Project acronym: EPOMM-PLUS

Project title: Partners Learning Urban Sustainability

European Mobility Management Monitor 2011

Comparative Analysis of the National Mobility Management Monitors of

25 Countries

Date of preparation: June 2011

Start date of project: 2. June 2009 Duration: 36 month

Version: 1

Prepared by: EUROCITIES

Checked by: Karl-Heinz Posch

Verified by:

Status: Finalised

Dissemination level:

Table of Contents

1 Introduction - What is the European Mobility Management Monitor?..................................................................5

1.1 Objectives of the European MMMs......................................................................................................................6

1.2 Findings from 2010..............................................................................................................................................6

1.3 Mobility management’s background information.................................................................................................71.3.1 The vision of mobility management.............................................................................................................71.3.2 The channels of developments...................................................................................................................8

1.4 Chapter conclusions..........................................................................................................................................11

2 New developments in terms of MM in Europe.......................................................................................................12

2.1 Governance........................................................................................................................................................122.1.1 Who do I call if I want to discuss mobility management............................................................................122.1.2 Regional and local levels: which changes?...............................................................................................152.1.3 Stakeholders and knowledge infrastructure..............................................................................................17

2.2 Strategies for implementations..........................................................................................................................172.2.1 Regulation.................................................................................................................................................182.2.2 Taxation.....................................................................................................................................................192.2.3 Promotion..................................................................................................................................................20

2.3 Measures of mobility management....................................................................................................................202.3.1 Information measures................................................................................................................................212.3.2 Promotional measures...............................................................................................................................222.3.3 Organisation and coordination measures..................................................................................................242.3.4 Education and training measures..............................................................................................................242.3.5 Site-based measures.................................................................................................................................261.1.1 Telecommunication and flexible time organisation....................................................................................271.1.2 Supportive & integrative actions................................................................................................................28

2.4 Chapter conclusions..........................................................................................................................................29

3 Funding and financing of MM in Europe................................................................................................................30

3.1 Situation.............................................................................................................................................................303.1.1 Regional and local levels...........................................................................................................................303.1.2 National level.............................................................................................................................................323.1.3 European level...........................................................................................................................................33

3.2 Recommendations for improvements................................................................................................................393.2.1 Proposed conditions for funding................................................................................................................403.2.2 Cooperation between governance levels..................................................................................................403.2.3 Procedure of assessment and follow up...................................................................................................41

3.3 Chapter conclusions..........................................................................................................................................41

4 Conclusions..............................................................................................................................................................42

5 Tables and Figures...................................................................................................................................................43

6 References................................................................................................................................................................44

6.1 Projects..............................................................................................................................................................44

6.2 Research papers................................................................................................................................................44

6.3 European documents.........................................................................................................................................44

7 Annexes.....................................................................................................................................................................46

7.1 Mobility Management Monitors Authors.............................................................................................................46

7.2 Key websites......................................................................................................................................................46

Page 3 of 49

Page 4 of 49

1 Introduction - What is the European Mobility Management Monitor?

EPOMM-PLUS is a three-year European project funded by the European Commission under the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme. It started in June 2009 and searches to further develop the use of mobility management in Europe by establishing EPOMM, the European Platform on Mobility Management, as the authority and the networking instrument in Europe.

Within the work package 6 focussing on policy and legislation, the first European Mobility Management Monitor (EU MMM) was produced in May 2010. A comparative analysis of 21 national monitors1, it gave an overview of the situation of mobility management in Europe, especially in terms of the governance structure, vision and implementation of mobility management (MM). The EU MMM also highlighted some specificities and similarities among countries. This year’s edition takes into account an enlarged geographical coverage, including Romania, Ireland, Latvia and Slovakia, and is therefore based on the analysis of national mobility management monitors (MMM) from 25 countries in 2010. The main objective for the 2011 edition is to give an update of changes and new developments – but it will also give a focus on the issue of financing and funding of MM, which is particularly relevant in the current economic situation.

The 2011 EU MMM takes into account not only the 2010 MMMs, but also those from 2009; providing a longitudinal perspective of mobility management and thus a more in-depth overview of the current situation in Europe.

Figure 1: Countries covered by the EU MMM in 2011

1 19 of the 20 countries partners in the EPOMM-PLUS project (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United kingdom) plus 2 subcontractant countries: Denmark and Switzerland.

Page 5 of 49

EPOMM memberEPOMM-PLUS partnerSubcontractant country in 2009 & 2010Subcontractant country in 2010

1.1 Objectives of the European MMMs

The 2010 EU MMM is designed to give EPOMM-PLUS partners, practitioners of MM and any person interested in sustainable urban transport an overview of the concept of MM in Europe. In particular for EPOMM-PLUS partners, it aims to support them in their work to plan and build up their national network, and further develop MM. As clearly stated in the 2010 document, the European comparative analysis has not been prepared or designed as an academic research - indeed EPOMM-PLUS is not a research project - but it was written on the basis of information provided by EPOMM-PLUS partners representing their country and using their experience to report on the national situation.

Given that the 2011 comparative analysis is focussing mainly on changes and new developments since the last reporting (autumn 2009); it will not cover in detail some aspects which have already been presented in the 2010 version that have not undergone major changes: such as the history, the definition and vision of MM or the means of implementation. Nevertheless this year’s document will obviously take into consideration the main elements of analysis and main conclusions of 2010 to give a clear framework to the changes occurred and will include information on the above-mentioned issues for the four additional countries covered.

This document still aims to support the work of MM practitioners and to help them understand MM in other countries in order to benefit from mutual experience and to build on good practices.

1.2 Findings from 2010

In the 2010 EU MMM, we had organised the analysis around three major axes:

- the perception of mobility management across Europe, and the history of the concept of MM;

- the structure of the governance in the field of transport and mobility, and the implementation of MM by national, regional and local authorities; and

- the main mobility management measures with the explanation of measures such as mobility plans, car-sharing, and awareness campaigns, including a presentation of some good practices.

On the basis of this, we reached the following conclusions:

- A common perception of MM in Europe?:

Even with a much lower average income, the population in former communist countries has massively invested in cars and has thus risen to almost the same car-ownership level as in the richer west-European economies. Policies and infrastructures were oriented to cope with these market and social pressures, and MM policies were more or less undesired obstacles. The western countries had much slower growth, the negative effects of car traffic are more in focus and the philosophy of “building your way out of congestion” has been clearly disproved. Therefore MM policies are much more popular in the western EU-countries – also among policy makers, opinion leaders and decision takers. This is reflected in the fact that almost all western countries are EPOMM-members, while none of new member states are.

- Governance of transport and mobility

Each country is structured in a specific way and governance of transport and mobility is difficult to compare on a similar scale. Starting from the simple question: Who do I call if I want to discuss MM?: we understood by reading the national mobility management monitors that MM is more a competence of regional and/or local levels, partly because at national level this issue is split among several key ministries. Partner countries report that their authorities have been using mainly three strategies to implement MM; these are regulation, taxation and promotion. These are very often combined in order to have a stronger behaviour change effect.

The issue of land use planning was analysed more closely as it is a tool of an integrated approach of urban planning; moreover building permission have tangible capacities to integrate MM.

- Measures of mobility management

Page 6 of 49

The level of implementation was consolidated in one table (Table 9, page 28, 2009 EU-MMM). However, this table greatly simplifies and just reflects the subjective view of project partners on their own country, and does not satisfy any scientific criteria. But is serves well as a basic orientation. Still, the table was hotly contested at its presentation at the ECOMM 2010.

Following on from this review of the main conclusions from 2010, we will briefly overview the national contexts as detailed in the 2009 MMMs and compare them with the 2010 MMMs, while keeping in mind the question: what have been the main changes over this period?

Firstly we will look into whether the perception of MM has changed significantly from 2009 to 2010. Secondly we will look into the tools used to impermanent mobility management in European countries. For the sake of simplicity, these are divided into three categories: political programmes, projects on sustainable mobility and targeted MM measures.

1.3 Mobility management’s background information

1.3.1The vision of mobility management

Situation in 2009

In the national mobility management monitors delivered end 2009, we had asked all the EPOMM-PLUS partners to present their vision or definition of MM. With their answers, countries had been grouped into five categories:

- An unclear understanding of the notion of mobility management as in Bulgaria, Estonia or Poland.

- A restrictive view of mobility management; it is the case in Italy for example where MM is mostly limited to mobility plans for administration and schools, through the key instrument of mobility managers. In France, MM is not seen as a concept as a whole but as measures to regulate the use of cars on a site-based level, with workplace travel plan for example.

- A broader view of the notion such as in Sweden, where MM is known more as a planning tool or in Flanders where it is a means to achieve sustainable cities.

- A different communication, with MM as “smarter travel / sustainable transport” such as in UK where the notion of “smart travel” is more popular, or in Hungary where it is more a mater of “promoting public and/or sustainable transport”.

- As a means to achieve policy objectives: in those countries less car use is not (only) an objective of MM but it is more a means to achieve other policy objectives; for example in a school, mobility plan and less car use is a way to create a safer school environment. This is the case for Slovenia targeting health improvements, Greece searching to work on road safety or Spain looking for progresses in the field of energy efficiency.

It shows that triggers for MM can change over the time and/or over the tendencies, but the effect remains the same.

Situation in 2010

The four countries included this year, also match with these categories:

- Romania and Slovakia have an unclear understanding of the notion of mobility management: in Romania mobility management concept is still new and includes a focus on soft measures which is difficult to understand, even for mobility experts. In Slovakia, mobility management remains very much a concept for experts from universities and NGOs.

Page 7 of 49

- Latvia has a broader view of the notion: despite the fact that mobility management is still relatively new, its vision seems more connected to the quality of movement choices and to transport demand management which is closely linked with broader sustainable aspects such as health and liveable cities.

- Ireland has a different relationship with MM: as “smarter travel / sustainable transport”. The sustainable travel and transport policy from February 2009 is also known and called as “Smarter Travel policy”

Three countries have added information related to the vision of mobility management in their 2010 MMM:

- Belgium has completed its perception by mentioning that demand oriented actions are seen as most connected to MM and underlined that in spite of a common target - sustainable mobility - objectives still differ from one region to another.

- Poland added that the notion of mobility itself is narrow given that it is seen only as transport by cars, trains and planes, which also results in having mobility plans focussed on infrastructure, for example the construction of roads and bridges.

- The Netherlands have rebranded their MM communication to slim reizen (smart travel) moving to the category of a different communication towards MM

Table 1: Mobility Management in EPOMM-PLUS partner countries

Unclear understanding Bulgaria, Estonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, SlovakiaRestrictive view Italy, France, Denmark, FinlandBroader view Belgium, Sweden, LatviaA different communication Czech Republic, Hungary, Lithuania, The Netherlands, UK, IrelandAs a means to achieve policy objectives Austria, Germany, Greece, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland

1.3.2The channels of developments

Situation in 2009

In the Mobility Management Monitors produced in the autumn 2009, partners were asked to report about the history of mobility management in their country. On this basis, we had been able to identify three main channels of developments, or in other words, three tools through which mobility management was born in European countries. Those channels of developments were: political programme, projects on sustainable mobility and targeted Mobility Management measures.

- Political programme or plan: a programme including steps and actions to be taken in order for a strategy to succeed; it usually includes information on the actors/stakeholders involved, a detailed timeframe and a number of targeted measures.

- Project: a project is a temporary effort limited by the time and/or by the funding, defined by a beginning and an end, and developed to achieve defined objectives. Whilst project is characterised by its temporary nature, its effect are expected be long-lasting. In this case, the project would cover regional and local, national, but also European projects.

- Targeted measure: a targeted measure is part of a progress towards a goal; it is a step towards a predefined objective. In term of mobility management, we understand measures as the different elements that are part of MM: mobility centres, MM at companies, MM at schools, MM for events, awareness raising, carpooling, car-sharing or intermodality, for example.

Defining three categories of channels of development does not mean that these different channels are “restrictive” or “exclusive” given that they can include each other (MM projects are often built on targeted measures while programme include or finance projects and/or targeted measures) but also that countries can combine the different approaches.

Page 8 of 49

Situation in 2010

Political programme or plan:

By their focus on energy, transport, climate or sustainable development, programmes or plans defined usually at the national level contribute to a certain extent to the implementation of MM. Last year, we had drawn a table identifying for each country the main focus of their main programme or plan (see table below).

Table 2: Programmes and plans contributing to MM

Energy Austria, Germany, Finland, Poland, Switzerland

Transport & MobilityBelgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Romania

Climate & Environment Belgium, France, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Hungary, Italy, Poland, UKSustainable development Czech Republic, Belgium, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania

Operational Programme*Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Poland, Sweden

* covering accessibility measures such as: “strengthening the urban transport network, developing combined transport” in the OP from Athens; “promotion of clean urban transport / developing length of cycling path” in Prague; as well as “support of the cycling tracks” and focus on “regional and urban public transport” in the OP from Bratislava.

