

In  the  last  ten  years,  the  Commission  has  taken  several  initiatives  to  further  foster  the 
development of the Single European Transport Area. Progress towards this goal has been 
made  for  all  transport  modes,  for  instance  with  the  4th  Railway  Package,  the  Blue  Belt 
initiatives  for  maritime  transport,  the  EU  Aviation  Strategy  and  the  NAIADES 
Programme for inland waterways. Besides introducing social standards, mainly for road 
haulage  and  updating  in  2018  the  standards  of  the  Maritime  Labour  Convention,9  the 
Commission has also supported the social dialogue through the sectoral social dialogue 
committees covering all transport sectors.   

The adoption of the European Accessibility Act10 should help improve the accessibility 
of transport services for elderly and disabled people. 

3.1. 

Single European Transport Area 

The 4th Railway  Package is  set to complete the market opening process  by dismantling 
the  remaining  legal  monopolies  in  domestic  passenger  markets.  It  introduces  the 
principle  of  competitive  tendering  for  public  service  contracts  and  improves  the  way 
infrastructure  is  governed  to  create  a  non-discriminatory  environment.  In  parallel,  the 
Commission  proposed  in  201711  to  amend  the  legislative  framework  applicable  to  rail 
passenger rights, where the new rules for improved passengers’ protection are expected 
to enter into force in early 2021. 

8 SWD(2016) 226 final. 
9  Council  Directive  (EU)  2018/131  of  23  January  2018  implementing  the  Agreement  concluded  by  the  European 
Community  Shipowners'  Associations  (ECSA)  and  the  European  Transport  Workers'  Federation  (ETF)  to  amend 
Directive  2009/13/EC  in  accordance  with  the  amendments  of  2014  to  the  Maritime  Labour  Convention,  2006,  as 
approved by the International Labour Conference on 11 June, OJ L 22, 26.1.2018, p. 28–33. 
10  Directive  (EU)  2019/882  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  April  2019  on  the  accessibility 
requirements for products and services, OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 70–115. 
11 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on rail passengers’ rights and obligations 
(recast), COM(2017) 548 final. 
The Commission’s legislative proposal was preceded by a COM report on the application of the rail passenger rights 
regulation  (COM(2013)587  final);  COM  Interpretative  guidelines  (OJ  220/1 of  4.7.2015)    and  a COM  report  on the 
exemptions  from  the  regulation  granted  by  Member  States    were  adopted  for  rail  passenger  rights  (COM(2015)117 
final). 

9 

 
 
                                                           
As to the passenger rights in the bus and coach sector, also the EU rules for access to the 
international  long-distance  coach  market  have  entered  into  force  in  December  2011.12 
While this Regulation made the rules  clearer and less complex, improving enforcement 
and  reducing  unnecessary  administrative  burden,  the  internal  market  for  buses  and 
coaches remains  incomplete.  The coach sector encounters obstacles in national markets 
hindering  the  development  of  services,  both  nationally  and  across  borders,  such  as 
discrimination in access to terminals and excessive administrative costs of entry into the 
national markets.  

To  tackle  these  issues,  the  Commission  has  proposed  in  2017  a  revision  of  the  EU 
legislation aiming at a major liberalisation of the bus and coach market, for which inter-
institutional  negotiations  are  still  ongoing.  At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  has 
proposed to revise the rules on access to the road haulage market together with the social 
rules  for  road  transport  and  a  revision  of  the  road  charging  rules,  including  those  on 
pricing for the use of infrastructure and the ones on electronic tolling. The new Directive 
on the interoperability of electronic tolls13 clarifies the rules and should level the playing 
field on the market of electronic toll provision.  In addition, it will update technological 
requirements to today’s standards, and help Member States recover tolls unpaid by users 
of vehicles registered abroad. 

While the new rules on electronic toll collection and the revision of the internal market 
and  social  rules  have  been  adopted  by  the  EU  legislator  in  April  2019  and  July  2020 
respectively, the proposal on road pricing rules (review of the Eurovignette Directive)14 is 
still under negotiation between the European Parliament and the Council.  

The  revised  social  and  market  rules15  bring  clarity  on  minimum  standards  for  social 
protection and  pay  of posted  workers in the road transport sector and help to eliminate 
illicit  employment  and  business  practices,  such  as  letterbox  companies  and  nomadic 
drivers.  The  newly  created  European  Labour  Authority  (ELA)  will  be  a  key  tool  to 
facilitate  the  application  and  enforcement  of  EU  rules  in  this  area,  improving  the 
functioning of the Single Market.  

In the maritime sector, progress could be witnessed already before 2018 be with the entry 
into force of the Directive incorporating the 2006 ILO Maritime Convention in EU law,16 
as  well  as the  inclusion  of  seafarers  in  the  scope  of  five  EU  labour Directives.17 
Also    in    other  sectors    actions    have    been    taken    at    the    EU    level,    such    as    the 

12 Regulation (EC) No 1073/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules 
for access to the international market for coach and bus services, and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, OJ L 
300, 14.11.2009, p. 88–105. 
13 Directive (EU) 2019/520 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the interoperability of 
electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the 
Union, OJ L 91, 29.3.2019, p. 45–76. 
14 COM(2017) 275 final. 
15 Regulations (EU) 2020/1054 and 2020/1055 and Directive (EU) 2020/1057, published in OJ L 249, 31.7.2020.  
16  Council  Directive  2009/13/EC  of  16  February  2009  implementing  the  Agreement  concluded  by  the  European 
Community  Shipowners’  Associations  (ECSA)  and  the  European  Transport  Workers’  Federation  (ETF)  on  the 
Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, and amending Directive 1999/63/EC, OJ L 124, 20.5.2009, p. 30–50. 
17 Directive (EU) 2015/1794 of the European Parliament  and of the Council of 6 October 2015 amending Directives 
2008/94/EC,  2009/38/EC  and  2002/14/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  and  Council  Directives 
98/59/EC and 2001/23/EC, as regards seafarers, OJ L 263, 8.10.2015, p. 1–5. 

10 

 
                                                           
legislation  on  working  time    for  the  inland  waterway  sector18  and  the  flight  time 
limitations19  for  the  civil  aviation  sector.  However,  some  issues  still  remain  to  be 
resolved. 

For road safety, the Commission has adopted in 2010 Road Safety Policy Orientations20 
that have set a goal of halving the number of road fatalities by 2020 and that included a 
mix of initiatives, focusing on improving vehicle safety, the safety of infrastructure and 
road users' behaviour. Faced with stagnation in the reduction of EU-wide fatality figures, 
the Commission in 2018 has adopted the Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 as 
part of the Third Mobility Package, along with a Strategic Action Plan on Road Safety, 
which have set a new target for 2021-30 to reduce deaths and – for the first time – serious 
injuries by 50%.21  

In terms of vehicle safety, safety technologies and type-approval requirements have been 
significantly  upgraded.  Lane  departure  warning  and  advanced  emergency  braking  for 
lorries have been regulated as from 2015 in the General Safety Regulation22 and anti-lock 
braking  systems  are  mandatory  for  motorcycles  in  the  EU  since  2016.  In  2019,  the 
General Safety Regulation has been reviewed again23, requiring cars, trucks and buses to 
be  fitted  with  a  range  of  safety  technologies.  The  Directive  on  the  Management  of 
Infrastructure Safety has also been upgraded in 201924 as well as the legal framework for 
the training  of  professional  drivers  (2018).25 A  package  of measures on roadworthiness 
testing  has  been  adopted  (2014)26  and  rules  on  the  cross-border  pursuit  of  road  traffic 
offences have been introduced (2011, re-published in 2015).27 

In the area of maritime transport the Commission has taken initiatives to consolidate the 
internal  market  for  sea  shipping  services  and  better  connect  EU  ports  to  create  an  EU 

18  Council  Directive  2014/112/EU  of  19  December  2014  implementing  the  European  Agreement  concerning  certain 
aspects  of  the  organisation  of  working  time  in  inland  waterway  transport,  concluded  by  the  European  Barge  Union 
(EBU), the European Skippers Organisation (ESO) and the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), OJ L 367, 
23.12.2014, p. 86–95. 
19 Commission Regulation (EU) No 83/2014 of 29 January 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 laying down 
technical  requirements  and  administrative  procedures  related  to  air  operations  pursuant  to  Regulation  (EC)  No 
216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 28, 31.1.2014, p. 17–29. 
20 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Towards a European road safety area: policy orientations on road safety 
2011-2020’, COM(2010) 389 final. 
21 COM(2018) 293 final. 
22  Regulation  (EC)  No  661/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  July  2009  concerning  type-
approval  requirements  for  the  general  safety  of  motor  vehicles,  their  trailers  and  systems,  components  and  separate 
technical units intended therefor, OJ L 200, 31.7.2009, p. 1.  
23 Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on type-approval 
requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, OJ L 325, 16.12.2019, p. 1.     
24 Directive (EU) 2019/1936 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 amending Directive 
2008/96/EC on road infrastructure safety management, OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 1. 
25  Directive  (EU)  2018/645  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  April  2018  amending  Directive 
2003/59/EC on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods 
or passengers and Directive 2006/126/EC on driving licences, OJ L 112, 2.5.2018, p. 29. 
26 Directive 2014/45/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on periodic roadworthiness 
tests  for  motor  vehicles  and  their  trailers,  OJ  L  127,  29.4.2014,  p.  51;  Directive  2014/46/EU  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 amending Council Directive 1999/37/EC on the registration documents 
for  vehicles,  OJ  L  127,  29.4.2014,  p.  129;  Directive  2014/47/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
3 April  2014  on  the  technical  roadside  inspection  of  the  roadworthiness  of  commercial  vehicles  circulating  in  the 
Union, OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p. 134. 
27 Directive (EU) 2015/413 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 facilitating cross-border 
exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences, OJ L 68, 13.3.2015, p. 9. 

11 

 
                                                           
maritime  transport  space  without  barriers.  The  establishment  of  a  European  Maritime 
Single  Window  environment,  by  2025,  is  central  to  simplifying  and  harmonising 
reporting  formalities,  reducing  administrative  and  custom  costs,  and  taking  full 
advantage of digital means to optimise logistic chains. 

The  Combined  Transport  Directive28  is  the  only  EU  legal  instrument  that  directly 
supports  the  shift  from  road  freight  to  lower  emission  transport  modes  (inland 
waterways, maritime transport and rail). Over the last 25 years, the directive has helped 
to shift a considerable amount of freight away from road. However, shortcomings in its 
implementation (ambiguous language, outdated provisions and limited support measures) 
have diminished its impact. With a proposal in 2017, the Commission sought to simplify 
the  rules  for  combined  transport  and  to  make  it  more  attractive  through  economic 
incentives, while the overall objective remained encouraging the shift of goods from road 
transport to more environmentally friendly modes. However, the necessity of increasing 
the share in total transport of sustainable transport modes under the European Green Deal 
requires  stronger  support  for  multimodal  solutions.  The  current  proposal  is  insufficient 
therefore  and  also  lacks  agreement  among  co-legislators.  Thus,  the  Commission  has 
withdrawn the proposal in 2020, while envisaging to table a new proposal in 2022.  

In the area of air transport, the White Paper pleaded in favour of a truly seamless Single 
European Sky (SES) and deploy the future air traffic management system (SESAR). The 
Commission  has  proposed  various  legislative  and  regulatory  initiatives  since  2011  to 
further implement and improve the Single European Sky mechanisms. Reference is made 
to the recast proposal made in 2013 (SES2+)29 aiming to reform the SES framework, as 
well as the amended recast proposal put forward in 2020, inspired by the same objectives 
but  updated  compared  to  the  initial  proposal.30  Furthermore,  the  Commission  has 
significantly reinforced its relationship with Eurocontrol over the past years including the 
conclusion  of  a  High  level  agreement  between  the  European  Union  and  Eurocontrol  in 
2013.  

In  2015,  the  Commission  adopted  the  EU  Aviation  Strategy.  The  strategy  seeks  to 
improve services, market access and investment opportunities with third countries, whilst 
guaranteeing  a  level  playing  field,  reduce  capacity  constraints  and  improve  efficiency 
and connectivity. At the same time it maintains high EU safety and security standards. 

3.2. 

Investments into research and infrastructure 

Considerable investment has taken place in the EU in the FP7 and Horizon 2020 research 
and development programs to support progress with technological and non-technological 
innovation.  In  this  context,  an  important  role  has  been  played  both  by  transport 

28  Council  Directive  92/106/EEC  of  7  December  1992  on  the  establishment  of  common  rules  for  certain  types  of 
combined transport of goods between Member State, OJ L 368, 17.12.1992, p. 38–42. 
29 COM(2013) 409 final. 
30  COM(2020)  579  final.  The  proposal  is  complemented  by  a  proposal  to  amend  the  rules  regarding  the  European 
Union Aviation Safety Agency contained in Regulation (EU) 2018/1138: COM(2020)577. 

12 

 
 
                                                           
collaborative  Research  and  Innovation  and  related  Partnerships  (European  Green 
Vehicles  Initiative,  Shift2Rail,  SESAR,  Clean  Sky,  Fuel  Cells  and  Hydrogen  Joint 
Undertaking) funded under the EU framework programmes for research and innovation. 

To develop the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T Network), the EU adopted a 
Regulation  in  201331  providing  Union  guidelines  which  set  an  EU-wide  framework  for 
transport infrastructure enhancement across all Member States. They enable the coherent 
identification of projects of common interest and give direction to transport investment. 
The Regulation  establishes  a legally  binding  obligation to develop the so-called  "Core" 
and  "Comprehensive"  TEN-T  Networks.  The  TEN-T  Regulation  covers  all  transport 
modes  and  connections  between  them  (ports,  airports  and  other  transport  terminals).  It 
sets standards and requirements to be met along the whole network, and it includes smart 
and  innovative  components  to  facilitate  efficient  infrastructure  use  and  high-quality 
services.  

The  Core  Network  as  the  strategically  most  important  part  of  the  TEN-T  shall  be 
completed by 2030 within the EU as well as through the extension to the neighbouring 
regions  (following  high-level  agreements  with  European  Economic  Area  countries, 
Switzerland, Eastern Partnership and Western Balkans and the ongoing preparatory work 
with the Southern Mediterranean partners). Along the existing part of the TEN-T, efforts 
are  still  needed  to  fully  comply  with  the  standards  set  out  in the  Regulation.  However, 
significant  progress  has  already  been  made  so  far.  Along  the  nine  Core  Network 
Corridors,  for  example:  89%  of  the  rail  infrastructure  is  electrified.  85%  of  the  TEN-T 
inland waterways meet the technical requirement of depth and bridge height and a large 
part  of  the  inland  waterways  is  equipped  for  the  EU-wide  River  Information  Services 
(RIS). 89% of the TEN-T ports are connected to the railway network.  

In addition, the Commission has presented in May 2018 the Communication On the road 
to automated mobility: An EU strategy for mobility of the future32 a comprehensive EU 
approach towards connected and automated mobility setting out a clear, forward looking 
and  ambitious  European  agenda.  This  agenda  builds  on  the  Low-Emission  Mobility 
Strategy33  and  contributes  to  the  White  Paper  objectives  with  a  common  vision  for 
developing and deploying key technologies, services and infrastructure. It aims to ensure 
that  EU  legal  and  policy  frameworks  are  ready  to  support  the  deployment  of  safe 
connected  and  automated  mobility,  while  simultaneously  addressing  societal  and 
environmental concerns which will be decisive for public acceptance. 

31  Regulation  (EU)  No  1315/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December  2013  on  Union 
guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU, OJ L 
348, 20.12.2013, p. 1–128. 
32 COM(2018) 283 final. 
33 COM(2016) 501 final. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
3.3.  Low-emission mobility 

The  three  key  objectives  of  the  White  Paper  all  refer  to  making  transport  more 
sustainable. The Commission has adopted an Urban Mobility Package in 2013 with the 
intention to promote the elaboration of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans at city level. 

An  important  milestone  towards  achieving  the  sustainability  objectives  of  the  White 
Paper has been the publication, by the Commission, of the European Strategy for Low-
Emission Mobility in 2016. Its main elements consist in increasing the efficiency of the 
transport  system  by  making  the  most  of  digital  technologies,  smart  pricing  and  further 
encouraging greater use of more sustainable transport modes.  

In  addition,  the  strategy  seeks  to  speed  up  the  deployment  of  low-emission  alternative 
energy  for  transport,  to  remove  obstacles  to  the  electrification  of  transport  and  to 
accelerate the transition towards low- and zero-emission vehicles. 

The Commission has acted swiftly by adopting the proposals on the actions listed in the 
Action  Plan  of  the  strategy,  notably  through  the  adoption  of  the  “Clean  Energy  for  all 
Europeans”  package  in  November  2016,  the  first  Mobility  Package  in  May  2017,  the 
second  Mobility  Package  in  November  2017  and  the  third  Mobility  Package  in  May 
2018.34  
The Mobility Packages have introduced CO2 emission performance standards for cars35 
as well as for light and heavy duty vehicles from 2025 and 2030.36 The same Regulations 
have introduced the mandatory monitoring of in-use real world fuel consumption through 
onboard  fuel  consumption  monitoring  systems  for  both  light  and  heavy  vehicles  which 
could serve as the basis for more effective CO2 emission reductions and the foundation 
for “polluter pays” schemes.  

Finally,  the  Packages  have  contained  an  action  plan  to  boost  investment  in  alternative 
fuel  infrastructure37  and  develop  a  network  of  fast  and  interoperable  recharging  and 
fueling  stations  across  the  Union.  The  Commission  has  mobilised  considerable 
investment  of  public  and  private  market  actors  through  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility 
(CEF), the CEF blending facility and the CEF debt instrument.  

Whereas  the  Mobility  Packages  primarily  address  road  and  to  some  extent  waterborne 
transport,  the  EU  also  employs  a  ‘basket  of  measures’  to  address  the  environmental 
footprint of aviation. These comprise market-based measures (the EU Emission Trading 
Scheme  (ETS)38,  CORSIA39), 
technology  and  aircraft  design 
improvements  of 
(collaborative aviation research, Clean Sky40, CO2 standards for new aircraft), enhanced 

34 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/road-initiatives_en. 
35 COM(2017) 676 final. 
36 COM(2018) 284 final. 
37 COM(2017) 652 final. 
38 The EU ETS is the EU emissions trading scheme, which covers aviation since 2012. 
39 CORSIA is the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, set up by ICAO at global level. 
40 Clean Sky is a public private partnership for research on more environmentally efficient aircraft. 

14 

 
                                                           
and  traffic  management  operations  (Single  European  Sky  and  the  deployment  of 
SESAR41 technologies). 

In 2018, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has agreed to reduce total annual 
GHG emissions from international maritime transport by at least 50% by 2050 compared 
to 2008 (to be reviewed in 2023), while pursuing efforts to achieve full decarbonisation 
as soon as possible in this century. It also sets the goal to reduce the carbon intensity of 
international shipping by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, 
compared to 2008. The EU is closely involved in work to develop measures for reaching 
these objectives at IMO level as shipping remains a fundamentally global business. 

In 2018, the Commission  has adopted a strategic long-term vision for a climate-neutral 
economy  by  205042,  engaging  all  sectors  of  the  economy  and  society,  to  achieve  the 
transition to a climate-neutral economy. The European Green Deal43 of December 2019 
and  the  2030  Climate  Target  Plan44  of  September  2020  set  a  strategic  framework  for  a 
climate-neutral  EU  economy  by  2050,  ensuring  a  just  transition.  To  this  end,  the 
European Green  Deal  calls for a  90% reduction in transport emissions by 2050, in line 
with  the  analysis  underpinning  the  long-term  vision  for  a  climate-neutral  economy  by 
2050  and  representing  a  different  ambition  compared  to  the  GHG  emission  reduction 
goals of the White Paper. 

The  European  Green  Deal  also  aims  to  protect,  conserve  and  enhance  the  EU's  natural 
capital,  and  protect  the  health  and  well-being  of  people  from  environment-related  risks 
and impacts, through the zero-pollution ambition for a toxic free environment. 

4.  METHOD 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology 

This evaluation focuses on a period between March 2011 and December 2020. It looks at 
the  extent  to  which  the  White  Paper  has  helped  the  EU  transport  system  achieve  the 
overall goal of EU transport policy, i.e. to help establish a transport system that underpins 
European economic progress, enhances competitiveness and offers high quality mobility 
services  while  using  resources  more  efficiently.  It  examines  to  what  extent  the  White 
Paper  succeeded  in  addressing  the  three  underlying  objectives:  1)  reducing  GHG 
emissions, 2) reducing the oil dependency for transport-related activities and 3) limiting 
the  growth  of  network  congestion.  The  Commission’s  assessment  builds  on  an  internal 
analysis  of  action  implementation;  external  input,  such  as  the  stakeholder  consultation; 
and  an  external  support  study.  It  reflects  the  Commission’s  ongoing  work  and  expert 
views, as well as documented sources.  

41 SESAR is the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research project. 
42 COM(2018) 773 final. 
43 COM(2019) 640 final. 
44 COM(2020) 562 final. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
A support study has been carried out by an external consultant to provide data collection 
and  analysis  for  this  evaluation.  The  aim  of  the  support  study  has  been  to  provide  an 
independent evidence-based assessment of the implementation of the actions of the White 
Paper  between  2011  and  2019.  The  support  study  has  been  carried  out  between 
September 2019 and December 2020. 

4.2.  Data collection and analysis 

The main research tools have included: 

  Literature  review  to  support  the  analysis  of  the  evaluation  questions.  This  has 
helped address  evidence needs and gaps as they emerged and to  extract relevant 
input to answer the evaluation questions. 

  Data and information collected from European Commission services to establish 
the current status of implementation of the White Paper at EU level, including any 
changes  and  progress  to  date.  In  total,  inputs  covering  104  initiatives  from  35 
action points have been received. 

  Data  on  the  progress  on  the  implementation  of  the  White  Paper  at  the  Member 
State level (or by other actors where relevant). Data have been gathered, partially 
through  requests  to  Commission  desk  officers,  partially  through  two  targeted 
online  surveys  among  national  authorities  and  among  regional  and  local 
authorities.  Targeted  interviews  with  stakeholders  from  industry  associations, 
transport  service  users  (consumers),  non-governmental  organisations  and 
international  organisations,  including  EU  institutions  and  bodies,  have  gathered 
input  to  the  replies  to  the  evaluation  questions.  A  web-based  open  public 
consultation from July to September 2020 has gathered additional data and input 
from stakeholders to feed into the analysis of the evaluation. 

Two scenarios have been quantified to assess the impact of the White Paper policies. The 
model-based  assessment  has  been  carried  out  using  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport 
model.  

The two scenarios quantified are:  

  The  Baseline  scenario,  which  denotes  a  possible  trajectory  of  the  EU  transport 
system  up  to  2050  without  additional  policies  assumed  beyond  2011.  This 
scenario  provides  an  update  of  the  Baseline  scenario  of  the  impact  assessment 
accompanying  the  2011  White  Paper,  taking  into  account  the  revised  macro-
economic framework, fuel price projections and technology costs assumptions.   

  The  Alternative  scenario,  which  presents  the  evolution  of  the  transport  system 
until  2050  taking  into  consideration  the  initiatives  adopted  following  the  2011 
White  Paper.  The  cut-off  point  for  policy  measures  included  in  this  scenario  is 
end of 2018.  

16 

 
 
It is not possible to assess with certainty which initiatives have been adopted due to the 
decisive  impetus  produced  by  the  2011  White  Paper  and  which  initiatives  would  have 
been adopted even in its absence. Therefore, the comparison between the “Baseline” and 
the  “Alternative”  scenario  provides  insights  in  the  expected  maximum  impacts  up  to 
2050 as a result of the White Paper. Key modelling results have been used to reply to the 
evaluation questions, for the expected impacts by 2030 and 2050.  

In  line  with  the  European  Commission’s  guidelines  for  evaluations,45  the  evaluation 
includes an assessment of the White Paper against the Better Regulation guidelines using 
a number of evaluation questions, as set out in the evaluation roadmap.46 

4.3.  Limitations and robustness of findings 

The methodology can be considered robust, since it relies on the triangulation of multiple 
sources  of  evidence  and  views  with  a  wide  set  of  analytical  and  methodological  tools, 
including extensive desk research, data requests to various Commission services, strong 
stakeholder  engagement  through  open  and  targeted  consultations  and  quantitative 
modelling,  which  are  considered  to  lead  to  robust  findings  in  terms  of  evidence. 
Nevertheless, the support study has faced some limitations in the data collection, which 
could only partially be compensated. 

4.3.1.  Desk research  
To  establish  the  current  status  of  implementation  of  the  White  Paper  at  the  EU  level, 
including  any  changes  and  progress  to  date,  data  have  been  collected  from  European 
Commission  services.  However,  some  initiatives  refer  to  areas  where  the  EU  has  no 
regulatory competence and implementation depends on the national or subnational level, 
or  the  social  partners.  The  collection  of  information  concerning  these  initiatives  has 
proven to be challenging. Data gaps on the implementation status have largely been filled 
by desk research. Due to the nature of the White Paper being a broad policy strategy, it 
has proven challenging in some areas to attribute clear causal effects to the White Paper, 
given that other initiatives and factors in other policy areas (e.g. taxation) may have had 
impacts on the same areas. 

4.3.2.  Field research 
Two  online  surveys  have  been  developed.  They  have  aimed  at  national  authorities  and 
regional,  local  and  city  authorities,  respectively.  These  have  been  launched  on  13 
December 2019 and have remained open until 31 March 2020. Despite several reminders 
and  contacts  with  umbrella  organisations  of  regional  and  local  authorities,  only  17 
responses have been received to the national authority survey and eight responses to the 

45 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/toc_guide_en.htm   
46https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/2080-Evaluation-of-the-2011-White-Paper-
on-Transport  

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
regional authority survey. For the national  authority survey, several  national  authorities 
have provided two responses, on behalf of different ministries within the Member State. 
As  the  responses  had  not  been  coordinated,  and  offered  differing  insights,  both  sets  of 
responses have been included in the analysis. 

The web-based open public consultation, on the other hand, has been received with a lot 
of interest among stakeholders, including public authorities, business organisations, trade 
unions and representatives of civil society and research. By the closure of the open public 
consultation, 684 replies have been submitted.  

Following  the  closure  of  the  targeted  consultation  and  open  public  consultation,  the 
results were incorporated into the evaluation question responses, to ensure that the views 
of  key  stakeholder  groups  were  accounted  for  in  the  context  of  the  evaluation.  The 
consultation  results  were  used  to  support  the  development  of  evaluation  question 
responses,  building  on  the  findings  from  the  modelling  activities,  desk  research  and 
indicator data. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1.  Effectiveness 

5.1.1.  Evaluation question #1: What progress has been made towards the 

objectives (both general and specific) and the headline goals of the White 
Paper? What has been the progress towards less oil-dependency, less 
congestion and less GHG emissions in terms of these objectives? 

The  reply  to  this  question  assesses  the  progress  towards  the  specific  objectives  of  the 
White Paper of reducing GHG emissions from transport, decreasing oil dependency and 
limiting the growth of congestion.  

In  addition,  it  evaluates  the  progress  towards  the  ten  headline  goals  set  to  achieve  the 
reduction of GHG emissions from transport by 60% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.  

The analysis also attempts to measure progress in the achievement of the other objectives 
of the White Paper in terms of competitiveness of the EU transport sector, accessibility 
(i.e. satisfaction of mobility needs for passengers and freights), provision and quality of 
transport  services  (i.e.  offering  affordable,  reliable,  safe  and  secure  transport  services) 
and minimization of the remaining external costs of transport (i.e. accidents, noise and air 
pollution). 

5.1.1.1.  What progress has been made towards the specific objective of reducing the GHG 

emissions from transport by 60% by 2050 compared to 1990? 

The overall goal set out in the White Paper is to reduce GHG emissions from transport 
(including international aviation but excluding international shipping) by 2050 to a level 
that is 60% below that of 1990. This includes the intermediate goal for 2030 of reducing 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  from  transport  by  20%  compared  to  2008  levels.  It  is  to  be 

18 

 
 
 
noted that the White Paper does not assume a linear trajectory of emission reductions, but 
expects  increased  decarbonisation  efforts  after  2030,  cleaner  and  more  efficient 
technology  becoming  gradually  more  widespread.  Similarly,  emissions 
from 
international  shipping  are  to  be  reduced  by  40%  (if  feasible  50%)  from  2005  levels  by 
2050.  

Data from the European Environment Agency (EEA) show that in 2018 GHG emissions 
from transport in the EU-27 (including international aviation but excluding international 
shipping)  have  been  still  32%  above  1990  levels  and  that  to  meet  the  60%  greenhouse 
gas emission reduction target of the White Paper they need to fall by two-thirds by 2050.  

Despite  a  decline  between  2008  and  2013,  GHG  emissions  from  the  EU-27  transport 
sector  (including aviation  and  excluding  international  shipping)  have  been  increasing 
since 2014 in the context of a period of low oil prices. The trend in emissions is also in 
line with  transport activity of both  passenger and freight,  which has plateaued between 
2007 and 2013 and has grown up again from 2014 onwards (see Figure 1). 

Figure 1: Transport activity growth 1995-2018, EU-27 

Source: European Commission: EU Transport in Figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2020. 
Passenger transport includes passenger cars, powered two-wheelers, buses & coaches, tram & metro, railways, 
intra-EU air and sea. Freight transport includes road, rail, inland waterways, oil pipelines, intra-EU air and sea.  

In comparison to 1990 levels, GHG emissions from international aviation have more than 
doubled  (+141%),  followed  by  increases  in  international  shipping  (+36%)  and  road 
transport (+27%) emissions. Emissions from aviation account for about 3% of the EU’s 
total GHG emissions.47  

47 Based on EASA (2019): European Aviation Environmental Report 2019.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Compared with 2005, EU-27 GHG emissions from international shipping have been 10% 
lower in 2018. However, they will need to decrease by at least 56% by 2050 in order to 
meet the White Paper goal of a 40% reduction (if feasible 50%) in emissions from 2005 
levels.   

Figure 2: GHG emissions from transport by mode, including international bunkers: EU-27 

Source: European Commission (2020): EU Transport in Figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2020. Including 
international bunkers and indirect CO2 but excluding LULUCF. 

5.1.1.2.  What progress has been made towards the specific objective of decreasing the oil 

dependency ratio of transport-related activities by 2050? 

According to Eurostat, in 2018 the EU-27 transport sector has been dependent on oil for 
93% of its energy needs. Oil dependency has been slightly but gradually decreasing from 
98% in 1990 and 95% in 2010. Transport remains one of the most oil dependent sectors 
of the economy.48  

Gas oil and diesel oil have provided the highest share of fuels used in transport49 in 2018. 
The  increase  in  the  use  of  electricity  and  biofuels  in  transport  has  been  a  main 
determinant  of  the  decrease  in  fossil  fuel  dependency  in  recent  years.  Biofuels  have 
accounted  for  15.5  million  tonnes  in  2018,  with  a  23%  increase  in  the  2011-2018 
timeframe. The use of electricity in transport has registered a limited growth of about 2% 
during the same period.50  

5.1.1.3.  What progress has been made towards the specific objective of limiting the growth of 

congestion? 

