vorlage für eu-projekte · Web viewmanaging the supply of parking to meet specific demands and...

Table of Content

1. Executive Summary

2. General Overview of LEDA2.1 LEDA topics

2.2 Objectives

2.3 Partnership

2.4 Work flow and methodology

3. Analysis of EU, national and regional policy papers

3.1 Introduction, methodology and scope

3.2 Summary of results

3.2.1 Nine criteria of sustainable mobility

3.2.2 EU and national policy documents - general trends, contradictions and similarities

3.3 Conclusions

4. National Legal and Regulatory Frameworks



4.3 Conclusions

5. Legal and regulatory measures in European cities

5.1 Introduction and approach

5.2. Screening of EU Programmes and projects of relevance to LEDA

5.2.1 Introduction

LEDA FINAL REPORT

3

5.2.2 Screening of existing project data

5.2.3. Summary of screening results

5.3 Collecting data for the database

5.3.1 Selection of cities

5.3.2 Selection of measures

5.3.3 The LEDA Database

5.3.4 The database design

5.3.5 Data in the database

5.4 Spread of measures and components

5.4.1 Objectives and procedure

5.4.2 Results

6. 20 „less well-known but effective“ measures: results of in-depth Study

6.1. Introduction, methodology and scope

6.2. A short description of the 20 measures


6.3.1 Analyses of the 20 measures

6.3.2 Common aspects and problems of the 20 measures

6.3.3 Successful elements

6.4. Conclusions

7. Transferability

7.1 Introduction and scope

7.2 Methodology

7.2.1 General

7.2.2 Transferability simulation exercise

7.2.3 Comparison of city characteristics

7.2.4 Evaluation of the approach

7.3 Process

7.4 Results

7.4.1 Comparative Transferability

7.4.2 Conclusions of the correlation analyses

7.5 Guidelines for assessing Transferability

7.5.1 Rationale

7.5.2 Guidelines

LEDA FINAL REPORT

5

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 LEDA topics

LEDA stands for LEgal anD RegulAtory Measures for Sustainable Transport in Cities. It is a research project supported by the European Commission, Directorate General for Transport (DG VII), within the Transport RTD Programme. It started in January 1998 and ended in September 1999. LEDA involved a consortium of 15 partners from 14 countries, 9 European Union (EU) countries and 5 accession states. During the research the consortium covered all countries of the EU, Norway and Switzerland and the five accession states Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland.

Legal and regulatory measures were the main focus of the LEDA project. The central component of these measures is a new (or amended) law or regulation. LEDA was concerned with such measures

primarily in passenger transport

but also in related areas like land use planning and environmental policy

above all implemented at municipal level

The investigation in LEDA covered pure legal and regulatory measures like traffic signs, but also combinations of infrastructural measures, financial measures or awareness and information measures with legal and regulatory components.

1.2 Objectives and approach

The main objective of the research was to promote sustainability in urban transport by means of legal and regulatory measures. The fundamental hypothesis of the LEDA project was that this could be done best if

these legal and regulatory measures are integrated with other measures as part of a comprehensive set of measures

important implementation conditions such as public acceptance are included

local stakeholders get suitable information on best practice and the transferability of effective measures

representatives of the regional level, the national level and the European Commission, are given recommendations on how to support the actors at the local level, e. g. by changing legal frameworks

In order to guarantee the fulfilling of the needs of possible users of the LEDA results the consortium established four Regional User Groups (RUGs) with representatives of

municipalities and associations of cities, representatives of states and members of interest groups. These RUGs advised the consortium at crucial points of the project, helped in between with providing contacts, the opportunity for discussion and supporting the research work, especially the collection of data.

The work in LEDA has been structured in Work Packages (WP) that were in a logical order to guarantee an optimal flow of work and to reach the goals:

WP 1 screened policy documents regarding transport issues, land use and environment, compared the main contents and developed assessment criteria for legal and regulatory measures. WP 1 also screened regional and national legal frameworks as well as the powers and duties of the different levels of government in order to get an overview and a basis for first recommendations to change these conditions.

WP 3 screened available information about European project results as possible input for the project and as complementary information for the users of the results of the LEDA Project. Secondly 217 legal and regulatory measures in 41 cities all over Europe were collected and stored in a database that is easily accessible for all interested users. Thirdly the consortium prepared an overview of the spread of these measures over the 41 cities.

The database gave the consortium a solid basis for the in-depth study of 20 measures in WP 4. The main criterion for the selection of measures– according to the contract with the European Commission – was that measures should be “less well-known but effective”. Other criteria included a requirement for the 20 measures selected for in depth study to cover a wide range of European countries and for there to be a degree of innovation.

The central elements of the in-depth study were detailed investigations of the measures, looking especially at the different stages of planning, implementation, enforcement and monitoring; the role internal and external bodies played, possible conflicts and barriers and an overall assessment.

WP 5 dealt with the transferability of the 20 measures studied in WP 4. A pragmatic approach was taken where the local stakeholders were included in transferability exercises, which took place in Target cities, which were defined as those interested in assessing the transferability of specific measures. The results of these transferability exercises and the comparison of city characteristics have been used to identify any correlation between the city characteristics and transferability. Following the assessment of these results recommendations have been developed for cities on how to handle the process of assessing transferability.

In addition to the aforementioned WPs there were three WPs that ran from near the beginning of the project. WP 2 dealt with the establishment of the RUGs (Regional User Groups) and organising the project support. WP 6 provided information to the possible users of the LEDA project results through the two LEDA websites (one in English and one in German), the Best Practice Brochure and the Brochure on Improving Legal and Structural Frameworks to promote Transferability and the New Mobility ’99 Conference. WP 7 dealt with the Project’s management.

LEDA FINAL REPORT

7

1.3 Results

As a result of the completion of the Project’s work, including the publication of the brochures, the conference , the websites and the WP deliverables, which are still available; it can be said that the LEDA project has achieved its demanding objectives:

LEDA has provided useful information on best practice, in a broad way with the 217 measures from 41 European cities and in-depth for the 20 most interesting measures. This information shows the background to the cities, the inclusion of measures in comprehensive strategies, conditions for success and contacts in the cities. They are available on the two websites, on a CD-ROM and in the brochure on Best Practice and Transferability of Measures. The 20 measures investigated in-depth can also be found in the ELTIS database.

The results of the transferability study, combined with the information on legal frameworks in the different countries, give local stakeholders a sound basis for undertaking a transferability process in their city. The result of the study that transferability is not predictable in terms of a comparison of city characteristics can provide encouragement: Cities all over Europe are quite innovative and creative in their attempts to overcome legal and other barriers to transferability. Thus it would seem that legal barriers may not be the central problem. Nevertheless changing the legal and structural frameworks could make the implementation of measures easier. Cities often lead the way – regional and national authorities follow later on if measures are successful.

Including repesentatives of the possible user institutions in the project by establishing the RUGs; the activities of the LEDA partners in their own countries such as starting or intensifying nationwide discussion processes; the various dissemination activities all helped interested representatives of the target groups to be more aware of the opportunities legal and regulatory measures provide for making transport in cities more sustainable. It is particularly worth noting the activities of the Slovakian partner STUBA, which organised specific transferability studies and a seminar for the accession states.

2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF LEDA

2.1 LEDA topics

LEDA stands for LEgal anD RegulAtory Measures for Sustainable Transport in Cities. It was a research project supported by the European Commission, Directorate General for Transport (DG VII), within the Transport RTD Programme. It started in January 1998 and ended in September 1999. LEDA involved a consortium of 15 partners from 9 European Union (EU) countries and 5 accession states (a full list of the LEDA partners can be found in Section 2.3 below).

The background to the LEDA project was the traffic problems which are ubiquitous in European conurbations. Congestion, safety deficits, environmental problems and dispersed land use, all call for solutions.

The main focus of the LEDA project was legal and regulatory measures. Legal and regulatory measures can change the demand pattern in favour of sustainable modes like public transport, cycling and walking, and as such can reduce urban traffic problems and their negative impacts. . The main component of legal and regulatory measures is a new (or amended) law or regulation. An example could be a bicycle priority street (or cycle road), which permits entry to cars and lorries, but requires them to give way to cyclists at all times. The users are warned by a regulatory ‘cycle road’ sign, placed at the entrance to the street.

Although LEDA was primarily concerned with pure legal and regulatory measures, the project also looked at other kinds of measure which can have an important legal and regulatory component. Building a bus lane, for example, is clearly an infrastructure measure, but dividing the available space in a street by assigning a bus lane (and thus reducing the space for cars) is primarily a regulatory measure. Furthermore, the rules for using the lane can differ between countries. The times that the rules apply may be restricted (e. g. peak hours only); the list of other eligible lane users (e. g. taxis, car-pool members, cyclists, etc.) may vary.

LEDA identified that legal and regulatory measures are most effective when they are embedded in a comprehensive transport planning policy. Consequently, the project dealt with legal and regulatory measures at different levels:

• pure legal and regulatory measures;

• legal and regulatory measurescombined with

• infrastructure measures;

• financial measures;

• awareness and information measures.

LEDA FINAL REPORT

9

LEDA looked at these kinds of measure within the traffic and transport sector, concentrating on passenger transport. The project also examined laws and regulations in related areas such as land use and the environment in order not to miss interesting but less well-known regulations. The main focus was on measures that are relevant to towns and cities.

2.2 Objectives

Target groups of the LEDA project were primarily:

local representatives or stakeholders at city level in order to show them examples of best practice and to indicate to them a structured approach to the transferability of measures into their city or region

representatives at the regional, national and European level in order to show them relevant barriers for a successful transfer of measures and to give them recommendations to overcome such barriers through changes in the legal and regulatory frameworks and by supporting actors at the local level by increasing their powers and duties and/or improving their financial capacity.

The success of LEDA will depend on meeting the interests of these potential users of the results. To fulfil their needs and especially to guarantee the inclusion of important implementation conditions in the different countries, the consortium formed 4 Regional User Groups (RUG) for European regions with similar cultural backgrounds to enable a communication at a comparable level. Members of these RUGs were representatives of cities or associations of cities, representatives of regional or national ministries and members of different interest groups. The RUGs helped with the work and gave feedback regarding the results and their usefulness. Moreover, the RUGs were and are used for bringing the results into practice, that is using the best practice information at the local level and setting up a national discussion on possible changes in the legal framework or regional and national policy.

Research topics of the LEDA project are legal and regulatory measures for sustainable transport in cities. According to the Technical Annex of the contract with the European Commission concrete objectives of the projects were:

the screening of policy documents in the different countries regarding transport, traffic and related areas like land use planning and environmental policy to identify current political goals and to check whether these goals support the goals of the LEDA project

the assessment of the national legal systems regarding transport, traffic and related areas like land use planning and environmental policy to obtain general recommendations for

upper policy levels for changing legal frameworks that support local activities for sustainable transport and as a background for the transferability study.

to screen results of previous and ongoing European research projects which could be useful for the LEDA project or as complementary information to be helpful to the users of the LEDA Project results.

to collect data about legal and regulatory measures already implemented in 40 European cities and store them in a data base

to investigate in-depth 20 less well-known but effective measures. In this research the following questions were posed:

– Under what circumstances does the public accept restrictive measures?

– Which actions accompany successful measures and are there any similarities?

– Which barriers needed to be overcome and how?

– Are there minimal requirements for a mixture of measures?

a transferability study to develop recommendations for changes of legal and regulatory frameworks to support local stakeholders transferring effective measures and for transferability processes at the local level

to disseminate the results of the research through

a brochure aimed at EU level and national and regional decision makers, making recommendations about possible beneficial changes in EU, national and regional legislation and policy to support cities to introduce legal and regulatory measures more easily

a brochure aimed at local authorities and city planners that describes legal and regulatory measures with some guidelines for introducing interesting measures in other countries

a data base with the inventory of legal and regulatory measures that were collected during the LEDA work

a web site describing the project, informing about its progress and providing the results after the research has been completed

an international conference at the end of the project which shows LEDA results as well as results of other projects and can be a means bringing together the LEDA partners and the RUG members with members of the target groups of the project

To fulfil these tasks in a way that the results are useful for the defined target groups a work structure was developed with work packages and a workflow scheme. As the work has been done by quite a large consortium of 15 partners from 14 countries and the investigations covered – in principle – all countries of the European Union, Norway, Switzerland and the accession states the elaboration of detailed guidelines for the collection and analysis of information was of highest importance to guarantee consistent, comparable results. In Section 2.3, the Consortium Partnership is set out and in Section 2.4 an overview of the work package structure, the work flow plan and the methodology deployed is given.

LEDA FINAL REPORT

11

2.3 Partnership

In the LEDA project 15 institutions from 14 countries worked together. These institutions are based in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, The Netherlands and United Kingdom (see map below[where is the map?]). They are private consultants, public research institutions and universities, which work in the field of transport amongst others.

The main partners and work package leaders in the project were ILS (Dortmund, Germany), FGM-AMOR (Graz, Austria), Langzaam Verkeer (Leuven, Belgium), PLS Consult (Copenhagen, Denmark), DITS (Rome, Italy), Bealtaine (Scariff, Ireland) and UI (Ljubljana, Slovenia). ILS was the consortium leader. A full list of partners is set out below.

LEDA partnershipILSResearch Institute for Regional and Urban Development of the Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany

CERTUResearch Centre for Urban Transport, France

FGM-AMORAustrian Mobility Research, Austria

The TAS Partnership LtdSpecialist Consultants in Public Transport, UK

Langzaam Verkeer vzwCentre for Mobility Management, Belgium

UIUrban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia

PLS ConsultDenmark

VATIInstitute for Urban and Regional Planning, Budapest University of Technology, Hungary

DITSUniversity of Rome – ’La Sapienza’, Italy

MPK s.a.Krakow City Transport Company, Poland

Bealtaine LtdTaylor Lightfoot Transport Consultants, Ireland

STUBASlovak University of Technology, Bratislava, Slovakia

Anders Nyvig LtdTraffic and Urban Planners, Consulting Engineers and Architects, Denmark

UDIInstitute of Transportation Engineering of the City of Prague

NEATransport Research and Training, The Netherlands

2.4 Work flow and methodology

The LEDA project consisted of a number of work packages that are in a logical order (see the figure below).

Work package 1: Inventory of legal and regulatory measures

The first aspect of WP 1 was a screening of transport policy documents regarding transport issues in urban areas including land use and environmental policies. 74 policy documents from the European Union, the 15 EU member states, Switzerland and Norway have been analysed. The analysis was carried out to different levels of detail. The documents of the home countries of the LEDA full partners have been treated in more detail (denoted as “Level I” countries). The same goes for the documents of the European Commission. Policy documents of Level II countries (non partner home countries) are fewer in number. Sometimes only one single paper has been looked at. This was to restrict the scope of the analysis.

LEDA FINAL REPORT

13

Given this information, a comparative analysis of the findings has been conducted to identify possible contradictions and similarities between national, regional as well as European Union policy aims and objectives. The findings from this exercise then enabled the partners to set assessment criteria for legal and regulatory measures as a basis for the following work packages of LEDA.

Common to all policy documents selected is that they were either transport, environment, or land-use documents and, secondly, that they were judged to possess substantial significance for present urban transport issues in their home countries.

The second aspect of WP 1 was a screening of the national and regional legal frameworks to gain a general overview of the national and regional legal and regulatory frameworks, as well as the powers and duties attached to the various levels of government in all countries covered by the LEDA project. Thus the analysis should give an answer to the question: “What measures to promote sustainable mobility are decided on (and implemented) at what level of government?” and “What can city governments do by themselves and what are the procedures they have to follow within their respective legal and regulatory framework?”

The analysis has been carried out for all 15 EU member states, 5 central and eastern European states (accession states), Switzerland and Norway. As within the first part of WP 1 the analysis was carried out to different levels of detail. The LEDA full partner home countries (“Level I” countries) are treated in more detail than the remainder (“Level II” countries). This arrangement was deemed appropriate to restrict this otherwise vast array of research given the relatively tight budget and time restraints. The countries, levels and partners in charge of the analysis are listed in Chapters 3 & 4.

With this information an overview has been produced which shows similarities and differences of national or regional legal frameworks regarding urban transport, land use and environmental policies. In addition first recommendations for a change of legal conditions for local authorities have been developed.

Work package 3: Inventory of legal and regulatory measures

On the basis of the results of WP 1 an inventory of legal and regulatory measures were established in WP 3.

Firstly, in order to avoid duplicating existing research and optimising existing knowledge, all relevant research results of European projects – as far as they were available – have been screened as a basis for the further LEDA work and as relevant complementary information for the users of the results of LEDA..

Secondly, 41 selected cities have been investigated to get a broad overview of legal and regulatory measures in European cities in the fields of transport, land use and environment. To guarantee a spread of the selected cities over the European regions regarding size, infrastructural situation, location within the region(whether part of a metropolitan area or a rural area) an extensive discussion process took place within the consortium, with the Regional User Groups (RUGs) and with the European Commission.

According to the LEDA objectives not only pure legal and regulatory measures have been selected for the investigation. As the inclusion of legal and regulatory measures in a measure mix seemed to be of highest relevance for a successful policy, infrastructural, financial and awareness or promotional measures have been included if they have legal or regulatory components. Relevant city information has also been collected in order to obtain an overview of the city’s conditions. Detailed Guidelines guarantee that the city descriptions for the 41 cities as well as the descriptions of the measures are comparable. So the database where the information is stored offers consistent and helpful information for transferring effective measures (best practices) to other cities in other countries.

Collecting and analysing 217 measures showed a different picture of local transport policies in the field of legal and regulatory measures in Europe. Strategies seem to be broadly quite similar. Thirdly, in order to obtain a definite overview of the implementation of measures within these cities a checklist was developed to collect information in which cities these measures have been implemented and to what extent. So, after this check additional information was given as a basis for the selection of the 20 measures for the in-depth study in Work package 4.

Work package 4: Detailed research of less well-known measures

In WP 4 the task was to investigate in-depth twenty of these measures that are less well-known but effective. Given the results of WP 3, criteria were developed within the consortium for the selection of cities and measures and a decision process took place within the consortium, with the European Commission and RUG members to come to a definite selection. The main selection criteria were:

existing knowledge of a measure

differences in the implementation of a measure elsewhere in Europe

ensuring a spread of in-depth measures from all European countries

An important basis for data collection was the information given in the database produced in WP 3. However, for the in-depth analysis additional detailed information was collected, concerning the real role of the bodies involved, the circumstances under which the public accepts restrictive measures, important accompanying measures, barriers to be overcome, cost and efficiency data. As there could be differences between the different aspects of measures, the following aspects were also investigated for each measure: planning, implementation, enforcement and monitoring.

A more in depth analysis has highlighted the important conditions for the success of measures.

LEDA FINAL REPORT

15

Work package 5: Study on the transferability of measures

Using the results of the in-depth studies in WP 4 a transferability study has been carried out in WP 5 in order to develop recommendations for local stakeholders regarding the transferability of measures and to identify the main barriers, which hinder transferability. In order to guarantee comparable results for the whole study a set of guidelines for an assessment of the transferability of legal measures was first developed.

The main core of the transferability study was to test transferability predictions by correlating relevant city characteristics with simulated transferability results. The main city characteristics have been collected for Origin Cities, i.e. those where the 20 measures have already been implemented, and the Target Cities, where the transferability of the 20 measures were to be studied. The matrices were used in transferability study workshops with local practitioners in the Target Cities. These workshops assessed the transferability of measures by means of simulation exercises. This process of assessing transferability took place in 15 Target Cities, each selecting 5 of the 20 measures. Decision chains were used to check the importance of aspects such as the city's objectives, the legal framework the cities operate within, the political framework in the city, the public acceptability of the measures and enforcement issues. The aim was to relate the transferability of measures to city characteristics to help city representatives to transfer measures. The target groups for these results are local stakeholders as well as representatives of regional and national authorities, who receive recommendations on how to support the authorities at the local level.

[Herbert, this is stated earlier]

Work package 2: Regional User Groups (RUG)

In WP 2 four Regional User Groups (RUG) were established in order to incorporate the users, which have been addressed by LEDA. They advised the consortium at key decision points during the Project and transferred the LEDA results to their area of responsibility. The RUGs were:

Group 1: Scandinavian countries: Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway co-ordinated by PLS in co-operation with ANAS.

Group 2: North-Western Europe: Great Britain, Ireland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany co-ordinated by LV, in co-operation with TLTC, TAS and ILS.

Group 3: Mediterranean countries: Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece co-ordinated by the University of Rome.

Group 4: Austria, Switzerland, accession states (Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary) co-ordinated by AMOR in co-operation with the eastern partners.

Membership of the RUGs came from the two main target groups of the project: the cities or city associations and national/regional institutions. International and transnational interest groups participated in the North-West RUG.

Work Package 6: Dissemination of results

WP 6 was designed to guarantee an optimal dissemination of the results of LEDA. Various dissemination actions were therefore included from the beginning of the project through to the end. These actions included the following:

Production and distribution of a general information brochure (in both German and English), which was used to inform the target groups about the project

A web site, first in English and later on also in German

A Handbook on Best Practice and Transferability of Measures (in English only) was produced and circulated

A Brochure on Improving Legal and Structural Frameworks to promote Transferability (in English only) was produced and circulated

An international conference took place in Dortmund, Germany in June 1999 where LEDA results were presented together with additional complementary results of several other European projects concerned with making urban transport more sustainable.

There were also additional national or regional activities to bring the LEDA results into practice. The partners in the accession states made particular effort to disseminate the results in their countries and to start a discussion process within the research community and with planners in municipalities.

Work package 7: Project management

WP 7 covered the management of the project and was designed to guarantee the optimal operation of LEDA and high quality results. In order to more effectively allocate the work in LEDA and to make best use of the knowledge and the experience of the partners all the main contractors were responsible for a work package as work package leader. For each RUG one partner was responsible for organising the meetings and to ensure an optimal information flow. One of the partners was responsible for quality control, in particular for reviewing the project deliverables . Contacts and links to other projects were established in order to avoid duplicating research, to use the relevant results from other projects and to offer complementary information to the users of the results from LEDA .

A management committee comprising the Main Contractors was the key instrument for co-ordination of the project . This committee met on 8 occasions during the project.

LEDA FINAL REPORT

17

3. ANALYSIS OF EU, NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY PAPERS


Chapter 3 reports on the Activities of WP 1, which were necessary to determine criteria for the assessment of legal and regulatory measures, the 1st objective of WP 1. These activities were:

screening the European transport policy documents regarding transport issues in urban areas (Activity 1.1). As a first step, the aims and objectives of EU transport policy papers concerning urban transport matters were reviewed. This included, amongst others, the Green Paper "The Urban Environment", the Transport White Paper „The future development of the Common Transport Policy”, and the Green Paper „The Citizen’s Network – Fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe“.

screening the national and regional transport policies regarding transport issues in urban areas (Activity 1.2). National and regional transport policies determine the framework for local actions at the city level. Thus, as a second step, the aims and objectives of transport policy concerning urban transport at the national and regional level were reviewed. This was carried out for all 15 EU member states. The review concentrated on guidelines, master plans, policy papers, etc.

analysing EU, national and regional policy goals and elaboration of assessment criteria (Activity 1.3). In a third step, a comparative analysis of the findings of Activities 1.1 and 1.2 was conducted. The purpose of this exercise was to identify possible contradictions and similarities between national, regional as well as European Union policy aims and objectives. The findings from this exercise then enabled the development of assessment criteria for legal and regulatory measures. These criteria were then taken up in the subsequent work packages of LEDA.

The table below gives an overview of the Activities involved and the organisation of work between the LEDA partners.

