COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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) 47 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the 2013 Urban Mobility Package {SWD(2021) 48 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 7 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ............................................................................................... 8 

2.1.  Wider policy context ........................................................................................................................ 8 
Need for action ............................................................................................................................... 10 
2.2. 
Description of the intervention ....................................................................................................... 12 
2.3. 
Baseline and points of comparison ................................................................................................. 14 
2.4. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY OF THE UMP MEASURES ......................................................... 18 

3.1. 
3.2. 
3.3. 
3.3.1.
3.3.2.
3.3.3.
3.3.4.
3.3.5.
3.3.6.
3.3.7.

Developments after 2013 ................................................................................................................ 18 
Implementation of the EU-level measures ...................................................................................... 23 
Implementation of UMP measures by Member States ................................................................... 24 
  Urban mobility approaches across all EU Member States .............................................................. 24 
Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) .................................................... 25 
  Uptake of EU support for urban mobility ....................................................................................... 26 
  Urban vehicle access regulations .................................................................................................... 26 
  Urban road safety ............................................................................................................................ 27 
  Urban Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)..................................................................................... 27 
  Urban logistics ................................................................................................................................ 28 

4. 

4.1. 
4.2. 

5. 

METHOD .......................................................................................................................................... 28 

Short description of methodology................................................................................................... 28 
Limitations and robustness of findings ........................................................................................... 29 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ............................................................ 30 

Relevance ....................................................................................................................................... 30 
5.1. 
  Relevance of problems identified in the UMP ................................................................................ 30 
5.1.1.
  Relevance of the UMP objectives ................................................................................................... 31 
5.1.2.
  Relevance of the main pillars of the UMP ...................................................................................... 34 
5.1.3.
5.1.3.1.  Relevance of SUMP ....................................................................................................................... 34 
5.1.3.2.  Relevance of UVARs, urban logistics, ITS and road safety ........................................................... 34 
5.1.3.3.  New and emerging areas to be taken into account .......................................................................... 36 
5.1.3.4.  Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on resilience, health and safety in urban mobility ....................... 37 
5.2. 
Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................... 39 
5.2.1.  Contribution of the Urban Mobility Package towards a more competitive and resource-
efficient urban mobility in the EU ................................................................................................................ 39 
5.2.2.  Effectiveness of the EU-level UMP measures ................................................................................ 40 
5.2.2.1.  Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (SUMP) .............................................................................. 40 
5.2.2.2.  Coordinating public and private sector intervention – guidance documents .................................. 43 
5.2.2.3.  Reinforcing EU support .................................................................................................................. 43 
  Contributing and hindering factors ................................................................................................. 46 
5.2.3.
  Assessment of whether the same results would have been realised without the Urban 
5.2.4.
Mobility Package .......................................................................................................................................... 48 
  Promotion of EU concepts and tools at national local level ........................................................... 48 
5.2.5.
  Allocation of responsibility between the EU and Member States with respect to the 
5.2.6.
current needs and capacities at local level .................................................................................................... 49 
  Effectiveness of the Member State-level UMP measures and UMP contribution to it ................... 50 
5.2.7.
  EU financing for urban mobility since the implementation of the Urban Mobility Package .......... 52 
5.2.8.
5.2.8.1.  Facts and figures ............................................................................................................................. 52 

 
 
 
5.2.8.2.  Effectiveness of EU financial support in the area of urban mobility .............................................. 54 
  Unintended effects of the Urban Mobility Package ........................................................................ 54 
5.2.9.
5.3. 
Efficiency ....................................................................................................................................... 55 
  Main beneficiaries of the Urban Mobility Package ........................................................................ 55 
5.3.1.
  Cost and benefits associated with the implementation of the Urban Mobility Package ................. 55 
5.3.2.
5.3.2.1.  EU-level costs ................................................................................................................................. 55 
5.3.2.2.  Costs borne by Member States and regional authorities ................................................................. 56 
5.3.2.3.  Costs associated with the development and implementation of SUMPs ........................................ 56 
  Efficiency of UMP measures .......................................................................................................... 57 
5.3.3.
  Extent to which the costs of the UMP as a whole have been justified given the benefits 
5.3.4.
that have been achieved ................................................................................................................................ 59 
  Room for simplification in order to reduce regulatory burden ....................................................... 59 
5.3.5.
Coherence ....................................................................................................................................... 59 
5.4. 
Internal coherence ........................................................................................................................... 59 
5.4.1.
  External coherence ......................................................................................................................... 60 
5.4.2.
5.4.2.1.  Coherence with National Energy and Climate Plans ...................................................................... 60 
5.4.2.2.  Coherence with EU environmental policy ...................................................................................... 61 
5.4.2.3.  Coherence with transport and infrastructure EU policy .................................................................. 62 
5.4.2.4.  Coherence with digital EU policy ................................................................................................... 64 
5.4.2.5.  Coherence with social and employment EU policy ........................................................................ 65 
5.4.2.6.  Coherence with the principles of the EU single market .................................................................. 66 
5.4.2.7.  Coherence with funding and financing mechanisms for urban mobility ........................................ 67 
5.4.2.8.  Synthesis of findings on the external coherence of the UMP ......................................................... 68 
5.5. 
EU Added Value ............................................................................................................................. 69 
  Evidence of direct EU added value ................................................................................................. 69 
5.5.1.
  Evidence of indirect EU added value ............................................................................................. 70 
5.5.2.
  The impact of EU-level funding on the added value of the UMP .................................................. 71 
5.5.3.
  The need for EU intervention ......................................................................................................... 72 
5.5.4.
Implications of withdrawing the existing EU intervention ............................................................. 72 
5.5.5.

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 73 

Conclusion 1: Action on sustainable urban mobility is still urgently needed to achieve 

Conclusion 4: EU support is important and necessary for capacity building, sharing of 

6.1. 
ambitious climate and environmental targets and commitments .................................................................. 73 
6.2. 
Conclusion 2: The UMP has made some contribution towards its original objectives, but 
there is a need to update them ....................................................................................................................... 74 
6.3. 
Conclusion 3: There is a significant variation in the degree to which UMP measures have 
been implemented by Member States ........................................................................................................... 75 
6.4. 
information and experience, and fostering collaboration and cooperation in the area of urban 
mobility 75 
6.5. 
6.6. 
sub-optimal and requires updating ................................................................................................................ 76 
6.7. 
Conclusion 7: EU funding has been instrumental in the implementation of urban mobility 
measures in cities, but strong link with SUMPs has been lacking ................................................................ 76 
6.8. 
Conclusion 8: The support for SUMPs has made an important contribution to the 
evolution of mobility planning at the city level; however, further work is needed to ensure SUMP 
implementation and quality .......................................................................................................................... 77 
6.9. 
and requires more effort in particular from Member States .......................................................................... 77 

Conclusion 5: The UMP has not managed to engage Member States as intended ......................... 76 
Conclusion 6: The coordination of the public and private sector interventions has been 

Conclusion 9: Urban mobility data collection and availability is of insufficient quality, 

OVERVIEW OF ANNEXES: ............................................................................................................................... 78 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 79 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................... 81 

ANNEX 3: METHODOLOGY: RECONSTRUCTED INTERVENTION LOGIC AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS 
MATRIX  97 

ANNEX 4: ARCHITECTURE OF THE URBAN MOBILITY PACKAGE ................................................................. 129 

ANNEX 5: OVERVIEW OF POLICY AREAS THAT ARE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY LINKED TO URBAN 
MOBILITY..................................................................................................................................................... 130 

 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

CEF 

EC 

COM 

EIP-SCC 

EIB 

ELTIS 

EMW 

ERDF 

ESI 

EGUM 

GHG 

IA 

ITS 

KPI 

Connecting Europe Facility 

European Commission 

European Commission Communication 

European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and 
Communities 

European Investment Bank 

European Local Transport Information Service, 
www.eltis.org (European Urban Mobility 
Observatory)  

European Mobility Week, EU awareness-raising 
campaign on sustainable urban mobility 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Structural and Investment Fund 

Member States Expert Group on Urban Mobility set 
up by the European Commission  

Greenhouse Gas 

Impact Assessment, a process examining whether 
there is a need for EU action and analysing the 
possible impacts of available solutions 

Intelligent Transport Systems, transport solutions 
utilizing state-of-the-art information and 
telecommunications technologies 

Key Performance Indicator, a type of performance 

4 

 
 
LEZ 

MaaS 

NECP 

NOx 

PM 

pkm 

Shared mobility 

SWD 

SUMI 

measurement 

Low Emission Zone (a type of urban vehicle access 
regulations) 

Mobility as a Service, the integration of various forms 
of transport services into a single mobility service 
accessible on demand 

National Energy and Climate Plan, a 10-year 
integrated plan for 2021-2030 under Regulation on 
the governance of the energy union and climate action 
(EU)2018/1999 

 Nitrogen oxides, collective term used to refer to 
nitrogen monoxide (nitric oxide or NO) and nitrogen 
dioxide (NO2), air pollutants produced during 
combustion including by motor vehicles  

Particulate Matter, a collective name for fine solid or 
liquid particles added to the atmosphere by processes 
at the earth's surface, a pollutant considered to be one 
of the most harmful to human health 

Passenger-Kilometre, unit of measurement 
representing the transport of one passenger by a 
defined mode of transport over one kilometre 

It refers in this document to shared use of transport 
modes, such as sharing of vehicles for rental (e.g. 
bikes, scooters, cars), ride-sharing/car-pooling (i.e. 
shared space within a vehicle) as well as transport-on-
demand services (e.g. ride hailing services like taxis 
or Uber). 

Staff Working Document, preparatory/auxiliary 
document of the European Commission, usually 
accompanying legislative proposals 

Sustainable Urban Mobility Indicators, a set of 
indicators developed by a pilot project funded by the 

5 

 
 
SUMP 

tkm 

TEN-T 

UMP 

UVAR 

vkm 

European Commission to support cities to perform a 
standardised evaluation of their mobility system and 
to measure improvements 

Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, a strategic plan 
designed to satisfy the mobility needs of people and 
businesses in cities and their surroundings for a better 
quality of life 

Tonne-Kilometre, unit of measure of freight transport 
which represents the transport of one tonne of goods  
by a given transport mode over a distance of one 
kilometre 

Trans-European Transport Network, Europe-wide 
network of railway lines, roads, inland waterways, 
maritime shipping routes, ports, airports and urban 
nodes 

Urban Mobility Package, an EU policy basis of 2013 
comprising te Communication "Together towards 
competitive and resource efficient urban mobility" 
and annexes  

Urban Vehicle Access Regulation, a form of traffic 
management that regulates access in specific urban 
locations according to vehicle type, age, emissions 
category – or other factors such as time of day or day 
of the week 

Vehicle-Kilometre, unit of measurement representing 
the movement of a road motor vehicle over one 
kilometre 

WHO 

World Health Organisation 

6 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

This evaluation examines whether the EU urban mobility policy is fit for purpose and delivers 
as intended.  It  concerns the Urban Mobility Package (hereinafter “UMP”), consisting of the 
Communication  “Together  towards  competitive  and  resource-efficient  urban  mobility”1  as 
well as the accompanying annex: "A Concept for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans2 and four 
Commission Staff Working Documents: 

- 
- 
- 
- 

‘A call to action on urban logistics’3,  
‘Targeted action on urban road safety’4, 
‘A call for smarter action on urban access regulations’5, and 
‘Mobilising Intelligent Transport Systems for EU cities’6 . 

The  Impact  Assessment7  accompanying  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  foresees  an  evaluation 
by  2020  of  the  uptake  of  integrated  urban  mobility  approaches8  in  the  European  Union.  In 
November 2018 the Commission therefore published a Roadmap9 outlining its plans for this 
evaluation.  An  external  support  study10  to  this  evaluation  was  carried  out  and  is  published 
alongside this report. 

The evaluation covers all EU Member States11 and the period since the adoption of the UMP 
in 2013 until 201812.  

This  evaluation  aims  to  provide  the  analysis  of  the  findings,  along  with  evidence-based 
conclusions  and  recommendations  for  any  further  decisions  on  the  development  of  the 
European urban mobility policy. In doing so, it complies with the requirements defined in the 
Better  Regulation  Guidelines13  through  the  assessment  of  the  following  criteria:  relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and EU added value.  

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 SWD(2013)524, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/urban/doc/ump/swd%282013%29524-

communication.pdf  

4 SWD(2013)525, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/urban/doc/ump/swd%282013%29525-

communication.pdf  

5 SWD(2013)526, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/urban/doc/ump/swd%282013%29526-

communication.pdf  

6 SWD(2013)527, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/urban/doc/ump/swd%282013%29527-

communication.pdf  

7 SWD(2013)528 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0528  

8 Integrated urban mobility approach can be understood as a balanced development of all relevant transport modes, while 

encouraging a shift towards more sustainable modes. It puts forward a set of technical, infrastructure, policy-based, and soft 
measures to improve performance and cost-effectiveness with regard to the declared goal and specific objectives. Its 
development and implementation follows an integrated approach with a high level of cooperation, coordination and 
consultation between the different levels of government and relevant authorities, stakeholders and citizens. Sustainable 
urban mobility plan (SUMP) is an example of an integrated urban mobility. 

9 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1995-Urban-Mobility-in-the-EU  

10 Provided by a consortium led by Ramboll Management Consulting, 2020  

11 The UK is included as it was still a Member State formally until 31/01/2020. 

12 The analysis has also taken into account the developments between 2018-2020 (including the COVID pandemic), whenever 

data was available. 

13 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/docs/swd_br_guidelines_en.pdf 

  http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/docs/br_toolbox_en.pdf 

7 

 
 
                                                
2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

2.1.  Wider policy context  

A large majority of people in Europe (74.9%) live in urban areas, compared to just over 50% 
in  1950, making Europe one of the most urbanised regions  in  the world.  The growth of the 
urbanisation  rate  in  Europe  is  expected  to  continue,  with  the  proportion  of  the  population 
residing  in  urban  areas  projected  to  reach  83.7%  in  2050.14  The  expansion  of  population 
numbers  both  within  and  around  some  of  the  metropolises  in  the  European  Union  (EU)  is 
accompanied by a range of complex challenges, such as issues relating to sustainability, social 
cohesion, an ample supply of housing, or the provision of efficient transport services. Some 
cities in  the EU, however, will have to  cope with  declining population15, and an ageing EU 
population  that  will  require  further  adaptation  of  urban  infrastructure  and  services16.  The 
ageing of the population has a strong correlation with the number of persons with disabilities 
or  reduced  mobility,  and  will  require  more  emphasis  on  accessibility17  for  those  groups  as 
well as the provision of safe, secure, reliable and adaptable transport services with appropriate 
solutions for them. 

Urban mobility, in particular public transport, plays a key role in local economy and in post-
Covid green recovery. Urban and suburban public transport services carry approximately 185 
million  passengers  on  an  average  working  day  across  the  EU,  providing  the  backbone  of 
urban  mobility  in  many  EU  cities.  The  public  transport  sector  is  amongst  the  largest 
employers  at  local  level,  employing  2  million  people  in  the  EU,  i.e.  20  percent  of  the  10 
million people employed in the overall transport industry18. 

The Urban Mobility Package is the EU policy instrument in place that aims at helping urban 
areas  address,  in  a  joint  and  systematic  manner,  the  needs  and  challenges  of  modern  urban 
mobility  systems  and  their  transition  to  sustainability.  Before  the  adoption  of  the  UMP  in 
2013, there were a number of other EU initiatives the field, as summarised below:   

European Mobility Week19 (EMW) was introduced in 2002, calling on European cities and 
towns to devote one week every year to sustainable mobility, while promoting initiatives and 
permanent measures throughout the year. The ultimate aim of EMW is to incite behavioural 
change by raising awareness and promoting sustainable urban mobility.  

The  Green  Paper  on  Urban  Mobility20,  adopted  in  2007,  identifies  traffic  congestion 
leading  to  increased  delays  and  pollution  as  the  main  challenge.  The  proposed  solutions, 
among  others,  include  the  promotion  of  walking,  cycling  and  a  less  car-dependent  lifestyle 
through enhancing sharing services, and the adoption of new technologies.  

14 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019): ‘World Urbanization Prospects 2018: 

Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/421)’. https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/WUP2018-Highlights.pdf  

15 Some cities in the EU have a relatively high proportion of older people because of an outflow of younger people, reflecting in 
some cases the high cost of property (for rent or to buy) in many city centre locations and in other cases limited educational 
and/or employment opportunities. Statistics on European cities, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Statistics_on_European_cities#Population   

16 The Future of Cities, https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-reports/future-cities  

17 Accessibility for persons with disabilities or persons with reduced mobility will be further referred in this document as ‘barrier-

free accessibility’, to avoid confusion with other meanings of the word “accessibility”. 

18 UITP Open letter, May 2020, https://cms.uitp.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/PUBLIC-TRANSPORT-IS-CRITICAL-FOR-

EUROPEAN-RECOVERY-FINAL-VERSION.pdf   

19 https://mobilityweek.eu/home  

20 Commission of the European Communities (2007). Green Paper, Towards a new culture for urban mobility. COM (2007) 551 

final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0551:FIN:EN:PDF  

8 

 
 
                                                
The Ambient Air Quality Directives21 provide the current framework for the control of air 
pollutant  concentrations  in  ambient  air  in  the  EU.  The  Directives  require  that  where  levels 
exceed limit or target values, an air quality plan needs to be established to address the sources 
responsible  and  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  limit  or  target  value.  Such  air  quality  plans 
shall  set  out  appropriate  measures,  so  that  the  exceedance  period  can  be  kept  as  short  as 
possible.  In  urban  settings,  air  quality  plans  often  include  measures  targeting  specifically 
emissions from transport. 

The  first  comprehensive  EU  initiative  in  the  field  was  the  2009  Action  Plan  on  Urban 
Mobility22  with  20  actions  under  the  umbrella  of  six  themes,  based  on  the  Green  Paper 
consultation23.  A  2013  review  of  the  2009  Action  Plan  on  Urban  Mobility  showed  that 
progress had been observed, however in some cases greater effort at national level was needed 
to move from declaration of intent to commitment to action to increased uptake24.  

Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) can significantly contribute to a cleaner, safer and more 
efficient transport system, including in urban areas. The EU framework in this regard, the ITS 
Directive25, was adopted in 2010 to accelerate the deployment of these innovative transport 
technologies across Europe.  

The  Europe  2020  Strategy  for  smart,  inclusive,  and  sustainable  growth26  highlighted  the 
importance  of  a  modernised  and  sustainable  European  transport  system  for  the  future 
development of the Union and stressed the need to address the urban dimension of transport. 

The 2011 White Paper27 set out a strategic vision for the entire EU transport system, with the 
specific  aim  of  reducing  the  dependence  of  Europe  on  imported  oil  and  at  the  same  time 
cutting  carbon  emissions  in  transport  by  60%  by  2050.  Forty  initiatives  are  included,  with 
some  in  the  area  of  urban  mobility  covering  urban  road  pricing  and  access  restriction 
schemes,  Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Plans,  zero-emission  urban  logistics  and  travel 
information to promote alternatives to individual conventional transport. 

21 Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for 

Europe. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32008L0050 and Directive 
2004/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic 
aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air (Fourth Daughter Directive). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?qid=1486475021303&uri=CELEX:02004L0107-20150918    

22 Commission of the European Communities (2009). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Action Plan on Urban Mobility. 
COM(2009) 490. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0490:FIN:EN:PDF  

23 The six themes of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility were: 1. Promotion of integrated policies; 2. Focus on citizens; 3. 

Greening of urban transport; 4. Strengthening of funding; 5. Experience sharing and knowledge; 6. Optimisation of urban 
mobility. 

24 Panteia (2013). Review of the Action Plan on Urban Mobility. Available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/urban/studies/doc/2013-07-review-of-the-action-plan-on-urban-
mobility.pdf   

25 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. Available at: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0040  

26 COM(2010)2020 final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC2020  

27 European Commission (2011). White Paper; Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and 

resource efficient transport system. COM(2011) 144 final. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0144:FIN:en:PDF  

9 

 
 
                                                
2.2.  Need for action  

The  development  of  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  was  based  on  a  review  of  the 
implementation of the 2009 Action Plan, and on the results of a public consultation launched 
in 201228.  

During this evaluation process, the Commission has re-constructed the reasons which led to 
the  adoption  of  the  UMP.  The  UMP  intervention  logic  (see  Annex  3)  links  the  underlying 
problems identified in the market with the objectives set and the measures intended to address 
the causes of the problems and achieve the objectives. The starting point for the intervention 
logic  was  the  2013  impact  assessment  and  its  elements  have  been  completed  where  not 
entirely specific, in light of the Commission’s experience in monitoring the application of the 
Package. 

The  impact  assessment  identified  accessibility29,  congestion,  road  collisions,  air  pollution, 
noise and CO2 emissions as main challenges affecting EU urban mobility. It also indicated 
significant external costs of transport in urban areas linked to the current model of mobility, 
estimated  in  2013  at  about  EUR  230  billion  annually.  Of  this  amount,  EUR  80  billion  was 
attributed to congestion, EUR 80 billion to accidents, EUR 40 billion to noise, EUR 20 billion 
to air quality, and EUR 7 billion to CO2 emissions30.  

The analysis also pointed out that the  general problem was one of regulatory failure at the 
urban level and that market mechanisms alone are not able to address this situation. This was 
further  exacerbated  by  the  lack  of  an  integrated  urban  mobility  approach  (see  below) 
leading  to  a  lack  of  effective  action  at  local  level.  As  a  result,  mobility  within  cities  had 
become increasingly difficult and inefficient. The fragmented approaches  – lacking common 
standards or joint procurement – also negatively affected development of the single market for 
innovative urban mobility solutions. 

The root causes/barriers for the uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches identified in 
the 2013 impact assessment were the following: 

  Lack of cooperation between sectors, particularly transport and land use, and lack of 

coordination between different levels of government; 

  Lacking or low capacity of public authorities, including insufficient knowledge of the 

integrated urban mobility concept and scientific state of the art;  

  Little  political  will  or  lack  of  political  interest,  in  some  cases  linked  with  no  public 

pressure; 

  Scarcity  of  funding  for  the  preparation  of  Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Plans  and  for 

implementation of actions; 

  Existing  car-infrastructure  orientation  within  the  community  (linked  with  legacy  / 

culture, lobbies and other factors); 

  Resistance from established planning and engineering officials. 

28 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/consultations/2012-12-10-urban-dimension_en  

29 When it comes to accessibility,  it concerns both the  local  (urban), regional and  international transport networks, as well as 
people’s ability to reach goods, services and activities; the latter is especially valid for persons with disabilities and re duced 
mobility and is referred in the text as ‘barrier-free accessibility’. Despite infrastructure investments in the main corridors, "the 
last  mile"  in  main  European  urban  agglomerations  is  often  plagued  by  congestion.  The  issue  of  connectivity  and  fluidity  of 
traffic in the TEN-T urban nodes is therefore relevant for the proper functioning of the whole TEN-T network. 

30 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/urban/studies/doc/2013-10-urban-mobility-package-activity-

31.pdf. It should be noted that the calculations of external costs of transport were revised in 2019 and are now estimated to 
be at a much higher level. This is described in more detail in sections 2.4 and 2.5.  

10 

 
 
                                                
The  general  objective  of  the  UMP  was  to  reinforce  EU  support  to  European  cities,  where 
such  support  offers  added  value  and  while  respecting  the  distribution  of  competences  and 
responsibilities,  for  tackling  urban  mobility  challenges  so  that  cities  could  develop  their 
mobility along a more sustainable path and so that EU goals for a competitive and resource-
efficient European transport system were met.  

As  indicated  above,  the  formation  of  an  integrated  urban  mobility  approach  in  the  EU 
was considered essential in that regard. The central element of the UMP was therefore the 
concept of sustainable urban mobility planning (SUMP)31 in which the cities could address 
land use, transport behaviour and transport infrastructure in a comprehensive way in order to 
deal  with  the identified challenges  and render transport more sustainable, safe and efficient. 
At  the  same  time,  the  need  for  multi-level  governance  and  partnership,  as  well  as  the 
important  role  of  Member  States  was  recognised;  they  were  encouraged  to  take  more 
decisive and better coordinated action to help cities in this regard. 

The proposed integrated urban mobility approach would facilitate the achievement of general 
EU transport policy goals such as:  

-  better accessibility and seamless mobility along the TEN-T network; 
- 

reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from transport (60% reduction called for by the 
2011 White Paper, with urban areas accounting for a high share (23% at  the time of 
adoption) of all CO2 emissions from transport); 
reduction of air and noise pollution; and 
improvement  of  road  safety  in  cities,  with  cities  accounting  for  38%  of  EU's  road 
fatalities and vulnerable users such as pedestrians being particularly exposed.  

- 
- 

In  addition,  it  was  also  intended  to  help  develop  the  single  market  for  innovative  urban 
mobility solutions.  

The general objective translates into two operational objectives: 

Operational objectives of the UMP 

1.  To  provide  EU  cities  with,  and  stimulate  the  uptake  of,  a  policy  framework 
encompassing  important  policy  issues  necessary  to  ensure  an  integrated  approach  to 
urban mobility, at the latest by 2020.  

2.  To  provide  EU  urban  areas  with  a  framework  encompassing  all  procedures  and 
processes necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 
2020.  

The  importance  of  the  above  objectives  was  reflected  in  the  results  of  the  2013 
Eurobarometer32  survey,  which  demonstrated  that  a  strong  majority  of  citizens  considered 
congestion,  the  cost,  and  the  negative  environmental  and  human  health  impact  of  urban 
mobility and transport patterns to be important problems; furthermore, most respondents were 

31 A concept for sustainable urban mobility plans, annex to the Commission Communication ‘Together towards competitive and 

resource-efficient urban mobility’,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:82155e82-67ca-11e3-a7e4-
01aa75ed71a1.0011.02/DOC_4&format=PDF  

32 Special Eurobarometer 406 (2013) 

11 

 
 
 
                                                
 
 
rather pessimistic about the prospects for improving the traffic situation in their cities. It also 
showed  that  considerable  differences  existed  across  the  EU,  with  an  increasing  'urban 
mobility gap' between Europe's few advanced cities and the majority trailing behind.  

Taking the above into account  and in  line with  the 2011 White Paper policy objectives, the 
2013  impact  assessment  considered  that  the  way  forward  for  cities  was  to  undertake  an 
integrated urban mobility approach (i.e. sustainable urban mobility planning, SUMP) through 
which  the  most  effective  and  efficient  measures  were  identified  and  subsequently 
implemented  as  a  package.  The  integrated  urban  mobility  approach  was  developed  in  the 
analysed policy options, starting with the lowest level of EU intervention: 

0.  Baseline 

(business  as  usual: 

research&development, 

funding,  best  practice, 

campaigns, local capacity building); 

1.  Non-binding recommendation on sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs); 
2.  Mandatory development of SUMPs by Member States-defined urban areas; 
3.  Mandatory development of SUMPs by EU-defined urban areas.  

The  assessment  of  options  based  on  their  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence  indicated 
that,  overall,  options  2  and  3  would  have  had  the  highest  positive  impact.  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  White  Paper)  in  comparison  with  the  non-
legislative  options.  However,  as  they  were  estimated  to  also  be  more  demanding  to 
implement33,  option 1 was chosen. 

Finally,  as  EU  cities  were  very  different  in  all  respects,  including  on  mobility,  the  specific 
targets that each city could realistically achieve may vary. It was deemed appropriate that the 
proposed initiative should be flexible and allow for the differences across EU cities and the 
different  planning  and  institutional  frameworks  in  the  individual  Member  States.  A  similar 
degree of variation in the measures put in place was to be expected and thus the UMP did not 
include  dedicated  targets  related  either  to  overall  objectives  such  as  CO2  reduction  or 
specific objectives such as a more sustainable modal split. 

2.3.  Description of the intervention 

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 was at the heart of the intervention. Responsibility for the implementation of the UMP 
objectives was allocated to the European Commission and the Member States.  

The UMP is structured around four main pillars34: 

  Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP); 
  Coordinating public and private-sector intervention, in particular when it comes to the 

four fields of urban mobility (see specific recommendations below); 

  Reinforcing EU support by (a) providing a forum for sharing experience, showcasing 
best practice, and fostering cooperation; (b) focusing research and innovation on 
delivering solutions for urban mobility challenges; (c) providing targeted financial 
support; (d) reinforcing the international dimension; 
Involving Member States in the urban mobility field.  

 

33 Because the individual requirements may have to be further developed before they can become part of a binding legislation 

and the political feasibility might be lower due to subsidiarity principle.  

34 Diagram showing the architecture of the Package and its elements is provided in Annex 4 

12 

 
 
                                                
Moreover, specific recommendations (chosen, among others, based on the feedback received 
from stakeholders) were put forward for coordinated action between all levels of government 
and  between  the  public  and  the  private  sector  in  four  fields  (which  actually  correspond  to 
separate documents accompanying the main Communication): 

  Urban logistics; 
  Urban vehicle access regulations (UVAR);  
  Urban Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS); 
  Urban road safety. 

In  order  to  deliver,  the  main  pillars  were  operationalised  through  a  number  of  measures 
intended for implementation by the Commission and Member States. 

When it came to the measures under the responsibility of the Commission, they concerned the 
dissemination and uptake of best practice and provision of dedicated guidance in relation to 
the  four  fields  identified  above.  The  Commission  was  also  tasked  to  set-up  and/or  launch 
initiatives and platforms facilitating the achievement of the UMP goals: 

- 

- 

a  European  Platform  on  Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Plans  to  coordinate  EU 
cooperation on developing the concept and tools further, and provide a one-stop shop; 
a  Member  States’  Expert  Group  on  Urban  Mobility  to  foster  an  exchange  on  how 
national  and  EU  policies  on  urban  mobility  and  transport  can  be  strengthened  and 
better coordinated; 
a reinvigorated CIVITAS 2020 Initiative35 under Horizon 2020; 
- 
-  European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities36. 

Moreover, the Commission committed to: 

-  provide targeted financial support through European Structural and Investment Funds, 
as  well  as  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (the  latter  for  urban  nodes  on  the  Trans-
European Network – Transport (TEN-T)); 
strengthened support for the Urban Mobility Observatory37; 
continue to support the development of an Urban Mobility Scoreboard by identifying 
harmonised indicators to  benchmark and compare the progress  of urban  areas  across 
the  EU,  and  explore  how  the  quality  and  availability  of  data  and  statistics  for  urban 
mobility can be improved. 

- 
- 

When it came to measures for implementation by Member States, they revolved around them 
developing  a  coordinated  approach  to  urban  mobility  on  their  territory,  and  in  particular  a 
SUMP framework to coordinate deployment of local transport plans and their integration into 
a  wider  urban  or  territorial  development  strategy.  In  that  regard,  Member  States  were 
expected  to  review  –  and  amend  where  necessary  –  the  technical,  policy-based,  legal, 

35 CIVITAS is a network of cities for cities dedicated to cleaner, better transport in Europe and beyond. Since it was launched by 

the European Commission in 2002, the CIVITAS Initiative has tested and implemented over 800 measures and urban 
transport solutions as part of demonstration projects in more than 80 Living Lab cities Europe-wide. Following the adoption of 
UMP, the Commission launched a reinvigorated CIVITAS 2020 Initiative under Horizon 2020, the Union's framework 
programme for research and innovation for 2014-2020. 

36 The Initiative, launched in 2012 by the European Commission, aims to improve urban life through more sustainable 
integrated solutions and addresses city-specific challenges from different policy areas such as energy, mobility and 
information and communication technologies. It looks to facilitate strategic partnerships between industry, European cities 
and other parties to develop the urban systems and infrastructures of tomorrow and to achieve widespread roll out of smart 
city solutions.  

37 www.eltis.org  

13 

 
 
 
                                                
financial  and  other  tools  at  the  disposal  of  local  planning  authorities.  In  relation  to 
coordinating action between the public and the private sector in the fields of urban logistics, 
road safety, UVAR and ITS, Member States were requested to ensure that these issues were 
given proper consideration in their national approaches to urban mobility and in SUMPs, and 
to provide relevant frameworks and platforms for cooperation and exchange of information. 

The  Package  has  also  an  international  dimension,  notably  when  it  comes  to  supporting 
sustainable  urban  mobility  policies  in  Commission  cooperation  activities,  focusing  on 
developing regions and at the same time paving the way for the export of European expertise 
and technologies in the field. 

Finally, the Commission and Member States were expected to jointly facilitate the creation of 
a  single  market  for  innovative  urban  transport  solutions,  e.g.  by  developing  common 
standards and technical specifications or by facilitating joint and clean procurement. 

2.4. 

 Baseline and points of comparison 

The baseline describes those developments (throughout the evaluation period) that could have 
been expected in  the absence of the UMP.  It  is  the hypothetical  scenario against which any 
actual effective changes, attributable to the initiative, are measured.  

The  Impact  Assessment  identified  the  situation  in  2013  before  the  UMP  was  adopted.  It 
concluded  that  the  legislation  that  was  already  in  place  was  expected  to  bring  a  gradual 
improvement  in  certain  areas  such  as  emissions  and  noise  levels,  increased  road  safety,  but 
their  impact  towards  an  integrated  urban  mobility  approach  would  remain  uncertain.  It  also 
assumed that the percentage of cities without any form of integrated urban mobility approach 
will decrease.   
However,  the  Impact  Assessment  did  not  provide  for  a  quantification  of  the  policy  options 
tested  which  would  have  allowed  to  assess  the  future  situation  in  the  absence  of  the  UMP. 
Furthermore  and  as  explained  in  section  3.1,  a  number  of  policy  and  legal  initiatives  have 
occurred  since  the  adoption  of  the  UMP,  which  have  an  impact  on  the  same  (or  parts  of) 
policy area. Therefore the impact of the UMP is hard to evaluate because it is based on diffuse 
actions being taken by multiple actors and in different contexts, usually on a voluntary basis 
which means that there was little systematic reporting. There have been a number of positive 
results, but it is difficult to attribute them with certainty specifically to measures taken under 
the UMP alone.  

An additional important limitation stems from the fact that data on urban transport activity is 
neither  systematically  nor  coherently  collected  by  EU  Member  States.  This  is  a  serious 
underlying  flaw  and  underlined  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  their  recent  report38.  For  this 
reason, model estimates have been used instead, which take into account the implementation 
of  the  UMP,  complemented  by  a  qualitative  assessment.  The  support  study  contains  further 
details on the approach adopted using best practice examples where relevant. 

With  those  qualifying  remarks,  the  paragraphs  below  show  how  the  trends  related  to 
developments in the area of urban mobility have evolved over the past decade.  

38 European Court of Auditors, Special report 06/2020: Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU: No substantial improvement is 

possible without Member States’ commitment. Available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=53246  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                
Under the current economic and legal  framework, the  main  trends identified in  the  Impact 
Assessment of 2013 in the absence of the EU intervention are confirmed, as illustrated by the 
estimated evolution of a number of key performance indicators between 2010 and 201839:  

  Urban transport activity has continued to increase: goods transport volumes rose by 
nearly 13% and passenger transport volumes by almost 8%; also as expected, transport 
demand  and  modal  choice  differ  widely  between  European  cities,  and  depend  on  a 
wide range of factors. In the same period the urban population increased from 72.9% 
to 74.5% of the total population in the EU40. 

  Motorised  urban  passenger  transport  represents  a  stable  share  of  the  total  land 
transport activity across Europe (around 28%).This trend is confirmed by the fact that 
passenger  car  ownership  in  Europe  continued  to  grow  (in  particular  in  EU-13),  with 
477 676 passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants in 2010 versus 515 682 of them in 2017 
for EU-28 on average; at the same time, the share of diesel cars in the total passenger 
car fleet rose from 35,2% to 42%41. 

  Over  the  last  decade  there  has  been  no  significant  change  in  the  modal  share  of 
transport  modes,  with  nearly  80%  of  urban  passenger-kilometres  being  made  by 
private car42.  

  CO2  emissions  from  different  transport  modes  at  urban  level  have  remained  at 
roughly the same level in the last decade43, with passenger transport responsible for a 
much  larger  share  (75%)  than  freight;  private  cars  remain  the  single  biggest  source, 
responsible in 2018 for almost 70% of the total CO2 emissions from urban transport; 
urban  emissions  represent  approximately  a  quarter  of  total  transport  emissions  and 
they are clearly not  on track to  reach the decarbonisation ambitions of the European 
Green Deal44.  

  On  air  quality,  there  has  been  a  significant  decrease  in  nitrogen  oxides  (NOx)  and 
particulate  matter  (PM)  emissions  over  the  last  decade  (mostly  due  to  improved 
vehicle technology), but insufficient to reach air quality limit and target values in line 
with  EU  legislation;  concentrations  of  NO2  and  PM10  continue  to  exceed  EU  limit 
values, as confirmed in the European Environment Agency 2020 Air Quality report45, 
with  cities (including  port cities46) facing the biggest  challenges and 74%  of the EU 
urban  population  remaining  exposed  to  harmful  (including  carcinogenic)  PM2,5 
concentrations above WHO air quality guidelines.  

39 Source (unless stated otherwise in case of additional data): Reference Scenario 2016 update, PRIMES-TREMOVE model 
(E3Modelling) and external contractor’s interpolation for 2018. PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model is developed and 
maintained by E3Modelling.  

40 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?locations=EU  

41 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/size-of-the-vehicle-fleet/size-of-the-vehicle-fleet-10  

42 While in the cities in the western part of the EU the share of cars has stabilised or slightly dropped, many cities in the eastern 
part saw increases in both car ownership and modal share. For example, out of 13 cities that provided comparable data on 
modal share in the Court of Auditors report, car share dropped only in Antwerp and Bordeaux and went significantly up in 
Budapest.  

43 293 million tonnes in 2018 

44 50-55% reduction on average for all sectors in 2030 and a climate neutral economy by 2050, implying a 90% reduction in 
the transport sector emissions by 2050 compared to 1990. In addition, urban transport tends to cause more CO2 emissions 
compared to inter-urban transport per kilometre due to the characteristics of urban driving, which generally results in more 
accelerating and braking thus requiring more energy and emitting higher levels of CO2. 

45 EEA report (2020). Air quality in Europe 2020. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-

2020-report  

46 Some of the issues experienced by cities with a port in their vicinity are the negative impacts on the environment, city 

transport infrastructure and traffic congestion, resulting from the port use which comprises of the operation of ships, port 
operations and hinterland connection activities. It should be noted that according to the 2017 EEA report ‘Aviation and 
shipping — impacts on Europe's environment’ (https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/term-report-2017), around 55 % to 
77 % of the total air pollutant emissions in port regions can come from ships. 

15 

 
 
                                                
  Regarding  road  safety,  the  decrease  in  (urban)  road  casualties  has  stagnated  since 
2014, and casualties among vulnerable road users have not decreased at the same rate 
as other road casualties; almost 23 000 persons still die every year on European roads, 
among  them  nearly  9 000  in  urban  areas47.  Pedestrians  and  cyclists  have  therefore 
risen as a proportion of total casualties; the elderly are also overrepresented in urban 
road casualties. Currently, 38% of road fatalities in the EU occur in urban areas, 70% 
of which are vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists). 

When it comes to congestion, it is mainly due to high transport demand and the predominant 
reliance on private cars (with an average 1.3 person occupancy per trip) and usually happens 
in  and  around  urban  areas.  Therefore  this  problem  affects  the  majority  of  EU  citizens. 
Observations indicate that, overall, the situation across EU cities has not improved since 2013 
and,  in  many  places,  has  worsened,  with  very  considerable  costs  to  the  society48.  The  most 
common  indicator  of  traffic  congestion  relates  to  the  difference  in  average  speed  between 
free-flow conditions (usually recorded at night) and those observed at different times of day, 
converted  to  an  increase  in  average  travel  time.  As  put  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  their 
report, ‘In the absence of a significant shift to other forms of transport, rising congestion is an 
indication that urban mobility is deteriorating for road users’. The Court has confirmed that 
congestion has worsened in the cities from four Member States it analysed49 as well as in 25 
out of 37 urban nodes.  
The problem of congestion is closely linked to accessibility, understood in this context as the 
total  number  of  destinations  that  can  be  reached  within  a  fixed  period  of  time.  The  goal  of 
more sustainable urban  mobility supporting better accessibility and seamless  mobility  along 
the  TEN-T  network,  envisaged  in  2013,    has  not  fully  materialised,  with  in  particular 
congestion in urban nodes remaining a persistent challenge. Accessibility by car depends, to a 
large extent, on how urbanised an area is50. Accessibility by walking and cycling tend to be 
the highest in cities with dense road networks, higher densities of population and fewer steep 
slopes.  In  virtually  all  EU  cities  at  least  80  %  of  the  population  has  easy  access  to  public 
transport51. The Court of  Auditors also  analysed the issue of accessibility  by car and public 
transport  in  EU  cities  and  concluded  that  in  seven  out  of  eight  analysed  cities,  it  generally 
remains more time-efficient to use a private vehicle than public transport. At the same time, it 
observed that  –  largely thanks  to  EU funding for sustainable urban mobility  – the coverage 
and  accessibility  of  public  transport  within  cities  has  been  improving.  This  concerns,  in 
particular,  inner  cities  where  the  public  transport  coverage  is  at  a  very  high  level  (for  the 
analysed  cities).  However,  the  situation  is  much  worse  in  peripheral  areas,  showing  that 
significant parts of the population have sub-optimal coverage by public transport.  
Regarding  barrier-free  accessibility,  i.e.  accessibility  of  transport  for  persons  with 
disabilities or reduced mobility52, there are about 87 million persons with different kinds of 

47 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/scoreboard_2020.pdf  

48 Urban congestion costs are estimated to account for EUR 180 billion per year in terms of delay costs and about EUR 32 billion  
per year in terms of deadweight loss at EU-27 level. 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. 
Source: DG MOVE Study ‘Sustainable Transport Infrastructure Charging and Internalisation of Transport Externalities’ (June 
2019) based on: CE Delft (2019), ‘Handbook on the External Costs of Transport. Version 2019’. 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1. 

49 Leipzig, Hamburg, Naples, Palermo, Warsaw, Łódź, Madrid and Barcelona. For example, in the last city the accessibility within  

30 minutes driving time during rush hours dropped from 620 km2 in 2012 to 389 km2 in 2019. 

50 European Commission (2019), DG REGIO Working Paper – ‘Road Transport Performance in Europe, Introducing a New 

Accessibility Framework’. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/working-
papers/2019/road-transport-performance-in-europe. 

51 European Commission (20120), DG REGIO Working Paper – How Many People Can You Reach By Public Transport, Bicycle Or 

On Foot In European Cities? Measuring urban accessibility for low-carbon modes. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/012020_low_carbon_urban.pdf  

52 Understood as the possibility of these persons to use transport on an equal basis with other users. 

16 

 
 
                                                
disabilities in the EU(27)53. With ageing societies (and women in particular), this number is 
expected  to  grow,  affecting  future  mobility  patterns.  While  EU  passenger  rights  legislation 
grants  persons  with  disabilities  or  reduced  mobility  the  right  to  transport,  transport 
infrastructure and rolling stock are still widely inaccessible, notably in rural or remote areas. 
The  European  Accessibility  Act,  adopted  in  April  201954,  provides  for  accessibility 
requirements improving access to transport for persons with disabilities. 
The challenging situation in rural,  peripheral  and remote areas is  linked to  the issue of 
availability of transport. The Eurobarometer on Mobility and Transport55 shows that the less 
urbanised  the  respondent’s  environment  is,  the  more  likely  they  are  to  say  there  is  no 
alternative to taking the car: 46% who live in rural villages say this, compared to 25% living 
in  large  towns.  The  private  car  dependency  coupled  with  diminishing  or  lacking  public 
transport  options  result  in  reduced  connectivity,  including  to  nearby  cities,  especially 
challenging for the impoverished groups. A study focusing on smart transport services in rural 
areas56  concluded  the  predominant  problem  is  the  absence  of  specific  policies  for  rural 
transport coupled with very few obligations to provide rural mobility services. This issue has 
also  negative  repercussion  on  urban  areas,  as  the  increased  inflow  of  private  motorised 
vehicles  from  outside  contributes  to  the  severity  of  congestion,  poorer  air  quality  and  more 
road crashes. 

