COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION of the 2013 Urban mobility package
Date: 2021-02-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: coronavirus disease, epidemic, intelligent transport system, motor vehicle pollution, public transport, reduction of gas emissions, road safety, sustainable mobility, transport infrastructure, urban transport

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.2.2021  SWD(2021) 48 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  of the 2013 Urban mobility package {SWD(2021) 47 final}  
 
 
The  2013  Urban  Mobility  Package  (UMP)  consists  of  the  Communication  “Together 
towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility”1 as well as the accompanying 
annex  "A  Concept  for  Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Plans"2  and  four  Commission  Staff 
Working  Documents3  addressing  respectively  action  in  four  main  areas:  urban  logistics, 
urban road safety, urban vehicle access regulations and Intelligent Transport Systems in 
cities.  Based  on  the  2013  impact  assessment,  a  choice  was  made  to  proceed  with  a  non-
binding option instead of legislative alternatives, mostly because it was  deemed effective in 
reaching the objectives and was the only option supported by a majority of the stakeholders4. 
The  framework  focused  on  catalysing  joint  action  towards  more  sustainable  urban  mobility 
and reinforcing the support provided to European cities through coordinated measures at EU 
level and in the Member States. Responsibility for the implementation of the UMP objectives 
was allocated to the European Commission and the Member States.  

The Commission launched the evaluation of the Package in 2018 to examine its performance 
in  terms  of  relevance,  effectiveness,  coherence,  efficiency,  and  EU  added  value.  An 
external  study  and  a  wide  range  of  consultation  activities  (including  national,  regional  and 
local  authorities;  stakeholders  –  civil  society,  networks  and  private  sector  actors  and  their 
representatives  at  various  level;  and  the  general  public)  support  this  evaluation.  The  main 
limitation  faced  stems  from  the  difficulty  to  find  available  extensive  and  accurate  data  on 
urban mobility, and therefore of the impact of the different policy measures. However, it has 
proved to be possible to draw a number of conclusions based on a mixture of qualitative and 
quantitative evaluation, and the findings of this evaluation should serve as a useful basis for 
shaping future policy decisions in the field. 

As  to  the  relevance  of  the  Package,  the  evaluation  found  that  UMP’s  objectives  were 
appropriate  for  meeting  the  identified  needs,  but  the  analysis  highlighted  that  numerous 
technological,  social,  political,  environmental  and  health-related  developments  have 
affected urban mobility, in some cases to a considerable extent since 2013 (e.g. digitalisation). 
Moreover, even though the problems in the area of urban mobility remain similar in 2020 as 
in  2013,  some  of  their  consequences  are  of  rising  severity  and  gravity  for  society,  the 
economy and the environment. In addition to challenges with regard to the resilience of urban 
transport networks, which has been severely tested during the COVID pandemic, as well as 
the  persisting  challenges  linked  to  tackling  congestion  and  road  casualties,  this  concerns  in 
particular the accelerating tempo of climate change. It is now a major  EU priority, with the 
increasingly ambitious objectives of the European Green Deal, the Climate Target Plan 2030 
and the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, where the need to decarbonise transport 
is linked with ensuring important societal goals of affordability, accessibility, availability 
and inclusiveness5. The consulted stakeholders identified that these areas, as well as a greater 
consideration for the needs of different societal groups and more focus on public transport and 
active mobility, should have had a greater prominence in the Package. In result, for the UMP 

1 COM(2013)913, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0913 

2 

COM(2013)913-annex,https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:82155e82-67ca-11e3-a7e4-

01aa75ed71a1.0011.02/DOC_4&format=PDF  

3 ‘A call to action on urban logistics’, ‘Targeted action on urban road safety’ , ‘A call for smarter action on urban access  
regulations’ , and ‘Mobilising Intelligent Transport Systems for EU cities’  . 