Activity Partner in charge

Activity 1.1 – Screening of European Union policy documents AMOR

Activity 1.2 – Screening of national policy and regional documents (level I countries)

Austria AMOR

Belgium LV

Denmark ANAS

Germany ILS

Ireland TLTC

Italy USalerno

Activity 1.2 – Screening of national policy and regional documents (level II countries)

Finland PLS

France LV

Greece USalerno

Luxembourg LV

Netherlands LV

Norway PLS

Portugal USalerno

Spain USalerno

Sweden ANAS

Switzerland AMOR

United Kingdom

TAS

Activity 1.3 – analysing EU, national and regional policies goals and elaboration of assessment criteria

AMOR

LEDA FINAL REPORT

19

Step 1: selecting policy documents (Activities 1.1, 1.2)

74 policy documents from the European Union, the 15 EU member states, Switzerland and Norway were analysed. A differentiation was made as to the depth of the analysis. The documents of the countries where the LEDA full partners are based were treated in more detail (denoted as “Level I” countries). The same goes for the documents of the European Commission.

For these level I countries, a larger number of papers was selected for analysis. Where possible, a suitable mix of origins was provided: national papers (e.g. national transport law or national air quality regulations), regional papers (e.g. a regional strategy paper) and local papers (e.g. a typical urban transport plan).

Policy documents of Level II countries were fewer in number. Sometimes only one single paper was looked at. This was to confine the scope of the analysis.

Common to all policy documents select is that they were either transport, environment, or land-use documents and, secondly, that they were judged to possess substantial significance for present urban transport issues in their home countries.

It is important to note that in the LEDA terminology the notion of “land use” is not strictly confined to the spatial layout of development. Instead, land use is taken as an umbrella term incorporating a range of related policy areas: spatial policy, economic development, building and construction. Likewise, “environment” stands not only for issues of air, noise, nature conservation, etc, yet also for related matters such as energy policy.

The ensuing table lists all 74 documents reviewed.

Country Policy document short title Year Main policy

Area(s)European Union

The Urban Environment, Green Paper 1990 Environment

The impact of transport on the environment, Green Paper 1992 Transport, environment

Europe 2000+ 1991 Land use

The Future Development of the Common Transport Policy, White Paper

1993 Transport

The Citizens’ Network, Green Paper 1995 Transport

Towards Fair and Efficient Pricing in Transport, Green Paper

1996 Transport

On Transport and CO2 1998 Transport

LEDA FINAL REPORT

3


Area(s)

Developing the Citizens’ Network 1998 Transport

Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use, White Paper 1998 Transport

Austria Austrian Regional Planning Concept 1991 Land use

Styrian General Transport Programme 1991 Transport

Austrian General Transport Concept 1991 Transport

National Environmental Plan 1996 Environment

General Transport Concept Graz 1995 Transport

Transport Development Plan Linz 1992 Transport

Ozone Law 1992 Environment

Belgium Land use structure for Flanders 1998 Land use

Mobility plan for the city of Ghent 1996 Land use, transport

Spatial Structure for Flanders 1995 Land use

Metropolitan Transport-Plan for Brussels 1997 Transport

Land use structure for Flanders 1995 Land use

Denmark Transport Policy Action Plan 1987 Transport

The Governments Transport Action Plan 1990 Transport

Denmark on it way to year 2018 1992 Transport

Traffic 2005 1993 Transport

Germany Resolution on Transport Policy of the First Conference of all Transport, Environment and Regional Planning Ministers

1992 Transport

Federal Transport Master Plan 1992 1992 Transport

North Rhine-Westphalia Climate Report 1992 1992 Transport, environment

Regional Policy Guidance Framework 1992 Land use

Political Framework For Regional Planning 1995 Transport, land use

Transport Master Plan for the Federal State of Baden-Württemberg 1995

1995 Transport

Report on urban development 1996: Sustainable urban development

1996 Land use


Area(s)

Decision of the Federal Government on the Climate Protection Programme

1997 Environment

Ireland Sustainable Development : A Strategy for Ireland 1997 Transport

Operational Programme for Transport 1994-1999 1994 Transport

Dublin Transport Initiative-Final Report 1994 Transport

Energy efficiency in urban public transport in Ireland 1994 Transport, environment

LUAS Dublin’s proposed Light Rail System 1997 Transport

EU Structural Funds in Ireland 1997 Transport

World Class to Serve the World 1995 Transport

Citizens network 1996 Transport

Italy Decree 27 March 1998 - Sustainable mobility in urban areas

1998 Transport, environment

Instruction to draw up, to adopt and to put in practice Urban traffic Plans

1995 Transport

Legislative Decree n° 285 30 April 1992 " The New Highway Code"

1993 Transport

Legislative Decree n° 422, "Functions and tasks conferred to the Region and the Local Authorities in Urban Public Transport"

1997 Transport

Urban Traffic Plan of the city of Turin 1995 Transport

Urban Traffic Plan of the city of Bologna 1996 Transport

Methodologies for drawing up and managing Urban Traffic and Mobility Plans

1998 Transport

Decree 1994 - Attention and alarm level for pollution in urban areas


Decree 1994 - Technical rules for measuring pollution levels in urban areas


Regulation of road traffic in the highly congested areas. Urban Traffic Plans

1986 Transport

United Kingdom

Planning Policy Guidance: Transport (PPG13) 1994 Land-use, transport

Planning Policy Guidance: Town Centres and Retail Developments (PPG6)

1996 Land use

“A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone”, White Paper

1998 Transport


Area(s)

“Air Quality and Traffic Management” LAQM. G3(97) 1997 Transport, environment

Finland Action programme for reducing the adverse effects of 1996 Transport,

LEDA FINAL REPORT

5

transport to the environment environment

Habitat II – Sustainability as a challenge 1996 Environment

France The National Law on air and the rational use of energy 1997 Environment

Greece The Master Plan of Athens 1985 Transport, land use, environment

Prioritisation measures in Greece 1994 Transport

Luxem-bourg

National Plan for a Sustainable Development 1997 Transport, land use environment,

Nether-lands

Second Structure Plan for Transport and Traffic 1990 Transport

Integral Policy Line for Traffic and Transport 1998 Transport

Norway The basis For Transport Policy 1996 Transport

Regional planning and land-use policy. 1997 Land use

Portugal Ratification of the Revised Evora General Urban Plan 1993 Transport

Evora’s Integrated Transport and Parking System: Report and Characterisation of the System

1992 Transport, land-use

Lisbon’ Municipal Director Plan 1994 Land-use, transport and environment

Integrated Transport System 1998 Transport

Spain Traffic By-laws of the Municipality of Madrid 1998 Transport

Law n° 5/ 16.5.1985 of Asamblea de Madrid 1985 Transport

Law 38/1972, 22nd December, about atmospheric environment protection, et.al.

1972, et.al.

Environment

Sweden Heading for a new transport policy 1997 Transport, environment

Switzerland The future of transport in Switzerland – scenarios for the development of passenger and freight transport until 2010

1995 Transport

Step 2: country-by-country analysis of the policy documents (Activities 1.1, 1.2)

All documents were at first analysed according to 11 general characteristics. These are given in the box below.

1. Country2. Document official name 3. Author official name (institution or person, level of government, etc.)4. Year of publication5. Temporal status (draft or final, period of validity)6. Legal status (law, regulation, programme, plan, recommendation, resolution, etc., legally binding or not)7. Document length (number of pages, volumes, appendices, maps, etc.)8. Policy area(s) addressed (transport, land use, environment - air, noise, energy, etc.)9. General background information (the problems addressed, the intention behind the document, etc.)10. Brief summary of the contents 11. Explicit aims (objectives, principles) and means (strategies, measures, instruments)

Step 3: comparative analysis of the policy documents and determination of assessment criteria (Activity 1.3)

Based on the preliminary screening exercise in step 2, it was possible to gain a first synoptic view of the aims and strategies pursued in the various EU and national papers. This led straight on to the identification of the sought assessment criteria. Further on, the documents were re-screened as to their degree of fulfilment of the individual criteria.

LEDA defines a “criterion of sustainable mobility” as a policy aim or a strategy directed towards more sustainable transport patterns. For instance, the aim to reduce the need to travel would be a criterion.

The comparative analysis also allowed for the identification possible contradictions and similarities between national, regional as well as European Union policy aims and objectives.

LEDA FINAL REPORT

7


3.2.1 9 criteria of sustainable mobility

A set of 9 criteria of sustainable mobility was found by the screening exercise. These criteria are displayed in the box. For each policy document reviewed, a criteria checklist is given in Annex 1 outlining the extent the criteria are fulfilled by the document.

1. Reducing the need to travel and/ or reducing individual car usage (traffic avoidance)

A general and fundamental criterion whereby mobility management is the prime strategy. That is, a combination of primarily “soft” measures predominantly targeted at the travel demand side (as against “hard” infrastructure or command and control-type of measures).

2. Improving accessibility Improving the accessibility of places and the mobility of people, particularly the disadvantaged such as children and elderly.

3. Improving traffic safety Improving safety for transport users and the environment.4. Promoting public transport, cycling and walking

Improvement of the flexibility, availability, accessibility and attractiveness (fares, vehicles) of public transport, also making public transport affordable. Fostering non-motorised travel by foot or bicycle

5. Promoting clean technologies, reducing energy consumption

Stimulation of technology advances such as hybrid vehicles, fuel cells, new fuels, etc., introduction of transport telematics.

6. Introducing fair pricing Introduction of fair and efficient prices for transport users and operators. These should better reflect the “true” costs of transport, including external cost factors such as environmental and pollution costs.

7. Optimisation of existing infrastructure and services

Better use of facilities to reduce the need of provision for new car infrastructure.

8. Promotion of sensible urban design and land-use

Move towards more sensible land use patterns to reduce the need to travel by car and to enhance the quality of the (built) environment.

9. Direct mitigation of environmental stress and impacts

Mitigation of effects of transport such as noise, vibration, emissions, climate change, visual intrusion, community severance, etc.

All criteria of sustainable mobility are either a direct or an indirect expression of one of the following fundamental aims of transport policy:

avoidance of traffic shift of traffic towards more sustainable modes improvement of traffic and the environmental impacts

LEDA FINAL REPORT

3

3.2.2 EU and national policy documents - general trends, contradictions and similarities

This section summarises the most important findings of the analysis with a view to the identified criteria of sustainable mobility. The following summary is arranged around several headings. For reasons of simplicity and clarity, these headings do not always coincide with the criteria.

Accessibility Accessibility is a multi-faceted concept throughout all documents: it means proximity of

transport infrastructure and services, access to remote areas, as well as accessibility of places for certain user groups, particularly for children and the aged.

Accessibility as a policy goal features particularly strongly in the Commission’s two papers on the Citizens’ Network (1995, 1998). According to these documents, public transport services need to be accessible for all citizens.

In national papers, accessibility is generally used in connection with accessing public places, economic centres or work places. An important factor for measuring the competitiveness of traffic systems is accessibility, a term interpreted in different ways.

Traffic safety Across all documents reviewed, the term safety is used in a variety of meanings. This

ranges from the prevention of traffic accidents to the issue of transporting hazardous goods. The main focus of EU papers is on motorised vehicles, infrastructure and drivers’ safety. Little attention, however, is given to the weaker and most vulnerable participants in traffic such as children, elderly people, etc. By contrast, national papers give more room to the issue of safety for all traffic participants, including pedestrians and cyclists.

Pricing of transport users and operators This is obviously one of the most contentious and controversial transport policy issues.

National policy papers often point to the need of more cost effectiveness, however, their policies tend to remain rather undetermined and vague. A radical shift in pricing policy is deemed feasible only if done jointly with all other European countries.

The pricing issue stands out as a matter in which the Commission is clearly leading the way: two of the most significant recent policy documents were reviewed: the 1995 Green Paper “Towards fair and efficient pricing in Transport” and the 1998 White Paper “Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use”. Both papers acknowledge the fact that true costs of transport are not being paid for. This is because there are a number of effects (such as congestion or air pollution) that are not reflected in the price a user or operator has to pay. The uncovered costs are “externalised”, i. e. burdened on the wider public. This instance in turn leads to a distortion of the market and a non-rational consumption of scarce resources (e. g. energy, clean-air, time). It also fails to establish an overall (society-wide) optimal allocation of these resources. A gradual and progressive harmonisation of charging principles in all major commercial modes of transport is therefore put forward by the Commission.

Alternatives to car use (public transport, walking, cycling, etc.) The improvement of passenger public transport is also high on the agenda of both the

Commission’s and the national policy papers. Public transport is generally recognised as

the most promising alternative to the individual car (at least for medium and long range journeys).

While public transport is usually dealt with in the member states’ domain, the Commission has also become active to develop supportive strategies. Both the 1995 Green Paper “The Citizens’ Network” and its follow-up, the 1998 “Developing the Citizens’ Network”, strongly endorse the importance of well-functioning and efficient public transport systems throughout the Community. The key policy objectives are improvements in flexibility, availability, accessibility and attractiveness (fares, vehicles), and also to make public transport affordable. Also, the enforcement of inter-modality is a vital aim: by increasing door to door services and linking the TEN with local public transport systems. The measures to be taken extend to “hard” infrastructure, inter-modal facilities, attractive ticketing, timetables, financial (dis-)incentives (tolls, parking fees etc.), and car-restraint.

Non-motorised transport is a particularly sustainable way of travelling. This is frequently emphasised in the national papers. Measures (strategies) are discussed that promote walking and cycling, such as in Denmark and the Netherlands. By contrast, EU documents do not seem to go into much depth on these issues.

Environment and land use The Commission alongside national policy makers generally recognises the fact that

environmental and land use issues are inextricably tied up with transport and traffic, both in terms of the problems and the measures to be taken.

The improvement of urban environment is the overriding aim of the 1990 Green Paper on “The Urban Environment”. In the area of urban planning, the lines of action are principally to work out guidelines for the integration of environmental issues and the planning process. Furthermore, the guidelines for the environmental impact assessment should be applied. Less advantaged districts in the city should be linked better to other districts. In the area of urban transport, it is suggested that city authorities be encouraged to make better use of space in favour of public transport (use of space and road planning).

The 1992 Green Paper “The impact of transport on the environment” adopts as its general aim to foster and, eventually, bring about sustainable transport patterns. The Green Paper suggests numerous measures such as standardisation, measures to ensure freedom of service in traffic, true costs, research, traffic planning measures, fiscal and economic instruments. The aim is to influence the traffic users to opt for clean technologies and environment-friendly means of transport.

The 1998 White Paper “On Transport and CO2“ proposes a package of measures for the transport sector reflecting the EU’s commitment to the Kyoto target. The package encompasses improved logistics (road freight), better fuel economy and taxation (car), decrease of tariffs for rail freight, inter-modality, combined transport and logistics, increased minimum fuel tax levels, fair and efficient pricing (internalisation of external costs of transport), etc.

Traffic avoidance versus traffic improvement Broadly speaking, the documents only sparingly, if at all, mention an overall imperative

to reduce the need to travel (i. e. traffic avoidance). The papers as a rule tend to be rather vague on this issue. Only a few national papers are particularly specific about need for the reduction of trip numbers and lengths at large.

LEDA FINAL REPORT

5

While the environmental problems stemming from transport are widely acknowledged in nearly all papers, it is also stressed that transport contributes significantly to the national and regional economic prosperity. The documents are inclined not to question the levels of traffic as such (i. e. the extent of the movements of people and goods). Instead, they advocate to render transport more “sustainable”, that is, less harmful in an environmental, social and economic sense. This contrasts with the premises of traffic avoidance.

As for the European Commission, the 1993 White Paper on “The future development of the Common Transport Policy” (CTP) advocates a so-called “global approach” to the CTP respecting the concept of sustainable mobility. The close interrelationship between the internal market and the CTP is emphasised. The CTP should fulfil a number of fundamental objectives, notably to ensure the free movement of goods and persons, to strengthen economic and social cohesion throughout the Community, and to guarantee transport safety and social welfare.

The more recent EU papers highlight the importance of making better use of already existing infrastructure (road and rail), and to proceed to further building of infrastructure only where deemed necessary and appropriate. Car restrictive measures are treated with little determination but rather vaguely or reluctantly. The evident absence of such policies is offset by comprehensive commitments to improving public transport.

In Germany, Denmark and Austria, amongst a few other nations, the multiplicity of possible measures have been condensed to three major strategy strands. These are in the order of priority: traffic avoidance, modal shift and traffic improvement (meaning the “betterment” of non-transferable transport).

In other countries, such as in Italy and the most other Mediterranean ones, the focus is more on a single key criterion, notably the reduction of individual car usage in city centres. Occasionally, criteria such as public transport promotion and car restraint come under a generic term called „push and pull”.

Some national programmes explicitly call for new infrastructure as a means to meet societal and economic goals. The 1991 paper on spatial development in the Community (Europe 2000+) clearly points to the necessity of further expansion of networks and the offering of incentives to companies to locate at low-cost locations. Environmental protection is also mentioned, however, special attention is given to technical measures. The paper considers an expansion of fast traffic connections to be the most effective way to improve competitiveness. Sensible land use is of greatest importance for long term economic well being and environmental enhancement.

3.3 Conclusions

The reviewed documents cover a wide range of aspects related to transport, environment and land use policy. The survey has taken on board different types of documents: strategic papers (with no or little legal force) as well as binding regulations and laws. Moreover, the analysis looked at policy papers adopted by varied levels of government (national, regional and local). Most of the strategic papers (like programmes, resolutions) were passed at the national (and regional) levels. Local papers tend to be more specific, less programmatic but setting out more stringent rules instead. They also highlight sustainable criteria, yet they are more narrowly targeted at specific aspects.

The screening exercise reveals that more sustainable transport patterns are set as a goal in all documents. This is done in a more or less explicit manner. The aims and strategies associated with sustainable transport were grouped into nine so-called criteria of sustainable transport.

Admittedly, the headings chosen for them are arbitrary, however, they proved very workable throughout the study.

As pointed out above, the policy papers arose from varied national backgrounds. Some papers cover a particularly wide range of criteria (such as the high level comprehensive policy papers of the UK, Denmark, Austria, Germany and Italy) whereas others are rather limited in their scope.

The European Commission’s papers are mostly recent Green and White Papers. As such, they are meant to set general frameworks, outline specific strategies, as well as form the basis for further discussion. They are not legally binding documents, however, they may significantly feed into EU legislation at a later stage. In the main, the papers throw up a multiplicity of policy aspects. Most of the screened papers focus on transport issues. There are strong linkages with environmental, social and land-use (spatial) policy areas. It is evident that the Commission widely recognises the cross-sectional implications of modern transport. The promotion of more sustainable mobility patterns, although not always explicitly stated, is the common underlying theme in all transport papers.

It can be judged from the reviewed policy documents that the Commission and the policy making authorities in most of the European states are largely aware that the environmental, social and economic impacts of transport constitute a pressing problem throughout the Community. The promotion of sustainable patterns of transport is not deemed to be in contradiction with other major objectives of the European Union, notably to reinforce and develop the Common Market, and to stimulate competitiveness and economic growth at large.

LEDA FINAL REPORT

7

4. NATIONAL LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS


Chapter 4 reports on Activity 1.4. Its aim was to meet the 2nd objective of WP 1, namely to gain a general overview of the national (regional) legal and regulatory frameworks, as well as the powers and duties attached to the various levels of government in all countries covered by the LEDA project.

Activity 1.4: Screening the national and regional legal framework regarding transport issues. – This task involved a country-by-country analysis of the overall structure of government, as well as the decision-making powers and duties attached to the various levels of government regarding transport and transport-related policy areas.

The findings present some general answers to the following questions:

What measures to promote sustainable mobility are decided on (and implemented) at what level of government?

What can city governments do by themselves and what are the procedures they have to follow within their respective legal (regulatory) framework?

The outcomes of Activity 1.4 are a vital prerequisite for the transferability study in Work Package 5. The latter will examine the potential transferability of legal and regulatory measures from one country to the other. As a matter of fact, the legal and regulatory frameworks of a country determine a city’s scope for independent actions. There are obvious differences in the degree of centralisation or decentralisation regarding the competencies in urban transport matters between the countries in Europe as well as between regions in countries. The analysis was carried out for all 15 EU member states, 5 central and eastern European states (EU membership candidates), Switzerland and Norway. A differentiation was made as to the depth of the analysis. The LEDA full partner home countries (denoted as “Level I” countries) were treated in more detail than the remainder (“Level II” countries). This arrangement was deemed appropriate in order to restrict this otherwise vast array of research given the relatively tight budget and time restraints. The countries, levels and partners in charge of the analysis are listed below:

Activity 1.4 - national legal and regulatory frameworksCountry Partner in

chargeCountry Partner in

chargeLevel I countries

Austria AMOR Level II countries

Hungary VATIBelgium LV Luxembourg LVDenmark ANAS Netherlands LVGermany ILS Norway PLSIreland TLTC Poland MPK SAItaly USalerno Portugal USalernoSlovenia UI Sweden ANAS

Level II countries

Czech Republic UDI Switzerland AMORFinland PLS Slovakia STUBAFrance LV Spain USalernoGreece USalerno United

KingdomTAS

Basically, the analysis is made up of two separate tasks:

Task 1: analysis of the legal and regulatory framework of the countries

For each country (both level I and II), the general legal and regulatory framework was examined for a number of criteria. These are set out in the following box:

general characteristics of the country (population, area, other)

constitution, legal and administrative system

structure of the state, levels of government (national, regional, local), important authorities / organs and bodies)

general division of powers and duties between the various authorities / levels of government

The major outcomes of task 1 are a general overview of the various countries’ frameworks, the principal structure and levels of government (national, regional, local), as well as the underlying split of powers and duties between the levels.

Task 2: analysis of the powers and duties in transport, land use and environmental policyThis is the core task of Activity 1.4. Nine transport, environmental and land use policy areas were specified as a basis for the analysis. For each country, the various levels of government (national, regional, local) were then looked at regarding their powers and duties in each of the policy areas. This analysis was conducted in more depth in level I countries than in level II countries. In the latter case the policy areas were not itemised but treated in an integrated way with only the most important aspects pointed out.

The policy areas are listed in the following table. It is necessary to note that all policy areas may overlap in certain instances. The areas were chosen such as to ensure a sound coverage

of all topics relevant for urban transport. It is acknowledged at this stage that policy areas (1) – (3), (8) and (9) are of a more general nature, thereby having a role in all aspects of transport, whereas areas (4) – (7) are very specific and crucial to the urban realm.

Finally, it should be stressed that the analysis is not an in-depth juridical study of competence distribution patterns across most of Europe (as this would be an ample field of research in itself!). Rather, the work is intended to achieve an overall synopsis and impression of what is being decided and enforced on what level of government in a particular country. On the other hand, the analysis is designed to produce results detailed enough to serve the requirements of WP 5 (transferability).

In any case, special attention was paid to the lowest (local) level of government, as this is where city governments and authorities operate. The duties and powers of city administrations are of prime interest for the LEDA project as a whole.

Policy area Items (indicative)

(1) Road and rail infrastructure

planning, co-ordination, construction and maintenance of the road and rail infrastructure systems, etc.

(2) Road traffic and vehicle rules

rules governing road traffic, vehicle standards, driver training, road safety requirements, etc.

(3) Road transport taxes and charges

taxation, pricing, duties and other charges in association with the purchase and operation of road vehicles (vehicle, fuel and infrastructure)

(4) Public road and rail transport

organisation, financing and regulation of public transport. Includes items such as ownership, operation, level of service, fare structure, etc.

(5) Parking and traffic calming

management of parking (location, fees, time), restrictions of car-traffic as regards speed, routing, weight, time, etc.

(6) Cycling and walking measures to promote non-motorised modes of traffic

(7) Alternative transport alternative solutions and concepts, such as car sharing, car pooling, demand responsive public transport, mobility management (soft measures), etc.

(8) Land use as far as of general interest for transport, spatial planning, building rules, integration of land use and transport measures

(9) Environment as far as of general interest for transport, measures regarding air pollution minimisation and prevention, noise abatement, etc.


In the following, a summary of the most important findings is given. The findings particular relevant for local (city) governments are especially highlighted.