Affordability of transport remains an important issue. Consumer prices for the operation of 
private transport equipment and for public transport services have increased at  a faster pace 
between 2005 and 2018 than overall consumer price inflation while the share of transport in 
final  household  expenditure  on  consumption  (13%)  has  remained  in  this  period  mostly 
unchanged.  The  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights,  proclaimed  by  the  EU  institutions  in 
November  201757,  places  transport  among  the  essential  services  to  which  everyone  has  the 
right to access (Principle 20): ‘Support for access to such services shall be available for those 
in need.’ At-risk groups for transport poverty include households with low incomes, women, 
the unemployed, ethnic minority members, and households with children. 

Finally,  in  June  2019  Commission  services  revised  their  calculations  of  the  societal  and 
environmental  impact  of  transport58.  The  total  external  environmental  costs  of  transport 
(linked  to  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  local  air  pollution,  noise,  energy  production,  habitat 
damage), as well as the costs of congestion and crashes add up to almost €1 trillion annually 
within the EU, with the urban share estimated to be at least 50%. Road transport causes more 
than 80% of such external costs (approximately € 620 billion caused by passengers and € 200 
billion by freight), including road crash costs (some € 280 billion), congestion costs (some € 
270 billion) and environmental costs linked to greenhouse gas emissions, local air pollution, 
noise, energy production and habitat damage59 (some € 270 billion). This is a very substantial 
increase in  relation  to  calculations included in  the 2013  Impact  Assessment,  where the total 

53 http://www.edf-feph.org/newsroom/news/how-many-persons-disabilities-live-eu#overlay-context=about-us  

54 Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for 

products and services, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019L0882  

55 Special Eurobarometer 495 
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2226 

56 https://ruralsharedmobility.eu    
57 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/deeper-and-fairer-economic-and-monetary-union/european-pillar-social-

rights/european-pillar-social-rights-20-principles_en  

58  DG  MOVE  Study  ‘Sustainable  Transport  Infrastructure  Charging  and  Internalisation  of  Transport  Externalities’  (June  2019) 
based on: CE Delft (2019), ‘Handbook on the External Costs of Transport. Version 2019’.  
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1; 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/sustainable/internalisation-transport-external-costs_en  

59 Air pollution and habitat damage costs include the impact on biodiversity. 

17 

 
 
                                                
  
 
external  costs  of  transport  were  estimated  at  €  420  billion  annually,  with  the  urban  share 
estimated at € 230 billion.  

The trends above are coherent with recent Eurostat findings60 from a pilot project covering 10 
Member States which show that urban trips (trips of less than 100 km within the same urban 
area) represent a substantial proportion of daily short-distance mobility (less than 300 km) and 
that the private car is the dominant transport mode. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY OF THE UMP MEASURES 

3.1.  Developments after 2013  

In  the  last  few  years,  we  have  witnessed  important  societal,  scientific  and  technological 
developments with direct and indirect impact on urban mobility, such as: 

  A  further  increase  in  economic  and  political  importance  of  cities  and  urbanised  areas 
coupled  with  migration  (to  the  EU  and  into  cities)  and  rising  importance  of  social 
inclusion61; 

  Mounting  scientific  evidence  on  accelerating  tempo  of  climate  change  (increasingly 
caused by the high and  growing share of transport  emissions (25% of total) and of road 
transport  in  particular  (20%))  and  related  (new  or  revised)  EU-level  objectives  and 
initiatives  on  decarbonisation,  with  direct  and  important  influence  on  cities  and  their 
transport  systems;  urban  mobility  is  responsible  for  about  23%  of  EU's  greenhouse  gas 
emissions from transport.62 

  Disruptive  changes  and  innovations  in  transport  and  mobility  of  both  a  technological 
nature (digitalisation, automation, "Mobility as a Service", new propulsion systems etc.)63 
and  of  a  societal  nature  (increasing  popularity  of  shared  and  active64  mobility,  greater 
orientation towards “quality of life” issues, raising awareness of negative consequences of 
reliance  on  private  cars65  and  related  insufficient  levels  of  physical  activity66,  rise  of  e-
commerce, etc.).; 
Increased awareness of interplay between mobility choices, air quality and health, and of 
negative  impact  of  poor  air  quality  on  human  health,  in  the  context  of  continued  non-
compliance with EU air quality standards in the majority of EU Member States and in the 
wake  of  the  vehicle  emissions  scandal  of  2015,  also  known  as  Dieselgate67.  Despite 
improvements over the last decade, the large majority of the urban population in the EU 

 

60 Eurostat, Passenger mobility statistics, 2020 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=Passenger_mobility_statistics#Mobility_data_for_ten_Member_States_with_different_characteristic
s 

61 Eurostat regional yearbook — 2020 edition. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/11348978/KS-

HA-20-001-EN-N.pdf/f1ac43ea-cb38-3ffb-ce1f-f0255876b670  

62 Estimates based on the PRIMES-TREMOVE model developed by ICCS- E3M-Lab. 
63 Related to this: new entrants (often from outside the traditional transport sector) that offer mobility services and new types 

of vehicles. 

64 WHO’s Health Economic Assessment Tool (HEAT; available at: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-
health/Transport-and-health/activities/guidance-and-tools/health-economic-assessment-tool-heat-for-cycling-and-walking) 
estimates the value of reduced mortality that results from regular walking or cycling and should be part of comprehensive 
cost–benefit analyses of transport interventions or infrastructure projects, in particular at urban level. 

65 Transport, Environment and Health, WHO Regional Publications, Europe Series, No 89. Available at: 

https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/87573/E72015.pdf 332. 

66 Over-reliance on individual cars, in particular in urban areas, is linked with insufficient levels of regular physical activity for 
adults and children, and related health problems, including premature deaths. Being physically inactive is associated with 
many non-communicable diseases, such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, overweight/obesity, dementia, type 2 diabetes 
and stress and anxiety. In order to avoid major negative health consequences, WHO recommends for adults at least 30 
minutes a day of moderate physical activity, such as walking or cycling: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/physical-activity  

67 Illegal manipulation of the level of vehicles’ emissions by car manufacturers unveiled in 2015 

18 

 
 
 
                                                
 
continues  to  be  exposed  to  pollutant  concentrations  above  the  levels  of  WHO 
recommendations, and over 400 000 premature deaths are attributed to air pollution in the 
EU  per  year68.  Road  transport  (mostly  due  to  individual  cars)  contributes  a  significant 
share to it, in particular when it comes to nitrogen oxides (NOx), where road transport is 
the sector with the highest contribution (39%)69 what is especially problematic in cities as 
the most densely populated areas70; 

  New data on external costs of transport (totalling to almost EUR 1 trillion/year in the EU, 
with the urban share estimated to be at least 50%) demonstrating increasingly impact of 
the  current  model,  with  a  heavy  negative  toll  on  EU  economy,  human  health  and  the 
environment, in particular in urban areas;71.  

  Growing evidence that vulnerable road users (particularly pedestrians and cyclists72) were 
forming  a  larger  part  of  urban  road  safety  casualties  and  the  number  of  road  deaths  in 
urban areas is not declining at the same pace as on other type of roads73; currently, 38% of 
road fatalities in the EU occur in urban areas, 70% of which are vulnerable road users74. 
  Changing employment conditions such as new forms of work (notably people working for 
online  platforms),  increased  use  of  teleworking;  intra-  and  cross-border  mobility  of 
workers as well as increased students exchanges. 

Such  societal,  scientific  and  technological  developments  are  also  reflected  in  the  CIVITAS 
Advisory Group Policy Paper of 2020 addressed to the Commission that identified eight key 
game  changers75  already  affecting  (or  to  affect  soon)  urban  mobility:  (1)  electrification,  (2) 
increased  automation  and  use  of  C-ITS76,  (3)  growth  of  data  economy,  (4)  new  business 
concepts  for  freight  and  passenger  transport,  (5)  shared  mobility,  (6)  growth  of  active 
mobility,  (7)  changing  mind-sets  and  behavioural  patterns,  and  (8)  integrated  space 
management.  

When  it  comes  to  regulatory  and  political  developments,  there  has  been  a  number  of  EU 
legal  acts  adopted  in  2013  and  afterwards  which  address  policy  areas  that  are  directly  or 
indirectly  linked  to  urban  mobility.  Annex  5  summarises  how  the  following  acts  are  linked 
with the UMP:  

 

the  TEN-T  Regulation77  and  its  associated  funding  instrument  the  Connecting 
Europe Facility78; 

68 European Environment Agency, Air Quality in Europe – 2020 report. Available at: 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2020-report  

69 idem 

70 Source: European Environment Agency. 95% of the EU urban population remain exposed to pollutant concentrations above 
WHO air quality guidelines and majority of EU Member States in breach of the Union air quality legislation. 
71   DG  MOVE  Study  ‘Sustainable  Transport  Infrastructure  Charging  and  Internalisation  of  Transport  Externalities’  (June  2019) 
based on: CE Delft (2019), ‘Handbook on the External Costs of Transport. Version 2019’.  
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1.  
72 https://etsc.eu/walking-and-cycling-data/ 

73 https://etsc.eu/urban-road-safety/  

74 Source: CARE database. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/statistics_en  

75 https://civitas.eu/document/civitas-policy-paper-gamechangers-advisory-group. The CIVITAS SATELLITE Advisory Group 
defines (urban mobility related) game changers as “recent or upcoming developments that change the existing mobility 
system (i.e. the way mobility is organised, provided, and used) in a significant and often disruptive way.” A game changer is 
the result of complex interactions between changes in the realms of technology, society, businesses, economics, and policy. 

76 Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems that allow road users (vehicles) and traffic managers to share information and use 

it to coordinate their actions, enabled by digital connectivity between vehicles and between vehicles and transport 
infrastructure. 

77 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. Available at: 
http://publications.europa.eu/resource/cellar/f277232a-699e-11e3-8e4e-01aa75ed71a1.0006.01/DOC_1  

78 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/inea/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport  

19 

 
 
 
                                                
  The Clean Air for All79 communication in 2018;  
the revised Clean Vehicles Directive80;  
 
the Energy Efficiency Directive81; 
 
the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive82; 
 
  Europe on the Move packages (I83, II84 and III85).  

In  addition,  some  significant  political  developments  have  taken  place  since  2013,  including 
the Urban Agenda for the EU86, adopted in 2016 and based upon the premises of the Europe 
2020  Strategy.  It  placed  cities  and  the  new  approach  to  governance  at  the  forefront  of  EU 
policy design and implementation and is structured around (initially) 12 priority themes and 
Partnerships,  with  urban  mobility  being  one  of  them.  It  resulted  in  the  Action  Plan  of  the 
Partnership for Urban Mobility87. 

The more stringent CO2 emission performance standards for new passenger cars and new 
vans for 2025 and 2030, adopted in 201988 as well improved testing procedures on emissions 
standards  within  the  framework  of  Euro  6  (‘Real  Driving  Emissions’)89,  are  also  of  high 
relevance to the identified challenges affecting urban mobility. As of 1 September 2017, new 
car models have to  pass new and more  reliable  emissions tests  in  real  driving conditions  as 
well as an improved laboratory test before they can be driven on European roads. From 2021, 
the  EU  fleet-wide  average  emission  target  for  new  cars  will  be  95  g  CO2/km,  which 
corresponds to a fuel consumption of around 4.1 l/100 km of petrol or 3.6 l/100 km of diesel.  

Finally,  the  European  Green  Deal90  (EGD)  presented  in  December  2019,  is  the  new  EU 
growth strategy through climate neutrality and sustainable economy. It includes ambitious and 
specific objectives of high relevance for urban transport, such as to ‘transform the EU into a 
fair  and  prosperous  society,  with  a  modern,  resource-efficient  and  competitive  economy 

79 European Commission (2018). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Europe that protects: Clean air for all. COM(2018) 330. 
Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0330&from=en  

80 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. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1161/oj  

81 Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending 
Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32012L0027  

82 Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of alternative 

fuels infrastructure. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0094  

83 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions. Europe on the Move; An agenda for a socially fair transition towards clean, competitive 
and connected mobility for all. COM(2017) 283. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&coteId=1&year=2017&number=283&version=F&language=en  

84 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions. Delivering on low-emission mobility A European Union that protects the planet, empowers 
its consumers and defends its industry and workers. COM(2017) 675. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2017/EN/COM-2017-675-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF  

85 EC Press release (2018). Europe on the Move: Commission completes its agenda for safe, clean and connected mobility. 

Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/road/news/2018-05-17-europe-on-the-move-3_en  

86 European Commission website. Urban Agenda for the EU. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/node/1829 

87 Urban Agenda for the EU (2018). Partnership for Urban Mobility; Final Action Plan. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/2018-11-14_pum_final_action_plan.pdf  

88 Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 setting CO2 emission performance 
standards for new passenger cars and for new light commercial vehicles, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 443/2009 and 
(EU) No 510/2011. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019R0631  

89 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/new-and-improved-car-emissions-tests-become-mandatory-1-september_en  

90 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions. The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN  

20 

 
 
 
                                                
where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases in 2050 and where economic growth is 
decoupled  from  resource  use’.  It  also  states  that  “transport  should  become  drastically  less 
polluting,  especially  in  cities.  A  combination  of  measures  should  address  emissions,  urban 
congestion,  and  improved  public  transport.  Achieving  sustainable  transport  means  putting 
users  first  and  providing  them  with  more  affordable,  accessible,  healthier  and  cleaner 
alternatives to their current mobility habits.”  

The  2030  Climate  Target  Plan91,  adopted  in  September  2020,  delivers  on  the  European 
Green Deal commitment and proposes to raise the EU's ambition on reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions  to  at  least  55%  below  1990  levels  by  2030.  The  European  Climate  Law 
Regulation92,  also  proposed  by  the  Commission  in  2020,  aims  to  enshrine  into  EU  law  the 
2050 climate-neutrality target. 

Regarding  innovation-related  initiatives,  an  important  development  is  the  publication  in 
September 2020 of 100 climate-neutral cities by 2030 - by and for the citizens, a report by 
the  Horizon  Europe  Mission  board  for  climate-neutral  and  smart  cities93.  It  considers  an 
“efficient  mobility  for  all,  clean,  safe  and  accessible  including  carbon  free  and  alternative 
fuels, promotion of public transport, walking and cycling, smart multi-modal solution such as 
mobility as a service (MaaS), and automation” a key area in reaching the climate neutrality of 
cities.  

A new Sustainable and Smart Transport Strategy94, adopted on 9 December 2020, aims to 
operationalise the European Green Deal when it comes to decarbonising transport and lays the 
foundation for how the EU transport system can achieve its green and digital transformation 
and  become  more  resilient  to  future  crises.    The  strategy  identifies  82  initiatives  in  10  key 
areas for action (“flagships”). The flagship on ‘Making interurban and urban mobility healthy 
and  sustainable’  is  one  of  them  and  includes  a  milestone  of  having  at  least  100  climate-
neutral cities in Europe by 2030. It also states that the Commission will engage with Member 
States to ensure all cities that are urban nodes on the TEN-T network put in place their own 
sustainable urban mobility plans by 2030 and that active modes will be promoted with the aim 
of deploying over 5000km of new bike lanes in the next decade. 

Figure 1 below presents a timeline with all policy developments relevant to the field of urban 
2020.
the  UMP 
mobility 

adoption 

before 

until 

first 

half 

of 

of 

91 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-action/2030_ctp_en  

92 https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-action/law_en  

93 Proposed Mission: 100 Climate-neutral Cities by 2030 – by and for the Citizens. Available at : 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/100-climate-neutral-cities-2030-and-citizens_en  

94 COM(2020) 789 final. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2329   

21 

 
 
                                                
Figure 1. Timeline of policy developments with relevance to urban mobility 

22 

 
 
 
3.2. 

Implementation of the EU-level measures 

All  measures  foreseen  have  been  implemented  to  a  significant  degree,  mostly  through 
enabling a framework for discussion and exchanges, the publication of guidance materials or 
reports and the adoption of specific legislation.  

In  order  to  better  coordinate  public  and  private  sector  interventions  under  the  four  pillars 
identified  in  the  UMP,  a  number  of  guidance  documents  and  studies  supporting  local 
authorities and stakeholders were issued. These include: 

- 

- 

a study on urban logistics95 and a dedicated SUMP topic guide on urban logistics96; 

a  study  on  UVARs97,  a  dedicated  SUMP  topic  guide  on  UVARs98  (in  addition,  the 
Urban Access Regulations website99 was established); 

-  good practice guidelines on safer roads100 and a dedicated SUMP topic guide on urban 

road safety101; 
a topic guide on the role of ITS in sustainable urban mobility planning102. 

- 

The above was supplemented by legislation in some of the fields. Under the ITS Directive, a 
Commission  Delegated  Regulation103  on  the  provision  of  EU-wide  real-time  traffic 
information  services was adopted and the Urban ITS  standardisation mandate M/546104 was 
launched and is currently ongoing. To facilitate the procurement of clean vehicles (including 
for  logistics),  the  existing  legislation  on  the  promotion  of  clean  and  energy-efficient  road 
transport vehicles was revised in 2019105. 

Support for UMP across the EU was strengthened by  sharing experience, showcasing best 
practice,  and  fostering  cooperation.  In  particular,  the  website  of  ELTIS  –  the  EU  urban 
mobility observatory106, was revamped to include the Mobility Plans section, which serves as 
a single point of reference for SUMPs, including the European Platform on Sustainable Urban 
Mobility Plans107. The Commission set up the Expert Group on Urban Mobility (EGUM)108, 

95 Collection of EC reports (2018): Study on urban logistics. Available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/studies/study-urban-logistics-integrated-perspective_da  

96 ELTIS (2019): Sustainable Urban Logistics Planning Available. Available at: 

https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/sustainable_urban_logistics_planning.pdf  

97 EC report (2017): Study on Urban Vehicle Access Regulations. Available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/uvar_final_report_august_28.pdf  

98 ELTIS (2019): UVAR and SUMPs; Regulating vehicle access to cities as part of integrated mobility policies. Available at: 

https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/uvar_brochure_2019-09-26_digital_version_v2.pdf  

99 https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/  

100 EC Good Practice Guidelines (2017): Safer roads for all. Available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/safer_roads4all.pdf  

101 ELTIS Topic Guide (2019): Urban road safety and active travel in Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning. Available at: 

https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/urban_road_safety_and_active_travel_in_sumps.pdf  

102 https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/the_role_of_intelligent_transport_systems_its_in_sumps.pdf  

103 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32015R0962  

104 https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.detail&id=568  

105 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1161/oj  

106 https://www.eltis.org/ The name stands for European Local Transport Information Service. 

107 https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/european-platform  

108 

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3165&NewSearch=1&NewSea
rch=1 EGUM meets 2-3 times a year, with first meeting held on 28 October 2014. 

23 

 
 
                                                
composed of Member States representatives. A reinvigorated CIVITAS 2020109 Initiative was 
launched as well as the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities110. 
Since  2014,  the  annual  CIVITAS  Forum  Conference  and  European  Conference  on 
Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Plans  took  place111,  gathering  several  hundred  policymakers, 
local  authorities,  academics,  NGOs,  urban  transport  practitioners  and  urban  planners.  The 
European  exchange  and  learning  programme  URBACT  III112  is  currently  ongoing  with  an 
increased  budget  compared  to  URBACT  II.  The  Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Indicators 
project with a benchmarking tool was finalised and is available online113. 

The  EU  funding  available  for  urban  mobility  (including  ITS  and  cycling/walking)  through 
the  European  structural  and  investment  (ESI)  funds  has  increased  from  €11.2  billion  in  the 
2007-2013 programme period to €16.3 billion for 2014‑ 2020114, and CEF has provided EUR 
214 million for urban nodes since 2014. Horizon 2020 funding in the area of smart, green and 
integrated transport increased from €55.8 billion in period 2007-2013 to €77 billion in 2014-
2020. Besides funding urban transport projects,  national,  regional and local  authorities have 
received support to develop and implement SUMPs. 

Regarding  the  international  dimension,  the  ‘Mobilise  Your  City’115  partnership  supports, 
inter  alia,  the  development  of  SUMPs  worldwide  and  has  60  partner  cities  in  32,  mostly 
developing, countries.  

3.3. 

Implementation of UMP measures by Member States 

The  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  UMP  measures  by  Member  States  has  been  more 
challenging  and  based  on  limited  data.  While  some  Member  States  collect  and  publish 
detailed  information,  this  is  not  consistent  across  all  Member  States.  Therefore,  to  avoid 
introducing  a  bias  towards  the  Member  States  that  have  well  documented  information,  EU-
level sources were used to ensure a uniform approach. A summary per category of measures 
is provided below.  

3.3.1.

  Urban mobility approaches across all EU Member States  

The assessment of national urban mobility approaches covers the existence of national urban 
mobility plans that are in place in the form of guidance or national laws, and other measures 
intended to facilitate the development of SUMPs at the local or regional levels.116.  

The majority of Member States have a relevant national plan that included provisions for the 
development  of  SUMPs  in  place117  but  six  of  them118  were  identified  as  having  no  clear 

109 https://civitas.eu/ Since its inauguration in 2002, the CIVITAS Initiative has tested and implemented over 800 measures 

and urban transport solutions as part of demonstration projects in more than 80 living lab cities across Europe. 

110 https://eu-smartcities.eu  

111 In 2020, the first EU Urban Mobility Days, combining CIVITAS Forum and SUMP Conferences, took place in a virtual format 

(http://www.eumd.org)  

112 https://urbact.eu/  

113 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility/sumi_en  

114 https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/urban-mobility-6-2020/en/  

115 https://mobiliseyourcity.net/  

116 This includes three types of ‘tools’ aimed to facilitate the development and implementation of SUMPs at the local or regional 
levels, namely technical, national guidance or laws and financing. 1. Technical tools available for municipalities, cities or regions 
to implement an urban mobility plan. 2. Policy-based and legal tools: the availability of guidance and planning documents, as 
well as the presence of a legal framework, law or decree for example, that describe urban mobility planning. 3. Financial tool: 
support from a higher-level authority to local authorities for the implementation of an urban mobility plan or for other urban 
mobility initiatives. 

117 Example of Sweden, one of the ‘frontrunner’ Member State in that regard: https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/member-

state/sweden  

24 

 
 
                                                
measure  including  provisions  for  the  development  of  SUMPs,  while  one  Member  State 
(Cyprus) was in the process of developing a  national urban mobility plan. It is important to 
note that the characteristics of these plans vary significantly across Member States, with some 
Member  States  having  adopted  legislation  to  enforce  the  implementation  of  SUMPs  at  the 
municipal level119, while others have opted for a softer form of governance through guidelines 
and targeted support for the development of SUMPs.  

that  only  provided 
There  are  significant  differences  between 
administrative  support  –  such  as  translation  of  the  EU  level  guidelines  into  their  respective 
languages120 –compared to more targeted support. This included consultation and educational 
tools,  municipal-level  coaching  by  quality  advisors,  national  and  local-level  promotion 
activities and methodological guidance.  

the  Member  States 

In addition to the legal and policy tools, financial instruments or tools were found in almost 
all Member States; however the use of national and EU-level funding varies between Member 
States and internally between local and national levels.  

It  should  be  noted  that  ELTIS  –  the  urban  mobility  observatory  includes  an  overview  of 
Member State profiles regarding SUMPs121 as well as a dedicated SUMP practitioner briefing 
on SUMP national support frameworks122. 

3.3.2.

  Implementation of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs)  

The degree of implementation has been assessed based on the number and characteristics of 
the  SUMPs  that  are  publicly  available  through  the  ELTIS  database123  as  well  as  on  the 
results of relevant EU-funded projects124. It should be noted that there are a number of cities 
with  transport  plans  that  are  not  officially  called  “SUMPs”  but  clearly  have  a  number  of 
SUMPs characteristics, and these have also been taken these into account wherever possible. 

The  approach  used  was  to  review  the  plans  that  were  available  per  Member  State  on  the 
ELTIS  database  and  assess  to  what  degree  the  principles  of  UMP  pillars  were  incorporated 
into each plan.  

Overall, the number of adopted SUMPs since the implementation of the UMP has grown from 
800 in 2013 to 1 028 in 2020 and, in the second half of 2020, 122 SUMPs are in development. 
The  Member  States  that  have  developed  the  largest  number  of  SUMPs  in  this  period  are 
Belgium,  France,  Italy,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Spain  and  Sweden.  This  data  was,  for  the  most 
part,  correlated  with  the  findings  from  the  four  case  studies  of  the  evaluation  support  study 
that covered Belgium, Bulgaria, Sweden and Portugal. Both sets of data reaffirm that despite 
the growing number of SUMPs, many EU cities – in particular the smaller ones – do not yet 
have  a  fully  developed  SUMP125.  It  should  be  noted,  nevertheless,  that  the  SUMP  City 
Database on Eltis includes over 550 towns and cities with a population of over 100 000 

118 Czech Republic, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia and Romania 

119 Netherlands, Portugal, the United Kingdom and some regions of Spain and Belgium. 

120 Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and Poland 

121 https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/member-state-profiles  

122 SUMP practitioner briefing National support frameworks for Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning: National SUMP Supporting 

Programmes. Available at: 
https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/national_support_frameworks_for_sustainable_urban_mobility_planning.pdf  

123 https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/city-database  

124 Such as CIVITAS SUMPs-Up (https://sumps-up.eu).  

125 Survey conducted by CIVITAS showed that 37% of the 328 surveyed cities has a plan that qualified as SUMPs. 

25 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                   
inhabitants126, indicating that an overwhelming majority of medium and bigger cities in the 
EU have a SUMP (or another transport plan) in place. 

3.3.3.

  Uptake of EU support for urban mobility 

This  was  assessed  on  the  basis  of  the  extent  to  which  cities  have  participated  in  EU-level 
urban mobility initiatives and fora (such as URBACT, CIVITAS projects  and the CIVITAS 
Forum), as well as have used the EU funding for urban mobility. To compare the information 
between  Member  States,  the  uptake  of  EU  support  was  assessed  on  the  number  of  cities 
participating in European urban mobility projects weighted against the number of inhabitants 
in each Member State.  

The  analysis  has  shown  that  cities  from  every  EU  country  have  benefitted,  with  Greece, 
Slovenia,  Lithuania,  Portugal,  Cyprus,  Denmark  and  Croatia  being  the  Member  States  with 
the biggest number of cities receiving the support. 

3.3.4.

  Urban vehicle access regulations 

The analysis of this pillar of the UMP was based on the presence of a national programme to 
support the implementation of UVAR, inclusion of UVAR measures in SUMPs in respective 
cities  and  on  the  number  of  different  UVAR  types  implemented.  These  types  are:  low 
emission  zones  (LEZs),  urban  road  tolls  (URT),  pollution  emergency  scheme  (PES),  and 
other  urban  access  regulations  (UARs)  –  for  example,  limited  traffic  zones,  limitations  for 
heavier vehicles/lorries, ‘superblocks’ and others127. 

126 Data from ELTIS extracted on 30/11/2020 

127 They are described in detail on the urban access regulations website available at: https://urbanaccessregulations.eu/  

26 

 
 
                                                
Fewer than half the Member States128 have in place a national plan or framework to support 
the implementation of UVAR schemes.  

in 

Regarding  the  number  of  UVAR  schemes,  two  countries  –  Italy  and  Germany  –  are 
substantially  more  active  in  this  field.  Italy  has  over  200  LEZs  in  place  and  has  also 
implemented  many  schemes 
the  remaining  categories.  Similarly,  Germany  has 
implemented  around  100  schemes  ranging  over  the  four  different  categories.  On  the  other 
hand, some countries don’t have a particularly high number of UVAR schemes, however they 
might affect significantly the situation in the whole country; this is the case of Belgium, with 
LEZs in place in Brussels, Antwerp and Ghent. It should be noted that a number of Member 
States noted a marked increase in the number of UVAR schemes after the implementation of 
the UMP in 2013: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Spain, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Poland 
and the UK.  

In  addition,  while  most  of  the  more  active  Member  States  have  a  high  proportion  of  LEZs, 
PES and UARs such as restrictions for vehicles of particular weights, only a small number of 
cities have put in places urban road tolls schemes (congestion charging): Milan and Palermo 
(Italy), Goteborg and Stockholm (Sweden) and Malta (Valetta).   

At  a  more  general  level,  it  is  worth  noting  that  a  very  small  number  of  cities  have 
implemented UVAR measures in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.  

3.3.5.

  Urban road safety  

Improving road safety in urban areas is a key issue for all Member States and there have been 
numerous initiatives and measures to reduce the number of serious injuries and road fatalities 
already prior to the implementation of the UMP. In the EU-27, there were more than 8 600 
lives lost on urban roads in 2018, representing 38% of all road fatalities.  

To  analyse  the  state  of  implementation,  the  number  of  urban  road  fatalities  per  number  of 
inhabitants  in  the  latest  reported  year  and  the  availability  of  a  national  plan  to  reduce  the 
number of urban road fatalities, were taken into account129.  

Overall, all of the Member States have a national road safety plan in place and EU-wide the 
number of fatalities in urban areas fell by 21% between 2010 and 2018. However, there has 
been a stagnation observed in the last few years, in line with the overall trend in road death 
statistics.  Over  the  period  2010-2018,  the  number  of  cyclists  killed  on  urban  roads  actually 
increased by 6%.130 

While the average number of urban road deaths  in  the EU is  21 per million  population,  the 
rate  ranges  from  8  in  Sweden  to  61  in  Romania  (excluding  small  countries  for  whom  the 
figures are relatively low and tend to fluctuate from year to year).  

EU-wide,  around  70%  of  fatalities  in  urban  areas  involve  vulnerable  road  users  and  it  was 
observed that the number of urban road fatalities is generally higher in the Member States in 
the east and south of Europe. This is therefore a key area of focus when considering measures 
to tackle road safety. In this regard, two European capitals, Helsinki and Oslo, achieved the 

128 Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia, France, Greece, Italy, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Poland and Finland 

129 However, as most of the Member States have a national approach that had already been put into action prior to the 

implementation of the UMP, this category is of less importance. 

130 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/scoreboard_2020.pdf  

27 

 
 
                                                
milestone  of  zero  pedestrian  and  cyclist  deaths  in  2019.  Both  Oslo  and  Helsinki  cite  speed 
reductions  as  essential  to  progress,  as  well  as  the  work  done  to  encourage  cycling. 
Enforcement remains crucial in both cities.  

3.3.6.

   Urban Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) 

Urban Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) refer to systems that help to optimise the use of 
existing infrastructure through a variety of means, such as traffic signals, journey planners, 
smart  ticketing  or  cooperative  systems  (including  vehicle-to-vehicle  and  vehicle-to-
infrastructure communication systems). They foster the coordinated management of access 
restriction  schemes,  smooth  the  operation  of  city  logistics  and  enhance  road  safety 
measures.  

To assess the state of implementation of urban ITS across Member States the following data 
was used:  

1.  The  presence  of  a  national  approach  or  plan  which  includes  provisions  to  ensure  the 

implementation of the UMP urban ITS measures; 

2.  The relative number of reported good practices; 

3.  The  share  of  SUMPs  in  each  Member  State  that  includes  provisions  for  the 

implementation urban ITS. 

Overall, a majority (19) of Member States were found to have a national plan in place. Five 
of  them  (France,  Greece,  Italy,  Portugal  and  Ireland)  have  well-established  and  integrated 
forms of urban ITS that incorporated the related measures set out in the UMP. In addition, 
they  reported  several  cases  of  good  practice  and  include  ITS  measures  in  the  majority  of 
SUMPs.  

3.3.7.

  Urban logistics 

Urban logistics may be defined as meaning the movement of goods, equipment and waste 
into, out, from, within or through an urban area131. To assess the state of implementation of 
urban  logistics  approach  across  Member  States,  similar  data  as  above  –  having  a  national 
plan  in  place,  number  of  reported  good  practice  examples  and  the  share  of  SUMPs  with 
urban logistics provisions – was taken into account.  

The analysis shows that almost half (13) Member States have a national scheme to support the 
implementation of urban logistics measures, and a majority of Member States have cities that 
have actively implemented the UMP measures on urban logistics. In particular, this area was 
also  found  to  be  included  in  the  majority  of  SUMPs  in  most  of  the  Member  States.  Three 
Member  States  (France,  Portugal  and  Austria)132  were  found  to  be  leading  in  this  field  as 
having  relevant  and  available  national  support  schemes,  a  high  number  of  good  practice 
examples and a high percentage of SUMPs with provisions for urban logistic measures.  

131 Commission Staff Working Document A call to action on urban logistics, SWD(2013) 524 final. Available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/urban/doc/ump/swd%282013%29524-communication.pdf  

132 For example, urban logistic measures are included in all 10 analysed French SUMPs as part of the support study. Among 
them, the SUMP for the Paris region provides for e.g. a dedicated urban logistics ‘toolbox’ and 9 good practices such as a 
‘Label on night deliveries respecting the residents’. Available at: http://www.pduif.fr.     

28 

 
 
                                                
4.  METHOD 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology 

The  evaluation  of  the  UMP  started  in  November  2018  with  the  publication  of  the  roadmap 
and was overseen by an Inter-Service Steering Group (see Annex 1). The evaluation questions 
were  linked  to  the  five  criteria  defined  by  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  and  further 
operationalised into sub-questions with corresponding indicators and judgement criteria133.  

Baseline: The main source used to  define the baseline in  this evaluation  is  the 2013 impact 
assessment.  Publicly  available  data  was  complemented  by  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport 
model projections. 

External  support  study:  This  evaluation  builds  in  particular  on  the  findings  of  an  external 
support  study,  which  collected  data  and  provided  an  analysis  of  the  evidence  from  the 
consultation activities and the available literature. 

Evidence for the evaluation support study was gathered through a wide  combination of data 
sources:  a  targeted  survey  of  key  stakeholders134  interviews,  a  literature  and  statistical 
information  review,  workshops135  and  4  case  studies  for  Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Portugal  and 
Sweden.  The  case  studies  allow  for  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  UMP 
measures in 12 selected cities (3 per Member State). They aim to explore the link between the 
introduced measures and achieved outcomes, and to assess them, taking into account drivers, 
barriers and alternative explanations (contribution analysis)136.  

Public Consultation: The Commission organised an online public consultation to support this 
evaluation.  The  consultation  ran  from  11  September  2019  to  4  December  2019.  The 
questionnaire  of  the  public  consultation  was  made  available  on  the  Commission's  Public 
Consultation Portal “Have  your say”137 in all EU languages. The survey was answered by a 
total of 207 respondents, 86 of which were individuals and the rest replying on behalf of an 
organisation. 

A summary of consultation activities can be found in Annex 2. 

EGUM:  The  Expert  Group  on  Urban  Mobility  is  composed  of  representatives  of  all  EU 
Member States and Norway and was set up in 2014 as a result of the UMP. Its main aim is to 
facilitate the exchange of information and the cooperation on urban mobility issues between 
Member States and the Commission. The Commission has regularly updated the Group on the 
progress  with  the  UMP  evaluation  over  the  last  2  years.  At  a  dedicated  meeting  on  3  June 
2020, attended by 18 Member States (plus Norway), the emerging results of the draft support 
evaluation study were presented. It was followed by a discussion, focusing on country fiches 
and case studies, thus contributing to improving the quality of the study. 

133 The evaluation question matrix is provided in Annex 3b.  

134 In the case of the online surveys, it was envisaged that data would be gathered and analysed from 3 targeted surveys 

addressed to national authorities; local and regional authorities; and civil society, networks and private sector actors. Due to 
low response rates and a subsequent lack of useful information therein, the decision was made to only analyse the survey 
targeting national authorities. Furthermore, additional targeted interviews were conducted to compensate for the low 
response rate from the surveys. 

135 A workshop for national representatives of Member States Expert Group on Urban Mobility (EGUM) and a stakeholder 

workshop held on 3 June 2020 

136 In this sense, the topical case studies may be regarded as “performances stories” that analyse how the Urban Mobility 

Package has “performed” in the national and local context, building on quantitative and qualitative data collected as part of 
the support study. 

137 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1995-Urban-Mobility-in-the-EU/public-consultation  

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                
CIVITAS  Advisory  Groups:  two  Advisory  Groups  were  set  up  in  2018–  on  the  Future  of 
Urban Mobility Policy and on Game Changers in Urban Mobility138. They were composed by 
experts  and  academics  in  the  field  and  delivered  two  policy  notes139  which  supported  the 
findings of the evaluation. 

Court  of  Auditors  report  on  the  EU  urban  mobility  policy  and  funding140:  published  on  3 
March 2020, the report examines whether EU legislative and financing support have helped to 
make mobility in urban areas more sustainable, and whether cities have made progress since 
the  Urban  Mobility  Package.  The  report  provides  an  analysis  of  public  transport,  pollution 
and congestion developments in eight cities in four Member States: Hamburg and Leipzig in 
Germany,  Naples  and  Palermo  in  Italy,  Łódź  and  Warsaw  in  Poland,  and  Barcelona  and 
Madrid in Spain. 

In preparing this document, the Commission services also relied on internal data collection. 

4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  analysis  carried  out  has  encountered  a  number  of  limitations,  in  particular  the  limited 
availability of comparable data (linked with the problem of lacking systematic urban mobility 
data collection in the EU), low number of replies to a part of the consultation and reliance on 
stakeholder views for some findings, and the existence of other (EU) interventions impacting 
on the urban mobility field that made it difficult to disentangle the effects of the UMP. Efforts 
were taken to mitigate these limitations. 

One  of  the  persisting  challenges  was  evaluating  the  real  impact  of  the  UMP  because  of  its 
nature  as  a  non-binding  policy  instrument  which  relies  on  actions  by  multiple  actors  and 
which  interacts  with  other  EU  measures,  including  legislative  acts,  as  well  with  various 
national and local initiatives. Therefore determining the true effect that the UMP had across 
each  of  the  four  areas  (UVARs,  urban  ITS,  urban  logistics  and  urban  road  safety)  remains 
challenging,  and  even  more  so  when  it  comes  to  attributing  UMP  impact  on  higher-level 
indicators and trends such as CO2 emissions.  

The  limitations  regarding  the  low  number  of  replies  to  the  surveys  conducted  in  the 
framework  of  the  support  study  were  mitigated  to  considerable  extent  by  additional 
consultation  activities  (public  consultation  and  interviews).  However,  while  some  of  the 
information  for  the  indicators  (collected  during  the  support  study)  was  easily  available,  the 
availability of well-documented and consistent data was limited. In most instances there were 
no  indicators  available  and  where  they  were  available,  the  information  did  not  have  the 
correct geographical scope (with a country instead of city/urban area focus) or date range as 
desired141.  This  was  exacerbated  by  the  fact  that  some  impacts  affecting  sustainable  urban 
mobility take longer than the evaluation period to materialise.  

The mitigation measure was to rely more on qualitative data and on stakeholder consultation 
activities142. Further limiting factors included the local nature of information, the wide range 

138 https://civitas.eu/document/civitas-policy-paper-gamechangers-advisory-group  

139 Available at: https://civitas.eu/document/civitas-policy-paper-gamechangers-advisory-group  

140 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=53246  

141 In particular, more recent data (for years 2018-2020) has not been consistently available for all Member States what might 

have a (limited) impact on the validity of some of the findings 

142 For example, it was possible to gather additional evidence from studies concerning SUMPs, UVARs and urban road safety. 
Similar studies were not as prevalent for urban logistics; however, some information was available. Concerning urban ITS, 
the most useful source of information found was linked to the Member State reports of the ITS Directive. 

30 

 
 
                                                
of  expert  estimates  and  the  large  range  of  other  influencing  factors.  Regarding  stakeholder 
consultations, data collection was hampered by a lack of specific knowledge or awareness of 
the Urban Mobility Package among a part of interviewees.   

Despite all this, and in particular the lack of comparable quantifiable data, the presence and 
collection of qualitative data has enabled some relevant and valid conclusions to be drawn. 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1.  Relevance 

This section discusses the relevance of the UMP, at the level of the objectives and measures, 
with relation to the problems, needs and challenges of stakeholders and cities, and in light of 
relevant post-2013 developments. 

5.1.1.

  Relevance of problems identified in the UMP 

The  main  problem  originally  identified  in  the  UMP  –  namely  that  mobility  within  cities  is 
increasingly inefficient and unsustainable – is still relevant. This applies as well to the main 
drivers: lack of/insufficiently integrated urban mobility approaches, both in relation to policy 
making and processes, and the underlying root causes. 

This  finding  is  supported  by  data  and  observations  regarding  the  related  main  negative 
consequences:  urban  congestion  (affecting  accessibility  and  transport  performance),  deaths 
and  injuries  due  to  road  crashes  in  urban  areas,  poor  air  quality,  noise  and  CO2  emissions. 
This is demonstrated by the key indicators and trends related to developments in the area of 
urban  mobility  (presented  in  Section  2),  and  confirmed  during  the  stakeholder  consultation, 
with problem drivers and causes assessed as highly relevant or relevant as shown in figure 2 
below.  

Figure  2:  Key  problems  to  be  addressed  in  urban  mobility  across  stakeholders 
(n=variable)143 

143 The graph presents the number of responses given by interviewed stakeholders, the total number of responses from the 
national authorities and the public consultation. The targeted national authorities’ (EGUM) survey uses responses that 
answered that these problems are relevant to a small (to some), to a large and to a very large extent. Innovative transport 
was not an option in the EGUM survey. 

31 

 
 
 
                                                
Source: Combined stakeholder totals from the targeted interviews, targeted survey and public consultation 

5.1.2.

  Relevance of the UMP objectives 

As stated in Section 2, the main UMP objective is to reinforce the support to European cities 
for tackling urban mobility challenges so that they develop along a more sustainable path, in 
particular by ensuring the uptake of an integrated urban mobility approach across the EU144. 
This  would  contribute  to  achieving  the  wider  EU  goals  for  a  competitive  and  resource-
efficient European transport system, which would lead to reduction of CO2 and air emissions, 
congestion and road deaths and injuries.  

The analysis and the evidence from the targeted consultation indicate that the objectives were 
appropriate  for  meeting  the  identified  needs  and  are,  overall,  to  large  extent    relevant. 
However,  some  views  expressed  during 
the  stakeholder  consultation  as  well  as 
recommendations  from  the  CIVITAS  Advisory  Group  on  Game  Changers  as  well  as  more 
ambitious climate and social objectives included in the European Green Deal outline the need 
for further support to cities and to better grasp recent (technological, societal, environmental 
and policy) changes/disruptions.  

In  particular,  a  number  of  stakeholders145  highlighted  the  need  to  strengthen  the  focus  on 
social  and  equality  issues,  especially  with  relation  to  impoverished  groups  (that  cannot 
afford  available  modes  of  transportation)  and  persons  with  disabilities  or  reduced  mobility 
groups, as well as the redefinition of the concept of quality of life to include different policy 
priorities, such as liveable cities. In addition, with aging societies and a predominately female 
older population, the specific needs of women need to be better taken into account in terms of 
time and purpose of travel, route, travel distance as well as safety considerations. 

Equally,  the  identified  ‘game  changers’  call  for  a  more  suitable  EU  framework  that  would, 
inter alia, more properly capture the quickly evolving nature of new, shared mobility services, 
propose more effective incentives for safe and accessible public and active transport, and 
more decisively respond to the climate emergency in relation to local transport. The need to 
better  address  the  connectivity  with  rural  areas  and  a  regional  approach  as  well  as  closer 
alignment with land-use planning in the context of SUMP was also raised146. In a similar vein, 
the  importance  to  better  take  into  account  long  distance  transport  networks  –  in  particular 
railways – as they are important to meeting needs of people living in suburbs and in a wider 
region, was highlighted147. 