The cities of Rome, Berlin and Paris are among the most congested cities in the EU, as 
reported by the 2019 INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard.51 In terms of hours lost yearly in 

48Source: Eurostat, including international maritime transport. 
49 Including international maritime transport. 
50 Source: Eurostat. 
51 Source INRIX (2019): Global Traffic Scorecard. Intelligence that Moves the World. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                           
congestion,  the  ranking  places  Rome  first  in  the  EU-27  (254  hours/year),  followed  by 
Paris (237 hours/year), and Berlin (154 hours/year). 

The  2018  Tom-Tom  Traffic  Index  shows  how  congestion  has  generally  grown  globally 
during  the  last  decade.  The  comparison  with  the  2013  Traffic  Index  shows  how 
congestion  has  evolved  in  a  sample  of  European  cities.  Only  10  out  of  57  cities  have 
somehow improved their congestion levels. On the contrary, congestion has increased on 
average  by  5%  in  most  of  the  other  cities,  while  in  Budapest,  Genoa,  Lisbon  and 
Barcelona, congestion has increased by 11%. Dublin is the city that has registered by far 
the largest deterioration of its congestion level (16%).52  

A 2019 study for the Commission provides estimates on overall congestion costs for road 
transport  (passenger  and  freight):  for  the  year  2016,  delay  costs  have  accounted  to  228 
billion euro/year.53 

Congestion does not  only  affect  the road sector,  but  also  air and  rail transport.54  In the 
period 2013-2015, air traffic in the continent has grown at a 5.5% yearly rate. In 2017, 1 
043  million  people  have  chosen  to  travel  by  air,  a  7%  increase  compared  to  2016.55 
Airbus  has  estimated  that  30  airports  in  Europe  would  have  surpassed  their  current 
capacity  by  2020.56  However,  in  light  of  the  Covid-19  pandemic  this  estimation  would 
need  to  be  reviewed.  Passenger  traffic  at  selected  major  European  airports  (London 
Heathrow,  Paris  Charles  de  Gaulle,  Frankfurt  am  Main,  Amsterdam  Schiphol,  Madrid 
Barajas)  has  increased  by  an  average  17%  between  2012  and  2017.  As  estimated  by 
Eurocontrol,  total  costs  for  delays  in  the  countries  of  the  European  Civil  Aviation 
Conference (ECAC) in 2018 have accounted to about 14.5 billion euro, mainly due to air 
traffic control staff shortages, capacity issues, strikes, bad weather and technical issues.57 

5.1.1.4.  What progress has been made towards the ten headline goals of the White Paper? 
Goal  1:  Halve  the  use  of  ‘conventionally-fuelled’  cars  in  urban  transport  by  2030;  phase 
them out in cities by 2050; achieve essentially CO2-free city logistics in major urban centres 
by 2030. 
The  number  of  new  registered  passenger  cars  powered  by  alternative  fuels  has  been 
generally  increasing  in  the  EU-27  during  the  last  years:  between  2011  and  2020  (30 
October) they have grown from 2.5% to 9.2% with a strongly increasing trend since 2018 
especially  for  battery  electric  vehicles  (BEVs)  and  plug-in  hybrid  electric  vehicles 
(PHEVs).58  

52 Data source: Tom-Tom. 
53  The  delay  cost  gives  a  value  of  the  travel  time  lost  relative  to  a  free-flow  situation.  Source:  CE  Delft  (2019): 
Handbook on the External Costs of Transport. 
54  Congestion  in  rail  transport  means  that  a  rail  network’s  capacity  is  exhausted.  Delays  in  train  schedules  are  not 
qualified as congestion. 
55 Source: Eurostat: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Air_transport_statistics   
56 Source: Airbus (2014): Global Market Forecast 2014-2033.  
57 Source: CE Delft (2019): Handbook on the External Costs of Transport. 
58 Source: European Alternative Fuels Observatory (EAFO). 

21 

 
 
                                                           
These figures refer to the overall fleet, independently whether the  vehicles are used for 
urban or non-urban transport. 

Figure 3: Share of alternative fuel vehicles in total new passenger car registrations, EU27, 2011-2020 

Source: European Alternative Fuels Observatory, AF Market Share New Registrations M1. 

However, alternative fuel vehicles still make up for a relatively small share of the total 
passenger  fleet  and  have  a  lower  registration  rate  compared  to  conventionally  fuelled 
vehicles. Leaving aside the strong increase in market share of alternative fuel vehicles in 
2020 (which has also been due to the decline in sales of conventional cars), in 2019, the 
share of alternative fuel cars in new registrations of passenger cars has ranged from 11% 
in the Netherlands to 0.5% in Lithuania.59  

As regards the goal of halving the use of conventionally fuelled cars in urban transport, a 
majority of regional authorities surveyed in the context of the external support study have 
admitted  not  having  adopted  specific  measures  in  the  field  since  the  adoption  of  the 
White  Paper  in  2011.60  Hundreds  of  European  cities  have  urban  vehicle  access 
regulations.  Entry  can  depend  on  vehicle  emission,  vehicle  types  and  other  factors. 
However, these entry regulations are often under the competence of local (not regional) 
authorities which have not been surveyed for this evaluation. 

More specifically, while regional authorities have admitted lagging behind (only 2 out of 
8  regional  authorities  have  registered  measures  to  halve  the  number  of  conventionally 
fuelled  cars  in  cities),  a  slight  majority  of  national  authorities  have  considered  having 
adopted relevant measures. 

Cities  in  the  EU  are  moving  towards  CO2-free  city  logistics,  an  objective  that  the 
Commission  has  planned  to  achieve  by  2030.  This  is  expressed  through  an  increasing 
number of low-emission zones that are installed in cities and urban agglomerations. The 
number of buses that are powered with alternative fuels has increased from 3 500 in 2011 

59 Source: European Alternative Fuels Observatory (EAFO). 
60  This  does  not  preclude  that  they  might  have  adopted  measures  to  support  the  uptake  of  low  and  zero  emission 
vehicles in general, even if not specifically targeted on urban transport. 

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
to 28 000 in 2020 in the EU (although not exclusively in urban areas). The market share 
of alternative fuel  powered light  commercial vehicles (N1) has increased from  0.7% to 
2.1%. Nevertheless, urban freight transport accounts for 10% to 15% of total kilometres 
travelled,  for  about  25%  of  urban  transport  GHG  emissions  and  30%  to  50%  of  all 
transport-related pollutants, such as particulate matter and NOx.61  

Goal 2: Low-carbon sustainable fuels in aviation to reach 40% by 2050; also by 2050 reduce 
EU CO2 emissions from maritime bunker fuels by 40% (if feasible 50%). 
In recent years, the introduction of sustainable fuels and electro fuels have gained interest 
in  air  transport.  To  date,  this  potential  remains  however  largely  untapped  as  current 
production  and  use  of  SAF  is  close  to  0.05%  of  total  jet  fuel  consumption  in  the  EU. 
Blended biofuels (a combination of kerosene and biofuels) are however only making up a 
very low share of total fuel uplift.62 In 2018, global biofuel production has accounted for 
15 million litres, hence only 0.1% of total aviation fuel consumption.63 

According to EEA data, GHG emission from international maritime transport in EU-27 
have been about 8% lower in 2018 relative to 2011. However, an increase of about 9% 
has  been  registered  between  2015  and  2018  due  to  an  increase  in  maritime  transport 
activity, also linked to increased trade. Emissions are consequently expected to grow also 
in the coming years, if global trade continues to grow after the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Figure 4: GHG emissions from inland waterways, national maritime and international maritime 
transport, EU-27, 2011-2018 

Source: European Commission (2020): EU Transport in Figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2020. 

61 European Commission (2017): Final Report on The Use of Environmentally Friendly Freight Vehicles. Non-Binding 
Guidance Documents on Urban Logistics N° 5/6. 
62 https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/march/are-aviation-biofuels-ready-for-take-off.html. 
63 Idem. 

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Goal  3:  30%  of  road  freight  over  300  km  should  shift  to  other  modes  such  as  rail  or 
waterborne  transport  by  2030,  and  more  than  50%  by  2050,  facilitated  by  efficient  and 
green freight corridors. To meet this goal will also require appropriate infrastructure to be 
developed. 
Road  transport  continues  to  have  the  largest  share  of  EU  freight  transport  performance 
among inland transport modes. In 2018, road transport has accounted for 75% of the total 
inland  freight  transport  (based  on  tonne-kilometres  performed).  The  share  of  road  has 
constantly increased between 2013 and 2018. By contrast, the share of rail in the inland 
transport  performance  has  remained  relatively  stable  since  2013  and  below  20%. 
Between  2013  and  2018,  the  share  of  inland  waterways  in  EU  freight  transport  has 
constantly decreased from 7.4% to 6.0%.64 

It should be kept in mind that the modal split and the associated shares of each transport 
mode  are  calculated  with  the  total  transport  performance  by  the  inland  modes  as 
denominator.  This  means  that  an  increasing  share  of  one  mode  does  not  necessarily 
express  a  higher  transport  performance  for  that  mode.  Instead,  this  may  be  a  result  of 
noticeable drops in other modes. 

Road  transport  performance  has  been  12.7%  higher  in  2018  than  in  2013.  In  contrast, 
over  the  same  period  the  transport  performance  has  decreased  by  -11.5  %  for  inland 
waterways but has increased by 10.5% for rail. Also the overall inland freight transport 
performance in the EU has increased by 10.5% in 2018 compared with 2013. It appears 
that rail freight in the EU keeps its share in an increasing freight performance, whereas 
road freight benefits more from the overall performance increase.65 This could be due to a 
longer-term  trend  towards  more  flexible  just-in-time  deliveries  and  more  demand  for 
home deliveries of smaller volumes directly to end consumers. 

Goal  4:  By  2050,  complete  a  European  high-speed  rail  network.  Triple  the  length  of  the 
existing  high-speed  rail  network  by  2030  and  maintain  a  dense  railway  network  in  all 
Member States. By 2050 the majority of medium-distance passenger transport should go by 
rail. 
The  length  of  high-speed  rail  lines  in  the  EU-27  has  generally  extended  between  2010 
and  2018.  In  specific  terms,  2  634  km  of  new  lines  have  been  added  to  the  2010 
European high-speed rail network reaching the length of 8 839 km in 2018.66 This figure 
shows  that  EU  countries  are  seeking  to  reach  the  objective  of  completing  a  European 
high-speed  rail  network,  however  efforts  have  so  far  resulted  in  limited  improvements. 
The network represents currently about 50% of what would be its expected length after 
tripling it by 2030.  

In  the  EU-27,  the  share  of  total  rail  passenger  transport  activity  (in  total  passenger-
kilometres) performed with high speed trains has only increased by 2.5 percentage points 

64 Source: Eurostat (2020): Statistics Explained. Freight transport statistics – modal split. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Freight_transport_statistics_-_modal_split  
65 Source: Eurostat (2020): Statistics Explained. Freight transport statistics – modal split. 
66 European Commission (2020): EU Transport in Figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2020. 

24 

 
 
                                                           
between  2011  and  2018.  However,  over  the  same  period  the  performance  of  rail 
passenger  transport  in  terms  of  passenger-kilometres  travelled  has  increased  by  11.2%, 
more  than  the  average  for  all  passenger  transport  modes  (9.2%).  The  respective 
performance increases of passenger cars and aviation have been 7.6% and 39.1%. In the 
modal  split  for  passenger  transport,  passenger  cars  are  still  by  far  the  most  important 
transport mode.67  

Goal  5:  A fully  functional  and  EU-wide multimodal  TEN-T  ‘Core Network’  by  2030,  with a 
high quality and capacity network by 2050 and a corresponding set of information services.  
About 126 700 line-km of Core Network infrastructure are included in the framework of 
the EU-wide multimodal TEN-T Comprehensive Network. 

According to the progress report on the implementation of the TEN-T Network in 2016 
and 2017,68 the current state of implementation of TEN-T transport infrastructure at the 
level of the Core Network Corridors, in terms of compliance with the TEN-T Regulation 
requirements, reaches between 81% and 100% for most (ten out of 13) of the available 
indicators. This analysis needs to be put in the context of partly limited technical TEN-T 
standards compared to the real needs on the ground. 

To give a concrete example: for the railway infrastructure network, compliance is already 
reached to a large extent in terms of electrification (89%), track gauge (86%), freight line 
speed  (86%)  and  freight  axle  load  (81%),  whereas  freight  train  length  (43%)  and 
especially the deployment  of the European Rail Traffic Management  System (ERMTS) 
(11%) are still lagging behind. However, a line may be fit for 740m train length but does 
not have enough sidings to ensure full interoperability in practice. 

As  for  roads,  the  compliance  with  the  criteria  of  express  road/motorway  is  completely 
reached (100%). However, parts of the network may not have been maintained properly 
for  a  certain  period,  rendering  a  nominally  compliant  road  not  up  to  operational  and 
safety standards. 

The  inland  waterways  are  almost  fully  compliant  with  respect  to  RIS  implementation 
(98%).  

Goal  6:  By  2050,  connect  all  core  network  airports  to  the  rail  network,  preferably  high-
speed; ensure that all core seaports are sufficiently connected to the rail freight and, where 
possible, inland waterway system. 
In 2017, 89% of the core maritime ports are connected to rail, while the rail connection 
of airports lags a bit behind at 67%.69 

67 Idem. 
68 COM(2020) 433 final. 
69 Source: TENTec. 

25 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Goal  7:  Deployment  of  the  modernised  air  traffic  management  infrastructure  (SESAR)  in 
Europe  by  2020  and  completion  of  the  European  Common  Aviation  Area.  Deployment  of 
equivalent  land  and  waterborne  transport  management  systems  (ERTMS,  ITS,  SSN  and 
LRIT, RIS). Deployment of the European Global Navigation Satellite System (Galileo). 
The SESAR innovation cycle is an essential component of an innovation and deployment 
strategy for air traffic management where new concepts flow from the definition phase to 
their  deployment  in  the  operational  environment.  Prior  to  2014,  the  deployment  of  air 
traffic  management  components  was  done  in  a  fragmented  manner.  As  of  2014,  major 
innovative  air  traffic  management  solutions  with  a  high  network  value  have  been 
grouped in legally binding ‘common projects’ that are being deployed in a synchronised 
manner  by  the  deployment  manager  and  funded  under  the  CEF  programme.  This  new 
and relatively recent framework is a major step compared to past deployment initiatives. 

European  countries  (including  the  EU,  the  United  Kingdom,  Switzerland  and  Norway) 
have so far put in operation the European Train Control System (ETCS) on  some  8 850 
km  of  tracks,  most  of  them  equipped  also  with  GSM-R,  of  which  69%  belong  to  Core 
Network  Corridors.  This  means  that  almost  7%  of  the  128  300  km  of  European 
comprehensive network are currently in operation with ERTMS technologies.70 

In terms of waterborne transport management systems, a recent  evaluation of the River 
Information  System  (RIS)  Directive71  highlights  that  RIS  technologies  have  been 
implemented  in  all  relevant  Member  States,  however  with  degrees  of  difference  in 
relation to their conformity to the standards prescribed by the Directive. With the support 
of the CEF Monalisa72 and FP7 EfficienSea273 projects, integrated sea traffic monitoring 
and maritime cloud service have become operational in the Baltic Sea. In 2016, almost 
99% of the EU, Norway and Switzerland land masses was covered by services offered by 
the  European  Geostationary  Navigation  Overlay  System  (EGNOS),  specifically  the 
EGNOS Safety of Life Services. 

Goal 8: By 2020, establish the framework for a European multimodal transport information 
management and payment system. 
In  line  with  Directive  2010/40/EU,74  Member  States  have  provided  national  reports  on 
intelligent  transport  systems  implementation.  According  to  the  reports  and  to  national 
authorities,  as  of  2017,  all  27  Member  States  and  the  United  Kingdom  have  adopted 
specifications to ensure multimodal transport information and ticketing. In 2011, only 7 
Member States adopted such a specification. 

is  still 
The  development  and 
heterogeneous across Member States and may diverge significantly throughout regions of 

implementation  of 

ticketing  schemes 

integrated 

70 Source: TENTec. 
71  Directive  2005/44/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7  September  2005  on  harmonised  river 
information services (RIS) on inland waterways in the Community, OJ L 255, 30.9.2005, p. 152–159. 
72 https://www.seatrafficmanagement.info/  
73 https://efficiensea2.org/ 
74  Directive  2010/40/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7  July  2010  on  the  framework  for  the 
deployment  of  Intelligent  Transport  Systems  in  the  field  of  road  transport  and  for  interfaces  with  other  modes  of 
transport, OJ L 207, 6.8.2010, p. 1–13. 

26 

 
 
                                                           
the same country. Barriers and challenges to an EU-wide integration of ticketing schemes 
are mainly related to data access and cooperation between stakeholders.75  

Goal 9: By 2050, move close to zero fatalities in road transport. In line with this goal, the EU 
aims at halving road casualties by 2020. Make sure that the EU is a world leader in safety 
and security of transport in all modes of transport. 
The number of road deaths has decreased by 43% between 2001 and 2010 and by another 
23% between 2010 and 2019. This shows that progress in reducing road fatalities in the 
EU has slowed down in recent years76. In 2019, 22 800 people have lost their lives on EU 
roads and about 135 000 have been seriously injured. The mid-term goal of halving the 
number of road deaths between 2010 and 2020 is likely to not be met.77 

Goal  10:  Move  towards  full  application  of  “user  pays”  and  “polluter  pays”  principles  and 
private  sector  engagement  to  eliminate  distortions,  including  harmful  subsidies,  generate 
revenues and ensure financing for future transport investments. 
External costs78 of transport refer to the difference between social costs (i.e. all costs to 
society  due  to  the  provision  and  use  of  transport  infrastructure)  and  private  costs  of 
transport (i.e. the costs directly borne by the transport user). 

The  external  and  infrastructure  costs  of  transport  are,  without  policy  intervention, 
generally  not  borne  by  the  transport  users  and  hence  not  taken  into  account  when  they 
make  a  transport  decision.  By  internalising  the  external  and  infrastructure  costs  (i.e. 
making  these  costs  part  of  the  decision-making  process)  the  efficiency  of  the  transport 
system can be increased. This concept is at the basis of the application of the “user pays” 
and “polluter pays” principles.  

The  application  of  the  “user  pays”  and  “polluter  pays”  principles  is  here  examined 
through the  cost  coverage ratio for  each mode of transport, namely how  much external 
and  infrastructure  costs  are  covered  by  taxation  and  other  charges,  as  calculated  in  the 
2019  study  for  the  Commission  ‘State  of  play  of  Internalisation  in  the  European 
Transport Sector’. 

Table 1 below compares costs (external and variable infrastructure costs79) and revenues 
(taxes  and  charges)  for  each  mode  of  transport  in  the  EU  (including  the  United 
Kingdom). It can be noted that internalisation of external costs is higher in rail (69%) and 

75 VVA et al. (2019): Remaining Challenges for EU-wide Integrated Ticketing and Payment Systems. 
76 European Commission (2020) EU Transport in Figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2020. 
77 EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 - Next steps towards "Vision Zero" {SWD(2019) 283 final}. In 2020, 
massive  reductions  in  traffic  volumes  due  to  COVID-19  related  restrictions  are  likely  to  result  in  a  number  of  road 
fatalities that is much lower than expected. However, even under these exceptional circumstances, it is unlikely that the 
goal will be reached. 
78 External costs include accidents, air pollution, climate change, noise, congestion, well-to-tank (WTT) emissions and 
habitat damages. Infrastructure costs pertain to infrastructure use and maintenance. 
79 Several cost coverage indicators can be assessed. There are good economic reasons to exclude fixed infrastructure 
costs from the calculation. This is also in line with the White Paper objective to recover wear and tear costs via user 
charges.  

27 

 
 
 
                                                           
road  transport  (56%),  compared  to  aviation  (37%),  inland  water  transport  (12%)  and 
maritime transport (4%)80 81.  

Table 1: Total external and infrastructure costs vs. total taxes and charges, 2016, EU incl. UK 

External Costs 

Road 
€596bn 

Variable Infrastructure Costs 

€30.9bn 

Rail 
€17.88bn 

€10.6bn 

Taxes & Charges 

€349.97bn 

€19.58bn 

Cost Coverage Ratio 

56% 

69% 

IWW 
€2.90bn 

€0.2bn 

€0.37bn 

12% 

Maritime 
€43.63bn 

€0.04bn 

€1.83bn 

4% 

Aviation 
€32.87bn 

€4.6bn 

€13.86bn 

37% 

Source: CE Delft (2019): State of Play of Internalisation in the European Transport Sector. 
Congestion costs used in this table are the deadweight82 costs and not the total delay costs. Maritime and 
aviation costs only cover a sample of ports and airports. 

If  fixed  infrastructure  costs  are  included,  then  road  is  the  mode  with  the  highest 
internalisation of external costs (45%). 

In the framework of the White Paper programme, the new Directive on interoperability 
of electronic toll systems83 is to be transposed by, and the ensuing national provisions  are 
to  apply  from  October  2021  and  should  ensure  more  efficient  functioning  of  the 
European  Electronic  Toll  Service,  thereby  reducing  costs  to  Member  States  and  road 
users.  The  new  rules  will  also  make  the  case  of  introducing  modern  and  differentiated 
charging  schemes  more  appealing,  thus  contributing  to  the  wider  application  of  the 
“polluter pays” principle. 

As  part  of  the  revision  of  the  rules  on  road  pricing  (the  Eurovignette  Directive)84,  the 
Commission  has  proposed  to  include  cars,  vans,  buses  and  coaches  in  the  scope  of  the 
Directive, extend the use of differentiated distance-based tolling, require the variation of 
charges  based  on  the  CO2  emissions  of  vehicles,  and  allow  proportionate  and  non-
discriminatory  congestion  charging.  While  the  European  Parliament  has  adopted  its 
position in October 2018, Member States have note found a common position until late 
in 2020. 

80 CE Delft (2019): State of play of Internalisation in the European Transport Sector. 
81  Overall,  road  is  the  mode  paying  the  highest  share  of  its  total  costs,  less  than  50%.  However,  there  are  good 
economic reasons to exclude fixed infrastructure costs. 
82 The delay cost gives a value of the travel time lost relative to a free-flow situation. The deadweight loss costs is the 
part of the delay costs which is regarded as a proper basis for transport pricing and amounts to about one sixth of the 
delay cost (39 billion euro in 2016). 
83 Directive (EU) 2019/520 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the interoperability of 
electronic road toll systems and facilitating cross-border exchange of information on the failure to pay road fees in the 
Union, OJ L 91, 29.3.2019, p. 45–76. 
84 COM(2017) 275 final. 

28 

 
 
 
 
  
                                                           
5.1.1.5.  What progress has been made towards the general objectives of the White Paper in 
terms of helping to establish a transport system that underpins European economic 
progress, enhances competitiveness and offers accessible high quality mobility 
services while using resources more efficiently? 

One of the key  area of intervention of the White Paper is  the completion of the Single 
European Transport Area with a view to underpinning economic progress and making the 
sector more competitive. The 4th Railway Package and other initiatives in the rail sector 
under the White Paper have led to  considerable  market  opening. According to  the Rail 
Market  Monitoring  Report  of  the  Commission,85  on  average  in  the  EU  countries  the 
market shares of competitors to the incumbent rail undertaking have increased between 
2011 and 2016 from 19% to 25% for passenger rail transport and from 26% to 39% for 
freight  rail  transport.  Although,  for  long-distance  coach  services,  the  opening  to 
competition is less advanced, several countries in the EU have nevertheless opened their 
markets  over the last  years. The  Blue  Belt initiative and the European  Maritime Single 
Window, as well as the Single European Sky initiative and the SESAR programme have 
considerably contributed to  integrating the maritime and aviation  transport  markets  and 
to reduce administrative burden for transport operators in these sectors. 

Evidence  from  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  show  that  the  quality  of  working 
conditions for those employed in the transport sector is perceived as generally improved 
since  the  launch  of  the  White  Paper:  out  of  61  respondents,  20  noted  a  slight  to 
significant  improvement,  11  noted  no  change,  7  noted  slight  deterioration  and  2  noted 
significant  deterioration.  Civil  society  and  research  organisations  are  the  group  of 
respondents with the most negative viewpoint, with none out of its 8 respondents noting 
an improvement, whilst national and regional authorities  tend to have the most positive 
views.  New  developments  like  automation  and  digitalisation  are  seen  as  potentially 
heavily impacting on jobs and future working conditions in transport as new technologies 
can  create,  replace,  change,  facilitate  and  re-organise  labour.  This  process  may  be 
reinforced by new mobility service providers with disruptive business models. 

Affordability  of  transport  has  not  changed  substantially  between  2011  and  2018  in  the 
EU-27.  According  to  Eurostat  data,  the  share  of  total  household  income  spent  on 
transport-related  goods  and  services  has  remained  basically  unchanged  throughout  the 
years.86  

Consumers’  satisfaction  with  rail  services  in  the  EU  (with  the  exclusion  of  Malta  and 
Cyprus,  but  including  the  United  Kingdom)  is  high  with  the  overall  ease  of  buying 
tickets and the quality of information about timetables and platforms (respectively 75% 
and  74%  of  users  in  2018  have  been  either  satisfied  or  very  satisfied,  losing  4  and  2 
percentage  points  compared  to  2011  levels).  But  only  64%  have  been  happy  with  the 
availability of tickets for journeys using several trains and 62% for journeys using several 
transport modes.  

85 COM(2019) 51 final. 
86 Source: Eurostat data series 2019: Final consumption expenditure of households by consumption purpose (COICOP 
3 digit) [nama_10_co3_p3]. 

29 

 
                                                           
Between  2011  and  2018,  satisfaction  with  availability  of  seats,  availability  of  parking 
facilities for cars and bikes at stations, cleanliness and maintenance of stations, ease and 
accessibility of complaint handling has been generally growing. On the other hand, users 
have been losing satisfaction with the quality of information on connecting services with 
other  modes,  frequency  of  trains,  punctuality  and  reliability,  provision  of  information 
during the journey and assistance on trains.87   

As  part  of  the  White  Paper  initiatives,  passenger  rights  are  defined  at  EU  level.  The 
Commission has already stepped up efforts to make passenger rights clearer, and to raise 
awareness  about  these  rights.  According  to  a  Eurobarometer  survey,88  32%  of  all 
respondents  know  passenger  rights  exist  in  the  EU,  for  air,  rail,  coach  or  ship  or  ferry 
transport. The percentage of travellers who feel they have been well informed about their 
rights  by  transport  companies  before  travelling  varies  by  transport  mode:  40%  for  air 
passengers, 29% for ship or ferry passengers, 26% for rail passengers and 26% for coach 
passengers.  

Of those who have experienced air travel disruption over the last 12 months, 53% have 
indicated that the airline has offered some form of help, whether passengers complained 
or  not.  Only  43%  of  rail  passenger  respondents,  and  38%  who  had  travelled  by  coach, 
ship or ferry indicated that transport companies have offered help in case of disruptions.  

A large majority (81%) of those who have at some point requested assistance for a person 
with  a  disability  or  reduced  mobility  declare  themselves  satisfied  with  the  transport 
company's  response.  Fewer  (60%)  express  satisfaction  when  more  than  one  mode  was 
used. 

Safety  standards  for  all  vehicle  types  have  been  significantly  increased  by  the  new 
General  Safety  Regulation89  and,  combined  with  improvements  in  infrastructure  safety 
thanks  to  the  revised  Road  Infrastructure  Safety  Management  Directive90  and  other 
initiatives. This, together with other measures, should provide positive effects also in the 
future.  

The  majority  of  stakeholders  surveyed  envisages  progress,  although  limited,  in  the 
reduction of external costs to society due to transport. However,  it is hard to determine 
the extent of the progress. This is also due to the complexity of the factors surrounding 

87 Source: Eurobarometer surveys 2011, 2013, 2018. 
88 Eurobarometer 2019/485 (fieldwork: February 2019 - March 2019, published: January 2020) on Passenger rights. 
89 Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on type-approval 
requirements for motor vehicles and their trailers, and systems, components and separate technical units intended for 
such  vehicles,  as  regards  their  general  safety  and  the  protection  of  vehicle  occupants  and  vulnerable  road  users, 
amending Regulation (EU) 2018/858 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulations (EC) 
No 78/2009, (EC) No 79/2009 and (EC) No 661/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission 
Regulations  (EC)  No  631/2009,  (EU)  No  406/2010,  (EU)  No  672/2010,  (EU)  No  1003/2010,  (EU)  No  1005/2010, 
(EU) No 1008/2010, (EU) No 1009/2010, (EU) No 19/2011, (EU) No 109/2011, (EU) No 458/2011, (EU) No 65/2012, 
(EU)  No  130/2012,  (EU)  No  347/2012,  (EU)  No  351/2012,  (EU)  No  1230/2012  and  (EU)  2015/166,  OJ  L  325, 
16.12.2019, p. 1–40. 
90  Directive  (EU)  2019/1936  of  23  October  2019  amending  Directive  2008/96/EC  on  road  infrastructure  safety 
management, OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 1. 

30 

 
                                                           
these  developments.  New  ambitions  outlined  in  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the 
increased awareness of citizens could lead to significant progress by 2030.  

5.1.2.  Evaluation question #2: What is the expected progress by 2030 and 2050? 
How does this compare to what was initially expected in the impact 
assessment? 

Specifically,  to  describe  the  expected  impact  of  to  the  White  Paper  initiatives  in 
combination  with  other  EU  policies  in  other  sectors  (e.g.  environmental  and  energy 
policies)  the  external  support  study  has  modelled  an  ‘Alternative’  scenario,  which 
includes  policy  measures  adopted  by  the  end  of  2018  and  quantifies  their  impact  over 
time. 

As explained above, it is not possible to assess with certainty which initiatives have been 
adopted following the 2011 White Paper and which initiatives would have been adopted 
even  in  its  absence.  However,  the  comparison  between  the  ‘Baseline’  and  the 
‘Alternative’  scenario  provides  insights  on  maximum  expected  impacts  of  the  White 
Paper  by  2030  and  2050  on  those  indicators  covered  by  the  model.  Results  from  the 
model  are  provided  in  the  form  of  relevant  indicators  as  identified  in  the  evaluation 
matrix (Annex 6). 

5.1.2.1.  Expected progress on the three key goals 
Results  from  the  Alternative  scenario  show  that  for  the  EU-27  overall  CO2  emissions 
from  transport  (including  international  aviation,  excluding  international  maritime 
shipping) would be 16% lower relative to the Baseline in 2030 and 39% lower in 2050. 
In particular, emissions from road transport in the Alternative scenario are projected to be 
19% below the Baseline levels in 2030 and 46% lower in 2050. This is due to the CO2 
standards  for  new  light  duty  vehicles  and  heavy  duty  vehicles  post-2020,  supported  by 
the  deployment  of  recharging  and  refuelling  infrastructure,  but  also  due  to  policies 
driving  greater  use  of  sustainable  transport  modes,  such  as  for  example  the 
implementation  of  the  TEN-T  Core  and  Comprehensive  Networks,  or  the  4th  Railway 
Package. 