Concerning the four countries covered since last year, it is worth mentioning that:

- Ireland has a National Sustainable Development Strategy including concrete elements and proposals for more sustainable transport and works also with a National Climate Change Strategy.

- Latvia has a Sustainable Development Strategy 2030 including a chapter on energy efficient and environmentally friendly transport policy; it promotes the promotion of public transport, walking and cycling.

- In Romania, policies do not focus specifically on mobility management but on sustainable urban mobility. For example, the National Sustainable Development Strategy 2013-2030 aims to ensure that transport meets the economic, social and environmental needs of the society while minimizing their negative impacts.

- Slovakia does not mention any particular programme or plan but the Operational Programme (OP) of Bratislava includes some measures which contribute to MM even though still giving a major place to infrastructures.

In the other European countries, some 2010 MMMs show new developments or underline new aspects:

- Belgium mentions the development of a new Mobility Plan for the region of Brussels capital called Iris II which gives clear targets in the field of MM such as a 20% decrease in car traffic by 2020. The year 2010 marks also the development of the draft Flemish Action Plan on Sustainable Development around five priorities. Even if this document appears as rather general, it really gives a place to MM and prepares the floor for further actions.

- In Bulgaria, the Strategy for the Development of Transport Sector until 2020, which has been adopted in April 2010, includes now explicitly the notion of mobility and includes several MM measures. The section on Sustainable Urban Mobility mentions among others: the promotion of public transport; cycling and walking; as well as the elaboration of action plans for urban mobility (covering environmental-friendly public transport and sharing of knowledge and good-practices). This represents a major step showing political support and will enable the country to develop more concrete actions of MM.

- Finland also referred to its National Climate and Energy Strategy from 2005 developed by the Ministry of Employment and Economy, and to the Climate Policy Programme (2009-2020) from the Ministry of Transport & Communication, which establishes a national mobility centre and supports local MM actions

- In Germany, the action programme Effizient mobil has reached its end and is currently being assessed. Responsible authorities should decide soon whether or not the programme will be continued. At the same

Page 9 of 49

time, discussions and consultations are taking place to prepare a strategy paper dealing with funding options, education, legal and fiscal measures to support MM.

- Lithuania has recently adopted a long-term (until 2025) Development Strategy for Lithuanian Transport System. It aims to encourage people to change their behaviour and change their mode of transport as well as to improve infrastructure for non-motorised transport.

- In Poland, the National Transport Development strategy (until 2030) aims to increase access to transport by creating a coherent, sustainable and user-friendly transport system through the development of intermodality. However, there is no specific mention of mobility management.

Projects:

The key role of projects in the development of mobility management at the country level was particularly acknowledged last year by Bulgaria, Germany, Finland, Portugal, The Netherlands and Switzerland. In this year’s Mobility Management Monitors:

- Ireland recognises the major contribution of projects; one example given is the Green-Schools Travel project, which is directly linked to an international education programme (known as Eco-Schools) of the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE). Irish schools can choose to tackle environmental issues on a step-by-step basis according to a seven-theme programme: water; waste; energy; transport; nature & biodiversity; lifestyle & healthy living; and climate change. In spite of its direct connection to a programme, we believe that this example belongs to the project section instead of the programme & plan one because Ireland has developed a proper and specific project on travel within the programme. Green-schools Travel has an ultimate aim of increasing the number of pupils walking, cycling or using public transport to go to school. With initiatives such as walking buses, cycle training, awareness-raising days, and the installation of cycle parking facilities significant results have been achieved: a 22% reduction in car use and a modal shift of 12.6% are recorded within the project. Moreover less measurable effects such as improved vigilance of pupils who walk or cycle to school have been reported.

- Bulgaria refers to the role of European project in the development of MM by stating examples such as the BENEFIT and COMMERCE projects. BENEFIT is a project promoting public transport use in companies, and made it possible to implement a local stakeholder’s forum in Sofia. COMMERCE, in conjunction with the Plovdiv Municipality partner, promotes energy efficient transport and mobility plans implementation.

- In Denmark there are projects on anchorage of mobility management at all administrative levels such as the “Formula M” project which supports a range of local demonstration activities. It is a two-year project (2011-12) with a total budget of 2.4 million Euros financing municipal demonstration projects aiming at gaining experience in the methods, challenges and effects of using mobility management. The project contains three main parts:

A Mobility Office: it provides professional and practical assistance to local projects in the participating municipalities.

Local Mobility projects and planning issues: the fundamental part of the project. It contains a number of locally based demonstration projects. Participants in the demonstration projects are municipalities, regions, enterprises, public transport companies, inter-municipal cooperation and citizens. The twenty-one demonstration projects planned are organised around the issues of travel plans (for local network, for large units and for hospitals), of mobility solutions for neighbourhoods and of assessment of new residential and industrial areas’ mobility.

Strategy and Analysis: ensure that international experience and research are used in the projects

- In Finland, the Ministry of Transport and Communication and the Finnish Transport Agency are currently funding 13 mobility management projects in 2010-2011 which cover the promotion of public transport, cycling, and travel plan in companies or carpooling. The aim is that the 5 regions benefiting from these projects would be able to organise MM work by themselves when the funding is over.

- Germany underlined the role of research and research projects: this is the case for the Research Programme on Urban Transport Forschungsprogramme Stadtverkehr (FOPS) funded by the federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development. Some projects funded dealt more specifically

Page 10 of 49

with mobility management implementation, such as a project focussing on savings achieved in urban transport due to bikes usage, or a project analysing the legal framework of bicycle usage.

Targeted measures:

- Mobility plans in Latvia: mobility management took off in 2008, when the Ministry of Transport elaborated “Riga and Pieriga Mobility Plan Elaboration Concept”. The aim of this paper was to give guidance on how to elaborate a mobility plan and to define the main principles of a mobility plan. Taking into account the elements presented in the European Green Papers, this paper resulted in the establishment of a working group developing mobility plans proposals and of a steering committee responsible for decision making.

- Promotion of walking in Slovakia and Hungary: For some years now, city centres in Slovakia undergo a general trend which is the implementation and expansion of pedestrian zones and as a consequence the improvement of public spaces. In Budapest, many surface pedestrian crossings have been restored instead of the underground crossings; this makes walking more comfortable and provides better access to public transport for disabled people.

- Promotion of cycling in Czech Republic and Germany: In the Czech Republic, the National Cycling Development Strategy from 2004 seeks to develop cycling as a means of transport equal to others and as a tool to protect environment and strengthen health. In Germany, the National Cycling Plan (2002-2012) aims at raising the level of bike share in mobility. It was inspired by the Dutch Master Plan, targets different groups and supports not only infrastructures but also research projects on MM for companies (bike to work) or for schools.

1.4 Chapter conclusions

The vision of mobility management over Europe has not changed dramatically in the past 12 months and in countries newly covered by the EU MMM (Ireland, Latvia, Slovakia and Romania) the vision and implementation of MM match trends identified last year.

Concerning the channels of development of MM, it is worth noticing that:

- National programmes which are often the starting point of a real MM policy are missing in many countries and only the most advanced (front runners) do have this kind of programme which clearly giving space to MM.

- There are different types of projects contributing more or less directly to MM implementation: research projects, projects on exchange of practices, projects on implementation of MM measure or of measures encouraging MM. Projects have clear advantages compared to other channels: they have proper funding, aim at sustainability and contribute to involve actors in charge of the implementation.

- Targeted measures might appear as a derived element but those are often the most concrete and the most visible for users: with the promotion of walking and cycling for example.

Page 11 of 49

2 New developments in terms of MM in Europe

The issue of governance is crucial in the analysis of mobility management since it gives the framework of actions for stakeholders. Last year, as a starting point, we asked the question: “Who do I call if I want to discuss MM?” The answers were quiet various and showed that awareness at the ministerial level was rather low.

In fact, in many countries, MM was – and still is, as we will see – mainly a competence of regional and/or local levels. They have access to the same strategies as the national level to promote mobility management: regulation, taxation and promotion; which are frequently combined to produce effects and achieve a real change of behaviour.

To reach this change of behaviour, mobility management measures are implemented; they are many and involve different level of resources, of involvement of stakeholders and of course different support.

This year again, we will have a closer look at these elements: governance, strategies and measures, to assess not only if there have been changes but also if some general trends have emerged.

2.1 Governance

2.1.1Who do I call if I want to discuss mobility management

In 2009, national MMMs underlined that most European countries had MM responsibility spread over two or three major ministries - often Ministries of Transport and of Environment. Only one country, France, had a “super” ministry covering all sustainable issues such as Environment, Energy or Transport. France was often given as an example of national structure propitious for cooperation and cross-fertilisation.

The below table details which ministries are in charge of MM by country. Figure 2 illustrates the change in number of responsible ministries between 2009 and 2010. An analysis based on the national MMMs explores these changes more in-depth.

Table 3: MM a competence of ministries

Ministry of

Transport Environment EnergyEconomy &

FinanceInterior

(Regional) Development

Infrastructure & Public works

Industry&

EnterprisesNr.

Austria X X X 3 - 4

Belgium X 1

Bulgaria X X 2

Czech Rep. X X 2

Estonia X X X 3

France X X 2

Finland X X X 3

Germany X X 2

Greece X X X X 3-4

Hungary X (X) X 2

Ireland X X 2

Italy X 1

Page 12 of 49

Latvia X X X 3

Lithuania X X X X 3-4

Netherlands X X 2

Poland X X 2

Portugal X X (X) 2

Romania X X 2

Slovakia X X 2

Slovenia X X X 3

Spain X X 2

Sweden X X 2

UK X X (X) 2

Denmark X X X 3

Switzerland X X X 3

Figure 2: Competences of ministries for MM

2009 2010

1 large ministry for sustainability

1 ministry mainly in charge of MM2 ministries in charge of MM3 ministries in charge of MM

New countries in 2010:

- Ireland: The Department of Transport’s mandate relating to Mobility Management includes providing a well functioning, integrated public transport system and ensuring improved public transport by new public transport infrastructure and facilities. The National Transport Authority (NTA), a statutory body established by the Minister for Transport in 2009 has the responsibility, at a national level, for securing the provision of public passenger land transport services. Finally, the Department of Environment,

Page 13 of 49

Heritage and Local Government is also involved in MM issue through its mission to pursue sustainable development.

- Slovakia: The recently merged Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development is responsible for Strategic development and policy making. The recently re-founded Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Health are cooperating.

- Romania: The Ministry of Transport is the key actor; it defines national policies on transport while the Ministry of Environment is in charge of the implementation of the national strategy and of the Action Plan in Climate change, including a chapter on reducing GHG emissions of transport.

Other countries:

- Finland: A new transport agency was created in early 2010; it is in charge of delivering transport policy in practice together with nine regional units called centre for economic development, transport and environment. It is also in charge of the promotion of alternative vehicles and of MM at the national level.

- France: The “super” ministry has been recently reorganised and competences have been split over two ministries: energy issues were moved to the Ministry of Economy and Industry while remaining themes stayed within the Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing. France also underlined the position of “Mister Bike” who is a cross-ministerial coordinator on the bike issue; his role is to promote and develop a strategy for safe and secure streets for all users, including more vulnerable users such as cyclists and pedestrians.

- Germany: One ministry has been contributing to the work on MM issues since the last national MMM: the Federal Ministry of Environment; it has developed a “Climate Protection initiative” directed at consumers, economic actors, municipalities and schools, which aims to reduce greenhouse gases. Mobility management is even included in some specific sections of the programme through awareness raising campaigns and zero-emission mobility.

- Hungary: Transport policy used to be driven by the Ministry of Transport and Energy but since 2010 it is developed by the Ministry of National Development, which takes care of strategies and policies. The Ministry of Environment through national environmental programme and national climate change strategy also work indirectly on transport issues.

- Netherlands: The Taskforce on mobility management which has been created in 2007 to give an impulse and generate proposals for business sector to implement MM has delivered its conclusions. The Taskforce consisted of representatives from employers’ organisations, trade unions, local authorities and the top of the business community. In September 2008, the Taskforce’s chairman offered a number of proposals to the Cabinet which agreed and asked for more detailed plans by 2010 in order to achieve the following points:

more regions with a regional agreement with employers and an increasing number of involved employers and employees;

binding agreements with employers on the establishment of mobility measures packages in order to improve accessibility and reduce environmental emissions;

an irreversible growth process of structural mobility management measures applied by employers;

collective work agreements on MM and tele-working; and

5% less car kilometres in rush hours and the associated reduction of emissions in the participating regions.