Emerging  conclusions  from  EU-funded  project  SMARTA148  seem  to  confirm  the  above, 
indicating  that  rural  public  transport  services  (including  connections  with  urban  areas)  in 

144 Two operational objectives from 2013 Impact Assessment are: 1. To provide EU urban areas with a policy framework 

encompassing all policy issues necessary to ensure an integrated approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 2020, and  

2. To provide EU urban areas with a governance framework encompassing all procedures and processes necessary to ensure 
an integrated approach to urban mobility, at the latest by 2020. 

145 A need to have an increased focus on social issues and the concept of liveability was noted by 17 out of the 67 interviewees 
representing regional/local authorities, civil society and private sector actors at EU/national level. In the Public Consultation, 
5 out of 207 participants (representing EU citizens (4 out of 5) and public authorities (1 out of 5) noted that there should be 
equal representation for all citizens, and 5 out of 207 participants (representing EU citizens) answered that there needs to be 
a greater gender balance in planning decisions. The topic of liveability was also raised more widely by 73 participants 
(representing all stakeholder groups) in the Public Consultation, where they noted that there is a need to create more 
accessible infrastructure. 

146 Statement provided in the framework of public consultation by the European Office of the Metropolitan Region 

FrankfurtRheinMain. 

147 Position papers by CER (Community of European Railways) and České dráhy provided in the framework of public 

consultation. 

148 SMARTA (smart transport services in rural areas). More information: https://ruralsharedmobility.eu/  

32 

 
 
                                                
Europe  are  under  stress.  A  combination  of  factors  including  austerity  measures  and 
demographic  change (ageing, immigration and depopulation) leads to  absence of a  range of 
services,  including  mobility.  These  demographic  trends  are  estimated  to  continue,  with  in 
2050,  only  16  %  of  the  European  population  living  in  rural  areas  compared  to  the  current 
value  of  27%.  The  lack  of  qualitative  public  mobility  services  has  resulted  in  private  car 
dependency  and  reduced  connectivity,  meaning  that  those  without  a  car  have  reduced 
possibilities  to  participate  in  society,  penalising  the  impoverished  groups  and  negatively 
affecting  the  urban  areas  by  contributing  to  congestion,  air  pollution  and  road  crashes. 
Findings  from  the SMARTA project  also  show that  EU countries lack dedicated policies to 
rural mobility with specific national commitments to provide transportation services149.  

Finally, an important finding, based on stakeholders views (in particular local authorities), is 
the difference in the problems and related needs between large, medium and small-sized 
cities, as well between small, concentrated high density cities and widespread, less dense, 
sprawling  conurbations.  Small  cities  within  low-density  areas,  for  example,  often  do  not 
exhibit the same severity of problems as in dense urban areas (such as air quality, emissions, 
congestion  and  urban  road  safety).  On  the  other  hand,  the  sprawling  conurbations  and 
agglomerations  with  many  people  commuting  from  outside  often  exhibit  challenges  with 
proper connectivity, in particular from the nearby rural and per-urban areas. There are some 
main  issues  of  particular  relevance  for  smaller  and  less  densely  populated  municipalities 
(including those surrounding bigger cities and agglomerations) emerging from the interviews: 

-  Eligibility and access to funding: funding is often linked with urban mobility policies 
that focus heavily on decarbonisation and low emission mobility objectives; while it is 
recognised that planning should be aligned with those, it appears that not all cities or 
urban areas have the same needs when it comes to funding150, and in case of smaller 
cities in  particular, the access  to  funding was limited due to staffing, know-how and 
related issues.  

-  Guidance  for  planning  and  implementation  of  measures:  the  objectives,  needs  and 
guidance  associated  with  the  urban  mobility  initiatives  are  often  perceived  as  more 
relevant  in  the  context  of  metropolitan  areas  and  therefore  it  is  less  clear  to 
stakeholders  from  small  municipalities  what  the  measures  will  bring  to  their  cities; 
thus, guidance and measures specifically created for cities of smaller dimensions and 
low densities would provide additional support and value. 

-  Demand-responsive  solutions  for  public  transport151:  they  are  understood  as  being 
more suitable to improve supply and demand of public transport in low-density areas 
in urban and peri-urban environments. 

The  recent  Commission  report  on  the  quality  of  life  in  the  European  cities152  provides 
interesting data illustrating some of the above differences and needs. Car use clearly declines 

149 SMARTA findings further indicate that (shared) rural mobility schemes can be successfully operated, but the challenge 

remains to combine all of the necessary elements to ensure a EU comprehensive framework. A general conclusion of the 
SMARTA project is that rural mobility urgently needs more attention as it is critical to the overall sustainability of rural areas. 

150 One such example (from a city case study) is the city of Beja in Portugal, with a population density of around 90 inh/km2 

(2018). Local-level interviewees from Beja mentioned that while there were no evident air quality problems, the local 
authority utilised existing funding opportunities for the renewal of the municipal fleet with electric cars and buses.  

151 Digitally-enabled solutions for public/collective transport where vehicles do not have a fixed route or timetable but instead 
change their routes based on particular demand. The vehicles – such as buses, mini-buses or taxis – usually pick-up and 
drop-off passengers in locations according to their needs.  

152 Report on the Quality of life in European cities, European Commission, 7/10/2020. Available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/reports/2020/report-on-the-quality-of-life-in-european-
cities  

33 

 
 
                                                
with  city  size153  and in most  countries, the capital  city has the lowest  car use. On the other 
hand, the usage of public transport increases with city size154, indicating a negative correlation 
with  car  use,  and  in  most  countries,  the  share  of  public  transport  use  is  highest  in  capital 
cities.   

A  correlation  can  be  also  observed  between  a  city  size  and  accessibility.  Analysing  at 
regional level how many people living in a 120-kilometre radius can be reached within a 90-
minute  drive  by  car,  a  working  paper  from  the  Commission  estimates  that  within  the  EU  it 
depends,  to  large  extent,  on  how  urbanised  it  is.  On  average,  cities  outperform  rural  areas 
although not all cities perform that well; cities in eastern EU Member States achieve a lower 
performance,  especially  the  smaller  ones155.  A  similar  trend  is  visible  also  in  relation  to 
accessibility by public transport: access to high-frequency departures is highest in cities with 
at  least  1  million  inhabitants  and  considerably  lower  in  cities  with  fewer  than  250  000 
inhabitants,  although  some  cities  perform  much  better  or  worse  than  their  size  implies. 
Walking  and  cycling  perform  well  in  cities  with  dense  road  networks,  higher  densities  and 
fewer  steep  slopes;  cycling  accessibility  may  be  lower  in  case  of  poor  road  or  safety 
conditions156. 

Therefore, for the UMP objectives to remain fully relevant and comprehensive, these new 
developments and needs should be considered to address the underlying issues of designing 
and implementing effective urban strategies. 

5.1.3.

  Relevance of the main pillars of the UMP 

5.1.3.1. Relevance of SUMP 

The concept  of SUMP is the best  known element  of the UMP, and its role in  achieving the 
objectives  of  the  Package  is  widely  recognised.  The  high  relevance  of  SUMP  has  been 
confirmed  by  public  and  stakeholder  consultation,  by  the  members  of  the  Member  States 
Expert  Group  on  Urban  Mobility,  by  the  high  demand  for  SUMP  capacity-building 
programmes  among  local  authorities,  as  well  as  by  the  Court  of  Auditors.  The  latter  has 
explicitly included SUMP in both of its recommendations which call the Commission to: 

- 

- 

carry  out  an  impact  assessment  and,  subject  to  the  positive  outcome  of  this 
process,  propose  legislation  requiring  Member  States  to  collect  and  submit 
regularly  relevant  data  on  urban  mobility  and  on  the  adoption  of  Sustainable 
Urban  Mobility  Plans  (SUMPs)  in  all  EU  urban  nodes  of  the  core  and 
comprehensive TEN-T networks, including their surrounding areas. 
link EU funding with SUMPs. 

153 ‘While around 50 % of residents say they use a car on a typical day in cities with less than 250 000 inhabitants, the 

percentage decreases to 46 % in cities of between 500 000 and 1 million inhabitants. It drops further to 43 % in cities of 1 
million to 5 million inhabitants, reaching the minimum of 38 % in cities with more than 5 million inhabitants.’ 

154 ‘While around 38 % of residents claim they use public transport on a typical day in cities with less than 250 000 inhabitants, 
the percentage increases to 43 % in cities with between 250 000 and 1 million inhabitants. It further increases to 46 % in 
cities with 1 million to 5 million inhabitants and reaches a maximum of 56 % in cities with more than 5 million inhabitants.’ 

155  European  Commission  (2019),  DG  REGIO  Working  Paper  –  ‘Road  Transport  Performance  in  Europe,  Introducing  a  New  
Accessibility 
papers/2019/road-transport-performance-in-europe. 
156 European Commission (20120), DG REGIO Working Paper – How Many People Can You Reach By Public Transport, Bicycle Or 

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/working-

Framework’. 

Available 

at: 

On Foot In European Cities? Measuring urban accessibility for low-carbon modes. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/012020_low_carbon_urban.pdf 

34 

 
 
  
                                                
In  addition,  the  policy  notes  of  the  CIVITAS  Advisory  Groups  confirm  the  value  and 
relevance of sustainable urban mobility planning in tackling the challenges cities are facing, 
and include recommendations to further reinforce it. 

(focused  on 

Finally, the relevance of SUMP was also confirmed by the positive reception and popularity 
of the European guidelines157 from 2014. In order to better reflect the most recent trends in 
mobility,  technology,  and  society,  and  to  integrate  the  rich  experience  of  implementing  the 
SUMP concept since 2013, a major revision was undertaken in 2019. On top of revising the 
original  guidelines 
the  process  of  SUMP  preparation,  consultation, 
implementation  and  evaluation),  new,  dedicated  guidance  material158  was  published.  This 
additional guidance material includes comprehensive planning recommendations on topics of 
relevance,  such  as:  linking  transport  and  health  in  SUMPs;  sustainable  urban  logistics 
planning;  planning  for  electric  road  transport  in  the  SUMP  context;  or  supporting  and 
encouraging  cycling  within  a  SUMP.  The  very  high  demand  for  this  focused  and  topic-
specific practical guidance159 indicates its high relevance for urban mobility. In addition, the 
high  uptake  of  two  new  topic  guides  published  in  recent  months:  Addressing  gender  equity 
and vulnerable groups in SUMPs and COVID-19 SUMP Practitioner Briefing160 supports the 
claim from the previous sub-section regarding the need to better capture new developments of 
relevance for the UMP.  

5.1.3.2. Relevance of UVARs, urban logistics, ITS and road safety 

The  evaluation  has  found  that  UVARs  and  low  emission  zones  (LEZs)  continue  to  be 
important  policy tools for a number of cities because they enable them to act  on a range of 
issues  already  discussed,  in  particular  air  quality  and  congestion.  It  is  important  to 
acknowledge that the Ambient Air Quality Directive has been a driver for Member States and 
local authorities to consider LEZs. The developments such as the persistent non-compliance 
with  air  quality  standards,  ‘dieselgate’  and  rising  awareness  of  the  impact  of  air  quality  on 
human  health,  seem  to  even  further  reinforce  the  relevance  of  low  emission  zones  in 
particular,  with  increasing  number  of  cities  implementing  or  envisaging  implementation  of 
such  schemes.  It  was  confirmed  also  by  the  stakeholders161,  who  further  connect  those 
measures  to  parking  policy  and  public  space  management.  UVARs  also  have  interlinkages 
with urban ITS, urban road safety (pedestrianisation, traffic management and routing, etc.162) 
and  urban  logistics  (access  time,  vehicle  characteristics,  load  factors  87,163,164),  as  well  as 
citizens’ awareness of environmental and decarbonisation policies. On top of it, civil society 
organisations  highlighted  in  the  interviews  that  UVAR  is  an  area  which  should  be 

157 https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/sump-guidelines  

158 12 ‘Topic Guides’ (https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/topic-guides) and 5 ‘Practitioner’ Briefings’ 

(https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/practitioner-briefings)  

159 As demonstrated by the data on the number of unique downloads from the ELTIS website since their publication in October 

2019, showing for instance that as of 14 October 2020 the topic guide on Mobility as a Service in SUMP was downloaded 2143 
times, the guide on Supporting and encouraging cycling in SUMP – 489 times, and the guide on Sustainable urban logistic 
planning - 269 times.  

160 Downloaded 128 and 267 times respectively as of 14 October 2020 

161 Of those who answered, it was noted by 32 out of 67 interviewees and 119 out of 207 participants in the Public Consultation 

that air quality was an important issue that needed to be addressed. 

162 European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (2019). Topic Guide; UVAR and SUMPs – Regulating vehicle access to 
cities as part of integrated mobility policies. Available at: https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/uvar_brochure_2019-09-
26_digital_version_v2.pdf  

163 Taniguchi, E. and Thompson, R.G. (2014). Introduction. In City Logistics: Mapping the Future, Taniguchi, E. and Thompson, 

R.G. (Eds). CRC Press.  

164 Navarro Lopez, O. (2018). Urban Vehicle Access Regulations. In Sustainable Freight Transport: Theory, Models, and Case 

Studies, Zeimpekis, V., Aktas, E., Bourlakis, M. and Minis, I. (Eds), SpringerLink. 

35 

 
 
                                                
strengthened, particularly through political support in order to facilitate their implementation, 
while private sector actors stressed challenges that reduce LEZs effectiveness165. 

The  relevance  of  the  urban  ITS  has  been  confirmed,  with  technological  developments  of 
recent  years further extending both the range and effectiveness of these measures (and thus, 
indirectly,  also  their  relevance).  Increased  automation  and  use  of  C-ITS166,  growth  of  data 
economy and shared mobility are ITS-related ‘game changers’ as identified by the CIVITAS 
Advisory Group and whose importance – and relevance – has been rising.  

The  importance  of  road  safety  and  reduction  of  injuries  and  deaths  resulting  from  traffic 
crashes has been rising over the past years, with local, national and EU authorities raising the 
ambitions in that regard. This was confirmed, inter alia, by the Valetta Declaration167 adopted 
in  2017  by  EU  Transport  Ministers,  the  Commission’s  Strategic  Action  Plan  on  Road 
Safety168 of 2018 and policies of many cities169, all aiming for ‘Vision Zero’ when it comes to 
road  fatalities.  In  addition,  it  has  been  explicitly  characterised  as  being  very  important  and 
relevant  by  many  stakeholders170,  especially  with  relation  to  vulnerable  road  users  and  new 
transport modes (e.g. e-scooters, silent electric cars and buses, heavy vehicle traffic through 
cities,  etc.).  This  was  confirmed  as  well  by  the  findings  of  the  Advisory  Group  on  Game 
Changers, in particular in its recommendations concerning shared mobility and the growth of 
active mobility. It is therefore a highly relevant policy area. 

The relevance of the four main pillars of the UMP was also reinforced by the fact that there 
is  widely  known  dedicated  SUMP  guidance  covering  all  of  them  by  2019171,  and  by  the 
stakeholders172. Overall, all UMP pillars are considered to be relevant, with more emphasis on 
the measures related to SUMPs. 

It should also be noted that, according to some stakeholders173, regardless of the relevance of 
individual  UMP  measures,  the  overall  inspiration,  motivation  to  progress  and  reality 
check of actions provided by the UMP, as well as the accumulated experience and expertise 
from  previous programmes and projects,  are very  relevant  and beneficial.  It  was  also  stated 
that in some cases the UMP has been used as an effective lever for change with both decision-
makers and the public, resulting in SUMPs entering the political agenda: a number of SUMPs 
have been developed with the support of national or EU funds.  

165 This includes policy resistance at the national level, due to a perceived linkage between private business profitability with 

regards to access and parking. 

166 Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems  

167 https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9994-2017-INIT/en/pdf 

168 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar%3A0e8b694e-59b5-11e8-ab41-

01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_2&format=PDF   

169 In particular from Sweden, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom.  

170 18 out of 67 interviewees and 45 out of 207 participants in the Public Consultation noted that road safety was an important 

issue that needed to be addressed. It was also noted by 149 out of 207 participants in the Public Consultation that the 
measure of coordinating public and private sector inventions in the area of urban road safety was highly relevant. 

171 The following guidance is of relevance here: Sustainable Urban Logistics Planning (269 unique downloads from ELTIS 
website as of 14 October 2020), Integration of Shared Mobility Approaches in Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (24 
downloads), The Role of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (185 downloads), Mobility 
As A Service (MAAS) and Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (2143 downloads), Road Vehicle Automation in sustainable 
urban mobility planning (44 downloads), Urban Road Safety and Active Travel in Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (2 
downloads), UVAR and SUMPs: Regulating vehicle access to cities as part of integrated mobility policies (12 downloads) and 
Parking and SUMP (178 downloads). 

172 It was noted by 31 out of 67 interviewees. 

173 It was noted by 14 out of 67 interviewees 

36 

 
 
 
                                                
5.1.3.3.New and emerging areas to be taken into account 

Technological  developments  during  the  past  decade  have  been  both  disruptive  and  game 
changing.  The  transport  and  mobility  sector  has  been  profoundly  impacted  by  changes  in 
innovation  with  implications  for  the  economy,  society,  environment  and  institutions. 
However, there is another side of innovation that should not be left out, namely institutional 
innovation (legislation, regulation, governance, business models, etc.).  

Over  the  years,  decarbonisation  and  climate  change  have  been  progressively  and 
increasingly  integrated  into  policy  priorities  at  European,  national  and  local  level.  With  the 
Paris Agreement174 and the United Nations’ sustainable development goals175, the pressure on 
governments,  including  at  local  level,  has  stimulated  significant  changes  in  policies  and 
strategies.  This  has  also  been  supported  by  public  awareness  and  societal  impetus  for 
individual  lifestyle  changes  and  active  advocacy  for  sustainable  mobility.  The  increased 
interest  in  young  generations  towards  sharing  mobility  schemes,  instead  of  ownership  of 
vehicles,  is  a  practical  example  of  the  change  in  mobility  and  environmental  culture.  A 
number of interviewed stakeholders at the local level176 confirmed this argument.  

From  a  political  and  regulatory  perspective,  the  European  Green  Deal  (described  in  more 
details  in  Section  3.1)  and  the  diesel  scandal  and  its  aftermath  seem  to  be  particularly 
relevant177  as  they  have  triggered  important  changes  impacting  also  on  urban  mobility.  The 
first initiative is of key importance as it sets the EU on a new path towards reaching net zero 
climate emissions by 2050 which assumes a fundamental transport transformation, including 
at  urban level.  The objectives of the European  Green  Deal  go beyond the UMP not  only in 
relation to CO2 emissions reduction but also when it comes to decreasing the negative impact 
of transport on health and the environment while stressing that the transition has to be just and 
inclusive.  The  diesel  scandal  is  considered  to  have  put  in  the  public  spotlight  the  issue  of 
vehicles emissions, their link with air quality in urban areas (and with related negative health 
consequences of exceeding the limit values of air pollutant concentrations), and the urgency 
to tackle them. It has, finally, changed the relevant regulations, leading, among others, to “real 
driving” emissions testing.  

Therefore,  in  addition  to  the  four  main  pillars  of  UMP,  a  number  of  additional  relevant 
areas can be put forward for possible future consideration in future urban mobility policies, as 
supported  by  many  stakeholders178.  Equally,  the  Court  of  Auditors  and  both  CIVITAS 
Advisory  Groups  identified  fields  that  either  have  not  yet  been  sufficiently  covered  by  the 
UMP and/or which should be better grasped due to rapid technological, societal and political 
developments  and  in  order  to  meet  the  EU-level  objective,  in  particular  concerning 
decarbonisation.  

The most salient  of those areas are  public transport and  active  mobility.  Public transport-
related  aspects  such  as  multimodal  information  systems  and  smart  ticketing  were  also 
mentioned as relevant areas. In addition, efficient public transport systems were recognised as 
a key challenge by respondents in the public consultation.  

174 Available at: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement  

175 Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals  

176 8 out of 14 local authorities that were interviewed. 

177 European Court of Auditors (2019). The EU’s response to the ‘dieselgate’ scandal. Briefing Paper. Available at: 

https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocuments/brp_vehicle_emissions/brp_vehicle_emissions_en.pdf  

178 Overall, 42 out of the 67 interviewees provided further detail on other relevant areas that could be included.  

37 

 
 
                                                
Public space reallocation in favour of active modes has been raised as an additional area of 
relevance  for  urban  mobility  policy  by  the  stakeholders179  during  the  consultation.  Its 
importance  and  relevance  has  been,  however,  greatly  increased  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic  in  2020,  with  local  authorities  taking  numerous  measures  to  help  people  move 
safely  during  the  lockdown.  It  included  the  temporary  reallocation  of  road  space  to  create 
pop-up bike lanes  and enlarged pavements, some of which  will become  permanent.  Section 
5.1.3.4. tackles this in more detail. 

The following additional issues were also identified:  

Infrastructure development (including for electric vehicles) as part of the planning180;  
 
  Transport and mobility services such  as on-demand transport, multimodality, service 
integration, urban/interurban and cross-border commuting (some having an impact on 
the working conditions)181; 

  Technology-enabled services (e.g. Mobility-as-a-Service, ride sharing apps, etc.)182; 
 

Integrated space and mobility management,  

  Digitalisation, big data and growth of e-commerce. 

5.1.3.4.Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on resilience, health and safety in urban mobility 

The  impact  of  the  2020  COVID-19  pandemic  has  been  significant,  as  it  has  shaken  up 
transport,  including  at  local  level,  in  numerous  ways.  It  has  led  –  in  particular  in  the  first 
months – to a massive drop in public transport usage and to an increase in active mobility. 

Various  studies  have  also  indicated  a  link  between  air  pollution  and  the  risk  of  virus 
propagation  and  severity  of  its  impact  and  demonstrated  that  long-term  exposure  to  air 
pollution might be expected to increase humans’ susceptibility to COVID-19183. At the same 
time  increased  road  safety  risks  for  vulnerable  road  users184  were  observed.  Cities  and 
transport operators have been also struggling to accommodate the necessary social distancing 
rules  due  to  insufficient  space  on  public  transport  services,  but  also  for  pedestrians  and 
cyclists,  thus  concerns  when  it  comes  to  fair  sharing  of  public  space  in  cities  have  become 
more  visible185.  The  Commission’s  Guidelines  on  the  progressive  restoration  of  transport 
services  and  connectivity186  recommend  that  urban  areas  could  consider  temporary 
enlargements  of  pavements  and  increased  space  for  active  mobility  options,  as  well  as 
reducing  speed  limits  of  motorised  vehicles  in  increased  active  mobility  areas.  Similarly, 
some  rail  operators  used  additional  rolling  stock  to  allow  for  more  distance  between 
passengers.  The  guidelines  also  indicate  measures  to  be  put  in  place  to  ensure  the  highest 

179 From those that were able to answer, it was noted by 9 out of the 46 interviewees that suggested additional areas of 

relevance. 

180 By 14 out of 42 interviewees. 

181 By 10 out of 42 interviewees. 

182 By 15 out of 42 interviewees. 

183 European Environment Agency, COVID-19 and Europe's environment: impacts of a global pandemic, 10/11/2020. Available 

at : https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/covid-19-and-europe-s  

184 https://etsc.eu/covid-19-huge-drop-in-traffic-in-europe-but-impact-on-road-deaths-unclear/  

185 Cities have been struggling to accommodate the necessary social distancing rules due to insufficient space for pedestrians 
and cyclists; one of the most important revelations of the pandemic was the disproportionate distribution of public space in 
favour of motorised traffic, with cars accounting for ~30-40% of journeys but occupying ~70-80% of public space in 
European cities (COVID-19 SUMP Practitioner Briefing, https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/covid-
19_sumppractitionersbriefing_final.pdf)  

186 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020XC0515(04)  

38 

 
 
                                                
safety for public transport passengers and stress the need to communicate clearly on them, to 
facilitate  their  smooth  implementation,  reassure  citizens  and  maintain  their  confidence  in 
public transport 

Walking and cycling have proved to be the preferred mode in many cities during the crisis, 
combining the ‘active’ element (physical exercise) with the travel objective. This resulted in 
additional health benefits, reducing physical inactivity, a key risk factor of non-communicable 
diseases. In addition to being sustainable and active modes, they are also individual, and thus 
meet  physical  distancing  requirements.  As  such,  the  World  Health  Organization187 
recommended walking and cycling for essential trips whenever feasible. 

The pandemic has highlighted the role of urban logistics as an essential public service for the 
city, similar to passenger transport. Public transport has remained the backbone of sustainable 
mobility and is  essential to  economic recovery,  with  public transport drivers being essential 
workers.  COVID-related  lockdown  measures  have  also  led,  at  least  temporarily,  to 
significantly reduced car traffic and – thus – related air and noise pollution. In consequence, 
air  quality  has  substantially,  though  temporarily,  improved,  with  clear  health  benefits.  In  a 
poll, a big majority of Europeans have expressed a clear wish for this to continue, indicating 
that cities must take effective measures to protect citizens from air pollution, even if it means 
preventing polluting cars from entering city centres and reallocating public space to walking, 
cycling and public transport 188.  

Since  the  strict  lock-down  measures  were  lifted  in  most  of  the  EU  (in  the  second  half  of 
2020), many people who had used public transport before have switched to individual modes, 
with cars usage going up towards pre-pandemic levels; the situation remains dynamic. 

The  relevance  of  COVID  when  it  comes  to  its impact  on  urban  mobility  was  confirmed  by 
publication (in July 2020) of dedicated COVID-19 SUMP guidance material189. It includes 
good practice of  cities and recommendations on how to  make urban mobility more  resilient 
and  sustainable  during  and  after  the  coronavirus  crisis,  focusing  on  active  mobility,  urban 
space, and public transport and shared mobility.  

Even  though  it  is  still  too  early  to  draw  definite  conclusions,  it  is  highly  likely  that  the 
COVID  pandemic  –  with  the  changes  it  has  brought  to  work,  consumption  and  mobility 
patterns – will have a lasting impact on urban mobility. It is also an opportunity for cities to 
re-define their approaches and roll out measures – in particular those that privilege public and 
active transport190 – that have been challenging to implement previously, mostly due to root 
causes as described in Section 2.2. 

The experience of the pandemic has demonstrated, finally, that resilience of cities as well as 
people’s  health  and  safety  are  of  key  importance  and  these  aspects  should  be  better 
integrated in local transport strategies and measures191. As such, the impact of COVID should 
be considered when it comes to urban mobility. 

187 https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/urban-health/publications/2020/moving-around-during-

the-covid-19-outbreak  

188 https://epha.org/no-going-back-to-pre-covid-air-pollution-levels-opinion-poll-finds/  

189 https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/covid-19_sumppractitionersbriefing_final.pdf  

190 European Parliament, Rapid-response briefing ‘COVID-19 and urban mobility: impacts and perspectives’, September 2020. 

Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2020/652213/IPOL_IDA(2020)652213_EN.pdf  

191 European Parliament, Rapid-response briefing ‘COVID-19 and urban mobility: impacts and perspectives’, September 2020. 

Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2020/652213/IPOL_IDA(2020)652213_EN.pdf  

39 

 
 
                                                
5.2.  Effectiveness 

This section discusses how successful has the UMP been in achieving or progressing towards 
its objectives. 

5.2.1.

  Contribution of the Urban Mobility Package towards a more competitive and 

resource-efficient urban mobility in the EU 

Making a direct link between the UMP and its intended outcomes (i.e. reduced emissions 
and  energy  consumption;  reduced  congestion  and  better  mobility  along  TEN-T;  modal  shift 
towards  more  sustainable  means  of  transport;  improved  quality  of  life  in  cities;  business 
opportunities  for  developing  innovative  transport  and  mobility  services;  better-coordinated 
and  effective  implementation  of  urban  policies)  is  challenging.  As  stated  in  Section  3,  it 
cannot be established that the mobility situation in EU urban areas has improved significantly 
as a result of the implementation of the UMP. This finding is supported by the responses to 
the stakeholder consultation, which indicate that the UMP objectives were very ambitious and 
over-arching  while  the  measures  proposed  in  the  2013  Communication  were  only  soft  and 
non-binding in nature, without a firm link to EU funding. Additionally, a significant number 
of the interviewed stakeholders192 find it difficult to assess the extent to which the UMP has 
achieved  its  objectives  as  they  are  not  familiar  with  it  and  could  only  comment  on  urban 
mobility developments in their own cities, and because there are no targets and indicators to 
measure  progress.  It  is  also  noted  that  recording  a  significant  improvement  would  require 
some of the UMP measures to be implemented for a longer period of time.  

Nonetheless,  the  public  consultation  and  the  Court  of  Auditors  report  indicate  the  areas  in 
which the UMP has likely had an impact. The majority of EGUM members who completed 
the survey stated that the Package has contributed to a modal shift towards sustainable modes 
of  transport193,  and  to  improving  the  quality  of  life  in  urban  areas194  to  a  greater  or  lesser 
extent. Local authorities and civil society at the local and regional levels, on the other hand, 
indicated that in some cases the Package has contributed to an increased coordination in the 
implementation of urban policies. EU-level stakeholders195 underscored the role that the UMP 
has  played  in  establishing  a  common  language,  and  in  streamlining  and  consolidating  the 
initiatives of the EU in the area of urban mobility. The Court of Auditors has also noted that 
the  coverage  and  accessibility  of  public  transport  in  cities  and  their  surrounding  areas  has 
been improving, with EU funds playing a role.  

The Package was seen as an important step in promoting the concept of SUMPs and setting a 
basis  for  other  EU  urban  mobility  developments.  A  relevant  example  was  provided  by  the 
European Investment Bank (EIB) according to which whether or not a city has a SUMP is a 
factor taken into consideration when making an investment decision. While this was also done 
prior to the UMP, its implementation gave legitimacy to this practice.  

5.2.2.

  Effectiveness of the EU-level UMP measures 

This  section  presents  the  evidence  with  regards  to  the  following  aspects  of  the  Package: 
SUMPs; coordinating public and private sector interventions; and reinforcing EU support.  

192 44 out of 67 interviewees. 

193 12 out of 17 EGUM members. 

194 11 out of 17 EGUM members. 

195 15 out of 18 of the EU level stakeholders that were interviewed. 

40 

 
 
 
                                                
5.2.2.1. Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning (SUMP) 

The  level  of  awareness  of  the  concept  of  SUMPs  is  relatively  high,  it  varies  significantly 
between the EU Member States. While the stakeholders consulted were all familiar with the 
concept, a survey conducted in 2018 by CIVITAS showed that representatives of 25% of the 
surveyed countries had limited or clearly insufficient levels of awareness196.  

The evaluation found that SUMP guidelines were well known and were used, translated or 
integrated  with  national  best  practice  in  10  Member  States197,198.  Compliance  with  the 
SUMP  concept  and  guidelines  varied  considerably199  based  on  the  SUMP  Self-Assessment, 
completed by stakeholders as part of the case studies, where the overall scores were generally 
below  70%.  This  provides  an  indication  that  there  is  some  discrepancy  between  the 
recommended and actual SUMP content and processes200.  

It is noteworthy that the development and adoption of a SUMP did not necessarily ensure that 
it has a high quality or its implementation was guaranteed. Developing and using monitoring 
and evaluation schemes and employing external quality control assistance were found to be 
important factors, which likely influenced the SUMP’s effectiveness. This is also confirmed 
by the observations of the Court of Auditors that noted that ‘In none of the cities we visited in 
Italy and Spain was there external assessment of the quality of the adopted SUMPs. There is, 
therefore,  a  risk  that  the  adoption  process  may  become  an  administrative  formality  to  get 
access  to  funds  and  that  the  SUMP  may  thus  not  be  of  the  quality  needed  to  drive 
improvements in urban mobility.’  

With  respect  to  implementation,  the  Bulgarian  case  study  showed  that,  in  that  country,  in 
most cases SUMPs were adopted because they were expected to be a prerequisite for access to 
funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) Operational Programmes. It 
might point to a risk that a number of SUMPs have and will be developed and adopted merely 
as  a  formality  without  making  decisive  steps  toward  introducing  urban  mobility  measures. 
The  Court  of  Auditors  in  their  report201  suggested  that  the  link  between  the  use  of  EU 
funding and the Country-specific Recommendations should be strengthened, also to address 
this  issue202.  Annex  D  of  the  2019  European  Semester  Country  Reports203  presents  an 
investment  guidance  on  cohesion  policy  funding  2021-2027  for  each  Member  State  also 
explicitly mentions SUMPs in 16 of the country reports204.  

The majority of  respondents  to  the public consultation  noted that SUMPs were an  effective 
mechanism  for  planning  and  delivering  sustainable  urban  mobility205.  In  addition,  the 

196 Status of SUMPs in European Member States, CIVITAS SUMPsUP (2018). Retrieved from https://sumps-

up.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Tools_and_Resources/Reports/SUMPs-Up_-_SUMP_in_Member_States_report_with_annexes.pdf  

197 Ibid. 

198 The section of the ELTIS website that includes the SUMP guidelines was visited nearly 12 000 times in 2019 (based on 

information provided by ELTIS). 

199 E.g. the score for the SUMP of Burgas (BG) was 70.5%, for the SUMP of Braga (PT) - 57.5%, for the SUMP of Malmo (SE) – 

65%, for the SUMP od Umea (SE) – 65%, for the SUMP of Ghent (BE) – 78%, for the SUMP of Beja (PT) – 78%.  

200 It should be, however, recognised that there is a difference between meeting the definition of the SUMP concept and 

following the process as provided in the Guidelines. There can be a SUMP without following all aspects of the Guidelines but 
there cannot be a proper SUMP without covering all the aspects of the concept. 

201 Special report 06/2020: Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU: No substantial improvement is possible without Member 

States’ commitment. Available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=53246  

202 This recommendation was contested by some Commission services. 

203 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2019-european-semester-country-reports_en  

204 The country reports of Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, 

Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. 

205 74% of respondents. 

41 

 
 
                                                
SUMP  process,  which  stresses  the  importance  of  participatory  approach  and  proper 
involvement of citizens and stakeholders, has also helped to ensure a high level of acceptance 
and support for the plans and measures included in it. For example, in Sofia an active citizen 
participation platform provided citizens with information on the purpose of the city’s SUMP 
and the progress of its development, whilst allowing them to submit opinions, suggestions and 
proposals, while in Budapest an ‘interactive two-way communication with high-level decision 
makers’  activity  deepened  their  knowledge  of  sustainable  urban  mobility  planning, 
encouraged their engagement in the process and helped to ensure their higher commitment to 
SUMP206. 

Similarly, SUMPs have shown to have the potential to effectively contribute to achieving a 
numerous  societal  objectives  linked  with  transport,  in  particular  when  it  comes  to 
reduction  of  air  pollutant  and  CO2  emissions,  reduction  of  congestion  and  deaths  and 
injuries from road crashes in urban areas. The following examples illustrate this: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

air  quality  improvements207,208,  with  for  instance  Madrid  experiencing  a  15% 
reduction  in  nitrogen  dioxide  pollution  in  three  months  after  establishing  low 
emission zones in its SUMP in November 2018209; 

reduction of CO2 emissions, with for instance Torino recording 12% decrease in 
daily  emissions  from  urban  logistics  thanks  to  multi-users  lanes  for  freight 
transport measure included in their SUMP210; 

reductions  in  car  use,  with  for  example  Milan  managing  –  thanks  to  measures 
included in its SUMP of 2016 – to bring the number of residents using cars down 
to 50%, well below the Italian average211; 

reduced  impact  of  road  crashes,  with  for  instance  Greater  Manchester  being 
successful  in  reducing  deaths  and  serious  injuries  to  road  users  thanks  to  a 
strategic approach to road safety in its SUMP212; 

increased active mobility, with for example Tartu (Estonia’s second-largest city) 
managing  to  double  its  modal  share  of  cycling  from  4%  to  8%  in  five  years 
through investments in public infrastructure213; 

increase  in  public  transport,  with  for  instance  Klaipeda  (Lithuania)  aiming    to 
bring  it  up  from  30%  in  2017  to  42%  in  2030  thanks  to  its  SUMP 
implementation214.  

206 SUMP Good Practice Fact Sheets, CIVITAS SUMPs-UP. Available at: https://sumps-

up.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Tools_and_Resources/Publications_and_reports/Good_Practice_Fact_Sheets/SUMPs-Up__-
_City_Good_Practice_Factsheets_compressed.pdf 

207 Pisoni et al. (2019). Evaluating the impact of ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans’ on urban background air quality. 

208 Quantifying the Effects of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, JRC, 2013. 

209 ELTIS, What are the benefits of Sustainable Urban mobility Planning. https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/12-what-are-

benefits-sustainable-urban-mobility-planning  

210 SUMP Good Practice Fact Sheets, CIVITAS SUMPs-UP. Available at: https://sumps-

up.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Tools_and_Resources/Publications_and_reports/Good_Practice_Fact_Sheets/SUMPs-Up__-
_City_Good_Practice_Factsheets_compressed.pdf  

211 Ibidem 

212 Urban road safety and active travel in SUMP. 

https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/urban_road_safety_and_active_travel_in_sumps.pd_.pdf  

213 ELTIS, What are the benefits of Sustainable Urban mobility Planning. https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/12-what-are-

benefits-sustainable-urban-mobility-planning 

42 

 
 
                                                
Moreover,  it  can  be  reasonably  expected  that  the  additional  SUMP  topical  guidance 
materials  that  have  started  to  be  published  as  from  October  2019215  and  which  provide 
comprehensive  planning  recommendations  on  the  most  relevant  topics,  will  further  support 
local  authorities  in  tackling  the  most  salient  urban  mobility  challenges.  They  will,  thus, 
strengthen the added-value of the SUMP approach and its effectiveness. 

The  effectiveness  of  SUMPs  was  also  acknowledged  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  in  their 
report, reflecting its importance in both recommendations. The Court has called for systematic 
collection of data on urban mobility and on the adoption of SUMPs in all EU urban nodes by 
Member  States,  and  that  EU  funding  should  be  linked  with  SUMPs.  It  has  specifically 
proposed  that  accessing  cohesion  and  structural  funds  for  urban  mobility  should  be 
conditional on the existence of a SUMP, and that Connecting Europe Facility should give a 
higher priority to those projects proposals in urban nodes that are in line with SUMPs. At the 
time  of  the  publication  of  the  special  report,  the  Commission  underlined  that  it  could  only 
partially  accept  the  first  recommendation,  highlighting,  for  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  ERDF, 
that “the success [for implementing the Recommendation] would “depend on the cooperation 
of the Member States” during the discussions on partnership agreements and programmes. 

All  types  of  stakeholder  who  participated  in  the  consultation  activities  agree  that  the  EU 
support provided to national, regional and local authorities with respect to SUMPs is of great 
significance.  This  was  shown  in  the  public  consultation  where  a  large  majority216  of 
respondents  stated  that  the  EU  support  to  national  and  regional  authorities  with  respect  to 
SUMPs is largely or moderately important. In addition, more than a third of them noted that 
EU involvement was necessary in order to provide local authorities with support and funding 
to enable the scaling up of SUMPs. Similarly, more than half of the EGUM members217, who 
took part in the survey targeting national authorities, indicated that their Member States had 
benefited from EU support in setting up SUMPs.  

Finally, the evaluation shows that the European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility 
Plans,  which  is  part  of  ELTIS  –  the  Urban  Mobility  Observatory,  is  one  of  the  most 
recognisable tools associated with the Package and is generally perceived to be useful. Based 
on data about the website visits, the most visited pages in 2019 were the news, followed by 
the case studies and the  events.  The website  received most views from the USA, Germany, 
China, France and the UK.218  

The  value  of  the  Platform  and  ELTIS  in  general,  is  considered  to  be  particularly  high  for 
stakeholders219  from  the  Member  States  that  do  not  have  similar  platforms  and  sufficient 
resources  to  develop  them.  Despite  the  perceived  usefulness  of  the  Platform,  feedback 
received  from  several  stakeholders220  during  consultation  activities  suggests  the  need  to 

214 ELTIS Case study ‘Planning for a healthy, connected and comfortable Klaipeda’, available at: 

https://www.eltis.org/resources/case-studies/planning-healthy-connected-and-comfortable-klaipeda-0 and 
https://www.klaipeda.lt/data/public/uploads/2018/09/output-7.pdf. In the latter document, page 17 of the plan shows the 
2017 status and projected 2030 modal split with no SUMP; while page 30 shows the projected 2030 modal split in line with 
SUMP implementation.   

215 Available at: https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/topic-guides and https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/practitioner-

briefings  

216 88% of respondents.    

217 9 out of 17 EGUM members. 

218 Information provided by ELTIS. 

219 This was a view which was in particular prevalent among the Bulgarian stakeholders. 

220 4 civil society organisations at EU/national level, 1 civil society organisation at national level, 1 local authority. 

43 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                   
increase its effectiveness and usefulness, to overcome the voluntary aspect of data reporting 
as well as data accuracy and reliability. 

5.2.2.2. Coordinating public and private sector intervention – guidance documents 

The  findings  show  that  the  level  of  awareness  and  use  of  the  study  and  guidance 
documents  on  urban  logistics  was  low,  among  both  EGUM  members221  and  local 
authorities.  In  particular,  several  interviewed  representatives  of  local  authorities  noted  that 
they  were  not  promoted  sufficiently  at  Member  State  level.  Similarly,  there  is  limited 
evidence with regard to the level of awareness and use of the study and guidance documents 
on UVARs. While some222 EGUM members stated that they were aware of them, a very small 
number of interviewees noted that they had been used with a limited effect. The low level of 
awareness  of  guidance,  coupled  with  their  non-binding  character,  might  have  also  led  to 
uncoordinated implementation of various UVAR schemes across the EU, with some negative 
consequences for the single market. 

The  level  of  awareness  among  interviewees  of  the  good  practice  examples  for  road  safety 
developed by the European Commission was also limited and only a few EGUM members223 
indicated that they were aware of them. 

5.2.2.3. Reinforcing EU support 

While the development of the Urban Mobility Scoreboard is a currently ongoing, a significant 
proportion of the consulted stakeholders224 were aware of it, and considered the Sustainable 
Urban  Mobility  Indicators225  pilot  project  to  be  a  welcome  and  necessary  step  towards 
establishing  a  harmonised  framework  across  Europe  with  which  to  evaluate  and  compare 
performance.,  In  addition,  feedback  received  from  cities,  academics  and 
transport 
stakeholders  during  a  dedicated  event226  indicated  a  need  for  further  refinement  of  the 
indicators set in line with the specificities of the European context and the experienced data 
collection problems, as well as a need for a technical and advisory assistance to the cities in 
that regard. 

It was not possible to establish conclusive evidence with regard to the awareness about, and 
the  usefulness  of,  EGUM  among  the  interviewees.  While  a  number  of  stakeholders  were 
aware  of  it  (mostly  representatives  of  national  authorities  and  EU  organisations  closely 
familiar with the UMP), the level of awareness among local stakeholders was low227. A small 
number  of  interviewed  stakeholders  noted  that  the  EGUM  had  been  useful  for  having  a 
dialogue. However, stakeholders found it generally challenging to provide information on the 
contributions  of  the  Expert  Group.  Suggestions  to  change  its  structure  and  format  -  such  as 
opening  participation  to  local  authorities  and  city  networks,  and  to  set  measurable  goals  - 
were made in order to improve its effectiveness. 

221 5 out of 17 EGUM members. 

222 8 out of 17 EGUM members. 

223 7 out of 17 EGUM members. 

224 This was noted by 29 out of 67 interviewees, and 4 out of 11 surveyed National Authorities. 

225 SUMI, a pilot project of the European Commission that developed a comprehensive set of practical and reliable indicators 
that support cities to perform a standardised evaluation of their mobility system and to measure improvements that result 
from new mobility practices or policies; https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/urban_mobility/sumi_en  

226 7th Florence Intermodal Forum: Towards a Common European Framework for Sustainable Urban Mobility Indicators, 

18/09/2020. https://fsr.eui.eu/event/towards-a-common-european-framework-for-sustainable-urban-mobility-indicators/   

227 10 out of the 67 interviewees were aware of the EGUM. 