Policies  adopted  after  2011  would  contribute  significantly  towards  the  White  Paper 
milestone  for  2030  but  fall  short  in  delivering  the  60%  emissions  reductions  by  2050, 
showing  around  40  percentage  points  gap  relative  to  the  target.  In  this  context,  it  is 
important  to  note  that  the  impact  assessment  accompanying  the  2011  White  Paper  had 
assumed  further  intensification  of  policies  after  2030,  whereas  the  Alternative  scenario 
only takes into account policies adopted by the end of 2018. The adopted policies would 
deliver additional emissions reductions after 2030 due to, for example, the turnover of the 
vehicle fleet and larger penetration of new vehicles which are subject to CO2 standards, 
as  well  as  the  implementation  of  the  Core  TEN-T  Network  by  2030.  However,  their 
impacts  would  remain  limited  by  2050  in  lack  of  additional  policies  or  further 
intensification of existing policies.  

31 

 
 
 
Figure 5: CO2 emissions from transport in the Baseline and the Alternative scenario 

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE, E3 modelling. 

The Alternative scenario projects substantial progress in reducing the oil dependency by 
2050.  Relative  to  the  Baseline  scenario,  oil  dependency  would  be  about  17  percentage 
points  lower  by  2050  driven  by  the  projected  progress  on  electromobility,  further 
electrification  of  rail  and  uptake  of  renewable  and  low  carbon  fuels.  However,  the 
transport sector is projected to still be dependent on oil and petroleum products for about 
87% of its energy needs in 2030 and 77% in 2050.91 

Concerning the objective of limiting the growth of congestion, projections show that in 
the  EU-27  hours  spent  in  road  congestion  annually  will  be  growing  compared  to  2010 
levels  in  both  the  Baseline  and  the  Alternative  scenarios.  The  Alternative  scenario, 
accounting for policies adopted by the end of 2018, shows only limited decrease in the 
external costs of congestion relative to the Baseline (1.1% reduction in 2030 and 0.4% in 
2050), driven mainly by greater use of more sustainable transport modes.  

5.1.2.2.  Expected progress on the ten headline goals 
Progress is also expected by 2030 and 2050 towards the White Paper’s 10 headline goals. 

The current transport policies and measures would be sufficient to reach the objective of 
halving the use of ‘conventionally-fuelled’ cars in urban transport in the EU-27 by 2030, 
as defined at the time of the adoption of the 2011 White Paper92, but not to phase them 
out  by  2050.  According  to  the  Alternative  scenario  the  share  of  transport  activity  of 
‘conventionally-fuelled cars’ in the total urban passenger transport activity (expressed in 
passenger-kilometres) is projected to go down to 43% by 2030 but still be 16% in 2050. 
The  decrease  in  their  share  is  driven  by  both  the  uptake  of  electric  vehicles  and  other 
alternative fuel vehicles, but also by the greater use of public transport.  

91 Oil dependency is calculated including international shipping.  
92 Conventionally-fuelled cars in this context refer to diesel and gasoline cars. 

32 

02004006008001,000BaselineAlternativeBaselineAlternative201020302050Mt of CO2 
 
 
 
                                                           
At the same time, the Covid-19 pandemic is likely to induce greater fear from infection 
when using public transport services. At this stage, long-term effects of the pandemic on 
the use of public transport in cities cannot be projected with certainty, but in the wake of 
the pandemic it could turn out to be challenging to increase the use of public transport. 
However, active modes, such as cycling and walking, might in the future contribute more 
than today to a more sustainable urban mobility. 

As far as the goal of achieving essentially CO2-free city logistics in major urban centres 
by  2030  is  concerned,  the  responses  obtained  from  interviews  with  stakeholders  and 
survey of national  authorities organised in  the context  of the support study  show that a 
vast  majority  of  respondents  expect  to  have  made  some  progress  towards  the  goal,  but 
not to achieve it by 2030.  

The Alternative scenario further shows that, with current policies and measures in place, 
the goal of a 40% share of low-carbon sustainable fuels in aviation by 2050 will not be 
reached. The share of low-carbon sustainable fuels  in  aviation  is  projected to  be below 
3%  of  the  fuel  mix  by  2050.  In  addition,  the  role  of  the  White  Paper  initiatives  in 
reducing  the  emissions  from  international  maritime  bunkers  is  expected  to  be  minimal 
(1% reduction in 2030 and 2050 relative to the Baseline scenario). 

Road  transport  is  projected  to  maintain  its  dominant  role  in  passenger  and  freight 
transport in the EU-27 in the Alternative scenario. However, the share of passenger rail is 
projected to increase by 1.6 percentage points in 2030 relative to the Baseline and by 2.3 
percentage points in 2050. For rail freight the impact would be more significant showing 
an increase in its modal share by 3.1 percentage points in 2030 relative to the Baseline 
and  by  5.6  percentage  points  in  2050.  Inland  waterways  and  national  maritime  is  also 
project  to  gain  1.2  percentage  points  in  terms  of  modal  share  in  2030  relative  to  the 
Baseline and 1 percentage point in 2050. 

The goal of tripling the number of kilometres of high-speed rail lines by 2030 is unlikely 
to be reached. Approximately 8 840 km of high-speed lines are currently in use in EU-27 
and around 1 460 km of lines were under construction in 2017. Achieving the goal set by 
the White Paper means reaching a length of about 19 000 km of high-speed railways by 
2030. Considering that, on average, it takes around 16 years for new high-speed lines to 
proceed from the start of works to the beginning of operations, to achieve this goal would 
require significant efforts by Member States. 

However, a significant  increase in  the passenger transport activity of high-speed  rail in 
the EU-27 is projected in the Alternative scenario. The share of high-speed rail in total 
rail  passenger  transport  activity  would  increase  to  around  38%  by  2030  and  43%  by 
205093,  6  percentage  points  higher  in  2030  and  9  percentage  points  higher  in  2050 
relative to the Baseline. 

The  Alternative  scenario  projects  that  the  number  of  fatalities  in  the  EU-27  would  be 
decreasing  by  about  26%  by  2030,  and  30%  by  2050  relative  to  2010.  The  goal  of 

93 An increase of 8 p.p. by 2030 and 13 p.p. by 2050 compared to 2010 levels. 

33 

 
                                                           
moving  close  to  zero  fatalities  in  road  transport  by  2050  is  thus  not  expected  to  be 
achieved.   

5.1.3.  Evaluation question #3: To what extent have the 40 action points, which are 

broadly covered by all the policy options in the impact assessment of the 
White Paper, contributed to reaching the objectives and headline goals of the 
White Paper? 

The White Paper is a long-term strategy composed by 132 initiatives and 40 action points 
specifically  designed  to  exert  synergies  between  them  and  to  deliver  the  results  of  the 
overall strategy. In most of the cases action points contribute to more than one objective 
and/or headline goal and this makes it not possible to isolate the contribution of a specific 
action from the contribution of the other actions in the achievement of the White Paper 
goals. 

Therefore,  the  evaluation  looks  at  the  potential  maximum  overall  impact  of  the  White 
Paper as a whole (i.e. all 40 action points together) by means of quantitative results from 
the model used in the external support study. Since the quantitative impacts of the White 
Paper have been discussed in the replies to the previous evaluation questions, they are not 
replicated here. In a second step, a qualitative discussion on the contribution (direct and 
indirect) that action points may have in delivering the objectives and goals of the White 
Paper, highlights which actions are expected to play a more significant role. 

As far as action points contribute more to reaching the objectives and headlines goals, it 
is not possible to perform a quantitative assessment of the impact of each action point by 
modelling it individually. Past modelling experience has indeed shown that assessing the 
impact of each action individually (i.e. out of a bundle of actions composing the strategy) 
is not methodologically sound. It would lead to an overestimation of the impacts of the 
actions, if their impacts would be simply added up (and the synergies of the policies and 
the potential overlapping effects would not be accounted for). 

A qualitative analysis on the contribution  (direct  and indirect) that the 40 action points 
may have in delivering the objectives and goals of the White Paper, allows to conclude 
that, although they are conceived to deliver the EU transport strategy, not all of them are 
expected to contribute to achieving each of the specific objectives. Similarly, not  all of 
them are expected to contribute meeting each of the headline goals. 

Moreover, the policy measures in the White Paper are quite different in nature, objective 
and complexity. Some require physical investments; others are mainly a matter of setting 
(and  enforcing)  different  rules;  others  are  preparatory  measures  (i.e.  guidelines  or 
definition of standards) mainly intended to pave the way for subsequent actions, etc.  

Therefore,  according  to  the  objective  or  goal,  certain  action  points  are  expected  to  be 
more effective than others and it is not possible to conclude on the absolute importance 
of the actions irrespective of the goals to be achieved. 

34 

 
 
 
5.1.4.  Evaluation question #4: Which factors and developments (e.g. digitalisation, 

mobility as a service, technology cost, etc.) have, negatively or positively, 
contributed to the achievement of the objectives and headline goals? 
This  evaluation  question  examines  which  and  how  external  factors  and  developments 
have positively or negatively contributed to the achievements of the objectives and goals 
so far.  

Whereas  external  factors  and  developments  have  been  identified  in  preliminary  desk 
research and to some extent have already been discussed in the implementation report of 
2016 on the White Paper, the analysis of their positive or negative contribution is based 
on  evidence  collected  from  the  targeted  stakeholder  consultation  (i.e.  surveys  and 
interviews).  In  general,  many  of  the  trends  and  factors  that  have  been  identified  are 
considered  by  stakeholders  as  still  quite  young  for  having  significantly  influenced  the 
achievements  of  the  White  Paper  so  far.  They  may  all  have  had  an  impact,  but  it  is 
difficult to measure it at this stage. They are seen to play a major role in the future. 

5.1.4.1.  Digitalisation and new business models 
Digitalisation appears as a two-sided trend, like automation. It can be considered one of 
the most important developments in the European transport landscape over the past years, 
as  it  is  able  to  address  many  of  the  challenges  faced  by  the  transport  sector  such  as 
emissions  and  congestion.  However,  at  the  same  time,  it  could  also  prevent  the  shift 
towards  collective  modes  of  transport  and  lead  to  a  negative  impact  on  working 
conditions (since the expansion of online ride-hailing platforms). The need for a proper 
enforcement  of  existing  EU  and  national  labour  regulations  has  been  raised  by 
respondents. 

5.1.4.2.  New technological trends 
New business models in the sector, especially for mobility as a service (MaaS) and ride-
sharing, are also considered relevant though no concrete development has been noted yet. 
The  challenge  they  often  bring  lies  in  balancing  the  interests  of  service  providers  with 
those  of  operators  and  ensuring  that  the  end  product  is  financially  viable  and  still 
attractive for the consumer. 

5.1.4.3.  Evolution in technology costs 
As  regards  technology  costs,  many  respondents  believe  that  these  will  continue  to 
decrease in the future (e.g. battery costs). This evolution should boost the uptake of new 
technological  trends, such as automation, which however is  seen to  come at  a risk of a 
new rise of car use in cities. This could go against the modal shift efforts.  

5.1.4.4.  New mobility patterns 
While new mobility patterns such as MaaS and micro-mobility are growing in cities, the 
uptake  is  not  as  big  as  expected  yet.  One  stakeholder  argues  it  could  be  worthwhile 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
looking  at  the  economic  context,  in  particular  at  how  the  distribution  of  wealth  within 
European  societies  affects  the  choice  of  transport  (modes),  affordability  and  access  to 
sustainable transport modes. 

5.1.4.5.  Changes to consumer behaviour 
Behavioural  changes  towards  more  sustainable  modes  of  transport  are  still  at  the  early 
stages.  To  be  enhanced,  more  regulation  should  be  considered,  say  surveyed 
stakeholders.  The  new  challenges  brought  by  COVID-19  may  lead  to  long-lasting 
changes in consumer and transport user behaviour, but it is too early to tell. According to 
a representative of the national and regional authorities, crises induced by security threats 
and  COVID-19  made  it  clear  that  the  resilience  of  transport  system  needs  to  be 
established, and it is an aspect not sufficiently addressed by the White Paper initiatives. 

5.1.4.6.  Evolution of e-commerce 
The evolution of e-commerce is the development that has received the most controversial 
assessment  from  interviewed  stakeholders  in  relation  to  the  achievements  of  the  White 
Paper:  17  out  of  40  respondents  believe  e-commerce  expansion  has  led  to  negative 
effects. 8 respondents opposed this position and, on the contrary, considered e-commerce 
evolution  as  beneficial.  4  respondents  identified  no  impact  and  11  did  not  have  an 
opinion  on  this.  New  business  opportunities  through  e-commerce  are  highlighted  as 
benefits,  whereas  criticism  focusses  on  negative  environmental  impacts  (emissions, 
congestion),  negative  impacts  on  working  conditions  and  an  overall  strain  on  the 
transport  system.  A  railway  stakeholder  fears  that  with  customers  getting  used  to  fast 
home  deliveries,  the  competitiveness  of  railways  as  a  means  of  freight  transport  might 
suffer. 

5.1.4.7.  Climate change 
As  regards  climate  change,  it  is  considered  having  enhanced  the  need  for  White  Paper 
actions to be timely implemented, leading to one step further with the recent adoption of 
the  European  Green  Deal.  Climate  change  will  continue  to  strongly  influence  the 
transport sector and related policies, not only through the European Green Deal, but also 
through many local actions (e.g. climate-friendly cities). 

5.1.5.  Evaluation question #5: Which unintended positive and negative economic, 

social and environmental effects, if any, have been produced? 

This  evaluation  question  discusses  the  unintended  or  unexpected  (both  positive  and 
negative) effects perceived by stakeholders as a result of the actions taken in the context 
of  the  White  Paper.  The  analysis  is  based  on  evidence  collected  by  the  external 
consultant  from 
international 
organisations and business associations in the transport sector. 

interviews  with  stakeholders  representing 

targeted 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
In general, respondents find it difficult to clearly identify the unintended effects coming 
from the actions of the White Paper due to a lack of reliable evidence on the causal links.  

Indeed,  some  unintended  effects  coming  from  key  drivers  like  technology  and 
digitalisation in transport would probably have occurred irrespective of the promotions of 
related measures in the White Paper. However, they are perceived by some stakeholders 
as having a relation with the White Paper’s actions. 

The  White  Paper,  with  its  key  objectives,  might  have  contributed  to  an  increased 
awareness of consumers about climate change impacts and vehicles emissions. This has 
contributed  to  boost  the  change  of  market  transport  supplies  with  new  propulsion 
methods coming onto the market (e.g. electric and hydrogen vehicles). 

Technology  and  digitalisation  promoted  by  the  White  Paper  are  seen  as  having 
unexpectedly  indirectly  contributed  to  creating  favourable  conditions  for  the  uptake  of 
disruptive  services,  such  as  ride-hailing  and  delivery-on-demand  services,  which  have 
determined new features for the end users. Some of them are seen as creating even more 
dependency on fossil fuels by increasing transport demand. They are also often linked to 
business  models  where  trade  unions  denounce  that  workers  in  these  segments  of  the 
transport sector are not sufficiently covered by social protection or shielded against wage 
dumping. 

Cyber  risks  and  threats  are  unintended  consequences  of  the  process  of  digitalisation 
promoted by the White Paper. The 2019 cyber-attack to Maersk Lines is considered one 
example.  

The  International  Association  of  Public  Transport  (UITP)  points  out  that  when  the 
revision of the Clean Vehicles Directive has been adopted in 2019,94 it has been wary of 
the fact that it created new obligations for the public transport sector, a sector that was 
already  providing  sustainable  mobility,  without  providing  financial  compensation.  The 
purchase  of  the  newest  bus  technologies  will  require  financial  resources  that  cannot  be 
spent on other priorities, such as expanding the public transport offer or providing better 
passenger information. 

5.1.6.  Evaluation question #6: To what extent have the 40 action points of the 

White Paper been implemented by the Commission, by the Member States, 
by regional and/or local authorities (where relevant), or by other actors (e.g. 
transport operators)? 

The  review  of  implementation  by  the  Commission  and  Member  States  is  based  on  the 
information from Commission services and complemented by desk research. Interviews 
with  other  stakeholders  are  used  to  complement  the  assessment  on  the  level  of 
implementation of actions in charge to other actors. 

94  Directive  (EU)  2019/1161  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  amending  Directive 
2009/33/EC on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles, OJ L 188, 12.7.2019, p. 116–130. 

37 

 
 
 
                                                           
5.1.6.1.  Implementation by the Commission 
Since  its  adoption  in  2011  the  Commission  made  a  considerable  work  on  the 
implementation of the White Paper programme. Currently 15 out of the 40 action points 
of the White Paper have been fully implemented by the Commission and another 7 can 
be considered in an advanced state of implementation. All other actions are in progress. 

Table 2: Status of implementation on initiatives by the Commission at end of 2019 

 ACTION POINTS 

1  A true internal market for rail services 

2  Completion of the Single European Sky 

3  Capacity and quality of airports 

4  A maritime "blue belt" and market access to ports 

5  A suitable framework for inland navigation 

6  Road freight 

7  Multimodal transport of goods: e-Freight 

8 

Social code for mobile road transport workers 

9  A social agenda for maritime transport 

10  A socially responsible aviation sector 

11  An evaluation of the EU approach to jobs and working conditions 

12  Cargo security 

13  High level of passenger security with minimum hassle 

14  Land transport security 

15  End-to-end security 

16  Towards a "zero vision" on road safety 

17  A European strategy for civil aviation safety 

18  Safer shipping 

19  Rail safety 

20  Transport of dangerous goods 

21  Passengers' rights 

22  Seamless door-to-door mobility 

23  Mobility continuity plans 

24  A technology roadmap 

25  An innovation and deployment strategy 

26  A regulatory framework for innovative transport 

27  Travel information 

28  Vehicle labelling for CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency 

29  Carbon footprint calculators 

30  Eco-driving and speed limits 

38 

Status 

d
e
c
n
a
v
d
A

s
s
e
r
g
o
r
p

n
I

d
e
t
e
l
p
m
o
C












































































































































































 
 
 
 
 
 
 ACTION POINTS 

31  Urban mobility plans 

32  An EU framework for urban road user charging 

33  A strategy for near "zero-emission urban logistics" 2030 

34  A core network of strategic European infrastructure 

35  Multimodal freight corridors for sustainable transport networks 

36  Ex-ante project evaluation criteria 

37  A new funding framework for transport infrastructure 

38  Private sector engagement 

39  Smart pricing and taxation 

40  Transport in the world: the external dimension 

""  Urban Mobility Package 

Status 

d
e
c
n
a
v
d
A

s
s
e
r
g
o
r
p

n
I

d
e
t
e
l
p
m
o
C


































































5.1.6.2.  Implementation by the Member States (or by regional and/or local authorities where 

relevant) or by other actors (e.g. transport operators) 

As far as the initiatives already completed by the Commission are concerned, in most of 
the  cases  they  are  addressed  by  more  than  one  intervention  (e.g.  revision  of  existing 
Directives/Regulations,  adoption  of  new  pieces  of  legislation  etc.).  It  is  often  the  case 
that  only  some  of  these  interventions  have  completed  their  formal  process  at  European 
Institutions’  level,  while  others  are  still  to  be  finalised.  Therefore,  also  in  this  case  the 
implementation of the initiative (and of the related action point) can only be partial and 
related to the specific intervention (and not to the full initiative/action point).  

In other cases, the initiatives have been fully delivered by the European Institutions, but 
it  often  applies  that  they  require  a  contribution  or  follow-up  from  Member  States  at 
national or sub-national level. 

In Table 3, those actions fully delivered by the Commission but not yet fully delivered by 
Member States are classified as ‘in progress’. The actions not yet fully delivered by the 
Commission  and  where  action  by  Member  States  can  only  be  partial  are  classified  as 
‘partially  in  progress’.  Those  actions  that  do  not  imply  formal  obligations  for  Member 
States  (e.g.  those  related  to  urban  dimension  which,  according  to  the  subsidiarity 
principle,  falls  under  national,  regional  or 
local  responsibility)  but  showing 
implementation progress at local/regional/national level are clearly identified. 

The  initiatives  included  in  the  White  Paper  programme  are  quite  different  in  nature, 
scope and therefore their implementation entails challenges of different magnitude. As an 
example, measures concerning smart pricing and taxation face major obstacles in being 
accepted  by  Member  States  as  clearly  witnessed  by  the  long-lasting  process  of  the 
revision  of  the  Eurovignette  Directive  and  by  the  withdrawal  of  the  Energy  Taxation 
Directive. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  4  shows  the  action  points  that  required  implementation  efforts  by  other 
stakeholders. Most of them entail on-going activity within dedicated working groups or 
similar involvements and therefore are ‘continuously on-going’. 

Table 3: Summary of implementation of the 40 action points by Member States 

 ACTION POINTS 

A true internal market for rail services 

A suitable framework for inland navigation 

A true internal market for rail services 
A maritime "blue belt" and market access to ports 

Completion of the Single European Sky 
Road freight 
Social code for mobile road transport workers 
A social agenda for maritime transport 

Completed (Total: 4) 
5 
12  Cargo security 
18 
Safer shipping 
20  Transport of dangerous goods 
In progress (Total: 5) 
1 
4 
16  Towards a "zero vision" on road safety 
30  Eco-driving and speed limits 
1 
Partially in progress (Total: 17) 
2 
6 
8 
9 
13  High level of passenger security with minimum hassle 
15  End-to-end security 
17  A European strategy for civil aviation safety 
19  Rail safety 
21 
22 
24  A technology roadmap 
25  An innovation and deployment strategy 
26  A regulatory framework for innovative transport 
27  Travel information 
28  Vehicle labelling for CO2 emissions and fuel efficiency 
35  Multimodal freight corridors for sustainable transport networks 
39 
No formal obligations / in progress: (Total 4+1) 
31  Urban mobility plans 
32  An EU framework for urban road user charging 
33  A strategy for near "zero-emission urban logistics" 2030 
34  A core network of strategic European infrastructure 
""  Urban Mobility Package 
Deadlines yet to come (Total: 1) 
7  Multimodal transport of goods: e-Freight 

Passengers' rights 
Seamless door-to-door mobility 

Smart pricing and taxation 

40 

 
 
Table 4: Summary of implementation of the 40 action points by other actors 

 ACTION POINTS 

Land transport security 

Completed (Total: 2) 
14 
19  Rail safety 
Continuously on-going (Total: 5) 
10  A socially responsible aviation sector 
12  Cargo security 
17  A European strategy for civil aviation safety 
26  A regulatory framework for innovative transport 

5.2.  Efficiency 

5.2.1.  Evaluation question #7: To what extent have the costs of the 40 action points 

in the White Paper been proportionate to the overall benefits achieved? & 
Evaluation question #8: To what extent have the initiatives under the White 
Paper been cost effective? Which benefits have been achieved for the 
different stakeholder groups? What costs have resulted for the different 
stakeholder groups? 

The  evaluation  questions  on  efficiency  aim  to  examine  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the 
White Paper. To contribute to that analysis, evaluation question #7 discusses the costs of 
implementing  the  40  action  points  and  the  related  132  initiatives  in  relation  to  the 
benefits  derived  from  its  implementation  and  evaluation  question  #8  seeks  to  highlight 
costs and benefits for different stakeholder groups.  

5.2.1.1.  Limitations to the analysis 
The main source of quantitative information are evaluation studies, of which only around 
20  are  available  with  information  about  the  White  Paper  initiatives.  Even  among  those 
evaluations available, sometimes they only cover a specific aspect of an initiative, not the 
overall initiative and extrapolation is not possible. Furthermore, when assessing costs and 
“cost-efficiency”,  the  level  of  detail  provided  and  the  methodology  used  in  these 
evaluations vary considerably. This makes comparisons between initiatives and between 
action  points  to  assess  the  overall  cost-efficiency  of  the  White  Paper  complicated. 
Furthermore, the information on costs in evaluations tends to diminish as we move from 
the EU institutions (where some data might be available), to Member States (where data 
might be available in some Member States and then is perhaps extrapolated to the entire 
EU) to industry, where only a small number of data points might be available. 

In  the  case  of  EU  funding  programmes  (including  TEN-T  programme,  CEF  Transport, 
Horizon 2020 and Cohesion Funds), more detailed information is available. However, it 
is not always possible to attribute costs of a funding programme to a specific initiative. It 
is also difficult to estimate the benefits of expenditures in research and innovation. 

41 

 
 
 
Data provided by stakeholders on efficiency is  overall scarce and mostly qualitative. A 
number of stakeholders that have contributed to the external support study have pointed 
to the difficulties in providing relevant quantitative information. 

Because  of  these  issues,  the  analysis  of  efficiency  of  the  White  Paper  is  limited  in  its 
scope (as information is lacking for some areas of action) and conclusions (as this limits 
that types of overall analyses that are possible; e.g. in most instances it is not possible to 
assess what costs can be directly attributed to the White Paper and what costs would have 
been incurred nonetheless). 

5.2.1.2.  Costs related to implementation of initiatives 
Given the high number of initiatives covered by the 40 actions points and the absence of 
a  dataset  with  information  on  the  relative  costs,  there  has  been  a  need  to  prioritise  the 
analysis  towards  those  initiatives  with  more  significant  costs.  Thus,  the  focus  of  the 
analysis is on action points and initiatives that include regulatory measures and financial 
instruments  

These costs have been disaggregated in the following categories: 

  Adoption/implementation  of  EU  legislation  (includes  costs  on  both  human 

resources and capital expenditures). 

  Financial  instruments,  public-private  partnerships  (PPPs)  and  research  and 

development funding. 

  Studies and development of EU policy. 

  All other EU measures (e.g. standards and social dialogue promotion activities). 

Adoption and implementation costs are costs incurred by the Commission that has been 
responsible for the initial  development  and implementation. Member State’s authorities 
at different level, industry, social partners and civil society organisations can incur costs 
related to the implementation of EU legislation, be it to participate in the policy process 
(a  role  where  trade  associations  play  an  important  role,  although  individual  companies 
can also, and do, participate), or to implement the various provisions related to specific 
EU legislation. Individual industry stakeholders throughout the EU can also incur costs.  

There are certain difficulties in identifying specific costs and associating these costs with 
the White Paper action points. However, where this is possible, costs do not appear to be 
significant. 

EU financial instruments are a crucial form of funding infrastructure across the EU. The 
TEN-T funding programme and the subsequent Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) (since 
2014, aggregating investment on TEN-T) have been the major EU programmes funding 
transport infrastructure  across the EU, covering all modes. Each of them  has supported 
infrastructure investment of over 20 billion euro of total investment, which a significant 
portion  being  sponsored  by  the  EU.  From  the  remaining  costs,  it  is  not  possible  to 
determine who was responsible for the investment (e.g. Member States or private sector). 

42 

 
 
In both programmes, rail has represented the majority of investment (around two-thirds 
in each case), with other modes representing much smaller portions. 

The different funds of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) programme 
are another way through which EU has supported investment in transport in the EU. In 
the  2007-2013  period  the  category  called  “transport  infrastructure”  has  received  66.4 
billion  euro  of  funding.  For  the  more  recent  2014-2020  programmes  more  discrete 
categories  are  available,  and  in  the  2016-2019  period,  actual  (i.e.  not  planned) 
expenditures in categories related to investment in the TEN-T network have 47.8 billion 
euro,  with  an  EU  contribution  of  40.1  billion  euro  (84%).  For  all  other  non-TEN-T 
transport  investments,  actual  expenditures  have  26.7  billion  euro,  with  an  EU 
contribution of 21.9 billion euro (82%). 

The White Paper also aims to promote the use of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in 
transport.  A  database  of  the  European  Investment  Bank  shows  that  the  number  of 
transport PPP95 projects  finished across Europe (defined as EU-28 plus  Turkey and the 
Western  Balkans)  reached  a  high  of  20  in  2014, and  it  has  been  since  then  in  a  steady 
decline  towards  seven  in  2018  and  10  in  2019.  Overall,  during  the  2011-2019  period, 
across Europe (as defined above) 118 transport PPPs were finished, representing a total 
investment of 74.7 billion euro.  

Finally,  the  White  Paper  introduces  measures  to  support  EU  level  research  and 
technology development (R&D) covering all aspects of the transport system. One of the 
main ways to support those developments is via the Horizon 2020 programme, which has 
a total budget of 77 billion euro for the 2014-2020 period. Transport is covered in several 
categories, with a total budget (2014-2020) of 6.3 billion euro. 

EU action very often starts with the development of a strategy or communication and the 
publication  of  a  study  on  the  status  of  the  market  and  to  support  adoption  of  policy 
measures.  However,  compared  to  the  actual  cost  of  implementing  EU  legislation  or 
building  infrastructure  these  policy-related  costs  are  relatively  modest.  These  studies 
typically run from the tens of thousands to the hundreds of thousands of euro. 

Other measures outlined in the White Paper include the creation of technical standards, 
support  to  social  dialogue  and  cooperation  with  third  countries.  Quantitative  data  on 
these  topics  is  non-existent,  but  some  qualitative  information  was  gathered  for  the 
support study. The findings of the support study suggest that the costs associated to these 
other measures were largely insignificant. 

5.2.1.3.  Costs and benefits as perceived by different stakeholder groups 
The  costs  for  national,  regional  and  local  authorities  vary  considerable,  with  some 
initiatives corresponding to tens of thousands of euro of ongoing costs per Member State 
related to monitoring, enforcement and administrative costs.  

95 These are not disaggregated by mode. 

43 

 
 
                                                           
The limited data available makes it difficult to extrapolate all costs incurred by Member 
States for all initiatives of the White Paper. However, given that most cost data collected 
refers to ongoing costs for Member States it is possible to make some estimates regarding 
these ongoing costs (usually administrative, enforcement and monitoring costs): 

The White Paper includes a total 44 regulatory measures. These are the measures more 
likely to incur these types of costs. 

Ongoing  costs,  for  administrative,  enforcement  and  monitoring,  are  usually  below  €1 
million per Member State per year.  

For the 44 initiatives stipulating regulatory measures that would be a cost, per Member 
State, of 4.4 to 44 million euro per year, or a total of 0.12 to 1.2 billion euro/year across 
all 27 Member States. 

Data  on  the  costs  for  other  initiatives  for  Member  States  are  not  available  but  it  is 
reasonable to expect that they will usually represent less significant costs, if at all. 

Industry representatives report that they incur costs for participating in the policy process 
and  for  compliance  (e.g.  with  emission  standards  for  vehicles,  provisions  of  the  4th 
Railway Package). However, they are not able to quantify these costs. 

Existing  evaluations  indicate  a  number  of  quantifiable  benefits  to  society  as  a  result  of 
White Paper actions: 

  The full implementation of the Single Market  for rail transport:  benefits  of 1 to 
2.7  billion  euro  per  year.  Further  integration  with  the  road  sector  would  bring 
additional benefits of 2.5 to 4.5 billion euro per year. 