The legal and regulatory framework of the countries A formal constitution exists in most countries. There is some basic and fundamental

legislation setting the rules for the general division of powers and competencies between the various levels of government. The UK is a notable exception with no codified constitution in place. This means, the division of powers is enacted in normal law.

All countries have a parliamentary democracy. Some countries have the status of a constitutional monarchy (e. g. Denmark, the UK) whereas other countries are republics.

Each state has a unique structure of government. There are at least two levels of government, national and local. Most countries also have an intermediate regional level. Each level is equipped with varying legislative and (or) executive powers. In principle, three types of structure can be discerned: federal, regionalised (semi-federal), and unitary.

Federal structure: this is realised only in Austria, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland. These countries are expressly defined as a union (a federation) of “independent” smaller states. These join to build up a “federal” level of government that has genuine legislative powers. The constitution of the state entitles the federal parliaments to pass and enact their own legislation in certain set policy areas. This latter point is not the case in non-federal states. Sometimes, federal governments have total legislative and executive autonomy in certain policy areas.

Unitary structure: only the national government makes law which may be implemented and enforced at any level. These countries are essentially Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, the UK, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Luxembourg and the new EU member candidate states. Usually, unitary states have no or only poorly empowered regional governments and it is at the local and the national levels where most of the administrative duties are discharged. However, the degree of decentralisation of powers varies by state and also over time. Currently, lower-tier authorities in, for instance, France, Ireland and Portugal appear to have gained more autonomy than in other countries. In some countries, particular regions are granted exceptionally far-reaching powers delegated to them by the national level, such as in France (Corsica) and in the UK (Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland).

Regionalised structure: this is not truly federal since the state is not a federation. However, there are strong regional administrations at work. They are geared with considerable autonomy. Regions sometimes can produce law. Italy and Spain fall in this category.

In all, the structures of the various states reviewed prove to be very complex. Admittedly, the three-way categorisation is not a clear-cut one and the borders between unitary, regionalised and federal structure are arguably blurred and also changing over time.

More to this, there is a discernible trend towards regionalisation in Europe. That is, unitary states evidently have been loosing ground as a result of decentralisation (devolution) of national powers. Competencies have increasingly been delegated down to lower tiers (such as in The Netherlands and Sweden). One but not the only cause for this

may be the terms of the European Union Structural Funds (with the regional level being eligible for most of the funding only).

Contrarily, the federally structured states seem to be the most stable ones with only minor shifts of competencies occurring at present times.

Lastly, there is also a trend towards the integration of various sectional policy areas at the national level of government (for instance, the formation of the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions in the UK).

The powers and duties regarding road infrastructure construction, maintenance and financing In all states the responsibilities are shared between the various levels. Usually, there is

national legislation in place setting the framework for all types of road networks: national (usually trunk roads and motorways), regional and local. Also, lower level authorities often act on behalf of the national level as regards construction and maintenance of national roads.

National legislation is in place in all countries to regulate matters concerning rail transport. Following EU legislation, steps have been undertaken in all member countries to restructure their railway systems. This includes mainly the formal separation of infrastructure and transport service provision.

Regional road legislation is in addition enacted in the federal countries. In most cases, national law overrides regional law.

Belgium is a notable exception: the national level has no competencies whatsoever in road infrastructure matters. This is instead dealt with on the regional level.

Principally, each authority is responsible for its own road infrastructure network whereby national tax and duty revenue is allocated to the authorities in charge. Taxation is usually imposed on the national level, based on national legislation.

The Trans European Road Networks are dealt with on the national level.

Within the framework of national (sometimes also regional law), municipalities have wide responsibilities to manage their local road network. They can re-allocate road space to modes other than the car (cycling, bus priority lanes, etc.). However, in some countries (such as Belgium, the UK) upper-level regulatory and/or financial controls are discernibly tighter than in others.

The impacts of high-ranking road networks are substantial and crucial. National and regional roads run across or feed into the local network and cities are therefore widely exposed to traffic induced elsewhere. The legal and regulatory frameworks in all countries give local governments only relatively marginal powers to take influence on higher-tier road infrastructure.

The powers and duties regarding road transport taxes and charges Fuel duties and vehicle registration taxation are classical sources of revenue at the

national level in all countries. Taxation of HGVs follows different rules than taxation of cars. Each country has a more or less complex system as to how distribute its revenue between the different levels of government.

National toll roads are common in some states, such as in Italy where tolling is applied to the whole motorway network. In other countries, such as Austria, tolling is confined to certain stretches of the system whereas in some countries (like the UK) tolls are missing altogether.

Tax exemptions and (or) incentives to promote environmentally friendlier vehicle technology has been introduced in many of the member states. On the other hand, tax deductibility exists widely for travel to work by car (Austria, Germany, amongst others).

The concept of internalisation of external costs of transport is now acknowledged in many national strategic policy papers. However, this has as a rule not been translated into binding legislation as yet.

Normally, local authorities receive tax revenue from their superior (national) levels to spend on their duties regarding public transport, road infrastructure, etc. In the formerly communist countries, there is now a severe shortage of national subsidies going to local level. For instance, in Poland and Hungary no national money is allocated to the local level for public transport financing.

Local governments are in most countries entitled to impose local parking charges (UK, Austria, Netherlands, etc.). In federal countries such as Austria and Germany, this is controlled by regional level legislation.

In France, larger cities levy a tax on wages that is earmarked for public transport. In the UK, local authorities are entitled to impose local congestion charges. In Norway, local governments are entitled to introduce time-differentiated tolls. This has resulted in “peak spreading”, i.e. traffic becoming more evenly spread over the day.

In countries like Italy, Slovenia or Portugal, road pricing can be introduced on municipality level. In Sweden, charges can be set with the only purpose to regulate total passenger mileage.

Local parking fees remain with the municipalities in most cases, however, they sometimes also go to the state (e.g. Denmark).

The powers and duties regarding road traffic and vehicle rules Regulations concerning vehicle circulation, fuels and technical vehicle standards are in all

countries set at the national level.

Enforcement and control of these rules and standards are carried out on various levels, and by various authorities (such as the police). In some countries, the responsibilities coincide with the hierarchy of the road system concerned.

Express powers are in most countries given to the local level (e. g. city administration, municipalities) to make their own arrangements as to the traffic flows, speed limits, etc. in the locality. This refers, however, to the local road network. Often occurring constraints are the lack of central (regional) government funding and lengthy approval procedures (e. g. Belgium).

The powers and duties regarding public transport service In all countries, national legislation sets the overall framework for public transport service

provision (with respect to the routing, fare levels and structure, operation licensing, quality standards, etc.). Supplementary regional law is enacted in some states (such as Austria and Italy).

In countries where deregulation of public transport is advanced (notably the UK), the governing legislation is less strict and rigid, prescribing merely minimum standards and setting strategic rules.

Public transport services are offered by either publicly or privately owned operators. Public operators are a common appearance in most European countries. Italy may be taken as a prime example for mostly publicly owned companies. In the UK, where privatisation of the transport sector is almost complete, services are now usually run commercially.

In most countries, cross-subsidising is common, that is, money coming in from fuel duties or other taxation is earmarked for public transport (e.g. in Austria, Switzerland). In France, a transport tax is imposed locally within a certain perimeter around a locality. This money is devoted to finance public transport in that locality.

Local level authorities are usually responsible for planning, funding and control public transport in their own area (they are, however, bound by national (regional) law. A striking exception to this rule is Belgium where regional governments are in charge of public transport. Another exception is Ireland where no legislation is in place to give local authorities express duties and powers in this matter.

Public transport services are either run by the municipality itself or contracted out to private operators. Often, there is also a mix. Across Europe, urban public transport in larger cities has traditionally been regarded as a task incidental to the municipality.

The local authorities’ influence in public rail transport is significantly lower than in road transport.

Severe shortage of national funding for public transport is now (after 1989) a common and pressing issue in the central and eastern European countries (e. g. in Hungary and Slovakia). The formerly sprawling and well functioning networks and services are being curtailed.

Across most of the countries, there is a striking lack of region-wide co-ordinated public transport (for instance Slovenia, UK). Factors impeding regionalisation of services are found, inter alia, in the absence of a regional level authority equipped with funding capacity, and the deregulation of public transport as a whole making co-ordination more than difficult and leading to network fragmentation (as can be seen by the UK example).

The powers and duties regarding parking, traffic calming, cycling, walking The framework conditions for the policy areas such as parking provision, traffic calming,

and the promotion of non-motorised modes are enacted in national legislation. This is very often the same legislation as for the general traffic rules (see above).

In addition, national and regional government guidance and best practice advice is often in place. Little guidance exists in some states such as Italy, Greece, Slovenia or the Czech Republic.

Municipalities usually can take only little influence in private parking provision. However, they often can do so via their spatial planning powers.

Local authorities draw up their local transport plans containing strategies and measures. Usually, they have a wide range of measures at hand and considerable discretionary powers. These measures include the designation of pedestrian zones, 30 kph areas, woonerfs, cycle lanes, reallocation of road space, refinements of traffic local rules, parking management, etc.

Considerable freedom exist (at least in theory) for municipalities to set measures in their local network whereas the approval procedures tend to be more tedious for

regional and national roads. In general, the complexity and length of the planning and approval process varies widely.

There is a considerable variation discernible across the countries as to the extent the local authorities go about implementing new schemes. In some countries the legislation, approval and financial background is more favourable for local authorities (such as in Scandinavia, Germany, The Netherlands) than in others where resources and other factors impede such schemes on a wider scale (Greece, Portugal, eastern European states).

In some states, government spending is closely controlled by the central level so financial support for a scheme much depends on compliance with national standards (e. g. the UK). In Belgium, higher level approval has to be sought by municipalities to a much larger extent than elsewhere. Parking and traffic calming is not an issue in the Irish legislation so this is entirely up to the local level.

The powers and duties regarding alternative forms of transport and policy As a general Europe-wide impression, the legal and regulatory framework is lacking

substantial provisions for alternative concepts such as car sharing, demand-responsive public transport, let alone demand oriented (“soft”) mobility management measures. As a rule, all these novel approaches to stimulate less car use are given no or just marginal legal status.

In some instances, existing legislation is even counter-productive: parking spaces cannot be devoted to car sharing vehicles. This is the case under most national frameworks.

Initiatives have become popular in some countries (notably Scandinavia, UK, Benelux, Switzerland, Germany, Austria). They were, however, taken on a voluntary basis, mostly on the local level. By contrast, they are widely missing in some other countries (CEECs).

Local (sometimes regional) awareness and information campaigns are now commonplace in western and northern European countries. However, no legislation exists which would commit local authorities to launch such campaigns.

The powers and duties regarding land use and environmental policy Most states with a unitary structure have a national planning act complemented by a series

of supplementary laws and codes on specific subjects, such as building regulations, historic monument conservation, etc. In federal countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, also Spain), legislative competence in land use and environment matters also sits with the regional parliaments. In other countries (Italy, Greece, Portugal), the planning law is piecemeal consisting of numerous acts, by-laws and regulations that have accumulated over time.

All planning systems exhibit an inherent weakness as regards the integration of spatial, transport and environmental policy (e. g. stringent prescriptions as to the location of new development adjacent public transport). Moreover, building regulations often lack clear policies limiting the parking provisions attached to development, they largely fail to promote car free neighbourhoods, etc.

Generally speaking, local authorities acting within the described framework are only little successful in steering the amount of car traffic in their locality by means of land use policy.

This may be due to a number of shortcomings, some of which are: flaws inherent to the planning system (e. g. decisions taken outside their sphere of influence), too little strategic and long term thinking, that is unsound decision making, and decisions

falling outside the planning system proper (in areas such as energy, transport, minerals, housing).

A notable exception is The Netherland’s ABC planning regime. Considerable potential also lies in the powers given to local authorities under the UK planning system whereby they can enter planning agreements with the developers requiring them to attach transport solutions other the car to their scheme (such as financing public transport services).

National air quality, noise abatement and climate protection legislation are widely enacted in the European countries. All areas are of particular relevance for the transport sector. The legislation usually prescribes limits and standards to be applied to particular pollutants, as well as early warning and monitoring requirements. Laws vary according their stringency and implications. However, EU-imposed legislation has had harmonising effects.

Local authorities in most countries have to prepare plans that come into force in the event of harmful situations. The measures being taken may include the express reduction of traffic levels (e. g. in France, Austria).

Monitoring duties are sometimes discharged by the local authorities. In the UK, government support for the local councils is rather poor. In Denmark, local governments are allowed to some extent to set their own pollution standards.

4.3 CONCLUSIONSThis final section draws the preliminary conclusions from the results of the analysis. Of overriding interest is what local governments (city municipalities) in Europe can achieve in pursuit of more sustainable patterns of transport given the legal and regulatory frameworks in their respective countries. Of no less interest is what they cannot achieve, that is, where they are bound to policies and decisions made at superior levels of government. The conclusions made help draw a general picture and identify the key issues.

National, regional and local transport policy is formally required to be consistent. However, close and far-reaching co-operation of the various levels in the endeavour to promote sustainable mobility is still exceptional. Transport policy at whatever level is often lacking a multi-modal perspective. Policy tends to be sectional not integrative.

Across Europe, there is a notable imbalance concerning the engagement of municipalities in promoting more sustainable transport patters within their realm. The legal, financial and administrative powers and competencies granted to them vary greatly by country.

It should not be overlooked that in many countries “soft” national law is in place forming practical guidance for transport policy, e. g. on the way traffic calming schemes should be carried out. This can have particular implications for local level decision making, especially where government funding support is tied to the compliance with the guidance.

Very tight central government control is at work in countries such as the UK whereas, for instance, Swiss or Scandinavian communities enjoy much more “elbow room”. Viewed on a countrywide level, more effort to improve the local situation has been taken in a few states (Scandinavian states, The Netherlands, Austria, Germany and Switzerland) than in others.

Particularly difficult is the situation in the new member candidate states. In an obvious “catch-up run”, car usage is now growing at rates higher than in most EU states. This coincides with under-used, under-funded and eventually curtailed public transport facilities.

A problem particularly pressing in urban areas is the persistent deficit of regional transport integration. It appears that (sub-) regional planning (land use, transport) is still in its infancy. The situation tends to be more relaxed where cities have by statute regional authority or where cities co-operate to form a union. However, regulations are missing widely to make this mandatory.

In order to offset the absence of strong regional authorities, partnerships of municipalities have become popular in some countries. Such a quasi-regional body is set up to help tackle urban transport problems through (sub-) regional public transport, regional planning or parking policy. Effective steps in this direction have been taken in, for example, The Netherlands, France and Finland. Slovenia is planning such moves. The sticking point, however, is the amount of funds available to such a partnership to carry out its plans effectively. Other problems usually occur before the background of an often competitive relationship between local governments when it comes to gain developers’ investment.

An important conclusion is that local authorities are at their greatest discretionary autonomy when it comes to transport issues confined to their own local road network. This is not surprising yet crucial. Thus, relatively wide powers exist for municipalities to implement sound and effective measures of parking management, traffic calming, public transport, cycling and walking.

Finally, as a notable tendency, national legislation in many countries has become markedly more permissive towards local authorities. That is, city administrations have been made more potent to foster sustainable transport modes. For example, road traffic regulations have been relaxed to allow local governments more freedom to promote cycling and walking.

5. LEGAL AND REGULATORY MEASURES IN EUROPEAN CITIES

5.1 Introduction and approach

Chapter 5 deals with all Activities that were necessary to fulfil the objectives of WP 3, namely to establish an inventory of legal and regulatory measures in – at least – 40 European cities in the field of passenger transport as well as in the related areas of land use and environment.

The approach taken in WP 3 relied on a stringent set of guidelines and checklists developed in the first activity (Activity 3.1). The analytical system of work consisted of the following steps:

1. Screening of existing data to include other projects’ information on similar transport policies in European cities, strategies and measures (Activity 3.2). Using this existing data should avoid duplication of effort, provide the LEDA consortium important inputs for the investigation and give the users of the LEDA project results useful complementary information.

2. Collecting data on legal and regulatory measures in 41[Is it 40 or 41 cities?] European cities, storing them in a database and writing a report. This work process consisted of five steps:

2.1 selection of – at least – 40 European case study cities (Activity 3.3). According to the objectives of this WP, coherent and comparable data had to be collected from cities with very different political, economic, climatic and social structures. The research covers at least one city in every EU member country.

2.2 selection of measures which seemed to be worth collecting for the database. Measures had to be collected, systematised and analysed which support sustainable transport in European cities. Only measures, which conform to this common transport policy goal, and which have already been implemented have been collected.

2.3 collection of measures in the cities (Activity 3.4). During its work the LEDA consortium described the 217 different legal and regulatory measures from 41 European cities in a uniform and standardised way. This work has been done primarily by visiting the cities. But also desk research produced valuable information.

2.4 building up the database (Activity 3.5). Using the data collected - both factual and descriptive - a Microsoft Access based LEDA database featuring both quantitative and qualitative descriptions has been established. The LEDA database holds several search and navigation options.

2.5 writing a report (Activity 3.5)

3. Check on the implementation of legal and regulatory measures in the 41 case study cities in Europe. The selection of measures in the case study cities showed a big variety of measures as well as differences and similarities between the case study cities within the countries and between the countries. Therefore additional information seemed to be necessary as a condition for the selection of measures for the in-depth study in WP 4

This procedure guaranteed

the extensive usage of available information of other European projects as an input for LEDA and as complementary information for LEDA users

a broad, consistent overview of best practices and an understanding of the conditions of the cities where the measures have been implemented

consistent information on the spread of these measures over the 41 case study cities.

5.2. SCREENING OF EU PROGRAMMES AND PROJECTS OF RELEVANCE TO LEDA

5.2.1 Introduction

In LEDA Activity 3.2 of WP 3 is assigned to linkages with other European research and demonstration projects. The idea was to assess whether other European projects can be of interest for LEDA and for users of LEDA results. This interest can be on several levels:

The research and demonstration projects could be of direct interest for LEDA, i. e. some output of the project could be used as input for LEDA. Such information were of interest especially

regarding the split of competencies and the practices regarding transport, environment and land use in EU-countries, as investigated in Work package 1,

regarding the 41 case study cities and measures that have been implemented there. Information about effective and innovative legal and regulatory measures should be used in LEDA and should be available for users of LEDA results also if they have been analysed in other projects.

Of indirect interest for users of the LEDA results are projects that give complementary information next to the LEDA output, e. g. additional measures to use in urban environment to encourage sustainable mobility or legal procedures and legal aspects of measures.

5.2.2 Screening of existing project data

The consortium built up relevant links and contacts with other European projects to make sure that the knowledge being developed within EU-context and relevant for LEDA would not remain unused. It was decided to examine the programmes, which most likely would contain relevant projects:

Transport RDT Programme (DG VII);

LIFE programme (DG XI - Environment);

THERMIE programme (DG XVII - Energy);

SAVE programme (DG XVII – Energy);

COST.

Next to that European organisations such as UITP, CFC, and FEPA were also contacted for support.

Through compendia and through the CORDIS database on Internet these programmes were screened for projects with possible relevance to LEDA. The first selection of projects was based on the abstracts which the EU provides in the mentioned compendia and databases and which shortly state the main objectives of the project, the deliverables it will produce and the person to be contacted for more information.

One problem faced while screening the programmes is that the projects of more recent calls have not been brought together and listed in databases or compendia yet. Therefore it was very hard to find out if any relevant projects are among them. Contact with EU officials could not solve this lack of an overview (e.g. 3rd call Transport RTD Programme, THERMIE II).

The screening then resulted in a collection of projects which were worth being contacted because of possible affinities with LEDA. People were contacted through e-mail, fax, telephone or regular mail. Only projects where sufficient information was available and which seems to be of high interest for LEDA have been screened. They are shown below.

NAME PROGRAMME SUBJECT

ADONIS DG VII - Transport RTD-programme

analysis & development of new insight into substitution of short car trips by cycling and walking

AFFORD DG VII – Transport RTD programme

acceptability of fiscal and financial measures and organisational requirements for demand management

AIUTO DG VII - Transport RTD-programme

models and methodologies for the assessment of innovative urban transport systems and policies options

ASTI DG XI - LIFE 1 accessible sustainable transport

integration for urban mobility regulation

CAPTURE DG VII - Transport RTD-programme

cars to public transport in the urban environment

COST 332 COST transport and land-use policies

COST 616 COST Land-use planning for urban and regional air quality

ICARO DG VII - Transport RTD-programme

increasing car occupancy through innovative measures

JUPITER DG XVII - THERMIE 1 joint urban project in transport energy reduction

MOBILE DG XI - LIFE 1 rationalisation actions for urban mobility

MOMENTUM DG VII - Transport RTD-programme

mobility management for the urban environment

MOTIF DG VII - Transport RTD-programme

market orientated transport in focus

OPIUM DG VII - Transport RTD-programme

operational project for integrated urban management

PRIVILEGE DG VII - Transport RTD-programme

priority for vehicles of essential user groups in urban environments

REFLEX DG XVII - SAVE 2 reversible and flexible measures for energy saving in transportation

SESAME DG VII - Transport RTD-programme

relation between land use, behaviour patterns & travel demand

TRANSPRICE DG VII - Transport RTD-programme

Trans-modal integrated urban transport pricing for optimum modal split

WALCYNG DG VII - Transport RTD-programme

Enhance cycling and walking instead of shorter car trips

ZEUS DG XVII – THERMIE zero and low emission vehicles in urban society

On the basis of the received information (if any) the usefulness was double-checked and the relevant material was distributed among the LEDA-partners for a more thorough examination. The partners were asked to scrutinise the material and to check whether the project and/or its results could be of interest for LEDA or LEDA users. This examination was based on a set of guidelines in order to give a standard structure to this examination. The structure was the following:

- Title of the project:

Name of the project (acronym and full name).

- Nature of the project

Description of the nature of the project (R&D project, a demonstration project).

- Involved partners

List of the partners involved in the project (name and country).

- Duration and status of the project

Duration of the project and the present status (completed or not).

- Short description of the project

Main objectives of the project and the way this is being achieved (overview of work packages, work activities).

- Results and output of the project

Main results and/or output of the project.

- Relevance for LEDA

Short statement on how the project is relevant for people interested in LEDA.

- Contact address

Details on how to obtain more information.

This resulted in a number of standard descriptions of the examined projects (see overview below).

5.2.3. Screening summary results

The consortium has screened 21 projects. The main conclusions are:

The projects are of a very different nature: There are pure research projects, some projects are combined demonstration and research projects, while others only focus on demonstration without a real ‘scientific’ component.

The subject of the projects is very broad: Although the projects in a very first selection proved to be potentially interesting, it was observed that in the end the interest for LEDA users was only small. Some projects turned out to treat items

like emission free vehicles or traffic management systems. These subjects are of course of interest for sustainable mobility in urban areas, but are of primary interest for LEDA users (as defined above).

Scope of the project: The (geographical) scope of the projects is also very different. Some projects are purely local projects supported by an EU-DG (e.g. MOBILE), others are building complex partnerships in many EU-countries (e.g. MOMENTUM). The geographical scope does not however, influence the potential interest for LEDA, sometimes local, sometimes EU-level.

As to the results of the screening in relation to LEDA the following aspects can be mentioned:

A number of the 41 selected cities were involved in some (demonstration) projects: Examples are the city of Gent (OPIUM, ADONIS), the city of Heidelberg (OPIUM), the city of Copenhagen (ADONIS);

No extra-ordinary measures have been found: In the screening process no measures were detected (outside the 41 LEDA cities) that could have been of exceptional interest;

some projects treat the relation between land use and transport planning and have details about the competencies and the policies involved: The most important example is the COST 332 (Transport and Land-use policies) project;

Quite some research and demonstration projects cover other measures to use in urban environment to encourage sustainable mobility: These projects also explicitly look into either measures of a specific category (e.g. pricing measures, awareness measures, etc.) or measures for specific road users (e.g. cyclists, car-poolers). The most important examples are: CAPTURE, OPIUM, AFFORD, TRANSPRICE, MOMENTUM (on certain categories of measures) and ADONIS, PRIVILEGE and ICARO on certain types of vehicles or road users.