The Netherlands have also seen a change in the organisation of ministries with the creation of a Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment in October 2010, replacing the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management and the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment in the work related to mobility management. The National Road Authority (Rijkswaterstaat) remains the authority – agency of the Ministry – in charge of the national road network.

- Sweden: The Swedish Transport Administration was created in 2010, taking over the Road Administration. It has the responsibility of implementing the regional infrastructure planning and is working with the TRAST Programme (Traffic for an attractive city) which produced a handbook with guidelines on how to

Page 14 of 49

develop an attractive city by planning with an emphasis on sustainable transport and with guidance on how to work with MM.

- Clearer approach from Ministries (Bulgaria, Greece and Lithuania): in Bulgaria, a new strategy for the development of transport is currently implemented by the Ministry and general measures on mobility management have been included. In Greece, the ministries in charge have received a new objective, “Green Growth”, which goes through the adoption of policies and the implementation of measures aiming sustainable urban mobility. In Lithuania, even though a large number of ministries are involved in mobility management issues (Ministry of Environment & Transport, Ministry of Economy, Ministry of Energy and Ministry of Interior) with its own competencies, the Mobility Management Monitor underlines the recent changes in the perception of ministries towards mobility: it is now acknowledged that soft measures also have a role to play.

There have been some major changes and some new developments at the national level which can be grouped around four trends:

1. Reorganisation of responsibilities with the creation of Transport Agencies attached to the Ministry of Transport. This is the case in Nordic countries (Sweden, Finland) and – at a smaller scale – in Lithuania where the Road Administration is mostly (still) working on road maintenance. The Lithuanian situation could nevertheless evolve in a similar direction as in these Nordic countries with a Transport Agency.

2. Split of competences among several Ministries as in France.

3. Change of Ministries as in Hungary, in the Netherlands and – to a certain extent – in Germany.

4. Implementation of new actors enabling a more integrated approach of MM such as “Mister Bike” in France or the Dutch Taskforce on mobility management.

2.1.2Regional and local levels: which changes?

In last year’s comparative analysis, regional and local authorities had been analysed in a detail, taking into account their competencies (limited powers / strong powers / mainly consensus builders) and their financial resources (with/without support from the national level). The question to ask now is: what is the current situation in Ireland, Latvia, Romania and Slovakia for regions and/or municipalities in terms of mobility management, and have there been changes in the other countries?

For the 2010 countries

- Ireland: The National Transport Authority defines regional planning guidelines which apply to regional authorities. In the Greater Dublin region, for example, the Dublin Transportation Office was set up with the objective of producing a long-term transport strategy based on travel a demand management and infrastructure provision; it produced an employer’s guide to mobility management plans. Several examples illustrate the fact that actions of mobility management in Ireland were pioneered at the regional level before becoming a national practice.

- Latvia: A regional reform was launched in 2009: 109 counties (municipalities) and nine cities were defined but no regional level. The Law on Municipalities shapes and recognises the autonomy of municipalities for the issues of spatial planning; road building; maintenance of streets, public spaces, and green areas; waste management; and organisation of public transport. It is worth mentioning that two municipalities, Riga and Jurmala, have issued a rule setting the procedure by which persons may enter a special mode of transport in the Old Town area or the city centre, so there is an entry fee for these areas which is a local decision.

- Romania: Regions have been defined only recently (in 1998) mainly to manage EU funds but they have very limited capacities and powers. Regions deal in particular with regional Operational Programme 2007-2013 whose axis 1 is on sustainable development of urban areas. It covers improvement of urban transport and thus indirectly of public transport, environmental friendly transport and alternative modes such as walking and cycling. Nevertheless, there is a major problem of contradiction between texts and reality since the transport master plans developed at local level and which should include MM measures

Page 15 of 49

pay more attention to increasing streets capacity, developing new public transport lines and other hard measures instead of promoting soft measures.

- Slovakia: The eight self-governing regions are mainly responsible for maintenance of roads which takes most of their budget and do not work specifically on mobility management issues.

For the other countries

- Estonia: The Regional Public Transport services have been recently reorganised and merged into Road Department Regional Offices instead of Country government.

- France: In December 2010, the new Code of Transport defined the framework for policy making at the local level: all urban areas have to be covered by an urban planning scheme which sets transport guidelines for the whole urban area. Moreover, the Sustainable Urban Transport Plan gives prescriptions on how to tackle traffic, develop public transport, walking, cycling or carpooling in cities with more than 100.000 inhabitants.

- Germany: At the regional level, a measure strongly supporting mobility management and particularly highlighted in the 2010 Mobility Management Monitor is the existence of 15 regional networks financed with the Effizient mobil Programme from 2008-2010. Those networks are supported by regional coordinators who are in charge of liaising with stakeholders and coordinating the analysis and implementation of mobility management measures offered to companies and municipalities.

- Greece: In early 2011, a reorganisation of the local and regional levels took place in the country with the definition of 13 new regions. It is foreseen that planning and implementation of responsibilities regarding transport would transferred to regions which should remove many barriers. At the latest local elections (November 2010), a new political party ‘We insist on Athens’ received many votes. The party has a bike as logo, promotes sustainable transport and defends five key ideas: pavements (walking), bikes, green (transport), parking management and change of culture. This indicates that the society is becoming more sensitive to sustainable mobility issues.

- Hungary: The transport management in Budapest has been reorganised with the creation of a Transport Centre integrating all aspects of transport (road maintenance, public transport, bike and taxis) which is expected to provide a better framework.

- Lithuania: A regional development council has been established in each region, replacing the Governor’s administration. It is in charge of submitting proposals for regional policy and it approves the regional development plans. It is thus the new authority taking care of the regional work in the field of MM.

- Poland: The Wroclaw Cycling Programme (2009-2012) includes a number of key actions such as building new cycling routes, creating parking places (400 places in 50 locations in the city centre in 2009) and allowing bikes in the bus and trams. The promotion of cycling at the local level has been enhanced with Krakow and Gdansk signing the Velocity Charter2 of Brussels in 2009, joined by Lodz in 2011, and appointing a Cycling Policy Officer.

- Sweden: The “Regional Transport Infrastructure Investment Plan” is used to spend funding from the government and an Action Plan for Mobility Management is under development in the Stockholm region.

Since last year, some new trends have developed in the way governance is organised, we have thus seen:

1. A reorganisation of administration in Lithuania, Greece, Hungary.

2. A definition of a new local framework in France, Sweden.

3. The local level taking concrete actions on specific measures such as cycling in Poland.

4. On the other hand, there are still many divisions in competences and unclear shares of responsibilities such as in Bulgaria with the case of Sofia, which shows the challenge of coordinating four different entities involved in the administration of transport planning and in the policy development: the Transport

2 Its objectives are: to increase the role of bicycle in urban mobility and sustainable development of public transportation. The participating cities are to increase the share of cycling in urban transportation by 15%, to lessen by 50% the risks of accidents with cyclists, to create the system of parking lots and anti-theft facilities, to increase the role of bicycles in every day trips to work and school, and to promote cycling tourism.

Page 16 of 49

Office and Deputy Mayor of transport; the urban organization (planning office); the public transport company and the transport infrastructure and transport safety committee.

2.1.3Stakeholders and knowledge infrastructure

Last year in the comparative analysis and a year into the EPOMM-PLUS project, we had studied the knowledge infrastructures and networks in place and noticed that they were at different stages: well-established networks, newly born networks, networks-to-be and networks to build from scratch. All these structures supported by EPOMM-PLUS had a key role in initiating national networks, bringing together the different channels and fortifying the levels.

Thanks to the updated MMM, it is possible and easier to monitor the progress in EPOMM-PLUS countries, the situation is now as follow:

- Austria has a very large and well-implemented network, which represents paradoxically a challenge as it might suffer from its size. In fact, the Austrian network represents around 18.000 partners, which on the one hand, creates a real barrier to get all partners active and involved. On the other hand, a lot of local initiatives are not covered by the network. The network has uniquely mixed the different sectors since its start (housing, transport, private companies) in order to cross-fertilise.

- Bulgaria mentions the creation of a Local Stakeholders Forum in Sofia, shaped in 2008 under the BENEFIT project and involving transport operators, transport trade-union, scientific centres, energy agencies, experts in transport and urban development, NGOs as well as representatives from the different authorities (ministry, municipalities). This Forum is the occasion for participants to meet on a regular basis and to discuss MM work and challenges in Sofia.

- In Finland the creation of the network has been achieved by word-of-mouth in the Helsinki region, so currently there is a need to clarify its vision (to adapt the work such as the newsletters to the members needs). The city of Turku is also preparing its own regional network and is trying to promote a regional platform on the model of the Swedish regional network (ReSmart in Stockholm).

- Germany has a platform for MM and there is an informal network of regional MM networks, but no organisation at national level. The creation of a German energy agency is underway; it would be in charge of coordinating and organising the network, which currently suffers from fragmented participation.

- Hungary: the network has been built by “merging” other networks (such as cycling associations, experts, green NGOs, cyclist network, Ministries network for municipalities which have EMW events etc.) but it still has to define its tasks and objectives.

- Italy has a network of Mobility Managers, which shows some success and is implemented for some years already; it is based on the 800 Mobility Managers but maybe need to go broader both in term of actors and of activities.

- Portugal has a Charter for Cidades Moveis, developed in 2010; it supports the network for cities and organisations working on local mobility planning and MM.

Table 4: Networks and knowledge infrastructures

well-established networks Austria, The Netherlands, UK, Sweden, Italy,new networks Finland, Portugal, Belgium, Hungary, Germany, Greece, Romania,networks soon-to-be France, Denmark, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Slovenia, Irelandnetworks to build up Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Spain, Slovakia, Latvia

2.2 Strategies for implementations

Page 17 of 49

As underlined last year, strategies to implement mobility management are quiet flexible and depend on the target group or on the objectives of public authorities. Strategies can be grouped around 3 main aspects: regulation with the development of legislative measures; taxation with financial and fiscal measures; and promotion with awareness raising campaigns.

2.2.1Regulation

Four different types of regulation had been identified, based on whether MM or MM measures were mentioned, and their effects (direct or indirect). In the table below this is shown by the following symbols:

-/- MM not mentioned / only indirect effect+/- MM mentioned/ only indirect effect-/+ MM not mentioned / direct effect+/+ MM mentioned/direct effect

Table 5: Types of regulations

Examples-/- National plan for sustainable development (Belgium, Lithuania); national programme on energy and/or

mobility (The Netherlands, Spain) or national strategy on climate or environment (Belgium, France, Finland, Bulgaria, Estonia), Action plan promoting urban mobility plans or company transport plans (Spain), Green investment Plan (Denmark)

+/- National transport plan (Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Spain) or strategy on the transport development (Lithuania), programmes (Switzerland - Swiss Energy, Austria - k:aktiv, Germany - Effizient mobil)

-/+National laws on Automobile Transport, Roads, Traffic, or CO2 reduction (Bulgaria, United Kingdom, France)

+/+ Laws on mobility plans (compulsory for companies with more than 100 employees, Belgium and the

mobility covenant programme in Flanders) or decrees on mobility managers (Italy in 1998 and 2000: decrees making mobility managers compulsory for companies with more than 300 employees)

For the 2010 countries

- In Ireland, ‘Smarter Travel a Sustainable Transport Future’ (+/+) is a long-term transport strategy produced in 2009 and covering the period until 2020. This programme contains 49 actions among which six are specifically mobility management actions, one of which is the Smart Travel Workplaces programme. This programme is managed by the Irish National Transport Authority and has over 50 partners in the public and private sector. It consists of a package of measures meant to promote and support more sustainable travel behaviour. There is also the ‘Partner Package’ measure which offers services to businesses of over 250 employees. These services include: travel analysis; a customised car-sharing website; advice from transport professionals; and tools such as the travel cost calculator and cycle maps. All these measures have been shown to decrease car use by 10%-30% within the project.

- In Latvia, the ‘Sustainable Development Strategy 2030’ (+/-) has been adopted in June 2010, it is expected to become the main legally-binding planning document for the country and all other strategic planning documents will be developed or modified according to the priorities defined in this strategy. This document includes a chapter on energy efficiency and environmentally friendly transport policy with reference to pedestrian areas and bicycle paths.

- In Romania the ‘National Sustainable Development Strategy 2013-2030’ (-/-) aims to ensure that transport meets the economic, social and environmental needs of the society while minimizing their negative impacts.

Page 18 of 49

For the other countries

- France: in June 2010, the Grenelle II Law (+/+) made an important contribution to the issue of sustainable development by generalising the urban planning schemes by 2017 and clarifying the competences of local authorities in the field of planning and transport management. This is done in particular by: giving them the capacity to implement car or bike sharing schemes; creating a label for car-sharing; and giving the possibility to trial a congestion charge system in cities with more than 300.000 inhabitants for up to three year, providing that this city has an Sustainable Urban Transport Plan and public transport. Moreover administrations located in cities with more than 100.000 inhabitants had to implement a mobility plan for employees before the end of 2009.