44 

 
 
                                                
The  CIVITAS  Initiative  is  considered  to  be  an  important  vehicle  for  furthering  the  EU 
agenda in the area of urban mobility. It includes a total of 287 CIVITAS demonstration228 and 
non-demonstration  cities,  with  those  from  Greece,  Italy  and  Spain  being  the  most  active 
participants.  The  number  of  CIVITAS  events  and  the  participation  rate  of  its  annual 
conference has increased in the past few years. The evidence also indicated that taking part in 
CIVITAS  projects  and  events  was  considered  to  have  a  positive  impact  by  facilitating  the 
accumulation of knowledge and supporting the introduction of urban mobility measures. 

Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  is  one  of  the  action  clusters  of  the  European  Innovation 
Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities (EIP-SCC)229 and includes initiatives in the 
areas  of  Electric  Vehicles  for  Smart  Cities  and  Communities,  New  Mobility  Services  and 
Urban  Air  Mobility.  Since  2014,  EIP-SCC  has  funded  a  total  of  12  Lighthouse  projects 
through Horizon 2020. The largest number of projects is located in Spain, Italy and the United 
Kingdom.  SUMPs  are  also  being  recognised  as  one  of  the  starting  points  for  integrated 
planning for Smart City Plans230.  

Outside  the  EU,  at  least  two  SUMPs  have  been  developed–  in  the  Dominican  Republic 
(Santo  Domingo)  and  Cameroon  (Yaoundé)  through  the  Mobilise  Your  City231  programme. 
There  are ongoing discussions (e.g. with  China232) and relevant  support is  provided to  third 
countries  (e.g.  to  Turkey233).  In  terms  of  results,  it  is  considered  to  be  too  early  to  identify 
tangible effects of the SUMPs’ development and implementation. Nonetheless, the evidence 
shows that while the international cooperation component is not one of the cornerstones of the 
UMP, it is an area with interest expressed by third countries.  

While  the  European  Mobility  Week234  campaign  is  not  included  in  the  UMP,  it  is  closely 
related  and  referenced  as  an  important  EU  tool  in  the  field  of  urban  mobility.  The  findings 
indicate  very  high  levels  of  awareness  and  participation  in  the  European  Mobility  Week. 
Figure  3  below  also  shows  that  while  the  level  of  participation  fell  immediately  after  the 
implementation of the UMP in 2013235, it has since risen consistently and appears to still be 
on a rising trajectory. The largest number of cities and towns that take part in the initiatives 
are located in western and southern Europe, but the participation rate among cities in central 
and eastern European countries has increased in the past few years. Member States located in 
northern Europe have significantly lower rates of participation. 

228 Since its inception in 2002, the CIVITAS Initiative has tested urban transport solutions as part of demonstration projects in 

more than 80 Living Lab cities. 

229 European Commission (2012). Communication from the Commission: Smart Cities and Communities – European Innovation 

Partnership. C(2012) 4701. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/3/2012/EN/3-2012-4701-EN-F1-
1.PDF  

230 Available at: https://eu-smartcities.eu/sites/eu-smartcities.eu/files/2019-

07/Smart%20City%20Guidance%20Package%20LowRes%201v22%20%28002%29_0.pdf 

231 https://mobiliseyourcity.net/  

232 https://www.sustainabletransport.org/archives/7539  

233 https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/sites/near/files/c_2019_8726_ad_transport.pdf  

234 https://mobilityweek.eu/home  

235 European Commission DG MOVE’s ‘Do the Right Mix’ campaign ran alongside European Mobility Week to strengthen it from 
2012 to 2015, at which point it was merged with European Mobility Week. EMW was run by European Commission DG ENV 
until end 2013, i.e. 2014 was a transition year. There was some initial confusion between the two campaigns, so a clear 
separate visual identity was established and from this point the campaign has witnessed unprecedented participation 
numbers. 

45 

 
 
                                                
Figure 3. Number of participating cities and towns in the European Mobility Week 
2002-2019 

Source: Based on information provided in Evaluation of the European Mobility Week 2019, Technopolis Group 

Moreover,  the  number  of  ‘permanent  measures’  is  also  a  relevant  indication  of  the 
effectiveness  of  the  campaign.  These  are  permanent  infrastructure  interventions  that  help 
people make sustainable transport choices, with the aim to show the commitment of the town 
or city to sustainable urban mobility. In 2019 there were 6,765 more permanent measures than 
in 2018 (15,613vs 8,848) – the highest since the monitoring began in 2012. The total number 
of permanent measures – indicating also the popularity of their different categories – that have 
been implemented overall (since 2007) and in 2020 during European Mobility Week relates to 
the following areas236: 

  New or improved bicycle facilities: 17,655 (2020: 2308)  
  Pedestrianisation: 14,989 (2020: 1701)  
  Public transport services: 14,981 (2020: 1874)  
  Traffic calming and access control scheme: 14,435 (2020: 2073)  
  Accessibility for persons with disabilities or reduced mobility: 23,997 (2020: 3032)  
  New forms of vehicle use and ownership: 8,029 (2020: 1332)  
  Freight distribution: 3,171 (2020: 719)  
  Mobility management: 25,981 (2020: 3044)  

Given that the main objective of the campaign is to raise awareness  and communicate good 
practice  to  encourage  a  shift  to  more  sustainable  modes  of  mobility,  data  on  the  media  and 
website coverage are of high relevance. The 2019 participation report data237 shows over 78 

236 https://mobilityweek.eu/registration/  

237 

https://mobilityweek.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/materials/participation_resources/2019/Participation_report/2019_EMW_Parti
cipation_Report.pdf  

46 

 
 
 
                                                
  
000 visits to the European Mobility Week website in September 2019 and almost 82 million 
impressions of #MobilityWeek and #walkwithus hashtags238 on social media.  

In  addition,  it  was  established  that  the  European  Mobility  Week  contributes  to  raising 
awareness  on  the  topic  of  urban  mobility  and  forming  new  partnerships  among  local 
stakeholders.  This  corresponds  to  the  input  from  targeted  interviews,  where  the  majority  of 
stakeholders239  at  the  local  level  commented  on  its  usefulness  in  raising  awareness  and 
inspiring change to more sustainable forms of urban mobility.  

5.2.3.

  Contributing and hindering factors 

Several contributing factors emerged from the analysis. In particular, that – where available 
– EU funding was a decisive factor for the development and implementation of many urban 
mobility  measures  across  the  EU.  The  Bulgarian  case  study,  for  example,  showed  that  EU 
financial  support  through  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  and  individual 
projects, funded through European programmes such as Horizon 2020, is perceived to be the 
most significant driver behind most of the developments in the area of urban mobility in the 
country.  

The  interviews  with  local  stakeholders  point  that  EU  support,  including  capacity  building 
activities and events, was also credited for having a significant positive impact (particularly 
in Bulgaria, Portugal and Belgium)240. Similarly, linking EU funding to SUMPs could play an 
important role in their development (as was the case in Bulgaria). This is also confirmed by 
the findings of the Court of Auditors that state that making an adopted SUMP a condition for 
funding has proven to be a strong incentive for cities to develop urban mobility strategies in 
Italy  and  Spain.  However,  as  stated  above,  it  does  not  guarantee  SUMP  quality  or 
implementation.  

Other  factors  found  to  be  significant  at  national  level  from  both  desk  research  and  the 
conducted interviews included the availability of dedicated national regulatory and financial 
frameworks,  and  a  focus  on  addressing  environmental  and  climate  change  concerns,  thus 
improving  the  quality  of  life  for  citizens  and  increasing  the  attractiveness  of  urban  areas. 
Political support and ambitious local authority teams were also found to contribute positively 
to the implementation of urban mobility measures.  

The assessment showed  however that there is  a  significant number of factors that hinder 
the  development  and  implementation  of  urban  mobility  measures.  The  analysis  of  the 
conducted interviews showed that the lack of funding was an often-stated issue by nearly all 
stakeholders. The findings of the Court of Auditors corroborate this, indicating that financing 
the  demands  of  sustainable  urban  mobility  is  an  issue  for  many  cities.  This  concerns  in 
particular financing of public transport where ‘financial commitment involved extends beyond 
investments  in  public  transport  infrastructure  and  rolling  stock  –  for  which  the  EU  can 

238 Each edition of EMW has a dedicated theme and a related hashtag allowing its identification and supporting the 
dissemination on social media; Walk with Us was the 2019 theme. In addition, every year the general hashtag 
(#mobilityweek) is also used.  

239 This was noted by 12 out of 19 local level interviewees. Overall, 64 out of the 67 stakeholders were aware of the European 

Mobility Week, with 41 out of 67 answering that they had participated. 

240 In particular, 9 out of 19 local level interviewees noted that capacity building of activities and events had been a positive 

impact. In addition, it was noted by 4 out of 11 interviewees from Bulgaria, 7 out of 15 interviewees from Portugal and 4 out 
of 10 interviewees from Belgium. 

47 

 
 
                                                
provide financial support - to operational and maintenance costs, which can be significant241 
and for which the EU does not provide any financial support’.  

Other factors were also identified, among others: 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 

external  factors  such  as  fuel  prices  that  affect  the  attractiveness  of  private  cars  vs. 
public transport242; 
lack  of  political  will  to  enact  policies  deemed  to  be  unpopular  because  they  are 
thought to threaten the convenience of citizens243; 
turnover of staff and priorities associated with the election cycle;  
low level of awareness of urban mobility concepts in local governments, and 
a slow pace of adapting national policy frameworks to new developments.  

Additionally,  the  case  studies  showed  that  there  was  a  clear  distinction  between  Member 
States  that  have  an  established  national  urban  mobility  framework  (such  as  Sweden  and 
Portugal)  and  those  that  have  a  more  fragmented  approach  (Belgium  and  Bulgaria). 
Specifically,  consulted  stakeholders  from  Belgium  (from  10  interviews)  noted  that  the 
different regional approaches often lead to miscommunication. Bulgarian stakeholders (from 
12  interviews)  stated  that  the  lack  of  a  national  regulatory  framework  for  urban  mobility, 
financing  and  a  dedicated  body  to  steer  and  oversee  the  overall  process  had  negatively 
affected the ability of local authorities to introduce urban mobility measures.  

Moreover, it was found that the shortage of staff capacity (particularly in smaller urban areas), 
lack  of  sufficient  expertise,  and  traditional  priorities  that  favour  infrastructural  projects  and 
measures  targeting  motorised  forms  of  transport,  also  limited  the  extent  to  which  urban 
mobility  measures  were  implemented.  The  findings  also  show  that  strategic  documents  and 
plans  such  as  SUMPs  were  not  always  sufficiently  integrated  with  existing  national 
frameworks, which in some cases negatively affected any probability of them being realised, 
and a lack of sufficient data and cooperation between different levels of administration often 
hindered urban mobility measures.  

5.2.4.

  Assessment of whether the same results would have been realised without the 

Urban Mobility Package 

There  is  robust  evidence  that  the  UMP  has  contributed  to  two  of  its  intended  outputs: 
reinforcing  EU  support  to  Member  States  and  ensuring  that  SUMPs  are  developed  and 
implemented.  

Notably, the interviewed stakeholders244, who were familiar with the European Platform for 
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans  were of the opinion that it (and ELTIS in  general)  had 
provided its users with a good source of information, allowing to share best practice, which 
would  have  otherwise  been  more  difficult  or  impossible  to  access.  Similarly,  the  SUMP 
guidelines, which have either served as a basis for national guidelines or been translated into 

241 For example, in 15 years, the running costs of public transport in Barcelona more than doubled, from €646 million in 2003 to 

€1 373 million in 2017. During this period, the national contribution increased to €200 million in 2010 but has been 
decreasing since and, at the time of the audit, amounted to slightly above €100 million. 

242 In that regard the Court of Auditors observed that ‘The risk of more car use increases in periods of decreasing fuel prices. 

For example, in Hamburg and Leipzig fuel prices decreased considerably between 2012 and 2018 while ticket prices increased 
by up to 40 %’. 

243 As the Court of Auditors noted: ‘Persuading citizens to leave the comfort of their cars for other forms of transport is often a 
challenge. For example, the introduction of the congestion charge in Stockholm required an initial test phase before it could 
be fully introduced. Although citizens were initially resistant to the idea, now they do not wish to go back to the initial 
situation without congestion charges’. 

244 15 out of 67 interviewed stakeholders. 

48 

 
 
                                                
national  languages245,  were  well  known  among  the  consulted  stakeholders246.  They  are 
considered to have contributed to the development and implementation of SUMPs, and their 
use  was  included  as  a  requirement  in  the  tendering  procedures  associated  with  the 
development of some SUMPs.  

Additionally,  the  provision  of  EU  support  through  EU-funded  projects  for  training  and 
capacity  building,  and  for  the  development  of  SUMPs  and  the  implementation  of  urban 
mobility  measures,  is  found  to  have  had  a  significant  impact  and  was  highly  rated  by  a 
notable number of interviewed stakeholders247 (particularly in Bulgaria and Portugal). Lastly, 
the Package is also credited for providing  focus and a common narrative, which provided 
the basis for a stronger EU involvement in the field of urban mobility. 

5.2.5.

  Promotion of EU concepts and tools at national local level 

The assessment of the case studies shows that the promotional level of EU concepts and tools 
varied significantly between the targeted Member States. Some Member States did not have a 
promotional mechanism in place, while national authorities in others did occasionally engage 
in activities to promote some EU concepts  and tools. For example, many countries (such as 
Portugal,  Germany,  Austria,  Spain,  Greece  or  Poland248)  promote  participation  in  the 
European Mobility Week to municipalities and councils with the assistance of several public 
authorities.  Similarly,  in  Portugal,  the  Institute  for  Mobility  and  Transport  supported  the 
promotion of the SUMP guidelines and a survey conducted by the institute showed that more 
than  half  of  the  Portuguese  municipalities  that  took  part  in  it  were  familiar  with  the 
guidelines.  

Generally, the targeted interviews show that EU concepts and tools were most well-known by 
stakeholders249  who  had  been  involved  in  European  programmes  and  projects,  and  had 
attended  EU-funded  capacity  building  activities  and  events.  The  UMP-specific  tools  were 
known  to  a  limited  group  of  stakeholders  active  in  this  field.  Local  authorities  were  often 
unable  to  indicate  if  the  UMP  recommendations  were  implemented  or  if  they  had  had  an 
effect on their operations. 

5.2.6.

  Allocation of responsibility between the EU and Member States with respect to 

the current needs and capacities at local level 

EU  financial  support,  EU  programmes  and  projects,  and  EU-funded  capacity  building  and 
training  activities  are  important  aspects  of  the  development  of  urban  mobility  in  the  EU;  in 
some  Member  States  these  measures  are  credited  for  being  the  driving  force  behind  such 
developments. The results of the public consultation show that there is a perceived need for 
further EU involvement250. Similar evidence was found from the Bulgarian case study, where 
stakeholders251 noted that EU requirements and measures are perceived to be more salient and 
effective for bringing about desired actions. On the other hand, results of public consultation 

245 Or indeed also into non-European languages, such as Mandarin (https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/20200414_sump-

guidelines-2019-cn_new.pdf)  

246 This was noted by 18 out of 67 interviewees, by 33 out of 178 participants in the Public Consultation and by 9 out of 11 

national authorities in the online survey. 

247 This was highlighted by 39 out of 67 interviewees (including 4 out of 11 Bulgarian interviewees and 7 out of 15 interviewees 

from Portugal). 

248 European Mobility Week, Best Practice Guide 2019-2020. Available at: 

https://mobilityweek.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/2020%20EMW%20Best%20Practice%20Guide.pdf  

249 This is an observation that crosscut numerous interview questions and the views that were provided. 

250 169 out of 207 participants in the Public Consultation noted that EU involvement was important. 

251 This was noted by 6 out of the 11 Bulgarian interviewees. 

49 

 
 
                                                
showed that almost all respondents252 agreed that the preferred approach to urban mobility at 
EU level was through supporting shared experiences, promoting best practices and fostering 
cooperation.  

There are significant differences between Member States in their approach to urban mobility 
with  respect  to  the  regulatory,  financial  and  technical  frameworks  made  available  to  local 
authorities. In particular, while some Member States have well-defined and long-established 
support mechanisms, local authorities in other Member States do not enjoy such support from 
the  national  governments  and  therefore  rely  more  heavily  on  EU  tools  and  support.  For 
example, the Bulgarian  case study showed that in  the absence of a clear  national  regulatory 
and support framework for urban mobility, a non-governmental organisation took over some 
of the responsibility, such as translating the SUMP guidelines or acting as a contact point with 
EU institutions. This type of involvement, however, is dependent on EU project funding and 
is  therefore  not  considered  to  be  consistent.  Similarly,  there  is  evidence  that  some  local 
authorities  rely  on  cities  organisations  to  stay  informed  on  EU  developments  in  the  area  of 
urban mobility. This is an indication that the needs and capacities of local authorities in some 
Member States are not met, and that developing and implementing urban mobility measures is 
challenging.  

The  UMP  foresaw  the  involvement  of  national  authorities  as  intermediaries  to  address  this 
issue.  However,  there  is  limited  evidence  that  the  Member  States  have  systematically 
taken an active and consistent role in applying all the UMP measures. In some cases, the 
legal  framework  at  national  level  defines  urban  mobility  as  an  area  that  falls  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  local  authorities;  while  in  others  there  are  more  than  one  ministry  that  has 
mandate  over  urban  mobility.  These  institutional  settings  limit  the  extent  to  which  Member 
States could fulfil their recommended function.  

Unequal  levels  of  involvement  of  Member  States  has  been  also  visible  in  the  work  of  the 
EGUM, impacting its effectives. This was also observed by the stakeholders253 who indicate 
that the role and format of EGUM could be changed due to the limited level of awareness of 
its existence and contribution. Suggestions were made to set clear targets for its performance 
and  to  involve  additional  stakeholders,  such  as  representatives  from  cities,  regions  and  city 
networks, in order to better represent and reach local authorities.  

In line with the UMP (and the understanding of the subsidiarity principle in 2013), Member 
States and their cities are not obliged to follow the European guidance (also when it comes to 
ensuring  that  the  SUMPs  guidelines  are  observed)  nor  provide  data  on  urban  mobility, 
including on SUMPs254. In addition, there is no EU-level obligation when it comes to linking 
EU funding with SUMPs. This in particular affects the area of SUMP implementation and 
quality assurance; according to the Court of Auditors ‘there was limited take-up – notably in 
terms of preparing SUMPs’. Similarly, the Court observes that ‘There is no EU requirement 
for access to funding to be conditional on SUMP preparation, although some Member States 
have imposed this condition at the national level’. Therefore, ‘although a number of cities are 
working towards it, there were still many urban nodes that had not adopted a SUMP’.  

The  lack  of  legislative  obligation  for  Member  States  in  that  regard  coupled  with  divergent 
national  (and  in  some  cases,  also  regional)  approaches  and  different  capacities  of  local 

252 98% of respondents. 

253 Of those who were aware, it was indicated by 9 out of 67 Interviewees that the role and format of EGUM could be changed.  

254 For example, the data on SUMP is uploaded to the ELTIS website on a voluntary basis and thus may not be entirely reliable 

nor reflect the latest position. 

50 

 
 
                                                
authorities  have  clearly  contributed  to  sub-optimal  SUMP  take-up,  implementation  and 
performance. 

5.2.7.

  Effectiveness of the Member State-level UMP measures and UMP contribution to 

it 

As stated in Section 3.3.1, a large majority of Member States have national plans dealing with 
SUMPs in place, as well as the legal, financial and technical tools supporting urban mobility 
approach implementation255. It hints to a contribution of the UMP to the implementation of 
integrated  urban  mobility  policies  at  the  local  level  and  changes  in  national  frameworks 
that could be attributed to the UMP. The majority of EGUM members who responded to the 
survey  targeting  national  authorities  provided  a  positive  assessment  in  that  regard256.  In 
addition,  the  case  studies  found  some  indications  that  the  SUMPs  have  contributed  to  the 
development  of  a  more  integrated  approach  to  urban  mobility  at  local  level  as  they  entail  a 
more participatory and transparent approach.  

In addition, CIVITAS SUMPs-Up project identified some best practice examples in relation 
to five key elements of the national SUMP frameworks, an important Member State-level 
measure. There are several countries and regions with well-developed frameworks that stand 
out for more than one element257: 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Legislation: France, Portugal, Catalonia in Spain, Belgium; 

Financial resources: Catalonia in Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Slovenia; 

Guidelines: Sweden, Hungary, France, Flanders in Belgium. 

Monitoring  and  evaluation:  France,  Catalonia  in  Spain,  Flanders  in  Belgium, 
Portugal, Czech Republic, Sweden, Poland; 

Information,  education  and  knowledge  exchange:  Wallonia  in  Belgium,  Sweden, 
Czech Republic, Slovenia, Catalonia in Spain. 

There  is  limited  evidence  on  the  direct  contribution  of  the  UMP  in  encouraging  the 
development  of  national  frameworks  supportive  of  urban  access  regulation  schemes. 
While 84 new UVARs have been introduced in eight Member States since the implementation 
of  the  UMP,  as  noted  previously,  it  is  difficult  to  state  with  certainty  whether  these 
developments were linked to the Package directly or were a consequence of the Ambient Air 
Quality  Directive.  It  should  be  also  noted  that  the  UVAR  schemes  have  different 
characteristics and their implementation have not been coordinated across the EU.  

The  Court  of  Auditors  report  provides  additional  explanation  of  relatively  low  uptake  of 
UVAR measures at local level, focusing on congestion charges: ‘Only very few cities applied 
congestion  charges,  despite  their  potential  benefits  in  terms  of  reducing  congestion, 
increasing  sustainability  and  providing  added  income.  This  can  be  partly  explained  by  the 
specific  contexts  of  individual  cities.  For  example,  a  city  might  be  reluctant  to  consider  a 
congestion  charge  if  that  made  it  less  attractive  to  citizens  and  businesses  compared  to 

255 Detailed analysis by Member State is included in Annex 3 of the evaluation support study. 

256 10 out of 15 EGUM members noted that it had led to the development of well-integrated urban mobility approaches. 

257 CIVITAS SUMPs-UP, The Status of SUMPs in EU Member States, summary report. Available at: https://sumps-

up.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Tools_and_Resources/Publications_and_reports/Status_of_SUMP_in_EU_Member_States/SUMPs
-Up___PROSPERITY-SUMP-Status-in-EU-Report.pdf  

51 

 
 
                                                
neighbouring  cities  without  a  congestion  charge’.  On  the  other  hand,  the  assessment  of  the 
SUMPs reviewed in the supporting study shows that 48% of them included considerations for 
using UVAR measures. 

No  robust  evidence  was  found  concerning  the  direct  contribution  of  the  UMP  in  ensuring 
coordinated  deployment  of  ITS  in  urban  areas  at  local  level  effect.  While  two  EGUM 
members stated that it had contributed to it, this was not supported in the interviews. Urban 
ITS measures, particularly in the area of public transport (such as smart ticketing), have been 
present,  especially  in  large  cities,  with  funding  (in  particular  through  Operational 
Programmes) mobilising further deployment of such systems, as was seen in the case studies 
of  Bulgaria  and  Portugal.  In  Belgium,  urban  ITS  was  predominantly  addressed  through 
municipal initiatives and projects, and the interviews did not show a clear link to the UMP. It 
seems that the dedicated EU legislation in the field (ITS Directive and its implementing acts) 
has  played  a  more  substantial  role  in  implementation  of  ITS  measures.  Nonetheless,  the 
assessment of the reviewed SUMPs shows that 69% of them included the use of urban  ITS 
measures. Moreover, Regulation 1370/2007258, which reformed Public Service Obligations in 
public passenger transport, also  played some role towards the adoption of new technologies 
for planning, monitoring, contract management and evaluation of public transport systems.  

There is limited evidence when it comes to a direct contribution of the UMP in consistently 
increasing the consideration of urban freight logistics in national approaches to SUMPs. 
National  authorities  that  took  part  in  the  survey  were  split  on  this  issue259  and  none  of  the 
interviewed targeted stakeholders at the national level agreed with this statement. The analysis 
identified  four  Member  States  (Czech  Republic,  Greece,  Malta  and  Portugal)  that  have 
developed  relevant  national  plans  or  supporting  schemes  since  the  implementation  of  the 
Package; however, it is not possible to establish a direct link between these developments and 
the  Package.  Lastly,  the  assessment  of  the  reviewed  SUMPs  showed  that  62%  of  them 
included the use of urban logistic measures. 

Finally, there is some evidence on the direct contribution of the UMP in ensuring consistent 
coordination of road safety aspects at a local level. The assessment of the reviewed SUMPs 
shows that 83% of them included the use of urban road safety measures and a third of EGUM 
members stated that it had contributed, although little clear evidence was found through the 
conducted  interviews.  Still,  as  in  the  case  of  ITS,  EU  level  legislation  and  policy  on  road 
safety  (affecting  transport  in  cities  as  well)  might  have  played  a  significant  role  in 
implementing urban road safety measures by Member States. . 

5.2.8.

  EU financing for urban mobility since the implementation of the Urban Mobility 

Package 

5.2.8.1.Facts and figures 

Providing  targeted  financial  support  is  one  of  the  five  overarching  measures  under  the 
Reinforcing  EU  support  pillar  of  the  UMP,  which  placed  a  particular  emphasis  on  the 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  and  the  financial  support  provided  under  the 
Connecting Europe Facility to urban node projects on TEN-T network.  

European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (especially 
the  European  Regional 
Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund) are the main source of EU funding in the area of 

258 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32007R1370  

259 6 out of 15 answered that it had contributed; 6 out of 15 answered that they do not know; 2 out of 15 answered that there 

isn’t such a framework in their country; 1 answered that it did not contribute.  

52 

 
 
                                                
urban  mobility  under  Thematic  Objectives  4  –  Low  carbon  economy  and  7  –  Sustainable 
transport  and  network  bottlenecks260.  The  EU  funding  from  this  source  has  increased  from 
€11.2 billion in the 2007-2013 programme period to €16.3 billion for 2014-2020, showing a 
marked  increase  of  EUR 5.1 billion,  as  noted  in  the  report  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  and  as 
shown in Figure 4. More specifically, ‘this includes mainly funding for clean urban transport 
(2007-2013  €8.1  billion;  2014-2020  €12.8  billion),  but  also  intelligent  transport  systems 
(ITS), cycle paths and multimodal transport’.  

Figure  4.  European  Structural  and  Investment  funding  for  urban  mobility  for 
programming periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 

Source: Based on information provided in European Court of Auditors (2020) Special Report: Sustainable 
Urban Mobility in the EU: No substantial improvement is possible without Member States’ commitment. 

The  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)  is  the  EU  funding  instrument  for  strategic 
investment in transport, energy and digital infrastructure, and in accordance with the TEN-T 
guidelines  in  the  transport  sector.  The  total  funds  under  CEF  for  transport  for  the 
programming  period  2014-2020  are  EUR 24.05 billion,  of  which  EUR 214 million  has  been 
used  to  fund  40  urban  node  projects261.  Figure  5  presents  the  number  of  projects  that  have 
been  selected  each  year.  The  largest  number  of  funded  projects  is  located  in  France  (13); 
followed by Spain (7); Germany, Poland and Sweden each have 3.  

260 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_urban_mobility.pdf  

261 Article 36 of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the 

development of the trans-European transport network (COM/2011/0650 final/2 – 2011/0294 (COD)) set a priority of the 
European Commission to support the development of urban nodes, which are defined as key elements in the comprehensive 
Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), which serve as connecting points between different transport infrastructures.  

53 

 
 
 
                                                
Figure 5. CEF-funded urban node projects, 2014-2017  

Source: Based on information provided by INEA 

Urban mobility projects  are also  funded under the EU Research and  Innovation Programme 
Horizon  2020,  which  has  allocated  a  budget  of  EUR 6.3 billion262  to  Societal  Challenge  4: 
Smart, green and integrated transport during the programming period 2014-2020. The Work 
Programmes  for  2014-2015  and  2016-2017  included  calls  specifically  in  the  areas  of  urban 
mobility, logistics and ITS. The Work Programme 2018-2020 includes calls in the following 
relevant areas: Building a low-carbon, climate resilient future: Green vehicles; Building low-
carbon  resilient  future:  low  carbon  and  sustainable  transport;  Safe,  integrated  and  resilient 
transport  systems.  Overall,  €171  million  were  provided  to  30  urban  mobility  projects, 
managed by INEA. 

Figure  6.  Horizon  2020  funding  in  the  area  of  smart,  green  and  integrated  transport 
relative to the total compared to Framework Programme 7, 2007-2014 

The  European  Investment  Bank  also  provides  significant  financial  support  to  urban 
mobility  projects.  Since  the  implementation  of  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  it  has  provided 

262 It marks an increase compared to the EUR 4.16 billion budget allocated to transport during its predecessor, Framework 

Programme 7, 2007-2014. 

54 

 
 
 
 
                                                
loans  of  EUR 48.2 billion  to  finance  projects  in  the  transport  sector263,  out  of  which 
EUR 21.3 billion was for 194 projects in the urban mobility field264. 

5.2.8.2.Effectiveness of EU financial support in the area of urban mobility 

Overall,  the  consulted  stakeholders  had  a  positive  view  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  EU 
financial  tools.  The  majority  of  EGUM  members265,  who  took  part  in  the  survey  targeting 
national authorities, stated that EU financial support met their needs to a large extent.  

Similarly,  an  overwhelming  majority266  of  respondents,  who  took  part  in  the  public 
consultation noted that EU financial support (particularly for the development of SUMPs) was 
very or moderately important.  

The  large  majority  of  interviewed  stakeholders267  also  agreed  that  EU  funding,  provided 
through  ESI  funding  and  Horizon  2020  projects,  had  been  very  useful.  While  this  was 
evident  across  the  four  Member  States  selected  for  case  studies,  it  is  noteworthy  that 
Bulgarian stakeholders were virtually unanimous (11 out of 11 interviewees) in their opinion 
that  EU  funding  was  instrumental  and  the  main  driver  for  most  of  the  developments  in  the 
area of urban mobility in the country, compensating for the lack of sufficient resources in the 
budgets  of  most  municipalities.  These  findings  are  in  line  with  a  previous  Commission-
funded  study268,  which  determined  that  EU  financial  support  was  important  in  the  areas  of 
mobility management, traffic modelling and sustainable mobility, and that it had a leveraging 
effect for small and medium cities, which may not be able to implement such projects. 

On the other hand, the Court of Auditors expressed certain criticism of how the EU funding 
for  urban  mobility  has  been  governed  until  now,  hinting  that  it  can  lower  its  effectiveness: 
‘EU cities do not have to follow the Commission’s guidelines or to have SUMPs, or even a 
comprehensive  national  urban  transport  strategy  for  urban  projects  to  benefit  from  EU 
funding.  This  is  despite  the  fact  that  congested  urban  nodes  can  seriously  hamper  the 
efficiency of the TEN-T network, supported by CEF funds throughout the EU’. The Court has 
also noted that the countries with a national legislation in place requiring cities (above certain 
size)  to  adopt  a  SUMP  in  order  to  access  national  and/or  national  public  transport 
infrastructure269 have seen a substantial increase in the number of cities adopting their SUMP, 
or starting a process to adopt it. 

The  above  demonstrates  that,  even  though  EU  funding  for  urban  mobility  is  generally 
perceived as useful and relevant, its effectiveness may be limited by not linking it (at EU 
level) to the existence or performance of a SUMP. 

263 European Court of Auditors (2020). Special Report: Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU: No substantial improvement is 

possible without Member States’ commitment. 

264 Information provided by the EIB. 

265 12 out of 15 

266 198 out of 207 

267 44 out of 67 interviewed stakeholders.  

268 EU financial support to sustainable urban mobility and to the use of alternative fuels in EU urban areas (2013). 

269 Italy and Spain 

55 

 
 
                                                
  Unintended effects of the Urban Mobility Package 

5.2.9.
The evaluation did not identify any unintended negative effects of UMP270. A small number 
of indirect positive effects were identified such as the participatory approach employed in the 
development  of  the  SUMP  includes  regular  cross-departmental  meetings  what  could  be 
introduced  in  other  areas  thus  increasing  effectiveness  of  processes,  allowing  for  new  long 
standing cooperation mechanisms to emerge. 

5.3.  Efficiency 

This  section  discusses  the  efficiency  of  the  Urban  Mobility  Package,  which  considers  the 
relationship between the resources used by an intervention (costs) and the changes generated 
by the intervention (which may be positive or negative).  

  Main beneficiaries of the Urban Mobility Package 

5.3.1.
According  to  the  interviewed  stakeholders271,  the  main  beneficiaries  have  been  local 
authorities, which gained access to more information and knowledge, as well as financial and 
technical support to realise their activities in the area of urban mobility. According to national 
authorities that participated in a survey all stakeholder groups benefited to a greater or lesser 
extent, with national and local authorities being the most prominent beneficiaries. At the end, 
people  living  in  urban  areas  were  the  final  beneficiaries  of  reduced  congestion,  cleaner  air, 
less noise, more efficient transport etc. 

5.3.2.

  Cost and benefits associated with the implementation of the Urban Mobility 

Package 

5.3.2.1. EU-level costs 

The table below presents the main direct costs, associated with the EU measures outlined in 
the  UMP,  which  have  been  incurred  by  the  European  Commission  (not  taking  into  account 
the  regular  staff  resources  costs)  in  the  period  since  the  implementation  of  the  Package  in 
2013.  

Table 1. Costs of the EU UMP measures 

Activity 
Urban Mobility Scoreboard 
Technical support related to sustainable urban mobility indicators (SUMI) 
Non-binding guidance documents272 
Preparation of EU guidance on Urban Vehicle Access Regulations 
(external study)  
Preparation of EU guidelines on urban logistics (external study)  

Cost related to management of the ELTIS website 
ELTIS II – managing and developing the ELTIS portal and supporting the 
uptake of SUMPs 

Cost (in EUR) 

1 541 571 

160 000 

169 500 

1 329 084 

270 However, some measures not included in the UMP but generally associated with sustainable urban mobility, such as eco-

driving, could make car use more attractive and thus – somewhat paradoxically – lead to increased congestion, road deaths 
and CO2 emissions. 

271 Out of those who were able to respond, 13 interviewees noted that this was the case. 

272 It should be clarified that these are studies conducted by Commission services that include some elements of the guidance 

material.  

56 

 
 
                                                
Activity 
ELTIS web portal management 

Cost (in EUR) 
2 118 037 

Cost related to CIVITAS Initiative (Coordination and Support Action under 
Horizon2020 and FP7)  
CIVITAS WIKI - Coordination and Support Action (CSA) for CIVITAS 
PLUS II 

2 966 656 

CIVITAS SATELLITE – CIVITAS 2020 coordination and support action 

2 996 859 

CIVITAS ELEVATE – CIVITAS 2020 coordination and support action 

2 994 375 

Source: Financial Transparency System of the European Commission 

TOTAL 

14 276 082 

The  European  Platform  on  Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Plans  was  set  up  within  existing 
projects and did not require the use of supplementary resources. Additional costs include the 
travel  and  subsistence  expenses  for  EGUM  members,  associated  with  the  attendance  at  the 
EGUM meetings, which take place in Brussels, Belgium at least twice a year. 

5.3.2.2.Costs borne by Member States and regional authorities 

The UMP outlines a set of actions for consideration by Member States. The Package therefore 
does  not  require  implementation  of  certain  measures  and,  as  such,  it  does  not  incur 
compulsory administrative or compliance costs. However, it is noted that taking these actions 
entails  some  administrative  costs.  The  results  from  the  survey  targeting  national  authorities 
and the interviews with Swedish and Portuguese stakeholders indicate that this has been the 
case  in  some  Member  States.273  There  is  evidence  that  costs  are  higher  when  there  is  not  a 
well-established  tradition  in  urban  mobility  planning  due  to  the  additional  costs  of  training, 
capacity  building  and  restructuring  administrative  procedure.274  Additionally,  attending  the 
EGUM meeting also involves administrative expenses.  

Due to the non-binding nature of the UMP 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 costs borne by national and regional authorities. 

5.3.2.3.Costs associated with the development and implementation of SUMPs 

There  are  various  sources  of  funding  for  the  development  of  SUMPs  –  European,  national, 
regional and local. The costs of developing a SUMP vary significantly depending on the size 
of the city, the scope of the plan, the level of external assistance involved, and the availability 
of  data  and  previous  studies,  with  data  collection  and  transport  modelling  representing  the 
most  costly  aspects  of  a  SUMP.275  The  identified  costs  of  some  of  the  SUMPs  reviewed  as 
part of the case studies in Bulgaria, Sweden and Portugal are presented in Table 2. The access 
to  information  about  the costs of developing a SUMP also  varied among Member States.  It 
can  be  especially  difficult  to  determine  when  a  SUMP  is  developed  in-house  by  a 
municipality without the employment of external assistance.  

273 10 out of 13 EGUM members stated that their national authority had incurred costs related to the implementation of some 

UMP measures.  

274 Study to support an impact assessment of the Urban Mobility Package (2013). 

275 Guidelines for developing and implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (2nd edition). 

57 

 
 
 
                                                
Table 2. SUMP costs (based on the case studies276) 

Case study 

Sofia (BG) 

Burgas (BG) 

Lisbon (PT) 

Braga (PT) 

Beja (PT) 

Malmö (SE) 

Population size 

1 269 384 inhabitants 

208 915 inhabitants 

2 400 000 inhabitants 

410 000 inhabitants 

130 000 inhabitants 

316 588 inhabitants 

SUMP development cost (in 
EUR) 
257 000 

21 300 

74 950 

71 000 

49 800 
66 670277 

Some  additional  examples  were  found  through  desk  research.  For  instance,  the  SUMP  of 
Athens  is  estimated  to  have  cost  EUR 230 000  and  the  SUMP  of  Nicosia  EUR 400 000278. 
These values are, with the exception of the SUMPs of Sofia and Athens, lower than the costs 
provided in the study to support an impact assessment of the UMP presented below:  

Table 3. SUMP development costs: Low and high estimates279 

Size  of  city  agglomeration 
by number of inhabitants 
> 100 000 
> 250 000 
> 1 000 000 

Low estimate per city (in 
EUR) 
106 000 
145 000 
173 000 

High estimate per city (in 
EUR) 
614 000 
684 000 
687 000 

Source: Study to support an impact assessment of the Urban Mobility Package 

Apart  from  the  cost  of  developing  the  SUMP,  there  are  also  other  costs,  such  as  producing 
monitoring  reports,  establishing  citizen  engagement  strategies,  synchronising  the  plans  with 
regional plans and developing manuals280.  

5.3.3.

  Efficiency of UMP measures 

Based on the evidence collected it was possible to determine to some extent which measures 
have been efficient or inefficient. 

Notably,  as  the  European  Platform  on  Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Plans  was  developed 
within existing EU projects and no additional resources were used to set it up, it is considered 
to have been an economically efficient UMP measure. Likewise, showcasing best practice on 
the ELTIS website was also found to have provided technical and operational efficiency. For 
example,  the  Belgian  case  study  showed  that  best  practices  from  ELTIS  were  used  for 
inspiration by the country's local authorities. Moreover, capacity building activities provided 

276 In the Belgian case study, cities interviewees were not able to provide cost for the development of SUMPs, mainly due to the 
fact that mobility plans and other related plans are an established approach and have been developed in Belgium for several 
years.  

277 The SUMP was developed in-house. This value represents an estimate based on the man-hours spent on developing the 

SUMP and the average hourly rate.  

278 Provision of technical support to the Green Fund for the selection of municipalities and drafting of technical specifications for 

Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, CERTH/HIT, 2016. 

279 Depending on the level of integrated urban mobility approach 

280 Guidelines for developing and implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (2nd edition). 

58 

 
 
                                                
through projects such as SUMPsUp and Boosting Urban Mobility Plans281, and participation 
in  events  like the European Conference on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans contributed to 
an accumulation of knowledge and an exchange of ideas.  

Such  outcomes  have  a  leveraging  effect  and  are  associated  with  saving  time  and 
resources. However, it is not possible to provide an estimate of the outcomes in quantitative 
terms.  Desk  research  also  showed  that  in  the  absence  of  a  wider  consultation  and  a  larger 
sample  of  projects,  such  generalisations  should  be  made  with  caution282.  Lastly,  the  EU 
funding of urban mobility projects also lead to some indirect benefits, such as a cultivation of 
local expertise. Notably, the Bulgarian case study showed that the rigorous process set up to 
apply  for  and  execute  ESI-funded  urban  mobility  projects  was  credited  with  enhancing  the 
capacities of the local authorities implementing those projects.  

Generally,  the  majority  of  EGUM  members  and  a  large  proportion  of  the  interviewed 
stakeholders283 indicated that the EU capacity building and financial support had helped save 
time and resources.  

The Court of Auditors pointed to  the  fact that  some  effective and cost-efficient  measures, 
such  as  urban  road  tolls/congestion  charging  (one  type  of  UVARs),  were  not  used  too 
extensively, referring to the specifics of individual cities284. There are other explanations as to 
why UVARs have not been fully exploited, such as opposition by (part of) the population and 
or/businesses,  low  level  of  political  commitment  as  well  as  a  non-binding  EU  framework 
which hasn’t managed to sufficiently engage Member States authorities at different levels. 

There  are  also  indications  of  some  inefficiencies  associated  with  certain  measures  of  the 
Package.  For  instance,  a  lack  of  adequate  monitoring  and  evaluation  schemes  and 
external  assistance  was  shown  to  feature  in  the  implementation  of  lower  quality  SUMPs. 
Investments  made  in  the  development  of  such  SUMPs  are  therefore  not  considered  to  have 
been efficient from a financial standpoint. For example, the Bulgarian case study shows that 
all of the SUMPs of Bulgarian cities with the exception of one were developed with funding 
from European programmes. However, there is limited or no evidence that these SUMPs were 
implemented,  which  indicates  that  the  use  of  EU  financial  resources  was  inefficient  in  this 
case. In addition, lack of tangible targets may also impact efficiency, assuming that these are 
related with higher effectiveness of measures included in a SUMP; as observed by the Court 
of Auditors, ‘In several cases, the strategies did not identify any objectives or targets in terms 
of results or modal share’.  

Consulted  stakeholders285  also  provided  examples  of  poorly  thought-out  or  executed  urban 
mobility  measures  implemented  as  part  of  such  projects.  Similar  evidence  was  presented  in 
the report of the European Court of Auditors286, which concluded that weaknesses in project 
design and implementation had led to an inefficient use of EU funding in some instances.   

281 And by other members of the SUMP Platform Coordinating Group (https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/european-

platform/coordinating-group-members). 

282 EU financial support to sustainable urban mobility and to the use of alternative fuels in EU urban areas (2016). 

283 13 out of 15 national authorities from the online survey and 41 out of 67 interviewed stakeholders. 

284 See quotation in section 5.2.7 

285 This is an observation that crosscut numerous interview questions and the views provided. 

286 European Court of Auditors (2020). Special Report: Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU: No substantial improvement is 

possible without Member States’ commitment. 

59 

 
 
                                                
5.3.4.

  Extent to which the costs of the UMP as a whole have been justified given the 

benefits that have been achieved 

As  most  of  the  consulted  stakeholders  could  not  estimate  or  comment  on  the  resources 
invested  in  their  cities,  it  is  challenging  to  assess  whether  there  has  been  a  good  return  on 
resources  invested  in  the  implementation  of  the  Urban  Mobility  Package,  particularly  at 
Member  State  level.  Based  on  the  information  with  regard  to  the  (relatively  modest)  EU 
resources  invested,  it  can  be  claimed  that  these  were  justified  relative  to  the  identified 
benefits. Moreover, relatively few of the consulted stakeholders had  an opinion on this and 
nearly  half  of  the  EGUM  members  who  responded  to  the  survey  targeting  national 
authorities287  did  not  consider  that  the  same  results  could  have  been  achieved  with  less 
funding or at a lower cost.  

