Vom 24. Februar 2010
Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 17/815
17. Wahlperiode 24. 02. 2010
Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht
des Ausschusses für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (15. Ausschuss)
zu der Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung
– Drucksache 17/136 Nr. A.92 –
Mitteilung der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament, den Rat, den Euro-
päischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss und den Ausschuss der Regionen
Aktionsplan urbane Mobilität (inkl. 14030/09 ADD 1 und 14030/09 ADD 2)
(ADD 1 in Englisch)
KOM(2009) 490 endg.; Ratsdok. 14030/09
A. Problem
In Bezug auf den Aktionsplan ist es wichtig, die Leitlinien festzustellen, unter
welche die deutsche Position in Verhandlungen auf europäischer Ebene gestellt
werden soll.
B. Lösung
Aufforderung an die Bundesregierung, sich sowohl in ihren Verhandlungen in
den zuständigen Ratsarbeitsgruppen als auch im Verkehrsministerrat entspre-
chend den folgenden Leitlinien zu positionieren:
1. Die Rolle der Kommission ist darauf beschränkt, den Austausch von Erfah-
rungen und Best-Practice-Beispielen unter den Städten zu unterstützen. Hier
können die in deutschen Städten zur Bewältigung der Verkehrsprobleme er-
arbeiteten vielfältigen Lösungsansätze für andere Städte Europas von beson-
derem Interesse sein.
2. Es muss strikt bei der Wahrung des Subsidiaritätsgrundsatzes und des kom-
munalen Selbstverwaltungsrechts bleiben. Auf europäischer Ebene muss
eingefordert werden, die Rechte der Kommunen nicht einzuschränken.
3. Städtische Gebührensysteme sind auch mit Nachteilen unterschiedlichster
Art verbunden, die regional verschieden ausgeprägt sein können. In diesem
Zusammenhang ist zu beachten, dass aufgrund unterschiedlicher nationaler
Gegebenheiten unterschiedliche Voraussetzungen für Stadtmautsysteme be-
stehen.
Annahme einer Entschließung mit den Stimmen der Fraktionen der CDU/
CSU und FDP gegen die Stimmen der Fraktionen SPD und BÜNDNIS 90/
DIE GRÜNEN bei Stimmenthaltung der Fraktion DIE LINKE.
Drucksache 17/815 – 2 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
C. Alternativen
Annahme einer abweichenden Entschließung.
D. Kosten
Wurden nicht erörtert.
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 3 – Drucksache 17/815
Beschlussempfehlung
Der Bundestag wolle beschließen,
in Kenntnis der Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung auf Drucksache 17/136
Nr. A.92 folgende Entschließung anzunehmen:
„Der Deutsche Bundestag stellt fest:
Der von der Europäischen Kommission vorgelegte Aktionsplan enthält zwar
keine legislativen Maßnahmen oder kündigt solche an. Gleichwohl ist es dem
Deutschen Bundestag wichtig festzustellen, dass in Verhandlungen auf europäi-
scher Ebene die deutsche Position unter folgende Leitlinien gestellt wird:
1. Die Rolle der Kommission ist darauf beschränkt, den Austausch von Erfah-
rungen und Best-Practice-Beispielen unter den Städten zu unterstützen. Hier
können die in deutschen Städten zur Bewältigung der Verkehrsprobleme er-
arbeiteten vielfältigen Lösungsansätze für andere Städte Europas von beson-
derem Interesse sein.
2. Es muss strikt bei der Wahrung des Subsidiaritätsgrundsatzes und des kom-
munalen Selbstverwaltungsrechts bleiben. Auf europäischer Ebene muss
eingefordert werden, die Rechte der Kommunen nicht einzuschränken.
3. Städtische Gebührensysteme sind auch mit Nachteilen unterschiedlichster
Art verbunden, die regional verschieden ausgeprägt sein können. In diesem
Zusammenhang ist zu beachten, dass aufgrund unterschiedlicher nationaler
Gegebenheiten unterschiedliche Voraussetzungen für Stadtmautsysteme be-
stehen.
Der Deutsche Bundestag fordert die Bundesregierung auf, sich sowohl in ihren
Verhandlungen in den zuständigen Ratsarbeitsgruppen als auch im Verkehrs-
ministerrat entsprechend der genannten Leitlinien zu positionieren.“
Berlin, den 12. Februar 2010
Der Ausschuss für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung
Winfried Hermann
Vorsitzender
Sören Bartol
Berichterstatter
I. Der Deutsche Bundestag begrüßt den von der EU-Kom- bestehende örtlich angepasste Regelungen erhalten
mission vorgelegten Aktionsplan Urbane Mobilität. Die
darin angekündigten Maßnahmen zu besserem Informa-
tionsaustausch und Förderung nachhaltiger Stadtver-
bleiben und die Wirksamkeit der Umweltzonen bei
der Verringerung der Feinstaubbelastung nicht ein-
geschränkt wird.
Drucksache 17/815 – 4 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Bericht des Abgeordneten Sören Bartol
I. Überweisung
Die Unterrichtung durch die Bundesregierung auf Druck-
sache 17/136 Nr. A.92 wurde am 2. Dezember 2009 gemäß
§ 93 der Geschäftsordnung an den Ausschuss für Verkehr,
Bau und Stadtentwicklung zur federführenden Beratung so-
wie an den Ausschuss für Wirtschaft und Technologie und
an den Ausschuss für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktor-
sicherheit zur Mitberatung überwiesen.
II. Wesentlicher Inhalt der Vorlage/n
Die Mitteilung der Kommission beinhaltet einen Aktions-
plan, in dem Aktionen vorgeschlagen werden, die sich mit
Fragen der urbanen Mobilität befassen. Dabei werden Reak-
tionen auf das Grünbuch „Hin zu einer neuen Kultur der
Mobilität in der Stadt“ aufgegriffen.
III. Stellungnahmen der mitberatenden
Ausschüsse
Der Ausschuss für Wirtschaft und Technologie hat die
Vorlage in seiner 2. Sitzung am 2. Dezember 2009 beraten
und empfiehlt mit den Stimmen der Fraktionen CDU/CSU,
FDP und DIE LINKE. gegen die Stimmen der Fraktionen
SPD und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN die Annahme des
Entschließungsantrags auf Ausschussdrucksache 17(9)16.
Zudem empfiehlt er, die Vorlage zur Kenntnis zu nehmen.
Der Ausschuss für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktor-
sicherheit hat die Vorlage in seiner 2. Sitzung am 2. De-
zember 2009 beraten und empfiehlt deren Kenntnisnahme.
Mit den Stimmen der Fraktionen CDU/CSU, FDP und DIE
LINKE. gegen die Stimmen der Fraktionen SPD und
BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN empfiehlt er weiterhin die
Annahme des Entschließungsantrags der Fraktionen der
CDU/CSU und FDP auf Ausschussdrucksache 17(16)10
(inhaltsgleich mit der Ausschussdrucksache 17(15)8 des fe-
derführenden Ausschusses).
IV. Beratungsverlauf und Beratungsergebnisse im
federführenden Ausschuss
Der Ausschuss für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung
hat die Vorlage – Drucksache 17/136 Nr. A.92 – in seiner
4. Sitzung am 27. Januar 2010 beraten. Die Fraktionen der
CDU/CSU und FDP haben zu der Vorlage einen Entschlie-
ßungsantrag eingebracht (Ausschussdrucksache 17(15)8),
dessen Inhalt sich aus der Beschlussempfehlung ergibt. Die
Fraktion der SPD hat zu der Vorlage den folgenden Ent-
schließungsantrag eingebracht (Ausschussdrucksache 17(15)17):
Der Deutsche Bundestag möge beschließen:
Angebote an die Städte, die mit steigenden Verkehrsbe-
lastungen zu kämpfen haben. Nachhaltiger Stadtverkehr
ist ein unverzichtbarer Beitrag zum Klimaschutz und zu
einer verbesserten Lebensqualität in den Städten und
Ballungsräumen. Gerade in den Städten besteht die
Chance, innovative und integrierte Verkehrskonzepte zu
erproben – wie etwa die intelligente Verknüpfung von öf-
fentlichem Verkehr, Fahrradverleihsystemen und Car-
sharing, den Einsatz alternativer Antriebe wie Elektro-
mobilität und die dafür notwendige Infrastruktur sowie
die Einführung städtischer Logistiksysteme.
Die Prioritätensetzung des Aktionsplans geht in die rich-
tige Richtung: Er betont Bedeutung von ÖPNV als Rück-
grat des städtischen Verkehrssystems und stellt die
Nutzersicht und Zugänglichkeit auch für mobilitätsein-
geschränkte Menschen in den Mittelpunkt. Zu begrüßen
sind insbesondere die Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der
Fahrgastrechte auf freiwilliger Basis, das geplante EU-
weite Reiseportal für den Nahverkehr und die konse-
quente Umsetzung der Verpflichtung zur Barrierefrei-
heit.
Eine Auswertung der Erfahrungen auch zu intelligenten
Verkehrs- und Gebührensystemen ist sinnvoll, um eine
sachliche Diskussion der Vor- und Nachteile und einen
Erfahrungsaustausch über die vielfältigen Modelle der
Stadtverkehrspolitik in Europa zu ermöglichen - ohne
den Städten dabei Vorgaben zu machen. Der Aktionsplan
berücksichtigt – wie vom Bundestag im 2008 gefordert –
das Subsidiaritätsprinzip und die kommunale Selbstver-
waltung.
II. Der Deutsche Bundestag fordert die Bundesregierung
auf:
– Die Europäische Kommission bei der Umsetzung des
Aktionsplans aktiv zu unterstützen.
– Darauf hinzuwirken, dass städtische Mobilität und
dabei insbesondere umweltfreundliche Verkehrsmittel
und deren intermodale Verknüpfung in der zukünfti-
gen EU-Strukturfonds-Förderung stärkere Berück-
sichtigung finden. Konsequenter Vorrang für Zufuß-
gehen und Fahrradfahren sowie Bus und Bahn
verbessert Verkehrssicherheit, Umweltbedingungen
und Lebensqualität und damit die Attraktivität der
Städte als Wohn- und Wirtschaftsstandorte. Eine Ver-
besserung der Verkehrssicherheit in den Städten ist
umso dringender, als das im Verkehrsweißbuch von
2001 formulierte Ziel einer Halbierung der Zahl der
Verkehrstoten bis 2010 absehbar nicht erreicht wird.
– Darauf hinzuwirken, dass die angekündigte Untersu-
chung zu den Zugangvorschriften zu den Umweltzo-
nen und etwaige daraus folgenden Harmonisierungs-
bestrebungen mit dem Ziel größerer Transparenz und
Nutzerfreundlichkeit unter der Prämisse erfolgt, dass
kehrskonzepte wie durch eine Fortführung und Auswei-
tung des Programms CIVITAS sind gute und nützliche
– Darauf hinzuwirken, dass über die Kommission über
die konkreten Maßnahmen im Aktionsplan hinaus das
halten und die Planungshoheit der Gemeinden beachten.
Die Fraktion der SPD bedauerte, in dem Antrag der Frak-
tionen der CDU/CSU und FDP hebe man nur auf die Frage
der Subsidiarität ab, statt sich positiv mit den Vorschlägen
zu befassen. Bedenken bezüglich der Frage der Subsidiarität
seien schon zu Beginn der Diskussion in den Konsultations-
prozess eingebracht worden, aber der jetzt vorgelegte Akti-
onsplan gehe auf diese Bedenken ein. Sie begrüße den Akti-
onsplan, weil er alle Möglichkeiten offen lasse und er „Best
Practice“-Hinweise gebe. Vor dem Hintergrund der Diskus-
sion über den Klimaschutz solle man den Aktionsplan sehr
positiv begleiten.
Die Fraktion der FDP bekundete, mit dem Entschlie-
ßungsantrag der Fraktionen der CDU/CSU und FDP wolle
man auch das Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und
Stadtentwicklung in dem Bemühen unterstützen, legislative
Maßnahmen in diesem Bereich erst gar nicht zuzulassen.
müssten dringend Maßnahmen zur Reduzierung der CO2-
Emissionen ergriffen werden. Die Fraktionen der CDU/
CSU und FDP müssten sich damit intensiver auseinander-
setzen, als ihr Antrag dies bislang dokumentiere. Den Ent-
schließungsantrag der Fraktion der SPD unterstütze sie.
Der Ausschuss für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung
hat den Entschließungsantrag der Fraktion der SPD auf
Ausschussdrucksache 17(15)17 mit den Stimmen der Frak-
tionen der CDU/CSU und FDP gegen die Stimmen der
Fraktionen SPD, DIE LINKE. und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE
GRÜNEN abgelehnt.
Den Entschließungsantrag der Fraktionen der CDU/CSU
und FDP auf Ausschussdrucksache 17(15)8 hat er mit den
Stimmen der Fraktionen der CDU/CSU und FDP gegen die
Stimmen der Fraktionen SPD und BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜ-
NEN bei Stimmenthaltung der Fraktion DIE LINKE. ange-
nommen.
Die Vorlage empfiehlt er zur Kenntnis zu nehmen.
Berlin, den 12. Februar 2010
Sören Bartol
Berichterstatter
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 5 – Drucksache 17/815
im Grünbuch „Hin zu einer neuen Kultur der Mobili-
tät in der Stadt“ formulierte Ziel einer neuen Mobili-
tätskultur als Leitbild im Rahmen einer integrierten
Stadtentwicklungspolitik weiterverfolgt wird. Geän-
derte Präferenzen gerade der jüngeren Generation
bei ihren Wohnstandortentscheidungen zugunsten der
Innenstädte und im Mobilitätsverhalten zugunsten
umweltfreundlicher Verkehrsträger müssen durch
eine integrierte Verkehrs-, Stadt- und Raumentwick-
lungspolitik mit entsprechenden Anreizen unterstützt
werden.
Die Fraktion der CDU/CSU stellte fest, in dem Aktions-
plan finde man inhaltlich viele gute Schlussfolgerungen aus
dem Konsultationsprozess. Der kritische Punkt liege aber im
Bereich der Subsidiarität. Zwar bekenne sich der Ak-
tionsplan vordergründig zur Vermeidung legislativer Maß-
nahmen, aus dessen Anlagen ergebe sich aber, dass es um die
Vorbereitung für legislative Maßnahmen gehe. Man müsse
hier den Anfängen wehren. Die EU-Kommission müsse
auch in Aktionsplänen das Thema Subsidiarität im Blick be-
Man könne die unterschiedlichen Nahverkehrskulturen in
den Städten Europas über einen solchen Aktionsplan beob-
achten und vielleicht auch noch vernetzen. Konzepte, wel-
che europaweit tauglich seien, könne man daraus aber nicht
entwickeln.
Die Fraktion DIE LINKE. stellte fest, bei dem Aktions-
plan gehe es hauptsächlich darum, was die EU auf diesem
Gebiet gestalten könne. Das, was in dem Aktionsplan aufge-
führt sei, sei grundsätzlich zu begrüßen. Aber wesentliche
Faktoren der Mobilität im städtischen Bereich seien Fuß-
gänger und Radverkehr. Dem werde der Aktionsplan nicht
gerecht. Beide Entschließungsanträge gingen inhaltlich in
die richtige Richtung. Der Antrag der Fraktion der SPD sei
aus ihrer Sicht aber konkreter, weshalb man ihn unterstützen
werde.
Die Fraktion BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN stellte fest, die
Zunahme des städtischen Verkehrs verursache großen
Handlungsbedarf. Der Vorschlag der EU beinhalte eine
Reihe von Maßnahmen, welche man umsetzen könne. Es
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 7 – Drucksache 17/815
Anlage
RAT DER
EUROPÄISCHEN UNION
Brüssel, den 5. Oktober 2009 (07.10)
(OR. en)
14030/09
TRANS 371
ENV 630
TELECOM 197
RECH 307
ÜBERMITTLUNGSVERMERK
Absender: Herr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Direktor, im Auftrag des
Generalsekretärs der Europäischen Kommission
Eingangsdatum: 2. Oktober 2009
Empfänger: der Generalsekretär/Hohe Vertreter, Herr Javier SOLANA
Betr.: Mitteilung der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament, den Rat, den
Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss und den Ausschuss der
Regionen
Aktionsplan urbane Mobilität
Die Delegationen erhalten in der Anlage das Kommissionsdokument - KOM(2009) 490 endgültig.
Anl.: KOM(2009) 490 endgültig
14030/09 RSZ/ar 1
DG III DE
Drucksache 17/815 – 8 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN
Brüssel, den 30.9.2009
KOM(2009) 490 endgültig
MITTEILUNG DER KOMMISSION AN DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT, DEN
RAT, DEN EUROPÄISCHEN WIRTSCHAFTS- UND SOZIALAUSSCHUSS UND
DEN AUSSCHUSS DER REGIONEN
Aktionsplan urbane Mobilität
{SEK(2009) 1211}
{SEK(2009) 1212}
DE DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 9 – Drucksache 17/815
MITTEILUNG DER KOMMISSION AN DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT, DEN
RAT, DEN EUROPÄISCHEN WIRTSCHAFTS- UND SOZIALAUSSCHUSS UND
DEN AUSSCHUSS DER REGIONEN
Aktionsplan urbane Mobilität
1. Einleitung
2007 lebten 72%1 der europäischen Bevölkerung in Stadtgebieten, die von entscheidender
Bedeutung für Wachstum und Beschäftigung sind. Städte benötigen für die Wirtschaft und
das Wohlergehen ihrer Einwohner effiziente Verkehrssysteme. Etwa 85% des BIP der EU
wird in Städten erwirtschaftet. Heute stehen die Stadtgebiete vor der Herausforderung, den
Verkehr unter den Gesichtspunkten Umwelt (CO2, Luftverschmutzung und Lärm) und
Wettbewerbsfähigkeit (Verkehrsdichte) unter gleichzeitiger Berücksichtigung
gesellschaftlicher Belange nachhaltig zu gestalten. Diese reichen von der Bewältigung von
Gesundheitsproblemen und demografischen Entwicklungen, der Förderung des
wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Zusammenhalts bis zur Einbeziehung der Bedürfnisse von
Personen mit eingeschränkter Mobilität, von Familien und Kindern.
Für die Bürger wird die urbane Mobilität immer wichtiger. Neun von zehn EU-Bürgern halten
die Verkehrssituation in ihrem Umfeld für verbesserungswürdig2. Welches Verkehrsmittel die
Menschen wählen, wird sich nicht nur auf die künftige Entwicklung der Städte, sondern auch
auf das wirtschaftliche Wohlergehen der Bürger und Unternehmen auswirken. Auch spielt
dies eine entscheidende Rolle dabei, ob es der EU gelingt, ihre Gesamtstrategie für den
Klimaschutz, die Erreichung des 20-20-20-Ziels3 und die Förderung des Zusammenhalts
umzusetzen.
Ferner ist die urbane Mobilität ein zentraler Faktor des Fernverkehrs. Der Verkehr - sowohl
der Personen- als auch der Güterverkehr – nimmt seinen Ausgangspunkt meist in
Stadtgebieten, durchquert diese häufig und endet in Stadtgebieten. Stadtgebiete sollten
effiziente Anschlüsse für das transeuropäische Verkehrsnetz bieten und dem Güter- und
Personenverkehr günstige Anbindungen für die „letzte Meile“ ermöglichen. Damit bilden sie
die Grundlage für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit unseres künftigen
europäischen Verkehrssystems.
In ihrer jüngsten Mitteilung über eine nachhaltige Zukunft für den Verkehr4 nannte die
Kommission die Urbanisierung und ihre verkehrstechnischen Auswirkungen als eine der
wichtigsten Herausforderungen für eine größere Nachhaltigkeit des Verkehrssystems. Sie
forderte wirksame und koordinierte Maßnahmen zur Bewältigung der Probleme, die sich aus
der urbanen Mobilität ergeben, und schlägt vor, auf EU-Ebene einen Rahmen zu schaffen, der
es lokalen Behörden erleichtert, hier tätig zu werden.
1 Vereinte Nationen, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision.
2 Attitudes on issues related to EU Transport Policy. Flash Eurobarometer 206b, July 2007.
3 Schlussfolgerungen des Rates, Europäischer Rat Brüssel 8./9. März 2007.
4 KOM(2009) 279.
DE 3 DE
Drucksache 17/815 – 10 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Die urbane Mobilität liegt vor allem in der Verantwortung der lokalen, regionalen und
nationalen Behörden. Lokale Entscheidungen werden jedoch nicht isoliert getroffen, sondern
innerhalb des politischen und rechtlichen Rahmens auf nationaler, regionaler und EU-Ebene.
Daher ist die Kommission der Auffassung, dass lokale, regionale und nationale Maßnahmen
durch gemeinsames Handeln und eine partnerschaftliche Vorgehensweise unter Wahrung der
jeweiligen Zuständigkeiten und Verantwortlichkeiten sämtlicher Akteure sehr viel besser
unterstützt werden können..
In den im Anschluss an die Veröffentlichung des Grünbuchs zur Mobilität in der Stadt
geführten Konsultationen und Diskussionen5 wurde der Mehrwert von Maßnahmen auf EU-
Ebene bestätigt und verdeutlicht6. Der Aktionsplan basiert auf den Vorschlägen von
Beteiligten, einzelnen Bürgern und deren Interessenvertretern sowie von europäischen
Institutionen und Gremien.
Das Europäische Parlament hat am 9. Juli 20087 eine Entschließung zum Grünbuch sowie am
23. April 2009 einen Bericht über den Aktionsplan zur urbanen Mobilität8angenommen. Am
29. Mai 20089 nahm der Europäische Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss eine Stellungnahme
zum Grünbuch an, am 9. April 200810 folgte ihm der Ausschuss der Regionen. Am
21. April 200911 gab der Ausschuss der Regionen eine Stellungnahme zum Bericht des
Europäischen Parlaments ab. Auch im Rat wurde das Thema erörtert12.
Auf der Grundlage der Konsultationen im Anschluss an die Vorlage des Grünbuchs bildet
dieser Aktionsplan einen abgestimmten Rahmen für EU-Initiativen auf dem Gebiet der
urbanen Mobilität unter Wahrung des Grundsatzes der Subsidiarität. Hierzu werden Strategien
für die nachhaltige urbane Mobilität unterstützt, die beispielsweise durch den erleichterten
Austausch bewährter Verfahren und die Bereitstellung finanzieller Mittel dazu beitragen, die
Gesamtziele der EU umzusetzen. Der Kommission ist bewusst, dass Stadtgebiete in der EU je
nach ihrer geografischen Lage, ihre Größe und ihres jeweiligen Wohlstands unterschiedlichen
Herausforderungen gegenüberstehen. Mit dem Aktionsplan sollen keine Standard- oder Top-
down-Lösungen vorgeschrieben werden.
In dem Aktionsplan werden praktische kurz- und mittelfristige Aktionen vorgeschlagen, die
bis 2012 schrittweise umgesetzt werden können und sich auf integrierte Art und Weise mit
besonderen Fragen zur urbanen Mobilität befassen. Die Kommission bietet lokalen,
regionalen und nationalen Behörden, die in ausgewählten Bereichen von gegenseitigem
Interesse eine freiwillige Zusammenarbeit eingehen, eine Partnerschaft an. Sie fordert auch
andere Akteure in den Mitgliedstaaten, Bürger und Unternehmen auf, eng
zusammenzuarbeiten und schenkt den Mobilitätsbedürfnissen von schwächeren
Bevölkerungsgruppen wie älteren Menschen, Geringverdienern oder Menschen mit
Behinderungen, die aufgrund körperlicher, geistiger oder sensorischer Behinderungen oder
5 KOM(2007) 551.
6 Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse der Konsultation:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/urban_mobility/green_paper/green_paper_en.htm.
7 INI/2008/2041.
8 INI/2008/2217.
9 TEN/320 – CESE 982/2008.
10 CdR 236/2007.
11 CdR 417/2008.
12 http://www.ue2008.fr/PFUE/lang/de/accueil/PFUE-09_2008/PFUE-
02.09.2008/reunion_informelle_des_ministres_des_transports.html.
DE 4 DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 11 – Drucksache 17/815
Beeinträchtigungen oder auch altersbedingt in ihrer Mobilität eingeschränkt sind, besondere
Beachtung.
2. Welche Rolle kann die EU übernehmen?
Die urbanen Verkehrssysteme sind ein wesentlicher Bestandteil des europäischen
Verkehrssystems und damit Teil der gemeinsamen Verkehrspolitik im Sinne der Artikel 70
bis 80 EG-Vertrag. Ferner lassen sich auf anderen Feldern der EU-Politik (Kohäsion, Umwelt,
Gesundheit usw.) die Ziele nicht erreichen, wenn die Besonderheiten der Städte, auch der
urbanen Mobilität, nicht berücksichtigt werden.
In den vergangenen Jahren entwickelten sich EU-Politik und EU-Recht auf dem Gebiet der
urbanen Mobilität weiter. Über die Struktur- und Kohäsionsfonds wurden beachtliche Mittel
bereitgestellt. Von der EU häufig über das Rahmenprogramm für Forschung und
technologische Entwicklung geförderte Initiativen trugen zu einer Fülle innovativer Konzepte
bei. Mit der gemeinschaftsweiten Verbreitung und Übernahme dieser Ansätze werden
Behörden in die Lage versetzt, mehr zu bewirken, und das besser und zu geringeren Kosten.
Der Aufbau effizienter Verkehrssysteme in Stadtgebieten wurde angesichts der
Verkehrsüberlastung und der größer werdenden Ausdehnung der Städte zu einer immer
komplexeren Aufgabe. Den Behörden kommt vor allem die Rolle zu, für Planung,
Finanzierung und die rechtlichen Grundlagen zu sorgen. Die EU kann lokalen, regionalen und
nationalen Behörden Anreize geben, die angesichts des komplexen Umfelds dringend
benötigten langfristigen integrierten Strategien zu verfolgen.
Auch kann die EU den Behörden die Vorteile interoperabler Lösungen näherbringen, die
einem reibungsloseren Funktionieren des Binnenmarktes förderlich sind. Kompatible
Vorschriften, Systeme und Technologien erleichtern die Umsetzung und Durchsetzung. Die
Festlegung von Normen für den gesamten Binnenmarkt schafft die Voraussetzung für ein
größeres Produktionsvolumen, womit sich die Kosten für den Kunden verringern.
Stadtgebiete werden zum Versuchslabor für technologische und organisatorische Innovation,
sich verändernde Mobilitätsmuster und neue Finanzierungslösungen. Die EU hat ein Interesse
daran, dass im Rahmen lokaler Strategien innovative Lösungen ausgetauscht werden , so dass
sie den Verkehrsunternehmen und den Bürgern gleichermaßen zugute kommen, und muss
dafür sorgen, dass die Effizienz des europäischen Verkehrssystems durch eine wirksame
Verzahnung, Interoperabilität und Verbindung sichergestellt ist. In diesem Zusammenhang ist
es an der Industrie, mit Vorschlägen für die Herausforderungen der Zukunft einen wichtigen
Beitrag zu leisten.
Schließlich ist nachhaltige urbane Mobilität für die Beziehungen zu unseren Nachbarn und für
unsere globale Gesellschaft, die sich mehr und mehr in städtischen Ballungsräumen
konzentriert, von immer größerer Bedeutung. Mit erfolgreichen Aktionen im Rahmen dieses
Aktionsplans kann allen Akteuren in der EU und ihren Unternehmen dabei geholfen werden,
eine künftige globalisierte Gesellschaft, die ausgerichtet ist auf die Befriedigung der
Bedürfnisse der Bürger, ein harmonisches Zusammenleben, Lebensqualität und
Nachhaltigkeit, aktiv mitzugestalten.
3. Ein Aktionsprogramm zur Förderung nachhaltiger urbaner Mobilität
DE 5 DE
Drucksache 17/815 – 12 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Die vorgeschlagenen Aktionen konzentrieren sich auf sechs Themen, mit denen die
wichtigsten Botschaften aus den Reaktionen auf das Grünbuch aufgegriffen werden. Sie
werden über die bereits bestehenden Programme und Instrumente der EU umgesetzt. Die
Aktionen sollen sich gegenseitig und andere Initiativen der EU ergänzen. Anhang 1 gibt einen
Überblick über die vorgeschlagenen Aktionen und den Zeitplan.
Thema 1 – Förderung integrierter Strategien
Die Komplexität der städtischen Verkehrssysteme, Verwaltungsfragen, die Anbindung von
Städten an ihr Umland, die gegenseitige Abhängigkeit der Verkehrsträger, der Raummangel
in den Städten und die Rolle der urbanen Systeme im umfassenderen europäischen
Verkehrssystem lassen sich am besten mit einem integrierten Konzept in den Griff
bekommen. Dieses wird nicht nur für den Aufbau von Verkehrsinfrastrukturen und
Verkehrsdiensten benötigt, sondern auch für politische Entscheidungen, die Verkehr mit dem
Umweltschutz13, einer gesunden Umwelt, der Raumordnung, sozialen Aspekten der
Zugänglichkeit und Mobilität sowie der Industriepolitik in Einklang bringen müssen. Um die
langfristigen Herausforderungen der urbanen Mobilität bewältigen zu können, kommt es
darauf an, Strategien zu entwickeln, die Verkehrsplanung zu integrieren, geeignete Stellen für
die Mobilitätsplanung aufzubauen und realistische Ziele festzulegen, aber auch die
Zusammenarbeit mit und zwischen den Verkehrsbetreibern zu fördern.
Aktion 1 – Beschleunigung der Einführung von Plänen für die nachhaltige urbane Mobilität
Entsprechend der ‚Thematischen Strategie für die städtische Umwelt'14 wird die Kommission
kurzfristig lokale Behörden bei der Aufstellung von Plänen unterstützen, die die nachhaltige
urbane Mobilität für den Personen- und Güterverkehr in städtischen und stadtnahen Gebieten
zum Gegenstand haben. Sie wird Informationsmaterial zur Verfügung stellen, den Austausch
bewährter Verfahren unterstützen, Benchmarks ermitteln und Fortbildungsmaßnahmen für
Fachleute auf dem Gebiet der urbanen Mobilität fördern. Längerfristig könnte die
Kommission weitere Schritte ergreifen, etwa durch Anreize und Empfehlungen.
Die Kommission wird, wann immer möglich, die Mitgliedstaaten darin unterstützen,
Plattformen für das gemeinsame Lernen und den Austausch von Erfahrungen und bewährten
Verfahren bereitzustellen, die die Entwicklung nachhaltiger Strategien für die urbane
Mobilität fördern. Ferner wird die Kommission in den Bürgermeisterkonvent15 die Frage der
urbanen Mobilität einbringen, um einen integrierten Ansatz zu fördern, der die Themen
Energie und Klimaschutz mit dem Thema Verkehr verknüpft. Auch wird sie sich dafür
einsetzen, dass Fragen des Verkehrs und der Mobilität in die Aktionspläne für nachhaltige
Energie aufgenommen werden, die von den am Konvent beteiligten Städten aufzustellen sind.
Aktion 2 – Nachhaltige Mobilität in den Städten und zur Regionalpolitik
Um die Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten, die Strukturfonds, Kohäsionsfonds und Europäische
Investitionsbank bieten, besser bekannt zu machen, beabsichtigt die Kommission, auf der
Grundlage der derzeit in der Gemeinschaft und in den Mitgliedstaaten bestehenden
Rahmenbedingungen im Jahr 2011 Informationen zu den Beziehungen zwischen einer
13 Beispielsweise die Abstimmung zwischen Plänen für eine nachhaltige urbane Mobilität und Plänen zur
Luftqualität, die im Rahmen des EU-Rechts zur Luftqualität aufgestellt werden.
14 KOM(2005) 718.
15 www.eumayors.eu.
DE 6 DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 13 – Drucksache 17/815
nachhaltigen urbanen Mobilität und den Zielen der Regionalpolitik herauszugeben. Dieser
wird sich mit dem größeren Zusammenhang der nachhaltigen Stadtentwicklung sowie mit den
Berührungspunkten zwischen dem Stadtverkehr und dem transeuropäischen Verkehrsnetz
befassen. Die Kommission wird auch die Fördermöglichkeiten darlegen und die Regeln für
staatliche Beihilfen und die öffentliche Auftragsvergabe erläutern.