- Germany: the 2010 MMM mentions the fact that in the land use planning (National Planning Law), environmentally friendly transport modes must be taken into account in combination with reducing traffic measures (+/+). Furthermore, air pollution and noise reduction plans start to include MM as long-term action to improve air quality. At the regional level, the building laws regulate various issues related to construction of buildings, such as the parking on private property by taking into account public transport connections (-/+). In the building law of Berlin, the duty to build parking spaces has been cancelled since 1997 (except for disabled people). Only four federal states do not provide a duty of building bike-parking facilities.

- Portugal: the ’mobility package’ is a legislative package, which has recently been developed to define the content and the concept of municipal land use plans (-/+). It includes information on incentives and co financing and is currently being used for public discussions on this issue. In parallel, the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan (2008) includes a section on transport (+/-) and mentions some measures such as mobility plans compulsory for 18 districts capitals or urban mobility plans for offices and industrial parks with more than 500 workers. However, it does not provide financial support nor give guidelines on how to achieve these goals.

2.2.2Taxation

In the previous comparative analysis (2009 EU MMM), a small inventory on financial and fiscal measures adopted by national and local authorities to promote and encourage MM, were listed. Those were for example:

- the reimbursement of public transport tickets for employees

- tax exemption for commuting by other means than by car (the Netherlands, Austria and Belgium);

- tax regulation to encourage carpooling and teleworking (The Netherlands) and to limit company cars (Belgium)

- subsidies for buying bikes (United Kingdom, The Netherlands)

Some updates or new developments have been highlighted in the Mobility Management Monitors, for example:

- In France the transport contribution is a tax paid by companies with more than 9 employees located in an urban area with more than 100.000 inhabitants. It is calculated as a percentage of the company payroll and its rate depends on the size of the urban area as well as on public transport in appropriate sites. The tax partly finances public transport and biking infrastructures.

- In Bulgaria and in Sofia in particular, a new parking system has been implemented by the municipality in the summer of 2010, it is based on higher parking taxes and already shows some good results in terms of a decrease of car number in the city centre.

- In Belgium there has been a recent change in the fiscal legislation: companies now have to refund a minimum of 75% of the public transport costs. The Belgian EPOMM-PLUS partner also mentions in the MMM Brussels’ plans to implement low emissions zones which – depending on the way those are defined and implemented – would contribute to the development of MM.

Page 19 of 49

2.2.3Promotion

As underlined last year, awareness-raising is by far the most used and the most widely spread and known strategy for the development of mobility management. There are so many campaigns and awareness-raising events on so many different aspects of MM that we will not try to establish any inventory, nevertheless for some countries (countries from 2010 or other countries) a few innovative or successful initiatives will be presented briefly.

- In Ireland, the National Bike Week is an annual event held in June. During the 2009 Bike Week, thousands of people took part in over 370 events, contests and competitions around Ireland, with events including: bike maintenance workshops, guided cycle tours, and treasure hunts. The week aims to raise the profile of cycling, while targeting different types of cyclists: regular cycling commuter, sports cyclists, and leisure cyclists.

- In Denmark, the association of Danish regions has launched last year a nation-wide study to reach an increase of public transport use by 50% in 2030 and to improve intermodality. To support this objective, the free access of bikes in buses (free of charge) has been promoted and since 2010, the measure has been widened to commuter trains from Copenhagen.

- In France, a number of guides bring support to the development of mobility management; those have been developed by the CERTU (Centre for Studies on networks, transport and urban development) or the ADEME (Environment and Energy Agency). These guides cover the issues of mobility advising services (mobility advisors), mobility plans for companies (2004) or school mobility plans (2009).

- In Germany, the campaign “Switch on your head, switch off your car” developed by the Federal Ministry of Environment has been implemented in three (2009) and six (2010) cities to reduce the use of car in urban areas.

- In Belgium, in the field of promotion, Flanders has been working for some years now with the STOP principle standing for first Walk (Stappen), then Peddle (Trappen), Public transport (Openbaar vervoer) and Private transport (Privé-Vervoer). A decree from the Flemish government in 2009 mentions this principle indicating the most desirable transportation means to use and makes it a guide or a rule for policy making of governments, regional and local in Flanders

2.3 Measures of mobility management

EPOMM-PLUS partners were invited last year to report on MM measures which were considered successful. An attempt of classification was done with a table showing front-runner countries for a number of MM measures. However this approach did little to illustrate the actual situation of MM in the relevant country, being based on the subjective and one-sided depiction of mobility management measures., For this reason, this year’s comparative analysis took a new approach: we did not carry out a classification of countries on MM measures but instead focussed on some good examples of MM in detail. We have also slightly reorganised the categorisation to follow Max project3 which had defined MM measures in seven categories:

- information measures (mobility centre, technologies, marketing)

- promotional measures

- organisation and coordination measures (carpooling, car-sharing)

- education and training measures

- site-based measures (mobility plans, school mobility plans)

- telecommunication and flexible time organisation

3 The MAX-project ran from 2006 to 2009 and was the largest research project on Mobility Management within the EU’s sixth framework programme. The MAX consortium, of 28 partners, served to extend, standardise and improve Mobility Management, gave a definition of Mobility Management – available on EPOMM website – and categorisation of Mobility Management Measures.

Page 20 of 49

- supportive/integrative actions (parking management, taxes, congestion charges)

2.3.1 Information measures

Trafik Stockholm: Traffic management and information mobility Centre (Sweden)

Situation & Description

Trafik Stockholm provides travellers with information and guidance in order to reduce the number of accidents, improve accessibility and mobility, and thereby alleviate congestion and its harmful impact on the environment.

Objectives To provide the public with traffic information to improve accessibility, safety and lessen the impact on the environment. Trafik Stockholm can close roads and reroute traffic if necessary.

Implementation

Cameras, sensors and information systems to manage traffic have been set up along the major highways and in tunnels. In particular Trafik Stockholm monitors traffic in the Häggvik tunnel, Muskö tunnel and the tunnel system of Södra Länken. The new control room display is designed to ensure that Trafik Stockholm’s operating staff can take maximum advantage of the information flow coming in to the control room.

Cost & Funding Trafik Stockholm is owned by the Swedish Road Administration (75%) and the City of Stockholm (25%).

Results

- 80 % of the people who have access to the information have changed their travel because of it.

- Improved traffic safety, fulfilling the original objectives.

- Changes in terns of roads or of transport (public transport and biking) have been observed.

Kalamaria Mobility Centre (Greece)

Situation & Description

- Aggravated traffic congestion within the city of Thessaloniki.

- The Mobility Centre provides a “one stop shop” and an online informative platform about public transport information services and additionally to motivate people to use public transport services and alternative mobility modes instead of their private vehicles.

Objectives

- Increase users’ awareness and use of sustainable transport modes.

- Increase user share for public transport.

- Reduce the use of private vehicles, environmental pollutant emissions, and energy consumption for transportation.

- Promotion of the profile of the Municipality of Kalamaria regarding innovation in transport and energy.

- Reach at least 10% shift in target groups (schools; industries and service companies; and the general public) who have made durable or temporary changes in their mobility behaviour.

Implementation - First official meeting of the local support group in October 2007, identifying potential service providers and schedule for establishment of the centre.

- Definition of the Mobility Centre activities which include: promotion of European Mobility Week; presentations to local authorities; and educational institutions.

- Awareness-raising campaigns: 900 regular and 600 reduced price bus tickets offered to

Page 21 of 49

users of the Mobility Centre of Kalamaria.

- The featured services include:

o Public transport & taxis information

o Points of interest

o Multimodal urban routing with public transport

o Ticket information

o Web mail services

o Complaint forms

Cost & Funding

Partially funded by European Programme (MOBI-NET DG TREN Intelligent Energy Europe).

Municipality of Kalamaria funded several initiatives by the Mobility Centre such as: official promotion of the Mobility Centre to the press (€2,000); promotional material at key locations (2 000 Euros); and promotion of and participation in the Mobility Week (€2,500).

Results The Mobility Centre has been very well received, and there are currently plans to extend it.

2.3.2Promotional measures

Awareness raising activities for cycling in Varna (Bulgaria)

Situation & Description

A variety of promotional activities were carried out in Varna to promote cycling. These included information activities, surveys, competitions and information materials, which all involved the active participation of local students.

Objectives Promoting a newly constructed 10km cycle path in Varna.

Implementation

Two main target groups were selected for participation in the project:

- Students were the main target group as they were deemed as the most potentially likely group to own and use the new cycle path.

- Teachers were also targeted as they were able to promote the wider sustainability aspects of the project to students, and also help motivate them to take up cycling.

More than 2,100 students in 20 schools In Varna were recruited and participated in face-to-face interviews. Throughout the interviews students were asked to describe the transport problems they experienced in the city and give their opinions on how best to promote the new cycle path, and cycling in general.

Based on these interviews, it was decided to implement a campaign to inform and promote the use of sustainable transport modes to both students and other local residents, although focusing on the promotion of cycling and the new cycle path. As a result;

- four types of dissemination materials highlighting the benefits of cycling and use of the bicycle path were designed, printed out and disseminated in the schools; and

- 40 teenagers were trained to promote cycling to their peers at information days held at the different schools. Each school appointed two students to attend a two hour training session, which covered cycle safety, sustainable mobility in Varna, and details of the new cycle path. The students were selected voluntarily, according to their personal interests and attitude to the issue.

Cost & Funding ADDED VALUE project (co-financing)

Page 22 of 49

Results

- Information on sustainable transport modes and the new cycle path was disseminated to more than 555,000 local residents, both directly and indirectly.

- More than 2,100 students were directly involved in the campaign and made aware of the new cycle path and benefits associated with cycling, as well as inputting into the development of the promotional materials.

- Based on a before and after survey, students’ awareness of the new cycle path, the concept of sustainable mobility, and the benefits of cycling rose from 39% to 61% following the campaign.

- It was estimated that following the campaign approximately 22% of participants have made a positive modal shift to more sustainable transport means, including cycling.

(Source: ELTIS: www.eltis.org)

Environmental Friendly Mobility video, Almada (Portugal)

Situation & Description

Almada has been very active in promoting sustainable mobility for many years and has been acknowledged for the quality of its work and its strong commitment by using promotional measures. Additionally, Almada was nominated the winner of the 2010 European Mobility Week awards.

Objectives

The main aim of the campaign was to design and produce an attractive and appealing promotional tool to promote public transport within Almada. The main target groups for the campaign were schoolchildren and students, who were actively involved in the development of a promotional video.

Implementation

Children attending schools in Almada were asked to give their opinions and contributions on the local sustainable development of their city. In response, the children produced a series of drawing and slogans related to the tram in Almada. Based on this input, a video was produced using a mixed technique, combining real images with the children’s pictures and slogans.

The video was created by children from local schools in close cooperation with the Children’s Local Agenda 21 staff, which ensured its professional look. The video was presented during the ‘children’s parliament’ in June 2009 to an audience of students, teachers, the Mayor and city councillors, and is now been widely disseminated to other schoolchildren and members of the general public.

Cost & Funding- The cost of production of the video, which includes the professional team for editing and

filming, was around €16,000 in total.

- ADDED VALUE project (co-financing)

Results

- The video was shown in 4 major events to a total audience of approximately 1,000 people and ‘looped’ in several exhibitions.

- The success of the initiative led to the video to be subtitled into 12 additional languages which allowed it to be internationally disseminated. In total 1,500 copies were made, including 500 copies which were distributed internationally by the partners of the project.

- Direct involvement with target groups can significantly enhance the effectiveness of campaigns. In this case involving the children in the process of producing the materials was found to be very effective, and appealing and rewarding for those who were involved.

- The use of professional services for the production of the video was seen as essential to ensure a successful output.

(Source: ELTIS: www.eltis.org)

Page 23 of 49

2.3.3Organisation and coordination measures

Car-sharing in Brescia (Italy)

Situation & Description

In February 2010, Brescia launched a car-sharing service as part of its CIVITAS (MODERN) activities. The scheme gives citizens access to a car at any time of the day.

This system is also organised within the Iniziativa Car Sharing (ICS), an agreement promoted by the Department of the Environment between major Italian cities interested in setting up car-sharing services.

The role of ICS is: to ensure country-wide coordination of local car-sharing experience; communicate the launch of car-sharing services in Italy and promotional campaigns directed at actual users; define and check the quality, procedural and technological standards; contributing to the financing (in the form of grants for municipalities up to 50% of costs).

Source: www.icscarsharing.it

Objectives Reduce the number of private cars in the city and the city centre.

Implementation

- Currently 8 cars running on clean fuels.