  17.5  billion  euro  reduction  in  statistical  costs  for  fatalities  and  serious  road 

injuries, compared to an investment of 4.3 billion euro by Member States.  

  The  directive  on  cross-border  exchange  of  information  on  road  safety  related 
traffic offences is deemed to be cost effective, with costs insignificant compared 
to benefits. 

  Regulation  996/2010  on  the  investigation  and  prevention  of  accidents  and 
incidents  in  civil  aviation:96  costs of 1.1 million  euro per  year,  compared  with  a 
combined value of saved accidents of 202 million euro.  

13  out  of  21  authorities  participating  in  the  targeted  survey  say  that  the  benefits 
outweighed the costs to society fully or to a significant extent. 4 out of 21 authorities say 
the benefits outweighed the costs by to a limited or to some extent. 

Industry  representatives  make  a  more  negative  assessment  on  the  cost-effectiveness  of 
the White Paper initiatives. They point at delays in the implementation of initiatives and 
highlight  that,  whereas  the  administrative  burden  of  individual  initiatives  might  not  be 
high,  all  initiatives  combined  might  have  more  costs  than  benefits,  namely  for  smaller 

96  Regulation  (EU)  No  996/2010  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  October  2010  on  the 
investigation and prevention of accidents and incidents in civil aviation and repealing Directive 94/56/EC, OJ L 295, 
12.11.2010, p. 35–50. 

44 

 
                                                           
businesses.  Yet,  cost  items  related  to  TEN-T  and  climate  change  mitigation  are 
acknowledged by the industry as having significant benefits in the long run. 

Trade  unions  appear  to  have  difficulties  quantifying  social  impacts  (both  positive  and 
negative) of any specific initiatives and therefore declare they cannot provide a detailed 
assessment. 

5.2.2.  Evaluation question #9: Is there room to streamline or simplify the various 

initiatives under the White Paper? 

This efficiency question examines whether there are potential improvements in efficiency 
that could be achieved because of potential duplication of activities amongst the different 
action  points  of  the  White  Paper  and  because  of  potential  improvements  that  could  be 
achieved within each initiative. 

For  the  first  aspect,  the  level  of  information  gathered  from  data  requests  and  field 
research revealed only a small number of potential duplication of  activities found. This 
could  be  an  indication  that  the  number  of  duplications  is  small  and  that  possible 
duplication between action points is not a concern for the different stakeholders. 

For the second aspect, the analysis of input from different sources (data requests and desk 
and  field  research)  suggests  a  number  of  areas  where  simplification  could  be  achieved 
within each initiative. Proposed simplification includes aspects such as revising reporting 
requirements,  reducing  the  scope  of  legislation,  and  changing  the  way  that  specific 
legislative acts  are implemented across the EU. Given the unavailability  of information 
of potential efficiency gains for each of these proposed simplifications, it is not possible 
to estimate potential combined savings for the entire White Paper. 

5.3.  Relevance 

5.3.1.  Evaluation question #10: Are the problems/needs identified in the White 

Paper still valid? 

Both from the modelling results of the support study and the consultation of stakeholders, 
it appears that the needs identified in the White Paper at the time of its adoption in 2011 
are still largely relevant today. Despite undeniable progress, key challenges of 2011, such 
as  the  need  of  greater  use  of  more  sustainable  transport  modes,  oil  dependency, 
congestion,  or  GHG  emissions  from  transport  are  still  on  the  agenda  for  EU  transport 
policy in 2020.  

At  the  time  of  White  Paper  adoption,  the  lack  of  improvement  in  the  environmental 
performance of the transport sector has been linked to the dominant role of road transport 
in both the freight and passenger sectors. The modal split has not significantly changed 
since  then  and  the  majority  of  stakeholders,  business  organisations,  civil  society 
organisation  as  well  as  representatives  of  the  public  administration,  consider  it  an 
ongoing need that the dominance of road transport be addressed. 

45 

 
 
 
At  the  time  of  White  Paper  adoption,  the  transport  sector  has  been  the  only  sector  to 
report almost continuous growth in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990.97 In 2011, the 
total  CO2  emissions  associated  with  the  transport  sector  (excluding  international 
maritime  shipping)  have  been  900  million  tonnes  of  CO2.  By  2018,  the  total  emissions 
have  increased  to  946  million  tonnes  of  CO2.  While  emissions  associated  with  the  rail 
sector,  inland  waterways  and  maritime  sector  have  fallen  since  2011,  emissions 
associated with the road and aviation sectors have increased over this period.  

In  the  case  of  air  pollution,  the  transport  sector  has  been  a  major  contributor  towards 
overall local air pollution from different sources at the time of the adoption of the White 
Paper, which exceeded legal limits (not only because of transport activities) in a number 
of  urban  and  non-urban  areas.98  Air  pollution  (associated  among  other  factors  with 
transport) remains as significant problem, and road transport a significant contributor to 
air  pollution  by  particulate  matter  and  by  nitrogen  dioxide  (NO2),  especially  in  the 
proximity to busy roads. 

Thus,  in  both  cases,  the  available  data  already  point  to  the  ongoing  need  for  further 
policy action, a conclusion that is also supported by the majority of stakeholders across 
all categories. In total, 57 out of 70 stakeholders indicate that they ‘fully agree’ that there 
is still a need for policy action to address the level of CO2 emissions and air pollutants 
from the transport sector. 

By 2018, fossil fuel products has represented the lion share of energy consumption in the 
transport sector with limited change since 2011. Despite continued fossil fuel dependency 
in the transport sector, alternative fuel technologies and active travel and micro-mobility 
modes are making inroads. Most stakeholders support the ongoing need for further policy 
action  to  reduce  oil  dependency,  with  no  significant  difference  in  responses  between 
different  stakeholder  categories.  The  same  picture  emerges  when  stakeholders  are 
consulted  on  the  need  to  keep  encouraging  the  uptake  of  new  technologies  in  vehicles 
and in the transport system, such as e-mobility. 

According to the external support study, in the Alternative scenario, by 2050 hours spent 
in congestion are projected to increase to 43.5 on average per driver and per year.  

The  need  to  address  congestion  is  bolstered  by  the  majority  of  stakeholders  across  all 
stakeholder categories, with 52 out of 69 stakeholders in the interviews conducted by the 
contractor for the support study expressing that they ‘fully agree’ that there is still a need 
for policy action to address the level of congestion. 

A  majority  of  consulted  stakeholders,  all  except  for  3  out  of  24  national  and  regional 
authorities,  consider  road  safety  still  a  relevant  need  to  be  addressed  by  EU  transport 
policy. 

Between  2011  and  2017,  the  R&D  intensity  in  Europe99  has  declined  by  5%.  Over  the 
same  time  period,  investment  in  transport  infrastructure  also  has  declined  by 

97 SEC(2011) 391 final. 
98 SEC(2011) 391 final. 
99 Eurostat data is only available for select Member States (BE, CZ, HR, FR, IT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SK, FI, SE, UK). 

46 

 
                                                           
approximately  20%.100  This  indicates  a  general  trend  of  declining  investment  in  the 
transport  sector,  which  suggests  that  the  need  to  maintain  competitiveness  of  the  EU 
transport sector is  still a need which requires  policy action.  It  will be important  for the 
EU transport sector to remain competitive, in regard to the emergence of alternative fuel 
technologies and the automation of the transport sector, which are both becoming central 
tenets of future of mobility systems.  

Similarly,  stakeholders  also  agree,  although  to  a  slightly  lesser  extent  than  for  other 
needs,  that  removing  market  access  barriers  for  transport  service  providers,  completing 
the Single European Transport Area and improving the quality of service are still relevant 
needs.  Again,  there  is  no  significant  difference  in  the  responses  between  different 
stakeholder groups. 

At  the  time  of  White  Paper  adoption,  around  one  in  six  people  in  the  EU  have  had  a 
disability. With this in mind, the White Paper acknowledges the need to provide reliable, 
safe, and quality services for individuals with reduced mobility.101 

Between  2011  and  2018,  the  number  of  older  people  living  in  the  EU  has  increased 
steadily,  by  an  average  annual  growth  rate  of  1.9%.102  In  addition  to  this,  the  ageing 
population is projected to increase from 20% of the total population in 2018 to 29% by 
2050, equivalent to 149 million people. Therefore, not only is the issue of accessibility a 
current  need,  but  it  is  likely  to  remain  a  need  which  requires  addressing  well  into  the 
future.  As  an  increasing  share  of  the  population  will  face  mobility  concerns,  facing 
difficulties driving and becoming more reliant upon public transport services, it will be 
essential for improvements in public transport services to be made. 

5.3.2.  Evaluation question #11: Have there been any changes in the EU transport or 
climate  change  policy  objectives  making  the  White  Paper  objectives  less 
relevant? To what extent are the objectives of the White paper still relevant 
in relation to current broader EU policy objectives? 

Since the adoption of the White Paper in 2011, several EU-level policies and strategies 
have been implemented which aim to transform the transport system, through providing 
new  strategic  visions,  implementing  new  targets,  and  advocating  new  policy  measures. 
Four  key  policy  documents  have  been  identified,  which  are  considered  to  reflect 
overarching EU policy objectives, in relation to transport and climate change policy: 

  The  European  Green  Deal  (2019)  and  the  Communication  to  step  up  Europe’s 

 

2030 climate ambition (2020);103 
‘A Clean Planet for all – A European long-term strategic vision for a prosperous, 
modern, competitive and climate neutral economy’? (2018);  

  European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility (2016);  
  The 2030 Climate & Energy Framework (2014). 

100 CE Delft (2019) Overview of transport infrastructure and costs. 
101 COM(2011) 144 final. 
102 Eurostat (2019): Ageing Europe. Looking at the lives of older people in the EU. 
103 COM(2020) 562 final. 

47 

 
 
                                                           
Through interviews and desk research conducted as part of the external support study, the 
release of the European Green Deal appears to be the most significant change to transport 
and climate policy objectives since 2011. The European Green Deal introduces a goal to 
reduce  GHG  emissions  in  the  transport  sector  by  90%  by  2050,  highlights  a  zero 
pollution ambition and the need to ramp-up the production and deployment of sustainable 
alternative transport fuels and calls for the price of transport to reflect the impact it has 
on the environment and on health. 

The Green Deal notes the need to implement public recharging and refueling stations, to 
support the transition away from oil dependency. Therefore, to align with the European 
Green  Deal,  the  White  Paper  would  need  to  enhance  the  ambition  of  reducing  the  oil 
dependency for the transport sector to achieving a ‘drastic decrease’ in oil dependency by 
2050. 

Beyond enhancing ambition in relation to environmental and climate change response, a 
growing  focus  on  digitalisation  and  automation  of  transport  is  apparent  from  recent 
strategic and policy documents. Other key objectives for EU transport policy highlighted 
in recent policy documents include multimodality, road safety and congestion. 

Whereas  the  GHG  emission  reductions  of  the  White  Paper  are  less  ambitious  than  the 
climate  neutrality  target  under  the  Green  Deal,  other  objectives  of  the  White  Paper  are 
still  relevant.  Initiatives  to  promote  digitalisation  and  automation  (e.g.  through  ITS, 
ERTMS, RIS) have already been introduced by the White Paper and remain high on the 
agenda,  as  well  as  the  “Vision  Zero”  for  road  safety  and  the  shift  towards  more 
sustainable mobility, that would better combine different modes of transport and thereby 
reduce congestion. 

5.3.3.  Evaluation  question  #12:  How  well  do  the  original  objectives  and  10 
headline  goals  of  the  White  Paper  still  correspond  to  the  current  transport 
and  climate  policy  needs?  &  Evaluation  question  #13:  Are  the  proposed  10 
headline  goals  still  adequate  benchmarks  for  achieving  an  integrated, 
sustainable and efficient transport system in the EU? 

Since the adoption of the White Paper in 2011, a series of new needs have emerged, or 
have  become  more  pressing.  These  needs  relate  to  climate  change,  employment  and 
working  conditions,  skills,  accessibility,  safety,  and  support  for  the  uptake  of  new 
technologies in transport systems. 

Despite  the  emergence  of  these  needs,  the  objectives  of  the  White  Paper  still  largely 
remain  relevant  in  terms  of  topic  area.  However,  regarding  the  headline  goals,  there  is 
greater disparity in the continued relevance in light of the new needs identified.  

For  the  third  headline  goal  on  modal  shift  and  the  tenth  headline  goal  on  the  “polluter 
pays”  and  “user  pays”  principles,  it  is  important  to  reflect  on  the  practicalities  of 
evaluating these shifts/applications in the context of the current evaluation. Both of these 
headline  goals  require  transformation  of  the  transport  system  in  different  areas,  where 
progress  has  been  limited  to  date.  Therefore,  not  only  do  further  measures  need  to  be 

48 

 
 
introduced, but also their impact would still need to be assessed. Nevertheless, the goals 
of moving towards more sustainable modes of transport and to better internalise external 
costs  of  transport  activities  remain  relevant  policy  priorities  in  the  context  of  the 
European Green Deal and the 2030 Climate Target Plan of the Commission. 

In  addition  to  reflecting  upon  the  existing  headline  goals,  the  new  needs  have  also 
resulted  in  the  desire  to  consider  the  potential  to  implement  new  goals  in  the  areas  of 
accessibility,  charging  and  refuelling  infrastructure  and  new  transport  services  (i.e. 
micro-mobility, mobility as a service, connected and automated vehicles). 

National  and  regional  authorities  and  EU  institutions  contributing  to  the  evaluation  are 
satisfied with the clarity of the goals and the alignment of the goals with the objectives of 
the  White  Paper.  However,  there  is  more  variation  in  perceptions  in  relation  to  the 
realistic nature of the headline goals from the national and regional authorities.  

In  contrast,  among  industry  associations  and  civil  society  (including  a  trade  union 
organisation)  and  research  organisations  a  relatively  low  proportion  indicate  that  the 
headline  goals  have  been  clearly  defined,  realistic  or  aligned  with  the  objectives  of  the 
White  Paper.  In  regard  to  the  use  of  the  headline  goals  to  facilitate  assessment  of  EU, 
national  and  regional  transport  systems,  the  majority  of  stakeholders  indicates  that  the 
goals  are  useful  for  assessing  the  environmental  impacts  of  the  transport  systems.  A 
lower  level  of  support  is  indicated  for  the  ability  of  the  headline  goals  to  assess  the 
energy efficiency of the transport systems or the level of integration of modes.  

5.4.  Coherence 

5.4.1.  Evaluation  question  #14: Are  the  White  Paper objectives coherent with the 
2018  European  strategic  long-term  vision  for  a  prosperous,  modern, 
competitive  and  climate  neutral  economy104  and  the  2016  Low-Emission 
Mobility strategy?105 

The  analysis  is  expanded  to  include  coherence  with  the  European  Green  Deal 
Communication of 2019106 and the 2030 Climate Target Plan.107 In addition to a review of 
the  White  Paper  and  the  other  Communications,  their  respective  supporting  documents 
have also been reviewed where relevant, i.e. the ‘In depth analysis’ that the Commission 
has  presented  in  support  of  the  ‘Clean  Planet  for  All’  Communication108  and  the 
respective  SWDs  containing  the  impact  assessments  for  the  White  Paper  and  the  Low-
Emission Mobility Strategy.109  

It is important to note that the White Paper has been published five years earlier than the 
next of these documents, which is also the other document that focuses on transport, i.e. 

104 COM(2018) 773 final. 
105 COM(2016) 501 final.  
106 COM(2019) 640 final. 
107 COM(2020) 562 final and the accompanying impact assessment SWD(2020) 176 final. 
108 European Commission (2018): In-Depth Analysis in Support of the Commission Communication COM(2018) 773 

final. 

109 SWD(2016) 244 final. 

49 

 
 
                                                           
the  Low-Emission  Mobility  Strategy.  The  other  two  strategies,  which  have  been 
published  another  two  and  three  years  later,  both  focus  on  environmental  issues  (the 
earlier  of  these,  ‘A  Clean  Planet  for  All’,  focuses  only  on  climate  change)  and  what 
might  be done in  different  sectors, including transport, in  order to  address  these issues. 
Hence, it might be expected that there would be an evolution in terms of what is covered 
in the respective documents and how. 

Such an evolution can be seen in relation to the context of the different documents. At the 
time of the adoption of the White Paper, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) has called for developed countries to reduce their GHG emissions by at least 80% 
by  2050  compared  to  1990  levels  in  order  to  keep  the  global  temperature  rise  to  2°C 
above pre-industrial levels. In its 2011 ‘Roadmap to a Low Carbon Economy by 2050’,110 
the  Commission  has  translated  this  into  a  reduction  of  between  54%  and  67%  from 
transport,  the  mid-point  of  which  has  been  used  in  the  White  Paper  as  one  of  the 
document’s core elements. The Low-Emission Mobility Strategy has reiterated the need 
to reduce transport’s GHG emissions by at least 60% compared to 1990 levels by 2050 
and for these to be “firmly on the path to zero” by then, while emissions of air pollutants 
from  transport  that  harm  our  health  are  to  be  drastically  reduced  without  delay.  The 
Strategy refers to the need for reducing air pollution by fostering several initiatives from 
the  White  Paper  programme,  including  for  example  the  revision  of  the  revision  of  the 
Clean Vehicles Directive111 or further deployment of intelligent transport systems. 

In between the publication of the Low-Emission Mobility Strategy and the ‘Clean Planet 
for All’ Communication, the IPCC has published its analysis112 of the implications of the 
Paris  Agreement,  which  had  reiterated  the  Parties’  desire  to  pursue  efforts  to  limit  the 
global  temperature  increase  to  1.5°C.  The  IPCC’s  analysis  has  demonstrated  that,  in 
order  to  limit  global  warming  to  1.5°C,  there  needs  to  be  net  zero  GHG  emissions  by 
around 2050. 

The ‘Clean Planet for All’ Communication has been a response to the UNFCCC’s Paris 
Agreement.  The  scenarios  presented  in  the  Communication  include  ways  of  delivering 
net zero emissions in the EU by 2050. The European Green Deal and the 2030 Climate 
Target Plan have effectively translated the findings of this Communication, specifically 
how to deliver a net zero GHG emissions economy by 2050, into a political commitment. 
In  this  respect,  these  two  documents  translate  the  net  zero  aspiration  to  mean  a  90% 
reduction  in  GHG  emissions  from  transport  by  2050,  which  is  clearly  greater  than  the 
GHG emissions reductions that underlay the White Paper. The 2030 Climate Target Plan 
introduces  the  ambition  of  reducing  greenhouse  gas  emissions  to  at  least  55%  below 
1990  levels  by  2030.  The  White  Paper  intermediate  goal  for  2030  has  been  a  20% 
reduction of GHG emissions below 2008 levels. 

110 COM(2011) 112 final. 
111  Directive  (EU)  2019/1161  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2019  amending  Directive 
2009/33/EC on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles, OJ L 188, 12.7.2019, p. 116–130. 
112 https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/  

50 

 
                                                           
Other  than  the  underlying  assumptions  regarding  CO2  emissions,  the  documents  also 
vary  in  terms  of  the  detail  in  which  they  set  out  the  measures  that  are  needed  in  the 
transport  sector,  which  is  partially  due  to  the  different  nature  of  the  respective 
documents, as described above. In spite of the differences in the nature of the documents, 
it  is  possible  to  see  some  evolution  of  the  measures  mentioned.  The  most  obvious 
example is in relation to connected and automated mobility. The White Paper makes only 
one  reference  to  ‘cooperative  systems’  in  relation  to  safety,  and  makes  no  mention  of 
connected and automated mobility, while the Low-Emission Mobility Strategy mentions 
the  latter  in  an  annex.  However,  the  two  more  recent  publications  give  a  much  higher 
profile to automated mobility, even though transport is only one of a number of sectors 
that  each  of  them  covers.  This  probably  reflects  the  increasing  attention  given  to  the 
potential  for,  and  the  technological  developments  relating  to  connected  and  automated 
mobility in the second half of the past decade. 

5.4.2.  Evaluation question #15: How does the White Paper interact with other EU/ 

national/ international initiatives which have similar objectives? 

5.4.2.1.  Consistency with initiatives at international level 
The  obvious  discrepancy  between  the  White  Paper  and  the  initiatives  of  international 
organisations is  in  relation to  the Paris Agreement,  which has committed the Parties to 
limit global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts 
to  limit  the temperature  increase to  1.5°C.  The  GHG reductions that have been core to 
the White Paper have been based on the aim of keeping this temperature increase to no 
more than 2°C. 

transport 

themes  covered  by 

The  high-level 
the  United  Nations’  Sustainable 
Development Goals (SDGs) are similar to those addressed by the White Paper. The one 
exception  worth  noting  is  the  former’s  emphasis  on  the  affordability  of  transport, 
whereas none of the initiatives of the White Paper explicitly cover either the affordability 
of transport or the particular concerns of low income groups.  

The White Paper underlines the need for international action in the aviation and maritime 
fields. The work of ICAO, IMO and ILO (on maritime labour), in particular, appear to be 
coherent to the White Paper. Indeed, the White Paper explicitly notes the need to update 
some  EU  legislation  in  response  to  changes  in  the  respective  IMO  Convention  (on  the 
training and certification of seafarers), while both the work of the ICAO and the White 
Paper note the importance of safety information exchange. 

5.4.2.2.  Consistency with initiatives at EU level 
For  the  other  EU-level  initiatives,  the  focus  is  on  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  its 
Flagship  Initiatives,  as  well  as  on  high-level  initiatives  in  climate  action,  employment, 
taxation,  digitalisation  and  sustainable  development  that  have  not  been  covered 
elsewhere. 

51 

 
 
 
The  initiatives  that  have  been  published  after  the  White  Paper  address  many  of  the 
latter’s  main  themes,  or  at  least  issues  that  are  covered  by  the  White  Paper.  Common 
themes  include  the  importance  of  clean,  efficient  and  integrated  transport  and  resilient 
infrastructure. 

In relation to the Europe 2020 Strategy, almost all stakeholders believe that its objectives 
are  consistent  with  those  of  the  White  Paper,  but  some  criticise  inconsistent 
implementation of (parts of) the strategies. 

Similarly to  the Sustainable Development  Goals, transport is  recognised  as an essential 
service  in  the  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights  for  fulfilling  a  basic  need  in  enabling 
people  to  integrate  into  society  and  the  labour  market,  but  also  as  representing  a 
significant part of household expenditure. 

The  treatment  of  modal  shift  in  different  policies  is  raised  by  different  stakeholders 
contributing  to  the  evaluation,  although  from  different  perspectives.  Some  argue  that 
other initiatives, including the United Nations’ SDGs and the Sustainable Urban Mobility 
Plans  (SUMPs)  promoted  by  the  Commission’s  Urban  Mobility  Strategy,  put  more 
emphasis on modal shift than the White Paper. On the other hand, others argue that the 
White  Paper  –  and  some  other  EU  polices  –  focus  too  much  on  modal  shift,  which 
undermines  the  positive  role  that  the  road  transport  can  play,  both  in  terms  of  the 
economy and in improving the environmental performance of transport. 

5.4.2.3.  Consistency with initiatives at national level 
Overall, the findings from the external support study suggest that in a majority of cases 
national  and  regional  transport  strategies  focus  on  similar  problems  and  have  similar 
objectives as the White Paper. In a minority of cases, there is no clear match between the 
national and regional strategies and the White Paper, whereas strategies are contradictory 
only in  a very small number of cases.  Interviews with  national  and regional  authorities 
suggest  that  the  White  Paper’s  objectives  have  often  fully,  or  to  a  significant  extent, 
informed the objectives set in national and regional strategies.  

This  suggests  that  the  White  Paper  is  generally  consistent  with  national  and  regional 
initiatives. To some extent, this is not surprising, as EU Member States are facing similar 
challenges  in  terms  of  transport  and  its  associated  adverse  impacts,  although  these  my 
differ in their extent and coverage between different countries. 

5.4.3.  Evaluation  question  #16:  To  what  extent  are  the  White  Paper  initiatives 
complementary  to  each  other,  mutually  supportive  and  non-contradictory? 
Are there any synergies, overlaps and/or inconsistencies between them? 
The support study suggests that the action points of the White Paper generally provide a 
coherent framework to deliver the objectives of the White Paper, which themselves are 
considered to be an appropriate framework for developing and implementing sustainable 
transport.  

52 

 
 
 
Of the three priority objectives, two (reducing GHG emissions and oil dependency) are 
closely linked. While the second of these also has an energy security aspect, reducing oil 
dependency will have the impact of reducing GHG emissions, as long as the alternatives 
to oil are not as carbon intensive. The third main objective, i.e. reducing congestion, can 
be interpreted  as being  both an environmental  and economic objective.  Hence, none of 
the three priority objectives themselves address any social considerations, which is one of 
the  three  pillars  of  a  sustainable  development  and  so  of  a  sustainable  transport  policy. 
However, the White Paper’s additional objectives address this gap, as they cover access 
and  mobility  needs  (which  also  have  an  economic  dimension),  affordability,  as  well  as 
safety and security. These additional objectives also expand economic considerations to 
include  efficiency  and  high  quality  services,  as  well  as  the  environmental  impacts 
covered to include air pollution, noise, biodiversity loss and increased land use. Hence, 
together,  the  priority  and  additional  objectives,  although  not  the  priority  objectives  on 
their own, can be seen to provide a coherent set of objectives to support the development 
and implementation of sustainable transport.     

The  action  points  appear  to  provide  a  coherent  framework  for  addressing  the  White 
Paper’s  objectives.  Annex  7  provides  an  overview  of  the  relation  between  the  action 
points  and  the  objectives.  Whereas  all  action  points  are  meant  to  contribute  directly  to 
certain objectives, they often indirectly also support the attainment of other objectives.  

An  important  gap  seems  to  be  that  biodiversity  loss  is  not  explicitly  mentioned  in  the 
White Paper action points, although there is a recognition in the text of the White Paper 
that  transport  infrastructure  needs  to  reduce  its  negative  impacts  on  natural  assets, 
including land and ecosystems. Yet,  one infrastructure-related action point refers to  the 
need to take account of environmental issues in the early stages of planning procedures. 

A  vast  majority  of  national  authorities  participating  in  the  stakeholder  consultation 
activities  of  the  study,  as  well  as  a  majority  of  business  organisations  believe  that  the 
White  Paper’s  initiatives  provide  a  coherent  framework  for  the  development  and 
implementation  of  a  sustainable  transport  policy.  Representatives  of  civil  society  and 
research  tend  to  be  more  critical  in  their  views  on  this  question.  Some  call  for  more 
progress  to  be  made  on  the  internalisation  of  external  costs,  automated  and  connected 
driving  and  modal  shift.  The  European  Conference  of  Transport  Research  Institutes 
(ECTRI) notes that the White Paper may emphasise competition too much at the expense 
of collaboration that it underestimates the challenges posed by some of its more radical 
objectives  and  that  it  does  not  take  sufficient  account  of  the  needs  of  the  end  user  or 
focus sufficiently on passenger rights.  

A  common  theme  to  emerge  from  the  stakeholder  engagement  is  that  the  ambitious 
objectives  of  the  White  Paper  is  not  matched  by  the  initiatives,  because  important 
initiatives have been delayed, whereas in other cases they are unrealistically ambitious. 

5.4.3.1.  Potential synergies between initiatives of the White Paper 
The majority of the action points potentially contribute to the delivery of more than one 
objective, while the delivery of each objective can count  on the contribution of at  least 

53 

 
 
five  action  points  (Annex  7).  This  underlines  how,  at  least  at  a  high  level,  the  action 
points have the potential to work together to potentially deliver the objectives. 

A number of industry organisations identifies various synergies, e.g. between the TEN-T, 
Connecting  Europe  Facility  and  NAIADES,  between  multimodality  and  e-mobility  and 
potentially  between  road  pricing  and  financing.  CEN  CENELEC  notes  that  there  are 
synergies between EU Directives and Regulations and the standardisation requests that it 
receives.  From  the  perspective  of  civil  society  and  research  organisations,  there  are 
synergies between road safety and urban mobility, while ECTRI notes the links between 
the White Paper and EU transport research. 

5.4.3.2.  Overlaps or inconsistencies 
Of the stakeholders that have expressed a view, 11 out of 29 believe that there are some 
inconsistencies or overlaps between the specific individual initiatives set out in the White 
Paper. From the perspective of public authorities, the Association of German Cities feels 
that  the  approach  to  competition  and  regulation  is  not  balanced.  Business  stakeholders 
note that the alternative fuels promoted by the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive 
and  the  revised  Renewable  Energy  Directive  are  not  reflected  in,  or  complemented  by, 
the CO2 emissions regulations for vehicles. 

5.5.  EU added value  

5.5.1.  Evaluation question #17: What is the added value resulting from the EU level 
intervention  of  the  White  Paper  compared  to  the  results  brought  by  the 
actions which could have been achieved by Member States at national and/or 
regional level? 

From  a  legal  perspective,  EU  action  taken  in  the  context  of  the  White  Paper  has  been 
based  on  several  articles  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union, 
including Articles 91 and 100(2) that make provisions for the Common Transport Policy, 
and  Article  192  which  provides  a  legal  basis  for  addressing  the  environmental 
sustainability of the transport system. 

According to the impact assessment for the White Paper 2011, EU intervention has been 
justified  in  view  of  the  high  level  of  complexity  of  transport  system,  the  interaction 
between  multiple  actors  and  the  global  relevance  of  transport  and  of  its  effect  on  the 
economy, society and the environment. EU action has been seen as justified to reach the 
objectives and complement the action of stakeholders and Member States. 

Stakeholders  highlight  that  EU  actions  associated  with  the  White  Paper  have  helped 
avoid  fragmentation  of  the  transport  market,  for  example  through  the  4th  Railway 
Package. All civil society and research organisations agree (5 out of 8), along with 14 out 
of  23  industry  organisations  and  12  out  of  24  national  and  regional  authorities.  Only  3 
respondents disagree with this (one regional authority and two industry organisations. 

54 

 
 
 
 
A  large  proportion  of  stakeholders  agrees  or  strongly  agrees  that  EU  level  actions 
associated  with  the  White  Paper  have  increased  the  effectiveness  of  measures, 
specifically because they have been agreed at EU level. Five out of eight civil society and 
research  organisations  and  14  out  of  25  national  and  regional  authorities  agree,  along 
with  a  further  4  regional  authorities  who  strongly  agree  .  Whilst  10  out  of  23  industry 
associations also agree with this, 3 disagree. 

Similarly, a large proportion of stakeholders agree that EU level actions associated with 
the  White  Paper  have  led  to  increased  efficiencies  (for  authorities,  industry  and/or 
consumers)  through  ensuring  common  objectives,  through  better  coordinating  efforts 
among  Member  States  and  by  creating  synergies  and  avoiding  duplication.  5  out  of  8 
civil  society  and  research  organisations  and  nine  out  of  24  national  and  regional 
authorities  agree,  along  with  a  further  3    national  and  regional  authority  strongly 
agreeing.  However,  whilst  11  industry  representatives  agree,  a  further  9  appear  more 
critical and express a negative view. 