Aktion 3 – Verkehr und eine gesunde städtische Umwelt
Ein nachhaltiger Stadtverkehr kann dazu beitragen, eine gesündere Umwelt zu schaffen, so
dass nicht übertragbare Krankheiten, wie Atemwegs- und Herz-Kreislauferkrankungen
zurückgehen und Verletzungen verhütet werden. Die Kommission unterstützt den Aufbau von
Partnerschaften für eine gesündere Umwelt und wird im Zusammenhang mit Fragen der
öffentlichen Gesundheit, insbesondere der Umsetzung der Strategien zu Ernährung,
Übergewicht, Fettleibigkeit, Umwelt und Gesundheit, Verhütung von Verletzungen und
Krebs, weitere Synergien zwischen der öffentlichen Gesundheit und der Verkehrspolitik
untersuchen.
Thema 2 – Die Bürger im Mittelpunkt
Ein qualitativ hochwertiger und bezahlbarer öffentlicher Nahverkehr ist das Rückgrat eines
nachhaltigen städtischen Verkehrssystems. Zuverlässigkeit, Information, Sicherheit und
leichte Zugänglichkeit sind grundlegende Voraussetzungen für die Attraktivität der
öffentlichen Verkehrsmittel Bus, U-Bahn, Straßenbahn und Oberleitungsbus, Eisenbahn oder
Schiff. Investitionen in den öffentlichen Nahverkehr wie auch dessen Betrieb werden zum
großen Teil bereits durch gemeinschaftliche Rechtsvorschriften geregelt16. Eine transparente
Auftragsvergabe hat vielfältige Vorteile und kann Innovationen bei Dienstleistungen und
Technologien befördern. Ein hohes Niveau beim Schutz der Fahrgastrechte, auch der
Fahrgäste mit eingeschränkter Mobilität, zu gewährleisten ist ein Ziel, das ganz oben auf der
Agenda der Kommission steht. Rechtlich geregelt ist bereits der Eisenbahnverkehr17, und
jüngst wurden Vorschläge auch für den Kraftomnibusverkehr18 sowie den See- und
Binnenschiffsverkehr19 vorgelegt.
Aktion 4 – Plattform zu Fahrgastrechten im öffentlichen Nahverkehr
Die Kommission wird einen Dialog mit Beteiligten, beispielsweise mit Verbänden von
Verkehrsunternehmen, Behörden, Beschäftigten und Nutzergruppen, moderieren, um
gemeinschaftsweite bewährte Verfahren zu ermitteln und festzustellen, wie die
Fahrgastrechte im urbanen öffentlichen Nahverkehr gestärkt werden können. Ziel ist es, auf
der Grundlage sektoraler Initiativen und in Ergänzung des regulatorischen Ansatzes der
Kommission ehrgeizige freiwillige Verpflichtungen festzulegen, die Qualitätsstandards,
Verpflichtungen zum Schutz der Fahrgastrechte, auch von Personen mit eingeschränkter
Mobilität, sowie gemeinsam vereinbarte Beschwerdeverfahren und
Berichterstattungsmechanismen beinhalten sollten.
16 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1370/2007 über öffentliche Personenverkehrsdienste und Richtlinien 2004/17/EG
und 2004/18/EG zur Vergabe öffentlicher Aufträge.
17 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1371/2007 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 23. Oktober 2007
über die Rechte und Pflichten der Fahrgäste im Eisenbahnverkehr.
18 KOM(2008) 817.
19 KOM(2008) 816.
DE 7 DE
Drucksache 17/815 – 14 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Aktion 5 – Verbesserung der Zugänglichkeit für Personen mit eingeschränkter Mobilität
Personen mit Behinderungen haben genauso wie der Rest der Bevölkerung das Recht,
öffentliche Verkehrsmittel zu nutzen, was ihnen jedoch in der Realität häufig nur bedingt oder
überhaupt nicht möglich ist. So wurden zum Beispiel durch den Einsatz von Niederflurbussen
erhebliche Fortschritte erzielt. Dagegen bleiben andere öffentliche Verkehrsträger, wie z. B.
U-Bahnen, häufig weitestgehend unzugänglich. Das 2007 von der Europäischen
Gemeinschaft und allen Mitgliedstaaten unterzeichnete Übereinkommen der Vereinten
Nationen über die Rechte der Menschen mit Behinderungen enthält klare Verpflichtungen.
Nach Artikel 9 „treffen die Vertragsstaaten geeignete Maßnahmen mit dem Ziel, für
Menschen mit Behinderungen den gleichberechtigten Zugang (…) zu Transportmitteln, (….)
in städtischen und ländlichen Gebieten (….), zu gewährleisten.“ Die Kommission wird
gemeinsam mit den Mitgliedstaaten diesen Verpflichtungen uneingeschränkt nachkommen
und wird hierzu die Frage der urbanen Mobilität in die EU-Strategie für Menschen mit
Behinderungen 2010-2020 aufnehmen sowie geeignete Qualitätsindikatoren und
Berichterstattungsmechanismen ausarbeiten. Ferner wird sie gezieltere Maßnahmen innerhalb
des RP7 fördern.
Aktion 6 – Verbesserte Reiseinformationen
Die Kommission wird mit den öffentlichen Verkehrsunternehmen und Behörden darauf
hinwirken, die Bereitstellung von Verkehrsinformationen, auch speziell an Behinderte
gerichtete Informationen, durch verschiedene Medien zu erleichtern. Auch wird sie die
Entwicklung nationaler und regionaler multimodaler Reiseplaner sowie Verknüpfungen mit
vorhandenen Planern mit dem Ziel unterstützen, letztlich den Nutzern ein Reiseportal für den
öffentlichen Nahverkehr auf EU-Ebene über das Internet zur Verfügung zu stellen.
Besonderes Augenmerk gilt dabei den Hauptknotenpunkten des TEN-V-Netzes und deren
Verbindungen mit lokalen und regionalen Netzen.
Aktion 7 – Zugang zu Umweltzonen
Die Kommission wird eine Studie in Auftrag geben, die sich mit denverschiedenen
Zugangsvorschriften für unterschiedliche Arten von Umweltzonen in der EU befassen soll,
um mehr Erkenntnisse darüber zu gewinnen, wie die unterschiedlichen Systeme in der Praxis
funktionieren.
Aktion 8 – Kampagnen zur Förderung eines nachhaltigen Mobilitätsverhaltens
Bildungs-, Informations- und Sensibilisierungskampagnen spielen bei der Herausbildung
einer neuen Kultur für die urbane Mobilität eine wichtige Rolle. Die Kommission wird auch
in Zukunft Kampagnen auf allen Ebenen, u. a. im Zusammenhang mit der Europäischen
Woche für Mobilität, unterstützten. Für die Europäische Mobilitätswoche wird die
Kommission das bestehende System für die Preisverleihung verbessern und einen besonderen
Preis zur Förderung der Verabschiedung nachhaltiger städtischer Mobilitätspläne prüfen.
Aktion 9 – Vermittlung einer energieeffizienten Fahrweise im Rahmen der
Fahrschulausbildung
Eine Unterweisung in energieeffizientem Fahren ist bereits obligatorischer Bestandteil der
Ausbildung und Prüfung von Berufsfahrern. Die Kommission wird im Rahmen des
Führerschein-Regelungsausschusses gemeinsam mit den Mitgliedstaaten erörtern, ob und wie
DE 8 DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 15 – Drucksache 17/815
das Erlernen einer energieeffizienten Fahrweise in die Führerscheinprüfung von privaten
Autofahrern integriert werden kann und welche Folgemaßnahmen zur Unterstützung ergriffen
werden könnten. Das Thema wird auch Gegenstand des nächsten Aktionsprogramms für
Straßenverkehrssicherheit sein.
Thema 3 – Umweltfreundlicher Stadtverkehr
EU-weit wurden in zahlreichen Städten umweltfreundliche Politiken auf den Weg gebracht.
Europaweite Maßnahmen können dazu beitragen, die Märkte für neue und saubere
Fahrzeugtechnologien sowie alternative Kraftstoffe auszubauen. Damit werden die EU-
Industrie direkt unterstützt, eine gesunde Umwelt gefördert und ein Beitrag zur Erholung der
europäischen Wirtschaft geleistet. Werden die externen Kosten (der von ihnen verursachten
Umweltschäden, Staus und sonstigen Kosten) nach dem Verursacherprinzip den Benutzern
angelastet, kann die Internalisierung der externen Kosten die Benutzer von Verkehrsmitteln
dazu bewegen, mit der Zeit auf sauberere Fahrzeuge oder Verkehrsträger umzusteigen,
weniger überlastete Infrastrukturen zu nutzen oder zu anderen Zeiten zu reisen. Die EG-
Vorschriften für die Erhebung von Gebühren für die Benutzung bestimmter Verkehrswege
durch schwere Nutzfahrzeuge20 stehen einer nichtdiskriminierenden Anwendung von
regulierend wirkenden Gebühren in städtischen Gebieten zur Verringerung der
Verkehrsüberlastung und der Umweltfolgen nicht entgegen.
Aktion 10 – Forschungs- und Demonstrationsprojekte für emissionsarme und emissionslose
Fahrzeuge
Die Kommission wird auch in Zukunft Forschungs- und Demonstrationsprojekte über das
siebte Rahmenprogramm für Forschung und technologische Entwicklung (RP7) unterstützen,
um die Markteinführung von emissionsarmen und emissionslosen Fahrzeugen sowie von
alternativen Kraftstoffen zu erleichtern und die Abhängigkeit von fossilen Brennstoffen zu
verringern. Beispiele hierfür sind die CIVITAS-Initiative21 und Projekte über den Einsatz von
Wasserstoff, Biokraftstoffen und Hybridfahrzeugen für den Stadtverkehr.
Im Rahmen des europäischen Konjunkturpakets hat die Kommission eine Europäische
Initiative für umweltgerechte Kraftfahrzeuge22 gestartet. 2009 wird die Kommission weitere
Projekte im Zusammenhang mit Elektrofahrzeugen fördern, die sich mit Batterien sowie
Antriebs- und Kraftübertragungssystemen befassen sowie mit Informations- und
Kommunikationstechnologien. Ferner fördert sie ein Demonstrationsprojekt zur
Elektromobilität. Das Projekt befasst sich vor allem mit Elektrofahrzeugen und
entsprechenden Infrastrukturen in Stadtgebieten und wird nationale Initiativen integrieren und
die Normung von Aufladestationen unterstützen.
Aktion 11 – Internet-Ratgeber zum Thema saubere und energieeffiziente Fahrzeuge
Die Kommission wird auch weiterhin über das Internet einen Leitfaden zu sauberen und
energieeffizienten Fahrzeugen zur Verfügung stellen, der u. a. einen Überblick über den
Markt, die Rechtsprechung und Fördermittel gibt. Die Website bietet darüber hinaus
20 Richtlinie 1999/62/EG und Vorschlag der Kommission für eine Überarbeitung der Richtlinie über die
Erhebung von Gebühren für die Benutzung bestimmter Verkehrswege durch schwere Nutzfahrzeuge,
KOM(2008) 433.
21 www.civitas.eu.
22 http://ec.europa.eu/research/transport/info/green_cars_initiative_en.html.
DE 9 DE
Drucksache 17/815 – 16 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Unterstützung bei der gemeinsamen Beschaffung von Fahrzeugen für öffentliche Dienste an,
wobei die Marktentwicklungen überwacht werden, um den Wettbewerb zu gewährleisten.
Dieses Angebot erleichtert die Umsetzung der neuen Richtlinie über saubere und
energieeffiziente Kraftfahrzeuge23.
Aktion 12 – Studie zu urbanen Aspekten der Internalisierung externer Kosten
Sobald der EU-Rahmen und das neue Verfahren für die Internalisierung der externen Kosten
festgelegt sind, wird die Kommission unter Berücksichtigung der Schlussfolgerungen aus der
von ihr eingeleiteten Debatte über die nachhaltige Zukunft des Verkehrs, eine methodische
Studie zu den urbanen Aspekten der Internalisierung in Auftrag geben. Die Studie soll sich
mit der Wirksamkeit und Effizienz verschiedener Lösungen für die Kostenanlastung befassen
sowie mit Umsetzungsfragen, wie öffentliche Akzeptanz, soziale Auswirkungen,
Kostendeckung, Verfügbarkeit von intelligenten Verkehrssystemen und der Frage, wie sich
urbane Strategien der Kostenanlastung und andere Vorkehrungen für Umweltzonen wirksam
kombinieren lassen.
Aktion 13 – Informationsaustausch über städtische Gebührensysteme
Die Kommission wird den Informationsaustausch über urbane Systeme der Kostenanlastung
in der EU zwischen den Sachverständigen und politischen Entscheidungsträgern erleichtern.
Hierbei wird auf bestehende Initiativen24 zurückgegriffen. Es geht um Informationen über
Konsultationsverfahren, Ausgestaltung der Systeme, Informationsangebote für Bürger,
öffentliche Akzeptanz, Betriebskosten und Einnahmen, technologische Aspekte und
Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt. Die Schlussfolgerungen werden in die Arbeiten der
Kommission zur Internalisierung externer Kosten einfließen.
Thema 4 – Stärkung der Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten
Um in den Genuss der Vorteile einer nachhaltigen urbanen Mobilität kommen zu können,
sind vielfach Investitionen beispielsweise in Infrastrukturen, Fahrzeuge, neue Technologien
und verbesserte Dienstleistungen erforderlich. Die Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten auf lokaler
Ebene sind vielfältig: kommunale Steuern, Gebühren aus der Personenbeförderung,
Parkgebühren, Gebühren für das Befahren von Umweltzonen, urbane Kostenanrechnung und
auch private Mittel. Das Hauptproblem besteht darin, dass in Zukunft der Finanzierungsbedarf
für komplexe Verkehrssysteme einerseits zunehmen wird und andererseits immer weniger
öffentliche Mittel zur Verfügung stehen werden. Der Rückgriff auf EU-Mittel, auch auf
Instrumente der Europäischen Investitionsbank, kann wichtige Impulse geben und dazu
führen, dass private Mittel bereitgestellt werden. Kurzfristig kann die Kommission Behörden
und Akteure darin unterstützen, vorhandene Finanzierungsmöglichkeiten zu sondieren und
innovative öffentlich-private Partnerschaften aufzubauen.
Aktion 14 – Optimierung vorhandener Finanzierungsquellen
Besonders große Bedeutung kommt den Struktur- und Kohäsionsfonds, über die im laufenden
Finanzplanungszeitraum über acht Milliarden Euro für den umweltfreundlichen Verkehr zur
Verfügung gestellt werden, bei der EU-Förderung von Investitionen in die Infrastruktur und
Fahrzeuge zu. Erstmals ist ein Schwerpunkt des RP7-Themas „Verkehr“ dem nachhaltigen
23 Richtlinie 2009/33/EG.
24 Zum Beispiel: www.curacaoproject.eu.
DE 10 DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 17 – Drucksache 17/815
Stadtverkehr gewidmet. Neben den laufenden Aktivitäten wird die Kommission neue gezielte
Forschungs- und Demonstrationsaktivitäten zur urbanen Mobilität prüfen.
Auch STEER – der den energiespezifischen Aspekten des Verkehrswesens gewidmete Teil
des Programms „Intelligente Energie Europa“25 und URBACT26 – wird die Kommission
weiter unterstützen. Im Rahmen des Förderprogramms für Informations- und
Kommunikationstechnologien können Pilotprojekte zur Mobilität in der Stadt gefördert
werden. Schließlich wurden im Rahmen einer 2008 veröffentlichten Aufforderung zur
Einreichung von Vorschlägen Maßnahmen zur urbanen Mobilität in den im Grünbuch zur
Mobilität in der Stadt genannten Schwerpunktbereichen gefördert.
Aktion 15 – Ermittlung des künftigen Finanzierungsbedarfs
Die Kommission wird die erfolgreiche CIVITAS-Initiative, deren dritte Projektgeneration
2008 anlief, auch weiter finanziell unterstützen. Derzeit wird überprüft, welcher Weg sich im
Hinblick auf CIVITAS FUTURA am besten eignet. Ferner wird die Kommission im Rahmen
ihrer Gesamtüberlegungen zum nächsten mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen prüfen, wie hoch der
künftige Finanzierungsbedarf für Verbesserungen der urbanen Mobilität sein wird.
Thema 5 – Erfahrungs- und Wissensaustausch
Die Kommission wird den Erfahrungs- und Informationsaustausch zwischen den beteiligten
Akteuren vor allem im Zusammenhang mit solchen Modellen unterstützen, die im Rahmen
von Gemeinschaftsprogrammen ausgearbeitet wurden. Maßnahmen auf EU-Ebene können für
die Erhebung, den Austausch und den Vergleich Daten, Statistiken und Informationen
ausschlaggebend sein. Diese fehlen zur Zeit noch, sind aber für fundierte Strategien, etwa für
die Auftragsvergabe öffentlicher Verkehrsdienste, die Internalisierung externer Kosten oder
die integrierte Verkehrs- und Raumplanung unerlässlich. Auch können EU-Maßnahmen
hilfreich sein für Städte, die über weniger Erfahrung, Wissen und Finanzmittel verfügen und
von den von anderen – im Bereich nachhaltige urbane Mobilität weiter fortgeschrittenen –
Städten entwickelten Praktiken profitieren können, etwa in Bereichen wie der Sicherheit von
Fußgängern und Fahrradfahrern, wo ein Austausch bewährter Verfahren dazu beitragen kann,
die Sicherheit schwächerer Verkehrsteilnehmer in Stadtgebieten zu verbessern.
Aktion 16 – Aktualisierung von Daten und Statistiken
Angesichts des Mangels an Daten und Statistiken wird die Kommission eine Studie in
Auftrag geben, die sich mit der Frage befassen soll, wie die Datenerhebung für den
Stadtverkehr und die urbane Mobilität verbessert werden kann. Untersucht werden sollen
auch Synergien mit bestehenden Kommissionsaktivitäten.
25 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/index_en.html.
26 http://urbact.eu
DE 11 DE
Drucksache 17/815 – 18 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Aktion 17 – Einrichtung eines Beobachtungszentrums für urbane Mobilität
Die Kommission wird ein Beobachtungszentrum für urbane Mobilität einrichten, das sich an
Stadtverkehrsfachleute richtet und das in Form einer virtuellen Plattform27 den Austausch von
Informationen, Daten und Statistiken, die Verfolgung von Entwicklungen und den Austausch
bewährter Verfahren erleichtern wird. Über die Plattform wird sich eine Datenbank mit
Informationen zu einem großen Spektrum geprüfter und bereits vorhandener Lösungen
abrufen lassen sowie Schulungs- und Bildungsmaterial, Programme für den
Personalaustausch und andere Instrumente. Auch gibt sie einen Überblick über das EU-Recht
und Finanzinstrumente der Gemeinschaft zur Förderung der urbanen Mobilität.
Aktion 18 – Beitrag zum internationalen Dialog und Informationsaustausch
Weltweit stehen lokale und regionale Behörden vor ähnlichen Mobilitätsproblemen. Fragen
des Klimaschutzes, der Erleichterung des internationalen Handels, der
Energieversorgungssicherheit, der nahtlosen Verkehrsflüsse und der sozialen Gerechtigkeit
sind von globaler Bedeutung. Über die bestehenden Plattformen und
Finanzierungsmechanismen wird die Kommission den Dialog, Städtepartnerschaften und den
Informationsaustausch zur urbanen Mobilität mit benachbarten Regionen und globalen
Partnern erleichtern. Zunächst wird die Kommission das Netz des CIVITAS-Forums für
Städte aus den östlichen Nachbarländern, der Mittelmeerregion und aus afrikanischen
Regionen28 öffnen. Längerfristig wird sie diese Dimension in den Aufbau von CIVITAS
FUTURA aufnehmen und weitere einschlägige Maßnahmen innerhalb des RP7 prüfen.
Thema 6 – Optimierung der urbanen Mobilität
Wichtig für ein effizientes Verkehrssystem sind eine wirksame Integration, Interoperabilität
und Verknüpfung verschiedener Verkehrsnetze. Dies kann die Verlagerung hin zu
umweltfreundlicheren Verkehrsträgern und einer effizienten Frachtlogistik erleichtern. Die
Bezahlbare und familienfreundliche Angebote des öffentlichen Nahverkehrs sind der
Schlüssel dazu, die Bürger zu ermutigen, weniger vom Auto abhängig zu sein , öffentliche
Verkehrsmittel zu nutzen, mehr zu laufen und Rad zu fahren und neue Formen der Mobilität
zu erproben, beispielsweise Car-Sharing, Car-Pooling oder Bike-Sharing. Alternative
Verkehrsmittel, wie elektrische Räder, Scooters und Motorräder, aber auch Taxis können eine
Rolle spielen. Unternehmen können mit ihrer Firmenpolitik darauf Einfluss nehmen, wie ihre
Angestellten zur Arbeit kommen, indem sie sie auf nachhaltige Verkehrsoptionen
aufmerksam machen. Unterstützen können Arbeitgeber und öffentliche Verwaltungen dies
durch finanzielle Anreize und Parkplatzregelungen.
Aktion 19 – Städtischer Güterverkehr
Die Kommission beabsichtigt, bei der Optimierung der urbanen Logistikeffizienz zu helfen,
etwa zur Verbesserung der Verbindungen zwischen dem Fernverkehr, den innerstädtischen
Verbindungen und dem urbanen Güterverkehr, um die „letzte Meile“ bei der Zustellung
möglichst effizient zu gestalten. Hauptanliegen sind die bessere Einbeziehung des
Güterverkehrs in lokale Strategien sowie Pläne und Verbesserungen beim Management und
der Überwachung der Verkehrsflüsse. Im Zuge ihrer Vorbereitungen wird die Kommission
27 Aufbauend auf bestehenden Initiativen, z. B. www.eltis.org.
28 KOM(2009) 301.
DE 12 DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 19 – Drucksache 17/815
2010 eine Konferenz zum urbanen Güterverkehr veranstalten. Auf der Konferenz wird auch
die Umsetzung der auf die Städte ausgerichteten Initiativen des Aktionsplans
Güterverkehrslogistik29 bewertet.
Aktion 20 – Intelligente Verkehrssysteme (intelligent transport systems, ITS) zur Förderung
urbaner Mobilität
Die Kommission plant, Unterstützung in Bezug auf ITS-Anwendungen für die urbane
Mobilität in Ergänzung des ITS-Aktionsplans30 anzubieten. Hierbei geht es beispielsweise
um elektronische Ticketing- und Bezahlsysteme, Reiseinformationen, Zugangskontrolle und
Nachfragemanagement sowie um die Möglichkeiten, die sich mit dem europäischen Galileo-
GNSS-System eröffnen. Zum Auftakt wird die Kommission eine Studie in Auftrag geben, die
sich mit Verbesserungen bei der Interoperabilität von dienste- und verkehrsträger-
unabhängigen Ticketing- und Bezahlsystemen befasst sowie mit dem Einsatz von Smart-
Cards im Stadtverkehr, wobei der Schwerpunkt auf wichtigen europäischen Zielorten liegen
soll (Flughäfen, Bahnhöfe).
4. Ausblick
Die Kommission wird mit der Umsetzung des Aktionsplans aktiv vorangehen. Sie wird den
Dialog mit den Beteiligten fortsetzen und geeignete Steuerungsmechanismen schaffen, die
auch die Mitgliedstaaten, beispielsweise über die Gemeinsame Expertengruppe für Verkehr
und Umwelt31, einbeziehen. Im Jahr 2012 wird die Kommission eine Bilanz der Umsetzung
dieses Aktionsplans ziehen und die Notwendigkeit weiterer Maßnahmen prüfen.
29 KOM(2007) 607.
30 KOM(2008) 886.
31 Die Gruppe wurde eingerichtet im Rahmen der Strategie des Rates für die Einbeziehung der Belange
der Umwelt und der nachhaltigen Entwicklung in die Verkehrspolitik; Ratsdokument 11717/99 TRANS
197 ENV 335, 11. Oktober 1999.
DE 13 DE
Drucksache 17/815 – 20 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Anhang 1 – Überblick über die Maßnahmen zur urbanen Mobilität
Aktion Nr.
Beginn: 2009
Beschleunigung der Einführung von Plänen für die nachhaltige urbane Mobilität 1
Verbesserung der Reiseinformationen 6
Zugang zu Umweltzonen 7
Forschungs- und Demonstrationsprojekte für emissionsarme und emissionslose
Fahrzeuge
10
Internet-Ratgeber zum Thema saubere und energieeffiziente Fahrzeuge 11
Informationsaustausch über städtische Gebührensysteme 13
Optimierung vorhandener Finanzierungsquellen 14
Einrichtung eines Beobachtungszentrums für urbane Mobilität 17
Beginn: 2010
Verkehr für eine gesündere städtische Umwelt 3
Plattform zu Fahrgastrechten im öffentlichen Nahverkehr 4
Kampagnen zur Förderung eines nachhaltigen Mobilitätsverhaltens 8
Vermittlung einer energieeffizienten Fahrweise im Rahmen der
Fahrschulausbildung
9
Ermittlung des künftigen Finanzierungsbedarfs 15
Nachbesserung von Daten und Statistiken 16
Beitrag zum internationalen Dialog und Informationsaustausch 18
Beginn: 2011
Nachhaltige Mobilität in den Städten und zur Regionalpolitik 2
Verbesserung der Zugänglichkeit für Personen mit eingeschränkter Mobilität 5
Studie zu urbanen Aspekten der Internalisierung externer Kosten 12
Beginn: 2012
Städtischer Güterverkehr 19
Intelligente Verkehrssysteme (intelligent transport systems, ITS) zur Förderung
urbaner Mobilität
20
DE 14 DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 21 – Drucksache 17/815
COUNCIL OF
THE EUROPEAN UNION
Brussels, 5 October 2009
14030/09
ADD 1
TRANS 371
ENV 630
TELECOM 197
RECH 307
COVER NOTE
from: Secretary-General of the European Commission,
signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
date of receipt: 2 October 2009
to: Mr Javier SOLANA, Secretary-General/High Representative
Subject: Commission staff working document accompanying the
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
Impact Assessment
Delegations will find attached Commission document SEC(2009) 1211 final.
________________________
Encl.: SEC(2009) 1211 final
14030/09 ADD 1 MS/ts 1
DG C III EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 22 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
Brussels, 30.9.2009
SEC(2009) 1211 final
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
accompanying the
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
Impact Assessment
{COM(2009) 490}
{SEC(2009) 1212}
EN EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 23 – Drucksache 17/815
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES
1.1 Organisation and timing
1.2 Consultation
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION
2.1 Fragmentation of local, regional and national approaches
2.2 Lack of initiative, lack of knowledge and experience
2.3 Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent?
2.4 What would happen if nothing were done?
2.5 The EU’s right to act
3. OBJECTIVES
4. POLICY OPTIONS
4.1 From the long list to the shortlist
4.2 Stakeholder support
5. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE SHORTLISTED OPTIONS
6. COMPARING AND ASSESSING THE OPTIONS
6.1 Fine-tuning the shortlisted options
6.2 Assessment of shortlisted options and identification of possible actions
6.3 Towards the Action Plan on Urban Mobility
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
ANNEXES
ANNEX I: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION
ANNEX II: OVERVIEW OF EXISTING EU INITIATIVES AND LEGISLATION
ANNEX III: THE BASELINE SCENARIO
ANNEX IV: THE EU’s RIGHT TO ACT
ANNEX V: FROM THE LONG LIST TO THE SHORTLIST
ANNEX VI: DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPACT OF SHORTLISTED POLICY OPTIONS
EN 2 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 24 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES
1.1. Organisation and timing
This impact assessment prepares the ground for an Action Plan on Urban Mobility. The
objective is to identify policy options and instruments forming a basis for proposals for
specific actions in the Action Plan. This selection process includes a subsidiarity test, an
assessment of effectiveness and efficiency and an indicative assessment of the impact.
The Action Plan on Urban Mobility follows the publication of a Green Paper on urban
mobility1 on 25 September 2007. The Action Plan on Urban Mobility is part of the
Commission’s work programme for 2008 (ref. 2008/TREN/0362).
This impact assessment has been prepared by the Directorate-General for Energy and
Transport (DG TREN). The following Directorates-General participated in the Interservice
Group that contributed to the preparations: the Secretariat-General, DG ECFIN, DG EMPL,
DG ENTR, DG ENV, DG MARKT, DG INFSO, DG REGIO, DG RTD, DG SANCO and
DG TAXUD. This report commits only the Commission departments involved in preparing it.
Support was obtained under a study contract awarded to ECORYS Transport3.
This impact assessment in no way prejudges the final decision to be taken by the
Commission.
The Impact Assessment Board gave its opinion on the first draft of the impact assessment on
23 July 2008. The comments of the Board were incorporated in a second draft. The revised
draft took a more detailed look at how EU action can contribute to solving urban mobility
problems at local and regional levels. The level of ambition was clarified. Subsequently, the
objectives made it clearer that the EU primarily wants to facilitate and not regulate action at
local and regional level.
Furthermore, the structure of the impact assessment was revised to link the policy options
more directly to the objectives and to make the document easier to read. In addition, more
insight was provided on the measures recommended in the Action Plan on Urban Mobility.
The assumptions and policy measures in the baseline scenario were clarified. Finally, in
Chapter 6, possible actions for the Action Plan were clustered and the estimated costs and
benefits were indicated.
The Impact Assessment Board gave its opinion on the second draft of the impact assessment
on 1 October 2008. Its comments were incorporated in a third draft. In this new draft, the
problem definition was better focused. The value added by the Action Plan to existing
initiatives was better explained and the objectives adjusted, so that they give a clearer
reflection of local, regional and national responsibilities.
1 Towards a new culture for urban mobility: COM(2007) 551.
2 The roadmap includes “no EU action on transport”, “baseline” and “proposing a coherent package of
actions”, including identification of synergies, as policy scenarios. The “no EU action” scenario was
dropped because there was very little difference from the baseline.
3 Contract number TREN/07/MD/S07.80061.
EN 3 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 25 – Drucksache 17/815
Furthermore, the link between the impact assessment and the Action Plan was strengthened.
The explanation of policy developments taken into account in the baseline was elaborated. It
was not possible to undertake a new modelling exercise and assess the impact of some
specific recent policy proposals. However, TREMOVE does include a series of policy
measures that, in response to a judgment made in 2005, are likely to be implemented.
Because the actions in the Action Plan are of a soft or exploratory nature, and the fact that
local, regional and national authorities will have flexibility and freedom to apply them, it was
not possible to assess their impact against the trends in the baseline scenario. Another reason
is that the lack of data on urban mobility makes quantitative assessment very difficult.
The Impact Assessment Board gave its opinion on the third draft of the impact assessment on
4 November 2008. Its comments have been incorporated in this final impact assessment.
Further evidence on the costs of the lack of harmonisation and of the benefits of
harmonisation and more coherent solutions were provided. Objective 1 and the related
monitoring indicator were redrafted. Plans for future impact assessments were clarified. A
comparison of Member States that have harmonised rules and Member States that do not was
not possible within the scope of this impact assessment.
1.2. Consultation
The consultation of interested parties was divided into two phases. The first phase consisted
of a consultation to prepare the Green Paper on urban mobility during the first six months of
2007. The second followed after adoption of the Green Paper, between 25 September 2007
and 15 March 2008.
The consultation to prepare the Green Paper comprised conferences, workshops, meetings and
an internet-based questionnaire. The results are set out in a Commission staff working
document on the consultation4 that accompanied the Green Paper on urban mobility.
The Green Paper included 25 questions to steer the consultation and focus the responses from
interested parties. The stakeholders were also invited to respond to the general issues raised in
the Green Paper. The results of the Green Paper consultation are summarised in Annex I5. The
minimum standards for consultation have been met.
The European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the Green Paper on 9 July 20086. The
Committee of the Regions adopted an Opinion on the Green Paper on 9 April 20087. The
European Economic and Social Committee adopted an Opinion on the Green Paper on
29 May 20088. The Council also discussed the Green Paper on urban mobility9. The European
Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee
have all provided valuable input and recognised the added value of action at EU level.
The overall conclusion from the consultation is that there is broad agreement among
stakeholders and interested parties that there is a role for the EU in the field of urban mobility
4 SEC(2007) 1209.
5 A report on the stakeholder consultation will be made public on the Commission’s website before the
Action Plan is adopted.