- Linked to Italian car-sharing network (subscribers can use car-sharing schemes in other Italian cities).

- Free parking for car-sharers in assigned areas.

- 24-hour break-down service.

- Discounts for the first 100 subscribers, as well as over-60s, families, students, private companies and public administrations.

Cost & Funding Co-financing with the ICS agreement.

Results Promising results after first few months, rapid increase in the number of registered customers.

On the issue of car-sharing, it is worth mentioning a recent law in France (Grenelle II in 2009) has made explicit reference to car-sharing, which represents a real and concrete impulse. A decree is currently being prepared to formally define the concept of car-sharing and to create a label at the national level.

2.3.4Education and training measures

Schools programme in Belgium

Situation & Description

In the three regions of Belgium (Brussels region, Walloon region and Flanders region) actions are developed to improve education in schools to sustainable mobility.

Objectives Improve mobility in cities and educate citizens to more sustainable behaviour, starting with the youngest citizens.

ImplementationAccessibility maps in Brussels

Since 2006, special attention is given to the creation of accessibility maps in the Brussels region. Two NGOs subsidised by the Brussels Government, are responsible for the creation of accessibility maps for schools and with the support of the STIB (public transport company). Each year, schools have to make a mobility scan for the Brussels government. After that,

Page 24 of 49

they may – but do not have to – develop an accessibility map and action plan with guidance of the department of transport and mobility. Schools can apply for financial support for the realisation of actions within the action plan.

Mobility Spring ( Printemps de la Mobilité ) in Wallonia

The Walloon region has increased its effort in mobility education in schools over the last few years (2008-2010). During the Mobility Week in September 2010, the Walloon regional government has launched a call for applications to the Mobility Spring Initiative: schools should partner up with their municipality and jointly apply for one of five ready-made projects, conceived and delivered by various experienced NGOs. The projects include safe cycle routes to schools, walking buses, carpooling to school, an exchange week on mobility between two classes and a buddy project where primary school children are accompanied on their route to school by a secondary school student.

Traffic Snake Game Flanders

The campaign “Safe and Environment Friendly to School” promoting walking and cycling to school, has been implemented for several years in Flanders region (since 2004). It includes:

- the Traffic-Snake Game that stimulates children to use safe and sustainable modes of transport to school; and

- a range of educational projects on transport and mobility that are set up in the school.

The campaign has shown very good results in the 1.000 Flemish schools involved. This explains the reason why it has grown international and has been enlarged to nine European countries within the CONNECT project.

Cost & Funding

Sustainable to school funding Programme

In 2007, the Flemish Ministry of Education (in cooperation with the Ministry of Transport) launched a funding scheme for municipalities. Municipalities applying to this programme get subsidised for “sustainable to school” actions for all primary schools on their premises. The local government was encouraged to develop an integrated plan. This obliges schools and municipalities to cooperate in finding solutions for a common problem. The funding programme has ended in June 2010.

Traffic Snake Game Flanders

CONNECT project (co-financing).

Results

Accessibility maps in Brussels

Accessibility maps develop in the framework of the promotion of school mobility plans (not compulsory), which are more than 120 currently.

International Traffic Snake Game

The International Traffic Snake engaged its first year around 15,854 children from 76 schools in nine EU countries and a modal shift of 16% in favour of more sustainable modes was achieved. In 2010, the game reached approximately 80,000 pupils, 5,500 teachers, 3,900 classes and 55,500 parents who engage themselves to let the car stay at home for at least one week.

The position of mobility adviser or mobility manager has become a core position in the development and implementation of mobility management measures. France, Belgium and Italy have some results which are worth presenting:

- France: the Grand Lyon metropolitan area has contributed to the development of a workplace travel plan for companies. After a consultation process (diagnosis) financed by Grand Lyon, a number of posts of mobility advisers were offered and created in order to launch local level activities, update, and make the link between the transport authority and the companies. 80% of the costs of the

Page 25 of 49

mobility advisers are covered by a public consortium (the region, the city and the national energy agency) while enterprises welcoming the mobility advisers have to cover the remaining 20%.

- Belgium: a training programme for mobility advisers was created 10 years ago by Brussels region mobility services. The main objective of this training is to educate staff from regional and local administrations about mobility issues and to make them become a real link and point of contact on mobility issues between the regional and the local levels. About 300 people have been trained so far. In the Walloon region a similar programme has been in place for about 10 years and has trained around 950 people, who are in charge of identifying key mobility problems and keeping mobility management measures from the different actors coherent.

- Italy: 67 offices of mobility managers in local and provincial administration have been created since 2000 and there are about 800 mobility managers in companies. To go even further, some proposals were made such as reducing the threshold of company size from 300 to 100 employees for the appointment of a mobility manager, as well as the introduction of a mobility plan for commercial, artisanal and industrial areas, although these points are still under discussion.

2.3.5Site-based measures

For MAX, a mobility plan is “a site based plan that aims to manage and, often, to change the travel patterns of the persons travelling to and from this site (for example employees of a company, customers at a shop […]). In many countries, this is called a travel plan or trip reduction plan. The mobility plan most often consists of a whole package of measures, especially when the site is very large”.

Tisseo, Grand Toulouse Public Transport Authority (France)

Situation & Description

- In 2008, ¾ of commuter trips were made by private car.

- Companies and workplaces located outside of the city are not easily reachable by public transport.

Objectives

- Encouraging the implementation of company-based commuter plans

- Controlling car traffic

- Developing the usage of (intermodal) public transport

- Developing sustainable mobility options

- Supporting parking management

- Supporting car-sharing and carpooling (for harder-to-reach workplaces)

- Implementing accessibility schemes for transport networks and road networks, and redesigning public spaces

Targets- 15% cycle modal share by 2020

- To meet national targets: 20% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions stemming from transport, increase to 25% of non-road freight by 2012

Implementation - Tisseo offers a package of support to companies throughout the city region to help them get their mobility plans started, and has developed a 5-step methodology for workplace mobility planning: Diagnostic – Inquiries – Validation of the action plan – Calendar and action scheduling – Evaluation (steps 1 to 4 take about a year).

- 2 personalised travel assistants engage companies and offer initiatives such as car-sharing, carpooling and bicycle schemes.

- Awareness-raising: exhibitions, meetings, providing multimodal information to

Page 26 of 49

companies.

- Providing communication materials: leaflets, brochures, educational kits.

Cost & Funding

- Workplace mobility planning estimate (2009) €37,000

- Ecomobility department level (Mobility Agency) (2009) €1,415,500

- Financial support for participating companies up to €4,500, not exceeding 25% of final cost.

Results

- In total, 62 commuter plans have been launched from 2001 in the Greater Toulouse urban area.

- Of those 62, one-third have an agreement with Tisseo, totalling 60,000 employees.

- From 2008-2009 Tisseo agreed 5 commuter plans (17,044 employees).

- Winner of the Pan-European Workplace Travel Awards 2010 in the area of public authorities.

Studio Metropolitana, Rákóczi Avenue (Budapest)

Situation & Description

- The area was extremely congested with car traffic, pedestrians avoided Rákóczi Avenue.

- Shops suffered from decreasing number of pedestrian traffic and degradation of the reputation of the avenue.

- The Budapest bypass highway was opened, but this did not affect the level of traffic.

Objectives

- Effective cooperation between modes

- Advancing sustainable modes (public transport, cycling, walking)

- Rehabilitate the shopping street

Implementation

- Focussing on usage of existing transport infrastructure, not on building new infrastructure

- The first step: elaboration of “Suggestion Pack”, based on several resources: MM questionnaires; Future City Game; forum with local retailers; forum with local residents; and forum with experts and decision makers (“Municipality talkings”)

- Then the “Suggestion Pack” was debated online and a final forum was organised.

- On-site events were organised, for example the Rákóczi Street-Fest (first one held on 17 October 2009), highlighting transport problems as well as potential for the site.

- Steering Committee established for Rákóczi Avenue; the result of their work will be a recommended action plan (including MM) for the Municipality of Budapest and for developers.

Cost & Funding

- Work hours spent on filling in questionnaires

- Work hours spent on collecting professional’s and expert’s opinion and suggestions

- Work hours spent on elaborating and monitoring mobility plan

- Costs of events (festivals, meetings, conferences etc.)

- Extensive and continuous communication of mobility plan and its measures at all levels

Page 27 of 49

1.1.1 Telecommunication and flexible time organisation

Mobility Management and teleworking organisation (France)

Situation & Description

- Teleworking is being increasingly considered as a mobility tool and measure in France, where in 2004 only represented about 7% of employees. This figure indicates (despite the lack of more recent statistics at EU level) the small but regular progress encountered by teleworking given that the 2001 Eurobarometer had reported teleworking was regarding about 5.6% of employees.

- Compared to some European countries such as the Netherlands (25%), Germany, Finland, Denmark (23%) or UK (15%) where it represents a significant part of the employees, teleworking in France had suffered for many years of a lack of clear legislative support.

Objectives- Improve Transfer Demand Management, make full use of (public) transport and be

flexible to follow trends and find answers in time of congestion.

- Aim for 1 to 2 days a week, which has been shown to be the optimum situation.

Targets- Do not define targets in terms of figures or of jobs but more in terms of tasks.

- Offer several options: work from home, teleworking centre, network offices, or “nomad” work.

Implementation

- Encouraging framework with development of e-economy, e-services and the need of improving costs.

- With the 2009, the Grenelle Law is formally encouraged at the same level as car-sharing and carpooling. It is the first time this appears in a legal document.

Results

- In the Region Finistère in France: teleworking has been implemented at a larger scale and is part of the mobility plan (around 80 staff members engage in teleworking).

- Grand Lyon: a teleworking centre has been developed with around 440 enterprises.

- In December 2010 an agreement was signed for the staff of the Ministry of Economy working in the central building in Paris to encourage and develop teleworking.

1.1.2 Supportive & integrative actions

Mobility management during road construction - Utrecht bereikbaar (Netherlands)

Situation & Description

Many motorways need to be extended or reconstructed. During these roadworks, the road capacity is lower, which results in traffic jams and congestion. As roads already are severely congested, the transport minister wants to reduce nuisance (Minder Hinder) during road works. MM is an important element.

Objectives

- Reduce nuisance during road works

- Use temporary measures in order to create new facilities like P+R

- Create awareness on alternative modes of transport

- The challenge is to get thousands of cars from the road. This worked in the innovative project on the A9 orbital of Amsterdam (Gaasperdammerweg) in 2005. As this was highly successful, soon the national road authority made it obligatory to work with MM for large roadworks.

Page 28 of 49

Implementation

For the ministry of transport, it was highly important to reduce nuisance, otherwise there would be huge complaints about the road works. For RWS the shift from technical focus to user orientation was very helpful.

MM measures may be expensive, but they are only a minor part of the road works budget. In every project there’s budget for evaluation of measures. This helps to improve the way of working on a continuous base and to predict the chances for new project better and better.

Pilot project “Utrecht Bereikbaar”

Cost & Funding- Small part of budget from roadworks means large budgets for MM.

- A special fiscal measure was taken by the ministry of Finance, which made it possible to give PT passes to car drivers. Otherwise, the PT pass should be considered as income.

Results

- Less nuisance

- Awareness of MM at stakeholders

- Higher travel awareness for affected target groups

2.4 Chapter conclusions

EPOMM-PLUS partners have been able to identify new developments in their countries especially concerning governance, strategies for implementation of MM or measures of MM.

For governance, at the national level, the trend seems to be towards the homogenisation of ministerial organisation with two key ministries in charge of MM measures and the support of national agencies.

Concerning the strategies for implementation, no new strategy has been defined but several countries have recently adopted regulation or have strengthen their existing regulation or taxation measures which represent an tool for developing mobility management.

Finally, on MM measures, only a few EPOMM-PLUS countries have been able to present new and interesting examples, but experience shows that those good examples do exist, what is now needed is more visibility, more publicity and more confidence in the success of these projects.

Page 29 of 49

3 Funding and financing of MM in Europe

Last year, the EU MMM put the focus on the issue of mobility management and land use planning. This year, taking into consideration the current economic recession, the focus is on funding and financing options for mobility management in Europe.

Difficulties generated from the economic situation over Europe have pushed countries to think twice about their costs and find solutions to reduce their expenses. For example in the UK, the Department for Transport (DfT) had a 15% cut in its budget in 2010, and a consequence of these cuts was the abolishment of initiatives like Cycling England and the Commission for Integrated Transport. These economic problems raise the question of resources for mobility management, and particularly, how to maintain them in a time of economic crisis.

The objective of this section is to present and illustrate sources of funding and financing for mobility management and sustainable mobility, with examples from EPOMM-PLUS countries, however it will not provide an exhaustive inventory of these sources. To begin with, we will go over what is meant by the terms ‘funding’ and ‘financing’ in this report. Secondly, we will explore the current situation at local and regional, national, and European levels, and conclude by proposing a few recommendations on possible improvements to this system.