In the following the screened projects are roughly described as to their relation to LEDA (full details can be found in the annex of Deliverable 2).

ADONIS

The overall objective of the ADONIS project is to look into the possibilities to encourage car drivers to change to cycling and walking for short trips.

For the LEDA user ADONIS offers a kind of complementary catalogue on measures to promote cycling and walking. As the information is presented in a standard type of file, the ADONIS catalogue is of high interest. Moreover, some of the measures have a strong legal or regulatory component.

AFFORD

The general objective of the AFFORD project is to promote marginal cost pricing practices in the context of urban transport, to show that they are desirable and feasible and, in particular to show how barriers to their implementation, institutional and political, can be overcome.

AFFORD will try to find an answer on the question how the general idea of marginal cost pricing can be implemented through practical measures, and these will in general have legal and regulatory components. Other interesting aspects of this project are the transferability and implementation of the measures.

AIUTO

The main objective of the AIUTO project is to define a methodological framework and a Decision Support System (DSS) that allows decision-makers to evaluate the introduction of innovative urban transport systems and policy options, with all consequent impacts and benefit.

Even if the main objective of AIUTO is to develop a set of models and methodologies for the simulation, planning and evaluation of Transport Demand Management (TDM) measures, the project has an indirect interest for LEDA. Indeed, it can be said that the two projects are in some parts of them, complementary: in fact many of the measures, studied by AIUTO, have been screened also by LEDA. While AIUTO studies the technical effectiveness of the measures or of the related package, LEDA studies prescriptive topics focusing on enforcement requirements, organisational and legislative background.

ASTI

The administrative and legal issues surrounding the operation of gas and electric vehicles in an urban environment could be of potential interest to LEDA users, in particular the issues of compliance with vehicle construction and use regulations and planning regulations for the refuelling/recharging of vehicles in depots and at on-street points (such a recharging point for the electric minibuses was established).

CAPTURE

The main goal of CAPTURE is to evaluate the effects of implementing physical transport measures to encourage people to use public transport, walking and cycling rather than cars.

CAPTURE deals with physical measures in cities and these will in general have legal and regulatory components. Since the project also looks at implementation and transferability it will be very relevant for people interested in LEDA to know about results from CAPTURE as well.

Someone with interest in physical measures can learn about design, implementation and effects of these measures in 11 cities. Further legal and other barriers to implement the measures are described.

COST 332: Transport and Land-use policies.

COST 332 addresses the issue of coherence between transport and planning projects. It includes the influence of land use and urban patterns on the split between the modes of transport as well as the contribution of transport networks to country’s dynamics. Progress in the fields of transport economics and geography has led to a better understanding of the mechanisms and highlighted the dangers of a strictly sectoral approach.

There is a need for sectoral, regional and time-scale coherence of the administrative and planning procedures. By inventorying and analysing different approaches in European

countries the action tackles institutional, organisational and human aspects which may foster or mitigate such coherence.

This research specifically discusses the relationship between land-use and transport policies, so it is of at least indirect interest. The description of current practices in countries and regions is of direct interest to the respective LEDA partners.

COST 616: Land-use planning for urban and regional air quality

The research contributes to the knowledge necessary to assist decision makers at the regional level to make positive choices with regard to improved air quality. The aim is to develop a framework for analysing regional environmental policy, and to study how these types of methodological innovation are accepted among policy-makers.

This research is indirectly relevant to LEDA in that it specifically discusses the relationship between land-use policies, transport and the environment. Directly related, there is a discussion of the legally binding land-use policies in Switzerland. One also finds specific descriptions of sustainable transport management scenarios in London, Freiburg, Schwerin and Stockholm. A section on Brno describes the effect of street design on the built environment.

ICARO

The overall aim of ICARO is to investigate the measures and instruments that can increase car occupancy. ICARO deliverable I gives an overview of carpooling measures; these measures usually have a strong awareness component. Some others are of infrastructural nature, including HOV-lanes. The HOV-lane in Amsterdam was discontinued due to (among others) legal problems.

In this respect, the ICARO results can be of use for LEDA users, especially if they are interested in measures aimed at certain categories of road users. In the ICARO case it involves measures that increase car occupancy.

JUPITER

The overall aim of the JUPITER project is to promote the concept of the energy efficient city from the perspective of the transport sector. In concrete JUPITER demonstrates a range of integrated transport measures designed to increase the use of public transport, to reduce the use of private cars, to improve vehicle fuel efficiency, and to use alternative fuel technologies in order to reduce the consumption of fossil fuel and harmful vehicle emissions.

JUPITER is complementary to LEDA. It has only few overlaps because legal and regulatory measures are not of main interest in JUPITER. Relevant are land use and mobility patterns which are included in several demonstration projects.

MOBILE

The MOBILE project aims to decelerate the increasing trend in car-based mobility in the city of Linz (AT). It develops a mix of organisational and awareness raising measures with particular weight on the self-enhancing character of these measures.

The project is of both direct and indirect interest for LEDA. Linz is one of the selected cities for WP 3 anyway, and MOBILE measures are already contained in the inventory. Other measures do not have a strong legal component, and are of indirect relevance. They might however be of interest for LEDA users that are also interested in organisational and awareness measures; in this respect they are related to the measures that are developed under the MOMENTUM project.

MOMENTUM

Momentum is a research and demonstration project about mobility management. Mobility management introduces a number of measures that are mainly based on co-ordination, organisation, information and communication. As such the project gives an overview of possible measures. Most of these measures have only a small legal component.

However, mobility management measures are so-called ‘software’-oriented measures and could be very complementary to legal and regulatory measures. As such they could be interesting for LEDA users.

MOTIF

MOTIF focuses on the analysis and evaluation of market mechanism in the collective transport market of persons in urban areas.

The main issue of MOTIF is transport supply. Yet the project could be of interest for LEDA users as it has selected some 50 urban public transport systems as case studies. These comprise conventional bus, metro and tram systems, yet also demand oriented forms of public transport.

OPIUM

OPIUM designs technical measures in the six cities, evaluates them and develops and disseminates recommendations.

OPIUM deals primarily with technical (infrastructural) measures. To be successful they need legal and regulatory measures as well as enforcement. Thus LEDA and OPIUM both deal over a wide range with the same measure-mix, but from different points of view. For the LEDA database two measures have been described which have strong legal and regulatory aspects and are also part of OPIUM project.

The results of the OPIUM project are complementary for the LEDA users. They can get additional in depth information on a number of infrastructural measures that were implemented in the demonstration cities, as well as a short overview of possible measures in a number of categories (Deliverable 1).

PRIVILEGE

The central aim of PRIVILEGE was to contribute to the solution of traffic problems of congested areas, and in particular of congested urban areas.

The LEDA user will find complementary information on certain measures and may use the Privilege catalogue (on priority measures for certain categories of vehicles) to find additional ideas on measures for sustainable urban transport.

REFLEX

The aim of REFLEX is to make a review of previous and present research in the field of traffic demand management with emphasis on energy saving measures.

There is some interest for LEDA, as some measures are regulatory ones. These measures are non-pricing measures aimed at encouraging the use of high occupancy transport modes (public transport, car-pooling), cycling and walking. For each of these measures, there is a list of complementary measures for implementation, but it is more a draft than an in-depth assessment. The measures are not really innovative, or new.

SESAME

The aim of the SESAME project was to facilitate strategic and tactical policy decisions by improving the state of knowledge that pertains to the interactions between land-use, transport supply and travel demand.

The SESAME project is of special interest for those LEDA users who want to know more about the relationship between mobility and land-use. The LEDA case study cities of Aachen, Lyon and Strasbourg are SESAME cities as well, so additional information about land-use and transport characteristics of these three cities will be available in the SESAME database.

TRANSPRICE

The main goal of TRANSPRICE is to review and investigate the technical / financial options for integrated pricing / payment measures across modes of transport. The political acceptability of this type of measure is considered and an analytical framework established for assessing the impact on modal split.

The project is of indirect interest to LEDA. The most relevant part is Chapter 8 (5 pages) in Deliverable 1 which discusses legal and institutional issues relevant to integrated pricing systems. This discussion raises the problem of conflicts between the administrative powers and duties which exist at different levels of government.

Moreover LEDA users might want to know more about the specific and potential impacts of pricing measures. This pricing approach can be complementary to the legal/regulatory approach in encouraging sustainable travel in urban areas.

WALCYNG

The main aim of the project is to develop guidelines for enhancing walking and cycling in order to replace shorter car trips and to make the walking and cycling modes safer.

This project is of indirect interest for LEDA. A questionnaire survey was send to European cities in order to obtain information about measures to promote walking and cycling, including political measures (parking restrictions, 30 kph zones, better bus lines). These measures are not described in detail, the aim was to get an overview.

Nevertheless, WALCYNG results can be used by LEDA users to obtain complementary information on measures to enhance walking and cycling.

ZEUS

ZEUS seeks to overcome market barriers for the widespread use of zero and low emission vehicles. ZEUS is of indirect interest for LEDA. All of the 8 clean vehicle projects of ZEUS constitute interesting case studies but are as such not necessarily apt to be seen as LEDA measures since the emphasis of ZEUS is more on vehicle technology.

5.3 COLLECTING DATE FOR THE DATABASE

5.3.1 Selection of cities

The cities in the LEDA survey were selected with respect to the national differences of transport systems and to mirror the various standards and development plans for passenger transport in Europe. The most important selection criteria, which are described in detail below are: Size of cities, the macro location of the cities, the micro location of the cities, the cities economic performance and their transport capacity.

It has been important for the LEDA project to include cities of quite different size (inhabitants) in the study to be able to find appropriate new ways of organising passenger transport both in densely populated cities as well as in more sparsely populated cities.

Regarding the size of the cities selected, there is an appropriate mix of a few larger cities (Athens, Madrid, Lisbon, Copenhagen, Dublin) with more than 1m inhabitants, a large number of cities with between 1 m. and 100 000 inhabitants, while seven cities have between 100 000 and 20 000 inhabitants (Lund, Luxembourg, Hasselt, Maroussi, Lemgo, Wiener Neustadt, Evora, Zug).

Furthermore it has been of utmost importance for the LEDA project to collect knowledge about the differences between measures implemented in cities with different macro locations (centre of Europe versus the periphery of Europe) and in cities with different micro location (metropolitan area versus country side). The scale, scope and ambitions of measures in cities with different macro and micro locations seems to be quite different, thereby influencing the efficiency and effectiveness of legal and regulatory measures considerably.

There are also many socio-economic reasons, which could influence the efficiency and effectiveness of legal and regulatory measures in cities. Many of the measures studied are implemented in cities, which are located in the main business centres of Europe. Other measures occur in cities which have been included in the LEDA project in order to analyse the performance and transferability of measures in less developed areas and regions of Europe.

Finally the transport capacity of cities included in the study had an important role in selecting the measures. It was important for the study to integrate cities and measures with for instance high public transport capacity as well as cities with more scarce resources for public transport so as to understand better how (public) transport capacity determines the relevance of different measures.

For the survey of the LEDA Project it was therefore important to include as many measures from the 41 different European cities as possible. And it was important to include measures from cities, which represent:

Large cities with a high number of inhabitants who are dealing with the problems of congestion etc.

Small cities where the accessibility to the rest of the region or to larger cities is crucial

Metropolitan cities, which are dealing with peak-hour traffic and accessibility problems etc.

Cities located outside the main transport corridors in the country in more sparsely populated areas, where (public transport) connections to other areas are often important

Cities located in high growth regions as well as cities located in less favoured regions

Cities where the (public) transport capacity is very high and cities with more limited resources

The selection criteria for the 41 cities included in this survey therefore cover several continuum as illustrated in the below table.

Table 5.3.1/1: Selection criteria for the inclusion of cities in the survey

Selection criteria Continuum

Size of city

Macro Location

Micro Location

Socio-economics

Transport capacity

Large - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Small

Centre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Periphery

Metropolitan area - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Country side

HGR1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LFR2

High - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Low

Important assistance for selecting the cities, and in a few cases for helping to carry out the interviews with representatives from the cities, was given by members of the four Regional User Groups (RUGs). They kindly assisted the consortium. The long list of cities, which in the end met the selection criteria of the LEDA project, is illustrated in the table below.

Table: 5.3.1/2: Cities part of the LEDA data base

City name Country Inhabitants

Athens Greece 3 150 000

1 High Growth Regions

2 Less Favoured Regions

Madrid Spain 3 029 734

Budapest Hungary 1 886 215

Copenhagen Denmark 1 380 000

Dublin Ireland 1 180 000

Helsinki Finland 950 000

Krakow Poland 750 000

Leeds United Kingdom 727 000

Lisbon Portugal 666 390

Bremen Germany 550 000

Oslo Norway 480 000

Gothenburg Sweden 450 000

Edinburgh United Kingdom 448 850

The Hague Netherlands 444 000

Florence Italy 432 112

Bologna Italy 427 272

Lyon France 415 000

Aachen Germany 254 000

Strasbourg France 250 000

Utrecht Netherlands 234 000

Bergen Norway 223 000

Ghent Belgium 223 000

Erfurt Germany 207 000

Linz Austria 203 000

Modena Italy 171 000

Dijon France 150 000

Heidelberg Germany 132 000

Almere Netherlands 130 000

Aalborg Denmark 125 000

Bruges Belgium 116 000

Oulu Finland 113 600

Lund Sweden 92 000

Luxembourg Luxembourg 80 000

Hasselt Belgium 68 000

Maroussi Greece 64 092

Trencin Slovakia 59 000

Lemgo Germany 44 500

Wiener Neustadt Austria 42 000

Evora Portugal 34 851

Zug Switzerland 22 000

Piran Slovenia 18 000

The sample of cities covers the aforementioned continuum of structural aspects, especially size of cities, location, importance and functions of cities, different urban transport capacities, city surroundings etc. [Herbert, does this not just repeat what has already been said above?]

5.3.2 Selection of measures

In the LEDA project a measure is a well-defined, specific action (change in existing conditions, implementation of new conditions etc.) dealing with land-use, environment, transport-structure, organisation of transport, priority for public-transport, bikes and pedestrians, traffic regulations or parking regulations with the purpose of changing passenger transport in cities effectively in a sustainable way.

Only measures with the following characteristics have been taken into consideration in work package 3:

Having a legal and regulatory component

Decided and used at the local level

Influencing passenger transport effectively with distinguishable effect

In general, measures tend to have either legal or regulatory components if the specific action is to forbid or to permit a certain way of behaviour. A few examples are for instance: „Do not establish more than xx parking spaces on your own property“; „Biking permitted in opposite direction in a one-way street“; „forbidden to park cars more than x minutes in a certain area“; „only drive car on a part of a street if you have paid a toll etc.”

But also measures, which in a specific city demand an amendment to the national legal framework – or a totally new law – can have a legal and regulatory component. On this basis it has been difficult to define whether a certain measure is covered by the definition and differences have been found from country to country regarding this point. Therefore measures, which are „non-legal“ and seemingly without interest for the study in one country, may well have strong legal components in another country.

An example is car-pooling, which involves payments between the participants, as it is in conflict with the taxi-law in some countries (Denmark), but is fully legal in many other countries. In the same way general 30 kph speed zones are not permitted in Denmark (but in Sweden) and parking discs not generally possible to use in Norway (but in several other European countries).

Only measures, which the local level (the cities) can decide to use or not have been considered as relevant.

That means that measures resulting from decisions taken of or requirements from higher authorities only should be included in the inventory if the city independently can choose among several concrete measures to fulfil the national or regional decision/requirements. There are – to some extent – some exceptions: According to the contract the LEDA consortium investigates two legal and regulatory measures primarily at the national level: The French Urban Travel Plans which refer to air quality law and the Dutch ABC-system. Both measures are legal measures at the national level. Cities have – to some extent – room to manoeuvre. These measures are quite innovative and of interest for LEDA; especially the implementation at the local level.

Decentralisation from higher authorities to the local level increases the independence of the cities to chose new ways of achieving a sustainable transport system. It has therefore been of major importance for LEDA as it can give rise to new locally decided measures, for instance the possibility for local enforcement of parking regulations (Norway, Sweden), or management of the supply and use of privately owned public car parks (UK).

In the same way deregulation has been of interest for the project as it enables public/private partnerships instead of, or combined with, legal and regulatory measures. Examples are land use densities or parking norms decided in the specific case by negotiation and contracting instead of by general national or local rules.

When defining a local measure a few general rules have been followed. The main topic for measures has been to fulfil the following guidelines:

Measures which are already implemented and have been applied long enough to prove their effectiveness and innovative potentials.

In general plans have not been included as measures as it is compulsory for all cities to make the plans. However plans can be important conceptual frameworks for the inventory. An exception is the aforementioned French Urban Travel which have to be included because of the specific interest of the European Commission.

The construction of a plan has not been accepted as a measure, as a plan has no effect in itself. But a plan can consists of a number of proposals with well-defined measures, which – if implemented – will have effects on transport, land-use and environment. These measures should be part of the inventory (especially innovative measures).

General traffic rules valid in all cities in a whole country have not been included. For example general rules for minimum lane width for the different traffic modes, or priority for buses leaving bus stops.

Under the measure category „land-use“, regional and local land-use plans have only been incorporated if they contain declared objectives about sustainability and land-use policy. Furthermore the declaration must be implemented at the local level by legally binding regulations on localisation and land-use (dwelling area, office, industry, shopping centre), density, maximum height of buildings, parking norms etc. (as for example the ABC-localisation policy in the Netherlands or the localisation policy based on access to stations in Greater Copenhagen).

A measure has to influence passenger-transport effectively with distinguishable effect. It means, that commonly used single action, such as establishing a single pedestrian precinct, traffic regulations such as a few one-way streets, parking regulations such as time duration limits in a single square etc. have been analysed and described only if they are integrated parts of bigger schemes in a systematic way with the purpose of achieving sustainable transport. In this case it should be clearly indicated, that the action (measure) is part of a comprehensive scheme.

In Work Package 4 the analysis focussed on less well known measures. It is difficult beforehand to define, whether a measure is less well known or not, and this often differs from country to country. For instance is publicly owned parking companies responsible for all aspects of parking in Norway and Sweden (well known in these countries), but less well known and seldom used in Denmark. In Italy driving permit systems are used in more than 50 city-centres, but only in a few other European cities. Therefore, it has been proposed in work package 3 not to delete measures in advance, which in a specific country is regarded as well known.

5.3.3 The LEDA Database

All the detailed measure descriptions were entered in the LEDA database, which is the main output of WP 3. The database offers the possibility for the user to browse or screen the various cities as well as to search for detailed information on all the 217 measures implemented. Furthermore, detailed background information of the cities is also available, which provides sound understanding of the special context and framework conditions under which the measures are implemented.

The database is structured in two main parts: A city section, and a measure section. The city section contains information about the 41 LEDA case study cities. More specifically the city section comprises the following information:

City name

Country

Inhabitants

Area in sq. Km.

Special characteristics

Modal split

Car ownership

Number of public transport passengers

Public transport network

Length of streets

Length of soft modes network

Administrative features

Geographical features

Transport policy

Land use policy

Environmental policy

The measure section of the database contains detailed information about the measures implemented in the LEDA database. There are typically more than one measure for every city in the database. Main information is:

Measure category:

Land Use Measures

Environmental Measures

Transport and Traffic Measures with a further differentiation:

organisation of transport,

regulation of car ownership,

administrative parking regulation,

physical parking regulations,

parking road signs,

administrative traffic regulation,

physical traffic regulation, and

traffic road signs

The measure section also contains information about the following parameters, which all can be found in the LEDA database under each measure description:

characteristics - mode category, city where measure is implemented, year of implementation, current status of measure, priority of measure according to LEDA, implementor, organisation approving the measure, brief qualitative and quantitative description of measure aims and outcomes, brief description of the implementation process, involved actors, and problems and barriers.

implementation status (relative to future implementation possibilities in terms of size of city, type of measure, etc.) - wide scale, some extent, or not at all.

The database is developed in Microsoft Access (version 1997) running on a Windows platform (version 1997).

5.3.4 The database design

The illustration below shows the relationship diagram for the database structure. The relationship diagram for the database structure shows that the database contains the following tables:

Cities

Measures

City name

Measure category

Mode category

Cities

NumberCity nameCountryInhabitantsAreageographicaladministrativeCharacteristicscarPTBicycleWalkingCar ownershipPT networkPT passengersLength of streetsNetwork for soft modeTransport policyLand use policyEnvironmental policy

City name1

Name

Measure numberCity nameMeasure titleMeasure typeMeasure categoryMode categoryYear of implementationCurrent status of measureMeasure priorityImplementorApproverGrouping 1GroupingDescription 1Description 2

Measures

Measure types1

Measure type

Measure categories1

Measure category

Mode categories1

Mode category

The database offers the possibility for the users to browse or screen the various cities as well as to search for detailed information on the measures implemented in the cities.

Besides fulfilling its task of structuring and organising data and information for the more analytical work packages of the LEDA project (WP4 and WP5) with the database the consortium provides useful knowledge about best practices to the planning and research community.

5.3.5 Data in the database

The database has detailed city information on all of the 41 LEDA case study cities. A total of 217 measures have been collected for inclusion in the LEDA database. The table on the following pages list the measures currently included in the LEDA database and the city of origin.