6 A6-0252/2008/P6_TA-PROV(2008)0356.
7 CdR 236/2007.
8 TEN/320 - CESE 982/2008.
9 http://www.ue2008.fr/PFUE/lang/en/accueil/PFUE-09_2008/PFUE-1.09.2008/Informelle_Transports.
EN 4 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 26 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
in the form of action to support the local, regional and national levels. While there were
varying views expressed about which specific actions at the EU level could add value, the
consultation has helped to identify 'common ground'.
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION
The three overarching problems related to sustainable mobility and transport in Europe’s
urban areas are (1) road congestion and the resultant costs; (2) harmful emissions, including
greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and noise and their impact on health; and
(3) imbalanced development with an impact on social exclusion and economic growth. They
are influenced by the challenges outlined in the Green Paper on urban mobility. Market forces
are unable to solve these problems on their own. Cities, regions and national governments are
therefore all trying to identify the right forms of intervention.
In line with the principles and policies enshrined in the Treaties, the EU can, when
appropriate, provide national, regional and local authorities with policy guidance, frameworks
and practical tools to help them achieve their objectives in the field of sustainable urban
mobility. At the same time, it can complement initiatives taken at those levels with specific
action to make them more coherent and support implementation.
2.1. Fragmentation of local, regional and national approaches
Looking at the various initiatives taken across the EU, a picture emerges of broad
diversification of policies, action and financing solutions. This is not a problem per se, but in
some cases this fragmentation may not be cost-efficient or may pose risks to EU principles
and to implementation of EU legislation.
Member States and regional and local governments have therefore taken action themselves to
overcome fragmentation. However, in some cases, action at EU level can add extra value by
developing and suggesting coherent solutions or by helping to implement them more rapidly.
In others, fragmentation at national level has an impact across borders. In some cases
individual authorities have a direct interest in addressing it, in others they have not or they see
a role for the Commission to take action.
Fragmentation is an issue in demand management policies. Urban pricing and road user
charging, for example, sometimes in a hybrid form in combination with access regulations,
has been introduced or is envisaged in different forms in about 10 urban areas in Europe.
Often, exemptions or discounts are offered for certain types of vehicle. Authorities use their
own criteria for these exemptions or discounts. The means of enforcement also vary.
Low-emission environmental zones are a revealing example. Such zones are currently being
established in about 70 cities in the EU, with different access rules and different enforcement
methods. In some Member States, the rules are determined by national legislation while in
others cities or regions can set their own rules.
The access criteria vary widely and include:
• Euro pollutant emission standards;
• Emission level for particulates only;
• Equipment of vehicles with a particulate filter (without checks on actual emission levels);
EN 5 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 27 – Drucksache 17/815
• Equipment of vehicles with a catalytic converter;
• Weight, with local classifications, varying for different vehicle categories;
• Age, differentiated by vehicle category;
• Vehicle technology (petrol, diesel, natural gas, LPG or electric);
• Vehicle number plates (odd/even).
Access criteria also vary across different environmental zones in the same country. For
example, in early 2008 Italy had six different schemes with different sets of access criteria in
place.
Access regulation differs from one scheme to another. Some schemes bar access of certain
vehicles completely, others allow access upon payment of entrance fees, sometimes
differentiated in line with locally defined vehicle classifications.
Enforcement too uses different schemes and technologies.
• London has installed an optical number plate recognition system based on extensive
camera observation and digital image processing. All foreign vehicles need to register with
Transport for London prior to entering the London low-emission zone that started on
4 February 2008. Vehicles not registered have to pay penalties of up to £1 000 per day.
Vehicles in default will be pursued by private tracking companies.
• Most other cities rely on manual enforcement by the police. To facilitate this, vehicles need
to be equipped with special plates, stickers, etc.
The Commission receives regular reports from citizens, stakeholders and the European
Parliament10 that this fragmentation limits freedom of movement of freight operators and
travellers and, in some cases, leads to unequal treatment between local residents and other EU
citizens.
Fragmentation is also an issue for traveller information. It prevents intermodal travel where
different modes are combined in a single journey.11. Long-distance rail or bus travellers find it
difficult to obtain information on timetables or fares for connecting local and regional public
transport services. Car drivers on the long-distance TEN-T road network are confronted with
non-harmonised travel information on connections with public transport services. This lack of
information prevents travellers from making the shift from car to public transport for part of
the journey.
Another field where fragmentation is an issue is mobility of persons with disabilities12.They
are confronted with urban infrastructures, public transport systems and traveller services that
10 In 2008 about ten letters and two questions and a petition from the European Parliament have been
received. These numbers might seem low, but they probably represent a much higher number of
concerns that are not communicated to the Commission
11 See “Towards passenger intermodality in the EU”, Report 3 (Recommendations), Dortmund, 2004.
12 A person with reduced mobility or a disabled person is every person whose mobility when using
transport is reduced due to any physical disability (sensory or locomotor, permanent or temporary),
intellectual, sensory disability or impairment, or any other cause of disability, or as a result of age, and
EN 6 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 28 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
have been developed according to varying national, regional and local standards. The Action
Plan should fully address the needs of persons with reduced mobility and aim at eliminating
obstacles and barriers to accessibility13.
Fragmentation is costly for economic operators. Freight distributors have to match their
delivery schedules with a variety of conditions and time windows for freight deliveries that
are defined by each city or region individually. For example, a Dutch study14 estimated the
additional costs of distribution to supermarkets caused by local regulations at €100 million per
year in the Netherlands. One third of the additional costs were caused by vehicle-type related
restrictions, two thirds by time windows.
Another study15 on freight transport includes various examples of environmental zones from
across the EU. In one case, the study refers to a potential significant increase of vehicle
operator costs which, depending on the access rules introduced, can range between 0.1 and
70% of vehicle operating costs.
This fragmentation also brings costs for manufacturers and operators. A study16 on the
benefits of common requirements and standards for urban rail-based transport systems in the
EU estimates the gains for the rail supply industry at in the range of €4.5 billion up until 2020.
A report17 on the benefits of interchangeability of components and regulation in the light rail
and metro market points to reductions in procurement costs of up to 25% as a result of joint
procurement and 10% from lower production costs.
Finally, fragmentation can be a barrier to innovation and market entry of new technologies.
Competition between specific innovative solutions and new technologies is a good thing as it
may drive competition. However, it may also result in unnecessary costs. Spreading
development costs over several parties with the aid of joint development leads to economies
of scale. It also allows parties to start implementation earlier, which brings additional
financial benefits18.
For example, the costs of implementation and operation of an environmental zone in
Copenhagen have been estimated at €50 – 110 million19. The investment costs for the
congestion charge scheme in London were nearly €205 million and the annual operating costs
are in the range of €115 million20. Other cities could benefit significantly from the work that
whose situation needs appropriate attention and adaptation to his particular needs of the service that is
provided to all passengers
13 Article 9 of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities mentions that parties, which
include all Member States and the European Community, shall take appropriate measures to ensure to
persons with disabilities access on equal basis with others to transportation, including in urban areas,
and that those measures shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to
accessibility to inter alia transportation.
14 Research by TNO for the CBL (Centraal Bureau Levensmiddelenhandel) in 2003.
15 BESTUFS project, deliverable D 1.4, Policy and Research Recommendations, 2008.
16 UNIFE Impact Assessment of a future EU Directive on Urban Rail, 2004.
17 Obstacles to the Internal Market in Rail Mass Transit, 2000.
18 For example, earlier additional revenue in the case of charging schemes, parking management systems
or flexible ticketing schemes for public transport.
19 BESTUFS project, deliverable D 1.4, Policy and Research Recommendations, 2008.
20 Costs of around £162 million were incurred in preparing the congestion charge scheme in London
before it was launched in 2003. The major items of expenditure were for traffic management measures,
communications and public information on the scheme, systems set-up and management. In 2005 the
congestion charge revenue consisted of charge payments of £120 million and penalty payments of
EN 7 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 29 – Drucksache 17/815
has already been done and the experience gained with innovative schemes like in London.
Joint procurement is another means of reducing costs and pushing market take-up of new
technology. The Action Plan could look at how EU mechanisms can provide stronger support
for the introduction of innovative solutions and new technologies.
These examples might, however, create the impression that policy-makers have to choose
between promoting harmonisation or promoting innovation. But it is not a matter of choice.
Both approaches are usually considered important in their own right and, at the same time,
can strengthen each other, especially in cases where broad rules are laid down, but the details
are shaped by innovation and competition between solutions. This is also the approach that
Member States often follow for urban mobility policies.
The examples given above suggest that cities, regions and Member States apply solutions that
might bring unnecessary costs, hamper cross-border transport or affect efficient functioning of
the internal market. This is the reason for further investigation of developments at local,
regional and national levels. It also provides a basis for identifying tools and mechanisms at
EU level that can support policy-making at local, regional and national levels.
2.2. Lack of initiative, lack of knowledge and experience
Besides fragmentation of approaches, inaction or inappropriate action by local, regional and
national authorities may have an impact across borders.
According to the Green Paper, the delays and pollution caused by chronic congestion cost
almost 1% of the EU’s GDP. Road congestion in the EU has been considered mainly an
“urban problem”21. Also according to the Green Paper, traffic in urban areas is responsible for
40% of CO2 emissions and for 70% of other pollutants from road transport. One out of every
three fatal road accidents takes place in an urban area.
Road safety, economic efficiency, social inclusion and the fight against climate change are all
issues on which Member States have decided to act jointly. In the field of urban mobility, the
European Union can play a leading role in focusing attention on these issues and facilitating
action by local, regional and national authorities.
Collecting and sharing data and statistics are necessary for the proper design of policies.
There is no comprehensive information on developments in urban mobility, for example
regarding the urban public transport and freight markets22, including on the quality of
services, emissions and social inclusion. This lack of data can be partly explained by the fact
that some cities and regions do not have the resources or expertise to collect them.
£70 million, i.e. £190 million in total. Transport for London’s direct operating costs were around
£5 million. In addition, it paid the service providers that operate the scheme around £85 million.
Source: Central London Congestion Charging Scheme: ex-post evaluation of the quantified impacts of
the original scheme, 29 June 2007.
21 COMPETE study (2003).
22 See NPF urban transport final report:
http://www.transport-research.info/web/projects/project_details.cfm?id=2796&page=contact.
EN 8 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 30 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
There is also a lack of definitions, data-sharing mechanisms and trend analysis. The result is
that relevant local, regional and national trends23 cannot be monitored and compared
effectively by policy-makers at all levels.
Information-sharing can be an effective means to support policy-making at local, regional and
national levels. There is currently no comprehensive and consolidated overview of practice
and experience on urban mobility and transport at EU level. Cities with less experience,
knowledge and financial resources find it difficult to make use of the practice and experience
built up by cities that are more advanced in the area of sustainable urban mobility for lack of
information-sharing tools. The EU lacks effective information platforms to provide insights
into relevant EU legislation and funding opportunities. This means that, for example, the
opportunities provided by the regional policy financial instruments and the European
Investment Bank are not fully seized.
The Action Plan could offer tools to improve this situation.
2.3. Who is affected, in what ways and to what extent?
Mobility and transport bring many benefits to society and to the economy. At the same time,
problems caused by urban mobility affect businesses and the majority of European citizens
who live in or travel to and from urban areas.
Emissions and noise result in illness and premature deaths of EU citizens24. They also damage
the EU economy and have a negative effect on business, which is confronted with congestion.
Urban transport is the service of general interest with which consumers in the EU are least
satisfied and consumers in the new Member States are even less satisfied with urban transport
than other EU citizens25. Furthermore, consumers have to deal with fragmented information
systems and non-streamlined solutions. Persons with reduced mobility don't always have
access on an equal basis with others to urban transport.
Without an appropriate dissemination of tested solutions, policy-makers develop solutions
with unnecessarily high costs, design policies that take insufficient account of experience
elsewhere or propose solutions that could conflict with EU principles or legislation.
Policy-makers in new Member States face specific challenges. Economic development is
leading to rapidly rising car ownership and use. The lack of sufficiently adapted tools means
that the improvements made to urban transport do not always meet the minimum standards
required for sustainable development and social cohesion.
2.4. What would happen if nothing were done?
To gain an insight into the most important mobility, economic, social and environmental
trends and challenges in the field of urban mobility and transport at EU level, an indicative
23 For example, coherent data sets at EU or national level are not available on “contexts” (population
density, car ownership, etc.), “inputs” (investments, quality of fleets, etc.) and “outcomes” (modal split,
passenger-km, tonne-km, safety, etc.).
24 Impact Assessment of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and the Directive on Ambient Air Quality
and Cleaner Air for Europe, 21 September 2005.
25 European Commission consumer satisfaction survey (2007):
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cons_int/serv_gen/cons_satisf/consumer_service_finrep_en.pdf.
EN 9 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 31 – Drucksache 17/815
baseline scenario was developed using input from the TREMOVE26 model and from other
sources. An overview of the baseline scenario is given in Annex III. It incorporates the policy
initiatives in the “partial implementation” scenario of the latest publicly available version of
TREMOVE (version 2.7)27.
This means that the existing direction of EU policies28 that have an impact on urban mobility
remains unchanged and that no “trend breaks” are foreseen.
If nothing were done at EU level, individual solutions at local and regional level would
continue to develop. This is not a problem as such, as different approaches are often also
followed at Member State level. However, authorities, citizens and businesses could benefit
from the tools and guidance that the EU could offer them.
If nothing were done at EU level, freight distributors, for example, would continue to be
constrained by the varying conditions and time windows for freight deliveries that have been
set by each city or region individually. Long-distance passengers would continue to suffer
from the lack of understandable travel information on connecting local transport services, on
parking and access regulations, on access rules for persons with reduced mobility, etc.
Moreover, in some cases they would still be confronted with schemes that apply to locally
registered vehicles only. This would hamper the smooth functioning of the internal market
and fluid mobility within the EU.
If nothing were done at EU level, due to lack of working together and uncertainty about
standardisation, the market take-up of new technologies would be slower than policy-makers
would like and authorities would invest unnecessary resources in their own developments.
Furthermore, it would remain difficult to share best practice and monitor trends, leading to
ineffective policy-making and imperfect insights into market developments. This would also
prevent benchmarking, which is considered a good means for policymakers to learn and
improve.
2.5. The EU’s right to act
The Treaties delimit the range of powers of the EU. The subject of urban mobility and
transport falls under Article 70 of the Treaty which provides for a common transport policy29.
Articles 71(c) and 71(d) are relevant to urban mobility and transport. They state that for the
26 http://www.tremove.org/index.htm.
27 See Annex III.
28 Urban mobility cuts across various policy areas inside the Commission. For example, it is linked to
areas of the common transport policy such as public service obligations in public transport, road safety,
intelligent transport and successful development of the trans-European transport network. It is linked
with energy and climate change policies on promotion of energy efficiency in transport and of
alternative fuels. It is linked with environment and health policy in fields such as air pollution and
noise. Investments in urban transport contribute to economic development and territorial cohesion, the
prime objectives of regional policy. Urban mobility is also linked with research and innovation policy
in connection with the development of clean technologies and policy-related RTD. Advanced transport
infrastructure and electronic services are part of the wider information society agenda. Urban mobility
is linked with the social agenda via issues such as inclusion and mobility for all. It is linked with
enterprise and industrial policy, for example in the cases of emission limits of vehicles, standardisation
and tourism policy. And, via public procurement, it is linked to policy on the internal market.
29 The Commission can also make specific proposals on the basis of articles other than Article 70. For
example, to address specific problems related to urban mobility and transport it could use articles
covering environment policy (Articles 174 and 175) or economic and social cohesion (Article 158).
EN 10 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 32 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
purpose of implementing Article 70 the Council and the European Parliament will lay down
measures to improve transport safety and any other appropriate provisions. Responsibility for
transport is shared between the EU and Member States. The arguments set out below
demonstrate that the problem cannot be solved in an optimum way by the Member States
alone (necessity test) and that the objectives can be better achieved at EU level (added value
test). More extensive material is presented in Annex IV.
The right to act at EU level in the field of urban mobility also stems from the Commission’s
obligation to achieve and protect the fundamental goals set out in the Treaty. EU legislation
and financial instruments directly affect local, regional and national decisions in the field of
urban mobility. The Commission is therefore empowered to ensure that these decisions are in
line with EU legislation and to help authorities to implement EU policies and make best use
of EU funding. In addition, action taken in the field of urban mobility at local, regional and
national levels directly affects freight operators and travellers from other countries. This
cross-border impact justifies EU action to ensure smooth functioning of the single market and
proper implementation of EU policies and legislation, for example in the field of the
environment, State aid, the social agenda or research and development.
As mentioned above, market failures in the field of urban mobility make public intervention
necessary in order to address the problems of congestion, pollution and imbalanced
development. The EU has a right to ensure that this public intervention is in line with EU
legislation and coherent with EU policies. EU policies in areas other than transport, such as
the environment, regional policy or energy, have in the past already developed measures
related to urban mobility. Insufficient attention has been paid to the possible impact of these
policies on urban mobility and transport. Annex II provides an initial overview of EU
initiatives and legislation of relevance to urban mobility. In some cases, appropriate tools and
instruments to support authorities have not been made available, have not been taken up or
have not taken sufficient account of urban mobility issues. Now it is important to propose
actions that add value, strengthen coherence and support implementation of such past and
present EU initiatives.
The EU also has a right to act to address those problems where public intervention at EU level
brings added value. Without impinging on the powers of the local, regional or national
authority in charge, the EU can bring added value to local action in different ways30. The EU
can offer authorities a toolbox with tried and tested solutions to address the risks caused by
fragmentation of local, regional and national approaches. The EU can help to correct
regulatory failures, for example in the form of insufficient collection and sharing of market
data, which prevents comprehensive monitoring of relevant trends. It can support data and
information exchange, offer financial support and launch RTD activities. It can help to
promote efficient use of public resources, for example by avoiding reinventing the wheel or
by joining forces in benchmarking, procurement or information provision. It can also help to
promote innovation and standards and to create markets for industry.
30 The basis for the EU action in urban areas is strengthened by the Thematic Strategy on the Urban
Environment (COM(2005) 718), which was mandated by the Council and European Parliament through
the 6th Environment Action Programme.
EN 11 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 33 – Drucksache 17/815
3. OBJECTIVES
The EU faces the general challenge of facilitating and stimulating sustainable and more
streamlined development of urban mobility to meet fundamental economic, environmental
and social objectives. The general and specific objectives are outlined below. They contribute
to the strategic objectives set by the Lisbon Strategy and the Sustainable Development
Strategy. They also contribute to policy objectives in sectors such as the environment, energy,
health, cohesion, the internal market and social policy.
General objective
The general objective is to contribute to progress towards sustainable urban mobility in the
EU which fosters competitiveness, does not harm the environment and promotes a more
cohesive and inclusive society.
Specific objectives
The following specific objectives in the area of sustainable urban mobility were identified in
the Green Paper and confirmed in the consultation process:
(1) Provide local, regional and national authorities with tools that can help to strengthen,
when appropriate, the coherence of local solutions and reduce duplication of effort.
These tools can support authorities, working closely with stakeholders, with
achieving:
1.1 Free-flowing towns and cities;
1.2 Greener towns and cities;
1.3 Smarter urban transport;
1.4 Accessible urban transport;
1.5 Safe and secure urban transport.
(2) Strengthen EU support for local, regional and national authorities’ efforts to
contribute to EU objectives and for the development and implementation of
integrated policy in the area of urban mobility, by:
2.1 Improving information exchange, data collection and knowledge-building;
2.2 Focusing EU financial instruments.
EN 12 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 34 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
4. POLICY OPTIONS
Different policy options are available to achieve the specific objectives. This chapter provides
an overview of the screening process that started with a long list of possible policy options
and ended with a shortlist of policy options. The screening process consisted of three steps:
- Step 1: Identification of policy options;
- Step 2: Screening on subsidiarity;
- Step 3: Screening on efficiency, effectiveness and consistency.
In addition, this chapter offers information on the level of support from stakeholders for each
option. However, stakeholder support is not considered in the screening process.
Background material is included in Annex V.
4.1. From the long list to the shortlist
Step 1: Identification of policy options
A long list of possible policy options was compiled, drawing on various sources:
(1) past and ongoing work carried out in the framework of policy initiatives, RTD
activities and best practice exchange, for example CIVITAS31 and ELTIS32;
(2) work carried out and contributions received to support preparation of the Green Paper
on urban mobility;
(3) contributions received during the stakeholder consultation on the Green Paper on
urban mobility;
(4) outcome of the technical workshops and conference held as part of the consultation
process;
(5) discussions in the European Parliament, the Council, the Committee of the Regions
and the European Economic and Social Committee;
(6) desk research under the study contract;
(7) input from European Commission staff.
This broad approach made it possible to review a wide variety of policy options, ranging from
a more strategic to a more practical level. The long list includes options that may not seem
likely or desirable but that were put forward by stakeholders. This means that some of the
policy options might seem problematic, because of the subsidiarity principle or because they
might not seem efficient or effective. However, for reasons of transparency, they were not
excluded in advance.
31 www.civitas-initiative.eu.
32 www.eltis.org.
EN 13 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 35 – Drucksache 17/815
EN 14 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 36 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Table 1: Overview of the long list of policy options
Free-flowing towns and cities
1. Require cities to set modal split targets
There are many ways in which cities can influence modal split, i.e. the relative shares of each mode of transport. This policy
option proposes to require cities to set modal split targets, including larger shares for sustainable modes, but leaving them
free to decide how to achieve them. The objective would be to increase the share of sustainable modes in urban mobility and
transport.
2. Ban private car use in city centres
Many cities have banned cars from their centres, for example by means of pedestrianisation schemes, physical restrictions
or regulatory measures. These have improved environmental quality and liveability in those city centres. Some cities are
gradually extending these areas. This policy option proposes to require all cities to ban cars from their centres (although
allowing exceptions) in areas that do not comply with EU environmental legislation. The objective would be to obtain a
substantial improvement in environmental quality and liveability in city centres.
3. Ban on-street parking in city centres
Many cities are banning on-street parking in their centres. This is done either to improve the traffic capacity or to widen the
pavements or install cycle infrastructure. The latter improves environmental quality and liveability in those streets. This
policy option proposes to require all cities to ban on-street parking in their centres, which implicitly would push for more
carparks and more parking on private properties. The objective would be to obtain a substantial improvement in
environmental quality and liveability in city centres.
4. Recognise efforts of cities to improve sustainable urban mobility
A labelling scheme could be used to recognise the efforts of pioneering cities to combat congestion and improve living
conditions. Recognition at European level of serious efforts made by cities can be expected to act as a stimulus. And it could
serve as a magnet to attract funding and for industries and businesses looking for new locations for their activities. European
recognition could be combined with an award and/or financial grant for the “best” cities.
5. Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities
An increasing number of cities are introducing limitations on access to urban areas for motor vehicles in the form of
environmental zones or road user charging. Both measures should reduce pollutant emissions and contribute to meeting the
obligations arising from EU air quality legislation. Road use charging and parking pricing are also seen by some
stakeholders as an effective way to raise revenue for transport investments and to manage demand. In addition, they could
fit into the broader policy perspective of internalisation of external costs. Many different schemes are appearing. The
objective would be to provide information to citizens, transport providers and decision-makers.
6. Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics
Urban freight transport is sometimes forgotten by local policy-makers. This policy action would incorporate the urban
activities included in the 2007 Freight Logistics Action Plan (dissemination of best practice, recommendations on
benchmarks and indicators and reinforcement of CIVITAS). Additional activities could, however, be launched and
recommendations for policy-makers prepared.
Greener towns and cities
7. Internalise the external costs of urban transport
Transport imposes external costs on society that are not fully paid for by those benefiting from the services. The objective of
this policy option would be to make the users in all urban areas pay for the external costs that they cause to others and to
society in general. As a first step, this policy option could focus on developing information material for cities, information
exchange and networking activities.
EN 15 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 37 – Drucksache 17/815
8. Require cities to set targets for CO2 emissions from urban transport
Some local authorities have expressed the wish to take responsibility for addressing climate change. They can influence the
vehicles used in their city and implement policy measures that lead to more energy-efficient urban mobility. This action
proposes to require all local authorities to set targets for CO2 emissions from urban mobility and transport, leaving them free
to decide how to achieve them. The objective would be to lower CO2 emissions from urban mobility and transport.
9. Require zero CO2 propulsion for urban public transport
City and urban authorities have extensive influence over the vehicles used in public transport, either because they own them
or because they write the specifications in the public service contracts. This policy option proposes to require cities to work
towards zero CO2 emissions from urban public transport by a given date in the long term, leaving them free to decide how
to achieve this. The objective would be to lower CO2 emissions from urban mobility and transport.
10. Promote “green” procurement by public authorities
Joint public procurement of vehicles will speed up, in a cost-effective way, replacement of older vehicles operated by public
authorities or by private operators under public service contracts. The aim of this policy option would be to bring potential
buyers together in consortia so that lower prices can be obtained as a result of economies of scale. In addition, possible
administrative barriers at national, regional and local levels to joint procurement would be overcome. This contributes to the
objective of more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly urban mobility.
11. Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and alternative fuels
Reduction of pollutant emissions and energy consumption from vehicles are key objectives of EU policy. EU legislation has
progressively lowered the limits for pollutant emissions from motor vehicles. But lead times for mandatory compliance are
long and the latest Euro 6 standard will not start to apply until 2014. Member States, however, can use incentives to
stimulate earlier uptake. Market introduction of alternative fuels has been promoted in Community policy. Member States,
however, have used different measures, with the focus on different alternative fuels, leading in some cases to fragmented
markets and limitations in vehicle operation across Europe due to heterogeneous infrastructure. This option proposes to
provide information on support schemes for clean and energy-efficient vehicles and alternative fuels along with a product
overview. This contributes to the objective of more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly urban mobility.
12. Require designation of “green” zones in sensitive areas
An increasing number of cities are designating environmental or “green” zones in sensitive areas, for example to tackle
environmental problems. This policy option proposes requiring all cities to designate such zones in a harmonised way for
sensitive areas that do not comply with EU environmental legislation, for example in the field of air quality. The objective
would be to obtain a substantial improvement in environmental quality and liveability in urban areas.
13. Harmonise rules for environmental zones
However laudable the initiatives are, the fragmentation that is resulting from the local initiatives to address the
environmental problems by means of environmental zones is confusing travellers and freight operators and might run
counter to the philosophy of the internal market. The objective would be to have rules for access and vehicle identification
that are coherent and easily understood by all citizens and businesses in the EU for cities interested in using this policy tool.
Smarter urban transport
14. Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport
Improving the interoperability, which could involve standardisation, of ticketing and payment systems is aimed at allowing
seamless use of the public transport system by passengers paying to use the system and also by users of other transport
infrastructure (for example, car users who are charged for road use or who use park-and-ride to combine car and public
transport or cyclists who pay for guarded bicycle stands at stations). The objective of this policy action would be to make it
easier to use public transport and to combine private and public modes.
EN 16 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 38 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
15. Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information
Harmonisation and provision of travel information across different transport modes and cities will promote use of public
transport by different kinds of short- and long-distance travellers. This policy option proposes to make it easier for non-
regular users to use public transport, for example by providing information on the internet and by more user-friendly signs.
This should be seen against the background of the changing expectations of different societal groups. The objective would
be to make public transport easier to use for non-regular users and for visitors.
Accessible urban transport
16. Require transport impact assessments as a precondition for planning permission
Urban development is often decided without sufficient consideration of the consequences for urban mobility and the
transport system. This policy option would aim at imposing an obligation on authorities to assess this impact before granting
planning permission. This would ensure that the consequences of spatial developments on urban mobility, such as extra
traffic on the roads or developments at locations that are difficult to reach by public transport or by bicycle, would be
known before a decision is taken on planning permission. The overall objective would be to improve accessibility and
mobility in urban areas.
17. Require establishment of urban mobility authorities
The division of transport planning responsibilities is inefficient in many cases and often does not permit solutions that are
necessary to meet urban mobility needs and solve urban transport problems in an integrated way. In addition, spatial
development, transport planning, economic development and operation of transport services extend across city boundaries.
Requiring establishment of urban mobility authorities in all major urban areas might help solve these problems.
18. Require adoption of SUTPs as a condition for EU funding
The idea of promoting sustainable urban transport plans (SUTPs) was launched by the European Commission as part of the
Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment. Under this policy option, any city or region requesting EU financial support
for urban mobility projects from the regional policy instruments, the RTD Framework Programme or any other EU financial
programme would be required to adopt such a plan. This might give a significant stimulus to comprehensive, integrated
planning for sustainable urban mobility. The objective would be to achieve more sustainable patterns of land use and
mobility in urban areas.
19. Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport
This policy option combines the ideas behind options 17 and 18 but would aim at promoting use of sustainable urban
transport or mobility plans in combination with setting up the appropriate structures for voluntary cooperation. The
objective would be to provide guidance, information and support to authorities which want to prepare integrated plans.
20. Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning
Land-use patterns and intensity have clear implications for the demand for mobility and for how the demand for mobility
can be met. This policy option would support stakeholders in improving coordination between mobility and land-use
planning at an early stage, resulting in reducing the demand for mobility and transport and in more rational development of
the transport network. This would contribute to reducing congestion and pollution and lowering costs for infrastructure
development and public transport services per passenger- and freight-kilometre.
21. Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport
One of the barriers to use of public transport is that users often have little or no redress when services are interrupted, when
scheduled services are late or in other cases of non-delivery by the operator. On the other hand, public transport providers
have to bear the costs of passengers who damage their vehicles, trains, etc. This policy option would bring together a set of
basic rights and obligations in a common framework. This would contribute to improving the image and quality of public
transport. The overall objective would be to raise the quality of urban public transport and make it more attractive to
travellers.
EN 17 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 39 – Drucksache 17/815
22. Improve accessibility of public transport
There are two dimensions to accessibility: geographic and physical. The public transport system should be available to all
citizens, not just citizens living in certain areas. The public transport system should also be accessible to all citizens,
regardless of their physical, cultural and socio-economic status. The objective of this policy option would be to improve the
accessibility of public transport for all city residents, allowing better and easier access to all activities.
23. Require operators to accept bicycles in urban public transport
The option for travellers to take their bicycle onto public transport vehicles offers a flexible way to facilitate door-to-door
travel, even if the origin and/or destination are not near a public transport stop. In congested areas, this combination of
modes can outperform the private car, for example in terms of speed. Some public transport operators accept bicycles on
certain vehicles, some only outside rush hours and some not at all. This policy option proposes to require all operators to
accept bicycles at certain harmonised periods. The objective would be to improve the competitive position of public
transport and the bicycle against private car use.
Safe and secure urban transport
24. Promote safe walking and safe cycling
Walking and cycling are two separate modes of transport. Each of them has its own strengths and weaknesses and has
different potential both as a “single mode” and as one link in a trip-chain. However, in general terms, walking and cycling
are well suited for short trips (under 5 km) and in urban areas a very large proportion of all trips are shorter than 5 km.
There are still many short-distance car trips that could be made on foot or by bicycle. The objective would be to encourage
authorities to improve the conditions for safe walking and safe cycling. One aspect that could be looked at is separation of
traffic flows.
25. Raise the minimum age for driving licences to 25
Young car drivers and motorcycle riders are involved in a disproportionate number of traffic accidents. As their age
increases, drivers become more careful. This policy option proposes to require national authorities to increase the minimum
age for the final driving test from 18 to 25 years. After an initial test, persons between 18 and 25 years could be issued with
a temporary licence that could easily be withdrawn. The objective would be to improve urban road safety.
Cross-cutting issues
26. Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting
Accurate, timely, comparable and relevant information is the basis for making effective policy choices. Currently, there is
no single source of information on the situation of urban mobility and transport in all Europe’s cities. The objective of this
policy option would be to provide policy-makers with such information, strengthening the basis for policy-making on urban
mobility and transport. This initiative will have to add value to existing data and information platforms and will need to take
account of financial and organisational limitations. In the longer term, working closely with other Commission departments
such as EUROSTAT and DG REGIO, the action could result in a permanent monitoring system.
27. Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice
A wealth of knowledge and experience on urban mobility has been built up using local, regional, national and EU funding.