4  The legislative options were deemed more likely to reduce the risk that EU cities would not achieve the key EU transport 

objectives (as defined in the 2011 Transport White Paper) in comparison with the non-legislative options; however, they were 
estimated to also be more demanding to implement and were not supported by stakeholders. 

5 A ‘just transition for all’ is also among the political priorities of the Commission for 2019-2024 

(https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf) 

1 

 
 
                                                           
objectives and measures to remain fully relevant, these new facts and developments have 
to be taken into account.  

The current trends in urban transport do not indicate a significant change in terms of modal 
share, traffic volume and greenhouse gas emissions since 2013. Private cars still dominate and 
there  has  been  only  a  slight  increase  in  public  transport  use  and  non-motorised  modes  of 
transport. It was not possible to establish that the Package has entirely fulfilled the expectation 
to  support  cities  in  their  transition  towards  sustainable  urban  mobility.  There  are  signs  of 
improvement, but the degree to which the Urban Mobility Package affected these trends 
is  difficult  to  determine  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Package  is  a  non-binding  document  and 
overlaps in its policy focus thematically with other EU legislation. The evidence shows that 
there are significant differences between Member States - and sometimes within individual 
Member States - in terms of their needs, drivers, barriers, institutional settings and approaches 
to urban mobility. The Package has therefore been only partially effective in achieving the 
step-change  envisaged  in  2013,  mainly  due  to  continuing  challenges  with  implementing 
sustainable urban mobility planning and related  measures across all levels  of governance  as 
well as divergent national approaches and uneven support to cities in tackling urban mobility 
issues. In consequence, the expected UMP results of reduction of CO2 and air pollutant 
emissions,  less  congestion  and  road  casualties  at  urban  level  have  not  consistently 
materialised  across  the  EU,  with  persisting  negative  consequences,  including  for  the 
smooth functioning of the TEN-T network.  

The  results  of  the  analysis  point  to  coherence  between  UMP  and  other  EU  policies  and 
initiatives, in terms of objectives and vision, towards the transition to a new era of sustainable 
urban mobility. However, more coherence is needed in relation to the fast-evolving digital 
and social policies, and some aspects of UMP have raised certain questions in relation to the 
functioning  of  the  internal  market.  Namely,  the  increasing  number,  heterogeneity  and 
different methods of implementation of UVAR schemes pose a challenge to some of the EU 
single  market  principles,  in  particular  regarding  proportionality,  different  treatment  of 
domestic  and  foreign  vehicles,  and  insufficient  transparency  and  availability  of  accurate 
information and data.   

On efficiency, the available evidence suggests that the EU-level measures are relatively cost-
efficient. However, due to the non-binding nature of the Package and the differences between 
Member States with respect to the institutional settings related to urban mobility issues, it has 
not  been possible to  provide an estimate of the overall costs borne by national  and regional 
authorities. 

The  Package  generated  EU  added  value  especially  thanks  to  EU  funding  and  supporting 
awareness-raising, capacity building, sharing of  good practice and experience,  and fostering 
collaboration and cooperation. The central element of the Package, the concept of sustainable 
urban  mobility  planning  (SUMP)  and  related  European  guidelines  have  been  widely 
used  and  proved  effective  and  useful  for  local  authorities,  planners  and  stakeholders. 
However,  its  quality  assurance  and  urban  mobility  data  collection  and  availability  require 
additional  attention  to  ensure  that  SUMPs  remain  effective  tools  towards  achieving  the  EU 
decarbonisation,  transport  and  connectivity  objectives,  including  on  the  TEN-T  Network. 
Equally, even though the EU funding for urban mobility is, overall, regarded positively and 
should be continued according to stakeholders, its effectiveness could be improved by linking 
it to SUMPs.  

2 

 
 
In conclusion, EU action on urban mobility is still needed, even more now than in 2013. 
Moreover,  the  evaluation  shows  that  there  is  a  need  to  use  stronger  tools,  in  order  to 
contribute  substantially  to  the  increasingly  ambitious  climate,  digital  and  societal 
objectives and commitments of the EU. 

3