City Measure Title

1 Aachen 30 km/h zones in all residential areas 7

Restricting traffic in city centre on Saturdays

Traffic calmed design for the main square

Residential parking permit areas

Developing bicycle priority streets

On-street bicycle lanes

Direct access bicycle routes to city centre

2 Aalborg Automated parking information system 3

Company Bicycles programme

Bus priority

3 Almere Dense network of cycling paths 3

High quality public transport with bus lanes

Improving cost coverage of high quality public transport

4 Athens License plate based traffic restrictions 4

Traffic cells

Parking policy

Bus lanes

5 Bergen Cordon pricing 5

ServiceBus: fixed route paratransit


Traffic cells

Road pricing

6 Bologna Promoting the new trolleybus and tram lines 8

On-board bus location system

VideoBus: on-call paratransit

New bicycle path network

Traffic calming devices implementation

Pedestrian areas

Parking organisation

Access-code based traffic restrictions

7 Bremen 30 km/h zones and woonerves in residential areas 8

Traffic cells in residential area near city centre

Parking regulation in city and district centres

Enlarging the bicycle network

Priority for cyclists

Parking facilities for bicycles

Speeding up public transport

House and work areas with accessibility criteria

8 Bruges Advanced stop line for bicycles 10

Special assigned areas in streets for deliveries

Bus lanes

Encouraging development near main railway station

Network of paths for bicycles and pedestrians

Two tariffs system for parking management

Introducing one way streets (traffic cells)

30 km/h zones with physical measures

Restricting lorries and coaches in city centre

Equal standards for parking places and bicycle sheds

9 Budapest Bus priority scheme in main streets 5

Traffic calmed urban boulevard

Traffic calmed ring road

Designating a pedestrian area

Capacity reducing reconstruction of primary road

10 Copenhagen Parking fees in a greater coherent area 10

Reserved parking for specific groups

Special parking permits for electric vehicles

Municipal parking control

Coherent bicycle network

Bicycle route in special quarter

City-bikes: free bicycle loan programme

PrioBus: satellite based bus prioritisation and information system

Limiting new parking spaces in city centre

Pedestrian street with slow vehicle traffic allowed

11 Den Haag ABC localisation policy: getting the business in the right place 3

ABC localisation policy: applying parking norms

ABC localisation policy: communicating and enforcing parking measures

12 Dijon Parking fee collection agent 1

13 Dublin Quality Bus Corridors (QBC) 4

Talbot Street Environmental Traffic Cell

Strategic cycle network

Vehicle clamping

14 Edinburgh 20 mph (32 km/h) zones in residential areas 8

Road pricing

Car free housing development

Green commuter plans

Car share scheme

Greenways

Central area parking control

Licensing accessible taxis

15 Erfurt Restricting traffic in city centre on Saturdays 6

30 km/h zones in city centre and residential areas


Opening pedestrian precincts to cyclists

Two-way bicycle traffic on one-way streets

Enlarge tram network and higher operation speeds

16 Evora Residential parking permit areas 6

Park+Ride

Parking pricing

Traffic cells

Pedestrian policy

Improving urban transport

17 Florence Ecological minibus network 7

PersonalBus: STS (special transport service)

PersonalBus: in low demand areas

EuroToll: integrated toll payment system

NaturBus: natural gas buses

Controlled parking zones

Tellers; PT fleet integrated management

18 Ghent Sustainable transport modes oriented city centre 7

Parking policy to discourage long term parking

Location policy for living and working

Traffic calming measures

Bus and tram priority

Direct access bicycle routes to city centre

Two tariffs system for parking management

19 Gothenburg Gothenburg Traffic Information: real-time information system 3

KomFram: real-time public transport information system

Environmental Zones: limiting diesel vehicles

20 Hasselt Restricting lorries and coaches in city centre 3

Contra-flow bus lane on ring road

Free public transport for everybody

21 Heidelberg Pedestrianising the historic city centre 11

30 km/h zones in all residential areas

Parking regulation in the city centre


Integrating parking and mobility management (Bergheim district)

Speeding up public transport

Enlarging the bicycle network

Priority for cyclists

Building or assigning bicycle parking facilities

Children's pedestrian network in residential area (Kirchheim)

Parking spaces for car sharing vehicles

22 Helsinki Payment for on-street parking 1

23 Krakow Car free zone combined with parking scheme 3

20 km/h zones with road humps

Park and Ride

24 Leeds Bus/HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes 9

City centre car parking policies

East Leeds Quality Bus Initiative

Guided bus lane

Licensing accessible taxis

20 mph (32 km/h) zones with physical measures

City centre traffic management

Safe Routes to Schools programme

Mini-bus network

25 Lemgo Implementing a new CityBus Network 7

Guidance of buses at the central station

Closing the city centre to through traffic

Bus/bicycle-only street

Residential parking in the historic city centre

Cycle roads, lanes and protection lanes

Guidance of cyclists at crossings and roundabouts

26 Linz SENIOR: button-activated, extended green light for pedestrians 7

LIBE: infra-red guided traffic light control system

Priority for cyclists at traffic lights

30 km/h zones with physical measures in residential areas


Establishing collective off-street parking for residents

Constructing and operating a bypass road (pubic/private)

27 Lisbon Road pricing 6

Parking pricing

Pedestrian policy

Park+Ride

Bus lanes

Priority for public transport at traffic lights

28 Lund Environmental Zones: limiting diesel vehicles 12

30 km/h zones in all residential areas

Regulating semi-public and private carparks

Bicycle parking enforcement

General parking tariff system

Obligation for bicycle parking in future developments

Pedestrian precinct in city centre

Priority for ServiceBus at traffic lights

Reserved parking for deliveries


Traffic cells

Limiting new parking spaces in city centre

29 Luxembourg Limiting 'social displacement' and gentrification in city centre 8

Parking policy to discourage commuter traffic

Parking privilege for residents

Park and ride

Parking supply according to demand and priorities

Ticketing agreement for public transport

Loading and unloading zones

Closing the city centre to through traffic

30 Lyon Coherence between traffic and urban planning 3

Reducing the number of private parking places


31 Madrid Bus/HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lane in an urban corridor 7

CVC: computerised car pool matching service

Employer trip reduction plans

Bus lanes

Parking control operation

Pedestrian zones

Regulation of loading and unloading operation

32 Maroussi Traffic calming programme 4

Parking meters

Free public transport (mini-bus) network

Land use control

33 Modena Upgrading the public transport network 3

Taxis as public transport night service

Traffic calming devices implementation

34 Oslo Cordon pricing 1

35 Oulu Separate network for bicycles and pedestrians 9

Bicycle traffic development programme

Private bus company

Private company managing on- & off-street parking

Dedicated parking enforcement agents

Substituting kerbside parking with multi-storey carparks

40 km/h zones in residential areas

Bus/taxi lanes

Traffic calmed (20 km/h) residential areas

36 Piran Comprehensive and integrated traffic calming 1

37 Strasbourg Delivering purchases to Park+Ride facilities 2

New traffic plan

38 Trencin Designating a pedestrian area 1

39 Utrecht High quality public transport as a prerequisite for new buildings 4

Alternative financing of public transport

Easy accessibility of public transport facilities

Discouraging car use at new housing locations

40 Wiener Neustadt Bus routes with public transport priority sign 3

Step-wise implementation of traffic calming

Parking spaces for car sharing vehicles

41 Zug Priority for buses at traffic lights 5

Bus lanes on all primary access roads to the city

Bi-directional bus lane on a primary access road

30 km/h zones in residential areas

Traffic calming in the historic city centre

5.4 SPREAD OF MEASURES AND COMPONENTS

5.4.1 Objectives and procedure

In WP 3 the LEDA partners had to collect relevant information on legal and regulatory measures in cities in a broad sense. According to the guidelines the researching LEDA partner together with the city representatives chose the measures for the database. The database shows that whether a measure is interesting for the database differed from city to city. This means e. g. if a measure is not described for a city it is – maybe – nevertheless implemented there. The database alone does not provide an overview of the implementation of the measures in all the 41 European cities. This overview seemed to be necessary as a basis for the selection of measures for the in-depth study in WP 4.

Therefore the LEDA consortium decided to check the implementation of the database measures in the 41 cities. A checklist of various measures encountered in the LEDA database was elaborated. Each city was asked to evaluate the measures on the checklist based on the extent to which they are used in their city.

Thus for every city a list of measures is provided with information on whether the specific measures are implemented, implemented to some extent or not implemented at all:

Status Score

Not implemented 1

Implemented to some extent 2

Implemented on a wide scale 3

For the checklist analysis a statistical scoring system was used to determine the usage of the various measures. The system used assigns the values („scores“) illustrated in the above table.

This scoring system enables a comparison between various groups of measures to be made, even though the number of measures in the group is not the same. For the various sub groups of measures the total score is calculated based on the sum of all scores divided by the number of measures in the sub group.

The following section will sum up the results of the more detailed analysis of the checklists, to provide an indication of which measures are used in cities across Europe. The analysis will sum up the results with respect to measure types, mode categories, regions and city sizes.

5.4.2 Results

General overview

The table below provides a general overview of the use of measures reported for all 41 LEDA cities. The rows do not necessarily sum up to 41 because certain rows were left blank by some of the respondents. Blanks are interpreted as unknown, rather than not implemented.

1 PEDESTRIAN None Some Wide

1.1 Infrastructure

1.1.1 pedestrian precinct in city centre 11 25

1.1.2 pedestrian precinct in district centres 8 18 9

1.1.3 obligation for future pedestrian shortcuts 18 6 8

1.2 Pedestrian Prioritisation

1.2.1 all pedestrian phase 19 7 2

1.2.2 extended pedestrian phase 18 11 3

2 BICYCLES None Some Wide

2.1 Bicycle Networks

2.1.1 bicycle path 7 13 14

2.1.2 dedicated bicycle lane 14 17 7

2.1.3 bicycle priority street (cycle road) 21 10 3

2.1.4 contra-flow bicycle traffic 14 7 13

2.1.5 shared bus/bike lane 18 12 4

2.1.6 cycling in pedestrian precinct 6 15 12

2.1.7 obligation for future bicycle shortcuts 18 5 8

2.2 High Quality Bicycle Networks

2.2.1 direct access bicycle path 14 16 2

2.2.2 signed bicycle route 8 15 8

2.3 Bicycle Prioritisation

2.3.1 bicycle provisions at intersection 14 12 5

2.3.2 bicycle priority at traffic light 20 7 6

2.3.3 recessed vehicle stop bar 12 17 2

2.4 Bicycle Parking Facilities

2.4.1 set aside bicycle parking 8 11 11

2.4.2 on street bicycle parking 18 11 5

2.4.3 nearby indoor bicycle parking 19 7 7

2.4.4 obligation for future indoor bicycle parking in housing

19 5 8

2.4.5 obligation for future indoor parking at shopping centres and work sites

19 7 5

2.5 Bicycle Parking Enforcement

2.5.1 bicycle parking enforcement 26 4

3 PUBLIC TRANSPORT None Some Wide

3.1 Dedicated Space For Public Transport

3.1.1 dedicated bus lane 8 18 13

3.1.2 peak hour, dedicated bus lane (tidal flow) 21 9 5

3.1.3 contra-flow bus traffic 17 15 3

3.1.4 contra-flow bus lane 22 12 2

3.1.5 shared tram/bus lane 24 7 3

3.1.6 separated bus or tram street 19 11 2

3.1.7 transit shortcuts 16 11 6

3.2 Public Transport Prioritisation 1 1 1

3.2.1 transit priority at traffic light 11 12 16

3.3 Financial Support

3.3.1 free public transit 28 6 2

3.4 Quality Bus Corridors

3.4.1 smart bus corridor 15 11 3

4 MOTOR VEHICLES None Some Wide

4.1 Parking Regulation in City Centres and District Centres

4.1.1 short term parking 8 9 17

4.1.2 paid parking 12 9 16

4.1.3 short term, paid parking 15 5 17

4.2 Residential Parking

4.2.1 residential parking permit area 6 12 16

4.2.2 reduced/free residential parking fee 13 9 12

4.2.3 public/private parking garage 22 17 2

4.3 Target Group Parking

4.3.1 reserved car sharing parking 28 5 2

4.3.2 reserved car pool parking 25 8 4

4.3.3 reserved electric vehicle parking 27 4 6

4.3.4 reserved target group parking 15 15 9

4.3.5 reserved parking for deliveries 8 14 12

4.4 Parking Enforcement

4.4.1 private parking enforcement 25 4 4

4.4.2 dedicated parking enforcement 8 7 18

4.4.3 double parking tariffs 25 10

4.4.4 vehicle clamping 25 6 6

4.5 General Parking Requirements

4.5.1 reduced parking requirement 17 14 5

4.5.2 maximum parking requirement 14 7 12

4.5.3 maximum parking in an area 19 10 11

4.5.4 off- for on street parking exchange 12 19 5

4.6 Traffic Calming

4.6.1 single street speed limit 8 19 9

4.6.2 area wide low speed zone 7 13 15

4.6.3 traffic calming on main roads 14 16 5

4.6.4 woonerf (living street) 12 15 7

4.7 Traffic Access Management

4.7.1 physical access restriction 13 18 8

4.7.2 traffic cells 9 15 9

4.7.3 access management 17 13 10

4.7.4 access pricing 28 2 2

4.7.5 road pricing 28 4 2

4.7.6 HOV only access 28 4

4.7.7 HOV only lane 22 6 2

5 COMPREHENSIVE

5.1 Intermodality

5.1.1 bike and ride 8 9 11

5.1.2 park and ride 5 14 11

5.1.3 free transit during parking time 24 4 1

Which measures are widely used

The table below shows the quartile of measures that are most widely used. In determining how widely used a measure is the statistical scoring system has been used.

Measures most widely used None Some Wide

1.1.1 pedestrian precinct in city centre 11 25

4.2.1 residential parking permit area 6 12 17

4.4.2 dedicated parking enforcement 8 8 17

4.6.2 area wide low speed zone 7 13 16

2.1.1 bicycle path 6 14 13

4.1.1 short term parking 8 9 16

2.1.6 cycling in pedestrian precinct 6 14 12

5.1.2 park and ride 5 15 10

3.2.1 transit priority at traffic light 10 12 16

4.3.5 reserved parking for deliveries 8 14 13

4.1.2 paid parking 12 8 16

5.1.1 bike and ride 8 8 11

3.1.1 dedicated bus lane 8 18 12

2.4.1 set aside bicycle parking 8 10 11

4.1.3 short term, paid parking 14 5 16

1.1.2 pedestrian precinct in district centres 8 17 9

4.6.1 single street speed limit 8 18 9

Which measures are rarely used

The table below shows the quartile of measures that are most rarely used. Here, the definition of rarely used is measures, were cities responded that they were not implemented at all. As it has not been possible to identify the reasons for blank rows they have not been included in the analysis.

Measures rarely used None Some Wide

4.7.6 HOV only access 29 4

2.5.1 bicycle parking enforcement 28 4

4.7.4 access pricing 28 2 2

5.1.3 free transit during parking time 24 4 1

4.7.5 road pricing 28 5 2

4.3.1 reserved car sharing parking 28 6 2

3.3.1 free public transit 27 6 2

4.7.7 HOV only lane 23 6 2

1.2.1 all pedestrian phase 19 6 2

4.4.1 private parking enforcement 24 4 4

3.1.5 shared tram/bus lane 23 7 3

4.3.2 reserved car pool parking 25 8 4

3.1.4 contra-flow bus lane 23 12 2

4.3.3 reserved electric vehicle parking 27 4 6

3.1.6 separated bus or tram street 19 11 2

2.1.3 bicycle priority street (cycle road) 20 10 3

4.2.3 public/private parking garage 22 16 2

Overview by mode

The measures on the checklist have been divided into five overall mode categories:

Pedestrian, bicycle, public transport, motor vehicles, comprehensive.

The chart below shows how widespread measures within each mode category are. The scores on the vertical axis illustrate the average statistical score for each mode.

The pedestrian measures included are spread very well over the cities, followed by comprehensive measures directed to more than one mode and motor vehicles measures. Clear lower scores are assigned to bicycle measures and public transport measures. This means that these measures are less commonly used. This is – on the other hand – a hint for new or not well known measures or for innovations in this field.

1,55

1,6

1,65

1,7

1,75

1,8

1,85

1,9

Pede

stria

nm

easu

res

Bicy

cle

mea

sure

s

Publ

ictra

nspo

rtm

easu

res

Mot

orve

hicl

esm

easu

res

Com

preh

ensi

vem

easu

res

6. 20 „LESS WELL-KNOWN BUT EFFECTIVE“ MEASURES: IN-DEPTH STUDY RESULTS

6.1. Introduction, methodology and scope

The work of WP 4 dealt with the selection and the study of 20 “less well known but effective” measures coming from the WP3 database. Main steps of this work concerned the:

selecting of measures and cities for the in-depth study (Activity 4.1)

decision on the information needs to fulfil the objectives of the investigation and the elaboration of a questionnaire for adequate data collection (Activity 4.2)

collection and study of the information obtained and the analysis of the results (Activity 4.3)

intensive discussion amongst the partners during a Management Committee and writing a report

The selection of the measures was a crucial step because the Technical Annex of the contract with the European Commission demands the investigation of “less well known but effective” measures. Moreover additional objectives like a spread of measures had to be included. To meet these demands the LEDA consortium used the knowledge given by the database, the information on the spread of measures and recognised a variety of elements such as

location (meant as different area size of implementation, both in geographical and in extension terms)

achieved goals

related policies

acceptance (meant as public approval)

overall European area distribution

The European Commission and the Regional User Groups were also involved in the decision process, so in the end measures were selected that reflect the European panorama about legal and regulatory measures and are interesting as best practice examples to be transferred to other countries.

N° Partner Measure City Country

1 DITS Increasing accessibility Lisbon Portugal

2 DITS Parking policy Evora Portugal

3 DITS Traffic calming measures Bologna Italy

4 LV Shared bus/bike lane Ghent Belgium

5 LV Parking charge system Ghent Belgium

6 LV Global parking policy Luxembourg Luxembourg

7 PLS Access pricing Oslo Norway

8 PLS/ANAS Environmental zones Lund Sweden

9 ILS Bicycle priority street (cycle road) Lemgo Germany

10 ILS Limited access to the

city centre

Erfurt Germany

11 TLTC Quality bus corridors Dublin Ireland

12 AMOR Bi-directional bus lane Zug Switzerland

13 AMOR Car sharing parking space Wiener Neustadt Austria

14 NEA ABC location policy The Hague Netherlands

15 NEA “Getting the business in the right place”

The Hague Netherlands

16 CERTU Transport levy on companies Strasbourg France

17 CERTU Air quality legislation Lyon France

18 ANAS Pedestrian streets Copenhagen Denmark

19 TAS Accessible taxis Edinburgh UK

20 VATI Bus priority scheme Budapest Hungary

According to the geographical point of view, the distribution is as follows,

the north-west Europe area dealt with 11 measures

the Scandinavian area dealt with 3 measures

the Mediterranean area dealt with 3 measures

the alpine and eastern area dealt with 3 measures

Moreover, the selection can be seen as divided according to the following measure packages:

Public transport (6) Shared bus/bike lane in Ghent

Quality bus corridors in Dublin

Bi-directional bus lane in Zug

Transport levy on companies in Strasbourg

Bus priority scheme in Budapest

Accessible taxis in Edinburgh

Accessibility regulations (5) Increasing accessibility in Lisbon

Traffic calming measures in Bologna

Access pricing in Oslo

Environmental zones in Lund

Limited access to the city centre in Erfurt

Parking Policies (4) Parking policy in Evora

Parking charge system in Ghent

Global parking policy in Luxembourg

Car sharing parking space in Wiener Neustadt

Land use and ABC location policy in The Hague

environment (3) “Getting the business...” in The Hague

Air quality legislation in Lyon

Cycling and Bicycle priority street in Lemgo

walking (2) Pedestrian streets in Copenhagen

These measures are also interesting not only for the aforementioned quantitative and qualitative aspects: of course, besides the reasons related to the LEDA choices, some other elements could play an important role in the choice, and these can be summarised briefly:

all of them can be considered successful measures (the short description of each one of them in the next paragraph contributes to giving an idea of it) in terms of results achieved, as will be further analysed;

each measure represents a “best example” in the related country not only for that single domain (for instance “parking” or “pricing”), but also in the whole field of traffic management of the cities where the measures are implemented. This also explains why most of the measures selected are very complex ones, and according to this, really worth being studied;

each measure can be seen as an attempt to act on the urban context in a very innovative way, often involving more components.

6.2. A short description of the 20 measures

Here follows a short description of each measure, containing basic information about the context, the implementation, the goals and the reasons for success.

Increasing Accessibility - Lisbon - Portugal

The city of Lisbon expanded considerably between 1970 and 1990. The Lisbon Urban Master Plan and the Master Plan of the Lisbon Area, dating from the end of the sixties, had become ineffective in the absence of a co-ordinating authority. This led to ad hoc expansion outside the city limits. The city’s chaotic growth and the absence of efficient public transport combined with increasing motorization (reflecting both economic improvements and a reaction to the previous difficulties) caused even more traffic chaos and severe traffic congestion. In 1989 the City of Lisbon established a so-called ‘Master Urban Plan’ to solve these problems and to transform Lisbon into ‘a truly Atlantic capital’.

The objectives of this plan are:

to upgrade the (public) transport network through:

the expansion of the subway network;

the construction of a railway crossing the Tagus river;

the refurbishment and modernisation of the tram network;

the construction of a transport interchange between different modes and the creation of parking facilities;

the promotion and stimulation of water transport;

the closure of two ring roads.

to improve the land use structure through:

the conservation and regeneration of the city centre to upgrade and maintain the mix of activities;

the construction of new residential areas, at reasonable prices, including good public transport infrastructure;

the regeneration of the west side of the city along the riverside, including the creation of pedestrian areas and new land use patterns;

the regeneration of the east side: redeveloping former wasteland and industrial areas into high quality residential zones with new facilities such as shopping and leisure services;

the creation of traffic cells and a pedestrian sidewalk along the riverside;

good access to public transport, e. g. intermodal stations;

the linking of new commercial areas with old residential areas.

Public involvement, good information and commitment from a wide range of partners were key elements in the planning and implementation process. The restoration of so many parts of the city has had a positive effect on the city as a whole. It is clear that the habitability and the traffic conditions have improved. The whole regeneration process has also contributed to a more positive city image.

Parking Policy - Evora - Portugal

Evora is the main urban and cultural centre of the Alentejo region. To conserve its cultural heritage, the city has implemented an integrated parking and traffic system called ‘SITE’.

The main goals of ‘SITE’ are:

to reorganise and control traffic and parking;

to improve public transport;

to improve environmental conditions in the city;

to promote the rational use of energy.

These goals were translated into a mix of measures with the following main elements:

parking charges inside the city walls (except for residents);

traffic cells in the city centre;

adequate supply of free parking on the outskirts of the city walls;

improvement of the public transport network with new bus routes and new vehicles;

co-ordination of city services (including public transport) at both a geographic and an organisational level;

new ring roads outside the city walls;

replacement of traffic light controlled crossings by mini roundabouts.

This ‘global’ approach was new in Portugal and became a real success. The ‘SITE’ policy was easy to implement because the City had already adopted a municipal master plan and a general land use plan in 1981, which had set a number of strategic goals regarding land use and transport.

Other important success factors are:

a professional communication and information campaign;

changes to the road network before the implementation of parking charges;

a common concern amongst the public and elected representatives to protect the cultural heritage;

the role of the Urban Transport Service in the implementation and planning of the traffic calming policy (co-operation between public and private bodies);

the role of the municipal enterprise that managed the whole of ‘SITE’ (co-operation between public and private bodies).

The ‘SITE’ policy is a good basis for taking further measures to improve the quality of life in the city centre. It shows how smaller cities can solve traffic problems in their centres.

Traffic Calming Measures - Bologna - Italy

For years, mobility has been one of the core policy themes for the city of Bologna. Bologna planned the City General Urban Traffic Plan (PGTU) in 1993. The introduction of traffic calming measures in the city centre is one of the main elements of this plan. The traffic calming measures consist of:

area-wide low speed zones;

remodelling main roads to give more space to alternative modes;

dedicated bus lanes;

upgrading the general urban environment.

Bologna was one of the first cities in Italy to implement traffic calming measures. The main goals were to:

discourage car traffic in the city centre;

increase the accessibility of the city centre for sustainable transport modes;

enhance the quality of life in and the regeneration of the city centre.

A specific process was established to involve the public, including the provision of a forum for local residents' associations. A lot of information activities such as public meetings and special exhibitions took place, and promotional material, such as leaflets and posters, was distributed.

The focus on public participation was one of the key elements in the success of the whole PGTU and the traffic calming measures. It was clear that the residents of Bologna were really concerned about the quality of the urban space and environment. Another very important success factor in the whole process was the synergy between the individual components of the traffic calming policy and the PGTU as a whole. It is significant that the entire process was undertaken by the city and the local public transport company. No approval was required from higher authorities to implement the PGTU. The combination of traffic calming measures with alternatives to car traffic, such as public transport and the creation of a cycle network, have made the scheme even more effective and successful.

Shared Bus/Bike Lane - Ghent - Belgium

The shared bus/bike lane is an important means of providing a free flow of traffic for buses and cyclists. This can encourage public transport and cycling. The measure was implemented around a square at the southern edge of the city centre of Ghent: the city library, the city administration and a shopping centre are located here and the square is also a tram/bus interchange point. In order to speed up public transport, the city considered the construction of a contra flow bus lane in a street leading to this square. This street, however, was also an important part of the bicycle network. Therefore it was necessary to allow cyclists to use this street as well, even on a bus lane in contra flow.

This measure was implemented as part of the overall Ghent South project which started in 1992. Promotion, information provision and public involvement were organised as part of this project. The public made no objections to the implementation of a bus lane used by bicycles. The planning, implementation, enforcement and monitoring did not cause any problems.

The shared bus/bike lane became a success thanks to the co-operation between city departments such as the Mobility and the Urban Development

Department, the public parking company of the city, the public transport company ‘De Lijn’, the Flemish Ministry of Infrastructure and the National Ministry of Transport. Acceptance by the public and the ease of enforcement also contributed to the measure’s success. The measure does not cause any traffic safety problems. On the contrary, safety has improved for cyclists, compared to the situation before the implementation of the lane.