This policy option aims to improve access and use and to increase the amount and the quality of the information available. It
could include compilation of an overview of relevant legislation and funding opportunities.
28. Intensify research, development and demonstration activities
Innovative solutions already play a key role in operation and the performance of the urban mobility and transport system.
RTD could be intensified to play an even bigger role in helping to address the mobility problems in urban areas. One area
that could be given specific attention is RTD to support development of intelligent Galileo applications. Another area could
cover integrated demonstration initiatives such as CIVITAS. The objective of this policy option would be to promote
innovation in urban mobility and transport.
EN 18 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 40 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
29. Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving
Key factors that influence energy consumption and emissions and that can help to optimise use of the transport system are
modal choice, travel behaviour and driving style. These can be influenced by information, communication and marketing
campaigns, organising services and coordination activities. This policy option includes, for example, mobility management,
awareness campaigns and stimulating eco-driving with the aid of awareness-raising activities and, where appropriate,
training for driving licences. The objective would be to make better use of existing capacity and reduce energy consumption
and emissions with the aid of more sustainable travel behaviour.
30. Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport
This policy option would aim at increasing cities’ access to EU financial mechanisms for urban transport measures. Further
opening-up of existing instruments or development of additional funding opportunities could also be considered, perhaps in
cooperation with the EIB. The Commission could also address use of the Structural Funds for improving not only integrated
urban transport and public transport systems but also connections between urban transport systems and the TEN-T network.
The objective would be to stimulate investment in renewal and innovation in urban transport, especially in new Member
States.
31. Require implementation of a “value-capture tax”
Transport improvements often lead to an increase in the market value of properties that are served by the improvement. This
gain normally accrues to the owners, whereas the costs are borne by the authorities or the transport providers. Some city
authorities use various financial instruments to make the benefiting proprietors contribute (part of) the costs of the
improvements. This policy option proposes to require introduction of a harmonised tax to capture the value increases of
property as a result of improvements in urban transport. The objective would be to lower the cost of transport improvements
for authorities.
Step 2: Screening on subsidiarity
Each policy option on the long list was screened on subsidiarity at the level of each
instrument that could (theoretically) be used for implementation. If the option failed this test,
it was no longer taken into account and no further analysis was carried out. Details are
provided in Annex V.
Step 3: Screening on efficiency, effectiveness and consistency
Each policy option that successfully passed step 2 was screened against the efficiency,
effectiveness and consistency criteria. The policy options that successfully passed step 3 were
put on the shortlist. A detailed explanation of the scoring is provided in Annex V.
The screening on subsidiarity and on efficiency, effectiveness and consistency reduced the
long list of 31 options to a shortlist of 18 policy options. Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17,
18, 23, 25 and 31 were discarded.
The following policy options were kept on the shortlist (see Table 2):
EN 19 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 41 – Drucksache 17/815
Table 2: Overview of the shortlisted policy options
Free-flowing towns and cities
5 Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities
6 Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics
Greener towns and cities
7 Internalise the external costs of urban mobility
10 Promote “green” procurement by public authorities
11 Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and alternative fuels
13 Harmonise rules for environmental zones
Smarter urban transport
14 Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport
15 Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information
Accessible urban transport
19 Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport
20 Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning
21 Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport
22 Improve accessibility of public transport
Safe and secure urban transport
24 Promote safe walking and safe cycling
Cross-cutting issues
26 Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting
27 Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice
28 Intensify research, development and demonstration activities
29 Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving
30 Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport
4.2. Stakeholder support
The support from stakeholders for each policy option gives valuable background information
for the decision-making process but is not considered in the formal screening process.
Therefore, the level of acceptability of the different policy options by stakeholders was
assessed. This assessment was based on the results of the stakeholder consultation on the
Green Paper on urban mobility. All policy options on the long list were assessed.
EN 20 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 42 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Annex I provides a summary of the level of support for the policy options from stakeholders.
However, as stated earlier, stakeholder support is not taken into account in the selection
process. Only Chapter 6, where shortlisted policy options are discussed and possible action
identified, gives information on stakeholder support.
5. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF THE SHORTLISTED OPTIONS
This chapter analyses the impact of the shortlisted policy options. The assessment is based on
indicators covering mobility, congestion, energy, the environment, economic and social issues
and policy-making. These indicators are consistent with the indicators used in the baseline
scenario and show the contribution made towards achieving the relevant objective.
Table 3 presents an overview of the shortlisted policy options, of the indicators and of the
fields on which they have an impact. A detailed description of the impact of each policy
option, in qualitative and/or quantitative terms, is provided in Annex VI.
It should be borne in mind that each kind of impact is considered independently, but that in
reality different impacts are inter-related. This might lead to synergies or could result in
contradictory impacts33. Impacts are also influenced by the instrument selected for
implementation once the actions are decided. For this reason, this impact assessment cannot
be exhaustive. Every kind of impact is given the same weight. Indirect impacts have not been
taken into account.
Some general conclusions can be drawn from the impact analysis. It is assumed that policy
options that receive a large number of ticks in Table 3 under a specific cluster of indicators
(such as mobility or congestion) make the most integrated contribution. This does not imply
that a large number of ticks means that a given policy option makes the best contribution.
– Most integrated contribution overall:
– Policy option 7 (internalisation of external costs);
– Policy option 20 (coordination of planning);
– Policy option 30 (investment).
These options contribute to a particularly wide range of indicators.
– Most integrated contribution to the economic indicators:
– Policy option 6 (urban freight);
– Policy option 11 (vehicles and fuels);
– Policy option 13 (environmental zones);
– Policy option 14 (ticketing interoperability).
The positive economic impact of these policy options stems from the lower costs for operators
due to fewer freight vehicle-kilometres and tonne-hours lost (option 6), a better investment
climate (option 6), increased industrial production resulting from higher demand (options 11
and 14), a stronger competitive position for the EU industry (options 11 and 14) and lower
administrative costs (option 13).
33 See Section 6.1 for a discussion of synergies.
EN 21 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 43 – Drucksache 17/815
– Most integrated contribution to the environmental indicators:
– Policy option 6 (urban freight);
– Policy option 7 (internalisation);
– Policy option 10 (green procurement);
– Policy option 11 (vehicles and fuels);
– Policy option 20 (coordination of planning);
– Policy option 22 (accessibility);
– Policy option 24 (walking and cycling);
– Policy option 29 (awareness);
– Policy option 30 (investment).
The positive environmental impact of these policy options stems from lower emissions caused
by a reduction of vehicle-kilometres (options 6, 7 and 20), a higher market share of
environmentally friendly vehicles (options 10 and 11), lower emissions caused by smoother
driving (option 29) and a modal shift towards public transport (options 29 and 30).
– Most integrated contribution to the social indicators:
– Policy option 6 (urban freight);
– Policy option 7 (internalisation);
– Policy option 11 (vehicles and fuels);
– Policy option 22 (accessibility);
– Policy option 24 (walking and cycling);
– Policy option 29 (awareness).
The positive social impact of these policy options stems from the positive impact on health as
a result of lower emission levels (options 6, 7, 11, 24 and 29), increased road safety (options
7, 9 and 24) and higher levels of social inclusion (option 22).
– Best contribution to public transport use:
The assessment also provides a means of identifying policy options that make a positive
contribution to one specific indicator. For example, policy options 7 (internalisation), 14
(ticketing interoperability), 15 (travel information), 19 (integrated planning), 20 (coordination
of planning), 21 (user rights), 22 (accessibility) and 30 (investments) all contribute to an
increase in public transport passenger-kilometres.
– Best contribution to social inclusion:
Positive contributions are made to the social inclusion indicator by policy options 15 (travel
information), 19 (integrated planning) and 30 (investment) and the public-transport-related
options 14 (ticketing interoperability), 21 (user rights) and 22 (accessibility). These public-
transport-related options should, however, be developed in a way that attracts existing car
drivers and not pedestrians or cyclists. If the measures were mainly to attract the latter, their
impact would be less positive.
– - Best contribution to policy-making:
Policy options 5 (information on access limitations), 26 (data), 27 (dissemination) and 28
(research) contribute specifically to providing a stronger basis for policy-making. The same
also applies to policy options 10 (green procurement), 13 (environmental zones), 19
(integrated planning), 20 (coordination of planning) and 29 (awareness).
EN 22 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 44 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Table 3: Overview of policy options on the shortlist, indicators and impact
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r Indicators �
D
ec
lin
e
in
p
riv
at
e
ca
r v
eh
ic
le
-k
m
In
cr
ea
se
in
p
ub
lic
tr
an
sp
or
t p
as
se
ng
er
-k
m
In
cr
ea
se
in
n
on
-m
ot
or
is
ed
v
eh
ic
le
-k
m
D
ec
lin
e
in
p
as
se
ng
er
-h
ou
rs
lo
st
D
ec
lin
e
in
to
nn
e-
ho
ur
s
lo
st
D
ec
lin
e
in
e
ne
rg
y
co
ns
um
pt
io
n
in
M
to
e
D
ec
lin
e
in
G
H
G
e
m
is
si
on
s
D
ec
lin
e
in
a
ir-
po
llu
tin
g
em
is
si
on
s
Im
pa
ct
o
n
ad
m
in
. c
os
ts
fo
r b
us
in
es
s
In
cr
ea
se
d
co
m
pe
tit
io
n
in
in
te
rn
al
m
ar
ke
t
Im
pr
ov
em
en
t o
f s
oc
ia
l i
nc
lu
si
on
D
ec
re
as
e
in
tr
af
fic
fa
ta
lit
ie
s
Im
pr
ov
em
en
t o
f h
ea
lth
im
pa
ct
o
f e
m
is
si
on
s
Im
pr
ov
em
en
t o
f h
ea
lth
im
pa
ct
o
f n
oi
se
S
tro
ng
er
b
as
is
fo
r p
ol
ic
y-
m
ak
in
g
Mobility Congestion Ener
gy
Environment Economy Social Policy
Free-flowing towns and cities
5 Provide information on access limitations for
road users in cities
�
6 Promote more efficient urban freight
distribution and logistics
� � � � � � � � �
Greener towns and cities
7 Internalise the external costs of urban
transport
� � � � � � � � � � �
10 Promote “green” procurement by public
authorities
� � � � �
11 Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient
vehicle technology and alternative fuels
� � � � � � � �
13 Harmonise rules for environmental zones � � �
Smarter urban transport
14 Improve the interoperability of ticketing and
payment systems for public transport
� � � � � �
15 Improve harmonisation and provision of travel
information
� � � � � �
Accessible urban transport
19 Promote integrated planning for urban
mobility and transport
� � � � � � � � �
20 Improve coordination between urban mobility
and land-use planning
� � � � � � � � � � � �
21 Strengthen the rights and obligations of users
of public transport
� � �
22 Improve accessibility of public transport � � � � � � � � � �
Safe and secure urban transport
24 Promote safe walking and safe cycling � � � � � � � � � � �
Cross-cutting issues
26 Improve data harmonisation, collection,
validation and reporting
�
27 Improve dissemination of knowledge and best
practice
�
28 Intensify research, development and
demonstration activities
�
29 Promote awareness and behavioural change,
including eco-driving
� � � � � � �
30 Promote investment in integrated urban
transport, including public transport
� � � � � � � � �
EN 23 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 45 – Drucksache 17/815
6. COMPARING AND ASSESSING THE OPTIONS
6.1. Fine-tuning the shortlisted options
This section analyses the most appropriate instrument to implement each of the 18 shortlisted
options. This analysis assessed the eight following instruments against the criteria: cost-
effectiveness, proportionality, consistency with other inter-institutional or sector-related
developments and administrative burden. Details of the analysis are given in Annex V and the
results are summarised in Section 6.2.
Overview of instruments34:
1. Self-regulation (monitoring);
2. Open method of coordination;
3. Information and guidelines;
4. Market-based instruments;
5. Direct public-sector financial intervention;
6. Co-regulation;
7. Framework directive;
8. Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision).
As part of the analysis, possible actions for the forthcoming Action Plan were considered, also
using the feedback received during the consultation process. Possible synergies35 were
identified.
To achieve coherence, coordination should be ensured between the individual actions in the
Action Plan, between the actions in the Action Plan and other EU initiatives and, whenever
possible, between actions in the Action Plan and activities outside an EU framework, for
example at the level of stakeholders.
The actions in the Action Plan should be consistent with the following Commission activities
and initiatives:
• ITS-related actions should be coordinated with the actions in the new ITS Action Plan.
• Actions related to urban freight distribution should be in line with the Freight Logistics
Action Plan.
• Actions on eco-driving should be in line with the Energy Efficiency Action Plan and
should build on experience from the Intelligent Energy Europe programme.
34 Source: the Commission’s impact assessment guidelines.
35 There are three types of synergy between policy options or possible actions. First, there could be
possible synergies between individual policy options or actions addressing similar challenges. To
harness these possible synergies, the policy options have been clustered in line with the specific
challenges described in the Green Paper. Second, there could also be possible synergies between
specific policy options or actions on the one hand and cross-cutting policy options or actions on the
other. Third, there could be possible synergies between instruments.
EN 24 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 46 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
• Actions related to raising awareness should take into account the initiatives taken in the
framework of the European Mobility Week, the Green Week and the EU Sustainable
Energy Week.
• Actions related to data collection should take into account the work by EUROSTAT, the
Urban Audit and the RTD Framework Programme.
• Actions related to internalisation of external costs should be in line with the Commission’s
“Greening of transport” package.
Most of the options recommended in this impact assessment can be taken up directly in the
Action Plan. This is particularly the case where objectives and tools for focused dissemination
of information and best practice have been identified. In other cases, additional stages of
consultation with the stakeholders and specific impact assessments will be necessary. In these
cases, the Action Plan should then propose appropriate preparatory action to clarify, in
concertation with the parties concerned, the way forward and build up broad support for
dedicated EU action.
6.2. Assessment of shortlisted options and identification of possible actions
As mentioned in section 4.1, options 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 23, 25 and 31 were not
shortlisted.
Option 5: Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities
This option covers urban road user charging and access limitations and would support the
wider agenda of internalisation of external costs. This option will make a positive contribution
to better policy-making. Many stakeholders support EU initiatives in this field.
Taking into account stakeholders’ varying and sometimes conflicting views on binding rules
for urban road user charging and access restrictions, further exploration is needed. Therefore,
initially, a non-regulatory approach is proposed. To harness synergies between the possible
actions, this option could be considered together with option 13. The possible action could
explore, together with stakeholders, the most appropriate way forward in the area of
environmental zones. Possible action could also include exchanges of information on urban
road user charging.
Option 6: Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics
This option addresses the problem that urban freight transport and distribution services are
sometimes not well integrated into local transport policies. This policy option will make a
positive contribution to a wide range of mobility, congestion, energy, environmental,
economic and social objectives. Most stakeholders support this. Taking into account
proportionality arguments, a non-regulatory approach should be followed that could include
information and guidelines and/or targeted financial intervention.
Possible actions need to add value to the initiatives launched under the Logistics Action Plan.
One particular result of the Green Paper consultation is that stakeholders emphasised the need
for policy-makers to pay more attention to urban freight. Therefore, possible actions could
include active engagement with stakeholders, collection of information and provision of
guidelines in the form of a recommendation.
EN 25 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 47 – Drucksache 17/815
Option 7: Internalise the external costs of urban transport
This option aims at making transport users in all urban areas pay for the external costs that
their use causes to others and to society in general. This policy option will make a positive
contribution to mobility, congestion, energy, environmental and social objectives.
Stakeholders are divided in their support for an EU initiative in this field. A regulatory
approach could be used, perhaps in combination with market-based instruments.
However, before deciding further steps, the inter-institutional process on the recently
launched general method for internalisation of external costs needs to be finalised first. Once
the EU framework with the new method is in place, a basis will exist to consider the way
forward for mobility and transport in urban areas. The possible action could focus on
information-gathering and further assessment in the form of a study. Among other things, this
study should pay attention to the public acceptability and availability of ITS tools.
Option 10: Promote “green” procurement by public authorities
As a follow-up to the proposal for a Directive on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient
road vehicles, this option aims to bring potential buyers of public service vehicles together in
buyers-consortia. This policy option will make a positive contribution to energy,
environmental and social objectives. It will also support the competitive position of the EU
industry. Many stakeholders support this policy option. A variety of instruments could be
used, for example provision of structured information or co-regulation.
Before considering the need for additional steps, the proposed Directive should enter into
force and its impact should be assessed first. The possible action for the short term should
therefore support implementation of the Directive. The action could take the form of
provision of information to potential buyers of public service vehicles with the aid of an
internet-based guide.
Option 11: Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and alternative
fuels
This option aims at stimulating the early take-up of new vehicle standards and alternative
fuels. It will make a positive contribution to energy, environmental, economic and social
objectives. Many stakeholders support it. A variety of instruments could be used for this
option, for example providing information on support schemes and/or available vehicle
technology, market-based instruments, financial intervention or regulation.
Before considering the need for additional steps, the proposed Directive should enter into
force and its impact should be assessed first. In order to harness synergies, this option could,
in the short term, be considered in combination with option 10 and focus on provision of
information.
Option 13: Harmonise access rules for environmental zones
This option addresses the local initiatives taken to reduce environmental problems and
improve the quality of urban life. The objective will be to agree streamlined and easily
understandable rules for access and vehicle identification. The harmonisation proposed in this
option will contribute to environmental and economic objectives, better functioning of the
internal market and better policy-making. Regulatory instruments could be used.
However, taking into account stakeholders’ varying and sometimes conflicting views, further
exploration and discussion with stakeholders is needed to specify the exact scope of the
EN 26 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 48 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
option. Therefore, initially, a non-regulatory approach is proposed. In order to harness
synergies between the possible actions, in the short term this option could be considered in
combination with option 5. Besides active engagement with experts and stakeholders, possible
action could take the form of a study to identify the most appropriate way forward in relation
to the available instruments (information, guidelines, recommendation or regulation).
Option 14: Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport
This option helps to make it easier to use public transport and combine private and public
modes. This policy option will make a positive contribution to mobility, congestion,
environmental, economic and social objectives. Most stakeholders support this. A variety of
instruments could be used, but the most promising direction would be a regulatory approach
(standards).
One possible obstacle lies, however, in the complexity of harmonising existing and future
local ITS systems, defining interfaces between them and involving a broad range of
stakeholders. Therefore, initially, a non-regulatory approach should be followed. Possible
action could include a study to identify current practices and issues, collection of information
and provision of EU guidelines in the form of a recommendation.
Option 15: Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information
This option aims at harmonisation and provision of travel information across different modes
of transport and cities. It will promote use of public transport by different categories of
traveller. This policy option will make a positive contribution to mobility, congestion and
social objectives. Most stakeholders support this. A variety of instruments could be used,
including information and guidelines, co-regulation and a regulatory approach (standards).
One possible obstacle lies, however, in the complexity of harmonising existing and future
urban ITS systems, defining interfaces between them and involving a broad range of
stakeholders. Therefore, initially, a non-regulatory approach should be followed.
Possible action could start “top-down” with provision of travel information via a single
European “entrance portal” on the internet36. The portal would offer access to existing local
and regional information systems. Information providers could be invited to become actively
involved in implementing it. In the longer term and in combination with other initiatives, this
could be a first step towards “soft” harmonisation of travel information across the EU.
Option 19: Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport
This option focuses on the concept of sustainable urban transport mobility plans. The aim is to
provide practical guidance, information and support to authorities. It could also include
coordination and networking activities. This option will make a positive contribution to a
wide range of mobility, congestion, energy and social objectives. It will also contribute to
better policy-making. Most stakeholders support an EU initiative in this field. A non-
regulatory approach would be most effective and proportionate.
The possible action could include provision of EU guidelines in the form of a
recommendation on sustainable urban transport mobility plans. Preparation of the
36 Subject to confirmation of its importance relative to other Commission priorities in the field of
information technology.
EN 27 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 49 – Drucksache 17/815
recommendation could be supported by collecting information and providing practical support
with the aim of better coordinating approaches across cities, regions and Member States.
Option 20: Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning
This option helps to ensure more thorough consideration of the impact of urban development
and restructuring on mobility and transport demand. It will make a positive contribution to
congestion, energy, environmental, economic and social objectives. Stakeholders are divided
in their support. A non-regulatory approach should be followed for any new action, for
example in the form of self regulation or provision of information and guidelines.
Given the limited powers of the EU over planning, the added value of any new initiative on
top of existing ones would probably be limited. The focus is therefore on continuing the
cooperation with Member States to foster better coordination between urban development and
spatial planning in the framework of the First Action Programme implementing the Territorial
Agenda and implementation of the Leipzig Charter. In addition, specific attention could be
paid to urban planning in the RTD Framework Programme.
In order to harness synergies, in the short term this option could be considered in combination
with option 19. Possible action could therefore include provision of EU guidelines in the form
of a recommendation. Specific initiatives could be launched to support preparation and
implementation of the guidelines.
Option 21: Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport
This option contributes to improving the quality of public transport. It makes a positive
contribution to the mobility and social objectives. In general, stakeholders are cautious and
point to the initiatives already being undertaken by the sector. A group of stakeholders from
the urban public transport sector recently developed a voluntary customer charter. This
approach should be given time to mature.
Possible action at this stage could therefore consist of supporting and monitoring this self-
regulation at sector level. Particular attention should be paid to how authorities and users’
organisations will get involved in the initiative and to how strong the sector’s voluntary
commitments will be. Further EU action, such as preparation of specific legislative proposals,
will depend on the results of this self-regulation.
Option 22: Improve accessibility of public transport
This option aims at improving the accessibility of public transport for all city residents to
allow better and easier access to the activities relevant to them. This policy option will make a
positive contribution to mobility, energy, environmental and social objectives. Many
stakeholders support an initiative by the EU in this field. A variety of instruments could be
used, but the most promising direction seems a regulatory approach.
In order to harness synergies between the possible actions, this option could, in the short term,
be considered in combination with option 21. Possible action could therefore consist of
supporting and monitoring self-regulation at sectoral level, while ensuring that accessibility
issues are incorporated in the customer charter.
Option 24: Promote safe walking and safe cycling
This option encourages authorities to improve the conditions for safe walking and safe cycling
in urban areas. This policy option will make a positive contribution to mobility, congestion,
EN 28 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 50 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
environmental, energy and social objectives. Most stakeholders support an EU initiative. For
proportionality reasons, a non-regulatory approach is proposed that could include
coordination, information, guidelines and/or financial intervention.
Because of the limited availability of financial resources in the short term and the fact that
stakeholders have emphasised the need for policy-makers to pay more attention to safe
walking and safe cycling, action could include collection of information, followed by
provision of EU guidelines in the form of a recommendation.
Option 26: Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting
This option helps to improve decision-making about urban mobility and transport at all levels
of government. It will make a positive contribution to better policy-making. Most
stakeholders support an EU initiative in this field as long as it does not become a bureaucratic
exercise. A range of instruments could be used, including coordination, financial intervention
and/or regulatory action.
The extent to which the quality and availability of data will improve depends on the scale and
scope of the exercise, the funds made available to support it and how clearly the data
requirements are formulated. Possible action could therefore take the form of a study which
should explore the data needs, data availability, costs of data collection and possible
implementing mechanisms.
Option 27: Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice
This option will make a positive contribution to better policy-making at all levels of
government. Most stakeholders support it. A non-regulatory approach is proposed, for
example by means of coordination, information, guidelines and/or financial intervention.
Direct public-sector intervention is expected to facilitate involvement of stakeholders.
Possible action could include organising a regular event on urban mobility and facilitating
exchanges of information between stakeholders and experts. It could also include provision of
information, best practice and knowledge via an internet-based guide. In order to harness
synergies, this internet-based guide could be linked with the information and support
initiatives under options 19 and 20.
Option 28: Intensify research, development and demonstration activities
This option helps to promote innovation and will have a positive influence on the quality of
policy-making and implementation. Many stakeholders support an EU initiative in this field.
This option could be implemented most effectively by means of financial intervention.
Possible action could include supporting targeted RTD action with a financial contribution
from the RTD Framework Programme. To ensure that the results of RTD will actually be
used, active involvement of users and good dissemination of results are imperative. In order to
harness synergies between the possible actions, the event and the internet-based guide under
option 27 might play a role in dissemination.
Option 29: Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving
This option will take the form of promoting activities to raise awareness of urban mobility
and/or energy issues. This option will make a positive contribution to energy, environmental
and social objectives (e.g. road safety) and to better policy-making. Many stakeholders
support this. A variety of instruments could be used, including financial intervention,
EN 29 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 51 – Drucksache 17/815
information, guidelines, coordination and/or a regulatory approach. A non-regulatory
approach would be most effective and proportionate.
Therefore, possible action could include financial support for an awareness-raising campaign
on sustainable urban mobility at EU level. The action could also include a mechanism to
coordinate local, regional and national activities related to the European campaign and could
focus on integration of issues related to driving behaviour in education.
Option 30: Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport
This option aims at increasing cities’ and regions’ access to existing EU financial
mechanisms. This policy option will contribute to mobility, congestion, energy,
environmental and social objectives. Many stakeholders support this. A non-regulatory
approach should be followed, for example in the form of provision of information and
guidelines on sources of funding or targeted EU financial intervention.
Possible action could include collection of information, followed by provision of EU
guidelines in the form of a recommendation on investment in urban mobility and the link with
cohesion policy. In addition, a targeted financial contribution might be provided to pilot
projects. In order to harness synergies between the possible actions, the internet-based guide
under option 27 could provide information on financing instruments. At this stage, the
benefits of additional instruments, either from Commission sources or from the EIB, could be
investigated with a view to a specific EU initiative in the longer term.
EN 30 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 52 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
6.3. Towards the Action Plan on Urban Mobility
Table 4 provides an overview of the possible actions identified by this impact assessment
structured by the themes of the Green Paper on urban mobility. The table also includes
preliminary indications of the timing, costs and benefits, the administrative burden and the
contribution which the options could make to the main objectives set out in the Green Paper.
On the basis of the 18 shortlisted policy options, by exploiting synergies between contents and
between instruments, and by optimising the identity, visibility and manageability of individual
actions, 20 proposals for possible actions at EU level have been developed. The preliminary
timing indicated for each possible action allows for an effective interaction between
individual actions and for an efficient use of resources. The interaction and synergies between
the actions, and their multiple contributions to addressing the main challenges posed by
sustainable urban mobility, suggest a coherent presentation of a package of 20 possible
actions in the form of an integrated Action Plan.
The suggestions for the possible actions have provided the basis for the preparation of the
Action Plan on Urban Mobility. During the preparatory process for the Action Plan the
actions will be specified, prioritised and politically validated, taking into account –among
other things– the available resources.The EU can support national, regional and local
authorities, when appropriate, with policy directions, incentives, frameworks and practical
tools to help them achieve their objectives in the field of sustainable urban mobility. This can
also help to ensure that, at local, regional and national levels, appropriate initiatives are taken
and diversification does not turn into unnecessary fragmentation.
With the Action Plan, the Commission wants to facilitate the work of local, regional and
national authorities. EU-wide dissemination and replication of tested solutions can give
authorities the possibility to achieve more, better and at lower cost. Local, regional and
national authorities have flexibility and freedom to select solutions appropriate to their
specific situation.
Because of the nature of the proposed actions and the flexibility of their application, plus the
lack of data, a quantitative assessment of impacts of the actions against the baseline scenario
is not feasible. However, it can be assumed that the package of 20 possible actions will make
a positive contribution to mobility, congestion, energy, environmental, economic and social
objectives. This has been demonstrated by EU-funded projects.
For example, an integrated approach promoted by the proposed actions, which combines
transport policy measures with the introduction of clean vehicle technologies and alternative
fuels, has been tested successfully in CIVITAS cities. It has brought reductions in CO2
emissions of up to 20 – 22 %37. As almost half of all car trips are below five kilometres,
modal shift policies that exploit the potential of cycling, walking and public transport can
reduce congestion and bring environmental, energy and health benefits. With two out of three
of all road accidents happening in urban areas, investments in safe urban transport
infrastructure will lead to a reduction of pedestrians and cyclists accidents.
The package of actions can also contribute to economic objectives. With an important part of
congestion in the EU being located in and around urban areas, congestion relief measures, for
example through public transport improvements, will bring economic benefits. In addition,
37 A policy assessment of the CIVITAS Initiative. September 2006.
EN 31 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 53 – Drucksache 17/815
there are estimates that 30 jobs are created with every €1 million invested in public transport
infrastructure. And finally, the package of actions can help to bridge the gap between citizens'
expectations and the perceived quality of urban transport. This impact assessment has
demonstrated that there is clear overall support for action at EU level. This support also exists
among the other European institutions. While there were varying views expressed about
which actions at the EU level could add value, the consultation has helped to identify
'common ground' where EU action could add value to the action taken at local, regional and
national levels.
Implementation of the actions will be closely monitored and assessed to ensure that
subsidiarity and proportionality concerns are addressed and that all alternatives to regulatory
action will be explored for future initiatives. This impact assessment in no way prejudges the
outcome of impact assessments for specific proposals that might be made in the future. For
example, in line with the relevant procedures, a dedicated impact assessment is envisaged for
each Commission recommendation.
EN 32 EN
D
ru
cksach
e 17/815
– 54 –
D
eutscher B
undestag – 17. W
ahlperiode
E EN
dmin.
urden Contribution to objectives
: very low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Smarter urban transport
• Improving knowledge and data
collection
: very low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Smarter urban transport
C: low
Local,
ional and
ational
thorities:
low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
: very low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Safe and secure urban transport
• Improving knowledge and data
collection
: very low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Safe and secure urban transport
: very low • Greener towns and cities
: very low • Greener towns and cities
N 33
Table 4: Overview of the possible actions launched by the European Commission
Action Instrument
Timing
(launch)
Costs Benefits
A
b
Free-flowing towns and cities
1. Stakeholder
conference on urban
freight
(Option 6)
Event 2010 Low Better understanding of urban freight issues; exchanges and dissemination of practice EC
2. Recommendation on
urban freight
(Option 6)
Recommendation 2012 Low Greater efficiency, fewer tonne-km, less congestion, less pollution, increased competition EC
Greener towns and cities
3. Study on access rules
for green zones
(Options 5 and 13)
Study 2009 Low Better understanding among authorities, travellers and businesses, better policy-making, time and cost gains for visitors and businesses
E
reg
n
au
4 .Exchange of
information on urban
pricing schemes
(Option 5)
Expert network 2009 Low Dissemination of knowledge on urban pricing, better understanding of context variables EC
5. Study on urban
aspects of internalisation
of external costs
(Option 7)
Study 2011 Low
Better understanding of specific urban context of internalisation, in
particular impact on behaviour and the environment and social and
economic impact
EC
6. Internet guide on clean
and energy-efficient
vehicles
(Options 10 and 11)
Internet guide 2009 Very low
Facilitate market uptake leading to increased use of clean vehicles
resulting in less pollution and higher energy efficiency EC
7. Recommendation on
energy-efficient driving as
part of driving education
Recommendation 2012 Low Lower fuel consumption and emissions EC
D
eutscher B
undestag – 17. W
ahlperiode
– 55 –
D
ru
cksach
e 17/815
E EN
dmin.
urden Contribution to objectives
ember
tes: very
low
: very low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Smarter urban transport
• Accessible urban transport
• Safe and secure urban transport
: very low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Smarter urban transport
• Accessible urban transport
: very low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Accessible urban transport
• Safe and secure urban transport
C: low
eholders:
ery low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Accessible urban transport
• Safe and secure urban transport
: very low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Safe and secure urban transport
N 34
Action Instrument
Timing
(launch)
Costs Benefits
A
b
(Option 29) M
Sta
Smarter urban transport
8. Recommendation on
ITS for urban mobility
(Option 14)
Recommendation 2012 Low Easier travel and more efficient services leading to less congestion, less pollution and increased safety. EC
9. Web portal to improve
access to public transport
information
(Option 15)
Web portal 2009 Very low
Better informed travellers will lead to higher use of public transport,
which will result in less congestion, less pollution and increased
safety.