  Room for simplification in order to reduce regulatory burden  

5.3.5.
Several  stakeholders288  stated  that  adhering  to  all  of  the  steps  of  the  SUMP  guidelines  was 
quite  complex  and  time-consuming  for  municipalities;  however,  it  was  also  acknowledged 
that  urban  mobility  is  a  complex  issue,  which  warrants  complex  solutions.  Additionally, 
representatives  of  several  EU-level  organisations289  noted  that  there  was  a  large  number  of 
initiatives and available resources, which was, at times, difficult to navigate through.  It was 
suggested  that  there  is  room  for  these  to  be  streamlined  and  for  involving  the  existing  city 
networks and organisations in their promotion.  

Some  of  these  concerns  –  such  as  the  complexity  of  the  process  and  the  challenges  that 
smaller  municipalities  (in  particular)  have  to  follow  full  SUMP  guidelines  and  steps  –  are 
valid. To address  it, a summary of the SUMP process  for decision makers was published290 
and a dedicated SUMP guidance with simplified procedure that would respond to the needs of 
smaller towns and cities is in preparation. 

5.4.  Coherence 

1.1.1  This section discusses the coherence of the UMP, both internally and externally, 
with other EU interventions. It reviews the evidence collected of where and how other 
EU interventions linked directly or indirectly to urban mobility are working together 
(e.g. to achieve common objectives or as complementary actions) and identifies areas 
where there are tensions or overlaps (e.g. objectives which may be contradictory or 
inefficient).  

5.4.1.

  Internal coherence 

Two  levels  of  internal  consistency  are  assessed,  namely  consistency  in  terms  of  objectives, 
and consistency among the measures of the UMP.  

The complementarity of the objectives of UMP is confirmed by the evaluation; however, the 
need for better-defined objectives and greater alignment for reducing overlaps has also been 

287 7 out of 15 EGUM members stated that the same results could not have been achieved at a lower cost; 1 disagreed and 7 

indicated that they did not know.  

288 8 out 67 interviewees. 

289 7 out 18 EU level interviewees. 

290 SUMP Summary for decision-makers. Available at: https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/sump-summary-decision-makers  

60 

 
 
                                                
underlined  by  some  stakeholders291.  Overlaps  may  be  identified  between  resource-efficient 
clean transport and the urban areas environment protection.  

At the level of the UMP measures292, coherence is assessed through the degree to which the 
measures operate together to  achieve the UMP  objectives.  In terms of complementarity  and 
synergy, stakeholders293 positively assess the internal coherence between measures/pillars. In 
particular,  it  is  recognised  that  the  integrated  nature  of  SUMPs  contributes  to  synergy  with 
other measures. However, the level of coherence might be reduced during implementation of 
the  measures,  due  to  the  non-mandatory  nature  of  the  UMP  and  of  SUMPs  in  some  EU 
Member States  

Targeted  financial  support  could  be  further  aligned  to  the  UMP  pillars  and  measures.  In 
addition, the lack of a link between EU funding for urban mobility and having the SUMPs in 
place is another factor reducing the coherence of the UMP; as stated by the Court of Auditors, 
‘EU cities do not have to follow the Commission’s guidelines or to have SUMPs, or  even a 
comprehensive  national  urban  transport  strategy  for  urban  projects  to  benefit  from  EU 
funding’. 

5.4.2.

  External coherence 

The assessment of external coherence focuses on the alignment with other policy documents 
and initiatives, at the European as well as the global level.  

Overall, the UMP objectives are found to be generally coherent with other relevant EU-level 
policies  and  initiatives.  However,  due  to  the  UMP  being  a  soft  form  of  governance  with 
measures  that  are  not  mandatory,  it  tends  to  have  impact  in  a  way  that  complements  other 
actions,  such  as  those  based  on  hard  legislation  for  their  implementation,  or  funding 
instruments. The UMP emphasises the need for a comprehensive approach overall, based on 
support for the implementation of EU policies in cities and contributing to capacity building, 
guidance provision and integrated mobility planning, as well as raising the general profile of 
urban mobility issues.  

The  following  sub-sections  present  these  linkages  between  the  UMP  and  the  most  relevant 
other EU-level policies/ initiatives. 

5.4.2.1. Coherence with National Energy and Climate Plans 

The National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) are derived from the ‘Clean energy for all 
Europeans’ package294 that supports the transition towards cleaner energy, in alignment with 
the  EU’s  commitments  under  the  Paris  Agreement.  This  includes  the  Regulation  on 
Governance for the Energy Union and Climate Action295 that states that 10-year national plans 

291 Overall, from those that were able to answer, 10 interviewees noted that the general objectives were not aligned, with 9 of 

those interviewees adding that they overlap with one another.  

292 The Urban Mobility Package contains four pillars of measures: Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs); Coordinating public 

and private-sector intervention; Reinforcing EU support; and Involving Member States in the urban mobility field. 

293 For those that were able to answer, 11 interviewees noted that there was alignment between the measures.  

294 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-strategy/clean-energy-all-europeans_en  

295 Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the 

Energy Union and Climate Action, amending Regulations (EC) No 663/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, Directives 94/22/EC, 98/70/EC, 2009/31/EC, 2009/73/EC, 2010/31/EU, 2012/27/EU and 

61 

 
 
 
 
                                                
 
should be elaborated, addressing the Energy Union’s dimensions of energy security, internal 
energy market, energy efficiency, decarbonisation, research, innovation and competitiveness. 
Transport and low-emission mobility are included in some of the dimensions to be addressed, 
and because of its impact, the need for transport to be at the centre of NECPs is recognised296. 
Clean  mobility  targets,  electromobility,  urban  planning  and  investment  in  alternative  fuel 
infrastructure, effective coordination on the rollout of ITS and taxation restructuring are some 
of the important topics mentioned in the assessment of the NECPs by the Commission297.  

There is coherence of NECPs and the UMP in terms of objectives. As some interviewees have 
recognised,  there  are  synergies  since  mobility  measures  have  been  implemented  with  these 
plans  in  mind298.  So  clear  complementary  areas  of  intervention  can  be  identified.  This  was 
also  determined  from  the  case  study  of  Portugal  where  the  Portuguese  NECP  includes 
decarbonisation of the national economy (including transport) and sustainable mobility in the 
national  set  of objectives.  In  addition,  these plans should also  include the calculation of the 
amount of energy savings, as prescribed in the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED). 

Moreover, National Energy Efficiency Action Plans under the (revised) Energy Efficiency 
Directive299 require indicative national energy efficiency targets and measures to comply with 
certain cumulative end-use energy savings obligations. As regards the UMP, the above targets 
and requirements  were  found to  be aligned with  the objectives of the UMP. An example of 
this  was  found  in  Portugal  where  the  Energy  Efficiency  Fund  has  funded  a  number  of 
SUMPs, as part of the SUMP measures of its National Energy Efficiency Plan.   

5.4.2.2.Coherence with EU environmental policy 

The issue of air quality has been part of the European agenda since the 1990s and among the 
initiatives adopted on the matter are the two Ambient Air Quality Directives, with the aim 
of improving the quality of air and minimising risks and impacts on people’s health and the 
environment. There is strong link between transport policies and air quality policy objectives, 
especially in light of the impact of transport-related pollutants in areas with high population 
density, i.e. at urban level. However, some tax incentives might have encouraged the use of 
private diesel cars300, negatively impacting air quality and in turn sustainable urban mobility 
goals.  Air  Quality  Plans  must  be  elaborated  when  the  limit  values  for  air  pollutant 
concentrations  are  exceeded,  while  the  most  commonly  reported301  transportation-related 
measures  are  modal  shift,  land-use  planning  and  improvements  in  public  transport.  Low 
emission zones  and urban logistics also  constitute part of the measures range, corroborating 
the coherence and complementarity of the Urban Mobility Package. 

2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 2009/119/EC and (EU) 2015/652 and repealing 
Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2018.328.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2018:328:FULL  

296 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 

Committee and the Committee of the Regions: United in delivering the Energy Union and Climate Action – Setting the 
foundations for a successful clean energy transition. COM/2019/285 final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0285  

297 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1600328628076&uri=COM:2020:564:FIN  

298 Coherence at this level is for example expressed in the Italian NECP: “…‘improve’ measures (regarding vehicle efficiency and 
emissions) must be supplemented with instruments to reduce mobility needs (‘avoid’ measures) and with efficiency in travel 
(‘shift’ measures)…” (Ministry of Economic Development, 2019, p. 9).” Ministry of Economic Development, Ministry of the 
Environment and Protection of Natural Resources and the Sea, Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport (2019). Integrated 
National Energy and Climate Plan. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/it_final_necp_main_en.pdf     

299 Directive 2012/27/EU, amended by Directive (EU) 2018/2002. 

300 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/aqd_fitness_check_en.htm 

301 Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality-management/improving-europe-s-air-quality/improving-

europe-s-air-quality   

62 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                   
The  2018  Clean  Air  for  All  Communication302  highlights  the  need  for  a  comprehensive 
approach  across  different  sectors  and  levels  of  governance,  and  the  implementation  of 
effective solutions. Transport is  one of the sectors to  be addressed and, as  mentioned in  the 
Communication, emission reduction measures can for instance address technology, behaviour, 
demand  management  or  infrastructure.  Moreover,  the  role  of  UVARs  is  highlighted,  along 
with the need for their integration with sustainable urban mobility plans, as well as air quality 
plans, pointing to a high level of coherence.  

The  2002  Environmental  Noise  Directive303  addresses  noise  pollution,  including  that 
induced  from  traffic,  and  prescribes  that  Strategic  Noise  Maps  and  Action  Plans  should  be 
developed by Member States, under certain criteria, as well as legislation and administrative 
provisions  for  compliance.  Tackling  noise  pollution  belongs  to  the  aims  of  the  SUMP’s 
concept  and  together  with  the  UMP  objectives  are  coherent  with  the  objectives  of  the 
Directive.  

5.4.2.3.Coherence with transport and infrastructure EU policy  
The  UMP  is  coherent  with  the  ITS  Directive304  both  in  relation  to  its  urban  aspect  and 
beyond.  Intelligent  transport  systems  were  recognised  as  an  important  area  in  the  urban 
mobility  field  which  resulted  in  a  dedicated  annex  to  the  UMP.  There  is  also  an  overall 
coherence  at  the  level  of  the  objectives  between  both  instruments.  The  ITS  Directive 
specifically aims  to  address  congestion, rising  energy consumption and other environmental 
issues  linked  with  the  increase  in  volume  of  road  transport.  Beyond  the  ITS  domain,  the 
coherence  with  the  smart  and  digital  aspect  of  the  urban  policies  is  ensured  in  UMP  by 
covering also the smart cities initiative.  

The  2013  Clean  Power  for  Transport  Communication305  noted  the  need  for  a 
comprehensive mix of alternative transport fuels  (AFs) in order to minimise oil dependence 
and  mitigate  environmental  impact  of  transport,  including  in  urban  areas.  According  to  the 
Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure306, Member States should 
adopt a National Policy Framework (NPF)307 for the development of the markets as regards 
alternative fuels in the transport sector and the deployment of the relevant infrastructure and 
to notify them to the European Commission by 18 November 2016. The Commission assessed 
the  NPFs  in  terms  of  their  relevance,  effectiveness  and  coherence  as  part  of  the  Clean 
Mobility Package in 2017, noting that the NPFs on average do not create the ambition needed 
for alternative fuels infrastructure roll-out. Therefore, the Commission adopted also an Action 
Plan  on  Alternative  Fuels  Infrastructure308  to  help  accelerate  rollout  of  infrastructure, 

302 COM(2018)330/F1. A Europe that protects: Clean air for all. Available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&n=10&adv=0&coteId=1&year=2018&number=330&version=F&d
ateFrom=&dateTo=&serviceId=&documentType=&title=&titleLanguage=&titleSearch=EXACT&sortBy=NUMBER  

303 Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and 

management of environmental noise – Declaration by the Commission in the Conciliation Committee on the Directive relating 
to the assessment and management of environmental noise. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32002L0049  

304 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. Available at: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0040  

305 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 

Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Clean Power for Transport: A European alternative fuels strategy COM(2013) 
17. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0017:FIN:EN:PDF  

306 Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of alternative 

fuels infrastructure. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32014L0094  

307 Regulatory Framework for electricity, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG) and hydrogen. 

308 Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:0652:FIN   

63 

 
 
                                                
including  through  increased  funding  under  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility.  It  also  listed  a 
number  of  relevant  targets  and  measures  at  the  national  level  with  the  aim  to  increase  EU 
energy security supply, contribute to transport CO2 emissions reduction, improve air quality 
and strengthen EU competitiveness and jobs. In 2019 the Commission published an update of 
the NPF assessment taking into account those NPFs that had not been submitted by Member 
States  in  time  for  the  first  assessment  of  NPFs309.  Member  States  had  to  send  to  the 
Commission their first national implementation reports under this Directive by 18 November 
2019. The Commission published its assessment310 of the national implementation reports on 
xxxx February 2021 [exact date to be filled in when known].  

The majority of the UMP objectives and areas are coherent with the above, and synergies can 
be identified in terms of urban planning, operations, regulation and innovation to complement 
possible low impacts. Specifically, the Action Plan on Alternative Fuels Infrastructure refers 
to SUMPs in the section on enabling action in urban areas.   

The revised 2009 Clean Vehicles Directive311 for the promotion of clean and energy-efficient 
road transport vehicles via public procurement tenders was also found to be coherent with the 
UMP and vice versa at the level of the objectives. In addition, most of the actions in the scope 
of the Directive concern urban areas. 

The  2016  Low-emission  Mobility  Strategy312  supported  by  an  Action  Plan  and  linked  to 
funding  from  existing  sources,  aimed  at  the  support  of  the  competitiveness  and  mobility 
needs, and achieved through the low-carbon, circular economy envisaged for Europe.313 The 
UMP  objectives  are  coherent  with  this  framework  and,  especially  as  far  as  SUMPs  are 
concerned, their help in addressing urban mobility complexity and stimulation of modal shift 
towards cleaner and sustainable transport modes is recognised as supportive to the strategy314.  

Additionally,  it  is  recognised  that  the  promotion  of  energy  efficient  transport  modes  in  the 
Trans-European  Transport  Network  also  contributes  towards  low  emission  mobility  and 
energy transition315. The TEN-T aims at strengthening cohesion, resource and cost efficiency, 
sustainability  and  increased  user  benefits  through  a  single  European  transport  area  that 
supports  inclusive  growth.  The  concepts  of  accessibility,  integration,  interoperability, 
mobility  needs,  and  low-carbon  transport  are  pivotal  and  jointly  shared  with  the  UMP, 

309 Commission Staff Working Document: Report on the Assessment of the Member States National Policy Frameworks for the 

development of the market as regards alternative fuels in the transport sector and the deployment of the relevant 
infrastructure pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2014/94/EU. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&coteId=10102&year=2019&number=29&version=ALL&language=
en 

310 The assessment shows an increase in efforts of Member States, but overall shortcomings in ensuring a rollout of 

infrastructure that would lead to even network coverage throughout the whole Union and at scale that is considered 
necessary to meet the ambition of increasing the overall greenhouse gas emission reduction target for 2030 from 40 to at 
least 55%, as proposed by the Commission under its Climate Target Plan. 

311 Directive 2009/33/EC, amended by Directive (EU) 2019/1161. 

312 COM(2016) 501, A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility. Available at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-501-EN-F1-1.PDF  

313 The strategy is structured upon three main areas of action: the optimisation and improvement of transport efficiency 

(digital/C-ITS, fair and efficient pricing and multimodal solutions), low-emission alternative energy (effective framework, 
infrastructure, interoperability and standardisation) and zero-emission vehicles (vehicle testing, post-2020 strategy for 
different vehicle types). 

314 Commission Staff Working Document. Accompanying the document: A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility. 

SWD(2016) 244. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&coteId=10102&year=2016&number=244&version=ALL&language
=en  

315 European Commission (2018). Support study for an impact assessment on measures for the streamlining of TEN-T. Available 

at: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/studies/2018-09-19-support-study-ia-measures-streamlining-ten-
t.pdf  

64 

 
 
                                                
especially  in  the  context  of  urban  nodes.  Thus,  the  urban  nodes’  component  establishes 
coherence at three policy levels, namely between low emission strategy, the TEN-T and the 
UMP. 

As  mentioned  in  Section  2,  Europe  on  the  Move  (2017)  is  an  initiative  that  consists  of  a 
three-part  Mobility  Package  aimed  at  promoting  progress  towards  clean,  competitive, 
connected  and  socially  fair  mobility  by  2025,  through  legislative  initiatives  and  strategic 
guidance. As part of this initiative, the EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 and 
accompanying  Strategic  Action  Plan  on  Road  Safety316  was  adopted  in  2018  and  fleshed 
out  further  in  2019317,  in  alignment  with  the  EU’s  long-term  ‘Vision  Zero’.  A  safe  system 
approach for safety in road infrastructure, vehicles and road use, supported by an initial set of 
key  performance  indicators  (KPIs),  constitutes  a  framework  with  direct  coherence  with  the 
urban road safety and the urban ITS components of the UMP. The KPIs could contribute to 
SUMPs as streamlined tools for the diagnosis, planning, monitoring and evaluation of urban 
mobility. A number of actors have called on the EU to establish specific targets for urban road 
safety318.  

An integrated consideration  of urban road safety, urban  ITS  and urban logistics, along  with 
urban management (including UVARs), will avoid inconsistencies and duplications. 

5.4.2.4. Coherence with digital EU policy 

Besides the ITS Directive, the digital regulatory and policy framework developed since 2013 
has been increasingly  relevant  for UMP. This  concerns in  particular (1) information  society 
services  (for  example  ride-hailing  platforms  or  mobility-as-service  platforms)  and  (2)  data 
sharing in the field of urban mobility.  

For  the  former,  there  have  been  court  cases  clarifying  if  services  are  to  be  considered 
information  society  services  in  accordance  with  the  e-commerce  Directive319  or  transport 
services.  Relevant  legislative  initiatives  are  the  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1150  “on  promoting 
fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services”, which applies 
since  12  July  2020,  and  one  proposal,  the  Digital  Markets  Act320,  was  adopted  on  15 
December 2020. 

For the latter, the  European strategy for data321  is  of relevance. The strategy announces a 
number  of  measures  to  be  proposed  in  the  coming  years,  with  some  of  them  –  such  as  a 
legislative  framework  for  the  governance  of  common  European  data  spaces322  and  the 
common European mobility data space – to cover also the urban mobility field. The sourcing 
of data is important and will increasingly impact on this aspect of urban mobility; however, it 

316 COM/2018/293 final. On The Move: Sustainable Mobility for Europe: safe, connected, and clean.  

317 SWD(2019) 283. 

318 E.g. the European Federation of Road Traffic Victims (FEVR) called for adopting Vision Zero goal of reducing the number of 

road crash victims towards zero by 2030 in built up areas in the EU. More information: https://fevr.org/0by30/  

319 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information 
society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce'). Available at: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32000L0031    

320 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-

digital-markets_en  

321 Commission Communication: A European strategy for data, COM(2020)66 final. Available at: https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1593073685620&uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0066  

322 Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on European data governance (Data 

Governance Act) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CONSIL:ST_13351_2020_INIT  

65 

 
 
  
                                                
alone  is  not  sufficient  e.g.  to  monitor  progress  towards  reaching  sustainable  urban  mobility 
objectives323.  

In  conclusion,  the  EU  digital  policy  is  an  area  being  intensively  and  rapidly  developing, 
therefore it is not possible to state that UMP is coherent with it, beyond the coherence with 
the  ITS  Directive.  It  will  only  rise  in  importance  and  relevance  for  urban  mobility,  in 
particular when it comes to the impact of online platforms, indicating the need to ensure more 
coherence between these two policies in the future.  

5.4.2.5.Coherence with social and employment EU policy 

Sustainable  urban  mobility  and  urban  development  are  inherently  interlinked.  The  vision  of 
the  New  Urban  Agenda324  for  sustainable  urban  development,  as  agreed  upon  in  the  UN 
Habitat  III  Conference  in  December  2016325,  presents  a  new  recognition  of  the  correlation 
between  good  urbanization  and  development,  job  creation,  livelihood  opportunities,  and 
improved quality of life. It is structured upon the principles of “leaving no one behind”, the 
concept of sustainable and inclusive urban economies and environmental sustainability. Safe, 
age  and  gender-responsive,  affordable,  accessible,  resource-efficient  and  sustainable  urban 
mobility is called for, which is also aligned with the UMP objectives. Amongst the principles 
and commitments the UN aims to ensure sustainable and inclusive  urban economies by (…) 
promoting full and productive employment and decent work for all, by ensuring the creation 
of  decent  jobs.  These  principles  would  need  to  be  better  included  into  the  future  urban 
mobility policies developed by the EU and Member States. 

As  specified  in  its  Gender  Equality  Strategy  2020-2025326,  the  Commission  will  integrate  a 
gender perspective in all its initiatives. As urban mobility planning and urban development 
can  affect  women  much  differently  from  men327,  a  specific  gender  dimension  needs  to  be 
taken  into  account.  Participatory  approach  and  taking  into  account  the  needs  of  all 
stakeholders  and  citizens  is  among  the  SUMP  principles  since  the  beginning328,  with  the 
explicit gender dimension addressed in  the dedicated SUMP topic  guide  published in  2020: 
Addressing gender equity and vulnerable groups in SUMPs329. 

Similarly, the Urban Agenda for the EU also addresses urban development in an integrated 
manner. As mentioned in Section 2, the Urban Mobility Partnership was established as part of 
the  Urban  Agenda  and  its  Action  Plan  proposes  actions  related  to  governance,  sustainable 
urban  mobility  planning,  active  mobility,  urban  vehicle  access  regulations,  accessibility  to 
public  transport,  clean  buses,  innovative  mobility  services,  and  behavioural  change,  all  of 
which  are  aligned  with  the  UMP.  Coherence  was  also  found  with  the  EU  regional 
development  policy,  with  urban  mobility  being  part  of  the  investment  priorities  portfolio 
under sustainable urban development.  

323 In order to do this, urban mobility indicators are necessary. 

324 http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf 
325 See United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development. 
326 COM(2020)152 final 

327 Women and  men have very different needs and restrictions  when using transport which have to be  considered  in  order to 
adequately  meet  the  demand  of  all  users.  It  is  also  needed  to  ensure  that  transport  is  efficient  and  sustainable,  as  well  as 
safe for women to use, notably as women rely more on public transport than men. 

328 A Concept For Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans, COM(2013) 913 final. Available at: https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:82155e82-67ca-11e3-a7e4-01aa75ed71a1.0011.02/DOC_4&format=PDF  

329 Available at : https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/sump_topic-guide_gender-equity_vulnerable-groups_final.pdf 

66 

 
 
                                                
The  European  Pillar  of  Social  Rights330,  proclaimed  by  the  EU  institutions  in  November 
2017,  is  about  delivering  new  and  more  effective  rights  for  citizens.  It  builds  upon  20 
principles  in  the  areas  of  equal  opportunities  and  labour  market  access,  fair  working 
conditions, and social protection and inclusion. The principle 20 stresses the right of everyone 
to  access  essential  services  of  good  quality,  including  transport.  Evidence  from  interviews 
highlighted the need for the UMP to address more employment and social issues, such as fair 
working conditions, inclusion of impoverished groups (that cannot afford available modes of 
transportation)  and  the  needs  of  persons  with  disabilities  or  reduced  mobility,  including 
barrier-free accessibility, fairness checks, as well as gender and minority group issues. 

With  its  Communication  of  14  January  2020  on  a  'Strong  Social  Europe  for  Just 
Transitions', the Commission reaffirmed that climate change and environmental degradation 
will require the EU to adapt its economy, create new businesses, new jobs and triggering more 
investment, with the aim to upwards convergence, social fairness and shared prosperity331.  

Within the area of human health, the implications on and interactions of  health policy with 
other  policy  is  recognised  at  the  global  level332.  The  EU  Health  Strategy  for  2008-2013,  as 
depicted in the respective 2007 White Paper333, aimed at fostering good health for the aging 
population,  protecting  citizens  from  health  threats  and  supporting  dynamic  health  systems, 
through new technologies and tackling health inequalities.  

The  linkage  between  the  European  Commission’s  physical  activity,  sports  and  urban 
mobility  agenda  is  also  acknowledged334.  It  is  more  explicitly  expressed  in  the  2008  EU 
Physical  Activity  Guidelines335  and  the  Commission  Recommendations336  of  2013  on 
promoting  health-enhancing  physical  activity  across  sectors.  In  particular,  the  guidelines337 
include environment, urban planning and public safety in the thematic areas addressed, with 
appropriate  transportation  infrastructure  and  services  being  central  to  the  opportunity  for 
physical activity. Furthermore, coordination between EC services (DGs EAC and MOVE) led 
to the European Week of Sport campaign running alongside European Mobility Week, so that 
towns  and  cities  can  run  activities  for  both  campaigns  in  parallel  and  benefit  from 
complementarities.  Finally,  the  European  Committee  of  the  Regions  also  highlights  that 
healthy cities require coherent urban planning, including mobility and transport, environment 
and  healthy  diet,  sport,  physical  activity  and  education,  and,  finally,  governance.  Thus,  the 
objectives of the  Urban  Mobility Package  are  coherent  with  the objectives  and strategies of 
the EU health policy, as well as national and local-level initiatives338.  

330 COM(2017) 250 final 

331 The Commission will present the Action Plan to implement the European Pillar of Social Rights to be endorsed by the other 

EU institutions at a Social Summit in Porto in May 2021. 

332 https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756797/obo-9780199756797-0163.xml 

333 COM(2007) 630. 

334 COM (2007) 630: White paper – Together for Health: A Strategic Approach for the EU 2008-2013 {SEC(2007) 1374} 

{SEC(2007) 1375} {SEC(2007) 1376}. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/HIS/?uri=SEC:2007:1376:FIN  

335 Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/sport/library/policy_documents/eu-physical-activity-guidelines-2008_en.pdf  

336 Council Recommendation of 26 November 2013 on promoting health-enhancing physical activity across sectors (2013/C 

354/01). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2013:354:0001:0005:EN:PDF  

337 Available at: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/sites/eacea-site/files/study_implementation_pa_guidelines_2016.pdf     

338 For example, Portugal’s National Plan for physical activity promotion or the Lisbon Plan on health development, quality of life 

and well-being 

67 

 
 
 
                                                
5.4.2.6. Coherence with the principles of the EU single market 

The  UMP  is,  overall,  deemed  to  be  coherent  with  the  EU  single  market  rules,  with  the 
exception  of  certain  aspects  of  implementation  of  the  UVAR  schemes.  An  increasing 
number and heterogeneity of UVARs could lead to negative consequences, in particular when 
various schemes are implemented in different ways and combined with a lack of information 
about  how  to  comply  with  their  rules.  In  result,  there  is  often  a  tension  between  full 
recognition  of  subsidiarity  (e.g.  the  rights  of  local  authorities  to  ensure  important  societal 
goals  such  as  clean  air)  and  the  need  to  address  the  integrity  of  a  single  market.339  The 
analysis  of  the  current  practice  of  UVARs,  observations  communicated  to  the  Commission 
over the past  years by citizens, businesses and stakeholder associations as  well as questions 
from  Members of the European Parliament340 point  to  numerous  challenges, some of which 
may be in conflict the EU single market principles. These include: 

- 

lack  of  transparency  and  insufficient  availability  of  accurate  and  up-to-date 
information: drivers do not always find clear information about UVARs in advance of 
a trip or in real-time and, therefore, it can be difficult to know if a vehicle is allowed to 
access  a  city;  in  addition,  the  consequences  of  not  respecting  rules  in  force  are  not 
clear enough, including the enforcement of penalties/fines. 

-  different  treatment  of  domestic  and  foreign  vehicles:  for  example,  vehicles  with 
foreign license plates have to be registered in advance, or within a certain timeframe to 
access, while national vehicles do not have to do so.  

-  non-proportionate  treatment:  drivers  may  perceive  UVARs  as  disproportionate  and 
even  curbing    mobility,  when  alternative  mobility  solutions  are  perceived  to  be  less 
attractive or insufficient.  

-  while  usually  not  an  issue  for  local  drivers,  it  can  be  difficult  for  other  drivers,  in 
particular  from  different  countries,  to  understand  the  rules  and  be  aware  of 
complementary information341.  

These challenges  could  partly be linked with  the decision the Commission made in  2013 to 
proceed  with  a  non-binding  policy  option  (and  thus  proposing  the  UMP  in  a  form  of  a 
Communication), resulting in a lack of harmonisation at the EU level of the UVAR principles. 

5.4.2.7.Coherence with funding and financing mechanisms for urban mobility 

Coherence  between  the  UMP  and  the  major  European  funding/financing  mechanisms  was 
investigated342.  Based  on  the  objectives  of  the  2011  White  Paper343,  the  TEN-T  guidelines 
identify  the  TEN-T  infrastructure,  designated  as  projects  of  common  interest  that  create  a 
single, efficient and sustainable European transport that increases the benefits for its users and 
supports  inclusive  growth344.  The  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)345  constitutes  the 

339All policies or regulations adopted at national and local levels of governance need to be in line with the basic principles of the 
Treaties, such as the ones related to the Single Market, e.g. freedom of movement of persons, goods and services, as well as 
equal treatment, non-discrimination, proportionality and transparency.  

340 The references are the following: E-00853/2016, E-6990/2017, E-001693/2017, E-005561/2017, E-5106/2017, E-

006194/2017, E-005620/2017, E-1271/2017 ,E-5152/2017, E-005116/2017, E-006258/2017, E-6194/2017, E-000885/2018, 
E-4124/2018, E-5067/2018, E-4862/2018, E-2133/2018, E-000678/2019, E-001060/2019, E-00497/2019, E-001505/2019, 
E-001645/2019, E-3109/2019. The full list of all questions together with the corresponding answers are public and can be 
found on the website of the European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/parliamentary-questions.html. 

341 On the spot, drivers may struggle with the information displayed on road signs, not least because of language issues; 

moreover, even when drivers notice and understand the road signs for an UVAR, lack of harmonisation amongst these raises 
difficulties for interpretation. 

342 Available at: https://www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/funding_and_financing_options_for_sustainable_urban_mobility.pdf  

343 White Paper Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system. 

COM/2011/0144 final.  

344 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. 

68 

 
 
                                                
financial  instrument  of  the  Trans-European  Networks  in  the  transport,  telecommunications 
and energy sectors. Urban nodes are one of the structural components of the TEN-T network 
and  promotion  of  sustainable  urban  mobility  (passengers  and  freight)  is  also  an  objective, 
besides their integration with the TEN-T network. A number of urban mobility projects have 
been  co-funded  by  CEF,  while  synergies  with  energy  and  telecommunications  are  ensured 
through joint calls and initiatives. Thus, coherence between the objectives of UMP and CEF 
can be confirmed. 

The  European  Structural  and  investment  Funds  also  support  EU’s  strategy  for  smart, 
sustainable  and  inclusive  growth,  through  the  lens  of  territorial  cohesion.  According  to  the 
Common  Provisions  Regulation346,  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  and 
the  Cohesion  Fund,  interventions  should  be  planned  in  close  cooperation  with  the  support 
provided  from  the  CEF  to  ensure  complementarity,  avoid  duplication  of  efforts  and  ensure 
optimal linkage of different types of infrastructure. The ERDF prioritises investment towards, 
among  others,  low-carbon  economy,  climate  change  adaptation,  environmental  protection, 
resource  efficiency,  sustainable  transport  and  bottleneck  removal,  all  of  relevance  for  urban 
mobility.  Many  projects  related  to  urban  mobility  has  been  co-funded  through  ESI  funds. 
Thus, there is coherence between the objectives of the UMP and ESI funds. 

The  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB)  is  also  an  important  financing  source  for  urban 
mobility  initiatives  and  projects347.  The  EIB  is  also  responsible  for  managing  the  guarantee 
programme European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), which supports the investment 
plan for Europe and also includes projects in the sustainable urban mobility realm. In relation 
to  SUMPs,  the  EIB  ensures  that  the  plans  are  properly  invested  and  that  there  is  coherence 
between SUMPs and city plans in project proposals.  

Other  funding  mechanisms  for  sustainable  urban  mobility  are  the  Horizon  2020,  Interreg 
and  LIFE  programmes.  These  programmes  and  initiatives  provide  opportunities  for 
research,  development  and  innovation,  as  well  as  resources  for  pilot  testing,  addressing 
different  dimensions  of  urban  mobility  transport.  Horizon  2020  and  Interreg,  in  particular, 
have had, and still have projects that include a number of SUMPs or SUMP capacity-building 
activities. These projects are represented and discussed at  the SUMP Platform  Coordinating 
Group (together  with  other SUMP-related projects), which holds two coordination  meetings 
per year, with ensuring consistency being one of the objectives.  

Thus, there is overall coherence between the objectives of the UMP and the aforementioned 
funding/financing  instruments.  However  –  as  observed  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  and 
described in  particular in sections 5.2.2., 5.2.6., 5.2.8. and 5.3.3.  –  the fact  that  EU funding 
isn’t  sufficiently  linked  to  SUMPs  (as  the  most  important  measure  of  UMP)  limits  their 
effectiveness and quality assurance. 

345 Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the 

Connecting Europe Facility, amending Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 680/2007 and (EC) No 
67/2010. 

346 Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common 

provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions 
on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.  

347 The EIB operates on the basis of six priority areas, namely: climate and the environment, development, innovation and 
skills, small businesses, infrastructure and cohesion, and it provides financing for projects that are green, innovative, 
efficient, safe, secure, inclusive and accessible Available at: https://www.eib.org/en/projects/sectors/transport/index.htm  

69 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                   
5.4.2.8. Synthesis of findings on the external coherence of the UMP 

The results of the analysis point to strong coherence between UMP and other EU policies 
and  initiatives,  in  terms  of  objectives  and  vision,  towards  the  transition  to  a  new  era  of 
sustainable  development,  where  sustainable  urban  mobility  and  transport  are  key.  The 
national  authorities’  survey  and  the  interviews  support  these  findings  to  a  large  degree. 
EGUM  members  reported  complementarity  and  coherence  with  the  majority  of  these 
instruments,  while  interviewed  stakeholders348  noted  a  perceived  coherence  with  different 
degrees of strength between sustainable urban mobility and almost all topics of EU policies. 
However,  the  practicalities  of  implementation  of  many  different  UVAR  schemes  across  the 
EU pose some risks to the internal market principles. 

Synergies between the European Mobility Week, EU Green Week and energy/climate-related 
organisations  were  highlighted  as  a  coherent  approach  moving  forward  due  to  the  different 
target groups. Finally, in line with coherence with health policy, as described earlier, the EU 
Week of Sports also includes some actions promoting walking and cycling (e.g. Bike or Walk 
to School in Belgium or the National Community Walking Day in Ireland, etc.349). 

However, when it comes to employment and social policies, the commitments at international 
(2016 New Urban Agenda for sustainable urban development) and EU (2017 European Pillar 
of Social Rights) levels  are post-UMP developments  which  will be  considered in  the future 
EU initiatives on urban mobility. 

5.5. 

 EU Added Value 

An  assessment  of  EU  added  value  principally  looks  at  the  value  resulting  from  EU 
intervention  that  is  additional  to  the  value  that  would  have  resulted  from  interventions 
initiated at other levels of governance (i.e. national level) and from the private sector.  

Overall EU added value 

Even though there is lack of available quantitative data to note any significant improvements 
in the area of urban mobility in Europe, the general consensus from stakeholder consultation 
indicates  that  EU  intervention  is  required  to  address  the  problems  related  to  urban 
mobility.  This  supports  the  conclusion  that  there  has  been  added  value  from  the  UMP 
intervention. Moreover, the Court of Auditors in its report is also positive overall about it, and 
its recommendations point to the need to reinforce the EU  intervention in urban mobility in 
particular by proposing clear legal obligations for Member States. 

As  mentioned,  the  thematic  linkages  with  a  number  of  other  EU  legislations  add  to  the 
complication  of  specifically  pinpointing  where  the  UMP  has  added  value  compared  to  the 
specific legislative acts in related areas.  

5.5.1.

  Evidence of direct EU added value 

Overall the evidence for this is mixed. There is some evidence that, although non-binding, the 
UMP has contributed directly to sustainable urban mobility and added value at the local level. 
The  examples  provided  in  Section  5.2.2,  as  well  as  improvements  in  other  cities,  such  as 

348 This was perceived by 12 interviewed stakeholders. 

349 https://ec.europa.eu/sport/sites/sport/files/events_for_website.pdf. In addition, there have been a series of 

coordination/information meetings between relevant staff of different DGs running EU city awards and, to a lesser extent, EU 
Weeks. 

70 

 
 
                                                
Bremen,  Ghent,  Gdynia,  Funchal,  Szeged,  Vitoria-Gasteiz,  Bologna,  Murcia,  Kraków, 
Utrecht, Stockholm, Umea or Lisbon, would seem to support this. The majority of these cities 
have won EU SUMP and/or CIVITAS Awards350. 

However, the analysis performed in the support study indicates that the trends in key variables 
of transport volumes, modal shares, emissions and road safety have not significantly changed 
since 2013 with the introduction of the UMP. For example, between 2010 and 2020 there has 
not  been  a  consistent  and  noticeable  change  across  the  EU  in  modal  shares  of  more 
sustainable transport modes.  

It should be noted, however, that there is no guarantee that UMP measures have contributed 
or  will  contribute  automatically  to  sustainable  mobility.  As  the  analysis  of  the  state  of 
implementation outlined, the significant variation in the degree to which the UMP measures 
have  been  implemented  at  Member  State  level  is  evidence  of  this.  Thus, while  added  value 
from the intervention of the UMP can be observed in some specific cities, the effects are not 
widespread.  

In addition, it may well be that it is other pieces of EU legislation operating in tandem with 
the UMP that have had the more tangible effects due to their characteristics as hard forms of 
legislation  and  binding  measures.  This  is  particularly  the  case  of  the  Ambient  Air  Quality 
Directives, the Clean Vehicles Directive and the Intelligent Transport Systems Directive.   

5.5.2.

   Evidence of indirect EU added value 

The analysis uncovered  numerous cases of where the UMP had a more indirect impact. 
This  impact  is  primarily  seen  across  the  majority  of  stakeholders351  through  supporting 
awareness-raising  capacity  building,  sharing  of  good  practice  and  experience,  and  fostering 
collaboration  and  cooperation.  Views  from  the  public  consultation  are  an  example  of  this 
where  95%  of  respondents  answered  that  the  EU  should  continue  to  support  the  sharing  of 
experience,  promote  best  practice  and  foster  cooperation.  In  addition,  an  overarching  view 
from stakeholders was the role of the UMP in providing a common narrative and streamlining 
EU efforts in the area of urban mobility.  

In  particular,  at  the  local  level,  interviewed  stakeholders352  stated  that  the  sharing  of 
experience  and  good  practice,  the  guidelines  for  SUMP  development  and  monitoring, 
and  EU-level  funding  linked  to  urban  mobility  projects  were  the  prime  areas  where  the 
intervention  of  the  UMP  provided  added  value.  At  the  national  level,  evidence  from  the 
national  authorities’  survey  and  their  interviews  highlighted  that  the  proposed  approaches, 
tools  and  frameworks  put  forward  through  the  UMP  help  in  working  towards  sustainable 
mobility  and  were  seen  as  being  very  valuable.  Moreover,  the  SUMP  Guidelines  place  a 
strong emphasis on involving citizens and stakeholders, as one of the eight main principles353, 
and  the  1st  SUMP  Award  focused  on  citizen  and  stakeholder  participation354;  this  is  in  line 
with the objectives of EU being closer to citizens and better regulation. 

At  the  EU  level,  stakeholders355  also  noted  several  examples  of  where  the  UMP  provided 
more intangible forms of added value. This included the benefits of SUMP guidance as well 

350 More information: https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/project-partners/sump-award; https://civitas.eu/awards  

351 Combining all of these areas together, it was noted by 40 out of 67 interviewed stakeholders 

352 Overall, 9 out of 19 interviewees at the local level were of the view that these areas provided added value.  

353 https://www.eltis.org/mobility-plans/sump-concept  

354 https://mobilityweek.eu/sump-award  

355 8 out of 18 of the EU level interviewees. 

71 

 
 
                                                
as  other  forms  of  guidance  material  where  the  UMP  has  been  able  to  compliment  and 
strengthen national level approaches and frameworks.  

In  assessing  the  views  geographically,  it  was  found  that  the  majority  of  responding 
stakeholders356 in Eastern European countries had a rather positive opinion on the added value 
of the Urban Mobility Package. This  was compared to  a number of regional  and local-level 
stakeholders in Western Europe who were more cautious - in particular, they noted that it was 
often  the  case  that  the  national  frameworks  for  sustainable  urban  mobility  that  had  been 
developed prior to the UMP or with only marginal support from the UMP were more valuable 
in addressing country-specific urban mobility challenges.  

In addition, it was noted that while the sharing of good practice and experience between cities 
are  considered  important,  their  wider  tangible  impacts  are  limited.  An  example  of  this  was 
through  the  ELTIS  platform.  While  it  provides  information  for  many  cities,  national  and 
regional level stakeholders357 were of the view that the information provided by ELTIS was 
often not reliable enough for sound evaluations and projects. It was therefore suggested that 
the platform should also pay more attention to learning from unsuccessful practices to avoid 
future mistakes.  

5.5.3.

   The impact of EU-level funding on the added value of the UMP 

From  the  benefits  that  have  been  outlined  above,  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
stakeholders358, predominantly at the local and regional levels, stated the added value of the 
UMP  with  respect  to  EU  level  funding  as  very  or  moderately  important.  For  many 
stakeholders359 and vast majority360 of people participating in the public consultation the EU 
funding has been very important and without it, progress towards a more sustainable mobility 
would be significantly impeded. This was also discussed in the European Court of Auditors 
report215 which highlighted the importance of EU funding.  

From  the  targeted  interviews,  added  value  from  the  UMP  through  the  form  of  targeted 
financial  support  was  found  to  be  more  prevalent  among  local  stakeholders361.  This  was 
confirmed  in  the  case  studies  where  a  number  of  interviewees  (e.g.  from  Bulgaria  and 
Portugal) noted how EU-level funding in urban mobility projects not only assisted in their 
development but were also seen as being necessary.  

In  spite  of  this,  evidence  collected  through  the  case  studies  and  the  state  of  play  found 
additional examples of where EU-level funding was not required to achieve sustainable forms 
of  urban  mobility.  One  observation  was  that  authorities  at  local  or  national  level  can 
sometimes look to access EU funding to solve short-term issues. This notion can carry the risk 
of  limiting  the  longer-term  visions  that  the  UMP  aspires  to  tackle,  such  as  targets  on 
emissions,  improving  air  quality  and  encouraging  the  uptake  of  more  sustainable  modes  of 
transport.  Thus,  the  added  value  of  the  UMP  can  sometimes  be  seen  only  in  the  context  of 
achieving short-term rather than long-term goals.  

356 This is an observation that crosscut numerous interview questions; thus, it is an overall assessment of the views that were 

provided. To provide an indication, 11 interviews were conducted from Bulgaria, and 13 participants from the Public 
consultation represented those from Eastern European countries. 

357 This view was held by 14 out of 22 interviewees at the national and regional levels.  

358 198 out of 207 stating it was very or moderately important  

359 25 out of 68 interviewees.  

360 169 out of 207 participants in the public consultation stated that targeted funding from the EU is very important.  