The City of Ghent introduced similar bus lanes used by bicycles in some other streets in 1997 when the mobility plan for the inner city was carried out. Today the measure plays an important part in enhancing cycling and the use of public transport in the city.

Parking Charge System - Ghent - Belgium

The City of Ghent has had a system of parking charges via mechanical parking meters since the sixties. The fines resulting from violation of the parking regulations were collected for the federal state. This situation caused problems with parking enforcement. There was no reason or incentive for the City to enforce parking regulation, since it did not receive the revenues.

In 1987 the City of Kortrijk was the first Belgian city to implement a two tariff parking regulation. Shortly thereafter, the City of Ghent introduced the same measure. The scheme comprises two ways of charging: people can either park their car for maximum two hours paying 1 Euro per hour. The second option is not to pay in advance. One will then receive an invoice of 9.3 Euro for 4 hours. This administrative charge has to be paid within 5 days. When people ignore this invoice, the Ministry of Justice can force them to pay through legal procedures (criminal law). 28 % choose for the second and more expensive option.

The initial reasoning behind this measure was that:

quality of life and good access can only be guaranteed by restricting parking duration;

charging for parking is the only efficient means of restricting parking duration;

a new taxation system is required to compensate for the costs incurred in implementing the new parking system;

the potential to earn small parking fees is reasonably cost effective;

a parking control system does not work without effective control; the hit ratio must be high enough.

The City of Ghent has its own parking company which is primarily responsible for the planning, implementation and monitoring of this measure. The parking company works closely together with the mobility department and the City police. The City of Ghent has also implemented a consultative body, called VERO (Traffic and Land use Planning), consisting

of the city departments involved, the Flemish public transport company ‘De Lijn’ and the Flemish Administration. VERO is a very important means of enhancing commitment and co-operation between all the bodies involved in traffic and land use.

Improved enforcement is the most important advantage of the two tariff parking system. The City has a dedicated staff team for controlling the parking regulations. The staff are employees of the City police. The global parking and mobility policy aims to improve the quality of life in, and the sustainability of the city centre. The parking enforcement policy is a very important factor in achieving these aims.

Global Parking Policy - City Of Luxembourg - Grand Duchy Of Luxembourg

The parking policy in Luxembourg consists of a set of measures:

parking privileges for residents through residential parking licenses;

park and ride facilities at several locations around the city, with a capacity of more than 4000 parking places which are fully used;

managing the supply of parking to meet specific demands and priorities (commuters, residents, shoppers, etc.) through the introduction of parking zones with different restrictions depending on local parking pressures;

a parking policy that discourages commuter traffic.

The aim of this policy is to:

discourage long term parking in the city centre;

discourage commuter parking in residential areas;

discourage car use in the city centre without actually banning car traffic;

introduce efficient parking management through a clear system of parking zones with different parking regimes adapted to specific districts.

The most important reasons for the success of this parking policy are:

a good balance between the different push (parking restrictions) and pull (park and ride) measures;

the fact that the park and ride system offers commuters a real alternative by means of a network of park and ride sites and frequent bus services to the city centre;

close co-operation between the National Ministry of Transport and the Municipal Urban Traffic Department (which is primarily responsible for the planning and the implementation of the global parking policy in Luxembourg);

rapid implementation of a set of strict planning norms for private companies in the city.

The combination of these measures, their large scale implementation throughout the city and the way they have been adapted to match different situations in different city areas, make this policy a success without any negative impact on the city’s economic activity.

Access Pricing - Oslo - Norway

In the early eighties a comprehensive debate was taking place in Oslo as to how car traffic in the city centre could be reduced and how new roads could be constructed. There was significant support for the concept of making road users pay. Different methods of payment were considered: petrol tax, a local toll ring for the Oslo tunnel, increased parking charges, etc.

The main reasons for the introduction of the toll ring system were:

unsatisfactory traffic flow with significant delays for all traffic;

relatively low availability of public finance for transportation in the Oslo Region. This was due to the national policy of giving priority to the provinces and a comparatively poor public economy in Oslo (at a municipal and regional level);

local environmental problems with traffic hold-ups and pressure on local streets and residential roads.

Access pricing was set up to reduce car/vehicle traffic in the city. Its revenues will be used to finance future urban road construction. The revenues are collected by a company owned by the municipalities of Oslo and Akershus. The system comprises nineteen toll plazas at a distance of three to eight kilometres from the city centre. It is impossible to pass a toll plaza in the direction of the city without paying.

An important reason for the introduction of access pricing was the need to raise money to upgrade the main road system to an acceptable level. This ambition is underlined by the fact that toll ring plazas are to be removed when a certain number of new infrastructure projects (mainly tunnels) are completed by the year 2003-2007. Everything indicates, however, that beyond the year 2007 there will also be a significant demand for infrastructure investment. More than likely, this will give rise to ideas of reconstructing or maintaining the existing toll ring. The introduction of more extensive 'road pricing' and 'traffic management' seems very probable.

One can conclude that the toll ring has a positive effect on the environment in the city centre because there is less traffic. A year after implementation, the number of cars passing through toll ring plazas had decreased by 10 %. However, it remains the case that the most important reason for access pricing is financial. The overall income has exceeded 80 million Euro per year whilst operational expenditure only comes to 11 % of this. The main barrier to making the measure a real success is that from the beginning the

main focus has been on collecting revenues for new roads rather than on reducing car traffic, improving public transport or improving environmental conditions.

Environmental Zones - Lund - Sweden

The City of Lund was the fourth city in Sweden to implement a so-called ‘environmental zone’ in the city centre. In such a zone, entry is restricted to vehicles which meet certain environmental standards. So far the measure has only addressed heavy vehicles. The vehicle must always be maintained to meet the environmental standards.

In Lund diesel lorries and buses weighing at least 3.5 t are only permitted to drive in the inner city, if they belong to at least environmental class 3. After 2001 only environmental class 1-vehicles will be allowed. A licence to drive in the restriction area must be shown by a vignette on the windscreen.

The aim of the measure is to protect particularly sensitive areas in the central part of the city, which are affected by pollution and noise from traffic. The measure also encourages general use of more environmentally friendly vehicles and stimulates their technical development. The environmental zones also protect the cultural heritage of the city centre.

Although it was the city council that initiated this measure, approval was still required from the county council and the road directorate. The police are responsible for enforcement, and this is done within existing manpower. Public acceptance of the environmental zones is high. The Carriers Organisation can understand the purpose of the zones but would rather be without them.

The measure is quite new in Lund, but results from three other Swedish cities are positive. Total emissions in the zones were reduced by 10 % in the first year. There was also a slight reduction in noise levels, despite an overall increase in traffic. 95 % of the lorries and all buses complied with the measure. The environmental zones can be particularly successful when they are accompanied by other measures such as traffic cells (circulation plan making through traffic impossible: to enter a new city area, car drivers are always directed out of the centre and forced to take the ring road), bicycle routes, pedestrian streets, active parking policies and the improvement of public transport. Environmental zones can be important in any transport plan for the promotion of a more sustainable city centre. In Sweden, the law would need to be changed to extend environmental zones to cover cars.

Bicycle Priority Street (Cycle Road) - Lemgo - Germany

Lemgo is a medium-sized city which has established a bicycle priority street connecting four schools. The street forms an important link between other cycle lanes in the city. In general, only cyclists are allowed to use this street. However, other users (cars, trucks) can have access to the street because this

is permitted by an additional traffic sign. Cyclists have priority and may ride side by side. Those cars and trucks must yield to cyclists at all times. A regulatory “cycle road” sign is placed at the beginning of the street.

The bicycle priority street is 0.8 km long and consists of three blocks, each with a different name. Trees have been planted in the roadbed to narrow the street.

The bicycle priority street in Lemgo is a simple example of a legal measure aiming to contribute to a safer, more convenient, efficient and sustainable mobility system and urban environment. It seeks to provide a safer and more comprehensive network for cyclists, in an area where cycling is far more efficient than driving a car.

Lemgo did not only develop the cycle road but also dedicated cycle lanes, cycle priority lanes (other transport modes allowed), localised cycle lanes at junctions and roundabouts, 30 km/h speed limit zones, and city centre bicycle parking facilities. On main roads, measures were taken to physically separate cyclists from other traffic.

Approximately 120 cyclists per hour use the street on winter mornings; many of them are students. The modal split has changed in favour of more sustainable transport modes, especially cycling.

Limited Access To The City Centre - Erfurt - Germany

In 1991, the City of Erfurt began the process of achieving a traffic calmed city centre by closing the roads for individual motorised traffic. Initially, this was done on the four Saturdays before Christmas. The Chamber of Commerce reacted positively to this initiative and in 1992 the City decided to ban motorised traffic every first Saturday in the month. In 1993 the measure was extended to every Saturday.

The simple goal is to increase the attractiveness of the historic city centre of Erfurt by decreasing the number of cars.

Factors contributing to the success of this far-reaching measure include:

the combination of traffic calming in the historic city centre with a number of multi-storey car parks outside the inner city, jointly reducing the number of cars searching for parking spaces in the centre;

a good public transport network with modern and comfortable equipment;

the ability of the city to implement this measure within its own powers;

the participation of the Chamber of Commerce;

a rapid implementation (9 weeks) thanks to the co-operation and enthusiasm of all institutions involved.

The measure has resulted in a 90 % decrease in car traffic in the city centre on Saturdays. It is thus very effective. The (cost) effectiveness could be increased if public acceptance became so high that guarding the entrances of the streets leading to the centre would no longer be necessary.

Quality Bus Corridors - Dublin - Ireland

The implementation of Quality Bus Corridors (QBCs) is one of the key elements in the Dublin Transportation Initiative, a strategy and set of initiatives designed to:

change the modal split, especially with regard to commuting trips;

achieve improvements in all vehicular traffic movements;

provide safe conditions for cyclists and pedestrians.

The overall aim is to enable the increased use of public transport modes, cycling and walking.

Each QBC comprises:

a direct high frequency bus service operated by stylish, comfortable, environmentally friendly buses;

high quality shelters at most stops, with seats and real-time information;

improved lane markings, using different coloured surfaces, kerb alignments and traffic signals;

restrictions on parking and turning movements;

bus priority measures, including ‘bus gates’ to enable buses to go straight on from a left turn only lane at a junction and bypass traffic lights, which hold back other traffic.

Dublin Corporation and Dublin Bus, supported by the Dublin Transportation Office, played a key role in the successful implementation of the measure. The public consultation process and the involvement of a wide range of agencies ensured effective delivery of the Initiative’s planning and implementation stages. These stages involved:

design and construction of the various features of the QBCs covering lights, parking, junction layout alterations, traffic signals;

the identification of key radial routes based on passenger volumes;

the introduction of new brands (City Swift and Xpresso) for the bus operation;

construction of new bus shelters;

training the driving staff in customer care.

The main conditions for the success have been the commitment of the responsible partners, public involvement and acceptance and last but not least, the positive results. The main results of the measure have been the increase in bus speeds thereby reducing journey times for the passengers, and the shift in modal split from car to bus.

Bi-Directional Bus Lane - Zug - Switzerland

The bi-directional bus lane consists of a central bus lane and two bike lanes. It was introduced on a main access road which was suffering from peak hour congestion. Buses, in particular, were delayed during the rush hours. The bus lane is a tidal flow lane in which the direction of the traffic flow can be changed at different times of the day to match the direction of travel during periods of peak demand. Traffic signals allow buses to use the middle lane (i. e. the bus lane) safely. It is much easier now for buses to stick to the timetables, especially during rush hours. At the same time, new segregated cycle tracks were built, allowing cyclists to use car-free parallel routes on both sides of the street.

The aim of the bi-directional bus lane is primarily to accelerate bus traffic into and out of the city centre. Alongside that, the measure also contributes to a more positive image of public transport.

The measure was approved by decree by the Chief Transport Officer. The Canton and City authorities set up a joint task force to implement the measure. The local population was consulted and kept fully informed.

The measure was very successful both in terms of planning and implementation, and as regards its impact. The redesign of the streets benefited not only bus traffic, but also cycling. The new traffic signals at some adjacent junctions also had a positive effect on car traffic flow, with the consequent benefit of reducing the burden on residents living along the street. The bus and cycling infrastructure has become more attractive and is used more than before. This measure can serve as a model of good urban transport planning.

Car Sharing Parking Space - Wiener Neustadt - Austria

The City of Wiener Neustadt has established an on-street parking area for car-sharing vehicles that belong to a private car-sharing company. In Great Britain the term car sharing is a synonym for car-pooling. In continental Europe and in this context, however, 'car sharing' is used to define a system of people using various cars belonging to a car-sharing organisation. The 'sharing' of the car simply means different people using the same car, at different time intervals. Car sharing can be (and perhaps often is) solo driving.

The aim of the scheme in Wiener Neustadt is to promote car sharing as an alternative to individual car use and indirectly to reduce the CO² emission

levels in the city. The city is setting a positive example through this measure by dedicating public road space exclusively to car-sharing vehicles.

The federal police and the local road administration were consulted beforehand and the chief officer of the municipal department of transport gave his approval for the implementation of the measure (1997). This was necessary to enable installation of the road markings, traffic signs and all other equipment. The local police are responsible for enforcement and safety control. To enhance car sharing, the municipality granted 110 Euro to each of the first 12 new members of the car-sharing company to cover their first year registration fee.

The parking space for car-sharing vehicles has proven to be successful despite its small-scale implementation (only one space has been designated), and can be seen as an innovative example in Austria and beyond. Public acceptance was very high although awareness levels were not. The measure is cost effective, and this effectiveness can only increase when the measure is implemented on a larger scale. Intense promotional activities could increase car-sharing membership in the future. This could then enable the introduction of the measure on a larger scale.

ABC Location Policy - The Hague - The Netherlands

The ABC location policy in the Netherlands is a good example of a traffic and transport related land-use measure for companies and services. The most concrete aspect of the ABC location policy is its obligatory parking standards for companies. Designation of a city zone as ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ defines the maximum number of parking places allowed:

an A-location is a location with high quality public transport and limited car access (1 parking place for every 10 employees);

a B-location is a location with good public transport and good car accessibility (1 parking place for every 5 employees);

a C-location is a location where little public transport is available and where more parking places are allowed (1 place for 2 employees).

Under current legislation on land-use policy, it is up to the local authorities to designate the A, B and C zones in their area. The ability to grant planning permission enables municipalities to enforce this regulation. The City of The Hague has chosen a relatively large area to be an “A-location”. This area is situated around the two main railway stations ‘Centraal Station’ and ‘Hollands Spoor’.

The measure aims to:

limit private car use;

regulate the availability of parking places;

improve city access and limit car traffic, especially within the inner city;

increase the awareness of both citizens and companies that congestion is a joint problem.

The Hague is a city with a relatively high demand for office space, an increasing zone where parking charges apply and an accessibility problem. Given these facts, the ABC location policy has been successfully introduced here. As a result of the ABC policy, companies show an increasing interest in being located near public transport facilities. Public transport plays an important role, since it offers employees an alternative mode of travel to work and the parking standards encourage companies to think about mobility management.

Getting The Business In The Right Place - The Hague - The Netherlands

‘Getting the business in the right place’ focuses on lateral aspects of the ABC location policy, in particular the co-operation between cities and the transport links between offices and newly established neighbourhoods.

The overall aim of this measure is to:

integrate environmental and accessibility considerations within spatial planning policy;

increase public transport market share and car decrease dependence for home-to-work journeys by matching the accessibility profile of a location with its public transport provision.

‘Getting the business in the right place’ concentrates on the optimisation of land use, relative to public transport supply and the demand for car use. Planning improvements should result in increased use of public transport and fewer car journeys. The measure has general relevance for urban development, especially for the construction of new offices and housing. Here, the ABC location policy is really important because it directly influences the provision of parking and the accessibility of offices by public transport.

In implementing the measure, special attention is paid to the accessibility of the so-called VINEX locations (new neighbourhoods). A very interesting aspect is that public transport provision actively expands in parallel with the development of the new area and its population growth. Sometimes this is extended to cover commercial development locations. This ensures that residents will use public transport facilities from the outset. In order that the necessary infrastructure can be built in advance, and that public transport operators can be funded to supply a full service in VINEX locations that are still only partly inhabited, it makes sense to integrate the costs within the cost of the houses. This means that buyers will have to pay higher prices for houses, but in return they will get high quality public transport. In addition they could receive free public transport tickets following the introduction of the measure. The system of partly financing public transport through new housing has not been put into practice yet.

Making this measure a success requires real commitment from a lot of partners. The co-operation between the municipality (land use planning powers), the sub-region Haaglanden (co-ordinator of the transport and traffic policy) and the province (approval of land use plans) seems to work out well. The role of the developer and of the public transport operator is equally important. Public participation and good information provision are two further key elements in ‘getting the business in the right place’.

Transport Levy On Companies - Strasbourg - France

The ‘Versement Transport’ is a specific tax imposed by law to subsidise the improvement and development of public transport. The Versement Transport comprises a percentage of the salaries paid by all companies with more than 9 employees. For large cities like Strasbourg, with more than 100 000 inhabitants, there are two maximum rates: 1 % and 1.75 %. The 1.75 % rate applies to cities where public transport has exclusive rights of way such as a tram network or a metro network. Exceptionally, the maximum tax rate in the Paris region is 2.20 %. In the case of Strasbourg, the Versement Transport was introduced in January 1974, and the rate was raised from 1 % to 1.75 % in January 1992, in order to finance the new tramlines.

The ‘Versement Transport’ had its origins in a report of the National Assembly in 1973 (the Valleix report) which stated that a good transport policy is a major element of urban development. This report also stated that public transport facilities provide benefits to private companies and identified the necessity to finance these facilities. The ‘Destrade’ report (accepted by the Parliament in 1982) made the Versement Transport obligatory and gave it a new orientation. It was extended to medium-sized cities to develop the main urban areas, to save energy, and to provide good travel conditions for commuters. The main innovation was that local transport authorities could now decide for themselves whether the money collected had to go into new investment or towards operating costs.

Today, the Versement Transport has two main objectives:

giving local authorities a financing capacity for improving their public transport networks, without resorting to state subvention or additional loans;

enabling local authorities to reduce their operating deficits, by transferring financing from their general budgets to this tax on salaries.

The BREEF report (1994) states that the Versement Transport does not have a significant effect on labour costs, nor on company location. It also has a very limited taxation impact (less than 1 % of the overall French tax burden). It is clear that this tax levy on companies is a very powerful tool for financing and developing public transport in France. The Versement Transport has been introduced in more than 85 % of urban areas with more than 20 000 inhabitants. Almost 40 % of the costs of public transport in France are financed by this measure.

Air Quality Legislation - Lyon - France

The national law on air and the rational use of energy (called Air Quality Legislation) was introduced in France in December 1996. This decree sets air quality standards, value limits that trigger warnings and the absolute value limits. At a regional level, the Prefect develops a regional air quality plan. For large conurbations (ca. 250 000 inhabitants) the Prefect is also responsible for setting up a plan to protect the quality of the atmosphere.

Cities with more than 100 000 inhabitants are obliged to make an urban travel plan (plan de déplacement urbain or PDU). The power to develop a PDU was created in 1982 legislation covering the organisation of local transport; PDUs were made mandatory in the 1996 Air Quality Legislation. The PDU translates the national air quality legislation at an urban level. It seeks to ensure a balance between mobility needs and access to facilities on the one hand, and the protection of the environment and of public health on the other. The PDU aims for a co-ordinated use of all transport modes, especially through appropriate usage of the road network and through the promotion of less polluting and less energy consuming means of transport.

The PDU of Lyon (the first PDU approved in France) is both a technical and a political document. It sets out the strategy for the development of transport modes, in conjunction with the master plan for the development of the metropolitan area. The PDU is also a guideline for co-operative actions between all the communities of the Lyon region. The aims of this PDU are:

to establish a global strategy for urban travel consistent with urban development (the key element for achieving this goal is the creation of two new tram lines, north-south and east-west);

an improved modal split, with priority for sustainable modes (public transport, cycling, walking);

good accessibility to the whole city for every citizen (following the principle of geographical equity).

Many elements of the PDU were really new:

the large scale public participation process;

the formulation of a set of quantitative assessment criteria (number of accidents, number of parking places close to public transport infrastructure, modal split figures, etc.);

wide scale co-operation in the organisation of land use and transport planning;

use of a set of scenarios (trend scenario, public transport scenario and soft mode scenario).

These elements contribute to a quite positive initial general evaluation of the PDU. The Lyon PDU is the first to follow the new air quality law

framework, with quantified objectives for a reduction of pollution and a change to the modal split. It is clear that the PDU is not only a mobility plan, but is more comprehensive, covering transport, urban planning, and land use planning.

Pedestrian Streets - Copenhagen - Denmark

The City of Copenhagen has a long history of city centre pedestrian streets. The first pedestrian street (‘Strøget’) was established in 1962. In 1989, Copenhagen City Council decided to implement a new type of street: ‘the pedestrian priority street’. This street, called ‘Strædet’, runs parallel with the famous main pedestrian street ‘Strøget’.

A pedestrian priority street has the appearance of a regular pedestrian street, but allows slow moving traffic (15 km/h) and cycling. In Denmark, such a street is called a ‘seep’ street. When ‘Strædet’ was implemented, its legal status was similar to a ‘play street’, but a new national law has made it possible to create pedestrian streets where driving is permitted. The street in Copenhagen is 460 m long and 8 to 11 m wide. The concept has also been applied to main streets in some smaller towns and suburbs.

The objectives are:

to reduce inconvenience from traffic vibration, noise and pollution especially from buses;

to create more attractive and harmonised streets;

to create peaceful streets, which are not typical pedestrian streets, because they aim to keep the special atmosphere of small antique shops, second hand bookshops, etc. Often the rent in traditional pedestrian streets goes up which makes it difficult for these kinds of shop to stay there.

The reconstruction of ‘Strædet’ has been a big success. It has created a new quality of life and a unique atmosphere for the street. Old shops are still in place, new small shops and outdoor cafés have opened and the traffic is quite limited. The mix of traffic only creates a few problems. A survey of street users shows general satisfaction with the change. Nevertheless, there are some problems with lorries delivering goods, because they park illegally and thus block the rest of the traffic. Cyclists riding against the one-way direction are another problem. All in all, however, the concept is so successful that it will probably be extended to other streets in the central area.

Accessible Taxis - Edinburgh - United Kingdom

The City of Edinburgh Council is the licensing authority for taxis and private hire cars. The City can determine the quality and quantity of the vehicles to be licensed. The licensing of accessible taxis by the city

contributes to the general policy for improving transport options for disabled people, which originated with the former Regional Council. The approach taken in Edinburgh has now been adopted for UK-wide regulations made under the national ‘Disability Discrimination Act 1995’. These require that from January 2002, any newly licensed taxis must be accessible to wheelchair users, and from January 2012, all taxis must be wheelchair accessible.

This measure also is an integral part of the City Council’s ‘Moving Forward Transportation Policy’. This policy seeks to promote improved accessibility of transport for all groups in society whilst encouraging the development and use of more environmentally sustainable transport modes in the city. Making taxis more accessible for disabled people fits closely with a whole range of transport accessibility measures.

Taxis have benefited from changes made to traffic priorities in 1996. For example, taxis are allowed to use the new ‘Greenways’ network of road lanes. This network is being progressively phased in across the city, linking the suburbs to the city centre and granting traffic priorities to buses, cyclists and taxis. Taxi use is increasing across all groups in the population.

The key ingredients that made accessible taxi licensing a success in Edinburgh were:

a vibrant taxi trade in the city, with a good history of vehicle investment and of delivering service quality;

a strong local political will to improve access to transport for disabled people;

an active disability sector with a history of strong partnership with the City Council and direct engagement with the taxi trade;

legal powers to set local taxi licensing conditions;

good consultation with taxi operators and key user groups at all phases of the policy implementation;

positive involvement of all stakeholders at all stages of the project;

active enforcement procedures carried out by the police;

a concessionary fares scheme for disabled people using taxis;

the importance of taxis in a wider package of measures to promote more sustainable transport use in the city and to improve the accessibility opportunities for all groups in the community.