Firstly, it is important to point out that there is no uniform definition for funding and financing across the many EU budgetary instruments and institutions. These terms are inextricably linked and convoluted, however, and for the sake of clarity we intend the terms to mean the following (simplified):

- Funding = grants (non-reimbursable)

- Financing = loans (repayable)

From a mobility management point of view, we will take into account funding and financing covering public transport, walking, cycling, car-sharing, campaigns, travel plans (essentially covering measures of MM listed previously), but we do not include large infrastructure (such as roads, bridges) nor air or maritime transport.

3.1 Situation

In the 2010 EU MMM, EPOMM-PLUS partners identified a number of factors that hindered MM; taxation, such as: tax break for car commuters (Germany); car taxation systems pushing drivers to drive more (Greece); company cars (Germany and Belgium); broader regulation on investments, for example legislation preventing from “soft” investments (Sweden); or an obligation to have a determined minimum number of parking spaces when building new constructions (Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Germany).

The Dutch partner mentioned the fact that the Dutch Task Force for MM has identified 16 different fiscal problems which limit the implementation of MM with for instance that fiscal support measures for bikes and e-bikes or e-scooters are too difficult to understand, or that there is no official recognition of the new transport solutions such as OV-fiets or Park & Ride (P&R).

Nevertheless if some taxation measures represent barriers to the development of mobility management, others can represent a real support. This is one part of the different funding opportunities that we are going to present below.

3.1.1Regional and local levels

Regional and local authorities have access to a number of options possible to finance and further develop or encourage mobility management; these go from the ’obvious’ ones - such as fares coming from the use of public transport – to the more complex ones such as public-private partnerships.

Page 30 of 49

Fares

If the revenue from fares is presented as a percentage of public transport operating expenditure, then the average value for medium and large European cities is 55%4. Seen from another way, this means that an average of 45% of operating costs must be covered by other sources of income, such as subsidies and commercial revenues. However, these average figures hide significant variations between cities, which have varying situations. For example Venice’s (Italy) ratio of fare income to total expenditure is 55%, whereas in other cities in Italy, this percentage is only 35%.

Taxes

- Land Transport Tax: It is a payroll tax charged to employers as a percentage of their employees’ salaries; it contributes to public transit as an indirect benefit regarding the accessibility of workplaces and is known in France as the Versement Transport”. In the city of Grenoble: 44% of the public transport budget comes from this tax on local companies. In France, the Grenelle II Law has permitted the implementation/creation of two taxes: a flat-rate tax for the development of public transport and a transport tax for municipalities located in a touristic area.

- Parking tax: In the United Kingdom, the city council of Nottingham has recently approved the implementation of a parking tax for businesses: the Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) which will come into force in April 2012 and start at £253 per space, per year. The WPL targets employers from Nottingham who provide their staff with more than 11 free parking spaces. All the money raised from the levy will be invested back into public transport in Nottingham, and in particular into the extension of the tram network. Nottingham is the first council in the United Kingdom to set up this tax, after ministers gave local authorities the powers in 2000 to introduce workplace parking charges to fund public transport improvements.

- Congestion tax: The Stockholm congestion charge is legally a tax, and some of the revenues from the charge go towards expanding the bus service. Due to the fact that the payment only provided the right to use already existing infrastructure, the congestion charge was considered to be a tax.

- In Gothenburg: K2020 is the main project for developing public transport for the Gothenburg Region. The goal set in the project launched in 2002 is doubling the number of PT passengers by the beginning of the 2020’s. The financing of K2020 is guaranteed through the West Sweden package, an agreement between all relevant parties. The total sum for investments is 34 billion SEK (50% national and 50% regional + local contributions) and a crucial part of the financing is based on congestion charges revenues starting in Gothenburg 20135.

- By law, all net revenue raised by London’s congestion charge (£158.1 million in financial year 2009-

2010) has to be invested in improving transport in London6 .

Partnership with private sector

- Partnership with railway sector: at a national level there are several schemes that combine bike-sharing schemes with a railway operator or infrastructure manager, allowing for the creating of a system more closely connected with public transport. For example, this is the case of the OV-Fiets system in the Netherlands or with Call-a-Bike in Germany.

- Partnership with car park operators: operators such as Vinci Park in France also lend bikes to their customers who park a car.

- Partnership with advertising companies: The BikeMi bike sharing scheme of Milan is managed by Clear Channel, which covers the operational costs for the service (maintenance, bike repositioning, customer care and service planning) from revenues generated via external advertising displays while

4 Source: UITP Mobility in Cities database5 Source: UITP showcase Sweden http://www.ptx2uitp.org/sites/default/files/showcase_pdf/130_sweden.pdf6 Source: Covenant of Mayors Booklet ‘Inspirational Financing Schemes: Food for Thought for Covenant Signatories’

Page 31 of 49

the total investment for systems and infrastructure (€5 million) was paid by the Municipality of Milan 7. In Paris, JCDecaux implemented the Velib bike-sharing scheme and “paid start-up costs of about $115 million and employs the equivalent of about 285 people full-time to operate the system and repair the bikes for 10 years. The city receives all revenue from the project. In return JCDecaux receives exclusive control over 1,628 city-owned billboards; the city receives about half of that advertising space at no charge for public-interest advertising”8.

Others

- Land value capture on property (levy on development): The value capture takes a share of the increase in property values usually associated with transport infrastructure within a near radius (500m., etc.). Revenue is raised by using a tax or levy charged on property transactions and/or development permits where profits materialise.

3.1.2National level

Several partners reported on funding opportunities existing at the national level in their country. In most cases these streams are funds or funding programmes managed by a national agency or a department directly linked to a Ministry and there are different orientations or focuses depending on the country:

- Germany: underlined the existence of a strategy paper currently prepared by the German Energy Agency, in which the options for funding MM measures have been analysed. It shows the major place given by financial instruments to investment and infrastructures. At the national level, mobility management is mainly funded by indirect funding programmes related to environmental issues, climate protection, urban development or health, but funding sources are weakened by the fact that reference to mobility management remains limited or non-existent.

- Denmark: to finance projects aimed at increasing the number of passengers in public transport the government has devoted €40 million for 2009-2011, and to finance projects targeting the development of cycling, €150 million for 2009-2014. Finally, for innovative projects (including MM), the Danish Transport Authority has devoted €26 million for 2010-2014 among which €6 million were given in 2010, to support demonstration projects to promote greener transport solutions.

- Italy: there are a number of programmes existing to finance MM measures; Ecological Sundays 2000 is one of them. With the ministerial decree of 2000, a programme of actions has been approved to develop sustainable mobility with an annual budget of €30 million for 59 local authorities; the financial law of 2008 has also established co-financing schemes for sustainable mobility for local authorities.

- Ireland: the Department for Transport funds national (and regional) mobility management programmes through: Smarter Travel funding for local authorities’ mobility management projects; and Traffic Management Grants administered by the National Transport Authority. The Department also directly funds an NGO to deliver the Green Schools Programme, which is the national travel plan programme for schools.

A Smarter Travel Project Fund has been created by the Ministry of Transport to support individual demonstration projects and for sustainable travel policy. The objectives of the Smarter Travel Project Fund are:

To assist the development of demonstration projects that can deliver sustainable transport initiatives at both a national and local level, achieving real and measurable changes in people’s travel choices and behaviour.

To assist the development of demonstration projects that aim to reduce the environmental impact of travel.

To increase the capability of organisations to help deliver sustainable travel.

7 http://www.eltis.org/index.php?id=13&study_id=29548 Source: T.aT. - Students Today, Citizens Tomorrow, Report European Best Practices in Bike Sharing Systems, June 2009

Page 32 of 49

To raise public awareness and acceptability of sustainable travel and transport issues.

- Latvia: in order to manage the state budget in the field of environmental protection, the Latvian Environmental Protection Fund Administration was created. It is an institution under the direct control of the Minister for the Environment, functioning with a state budget package for environmental measures and projects. The aim of the fund is to promote sustainable economic development by integrating the environmental protection requirements in all economic sectors. Through this aim, the fund will ensure the rights of citizens; create a quality environment in accordance with national environmental policy guidelines; and provide adequate measures for the conservation and protection of ecosystems and biodiversity.

3.1.3 European level

Funding from the European Union and from the EU in partnership with other institutions such as European Investment Bank (EIB) will be covered in this section. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that the listing presented below is not an exhaustive inventory; it is more a presentation of different sources of funding used over Europe to finance mobility management measures and sustainable mobility illustrated by examples.

Those funding sources have been grouped in three categories for EU funding: structural and cohesion funds; competitiveness programmes; and environmental programmes. Some funding programmes are cross-sectoral and could belong to several categories – plus the funding in partnership with the EIB.

We make the distinction also between structural and cohesion funds and European community programmes. Under the 2007-2013 budgetary period, EU funding structure and associated instruments are organised into five categories: Pre-Ascension Assistance (for candidate and pre-candidate countries); External Assistance (for countries other than the Member States); Natural Resources (agriculture, rural development, environment and fisheries); Regional Policy; and Community Programmes. For our purposes we concentrate on the last two categories.

Regional Policy: Structural and Cohesion Funds

Regional Policy is basically comprised of structural funds and cohesion fund. It was created by the European Commission to support economic development and to reduce regional disparities in terms of income, wealth and opportunities, and aiming at reaching territorial, social and economic equality. During the current programming period, Regional Assistance receives more than a third of the Union budget and is centred on the three objectives: convergence; regional competitiveness and employment; and European territorial cooperation.

More than a third of the budget of the EU is devoted to regional development and economic and social cohesion through a series of European funds, grouped together under the heading of Regional Policy. EU Regional Policy is financed by three main funds: European Regional Development Fund (ERDF); European Social Fund (ESF); and Cohesion Policy. The objective of EU funding under regional policy is to promote solidarity and to reduce the gaps in development among the regions and disparities among the citizens in terms of well being, and seeks to strengthen the economic, social and territorial ‘cohesion’ of the Union. The three objectives for Regional Policy during the period from 2007-2013 are:

- Convergence: ERDF focuses on modernising and diversifying economic structures as well as safeguarding or creating sustainable jobs, with action in the areas of research and technological development (RTD); innovation and entrepreneurship; information society; environment; tourism; culture; transport; energy; education; health.

- Regional Competitiveness and Employment: the priorities are based on three sections: innovation and knowledge-based economy; environment and access to transport and telecommunications.

- European Territorial Cooperation: this covers programmes such as INTERREG (INTERREG A: cross border cooperation; INTERREG B: transnational cooperation and INTERREG C: inter-regional cooperation) and URBACT which is a European exchange and learning programme promoting sustainable urban development.

Page 33 of 49

The European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund fall under the heading of Structural Funds; and Structural Funds can be used to fund mobility management projects so long as they adhere to the triple objectives of Regional Policy. Figure 3 below illustrates the distribution of Structural Funds that are allocated to transport in the period 2007-2013, by road & air, and sustainable transport. Here sustainable transport is defined as: rail, shipping, inland waters, cycling, multimodal transport, intelligent transport systems, and clean urban transport. These are all key areas for mobility management measures.

Figure 3: Distribution of the Structural Funds 2007-2013 allocated to transport

Source: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/distribution-of-the-structural-funds-2007-2013-allocated-to-transport

We will concentrate on the ERDF, as it can be used to finance infrastructures linked to research and innovation, telecommunications, environment, energy and transport; and financial instruments such as local development funds to support regional and local development.

Examples of ERDF funding in Europe:

- United Kingdom (SEStran): extending regional real time passenger information systems throughout south-east Scotland9.

- Italy: Regional Metro System project in Naples.

Many projects on Mobility Management are financed with INTERREG or with URBACT, (which are ERDF-funded) for example:

- Mobility Management oVer Europe: Changing Mobility Patterns (MMOVE project) 2008-2011: co-financed by INTERREG IVC and involving partners cities or regions from: Bulgaria (Razlog), Italy (Reggio Emilia), Germany (Ulm), Greece (NGO), UK (Brighton & Hove), Romania (Metropolitan Agency for Sustainable Development of Brasov) and Sweden (Molndal and Varberg).10

- CAPital Regions Integrating Collective transport for increased energy Efficiency (CAPRICE project): co-financed by INTERREG IVC and involving public transport companies from Germany, France, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. CAPRICE is a project that aims to provide recommendations for policies promoting integrated public transport systems leading to improved energy usage and will provide best practices for the partner cities and facilitate the exchange of knowledge.11

9 http://www.sestran.gov.uk/projects/10 Project website: http://www.mmove.eu/index.php 11 Project website: http://www.caprice-project.info/spip.php?rubrique1

Page 34 of 49

- Active Travel Network project; tackling transport problems by promoting walking and cycling in small and medium sized cities (2009-2012): co-financing from URBACT and partners cities from Austria (Weiz), Germany, Greece (Serres), Italy (Riccione and Novara), Poland (Radzionków), Slovenia (Ljotomer), Romania (Sebes). The aim of Active Travel Network is to build up a network of European partners to promote with awareness campaigns active travel in cities, especially for short trips, in order to tackle environmental problems.12

Cohesion fund is intended for Member States whose gross national income/inhabitant is more than 10% below the Community average. For the period 2007-2013 the Fund concerns: Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (Spain is eligible under certain conditions). Activities financed under the Cohesion Fund fall under the following categories:

- trans-European transport networks, notably priority projects of European interest as identified by the Union; and

- environment (This can also support projects related to transport, as long as they clearly present a benefit to the environment, for example: energy efficiency; use of renewable energy; developing rail transport; supporting intermodality; or strengthening public transport).