361 This was noted by 10 out of 19 interviewees at the local level (including all stakeholders from Bulgaria).  

72 

 
 
                                                
Some examples of low-cost sustainable urban mobility initiatives were found in cities such 
as  Ghent  and  Lisbon.  For  example,  Ghent  introduced  a  new  circulation  plan  in  the  city  in 
2017 that reduced the access for cars and reallocated the space to other forms of mobility. As 
a result, in 3 years, the modal share of private cars was down from 40% to 33% with a shift 
towards the more sustainable modes of transport362 EU funding was also involved, as Ghent 
was awarded almost €3.5 million from ERDF under Urban Innovative Actions to develop and 
implement a Traffic Management as a Service concept in order to monitor and manage traffic 
for all transport modes363.  

5.5.4.

  The need for EU intervention  

Overall,  a  large  proportion  of  stakeholders  stated  that  there  is  a  need  for  continued 
action on urban mobility at EU level. At the overarching level, responses from the targeted 
survey  noted  that  continued  action  at  EU  level  is  necessary  to  ensure  that  negative  urban 
mobility trends are avoided and addressed364. In addition, responses to the public consultation 
uncovered strong support for the EU to intervene with urban mobility at the local level, with 
78%  being  in  agreement.  These  views  were  also  found  in  the  targeted  interviews,  which 
provided more detailed examples of where there would be added value from continued EU-
level support.  

At  the  local  level,  interviewees  noted  that  EU-level  action  is  required  because  most  of  the 
challenges  in  urban  mobility  stem  from  the  local  level  rather  than  at  national  and  regional 
levels.  The needs of local  stakeholders were therefore seen to  have been taken into account 
and  raised  to  a  higher  level  (EU  level)  thus  providing  more  legitimacy  to  their  needs  and 
challenges.  Other  views  included  this  point,  together  with  the  view  that  an  increase  in  EU-
level  action  through  the  UMP  would  increase  the  benefits  for  both  local  and  regional 
stakeholders. One pertinent example was from a local authority in Sweden, which noted that it 
can often be easier to work towards EU-level guidelines and objectives compared to those at 
national level, specifically over the need for more forms of efficient transport.  

As  mentioned  before,  responses  from  the  national  authorities’  survey  uncovered  a  general 
view  that  there  is  a  need  for  continued  EU-level  action  through  interventions  such  as  the 
UMP. Similar themes were uncovered at the local level.  

The  vast  majority  of  EU-level  stakeholders365  also  noted  the  need  for  EU  support.  EU 
support  for  research  and  innovation,  best  practice  sharing,  funding  and  financing, 
cooperation and knowledge exchange was seen as being invaluable. These exchanges were 
raised as having a proven, powerful effect on urban mobility policy development, and should 
be continued by EU-level action through interventions such as the UMP. 

Finally, the conclusions  and recommendations by the  Court of Auditors  support the need 
for  EU  intervention.  Moreover,  the  Court  requests  that  the  intervention  is  strengthened  by 
putting some legislative obligations for Member States (in relation to urban mobility data and 
adoption of SUMPs) and linking EU funding to SUMPs.  

362 Transport and Mobility Leuven, Assessment of Gent’s traffic circulation plan. Available at: 

https://www.tmleuven.be/en/project/circulatieplangent  

363 https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/uia-cities/ghent  

364 12 out of 15 EGUM members were of this view. 

365 It was mentioned by 14 out 18 EU level interviewees. 

73 

 
 
                                                
5.5.5.

  Implications of withdrawing the existing EU intervention 

Although  the  UMP  measures  have  the  potential  to  contribute  in  a  significant  way  to  more 
sustainable forms of urban mobility, their impact is not clearly visible on an EU-wide scale. 
There is also limited evidence that the UMP contributed to a further uptake of sustainable and 
efficient mobility measures, as they were often implemented before the launch of the UMP in 
2013 through various other policies and initiatives at the EU and national levels.  

Stakeholder consultation showed that the majority of stakeholders366 were of the view that 
withdrawing the UMP would result in negative consequences. National authorities were of 
the  view  that  withdrawing  EU  support  would  lead  to  a  slower  implementation  of  public 
mobility projects due to the absence of EU-level funding and support provided following the 
adoption  of  the  UMP.  This  is  supported  by  evidence  from  the  targeted  interviews  where  a 
number  of  stakeholders  responded  that  it  would  result  in  slower  implementation,  fewer 
exchanges  of  best  practice  and  slower  levels  of  innovation.  Finally,  an  overwhelming 
majority367  of  those  participating  in  the  public  consultation  indicated  that  the  EU  should 
continue its involvement in the urban mobility field.  

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

6.1.  Conclusion 1: Action on sustainable urban mobility is still urgently needed to 
achieve ambitious climate and environmental targets and commitments  

The Urban Mobility Package aimed to facilitate the achievement of the objectives set out in 
the 2011 White Paper (specifically in creating sustainable transport systems and cutting GHG 
emissions by at least 60% by 2050 with respect to 1990 levels). However, the current trends 
in urban transport do not indicate a significant improvement in terms of modal share, traffic 
volume  and  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  In  particular,  it  was  found  that  the  different  urban 
transport  modes  remain  stable  over  time,  with  conventionally  fuelled  private  cars  still 
dominating  and  only  a  slight  increase  in  public  transport  use  and  non-motorised  modes  of 
transport.  

In consequence, CO2 emissions from urban transport have remained at a similar level between 
2010 and 2020, which illustrates how much remains to be done. The pertinence of this issue is 
further  emphasised  by  the  European  Green  Deal,  which  sets  the  goal  of  a  climate  neutral 
continent  by  2050  along  with  the  specific  objective  of  a  90%  reduction  of  greenhouse  gas 
emissions  in  transport  by  2050,  and  by  the  2030  Climate  Target  Plan  proposal  to  cut 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  by  at  least  55%  by  2030,  as  well  as  by  the  overall  vision  of  the 
Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy  including  the  milestone  to  have  100  European 
climate neutral and smart cities by 2030. Similarly, air quality in urban areas remains to be a 
big challenge, with continued non-compliance with EU air quality standards in the majority of 
EU Member States and, especially, concentrations of NO2 and PM10 still exceeding EU limit 
values.  The  envisaged  increased  EU  ambition  and  action  in  that  regard368  further  reinforces 
the necessity to act on urban transport emissions. 

Moreover, it was confirmed that the practicalities of implementing sustainable urban mobility 
planning and related measures across all levels of governance are still faced with difficulties 

366 12 out of 15 national authorities answered that withdrawing from the EU would slow implementation and innovation of public 

mobility projects.  

367 163 out of 207 participants to the public consultation answered that they somewhat/fully disagree that the EU should not 

interfere with urban mobility.  

368 Zero pollution action plan, planned for 2021. More information: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/zero-pollution-

action-plan_en  

74 

 
 
                                                
and challenges. This, coupled with very divergent national approaches, including support (or 
lack of thereof) to  cities, prevents  the necessary  step-change envisaged in 2013 in  line with 
the preferred (non-binding) policy option chosen369.  

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. In addition, it is very unlikely that the intervention in its current form will enable 
the achievement of more ambitious EU objectives in relation to decarbonisation, linked with 
increasingly  serious  climate  and  environmental  problems,  and  digitalisation.  Therefore,  EU 
action on sustainable urban mobility is still needed, even more now than in 2013. 

6.2.  Conclusion 2: The UMP has made some contribution towards its original 

objectives, but there is a need to update them 

It  was  not  possible  to  establish  that  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  has  entirely  fulfilled  the 
expectation to support cities in their transition towards sustainable urban mobility relative to 
its original objectives. There are signs of improvement, but the degree to which these trends 
were affected by the Urban Mobility Package is difficult to determine due to the fact that the 
Package is a non-binding document and overlaps thematically with other EU legislation370.  

Nonetheless,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  has  had  a  more 
intangible,  indirect  impact  by  supporting  awareness-raising,  capacity  building,  sharing  of 
good  practice  and  experience,  and  fostering  collaboration  and  cooperation.  It  is  also 
noteworthy  that  the  Package  has  provided  a  common  narrative  and  streamlined  the  EU’s 
efforts  in  the  area  of  urban  mobility.  Even  though  over  six  years  have  passed  since  its 
adoption,  the  shift  towards  more  sustainable  urban  mobility  is  a  long-term  and  ongoing 
process, and tangible results are expected to take longer to materialise. 

But the problems in the area of urban mobility remain similar in 2020 as in 2013, leading to 
similar  negative  consequences,  and  some  of  these  consequences  are  of  rising  severity  and 
gravity  for  society,  the  economy  and  the  environment.  This  concerns  in  particular  the 
accelerating  tempo  of  climate  change.  This  has  already  been  acknowledged  at  the  EU  level 
with  the  increasingly  ambitious  objectives  of  the  European  Green  Deal,  the  Climate  Target 
Plan  2030  and  the  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy.  In  addition,  the  Strategy  also 
underlines the 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.  These  needs  are  linked  with  ensuring  important 
societal  and  employment  goals,  if  transport  is  to  remain  affordable  for  all  users  (including 
vulnerable  groups)  and  to  prevent  connectivity  loss  for  persons  in  peripheral  and  remote 
areas, indicating a necessity for a reinforced integration of employment and social aspects in 
the area of urban mobility. 

Further  action  is  also  required  to  better  accommodate  fast  moving  new  developments  and 
needs  in  the  area  of  urban  mobility  (e.g.  e-mobility,  Mobility-as-a-Service,  mobility 
management, connectivity with peri-urban and rural areas) as well as to better capture societal 

369 Description of all analysed policy options is provided in section 2.2.  

2. Mandatory development of SUMPs by Member States-defined urban areas (minimum policy and governance framework); 

3. Mandatory development of SUMPs by EU-defined urban areas (minimum policy and governance framework). 

370 In particular, it could be argued that the existence of EU legislation such as the Ambient Air Quality Directives, the Clean 
Vehicles Directive and the ITS Directive could be more directly linked to the improvements in cities than the Urban Mobility 
Package. 

75 

 
 
                                                
trends  (e.g.  increasingly  aging  societies  and  the  growing  number  of  people  with  reduced 
mobility calling for  more focus on barrier-free accessibility)  and the emerging lessons from 
the  COVID  pandemic  (e.g.  more  focus  on  resilience  of  local  transport  and  impact  of  new 
ways of working). Finally, the digital and data-related aspects – many of which are subject to 
ongoing policy and legislative processes in the EU – will have to be better captured.  

Therefore,  while  the  original  UMP  objectives  are  still  largely  relevant,  there  is  a  need  to 
consider  and  better  reflect  the  above  challenges  and  developments  and,  in  particular,  the 
decarbonisation  of  urban  transport  interlinked  with  the  just  and  inclusive  transition.  Other 
persistent  issues  remain  and  call  for  further  action  to  effectively  tackle  them,  but  often  one 
action  – such as reducing our dependence on the conventionally fuelled  cars in  cities  – can 
deliver co benefits, for example improved air quality, fewer road deaths, and potentially less 
congestion and noise.  

6.3.  Conclusion 3: There is a significant variation in the degree to which UMP 

measures have been implemented by Member States 

There  are  significant  differences  between  Member  States  -  and  sometimes  within  Member 
States - in terms of their needs, drivers, barriers, institutional settings and approaches to urban 
mobility.  More  concretely,  in  some  Member  States  there  is  a  well-established  tradition  of 
urban mobility planning and strong focus on public transport and active mobility, for instance, 
while  in  others  sustainable  urban  mobility  remains  a  fairly  novel  concept  and  a  strong  car-
centric  approach  prevails.  Similarly,  urban  mobility  is  often  a  strictly  local  issue,  while  in 
other instances national authorities have a stronger role in shaping the approach to it.  

These differences both  stem from,  and have led  to,  a significant  variation between Member 
States  with  respect  to  the  degree  to  which  the  UMP  measures  have  been  disseminated  and 
taken  up.  This  has  resulted,  inter  alia,  in  uneven  level  support  to  cities  across  the  EU  in 
tackling urban mobility challenges and thus compromising the achievement of the necessary 
step-change, as envisaged in 2013.  

6.4.  Conclusion 4: EU support is important and necessary for capacity building, 

sharing of information and experience, and fostering collaboration and 
cooperation in the area of urban mobility  

One  of  the  main  findings  of  the  analysis  was  the  benefit  that  ‘reinforcing  EU  support 
measures’  of  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  provided  through  the  numerous  EU  programmes, 
projects and events: they stimulated capacity building, sharing of information and experience, 
and fostered collaboration. Campaigns such as European Mobility Week, events such as the 
CIVITAS Forum Conference and the European Conference on SUMPs have been consistently 
cited as important for raising awareness and the exchange of experience and ideas. Similarly, 
the  SUMP  and  CIVITAS  awards  play  an  important  role  in  rewarding  and  incentivising  the 
adoption  of  SUMPs  and  innovative  urban  mobility  solutions.  The  European  Platform  on 
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (and ELTIS in general) was also considered to be a useful 
source of information about urban mobility despite the limitation in reliability and quantity of 
data371.  

Additionally, the SUMP guidelines have been translated into, or have served as the basis for, 
national  guidelines  and  are  well  known  among  the  consulted  stakeholders.  Their  2019 
revision  and  a  new  set  of  dedicated  topical  guidance  documents  has  been  well  received  by 
local  authorities,  planners  and  stakeholders,  with  further  topical  guidance  documents 

371 Linked to the fact that Member States are not required to provide urban mobility data 

76 

 
 
                                                
published in 2020 and more planned for the future. Taking part in EU projects (e.g. projects 
under  the  CIVITAS  Initiative)  and  training  activities  has  also  enabled  an  exchange  of 
information and experience between Member States and capacity building at the local level. 
Such projects have been especially instrumental  in those Member States  that did not have a 
strong tradition in sustainable urban mobility planning.  

Therefore,  the  further  development  and  promotion  of  these  initiatives  is  considered  to  be 
important.  

6.5.  Conclusion 5: The UMP has not managed to engage Member States as intended 

Following on from the previous conclusion, while the Urban Mobility Package contributed to 
raising  awareness,  capacity  building  and  promoting  sustainable  urban  mobility,  it  has  not 
managed  to  bridge  the  gap  in  translating  EU-level  policy  on  sustainable  urban  mobility  to 
tangible  national  action  in  particular.  There  has  been  a  slow  and  incomplete  uptake  of 
Member State-specific UMP measures across the EU, with little indication that a major shift 
is  taking  place  or  has  been  initiated  at  national  level.  While  the  Package  envisaged  that 
Member  States  would  play  this  intermediary  role,  this  does  not  appear  to  have  consistently 
worked in practice. It has resulted in very divergent situations with regard to national SUMP 
frameworks and related support to cities in designing, financing and implementing their local 
mobility plans and measures.  

In  addition,  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  and  its  measures  are  not  as  widely  known  as  they 
could  be,  which  would  be  at  least  partly  due  to  the  limited  role  played  by  most  Member 
States.  The  evidence  shows  that  those  actively  involved  in  EU  programmes,  projects  and 
activities  are  well  aware  of  them;  however,  they  are  not  uniformly  known  across  the  EU. 
There is also little evidence of Member States actively promoting the Urban Mobility Package 
or  specific  measures  towards  the  regional  and  local  levels  in  a  systematic  and  consistent 
manner. 

6.6.  Conclusion 6: The coordination of the public and private sector interventions has 

been sub-optimal and requires updating  

It  was  not  possible  to  establish  whether  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  has  had  a  substantial 
impact  as  regards  coordinating  public  and  private  sector  interventions  in  the  four  areas 
referred to in the UMP, namely urban logistics, urban ITS, urban  vehicle access regulations 
and urban  road safety.  Despite the related developments at  EU level,  the evaluation  did  not 
find  clear  evidence  that  the  Member  State-specific  UMP  measures  were  duly  taken  into 
consideration. Similarly, there is little evidence that the EU-level UMP measures, such as the 
studies and non-binding guidance documents on urban logistics and urban access regulation, 
were well known or utilised. This has also resulted, as it is the case of UVARs, in diverging 
implementation  of  increasing  number  of  schemes  in  various  Member  States,  with  negative 
consequences to some of the principles of EU single market. 

Moreover, while the four areas were considered to be relevant by the consulted stakeholders, 
several other areas were also identified as equally or more relevant, such as public transport 
and active mobility. Inclusivity and a greater consideration for the needs of different groups of 
urban  mobility  stakeholders,  such  as  vulnerable  users  and  public  transport  users  without 
alternative  modal  options,  were  also  identified  as  an  area  that  should  have  had  a  greater 
prominence in the Package.  

77 

 
 
6.7.  Conclusion 7: EU funding has been instrumental in the implementation of urban 
mobility measures in cities, but strong link with SUMPs has been lacking 

Key challenges for cities and local authorities looking to invest in sustainable urban mobility 
are availability and access to funding. The financial support provided through EU funds (e.g. 
ESI  funding,  Horizon  2020,  CEF)  has  been  instrumental  to  cities  in  this  regard,  with  wider 
implications  on  the  operation  of  long-distance  transport  networks  (such  as  TEN-T).  Even 
though the EU funding for urban mobility is, overall, regarded positively, it is not linked to 
SUMPs,  which  might  diminish  the  impact.  The  continuation  of  EU  funds  and  support  was 
seen as a contributory factor towards meeting the needs and capacities of local authorities.  

6.8.  Conclusion 8: The support for SUMPs has made an important contribution to the 

evolution of mobility planning at the city level; however, further work is needed 
to ensure SUMP implementation and quality 

SUMPs  are  a  cornerstone  of  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  and  one  of  its  most  recognisable 
elements,  growing  in  popularity  and  number  since  the  implementation  of  the  Package. 
However, while the have become relatively well known, there is still room for improvement, 
as many cities have not yet developed their own plan. Additionally, the evaluation shows that 
the development of a SUMP does not necessarily guarantee that it will be implemented or that 
it is of sufficient quality. In this respect, the areas such as SUMP implementation and quality 
assurance  require  additional  attention  (in  particular  at  the  national  level)  to  ensure  that 
SUMPs  are  effective  tools  towards  achieving  sustainable  urban  mobility  and  more 
decarbonisation objectives. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the full application 
of all aspects of the SUMP process may not match the needs and capacities of smaller cities 
with lower density. 

6.9.  Conclusion 9: Urban mobility data collection and availability is of insufficient 

quality, and requires more effort in particular from Member States  

There  is  a  general  lack  of  systematically  collected  comprehensive,  coherent,  gender 
disaggregated and comparable data at the city level in the EU for example on the use of active 
modes, motorised or public transport, length  of  trips,  etc. This  makes progress  tracking  and 
comparison very challenging, and risks to undermine policy making at European, national and 
local levels of government. Currently there is no legal basis (i.e. no requirement) for Member 
States to report data on urban mobility to the European Commission. This problem was also 
noted  by  the  Court  of  Auditors,  which  has  requested  the  Commission  to  take  measures  to 
address  it,  focusing  on  urban  nodes  on  the  TEN-T  network.  Data  of  high  quality  is 
instrumental  in  identifying  trends,  evaluating  the  impact  of  locally  implemented  urban 
mobility measures and planning future policy. While ELTIS provides relevant information on 
urban  mobility  developments  in  different  Member  States,  the  data  is  self-reported  and 
incomplete and, as such, is not considered to be fully reliable.  

78 

 
 
 
 
 
OVERVIEW OF ANNEXES:  

- 
- 
- 

- 
- 

Annex 1: Procedural information 
Annex 2: Summary of public and stakeholder consultation  
Annex 3: Methodology: reconstructed intervention logic and evaluation questions 
matrix  
Annex 4: Architecture of the Urban Mobility Package 
Annex 5:  Overview of  policy areas that are directly or indirectly linked to  urban 
mobility 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1. Lead DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES  

DG MOVE is the lead Directorate General for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package. 
The Decide Planning entry is: PLAN/2018/4719 

2. Organisation and timing 

The evaluation was launched in November 2018. The evaluation was coordinated by an Inter-
Service  Steering  Group  (ISG),  which  was  established  early  in  the  evaluation  process  and 
which was consulted on all key deliverables.  

Date 

Activity 

20 November 2018 

Publication of the evaluation Roadmap 

20 November 2018 – 18 December 2018 

Feedback period to the Roadmap 

4 December 2018 

First ISG meeting 

23 May 2019 

7 June 2019  

17 July 2019 

Start of an external support study 

ISG meeting (kick-off of the study)  

Inception report meeting 

11 September 2019 – 4 December 2019 

Public consultation period 

5 April 2019, 29 November 2019, 18 May 
2020 

29 January 2020 

4 February 2020 

3 June 2020 

14 May 2020 

8 September 2020 

Meetings of Member States Expert Group 
(EGUM) where the UMP evaluation was 
discussed 

Urban Public Transport Working Group 
(social dialogue) meeting where the UMP 
evaluation was discussed 

ISG meeting (interim report of the study) 

Dedicated EGUM meeting (draft final 
report) 

ISG meeting (draft final report of the study) 

Urban Public Transport Working Group 
(social dialogue) meeting where the UMP 
evaluation was discussed 

3. The ISG is composed of DG MOVE (unit B4), DGs REGIO, ENV, CLIMA, GROW, 
ENER, RTD, SANTE, JUST, JRC, COMM, TAXUD, BUDG, Legal Service and Secretariat-
General 

4. Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines  

The Better Regulation Guidelines were followed. No exceptions applicable. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Consultation of the RSB (if applicable)  

This evaluation was not selected for assessment by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.  

5. Evidence, sources and quality  

The evaluation relies to a large extent on the external support study to the evaluation led by 
Ramboll and, to a lesser extent, on the Special report 06/2020: Sustainable Urban Mobility in 
the  EU  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  .  During  the  evaluation  the  consultant  used  a  mix  of 
approaches  including  evaluation  matrix,  desk  research,  field  research  and  case  studies. 
Literature  evidence  was  identified  to  develop  several  of  the  indicators  that  support  the 
analysis  for  the  evaluation  questions  and  subsequently  to  identify  key  information  for  the 
development of the answers to the evaluation questions. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  

Introduction 

This  stakeholder  consultation  synopsis  provides  a  summary  of  the  stakeholder  consultation 
activities and results, which were carried out as part of the evaluation of the Urban Mobility 
Package.  The  annex  includes  a  basic  analysis  of  the  responses  of  stakeholders  groups 
involved in the consultation process and a summary of the main issues they raised.  

The objectives of the consultation activities were to: provide the public and the stakeholders 
with an opportunity to express their views on the UMP as well as to express their opinions on 
possible and/or desirable changes to the UMP; and gather specialized input on the impacts of 
the UMP.  

The following consultation activities were undertaken:  

-  Targeted survey questionnaires 
-  Targeted interviews  
-  Open public consultation (from 11 September 2019 – 4 December 2019) 

The  consultation  activities  targeted  through  different  consultation  activities  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders  across  various  governance  levels  and  geographic  coverage.  Most  of  the 
stakeholder’s  categories  were  consulted  in  2  out  of  23  of  the  consultation  activities. 
Exceptions  are  EU  Institutions  and  public  /  private  actors  at  city  level,  which  were  only 
consulted through interviews. EU citizens and NGO’s/academic & research institutions were 
consulted only through public consultation. 

Targeted survey questionnaires  

The first part of the stakeholder consultation consisted of a survey questionnaires to three core 
stakeholder groups: 

Stakeholders group 

Respondents 

National authorities survey (EGUM members) 

Local and Regional authorities  

32 responses from 19 MS and 1 non-MS: 
Overall 19 Member States were represented, and 
one non-EU Member State: France (4), Latvia 
(3), Hungary (3), Greece (2), Austria (2), Spain 
(2), Slovenia (2), Poland (2), Cyprus (2), 
Netherlands (1), Luxembourg (1), Finland (1), 
Belgium (1), Portugal (1), Lithuania (1), Italy 
(1), Germany (1), Bulgaria (1) and Norway (1) 

6 responses from 4 MS: Finland (1), Hungary 
(2), Malta (1), Sweden (2) 

Civil society, networks and private sector actors 
and their representatives at various levels (local, 
regional, national, EU). 

14 responses from 5 MS and 1 non-MS: 
(Belgium (4), Bulgaria (1), Ireland (2), Italy (2), 
Spain (1) and United Kingdom (2). 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Interviews  

Targeted interviews 

The interviews aimed to address topics which could not be covered within the format of the 
targeted surveys and any important data gaps identified in desk research and survey findings. 
The following types of interviews were carried out: 

- 

- 

Interviews  with  European 
contribution and coherence of the UMP to or with other policy objectives. 
Interviews with national, regional and local level stakeholders, including: 

institutions  and  agencies  about 

the  relevance, 

o  Interviews  with  national,  regional  and  local  authorities,  as  well  as  city-level 
public/private  sector  actors  and  civil  society  at  city  and  national  level, 
answering the research questions for case studies. 

o  Collection  of  quantitative  cost  and  performance  indicator  data  from  national 
authorities  implementing  the  measures  of  the  UMP  nationally,  and  local 
authorities developing and implementing SUMPs. 

o  Thematic interviews with civil society and private sector stakeholders 

A total number of 67 interviews were carried out.  

Exploratory interviews 

In the design phase of the study, ten exploratory interviews were carried out with different EU 
institutions  and  agencies.  The  aim  of  the  exploratory  interviews  was  to  gain  a  better 
understanding of the subject matter, challenges posed in the UMP area and identify relevant 
sources of evidence for the study. The findings from these exploratory interviews fed directly 
into  the  revisions  of  the  Evaluation  Questions  Matrix,  the  refinement  of  the  Intervention 
Logic and further development of the methodology for the remaining stages of the project. 

Problems and limitations 

During  the  roll-out  of  the  interviews  some  problems  were  encountered  due  to  COVID-19, 
which  limited  the  numbers  of  respondents.  These  problems  were  resolved  through 
replacement with other consultation activities. 

Public consultation  

The  consultation  was  launched  on  the  11th  of  September  2019  and  remained  open  for 
responses until the 4th of December 2019. The public consultation was open to all stakeholder 
groups and was designed in a way that did not cover technical topics (that were covered in the 
targeted  surveys)  to  enable  all  interested  stakeholders  to  take  part,  including  EU  citizens. 
Overall, 207 responses were received from: 

-  EU Citizens (89) 
-  Company / business organisations (41) 
-  Public authorities (26) 
-  Business associations (10) 
-  Non-governmental organisations (16) 
-  Others (7) 
-  Academic/research institutions (5) 

83 

 
 
-  Consumer organisations (3) 
-  Trade unions (3) 
-  Non-Eu citizens (1) 
-  Environmental organisations (1) 

Problems and limitations 

During the analysis of the public consultation results one campaign was identified, and these 
results were presented at the end of the public consultation report. Responses were provided 
in 16 different EU-languages, which was addressed by using a machine translation and spot 
check.  

Results of the consultation 

Targeted survey questionnaires  

National authorities survey 
The  targeted  survey  aimed  to  consult  the  views  of  people  who  are  working  for  National 
Authorities  in  EU  Member  States.  In  particular  this  survey  was  distributed  to  the  European 
Group on Urban Mobility (EGUM) members. The survey gathered 52 responses, of which 15 
were fully completed and 36 were partially completed (i.e. started completing the survey but 
did not answer all questions).  

The  survey  was  structured  and  presented  across  the  following  area:  background/profiling 
questions, relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence.  

1.  Background/ profiling questions 

To start, the respondents were asked a series of profiling questions, specifying which country 
their organisation is based in and which department they represent. Overall, 19 Member States 
were  represented  along  with  one  non-EU  Member  State  (Norway).  Across  each  of  the 
counties the respondents were representing their respective Ministry for transport with similar 
ministries being mentioned, such as in innovation and technology or infrastructure.  

2.  Relevance 

The  first  question  pertained  to  the  evaluation  criterion  of  the  relevance  of  the  UMP.  The 
respondents were asked to what extent the UMP measures address the urban mobility needs in 
their country. Overall, 22 out of 31 respondents were of the view that the measures were able 
to  address  poor  air  quality  and  health  at  the  local  level.  The  following  question  asked  what 
factors  impede  the  ability  of  each  Member  State  to  implement  efficient  urban  mobility 
approaches.  Overall,  none  of  the  statements  gathered  any  significant  majorities,  rather  the 
responses are fairly balanced with the exception of the lack of incentive for businesses and the 
lack of information. In a next question respondents were asked how satisfied they are with the 
way in which the UMP has helped their country address a series of challenges such as lack of 
capacity, funding and information. Overall, the degree to which the respondents were satisfied 
to  a  very  large  and  large  extent  was  fairly  low,  the  results  across  the  respondents  being 
satisfied to some /small extent was greater.  

84 

 
 
 
To  what  extent  do  you  think  that  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  measures  you  are  aware  of,  address  the  urban 
mobility needs and reflect the capacities at local level in your country? (n=variable) 

In the following open question, the respondents  were asked to list any new problems which 
hinder  the  activities  in  urban  mobility  in  their  country.  Four  main  themes  emerged  from 
across the responses: [1] Lack of political support, [2] coordination between EU and Member 
State legislation, [3] lack of support for businesses at the local level and [4] lack of funding 
coordination.  

The next question explored how each of the respondent’s organisation’s needs have changed 
since  the  implementation  of  the  UMP.  Overall,  while  there  was  no  clear  majority  overall, 
several areas showed a majority view that their needs had increased somewhat/significantly. 
In a follow-up question, the respondents were asked to list four main developments that have 
impacted  urban  mobility  in  their  country.  Across  the  answers  provided,  one  main  theme 
which  emerged  is  the  development  of  SUMPs  in  terms  of  their  implementation  both  at  the 
local  and  regional  levels.  Similarly,  the  development  of  national  plans  was  also  raised  as 
being an important development in their country with respect to urban mobility.  

In  transition  from  the  questions  on  the  current  needs  and  current  developments  in  urban 
mobility across each Member State, the following question asked the respondents to answer to 
what extent they agreed that the UMP had encouraged the uptake of SUMPs and the need for 
support for SUMP implementation. Overall, the majority of respondents agreed positively to a 
very large/ large extent.  

The  next  question  asked  the  respondents  to  answer  to  what  extent  the  involvement  of  the 
Member  States  with  regards  to  the  UMP  has  been  successful.  Only  half  of  the  respondents 
found this to a large/ very large extent positive.  

3.  Effectiveness 

Following  on  the  section  on  relevance,  this  section  explores  the  effectiveness  of  the  UMP 
across  a  number  of  different  areas.  To  start,  a  question  was  asked  to  what  extent  the 
participants  thought  that  the  UMP  has  contributed  to  achieving  a  series  of  objectives  on 
congestion,  modal  split,  accessibility  and  others.  Across  the  listed  objectives,  the  main 
response was that the UMP contributed to some/ a small extent, therefore it was not felt to be 
conclusive from the answers of the respondents which objectives the UMP contributed to.  

85 

 
 
 
To  what  extent  do  you  think  that  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  has  contributed  to  achieving  the  following 
objectives...(n=18) 

In the next question, the respondents were asked in an open  question which three important 
factors have contributed to achieving the urban mobility objectives in each of the respondent’s 
country.  The  three  most  salient  factors  that  contributed  to  their  country’s  urban  mobility 
objectives  were:  [1]  SUMPs,  [2]  rise  in  the  climate  change  agenda  and  [3]  environmental 
investments.  In  another  open  question,  the  respondents  were  again  asked  to  list  three 
important  factors,  however  this  time  detailing  which  factors  have  hindered  their  country’s 
urban  mobility  objectives.  This  three  factors  that  were  listed  by  each  included:  [1]  lack  of 
funding, [2] political will and [3] poor decision making. 

Urban Mobility Package Measures 

This sub-chapter explores the effectiveness of the UMP measures. The first of these questions 
asked  the  respondents  how  aware  they  are  of  the  specific  measures  under  three  main  areas: 
Reinforcing EU support, SUMPs and Coordinated public and private-sector interventions.  

•  The respondents were asked about their awareness of the measures under the pillar of 
reinforcing EU support. Two measures gathered support: EGUM and the CIVITAS 
2020  initiative.  Interestingly,  the  urban  mobility  score  board  gathered  the  least 
number of respondents that were aware of. 

•  The respondents were asked the same question but under the area of SUMPs. In this 
question, the respondents were asked to differentiate whether they are aware of it and 
if  their  organisation  has  implemented  it.  Across  all  the  measures,  the  answers  are 
fairly balanced between awareness and implementation 

•  The following question asked the respondents if they are aware/ if their organisation 
has  implemented  the  various  measures.  The  areas  which  gained  proportionally  the 
greatest  awareness  was  under  the  European  Commission  guidance  documents  on 
urban access regulations. 

86 

 
 
 
•  Following  on  a  more  general  question  on  the  awareness  of  the  measures,  the 
respondents  were  asked  to  provide  more  detail  on  their  experiences  with  the 
measures. When asked to choose up to five measures that they would like to address 
in  more  detail,  the  top  response  came  from  ensuring  at  Member  State  level  that 
SUMPs are developed, implemented and integrated into a wider urban and territorial 
development strategy. 

•  The  respondents  were  asked  to  provide  further  detail  on  the  extent  to  which  they 
believe  that  the  UMP  measures  address  the  needs  and  reflect  the  capacities  at  the 
local  level.  The  measure  which  gathered  the  highest  degree  of  salience  was  for 
providing targeted financial support (3 out of 4 to a very large/ large extent). 

•  When  asked  if  there  is  a  coordinated  approach  to  urban  mobility  in  their  country, 
nine  out  of  the  15  respondents  answered  “yes”  while  only  four  answered  “no”. 
Similar trends were also found when asked if their Member State had benefited from 
any type of support from the Commission in setting up SUMPs. 

Support from the EU  

Under  this  sub-chapter  the  respondents  were  again  asked  a  series  of  broader  questions, 
however  this  time  pertaining  to  different  forms  of  EU  support.  These  forms  include  EU 
information  platforms  and  networks,  EU  Support  and  EU  policy  framework,  guidance  and 
standardisation.  Overall,  the  majority  of  the  respondents  answered  that  all  three  types  of 
support match the needs and capacities at the national level when it comes to urban mobility.  

In the following question the respondents were asked in an open question how the EU could 
better  meet  their  country’s  needs.  While  each  of  the  seven  Member  States  (that  provided 
answers) had some specific needs, more broadly, the most salient  action that was suggested 
was for stronger financial support (especially for the uptake of SUMP’s). 

The respondents were asked if they think that the UMP has led to the development of well-
integrated urban mobility  approaches. The majority (67%) answered that they the UMP has 
led to a well-integrated urban mobility approach.  

Based on your experience, do you think the Urban Mobility Package has led to the development of well-
integrated urban mobility approaches? (n=15) 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
Urban Access Regulations  

While  the  majority  of  respondents  noted  that  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  had  led  to  the 
development  of  well-integrated  urban  mobility  approaches  (67%),  under  the  area  of  Urban 
Access  Regulations,  the  results  weren’t  as  clear.  Only  20%  answered  that  the  UMP  had 
contributed to the development of an urban access regulation framework. 

Do  you  think  the  Urban  Mobility  Package  has  contributed  to  the  development  of  an  urban  access 
regulation framework in your country? (n=15) 

In  a  follow  up  question,  the  respondents  were  asked  if  the  UMP  has  contributed  to  the 
implementation  of  four  key  parts  of  Urban  Access  Regulation  Schemes  (UVARs): 
Congestion,  Low  emission,  Pedestrian  and  Urban  road  charging  zones.  This  question  had  a 
low number of answers, which were not distinctive.  

Intelligent Transport Systems 

In  the  area  of  Intelligent  Transport  Systems  (ITS),  the  respondents  were  asked  a  similar 
question  regarding  whether  the  UMP  has  helped  in  the  deployment  of  ITS  in  their 
region/city/town. This question failed to provide any clear majorities with there being a split 
between respondents that answered “yes” and those that answered that they do not know. 

Similar to  the previous question, the respondents were asked if the UMP has contributed to 
specific  aspects  of  ITS,  including:  Real-time  multimodal  travel  and  traffic  information, 
multimodal  smart  ticketing,  CCTV  and  ANPR  technologies  and  traffic  management 
measures.  The  question  however  did  not  provide  any  clear  indications  with  most  of  the 
respondents answering “to some extent” across all three areas. 

88 

 
 
 
 
Question 26b: deployment of more and better Intelligent Transport Systems in your country, such as... 
(n=7) 

Urban Logistics 

Under  the  area  of  Urban  logistics,  a  similar  finding  was  observed  where  there  was  an  even 
split between the respondents which answered the UMP had contributed to the integration of 
their country’s urban logistics strategy and those that did not know.  

In  a  similar  format  to  the  previous  sub-sections,  the  respondents  were  asked  to  specify 
whether the UMP had contributed to the deployment of better urban logistics approaches in 
four key areas: Route optimisation, access to loading/unloading zones, improved load factors 
and better mode and vehicle selection. Similar to the previous questions, no clear indications 
were provided with most of the respondents answering that the UMP has contributed only “to 
some extent”. Under the area of better mode and vehicle selection, three respondents indicated 
that the UMP only contributed to a “small extent”.  

Do you think that the Urban Mobility  Package has contributed to the deployment of more and better 
urban logistics approaches in your country involving... (n=6) 

Urban Road Safety 

Under the area of urban road safety, while five respondents answered that that the UMP has 
contributed to the integration of urban road safety regulations in urban mobility frameworks 
in the respondent’s countries, a large proportion answered that they do not know. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
4.  Efficiency 

The following questions pertained to the efficiency of the UMP across a range of areas and 
criterion. The first of these questions asked to what extent the respondents believed that the 
stakeholders  benefited  from  the  implementation  of  the  UMP.  While  there  were  no  clear 
majorities of answers to a very large or large extent, some indicative views where available. 
For example, some respondents thought that local and national authorities benefited to some 
extent, along with citizens and mobility services providers.   

To  what  extent  do  you  believe  that  the  following  stakeholders  have  benefited  from  the  implementation  of  the 
Urban Mobility Package? (n=15) 

The  respondents  were  asked  if  their  organisation  incurred  any  costs  related  to  the 
implementation of the measures under the UMP. A small majority (54%) answered that their 
organisation has incurred costs. the respondents were asked to indicate which statements best 
describes  the  relation  between  the  implementation  cost  of  the  UMP  measures  and  their 
associated  benefits.  Overall,  most  of  the  statements  highlighted  that  implementation  costs 
were proportional to the benefits 

5.  Coherence 

The next section asked three main questions under the evaluation criterion of coherence. The 
first  of  these  questions  asked  to  what  extent  the  respondents  believed  that  the  UMP  is 
complementary and coherent across a range of EU initiatives as TEN-T, Erasmus+ and others. 
Overall  most  of  the  EU  initiatives  listed  gathered  some  degree  of  support  for  them  being 
complementary  to  the  UMP,  with  the  most  complementary  being  the  “Mobility  package: 
Sustainable  Mobility  for  Europe:  safe,  connected,  and  clean”.  No  areas  gathered  significant 
support that they are in conflict with one another. 

The respondents  were asked if they think that the SUMPs  in  their Member State have been 
integrated  with  other  local  policies.  While  no  majorities  were  observed,  there  was  a  slit 
between those that answered “yes” and those that answered that they do not know.  

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
In a follow-up question, the respondents were asked to specify which local policies contained 
synergies with the SUMPs. From the three participants which provided answers, the following 
local  policies  where  listed:  transport  organisation  and  the  operation  of  environmentally 
friendly  

When  it  comes  to  external  coherence  EGUM  surveyed  the  external  UMP  coherence  with 
other  policy  documents.  In  general,  the  EGUM  members  saw  a  large  coherence  between 
related European directives and initiatives. However, on the European TEN-T regulation and 
UN  conference  on  housing  and  sustainable  urban  development  were  indicated  to  show  less 
coherence.  

EGUM survey responses for external UMP coherence with selected policy documents 

Note: the size of the bubble represents the numbers stated beside it. 

6.  EU Added Value 

The final section in the survey contained two questions under the evaluation criterion of “EU 
added value” which seeks to explore the value from intervention from the EU compared to no 
intervention.  The  first  of  the  two  questions  asked  the  respondents  to  specify  to  what  extent 
they agree with a series of statements. Overall, the areas the statements that gathered the most 
support with those that agree to a very large/ large extent were: 

• 

• 

• 

Withdrawing  EU  support  would  negatively  affect  the  exchange  of  best  practices 
and experiences in the field of urban mobility. 

Withdrawing  EU  support  would  slow  down  innovation  due  to  the  lack  of  EU 
financing and support 

Withdrawing  EU  support  would  lead  to  a  slower  implementation  of  public 
mobility projects due to the lack of EU financing and support 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  final  question  of  the  survey  the  respondents  were  asked  to  share  any  relevant  national, 
regional and local studies and data that would be useful for the purposes of the evaluation, to 
which  two  respondents  provided  information.  The  most  pertinent  example  which  was 
provided was the sustainable development strategy for transport by 2030, which was adopted 
by the Council of Ministers in Poland. 

Targeted interviews  

European institutions and agencies 

This category consisted of five interviews from EU institutions and agencies. Overall, most of 
the interviews highlighted that all four areas of the UMP are relevant (urban logistics, urban 
ITS, urban road safety and urban access regulations).  
The  interviewees  agreed  that  there  has  been  an  improvement  in  how  challenges  to  urban 
mobility are addressed. The change rate however differs, from high (air quality) to low (urban 
road  safety).  The  most  salient  challenges  were  found  in  high  energy  consumption  and 
emissions from urban transport, poor air quality and health, limited accessibility, road safety 
accidents,  opportunities  and  incentives  for  businesses  to  develop  innovative  transport 
technologies and traffic congestion and its impact on wellbeing.  

National Authorities 

This category consisted of six interviews with four national authorities in the EU. Despite the 
low number of interviewees, there was a high level of detail provided. but are rather specific 
to their own Member State. On the relevance of the UMP and urban mobility more generally, 
similar  to  the  EU  level,  five  main  challenges  were  highlighted  funding,  political  focus  and 
strategy  at  national  and  EU  level,  capacity  and  coordination  from  planning  authorities, 
information and national/regional framework for urban mobility planning.  

Regional/ local authorities 

This  category  consisted  of  19  interviews  representing  four  Member  States.  Similar  to  the 
national  authorities  section  above,  these  interviews  cover  the  regional  and  local  authorities 
that were interviewed as part of four case studies. The raised challenges can be summarised in 
the following six areas: funding, capacity and coordination from planning authorities, political 
focus  and  strategy  at  national  level,  integration  of  mobility  issues  in  planning  approaches, 
national or regional framework for urban mobility planning and insufficient information.  

Overall, many of the interviews noted that there had been an improvement in urban mobility 
challenges since 2013, however the extent to which this was a result of the UMP was unclear. 
The ELTIS network, SUMPs and EU action were however stated as strong stimuli.  

Civil society at EU/national level 

This  category  consisted  of  14  interviews  representing  civil  society  at  the  EU/national  level. 
This  includes  European  networks,  national  bodies  and  national  representative  organisations. 
Compared to the other stakeholder groups, interviewees under this stakeholder group outlined 
five main challenges relating to the UMP and urban mobility more generally: political focus, 
information,  funding,  capacity  and  coordination  from  planning  authorities  and  conflicting 
social and environmental problems.  

The interviewees signalled a slow rate of rate of change for some challenges since 2013, but 
on the other hand an shift with regard to awareness of issues and rise in the political agenda. 
In general the UMP objectives were found to be relevant and effective. Improvement on the 
UMP  was  seen  on  specific  targets  (in  line  with  climate  and  energy  targets),  making  SUMP 

92 

 
 
mandatory,  empowering  local  authorities,  permanently  implementing  measures  from  the 
European Mobility week and modification of the EGUM role.  

Civil society at local/ city-level 

This  category  consisted  of  12  interviews  representing  civil  society  at  the  local/  city  level 
which  includes  local  NGOs  and  representatives  of  transport  users.  In  this  stakeholder 
category,  most  salient  of  challenges  were  found  in  capacity  and  coordination  for  urban 
mobility  planning,  political  will  and  focus  from  national  politicians,  clear  allocation  of 
responsibilities across different levels of governance and funding. :  

Overall,  the  objectives  of  the  UMP  were  found  to  be  relevant  by  most  of  the  interviewees, 
with  most  value  through  the  development  of  SUMP  guidelines.  Where  the  UMP  could 
improve  is  through  establishing  clear  rules  and  economic  incentives  to  assist  the  transition 
towards sustainable mobility.  