EC
Accessible urban transport
10. Recommendation on
sustainable urban mobility
plans
(Options 19 and 20)
Recommendation 2012 Low Facilitate integrated planning and policy-making, including target-setting, monitoring and evaluation and better stakeholder involvement EC
11. Dialogue on
passenger rights in urban
public transport
(voluntary)
(Options 21 and 22)
Stakeholder
network 2010
Low/
very
low
Better-quality public transport will lead to increased use of public
transport and stronger consumer protection
E
Stak
v
Safe and secure urban transport
12. Recommendation on
safe walking and safe
cycling
(Option 24)
Recommendation 2011 Low Fewer accidents, fewer fatalities and increase in walking/cycling EC
D
ru
cksach
e 17/815
– 56 –
D
eutscher B
undestag – 17. W
ahlperiode
E EN
dmin.
urden Contribution to objectives
: very low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Smarter urban transport
• Accessible urban transport
• Safe and secure urban transport
• Improving knowledge and data
collection
C: low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Smarter urban transport
• Accessible urban transport
• Safe and secure urban transport
• Improving knowledge and data
collection
very low;
Local,
ional and
ational
thorities:
ery low
eholders:
ery low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Smarter urban transport
• Accessible urban transport
• Safe and secure urban transport
• Improving knowledge and data
collection
C: low;
Local
thorities:
low
eholders:
ery low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Smarter urban transport
• Accessible urban transport
• Safe and secure urban transport
• Improving knowledge and data
collection
: very low
ember
tes: very
low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Safe and secure urban transport
• Improving knowledge and data
collection
C: low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Smarter urban transport
• Accessible urban transport
N 35
Action Instrument
Timing
(launch)
Costs Benefits
A
b
Cross-cutting issues
13. Internet guide on
legislation, funding and
best practice
(Options 19, 20, 27
and 30)
Internet guide 2009 Low Providing better information leads to better targeted use of funding and better informed decisions EC
14. Study on harmonised
data collection
(Option 26)
Study 2010 Low Better informed decisions and better monitoring leading to better and faster policy responses E
15. Annual forum on
urban mobility
(Option 27)
Event 2010 Low Better dissemination of urban mobility practice
EC:
reg
n
au
v
Stak
v
16. Targeted RTD
activities on urban
mobility
(Options 27 and 28)
Funding 2011
Depen
ding
on
imple
mentat
ion
Facilitating policy implementation, better understanding of integrated
planning, demographic changes, trends, vehicle technologies, Galileo
applications, behaviour, innovative public transport, etc.
E
au
Stak
v
17. Campaign on
sustainable mobility
behaviour
(Option 29)
Campaign 2010 Low Less congestion, lower fuel consumption and emissions, increased safety
EC
M
Sta
18. Call for proposals for
action on sustainable
urban mobility
Funding 2009 Low
Increased safety, integration of freight into urban mobility policy,
improved understanding of access control, less fragmented payment
systems and better knowledge of demand-responsive transport
E
D
eutscher B
undestag – 17. W
ahlperiode
– 57 –
D
ru
cksach
e 17/815
E EN
dmin.
urden Contribution to objectives
• Safe and secure urban transport
• Focusing EU financial instruments
pending
on
plement-
ation
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Smarter urban transport
• Accessible urban transport
• Safe and secure urban transport
• Focusing EU financial instruments
: very low
• Free-flowing towns and cities
• Greener towns and cities
• Smarter urban transport
• Accessible urban transport
• Safe and secure urban transport
• Focusing EU financial instruments
N 36
Action Instrument
Timing
(launch)
Costs Benefits
A
b
(Option 30)
systems
19. Study on dedicated
support for urban mobility
(Option 30)
Study 2010 Low Facilitating policy implementation, promoting and highlighting advanced practices and highlighting priorities
De
im
20. Recommendation on
sustainable urban mobility
and regional policy
(Option 30)
Recommendation 2011 Low Better information on policy priorities and access to funding, highlighting role of urban mobility in economic and social cohesion EC
Drucksache 17/815 – 58 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
To monitor implementation of the Action Plan and its individual actions, the Commission will
look at trends in urban mobility and transport with a focus on the performance of policies,
tools, markets, regulatory frameworks and administrative capacity. It will do so in close
consultation with stakeholders. This chapter outlines preliminary thoughts on monitoring the
development of urban mobility and transport in the EU and the performance of EU action.
The following possible indicators, which will need to be further specified, are suitable for
measuring progress and are likely to be available.
Objective Possible indicator(s)
Sustainable urban mobility Modal split for passenger transport
Modal split for freight transport
Improve coherence of solutions Number of cities with coherent access rules
Support for policy-making Availability of coherent data
Number of cities with sustainable urban transport plans
Deciding policy and launching action at local, regional, national and EU levels requires good
data and information covering a wider spectrum than the indicators set out above. The data
and information needed to provide an accurate, complete and consistent picture of urban
mobility in the EU are not available, however. One prerequisite for measuring progress in the
field of urban mobility and transport is therefore establishment of a coherent and comparable
monitoring system, as proposed in option 26.
With the Action Plan, the Commission intends to facilitate the work of policy-makers at local,
regional and national levels. The overall success of the Action Plan will depend largely on the
take-up by local, regional and national authorities, the private sector and citizens. Efficient
implementation by the Commission will also depend on the resources made available by the
Commission38.
The Commission will monitor implementation of the Action Plan and will continue to consult
stakeholders and promote information exchange, for example via the Joint Expert Group on
Transport and Environment. In 2012 the Commission will conduct a review of the
developments and of the impact of this Action Plan and will assess the need for further action.
38 Estimates suggest that implementation of the Action Plan will require the allocation of 3 extra AD
officials, and 2 AST officials.
EN 37 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 59 – Drucksache 17/815
ANNEXES
EN 38 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 60 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
ANNEX I: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION
The Commission received a total of 431 responses to the Green Paper consultation. The main
conclusion from analysis of the responses is that there is a broad consensus among
stakeholders that there is added value in action at EU level. Stakeholders want to see the
Commission help, facilitate and support city, regional and national governments in their
efforts to achieve the goals of sustainable urban mobility.
While the potentially positive role of the Commission is widely acknowledged by the
respondents, there is some concern that Commission initiatives could result in additional
bureaucracy, with the risk of limiting the creativity and flexibility needed for dealing with
urban mobility issues at local level. The respondents were divided about the kind of initiatives
(legislative, voluntary, etc.) that the Commission should take.
To a large extent, the respondents to the Green Paper consultation made suggestions such as
facilitating exchanges of best practice, financing and supporting research and improving the
harmonisation, collection and availability of data and information. Other suggestions include
harmonising policy processes, developing guidelines and recommendations, harmonising
technical standards and improving the availability of finances for innovative projects that
contribute to sustainable urban mobility goals.
As part of the Green Paper consultation and in preparation for the Action Plan, the
Commission organised a conference under the banner “Towards a new culture for urban
mobility” on 31 January 2008. Around 300 stakeholders participated in the event. In addition,
eight technical stakeholder workshops were organised on 5, 6, 11 and 12 March 2008 in
Brussels. Five of them dealt with each of the five main challenges identified in the Green
Paper, two covered the cross-cutting topics of financing and a new culture for urban mobility
and the final, concluding, workshop, brought together the discussions at the previous seven
workshops. A total of 172 persons participated.
The vast majority of the comments made during the conference and workshops clearly
suggested that the EU can offer added value in the field of urban mobility and has a role to
play. Potential roles for the EU could include harmonisation and standardisation of various
technologies, practices and policies relevant to urban mobility, possibly also by means of
legislation.
It was also concluded that a number of the initiatives that the Commission was already taking
should be continued and, if necessary, intensified. The Commission should also consider
facilitating and initiating new actions, for example on collecting data, assessing the impact of
transport, raising awareness and social marketing. Finally, the Commission was requested to
conduct a comparison of mobility problems in European cities and to conduct an assessment
of policy alternatives.
During the debates, it was pointed out that some areas had received insufficient attention in
the Green Paper. These include, for instance, urban freight distribution and the link between
strategic urban planning and transport planning. It was also suggested that the EU could
particularly help the new Member States to find ways to balance long-term thinking with
short-term investment pressure and that the EU could help facilitate transfers of know-how.
The results of the Green Paper consultation are summarised in Table 4. Scores range from 1
(low: most stakeholders do not support the idea) to 3 (medium: stakeholders are divided) and
EN 39 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 61 – Drucksache 17/815
then up to 5 (high: most stakeholders support the action). Relevant comments have been
added. “n.a.” means not applicable.
Table 4: Stakeholder support for policy options (long list) with comments
Option Score
Require cities to set modal split targets 1
Support for such a requirement is very limited and was suggested only a few times.
1
Ban private car use in city centres 2
Banning use of private cars in city centres is not supported by stakeholders; this is
considered a decision for local authorities.
1
Ban on-street parking in city centres 3
Prohibiting on-street parking in city centres is not supported by stakeholders; this is
considered a decision for local authorities.
1
Recognise efforts of cities to improve sustainable urban mobility 4
The feasibility of this policy option is questioned (because of the comparability of cities and
availability of reliable data), but the general idea is supported.
4
Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities 5
There is strong opposition to mandatory road user charges. However, providing information,
harmonisation, dissemination of best practice, etc. could help cities that have decided (or
are considering whether) to take such measures.
4
Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics 6
Most stakeholders support such measures. They underline the economic importance of
urban freight, but mention the role of the private sector.
5
Internalise the external costs of urban transport 7
There is support for standards, harmonisation and internalisation in the field of urban
charging in general, but no support for mandatory measures.
3
Require cities to set targets for CO2 emissions from urban transport 8
There is no support for such requirements.
1
Require zero CO2 propulsion for urban public transport 9
There is little support for this policy option.
1
Promote “green” procurement by public authorities 10
Facilitation by the Commission of green procurement is supported, although internalisation
of external costs is considered more effective.
4
Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and alternative fuels 11
There is support for this option on condition that modes and technologies are treated
equally. Intensified use of existing instruments is preferred.
4
Require designation of “green” zones in sensitive areas 12
Mandatory green zones are not supported by stakeholders; the decision to implement such
zones should be left to the local authorities.
1
EN 40 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 62 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Harmonise rules for environmental zones 13
Stakeholders favour a certain degree of harmonisation of such zones, as long as local
authorities can decide on introduction. Using Euro standards is seen as a means of
harmonisation.
4
Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport 14
There is support for this policy option. However, local flexibility remains a condition.
5
Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information 15
Not many stakeholders oppose this, as long as access, user-friendliness, accuracy and
design are taken into account.
5
Require transport impact assessments as a precondition for planning permission 16
There is little support for conditionality, but promotion and research would be favoured.
2
Require establishment of urban mobility authorities 17
This requirement meets opposition, but there is support for voluntary establishment of such
authorities. The Commission should support best practice, research, etc.
2
Require adoption of SUTPs as a condition for EU funding 18
Conditionality is not supported widely; only a few stakeholders propose criteria for
sustainability (which are less specific).
1
Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport 19
Assistance in the form of dissemination of best practice, etc. by the Commission to cities
with the aim of integrated planning is supported.
5
Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning 20
The need to improve coordination is recognised, but support would depend on the
instrument chosen. Binding measures receive less support.
3
Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport 21
The Commission is advised to take no new steps in this direction, given the ongoing
initiatives. In general, support appears to be lacking for what is feared to be a rigid,
ineffective policy option.
1
Improve accessibility of public transport 22
Stakeholders support this, but some stress that this should not come at the expense of
private transport. Interfaces with other modes should be included in this option.
4
Require operators to accept bicycles in urban public transport 23
Support from only a small and specific section of stakeholders; no comments from the vast
majority. However, there is strong support for strengthening the co-modality chain.
2
Promote safe walking and safe cycling 24
Promotion of walking and cycling is supported, e.g. by disseminating best practice and
promoting intermodal interfaces.
5
Raise the minimum age for driving licences to 25 n.a
EN 41 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 63 – Drucksache 17/815
Raise the minimum age for driving licences to 25 25
This policy option was not proposed explicitly by stakeholders, nor did stakeholders raise
the issue.
n.a
Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting 26
The need for better data is fully recognised, but stakeholders demand as little bureaucracy
as possible.
5
Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice 27
There is consensus amongst stakeholders that a great deal of information is available, but
that it should be made more accessible.
5
Intensify research, development and demonstration activities 28
Research is called for in certain fields, but pilot projects should also receive support. Strong
support for (continuation of existing) demonstration networks.
4
Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving 29
There is general support for awareness-raising activities. Promotion of eco-driving is seen
as valuable, as long as the benefits to users are stressed.
4
Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport 30
There is support for investment in integrated solutions. Stakeholders ask for “equal
treatment” of modes, but support for public transport is recognised as important. Financial
support could help cities to select and implement the best solution.
4
Require implementation of a “value capture tax” 31
Very little support for taxation-related measures.
1
EN 42 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 64 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
ANNEX II: OVERVIEW OF EXISTING EU INITIATIVES AND LEGISLATION
TRANSPORT
Relevance Status
Public service obligations
Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by
rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos
1191/69 and 1107/70
Direct Legislation
implemented
State aid
Community guidelines on State aid for railway undertakings
(OJ C 184, 22.7.2008)
Direct Adopted
Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008
declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common
market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General
Block Exemption Regulation) (OJ L 214, 9.8.2008)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (OJ C
82, 1.4.2008)
Indirect Adopted
Important State aid decisions on public service obligations
C 58/06 (ex NN 98/2005) of 20 December 2006, Germany – State aid
for public transport Stadt Langenfeld/Verkehrsverbund Rhein Ruhr
(OJ C 74, 31.3.2007)
Indirect Implemented
C 16/07 (ex NN 55/2006) of 30 May 2007, Austria – Official support
for Postbus in the Lienz district (OJ C 162, 14.7.2007)
Indirect Implemented
C 31/2007 (ex NN 17/2007) of 18 July 2007, Ireland – State aid to
Córas Iompair Éireann Bus Companies (OJ C 217, 15.9.2007)
Indirect Implemented
C 47/07 (ex NN 22/2005) of 23 October 2007, Germany – Public
service contract between Deutsche Bahn Regio AG and the Länder of
Berlin and Brandenburg (OJ C 35, 8.2.2008)
Indirect Implemented
C 54/07 (ex NN 55/2007) of 28 November 2007, Germany –
Hülsmann GmbH (Rail) v. Emsländische Eisenbahn GmbH (not yet
published in the OJ)
Indirect Implemented
C 3/08 (ex NN 102/05) of 26 November 2008, Czech Republic -
public service compensations for Southern Moravia Bus Companies
(OJ C 7032, 16.4.2009)
Indirect Implemented
EN 43 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 65 – Drucksache 17/815
Important State aid decisions on other improvements to public
transport
N63/2005 – Programme for energy economies and use of alternative
fuels in the transport sector, Czech Republic (OJ C 83, 6.4.2006)
Indirect Implemented
N604/2005 – Satzung zur Unterstützung eigenwirtschaftlicher
Verkehrsleistungen im Landkreis Wittenberg, Germany (OJ C 209,
30.8.2006)
Indirect Implemented
N556/2005 – Subsidieverordening Innovatie openbaar vervoer van
provincie Gelderland, Netherlands (OJ C 207, 30.8.2006)
Indirect Implemented
Passenger rights
Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations
(OJ L 315, 3.12.2007)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the liability of carriers of passengers by sea and inland waterways in the
event of accidents (COM(2005) 592)
Indirect Legislation
proposed, but
not yet adopted
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland
waterway and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation
between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer
protection laws (COM(2008) 0816)
Direct Legislation
proposed, but
not yet adopted
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on
the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport and amending
Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities
responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws
(COM(2008)0817)
Direct Legislation
proposed, but
not yet adopted
TEN-T
Regulation (EC) No 807/2004 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 21 April 2004 amending Council Regulation (EC) No
2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community
financial aid in the field of trans-European networks (OJ L 143,
30.4.2004)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Charging
Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of
certain infrastructures (OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42), as last amended by
Directive 2006/38/EC (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Indirect Legislation
EN 44 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 66 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for
the use of certain infrastructures (COM(2008) 436)
proposed, but
not yet adopted
Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure
capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway
infrastructure and safety certification (OJ L 75, 15.3.2001)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Strategy for the internalisation of external costs (COM(2008) 435) Indirect Adopted
Public procurement
Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors
(OJ L 134, 30.4.2004)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of
public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service
contracts (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Commission Decision 2008/963/EC of 9 December 2008 amending
the Annexes to Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement
procedures, as regards their lists of contracting entities and contracting
authorities (OJ L 349, 24.12.2008)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Directive 2009/…/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on
the promotion of clean and energy efficient road transport vehicles
(OJ L…..)
Direct Legislation
adopted, but
not yet
implemented
Competition
Council Regulation (EC) No 169/2009 of 26 February 2009 applying
rules of competition to transport by rail, road and inland waterway (JO
L 61 du 5.3.2009)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Transport of dangerous goods
Directive 2008/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 24 September 2008 on the inland transport of dangerous goods (JO
L 260 du 30.9.2008)
Indirect Legislation
adopted, but
not yet
transposed
ENERGY
Fuels
EN 45 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 67 – Drucksache 17/815
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/63/EC of 20 December
1994 on the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
resulting from the storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals
to service stations (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Council Directive 1999/32/EC of 26 April 1999 relating to a reduction
in the sulphur content of certain liquid fuels and amending Directive
93/12/EEC (OJ L 121, 11.5.1999, p. 13), as amended by Regulation
(EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
29 September 2003 (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1) and Directive
2005/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July
2005 (OJ L 191, 22.7.2005)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
13 October 1998 relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and
amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC (OJ L 350, 28.12.1998), as
amended by Directive 2003/17/EC
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels and other
renewable fuels for transport (OJ L 123, 17.5.2003, p. 42)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the
Community framework for the taxation of energy products and
electricity (OJ L 283, 31.10.2003), as amended
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Directive 2009/…/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (OJ
L…)
Direct Legislation
adopted, but
not yet
implemented
Energy efficiency
Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the
approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
the Member States relating to construction products (OJ L 40,
11.2.1989)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Council Directive 93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon
dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency (SAVE) (OJ L 237,
22.9.1993)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings (OJ L 1,
4.1.2003)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
EN 46 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 68 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign
requirements for energy-using products and amending Council
Directive 92/42/EEC and Directives 96/57/EC and 2000/55/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 191, 22.7.2005)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Directive 2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 5 April 2006 on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and
repealing Council Directive 93/76/EEC (OJ L 114, 27.4.2006)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
ENVIRONMENT
Air quality
Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air
quality assessment and management (OJ L 296, 21.11.1996)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values
for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen,
particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ L 163, 29.6.1999)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Directive 2000/69/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 16 November 2000 relating to limit values for benzene and carbon
monoxide in ambient air (OJ L 313, 13.12.2000)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Directive 2004/107/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 15 December 2004 relating to arsenic, cadmium, nickel and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air (OJ L 23, 26.1.2005)
Direct Legislation
implemented
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 (OJ
L 152, 11.6.2008)
Direct Legislation
adopted, but
not yet
transposed
Noise
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 (OJ L 189, 18.7.2002)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with
regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at
Community airports (OJ L 85, 28.3.2002)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Water
EN 47 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 69 – Drucksache 17/815
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in
the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000)
Indirect
Legislation
implemented
Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field
of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council
Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC,
86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008)
Indirect Legislation
adopted, but
not yet
transposed
Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks
(OJ L 288, 6.11.2007)
Indirect Legislation
adopted, but
not yet
transposed
Natural habitats
Council Directive 92/43/EC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Environmental assessment
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
(OJ L 175, 5.7.1985), as amended
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (JO L 73 du 14.3.1997)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and
programmes on the environment (OJ L 197, 21.7.2001)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the
drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the
environment and amending with regard to public participation and
access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (OJ L
156, 25.6.2003)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
VEHICLE STANDARDS
Regulation No 100 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the
United Nations (UNECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the
approval of battery electric vehicles with regard to specific
requirements for the construction, functional safety and hydrogen
emission (revision 2) (OJ L 45, 14.2.2009)
Direct
Legislation
implemented
EN 48 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 70 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with
respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles
(Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance
information (OJ L 171, 29.6.2007) [This Regulation will apply from 3
January 2009, with the exception of Articles 10(1) and 12 which apply
with effect from 2 July 2007]
Direct
Legislation
implemented
Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 of 18 July 2008 implementing and
amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament
and of the Council on type-approval of motor vehicles with respect to
emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and
Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information
(OJ L 199, 28.7.2008)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Regulation (EC) No 79/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 14 January 2009 on type-approval of hydrogen-powered
motor vehicles, and amending Directive 2007/46/EC (OJ L 35,
4.2.2009)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on
type-approval of motor vehicles and engines with respect to emissions from
heavy duty vehicles (Euro VI) and on access to vehicle repair and
maintenance information (SEC(2007)1718, SEC(2007)1720 and COM(2007)
851 final)
Direct
Legislation
proposed, but
not yet adopted
Regulation (EC) N°…/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council setting emission performance standards for new passenger
cars as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO2
emissions from light-duty vehicles (OJ L…)
Direct Legislation
adopted, not
yet
implemented
Council Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 1992 on the installation
and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor
vehicles in the Community (OJ L 57, 2.3.1992)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Proposal for a Council Directive on passenger car related taxes
(COM(2005) 261 final)
Direct Legislation
proposed, but
not yet adopted
Directive 2001/85/EC relating to special provision for vehicles used
for the carriage of passengers comprising more than eight seats (OJ L
42, 13.2.2002)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Directive 2001/16/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European
conventional rail system (OJ L 110, 20.4.2001)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Directive 2002/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
18 February 2002 amending Council Directive 96/53/EC laying down
for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the
maximum authorised dimensions in national and international traffic
and the maximum authorised weights in international traffic (OJ L 67,
Direct
Legislation
implemented
EN 49 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 71 – Drucksache 17/815
9.3.2002)
SAFETY
Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and the Council
of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and
amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway
undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway
infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of
railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety
Directive) (OJ L 164, 30.4.2004); Corrigendum to Directive
2004/49/EC (OJ L 204, 4.8.2007)
Direct
Legislation
implemented
Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (Recast) (OJ L
403, 30.12.2006)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Directive 2008/96/EC of the of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 November 2008 on road infrastructure safety
management (OJ L 319, 29.11.2008)
Direct
Legislation
adopted, but
not yet
transposed
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Directive 2004/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 29 April 2004 on the interoperability of electronic road toll systems
in the Community (OJ L 166, 30.4.2004)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Directive 2000/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 18 September 2000 on the taking up, pursuit of and prudential
supervision of the business of electronic money institutions (OJ L 275,
27.10.2000)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market
amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and
2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC (OJ L 319, 05/12/2007)
Indirect Legislation
adopted, but
not yet
transposed
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
laying down the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport
Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport
modes (COM/2008/0887)
Direct Legislation
proposed, but
not yet adopted
REGIONAL POLICY
Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Indirect Legislation
EN 50 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 72 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and repealing
Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006)
implemented
Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 5 July 2006 on a European grouping of territorial
cooperation (EGTC) (OJ L 210, 31.7.2006)
Indirect Legislation
implemented
Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a
Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 (OJ L 210,
31.7.2006)
Direct Legislation
implemented
RTD AND INNOVATION
Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework
Programme of the European Community for research, technological
development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (OJ L 412,
30.12.2006)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Competitiveness and
Innovation Framework Programme (2007 to 2013) (OJ L 310,
9.11.2006)
Direct Legislation
implemented
Council Regulation (EC) No 521/2008 of 30 May 2008 setting up the
Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (OJ L 153, 12.6.2008)
Direct Legislation
implemented
EN 51 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 73 – Drucksache 17/815
ANNEX III: THE BASELINE SCENARIO
This annex contains background information about the choice of the TREMOVE model, the
assumptions made in the baseline scenario and the modelling results.
The choice of TREMOVE
Given that the aim of this assessment is to quantify the baseline scenario as much as possible,
the TREMOVE model was selected, based on the following arguments:
– TREMOVE covers all EU cities and metropolitan areas and every mode of transport,
including walking and cycling;
– TREMOVE draws a distinction between urban (metropolitan and other urban) and non-
urban areas;
– TREMOVE calculates emissions;
– the TREMOVE forecasts are based on assumptions and data that are validated and
accepted; and
– the results of modelling with TREMOVE are considered scientifically acceptable.
It would be difficult to use individual city models to model urban mobility at EU level.
Organisationally, this would be a large, resource-intensive and time-consuming exercise. It
would entail gaining access to the available scientifically validated models owned by
individual cities which would be (1) mainly the large and capital cities and (2) mainly located
in northern and western parts of the EU.
Furthermore, making the results of such an exercise comparable and integrating them would
also be resource-intensive and time-consuming. An alternative would be to limit the
modelling exercise to just a few European cities. This option was ruled out, however, because
the results would just cover individual cities and not urban mobility for the whole EU.
The other option was to use another existing European model. Besides TREMOVE, three
other European models were considered: SCENES, EXPEDITE and TRANSTOOLS.
However, these three models were developed primarily to model long-distance transport in
the EU and to support development of TEN-T policy. None of the models except TREMOVE
is currently able to provide results for cities, urban areas or metropolitan regions.
SCENES, EXPEDITE and TRANSTOOLS are, however, capable, in varying degrees, of
providing results that could be used as a proxy for urban mobility. However, each has serious
shortcomings that prevented its use. For example, EXPEDITE provides forecasts of total
passenger- and tonne-kilometres by distance bands (i.e. length of trip).
Trips shorter than, for example, 50 km could be taken as a proxy for urban mobility. The
problem, however, is that average trip lengths differ from one city to another. This makes use
of a single European average value for trip length problematic. The SCENES model does not
include an emissions module. TRANSTOOLS draws no distinction between urban and non-
urban areas.
EN 52 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 74 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Therefore, TREMOVE proved to be the most suitable model. TREMOVE has the advantage
that it produces results specifically for the categories “metropolitan”, “other cities” and “non-
urban.” Furthermore, TREMOVE recently produced a forecast of future transport demand and
supply that takes into account future non-transport-related policy developments. This forecast
of future demand has been accepted by the Commission as valid.
To be consistent with recent DG TREN studies, the possibility of using the IMPACT 1
baseline scenario was assessed. It was decided not to use the IMPACT 1 baseline scenario
because this scenario uses TREMOVE Version 2.52. For this assessment Version 2.7, the
most recent version of TREMOVE, was available. Apart from being more recent, this version
made it possible to include cities from all 27 Member States in the baseline scenario.
The assumptions and policy measures in the baseline scenario
The TREMOVE baseline scenario is estimated from the results of the SCENES run for the
ASSESS39 study. This run is based on the assumptions made in the “partial implementation”
scenario. This partial implementation scenario is described in the ASSESS study reports and
is considered the most likely future scenario.
The TREMOVE baseline scenario includes the following assumptions on fuel efficiency40:
Mode Period Assumptions
Before
1990
Improvement in fuel efficiency of 1% per year.
1990–
1995
No significant improvements in fuel efficiency.
1995–
2002
Derived from the figures in the monitoring reports for the CO2 voluntary
agreement.
2002–
2009
Based on voluntary agreements between the European Commission and car
manufacturers (the ACEA, JAMA and KAMA agreements). The main
commitment made by the manufacturers was to improve fuel efficiency, by means
of technological improvements, to an average of 140 g CO2/km by 2008. The
TREMOVE base case assumes that this 140 g/km target is reached in 2009. The
related 2002-2009 fuel efficiency improvements by car type are derived from data
and projections reported in the TNO CO2CAR Task A study.
2009–
2012
TREMOVE assumes, on average, no further improvements in car fuel efficiency
after 2009. The related 2009-2012 fuel efficiency changes by car type are also
derived from data and projections reported in the TNO CO2CAR Task A study.
Cars
2012
onwards
The baseline does not include any further changes in the fuel efficiency of new
cars beyond 2012.
Other
road
1995–
2009
For all other road vehicles, the 1995-2009 base case fuel efficiency increases were
initially taken from the Auto Oil II programme, in which improvement estimates
39 Assessment of the contribution of the TEN and other transport policy measures to the mid-term review
of the White Paper on the European Transport Policy for 2010.
40 TREMOVE Final Report, Chapter V (2007).
EN 53 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 75 – Drucksache 17/815
vehicles were agreed with the manufacturers’ representatives. After 2009, no further
increases in fuel efficiency were assumed, as this assumption is needed for correct
assessment of post-2009 EU policies on CO2 emissions from road vehicles. For
light commercial vehicles (N1) TREMOVE diverges from TNO estimates as it is
calculated using the Copert method. For heavy duty trucks the 1995-2009 fuel
efficiency improvement rates have been removed from the base case (from version
2.44 onwards). This change was suggested by the European Commission to bring
the TREMOVE base case more into line with the PRIMES energy scenarios.
The partial implementation scenario includes policy measures that, in response to a judgment
made in 200541, are likely to be implemented. This means either that the policy measures have
been implemented already or that there are clear indications that they will be soon. The latter
is the case when approved EU directives set deadlines for Member States to adapt their
national legislation accordingly.
The central components of the partial implementation scenario are:
• Macroeconomic assumptions, population growth, transport demand and transport costs are
updated, based on the latest predictions for 2010 and 2020. The fuel consumption and
emission module is based on the Copert 4 method for calculating road transport emissions.
The baseline takes account of the new technologies up to Euro 5 and 6. Assumptions have
been made on fuel efficiency trends42.
• All policy measures that have been followed up by a directive approved by the European
institutions and that has to be implemented by the Member States before 2010 (or 2020)
are included in the partial implementation scenario for 2010 (or 2020).
• Policy measures that have been followed up by a proposal that is awaiting approval by the
European institutions are included in the partial implementation scenario for 2010 (or
2020) only if they have a realistic chance of being approved before 2010 (or 2020). This
expectation is based on the number of times that a particular proposal has already been
rejected and on the debate about the policy objective in the media.
• All TEN-T projects that, according to the estimates published in 2004, are scheduled to be
completed before 2010 (or 2020) are included in the partial implementation scenario for
2010 (or 2020).
The following policy fields and measures relevant to urban mobility and covering the period
after 2005 are included in the partial implementation scenario:
41 Based on the preliminary results of the policy review up to 2005 described in Annexes I to IV to the
ASSESS study.
42 In the period 2005-2010, fuel efficiency improvements for road vehicles lead to a limited downward
trend in overall fuel consumption by transport. This is mainly the result of the voluntary agreement with
the car industry to limit test-cycle CO2 emissions from cars to 140 grammes per km by 2008/2009. The
resulting decrease in specific fuel consumption counterbalances the increase in transport demand. After
2010, no further fuel efficiency improvements for new vehicles are modelled. Old vehicles, however,
will increasingly be replaced by newer, fuel-efficient ones. This increasing share of more fuel-efficient
vehicles, however, does not offset the increase in transport demand. The net result is an increase in
greenhouse gas emissions after 2009.
EN 54 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 76 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
• In the road sector, the measures on driver training, harmonisation of social legislation and
introduction of the digital tachograph are implemented. However, the further
harmonisation of driving times and weekend bans on lorries have not been implemented.
• The European rail freight sector has been liberalised and the quality of freight services has
been improved. Liberalisation of passenger transport is starting and will be completed in
the (partial implementation) scenario for 2020 only. Rail safety has been improved by
technical harmonisation and interoperability of the high-speed rail network has been
improved.
• The regulation on the award of public service contracts for public passenger transport has
been adopted and more contracts for public passenger transport services will be granted by
competition.
• There have been experiments to improve and promote combined transport. Integrated
ticketing and baggage handling have been improved in the air and rail sectors.
• There is an EU action programme on road safety. However, road safety remains the
responsibility of the Member States and efforts to harmonise legislation and penalties have
not yet been effective.
• There is an EU policy on charging for the use of infrastructure but its impact is limited.
The revision of the Eurovignette Directive includes only some possibilities of
differentiating charges for some sensitive areas and for the most polluting vehicles. There
is no harmonisation of fuel taxes.
• Clean urban transport is promoted by EU-funded research and demonstration activities.
The impact on EU scale is limited.
This means that the possible impact of some specific recent Commission proposals, for
example the Greening Transport Package or in the field of air quality, has not been fully taken
into account.
EN 55 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 77 – Drucksache 17/815
The modelling results
The baseline scenario presented in this Annex describes how the urban mobility problems will
evolve if there is no change in the EU approach. This does not mean that no policy changes
can occur. It means that the direction of EU policies that have an impact on urban mobility
remains unchanged. In other words, what would happen if no action were taken?