Table 7: Payments made in 2009 to Cohesion Fund (CF) and ex-ISPA projects per Member State (including technical assistance)

Member State

Transport Technical Assistance

TOTAL

Amount % (as compared to the CF 2009 outturn by MS)

Amount Amount % (as compared to the global CF amount)

EU 413) 559.976.910 42,5% 1.146.757 1.316.512.967 39,8%

EU 1014 658.497.288 42,7% 19.488.976 1.543.364.432 46,7%

EU 215 164.537.501 36,9% 15.883.250 446.229.486 13,5%

TOTAL 1.383.011.699 41,8% 36.518.983 3.306.106.885 100,0%

Source: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0589:EN:NOT

12 Project website: http://urbact.eu/en/projects/low-carbon-urban-environments/active-travel-network/homepage/13 Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain14 Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia15 Bulgaria, Romania

Page 35 of 49

Figure 4: Distribution of Regional Policy

Regional Policy funds by country

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Country

Mill

ions

of € 2007

2008

2009

2010

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/policy/fonds/pdf/annexe-verso.pdf

Page 36 of 49

Community Programmes

Community Programmes are centrally managed programmes which are accepted by the Commission, with the aim of enhancing cooperation between EU Member States in different fields related to the Community Policy. They are conceived, in principle, specifically for Member States, although acceding and candidate countries may also participate in the programme provided they contribute an annual fee to the budget. The Community decides on the type of programmes, their budgets and their duration. Examples of European community programmes are: the 7th Framework Programme the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework (CIP – under which falls Intelligent Energy Europe).

Funding programmes are delivered by the EU through the European Commission’s Directorates General or Agencies. From an EU budget point of view, regional policy and thematic policies are mainly financed under heading “Competitiveness for Growth and Employment” of the EU budget (see figure 5).

Figure 5 shows the broad categories of European expenditure:

Figure 5: EU budget 2011

Source: http://ec.europa.eu/budget/figures/2011/2011_en.cfm

Competitiveness programmes

Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) includes the three operational programmes:

- Intelligent Energy Europe programme (IEE) which finances the STEER programme: “the vertical action of the IEE” that focuses on alternative fuels and vehicles, policy measures for efficient use of energy in transport and knowledge of local energy agencies in the transport field.

Example: ADVANCE aims to increase the energy efficiency of urban transport and to reduce the demand for transport in European cities by developing, testing and applying an Audit Scheme to help cities set up and improve sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs) and policies.

- Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme (ICT PSP): The ICT PSP programme aims at stimulating innovation and competitiveness through information and communication technologies by all stakeholders (citizens, governments and businesses). The programme focuses on creating conditions for development and the uptake of ICT in areas of public interest, such as health, inclusion, transport and public administration.

Example: The In-TIME project; Intelligent and efficient travel management for European cities includes partner cities from Czech Republic (Brno), Romania (Bucharest), Italy (Florence), Germany (Munich) and Austria (Vienna). In-Time aims to address challenges coming from the

Page 37 of 49

high number of cars in cities and focuses on the delivery of multimodal real time traffic and travel information services for drivers and travellers.16

- Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme

Environmental & Energy programmes

These funding programmes are mainly available from the Directorate General for the Environment (LIFE) and from the Directorate General for Research (FP7).

- LIFE is the financial instrument supporting environmental and nature conservation projects under three main headings: nature & biodiversity, environment policy & governance, information & communication. Projects within LIFE which are linked to sustainable mobility are more focusing on electric cars; this is the case of the CEMOBIL project.

Example: CEMOBIL project focuses on CO2-neutral E-Mobility for the reduction of air pollutants (PM10, PM2.5 und NO2) and noise in the European cities. This project focuses on the city of Klagenfurt in Austria.17

- Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7):

Example: The Citymobil project is a development and demonstration project which addresses the integration of automated transport systems in the urban environment and works with partners (city, regional public authorities, manufacturers and suppliers of advanced transport systems, public transport providers) from several European countries among others: UK, Italy, Germany, France, Belgium Netherlands, Norway or Sweden.18

Example: The CIVITAS Initiative helps cities to achieve a more sustainable, clean and energy efficient urban transport system by implementing and evaluating technologies and policy based measures. For example, the city of Genoa won the CIVITAS City of the Year award, for their measures such as procurement of clean public vehicles; introduction of a car-sharing scheme; access restriction schemes; and a pilot project for a goods distribution pricing scheme based on mobility credits.19

Loans

EIB loans

The European Investment Bank is the institution that finances the most urban mobility: for 2009, the EIB provided €3,399 billion within the EU to urban transport projects. These projects can be financed by difference types of contracts:

- Direct loan (one single component), either agreed with a public authority or a concessionaire/operator

- Forming part of a framework loan (multiple components)

- Forming part of a regional development programme (complementing EU grants)

- Forming part of a loan given to a private investment fund

- Public-Private Partnerships

- Using the Jessica facility (urban development funds)

Example: in Bulgaria, the government decided to build more effective, ecological transport system in the seven largest cities through the Operational Programme “Regional Development”. For this, a first call for grants for Bourgas municipality was built up and a project of €28 million was developed. Sofia has developed another project of similar amount. The first step was the approval of the project for financial agreement with the EIB for the creation of a common fund for Urban Development (under JESSICA). The aim is to strengthen sustainable

16 Project website: http://www.in-time-project.eu/17 Project website: http://www.cemobil.at/18 Project website: http://www.citymobil-project.eu/ 19 Project website: http://www.civitas-initiative.org/main.phtml?lan=en

Page 38 of 49

investments in urban areas with a fund for urban development in the seven largest cities. The agreement with EIB was made in April 2010.

EIB technical assistance instruments

The technical assistance instruments are provided by a team of expert economists, engineers and sectoral specialists to complement EIB financing facilities, there are three types of instruments:

- JASPERS (Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions) was launched in 2006 is a partnership between the European Commission (DG Regional Policy), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW) and the EIB. It aims at helping EU Member States to better prepare infrastructure projects which are eligible for EU assistance and is targeting especially Central and Eastern EU Member States20.

For these 10 new Member States, the EIB, the European Commission, the EBRD and the KfW have launched a joint initiative to provide technical support for project preparation in the case of large infrastructure schemes which receive finance from the Structural and Cohesion Funds.

The aim of JASPERS is thus to improve the quality of technical advice available within the cohesion policy but it also includes assistance to large projects and especially clean urban and public transport which are identified as key areas.

Example: in Krakow a project was launched in 2009 to increase the percentage of environmental-friendly public rail transport for inhabitants and tourists and to improve the comfort of passengers in public transport. It includes as well the re-development and modernisation of tram lines and construction of a new section up to the University Campus together with terminus and Park & Ride parking space.21

- ELENA (European Local ENergy Assistance) is the instrument for cities and regions managed by the EIB but financed the EU Programme Intelligent Energy Europe. It helps public entities by offering specific support for the implementation of the investment programmes and projects such as retrofitting of public and private buildings, sustainable building, energy-efficient district heating and cooling networks or environmentally-friendly transport and inter-modal transport facilities.

Example: the City of Barcelona is developing a project for urban public transport energy efficiency (2011-2014) with the support of ELENA22 as well as the city of Mardi which works on the first large scale investment programme for electric vehicles in Spain.

- JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in Cities) is an initiative developed by the European Commission and the EIB, in collaboration with the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB). Member States can use some of their structural funds to invest in projects part of a broader integrated plan for sustainable urban development. JESSICA funds can target specifically projects on urban infrastructure, including transport or/and energy efficiency improvements.

Example: JESSICA fund used to provide new transport across Scotland; Spain will also receive help under the initiative for clean transport projects.

3.2 Recommendations for improvements

From the previous section, it appears that, not only at the EU level but also at the national and local levels, there is a large number of funding sources for transport. Nevertheless those funding are mostly used for heavy infrastructures instead of for softer ones or for MM support measures, such as cycling paths. As a Member of the European Parliament stated recently: “EU transport support is still heavily biased towards road, which receives 60% of financing, compared to 20% for rail and 0.9% for bicycle infrastructure.”

20 Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia21 Source: http://www.jaspers-europa-info.org/images/stories/project_fiches/1158.pdf 22 For more information: http://www.eib.org/attachments/documents/electrobus-barcelona.pdf

Page 39 of 49

The EPOMM-PLUS partners who were asked in the Mobility Management Monitors to reflect on their experience and on the ways funding are used in the transport field in their country, came up with some recommendations which could be used to lobby for better and more efficient Mobility Management funding, especially in this considering the upcoming negotiations on the EU financial perspectives for 2014-2020 and the future of cohesion policy. These recommendations have been grouped around four aspects: definition of targets & conditions, cooperation between administrative entities and assessment & follow up.

3.2.1Proposed conditions for funding

To answer needs of cities, regions and Member States in financing MM, a clearer identification of general conditions to achieve with this funding is needed:

- Schemes and projects which generate more traffic (such as financing road infrastructures) and are harmful for other modes of transport should be excluded or at least considerably reduced and a percentage of all transport related projects should be defined and allocated to MM measures – as a condition to receive funding..

- A general tax reduction for companies introducing MM measures could be considered.

- Support for research and demonstration projects should be emphasised: for example, financial support to universities would encourage academics to include the subject of mobility management in universities, to do more research on this subject and so to raise its importance.

3.2.2Cooperation between governance levels

The local level requires more support from the national level: the case of Denmark seems to have brought some very good results with the government co-financing 40-50% of the cost of sustainable transport projects:

- The relevant ministries in Member States (such as the Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Education or Ministry of Health) could make more resources available to endorse mobility management. For example, increased financial support for campaigns that encourage citizens engage in sustainable and safe travel behaviour, and raising the profile for more environmentally friendly travel behaviour. Examples of this are the ‘European Mobility Week’ and the ‘In Town Without my Car’ campaigns.

- Ideally, at the local level, a part of tax revenues should be given from the federal to the local level and should be bound to MM expenditures. Because the European Commission is not entitled to prescribe actions at local level, they underline the importance of national and regional cooperation in urban mobility policy. The 2009 Action Plan on Urban Mobility states that “[the] responsibility for urban mobility policies lies primarily with local, regional and national authorities”, with recommendations that funding for sustainable urban mobility is derived through the ‘internalisation of external costs. Reiterated in the Eurovignette23 directive and the 2011 White Paper on Transport, this means mainly reinvesting funds from taxes (for infrastructure damage as well as air and noise pollution) into sustainable mobility measures, including in cities.

3.2.3Procedure of assessment and follow up

23 An EU directive enabling countries to introduce tolls on motorways for heavy-goods vehicles.

Page 40 of 49

Evaluation systems should give more credit to the application of sustainability criteria and to MM in particular; more systematic and careful monitoring of sustainability criteria should be implemented in programmes and European projects on transport should go through a quality control assessing effectiveness, long-term implementation, coordination and sharing of actions funded.

3.3 Chapter conclusions

The funding system of transport and mobility in Europe is particularly complex considering the number of levels involved (local, regional, national, European) and the number of sources available for stakeholders. In this analysis, our approach was not to present an extensive list of available funding schemes but consisted in presenting, in a structured way the main funding programmes able to support MM actions and illustrating these schemes by examples of MM projects or measures.

On the basis of EPOMM-PLUS countries’ experiences, we have launched a reflexion on how MM funding could be significantly improved: it seems it is mainly a matter of defining targets and clear conditionality criteria but also of improving coordination between the levels of governance as well as improving the assessment and follow up of MM measures and projects implemented.

Page 41 of 49

4 Conclusions

Although there have not been massive changes in the past twelve months most countries have reported changes in governance, projects, and regulation, which represent sometimes a first step towards a better recognition of MM in policy planning.

The issue of funding which was our focus for this year EU Mobility Management Monitor has shown the complexity of this subject and the wide range of funding options available to stakeholders willing to act on mobility management.