Private sector actors at EU/national level 

This  category  consisted  of  four  interviews  representing  public/  private  sector  actors  at  the 
EU/national  level  which  includes  (but  is  not  exclusive  to)  mobility  service  providers, 
technology  innovators  and  infrastructure  developers.  In  terms  of  the  challenges  that  were 
raised,  four  main  factors  were  highlighted:  technological  constraints,  lack  of  funding, 
fragmented  institutional  response  to  urban  mobility  and  coordination  and  capacity  from 
planning authorities.  

Overall, most of the interviewees noted that the UMP objectives are still relevant and partially 
effective  in  addressing  urban  mobility  issues.  Several  areas  were  highlighted  by  the 
interviewees  where  improvements  could  be  made  by  the  UMP.  Specifically,  the  creation  of 
frameworks and measures for specific cities would help  smaller areas develop  and integrate 
urban mobility measures better. This is also coupled with the idea that a clearer policy focus 
which includes clear objectives to tackle environmental issues (e.g. air pollution) should be a 
priority.  

Public/private sector actors at city-level 

The  final  stakeholder  group  pertains  to  public/  private  sector  actors  at  the  city  level  and 
included seven interviews. This group consisted of sub-stakeholder groups such as urbanism 
agencies and public transport operators. In a similar vein to the previous stakeholder groups, 
several  challenges  were  highlighted  in  relation  to  the  UMP  and  urban  mobility  more 
generally: clear allocation of responsibilities, changing societal thinking regarding sustainable 
mobility, capacity and coordination and information.  

Despite  these  challenges  the  majority  of  interviewees  noted  that  they  had  observed  an 
improvement  in  urban  mobility  since  2013.  In  relation  to  the  UMP  pillars,  most  of  the 
interviewees noted that they are still relevant, partially effective and addressing current needs.  

With regards to the UMPs overall objective and its contribution to urban mobility across the 
EU,  several  interviewees  noted  that  it  is  not  only  relevant,  but  it  had  also  contributed  to 
reaching their own objectives at the city level. This was seen through the specific EU tools at 
the  regional  and  local  levels  and  the  increase  in  transport  infrastructure  investments.  Two 
areas were highlighted where the UMP could improve: providing an overarching strategy for 
coordination between different governance levels and providing financial incentives for urban 
mobility projects to increase uniformity.  

93 

 
 
 
Open public consultation  

The  European  Commission  designed  and  carried  out  an  Open  Public  Consultation  (OPC) 
regarding  urban  mobility  in  the  EU.  The  OPC  was  launched  on  11th  September  2019  and 
remained open for responses until 4th of December 2019. While a total of 207 responses were 
received,  not  all  of  the  respondents  completed  all  of  the  questions,  therefore  each  of  the 
questions  have  their  own  response  rates  indicated  by  “N=”.  In  terms  of  the  differences 
between stakeholders, each question will outline the main differences and similarities between 
the different groups. For open questions, due to the way in which the written responses were 
coded, greater detail is provided on the specific number of respondents per theme. The OPC 
consisted of 18 questions.  

The following sections set out the analysis of all the responses in line with the structure of the 
questionnaire and in the following order: 

Profiling Questions 

Respondents  were  able  to  complete  the  survey  in  any  EU  language.  The  majority  choose 
English. Respondents were asked to indicate the type of stakeholder group they represent. The 
largest group identified was ‘EU Citizens’ followed by ‘company/business organisation’. The 
majority of the respondents operate at either the regional or local level. Seven out of the 26 
responses indicated that they operate at the national level while only three operate at the local 
level. Responses were gathered from 26 different countries. This includes 24 out of the 28 EU 
Member States 

General Questions on EU urban mobility policy  

This  chapter  opened  with  views  on  the  key  challenges  related  to  urban  mobility.  The 
systematic analysis identified eight key challenges. The most salient challenge was the “lack 
of efficient public transportation systems (67%). This was followed by three other challenges 
(Car  centric  society,  creating  accessible  infrastructure  and  tackling  pollution).  Other 
challenges were the accountancy for technological advancements, improving safety in urban 
transport systems, political challenges in urban mobility and the creation of gender balance in 
planning decisions.  

In  the  second  question,  the  respondents  were  asked  on  a  four-point  scale  from  “very 
important” to “not important” how important it is to have an urban mobility policy at the EU 
level. Overall, the vast majority of responses indicated that an urban mobility policy at the EU 
level is “very important”. 

Question three asked the respondents to highlight their agreement or disagreement with five 
statements that referred to specific problems related to urban mobility. The greatest agreement 
across all 207 respondents was that “road congestion” had increased.  

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements that refer to problems you encountered 
over the last 5 years (2014-2019) in the city or town you live /work/study in? (N=207) 

94 

 
 
In question four, the respondents were asked to what extent the benefits of the urban mobility 
plan had been attained over the past five years. In general, the responses indicate that the view 
is that the benefits have only been obtained “moderately” or “not at all” in the last five years.  

Following  on  from  the  previous  question  on  the  benefits  attained  in  the  last  five  years, 
question five asked to what extent the costs of the urban mobility policy were justified given 
the benefits that could be achieved. Overall, the majority of responses indicated that the costs 
were “fully justified” 

In  question  six,  the  respondents  were  asked  to  share  their  views  on  whether  “leaving  to 
local/national  level  the  choice  of  suitable  measures  is  more  effectively  addressing  the 
problems  at  local  level?”  or  if  it  leads  to  “divergent  policies  and  further  fragment  the 
respective markets?”. From the responses, five main themes emerged: The need for decisions 
to be made at the EU level, the need for decisions to be made at the local level, the need for a 
clear overarching strategy, divergence caused  

While  the  respondents  in  the  previous  themes  outlined  their  views  on  whether  local  issues 
should be treated at the local level, a smaller part of the respondents provided answers that did 
not  outline  a  binary  answer  but  instead  provided  the  view  that  there  needs  to  be  a  clear 
overarching  strategy  to  deal  with  local  issues.  It  is  important  to  mention  that  while  this 
overarching  strategy  would  most  likely  originate  from  the  EU  or  national  authorities,  the 
respondents did not always explicitly state this. by decisions at the local level and the need for 
decisions to be made at the national level. 

Following the question on the effectiveness of urban mobility measures, question seven asked 
whether these measures are still relevant given the recent developments and changes. Out of 
the eight measures that were identified, the majority of responses indicated that they were all 
relevant,  be  it  being  “fully  relevant”  or  “substantially  relevant”.  The  measure  on  “EU 
financial support” gained the greatest support. 

Sustainable urban mobility plans  

This  section  questions  the  concept  of  sustainable  urban  mobility  plans  (SUMP).  Questions 
included awareness of the concept, effectiveness and EU involvement.  

95 

 
 
 
To start, respondents were asked how familiar they were with the concept of sustainable urban 
mobility planning. Overall, a large amount of responses indicated that they are “very familiar 
with the concept of SUMPS”. Following on from the previous question on the familiarity of 
the concept of SUMPs, next question asked whether the respondents were aware of a SUMP 
being prepared or implemented in their town or city. 56 % of the respondents indicated that 
they were aware of a SUMP being implemented in their town or city. When asked about the 
effectiveness of the SUMP as a mechanism to plan and deliver sustainable urban mobility at a 
city  level,  the  majority  of  respondents  indicated  that  they  agree  that  it  is  an  effective 
mechanism. 

Do  you  agree  that  the  SUMP  is  an  effective  mechanism  to  plan  and  deliver  sustainable  urban  mobility  at  a  city  level? 
(N=176) 

Coordinating public and private intervention  

The respondents were asked on a four-point scale from “very important” to “don’t know” how 
important they considered EU involvement across four coordinating public and private sector 
interventions.  In  general,  all  of  the  four  interventions  gathered  support.  In  particular,  the 
intervention to  “disseminate  good practice  examples for  road safety  planning”,  gathered the 
greatest support. 

Reinforcing EU support  

This  chapter  inquires  to  the  reinforcement  of  EU  support  in  delivering  sustainable  urban 
mobility  plans.  The  first  question  asked  to  what  extent  the  support  from  the  EU  is  in 
achieving  successful  local  action  in  urban  mobility.  Overall,  the  responses  indicate  that  the 
support from the EU is relevant. “Providing targeted financial support” gathered the greatest 
support with answering “very important”, when asked about EU involvement. From a list of 
eight approaches on EU involvement, the approach where the “EU should support the share of 
experiences…” gathered the greatest support with 160 out of 207 answering “fully agree”. 

Further information 

Finally, respondents were given the opportunity to provide further comments within the scope 
of the questionnaire. In total, 66 responses were provided and from analysis, six main views 
were identified: 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
-  The EU needs to take more of a pro-active approach to urban mobility 

-  Public transport and more sustainable modes of travel should be encouraged in urban 

mobility plans 

-  Tackling climate change and protecting the environment should be a priority 

-  Safety needs to be central to all urban mobility plans 

-  Equal representation for all citizens 

-  There needs to be a greater sense of urgency across all levels of governance on urban 

mobility.

97 

 
 
ANNEX 3: METHODOLOGY: RECONSTRUCTED INTERVENTION LOGIC AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS MATRIX 

Annex 3a. Reconstructed intervention logic 

Root causes 

Drivers 

Problems 

Consequences 

Lacking or low 

capacity of public 

Approaches to urban 

mobility by national 

authorities, including 

and/or local 

Chronic traffic 
congestion leading to 
negative impacts on :  
(1) citizens =>poor 
accessibility, risks to 
safety and well-
being/health 
(2) Business=>loss of 
productivity and 
competiveness of 
urban economies, 
inefficiencies in 
logistics opportunities 
for business to 
develop innovative 
transport and 
mobility technologies 
and services 
(3)environment poor 
air quality, increased 
GHG emissions and 
noise 

General 
objectives : 
EU/MS level 

Contribute to 
development 
of a 
resource-
efficient and 
competitive 
and clean 
transport 
system 

Specific/ 
operational 
objectives: 
local & regional 
level 

Provide EU urban 
areas with a policy 
framework 
encompassing all 
policy issues 
necessary to ensure 
an integrated 
approach to urban 
mobility, at the 
latest by 2020 

Provide EU urban 
areas with a 
governance 
framework 
encompassing all 
procedures and 
processes necessary 
to ensure an 
integrated approach 
to urban mobility, at 
the latest by 2020 

authorities are not 

always integrated in 

terms of  

- (1) policy making 

- (2) prodecures and 

processes  

Mobility 
within cities 
is 
increasingly 
inefficient 
and un-
sustainable 

Car-oriented 

communities (due to 

legacy, lobbies, state 

policies, individual 

behavioral choices, 

etc) 

insufficient 

knowledge of the 

urban mobility 

concept and 

scientific state of the 

art 

Little political will or 

interest 

Scarce funding (for 

planning and 

implementations of 

actions) 

Fragmented and/or 

conservative urban 

planning traditions 

coupled with lack of 

coordination 

between public and 

private actors 

More logistics operations due to 

concentration of population and business activities 

business trends and technological 

in cities, which also leads to frequent and close 

developments 

interaction between unprotected / vulnerable road 

Limited availability of urban road space – increased 

98 

users and motorized road users. 

Output / 
measures 

Encourage uptake 
of an integrated 
urban mobility 
approach 
translated into 
sustainable 
mobility plans 
(SUMP) by EU 
urban areas 

Coordinating 
public and private 
sector 
intervention, in 
particular in the 
following areas : 
(1) improve urban 
logistics 
operations  
(2) smarter urban 
access regulation 
and road user 
charges (UVARs) 
(3) coordinated 
deployment of 
urban ITS 
(4) enhance 
urban road safety 

Expected 

results 

Reduce transport 

emissions and energy 

consumption in urban 

and peri-urban 

Reduce urban congestion 

and improve accessibility 

for passengers and 

freight 

Contribute to modal shift 

towards more sustainable 

modes (public transport, 

walking, cycling, shared 

mobility solutions). 

Create business 

opportunities for 

developing innovative 

transport and mobility 

services 

Improve quality of life in 

cities 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Annex 3b : Evaluation questions matrix 

Final evaluation question matrix 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

1. 

RELEVANCE 

To what extent do the 
original objectives of 
the UMP still 
correspond to the 
current needs of 
stakeholders? 

1.1.  What have been the developments 
since 2013 in the following areas of 
problems relating to urban mobility: 

o  energy consumption and emissions 

from urban transport 

o  air quality and health 

o 

traffic congestion and impacts on 
wellbeing of citizens/effectiveness 
of businesses 

o  accessibility 

o 

safety/accidents, especially 
vulnerable users 

o  opportunities/ incentives for 

businesses to develop innovative 
transport technologies and services 

1.2.  To what extent is there still a need to 
support local and national authorities 
to develop and implement efficient and 
appropriate urban mobility 
approaches? 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

 

The problems addressed by 
the UMP are still relevant, as 
evidenced by: 

Quantitative indicators of the evolution of 
key issues at EU/MS/regional/city level since 
2013, i.e.: 

  Energy consumption and GHG emissions 

from urban transport 

  Air pollutant emissions  

  Noise levels 

  Congestion (congestion costs; TomTom 

congestion index)  

  Accessibility indicators (e.g. time to work, 

difficulty of access to good public transport) 

  Safety (e.g. number of accidents / fatalities 
involving vulnerable road users in urban 
areas) 

  Modal shares  

  Accessibility to public transport for persons 
with mobility issues or indicators on the 
level of public transport 

Qualitative indicators:  

  Perception of stakeholders on importance of 

addressing problems (ranking)  

Quantitative indicators: 

  Share of MS with National, regional, local 

policies and frameworks for urban mobility 
planning  

  Number and type of financial instruments 
available to support implementation of 
urban mobility approaches (at EU level and 
at MS level, at least for the case studies) 

 

 

 

  Estimate of volume of funds available 

  Desk review including 

Eurostat data 

 

Analysis of the evaluation 
baseline 

  OPC  

 

 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

  Desk review including 

Eurostat data 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

Qualitative indicators: 

  Perception of stakeholders on prevalence of 

 

Survey 

  Open Public Consultation 

o  Quantitative indicators 
show that trends have 
remained similar or 
worsened 

o  Stakeholders’ opinion on 
how to prioritise the 
problems to be 
addressed by EU policy 

 

 

The quantitative and 
qualitative indicators show 
that there is still a need to 
support local and national 
authorities 

The following drivers are 
identified leading to identified 
problems in cities (as 
identified in the evaluation 
TOR Intervention Logic) either 
by the stakeholders or from 
the analysis of other data 
collected: 

o 

Lack of political focus and 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

1.3.  How have the needs of stakeholders 

changed since the adoption of the 
UMP? Needs relate in particular to the 
following aspects which can help local 
stakeholders address the problems 
(see Q1.1) and drivers (see Q1.2) 
relating to urban mobility: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Financial resources 

Human resources 

Organisational resources 

Information availability 

Political focus 

Regulatory support 

1.4.  Are there other new problems, drivers 
and needs limiting authorities and 
leading to inefficient or inappropriate 
planning approaches? 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

drivers 

  Perception on stakeholders on importance of 

drivers (ranking) 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

strategy  

Lack of a national or regional 
framework for urban mobility 
planning 

Lack of capacity and 
coordination from planning 
authorities 

Lack of funding 

Lack of integration of mobility 
issues in planning approaches 

Lack of information 

Complexity and variety of 
existing rules 

The needs addressed are still 
relevant, as evidenced by: 

Quantitative indicators  

o  Quantitative indicators 
show that trends have 
remained the same or 
worsened 

o  Desk review findings on 

needs of stakeholders 

o  Stakeholders’ opinion on 
how to prioritise the 
needs to be addressed 
by EU policy 

o  Stakeholders’ opinion on 
the potential new policy 
approaches needed to 
address needs 

 

Indicators (from Q1) show continuation or 
worsening of trends, indicating a clear 
need for adoption/revision of policy 
approaches on urban mobility. 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

 

 

Clear statements of needs in documentary 
evidence 
Perception of stakeholders on needs in 
relation to trends identified 
Perception of stakeholders on their own 
needs (ranking) 

 

N/A: Explorative 

 

N/A: Explorative 

  Desk review 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 

Survey 

  Open Public Consultation 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

 

Survey 

  Open Public Consultation 

  Desk review 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 

1.5.  To what extent are the specific 

objectives of the UMP (as identified in 
the intervention logic) still relevant to 
the identified problems, drivers and 
needs? In particular:  

  Desk review findings and 

perception of stakeholders 
confirm that the specific 
objectives of the UMP are 
aligned with current identified 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Level of alignment between specific 
objectives of the UMP and current 
problems identified. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

problems, drivers and needs. 

 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

Level of alignment between objectives of 
the UMP (and annexes) and current drivers 
identified 

 

 

Level of alignment between objectives of 
the UMP (and annexes) and current needs 
identified 

authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 

Survey 

  Open Public Consultation 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

o  Encouraging the uptake of integrated 

sustainable urban mobility approaches 
(SUMP) by EU urban areas 
encompassing a wide range of policy 
issues (i.e. urban access regulations, 
ITS, urban logistics, road safety) and 
applying a governance framework with 
adequate procedures and processes 

o  Providing support to cities to improve 
urban mobility and quality of life in 
cities 

These objectives aimed to contribute to: 

o  Reduced emissions and energy 

consumption 

o  Reduced congestion and better 

mobility along TEN-T 

o  Modal shift 

o  Improved quality of life in cities 

o  Business opportunities for developing 

innovative transport and mobility 
services 

o  Better-coordinated and effective 
implementation of urban policies 

2. 

To what extent are the 
various measures of 
the UMP still relevant, 
given the recent 
political, societal, 
regulatory and 
technological 
developments? 

2.1.  What are the most important recent 

political, societal, regulatory and 
technological developments at EU and 
national level that have a link to urban 
mobility? 

  N/A Descriptive 

Quantitative indicators and descriptors of 

new developments since 2013, inter alia 

  economic (e-commerce statistics, mobility 
as a service, shared economy in relation to 
mobility), 

  political (policy agendas on climate, energy, 
digitalisation, road safety, public transport 
development, etc.),  

  societal (urbanisation trends leading to 
population rise and population density 
limiting the availability of urban space, 
changes in mobility behaviour leading to 
modal shifts),  

  regulatory (increase in transport and 

mobility regulation (as evidenced in Q4 and 
Q5)),  

 

technological (digitalisation trends including 
internet of things, automation, new 

  Desk research: including 

Eurostat data 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis of the evaluation 
baseline 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies  

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

Survey 

Case-studies 

101 

 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

propulsion systems including e-mobility) 

Qualitative indicator: 

  Perception of stakeholders on main trends 
with a link to urban mobility (ranking) 

2.2.  To what extent are the measures of 

the UMP still relevant given the most 
important recent political, societal, 
regulatory and technological 
developments? 

  The UMP measures are still 

Qualitative indicators: 

relevant to address needs 
arising from recent 
developments identified in 
Q2.1. 

  There are no clear gaps 

between UMP measures and 
recent developments 
identified in Q2.1. 

  Alignment between UMP measures and 

recent developments identified 

  Perception of stakeholders on whether UMP 
is still relevant given recent developments 
(Q2.1) 

2.3.  To what extent are the 4 areas 

targeted in the UMP in 2013 (UVAR, 
logistics, ITS, road safety) still relevant 
given the most important recent 
political, societal, regulatory and 
technological developments? 

  The four areas are still 

relevant to address needs 
arising from recent 
developments identified in 
Q2.1. 

  There are no clear gaps 

between the four areas and 
recent developments 
identified in Q2.1. 

Qualitative indicators: 

  Alignment between the four areas and 

recent developments identified 

  Perception of stakeholders on whether the 
four areas are still relevant given recent 
developments (Q2.1) 

  Desk research: including 

Eurostat data 

 

 

 

 

 

Analysis of the evaluation 
baseline 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies  

Survey 

Case-studies 

  Desk research 

 

 

 

 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies  

Survey 

Case-studies 

2.4.  Would other areas than the 4 

mentioned in 2013 in the UMP (UVAR, 
logistics, ITS, road safety) be relevant 
given the problems, drivers and needs 
identified? 

  N/A Explorative 

  N/A Explorative 

  Desk research 

 

 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies  

 

Survey 

  Open Public Consultation 

 

Case-studies 

EFFECTIVENESS 

102 

 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

3. 

To what extent has the 
UMP contributed 
towards a more 
competitive and 
resource efficient 
urban mobility in the 
EU? 

3.1.  To what extent are the specific 

objectives/outcomes of the UMP being 
achieved, as identified in the 
intervention logic? 

  Reduced emissions and energy 

consumption 

  Reduced congestion and better mobility 

along TEN-T 

  Modal shift 
  Improved quality of life in cities 
  Business opportunities for developing 
innovative transport and mobility 
services 

  Better-coordinated and effective 
implementation of urban policies 

3.2.  To what extent have the measures of 
the UMP been implemented as 
intended since 2013, by the EU and by 
Member States? 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

  Quantitative indicators show 

that problems have decreased 
and positive trends in line with 
the UMP objectives can be 
observed compared to the 
baseline since 2013. 

 

Stakeholders make a clear link 
between the UMP and the 
trends observed 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

Quantitative indicators: 

 

Evolution of quantitative indicators since 
2013 (see the table on outcome indicators 
and sources included in the Inception 
Report) 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Perception of stakeholders on the UMP 
contribution to achieving each objective 

  Desk review 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 

Survey 

 

Actions have been 
implemented at planned by 
the EU 

  Member States have 

implemented the actions 
relevant to their context and 
needs 

Quantitative indicators: 

 

 

Summary of actions implemented by the 
EU 
Summary of actions implemented by 
Member States 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Perception of stakeholder on the whether 
EU and Member States have implemented 
actions as intended in the UMP 

  Desk review 

 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies  

 

Survey 

  Open Public Consultation 

3.3.  To what extent have the measures of 
the UMP made progress towards their 
objectives and delivered the expected 
outputs and results? 

There is a clear link between the 
results obtained for each measure 
and its expected outputs and 
results as illustrated in the 
Intervention Logic 

(Indicators stated per measure) 

Measures of the EU: 

SUMPs: 

50% of cities developed SUMP 

 

Increasing temporal trend in SUMP 
uptake  

Share of cities which have developed a 
SUMP, are in the process of developing a 
SUMP, or do not have one (per year and 
overall), per MS and size 

  Desk review: Eltis; The 
Status of SUMPs in EU 
Member States (CIVITAS 
2020 report, July 2018) 

 

Survey 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

All case study cities use concepts 
comparable to the EU SUMP 
concepts as a model for their 
SUMP. 

Stakeholders’ opinions on the 
extent to which SUMP 
implementation led to the 
materialisation of impacts in cities 

N/A explorative 

The European Platform on 
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans is 
used across all EU Member States 

Resources have been uploaded to 
the Platform across all areas of the 
UMP 

Resources available on the 
platform have been downloaded 
which cover all areas of the UMP 

70% of surveyed respondents 
identify the European Platform on 
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans 
as Very Useful / Useful 

Consulted stakeholders’ opinion 
regarding the usefulness of the 
European Platform on Sustainable 
Urban Mobility Plans 

N/A explorative 

70% of surveyed respondents 
identify support provided to 
national regional and local 
authorities with respect to SUMPs 
as Very Useful / Useful 

Consulted stakeholders’ opinion 
regarding the usefulness of the 
support provided to national 
regional and local authorities with 

104 

 

 

 

 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

Compliance of SUMPs adopted after 2013 
with the concepts laid down in the UMP 

 

Case studies 

Perceived positive impacts of SUMPs on 
expected outcomes 

  Desk review 

 
 

 

Case studies 

Survey 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

The European Platform on Sustainable 
Urban Mobility Plans was created 

  Desk review: Eltis 

Use (visits, downloads, uploads) of the 
European Platform on Sustainable Urban 
Mobility Plans  

  Desk review: Eltis 
 

Consultations with Eltis 
managers 

 

Perceived usefulness of the European 
Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility 
Plans 

 

 
 

Case studies 

Survey 
Interviews 

 

 

Volume of financial support provided to 
national, regional and local authorities with 
respect to SUMPs 

Perceived usefulness of the support 
provided to national regional and local 
authorities with respect to SUMPs 

  Desk review: Support 
study on ex-post 
evaluation of EU financial 
support to sustainable 
urban mobility and to the 
use of alternative fuels in 
the EU urban areas 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Survey 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

respect to SUMPs 

N/A explorative 

70% of surveyed respondents are 
aware of the existence of practical 
assistance guidelines on how to 
improve urban logistics 
performance 

70% of surveyed respondents who 
are aware of the existence of 
practical assistance guidelines on 
how to improve urban logistics 
performance (see previous 
criterion) also use the guidelines 

Consulted stakeholders’ opinion 
regarding the usefulness of 
practical assistance guidelines on 
how to improve urban logistics 
performance 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

Coordinating public and private-sector intervention: More action on Urban 
Logistics: 

 

 

 

Existence of guidance documents 
developed which provide practical 
assistance on how to improve urban 
logistics performance 

Awareness of practical assistance 
guidelines on how to improve urban 
logistics performance 

Use of practical assistance guidelines on 
how to improve urban logistics 
performance 

  Desk review 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

Case studies 

Survey 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

Case studies 
Survey 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

Targeted interviews with 
EU institutions and 
agencies 

N/A explorative 

 

Number of procurement programmes of 
clean vehicles used for urban logistics 

N/A explorative 

70% of surveyed respondents are 
aware of the existence of 
guidance documents to help cities 

105 

Coordinating public and private-sector intervention: Smarter Urban Access 
Regulations and Road User Charging: 

 

 

Existence of guidance documents to help 
cities implement access regulation 
schemes 

Awareness of the guidance documents to 
help cities implement access regulation 
schemes 

 

 

 

 
 

 

Case studies 

Survey 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

Case studies 

Survey 

Targeted interviews with 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

implement access regulation 
schemes 

70% of surveyed respondents who 
are aware of the existence of 
guidance documents to help cities 
implement access regulation 
schemes (see previous criterion) 
also use the guidance 

Consulted stakeholders’ opinion 
regarding the usefulness of 
guidance documents to help cities 
implement access regulation 
schemes 

N/A explorative 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

 

Use of the guidance documents to help 
cities implement access regulation 
schemes 

 

Number of UVAR put in place since 2013 

national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

 
 

 

Case studies 

Survey 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

  Desk review 
Case studies 
 

 

 

Survey 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

N/A explorative 

N/A explorative 

N/A explorative 

Coordinated Deployment of Urban Intelligent Transport Systems: 

 

 

 

Number of new pieces of legislation on 
access to traffic and travel data at EU level 

  Desk review 

Number of specifications at EU level on 
Real-Time Traffic Information and 
Multimodal Information Services, as 
foreseen under the framework of the ITS 
Directive 

  Desk review 

Level of deployment of vehicle to vehicle 
and vehicle to infrastructure 
communication systems in urban areas  

  Desk review  

 

Case studies 

Urban road safety: 

70% of interviewed local 
authorities are aware of good 
practice examples for road safety 
planning 

70% of interviewed local 
authorities who are aware of good 
practice examples for road safety 
planning also use these examples 
as inspiration 

 

 

106 

Awareness of good practice examples for 
road safety planning 

 

 

Case studies 

Interviews with local 
authorities 

Use of good practice examples for road 
safety planning 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

N/A explorative 

70% of surveyed stakeholders 
consider a future Urban Mobility 
Scoreboard (SUMI – sustainable 
urban mobility indicators) as a 
relevant resource to have 

Consulted stakeholders’ opinion 
regarding the usefulness of a 
future Urban Mobility Scoreboard 
(SUMI – sustainable urban 
mobility indicators) 

70% of surveyed stakeholders are 
aware of the existence of the 
Member States’ Expert Group on 
Urban Mobility and Transport 

70% of consulted stakeholders 
who are aware of the Member 
States’ Expert Group on Urban 
Mobility and Transport consider 
the EGUM to be useful as it 
contributes to: 

 

 

Exchange of best practices 
and experiences 
Improved cooperation and 
coordination between cities, 
industry 

  Strengthened capacities of 
local authorities to develop 
and implement SUMPs 
Improved territorial 
cohesion 

 

N/A explorative 

N/A explorative 

N/A explorative 

107 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

 

Number of reports at EU level analysing 
measures for reducing the number of 
serious road traffic injuries in urban areas 

  Desk review 

Reinforcing EU support: Sharing experiences, showcasing best-practices, and 
fostering cooperation: 

  Opinions of intended future users 
regarding a future Urban Mobility 
Scoreboard (SUMI – sustainable urban 
mobility indicators) 

 
 
 

Case studies 

Survey 

Interviews 

 

 

 

 

 

Awareness of the existence of the Member 
States’ Expert Group on Urban Mobility and 
Transport  

Perceived usefulness of the Member States’ 
Expert Group on Urban Mobility and 
Transport in contributing to the expected 
outputs and results 

 
 

 

 
 

 

Case studies 

Survey 

Interviews 

Case studies 

Survey 

Interviews with Member 
States authorities 

Number of cities taking part in CIVITAS 

  Desk research: CIVITAS 

Share of cities taking part in CIVITAS per 
total cities in each MS 

 

Consultations with CIVITAS 
organisers 

Number of CIVITAS projects on urban 
mobility innovation, split per MS 

  Desk research: CIVITAS 
 

Consultations with CIVITAS 
organisers 

 

Number of CIVITAS events annually  

  Desk research: CIVITAS 

 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

N/A explorative 

70% of consulted stakeholders 
who are aware of CIVITAS 
consider it to be useful as it 
contributes to: 

 

New urban mobility research 
and innovation in cities, with 
positive impacts 

N/A explorative 

N/A explorative 

50% of consulted city-level 
stakeholders confirm that the best 
practice examples inspired them to 
adapt their policies 

N/A explorative (extent to which 
common standards and technical 
specifications for innovative urban 
transport solutions at EU level) 

N/A explorative (extent to which 
there has been joint and clean 
procurement for innovative urban 
transport solutions) 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

 

Number of participants to CIVITAS events 
annually, by MS 

  Opinions regarding the impacts of CIVITAS 

 

 

Consultations with CIVITAS 
organisers 

Survey 

in cities 

Sharing experiences, showcasing best-practices, and fostering cooperation: 

 

 

 

Level of funding support attributed to 
URBACT 

Number of Working Groups created at EU 
level to discuss specific issues such as 
urban access regulations, urban logistics, 
ITS, or the Urban Mobility Scoreboard 

  Desk review 

 

Consultations with URBACT 
programme managers 

  Desk review 

Use of best practice examples by cities to 
get inspired and adapt their policies 

 

 

Survey 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

Focussing research and innovation on delivering solutions for urban mobility 
challenges: 

  Development of common standards and 

  Desk review 

technical specifications at EU level for 
innovative urban transport solutions 

 

Facilitation of joint and clean procurement 
for innovative urban transport solutions 

  Desk review 

Measures for the MS: 

70% of interviewed authorities are 
aware of the framework for 
supporting the development of 
clean, safe and efficient urban 
vehicles for rail and road 

 

 

70% of interviewed authorities 

Awareness of the framework for supporting 
the development of clean, safe and 
efficient urban vehicles for rail and road  

Use of the framework for supporting the 
development of clean, safe and efficient 
urban vehicles for rail and road  

 

 

 

Case studies 

Survey 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

 

Thematic interviews with 

108 

 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

who are aware of the framework 
for supporting the development of 
clean, safe and efficient urban 
vehicles for rail and road also use 
this framework 

N/A explorative 

N/A explorative 

70% of consulted stakeholders are 
aware of the European Urban 
Mobility Week 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

 

 

Rate of participation in the Smart Cities 
and Communities – the European 
Innovation Partnership per MS 

Number of urban mobility measures 
supported by ESI-funds 

civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 

  Desk review EIP-SCC 

website 

 

Consultations with EIP-SCC 
organisers 

  Desk review: Support 
study on ex-post 
evaluation of EU financial 
support to sustainable 
urban mobility and to the 
use of alternative fuels in 
the EU urban areas 

 

Case studies 

 

Awareness of the European Urban Mobility 
Week (among respondents) 

  Desk review: EU Urban 

Mobility Week evaluation 

Case studies 

Survey 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
stakeholders 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A explorative 

 

Participation in the European Urban 
Mobility Week (number of municipalities, 
population participation), development 
over the years. 

All Member States have cities 
taking part in the EMW 

  Distribution among Member States of 

participating cities 

N/A explorative 

 

Sustainability indicators from the EMW 
evaluation 

All case study cities which have 
deployed or are deploying ITS 

 

Cities use guidelines when key ITS 
applications are deployed in their 

 

Case studies 

Coordinated Deployment of Urban Intelligent Transport Systems:  

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 
applications in their conurbations 
use guidelines 

N/A explorative 

N/A explorative 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

conurbations 

 

 

Existence of interfaces between urban and 
surrounding interurban transport networks 
in cities 

 

Case studies 

Level of interoperability of multimodal 
datasets gathering all information about 
urban mobility 

 

Case studies 

Urban Road Safety:  

N/A explorative 

 

Amount of available data on road safety 
indicators 

  Desk review 

N/A explorative 

  Quality of data on road safety indicators 

  Desk review 

All consulted local authorities use 
data on road safety indicators 

 

Use of data on road safety indicators by 
local authorities 

 

Case studies 

3.4.  Which factors have contributed 

to/hindered the achievement of the 
objectives? 

 

Consistency and convergence 
in stakeholders’ opinions 

  Opinions of stakeholders on influencing 
factors hindering or contributing to 
achievement of objectives 

3.5.  Would the same outputs and results 
have been realised without the UMP? 

 

Extent to which evidence 
suggests that the UMP 
measures were necessary to 
the achievement of 
comparable outputs and 
results (see also questions on 
EU Added Value Q21,2). 

 

Identified counterfactual scenario 
(baseline)  

  Opinions of stakeholders on the possibility 
of having achieved the same outputs and 
results without the UMP 

4. 

To what extent have 
the concepts and tools 

4.1.  What actions have been taken by the 

Member States to actively promote 

 

Relevant concepts and tools 
developed at EU level have 

Qualitative indicators: 

110 

  Desk review 

 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

 

Survey 

  Desk review 

 

 

 

Baseline scenario 
assessment  

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

 

Survey 

  Desk review 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 
been actively promoted at 
regional and local level by the 
Member States 

 

The majority of responding 
stakeholders are aware of the 
different concepts and tools 
available at different levels 
(MS, regional, local)  

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

 

 

Identified channels of promotion and 
information (communications, campaigns, 
documents, etc.) 

Level of stakeholders’ awareness regarding 
the EU concepts and tools. 

  Geographical differences (=differences 
between the MS, and between the local 
levels within one MS) in promotion of EU 
level concepts and tools by the Member 
States  

 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 

Survey 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

developed at EU level 
been actively promoted 
at regional and local 
level by the Member 
States? To what extent 
have the concepts and 
tools developed at EU 
level led to an uptake 
of integrated urban 
mobility approaches in 
the Member States? 

concepts and tools developed at EU 
level at regional and local level? 

EU-level concepts and tools: 

SUMPs: 

 

 

 

SUMPs 

European Platform on Sustainable Urban 
Mobility Plans ELTIS 

Funding instruments and other support 
offered to develop SUMPs 

Coordinating public and private-sector 

intervention; More action on Urban Logistics: 

 

Urban logistics concepts, measures and 
best practice 

  Guidance documents that provide 

practical assistance on how to improve 
urban logistics performance 

 

Procurement of clean vehicles used for 
urban logistics 

Coordinating public and private-sector 

intervention; Smarter Urban Access 

Regulations and Road User Charging: 

 

Urban access regulations concepts, 
measures and best practice 

  Guidance to help cities implement access 

regulation schemes 

Urban road safety: 

 

Urban road safety concepts, measures 
and good practice 

  Data on road safety indicators 

Intelligent Transport Systems: 

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Transport Systems concepts, 
measures and good practice 

Traffic and travel data 

Real-Time Traffic Information and 
Multimodal Information Services 

Vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to 

111 

 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

infrastructure communication systems 

  Guidance of the Urban ITS Expert Group 

 

 

Interfaces between urban and interurban 
transport networks 

Interoperable multimodal datasets to 
gather information about UM 

Reinforcing EU support; Sharing experiences, 

showcasing best-practices, and fostering 

cooperation: 

  Member States’ Expert Group on Urban 

Mobility and Transport 

 

 

 

 

 

Framework for supporting the 
development of clean, safe and efficient 
urban vehicles for rail and road 

Framework for supporting the 
development of clean, safe and efficient 
urban vehicles for rail and road 

Targeted EU financial support 

EU research and innovation 

EU international cooperation 

4.2.  To what extent have the concepts and 
tools developed at EU level been used 
in urban mobility policies at local level? 

 

The majority of responding 
stakeholders and reviewed 
documentary evidence 
indicated which approaches 
are used and which ones are 
used most often.  

 

Answer to the previous question on use of 
concepts and tools. 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Identified geographical differences 
(=differences between the MS, and 
between the local levels within one MS) in 
UMP measures implemented by the 
Member States and regional authorities 

5.  How well does the 
allocation of 
responsibilities 
between the EU and 
Member States reflect 
the current needs and 
capacities at local 
level? 

5.1.  What are the current needs and 

capacities at local level with regard to 
the allocation of responsibilities 
between the EU and Member States? 

  N/A Explorative  

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Perception of stakeholders on needs and 
capacity (gaps) at local level with regard 
to the measures under the responsibility 
of the EU and Member States (ranking) 

112 

  Desk review 

 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Survey 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Desk review 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

5.2.  To what extent do responsibilities 

for the measures of the UMP from 
the EU (such as EU policy frameworks, 
guidance and standardisation; EU 
support such as ERDF funding; EU-
funded projects e.g. URBACT; EU 
information platforms and networks, 
etc.) effectively address current needs 
and capacities at local level? 

  Measures of the UMP from 
the EU adequately reflect 
the current needs and 
capacities at the local level.  

Qualitative indicators: 

  Alignment between the needs and the 
capacities of stakeholders at local level 
with respect to the UMP measures from 
the EU 

  Perceptions of stakeholders on whether 

measures of the UMP from the EU reflect 
well the needs and capacities at local 
level 

5.3.  To what extent do the measures of the 

UMP from the Member States and 
regional authorities (such as 
Member States’ Expert Group on Urban 
Mobility, national and regional 
approaches to Urban Mobility, 
cooperation platforms, monitoring of 
local implementation of mobility 
measures, etc.) reflect current needs 
and capacities at local level? 

  Measures of the UMP from 

the Member States and 
regional authorities 
adequately reflect the 
current needs and capacities 
at the local level.  

  Alignment between the needs and the 
capacities of stakeholders at local level 
with respect to the UMP measures from 
the Member States and regional 
authorities 

  Perceptions of stakeholders on whether 
measures of the UMP from the Member 
States and reginal authorities reflect well 
the needs and capacities at local level 

5.4.  To what extent could measures 

allocated between the EU, Member 
States and regional authorities have 
been allocated differently to better 
meet the needs and capacities of 
stakeholders at the local level? 

  N/A Explorative 

 

Identified gaps between local needs and 
capacities and UMP measures from the 
EU, the MS, regional authorities identified 
in Q3.2 and Q3.3. 

  Opinions of stakeholders on possibilities 

for improvements 

5.5.  Which actors or activities (other than 

under the institutional setting of the 
UMP) could address better the current 
needs and capacities at local level? 

  N/A Explorative 

  Stakeholders’ opinion on other actors or 
activities addressing current needs and 
capacities at local level better  

113 

 

Survey 

  Open Public Consultation 

  Desk review 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 

Survey 

  Open Public Consultation 

  Desk review 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 

Survey 

  Open Public Consultation 

  Desk review 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 

Survey 

  Open Public Consultation 

  Desk review 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

6. 

To what extent do 
Member State-, 
regional- and local-
level mobility 
approaches 
encompass the 
multiple action areas 
of the UMP in an 
integrated set of 
policies? 

N/A 

Judgement criterion: 

Quantitative indicators: 

 

The majority of responding 
stakeholders and reviewed 
documentary evidence agree 
that the used approaches led 
to development of integrated 
policies, i.e. all action areas of 
the UMP are implemented as 
an interlinked set of policies 
aiming towards common 
objectives at national level, 

 

 

 

Success criterion: 

Number of integrated national approaches 
to urban mobility as a share of all MS.  

Number of integrated national approaches 
to urban mobility at regional and local level 
as a share of regions and cities in the case 
studies 

Stakeholders’ opinion on development of 
integrated UM policies at local level 

 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 

Survey 

  Open Public Consultation 

  Desk review 

 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Survey 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

7. 

To what extent did the 
UMP contribute to the 
implementation of 
measures at national 
level? 

7.1.  To what extent did the UMP contribute 

to encouraging the development of 
national frameworks supportive of 
urban access regulation schemes, 
including urban road charging? As well 
as: 

 

 

 

 

 

LEZ 

Pedestrianised zones 

Loading/unloading zones 

Congestion zones 

Urban road access user charging 

7.2.  To what extent did the UMP contribute 
to ensuring coordinated deployment 
of ITS in urban areas on local level? In 
particular: 

 

(Real-time) Multimodal travel and traffic 

 

 

 

 

There are more cities that put 
in place integrated urban 
mobility policies at local level, 
compared to 2013. 

Stakeholder feedback and 
documentary evidence 
indicate that the UMP has 
contributed to encouraging 
the development of national 
frameworks supportive of 
urban access regulation 
schemes, including urban 
road charging to a large 
extent 

Local and regional authorities 
refer to national frameworks 
which helped them design, 
implement, and evaluate 
access regulation schemes in 
urban mobility approaches. 

Stakeholder feedback and 
documentary evidence 
indicate that the UMP has 
contributed ensuring 
coordinated deployment of 

114 

Qualitative indicators: 

  Desk research 

 

 

Share of stakeholders that confirm that the 
UMP contributed to the creation of national 
frameworks supportive of urban access 
regulation 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Share of stakeholders that confirm that 
that the UMP contributed to 
implementation of (more) access 
regulation schemes 

 

Survey 

Quantitative indicators: 

 

Share of MS that developed urban access 
regulation schemes, including urban road 
charging revised / designed after the UMP 

Qualitative indicators: 

  Desk research 

 

Share of stakeholders that confirm that 
that the UMP contributed to urban ITS 
integration within national sustainable 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 

 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

information 

 

Traffic management measures 

  Multimodal smart ticketing 

 

Enforcement through CCTV and ANPR 
technologies 

7.3.  To what extent did the UMP contribute 
to increasing the consideration of 
urban freight logistics in national 
approaches to SUMPs? In particular: 

 

 

 

 

Route optimisation 

Loading and unloading zones 

Better mode and vehicle selection 

Improved load factors 

7.4.  To what extent did the UMP contribute 
to ensuring coordination of road 
safety aspects in all steps of the 
SUMPs planning process on a local 
level? In particular: 

 

 

 

Education and training of road users 

Safety of vulnerable road users planning 

Emergency and post-injury services 

 

 

 

 

 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

ITS in urban areas to a large 
extent 

Local and regional transport 
authorities refer to national 
frameworks which helped 
them integrate ITS in urban 
mobility approaches. 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

urban mobility approaches  

 

Share of stakeholders that confirm that the 
UMP contributed to more and better 
implementation of coordinated deployment 
of ITS 

authorities 

 

Survey 

Quantitative indicators 

 

 

Share of national ITS deployment plans 
revised / designed after the UMP as a 
share of all MS  

Share of joint and public urban ITS 
procurement initiatives undertaken after 
the UMP 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

 

Share of stakeholders that confirm that the 
UMP contributed to urban logistics 
integration within national sustainable 
urban mobility approaches  

Share of stakeholders that confirm that the 
UMP contributed to more and better 
implementation of specific urban freight 
logistics measures 

Quantitative indicators 

 

 

Share of national frameworks as a share of 
all MS with proper consideration on urban 
freight logistics revised/designed after the 
UMP 

Number of platforms for cooperation, 
exchange of data and information training, 
etc., for all actors of urban logistics chains 
implemented after the UMP 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

 

Share of stakeholders that confirm that the 
UMP contributed to urban road safety 
regulation integration within national 
sustainable urban mobility approaches 

Share of stakeholders that confirm that the 
UMP contributed to more and better 
implementation of specific urban road 

  Desk research 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

 

Survey 

  Desk research 

 

 

Case studies 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

 

Survey 

Stakeholder feedback and 
documentary evidence 
indicate that the UMP has 
contributed to increasing the 
consideration of urban 
freight logistics in national 
approaches in SUMPs to a 
large extent 

Functioning of platforms for 
cooperation, exchange of data 
and information, training, etc., 
for all actors of urban logistics 
chains  

Local and regional transport 
authorities refer to national 
frameworks which helped 
them take consideration on 
urban freight logistics since 
introduction of the UMP 

Stakeholder feedback and 
documentary evidence 
indicate that the UMP has 
contributed to ensuring 
coordination of urban road 
safety aspects in the 
SUMPs planning process to 
a large extent. 