The measure was relatively easy to introduce, as UK taxi legislation permits local authorities to set local conditions for taxis.

Bus Priority Scheme - Budapest - Hungary

The decreasing reliability, attractiveness and share of public transport and the increasing share of the private car is one of today's main transport problems in eastern European cities such as Budapest, Prague and Warsaw. To provide faster and more reliable bus and tram services, priority measures have been introduced in Budapest. In 1995 the municipality of Budapest approved a 4-year programme of public transport priority measures.

The bus priority scheme comprises a number of related measures:

new modern buses (including minibuses);

a network of high quality bus stops (new seats, etc.);

bus priority measures, including ‘bus gates’ enabling buses to go straight on from a right turn only lane at a junction, bypass traffic lights (holding back other traffic), privileged left turn arrangements in areas with congestion;

restrictions on parking and turning movements by cars;

improvements to road markings and traffic signs.

The main objectives of the scheme are:

to facilitate the provision of a faster and more reliable bus service (there is no source of finance for increasing the frequency of the services);

to create better, more comfortable conditions for public transport passengers;

to improve the general level of service, e. g. by improving the mobility of disabled people through adapted facilities;

to improve road safety.

Co-operation between the Budapest Transport Company (planner and initiator of the measure), the Budapest municipality, the district councils, the transport authority and the police were a prerequisite to the success of the scheme. Consultation with, and participation by, a wide range of agencies ensured that the planning and implementation stages were effective. The implementation of the bus priority scheme has resulted in a decrease in the bus journey time of 5 to 7 minutes during peak hours. The speed of public transport is higher now than the speed of car traffic. The bus priority scheme is a low cost and very efficient measure.


6.3.1 - Analyses of the 20 measures

Starting with data from the 20 synthesis reports (output from WP4) it was possible to elaborate upon the new information, which emerged directly from the 20 surveys. The most important attempt was to understand if the results presented similarities or differences among the measures. This led to reviewing all reports in order to check common or different aspects in every question asked , allowing the division of results into two main categories: specific and common aspects.

Specific features according to the 6 categories of scheme are reported on below:

Public Transport

in: Zug, Dublin, Budapest, Ghent, Edinburgh and Strasbourg

All these measures were aimed at creating special ‘space’ for public or non-motorised modes in the traffic flow; expected goals were different: on one hand a more comfortable service for public transport, on the other hand the reduction in car usage. To the first case belonged the measures of Dublin and Budapest: special dedicated lanes, contra flow, transit priority at traffic lights were their common features. The common aim was to create a more comfortable, faster, more frequent and more reliable bus service. Results in terms of efficiency, environmental improvements, reliability of both measures are easy to imagine. The differences between the two measures could be put down to their different contexts of application, local and legal backgrounds. Moreover, the Dublin measure showed an interesting component: the shared bus/bike lane sind die nicht getrennt? Beide, sie sind getrennt und auch nebeneinander siehe Beschreibung. This component was also present in the Ghent measure, and a particular feature could be considered the implementation process with the related difficulties in creating mixed bus/bike lanes, because regulations forbade cyclists on bus lanes. This required new rules.

The Zug measure can be really considered as an attempt to overcome traffic problems by the design of a bus lane to be used in both directions. Elimination of delays and improvement of public transport were the most important outcomes.

The French measure deserves special attention because this kind of problem was dealt with in quite a different way. Indeed, the measure of the ‘transport payment’ was aimed at reducing private car usage very indirectly, supporting, as the main issue, the public transport operation. The problem is that this kind of support is currently obtained by a general private mandatory payment for all the firms with more than 9 employees, so this cannot be considered a traditional measure, as all the others above mentioned, that acts directly on infrastructures, or on vehicles or on land use plans and so on. This measure can be seen as a political, financing device, at national scale, to support public

transport. So outcomes could be evaluated in terms of global benefits, or achieved goals, without referring to a single city. From this point of view, no comparison could be made to the other, more ‘local’ measures selected. Moreover, this measure was also different from the national Dutch measures because, in that case special attention was paid to both to global and local aspects, while here the measure structure was completely independent from any local situation. Its global feature explains also why public participation was not required at all. Anyway, it must be clear that the lack of differentiated fields of application is not a negative matter, because such legal-financing measure must be applied in every kind of situation, without special local legal involvement. Its nationwide application guarantees also very good transferability possibilities.

A special aspect of public transport is related to the meeting of accessibility by special users, such as for instance wheelchair users. The case of Edinburgh demonstrated that ‘special’ requirements can also be offered in terms of quality of life. Quality of life means fully meeting the requirements for all kind of users. This can be obtained by the implementation of legal issues that protect people from special problems, such as the environmental ones, or by trying to safeguard requirements of people who are usually not allowed to express their opinions on these topics, i. e. the vulnerable and impaired users. The effort for making all taxis accessible for the wheelchair users was a very important measure. This was the only one of this kind in the list of the 20 selected measures and the relevant aspects was that while municipalities normally try to forbid cars, in Edinburgh these have been used to fulfil the accessibility requirements of impaired people.

Accessibility regulations

in: Erfurt, Oslo, Lund, Bologna, Lisbon

The main goal of this group of measures was to re-balance the accessibility conditions by controlling the use of cars. In the case of traffic calming, restrictions were applied to road infrastructures, in the case of limited access, restrictions were applied to vehicles. The first case can be successfully applied to high density residential areas, in which the use of cars cannot be completely removed, as the experience of Bologna demonstrated. A wider, more integrated and homogeneous case (in terms of modes of transport involved and of parking planning) is that from Lisbon. The second kind of interventions could be planned according to different nuances: overall restrictions for given time periods (Erfurt), overall restrictions involving financing issues (Oslo), overall restriction for environmentally dangerous vehicles (Lund). The measure from Erfurt was maybe the most popular kind of restriction because it takes place on Saturday, when commuters or workers shifts are less. What might happen if the measure was implemented on working days, too? The Oslo experience led to consider how pricing could be useful and always up to date. The Lund measure was very interesting because it is very active in terms of environmental safeguards, paying special attention to selected sources of problems, such as lorries. The implementation process and the related barriers can provide useful knowledge for the application of other eco-friendly measures.

Parking policies

in: Evora, Ghent, Luxembourg, Wiener Neustadt

The main common feature of all these measures was to dedicate a certain number of parking lots to given categories of users, according to a differentiated scheme based on given priorities; these were: discourage long term parking in central areas, allocate dwellers an appropriate amount of parking places, avoid commuters parking in residential areas.

Luxembourg represents a scheme of wider parking policy implementation aimed at managing and solving existing negative features due to bad habits. The Luxembourg case study is the application of all the priorities previously mentioned. The approach consisted of fully exploiting all available parking lots, in the creation of a system of parking zones, in the definition of parking privilege to dwellers in residential areas, and finally in the promotion and improvement of the use of public transport by the introduction of park and ride facilities.

The Evora parking system - SITE - has the same goals of the two measures mentioned above, but in this case the origin of this measure was due not only to traffic problems but also to the need to preserve the city’s historical centre (the area within the wall is considered World Heritage by UNESCO) and of improving environmental conditions. The very particular features of the ancient streets (46% of them are about 3.5 m wide) were in this case the real reason that new parking rules were imposed in synergy with the parking requirements of residents. So it can be said that in the case of Evora, the urban pattern rather than traffic led to the implementation of the new parking scheme. It must be stressed anyway that traffic conditions before the SITE plan were not sustainable for the city at all.

The postponed parking tariff in Ghent can be considered as a pricing application of an overall parking policy, so it must be considered as different from the previous three measures. Here, the very targeted objective was to find a way to make people pay for parking, discouraging long term parking and guaranteeing parking revenues. The problem that many people still prefer to pay more highlights how important ease of use is in spite of there being less space available in urban areas. Very different, much more local, but more suitable to the built environment is the measure from Wiener Neustadt. This can be defined as a ‘micro – change’ in land use obtained by a new parking regulation, but very appropriate in terms of creating possibilities to support the reduction in car use.

Land use and environment

in The Hague and Lyon

The Hague experience showed the importance of the integrated approach to the management of mobility and land development matters. The two measures were very complex, so here it is not useful to synthesise them. Anyway, both measures stress the importance of planning suitable patterns of mobility for every kind of land use. Moreover, an appropriate mobility

scheme is able to eliminate unwanted, massive use of private cars and to promote environmentally safe modes of transport. Of course, both measures can be more successfully implemented in future settlements, while their application in older ones could cause problems, because of their global approach. It must also be stressed that the case study of The Hague can be considered the most rational effort to manage parking schemes in existing and in future situations. The mechanism to assign a given number of parking lots related to the kind of land use, of on-the-spot activities, to strictly relate business location to different conditions of private cars and public transport access, to lay out accessibility profiles seems to be very hard to transfer in consolidated urban contexts, for solving urgent parking problems. Anyway, the measure is particularly important because it described a multidisciplinary approach to all the matters that influence the long term management of urban parking (land use - public transport provision - demand for car use).

The measure about the air quality law and especially about the Urban Master Plan, starts from the principle of reducing car use in all urban areas, but in this case with different goals: for instance, development of soft modes (cycling and walking), management of parking and of goods delivery, incentives for car pooling. Of course, this allows not only the consideration of financial aspects, but also to co-ordinate different competencies, bodies and activities, by a process that involves agreements among public authorities, transport companies, infrastructure developers and managers. The efforts of such co-ordinated activities must be evaluated in terms of environmental safety achieved, both from the point of view of pollution reduction and from the point of view of urban accident rate reduction. This is a very positive factor, because this was the only measure whose application can be expressed by quality of life indicators: road safety, noise and air pollution reduction, urban space, accessibility equity.

Cycling and Walking

in Copenhagen, Lemgo

These two measures can be considered two aspects of the same expectation: to regain spaces for non motorised travel modes from those used by cars. Copenhagen has a long tradition of pedestrianisation, but notwithstanding this, public acceptance can be considered the real obstacle. The bicycle priority street in Lemgo is an interesting attempt to create special paths for non motorised users; the idea of linking five schools by a cycle route, in which cyclists have priority on the full length of the path is very interesting. An attractive feature is the use of planting as a traffic calming measure to create narrower carriageways. This can be considered a specially targeted measure as it mainly favours students.

6.3.2 Common aspects and problems of the 20 measures

Common aspects related to features that were present in all measures,

independently of the nature and kind of measure itself, whereas specific characteristics concerned aspects that belong only to a few categories of measure. It must be stressed that, for each measure, the word ‘common’ does not mean the ‘same’ characteristics, for instance in terms of implementation, legal aspects or promotion and so on, but a very similar way to approach the problems that every measure presented; anyway, similarities in some aspects have also been identified.

Common aspects were various and interesting, concerning most of the important topics that were to be reviewed. They can be divided into evaluation features (concerned with expectations, aims, assessments) and practical aspects (concerned with implementation procedures, bodies, legal aspects and so on).

Evaluation features

On the basis of the information obtained some trends in the legal and regulatory management of sustainable transport in cities can be outlined. The main origin of each measure selected was due, directly or indirectly, to traffic problems alone with no relation to the urban pattern in which the implementation process took place. This means that the characteristics of the cities had no specific influence. Of course, some of the measures selected have national influence. Anyway, it is worth highlighting traffic related issues in termsof the application of the 20 measures, from the point of view of the implementation process. From this point of view, the measures surveyed can be divided into two categories: traffic related measures such as measures whose implementation was mainly due to an attempt to solve traffic problems, selecting special categories of application. These are ‘parking regulations’, ‘dedicated lanes for public or non-motorised modes’, ‘traffic calming’, ‘limiting access by private vehicles’. In some cases measures from more than one category might be of interest, but it is clear that each municipality, confronted by traffic problems, preferred to select mainly one approach, concentrating all its effort on it.

Measures indirectly related to traffic were somewhat harder to define. These were measures which had no real origin in traffic problems, but they were related to ‘prevention’ or ‘regulation’ for related matters. Here, areas of application were not so clearly defined, but it is appropriate to identify ‘urban land use policies’ and ‘quality of life’. Measures related to ‘Urban land use policies’ were aimed at preventing traffic problems through the application of stringent regulations on urban land use, emanating from both the national level and the local one. In all case studies the favourite ‘sub-category’ of implementation was ‘parking’. ‘Quality of life’ measures were specifically targeted so as to enhance the importance of meeting special requirements such as a cleaner environment or to meet the needs of vulnerable users.

A common feature of both categories was ‘pricing’: almost half of the list was composed of measures that required payment. So, pricing measures seem to be a useful tool for fighting non sustainable traffic habits such as unregulated or illegal parking, through-traffic, indiscriminate access. A very important matter resulting from the survey of all the measures was that from

one initial input a number of outputs resulted. This means that suitable intervention on infrastructure, such as new parking regulations or special conditions on access, especially targeted at solving the negative effects of traffic, was able to start the process of urban renewal, in which better quality of life, lower pollution levels and an increase in the use of non motorised modes are among the most evident effects.

Looking at the aforementioned categories, ‘parking’, ‘dedicated lanes for public or non-motorised modes’ ‘traffic calming’, ‘limiting access by private vehicles’, it can be noted that these could not be considered as ‘less well known but effective’ measures, because they are based on policies and devices already implemented worldwide. Anyway it must be stressed that they acquire a special value due to the inputs and influences coming from the context of their application.

These statements can be also seen in the analysis of the overall outcomes related to every measure, but another important factor can be highlighted: as has been already stated, measures were mainly implemented to solve traffic, then parking and pollution problems, and finally social or development problems.

A description of the overall outcomes (by category) can be reported as follows:

Measure City Overall

Outcomes

traffic control

Parking

pollution

decrease

Accessibility

land use more use

of public transport

less use

of private

cars

Increasing accessibility

Lisbon

Parking policy Evora

Traffic calming measures

Bologna

Shared bus/bike lane

Ghent

Parking charge system

Ghent

Parking policy Luxembourg

Access pricing Oslo

Environmental Zones

Lund

Bicycle priority street (cycle road)

Lemgo

Limited access to the city centre

Erfurt

Quality bus corridor

Dublin

Bi-directional bus lane

Zug

Car sharing parking space

Wiener Neustadt

ABC location policy

The Hague

“Getting the business in the right place”

The Hague

Transport levy on companies

Strasbourg

Air Quality legislation

Lyon

Pedestrian street Copenhagen

Accessible taxis Edinburgh

Bus priority scheme

Budapest

The description of each measure in relation to the implementation process, according to its different phases was very important. In this case additional knowledge could be obtained in terms of planning, implementation, enforcement and monitoring aspects and on which bodies were involved. Based on the premise that the implementor was nearly always the municipality, the main results were as follows:

Planning phase can be due both to public and to private initiatives; the latter, nearly always being consultant activities; there were also cases in which the planning activities were carried out by the municipality alone; in this phase, special approval was sometimes required from higher administrative levels (e.g. national level) were.

Implementation phase was run mainly by various departments of a municipality, depending upon their own areas of responsibility. They had the responsibility for ordering equipment and services, carrying out technical activities, ‘building’ the measure, managing resources and providing information. The most commonly involved bodies were: departments of transport, of traffic, of buildings, of planning or environment.

Enforcement phase was carried out mainly by the city police and it consisted basically of levying fines on users who do not comply with

regulations. Normally, these activities are part of police regular duties, so no extra resources are required.

Monitoring phase was normally an implementor task. So if the implementor was the municipality, the monitoring activities are carried out by administrative bodies. If the implementor was a private company it would be its own responsibility.

The difference between the various kinds of participant in the process was also an important feature of this study. Different actors emerged, generally the same bodies with the same tasks, though sometimes particular bodies with special local duties. This was very significant because it stressed the importance of multidisciplinary competencies in every urban action. It is also worth noting that private participation was not so common, and its main role was based on consultant activities, nearly always carrying out feasibility studies during the planning phase.

Another important outcome was the evidence of public participation in every process, but mainly in the planning and implementation aspects. Public involvement in enforcement or monitoring actions was quite rare. Anyway, participation by users in the building (i. e. planning and implementation) phases is a common practice for many years and in many countries, and this was also demonstrated by the various legal obligations at national level. Public participation in enforcement activities should be considered by the implementors, but this would also mean the construction of new concepts of awareness and responsibility in the users. The final point to analyse was the importance of establishing good implementation procedures. According to the various reports from the partners the measures selected did not need other measures to support their success, nor other bodies to help in achieving success . As the measures selected were generally pure legal and regulatory ones, it was also very interesting to observe the different problems arising from their implementation. Obstacles emerging from contrasting legal aspects could be solved in different ways, depending on the relative amount of legislative power that every municipality had. Anyway, the most common obstacle was represented by the situation that municipalities needed special permission or approval from national bodies to implement the measure.

Another important aspect to be highlighted was the survey on the kind of people involved in the implementation process. On the basis of the information contained in the WP 3 database, it was clear that the entities involved could be divided into two categories: internal and external ones. Bearing in mind that internal bodies were defined as all sections of a city authority involved directly in the implementation process, such as the transport or planning departments, all other bodies from outside the city administration could therefore be defined as external, e. g. roads administrator, police (at state level), public transport operators, commercial groups, pressure groups, etc.

With respect to internal bodies, it can be stressed that departments of municipalities or higher levels of local government were always the main implementor, even where private companies were involved. The situation

relating to the participation of external bodies was however very different. There was a variety of external bodies and they can be divided into two main categories: institutional public bodies that were involved but playing a minor role in the whole process, and private bodies. In the first case, these were very often planning, environment, building departments of the relevant municipality (while the traffic or mobility department played the main role as internal body) or public transport companies. This means that there was a quality approach to the issues, because all the problems can be considered from many points of view at the same time, and might ensure a high guarantee of success. With respect to the private entities involved, there was a wide range of very different bodies, including citizens pressure groups, chambers of commerce, workers unions, private companies, special users and so on. This could best be summed up as “the more people involved, the better the chance that the measure will be accepted”.

The quality and the nature of the bodies involved led to the consideration of another important issue: the importance of public participation to ensure the acceptability of each measure. Of course, all measures that required payment or change of behaviour were more difficult to accept; moreover, if the role of the public was restricted only to the first two phases of the implementation process, it has been probably more difficult to make them accept a measure which would appear to them to have been merely imposed. Related to this matter was the importance of information campaigns. A variety of methods were identified, from the more traditional ones (TV, magazine or newspaper announcements, etc.) to more ‘innovative’ ones, such as the Internet and WWW.

As the 20 selected measures were all legal and regulatory, a very interesting step of the survey was the in-depth study of their legal aspects. The questions about this topic were mainly aimed at having a view of the legal basis and of the possible legal barriers. From the comparison of the data obtained it can be underlined that at national level the most common legal basis for many kinds of measure was represented by the Road Traffic Regulation. This was quite interesting because it might mean that at the European level the same kind of official document could regulate similar topics, at national level, in different countries. Other legislation considered were laws on land use, building and on spatial planning.Of lesser r importance were laws on revenue generation or on penalties.Legislation on environmental issues had limited influence. There was a variety of regulations at local level including general urban plans (Master, Development, Traffic), local permission for the installation of traffic signs. It would seem that local laws could have the same weight in the implementation process as the national ones.

Legal barriers to the implementation process were few and related by and large to outdated versions of the Traffic Code. This, rather than inappropriate behaviour by internal or external bodies in the implementation process, was also the main reason for the revision of existing regulations. Finally, specific approval had to be granted by all types of authority, both at national and at local levels, depending on the category and complexity of each measure.

6.3.3 Successful elements

On the basis of the analysis and starting from the positive elements already stressed, it is now possible to try to answer the question “why are these successful measures?” taking into account that in most cases the success of the measures is related to the meeting the users’ full requirements, as these additional facts demonstrated:

- the multidisciplinary approach: to implement the measures a wide range of people and bodies have always been involved, both as internal and external participants in the process. This allowed the early identification of problems and related solutions from different points of view, to have a ‘conciliatory effect’ on possible conflicts and to co-operate in order to achieve a kind of relative ‘optimum’ for all the users, at the same time not being able to satisfy completely all their needs. Once again, it is important to stress the importance of public participation.

- impacts on traffic and transport: nearly all measures showed improvements with respect to the traffic and transport, especially due to the change in the modal split towards more sustainable modes.

- implementors’ competence: in all cases the relevant implementors had the appropriate powers and duties to carry out the process.

- measure mix: in many cases, on the basis of experience, this aspect and the level at which the measure was implemented were considered appropriate and did not need to be changed.

- information: this was a very important parameter, closely related to the issue of public participation, as it guaranteed the ‘conciliatory effect’ on conflicts mentioned above.

- enforcement: this aspect of the implementation of measures is unavoidable, because according to the case studies, it ensured the compliance with the legal and regulatory aspects of each measure, again countering the bad habits of users.

- timescale of implementation: nearly all the measures (albeit in different ways) showed the importance of appropriate timescales for their implementation in order to allow people to get accustomed to the changes, thereby avoiding disruption.

6.3.4. Conclusions

As the 20 measures covered a wide range of types, location, and ways of implementation, the identification of mere ‘differences’ would be a very poor result. Indeed, the analysis also developed appropriate information and tools for the work to be carried out in subsequent LEDA Work Packages. So, although differences have been identified, there were also common aspects to the various phases analysed.

Nearly all the measures were developed to solve traffic problems. This is particularly important in central urban areas, where access, quality of life and sustainable modes of transport are priority issues in mobility management. This also means that, in built environments, interests of residents must take a higher priority to those of commuters, shoppers and visitors and that in new urban areas the requirements of all users must be met and balanced. Common trends to deal with such situations can be identified: the first one is to implement direct interventions on vehicles or on infrastructure, the second one is to implement overall policies to regulate factors that can cause traffic problems. Most of the measures belonged to the first case and this is mainly due to an attitude of wishing to solve local problems in the fastest way (by acting, for instance, on parking, on limiting access by cars, on collective transport). Both situations require, in general, the same kind of implementation procedure (albeit perhaps at different levels), the same kind of involvement from municipalities, but above all the same type of public awareness and acceptance of the measure. The importance of involving people in the process of implementation cannot be stressed to highly, as the legal obligation to consult citizens emerged from many of the case studies. Indeed, it must be stated that many of the problems were often first related to public compliance and then to the unsuitability of the legal instruments used to implement the measures.

Finally, from a global point of view, that is looking at all the measures with respect to the European context, it could be said that legal and regulatory measures are unavoidable parts of current transport policies. Moreover, very often, all the case studies showed that their legal aspects were strictly tied, in the implementation phases, to the fulfilment of requirements concerned with the environment, land use, quality of life, and so on. This leads to the conclusion that all the 20 measures are specific examples of a holistic approach to the management of urban problems based on the integration of the different modes of transport but also on the search for a new more sustainable way of life. Indeed, nearly all the measures aimed for a decrease in motorised traffic (and in the related negative effects of pollution) and that environmentally positive outcomes were expected.

It is also worth noting that nearly all the measures analysed have been implemented recently. This means that many of the monitorable aspects are still in progress, and so it is impossible to know whether all expectations will be fully met. However, at the same time, the possibility of monitoring, as an active part of the implementation process, can by itself be considered a positive aspect. Indeed, at least for many countries, up to quite recently, monitoring activities were not incorporated at all. Therefore, from the experiences of the 20 measures and from the point of view of the evaluation of effectiveness , it can be said that mobility management has made progress in terms of the control of problems and learning from previous errors.