A  majority  of  stakeholders  (mainly  industry  associations)  also  considers  that  EU  level 
actions  associated  with  the  White  Paper  have  stimulated  research  and  innovation  at  a 
greater scale and have increased cooperation and information exchange. 

The analysis of the stakeholder reactions points at a clear added value of the specific EU 
level  actions  under  the  White  Paper.  The  majority  of  efforts  taken  towards  the  action 
points of the White Paper programme would  either not  have been possible without EU 
level  intervention  or  could  have  taken  place  but  would  have  been  less  effective  and 
efficient. Some progress towards them could have been expected in some Member States, 
but  in  most  cases,  this  would  be  fragmented  and  uncoordinated,  meaning  effectiveness 
would be limited. 

On the question, whether specific initiatives under the White Paper would have also been 
taken  at  national  or  sub-national  level  without  the  EU  strategy,  the  replies  from 
stakeholders are split. Many believe that EU action has been necessary, but almost half of 
the  respondents  representing  public  authorities  can  think  of  initiatives  that  might  have 
also  been  implemented  without  the  White  Paper,  mainly  in  the  areas  of  road  safety, 
sustainable urban transport and road usage charging. 

5.5.2.  Evaluation  question  #18:  To  what  extent  do  the  issues  addressed  in  the 

White Paper continue to require intervention at the EU level? 

The answers to  the evaluation questions  on effectiveness  have shown that  the expected 
progress  towards  reaching  the  main  objectives  of  the  White  Paper  (GHG  emission 
reduction by 60% by 2050, reducing oil dependency, limiting the growth of congestion) 
will be insufficient to achieve the White Paper’s vision for 2050. At the same time, the 
answers to the question on the relevance of the White Paper show that at least its three 
key objectives (and to a lesser extent the ten headline goals) continue to be relevant. In 
fact, recent Commission initiatives, such as the European Green Deal, the 2030 Climate 

55 

 
 
Target Plan113 and the Hydrogen Strategy114 demonstrate that the Commission intends to 
upkeep, modernise and strengthen the objectives and the underlying philosophy from the 
2011 White Paper on transport. This includes not only the decarbonisation objective for 
transport,  but  also  key  measures  to  make  the  EU  mobility  system  more  sustainable: 
multimodality,  digitalisation,  deployment  of  alternative  fuels,  concepts  for  sustainable 
urban mobility, social issues etc.   

Hence, the question is  not  whether the issues addressed in  the White Paper continue to 
require intervention, but whether it is justified to pursue this intervention at EU level. 

Climate  change  is  a  trans-boundary  problem.    For  trans-boundary  problems,  individual 
action  is  unlikely  to  lead  to  optimal  outcomes.  Instead,  coordinated  EU  action  can 
effectively  supplement  and  reinforce  national  and  local  action.  Coordination  of  the 
reduction of GHG emissions across the European Union benefits from coordination at the 
EU level given the EU’s single market. Action at the EU level is therefore indispensable 
and  coordinated  EU  policies  have  a  much  bigger  chance  of  leading  to  a  true 
transformation  towards  a  climate  neutral  economy  by  2050.115  This  finding  from  the 
impact  assessment accompanying the 2030 Climate Target  Plan essentially also  applies 
to the ongoing quest for decarbonisation and reducing the environmental footprint of the 
transport sector in the EU. 

The EU single market moreover acts as a strong driver for cost-efficient change. This is 
particularly important  for wide-spread acceptance of technological  change and to  foster 
public and private investments therein.  Examples include the incentives for cleaner road 
vehicles and the development distribution of alternative fuels. 

Connectivity in the single market, mainly pursued through initiatives in the framework of 
TEN-T  and  supported  by  the  CEF,  is  key  for  more  sustainable  freight  distribution, 
multimodality  and  reducing  congestion,  while  promoting  accessibility  and  affordability 
of  transport.  This  is  a  cross-border  challenge  by  its  very  nature  and  can  only  be 
efficiently addressed with initiatives at EU level. 

One  can  argue  that  the  promotion  of  sustainable  urban  mobility  and  in  particular 
achieving CO2 free  city  logistics would be better achieved at national  or  local  level,  in 
line  with  the  subsidiarity  principle.  It  is  true  that  the  White  Paper  and  its  initiatives 
address  urban  mobility  mainly  through  initiatives  that  aim  at  raising  awareness  or 
promote the exchange of best practice. 

Yet, essential preconditions for a more sustainable urban passenger and freight mobility 
have to be created at EU level, be it emission standards for vans and trucks sold on the 
single market, investment in research and development for smart and connected mobility 
solutions,  fostering  the  roll-out  of  critical  mass  of  alternative  fuel  infrastructure  or 

113 COM(2020) 562 final. 
114 COM(2020) 301 final. 
115 SWD(2020) 176 final. 

56 

 
                                                           
creating  a  functioning  framework  for  competition  among  providers  of  new  mobility 
solutions, such as MaaS, ride-sharing or ride-hailing. 

5.5.3.  Evaluation question #19: What would be the progress made in the EU to date 
and  by  2050  in  reducing  GHG  emissions,  fossil  fuel  dependency  and 
congestion without the actions put forward in the White Paper? 

This evaluation question considers what would have been the situation in the absence of 
the EU intervention under the White Paper. 

Thus, in many respects it reflects the expected progress under the hypothetical Baseline 
scenario where Member States would not strategically follow the guiding principles and 
framework for action to be taken as set out in the White Paper. 

At  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  White  Paper,  the  supporting  impact  assessment  has 
concluded that the transport system has provided Europe with a high degree of mobility 
with an ever-increasing performance in terms of speed, comfort, safety and convenience. 
However, despite the progress made in certain areas there had been no structural change 
in the way the system operated. It has been considered unsustainable, characterised by an 
ever-increasing  level  of  CO2  emissions,  persistent  oil  dependency  and  high  levels  of 
congestion.  Four  root  causes  that  would  prevent  the  EU  transport  system  from 
developing  in  a  sustainable  system  have  been  identified  as  consisting  in  inefficient 
pricing,  inadequate  research  investment,  inefficient  transport  services  and  a  lack  of 
integrated  transport  planning.  Based  on  this,  the  impact  assessment  has  developed  a 
projection of the expected evolution  of the problem and its expected impacts  under the 
‘no-policy change’ scenario, where it has been assumed that there would be no additional 
policy  interventions  besides  those  already  in  place.  These  have  included  all  transport-
specific  policies  adopted  by  March  2010  as  well  as  the  2008  Climate  and  Energy 
Package.116  

According to the impact assessment accompanying the White Paper, under the no policy 
change  scenario,  the  transport  system  would  be  expected  to  not  become  sufficiently 
resource efficient so as to promote sustainable growth in the meaning of the Europe 2020 
strategy. As a result: 

  Transport would remain dependent on oil whereas CO2 emissions from transport-

related activities account would still grow. 

  Congestion would continue growing. 

  The transport system would not keep pace with the mobility needs and aspirations 

of people and businesses. 

The  Baseline  scenario  developed  in  the  context  of  this  evaluation  shows  that  despite 
reductions  in  technology  costs  and  the  revised  macro-economic  and  fuel  price 

116 The list of policy interventions considered under the baseline scenario included policies adopted up to 2010 covering a 
broad range of areas. The complete list of 24 such measures included in the baseline is provided in Appendix 4 of the IA 
assessment report. 

57 

 
 
                                                           
framework, CO2 emissions from transport117 would stabilise by 2030 and increase by 4% 
by  2050  relative  to  2010,  in  absence  of  additional  policies  beyond  2011.  Compared  to 
1990, the reference year for the White Paper target, CO2 emissions from transport would 
still be 29% higher in 2050. 

No significant progress would take place in the oil dependency ratio by 2050 relative to 
2010.  The  oil  dependency  ratio  would  only  decrease  by  about  2  percentage  points 
between 2010 and 2050.  

High  congestion  levels  are  still  projected  by  2050  in  the  Baseline  scenario,  with  delay 
costs  expected  to  increase  by  34%  between  2010  and  2050.  More  details  on  the 
assumptions underpinning the Baseline scenario and its results are provided in Annex 5. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

Since  its  adoption  in  2011  the  Commission  has  made  considerable  progress  on  the 
implementation of the White Paper programme. Currently 15 out of the 40 action points 
of the White Paper have been fully implemented by the Commission and another 7 can 
be considered in an advanced state of implementation. All other actions are in progress. 
On  the  basis  of  quantitative  desk  and  field  research  and  various  stakeholder  activities, 
certain  conclusions  can  be  drawn  on  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence 
and EU added value of the White Paper and its initiatives. 

The analysis shows that in many cases the White Paper’s measures have not yet delivered 
their expected impacts as their implementation by Member States is yet to come or it is 
too  recent  in  time.  However,  this  appears  quite  in  line  with  the  medium-  to  long-term 
timeline of the strategy which has been designed to deliver results by 2030 and 2050. 

The findings of the evaluation indicate that there is a need for an integrated and focused 
approach  that  includes  all  relevant  EU  policies  that  can  contribute  to  achieve  a 
sustainable  and  smart  transport  system.  Therefore,  together  with  this  evaluation,  the 
Commission  puts  forward  a  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy118  to  prepare 
European  transport  for  the  future.  The  staff  working  document  accompanying  that 
strategy  highlights  remaining  challenges  and  draws  conclusions  on  the  lessons  learnt 
from the policy developments until today. 

6.1.  Effectiveness 

Evidences collected from available statistical sources show that limited progress has been 
achieved by 2018 towards the three specific objectives. This is also due to the long-term 
time  horizon  of  the  strategy  (until  2050).  The  White  Paper  does  not  assume  a  linear 

117 Excluding international maritime, in line with the 2011 White Paper target for 2050. 
118 COM(2020) 789 final. 

58 

 
 
 
                                                           
trajectory  of  emission  reductions,  but  expects  increased  decarbonisation  efforts  after 
2030, with cleaner and more efficient technology becoming gradually more widespread. 

The progress towards the GHG emissions reduction goal in 2050 of the White Paper is 
projected  to  be  limited,  although  significant  progress  is  expected  take  place  towards 
achieving  the  2030  milestone.119  Results  from  the  modelling  exercise  show  that  for  the 
EU-27,  thanks  to  the  White  Paper  overall  CO2  emissions  from  transport  (including 
international  aviation,  excluding  international  maritime  shipping)  would  be  16%  lower 
relative  to  the  Baseline  in  2030  and  39%  lower  in  2050.  In  particular,  emissions  from 
road transport are projected to be 19% below the Baseline levels in 2030 and 46% lower 
in  2050.  Policies  adopted  after  2011  would  contribute  significantly  towards  the  White 
Paper  milestone  for  2030  but  fall  short  in  delivering  the  60%  emissions  reductions  by 
2050, showing around 40 percentage points gap relative to the target.120  

The oil dependency of the EU transport sector is  still high, but  clearly decreasing.  The 
increase in the use of electricity and biofuels in  transport, mainly in road transport, has 
been a main determinant of the decrease in oil dependency in recent years. The initiatives 
adopted by the end of 2018 are projected to result in reductions in oil dependency, but the 
transport sector is projected to still be dependent on oil and petroleum products for 77% 
of its energy needs by 2050. 

The problem of road congestion persists in many European cities and urban areas. Based 
on projections in the  context  of this evaluation,  congestion will still increase over time 
although at slightly slower pace than without the White Paper. 

Progress towards the ten headline goals has been mixed so far. Some goals are projected 
to be achieved, others not or are too early to assess.  

Since 2011, only very limited progress is visible in the statistics measuring the fulfilment 
of the three key objectives and the ten headline goals. This is explained by the fact that it 
takes  time  for  the  initiatives  under  the  White  Paper  to  be  developed,  implemented  and 
have an effect. 

For instance, the current transport policies and measures would be sufficient to reach the 
objective of halving the use of ‘conventionally-fuelled’ cars in urban transport in the EU-
27 by 2030, as defined at the time of the adoption of the 2011 White Paper, but not to 
phase them out by 2050. 

Whereas the modal split for freight and passenger transport appears to be very stable, it is 
nevertheless noteworthy that both rail freight and rail passenger transport have increased 
tonne-kilometres/passenger-kilometres) 
their 
considerably since 2011, as compared to other modes, and are projected to continue to do 
so until 2050. 

transport  performance  (in 

terms  of 

119  It  is  important  to  note  that  the  impact  assessment  accompanying  the  2011  White  Paper  assumed  further 
intensification of policies after 2030, whereas this evaluation only takes into account policies adopted by the end of 
2018. 
120  It  is  important  to  note  that  the  impact  assessment  accompanying  the  2011  White  Paper  assumed  further 
intensification of policies after 2030, whereas this evaluation only takes into account policies adopted by the end of 
2018. 

59 

 
                                                           
The Commission has made proposals to move towards full application of “user pays” and 
“polluter pays” principles in EU transport, but significant efforts remain to be made. 

Two  achievements,  which  are  also  highlighted  by  surveyed  stakeholders  as  being 
particularly cost effective, are the progress made on the Single European Transport Area, 
namely  the  market  opening  in  the  railway  sector,  and  various  successful  initiatives  to 
improve the safety of transport activities. 

Good  progress  can  be  reported  on  accessibility  of  transport  services.  Eurobarometer 
surveys indicate a high level of satisfaction with the quality of transport services and the 
application of passenger rights provisions. Several initiatives in the context of the White 
Paper  have  improved  the  social  protection  of  transport  workers,  in  particular  in  road 
haulage.  This  is  also  confirmed  by  stakeholders.  Yet,  mainly  civil  society  and  research 
organisations fear that developments like automation and digitalisation could negatively 
impact future working conditions in transport. 

6.2.  Efficiency 

While  significant  data  gaps  exist,  it  can  be  concluded  that  policy-related  (Commission 
internal work and third-party studies) and administrative costs are a very small share of 
the overall implementation costs of the White Paper initiatives. Capital costs, including 
investments  in  technology  or infrastructure, form the majority of implementation  costs, 
and total at least tens of billions of euro across the EU since the White Paper has been 
published  in  2011.  These  costs  are  spread  across  many  stakeholders,  including  the  EU 
institutions  and  bodies 
industry  and  civil  society 
stakeholders.  

themselves,  Member  States, 

Quantifiable  benefits  have  been  mentioned  by  stakeholders  with  reference  to  the 
initiatives completing the Single European Transport Area, in particular in the area of rail 
transport (4th Railway Package). Transport safety legislation in the context of the White 
Paper has also quantifiable benefits according to stakeholders. 

The  total  transport  system  costs  are  projected  to  decrease  further,  mainly  due  to  a 
reduction in the fuel costs which takes place as a result of the market uptake of electro-
mobility,  increased  use  of  public  transport  and  the  expected  shift  towards  more  fuel-
efficient transport modes such as rail. 

The reduction of CO2 emissions, which is a major benefit to society, is the result of the 
policies targeting the penetration of less carbon intensive technologies in the market, the 
support  of  alternative  fuels  and  the  gradual  shift  towards  more  sustainable  transport 
modes. 

Due to the data limitations (data was very disperse and often non-comparable), it has not 
been  possible  to  reach  conclusions  on  the  overall  costs  and  benefits  resulting  from  the 
White Paper for the stakeholder  groups under analysis.  It has  also  not  been possible to 

60 

 
 
 
 
identify groups of stakeholders that, overall, were subject to any undue burdens, or that 
experienced significant benefits. Nonetheless, from the society perspective, only looking 
at  a  few  initiatives,  namely  those  related  to  road  and  air  safety,  the  benefits  to  society 
seem to already vastly outnumber the costs incurred with specific initiatives. 

6.3.  Relevance 

The needs that have been identified for EU transport policy at the time of the adoption of 
the White Paper in 2011 are to a very large extent still relevant today. This is particularly 
the  case  for  the  environmental  performance  and  need  to  modernise  the  EU  transport 
sector. Similarly, the needs to increase competitiveness and deepen the single market for 
transport services are still valid. Despite some progress in terms of improved safety, for 
stakeholders the issue is rightly still high on the agenda. 

6.4.  Coherence 

The  analysis  of  the  coherence  criterion  has  identified  two  issues  in  relation  to  the 
coherence of the 2011 White Paper with the 2016 Low-Emission Mobility Strategy, the 
2018  ‘Clean  Planet  for  All’  Communication,  the  2019  European  Green  Deal  and  the 
2030 Climate Target Plan of 2020.  

The  first  of  these  relates  to  the  way  in  which  the  understanding  of  the  need  to  reduce 
GHG emissions more generally, and from the transport sector in particular, has evolved 
in the last decade. The White Paper (and also the Low-Emission Mobility Strategy)  set 
the  objective  to  cut  transport’s  GHG  emissions  by  60%  in  order  to  reduce  GHG 
emissions by at least 80% by 2050. This goal was set in 2011 and it is not in line with 
climate neutrality by 2050. The European Green Deal and the 2030 Climate Target Plan 
introduce the ambition of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to at least 55% below 1990 
levels  by  2030  (White  Paper  intermediate  goal  for  2030:  20%  reduction  of  GHG 
emissions  below  2008  levels)  and  highlight  that,  to  achieve  climate  neutrality,  a  90% 
reduction in transport emissions is needed by 2050.  

The second issue that has been identified is the increasing attention given to connected 
and automated mobility, even in the European Green Deal, which has a relatively brief 
section  on  transport,  in  particular  compared  to  the  White  Paper  and  the  Low-Emission 
Mobility Strategy. 

The main issue that has  been identified in relation to the coherence of the White Paper 
and the initiatives of international organisations, as well as in relation to some other EU 
policy initiatives, is the lack of coherence between the GHG reductions that underlay the 
Transport  White  Paper  with  those  that  are  necessary  to  meet  the  aspirations  of  the 
subsequent Paris Agreement (and recently revised EU climate targets).  

The White Paper is generally consistent with national and regional initiatives. 

61 

 
 
 
In terms of internal coherence, the action points of the White Paper generally provide a 
coherent framework to deliver the objectives of the White Paper, which themselves are 
considered to be an appropriate framework for developing and implementing sustainable 
transport. 

6.5.  EU Added Value 

For  trans-boundary  problems,  such  as  climate  change  mitigation,  individual  action  is 
unlikely  to  lead  to  optimal  outcomes.  Instead,  coordinated  EU  action  can  effectively 
supplement  and  reinforce  national  and  local  action.  Action  at  EU  level  is  therefore 
indispensable  and  coordinated  EU  policies  have  a  much  bigger  chance  of  leading  to  a 
true transformation towards a climate neutral economy by 2050.121 This finding from the 
impact  assessment accompanying the 2030 Climate Target  Plan essentially also  applies 
to the ongoing quest for decarbonisation and reducing the environmental footprint of the 
EU transport sector. 

The EU single market acts as a strong driver for cost-efficient change. This is particularly 
important  for  wide-spread  acceptance  of  technological  change  and  to  foster  public  and 
private investments  therein.  Examples include the incentives for taking up cleaner road 
vehicles and the development and distribution of alternative fuels. 

There appears to be a clear added value of the specific EU level actions under the White 
Paper. The majority of efforts taken towards implementing the action points of the White 
Paper would either not have been possible without EU level intervention or could have 
taken  place  but  would  have  been  less  effective  and  efficient.  Some  progress  towards 
them could have been expected in some Member States, but in most cases, this would be 
fragmented and uncoordinated, meaning effectiveness would be limited.  

121 SWD(2020) 176 final. 

62 

 
 
                                                           
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

DG Mobility and Transport is the lead DG on this evaluation. The evaluation has been validated 
in Decide under the reference PLAN/2019/4992. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The  evaluation  has  been  launched  on  4  December  with  the  first  meeting  of  the  interservice 
steering group, consisting of the following DGs: CLIMA, COMP, ECFIN, EMPL, ENER, ENV, 
ESTAT, GROW, HOME, JRC, JUST, MARE, MOVE, RTD, SG, SJ, TAXUD, REGIO. 

The roadmap for the evaluation has been published on the Better Regulation Portal on 7 February 
2019. 

The  Commission  has  contracted  an  external  consultant  to  carry  out  the  study  to  support  the 
evaluation. The study has been kicked-off on 6 September 2019. 

The inception report of the support study has been received on 27 September 2019. After written 
consultation of the ISG, a revised version was accepted on 29 October 2019. 

The ISG has met on 29 January 2020 to discuss the first interim report of the support study and 
on 29 June 2020 to discuss the second interim report. 

The Commission has conducted an open public consultation (OPC) on the evaluation from 1 July 
2020 to  23  September 2020. The  OPC  had  initially  been  planned  for  spring  2020.  Its  start  had 
been delayed to the Covid-19 pandemic. 

The ISG has met on 11 November 2020 to discuss the draft final report of the support study. 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

The evaluation has been carried out in line with the Better Regulation Guidelines. Exceptionally, 
no  dedicated  consultation  strategy  has  been  published  for  this  evaluation,  because  the 
consultation activities had been merged with the consultation for the Strategy on Sustainable and 
Smart  Mobility  of  the  Commission.  Due  to  the  Covid-19  pandemic,  a  planned  stakeholder 
conference and workshops with stakeholders could not be held. 

4.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The  evaluation  relies  mostly  on  the  support  study  on  the  ex-post  evaluation  conducted  by  the 
external  consultant.  In  the framework  of  the support study,  experts  from  the  Commission  have 
provided data and information on the state of play of the implementation of the various initiatives 
under  the  2011  White  Paper.  The  external  consultant  has  carried  out  targeted  interviews  with 
stakeholders and national and regional authorities. The external consultant has also drawn on the 
results of the OPC to answer the evaluation questions. 

63 

 
 
 
Annex 2: The ten headline goals of the White Paper 

The  White  Paper  identifies  ten  goals  for  a  competitive  and  resource  efficient  transport 
system that serve as benchmarks an integrated, sustainable and efficient transport system 
in the EU and accompany the 40 action points of the White Paper strategy: 

1.  Halve  the  use  of  conventionally  fuelled  cars  in  urban  transport  by  2030,  phase 
them  out  in  cities  by  2050,  and  achieve  essentially  CO2-free  city  logistics  in 
major urban centres by 2030. 

2.  40% low-carbon sustainable fuels in aviation by 2050; reduce EU CO2 emissions 

from maritime bunker fuels by 40% by 2050, (if feasible by 50%)122. 

3.  Shift 30% of road freight above 300 km to rail and waterborne by 2030 and more 

than 50% by 2050, facilitated by efficient and green freight corridors. 

4.  Triple  the  length  of  the  existing  high-speed  rail  network  by  2030,  and  by  2050 
have a complete European high-speed rail network, and maintain a dense railway 
network  in  all  Member  States.  The  majority  of  medium-distance  passenger 
transport should go by rail by 2050. 

5.  Fully functional and EU-wide multi-modal TEN-T ‘Core Network’ completed by 
2030,  with  a  high  quality  and  capacity  network  by  2050  and  corresponding 
information services. 

6.  Multimodal  connections  between  all  Core  Network  airports  and  rail,  between 
Core  Network  seaports  and  rail  and,  where  possible,  seaports  and  inland 
waterways by 2050. 

7.  Deployment  of  traffic  management  systems  in  the  various  modes,  including  air 
traffic  (SESAR)  by  2020.  Deployment  of  the  European  Global  Navigation 
Satellite System (Galileo). 

8.  By  2020,  establish  the  framework  for  a  European  multimodal  transport 

information, management and payment system. 

9.  Halve road casualties by 2020, move close to zero fatalities by 2050. 

10. Move  towards  full  application  of  ‘user  pays’  and  ‘polluter  pays’  principles  and 
private sector engagement to eliminate distortions and harmful subsidies, and to 
generate revenues and ensure financing for future transport investments. 

122 Cf. Commission Communication “A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050”, COM 

(2011) 112 final. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Annex 3: Intervention logic of the White Paper 2011 

65 

 
 
Annex 4: Stakeholder consultation 

The stakeholder consultation activities in the context of this evaluation were as follows: 

  A  survey  of  national  and  regional  authorities  was  launched  on  13  December 

2019 and remained open until 31 March 2020; 

  An  interview  programme  was  launched  on  17  December  2019  and  remained 

open until 4 May 2020; 

  An  OPC  was  launched  on  1  July  2020  and  remained  open  until  23  September 

2020.  

I. Consultation strategy 

Overall approach 
The stakeholder consultation for this evaluation support study aimed to gather the views 
of relevant stakeholders on the following issues: 

  The effectiveness of the overall White Paper strategy and its 40 action points; 

  The extent to which the costs of the White Paper initiatives are proportionate to 

the benefits achieved; 

  The  relevance  of  the  White  Paper  needs  and  objectives  in  view  of  current  and 
future  developments  in  the  transport  sector,  and  policy  changes  (i.e.  European 
Green Deal); 

  The coherence of the objectives of the White Paper with targets set out in other 

relevant policy areas; 

  The EU added value of the strategy. 

The consultation activities were tailored to the relevant stakeholder groups, according to 
their involvement in the White Paper.  

Survey of national and regional authorities  
Two  online  surveys  were  developed,  which  were  aimed  at  national  authorities  and 
regional authorities, respectively. The surveys were launched on 13 December 2019 and 
remained open until 31 March 2020.  

Both of the surveys were structured around the evaluation questions, and the 12 thematic 
areas  (pillars)  of  the  White  Paper.  The  surveys  included  a  range  of  closed  response 
questions,  based  on  a  5-point  Likert  scale,  to  assess  the  degree  of  agreement  with  a 
statement or the perceived strength  of a specific White Paper contribution.  A few open 
response  questions  were  also  included,  to  allow  respondents  to  elaborate  upon  their 

66 

 
 
 
 
response. The complete catalogue of questions was presented in the first interim progress 
report.  

The survey for regional, local and city authorities was disseminated by five organisations 
representing  cities,  regions  and  metropolitan  areas  (i.e.  Council  of  European 
Municipalities  and  Regions  (CEMR),  International  Council  for  Local  Environmental 
Initiatives  (ICLEI),  POLIS,  Eurocities  and  Emerging  Markets  Trade  Association 
(EMTA)).  Their  members  were  alerted  to  the  survey  through  direct  emails,  newsletters 
and social media posts. The regional survey was available in 14 languages123, via the EU 
Survey Tool. 

The  survey  aimed  at  national  authorities  was  distributed  to  contacts  identified  for  each 
EU  Member  State  by  the  study  team.  Where  possible,  national  contacts  were  asked  to 
disseminate  the  regional  survey  to  any  relevant  regional  contacts  within  their  Member 
State. The national survey was available in English, via the EU Survey Tool. 

From  January  2020  to  survey  closure,  sent  regular  email  reminders  were  sent  to  the 
contacts circulating the regional authority survey, and to the national authority contacts, 
to  maximise  the  response  rate.  In  total,  17  responses  were  received  to  the  national 
authority  survey  and  eight  responses  to  the  regional  authority  survey.  For  the  national 
authority  survey,  Estonia  and  Sweden  provided  two  responses,  on  behalf  of  different 
ministries within their respective Member States. As the responses were not coordinated, 
and offered differing insights, both sets of responses were included in the analysis.  

Targeted interviews 
The  interviews  followed  a  similar  structure  to  the  survey  of  authorities  and  were 
structured around the evaluation criteria and 12 pillars of the White Paper. Between 17 
December 2019 and 4 May 2020, 66 interviews were conducted, with an additional three 
stakeholders submitting written responses to the interview questionnaire, which brought 
the  total  number  of  contributions  to  69.  An  additional  five  stakeholders  submitted 
position  papers,  which  were  also  included  in  the  analysis.  The  interview  programme 
covered  a  wide  range  of  organisations,  including  EU  institutions  (i.e.  European 
Commission  Directorates-General,  EU  agencies,  etc.),  representatives  of  industry 
organisations,  labour  and  passenger  organisations,  research  organisation  organisations, 
and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). 

For the majority of stakeholder groups, the planned number of interviews was reached, or 
missed by one stakeholder. However, for city networks, only half the interviews initially 
predicted were conducted (3 out of 6). Given that the survey of regional authorities also 
took  place, this was not  seen as problematic,  as the survey  was  also  used to  gather the 
views of this stakeholder group.  

123  English,  German,  French,  Italian,  Spanish,  Polish,  Romanian,  Estonian,  Hungarian,  Portuguese,  Greek,  Czech, 
Bulgarian and Lithuanian. 

67 

 
 
 
                                                           
Open Public Consultation (OPC) 
The  Commission  launched  a  12-week  OPC  on  1  July  2020,  which  closed  on  23 
September 2020. The OPC invited all citizens and organisations to provide input on the 
White  Paper,  and  on  the  future  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy.  The  OPC 
covered the transport needs identified in  the White Paper, the objectives  and goals  that 
were  set,  the  proposed  initiatives  and  the  outcomes  that  were  achieved,  as  well  as  the 
overall impact of the strategy since its release. In total, 684 responses were received.  

II. Consultation analysis methodology  

Survey and interview analysis 
Following the  closure of the two online surveys  and the interview programme, the raw 
data was cleaned to allow analysis to take place. For all of the closed response questions, 
charts were developed.  

The  survey  questions  were  mapped  against  the  interview  questions.  Where  the  same 
questions were presented in the surveys and interviews, the following stakeholder groups 
were used: 

1.  National and regional authorities; 

2.  Industry organisations; 

3.  Civil society and research organisations. 

National and regional authorities include ministries within Member States and regions, 
as  well  as  organisations  which  represent  city  and  regional  networks.  Industry 
organisations include organisations which represent transport operators, manufacturers, 
managers of transport infrastructure, and trade associations representing business sectors 
related  to  transport.  Civil  society  and  research  organisations  include  NGOs,  trade 
unions, research organisations, campaign groups, organisations which represent transport 
users/consumers, and organisations which represent transport employees. 

In  some  cases,  where  the  questions  were  tailored  to  specific  stakeholder  groups, 
questions were only included in the interviews, or in the surveys. Charts have also been 
produced for these questions and the stakeholder consultation method has been indicated 
for these charts (i.e. Source: Survey of authorities).  

OPC analysis 
Following  the  OPC  closure,  the  responses  were  analysed.  The  analysis  involved 
developing  charts  to  display  the  responses  to  closed  questions.  The  responses  to  open 
questions were also analysed, split by respondent type, issue and, where relevant, by the 
particular interest of the respondent.  

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
III. Identified campaigns and ad-hoc contributions 

No  identified  campaigns  or  ad-hoc  contributions  were  received  through  the  targeted 
consultation of surveys and interviews. Under the OPC, identified campaigns for public 
consultations  (where  organisations  have  called  their  members  to  participate  with 
coordinated  responses)  were  analysed  separately,  and  their  share  of  the  total 
contributions was reported. In addition, ad-hoc contributions that were submitted outside 
of the formal consultation process were reviewed and presented, noting the origin of the 
contribution and the stakeholder group. In total, 116 ad-hoc contributions were received 
as part of the OPC analysis. 

IV. Respondents to the OPC 

There were 684 responses to the questionnaire. Responses from industry representatives 
made up the largest share of responses, followed by citizens, who contributed nearly one 
third of the responses.   

Organisation type 

There  were  more  responses  from  large  organisations,  than  organisations  of  other  sizes, 
although there were a fair number of responses from organisations of all sizes.  