 

Local and regional transport 
authorities refer to national 

115 

 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

 

 

 

 

Use of modern road safety technologies 

Enforcement of road safety rules 

Safe infrastructure 

Safe vehicles 

8.1.  To what extent has the EU financing 
for urban mobility been used in the 
Member States at the local/regional 
level? 

Differentiating per funding programme: 

EU Structural and Investment Funds, 

Cohesion Fund,  

Horizon2020 (CIVITAS, TRIMIS, SETIS, 
EIT KICs, EIB EFSI, ELENA),  

Connecting Europe Facility,  

European Fund for Strategic Investment,  

8. 

To what extent has the 
EU financing for urban 
mobility in 2014-2020 
[EU Structural and 
Investment Funds, 
Cohesion Fund, 
Horizon2020 (CIVITAS, 
TRIMIS, SETIS, EIT 
KICs, EIB EFSI, 
ELENA), Connecting 
Europe Facility, 
European Fund for 
Strategic Investment, 
LIFE] been effective in 
delivering the expected 
results of the UMP 
measures?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.  Have there been any 

9.1.  Have there been any unintended 

unintended positive or 
negative effects of the 
UMP? 

negative or positive results or impacts 
from the measures of the UMP? 

LIFE. 

Success criteria: 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 
frameworks which helped 
them take consideration on 
road safety aspects in the 
SUMPs planning process. 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

safety regulations 

Quantitative indicators: 

 

 

Share of reviewed SUMPS with 
consideration of road safety aspects in the 
SUMPs  

Evidence of road safety data being 
collected and used for local analysis and 
road safety planning (in case study cities) 

Judgement criteria: 

Quantitative indicators: 

 

 

Volume of funds committed for the 
implementation of UMP related measures, 
per funding programme 

Volume of funds used for the 
implementation of UMP related measures, 
per funding programme 

  Distribution between Member States of 

funding (if feasible), size of cities etc. 

 

Share of cities responding to survey that 
used ESIF funding to implement UMP 
measures 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Stakeholders’ opinion on EU funding 
programmes contribution to delivering UMP 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

 

 

Evidence of negative unintended results or 
impacts of the measures of the UMP 

Evidence of positive unintended results or 
impacts of the measures of the UMP 

Stakeholders’ opinions on whether the 
measures of the UMP have had negative or 
positive unintended effects 

  Desk research  

o  results of evaluations of 
the funds mentioned 
Support study on ex-post 
evaluation of EU financial 
support to sustainable 
urban mobility and to the 
use of alternative fuels in 
the EU urban areas 

 

 

Case studies 

Survey 

  Desk research  

 

 

 

 

 

Case studies 

Survey 

Targeted interviews with 
national, regional and local 
authorities 

Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies  

 

 

Stakeholder feedback and 
documentary evidence 
positively conclude that EU 
financing for urban mobility 
contributed to delivering 
expected results of the UMP 

EU financing for urban 
mobility has been used to 
finance urban mobility 
programmes and projects at 
local/regional level 

 

 

 

 

High level of usage of EU 
funding programmes for 
implementing UMP measures  

Reported ease in accessing EU 
funds and in implementing 
EU-funded projects. 

Judgement criteria: N/A 
(Explorative) 

Success criterion: no 
unintended effects have 
hindered the achievement of 
the objectives of the UMP 

116 

 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

EFFICIENCY 

10.  How efficiently were 

the UMP measures 
implemented? 

10.1.  What benefits have been achieved to 
date for different stakeholders?  

 

N/A Exploratory 

10.2.  What costs have been placed on 

different categories of stakeholders? In 
particular for: 

 

N/A Descriptive  

o  local and regional authorities regarding 
preparation and implementation and 
the measures, and  

o  for others when it comes to the impact 

of implemented measures? 

117 

Quantitative indicators  

  Outputs and results from implemented 

measures under the four pillars, (identified 
in Q4, Q7 and Q8) have benefited to 
specific stakeholders: 

o  SUMPs 

o  Reinforcing EU support 

o  Engagement of Member States 

o  Coordinating public and private sector 

intervention 

  Distribution of outputs and results among 

the different stakeholders. 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Stakeholder opinions on the benefits to 
different stakeholders stemming from the 
four pillars: 

o  SUMPs 

o  Reinforcing EU support 

o  Engagement of Member States 

o  Coordinating public and private sector 

intervention 

Quantitative indicators: 

 

Costs (EUR) associated with the 
preparation and implementation of 
individual UMP measures, including: 

o  costs to the Member States, regions and 

cities from activities related to 
implementing the measures at national, 
regional and local level 

o  costs for the EC for implementation for 

UMP actions at EU level (e.g. Eltis, 
URBACT, civitas, EU mobility week, etc.) 

 

Costs to specific stakeholders from 

  Open Public Consultation 

  Desk research (including 
the Impact assessment 
accompanying the UMP 
Communication) 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies  

  Open Public Consultation 

  Desk research (including 
the Impact assessment 
accompanying the UMP 
Communication) 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

activities related to implementing 
measures (with a focus on organic372 
measures),  

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

 

Stakeholders’ opinions on the costs to 
specific stakeholders from implemented 
measures’ (with a focus on measures that 
can be directly attributed to the UMP) 

Stakeholders’ opinions regarding the 
fairness of costs to different stakeholders 

10.3.  What is the relation between the 

outputs and results derived compared 
to the costs and resources for 
implementing the measures? 

  Overall costs of 

Quantitative indicators using ratios of 

implementing the measures of 
the UMP are proportionate 
relative to their overall 
benefits identified in Q11  

 

Costs of implementing each 
of the measures of the UMP 
are proportionate relative to 
their benefits identified in Q11 

costs/benefits: 

 

Volumes of EU funding allocated to 
implementing sustainable urban mobility, 
compared to benefits observed also 
identified in Q11. 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Stakeholders’ opinions regarding the 
resources used compared with observed 
outputs/results  

  Quantified survey answers (using scoring) 

allowing for the comparison of costs and 
benefits of different measures as identified 
in Q11  

  Desk research: Study to 

support the impact 
assessment of the UMP 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

10.4.  To what extent have capacity building, 
technical and financial support options 
for using existing EU programmes and 
initiatives improved efficiency of 
delivery?  

 

Capacity building, technical 
support, financial support for 
using existing EU programmes 
and initiatives have 
contributed positively towards 
increasing efficiency of 
delivery of the UMP measures 

Quantitative and qualitative indicators: 

 

Stakeholders’ opinion on the contribution 
of:  

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

o  capacity building 

o  technical support 

o  financial support  

to time and resources saved or gained for 

delivering UMP measures 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

372 As defined in Appendix 4 of the Inception Report 

118 

 
 
 
 
                                                
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

11.  Which measures have 

11.1.  What were the most efficient 

been most and least 
efficient? 

measures? 

11.2.  What were the least efficient 

measures? 

11.3.  What were the main factors influencing 
the efficiency and inefficiency of those 
measures 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

 

 

The balance between the 
outputs and results delivered 
compared to the costs and 
resources for implementing 
the measures (=degree of 
efficiency) is clearly positive 
or negative 

Level of agreement between 
stakeholders regarding the 
most and the least efficient 
measures 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Stakeholders’ opinion on the efficiency of 
different measures (ranking) 

  Quantified survey answers (using scoring) 

allowing for the comparison of costs and 
benefits of different measures as identified 
in Q11  

  Desk research  

  Survey 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Case studies 

 

N/A: Explorative 

Qualitative indicators: 

12.  To what extent are the 

costs of the UMP as a 
whole justified given 
the benefits which 
have been achieved? 

12.1.  Do stakeholders consider that there 
was a good return on the resources 
invested into the implementation of the 
UMP? 

 

Level of agreement between 
stakeholders that that there 
was a good return on the 
resources invested 

 

 

Stakeholders’ opinion on factors 
contributing to high efficiency of measures, 
per measure  

Stakeholders’ opinion on factors hindering 
efficiency of measures, per measure 

Quantitative indicators: 

 

Comparison of volumes of EU and Member 
States’ funding allocated to implementing 
sustainable urban mobility, compared to 
benefits observed, identified in Q10. 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

 

Sources of inefficiencies identified in Q11. 

Stakeholders’ opinion on the return of 
investment on the resources they invested 
into implementing the UMP 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

12.2.  Could the same results have been 

achieved with less funding/lower costs? 

 

Level of agreement between 
stakeholders that the same 
results could have been 
achieved with less funding/at 
a lower cost. 

Qualitative indicators: 

  Opinions of stakeholders (disaggregated 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

per stakeholder type) on whether the same 
results could have been achieved with less 
funding/lower costs. 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies  

119 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

13.  Is there room to simplify in order to reduce the regulatory burden 

caused by the intervention? 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

  Level of agreement between 
responding stakeholders that 
there is room to simplify the 
intervention in order to reduce 
the regulatory burden from 
each of the measures 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

 

 

Stakeholders’ opinion on regulatory burden 
of specific measures  

Stakeholders’ opinion on possible 
simplifications of the different measures 
identified. 

Stakeholders’ opinion on potential scale of 
simplifications for the different measures. 

14.1.  To what extent are the objectives of 

the UMP consistent with each other? 

COHERENCE (internal) 

14.  To what extent do the 
measures proposed in 
the UMP form a 
coherent package for 
supporting local action 
for better and more 
sustainable urban 
mobility? 

  Strong evidence of synergies & 
complementarity between 
objectives of the UMP 
  No/limited evidence of 
overlaps, duplications, 
contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the 
UMP objectives 

Qualitative indicators: 

  Alignment between the general objectives 

of the UMP 

  Overlaps/inconsistencies between general 

objective of the UMP 

  Perception of stakeholders on whether the 

objectives of the UMP are mutually 
supportive 

14.2.  To what extent are the measures 
under the four pillars of the UMP: 

o  SUMPs 

o  Reinforcing EU support 

o  Engagement of Member States 

o  Coordinating public and private sector 

intervention of the UMP 

consistent with each other? 

  Strong evidence of synergies & 
complementarity between 
objectives of the UMP 
measures 

  No/limited evidence of 
overlaps, duplications, 
contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the 
UMP measures 

Qualitative indicators:  
  Alignment between the specific 
objectives/measures of the UMP 

  Overlap/inconsistencies between specific 

objectives/measures of UMP 
  Perception of stakeholders on the 

consistency of the UMP, by measure 
  Perception of stakeholders on potential 

synergies between measures 

  Perception of stakeholder on potential 

overlaps or inconsistencies 

COHERENCE (external) 

15.  To what extent is the 

UMP coherent with and 

15.1.  To what extent is the UMP coherent 
with and complementary to national 

  Strong evidence of synergies & 
complementarity between 

Qualitative indicators: 

  Desk research 

120 

  Desk research 

  Survey 

  Case studies 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders  

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies  

  Desk research 

(reconstruction of the 
intervention logics) 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Case studies 

  Open public consultation 

  Desk research 

(reconstruction of the 
intervention logics) 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Open public consultation 

 
 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

complementary to 
National, regional and 
local policies on urban 
mobility? 

Energy and Climate Plans? 

15.2.  To what extent is the UMP coherent 
with and complementary to national 
Action Plans on alternative fuels? 

16.  To what extent is the 

UMP coherent with and 
complementary to 
national/regional/ local 
taxation? 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 
objectives of the UMP and the 
objectives of the national 
Energy and Climate Plans 

  No/limited evidence of 
overlaps, duplications, 
contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the 
UMP objectives and the 
objectives of the national 
Energy and Climate Plans  

  Strong evidence of synergies & 
complementarity between 
objectives of the UMP and the 
objectives of the national 
Action Plans on alternative 
fuels  

  No/limited evidence of 
overlaps, duplications, 
contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the 
UMP objectives and the 
objectives of the national 
Action Plans on alternative 
fuels  

  Strong evidence of synergies & 
complementarity between the 
tax-related measures of the 
UMP and 
national/regional/local 
taxation? 

  No/limited evidence of 
overlaps, duplications, 
contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the 
tax-related measures of the 
UMP and the 
national/regional/local 
taxation? 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

  Case studies 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

 

Alignment between the objectives of the 
national Energy and Climate Plans (where 
they exist) and the objectives of the UMP 

  Overlaps, duplications, contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the national 
Energy and Climate Plans (where they 
exist) and the objectives of the UMP 

  Perception of stakeholders on the 

coherence and complementarity between 
objectives of the UMP and objectives of the 
national Energy and Climate Plans 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Alignment between the objectives of the 
national Action Plans on alternative fuels 
(where they exist) and the UMP 

  Overlaps, duplications, contradictions, or 

inconsistencies between the national Action 
Plans on alternative fuels (where they 
exist) and the UMP 

 

Perception of stakeholders on the 
coherence and complementarity between 
UMP and national Action Plans on 
alternative fuels  

Descriptive indicators: 

 

Identification of different types of taxation 
policies in different Member States, regions 
and cities, such as road charges, fuel 
taxes, annual vehicle taxes, etc. in the 
Member States subject to the case studies 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

 

Stakeholders’ opinion on whether there are 
synergies & complementarity between the 
tax-related measures of the UMP and 
national/regional/local taxation 

Stakeholders’ opinion on whether there are 
overlaps, duplications, contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the tax-related 
measures of the UMP and the 
national/regional/local taxation 

16.1.  Would better coordination of taxation 

  N/A Explorative  

at EU-level improve its coherence with 
the UMP, also in the context of the 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Stakeholders' opinion whether better 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

2011 Economic Governance Package? 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

coordination of taxation would improve 
coherence between EU taxation policy and 
the UMP. 

agencies  

  Case studies 

17.  To what extent is the 

17.1.  To what extent are the format and 

UMP coherent with and 
complementary to EU 
policies and 
programmes on urban 
mobility, such as the 
European Mobility 
Week? 

objectives of the UMP and of other EU 
policies and programmes on urban 
mobility coherent and complementary 
with each other? 

18.  To what extent is the 

UMP coherent with and 
complementary to EU 
policies and 
programmes in other 
fields? 

18.1.  To what extent is the UMP coherent 

and complementary with policies 
regarding: 

Transport: 

o  Sustainable Mobility for Europe: safe, 
connected, and clean – allowing all 
Europeans to benefit from safer traffic, 
less polluting vehicles and more 
advanced technological solutions, while 
supporting the competitiveness of the 
EU industry  

o  A European Strategy for Low-Emission 
Mobility - ensuring a regulatory and 
business environment that is conducive 
to meeting the competitiveness 
challenges that the transition to low-
emission mobility implies 

o  High Level Group on the 

  Strong evidence of synergies & 
complementarity between 
objectives of the UMP and 
other EU policies and 
programmes on urban mobility 

  No/limited evidence of 
overlaps, duplications, 
contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the 
UMP objectives and other EU 
policies and programmes on 
urban mobility  

  Strong evidence of synergies & 
complementarity between 
objectives of the UMP and EU 
policies and programmes in 
other fields 

  No/limited evidence of 
overlaps, duplications, 
contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the 
UMP objectives and EU policies 
and programmes in other fields  

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Coherence & complementarity between the 

o  format 

o  objectives  

of the UMP and other EU policies and 

programmes on urban mobility  

  Overlaps, duplications, contradictions, or 

inconsistencies between the  

o  format 

o  objectives  

of the UMP and other EU policies and 

programmes on urban mobility 

 

Perception of stakeholders on the 
synergies between UMP and other EU 
policies and programmes on urban mobility 

Qualitative indicators: 

 

Alignment between the objectives of the 
UMP and other EU policies and 
programmes in other fields 

  Overlaps, duplications, contradictions, or 

inconsistencies between the UMP and other 
EU policies and programmes in other fields 

 

 

Perception of stakeholders on the 
coherence and complementarity between 
UMP and other EU policies and 
programmes in other fields 

Perception of stakeholders on potential 
overlaps, duplications, contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the UMP and other 
EU policies and programmes in other fields 

122 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

Competitiveness and Sustainable 
Growth of the Automotive Industry in 
the EU 2017 - developing medium and 
long-term recommendations to 
address the main challenges and 
opportunities for the European 
automotive industry in the run-up to 
2030 and beyond 

Climate action: 

o  2018 European strategic long-term 
vision for a prosperous, modern, 
competitive and climate neutral 
economy – presenting how Europe can 
lead the way to climate neutrality by 
investing into realistic technological 
solutions, empowering citizens, and 
aligning action in key areas such as 
industrial policy, finance, or research – 
while ensuring social fairness for a just 
transition 

Air quality: 

o  Air Quality Directive - defining and 

establishing objectives for Ambient Air 
Quality designed to avoid, prevent or 
reduce harmful effects on human 
health and the environment as a whole 

o  A Europe that protects: Clean air for all 

– supporting and facilitating the 
necessary measures of the Member 
States to meet their targets and 
enforcing actions to help ensure that 
the common objective of clean air for 
all Europeans is achieved and 
maintained 

Urban development: 

o  Pact of Amsterdam - The Urban 
Agenda for the EU - promoting 
cooperation between Member States, 
cities, the European Commission and 
other stakeholders, in order to 
stimulate growth, liveability and 
innovation in the cities of Europe 

o  United Nations Conference on Housing 
and Sustainable Urban Development 

123 

 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

Habitat III - securing renewed political 
commitment for sustainable urban 
development, assess accomplishments 
to date, address poverty and identify 
and address new and emerging 
challenges 

Noise: 

o  Environmental Noise Directive - 

defining a common approach intended 
to avoid, prevent or reduce on a 
prioritised basis the harmful effects, 
including annoyance, due to exposure 
to environmental noise 

Energy efficiency: 

o  Energy Efficiency Directive - promoting 
energy efficiency within the Union in 
order to ensure the achievement of the 
Union’s 2020 20% headline target on 
energy efficiency and to pave the way 
for further energy efficiency 
improvements beyond that date 

Safety: 

o  Strategic Action Plan on Road Safety – 
to ensure the use of safe vehicles, safe 
roads and roadsides, and to ensure 
safe road use and fast and effective 
emergency response 

Social rights: 

o  European Pillar of Social Rights - 

delivering new and more effective 
rights for citizens 

TEN-T: 

o  TEN-T Regulation - establishing 

guidelines for the development of a 
trans-European transport network 
comprising a dual-layer structure 
consisting of the comprehensive 
network and of the core network, the 
latter being established on the basis of 
the comprehensive network. 

Alternative fuels/clean vehicles 

124 

 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

(including levels of emissions): 

o  Clean Vehicles Directive – to support 
the introduction of environmentally-
friendly vehicles to the broad market 

Smart cities: 

o  Smart Cities & Communities Initiative 
– enabling cities to use technological 
solutions to improve the management 
and efficiency of the urban 
environment 

Education: 

Erasmus+ EU programme for 
education, training, youth and sport 
(emphasis on mobility) - contributing 
to the Europe 2020 strategy for 
growth, jobs, social equity and 
inclusion – specifically, promoting 
cooperation and mobility with the EU's 
partner countries 

19.  To what extent is the UMP coherent with the 2018 European strategic 

long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate 
neutral economy, and with the 2016 Low-emission mobility strategy? 

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

  Strong evidence of synergies & 
complementarity between 
objectives of the UMP and the 
2018 European strategic long-
term vision for a prosperous, 
modern, competitive and 
climate neutral economy, and 
with the 2016 Low-emission 
mobility strategy. 
  No/limited evidence of 
overlaps, duplications, 
contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the 
UMP objectives and the 2018 
European strategic long-term 
vision for a prosperous, 
modern, competitive and 
climate neutral economy, and 
with the 2016 Low-emission 
mobility strategy. 

125 

Qualitative indicators: 

  Alignment between the objectives of the 

UMP and the 2018 European strategic long-
term vision for a prosperous, modern, 
competitive and climate neutral economy, 
and with the 2016 Low-emission mobility 
strategy. 

  Overlaps, duplications, contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the UMP and the 
2018 European strategic long-term vision 
for a prosperous, modern, competitive and 
climate neutral economy, and with the 2016 
Low-emission mobility strategy. 

  Perception of stakeholders on the coherence 
and complementarity between UMP and the 
2018 European strategic long-term vision 
for a prosperous, modern, competitive and 
climate neutral economy, and with the 2016 
Low-emission mobility strategy. 

  Perception of stakeholders on potential 

overlaps, duplications, contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the UMP and the 
2018 European strategic long-term vision 
for a prosperous, modern, competitive and 

 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

20.  To what extent SUMP 

has been coherent 
(integrated) with other 
planning instruments, 
in particular in the 
energy, climate and 
spatial planning fields? 

20.1.  To what extent have SUMPs integrated 

the objectives and measures, 
scenarios, sources of funding, 
monitoring and assessment processes, 
etc. used in other planning 
instruments, such as energy, climate 
and spatial planning instruments? 

21.  At local level, to what extent implementation of UMP measures have 
been coherent with other policy areas (such as public health)? 

22.  How consistent are the different departments and levels of governance 
with each other with regards to implementation of the UMP measures? 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

  The responding stakeholders 
identify elements of other 
planning instruments in SUMPs  

  Strong evidence of integration 
between SUMPs and other 
planning instruments, creating 
synergies & complementarity  

  No/limited evidence of 

integration between SUMPs 
and other planning instruments 

  Strong evidence of synergies & 
complementarity between 
implementation of UMP 
measures and other policy 
areas (public health, 
education, social etc.) at local 
level 

  No/limited evidence of 
overlaps, duplications, 
contradictions, or 
inconsistencies between the 
implementation of UMP 
measures and other policy 
areas (public health, 
education, social etc.) at local 
level  

  Strong evidence of consistency 
in the implementation of UMP 
measures between different 
departments and levels of 
governance 

  No/limited evidence of overlaps 
and/or inconsistencies in the 
implementation of UMP 
measures between different 
departments and levels of 
governance 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

climate neutral economy, and with the 2016 
Low-emission mobility strategy. 

Quantitative indicators: 
  Number/share of reviewed SUMPs which 
refer to other planning instruments 

Qualitative indicators: 
  Stakeholders’ opinion whether SUMPs are 

integrated with other planning instruments  

  Stakeholders’ opinion whether the 

integration of SUMPs and other planning 
instruments creates synergies & 
complementarity 

Qualitative indicators: 
  Number/share of reviewed SUMPs that 
make reference to other policy areas 

  Opinion of stakeholders on whether 

implementation of UMP measures have 
been coherent with other local policy areas 

  Survey  

  Case studies 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Open Public Consultation 

Qualitative indicators: 
  Stakeholders’ opinion on whether the 
different departments and levels of 
governance are consistent with each other 

  Stakeholders’ opinion on whether the 
different departments and levels of 
governance overlap and/or are inconsistent 
with each other 

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

EU ADDED VALUE 
23.  What is the added 

value resulting from 
the UMP, compared to 
what would have been 

23.1.  What approaches and frameworks 

would Member States have adopted to 
promote urban mobility in the absence 

  The responding stakeholders 
identify possible national 
approaches and frameworks (if 
any) which Member States 

Qualitative indicators: 
  Stakeholders’ statements about possible or 
planned approaches and frameworks which 

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

126 

 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

achieved at Member 
State, regional and/or 
local level?  

of the UMP?  

23.2.  How has action taken at EU level as 
part of the UMP contributed towards 
the following aspects beyond what MS 
would have achieved on their own? 
  Development of new urban mobility 

concepts/tools  

  Sharing of experiences and good 

practices across borders  
  Improved co-ordination and 
cooperation among actors at 
different levels 
(local/regional/national) 

  Interoperability & consistency of 

measures/solutions at national and 
EU level   

  Level of financial support towards 

urban mobility measures  

24.1.  To what extent do the issues 

addressed by the UMP still persist? 

24.2.  Is there still need for action at EU level 

to support:  
  the development of new urban 
mobility concepts and tools  
  sharing of experiences and good 

practices across borders (in relation 
to SUMPs and individual measures) 

 

improved co-ordination and 
cooperation among actors at 
different levels (local, regional, 
national)? 

24.  To what extent do the 

issues addressed by 
the Urban Mobility 
Package continue to 
require action at the 
EU level?  

Judgement (success) 
criteria 
would have developed in the 
absence of the UMP. 

  The responding stakeholders 
identify possible national 
approaches and frameworks (if 
any) which Member States 
would have continued to 
develop in the absence of the 
UMP. 

  There is a clear incremental 

effect of the UMP identified in 
the baseline analysis 

  The responding stakeholders 
agree that Member States’ 
national approaches and 
frameworks would not have 
achieved the listed aspects in 
the absence of action taken at 
EU level as part of the UMP. 

would have been developed in the absence 
of the UMP. 

  Stakeholders’ statements about approaches 
and frameworks which would have been 
continued in the absence of the UMP. 

Quantitative and qualitative indicators of 

the UMP’s effectiveness versus the 

hypothetical counterfactual scenario 

Qualitative indicators: 
  Stakeholders’ opinion about what EU action 
enabled them to do, beyond what they 
could achieve by themselves. 

Quantitative and qualitative indicators of 
the UMP’s effectiveness versus the 
hypothetical counterfactual scenario  

  See Q1 and Q2. 

  See Q1 and Q2. 

  The responding stakeholders 
agree that the absence of 
action at EU level would 
contribute to negative trends in 
the development and 
implementation of urban 
mobility approaches and 
overall negative trends in 
urban mobility in the EU 
(congestion, pollution, etc. see 
Q1.1). 

  Comparison between the 

127 

Qualitative indicators:  
  Stakeholders’ views on the need to continue 
EU-level action to avoid negative trends  
  Stakeholders’ views on the need to continue 

EU-level action to ensure consistent 
implementation of measures and effective 
policy frameworks across the EU  

  Stakeholders’ views on the need to continue 

EU-level action to achieve additional 
benefits 

  Survey 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Baseline scenario 

assessment 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

  See Q1 and Q2. 

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Targeted interviews with 

 
 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

 

 

interoperability of 
measures/solutions at national and 
EU level? 

integration and consistency of urban 
mobility measures with EU-wide 
policy frameworks/international 
policy commitments? 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 
evidence showing the positive 
contribution of the UMP to 
improvements on the listed 
aspects (see Relevance - Q4.1) 
and the evidence indicating 
that problems, needs and their 
drivers still persist  

25.  What would be the 

most likely 
consequences of 
stopping EU action to 
sustain the issues 
addressed by the 
Urban Mobility 
Package? 

25.1.  Are appropriate frameworks and 

support structures in place at 
national/regional level to support the 
development and implementation of 
the urban mobility measures?  

  Existence of frameworks and 
support structures in place at 
national/regional level, which 
responding stakeholders 
identify as appropriate to 
support the development and 
implementation of urban 
mobility measures (based on 
answers to Effectiveness - Q6). 

25.2.  Would withdrawal of EU support (in 

  N/A: Explorative 

terms of coordination, R&D activities, 
funding, events) have any negative 
impact on:  
  Level of financing/investment on 

urban mobility measures 

  Implementation/effectiveness/efficie
ncy of the urban mobility measures 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

European institutions and 
agencies 

Qualitative and quantitative indicators: 
  Evidence collected from Effectiveness 

questions regarding: 

 

Contribution of the UMP to the listed 
aspects (see Q4.1) 
  Evidence collected from Relevance 

questions regarding:  

 

Persistence/existence of (new) 
problems related to urban mobility, 
needs of stakeholders, drivers 
contributing to these  

Qualitative and quantitative indicators: 
  Evidence collected from Effectiveness 

questions (in particular Q6) regarding: 

 

 

Existence of frameworks and support 
structures in place at 
national/regional level 
Appropriateness of frameworks and 
support structures in place to 
support the development and 
implementation of urban mobility 
measures 

Qualitative evidence:  
  Stakeholders’ opinion on whether 

withdrawing EU support would lead to:  

 
 

 

 

 

Interruption of the spread of sumps  
Slower innovation due to interrupted 
EU financing and support  
Slower implementation of public 
mobility projects due to interrupted 
EU financing and support  
Fewer exchange of European 
expertise and technologies within the 
EU and with other countries and 
regions  
Inconsistency/incoherence of urban 
mobility measures in the Member 
States, regions and cities 

  Desk research 

  Case studies 

  Survey 

  Baseline scenario 
assessment  

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 
civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

  Open Public Consultation 

25.3.  Would there be any benefits from 

  N/A: Explorative  

withdrawing existing EU intervention? 

Qualitative evidence:  
  Stakeholders’ opinion regarding possible 
benefits from withdrawing the UMP. 

  Targeted interviews with 

national, regional and local 
authorities 

  Thematic interviews with 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Support study for the evaluation of the Urban Mobility Package 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-questions 

Judgement (success) 
criteria 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources & methods 

civil society and private 
sector stakeholders 

  Targeted interviews with 
European institutions and 
agencies 

129 

 
ANNEX 4: ARCHITECTURE OF THE URBAN MOBILITY PACKAGE 

130 

​Potential external drivers and barriers:•Changes in the wider EU transport, energy, climate, environmental policies and objectives •Technological developments (ITS innovation, alternative fuels)•Change in consumer practices (e.g. growing e-commerce demand, changes in car use and ownership)•Political landscape –broader political, economic and environmental developments​​Impact​Better competitive position of companies located in the urban areas and of transport companies​Preservation of the single market for goods and services​Safety and security are improved ​A more resource-efficient and clean transport system​The environment is better preserved and health of citizens is improved​Communication ‘Towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility’ COM(2013) 913 final​A concept for SUMPs​COM(2013) 913-annex​European Mobility Week​Input​A call to action on urban logistics ​SWD(2013) 524​Targeted action on urban road safety ​SWD(2013) 525 ​A call for smarter urban access regulations SWD(2013) 526​Mobilising ITS for EU cities​SWD(2013) 527​Urban Mobility Package​Sharing experiences and showcasing best practices ​Provision of targeted financial support​Fostering cooperationacross the European Union​Promotion of research and innovation ​Facilitation of international cooperation​European Platform on SUMPs​Activities/Measures​Assessmentof present and future performance of UM at MS level​Development of a coherent approach to UM at national and local level​Ensuring that SUMPs are developed and implemented ​Reviewing and amending the UM toolsavailable at local level ​Taking actions to avoid fragmented approaches​Improving the dissemination and uptake of urban logistics best practice​Facilitating procurement of clean vehicles used for urban logistics​Fostering exchange with MS and experts on urban access regulations​Preparing non-binding guidance to help cities implement access regulation schemes effectively​Improved quality of life in citiesReduced congestion and better mobility along TEN-T​Better-coordinated and effective implementation of urban policies​Business opportunities for developing innovative transport and mobility services​Reduced emissions and energy consumption​Modal shift​Coordinated public and private-sector intervention: Smarter Urban Access Regulations and Road user charging​Coordinated public and private-sector intervention: Urban logistics​SUMPs are developed and implemented​EU support to Member States is reinforced​Outputs​Outcomes​Supportingnational, regional and local authoritiesin developing and implementing SUMPS​Ensuring urban logistics are given consideration in UM approaches​Creating platforms for cooperation, exchange of information and training​Preparing guidance documents for improving urban logistics performance​Reviewingexisting and planned urban access regulation schemes​Frameworks for local authorities to develop and implement urban access regulation schemes​Gathering and disseminating good practice examples on urban road safety​Ensuring proper gathering of data on road safety indicators and encouraging local authorities to use it​Analysing measures for reducing the number of serios road traffic injuries​Ensuring SUMPs take urban road safety into account​Supplementing existing legislation on access to traffic and travel data ​Preparing specifications on Real-Time Traffic Information and Multimodal Information Services​Facilitating the deployment of vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communication systems​Using the guidance of the Urban ITS Expert Group​Developing interfaces between urban and interurban transport networks​Setting up interoperable multimodal datasets to gather information about UM​EC measures​MS measures​Organic UMP measures​Legend:​AuxiliaryUMP measures​Coordinated public and private-sector intervention: Coordinated Deployment of Urban ITS​Coordinated public and private-sector intervention: Urban Road safety​SUMPS​Engagement of Member States​Reinforcing EU support​Coordinating public and private sector intervention 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  5:  OVERVIEW  OF  POLICY  AREAS  THAT  ARE  DIRECTLY  OR  INDIRECTLY  LINKED  TO 
URBAN MOBILITY 

THE TEN-T REGULATION AND ITS ASSOCIATED CEF FUNDING INSTRUMENT 
(CONNECTING EUROPE FACILITY) 

Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) 

The  Trans-European  Transport  Network  (TEN-T)  policy  addresses  the  implementation  and 
development  of a Europe-wide network of  railway  lines, roads, inland  waterways, maritime 
shipping routes, ports, airports and railroad terminals. The ultimate objective is to close gaps, 
remove  bottlenecks  and  technical  barriers,  as  well  as  to  strengthen  social,  economic  and 
territorial  cohesion  in  the  EU.  The  current  TEN-T  policy  is  based  on  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1315/2013. 

Besides  the  construction  of  new  physical  infrastructure,  the  TEN-T  policy  supports  the 
application  of  innovation,  new  technologies  and  digital  solutions  to  all  modes  of  transport. 
The  objective  is  improved  use  of  infrastructure,  reduced  environmental  impact  of  transport, 
enhanced energy efficiency and increased safety. 

TEN-T comprises two network ‘layers’: 

-  The  Core  Network  includes  the  most  important  connections,  linking  the  most 

important nodes, and is to be completed by 2030. 

-  The Comprehensive Network covers all European regions and is to be completed by 

2050. 

The  backbone  of  the  Core  Network  is  represented  by  nine  Core  Network  Corridors,  which 
were identified to streamline and facilitate the coordinated development of the Core Network. 
Two  horizontal  priorities,  the  European  Rail  Traffic  Management  System  (ERTMS)  and 
Motorways  of  the  Sea  complement  these.  Oversight  of  the  Corridors  and  of  the  two 
Horizontal  Priorities  lies  with  European  Coordinators,  nominated  by  the  European 
Commission.  

Urban nodes and urban mobility 

Given TEN-T's aim to close gaps and remove bottlenecks across the European continent-wide 
transport network, the integration of urban nodes and urban areas is vital. 

The current TEN-T guidelines recognise and formalise the role of urban nodes in the TEN-T 
transport networks as important hubs that facilitate the flow of people and goods. In addition, 
they  are  also  connected  to  freight  and  passenger  transport,  being  the  major  centres  for 
production and consumption. Maximising the potential of this vital funding stream will ensure 
that  urban  nodes  are  able  to  meet  current  and  future  challenges,  while  providing  smart, 
efficient  and  sustainable  transport.  Grants  such  as  the  CEF  are  an  essential  part  of  this  and 
enable cities and metropolitan regions to play their role as efficient urban nodes in the TEN-T 
network. 

CEF 

The  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)  finances  projects  which  fill  the  missing  links  in 
Europe’s energy, transport and digital backbone. In the 2014-2020 period, INEA will manage 

131 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to  promote  clean,  smart,  sustainable  and  fully 
CEF  projects  worth  €22.4  billion 
interconnected  transport  in  Europe.  Part  of  the  CEF  funding  covers  better  connections 
between  the  trans-European  transport  network  near  cities  (ports,  airports,  railway  stations, 
logistic platforms and freight terminals) and the regional and local transport network. Projects 
mitigating the impact of transit transport on urban centres, as well as promoting efficient low-
noise and low-carbon urban freight delivery are part of the CEF funding scheme.  

The ITS Directive 

Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) can significantly contribute to a cleaner, safer and more 
efficient transport system. A new legal framework (Directive 2010/40/EU) was adopted on 7 
July  2010  to  accelerate  the  deployment  of  these  innovative  transport  technologies  across 
Europe. This Directive is an important instrument for the coordinated implementation of ITS 
in Europe. It aims to establish interoperable and seamless ITS services while leaving Member 
States the freedom to decide which systems to invest in. 

Under  this  Directive  the  European  Commission  has  to  adopt  within  the  next  seven  years 
specifications (i.e. functional, technical, organisational or services provisions) to address the 
compatibility,  interoperability  and  continuity  of  ITS  solutions  across  the  EU.  The  first 
priorities  will  be  traffic  and  travel  information,  the  eCall  emergency  system  and  intelligent 
truck parking. 

The Commission  already  took a major step towards the deployment  and use of  ITS  in  road 
transport (and interfaces to the other transport modes) on 16 December 2008 by adopting an 
Action  Plan.  The  Action  Plan  suggested  a  number  of  targeted  measures  and  included  the 
proposal for this Directive The goal is to create the momentum necessary to speed up market 
penetration of rather mature ITS applications and services in Europe. 

The  initiative  is  supported  by  five  co-operating  Directorates-General:  DG  Mobility  and 
Transport  (lead),  DG  Communications  Networks,  Content  &  Technology,  DG  Research  & 
Innovation, DG Enterprise and Industry and DG Climate Action. 

ITS and urban mobility 

Intelligent  Transport  Systems  (ITS)  supports  urban  policy  goals  in  areas  such  as  travel 
information, traffic and demand management, smart ticketing or urban logistics. An integrated 
approach  is  even  more  required  in  urban  areas,  including  various  transport  modes  and 
combining  both  technical  and  policy  issues.  Both  the  Action  Plans  on  ITS  and  on  Urban 
Mobility include complementary activity on ITS for urban areas. 

THE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DIRECTIVES AND THE SUBSEQUENT CLEAN AIR 
POLICY PACKAGE IN 2013, COMPLEMENTED BY THE CLEAN AIR FOR ALL 
COMMUNICATION IN 2018 

The  EU  has  been  working  for  decades  to  improve  air  quality  by  controlling  emissions  of 
harmful  substances  into  the  atmosphere,  improving  fuel  quality,  and  by  integrating 
environmental  protection  requirements  into  the  transport,  industrial  and  energy  sectors.  The 
aim is to reduce air pollution to levels which minimise harmful effects on human health and 
the  environment  over  the  EU  territory.  Air  pollution  travels  across  national  boundaries  so 
coordination  at  EU  level  is  important.  EU  law  leaves  the  choice  of  means  to  comply  with 
limit values agreed at EU level to the Member States. For key sources of pollution, EU-level 
standards are applied to ensure efficient internal market functioning. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Clean Air Policy Package in 2013 

The 2013 Clean Air Programme for Europe reconfirmed the objective to achieve full 
compliance with existing air quality standards across the EU as soon as possible and set 
objectives for 2020 and 2030. As such, EU policy efforts rest on three main pillars: 

-  The first pillar comprises the ambient air quality standards set out in the Ambient Air 

Quality Directives for ground level ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, 
dangerous heavy metals and a number of other pollutants. 

-  The second pillar consists of national emission reduction targets established in the 
National Emissions Ceiling Directive for the most important trans-boundary air 
pollutants: sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, volatile organic compounds and 
particulate matter. 

-  The third pillar comprises emissions standards for key sources of pollution, from 

vehicle and ship emissions to energy and industry. These standards are set out at EU 
level in legislation targeting industrial emissions, emissions from power plants, 
vehicles and transport fuels, as well as the energy performance of products. 

‘Clean air for all’ communication 

In 2018, The Commission adopted a Communication "A Europe that protects: Clean air for 
all' that provides national, regional and local actors with practical help to improve air quality 
in Europe.  

The communication also referred to the transport related measures to further reduce emissions 
which can aim at  technical  improvements, behaviour change and demand  management (e.g. 
promoting cleaner modes of transportation via urban planning), or at infrastructure investment 
(e.g.  for  alternative  fuelling  or  public  transport).  To  support  authorities  in  taking  these 
measures,  the  European  Commission  presented  two  Mobility  packages  and  provides  non-
binding guidance  with  recommendations and best  practices. These packages include as well 
events  such  as  the  European  Mobility  Week  campaign,  often  culminating  in  a  car-free  day, 
can  be  a  useful  tool  to  raise  awareness  of  the  benefits  of  clean  air  through  walking  and 
cycling. 

THE REVISED CLEAN VEHICLES DIRECTIVE  

The  revised Clean  Vehicle  Directive (Directive  (EU)  2019/1161)  promotes  clean  mobility 
solutions  in  public  procurement  tenders,  providing  a  solid  boost  to  the  demand  and  further 
deployment of low-  and zero-emission vehicles.  The new Directive defines "clean vehicles" 
and sets national targets for their public procurement. It applies to different means of public 
procurement, including purchase, lease, rent and relevant services contracts. Adopted by the 
European  Parliament  &  Council  in  June  2019,  the  Directive  needs  to  be  transposed  into 
national law by 2 August 2021. 

The  Directive  applies  to  cars,  vans,  trucks  and  buses  (excluding  coaches),  when  they  are 
procured through: 

-  Purchase, lease, rent or hire-purchase contracts under obligations by EU public 

procurement rules (Dir. 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU) 

-  Public service contracts for the provision of passenger road transport services (Reg. 

1370/2007) 

133 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Services contracts for public road transport services, special-purpose road passenger-
transport services, non-scheduled passenger transport, refuse collection services, mail 
and parcel transport and delivery (Annex I of the Directive). 

THE ALTERNATIVE FUELS INFRASTRUCTURE DIRECTIVE  

The Clean Power for Transport package of 2013 aims to facilitate the development of a single 
market for alternative fuels for transport in Europe. It contains: 

-  A Communication laying out a comprehensive European alternative fuels strategy 

[COM(2013)17], for the long-term substitution of oil as energy source in all modes of 
transport; 

-  A proposal for a Directive on the deployment of alternative fuels recharging and 

refuelling infrastructure [COM(2013)18]; 

-  An accompanying Impact Assessment [SWD(2013)5]; 
-  A Staff Working Document setting out the needs in terms of market conditions, 

regulations, codes and standards for a broad market uptake of LNG in the shipping 
sector [SWD(2013)4]. 

The final Directive, as adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on 29 September 
2014 following the inter-institutional negotiations: 

-  Requires Member States to develop national policy frameworks for the market 

development of alternative fuels and their infrastructure; 

-  Foresees the use of common technical specifications for recharging and refuelling 

stations; 

-  Paves the way for setting up appropriate consumer information on alternative fuels, 

including a clear and sound price comparison methodology. 

Alternative fuels in urban environments 

The  Directive  strengthens  the  use  of  alternative  fuels  and  connected  infrastructure  in  urban 
areas. It is very relevant to cities as electricity and hydrogen are particularly attractive power 
sources for the deployment of electric/fuel cell vehicles in urban/suburban agglomerations and 
other densely populated areas, as they contribute to improving air quality and reducing noise. 

The Directive explicitly requires (in Article 4(1)) Member States ‘that an appropriate number 
of recharging points accessible to the public are put in place by 31 December 2020, in order to 
ensure that electric vehicles can circulate at least in urban/suburban agglomerations and other 
densely populated areas, and, where appropriate, within networks determined by the Member 
States.’  

134