7. TRANSFERABILITY

7.1 Introduction and scope

Work Package 5 covered the following activities:

development of guidelines for assessment of the transferability of legal measures (Activity 5.1)

transferability study of the 20 less well known but effective legal and regulatory measures (Activity 5.2)

optimisation of the assessment methodology (Activity 5.3)

The guidelines were developed following discussions with the Project partners and the Irish Regional User Group members. The 20 measures were those, which had been selected for in depth study in Work Package 4 of the Project. The Optimisation of the assessment methodology involved revising the guidelines and preparing a report including an analysis of the results of Work Package 5.

As a result of the initial discussions, it was decided that a detailed theoretical analysis would be of limited use to the city practitioners who should be the primary beneficiaries of the LEDA project. Therefore the approach to assessing transferability has been essentially pragmatic.

Three approaches were therefore adopted to provide the LEDA project with information relating to the role of institutional and legal frameworks on potential transferability, to identify key issues that affect transferability, to try to predict transferability and to identify effective measures that can easily be transferred:

an exercise designed to simulate transferability of a sample of measures to cities where they are not currently in place

examination of (what were considered to be) potentially significant characteristics of the cities involved, in order to identify any correlation between these and transferability

a retrospective evaluation of the process taken in the above two approaches, carried out by the participants.

The process of assessing transferability took place in 15 Target Cities, each selecting 5 of the 20 measures, giving a total of 78 (one city chose 6 and another 7) transferability studies for analysis. The process involved:

the completion of the matrices of city characteristics. There were 17 questions for the Origin Cities and 13 for the Target Cities.

the use of a decision chain related to relevant aspects of the measures under consideration

This decision chain was considered to be the process which would need to be undertaken by a Target City when studying the transferability of measures by cross referring their own situation with that of the Origin Cities in terms of the above aspects. Each Target City undertook this exercise and completed a Transferability Scale, based on a Lickert Scale, to show whether there are barriers and, if so, whether it would be possible to overcome them.

In addition, comments were made on the barriers and on any legal and regulatory changes required.

7.2 Methodology

7.2.1 General

This Section sets out the way in which the methodology for assessing the transferability of the legal measures studied in detail within the LEDA project was developed.

As mentioned above the approach to assessing transferability has been essentially pragmatic. Informal discussions were held with planners and other practitioners at city level. It was agreed that, in theory, one might be able to construct a system that would identify for city planners which measures could be appropriate for transfer to their city. However, in practice, it turned out that city planners are more interested in obtaining direct information about the measures themselves, so as to undertake their own assessment of transferability. They would be unlikely to rely on a third-party screening. In reality, therefore, they require summary data about measures, with enough information, suitably structured, to enable them to make the assessment with some accuracy. This requirement for summary information about measures is, of course, recognised within the LEDA project through the creation of an extensive database that is publicly accessible through the LEDA website.

As a result of these initial discussions, it was decided that a detailed theoretical analysis would be of limited use to the city practitioners who should be the primary beneficiaries of the LEDA project. Nevertheless, four possible benefits from a basic analysis were identified:

an overview of potential transferability would reveal the extent to which institutional and legal frameworks are in harmony across Europe. It might possibly identify areas appropriate for Community-level proposals for change. If, for example, it proved generally the case that measures cannot be easily transferred, then there is potentially a major role for the Commission in proposing measures to harmonise legal or other structures affecting cities. If, on the other hand, it were to prove generally the case that measures can transfer easily, then clearly there would be little need for the Commission to intervene

it might be possible to identify key issues that affect transferability by undertaking the exercise in practice, particularly to the extent that real practitioners were involved. These issues could then be converted into a ‘checklist’ which could be made available to any city practitioners considering whether measures from elsewhere would easily transfer to their own situation

an attempt could be made to predict transferability on the basis of certain specific city characteristics. If successful, this might identify the most important characteristics for practitioners to consider, when examining other cities for transferable measures

if measures can be identified which both:

– have a significant positive contribution to make to modal shift, and

– appear likely to transfer easily

– then they could be promoted more strongly.

Three approaches were therefore adopted to provide the LEDA project with information relating to all of the above areas of benefit:

an exercise designed to simulate transferability of a sample of measures to cities where they are not currently in place

examination of (what were considered to be) potentially significant characteristics of the cities involved, in order to identify any correlation between these and transferability

a retrospective evaluation of the process taken in the above two approaches, carried out by the participants.

7.2.2 Transferability simulation exercise

The first approach involved study partners working with actual practitioners in selected cities to simulate the transferability of a sample of the 20 less well known but effective measures. Apart from assessing transferability generally, it was decided to classify different aspects of transferability and assess each of these separately. The classification was derived from discussion amongst the partners and with city practitioners and reflected the analytical structure that was developed within and through the LEDA project.

The classification involved five components which, it was felt, summarised different issues likely to affect a measure’s transferability. The five components were:

the city’s objectives

the existing legal framework

the political framework

public acceptability

ability to enforce the measure.

The transferability was assessed on a three point Lickert scale against each of the above components. Whilst some participants would have preferred a scale with more options, this

would have significantly increased the complexity of subsequent analysis. In addition, it was felt that cutting the options down to three would force participants to identify a general trend position by polarising the issues. The three points on the assessment scale were:

1 - Fundamental barrier

2 - Current barrier but could in principle be overcome

3 - No barrier

and participants were instructed to choose one of the above.

To ensure that any unusual circumstances would be recorded, free text comments sections for each of the components were included on the form. Partners were asked to pay particular attention to describing the barriers involved and any specific legislative or regulatory changes that would be required at local, regional or national level, in order to make transferability a possibility. It was felt that this would be particularly important in respect of the legal and political framework components, especially to the extent that these related to the competence (powers and duties) of the City level authority.

For each measure in each city, transferability was to be assessed against the above five components. Following consultation, guidelines were developed to provide detailed assistance to study partners and the cities involved in undertaking the transferability assessments.

7.2.3 Comparison of city characteristics

The second approach involved devising a system for assessing whether measure transferability is correlated in some way to the characteristics of the different cities involved, or to the measure itself, or to some combination of these characteristics. Theoretically, this could have involved at least five major variables:

legal, financial or other aspects of the region, country or countries where the measure is currently enacted

legal, financial or other aspects of the city or cities where the measure is currently enacted

aspects of the measure itself

legal, financial or other aspects of the city or cities where the measure is being considered for implementation

legal, financial or other aspects of the region, country or countries where the measure is being considered for implementation.

However, an attempt to consider various characteristics of all five variables would have created a major statistical burden. Two assumptions were duly made. The first assumption was that a choice of relevant city characteristics could be made that would also reflect the

nature of the region or country in which the city is located. This is not unreasonable - for example, a high level of central control will be reflected in a low level of city autonomy; a low level of central control should be reflected in a high level of local autonomy, and so on.

The second assumption was that where a measure has been successfully implemented, key aspects of the measure must be in harmony with those of the city in which it has been implemented. It was felt that this too is not an unreasonable assumption. For example, it seems likely that cities which control their own parking enforcement are more likely to have introduced measures which require high levels of enforcement than cities which have little local parking enforcement powers.

Once these assumptions had been adopted, it was possible to reduce the major variables to two. This was done, firstly, by considering relevant aspects of the measure as part of the classification of the characteristics of the cities where the measure is currently enacted. Secondly, classification of city characteristics would be assumed to include consideration of the relationship between cities and their associated region and/or country.

In this way, two classification matrices were developed. The first matrix was designed to be applied to individual measures, and to identify 17 characteristics of the measure within the city where the measure is enacted. These cities became known as 'Origin Cities'. The second matrix was designed to obtain information about the individual cities where transferability was to be simulated. These cities became known as 'Target Cities'. The second matrix identified 13 characteristics, which were matched pairs with 13 of the set of 17 applying to the Origin Cities and associated measures.

For four characteristics it was felt necessary to ask separate questions about the position within the Origin City and the way in which this affected the measure. For example, it was hypothesised that comparability between road systems might promote transferability. Consequently, the nature of the road system was included as an important characteristic of Origin Cities. For some measures, the nature of the road system would be critical. However, this would not be the case for all measures, so it was necessary to identify those measures influenced by this feature. Consequently, in respect of this characteristic the following two questions were asked:

"What is the nature of the road system in the City?"

"Does the measure reflect the nature of the City's road system?"

Three other characteristics were treated similarly.

The hypothesis to be tested by this approach was that "transferability of a measure from a particular city to a particular city is predictable" (the 'predictability hypothesis'). This hypothesis was adopted because explanations of transferability or non-transferability raised by partners and in informal discussions with city practitioners included reference to key characteristics of the measure, the Origin City and the Target City. It was felt that by using the completed Origin and Target City matrices that identified these characteristics, it would be possible to test any transferability predictions. This would be done by correlating the information contained in the matrices with the actual results of the transferability simulation exercise described above.

The city / measure characteristics were chosen, following discussion amongst study partners and with RUG members, as likely to have some causal relationship with transferability. For example, some measures depended upon a significant degree of integration of traffic

management, public transport management and / or land-use functions in the Origin City where they were studied in detail. It was hypothesised that such measures would be more likely to transfer to a Target City with an equivalent level of functional integration and less likely to transfer to a Target City where such functions were separated out to different departments or agencies.

In order to simplify statistical analysis, the matrices required the Origin and Target City characteristics to be assessed on a three point Lickert scale. The values were defined separately for each characteristic. For example, one of the issues which was identified in earlier work within the LEDA project was the significant differences that existed in the scale and extent of civic autonomy enjoyed in different states. Cities in states with significant local and regional autonomy, such as Belgium, were contrasted with those in highly centralised states such as Great Britain (until its recent devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales and shortly, if there is progress in talks, to Northern Ireland). In general, it was felt that cities with devolved autonomy would have greater freedom to take action than those operating within tight central or national legislation. Consequently, for each measure, an attempt was made to identify the level of local autonomy required for its implementation in the Origin City.

Therefore, in respect of this characteristic, the following question was asked:

"What level of local autonomy in respect of relevant elements of traffic management, land-use planning, or public transport law or regulation-making in the City did this measure require in order to be generated?"

and respondents were required to choose one of the following 3 answers:

A: The measure relied on complete local autonomy in these areas

B: The measure required some local autonomy but also relied on state and regional law making

C: The measure did not require local autonomy in these areas.

This provided a Lickert scale result for the measure / Origin City combination. To assess whether transferability is affected by any possible differences in autonomy between cities, a similar question needed to be asked of the Target Cities. On the basis of the 'predictability hypothesis', it was assumed that there is a relationship between functional autonomy in the two cities and transferability. This could be simply tested by examining the correlation between the levels of autonomy identified in the matrices, and the simulated transferability results. Consequently, the following question was asked in respect of the Target Cities:

"What is the level of local autonomy in respect of traffic management / land use planning / public transport law or regulation-making in the City?"

and respondents were required to choose one of the following 3 answers:

A: Complete local autonomy in these areas

B: Some local autonomy, but also state and regional law making

C: Fully centralised state, little local autonomy.

Care was taken to ensure that the 'polarity' of the questions matched i.e. an 'A' answer to an Origin City question was similar to an 'A' answer to a Target City question.

7.2.4 Evaluation of the approach

Finally, in order to refine the approach for the future and assist in the development of guidelines or a checklist, all those participating in the transferability studies were asked to comment on the appropriateness and comprehensibility of the characteristics (and their associated descriptions), and the ease of understanding of the approaches taken.

Although a common project language (English) was adopted for LEDA, it frequently proved difficult to convey clear meaning because of the different practical and structural circumstances in different countries.

As regards the questions used to classify the individual city characteristics, partners were asked three questions:

Did you understand the Question?

Did you understand the wording of the options made available?

Did your City characteristics fit closely with one of these options?

7.3 PROCESS

Fifteen Target Cities were chosen where local practitioners were willing to commit the necessary time and effort to simulating transferability. The LEDA project is extremely grateful to the many practitioners in the different cities who gave up significant amounts of time to participate in this project. The choice of Target Cities provided the project with coverage of fifteen different countries (including Eastern Europe) and a cross-section of city types. In order to enable the local practitioners to consider measure transferability in some depth, each City was asked to consider five of the twenty Measures. Two cities did more: Leeds (7) and Ljubljana (6).

Detailed reports relating to each of these Measures were passed to local practitioners to provide them with necessary information on key aspects of the Measure. Meetings were arranged so that study partners could conduct structured interviews concerning transferability with the various local practitioners. In some cases these involved sequential interviews with separate parties concerning different aspects of the Measures under consideration. In other cases, a joint meeting took place where each Measure was considered in turn by all interested parties working together.

An ideal sample structure would have been for each Measure to be considered by at least three Cities. In practice, however, so as to promote active participation in the research, Cities were allowed to choose the Measures they wished to consider for transfer. This meant that the transferability of certain Measures, such as 'Access Pricing', 'Limiting Access to the City

Centre on Saturday' and the 'ABC Location Parking Policy' was considered in more Target Cities (9, 8 and 10 respectively) than that of other measures, such as 'Increasing Accessibility in Residential Areas', 'Car-Sharing Parking Spaces on Public Property' and 'Air Quality Legislation' (1, 1 and 2 respectively). The Figure below sets out which measures were studied in which cities.

The implication of this is that for some Measures, there is no statistical significance in the results for that Measure alone. However, these individual results can nevertheless be included in the collective results for the study. The arrangements have meant that there are 78 separate assessments of the transferability of a less well known but effective Measure to a City where the Measure has been hitherto unknown. This has provided the LEDA Project with practical information about the transferability of the different Measures, considerable commentary on aspects of Measure transferability (for example, the likely public acceptance of the Measure), and a statistical database of Origin and Target City, and Measure, characteristics which is being used to identify any relationships strong enough to use for prediction.

Target City / Measure (Origin City) combinations studied

Mea

sure

(Orig

in C

ity)

Target City 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Bratislava

Bremen

Budapest

Copenhagen

Cracow

Dublin

Florence

Ghent

Leeds

Linz

Ljubljana

Luxembourg

Madrid

Oslo

Zug

Total 1 1 3 5 2 3 9 2 4 8 7 3 1 10 7 3 2 2 2 3 78

7.4 RESULTS

Considering the specific measures, all but ‘Access pricing’ result in an assessed positive transferability value i.e. somewhere between neutrality (Current barrier but could in principle be overcome) and ‘No barrier’ to their introduction.

Three groups are apparent:

low scorers: those measures that require some form of restriction or perceived risk to be imposed above and beyond what is ‘typical’. Consequently these measures are assessed as creating a problem from either the public acceptability or the political standpoint. Measures include:

access pricing

shared bus / bike lane

limited access to city centre on Saturday

medium scorers: those measures that can typically be done under existing powers, but are not perceived as providing significant benefits either publicly or politically, or in respect of the City’s objectives. These measures include:

getting business in the right place

traffic calming measures

quality bus corridors

high scorers: those measures that can be implemented using existing powers, and which are relatively easily enforceable, and which are perceived to provide benefits for the City or to the public. These measures include:

licensing of accessible taxis

environmental zones

air quality legislation

parking policy

bus priority.

Within the results for individual measures, some of the most interesting variations are apparent between the assessments of political and public aspects, which one might have expected to be broadly in line with one another. For a number of measures, the perceived public acceptability is well in advance of the political acceptability. Such measures include:

car sharing parking space

bus priority scheme

quality bus corridors.

For a similar number of measures, the perceived political acceptability outstrips the perceived public acceptability. Such measures include:

increasing accessibility in residential areas

system of two-stage parking charges

global parking policy

environmental zones.

Some variation is apparent between cities. There is some evidence to suggest a split between cities in the continental heartland of Europe (which tend to have a lower average score), and those more on the Western/Mediterranean fringe (which tend to have a higher average score). However, this has not been tested for statistical significance and no theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon.

7.4.1 Comparative Transferability

The final stage of the analysis brought together all of the previous data in an attempt to assess the extent of correlation between the similarity of characteristics between Origin and Target Cities and the transferability of measures between those cities. In the first instance this comparison was made by taking the average Origin City score for the relevant measure, and the average Target City score for the relevant measure (based on an average of an average, where the measure was tested by more than one city). The difference between these two averages was then correlated against the average transferability score for each measure.

One might hypothesise that if the difference between average characteristic scores for Origin and Target Cities is 0 (i.e. the two cities are generally similar), then the transferability would tend towards 1 (i.e. measures should be easily transferable between the two cities). Conversely, the greater the variation in characteristics between the Origin and Target Cities, the less likely measures would be to transfer. However the analysis does not support such a hypothesis. Indeed it is reasonable to conclude that there is no correlation at all between the data.

Separate analysis by transferability factor (city objectives, legal, political, etc.) is no more revealing. Nor is a disaggregated analysis comparing individual Target City averages rather than taking an average figure for all the Target Cities related to a particular measure (as was done in the initial analysis).

It was hypothesised that the use of headline averages to describe the Target and Origin Cities might be misleading. For example, two cities with the same average score across all the

different characteristics may actually be very different, because that average may be made up through differential scoring of specific characteristics. The process is further confused if we make the logical hypothesis that certain characteristics will be more significant for specific measures than other characteristics. Responsibility for parking may be far more relevant to a parking policy measure than, for example, control and ownership of public transport.

The analysis was therefore extended to consider such issues, by undertaking a detailed analysis of the relationships between specific characteristics for both Origin and Target Cities and transferability, but for a limited sample of measures. Two measures were selected, primarily because both were tested against a wide number of different cities, which gave greater validity to the data. The two measures were:

No. 7: Access pricing (Origin City = Oslo)

No. 11: Quality bus corridors (Origin City = Dublin)

For each separate characteristic and each separate Target City, the difference between the Target and Origin City scores was correlated against the average transferability score for that particular Measure / Target City combination. The degree of correlation is best expressed by reference to the R-squared value for the correlation. There is no evidence of significant positive correlation between the characteristic scores and transferability scores.

7.4.2 Conclusion of the correlation analyses

The analyses and the approach taken do not support the hypothesis that transferability can be predicted from a logical, objective analysis of certain key characteristics of Origin and Target Cities.

There are, of course, significant problems with the method. The sample size in the project is relatively low, resulting in low statistical significance. There were also problems relating to the use of a three point Lickert scale which was chosen on the grounds of ease of use. Such a scale provides relatively little differentiation between city characteristics. Consequently, this will tend to lower the visibility of any correlations. However, this alone can not account for the almost complete lack of correlation observed.

Nevertheless, the results do suggest that the intended approach of the LEDA project – that is, the identification of and development of a set of objective transferability guidelines to assist in the screening of measures (i.e. choosing which ones to implement) and the subsequent implementation of the chosen measures, is not feasible.

The results do not disprove the view that key transport practitioners at city level are best in a position to screen measures, on the basis, in particular, of their local knowledge of the political framework and public acceptability factors, Such practitioners need to be provided

with information about possible measures in a structured form. This supports the creation of the LEDA database of Measures as a useful, pan-European toolbox for practitioners.

7.5 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING TRANSFERABILITY

7.5.1 Rationale

Cities throughout Europe are in the process of dealing with issues of traffic congestion and sustainability. They may be at different stages in this process, which includes the introduction of new measures with legal and regulatory components as well as environmental, infrastructural, financial and public awareness components.

In some cases, cities are considering measures already implemented in cities elsewhere in Europe. There is a wide range of such measures; the LEDA Project alone has identified over 200 measures in 40 selected cities in Europe. City authorities need to have a structured approach to determining whether measures from elsewhere are relevant to the situation in their own city. They need therefore to have some way of assessing whether measures already in place elsewhere will transfer to their own city. In order to carry out such an assessment they need to have guidelines, which offer them the structured approach required.

Traffic measures are designed to reflect or respond to objective aspects of the situation in a particular city. Consequently, it should be possible, in principle, to design a system for predicting which measures will easily transfer to a particular city. By designing such a system it should also be possible to develop guidelines for authorities.

7.5.2 Guidelines

One important result from this study is that no significant predictions can be made as to whether measures will transfer, if this is done simply by comparing the cities where the measures have already been implemented (the origin cities) with the cities which would like to implement the measures (the target cities). Transferability depends – to a large extent – on the characteristics of measures themselves in relation to the Target City.

This means that there is no alternative, when considering particular legal measures for transfer, to running a full process of checking transferability. Following the experience in undertaking a simulated transferability exercise in the LEDA Project, a recommended approach for city authorities to follow when considering the transferability of measures is set out below. This encourages a common, structured approach towards the wider implementation of locally developed measures.

a) the city authority determines which issue(s) or problem(s) need to be addressed

b) databases of measures, such as the database developed in the LEDA Project, are searched in order to identify those measures which address the issue(s) or problem(s) identified.

The European Commission’s ELTIS initiative may also be an extremely useful tool for this purpose. Cities should consider making maximum use of their local powers (relatively extensive powers already exist for most municipalities to implement sound and effective measures covering parking management, traffic calming, public transport, cycling and walking, without waiting for change from above). In order to exploit this potential, cities should exchange information and enter intensive discussion on a European wide scale.

c) the appropriate measure(s) is/are then selected following the process set out below:

key actors from within the city authority and from relevant outside agencies are involved in the selection process. These key actors include both staff and elected members of the relevant departments of the city authority, which might include the planning, engineering, finance, legal and traffic departments; the key actors also include the following outside agencies: the police, public transport operators, chamber of commerce, regional authority, environmental groups, cycling groups, motoring organisations, road haulage associations, suppliers of public utilities (electricity, gas, telecommunications, water), trades unions and employer organisations.

these actors compare the five aspects:

city objectives

legal framework

political framework

public acceptability

enforcement issues

of each measure, with the equivalent or matching characteristics of their own city and the likely actors involved in introducing the measure

any information available (e.g. from the LEDA project results) on successful actual or simulated transfer to other cities is taken into account in the context of the relevant similarities or differences between their city and the other city or cities, as set out in the Target City characteristics matrix

in particular, they examine the issues of political and public acceptability in some depth, as these are the key to the successful implementation of measures.

d) once a choice of measure has been made, there are few general rules to guide the process of transferring the measure, other than the need to pay particular emphasis to consultation. The fact that the most significant barriers to transfer relate to political frameworks and public acceptance underlines the vital importance of obtaining political and public support for particular measures. Consultation processes are an essential element in ensuring that these issues of political and public acceptability are addressed. Consultation processes are often built into the legal and regulatory framework governing the introduction of measures in many countries. However, consultation processes also have a cultural

dimension and therefore it is not possible to present a standard process for all to follow. Suffice it to say that:

all relevant parties should be involved; this would include elected members of the city authority, staff from key departments, elected members of other public authorities, community associations, campaigning organisations, environmental bodies, public utilities, chamber of commerce, trades unions, employer organisations as well as the general public, in particular in the area where the measure(s) is/are to be implemented

the process must be clear to all (after all, transparency is the new “buzzword” of “good government”)

there should be a clearly defined timescale and structure for the consultation process

information about the measure(s) should be presented using “plain language” and good graphics.

e) It is worth noting that in the simulation exercises the political ‘sector’ often considered a lack of public demand for a measure to be a major barrier. However, in many cases the public appeared willing to accept measures provided that there was a political commitment to financing and implementing them effectively. It is also worth noting that these two ‘sectors’, the political and the public, are not homogenous. For example, the elected politicians and the council officials are two separate ‘sub-sectors’, as are the general public and the business community.

f) As far as legal issues are concerned (which was a primary concern of the LEDA project) the key issue is to consider the appropriate tier of government that should be the locus for action. This must be as local as possible, but given the potential for 'competition' between cities, there is potential for actions in one city (e.g. parking restrictions) to be undermined by actions in a neighbouring authority (e.g. reduction in parking restrictions). Where there is a legal framework for action on a regional or sub-regional basis, then this needs to be considered alongside local measure implementation. Where such frameworks do not exist it will be necessary for non-statutory agreements to be reached (and potentially for central government to consider creating statutory legal frameworks to replace these over time).

vorlage für eu-projekte · Web viewmanaging the supply of parking to meet specific demands and...

Documents

Transcript of vorlage für eu-projekte · Web viewmanaging the supply of parking to meet specific demands and...