Responses were received from respondents residing in, or organisations based in 25 EU 
Member States, with only Cyprus and Lithuania not being represented. In addition, there 
were responses from Canada, Japan, Moldova, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Turkey, the 
United Kingdom and the United States. Over half of the respondents were based in either 
Belgium  (21%),  France  (19%)  or  Germany  (14%),  with  the  high  concentration  in  the 
former linked to the number of pan-European trade associations and other representative 
bodies that are based in the country. 

Organisation size

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Organisation country of origin 

V. Results of the stakeholder consultation activities 

Effectiveness 
Stakeholder  perceptions  relating  to  progress  made  against  the  White  Paper  objectives 
vary significantly, depending on the White Paper objective. 

In  relation  to  the  first  White  Paper  objective,  on  reducing  greenhouse  gas  (GHG) 
emissions  from  transport  by  60%  by  2050  compared  to  1990  levels,  the  majority  of 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
respondents either noted ‘no change’ or an improvement in the level of GHG emissions 
since 2011. Similarly, a large proportion of respondents suggested that ‘no change’ had 
occurred  in  relation  to  the  second  White  Paper  objective,  on  decreasing  the  oil 
dependency  of  transport-related  activities  over  the  past  decade.  Of  the  three  specific 
objectives,  progress  against  the  third  White  Paper  objective,  on  limiting  the  growth  of 
congestion, was perceived least favourably by stakeholders.  

The targeted consultation also covered progress  made towards the general objectives of 
the White Paper, in terms of accessibility, provision and quality of transport services, and 
the minimisation of external costs to society. A large majority of respondents considered 
that  at  least  a  ‘slight  improvement’  had  occurred  in  relation  to  the  accessibility  of 
transport  services  for  individuals  and  companies.  With  regard  to  the  accessibility  of 
peripheral regions, views were also largely positive. For people with special needs, slight 
to  significant  improvements  in  the accessibility  of transport services were identified by 
the  majority  of  respondents  (38  out  of  58).  The  perspectives  of  the  OPC  respondents 
reflected the positive view on the role of the White Paper in  improving accessibility to 
transport services for individuals (262 out of 435) and companies (172 out of 338). 

Views  regarding  the  progress  made  in  relation  to  the  affordability  of  transport  services 
since 2011 were more mixed. Out of 64 respondents, 22 respondents stated that there was 
at least a ‘slight improvement’, 15 respondents stated that ‘no change’ had occurred and 
9 respondents indicated at least a ‘slight deterioration’. Stakeholders generally displayed 
a  positive  response  in  relation  to  the  progress  made  on  the  overall  quality  of  transport 
services since 2011, although civil society and research organisations shared more mixed 
views on this topic area. 

In regard to the quality of transport services, the majority of respondents (42 out of 70) 
indicated  that  at  least  a  ‘slight  improvement’  had  been  made.  With  regard  to  progress 
made on the safety and security of transport services, the majority of respondents (45 out 
of 65) indicated that at least a ‘slight improvement’ has been made since 2011. The OPC 
respondents similarly displayed support for the role of the White Paper in improving the 
safety (322 out  of 449)  and security (253 out  of 402) of transport services.  In contrast, 
stakeholders displayed a more mixed opinion on progress relating to the minimisation of 
external  costs  from  transport,  with  only  23  out  of  67  indicating  that  at  least  a  ‘slight 
improvement’ had been made.  

Efficiency 
In  the  targeted  consultation,  stakeholders  were  asked  to  provide  input  on  the  cost-
effectiveness of the initiatives for society, and for their organisation. 

In  relation  to  the  cost-effectiveness  for  society,  13  out  of  21  national  and  regional 
authorities  stated  that  the  benefits  outweighed  the  costs  to  society  ‘fully’  or  to  ‘a 
significant extent’. Similarly, in the OPC, there was a general consensus from authorities 
that the benefits derived from the White Paper initiatives outweighed their costs (206 out 
of  302).  No  further  details  were  provided  in  regard  to  the  initiatives  which  these 
authorities were referring to. 

71 

 
 
In  terms  of  the  cost-effectiveness  for  authorities,  stakeholders  indicated  that,  in  most 
cases,  the  costs  of  the  initiatives  were  justified  by  the  benefits.  In  total,  10  out  of  21 
national  and  regional  authorities  considered  that  the  benefits  of  the  White  Paper 
outweighed the costs to their administration, ‘fully’ or to ‘a significant extent’. A further 
four authorities stated that the benefits outweighed the costs ‘to some extent’, and only 
one authority indicated that the benefits did not outweigh the costs. 

Although  industry  stakeholders  were  more  sceptical,  with  only  8  out  of  22  industry 
stakeholders  indicating  that,  at  best,  the  costs  were  justified  by  the  benefits  ‘to  some 
extent’,  the  largest  proportion  of  stakeholders  indicated  that  they  ‘did  not  know’  if  the 
costs were justified by the benefits (10 out of 22). Of those that did not believe the costs 
were justified, two main justifications emerged: (i) a lack of progress made in regard to 
implementation,  leading  to  a  delay  in  the  materialisation  of  benefits;  (ii)  significant 
burden  imposed  on  industry  by  the  requirements  emerging  from  multiple  pieces  of 
legislation,  which  has  been  particularly  burdensome  for  small  businesses.  For  civil 
society  and  research  organisations,  the  largest  proportion  of  stakeholders  (4  out  of  8) 
indicated  that  they  ‘did  not  know’  if  the  costs  were  justified,  and  the  remaining 
stakeholders indicated that the costs of the White Paper were justified by the benefits, at 
least ‘to some extent’.  

Relevance 
Stakeholders were asked to indicate if they saw a continued relevance today to address 
the  needs  identified  in  the  White  Paper.  Overall,  the  stakeholders  that  engaged  in  the 
targeted  consultation  suggested  that  there  is  still  interest  in  addressing  all  of  the  needs 
identified in the White Paper.  

The continued need to address the dependence of the transport sector on fossil fuels was 
supported  by  the  greatest  majority  of  stakeholders  (67  out  of  69  in  the  targeted 
consultation).  Stakeholders  indicated  that  the  decarbonisation  of  the  transport  sector 
remains a key policy objective and that it will be integral  to  reaching the  EU’s climate 
policy  objectives.  The  need  to  address  GHG  and  air  pollutant  emissions  from  the  EU 
transport sector was also supported by the vast majority of stakeholders (67 out of 70 in 
the  targeted  consultation).  Stakeholders  noted  the  continued  need  to  address  the 
dependence on oil, with some stakeholders suggesting that a substantial shift to rail could 
help to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels, whilst also relieving road congestion.  

The ongoing need to support the development and integration of new technologies in the 
transport sector was also supported by a large majority of stakeholders that contributed to 
the evaluation, with 64 out of 69 stakeholders in the targeted consultation expressing that 
there  is  still  a  need  for  policy  action  in  this  area.  Of  those  that  elaborated  upon  their 
position,  the  continued  importance  of  the  development  and  deployment  of  new 
technologies  across  several  policy  areas  was  noted,  including  technologies  relating  to 
climate mitigation and traffic management. 

Overall, the continued need to address the dominance of road transport was supported by 
the  smallest  majority  of  stakeholders  (47  out  of  64  in  the  targeted  consultation)  that 

72 

 
 
contributed  to  the  evaluation.  Of  those  that  disagreed  with  the  need  to  address  the 
dominance of road transport, the need to encourage multimodality, rather than to entirely 
neglect  the  importance  of  road  transport,  was  raised.  In  addition,  the  potential  to  shift 
towards less-polluting road vehicles was also noted. 

In regard to the environmental needs (i.e. dominant role of road transport, level of GHG 
emissions  and  air  pollutants,  dependency  on  fossil  fuels),  civil  society  and  research 
organisations  displayed  the  greatest  support  for  the  continued  need  for  policy  action  in 
these  areas,  relative  to  the  other  stakeholder  groups.  In  regard  to  economic  needs  (i.e. 
competitiveness  of  the  EU  transport  sector,  completion  of  the  single  internal  market), 
industry  organisations  displayed  the  greatest  support  for  the  continued  need  for  policy 
action in these areas. 

Coherence 
Stakeholders  generally  indicated  that  the  objectives  of  other  EU  policy  areas  and 
transport strategies  were consistent  with the objectives  of the White Paper. For each of 
the  other  EU  policy  areas,  a  majority  of  stakeholders  in  the  targeted  consultation 
indicated  that  the  White  Paper  was  consistent  with  initiatives  in  other  policy  areas, 
including  environmental  policy  (27  out  of  50),  climate  change  policy  (26  out  of  39), 
taxation policy (14 out of 23), employment policy (9 out of 14), and in wider transport 
policy (27 out of 42).  

Of  those  that  suggested  that  there  were  inconsistencies  between  the  White  Paper  and 
other  EU  environmental  and  climate  change  policies,  few  stakeholders  provided  a 
justification. However, a couple of civil society organisations suggested that the inclusion 
of natural gas as an alternative transport fuel was not consistent with EU climate change 
policy,  particularly  in  relation  to  the  need  to  decarbonise  transport.  Three  other 
stakeholders  suggested  that  the  White  Paper,  or  at  least  elements  of  it,  were  not 
consistent with the ambition of EU climate change policy. 

Several industry organisations provided an explanation for their belief that the objectives 
of  the  White  Paper  were  not  consistent  with  EU  taxation  policy.  A  perceived  lack  of 
support in EU taxation policy for alternative fuels, along with continued support for some 
diesel  applications,  was  identified  as  one  inconsistency  by  industry  organisations.  The 
Commission  has  evaluated  the  current  Energy  Taxation  Directive.  The  evaluation 
concludes that overlaps, gaps and inconsistencies significantly hamper EU objectives in 
the  field  of  energy,  environment,  climate  change  and  transport.124    In  addition,  other 
industry organisations suggested that the Eurovignette Directive did not  yet sufficiently 
apply the ‘user pays’ and ‘polluter pays’ principles.  

124 SWD(2019) 329 final.  

73 

 
 
 
                                                           
EU added value 
In  terms  of  the  role  of  EU-level  action  in  driving  effective  policymaking,  the  input 
provided  by  the  majority  of  stakeholders  was  positive.  Stakeholders  indicated  that 
achieving  results  more  effectively  is  linked  to  setting  harmonised  EU-level  objectives, 
which  limit  the  fragmentation  of  measures  and  increase  the  potential  for  border-free 
transport.  

In terms of the cross-border dimension, the majority of stakeholders supported the notion 
that EU-level  action has had a positive impact.  Stakeholders highlighted the success  of 
cross-border  legislative  measures  and  packages,  such  as  the  Cross-Border  Enforcement 
Directive on traffic offences relating to road safety, and the 4th Railway Package.  

For  the  EU’s  role  in  avoiding  fragmentation,  stakeholders  acknowledged  success  in 
relation  to  the  4th  Railway  Package,  vehicle  safety  and  minimum  standards  for 
consumers.  However,  it  was  noted  that  the  varying  capacities  of  Member  States  to 
implement  certain  provisions  under  the  White  Paper  has  resulted  in  the  uneven 
implementation  of  measures  across  the  EU.  Finally,  it  was  noted  that,  although  the 
Mobility  Package  has  improved  fragmentation  issues,  it  has  also  led  to  enforcement 
challenges. 

In relation to the efficiencies gained through coordination of effort, the input provided by 
the majority of stakeholders was positive. Stakeholders suggested that efficiencies were 
derived  through  the  use  of  common  procedures,  increased  coordination  and  the 
avoidance  of  effort  duplication.  It  was  noted  that  the  White  Paper  has  helped  to  align 
efforts, and has allowed organisations to benefit from information exchange. However, it 
was  suggested  that  new  EU  frameworks  have  the  potential  to  result  in  additional 
administrative burdens. 

In  terms  of  the  role  of  EU-level  action  in  creating  synergies,  a  large  proportion  of 
stakeholders indicated that EU-level action has had a positive impact. Stakeholders noted 
the benefits of EU expertise, such as improving skills development at the regional level 
(e.g. pilot projects helping regional stakeholders to prepare SUMPs with the support of 
experts during workshops).  

EU-level  action  was  also  considered  to  have  stimulated  research  and  innovation  at  a 
greater  scale,  with  stakeholders  acknowledging  that  a  number  of  relevant  research 
projects for transport have been developed under the Horizon 2020 funding framework. 
However,  it  was  noted  that  the  administrative  application  procedures  for  EU  R&D 
funding  can  be  quite  burdensome,  and  some  questioned  how  significantly  the  research 
projects would contribute towards achieving the White Paper objectives. 

74 

 
 
 
Annex 5: Methods and analytical models 

1.  Overview 

The  analysis  was  based  on  an  evaluation  matrix  (see  Annex  6)  that  was  used  to  identify 
operational questions, potential indicators, success criteria and relevant data sources for each 
evaluation question.  

Desk research was  used  to  identify qualitative and quantitative evidence that  would support 
the analysis of the evaluation  questions. An important element  of the desk research was the 
analysis of impact assessments and evaluation of initiatives that the Commission has launched 
in the context of the White Paper since 2011. Moreover, Commission experts and national and 
regional  authorities  were  requested  to  provide  updated  information  on  the  status  of  the 
implementation of the EU initiatives so far adopted under the White Paper. 

To  solicit  the  views  of  stakeholders,  the  analysis  included  three  different  stakeholder 
consultation activities: 

  A  survey  for  public  authorities,  including  national,  regional  and  local  government 
levels. As this aimed to cover public authorities across Member States and government 
levels, a survey was considered the most appropriate tool to gather the required inputs 
in a cost-effective and consistent way. 

  Phone  interviews  to  obtain  relevant  input  from  representatives  of  industry,  the  civil 
society  (NGOs,  consumer  groups)  and  transport  experts.  These  were  targeted 
interviews  on  the  basis  of  an  interview  checklist  developed  to  help  the  evaluation 
questions. 

  The  Commission  organised  a  web-based  open  public  consultation  covering  all 

evaluation questions. 

The  quantitative  analysis  built  on  a  counterfactual  scenario  logic  comparing  the  actual  and 
expected future impacts of the already adopted policies in comparison to a no policy scenario. 
More  specifically,  E3Modelling  used  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport  model  to  quantify 
two scenarios - the Baseline and the Alternative scenario in order to assess the effectiveness 
and the efficiency of the White Paper strategy:   

  Baseline  scenario:  this  scenario  projects  what  would  happen  if  the  policies  and 

measures adopted following the White Paper were not in place.  

  Alternative scenario: included recently adopted and proposed EU initiatives. It is not 
possible  to  assess  with  certainty  which  initiatives  have  been  adopted  following  the 
2011 White Paper and which initiatives would have been adopted even in its absence. 
Therefore,  the  comparison  between  the  “Baseline”  and  the  “Alternative”  scenario 
provides insights in the expected maximum impacts up to 2050 as a result of the White 
Paper.  

75 

 
 
2.  Description of the Baseline scenario and Alternative scenario 

The Baseline scenario projects  the developments  under the assumption that the policies and 
measures adopted following the White Paper are not in place. In addition, as explained above, 
an  Alternative  scenario  has  been  developed  to  assess  the  expected  maximum  impacts  as  a 
result of the White Paper intervention.  

This  section  presents  the  methodology  for  developing  the  Baseline  scenario  and  the 
Alternative  scenario,  using  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport  model  by  E3Modelling.  Key 
results  of  the  Baseline  scenario  and  Alternative  scenario  are  provided  in  the  following 
sections at an aggregate level for the EU27. 

PRIMES-TREMOVE model  
The  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport  model  projects  the  evolution  of  demand  for  passengers 
and  freight  transport,  by  transport  mode,  and  transport  vehicle/technology,  following  a 
formulation  based  on  microeconomic  foundation  of  decisions  of  multiple  actors.  Operation, 
investment  and  emission  costs,  various  policy  measures,  utility  factors  and  congestion  are 
among  the  drivers  that  influence  the  projections  of  the  model.  The  projections  of  activity, 
equipment  (fleet),  usage  of  equipment,  energy  consumption  and  emissions  (and  other 
externalities) constitute the set of model outputs.  

The PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model can therefore provide the quantitative analysis for 
the  transport  sector  in  the  EU,  candidate  and  neighbouring  countries  covering  activity, 
equipment,  energy  and  emissions.  The  model  accounts  for  each  country  separately  which 
means  that  the  detailed  long-term  outlooks  are  available  both  for  each  country  and  in 
aggregate forms (e.g. EU level). 

In the transport field, PRIMES-TREMOVE is suitable for modelling soft measures (e.g. eco-
driving, labelling); economic measures (e.g. subsidies and taxes on fuels, vehicles, emissions; 
ETS  for  transport  when  linked  with  PRIMES;  pricing  of  congestion  and  other  externalities 
such as air pollution;  accidents and noise; measures supporting  R&D);  regulatory measures 
(e.g. CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger and heavy duty vehicles; EURO 
standards  on  road 
transport 
technologies,  deployment  of  Intelligent  Transport  Systems)  and  infrastructure  policies  for 
alternative  fuels  (e.g.  deployment  of  refuelling/recharging  infrastructure  for  electricity, 
hydrogen,  LNG,  CNG).  Used  as  a  module  that  contributes  to  the  PRIMES  model  energy 
system  model,  PRIMES-TREMOVE  can  show  how  policies  and  trends  in  the  field  of 
transport  contribute  to  economy-wide  trends  in  energy  use  and  emissions.  Using  data 
disaggregated  per  Member  State,  the  model  can  show  differentiated  trends  across  Member 
States.  

technology  standards  for  non-road 

transport  vehicles; 

The PRIMES-TREMOVE has been developed and is maintained by E3Modelling, based on, 
but extending features of, the open source TREMOVE model developed by the TREMOVE125 
modelling community. Part of the model (e.g. the utility nested tree) was built following the 

125 Source: https://www.tmleuven.be/en/navigation/TREMOVE    

76 

 
 
                                                           
TREMOVE  model.126  Other  parts,  like  the  component  on  fuel  consumption  and  emissions, 
follow the COPERT model. 

Data inputs 
The main data sources for inputs to the PRIMES-TREMOVE model, such as for activity and 
energy consumption, comes from EUROSTAT database and from the Statistical Pocketbook 
"EU transport in  figures”.127  Excise taxes are derived from  DG TAXUD excise duty tables. 
Other data comes from different sources such as research projects (e.g. TRACCS project) and 
reports. In the context of this exercise, the PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model is calibrated 
to 2005, 2010 and 2015 historical data. 

Methodology for developing the Baseline and Alternative scenarios  
The  Baseline  scenario  builds  on  the  baseline  developed  in  the  context  of  the  Impact 
Assessment accompanying the 2011 White Paper but accounts for updated macro-economic, 
fuel  price  and  technology  costs  assumptions128.  These  assumptions  are  common  with  those 
used in the context of the 2017-2018 Mobility Packages129 and also in the in-depth analysis 
accompanying the Clean Planet for all long term strategy130. No further policies at EU or MS 
level are assumed to be implemented beyond 2011 in the Baseline scenario, in  line with the 
baseline of the Impact Assessment accompanying the 2011 White Paper.  

The  Alternative  scenario  builds  on  the  Baseline  scenario  developed  in  the  context  of  this 
evaluation  but  additionally  includes  the  measures  in  Table  1,  adopted  following  the  White 
Paper. It is not possible to assess with certainty which initiatives have been adopted following 
the  2011  White  Paper  and  which  initiatives  would  have  been  adopted  even  in  its  absence. 
Therefore,  the  comparison  between  the  “Baseline”  and  the  “Alternative”  scenario  provides 
insights in the expected maximum impacts up to 2050 as a result of the White Paper. 

Table 5: List of policies covered by the PRIMES-TREMOVE model that are included in the Alternative 
scenario and not in the Baseline scenario 

Act or subject matter 
Amendment on ILUC of the Directive on the 
promotion of the use of energy from 
renewable sources ("RES Directive") and Fuel 
Quality Directive 

Reference  
Directive (EU) 2015/1513 amending Directive 
98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel 
fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the 
promotion of the use of energy from renewable 
sources 

126 Several model enhancements were made compared to the standard TREMOVE model, as for example: for the number of 
vintages (allowing representation of the choice of second-hand cars); for the technology categories which include vehicle 
types using electricity  from the  grid and fuel cells. The  model also incorporates additional fuel types, such as biofuels 
(when they differ from standard fossil fuel technologies), LPG, LNG, hydrogen and e-fuels. In addition, representation of 
infrastructure for refuelling and recharging are among the model refinements, influencing fuel choices. A  major  model 
enhancement concerns the inclusion of heterogeneity in the  distance of  stylised trips; the  model considers that the trip 
distances  follow  a  distribution  function  with  different  distances  and  frequencies.  The  inclusion  of  heterogeneity  was 
found to be of significant influence in the choice of vehicle-fuels especially for vehicles-fuels with range limitations. 

127 Source: European Commission (2020) EU Transport in Figures. Statistical Pocketbook 2020. 
128 The scenario analysis does not account for the Covid-19 impact on the economy and the transport sector. 
129  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/road-initiatives_en 
130  https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/pages/com_2018_733_analysis_in_support_en_0.pdf 

77 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Act or subject matter 
Eurovignette Directive on road infrastructure 
charging 

Directive establishing a single European 
railway area (Recast) 
Regulation on noise-related operating 
restrictions at Union airports  
Directive on the Sulphur content of marine 
fuels 
Roadworthiness Package 

Regulation on the sound level of motor 
vehicles 
Regulations governing the performance and 
charging schemes in as well as the network 
functions of the Single European Sky 
Directive on the deployment of alternative 
fuels infrastructure 
TEN-T guidelines 

The recast Renewable Energy Directive 

Regulation on setting post-2020 CO2 emission 
standards on new cars and light commercial 
vehicles and the replacement of the New 
European Driving Cycle (NEDC) test cycle by 
the new Worldwide harmonized Light-
vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP) 
Improving testing procedures - real driving 
conditions ('Real Driving Emissions' – RDE) 
and improved laboratory test ('World 
Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure' – 
WLTP) 
Regulation on setting post-2020 CO2 emission 
standards on new heavy-duty vehicles 

Reference  
Directive 2011/76/EU amending Directive 
1999/62/EC; proposals for Directives amending 
Directive 1999/62/EC, COM(2017) 275 and 
COM(2017)276,  
Directive 2012/34/EU 

Regulation (EU) No 598/2014 

Directive 2012/33/EU  

Directive 2014/45/EU, Directive 2014/46/EU 
amending Directive 1999/37/EC, Directive 
2014/47/EU 
Regulation (EU) No 540/2014 

Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) No 
390/2013, 391/2013 and 677/2011; later replaced by 
Regulations (EU) 2019/317 and 2019/123 
Directive 2014/94/EU 

Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 supported by the 
Connecting Europe Facility (Regulation (EU) No 
1316/2013) 
Directive (EU) 2018/ 2001 

Regulation (EU) 2019/631  

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1832 
Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1151  
Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/1154 
Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 
Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/427  
Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 

Clean Vehicle Directive 

Directive (EU) 2019/1161 

Regulation on electronic freight transport 
information 

Proposal for Regulation on electronic freight 
transport information131 

European Maritime Single Window 

Regulation (EU) 2019/1239  

131  https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-5142-2020-REV-1/en/pdf.  This  proposal  has  meanwhile 

given rise to Regulation (EU) 2020/1056. 

78 

 
                                                           
Act or subject matter 
Inland waterways and port services 

Directive on weights & dimensions  

Road infrastructure safety management 
Directive and General Safety Regulation 

4th Railways package  

Single European Sky 2+ 

Reference  
Directive 2016/1629/EU on technical requirements 
for inland waterway vessels and the Regulation on 
non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) 
Regulation (EU) 2017/352 establishing a framework 
for the provision of port services 
Directive 2015/719/EU amending Directive 
Directive 96/53/EC 

Directive (EU) 2019/1936 amending Directive 
2008/96/EC; 
Regulation (EU) 2019/2144 
Directives (EU) 2016/798 on railway safety, 
Directive (EU) 2016/797 on railway interoperability 
and the Directive 2016/2370/EU regarding the 
opening of the market for domestic passenger 
transport services by rail and the governance of the 
railway infrastructure 
Proposal COM(2013) 409 final; amended proposal 
COM(2020)579, complemented through proposal 
COM(2020)577. 

3.  Baseline scenario and Alternative scenario results 

This section presents the key results of the Baseline and the Alternative scenarios quantified 
with the PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model, drawing on the evaluation support study. The 
results are presented at EU-27 level.132  

Transport activity and modal shares 
Road passenger transport is projected to continue holding the largest modal share in passenger 
transport  activity  throughout  the  period  until  2050  in  both  the  Baseline  and  the  Alternative 
scenario. Nevertheless, the projections show that the modal share of road passenger transport 
follows a decreasing trend. By 2050 it would represent around 78% of the passenger transport 
activity in the Baseline scenario and 76% in the Alternative scenario.  

Rail  transport  is  projected  to  show  a  relatively  stable  modal  share  by  2030  and  2050  in  the 
Baseline  scenario,  in  lack  of  specific  policies  adopted  beyond  2011.  In  the  Alternative 
scenario however, the share of passenger rail is projected to increase by 1.6 percentage points 
in 2030 and by 2.3 percentage points in 2050 relative to the Baseline. This is mainly driven by 
the  implementation  of  the  TEN-T  core  and  comprehensive  network,  supported  by  CEF 
funding, as well as of the 4th Railways package.  

132 Selected results are presented also at the EU28 level in the evaluation support study to show that the impact of the White 
Paper implementation  in  the  Alternative  scenario  compared  to  the  Baseline  scenario  does  not  change  between  the  two 
geographical scopes (i.e. EU-28 versus EU-27). 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In  the  Baseline  scenario,  air  passenger  transport  activity  is  projected  to  show  significant 
growth by 2050 and increase its modal share by about 5 percentage points relative to 2010. In 
the Alternative scenario the modal share of air transport is projected to be slightly lower (0.8 
percentage points lower in 2050) relative to the Baseline due to some shift of passenger traffic 
for medium-distance trips from aviation to high-speed rail.     

A  significant  increase  in  the  passenger  transport  activity  of  high-speed  rail  in  the  EU-27  is 
projected in the Alternative scenario, driven by the assumed completion of TEN-T core and 
comprehensive network. The share of high-speed rail in total rail passenger transport activity 
would  increase  to  around  38%  by  2030  and  43%  by  2050133,  6  percentage  points  higher  in 
2030 and 9 percentage points higher in 2050 relative to the Baseline. By contrast, the share of 
high-speed rail is projected to remain relatively stable in the Baseline scenario in the absence 
of initiatives driving an increase in the competitiveness of the sector. 

Figure  6:  Modal  split  of  the  EU-27  passenger  transport  activity  in  the  Baseline  and  the  Alternative 
scenario 

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE, E3Modelling 

Total freight transport activity is projected to grow, driven by GDP growth, in both scenarios. 
Road  freight  transport  sector  would  continue  to  hold  the  largest  share  in  the  total  freight 
transport  activity  by  2050.  In  the  Baseline  scenario,  in  lack  of  specific  policies  adopted 
beyond 2011, the modal share of road freight transport is projected to increase by close to one 
percentage point by 2030 and an additional percentage point by 2050, relative to 2010. This 
would come to the detriment of rail freight and inland navigation transport (covering inland 
waterways and national maritime) that display declining modal shares over time.  

The Alternative scenario shows a reduction in the modal share of road freight transport over 
time and also relative to the Baseline. Rail freight is projected to increase its modal share by 
3.1 percentage points in 2030 relative to the Baseline and by 5.6 percentage points in 2050. 
Inland waterways and national maritime is also project to gain 1.2 percentage points in terms 

133 An increase of 8 p.p. by 2030 and 13 p.p. by 2050 compared to 2010 levels. 

80 

BaselineAlternativeBaselineAlternative201020302050Inland navigation0.6%0.6%0.6%0.5%0.6%Aviation8.1%11.2%11.0%13.4%12.5%Rail7.7%8.1%9.7%8.5%10.7%Road83.5%80.1%78.7%77.6%76.1%0%20%40%60%80%100%Modal shares (in %) 
 
 
                                                           
of modal share in 2030 relative to the Baseline and 1 percentage point in 2050. The changes 
in  modal  shares  are  mainly  driven  by  the  implementation  of  the  TEN-T  core  and 
comprehensive network and the proposed revision of the Eurovignette Directive, but also by 
policies promoting inland waterways and port services and other policies driving improvements in 
the efficiency of the transport system.  

Figure 7: Modal split of the EU-27 freight transport activity in the Baseline and the Alternative scenario 

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE, E3Modelling 

High congestion levels are still projected by 2050 in the Baseline scenario, with delay costs 
expected  to  increase  by  34%  between  2010  and  2050.  The  Alternative  scenario,  accounting 
for policies adopted by the end of 2018, shows only limited decrease in the external costs of 
congestion relative to the Baseline (1.1% reduction in 2030 and 0.4% in 2050), driven mainly 
by greater use of more sustainable transport modes. 

Energy consumption in transport 
In the Baseline scenario, energy consumption in the transport sector134 is projected to remain 
relatively stable between 2010 and 2030 and increase by 5% during 2030-2050. The highest 
share of energy demand originates from road transport. The energy consumption of passenger 
cars is projected to slightly reduce over the projection period as a result of some autonomous 
progress  in  energy  efficiency, in  the absence of  more ambitious policy  measures post 2020. 
On  the  other  hand,  road  freight  energy  demand  would  increase  driven  by  the  growth  in 
transport activity, in lack of specific measures driving improvements in energy efficiency. As 
a result, road transport energy demand is projected to remain relatively stable between 2010 
and  2050  in  the  Baseline  scenario.  Energy  consumption  in  air  transport  is  projected  to 
increase  by  almost  40%  by  2050,  relative  to  2010,  and  drives  the  overall  increase  in  the 
transport  sector  energy  demand  between  2030  and  2050.  Energy  use  in  rail  and  inland 
navigation would be relatively stable by 2050 relative to its 2010 levels.   

134 Excluding international maritime. 

81 

BaselineAlternativeBaselineAlternative201020302050Inland navigation13.7%12.9%14.1%12.6%13.6%Rail16.0%16.0%19.1%15.1%20.7%Road70.3%71.1%66.8%72.3%65.7%0%20%40%60%80%100%Modal shares (in %) 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 8: Energy consumption in the transport sector in the Baseline and the Alternative scenario 

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE, E3Modelling 

The  picture  changes  in  the  Alternative  scenario  which  projects  a  gradual  reduction  in  the 
energy demand in the transport sector. Energy consumption would be 12% lower relative to 
the Baseline scenario by 2030 and 28% lower by 2050, mostly driven by the reduced energy 
consumption  in  the  road  transport  sector  and  the  shift  towards  more  sustainable  transport 
modes like rail, including high-speed rail, and inland navigation.  