To start the description of the baseline scenario, indicators or parameters relevant to urban
mobility and transport were selected, based on the specific objectives set out in Chapter 3.
The indicators in the baseline scenario are listed below:
Indicators included in the baseline scenario
Topic Indicator Source
Mobility
Motorised vehicle-kilometres
Modal share
TREMOVE
TREMOVE
Congestion
Passenger-hours lost
Tonne-hours lost
TREMOVE
TREMOVE
Energy Mtoe consumption TREMOVE/DG TREN
Environment
CO2 emissions
Methane emissions
CO emissions
NOx emissions
N2O emissions
PM emissions
Volatile organic compounds (VOC)
SO2 emissions
TREMOVE
TREMOVE
TREMOVE
TREMOVE
TREMOVE
TREMOVE
TREMOVE
TREMOVE
Economy
Impact on administrative costs (qualitative description)
Competition on internal market (qualitative description)
Desk research
Desk research
Social
Impact on social inclusion (qualitative description)
Traffic fatalities
Road accidents
Impact of emissions on health
Impact of noise on health
Desk research
DG TREN
DG TREN
TREMOVE
TREMOVE
EN 56 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 78 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
TREMOVE provides values for most of these indicators for 2012 and 2020. Total transport
flows and emissions in each country in TREMOVE are allocated to three model regions: a
metropolitan area, an aggregate of all other cities and an aggregate of all non-urban areas. The
aggregate of all other cities is referred to as “other urban”. Other sources (DG TREN and desk
research) provide information for the indicators not included in TREMOVE.
Mobility
Mobility is a broad concept. One indicator for mobility is the total number of vehicle-
kilometres (both passenger vehicles and freight vehicles). This parameter indicates that
mobility in metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas has been growing at a rate of nearly
20% over the last 10 years. TREMOVE estimates that this growth will continue, albeit at a
declining rate. The expected growth between 2005 and 2020 in total vehicle-kilometres is
19.5% or, on average, about 6.5% every five years. The growth rate seems to be higher in
metropolitan and other urban areas than in non-urban areas.
Vehicle-kilometres in EU-27 (1995-2025)
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
ve
hi
cl
e
km
s
(x
1
0^
9)
Metrop+Urban Non-urban Total
+8,1%
+11,0%
+11,8%
+8,7%
+8,2%
+8,6%
+6,3%
+5,8%
+8,1%
+6,2%
+6,0%
+6,9%
+5,9%
+5,6%
+6,8%
In metropolitan and other urban areas the expected growth is 22.4% between 2005 and 2020
(source: TREMOVE) or, on average, about 7.5% every five years. This can be seen in the
next figure, which also demonstrates that vehicle-kilometres during both the peak and the off-
peak period are increasing.
EN 57 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 79 – Drucksache 17/815
Peak and off-peak vehicle-kilometres in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27 (2005,
2012 and 2020)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2005 2012 2020
Ve
hi
cl
e
km
s
(x
1
,0
00
,0
00
,0
00
)
Metropolitan (peak) Metropolitan (off-peak) Other urban (peak) Other urban (off-peak)
+8.0%
+9.6%
+9.9%
+11.8%
+10.3%
+11.6%
+10.4%
+11.9%
In order to gain a better view of the differences between passengers and freight in
metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas, the next two figures show the trends in
passenger-kilometres and freight tonne-kilometres. Like vehicle-kilometres, passenger- and
freight tonne-kilometres are also based on totals from TREMOVE, which means including all
trip distances, networks, periods, trip purposes and freight commodities.
Both for metropolitan and other urban and for non-urban passenger-kilometres, the trend lines
show steady growth of approximately 7% every five years. The share of metropolitan and
other urban passenger-kilometres decreases slightly, from 25.0% in 1995 to 23.7% in 2020.
Passenger-kilometres in EU-27 (1995-2020)
0
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Pa
ss
en
ge
r k
m
s
(x
1
0^
9)
Metrop+Urban Non-urban Total
+6,6%
+10,8%
+12,2%
+8,5%
+7,1%
+8,2%
+8,5%
+8,2%
+9,2%
+7,6%
+7,8%
+7,0%
+7,8%
+7,9%
+7,2%
EN 58 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 80 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
A clear difference can be seen between urban and non-urban freight tonne-kilometres. Freight
tonne-kilometres in non-urban areas continue to grow, but at a decreasing rate, whereas
freight tonne-kilometres in metropolitan and other urban areas show a stagnation after 2005.
As a result, the share of metropolitan and other urban freight tonne-kilometres decreases from
1.7% in 1995 to 1.2% in 2020. Note that 98% to 99% of total freight tonne-kilometres are
clocked up in non-urban areas.
Freight tonne-kilometres in EU-27 (1995-2020)
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
To
n
km
s
(x
1
0^
9)
Metrop+Urban Non-urban Total
+14,4%
+15,7%
+15,7%
+12,1%
+10,1%
+12,0%
+11,0%
+11,3%
-4,9%
+10,5%
+10,7%
+0,9%
+9,9%
+10,0%
+1,8%
Little change can be seen in the modal shares for personal transport in metropolitan and other
urban areas (peak, off-peak and added together). The share taken by the car is above 70% and
still increasing. It can be assumed that this is mainly due to the increase in car ownership in
new Member States.
Modal share in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2012 2020
M
od
al
s
ha
re
Walking, cycle, moped car bus metro/tram train
EN 59 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 81 – Drucksache 17/815
Congestion
As a result, congestion in metropolitan and other urban areas will increase. A good indicator
of congestion is the number of passenger-hours lost. This number can be calculated as the
difference between the total travel time of all travellers during the peak period and the total
travel time for the same travellers in a (hypothetical) situation in which their speed is equal to
the off-peak speed. It is assumed that there is no congestion during the off-peak hours.
TREMOVE estimates that the passenger-hours lost between 2005 and 2020 will increase by
nearly 20% in metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas. Since the number of kilometres
travelled outside urban areas is much higher than in urban areas, congestion in non-urban
areas therefore “outscores” congestion in urban areas. This figure gives no indication of
“hours lost per km”, which is higher in urban areas.
Passenger hours lost in metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas in EU-27 (2005, 2012
and 2020)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2005 2012 2020
Pa
ss
en
ge
r h
ou
rs
lo
st
(x
1
,0
00
,0
00
)
Metropolitan Other urban Non-urban
+8.0%
+9.5%
+9.7%
+9.4%
+7.3%
+10.2%
However, not only passengers suffer from congestion. Freight transport also suffers from it.
For this sector, the number of freight tonne-hours lost is a suitable indicator of the level of
congestion.
EN 60 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 82 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Freight tonne-hours lost in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2005 2012 2020
To
n
Lo
st
H
ou
rs
(x
1
,0
00
,0
00
)
Metropolitan Other urban
-7.1%
-9.0%
+1.4%
+2.1%
This decrease in freight tonne-hours lost is an unexpected result. It is caused by the apparent
decrease in tonne-kilometres in general, as can be seen from the next figure. This result is
counter-intuitive, but no satisfactory explanation has been found.
Tonne-kilometres in peak and off-peak hours in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27
(2005, 2012 and 2020)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2005 2012 2020
To
n
km
s
(x
1
,0
00
,0
00
,0
00
)
Metropolitan (peak) Metropolitan (off-peak) Other urban (peak) Other urban (off-peak)
-6.8%
-2.6%
-6.2%
-5.5%
-0.6%
+2.5%
+1.6%
+2.2%
EN 61 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 83 – Drucksache 17/815
Use of energy
In 2005, about 31% of total energy consumption in the EU was related to transport. Of these
362 Mtoe, TREMOVE estimates that about 84.7%, or 306 Mtoe, was used by road and rail
transport. Of these 306 Mtoe, TREMOVE estimates that about 22.0% (or 67.5 Mtoe) was
used by road and rail transport in metropolitan and other urban areas. The next figure shows
the energy consumption of the transport sector in metropolitan, other urban and non-urban
areas43.
Energy consumption in Mtoe by transport in EU-27 (1990–2020)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
En
er
gy
c
on
su
m
pt
io
n
(M
to
e)
Metrop+Urban trend Metrop+Urban Non-urban trend
Non-urban Total trend Total
There is a strong policy focus on increasing the fuel efficiency of transport. This is a result of
increasing fuel costs, concerns about security of supply and awareness of the scarcity of fossil
fuels and of the impact of CO2 emissions on climate change. In the medium term (towards
2012) a fuel efficiency gain of about 9% is expected and towards the long term (2020) an
additional gain of 6.5%44. As a result, energy consumption in metropolitan and other urban
areas is set to increase from 67.5 Mtoe in 2005 to 68.7 Mtoe in 2012 and 72.5 Mtoe in 2020.
Environment
The CO2 emissions are proportional to the amount of fuel used by the transport sector in
metropolitan, other urban and non-urban areas. The increase in fuel efficiency discussed in the
previous section is not enough to compensate fully for the increase in demand for fuel caused
by the increase in vehicle-kilometres. As a result, the CO2 emissions as a result of fuel use
will rise by 1.7% between 2005 and 2012 and another 5.5% towards 2020. The main reason is
that fuel efficiency will not increase as much between 2012 and 2020 as in the period between
2005 and 2012.
43 Source for historic data: Eurostat. Conversion to urban and metropolitan areas based on vkm
comparison from TREMOVE.
44 TREMOVE, based on CO2 emission trends. Does not include the recent EU energy goals for 2020.
EN 62 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 84 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
CO2 emissions (Mt) by transport in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2005 2012 2020
C
O
2
em
is
si
on
(M
to
n)
Exhaust (metrop+urban) Well-to-tank (metrop+urban) Exhaust (non-urban) Well-to-tank (non-urban)
Emissions of methane (CH4), another greenhouse gas, in metropolitan and other urban areas
are expected to drop by about 27% between 2005 and 2020.
Methane emissions (kt) by transport in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2005 2012 2020
C
H
4
em
is
si
on
(k
to
n)
Well-to-tank
Exhaust
The next figure displays the expected trends in emissions of other pollutants in metropolitan
and other urban areas between 2005 and 2020. The following observations can be made:
– as a result of better technology (more efficient burning of fuel), emissions of carbon
monoxide (CO) are expected to decline by almost 80%;
EN 63 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 85 – Drucksache 17/815
– the expected reduction of emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) during the exhaust phase is
67%;
– emissions of nitrous oxide (N2O) are expected to remain almost constant. Note that the
amount of emissions has been multiplied by a factor of 10 in the figure below;
– emissions of fine particles (PM) during the exhaust phase are expected to decline to 73%
of the 2005 level. Note that the amount of emissions has been multiplied by a factor of 10
in the figure below;
– VOC emissions are expected to decrease by 84% between 2005 and 2020;
– total emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) are expected to remain almost constant.
Well-to-tank and exhaust emissions (kt) by transport in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020)
0
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
05 12 20 05 12 20 05 12 20 05 12 20 05 12 20 05 12 20
Em
is
so
n
(k
to
n)
Exhaust Well-to-tank
CO NOx N2O (x10) PM (x10) VOC SO2
Note that the number of km outside urban areas is much higher than in urban areas. Emissions
in non-urban areas therefore “outscore” emissions in urban areas. This figure gives no
indication of “emissions per km”, which are higher in urban areas.
Economy
The expected growth in GDP is 16% between 2005 and 2012 and 18% between 2012 and
2020. As a result, the total expected growth between 2005 and 2020 is 37%45. It has been
estimated that just under 85% of the EU’s GDP is created in cities and towns.
It is very difficult to assess the trends in administrative costs at EU level from the trends in
urban mobility. However, due to an increase in operating costs as a result of increasing
congestion and of the introduction of congestion charging schemes, the administrative costs
45 “Long-term labour productivity and GDP projections for the EU25 Member States: a production
function framework”, European Economy. Economic Papers No 253, June 2006, page 39:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publication_summary688_en.htm.
EN 64 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 86 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
for businesses can be expected to increase. The information needed in order to analyse the
administrative costs of congestion charging and other similar schemes is not available.
There is, however, some evidence about the administrative costs of the London congestion
charge scheme. According to Transport for London (TfL), the administrative and time costs
for all people paying the charge (both business and personal users) total £15 million per year.
However, the London Assembly Transport Committee noted: “On the evidence we heard, this
figure is likely to be far too low”.
Although no indicative aggregate figure for total direct and indirect costs was available, a CBI
(Confederation of British Industry) study found that “direct costs of paying for the charge [for
some companies] run into hundreds of thousands of pounds” and several organisations have
had to employ an extra person to deal with the complex administration46. London First (a
lobby group focusing on keeping the London economy competitive) noted that the
requirement for travellers and businesses to maintain records, particularly reconciling fleet
movements, “can be quite burdensome for business in that sector”47.
At this stage, it is not possible to estimate the impact of congestion charging on administrative
costs in any meaningful manner. What can be said is that the administrative costs are large
enough that they cannot be ignored. Furthermore, if congestion charging and other similar
schemes proliferate without any standardisation or harmonisation, the administrative burden
of complying with the charging systems could potentially become quite significant for
multinationals operating in cities across Europe.
Increased transport costs caused, for example, by congestion can be expected to have an
impact on competition on the internal market. Increasing transport costs can reduce the
catchment area in which producers can compete competitively. However, it should be borne
in mind that there are also opposite trends, causing catchment areas to expand. The overall
effect depends on the share taken by transport in the total cost of a product. Likewise, as
consumers can travel fewer kilometres with their transport budget, some might buy their
products in a smaller radius. Both effects reduce competition between companies.
Social
Social exclusion, and the impact of transport on it, is a complicated subject and very difficult
to address for the whole of the EU. This section considers the issue of social exclusion in an
urban context. It describes the challenges facing European cities and the importance of
transport and mobility in responding to them.
Broadly speaking, European cities face two main challenges: the pains that accompany
growth and the symptoms of stagnation or decline48. A rapidly growing city brings with it a
whole range of problems. In several European cities experiencing rapid growth (Dublin,
London, Amsterdam, Madrid, Barcelona and the Central and Eastern European capitals of
Prague, Budapest and Tallinn) the upward pressure on the housing market has resulted in a
46 London Assembly Transport Committee, 26 November 2003.
47 London Assembly Transport Committee, 26 November 2003.
48 European Commission, DG REGIO (2007), State of European Cities Report.
EN 65 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 87 – Drucksache 17/815
lack of affordable housing and is contributing to urban sprawl, longer commuting distances,
traffic congestion and environmental degradation49.
Construction of new business and shopping centres on the outskirts of cities is further
exacerbating suburban sprawl and increasing dependence on the automobile50.
The conclusions of a recent European Commission report on social exclusion are worth
quoting at length51:
“An increasing share of the urban population is living alone, particularly in the core
city areas, while families are migrating to the suburbs. Although city dwellers are
better educated than the population at large, the benefits from the economic wealth
generated in cities are not evenly distributed. Many urban residents face the
uncertainties of unemployment, social exclusion and poverty, and these problems are
strongly concentrated in particular neighbourhoods. Life expectancy is also lower in
urban areas, and this can be partially blamed on pollution of the living environment.
Clearly creating and maintaining prosperity while ensuring social cohesion and
tackling environmental problems continues to be the central challenge facing
Europe’s cities today.”
Another recent study analysing the problems facing European cities and the strategies used to
respond to them concluded that one of the common elements in the strategies to combat the
problems facing cities was improving public transport and transport infrastructure52. The
cities included in this study were suffering from massive depopulation, economic downturn
due to the decline of manufacturing, job losses, urban sprawl, city centre decay and
polarisation of neighbourhoods, with knock-on effects on education, the tax base and
provision of services.
“Over a period of 30 years up to 2000, all the cities lost their core rationale,
economic prominence and political weight. As producer cities, they had been central
to their countries’ prosperity – now they were increasingly seen as obsolete
industrial ‘left-overs’ with a shrinking place in the new economy based on services
and ‘new knowledge industries’. Civic pride was damaged along with urban
landscapes, and social exclusion came to reflect a deep and multi-faceted form of
separation from mainstream society. Civic leadership, often still embedded in the
fading realities of the industrial era, lost its way. Skills mismatches seriously
impeded recovery.”
This report concluded that upgrading and improving public transport infrastructure and
services has been an important factor in the recovery of these cities and their success in
combating the social exclusion problems that they were facing. The transport strategies
included:
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.
52 Power, A., Plöger, J. and Winkler, A. (2008): Transforming Cities Across Europe, An Interim Report
on Problems and Progress, London School of Economics and Political Science, CASE Report 49. The
seven cities included in this study were Leipzig, Bremen, Sheffield, Belfast, Bilbao, Turin and Saint
Étienne.
EN 66 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 88 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
• upgrading public transport to overcome the dominance of traffic and the expansion of
roads which were dissecting cities and destroying urban spaces and communities;
• providing new and upgraded tram lines in Sheffield and Saint Étienne and a modernised
metro system in Bilbao;
• restricting car access and car parking in Leipzig and Bremen;
• expanding pedestrian areas in all seven cities, to increase pedestrian street activity and the
attractions of city-centre living and shopping;
• providing fast transport links from the cities to the surrounding regions and nearby major
cities by both train and road to increase employment opportunities by expanding the labour
market, making it easier to attract inward investment and helping the cities to benefit from
the stronger growth of larger, neighbouring cities. Lyon and Leeds are examples of large
second-tier regional centres near Saint Étienne and Sheffield respectively.
To conclude, social exclusion is clearly a problem in most European cities (although the
causes differ from one city to another). It is equally clear that mobility and transport are key
factors in explaining and combating social exclusion in cities. Finally, it is difficult to forecast
the extent and severity of social exclusion in European cities in 2020. However, it can be said
with some degree of confidence that, given the long time it takes for urban redevelopment
plans to be implemented and to have an impact, the problem of social exclusion in urban
environments is unlikely to go away. On the contrary, given the growth of urban populations,
the uneven growth of cities across Europe and the uneven growth of neighbourhoods within
cities, the problems are likely to get worse unless steps are taken to counteract these
developments.
Road fatalities have been dropping steadily since 1990. In 2006, 42 953 road fatalities
occurred compared with 75 977 in 1990: a decrease of 43%53. According to the mid-term
review of the Transport White Paper, one third or 33% of these fatalities occur in cities. The
next figure indicates the number of road fatalities in cities, assuming a constant share of 33%
of all road fatalities.
53 DG TREN, Statistical Pocketbook 2007, Road Fatalities for EU-27.
EN 67 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 89 – Drucksache 17/815
Road fatalities in cities in EU-27 (1995–2020)
0
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
R
oa
d
fa
ta
lit
ie
s
in
c
iti
es
(p
er
y
ea
r)
However, this linear trend is unlikely to continue indefinitely. Some slowdown can be
expected, but the rate is unknown. If the linear trend continues until 2020, the number of road
fatalities in cities will have dropped to under 6 000 per year. If the curve is quadratic, the
number will have dropped to approximately 9 500 per year.
The number of road accidents also shows a decline, especially between 2000 and 2020. The
quality of recording of accidents is expected to be more consistent from 2000 onwards.
Therefore two trend lines have been included in the figure below. The red line indicates a
linear trend from 1990 to 2020 and results in a decrease in road accidents from over 1 500 000
in 1990 to under 1 200 000 in 2020. The blue line indicates a non-linear polynomial trend
from 2000 to 2020 and results in a decrease in road accidents from 1 500 000 in 2000 to under
800 000 in 2020. Note that these figures are totals and do not specifically indicate accidents in
urban areas.
EN 68 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 90 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Possible trends in road accidents
700
800
900
1.000
1.100
1.200
1.300
1.400
1.500
1.600
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
N
um
be
r o
f r
oa
d
ac
ci
de
nt
s
in
vo
lv
in
g
pe
rs
on
al
in
ju
ry
(*
10
00
p
er
y
ea
r)
Transport is one of the factors outside the healthcare sector that is known to influence
health54. The damaging effects of transport on human health include injuries from traffic
accidents, the effects of noise pollution, air pollution, stress and anxiety, danger, loss of land
and reduced social use of outdoor space because of traffic and other transport infrastructure
leading to obesity55. Here, the consequences of transport-related air pollution on human health
will be examined.
A number of components of traffic-related air pollution have been demonstrated to have an
impact on health, notably particulates (PM10), ozone, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide and
nitrogen dioxide56. The effects of air pollution on health include a variety of respiratory and
cardiovascular problems such as coughing, wheezing, asthma attacks, congestive heart failure
and certain forms of cancer. The parts of the population most at risk are the elderly, the young
and the population groups with the highest risk of exposure to traffic-related air pollution.
54 Kavanagh, P., Doyle, C. and Metcalf, O. (2005): Health Impacts of Transport, A Review, Institute of
Public Health in Ireland; World Health Organisation (1999): Health Costs due to Traffic-related Air
Pollution.
55 Ibid.
56 Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP): Quantification of the effects of air
pollution on health in the United Kingdom, London, HMSO, 1998; European Commission:
Externalities of Energy (ExternE). The final report of the ExternE Core Transport Project, Brussels,
European Commission, 2000; Watkiss, P., Brand, C., Hurley, F., Pilkington, A., Mindell, J., Joffe, M.
et al: Informing transport health impact assessment in London, London, Research and Development
Directorate, NHS Executive, 2000; World Health Organisation: Health aspects of air pollution with
particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Report of a WHO working group. Available at:
http:www.who.dk/document/e79097.pdf.
EN 69 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 91 – Drucksache 17/815
Although other sources, such as industry and energy production, are important, transport is a
large source of many chemicals contributing to air pollution. A study estimated that in the UK
transport contributes 74% of all carbon monoxide, 61% of all lead, 48% of all nitrogen
dioxide, 23% of all particulate matter (PM10) and 2% of all sulphur dioxide57.
A study of the health costs of air pollution in Austria, Switzerland and France estimated that
the total per capita air-pollution-related health costs averaged €830 in Austria, €667 in France
and €589 in Switzerland58. Of these totals, €359, €371 and €313 were attributable to traffic-
related air pollution.
Long-term exposure to traffic-related emissions leads to early deaths, mainly caused by
bronchial tube disorders. The individual health risk is small, but since a large fraction of the
population is exposed (in the Netherlands about 5% of the population lives close to a busy
road), the effect on public health in general is still considerable, despite the improvements in
air quality over the last few years59.
TREMOVE estimated that the air pollution costs of passenger cars and heavy duty vehicles in
metropolitan and other urban areas will decrease by about 4.5% between 2005 and 2012 and
then increase slightly.
Air pollution costs for passenger cars and heavy duty vehicles in metropolitan and other urban
areas in EU-27 (2005, 2012 and 2020)
0
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
70.000
80.000
90.000
100.000
110.000
120.000
2005 2012 2020
A
ir
po
llu
tio
n
co
st
s
(€
*
1,
00
0,
00
0
pe
r y
ea
r)
Passenger cars in EU27 Heavy Duty Vehicles in EU27
+12.9% +13.7%
-4.6% +0.9%
57 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999): The air quality strategy for
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. London, The Stationery Office.
58 World Health Organisation (1999): Health Costs due to Traffic-related Air Pollution, An impact
assessment of Austria, France and Switzerland.
59 Beelen, R. (2008): Effects of long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution on mortality and lung
cancer. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, the Netherlands.
EN 70 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 92 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
In 2000, about 44% of the EU-2560 population (over 210 million people) were exposed to
road traffic noise levels above 55 dB(A)61 – the WHO guide value for outdoor noise levels
and the threshold for serious annoyance. According to a recent study, more than 55 million
people were exposed to road traffic noise levels over 65 dB(A), ten times louder than the
WHO guide value.
Turning to rail, in 2000 approximately 35 million people in EU-25 were exposed to rail traffic
noise above 55 dB and 7 million of them to over 65 dB. It must be added that most European
countries do not report on the number of people exposed to noise levels below 55 dB.
Nevertheless, noise levels below 55 dB can still trigger adverse effects like annoyance, sleep
disturbance and reduced cognitive ability. The actual number of people exposed to levels of
traffic noise that are potentially dangerous to their health will thus be higher than the above-
mentioned figures.
German research suggests that excessive noise causes 1 800 premature deaths in the EU every
year — mostly in urban areas62. The number of people who suffer from noise nuisance will be
many times higher. The social costs of noise (above 55 dBi) in EU-2263 have been estimated
at between €38 billion and €46 billion per year64.
The external costs of noise from passenger cars in metropolitan and other urban areas,
according to the results from the TREMOVE and IMPACT studies, are shown in the figure
below, which indicates a significant and constant increase in noise costs.
60 EU-27 excluding Cyprus and Malta.
61 Den Boer, L. C. and Schroten, A. (2007): Traffic Noise Reduction in Europe. Health effects, social
costs and technical policy options to reduce road and rail traffic noise, CE Delft.
62 ECMT, 2006: Implementing sustainable urban travel policies: Applying the 2001 key messages.
ECMT/CM (2006)3/Final, ECMT, 2006.
63 EU-27 excluding Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Malta.
64 Infras/IWW (2004): External Costs of Transport, Update Study; Link, H. (2000): The Accounts
approach, UNITE (Unification of accounts and marginal costs for transport efficiency).
EN 71 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 93 – Drucksache 17/815
Noise costs attributable to passenger cars in metropolitan and other urban areas in EU-27
(2005, 2012 and 2020)
0
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
14.000
2005 2012 2020
(€
*
1
00
0
00
0
pe
r y
ea
r)
Noise costs in EU-27
N
oi
se
c
os
t
EN 72 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 94 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
ANNEX IV: THE EU’s RIGHT TO ACT
The EU has been dealing with urban mobility and transport issues for many years, fully
respecting the subsidiarity principle. Since publication of its first Green Paper and Action
Plan to develop a Citizens’ Network65 about ten years ago, some progress has been made.
Steps to promote exchanges of information, benchmarking and research have been initiated
under the common transport policy.
But in recent years, new challenges have emerged and EU policies other than transport have
taken measures, sometimes in isolation, which have consequences for urban mobility. This
was the reason for preparation of the Green Paper on urban mobility which aimed at defining
the added value of current and possible new actions at EU level.
This annex assesses the EU’s right to act on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty on the functioning
of the European Union and on the basis of the current Treaty establishing the European
Community and includes some concluding remarks on the instruments that can be used.
Assessment on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty on the functioning of the European Union
This assessment of the EU’s right to act is based on the Lisbon Treaty on the functioning of
the European Union (TFEU) as it stands. It must, however, be borne in mind that the
ratification process of the TFEU is ongoing and that it is not yet fully clear how the TFEU
provisions will influence interpretation of the EU’s right to act and the subsidiarity principle
in future.
Two conditions have to be met in order to determine whether the EU has the right to act:
• the problem must be linked to at least one article of the Treaty; and
• if the problem falls in an area where competence is shared between Member States and the
Union, the Commission must demonstrate that it cannot be solved sufficiently at Member
State level.
In order to satisfy the second of these conditions, action at EU level can be justified when the
conditions of the “necessity test” are met. These include:
• the existence of transnational aspects that cannot be satisfactorily regulated by Member
States;
• action by one or more Member States alone would conflict with the requirements of the
Treaty; and
• action by Member States, or lack of EU action, would significantly damage Member
States’ interests.
Once the “necessity test” is passed, next action at EU level must satisfy the “added value test”
(i.e. the objectives can be better achieved at EU level) and the “boundary test” (i.e. action at
EU level must be limited to what cannot be achieved by the Member States alone).
65 The Citizens’ Network: COM(95) 601 and COM(1998) 431.
EN 73 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 95 – Drucksache 17/815
In conclusion, this means that the EU’s right to act has to be assessed on the basis of two
criteria: the problem must be linked to at least one article of the Treaty and there should be a
necessity to act at EU level. In addition, there should be added value in action at EU level and
this action must be limited to what cannot be achieved by the Member States.
The subject of urban mobility and transport falls under Article 90 of the TFEU which
provides for a common transport policy. Articles 91(c) and 91(d) of the TFEU are relevant to
urban mobility and transport. They state that for the purpose of implementing Article 90 the
European Parliament and Council will lay down measures to improve transport safety and any
other appropriate provisions, respectively.
Article 4 of the TFEU lists transport as one of the areas of shared competence between the EU
and Member States. Given that the same article lists trans-European networks separately, this
means that transport can be understood as meaning not only long-distance transport.
Urban mobility and transport cover a wider domain than transport alone and touch upon
different Titles and Articles in the Treaty. For example, with regard to emissions from road
traffic and noise, Article 11 of the TFEU requires the EU to incorporate environmental
protection requirements in its policies and action. Article 168 of the TFEU requires EU policy
to aim at obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health. Article 153 provides for
the EU to act to combat social exclusion and Articles 174 and 175 for the EU to promote
harmonious development and strengthening of its economic and social cohesion and reduce
disparities between regions.
On the basis of the above assessment, it can be concluded that urban mobility and transport
are linked to at least one article of the Treaty.
The next step is the “necessity test”. There are several examples confirming the necessity to
take action at EU level. One of the problems related to urban mobility and transport are
emissions from road traffic, including emissions that contribute to climate change. This is a
problem with a clear transnational dimension, where action by individual Member States, for
example to set new limit values, introduce financial incentives or implement their own access
restriction rules, could be in violation of EU legislation. Urban congestion affects enterprises
from other Member States.
Addressing the problem of imperfect information on market developments, monitoring the
fragmentation of policies, targets and objectives and assessing urban mobility trends at local,
regional and national levels is something that can only be done efficiently and effectively at
EU level. No action by the EU in this field, or action by just a few individual Member States,
could lead to less informed decisions and damage the financial and policy interests of
Member States.
These examples provide a sufficient basis to conclude that urban mobility and transport pass
the “necessity test”.
The “added value” test requires that the EU must act only if the objectives can be better
achieved at Union level. For example, dissemination of information and knowledge,
expansion of the knowledge base and exchanges of best practice in the area of urban mobility
are best carried out at EU level. This will avoid duplication of work and fragmentation of
resources and allow decision-makers to benefit from the broadest, most diverse experience
possible.
EN 74 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 96 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Emission and noise limits are best set at EU level in order to avoid adoption of different
standards in different Member States, which would add to the regulatory burden. Other
examples include setting technical standards, e.g. for intelligent travel information and
payment systems, including Galileo-based applications. As mentioned earlier, there is also
clear added value in action at EU level on information and data collection and monitoring.
Based on the above observations, there is a basis to conclude that there is “added value” in
EU action in the field of urban mobility and transport.
Finally, it is important to bear in mind that, in contrast to the existing Treaty, the TFEU
includes stronger recognition of the local and regional government levels in development and
implementation of EU policy and legislation. For example, the TFEU explicitly recognises the
principle of local and regional self-government. The definition of subsidiarity is extended to
include the local and regional levels. The Commission should consult local and regional
governments more effectively. And, finally, the objectives of the EU would include territorial,
economic and social cohesion66.
Assessment on the basis of the Treaty establishing the European Community
Many of the arguments set out above also apply to the current Treaty.
The subject of urban mobility and transport falls under Article 70 of the Treaty which
provides for a common transport policy. Articles 71(c) and 71(d) are relevant to urban
mobility and transport. They state that for the purpose of implementing Article 70 the Council
and the European Parliament will lay down measures to improve transport safety and any
other appropriate provisions, respectively. Urban mobility and transport cover a wider domain
than transport alone and touch upon different Titles and Articles in the Treaty, for example
Articles 174 and 175 (environment) and 158 (economic and social cohesion).
Article 5 of the Treaty deals with the subsidiarity principle and applies to urban mobility and
transport. Several examples confirming the necessity to take action at EU level have been
given already. These examples provide a sufficient basis to conclude that, under the current
Treaty, urban mobility and transport pass the “necessity test” and the “added value test”.
66 Commentators consider that this objective applies at all levels of government.
EN 75 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 97 – Drucksache 17/815
Conclusion
In conclusion, the EU has a basic right to act in the area of urban mobility and transport, but
the subsidiarity principle applies. This impact assessment is linked to development of the
Action Plan on Urban Mobility and supports the selection of possible actions for the Action
Plan at EU level. The answer to the question whether the “boundary test” is passed will
depend on the specification and area of application of each individual action proposed for the
Action Plan.
In the light of the above assessment, all eight EU instruments can, in principle, be used in the
field of urban mobility and transport.
These instruments67 are:
1. Self-regulation (monitoring);
2. Open method of coordination;
3. Information and guidelines;
4. Market-based instruments;
5. Direct public-sector financial intervention;
6. Co-regulation;
7. Framework directive;
8. Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision).