The  implementation  of  the  CO2  emission  standards  on  cars,  vans  and  trucks  manufacturers, 
supported by the deployment of the recharging and refuelling infrastructure, is among the key 
drivers for the decrease in the road transport energy demand. The implementation of the post-
2020  CO2  emission  standards  is  projected  to  drive  low  and  zero-emission  vehicles  in  the 
market, which are also more fuel efficient. The effects of the regulations are also extending in 
the  period  after  2030  with  the  replacement  of  older  vehicles  with  new  vehicle  technologies 
that comply with the standards. In addition, by varying road charges based on CO2 emissions 
the  proposed  revision  of  the  Eurovignette  Directive  would  provide  further  incentives  to  the 
faster uptake of more fuel-efficient vehicles. The impacts on energy use in road transport are 
further  reinforced  by  the  penetration  of  low  and  zero  emission  vehicle  technologies  in  the 
public transport, driven by the Clean Vehicles Directive. 

The modal shift from road transport towards rail and inland navigation, supported by policies, 
is also contributing to the reduced energy demand in road transport in the Alternative scenario 
compared to the Baseline scenario. In addition, the aviation sector is also projected to record 
some reductions in the energy use in 2030 and 2050 relative to the Baseline scenario. This is 
partly attributed to the lower activity growth in the Alternative scenario compared to Baseline 
and  some  further  fuel  efficiency  improvements  as  a  result  of  the  initiatives  assumed  in  the 
Alternative scenario, like for example the Single European Sky 2+.  

In the Baseline scenario, no significant progress would take place in the oil dependency ratio 
by 2050 relative to 2010. The oil dependency ratio would only decrease by about 2 percentage 
points  between  2010  and  2050.  The  Alternative  scenario  however  projects  substantial 
progress  in  reducing  the  oil  dependency  by  2050.  Relative  to  the  Baseline  scenario,  oil 

82 

BaselineAlternativeBaselineAlternative201020302050Inland navigation54555Aviation3846435247Rail66768Road259252217260174050100150200250300350Energy consumption (Mtoe) 
 
 
dependency  would  be  about  17  percentage  points  lower  by  2050  driven  by  the  projected 
progress on electromobility, further electrification of rail and further uptake of renewable and 
low carbon fuels. However, the transport sector is projected to still be dependent on oil and 
petroleum  products  for  about  87%  of  its  energy  needs  in  2030  and  77%  in  2050.135  In 
addition, the Alternative scenario also shows that, with current policies and measures in place, 
the  goal  of  a  40%  share  of  low-carbon  sustainable  fuels  in  aviation  by  2050  will  not  be 
reached. The share of low-carbon sustainable fuels in aviation would be below 3% of the fuel 
mix by 2050. 

CO2 emissions from transport 
The  Baseline  scenario  shows  that  despite  reductions  in  technology  costs  and  the  revised 
macro-economic  and  fuel  price  framework,  CO2  emissions  from  transport136  would  stabilise 
by  2030  and  increase  by  4%  by  2050  relative  to  2010,  in  absence  of  additional  policies 
beyond  2011.  Compared  to  1990,  the  reference  year  for  the  White  Paper  objectives,  CO2 
emissions from transport would still be 29% higher in 2050.  

Figure 9: CO2 emissions from transport in the Baseline and the Alternative scenario 

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE, E3Modelling 

The  Alternative  scenario  projects  that  for  the  EU-27  overall  CO2  emissions  from  transport 
(including  international  aviation,  excluding  international  maritime  shipping)  would  be  16% 
lower relative to the Baseline in 2030 and 39% lower in 2050. In particular, emissions from 
road transport in the Alternative scenario are projected to be 19% below the Baseline levels in 
2030 and 46% lower in 2050. This is due to the CO2 standards for new light duty vehicles and 
heavy  duty  vehicles  post-2020,  supported  by  the  deployment  of  recharging  and  refuelling 
infrastructure, but also due to policies driving greater use of sustainable transport modes, such 
as for example the implementation of the TEN-T Core and Comprehensive Networks, and the 
4th  Railway  Package.  At  the  same  time,  the  Alternative  scenario  shows  limited  reduction  in 

135 Oil dependency is calculated including international shipping.  
136 Excluding international maritime, in line with the 2011 White Paper target for 2050. 

83 

02004006008001,000BaselineAlternativeBaselineAlternative201020302050Mt of CO2 
 
 
 
                                                           
the emissions from international maritime bunkers (1% reduction in 2030 and 2050 relative to 
the Baseline scenario). 

Policies adopted after 2011 would contribute significantly towards the White Paper milestone 
for 2030 but fall short in delivering the 60% emissions reductions by 2050, showing around 
40 percentage points gap relative to the target. In this context, it is important to note that the 
impact  assessment accompanying the 2011 White Paper had assumed further intensification 
of  policies  after  2030,  whereas  the  Alternative  scenario  only  takes  into  account  policies 
adopted  by  the  end  of  2018.  The  adopted  policies  would  deliver  additional  emissions 
reductions  after  2030  due  to,  for  example,  the  turnover  of  the  vehicle  fleet  and  larger 
penetration of new vehicles which are subject to CO2 standards, as well as the implementation 
of the Core TEN-T Network by 2030. However, their impacts would remain limited by 2050 
in lack of additional policies or further intensification of existing policies.  

Air pollution emissions 
In the Baseline scenario, transport NOx and PM2.5 emissions are projected to decrease during 
2010-2030, mainly driven by the reductions in the road transport sector, as a result of the Euro 
standards  Regulations.  NOx  and  PM2.5  emissions  would  however  remain  relatively  stable 
between 2030 and 2050, as the vehicles would continue to operate on petroleum products and 
no additional environmental policies to limit emissions are assumed in the Baseline scenario. 
Road transport sector is responsible for the largest share of PM2.5 emissions throughout the 
projection  period.  On  the  other  hand,  aviation  would  provide  a  significant  share  of  the 
transport NOx emissions from 2030 onwards in the Baseline scenario. 

Figure 10: PM2.5 and NOx emissions from transport in the Baseline and the Alternative scenario (index 
2010= 100%) 

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE, E3Modelling 

The  Alternative  scenario  shows  a  significant  reduction  in  the  air  pollutant  emissions  from 
transport relative to the Baseline. PM2.5 emissions are projected to decrease by about 16% in 
2030 and 55% in 2050, respectively to the Baseline scenario. Similarly, NOx emissions would 
decrease by about 13% in 2030 and 42% in 2050 compared to the Baseline. The reduction in 

84 

0%20%40%60%80%100%BaselineAlternativeBaselineAlternative201020302050Index 2010=100%PM2.5 emissions0%20%40%60%80%100%BaselineAlternativeBaselineAlternative201020302050Index 2010=100%NOx emissions 
 
 
 
 
 
the  air  pollutants  emissions  is  mainly  driven  by  the  penetration  of  low  and  zero  emission 
vehicles  and  in  particular  electric  vehicles,  but  also  due  to  improvements  in  the  testing 
procedures  and  roadworthiness  tests.  Reductions  take  place  also  in  other  transport  modes, 
albeit at a lesser extent compared to road transport.  

85 

 
Annex 6: Evaluation matrix 

I. 

Effectiveness 

Evaluation sub-questions 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

EQ1  What progress has been made towards the objectives (both general and specific) and the headline goals of the White Paper?  

What progress has been made towards the 
specific objective of reducing the GHG 
emissions from transport by 60% by 2050 
compared to 1990? 

Quantitative indicators on the evolution of key 
issues at EU level from 2012 to 2018, 
including: 

Analysis of the overall observed progress in 
the period 2012 to 2018 towards the 
objectives and the headline goals set by the 
White Paper.  

Including data from:  

EEA  

What progress has been made towards the 
specific objective of decreasing the oil 
dependency ratio of transport-related activities 
by 2050? 

What progress has been made towards the 
specific objective of limiting the growth of 
congestion? 

What progress has been made towards the 
headline goals of the WP? 

What progress has been made towards the 
general objective of the WP in terms of: 

  Accessibility 

(i.e.  Satisfaction  of 
mobility  needs  for  passengers  and 
freights); 

  Equity  (i.e.  Promoting  high  quality 
employment  and  equity  within  and 
between successive generation); 

 

Provision  and  quality  of  services 
(i.e. Offering affordable, reliable, safe 

Covering specific objectives 
1.  Greenhouse 

gas 

emissions 

from 

transport;  

2.  Consumption  of  oil  and  petroleum 
products in transport (share of total); 

3.  External 

costs 

congestion 
(congestion measured in monetary terms) 
as share of GDP;  

from 

4.  Number  of  EU  cities  in  the  list  of  100 
most congested cities in the world; 
5.  Hours spent in road congestion annually. 

Covering headline goals 
6.  Urban areas final energy consumption of 
diesel,  gasoline  and  other  petroleum 
products; 

7.  Share  of  AFVs  in  total  new  passenger 

cars registrations; 

8.  Share  of  electric  vehicles  in  total  new 

passenger cars registrations;  

9.  Number  of  electric  vehicles  charging 
points per 100'000 urban inhabitants; 
10.  Final  energy  demand  of  kerosene, 
in 

synthetic  kerosene 

biokerosene, 
aviation;  

11.  % share of low carbon fuels in aviation; 
12.  CO2 

international 

from 

emissions 
maritime bunkers; 
emissions 

13.  GHG 

from 

international 

86 

The analysis of the quantitative and 
qualitative indicators shows the progress 
made (e.g. either that the problem is 
increasing, or not decreasing fast enough) 
due to the White Paper in combination with 
other EU policies in other sectors (e.g. 
environmental and energy policies).  

Quantitative indicators are derived as much 
as possible from official EU data sources 
and complemented (where needed) by 
findings from desk research. 

Qualitative discussions are based on the 
findings of desk research and field research 
(surveys and interviews with key 
stakeholders). 

Initial success criteria:  

Positive progress towards the achievements 
of the objectives and of the headline goals 
of the White Paper are observed in the 
period 2012 to 2018. 

EUROSTAT and European Transport 
Scoreboard;  

European Alternative Fuels Observatory 

Eurobarometer Reports; 

Desk research on key literature 
(including TEN-T CNCs Reports; 
ERTMS Deployment Plan; studies on 
the internalization of the external cost; 
INRIX and Tom-Tom data on urban 
congestion; data from Consumer 
Markets Scoreboard (Consumer Market 
Monitoring Survey)); 

Supplementary input from national and 
local/regional authorities (survey) and 
interviews with EU level stakeholders 
(industry, civil society and transport 
experts)  

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Evaluation sub-questions 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

and secure transport services);  

aviation  

  Minimising  the  external  costs  to 
society  due  to  transport  operations 
(i.e.  Accidents,  noise 
air 
pollution). 

and 

14.  Modal split of freight transport (share of 

road freight); 

15.  Modal  shift  potential  of  long-distance 

road freight in containers; 

16.  Length  of 
network; 

lines  of  high-speed  rail 

17.  %  of 

transport 
total  rail  passenger 
activity performed with high speed train; 
18.  Modal  split  of  trips  between  300  and 

1,000 km; 

19.  Length  of  the  TEN-T  networks  by  Core 

and Non-Core Networks; 

20.  Completion of TEN-T Conventional Rail 

Core Network; 

21.  Completion  of  TEN-T  High  Speed  Rail 

Core Network; 

22.  Completion of TEN-T Inland Waterways 

Core Network; 

23.  Completion  of  TEN-T  Road  Core 

Network; 

24.  Number  of  core  network  airports 

connected to the rail network; 

25.  Number  of  core  seaports  connected  to 

rail and inland waterways; 

26.  Deployment  of  ETCS  and  GSM-R  on 

Core Network Corridors  

27.  Number  of  'SESAR  solutions'  deployed 

in the operational environment; 

28.  Level of use of EGNOS across transport 

modes; 

29.  Level  of  development  of 

land  and 
transport  management 
waterborne 
systems  (ERTMS,  ITS,  SSN  and  LRIT, 
RIS);  

30.  Total external costs from accidents;  
31.  Number  of  road  accidents  per  year 

(fatalities, injuries); 

32.  Total  external  costs  of  transport  by 

mode, 2016 

33.  Total external and infrastructure costs vs. 

87 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation sub-questions 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

total  taxes  and  charges;  cost  coverage 
ratio. 

Covering other specific objectives   
34.  Level of  accessibility of public transport 

in the EU-28; 

satisfaction  with 

urban 

35.  Consumer 
transport; 
36.  Intergenerational 

equity:  Share 
renewable energy used in transport;  
37.  Intra-generational equity: Level of public 

of 

transport accessibility; 

38.  Marker  Performance  Indicator  for  the 

transport services sector;  

39.  Consumer satisfaction with rail transport; 
40.  Consumer satisfaction with air transport; 
41.  Road fatalities per million inhabitants. 

EQ2  What is the expected progress by 2030 and 2050? How does this compare to what was initially expected in the impact assessment? 

What is the expected progress by 2030 and 
2050 on GHG emissions from transport? 

What is the expected progress by 2030 and 
2050 on decreasing the oil dependency of 
transport-related activities? 

What is the expected progress by 2030 and 
2050 on limiting the growth of congestion? 

What is the expected progress by 2030 and 
2050 towards the headline goals of the WP? 

What progress can be expected by 2030 and 
2050 towards the general objective of the WP 
in terms of: 

  Accessibility 

(i.e.  Satisfaction  of 
mobility  needs  for  passengers  and 

This evaluation question is based as much as 
possible on the same quantitative and 
qualitative indicators of EQ1. However, it is 
limited to those indicators that are covered by 
PRIMES-TR EMOVE model, namely: 

1.  Greenhouse  gas  emissions  from 

transport;  

3.  External  costs 

2.  Consumption  of  oil  and  petroleum 
products in transport (share of total) 
from  congestion 
(congestion  measured  in  monetary 
terms) as share of GDP;  
final 
areas 

energy 
consumption of diesel, gasoline and 
other petroleum products; 

4.  Urban 

5.  Share  of  AFVs 

in 

total  new 

passenger cars registrations;  

6.  Share  of  electric  vehicles  in  total 
new passenger cars registrations; 

7.  Energy 

demand 

of 

kerosene, 

88 

Projections from PRIMES-TREMOVE 
Alternative scenario; 

Projections from PRIMES-TREMOVE 
Baseline scenario; 

Available projections from desk 
research; 

Field research (surveys and 
stakeholders’ interviews). 

Analysis of the qualitative and quantitative 
indicators shows the expected progress 
towards the objectives and the 10 headline 
goals by 2030 and by 2050. 

Indicators, from PRIMES–TREMOVE 
model ‘Alternative scenario’ show the 
expected impact at 2030 and 2050 due to 
the White Paper in combination with other 
recently adopted EU policies (e.g. energy 
and climate targets). 

The comparison between the ‘Baseline’ and 
the ‘Alternative’ scenario shows the 
expected progress due to the White Paper at 
2030 and 2050. 

The findings are compared with analogous 
findings of the impact assessment of the 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation sub-questions 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

freights); 

  Equity  (i.e.  Promoting  high  quality 
employment  and  equity  within  and 
between successive generation); 

 

Provision  and  quality  of  services 
(i.e. Offering affordable, reliable, safe 
and secure transport services);  

  Minimising  the  external  costs  to 
society  due  to  transport  operations 
air 
(i.e.  Accidents,  noise 
pollution). 

and 

 

How does this compare to what was initially 
expected in the impact assessment 
SEC(2011)358? 

biokerosene,  synthetic  kerosene  in 
aviation;  

8.  %  share  of  low  carbon  fuels  in 

aviation; 

9.  CO2  emissions  from  international 

maritime bunkers; 

10.  Modal  split  of  freight 
(share of road freight); 
11.  Modal  shift  potential  of 

transport 

long-

distance road freight in containers; 

12.  %  of  total  rail  passenger  transport 
activity  performed  with  high  speed 
train; 

13.  Total external costs from accidents;  
14.  Number  of  road  accidents  per  year 
(fatalities, heavy and light injuries); 
15.  Intergenerational  equity:  Share  of 
renewable energy used in transport. 

White Paper. 

For those indicators not covered by the 
model, the analysis is based on available 
projections (e.g. completion of the TEN-T 
core network by 2030; status of ERTMS 
implementation at 2030 etc.) where 
available.  

The analysis is complemented with input 
from stakeholders (surveys and interviews 
with key stakeholders) on the expected 
developments. 

Initial success criteria:  

Positive progress towards the achievements 
of the specific objectives and of the 
headline goals of the White Paper are 
expected by 2030 and 2050. 

The White Paper will strongly contribute in 
reaching the objectives and headline goals 
by 2020 and 2050. 

The comparison with what was initially 
expected in the impact assessment is 
positive (i.e. progress in the transport sector 
are in line with previous projections or are 
faster than expected). 

EQ3  To what extent have the 40 action points, which are broadly covered by all the policy options in the impact assessment of the White Paper, contributed to reaching the objectives 

and headline goals of the White Paper? 

To what extent has the White Paper contributed 
to reaching its objectives and headlines goals? 

Which action points contribute more in 

For sake of comparability, this evaluation 
question is based as much as possible on the 
same quantitative and qualitative indicators as 
EQ1 and EQ2. 

Comparative analysis of quantitative 
indicators of PRIMES-TREMOVE model at 
2018 in the ‘Baseline’ and in the 
‘Alternative’ scenario 

Data from PRIMES-TREMOVE 
Alternative scenario; 

Data from PRIMES-TREMOVE 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation sub-questions 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

reaching the objectives and headlines targets? 

Qualitative discussion on the contribution 
of the action points in reaching the 
objectives and headline goals.  

Baseline scenario; 

Desk research on key literature. 

Initial success criteria: 

The White Paper has strongly contributed in 
reaching the objectives and headline goals. 

Some action points are more effective than 
others towards certain objectives and goals. 

EQ4  Which factors and developments (e.g. digitalisation, mobility as a service, technology cost, etc.) have, negatively or positively, contributed to the achievement of the objectives and 

headline goals? 

Which factors and developments have, 
negatively or positively, contributed to the 
achievement of the objectives and headline 
goals? In what way?  

What will be their expected influence in the 
future? 

Qualitative indicators on the observed and/or 
expected impact (positive or negative) of 
selected key factors and developments on the 
objectives and headline goals of the White 
paper. 

The answer to this question is based on 
input from interviews with stakeholders on 
factors and developments that have 
positively or negatively contributed to the 
achievement of the objectives and headline 
goals of the White Paper or are expected to 
have an influence in the future.  

The investigation focuses on the following 
developments: 

Input from interviews with EU level 
stakeholders (industry, civil society and 
transport experts, EU institutions 
interviews), national and local/regional 
authorities (surveys). 

business 

and 

new 

digitalisation 
models;  
new technological trends; 
evolution in technology costs;  
new  mobility  patterns  (e.g.  micro-
mobility);  
changes to consumer behaviours;  
evolution of e-commerce;  
new security and safety issues;  
climate change 
extreme weather events. 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

90 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
Evaluation sub-questions 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

Initial success criteria:  

No indication of negative role of factors or 
developments (e.g. technological 
developments, digitalisation etc.) in 
achievement of objectives and goals.  

EQ5  Which unintended positive and negative economic, social and environmental effects, if any, have been produced? 

Have there been any unintended (positive or 
negative) effects in the economic, social and 
environmental domains?  

How significant were they? And why did they 
occur?  

Qualitative indicator: 

Unintended positive or negative effects 
derived from the White Paper. 

Input from interviews with EU level 
stakeholders (industry, civil society and 
transport experts)   

The answer to this question is based on 
input from stakeholders to identify 
unintended (positive and negative) effects 
of the White Paper and of their impact on its 
objectives.  

Initial success criteria: No unintended 
effects have been produced so far by the 
implementation of the White Paper. 

EQ6  To what extent have the 40 action points of the White Paper been implemented by the Commission, by the Member States, by regional and/or local authorities (where relevant), 

or by other actors (e.g. transport operators)? 

To what extent have the 40 action points of the 
White Paper been implemented by the 
Commission? 

To what extent have the 40 action points of the 
White Paper been implemented by the Member 
States, by regional and/or local authorities 
(where relevant), or by other actors (e.g. 
transport operators)? Is there any delay in the 
implementation? And what are the reasons for 
these delays?   

Input form EC experts 

Desk research 

Interviews with stakeholders 

Quantitative indicators:  

  Number  (and  %)  of  EC  initiatives 

completed;  

  Number  (and  %)  of  EC  initiatives 

completed on-going; 

  Number (and %) of EC initiatives in 

advanced status; 

  Number  (and  %)  of  EC  initiatives 

cancelled 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

 

Level  of  implementation  of  White 
Paper actions at Member State level;  
Level  of  implementation  of  White 

The review of implementation by the 
Commission takes stock of the progress 
made in the implementation based on the 
Commission Staff Working Document 
SWD(2016) 226 final which maps the 
progress in the implementation of the 40 
action points until July 2016.  

Input from EC experts to update the 
situation up to now as well as to assess the 
level of implementation by Member States 
or other actors of initiatives is used. 

Interviews  with  stakeholders  are  used  to 
complement  the  assessment  on  the  level  of 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Evaluation sub-questions 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

Paper  actions  at  regional  and  local 
level (only where relevant); 
Level  of  implementation  of  White 
Paper actions by other actors. 

 

  Reasons for delay 

implementation. 

Initial success criteria:  

The implementation of the 40 actions points 
is progressing without delays. 

II. 

Efficiency  

Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

EQ7 

To what extent have the cost of the 40 action points in the White Paper been proportionate to the overall benefits achieved? 

What  have  been  the  overall  costs  for  the 
preparation  and  implementation  of  the  40 
action points? 

How  do  the  costs  compare  with  the  benefits 
resulting  from  the  implementation  of  the  40 
actions?  How  do  they  compare  against  the 
progress  made  towards  achieving  the  specific 
objectives  and  headline  goals?  Are 
they 
justified?  

How  do  the  total  costs  of  transport  from  the 
White  Paper  intervention  compare  with  the 
expected benefits? 

or 

(in  EUR 

qualitatively) 
Costs 
associated  with 
the  preparation  and 
implementation  of  the  40  action  points 
and respective initiatives, including:  

for 

EC 

  Costs 

for 
implementation  of  EU  level 
actions (one-off and ongoing); 
  Costs for national and regional 
authorities 
the 
implementation  of  the  action 
points (one-off and ongoing); 

for 

  Costs  for  other  actors  (e.g. 
transport  operators)  involved 
in  the  implementation  of  the 
action points. 

Costs presented by action point/initiative 
(studies; 
and 
of 
type 
by 
financial 
implementation; 
instruments/R&D funding) 

cost 

92 

Data  on  the  costs  for  implementation  of  the 
important/costly  initiatives  under  the  40  actions 
points and respective initiatives of the White Paper 
at EU and national level.  

Data  collected  as  part  of  the  desk 
research 
IAs  and 
(evaluations, 
other support studies) 

Priority  is  given  to  regulatory  measures  and 
financial instruments. Other types of measures are 
analysed when data is available. 

Input  from  EU  desk  officers  for 
costs at EU level (Task 2) 

Surveys of national authorities  

Costs  are  compiled  using  information  from  the 
desk  research  (i.e.  evaluation  or  IA  studies  for 
specific  measures),  input  of  EC  experts,  results 
from field research and targeted data requests. 

Interviews  with  industry  and  civil 
representatives 
society 
(NGOs/social partners) (Task 3) 

Results of the analysis under effectiveness (EQ1-3) 
in  terms  of  the  achievement  of  the  10  headline 
goals  and  the  progress  made  in  terms  of  the 
achievement of the specific and general objectives   

the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  analysis 
Results  of 
comparing 
the  Baseline 
the  Alternative  with 
scenario  to  calculate  net  the  mitigation  costs  of 
achieving  the  CO2  emissions  reduction  and  the 

from 

Input  on  benefits 
the 
effectiveness  questions  (EQ1-3), 
including  outputs  of  the  PRIMES-
TREMOVE  model  on  the  costs 
and benefits  

Targeted data requests  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

PRIMES-TREMOVE model: 

respective co-benefits.  

 
 

Total transport system costs 
External  costs  of  congestion, 
air 
and 
accidents 

pollution, 

noise 

Success criteria:  

The  costs  of  implementation  of  the  White  Paper 
are 
benefits 
view 
in 
justified 
achieved/expected.  

the 

of 

EQ8 

To what extent have the initiatives under the White Paper been cost effective?  

Which benefits have been achieved for the different stakeholder groups? What costs have resulted for the different stakeholder groups? 

What  have  been  the  costs  of  the  initiatives 
under 
the  40  action  points  for  different 
categories of stakeholders?  

How  do  the  costs  of  the  initiatives  compare 
with the resulting total benefits/cost-savings of 
the  initiatives?    Which  initiatives  have  been 
cost-effective and which ones have not?   

(in  EUR 

qualitatively) 
Costs 
associated  with  individual  initiatives  (at 
EU/national/regional level), including:  

or 

  Costs  for  EC  (administrative, 

monitoring)  

  Costs  for  national  authorities, 
(administrative,  monitoring, 
enforcement); 

  Cost  for  different  groups  of 
(charges/fees, 
administrative 

stakeholders 
compliance, 
costs). 

Costs presented by action point/initiative 
and by stakeholder group affected. 

Overall  assessment  of  cost-effectiveness 
either  on  qualitative  or  quantitative 
terms. 

Data  and  analysis  of  EQ7  to  extract  costs  and 
benefits for different categories of stakeholders.  

In  those  cases  where  information  is  not  available 
quantitatively,  a  qualitative  assessment  as 
to 
whether  the  costs  of  specific  initiatives  were 
justified  by  the  benefits  is  made  (where  such 
information is available).  

Success criteria:  

for 

The  costs 
the  different  categories  of 
stakeholders  are  proportionate  to  the  derived 
benefits.  

No 
category 
disproportionate costs. 

of 

stakeholder 

experienced 

Data  extracted  as  part  of  the  desk 
research 
IAs  and 
(evaluations, 
other support studies) 

Input  from  EU  desk  officers  for 
costs at EU level 

Surveys of national authorities  

Interviews with industry and civil 
society representatives 
(NGOs/social partners)  

EQ9 

Is there room to streamline or simplify the various initiatives under the White Paper? 

Are there action points or initiatives that could 
be  merged  to  avoid  duplications  of  activities 
(procedures; requirements) and resulting costs? 

Logical  analysis  based  on  input  from 
stakeholders  on 
that  are 
considered  unnecessary  and  could  be 

initiatives 

Analysis  of  the  costs  from  EQ7  and  EQ8  and  the 
input from EC experts and stakeholders to identify 
areas  within  initiatives  where  savings  could  be 

Data  extracted  as  part  of  the  desk 
research 
IAs  and 
(evaluations, 
other support studies) 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

Are  there  procedures  and  requirements  under 
the  various  initiatives  that  could be  eliminated 
or  simplified  to  reduce  the  respective  costs 
without  affecting  the  level  of  the  (expected) 
benefits?   

eliminated.  

made.  

Analysis  of  cases  where  merging  of 
initiatives  with  other 
theoretically possible.  

initiatives 

these 
could  be 

The analysis is based on qualitative input from EC 
experts responsible for the specific actions to help 
assess the possibility of revising specific initiatives 
or merging it with another initiative.  

Relevant  qualitative  input  from  national/regional 
authorities  and  stakeholders  in  their  respective 
areas of interest, via field research.  

Success criteria:  

There  is  no  room  to  streamline  or  simplify  the 
initiatives of the White Paper. 

Input  from  EU  desk  officers  for 
costs at EU level 

Surveys of national authorities 

Interviews with industry and civil 
society representatives 
(NGOs/social partners) 

III.  Relevance 

Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

EQ10 

Are the problems/needs identified in the White Paper still valid? 

To what extent are the needs identified at the time 
of the adoption of the White Paper still valid today? 
Is  there  still  need  for  policy  action  to  address  the 
above needs? 

Quantitative  indicators  are  referenced  to 
capture the evolution of key issues at the EU 
level since 2011. These include: 

Namely,  are  there  still  problems  (and  respective 
needs) related to: 

  Dominant 

role 

of 

road 

transport 

(passenger and freight); 
Level of CO2 emissions and air pollutants 

 

  Consumption of oil and petroleum 

 

products in transport; 
Penetration of alternatively  fuelled 
and zero-emissions vehicles;   
  Greenhouse  gas  and  air  pollutant 
emissions from EU transport (CO2, 
PM, etc.); 

Analysis  of  the  quantitative  indicators  show 
the overall trends in the key problem areas, and 
thus helped to assess whether they represent an 
ongoing need (e.g. if the indicators show either 
that 
increasing,  or  not 
is 
decreasing  fast  enough).  This  is  achieved, 
through comparing the current situation to the 
situation  at  the  time  of  adoption,  to  see  what 
the changes have been.  

the  problem 

The  quantitative 

indicators  are  used 

to 

Data  sources  used  to  build  and 
PRIMES-
update 
the 
is 
TREMOVE  model.  This 
supplemented  by  Eurostat  data 
the  other  relevant  EU 
and 
sources 
(i.e.  Eurostat,  DG 
MOVE  Statistical  Pocketbook, 
Environment 
European 
Agency,  European  Transport 
Safety Council). 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

the  overall 

demonstrate 
trends.  They  are 
supplemented by qualitative analysis based on 
desk  research  (EU  documents  and  other 
studies),  relevant  input  from  the  case  studies 
(problems/needs 
recent 
national/regional  strategies)  and  stakeholder 
inputs,  to  reflect  the  extent  that  they  are 
considered as important ongoing needs.  

identified 

in 

are 

indicators 

These 
the 
primary  source  used  to  inform 
analysis of developments in the 
major  trends  since  2011,  and 
relevant needs. Where possible, 
Alternative scenario projections 
to  2050  are  also  referenced  to 
provide  an  indication  as  to  the 
longevity of the need/problem. 

Initial success criteria:  

 

The  needs  identified  in  the  White 
Paper are still relevant to the current 
needs of society. 

(authorities) 
(industry, 

Input  from  stakeholders  from 
and 
surveys 
interviews 
civil 
society,  transport  experts,  EU 
institutions)  are  used  to  cover 
qualitative 
to 
complement 
the  quantitative 
analysis.  

indicators  and 

from EU transport sector; 

  Dependency of the transport sector on the 

 

use of fossil fuels; 
Level  of  congestion  and  accessibility  for 
peripheral areas; 

  Road safety levels in specific parts of the 

EU;  
 
Service quality/consumer protection;  
  Accessibility for people with disabilities; 
 
Effective  development  and  integration  of 
new 
and 
transport systems; 
  Competitiveness  of 

in  vehicles 

technologies 

transport 

the  EU 

sector; 
Single internal market for transport. 