67 These are the categories given in the Impact Assessment Guidelines of 15 June 2005, as updated on
15 March 2006 (SEC(2005) 791).
EN 76 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 98 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
ANNEX V: FROM THE LONG LIST TO THE SHORTLIST
Screening the policy options on subsidiarity, efficiency, effectiveness and consistency
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r
In
st
ru
m
en
t
nu
m
be
r
Su
bs
id
ia
rit
y
E
ffe
ct
iv
en
es
s
E
ffi
ci
en
cy
C
on
si
st
en
c y
To
ta
l s
co
re
Free-flowing towns and cities
1 Require cities to set modal split targets
1 Self-regulation + 1 2 3 –
2 Open method of coordination –
3 Information and guidelines + 1 2 3 –
4 Market-based instruments –
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention –
6 Co-regulation –
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
2 Ban private car use in city centres
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination n.a
3 Information and guidelines n.a
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation –
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
3 Ban on-street parking in city centres
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination n.a
3 Information and guidelines n.a
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
EN 77 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 99 – Drucksache 17/815
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r
In
st
ru
m
en
t
nu
m
be
r
Su
bs
id
ia
rit
y
E
ffe
ct
iv
en
es
s
E
ffi
ci
en
cy
C
on
si
st
en
c y
To
ta
l s
co
re
6 Co-regulation –
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
4 Recognise efforts of cities to improve sustainable urban mobility
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination n.a
3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 –
4 Market-based instruments (rating bureau) + 1 1 3 –
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 2 2 2 6
6 Co-regulation n.a
7 Framework directive n.a
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) n.a
5 Promote information on access limitations for road users in cities
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination n.a.
3 Information and guidelines + 2 2 3 7
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation + 3 3 2 8
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
6 Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination n.a
3 Information and guidelines + 3 3 3 9
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 3 3 3 9
6 Co-regulation n.a
EN 78 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 100 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r
In
st
ru
m
en
t
nu
m
be
r
Su
bs
id
ia
rit
y
E
ffe
ct
iv
en
es
s
E
ffi
ci
en
cy
C
on
si
st
en
c y
To
ta
l s
co
re
7 Framework directive n.a
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) n.a
Greener towns and cities
7 Internalise the external costs of urban transport
1 Self-regulation + 1 1 1 –
2 Open method of coordination + 1 1 1 –
3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 1 –
4 Market-based instruments + 3 3 3 9
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation + 3 2 2 7
7 Framework directive + 3 2 2 7
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) + 3 2 1 6
8 Require cities to set targets for CO2 emissions from urban transport
1 Self-regulation + 1 2 3 –
2 Open method of coordination –
3 Information and guidelines + 1 2 3 –
4 Market-based instruments –
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention –
6 Co-regulation –
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
9 Require zero CO2 propulsion for urban public transport
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination n.a
3 Information and guidelines n.a
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation + 2 1 3 6
EN 79 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 101 – Drucksache 17/815
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r
In
st
ru
m
en
t
nu
m
be
r
Su
bs
id
ia
rit
y
E
ffe
ct
iv
en
es
s
E
ffi
ci
en
cy
C
on
si
st
en
c y
To
ta
l s
co
re
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
10 Promote “green” procurement by public authorities
1 Self-regulation + 2 2 1 5
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6
3 Information and guidelines + 2 2 3 7
4 Market-based instruments + 2 2 2 6
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 2 1 2 5
6 Co-regulation + 3 2 2 7
7 Framework directive + 3 1 1 5
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) + 3 1 1 5
11 Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and alternative fuels
1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 –
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6
3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 –
4 Market-based instruments + 3 2 2 7
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 3 2 3 8
6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6
7 Framework directive + 3 1 1 5
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) + 3 2 3 8
12 Require designation of “green” zones in sensitive areas
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination n.a
3 Information and guidelines n.a
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation + 1 1 3 –
7 Framework directive –
EN 80 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 102 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r
In
st
ru
m
en
t
nu
m
be
r
Su
bs
id
ia
rit
y
E
ffe
ct
iv
en
es
s
E
ffi
ci
en
cy
C
on
si
st
en
c y
To
ta
l s
co
re
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
13 Harmonise rules for environmental zones
1 Self-regulation + 1 1 2 –
2 Open method of coordination + 1 1 2 –
3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 2 –
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 1 1 2 –
6 Co-regulation + 3 2 2 7
7 Framework directive n.a
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) + 3 2 2 7
Smarter urban transport
14 Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public transport
1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 –
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7
3 Information and guidelines + 2 1 3 –
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 2 2 2 6
6 Co-regulation + 3 2 2 7
7 Framework directive + 3 3 1 7
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) + 3 3 1 7
15 Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information
1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 –
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7
3 Information and guidelines + 2 2 3 –
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 1 1 3 –
6 Co-regulation + 2 2 3 7
7 Framework directive + 3 2 1 6
EN 81 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 103 – Drucksache 17/815
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r
In
st
ru
m
en
t
nu
m
be
r
Su
bs
id
ia
rit
y
E
ffe
ct
iv
en
es
s
E
ffi
ci
en
cy
C
on
si
st
en
c y
To
ta
l s
co
re
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) + 3 2 1 6
Accessible urban transport
16 Require transport impact assessments as a precondition for planning permission
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination n.a
3 Information and guidelines n.a
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation –
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
17 Require establishment of urban mobility authorities
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6
3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 –
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 2 1 3 6
6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
18 Require adoption of SUTPs as a condition for EU funding
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination n.a
3 Information and guidelines n.a
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6
7 Framework directive –
EN 82 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 104 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r
In
st
ru
m
en
t
nu
m
be
r
Su
bs
id
ia
rit
y
E
ffe
ct
iv
en
es
s
E
ffi
ci
en
cy
C
on
si
st
en
c y
To
ta
l s
co
re
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
19 Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport
1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 –
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7
3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 –
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation + 1 1 2 4
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
20 Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning
1 Self-regulation + 2 2 3 7
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6
3 Information and guidelines + 2 2 3 7
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention –
6 Co-regulation –
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
21 Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport
1 Self-regulation + 2 2 3 7
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6
3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 2 –
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6
7 Framework directive + 2 2 1 5
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) + 2 2 1 5
EN 83 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 105 – Drucksache 17/815
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r
In
st
ru
m
en
t
nu
m
be
r
Su
bs
id
ia
rit
y
E
ffe
ct
iv
en
es
s
E
ffi
ci
en
cy
C
on
si
st
en
c y
To
ta
l s
co
re
22 Improve accessibility of public transport
1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 –
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7
3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 –
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 2 2 3 7
6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6
7 Framework directive + 3 3 1 7
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) + 3 3 1 7
23 Require operators to accept bicycles in urban public transport
1 Self-regulation + 1 2 3 –
2 Open method of coordination + 1 2 3 –
3 Information and guidelines + 1 2 3 –
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 1 2 3 –
6 Co-regulation –
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
Safe and secure urban transport
24 Promote safe walking and safe cycling
1 Self-regulation + 1 1 1 –
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6
3 Information and guidelines + 2 3 3 8
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 3 2 2 7
6 Co-regulation –
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
EN 84 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 106 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r
In
st
ru
m
en
t
nu
m
be
r
Su
bs
id
ia
rit
y
E
ffe
ct
iv
en
es
s
E
ffi
ci
en
cy
C
on
si
st
en
c y
To
ta
l s
co
re
25 Raise the minimum age for driving licences to 25
1 Self-regulation + 1 3 2 –
2 Open method of coordination + 1 3 2 –
3 Information and guidelines + 1 3 2 –
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation + 1 3 2 –
7 Framework directive + 2 1 1 –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) + 2 1 1 –
Cross-cutting issues
26 Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting
1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 –
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 7
3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 –
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 2 2 3 7
6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6
7 Framework directive n.a
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) + 3 3 3 9
27 Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice
1 Self-regulation + 1 3 3 –
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7
3 Information and guidelines + 3 3 3 9
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 3 2 3 8
6 Co-regulation n.a
7 Framework directive n.a
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) n.a
EN 85 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 107 – Drucksache 17/815
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r
In
st
ru
m
en
t
nu
m
be
r
Su
bs
id
ia
rit
y
E
ffe
ct
iv
en
es
s
E
ffi
ci
en
cy
C
on
si
st
en
c y
To
ta
l s
co
re
28 Intensify research, development and demonstration activities
1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 –
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 2 6
3 Information and guidelines + 1 1 3 –
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 3 2 3 8
6 Co-regulation n.a
7 Framework directive n.a
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) n.a
29 Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving
1 Self-regulation + 1 1 3 –
2 Open method of coordination + 2 2 3 7
3 Information and guidelines + 2 3 3 7
4 Market-based instruments + 2 2 3 7
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation + 2 2 2 6
7 Framework directive + 3 2 2 7
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) + 3 2 2 7
30 Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public transport
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination n.a
3 Information and guidelines + 2 2 3 7
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention + 3 2 3 8
6 Co-regulation + 2 2 1 5
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
31 Require implementation of a “value-capture tax”
EN 86 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 108 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
P
ol
ic
y
op
tio
n
nu
m
be
r
In
st
ru
m
en
t
nu
m
be
r
Su
bs
id
ia
rit
y
E
ffe
ct
iv
en
es
s
E
ffi
ci
en
cy
C
on
si
st
en
c y
To
ta
l s
co
re
1 Self-regulation n.a
2 Open method of coordination n.a
3 Information and guidelines n.a
4 Market-based instruments n.a
5 Direct public-sector financial intervention n.a
6 Co-regulation + 2 2 1 5
7 Framework directive –
8 Prescriptive regulatory action (regulation, directive or decision) –
• A plus (+) in the subsidiarity column means that the policy option using this instrument
passes the subsidiarity test and that taking action at EU level can therefore have added
value. A minus (–) means that action using this instrument can better be taken at national,
regional or local levels. For some instruments, this test is not applicable, in which case this
is indicated as “n.a.” Policy options which fail the subsidiarity test are no longer taken into
account and no further analysis of them will be carried out.
• Each combination of a policy option with an instrument that passes the subsidiarity test is
awarded a score for efficiency, effectiveness and consistency, ranging from 1 (low) to 3
(high). The total score is indicated in the last column. However, if the score for
effectiveness is 1, no total score is given, because the combination is no longer perceived
as a viable option.
• Policy options which score a total of 6 or lower for all instruments are considered unviable.
This was the case for 12 options.
EN 87 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 109 – Drucksache 17/815
ANNEX VI: DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPACT OF SHORTLISTED POLICY
OPTIONS
This annex describes the different kinds of impact of the shortlisted policy options, in either
quantitative or qualitative terms.
Option 5: Provide information on access limitations for road users in cities
An increasing number of cities are introducing demand management schemes in urban areas
for motor vehicles in the form of environmental zones or road use charging. This policy
option provides a stronger basis for policy-making in this area at all levels of government. It
can contribute to better informed decisions. In the longer term an initiative at EU level can
also help to reduce costs by reducing fragmentation in use of resources.
The impact of the London congestion charge scheme68 includes a 21% reduction in traffic
entering the original charging zone, a 43% increase in cycling within the zone and reductions
in accidents and key traffic pollutants, with the retail sector now outperforming the rest of the
UK and significant income raised. The impact of the Stockholm congestion charging
scheme69 includes a 10-15% reduction in traffic volume to/from the inner city, 30-50% less
traffic and reductions in pollutant emissions of 14% in the inner city and of 2.5% in
Stockholm county as a whole. The cost of operating the schemes is a concern.
For this option, a non-regulatory approach could be put in place by the EU in order to assess
whether the local initiatives are in line with developments and existing legislation at EU level
or whether the rules for vehicles entering from other parts of the country and from abroad are
clear and interoperable.
There are few guarantees that the information generated by this option will actually be used.
This influences its effectiveness. This obstacle can be overcome by ensuring active
involvement of users and good dissemination of information. This option has no impact on
specific groups, nor are there any obstacles to compliance. It is difficult to predict the impact,
given that use of the information is not mandatory.
Option 6: Promote more efficient urban freight distribution and logistics
Urban freight transport is sometimes forgotten by local policy-makers. This policy option
would incorporate the urban activities included in the 2007 Freight Transport Logistics Action
Plan. Additional activities could, however, be launched and recommendations for policy-
makers prepared. This policy option will make a positive contribution to a wide range of
congestion, energy, environmental, economic and social objectives.
The measures in the urban chapter of the Freight Transport Logistics Action Plan are likely to
result in a decline in motorised vehicle-kilometres (as fewer truck movements would be
necessary), a decline in tonne-hours lost (as freight movement would be more efficient), a
decline in the energy and environmental impact (as a result of the decrease in truck
movements), a positive impact on the investment and competition indicators (as the efficiency
68 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6723.aspx.
69 http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/upload/Rapporter/Expert_group_summary_060621.pdf.
EN 88 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 110 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
of businesses in cities is increased), a decrease in traffic fatalities and an improvement in the
health impact of emissions (following the decrease in truck movements).
In the START project70 Bristol City Council, in partnership with experts from DHL Exel, has
been successfully operating a consolidation centre since May 2004 with the aim of helping to
reduce pollution and congestion in central Bristol. Streamlining deliveries and cutting the
number of vehicles delivering to the Broadmead shopping centre has helped achieve this,
whilst at the same time providing an improved delivery service to retailers. The scheme has
reduced delivery vehicle movements by 77%. This means a saving of 5 374 lorry trips
equating to 106 556 lorry-kilometres with resulting reductions of 13.3 tonnes in CO2
emissions, 426 kg in NOx and 12.8 kg in PM10.
The EU could opt for a non-regulatory approach that could include information and guidelines
and/or financial intervention. Both these instruments would have the above-mentioned
impact, although it is most likely to be stronger in the case of direct public intervention. The
risk of non-compliance is negligible.
Option 7: Internalise the external costs of urban transport
This policy option is intended to make travellers in urban areas pay for the full external costs
that they impose on society. The external costs of transport include congestion, air emissions,
noise and traffic fatalities. These external costs vary across locations, but are higher in areas
with higher population density, typically urban areas. This policy option will make a positive
contribution to mobility, congestion71, energy, environmental and social objectives.
Charging for external costs has an impact on transport costs which in turn influences transport
volume (trips, tonnes carried and passenger- and tonne-kilometres). This impact is expected to
differ across modes which would change modal shares and lead to modal shift. In addition,
this option will lead to a reduction in demand for transport, in energy use and in vehicle-
kilometres. In the longer term, there might be increased demand for cleaner, safer and quieter
vehicles.
Congestion charging is expected to have a strong impact on traffic flows. The extent to which
demand for transport is reduced is determined by the price elasticity of demand. The
percentage change in demand in response to a 1% increase in price is shown in the table
below72:
Short term Long term
Fuel consumption (total) -0.25 -0.64
Fuel consumption (per vehicle) -0.08 -1.1
Vehicle-kilometres (total) -0.10 -0.29
Vehicle-kilometres (per vehicle) -0.10 -0.30
Vehicle stock -0.08 -0.25
70 www.start-project.org.
71 The costs of avoiding congestion should be added to the direct costs of suffering congestion by adding a
precautionary margin to the trip start and to the costs derived from the loss of reliability in the eyes of
clients.
72 Goodwin, P., Dargay, J. and Hanly, M. (2003): Elasticities of Road Traffic and Fuel Consumption With
Respect to Price and Income: A Review, University College London.
EN 89 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 111 – Drucksache 17/815
The social impact of this policy option includes the impact on mobility (slight change) and on
health (decrease in accident rates).
A regulatory approach could be used by the EU, perhaps in combination with market-based
instruments, to follow up current initiatives on internalisation of external costs in transport.
One potential obstacle to compliance is the resistance from part of the public and businesses
to increasing the cost of car use in certain places and periods. The availability and reliability
of the ITS tools for vehicle location, registration and payment collection in urban areas is
another cause for concern.
Option 10: Promote “green” procurement by public authorities
This policy option will make a positive contribution to energy, environmental and social
objectives. Joint public procurement of “green” vehicles will also speed up replacement of
vehicles operated by public authorities or by private operators under public service contracts.
The objective of this policy option would be to bring potential buyers together in consortia so
that lower prices can be obtained as a result of economies of scale. In addition, possible
administrative barriers at national, regional or local levels to joint procurement would be
overcome.
Experience in Stockholm73 shows that the number of clean vehicles in the fleet does not
automatically increase after introduction of a clean vehicles scheme. In Stockholm, the
opposite happened when the municipal vehicle fleet was outsourced to a private leasing
company in 2002 and vehicle purchasing decisions were decentralised. This resulted in a
smaller share of clean cars in the municipal fleet.
In the CIVITAS-Trendsetter project the city of Stockholm reversed this negative trend by
offering incentives for purchasing clean vehicles, introducing a joint procurement programme
and arranging information activities and test-drives for procurement officers. By the end of
2005, Stockholm was operating 465 clean vehicles. This is 43% of the total municipal fleet.
Among other things, this cut energy consumption by around 25% and also reduced CO2
emissions and fuel costs for the biogas vehicles. Some 80% of the drivers are very satisfied.
The disadvantage has been a 5% increase in maintenance costs, mainly because biogas
vehicles need more maintenance and repair. Lille Metropole74 has similar experience.
A variety of instruments could be used, for example dissemination of best practice or co-
regulation. This policy option is likely to lead to fleet renewal, resulting in a larger share of
environmentally friendly vehicles. These could be vehicles owned (or tendered out for) by
local authorities, such as public transport vehicles, waste collection trucks, police cars and
public works vehicles. The higher share of environmentally friendly vehicles in urban traffic
is likely to result in energy savings and have a positive environmental impact. The
competitive position of the EU industry is likely to improve.
Option 11: Promote take-up of clean and energy-efficient vehicle technology and
alternative fuels
This policy option is in line with the EU’s policy to increase the share of alternative fuels and
reduce pollutant emissions from road vehicles. Cleaner technologies cost more. Market-based
73 CIVITAS, http://www.trendsetter-europe.org/index.php?ID=585.
74 CIVITAS, http://www.trendsetter-europe.org/index.php?ID=959.
EN 90 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 112 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
instruments, such as taxing fuels or vehicles or favouring use of cleaner fuels or vehicles, will
have a direct impact on users. This option will have an economic impact on the vehicle
manufacturing and servicing industries.
Other kinds of impact are on energy and on the environment. The cleaner engines may use
less energy, but this depends on the type of fuel used. The environmental impact will clearly
be a reduction in air pollutant emissions which will make a positive contribution to social
(health) objectives. The impact on noise will be less certain, as this depends on the engine
technology and a large part of the noise from cars is already caused by factors other than the
engine. One source of uncertainty is the unpredictability about the market take-up of the
engines and fuels.
Member States have national strategies and coherence between action at local, regional,
national and EU levels must be ensured. The UK’s national strategy for promoting clean
vehicles and fuels includes a CO2-linked company car tax and vehicle excise duty, three-year
duty incentives for cleaner fuels, financial incentives for biofuels, grants for consumers and
fleet operators and a Technology Fund to finance RTD.
For EU action a variety of instruments could be used, for example dissemination of
information, market-based instruments, financial intervention (e.g. from the cohesion
instruments or under State aid policy) or regulation (e.g. implementation of the proposed
Directive on the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles).
Market-based instruments may have a direct impact on vehicle sales, as long as the tax
changes are sufficient to counter-balance the price differences. In the car manufacturing and
servicing industries, investment will have to increase to make the transition to different fuels
and engines. It is not clear if this will lead to more employment in these industries. The
competitive position of the car, bus and truck manufacturing industry in the EU is likely to
improve against other countries. Obstacles to compliance are not likely.
Option 13: Harmonise rules for environmental zones
This policy option does not address the impact of environmental zones themselves, but only
the impact of ending the separate and unrelated regulations that have emerged over the past
across the EU. The EU could use a regulatory instrument. The objective of the initiative
would be to ensure the use of harmonised rules for access and vehicle identification in all
cities that have installed, or are considering, such a zone. This is likely to be a long process, as
there would be many parties involved in a joint effort with the EU. This option would
contribute to economic objectives and provide a stronger basis for policy-making.
One uncertainty would be whether every country would be interested in joining this process.
Each national government would have to convince its cities to apply the harmonised rules.
The ability to do so varies from one country to another. Resistance might come from cities
that want to limit access for specific types of cars , e.g. SUVs, if there were no room for this
in the harmonised rules. On the other hand, if the harmonised rules were to leave room for too
many exceptions, this would defeat the purpose, as it would no longer be easy for non-regular
EN 91 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 113 – Drucksache 17/815
users to understand the rules. There would be lower administrative costs for users and
governments75.
The indirect impact is likely to be that, once the harmonised rules are in place, it would be
easy for freight operators and non-regular visitors, i.e. principally those from elsewhere in the
country and from abroad, to understand the rules on access to the environmental zone. This
would save time and costs for those visitors, for cars and for freight trucks.
The main impact of any EU initiative would, however, be political. It would send out a signal
that the EU is serious about the internal market and the free movement of people and goods.
Option 14: Improve the interoperability of ticketing and payment systems for public
transport
The objective of this policy option would be to make it easier to combine private and public
modes of transport (for example, car or bicycle with public transport), to use the services of
different operators or to understand how the transport system works in different cities and
even in different Member States. This option targets private and professional users of the
transport system. This policy option will make a positive contribution to mobility, congestion,
economic and social objectives.
Improved interoperability would increase the accessibility of public transport, in terms of both
geographical range and ease of use by travellers currently finding it difficult to use the
system. Car kilometres will be replaced by public transport which will reduce the number of
motorised vehicle-kilometres. This can have a positive impact on congestion. Energy
consumption and emissions will also be reduced. However, some of today’s non-motorised
trips could also be attracted to public transport.
One economic benefit of modern interoperable systems is that they significantly reduce the
costs associated with ticketing, payments and handling cash. Development of the ITS systems
needed is likely to improve the competitive position of European industry against the rest of
the world.
A variety of instruments could be used, but the most promising direction would be a
regulatory approach (standards). One uncertainty, and possible obstacle, lies in the complexity
of implementing ITS projects involving many stakeholders. Involvement of the stakeholders
from the beginning would ensure better take-up of the results.
Option 15: Improve harmonisation and provision of travel information
This policy option is intended to make public transport more attractive and improve its
integration with other modes. It should follow a user perspective and pay particular attention
to the changing expectations of society caused, for example, by ageing and an increasingly
multi-cultural population. This policy option will make a positive contribution to mobility,
congestion and social objectives.
The difficulty of finding one’s way around the public transport system is one of the principal
causes for the negative image that public transport has in the eyes of many car users. This is
75 One specific problem is the limited possibility for cross-border enforcement by local authorities in the
event of traffic violations related to environmental zones and other zones with access restrictions.
EN 92 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 114 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
particularly the case when services are disrupted. Finding one’s way in an unknown city by
car has been made easier by in-car navigation systems. Public transport cannot yet match
these systems with a user-friendly alternative.
The primary impact of providing travel information is to enable individuals to plan their trips
better and make coordinated use of different modes. The result is to optimise the transport
chain by making use of the best-suited mode for each leg of the journey. Estimates suggest
that providing harmonised travel information could increase the average throughput capacity
of road infrastructure by 3% to 7%, increase its overall capacity by 3% to 22%, decrease
accidents by 3% to 30% and reduce travel time by up to 20%.
Different instruments could be used, including information and guidelines, co-regulation and
a regulatory approach. One possible obstacle might be that implementing ITS projects may
involve many stakeholders. For non-regulatory instruments this risk is negligible.
Involvement of stakeholders from the beginning would ensure better take-up of the results.
Option 19: Promote integrated planning for urban mobility and transport
This policy option covers a range of measures, including public-transport-oriented land-use
development, short-distance structure land-use development and car-restricted oriented
development. The direct impact of these measures would be to transform land-use patterns
and transport networks and services. More indirect kinds of impact, depending on the measure
chosen, would be a decline in (the growth of) motorised vehicle-kilometres and an increase in
non-motorised kilometres. The reason is that the need for car trips would diminish and a shift
towards environmentally friendly modes could be expected.
This option will make a positive contribution to a wide range of mobility, congestion, energy,
environmental and social objectives. It will also provide a better basis for policy-making. The
EU should follow a non-regulatory approach, which could include coordination and
networking.
All social groups in urban areas could be affected, but the degree would depend on the exact
development plans. The economic sector most affected will be the one most present in urban
areas, i.e. the tertiary sector. Retail businesses that rely heavily on greenfield shopping malls
(this is more pronounced in some Member States than in others) may find it necessary to
adapt their distribution systems. Others may not be affected much. The impact could be
essentially local, with usually a limited impact in other countries76.
The measures will result in a decrease in (the growth of) congestion. Fewer passenger-hours
and tonne-hours are likely to be lost, allowing households and businesses to save time. One
indirect impact could be that some of the time gained will be used to visit destinations farther
away, thereby nullifying part of the positive impact.
The measures are likely to result in a decrease in (the growth of) energy consumption. The
shift towards non-motorised modes will result in a decrease in energy consumption. The
impact on emissions of air pollutants will vary in the same way as energy consumption, all
other things being equal. The impact on noise is less clear as this will depend very much on
76 One exception could be the impact of the Øresund Bridge on the development of Malmø and
Copenhagen.
EN 93 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 115 – Drucksache 17/815
local conditions. Fewer vehicle-kilometres mean less noise but higher densities lead to greater
noise exposure per vehicle-kilometre.
The impact is likely to be strongest on social groups who live (or want to live) in peri-urban
areas. This includes an improvement in social inclusion, as potential destinations for activities
will be closer. Dwellers in densely populated areas are not likely to experience much
difference, except that the quality (frequency and speed) of public transport could also
improve for them. The number of traffic fatalities could decrease.
One uncertainty is introduced by the 5–10 year time span before the impact of changes in
land-use patterns becomes visible. These changes usually take more than one election cycle to
complete. Continued awareness of the problems and a consensus among politicians and voters
can help reduce this uncertainty.
Option 20: Improve coordination between urban mobility and land-use planning
One trend in European urban areas is that new developments often take place on the outskirts
of cities. Often they are only connected by road and lack good public transport links. In many
cases their layout and density make cycling unattractive. This makes the car the only viable
means of transport. In addition, developments on the periphery result in longer travel
distances. Finally, there is a trend to concentrate shops and services in malls located on the
outskirts. This in turn stimulates car use. The overall result is more and longer car trips and
fewer possibilities for non-motorised transport.
Requiring new developments explicitly to consider and plan for alternatives to the car would
help to reduce dependence on the car as the primary means of transport. This would result in
fewer private kilometres and more non-motorised and public transport passenger-kilometres.
The reduction in private kilometres will have an impact on the level of congestion and have a
positive impact on energy consumption and the environment (emissions of air pollutants and
noise). Provision of viable alternatives to the car can also contribute to social inclusion of
citizens who either do not own or do not want to use a (second) car. It will also provide a
stronger basis for policy-making.
Closer coordination between land-use and transport planning has the potential significantly to
reduce per capita energy consumption and emissions of pollutants by reducing per capita
vehicle travel77. Communities that are high-density, have mixed land use, cluster centres of
activity, implement parking management policies, have a high level of street connectivity,
have good access to public transport and provide facilities for cycling and walking have, on
average, 20% to 40% less car use than more auto-centric cities78.
The EU should follow a non-regulatory approach for this policy option. The strong market
forces in the real estate sector and the shortage of adequate housing in many European cities
are two possible obstacles to this policy option.
77 Mindali, O., Raveh, A. and Salomon, I. (2004): Urban density and energy consumption: a new look at
old statistics, Transportation Research, Vol. 38, No 2, pp. 143-162.
78 Litman, T. (2007): Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts, Victoria Transport Policy Research
Institute.
EN 94 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 116 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Option 21: Strengthen the rights and obligations of users of public transport
This policy option addresses public transport operators and users. It will make a positive
contribution to mobility and social objectives. The obligation to provide compensation if
operators fail to meet the agreed standards may help to strengthen the image of public
transport and improve public transport services. If this were to happen, the effect is likely to
be greater use of public transport and some decrease in car use (with the associated impact on
congestion, energy and the environment). Also some shift from bicycle use to public transport
can be expected. Introducing stricter rules for users may lower vandalism-related costs for
operators.
A variety of instruments could be used by the EU, including monitoring self-regulation. The
impact is likely to be small, though, as many other factors play a role in opting for public
transport. The improvement in the quality of public transport would also have a positive
impact on social inclusion. One potential obstacle to compliance is resistance from the public
transport operators and also from the contracting authorities, who would ultimately bear the
costs of the compensation.
Option 22: Improve accessibility of public transport
This policy option aims at improving both the geographical coverage of public transport and
ease of use by travellers who find it difficult to use the system (for example, passengers with
luggage, small children or a physical disability), as part of an integrated approach to achieve a
more accessible urban transport system. This policy option will make a positive contribution
to mobility, energy, environmental and social objectives.
The option will attract new users to the system. The strongest impact is on social inclusion
and mobility. Some kilometres by car will be replaced by public transport (which is also
motorised), but as public transport vehicles have higher occupancy, the number of motorised
vehicle-kilometres and congestion will decrease. Also, energy consumption and emissions
will be reduced. However, some of today’s non-motorised trips could also be attracted to
public transport (this effect being stronger in cities where bicycles take a high share than in
those with a low share).
A variety of instruments could be used by the EU, but the most promising direction is a
regulatory approach. Increased coverage would mean that public transport supply would
increase. The public transport network would also become more accessible for people with
reduced mobility, which could for example mean using appropriate equipment for physically
disabled persons, addressing the specific needs of cognitive and sensory disabled persons, and
providing special services for elderly and disabled persons. Direct financial intervention by
the EU would probably have a direct effect. But coordination between Member States or
regulation at EU level would have to be ensured first.
One potential obstacle could be insufficient funds. There is a risk of failing to meet travellers’
expectations due to the long transition period. Reasons for this long transition phase are, for
example, that public transport vehicles are replaced over long periods and interchange
facilities will have to be adapted at relatively high prices.
EN 95 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 117 – Drucksache 17/815
Option 24: Promote safe walking and safe cycling
Walking and cycling are two separate modes of transport. Each of them has its own strengths
and weaknesses and has different potential. This policy option would encourage authorities to
create safer conditions for walking and cycling. If such improvements were to be made, the
strongest impact would be on mobility. In particular, it would result in an increase in non-
motorised kilometres. This option would make a wide range of positive contributions to
mobility, energy, environmental and social objectives and would also make a positive
contribution to congestion by reducing motorised vehicle-kilometres.
An increase in the number of people cycling and walking can be achieved by means of
targeted marketing campaigns. However, long-term behavioural change is only possible with
the aid of an integrated programme to improve the infrastructure for non-motorised road
users, financial incentives and adequate facilities at the end of the trip (for example, showers
and changing rooms). A study estimated that this package to stimulate cycling could increase
cycling rates for commuting trips in the UK from 6% to almost 20%79.
Recently, an advertising company introduced a system in Paris that offers anyone who wants
to use a bicycle the opportunity to do so for a nominal fee. According to one source, provision
of bicycles at various points in the city combined with a marketing campaign (and some
problems with public transport) increased the number of cycle trips in Paris from 0% to 3% in
one year.
Given that most bicycle trips and walks are over short distances, i.e. under 7 km, the effect of
any increase in non-motorised kilometres on vehicle-km is unlikely to be very large.
However, a small decline in vehicle-km (and short-distance trips) has a disproportionately
large impact on the volume of emissions of harmful pollutants. The reason is that starting and
stopping engines causes relatively high emissions. Each 1% shift (in kilometre terms) from
motorised to non-motorised transport reduces energy use and emissions by between 2% and
4%80.
There would be a positive impact on health as a result of lower obesity and pollution levels.
As for road safety, the presence of more bicycles on the roads makes car drivers more aware
of them and therefore also more careful. Moreover, development of dedicated infrastructure
for non-motorised modes can contribute to reducing the number of conflicts and, hence, the
number of accidents and traffic fatalities. The results of an extensive study81 suggest that the
risks of an accident while riding a bicycle are far outweighed by the health benefits, at least
for commuters who regularly cycle to work.