 

 

costs 

External 
resulting  from 
billions); 

of 

pollution 
transport  (in  € 

  Modal  split  of  passenger  and 

 

 

in 

freight transport; 
Investment 
infrastructure; 
Length  and  completion  of 
the 
TEN-T  network  (across  the  EU 
and at Member State level); 

transport 

  Congestion 

levels 

(including 

congestion-related costs); 

  Accessibility indicator; 
 

Safety  (e.g.  serious  road  injuries 
and  fatalities,  external  costs  from 
accidents); 

  R&D  intensity  in  the  transport 

sector; 

  Market  Performance 

Index 

for 

transport services sector. 

are 

indicators 

Qualitative 
also  used. 
Stakeholders were asked to consider whether 
the  needs  identified  at  the  time  of  the 
adoption of the White Paper (indicated in the 
previous  column)  are  still  valid 
today. 
Stakeholder inputs are used to display:  

 

 

identified 

The  level  of  agreement  among 
stakeholders 
the 
that 
needs/problems as still relevant.  
The 
the 
of 
in  national  and 
needs/problems 
regional strategies reviewed as part 
of the case study.  

identification 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

EQ11 

Have there been any changes in the EU transport or climate change policy objectives making the White Paper objectives less relevant? To what extent are the objectives of the White 
Paper still relevant in relation to current broader EU policy objectives? 

(mainly) 
Combination 
indicators to inform the analysis, including:  

qualitative 

of 

 

 

Level  of  difference/deviation  between 
White  Paper  objectives  and  objectives 
in other EU policies;  
Level of agreement among stakeholders 
that  the  identified  objectives  of  the 
White Paper are relevant (i.e. ambitious 
and with appropriate scope).  

How,  if  at  all,  have  the  EU  transport  and  climate 
policy  objectives  –  as  reflected  in  the  recently 
adopted EU policy documents – changed/revised in 
relation to: 

  Climate  change  objectives  and  targets 
and  the  expected  role  of  the  transport 
sector; 
Transport policy objectives, including: 

 

o  Decarbonisation;  
o  Environmental 

impacts 

(e.g. 

pollutant emissions, noise); 

o  Congestion targets; 
o  Safety and security aspects; 
o  Modal split; 
o  Accessibility, equity, quality of 
services,  provision  of  services 
and external costs. 

In view of the above changes, are the objectives of 
the  White  Paper  still  (equally)  relevant  (ambitious 
enough  and/or  of 
scope)?  More 
specifically: 

sufficient 

1.  Are 

the 
relevant: 

three  main  objectives  still 

  Reduce 

transport-related  emissions  of 
CO2 by around 60% by 2050 compared to 
1990;  

  Achieve  drastic  decrease 

ratio  of 

dependency 
activities by 2050; 
Limit the growth of congestion. 

 

in 

the  oil 
transport-related 

2.  Are  the  remaining  specific  objectives  still 

relevant:  

96 

Desk research based on policy 
documents and relevant studies 
to identify 
changes/developments in policy 
objectives. 

Interviews with representatives 
of EU institutions/bodies and 
additional input from 
interviews (i.e. industry, civil 
society, transport experts, EU 
institutions), and inputs from 
national and regional 
authorities where relevant. 

This question focuses on examining the extent 
to which changes to EU policies have made the 
objectives  and  goals  of  the  White  Paper  less 
relevant  (i.e.  in  terms  of  ambition  and  scope). 
EQ14 
of 
inconsistencies  between  the  White  Paper  and 
other EU policies. Nonetheless, the input from 
the  analysis  in  EQ14  also  feeds  into  the 
analysis here.  

presence 

focuses 

the 

on 

Policy documents are reviewed that reflect EU 
policy  in  relation  to  climate  change  and 
transport  policy  to  identify  changes  to  the EU 
policy objectives in comparison to the time of 
the  adoption  of  the  White  Paper.  These 
documents  include  comprehensive  EU-level 
climate and transport strategies, such as: 

 
 
 

 

 

2030 Climate Target Plan (2020) 
The European Green Deal (2019); 
European Strategy for Low-Emission 
Mobility (2016);  
 ‘A  Clean  Planet 
for  all  –  A 
European  long-term  strategic  vision 
modern, 
prosperous, 
for 
competitive  and  climate  neutral 
economy’? (2018);  
2030  climate  and  energy  policy 
framework.  

a 

Mode-specific  strategies  have  also  been 
reviewed,  due 
their  relevance,  which 
include: 

to 

  On  the  road  to  automated  mobility: 
An  EU  strategy  for  mobility  of  the 
future (2018);  

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

  Allow 

and 

access 

the  basic 

the 
development  of  mobility  needs  of 
individuals and companies? 
Promote  equity  within  and  between 
successive generations? 

 

  Offer  safe,  secure  and  reliable  transport 

 

services of high quality? 
Ensure  provision  of  services  that  are 
and 
operating 
affordable, 
efficiently,  offering  a  choice  of  transport 
mode  and  promoting  high  quality 
employment? 

fairly 

  Minimise  the  external  costs  of  accidents, 
noise  and  air  pollution,  biodiversity  loss 
and increased land use? 

To  what  extent  are  the  objectives  of  the  White 
Paper  still  relevant  in  view  of  other  broader  EU 
in 
policy  objectives  and  priorities, 
relation to:  

including 

  Research, innovation and competitiveness 

of EU industry;  

  Development of a deeper and fairer single 

market;   
The global role of Europe. 

 

 

The  Mobility  Packages  (2017  – 
2018); 
 
Fourth Railway Package (2016); 
  Aviation strategy for Europe (2015). 

Developments  in  relation  to  the  broader  EU 
policy  objectives  were  also  identified  with 
reference  to  the  10  Commission  priorities 
(2014-2019),  the  recently-released  6  priorities 
(2019-2024), the Digital Single Market and the 
Energy Union.  

Logical  analysis  and  input  from  Commission 
officers,  EU  institutions  and  other  relevant 
industry  and  transport  sector  stakeholders  to 
assess the relevance of the White Paper goals.  

Initial success criteria:  

 

The  White  Paper  objectives  are  still 
relevant  to  the  current  EU  climate, 
transport 
policy 
objectives.  

broader 

and 

EQ12 

How well do the original objectives and 10 headline goals of the White Paper still correspond to the current transport and climate policy needs? 

What  transport  and  climate  policy  needs  have 
emerged (or are expected to emerge) as a result of 
environmental 
technological, 
developments  that  were  not  considered  at  the  time 
of the adoption of White Paper?  

societal 

and 

The trends identified include: 

Quantitative  indicators  of  trends  that  have 
emerged or evolved since 2011 include: 

 

Level  of  use  of  new  services 
(mobility  as  a  service  (MaaS), 
ride-sharing); 
  Active travel uptake; 
  Alternative 
fuel 

vehicle 

  Ageing population; 
  Urbanisation; 
  Collaborative  economy 

(i.e.  vehicle-

registrations; 
E-commerce penetration. 

 

97 

trends 

An  assessment  of  the  development  of  key 
trends  (based  on  analysis  of  indicators)  since 
2011,  and  the  associated  emergence  of  new 
needs  is  presented.  The  analysis  presents  the 
key 
(i.e.  ageing  population)  and 
corresponding new needs (i.e. improvements in 
accessibility  for  VRUs),  with  a  focus  on  the 
emission reduction, decarbonisation, efficiency 
and  integration  of  the  transport  system  and 
accessibility. 

is  used 

Relevant  data 
to 
describe  the  emerging  trends. 
The  following  sources  offer 
examples: 

  E-commerce penetration: 
E-commerce 
Ecommerce 

Eurostat’s 
statistics; 
Europe’s report. 

  Collaborative 

economy 
digitalisation: 

and 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

sharing); 

This is complemented by:  

 

 

The  extent 
to  which  existing 
objectives  of  the  White  Paper  are 
relevant for the new needs arising;  
The  level  of  agreement  among 
stakeholders  that  objectives  are 
relevant to the new needs.  

  Connected and autonomous vehicles; 
  Digitalisation; 
 
  Alternative fuels; 
 

Further changes in supply chains; 

Increasing  role  of  active  modes  and 
micro-mobility; 
Increasing security threats. 

 

Are  the  specific  objectives  of  the  White  Paper 
relevant in view of the new needs identified?  

Are  the  10  headline  goals  still  relevant  and 
ambitious enough in view of the new transport and 
climate policy needs? Have any gaps arisen due to 
existing  headline  goals  not  properly  reflecting  the 
emerging needs? 

This  is  complemented  by  desk  research  (e.g. 
studies analysing the current trends and future 
of  mobility)  and  input  from  stakeholders,  to 
identify  how/whether  the  new  trends  have 
introduced new problems/needs.  

Analysis  is  done  how  the  specific  objectives 
and  the  current  headline  goals  correspond  to 
the  identified  needs  (whether  they  are  still 
appropriate and/or ambitious enough) based on 
logical  analysis  and 
input  from  relevant 
stakeholders.  

Initial success criteria:  

 

 

The  objectives  of  the  White  Paper 
correspond  to  the  new  transport  and 
climate policy needs; 
The  10  headline  goals  of  the  White 
Paper 
the  new 
transport and climate policy needs. 

correspond 

to 

Deloitte’s  Car  Sharing  in 
Europe  report;  ING’s  car-
sharing  unlocked  report; 
in 
UITP’s  digitalisation 
transport report. 

  Electrification:  EAFO’s 
fuel  vehicle 
BNEF’s 

alternative 
registrations; 
Electric Vehicle Outlook. 

Input  from  the  surveys  (i.e. 
national/local  authorities)  and 
interviews (i.e. industry, NGOs, 
transport  experts)  is  used  to 
assess  the  development  of  new 
trends  and  their  implications, 
qualitatively 
and 
to 
complement 
the  quantitative 
data, or cover any data gaps. 

EQ13 

Are the proposed 10 headline goals still adequate benchmarks for achieving an integrated, sustainable and efficient transport system in the EU? 

Better Regulation S.M.A.R.T. criteria to help 
assess  the  clarity  of  the  headline  goals,  and 
how realistic and measurable they are.  

Analysis  whether  the  headline  goals  are  still 
appropriate  goals  in  view  of  progress  already 
made  and  the  changes  to  the  policy  priorities, 
drawing upon the S.M.A.R.T. criteria. 

Surveys  with  national  and 
regional/local  authorities  and 
interviews  with  stakeholders 
(i.e. industry, civil society). 

Are the 10 headline goals: 

  Clearly defined; 
  Realistic 

(too  ambitious  or  not 
in  view  of 

ambitious  enough 
developments); 

  Complete 

reflect 
objectives of the White Paper). 

(properly 

the 

all  headline  goals 

Not 
specific 
quantifiable  targets.  In  this  case,  a  more 
qualitative  assessment  of 
the  ongoing 
relevance of the target was needed. 

set 

Are  the  10  headline  goals  useful  to  guide  policy 
actions  and  to  help  assess  the  performance  of  the 
EU and national transport system in terms of: 

The  following  high-level 
indicators  are 
presented to help assess the relevance of the 
headline goals:  

 

Environmental  impacts  (decarbonisation, 
reduce air pollution and noise);  

  Number  of  headline 

indicators 
whose  targets  have  already  been 
met or are not ambitious enough; 

98 

Input from stakeholders concerning the clarity, 
completeness  and  level  of  ambition  of  the 
headline  goals,  and  determine  whether  they 
consider 
for 
changes/revisions.  

there 

need 

be 

to 

a 

research 

Desk 
national/regional 
policy plans).  

(i.e. 
transport 

Case study analysis.  

Input from the case studies (review of national 
to  examine 
transport  policy  documents) 
whether the headline goals are reflected in the 
targets set by the national strategies.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

Initial success criteria:  

 

The  10  headline  goals  are  still 
adequate  benchmarks  (there  is  no 
need for revisions). 

 
 

Energy and resource efficiency;  
Level  of  integration  of  transport  services 
within and across modes.  

  Number  of  headline 

indicators 
whose  goals  are  still  relevant 
(ambitious  enough)  in  view  of  the 
new needs and objectives;  

Is there need for any of the 10 headline goals to be: 

  Revised?  (e.g.  become  more  demanding, 
provide 

to 

change 
scope) 
their 
appropriate benchmarks;  

  Dropped?  (as  they  no  longer  properly 
for 

role  of  benchmarks 

the 

serve 
performance).  

  Number  of  headline  goals  used  in 
policy 

transport 

national 
documents.  

Qualitative  input  from  stakeholders  is  used 
to assess the relevance of the goals. 

Level of agreement among stakeholders that 
each of the headline goals:  

 

Is  clearly  defined,  relevant  and 
ambitious;  

  Represented  useful  benchmarks  in 
(at  EU/national 

guiding  policy 
level).  

IV.  Coherence  

Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

EQ14 

Are the  White Paper objectives coherent with  the 2018 European strategic long-term vision for  a prosperous, modern, competitive  and climate neutral economy  and the 2016 Low-
emission mobility strategy? 

Is  the  strategic  approach  defined  by 
the  general  and  specific  objectives, 
level  of 
the  overall 
including 
ambition,  of 
the  White  Paper 
consistent with: 

Qualitative indicators:  

Presence  and  importance  of  overlaps  or 
contradictions 
three 
between 
Communications in relation to their: 

the 

  Vision  and  objectives  of 
the  ‘A  Clean  Planet  for 
All’ 
Communication 
(COM(2018) 773)?   

 
Scope 
 
Timescales 
  Objectives 
  Assumptions  relating 

to  GHG 

Desk-based  mapping  of  these  elements  of 
the  White  Paper 
three 
Communications.  

other 

and 

The coherence of the White Paper with these 
other  Communications  is  explored  through 
logical  analysis  of  these  different  elements 
and  also  in  the  engagement  with  Member 
States (survey) and EU level stakeholders.    

Commission 

The White Paper (COM(2011) 21) and the other 
three 
Communications 
and 
(COM(2016)  501,  COM(2018)  773 
COM(2019)  640),  along  with  the  ‘In  depth 
analysis’ that accompanied COM(2018) 773 and 
the  Impact  Assessments  that  accompanied  the 
White  Paper  and  the  Low  Emission  Mobility 
Strategy (SEC(2011) 258 and SWD(2016) 244).  

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

  Objectives  of 

‘A 
the 
European  Strategy 
for 
Low-Emission  Mobility’ 
Communication 
(COM(2016) 501)?    
  Objectives set in the Green 
Communication 

Deal 
(COM(2019) 640) 

emissions 
  Assumptions 

relating 
transport’s GHG emissions 

to 

  Goals/indicators of progress  
  Overview  of  the  content  relating 

to transport  

  Actions  relating  to  transport  split 
by the themes of the White Paper 

Success criteria:  

The  various  elements  of  the  White  Paper 
were/were  not  aligned  and  consistent  with 
those of these other Communications. 

Input  from  EU  institutions,  national  authorities 
level 
(survey) 
stakeholders (industry, civil society and transport 
experts)   

interviews  with  EU 

and 

EQ15 

How does the White Paper interact with other EU/national/international initiatives which have similar objectives (e.g. actions in the field of mobility, climate, employment, taxation and 
sustainable development)? 

Is the approach set out in the White 
Paper 
other 
consistent  with 
initiatives at the: 

 

 

IMO, 

ICAO, 

International 
level, 
including  the  UNFCCC’s 
Paris Agreement, the UN’s 
Sustainable  Development 
Goals  and  relevant  work 
of 
ILO, 
OTIF, OSJD, UNECE and 
the ITF.  
EU  level,  including  the 
strategy 
Europe 
2020 
its 
(COM(2010)  2020), 
to 
initiatives 
flagship 
implement 
seven 
its 
priority  issues  and  other 
relevant  strategic  policy 
documents; 
  National level. 

Qualitative indicators:  

Presence  and  importance  of  interactions 
between  the  White  Paper  and  these  other 
initiatives. 

Desk-based  mapping  is  undertaken  of  the 
broad  aims  and  objectives  of  the  relevant 
international  and  EU  level  initiatives  and 
their  coherence  with  those  of  the  White 
Paper.   

For  the  national  initiatives,  the  findings  of 
the case study work are assessed.    

Success criteria:  

The  White  Paper’s  objectives  are  (or  are 
not)  fully  aligned  and  consistent  with  those 
of these other initiatives. 

For  the  international  initiatives,  the  main  data 
sources  are  the  relevant  policy  documents  and 
information  on  their  respective  websites  about 
relevant initiatives.  

For  the  EU  level  initiatives,  the  focus  is  on  the 
‘Europe  2020’  strategy  (COM(2010)  2020), 
along  with  its  relevant  Flagship  Initiatives  (i.e. 
those  on  resource  efficiency  (COM(2011)  21), 
innovation  (COM(2010)  546),  industrial  policy 
(COM(2010)  614)  and  jobs  (COM(2010)  682), 
as well as other relevant strategic documents.  

The latter include: 

 

European 
(COM(2016 739)  

action 

for 

sustainability 

  Roadmap  for  moving  to  a  competitive  low 

 

 

carbon economy in 2050, COM(2011) 112 
Policy framework for climate and energy in 
the  period  from  2020  to  2030,  COM(2014) 
15 
EU  adaptation  strategy  to  climate  change, 
COM(2013) 216 

  Clean 

air 

programme 

for  Europe, 

COM(2013) 918 
Europe  that  protects:  clean  air  for  all, 

 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

 

COM(2018) 330  
Living well, within the limits of our planet, 
Decision No 1386/2013/EU 

  Digital Single Market Strategy (COM(2015) 

192) 

For  the  national  level,  the  work  is  based  on  an 
analysis of national transport strategies.  

EQ16 

To  what  extent  are  the  White  Paper  initiatives  complementary  to  each  other,  mutually  supportive  and  non-contradictory?  Are  there  any  synergies,  overlaps  and/or  inconsistencies 
between them? 

Do  the  White  Paper’s  initiatives 
provide  a  coherent  framework  to 
guide 
and 
implementation 
sustainable 
transport policy in the EU?  

development 

the 

of 

there  potentially 

Are 
important 
synergies between any of the  White 
Paper’s initiatives?  

Are  there  significant  overlaps  or 
inconsistencies  between  any  of  the 
White Paper’s initiatives?  

V. 

EU Added Value  

Qualitative indicators:  

Extent to which the action points provided a 
framework for an appropriate level of action 
for  all  of  the  modes  against  the  relevant 
specific objectives. 

the 

to  which 

Extent 
action  points 
complement  or  contradict  each  other  in 
terms  of  their  contribution  to  meeting  the 
specific objectives.  

The  White  Paper,  specifically  its  objectives  and 
action points.  

Input  from  EU  institutions,  national  authorities 
(survey) 
level 
stakeholders (industry, civil society and transport 
experts).   

interviews  with  EU 

and 

A  desk-based  logical  mapping  of  the  scope 
and  aims  of  action  points  and  individual 
initiatives  is  undertaken  to  assess  their 
coherence.   

Relevant  questions  are  also  asked  in  the 
course  of  the  engagement  with  Member 
States and EU level stakeholders, as well as 
with relevant Commission desk officers. 

Success criteria:  

The 
initiatives  provide  a  coherent  and 
synergistic  framework,  with  no  significant 
areas of overlap or inconsistency. 

Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

EQ17  What is the added value resulting from the EU level intervention of the White Paper compared to the results brought by the actions which could have been achieved by Member States at 

national and/or regional level? 

Are there actions of the White Paper which would 
(could) have been implemented by Member States 

Quantitative indicators: 

Logical analysis is used to characterise the 40 action 
points in terms of their EU added value potential (in 

Desk 
the 
research,  namely 
analysis  of  evaluations  and 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

at  national  and/or  regional  without  an  EU 
intervention?  

Are  there  actions  that  would  not  (or  could  not) 
have 
level 
intervention? 

taken  place  without 

the  EU 

Compared  with  action  only  at  national  level,  how 
do  the  each  of  the  actions  of  the  White  Paper 
perform  (or  is  expected  to  lead)  in  relation  to  the 
following criteria: 

 
Increased effectiveness. 
 
Increased efficiency. 
  Creation of synergies. 

To what extent did the actions associated with the 
White Paper contribute towards the following: 

 

 

 

to 

that 

that 

increased  efficiencies 

Ensuring 
cross-border 
dimension  of  the  transport  sector  and 
transnational aspects are addressed. 
  Avoid  fragmentation  of  the  transport 
market/contribute  to  the  development  of 
the common transport market.   
Increased  the  effectiveness  of  measures 
as they were agreed at EU level 
(for 
Led 
authorities,  industry  and/or  consumers) 
by  aligning  strategies  and  objectives 
among  Member  States  and  coordinating 
avoiding 
effort 
duplication of effort and resources. 
Support  the  development  of  skills  and 
capacity  building  at  national  level  and 
easier access to expertise.  
Stimulated  research  and  innovation  at  a 
greater scale. 
Increased  cooperation  and  information 
exchange.  

authorities, 

among 

 

 

 

relation to effectiveness, efficiency and synergies).  

impacts  assessments  (see  Task 
2.2.3).  

from  EU 
requests), 

institutions 
Input 
(data 
authorities 
(survey)  and  interviews  with 
EU 
stakeholders 
(industry,  civil  society  and 
transport experts)   

level 

Case  study  analysing  national 
transport strategies. 

Input  from  the  desk  research  is  used  (where 
available)  to  inform  the  analysis  of  the  specific  (or 
expected)  contribution  of  EU  action  in  comparison 
to action at national level.  

Stakeholders  feedback  (interviews  with  industry, 
transport  expert  and  civic  society  representatives 
and the survey of authorities) is used to complement 
this  analysis  by  obtaining  input  on  the  specific 
benefits brought by the presence of EU action either 
in terms of implementation or in terms of results and 
or 
effectiveness, 
contribution 
synergies.  

efficiency 

to 

The  case  study  analysis  of  national 
transport 
strategies  and  their  comparison  also  points  to  areas 
where  the  White  Paper  contributed  to  an  alignment 
of objectives and measures.  

Success criteria:  

 

 

The  majority  of  actions  taken  would  not 
have  been  possible  without  EU  level 
intervention  (or  would  have  been  less 
effective)/  
The EU level intervention has had distinct 
and  significant  value  in  comparison  to 
action achieved at national/regional level.  

  Number  and  share  of  actions  that 
would not have been possible without 
EU level intervention.  

  Number  of  actions  that  would  be 
expected  to  be  less  effective  only 
based  on  action  at  Member  State 
level. 

  Number  of  actions  that  would  be 
expected  to  be  less  efficient  only 
based  on  action  at  Member  State 
level. 

  Number  of  actions 

that  created 
synergies  that  would  not  be  possible 
on  the  basis  of  action  at  Member 
State level. 

Qualitative indicators:  

 

 

Level of evidence available indicating 
that  EU  actions  brought  specific 
additional  benefits  to  what  national 
action  could  achieve  in  each  of  the 
areas of intervention. 
Extent that stakeholders agree that the 
EU  intervention  as  a  result  of  the 
White 
the 
Paper 
effectiveness of each action.  

increased 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

EQ18  To what extent do the issues addressed in the White Paper continue to require intervention at the EU level? 

Qualitative  assessment  of  the  ongoing 
need  for  EU  level  action  for  each  of  the 
issues/problem  areas  based  on  input  from 
analysis  of  evidence  from  EQ17,  logical 
analysis  and 
input  from  stakeholders 
through surveys and interviews. 

Is there still need for action at EU level in order to 
address  the  following  issues  addressed  in  the 
White Paper: 

Level of CO2 emissions from transport. 

 
  Oil dependency of transport. 
  Congestion and overall efficiency of the 

transport system. 

Is there still need for action at EU level in order to 
address the following additional aspects addressed 
in the White Paper: 

  Accessibility: allow the basic access and 
the  development  of  mobility  needs  of 
individuals and companies, 
Equity:  promote  equity  within  and 
between successive generations. 

 

 

  Quality  of  services:  offer  safe,  secure 
and  reliable  transport  services  of  high 
quality. 
Provision  of  services:  be  affordable, 
operate  fairly  and  efficiently,  offer  a 
choice  of  transport  mode,  promote  high 
quality employment. 
External  costs  to  society:  minimise  the 
external costs of accidents, noise and air 
pollution, biodiversity loss and increased 
land use. 

 

from  EU 
requests), 

institutions 
Input 
authorities 
(data 
(survey)  and  interviews  with 
EU 
stakeholders 
(industry,  civil  society  and 
transport experts)   

level 

Input  from  analysis  in  EQ3, 
EQ10, EQ11 and EQ17. 

to  answer 

Qualitative  approach 
this  question 
including an assessment of the ongoing need for EU 
level  action  for  each  of  the  issues/problem  areas 
based  on  input  from  analysis  of  evidence  from 
EQ17  in  combination  with  the  review  of  the 
progress  made  in  the  implementation  of  the  White 
Paper  (EQ3,  effectiveness)  and  the  continuous 
relevance of the needs (EQ10 and EQ11, relevance). 
The analysis also draws on the survey of authorities, 
the data requests to EC experts and interviews with 
transport  experts, 
industry  and  civic  society 
representatives  and  international  organisations  to 
develop a qualitative picture of the ongoing need for 
action at EU level.  

Success criteria:  

EU level action is still required to address the issues 
addressed in the White Paper. 

For each of these issues, what would happen if EU 
level action were to stop? 

EQ19  What would be the progress made in the EU to date and by 2050 in reducing GHG emissions, oil dependency and congestion without the actions put forward in the White Paper? 

Assuming  that  none  of  the  actions  put  forward  in 
the  White  Paper  was  adopted,  what  should  be 
expected  to  be  to  date  and  by  2050  the  progress 

Quantitative indicators on the basis of the  Analysis  using  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  model  to 
derive  a  scenario  of  non-White  Paper  policies  that  
accounts  for  changes  in  the  framework  conditions 

PRIMES-TREMOVE  model 
from 
outcomes  and 

input 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question/sub-question 

Indicators 

Analytical tools and initial success criteria 

Data sources 

made in the following areas, solely on the basis of 
national action: 

PRIMES-TREMOVE model: 

 

The  level  of  reduction  of  transport-
related  GHG  emissions  compared  to 
1990. 

  Reduction on the level of dependence on 
fossil fuel of transport-related activities. 
Progress  made  in  reducing  the  level  of 
congestion.  

 

How  could  national  action  alone  contribute 
towards reducing GHG emissions, oil dependency 
and congestion to date and by 2050 

 

 

 

Level  of  GHG  emissions  from 
transport. 
Energy  demand  (fossil/  non-
fossil) in transport. 
External cost of congestion.  

analysis in EQ17 

since  2010 
trends,  GDP 
(e.g.  demographic 
projections,  fuel  price  projection,  technological 
developments)  without  the  White  Paper  policies. 
This  represents  the  Baseline  (no-policy  change) 
scenario which includes policies adopted at national 
level up to 2011 and other policies not related to the 
White paper.  

Success criteria:  

Progress  made  without  the  White  Paper  in  relation 
to the three specific objectives would have been less 
than in comparison situation with the White Paper. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7: Direct and indirect relevance of action points to the White Paper objective 

Priority objectives 
60% GHG 
reduction 

Reduce oil 
dependency 

Limit 
growth of 
congestion 

Additional objectives 
Allow basic 
access and 
development 
of mobility 
needs 

Promote 
equity within 
and between 
generations 

Safe, 
secure, 
reliable, 
high 
quality 
transport 
services 

Affordable, fair 
and efficient 
service that offer 
a choice of 
mode/high quality 
employment 

Minimise 
external costs of 
accidents, noise, 
air pollution, 
biodiversity loss 
and increased 
land use 

Action Points 
1. AN EFFICIENT AND INTEGRATED MOBILITY SYSTEM 

1.1. A single European transport area 

1. A true internal market for rail services 

indirect 

indirect 

2. Completion of the single European sky 

indirect 

indirect 

3. Capacity and quality of airports 

4. A maritime ‘blue belt’ and market access to ports 

indirect 

direct 

direct 

indirect 

direct 

5. A suitable framework for inland navigation 

6. Road freight 

7. Multimodal transport of goods: e-Freight 
1.2. Promoting quality jobs and 
working conditions 

8. Social code for mobile road transport workers 

9. A social agenda for maritime transport 

10. A socially responsible aviation sector 
11. An evaluation of the EU approach to jobs and 
working conditions across transport modes 

1.3. Secure transport 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

 direct 

 direct 

 direct 

 direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

indirect 

direct 

direct 

Direct 

Direct 

Direct 

Direct 

105 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Action Points 

12. Cargo security 

13. High levels of passenger security with minimum 
hassle 

14. Land transport security 

15. ‘End-to-end’ security 
1.4. Acting on transport safety: saving thousands of 
lives 

16. Towards a ‘zero-vision’ on road safety 

17. A European strategy for civil aviation safety 

18. Safer shipping 

19. Rail safety 

20. Transport of dangerous goods 

1.5. Service quality and reliability 

21. Passengers’ rights 

22. Seamless door-to-door mobility 

23. Mobility continuity plans 
2. INNOVATING FOR THE FUTURE: TECHNOLOGY AND 
BEHAVIOUR 
2.1. A European transport research and innovation 
policy 

Priority objectives 
60% GHG 
reduction 

Reduce oil 
dependency 

Limit 
growth of 
congestion 

Additional objectives 
Allow basic 
access and 
development 
of mobility 
needs 

Promote 
equity within 
and between 
generations 

Safe, 
secure, 
reliable, 
high 
quality 
transport 
services 

Affordable, fair 
and efficient 
service that offer 
a choice of 
mode/high quality 
employment 

Minimise 
external costs of 
accidents, noise, 
air pollution, 
biodiversity loss 
and increased 
land use 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

indirect 

direct 

Direct 

Direct 

 direct 

 direct 

 direct 

 direct 

 direct 

direct 

24. A technology roadmap 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

25. An innovation and deployment strategy 

indirect 

indirect 

26. A regulatory framework for innovative transport 

direct 

direct 

indirect 

2.2. Promoting more sustainable behaviour 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

106 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Priority objectives 
60% GHG 
reduction 

Reduce oil 
dependency 

Limit 
growth of 
congestion 

Additional objectives 
Allow basic 
access and 
development 
of mobility 
needs 

Promote 
equity within 
and between 
generations 

Safe, 
secure, 
reliable, 
high 
quality 
transport 
services 

Affordable, fair 
and efficient 
service that offer 
a choice of 
mode/high quality 
employment 

Minimise 
external costs of 
accidents, noise, 
air pollution, 
biodiversity loss 
and increased 
land use 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

Action Points 

27. Travel information 
28. Vehicle labelling for CO2 emissions and fuel 
efficiency 

29. Carbon footprint calculators 

30. Eco-driving and speed limits 

2.3. Integrated urban mobility 

31. Urban mobility plans 

32. An EU framework for urban road user charging 
33. A strategy for near-‘zero-emission urban logistics’ 
2030 

3. MODERN INFRASTRUCTURE AND SMART FUNDING 
3.1. Transport infrastructure: territorial cohesion and 
economic growth 
34. A core network of strategic European infrastructure 
— A European mobility network 
35. Multimodal freight corridors for sustainable 
transport networks 

36. Ex ante project evaluation criteria 

3.2. A coherent funding framework 
37. A new funding framework for transport 
infrastructure 

38. Private sector engagement 

3.3. Getting prices right and avoiding distortions 

direct 

direct 

indirect 

indirect 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 
indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

indirect 

direct 

 39. Smart pricing and taxation 

direct 

direct 

direct 

direct 

4. THE EXTERNAL DIMENSION 

 40. Transport in the world: the external dimension 

indirect 

indirect 

107 

 direct 

 indirect 

 direct 

direct 

direct 

 direct 

indirect 

 indirect 

direct