The EU should follow a non-regulatory approach. This means that the risk of non-compliance
is negligible.
79 Wardman, M., Tight, M. and Page, M. (2007): Factors influencing the propensity to cycle to work,
Transportation Research, Vol. 41, Issue 4, May 2007, pp. 339-350.
80 Litman T., Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2007): Walking and Cycling Encouragement, Strategies
that Encourage People to Use Non-motorised Transportation, Transport Demand Management (TDM)
Encyclopedia.
81 Anderson, L. B. et al. (2000) All-cause mortality associated with physical activity during leisure time,
work, sports and cycling to work, Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 160, No 11, pp. 1621-1628.
EN 96 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 118 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Option 26: Improve data harmonisation, collection, validation and reporting
This policy option has one kind of impact, namely providing a stronger basis for policy-
making at all levels of government. A wider range of higher quality data and information can
contribute both to better informed decisions relating to the objective of sustainable mobility
and to implementation thereof (with the aid of monitoring). In the longer term an initiative at
EU level can also help to lower costs by reducing fragmentation in use of resources.
A range of instruments could be used at EU level, including coordination, financial
intervention and/or regulatory action. The extent to which the quality and availability of data
will improve depends on the scale and scope of the exercise, the funds made available to
support it and how clearly the data requirements are formulated.
There are two potential obstacles to compliance. First, local, regional and national
circumstances differ across the EU and, thus, the data requirements for policy-making are also
likely to differ. And second, local, regional and national governments with economic
problems are unlikely to be able to find the necessary resources. These obstacles need to be
taken into account when selecting the instrument.
Option 27: Improve dissemination of knowledge and best practice
This policy option has one kind of impact, namely providing a stronger basis for policy-
making at all levels of government. Improving dissemination of knowledge and best practice
can contribute to better informed decisions related to the overarching objective of sustainable
mobility. In the longer term an initiative at EU level can also help to lower costs by reducing
fragmentation in use of resources.
The EU should follow a non-regulatory approach for this policy option. Direct public-sector
intervention is likely to facilitate involvement of stakeholders. This option has no impact on
specific groups, nor are there any obstacles to compliance. It is difficult to predict the impact,
given that use of the knowledge and best practice is not mandatory.
An ambitious approach should be followed in terms of the size and profile of this option in
order to address the needs and promote use by as many potential users as possible. Ensuring
the active participation of users, promoting networking between them and offering users
individual support and tools to prepare the take-up of knowledge or best practice will increase
the likelihood that the information disseminated will actually be used for policy-making and
lead to implementation.
Option 28: Intensify research, development and demonstration activities
This policy option has one kind of impact, namely providing a stronger basis for policy-
making at all levels of government. Intensifying research, development and demonstration
activities can contribute to better-informed decisions related to the overarching objective of
sustainable mobility and to implementation thereof. In the longer term an initiative at EU
level can also help to lower costs by reducing fragmentation in use of resources. The results of
research, development and demonstration activities can contribute to reducing congestion,
improving energy efficiency and reducing the environmental impact of transport.
For example, RTD on applications of urban ITS (intelligent transport systems) can help to
reduce congestion by increasing the capacity of existing transport infrastructure in urban
areas. RTD on new public transport concepts can help to make public transport more
EN 97 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 119 – Drucksache 17/815
attractive. RTD on transport propulsion technologies can help to make automobiles more fuel-
efficient and RTD on alternative fuels can help to reduce emissions of harmful pollutants.
Estimates suggest that the fuel efficiency of passenger cars can be improved by between 40%
and 50% by 2030 by means of technological improvements to engine and drive-train
technologies82. Second-generation biofuels based on wooden biomass or organic waste have a
CO2 reduction potential of almost 90%. For both first- and second-generation biofuels the
CO2 reduction costs are a few hundred euros per tonne of CO283.
RTD activities in the area of vehicle design can help to make vehicles safer and thereby
reduce traffic fatalities in urban areas. Policy-related RTD in the field of urban mobility and
transport, usually involving local authorities in research and demonstrations, can help to
assess policy tools and identify solutions to overcome barriers to implementation. This option
should be implemented with the aid of financial intervention.
In the long run, increasing RTD activities in the field of urban mobility and transport can
contribute to increasing the competitiveness of the EU as a whole. For example, it can
contribute to the global competitiveness of the EU industry in the field of intelligent
technology or public transport vehicles. Direct public-sector financial intervention can be
justified for activities that would find it difficult to attract commercial funding because they
are too risky or for policy-related RTD where the results are of interest mainly to policy-
makers and not to stakeholders with commercial interests.
However, there are few guarantees that the results of the RTD will actually be used. This
influences the effectiveness of this option. This obstacle can be overcome by ensuring active
involvement of users and good dissemination of results.
Option 29: Promote awareness and behavioural change, including eco-driving
Modal choice, travel behaviour and driving style influence energy consumption and
emissions. These can be influenced by awareness-raising activities and information and
marketing campaigns. This policy option will make a positive contribution to energy,
environmental and social objectives (road safety). It will also help to provide a stronger basis
for policy-making.
One example is promotion of eco-driving. This is a particularly promising concept to promote
to road transport users, taking into account the high fuel prices. Eco-driving leads to no
perceptible loss of travel time and, therefore, is not likely to have an impact on mobility. The
direct impact is a clear decline in energy consumption per vehicle-kilometre, causing a
decline in emissions of air pollutants and noise. No clear economic impact is likely and there
will be no change in administrative costs. The social impact will be that a more defensive
driving style is likely to lead to a decrease in traffic fatalities, while the decrease in emissions
is likely to improve the impact on health.
Another example is provision of information related to modal choice via social marketing
campaigns. Well designed campaigns can influence both the attitudes and the intentions of the
target group. Patterns of car use, walking, cycling and public transport use can be changed by
82 Smokers, R. T. M., den Boer, L. C. and Faber, J. F. (2007): State of the Art CO2 en Mobiliteit, input
voor gezamenlijk adviesproject van Raad V&W, VROM-Raad en AER.
83 Ibid.
EN 98 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 120 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
awareness campaigns combined with other initiatives84. In specific cases, the reduction in
urban car traffic has been estimated in the range of 5% and in work-related car traffic at above
10%85. The costs of achieving this reduction would be 0.2 to 3.2 eurocents per car-km86.
While these figures are not representative, they give an indication of what is achievable.
For this policy option the EU could use a variety of instruments, including financial
intervention, information, guidelines, coordination and/or a regulatory approach. The
obstacles to compliance are related to the instruments. For non-regulatory instruments this
risk is negligible.
Option 30: Promote investment in integrated urban transport, including public
transport
The urban mobility system must be seen as an integrated system that consists of the users of
different transport modes, the interfaces between modes, the infrastructure of each mode and
the services and systems that allow the mobility system to function – such as information,
management and payment systems. This policy option aims at promoting investment in urban
transport, with special emphasis on public transport.
Investment in urban transport, notably in the new Member States, has been recognised as
important by many policy-makers. This option will have a positive impact on mobility,
congestion, energy consumption and the environment. The kinds of impact can include a
modal shift towards public transport, away from the car but also from non-motorised modes
(mainly cycling). In cities in which cycling does not have a large share (as is the case in most
cities in the new Member States) this impact would be limited. Funding will also stimulate
urban regeneration (which can include measures to increase density), infrastructure-upgrading
and fleet renewal.
The improvement in access to public transport will be the most important, but there will also
be an improvement in social inclusion as travel opportunities increase. A decrease in traffic
fatalities will be achieved, along with improvements in the impact on health, as car traffic
decreases.
There is a clear relationship between provision of public transport, the population density of a
city and the cost of transport. The higher the density in a city well served by public transport,
the lower the cost of transport. Conversely low-density cities lacking good public transport
spend a higher share of their GDP on transport. This difference is estimated at €2000 per year
per city resident for cities with well developed public transport and infrastructure for
alternative modes of transport87. Translated into energy consumption, the difference in energy
consumption between high-density European cities with good public transport and sprawling
American and Australian cities can range from 14 000 megaJoules to over 18 000 megaJoules
per person, per year88.
84 Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson C., Anable J., Kirkbride, A. and Goodwin, P. (2005): Smarter Choices –
Changing the Way We Travel, Department for Transport (DfT), London.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid.
87 UITP (2005): Mobility in Cities Database.
88 Ibid.
EN 99 EN
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 121 – Drucksache 17/815
On congested roads, even a small reduction in traffic volume can significantly increase traffic
speeds. For example, on a highway lane in the USA carrying 2 000 vehicles per hour a 5%
reduction in traffic volumes will typically increase traffic speeds by about 20 miles per hour
and eliminate stop-start conditions89. The role of the EU could either be financial or consist of
providing information or guidelines. The uncertainties and the obstacles to compliance will be
small.
89 TRL (2004), The Demand for Public Transit: A Practical Guide, Transportation Research Laboratory,
Report TRL 593 (www.trl.co.uk).
EN 100 EN
Drucksache 17/815 – 122 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
RAT DER
EUROPÄISCHEN UNION
Brüssel, den 5. Oktober 2009 (07.10)
(OR. en)
14030/09
ADD 2
TRANS 371
ENV 630
TELECOM 197
RECH 307
ÜBERMITTLUNGSVERMERK
Absender: Herr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Direktor, im Auftrag des
Generalsekretärs der Europäischen Kommission
Eingangsdatum: 2. Oktober 2009
Empfänger: der Generalsekretär/Hohe Vertreter, Herr Javier SOLANA
Betr.: Arbeitsdokument der Kommissionsdienststellen als Begleitdokument zur
Mitteilung der Kommission an das Europäische Parlament, den Rat, den
Europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss und den Ausschuss der
Regionen
Aktionsplan Urbane Mobilität
Zusammenfassung der Folgenabschätzung
Die Delegationen erhalten in der Anlage das Kommissionsdokument - SEK(2009) 1212 endg.
Anl.: SEK(2009) 1212 endg.
14030/09 ADD 2 RSZ/ar 1
DG C III DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 123 – Drucksache 17/815
KOMMISSION DER EUROPÄISCHEN GEMEINSCHAFTEN
Brüssel, den 30.9.2009
SEK(2009) 1212
ARBEITSDOKUMENT DER KOMMISSIONSDIENSTSTELLEN
als
Begleitdokument zur
MITTEILUNG DER KOMMISSION AN DAS EUROPÄISCHE PARLAMENT, DEN
RAT, DEN EUROPÄISCHEN WIRTSCHAFTS- UND SOZIALAUSSCHUSS UND
DEN AUSSCHUSS DER REGIONEN
Aktionsplan urbane Mobilität
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG DER FOLGENABSCHÄTZUNG
{KOM(2009) 490}
{SEK(2009) 1211}
DE DE
Drucksache 17/815 – 124 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
1. EINLEITUNG
Der Aktionsplan urbane Mobilität ist eine Folgemaßnahme zu dem am
25. September 2007 angenommenen Grünbuch zur Mobilität in der Stadt1. Der
Aktionsplan ist Teil des Arbeitsprogramms der Kommission (Ref. 2008/TREN/036).
Das Grünbuch, in dem fünf zentrale Herausforderungen im Bereich urbane Mobilität
aufgezeigt wurden, setzte eine Debatte darüber in Gang, inwieweit Maßnahmen auf EU-
Ebene, mit denen lokale, regionale und nationale Behörden bei der Bewältigung der sich
stellenden Herausforderungen unterstützt werden sollen, einen Mehrwert hervorbringen
können. Wenngleich die Verantwortung für die Bewältigung dieser Herausforderungen
in erster Linie bei den lokalen, regionalen und nationalen Behörden liegt, werden
Entscheidungen in Fragen der städtischen Mobilität doch auch im Rahmen der EU-
Rechtsvorschriften und EU-Politik getroffen und können sich ihrerseits auf das globale
Umfeld und den freien Verkehr von Personen, Gütern und Dienstleistungen in der EU
auswirken. Im Rahmen der Folgenabschätzung wird untersucht, worin genau der
Mehrwert von EU-Maßnahmen bestehen könnte.
Die Folgenabschätzung wurde von der Generaldirektion Energie und Verkehr der
Europäischen Kommission erstellt. Ausgearbeitet wurde sie von einer Gruppe von
Vertretern mehrerer in den Aktionsplan involvierter Kommissionsdienststellen und
unter Heranziehung einer in Auftrag gegebenen Studie. Der Ausschuss für
Folgenabschätzung hat am 23. Juli 2008, am 1. Oktober 2008 und am
4. November 2008 Stellungnahmen zu den Entwürfen der Folgenabschätzung
abgegeben.
Der Aktionsplan urbane Mobilität bildet die Grundlage für etwaige künftige
Maßnahmen der EU und sieht nichtlegislative Maßnahmen vor, um mehr Erkenntnisse
zu gewinnen, den Dialog zu fördern, bewährte Verfahren auszutauschen und um den
Städten Impulse zu geben. Diese Maßnahmen geben den Verantwortlichen sachliche
Informationen an die Hand, mit denen diese auf allen Ebenen der urbanen Mobilität
Entscheidungsfindung, Politik und Umsetzung verbessern können. Die Folgen dieser
Maßnahmen lassen sich nur schwer quantitativ oder qualitativ bemessen.
2. ANHÖRUNG INTERESSIERTER KREISE
Die Konsultation der interessierten Kreise fand in zwei Phasen statt. Die erste Phase
erstreckte sich über die ersten sechs Monate des Jahres 2007 und bestand in einer
Konsultation im Vorfeld der Ausarbeitung des Grünbuchs zur Mobilität in der Stadt.
Die zweite Phase folgte der Annahme des Grünbuchs und fand vom
25. September 2007 bis zum 15. März 2008 statt.
Das Grünbuch zur Mobilität in der Stadt enthielt 25 Fragen, mit denen die Konsultation
gelenkt und die Beiträge der interessierten Kreise auf bestimmte Punkte fokussiert
wurden. Ferner waren Stakeholder und interessierte Kreise aufgefordert, sich zu
allgemeinen im Grünbuch aufgeworfenen Fragen zu äußern. Insgesamt sind 431
1 Hin zu einer neuen Kultur der Mobilität in der Stadt, KOM(2007) 551
DE 3 DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 125 – Drucksache 17/815
schriftliche Beiträge eingegangen, die sorgfältig geprüft wurden. Die Ergebnisse der
Konsultation wurden allgemein verfügbar gemacht2 und sind in die Folgenabschätzung
eingeflossen.
Außerdem hat das Europäische Parlament am 9. Juli 20083 eine Entschließung zum
Grünbuch sowie am 23. April 2009 einen Bericht über den Aktionsplan zur urbanen
Mobilität4 angenommen. Am 29. Mai 20085 nahm der Europäische Wirtschafts- und
Sozialausschuss eine Stellungnahme zum Grünbuch an, am 9. April 20086 folgte ihm
der Ausschuss der Regionen. Am 21. April 20097 gab der Ausschuss der Regionen eine
Stellungnahme zum Bericht des Europäischen Parlaments ab. Auch im Rat wurde das
Thema erörtert8.
Das Gesamtfazit der Konsultation lautet, dass zwischen den Beteiligten und
interessierten Kreisen ein breiter Konsens dahingehend besteht, dass die EU im Bereich
urbane Mobilität die Aufgabe übernehmen kann, Behörden, Betreiber sowie andere
Beteiligte und interessierte Kreise auf lokaler, regionaler und nationaler Ebene zu
unterstützen. Wenngleich es unterschiedliche Auffassungen darüber gab, welche
Maßnahmen im Einzelnen auf EU-Ebene einen Mehrwert hervorbringen könnten, trug
die Konsultation doch dazu bei, eine „gemeinsame Ausgangslage“ zu ermitteln.
Die Mindeststandards für die Konsultation betroffener Parteien wurden eingehalten9.
3. PROBLEMSTELLUNG
Der Grund, weshalb wir einen Aktionsplan auf EU-Ebene benötigen, liegt darin, dass
viele Städte in der EU in Fragen der nachhaltigen urbanen Mobilität den gleichen
Problemen gegenüberstehen, die nicht unerheblich sind und beispielsweise hohes
Verkehrsaufkommen, Staus, schädliche Emissionen und unausgewogene
Entwicklungen mit Folgen für die soziale Ausgrenzung und das Wirtschaftswachstum
nach sich ziehen. Entsprechend dem Subsidiaritätsprinzip werden diese Probleme auf
lokaler, regionaler und nationaler Ebene angegangen.
In den Mitgliedstaaten, die der EU erst in den letzten Jahren beigetreten sind, stehen die
politischen Entscheidungsträger vor ganz besonderen Herausforderungen. Mit der
Wirtschaftsentwicklung stieg die Zahl der Neuzulassungen und die Nutzung von
Kraftfahrzeugen rasant an. Mangels passender Instrumente hat sich zwar der
Stadtverkehr verbessert, ohne dass jedoch die Mindestanforderungen an nachhaltige
Entwicklung und sozialen Zusammenhalt erfüllt wurden.
Der Blick auf die in der EU jeweils lokal ergriffenen Initiativen ergibt ein äußerst
uneinheitliches Bild von Strategien, Maßnahmen und Finanzierungsmodellen, mit
2 Siehe: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/urban_mobility/green_paper/green_paper_en.htm
3 INI/2008/2041.
4 INI/2008/2217.
5 TEN/320 – CESE 982/2008.
6 CdR 236/2007.
7 CdR 417/2008.
8 www.ue2008.fr/PFUE/lang/en/accueil/PFUE-09_2008/PFUE-
01.09.2008/Informelle_Transports.
9 KOM(2002) 704 endgültig.
DE 4 DE
Drucksache 17/815 – 126 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
denen die Behörden die Probleme der Mobilität und des Stadtverkehrs in den Griff zu
bekommen versuchen. Bruchstückhafte Konzepte, Untätigsein und unangemessene
Maßnahmen können sich aber auch über die Grenzen hinweg auswirken und zu teuren
Überschneidungen führen.
Die Kunden stehen lückenhaften Informationssystemen und uneinheitlichen Lösungen
gegenüber. Personen mit eingeschränkter Mobilität sind anderen nicht immer
gleichberechtigt beim Zugang zu öffentlichen Verkehrsmitteln.
Auch ist der Stadtverkehr ein kritischer Teil der gesamten Transportkette, sowohl im
Hinblick auf die Personenbeförderung als auch auf den Gütertransport (das Problem der
„letzten Meile“ und der Bedarf an effizienten intermodalen Knotenpunkte, die sich
häufig in oder in der Nähe von Stadtgebieten befinden). Der Erfolg der lokalen,
regionalen und nationalen Strategien für die urbane Mobilität wirkt sich damit auch auf
das europäische Verkehrssystem insgesamt aus, wenngleich die Behörden nicht
unbedingt die Mittel oder ein Interesse daran haben, diese Überlegungen einzubeziehen.
Werden geprüfte und bewährte Lösungen und Verfahren nicht in geeigneter Weise
weitergegeben, kann es passieren, dass politische Entscheidungsträger Lösungen zu
unnötig hohen Kosten ausarbeiten, Strategien entwickeln, die andernorts gemachte
Erfahrungen nicht ausreichend berücksichtigen, oder Lösungen vorschlagen, die den
Grundsätzen der EU oder dem EU-Recht zuwiderlaufen.
4. DIE GRUNDLAGE FÜR EIN TÄTIGWERDEN DER EU
Die Verträge grenzen die Befugnisse der EU ein. Die urbane Mobilität und der Verkehr
fallen unter Artikel 70 EG-Vertrag, in dem eine gemeinsame Verkehrspolitik festgelegt
ist10. Für die urbane Mobilität und den Verkehr gilt Artikel 71 Buchstaben c und d.
Nach diesem Artikel erlassen der Rat und das Europäische Parlament zur Durchführung
von Artikel 70 Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der Verkehrssicherheit und sonstige
zweckdienliche Vorschriften. Die EU und die Mitgliedstaaten tragen gemeinsam die
Verantwortung für den Verkehr. Im Folgenden wird deutlich, dass ein Mitgliedstaat
allein nicht in der Lage ist, optimale Lösungen zu finden (Notwendigkeitstest) und dass
die Ziele besser auf EU-Ebene erreicht werden können (Mehrwert-Test).
Das Recht der Kommission, auf dem Gebiet der urbanen Mobilität auf EU-Ebene zu
handeln, entspringt ihrer Verpflichtung, die im EG-Vertrag verankerten grundsätzlichen
Ziele zu erreichen und zu wahren. Das EU-Recht und die Finanzierungsinstrumente
haben direkten Einfluss auf die Entscheidungen auf lokaler, regionaler und nationaler
Ebene auf dem Gebiet der urbanen Mobilität. Daher ist die Kommission berechtigt
sicherzustellen, dass diese Entscheidungen im Einklang mit dem EU-Recht getroffen
werden, und die Behörden darin zu unterstützen, EU-Strategien umzusetzen und die
EU-Mittel optimal einzusetzen. Ferner wirken sich lokale, regionale und nationale
Maßnahmen auf dem Gebiet der urbanen Mobilität direkt auf den
10 Die Kommission kann auch auf der Grundlage von anderen Artikeln als dem Artikel 70
Vorschläge vorlegen. So kann sie für bestimmte Probleme der urbanen Mobilität und des
Verkehrs sich auf Artikel zum Umweltschutz (Artikel 174 und 175) und zum wirtschaftlichen
und sozialen Zusammenhalt (Artikel 158) stützen.
DE 5 DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 127 – Drucksache 17/815
grenzüberschreitenden Waren- und Personenverkehr aus. Dieser grenzübergreifende
Aspekt rechtfertigt Maßnahmen durch die EU, die damit das reibungslose Funktionieren
des Binnenmarkts und die ordnungsgemäße Umsetzung der EU-Politik und des EU-
Rechts sicherstellt, z. B. auf den Gebieten Umwelt, staatliche Beihilfen, soziale Agenda
oder Forschung und Entwicklung.
Um die Probleme der Verkehrsüberlastung, der Umweltverschmutzung und der
unausgewogenen Entwicklung in den Griff zu bekommen, muss der Staat eingreifen,
um dem Versagen der Märke auf dem Gebiet der urbanen Mobilität entgegenzuwirken.
Die EU hat das Recht sicherzustellen, dass die staatlichen Maßnahmen mit dem EU-
Recht und mit der EU-Politik in Einklang stehen. Auf anderen Gebieten als dem
Verkehr, wie der Umwelt, der Regionalpolitik oder der Energie, wurden in der
Vergangenheit bereits Maßnahmen im Zusammenhang mit der urbanen Mobilität
entwickelt. Deren potenzielle Auswirkungen auf die urbane Mobilität und den Verkehr
wurde zu wenig Beachtung geschenkt. Mitunter waren geeignete Werkzeuge und
Instrumente zwar vorhanden, wurden den Behörden aber nicht zur Verfügung gestellt
oder wurden nicht aufgegriffen oder in Fragen der urbanen Mobilität nicht ausreichend
berücksichtigt. Daher kommt es im Einzelfall darauf an, Maßnahmen vorzuschlagen,
mit denen solche vergangenen und laufenden EU-Initiativen stärker verzahnt und besser
umgesetzt werden.
Die EU hat ferner das Recht, zur Bewältigung dieser Probleme zu handeln,
vorausgesetzt die gemeinschaftsweiten Maßnahmen erzeugen einen Mehrwert. Ohne die
Befugnisse lokaler, regionaler oder nationaler Behörden einschränken zu wollen,
können lokale Maßnahmen auf unterschiedliche Art und Weise um einen EU-Mehrwert
bereichert werden11. Die EU kann den Behörden eine Toolbox mit bewährten Lösungen
anbieten, um den Risiken fragmentierter lokaler, regionaler und nationaler Konzepte zu
begegnen. Die EU kann dazu beitragen, regulatorische Mängel zu beheben, die
beispielsweise auf eine lückenhafte Erhebung und Weitergabe von Marktdaten
zurückzuführen sind, die eine umfassende Überwachung der entsprechenden Trends
unmöglich machen. Sie kann den Daten- und Informationsaustausch fördern, finanzielle
Unterstützung anbieten und FTE-Aktivitäten auf EU-Ebene in Gang bringen. Sie kann
die effiziente Verwendung öffentlicher Gelder fördern, um so zu verhindern, dass das
Rad noch einmal neu erfunden wird, oder darauf hinwirken, dass Benchmarking,
Auftragsvergabe oder Informationsbeschaffung gebündelt werden. Auch kann sie
Innovationen und Normen fördern und Märkte für Unternehmen schaffen.
5. ZIELE
Mit dem Aktionsplan urbane Mobilität werden vor allem die folgenden zwei Ziele
angestrebt:
• Impulse und Unterstützung für Städte, regionale und nationale Behörden bei
der Entwicklung und Umsetzung von Strategien für die urbane Mobilität im
Sinne der gemeinsamen Ziele des Klimaschutzes, eines funktionierenden
11 EU-Maßnahmen in Stadtgebieten können sich auf die Thematische Strategie für die städtische
Umwelt stützen (KOM(2005) 718), die vom Rat und dem Europäischen Parlament im Rahmen
des 6. Umweltaktionsprogramms in Auftrag gegeben wurde.
DE 6 DE
Drucksache 17/815 – 128 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
Binnenmarkts zugunsten von Unternehmen und Verbrauchern, sowie der
Förderung eines effizienten europäischen Verkehrssystems, des sozialen
Zusammenhalts und des Wohlstands.
• Vergrößerung der Wissensgrundlage für Entscheidungsträger auf allen
Ebenen im Hinblick auf die Entwicklung und Umsetzung integrierter,
sachlich fundierter und innovativer Strategien, die heute benötigt werden,
um die sehr komplexen und multidimensionalen Fragen der urbanen
Mobilität lösen zu können.
6. HANDLUNGSOPTIONEN
Im Hinblick auf diese beiden Hauptziele wurde ein breites Spektrum strategischer
Optionen geprüft. Auswahl und Bewertung der strategischen Optionen erfolgten anhand
einer ersten Liste von 31 möglichen Optionen und unterschiedlicher
Informationsquellen. Zu diesen Quellen zählen die Beiträge, die im Rahmen der
Vorbereitung des Grünbuchs zur Mobilität in der Stadt und im Laufe der Konsultation
zum Grünbuch eingingen, Arbeiten, die im Zusammenhang mit früheren EU-
geförderten FTE-Aktivitäten und Best-Practice-Austauschprogrammen durchgeführt
wurden, Diskussionen über das Grünbuch in den EU-Institutionen und Vorschläge der
Kommissionsdienststellen.
Dieses weit gefasste Konzept ermöglichte es, ein breites Spektrum von eher
strategischen bis hin zu eher praktischen Optionen zu überprüfen. Die Liste beinhaltet
auch Optionen, die als wenig wahrscheinlich oder wünschenswert erscheinen, jedoch
von Beteiligten vorgebracht wurden. Daher mögen einige strategische Optionen im
Lichte des Subsidiaritätsprinzips problematisch oder weniger effizient bzw. effektiv
erscheinen. Aus Gründen der Transparenz wurden sie jedoch nicht von vornherein
ausgeschlossen.
Aufgeführt sind acht Instrumente, die auf EU-Ebene möglicherweise für die Umsetzung
einer strategischen Option eingesetzt werden könnten, etwa die Überwachung der
Selbstregulierung, die Weitergabe von Informationen, die Ausarbeitung von Leitfäden,
die Bereitstellung finanzieller Anreize und der Rückgriff auf regulatorische
Maßnahmen.
Jede strategische Option wurde zusammen mit dem jeweiligen Instrument für deren
Umsetzung zunächst im Sinne der Subsidiarität überprüft. Im Falle eines negativen
Ergebnisses wurde die betreffende Option nicht weiter in Betracht gezogen und es
wurden keine weiteren Analysen durchgeführt. Hat eine strategische Option jedoch den
Subsidiaritätstest erfolgreich bestanden, wurde sie anschließend anhand der Kriterien
Effizienz, Effektivität und Kohärenz überprüft. Die Überprüfung anhand dieser
Kriterien reduzierte die Zahl der strategischen Optionen von 31 auf 18.
Als nächstes wurde festgestellt, welche Auswirkungen die verbleibenden 18 Optionen
hätten. Für die Bewertungen wurden die Indikatoren Mobilität, Verkehrsaufkommen,
Energie, Umwelt, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft und politische Entscheidungsfindung
herangezogen. Im Anschluss wurde das am besten geeignete Instrument zur Umsetzung
jeder der 18 Optionen ausgewählt. Hierbei wurden die Kosteneffizienz,
DE 7 DE
Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode – 129 – Drucksache 17/815
Verhältnismäßigkeit und Kohärenz mit anderen Initiativen und der
Verwaltungsaufwand überprüft.
Abschließend wurden 20 Vorschläge für mögliche Aktionen auf EU-Ebene
ausgearbeitet. Hierfür wurden Synergien zwischen den Optionen und zwischen den
Instrumenten berücksichtigt. Ferner wurden Identität, Sichtbarkeit und Handhabbarkeit
der möglichen Aktionen feinabgestimmt. Kein Vorschlag beinhaltete unmittelbare
legislative Maßnahmen. Allerdings sei darauf hingewiesen, dass dieses Verfahren für
die Auswahl und Bewertung etwaiger Aktionen in keiner Weise den Inhalt von
Aktionsplänen und das Ergebnis von Folgenabschätzungen, die möglicherweise für
bestimmte Vorschläge gemacht werden, vorwegnimmt.
7. MAßNAHMENBEREICHE
Folgende Aktionen könnten auf der Grundlage des Aktionsplans in die Wege geleitet
werden:
Im Jahr 2009:
• Studie über Zugangsregelungen für Umweltzonen
• Internet-Ratgeber zum Thema saubere und energieeffiziente Fahrzeuge
• Einrichtung eines Webportals zur Verbesserung des Zugangs zu
Informationen über den öffentlichen Verkehr
• Demonstrationsprojekte zu sauberen Fahrzeugen
• Informationsaustausch über städtische Gebührensysteme
• Internet-Ratgeber für Rechtsvorschriften, Finanzierung und beste Praktiken
• Einrichtung eines Beobachtungszentrums für urbane Mobilität
• Beschleunigung der Einführung von Plänen für die nachhaltige urbane
Mobilität
Im Jahr 2010:
• Dialog über Fahrgastrechte im öffentlichen Nahverkehr
• Vorbereitung künftiger Finanzierungsquellen
• Einrichtung eines Forums zur urbanen Mobilität
• Vermittlung einer energieeffizienten Fahrweise im Rahmen der
Fahrschulausbildung
• Nachbesserung von Daten und Statistiken
• Kampagne zur Förderung eines nachhaltigen Mobilitätsverhaltens
• Beitrag zum internationalen Dialog und Informationsaustausch
Im Jahr 2011:
• Informationen zur Sicherheit für Fußgänger und Radfahrer
• Informationen zur nachhaltigen Mobilität in den Städten und zur
Regionalpolitik
• Studie zu urbanen Aspekten der Internalisierung externer Kosten
Im Jahr 2012:
• Informationen zum Einsatz von intelligenten Verkehrssystemen (intelligent
transport systems, ITS) zur Förderung urbaner Mobilität
DE 8 DE
Drucksache 17/815 – 130 – Deutscher Bundestag – 17. Wahlperiode
• Informationen für den städtischen Güterverkehr
Diese Vorschläge für mögliche Aktionen bildeten die Grundlage für die Ausarbeitung
des Aktionsplans für urbane Mobilität. Im Laufe der Ausarbeitung des Aktionsplans
wurden die Aktionen näher festgelegt, gewichtet und politisch validiert, u. a. unter
Berücksichtigung der verfügbaren Ressourcen.
8. ÜBERWACHUNG UND BEWERTUNG
Die Wirkung und der Erfolg des Aktionsplans insgesamt hängen vom aktiven
Engagement und der Übernahme durch die Betreiber und andere Beteiligte sowie der
interessierten Kreise auf lokaler, regionaler und nationaler Ebene ab. Die Kommission
wird die Entwicklung der urbanen Mobilität und des Verkehrs in der EU sowie die im
Rahmen des Aktionsplans eingeleiteten EU-Maßnahmen im Auge behalten. 2012 ist
eine Überprüfung vorgesehen. Die Kommission wird dann die Auswirkung des
Aktionsplans sowie die Notwendigkeit einer Überarbeitung oder weiterer Aktionen
bewerten.
DE 9 DE