In recent years, the European Commission has increased the base of funding opportunities for mobility management projects, through tools such as the EIB, FP7, LIFE, CIP and Regional Assistance, as the urban dimension and mobility management has gained more publicity. While the number of funding channels is encouraging, it is often difficult to wade through the possibilities and intricate funding structures provided by the Commission. Additionally, while national, regional and local cooperation is desirable, this can not be prescribed from the European Commission and therefore requires further specialised knowledge of the national opportunities for funding MM measures. Mobility funding can fall under many rubrics, such as environment, health, information technology, sustainability and economic development, to name a few, which is illustrated through the number of national ministries (different in each country) that are responsible for MM.

On the other hand, as this EU-MMM has pointed out, there are quite a few national fiscal measures that encourage MM, for example: tax exemption; regulation; subsidies; and reimbursement. Mobility management has been gaining in importance, and we can see that it is becoming less an area reserved for academics and policy makers and is becoming more a part of public life; albeit this change is occurring under different names such as ‘sustainable’, ‘environmentally-friendly’, or ‘green’ transport.

However, it is important to keep in mind that this shift is happening at different rates and for different reasons across Europe, underlining the importance of not only national, regional and local cooperation, but also international cooperation. Exchanging best practice across countries is a promising tool to enable one country to learn a particular MM measure from another country more experience in that field. This enables a tailored approach to MM that is extremely valuable in terms of implementing a successful MM measure.

EPOMM-PLUS has been working over the past months on policy transfers, which consist of a 3-step process involving matching countries, with on one side the exporting country and on the other side the importing country. Going further than just a good practice presentation, these policy transfers are a promising tool which enable a country to learn directly from another more advanced country on a specific issue by attending first a transfer session covering all questions (financial, political support, structural barriers, actors to involve, etc.), then by organising a visit and finally by implementing an action build built up in the previous steps. By the end of EPOMM-PLUS project in May 2012, we expect to be able to present a number of successful transfers among European countries at different levels of MM implementation.

Page 42 of 49

5 Tables and Figures

Figures

Figure 1: Countries covered by the EU MMM in 2011...............................................................................................5

Figure 2: Competences of ministries for MM...........................................................................................................13

Figure 3: Distribution of the Structural Funds 2007-2013 allocated to transport.....................................................34

Figure 4: Distribution of Regional Policy..................................................................................................................36

Figure 5: EU budget 2011.......................................................................................................................................37

Tables

Table 1: Mobility Management in EPOMM-PLUS partner countries.........................................................................8

Table 2: Programmes and plans contributing to MM.................................................................................................9

Table 3: MM a competence of ministries.................................................................................................................12

Table 4: Networks and knowledge infrastructures...................................................................................................17

Table 5: Types of regulations..................................................................................................................................18

Page 43 of 49

6 References

6.1 Projects

- EPOMM-PLUS, 21 Mobility Management Monitors from EPOMM-PLUS partners, 2009.

- FGM-AMOR, Austrian Mobility research, MOST, Mobility Management Strategies for the next decades, The Framework for Mobility management across Europe, 2003.

http://www.max-success.eu/mo.st/public/reports/D6_executive_summary.pdf

- Napier University, MAX, Successful Travel Awareness Campaigns and Mobility Management Strategies, WP D Working Stage: Analysis, Cross national comparison of integration of sustainable transport, mobility management and land use planning in 10 European countries, 2007.

http://max-success.eu/downloads/WP_D_Analysis_common_report.pdf

- Napier University, MAX, Successful Travel Awareness Campaigns and Mobility Management Strategies, Definition of Mobility Management and categorisation of Mobility Management Measures, 2007.

http://www.max-success.eu/downloads/MAX_CRP_AnnexE_MM_DefinitinonAndMeasures.pdf

6.2 Research papers

- Atterbrand Ann-Sofie and al., Mobility Management in the Nordic countries, ThemaNord, 2005.

http://translation.norden.org/is/utgafa/utgefid-efni/2005-539/at_download/publicationfile

- Tsubohara, S., A traffic plan to make residential areas car-limited: traffic planning in Groningen, Urban and Regional Studies Institute, 2007.

http://ursi.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/ResRep/2007/322/322.pdf

- UITP, Large events & public transport: a winning team, June 2009

http://www.uitp.org/mos/focus/FP_PTLE-en.pdf

- UITP, Showcase Sweden http://www.ptx2uitp.org/sites/default/files/showcase_pdf/130_sweden.pdf Source: T.aT. - Students Today, Citizens Tomorrow, Report European Best Practices in Bike Sharing Systems, June 2009

- La documentation française, Le Forum des droits sur l’internet,

http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/rapports-publics/044000609/index.shtml

6.3 European documents

- European Commission, White paper “European Transport Policy for 2010: time to decide”, 2001.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/doc/2001_white_paper/lb_texte_complet_en.pdf

- European Commission, Communication “A sustainable future for transport: Towards an integrated, technology-led and user friendly system”, 2009.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/publications/doc/2009_future_of_transport_en.pdf

- European Commission, Green Paper “Towards a new culture for urban mobility”, 2007.

Page 44 of 49

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0551:FIN:EN:PDF

- European Commission, Communication “Action Plan on Urban Mobility”, 2009.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0490:FIN:EN:PDF

- European Commission, “Country sheets urban mobility”, 2009.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/urban/urban_mobility/green_paper/doc/urban_mobility_2007_country_sheets_eu27.pdf

- European Commission, Initiative on Smart Cities,

http://setis.ec.europa.eu/initiatives/technology-roadmap/european-initiative-on-smart-cities

Page 45 of 49

7 Annexes

7.1 Mobility Management Monitors Authors

Country Company Name ContactAustria Austrian Energy Agency Willy Raimund willy.raimund@energyagency.atBelgium Mobiel 21 Patrick Auwerx patrick.auwerx@mobiel21.be

BulgariaClub “Sustainable Development of Civil Society”

Lucia Ilieva limasol@consultant.bg

Czech Republic CDV – Transport Research Centre Radomíra Plíšková radomira.pliskova@cdv.cz

EstoniaStockholm Environment Institute- Estonian Instit. for Sust. Development

Mari Jussi mari@seit.ee

Finland Motiva Johanna Taskinen johanna.taskinen@motiva.fi

FranceCERTU Muriel Mariotto muriel.mariotto@developpement-

durable.gouv.fr

GermanyILS – Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development

Ulrike ReutterHerbert Kemming

Ulrike.reutter@ils-research.deHerbert.kemming@ils-forschung.de

Greece Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Panos Papaioannou papa@vergina.eng.auth.gr Hungary Centre for Environmental Studies Vilma Éri v.eri@ktk-ces.hu

IrelandNational Transport Authority Finola O’Driscoll Finola.odriscoll@nationaltransport.i

eItaly Euromobility Emanuela Cafarelli e.cafarelli@euromobility.org Latvia Ministry of the Environment of Latvia Ilze Krukle ilze.krukle@vidm.gov.lvLithuania JSC “Statybos strategija” Kristina Gaučė kristina@s–strategija.lt Netherlands KpVV Friso Metz friso.metz@kpvv.nl

PolandPolish Environmental Partnership Foundation

Krzysztof Florys krzysztof.florys@fpds.pl

Portugal Perform Energia Mobility Consulting Robert Stüssi rstussi@gmail.com

RomaniaREC Romania Magdalena Burlacu,

Wioletta Szymanskamagda.burlacu@recromania.ro ;

WSzymanska@rec.org Slovakia ASRD Kosice Gejza Legen www.arr.skSlovenia RA SINERGIJA Barbara Roposa sinergija@ra-sinergija.si Spain CEDEX Alfredo Sánchez Alfredo.S.Vicente@cedex.es Sweden WSP Jesper Johansson jesper.l.johansson@wspgroup.se UK LEPT Paul Curtis Paul.curtis@lept-eu.org

SwitzerlandSynergo, Mobility – Politics - Space Roberto De

Tommasidetommasi@synergo.ch

Denmark Tetraplan A/S Jakob Høj jah@tetraplan.dk

7.2 Key websites

Country Organisation Website

Austriaklima:aktiv mobil Austrian Energy AgencyMinistry of the Environment

www.klimaaktivmobil.at www.energyagency.at www.lebensministerium.at

Belgium Brussels Capital Region – Department of Transport www.mobilit.fgov.be

Page 46 of 49

Federal Department of Transport Flanders Region – Department of Transport

www.fietspoolen.bewww.schoolway.net (CONNECT website)http://semaine.mobilite.wallonie.be/opencms/opencms/fr/

www.mobielbrussel.irisnet.be www.mobielvlaanderen.bewww.vrekeersslang.be http://www.wegenenverkeer.be/nl/verkeer-en-mobiliteit/verkeersveiligheid/werkboek-schoolomgeving.html

Bulgaria

www.abea-bg.orgwww.sofia.bgwww.plovdiv.bgwww.varna.bgwww.g-oryahovica.org

www.mtitc.government.bgwww.mrrb.government.bgwwww.sumc.bgwww.csdcs.org

Czech Republic

Transport Research CentreMinistry of Transport

www.cdv.czwww.mdcr.cz

Estonia

Stockholm Environment InstituteCyclist associationPublic Transport information portal

http://matkad.elektriraudtee.ee/http://www.kaijala.eehttp://www.citybike.eehttp://www.autovaba.eehttp://www.rattarikkaks.ee

www.seit.ee www.bicycle.ee http://www.peatus.eehttp://www.mnt.ee/atp/index.php?id=248http://www.tallinn.ee/est/g5959s33386 - Tallinn liigub!/Tallinn moves!http://www.tallinn.ee/smile/g6563s40138 (Civitas Smile website for Tallinn)http://www.kaimekoos.ee

FinlandMotiva LtdNetwork of Cycling Municipalities in FinlandTransport Agency

www.motiva.fiwww.poljin.fiwww.fma.fi

FranceCERTUMobility PlansPromobilite

www.certu.frwww.plan-deplacements.frwww.promobilite.fr

Germany

Website of the Action Programme Mobility ManagementWebsite Transferstelle MobilitätsmanagementResearch Programme on Urban Transport

http://www.ivm-rheinmain.de/index.cfm?siteid=0&CFID=4736852&CFTOKEN=bb41a3d927394e9a-A156F1B9-D076-7BC7-C0C4698C7D1EB645&jsessionid=8030ee204418$3F$28$3

http://www.uvm.baden-wuerttemberg.de/servlet/is/66207/

http://www.mobilitaet21.de/stadt-und-ballungsraum/mobilitaetsmanagement.htmlhttp://www.car-sharing.de/index.php?Itemid=68&id=150&option=com_content&task=view

www.effizient-mobil.de

www.mobilitaetsmanagement.nrw.dewww.fops.de

http://www.dena.de/en/topics/mobility/projects/projekt/mobility-management-programme

http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/verkehr/mobil/mobilitaetsmanagement.htmhttp://www.bmu.de/verkehr/downloads/doc/42837.php

http://www.srl.de/fg/fmv/ak/mobilitaetsmanagement

http://www.tuv.com/de/fachtagung_mobilitaetsmanagement_ftmm_2009.html

Greece Greek Cities Network for sustainable mobility and promotion of bicycle useCitizens' network for Public Transport and Sustainable MobilityHellenic Institute of Transport Thessaloniki Public Transport Authority NGO aiming at the protection of pedestrian rights in Athens Web page of Athens special Planning Organisation, hosted in the web site of Ministry of

www.podilato.gr/

www.epivatis.gr

www.imet.gr/http://www.sasth.gr/ http://www.pezh.gr/

http://www.minenv.gr/3/31/313/31303/g3130304.html (Greek language only)

Page 47 of 49

Environment

Thessaloniki special Planning Organisation, hosted in the web site of Ministry of EnvironmentHellenic Institute of TransportTransport Engineering LaboratoryMunicipality of Karditsa regarding dedicated bicycle routes

http://www.minenv.gr/3/31/314/g314.html (greek language only)http://www.imet.gr/ http://hermes.civil.auth.gr/ http://www.karditsa-city.gr/web/guest/podhlato (Greek language only)

HungaryStudio Metropolitana website www.studiometropolitana.hu

http://criticalmass.hu

Ireland

www.bikeweek.iehttp://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Atmosphere/ClimateChange/ http://www.epa.ie/http://www.transportfordublin.ie/http://www.seai.ie/http://www.workplacetravelplans.ie/www.taxsaver.ie

http://www.transport.ie/ www.nationaltransport.ie www.smartertravel.iewww.greenschoolsireland.orgwww.smartertravelworkplaces.iehttp://failteireland.ie/cyclingwww.cyclingireland.ie

Italy Euromobility - Association of Mobility Manager www.euromobility.org

Latvia

Riga City municipality Ministry of Transport Ministry of Environmental ProtectionMinistry of the Regional Development and Local GovernmentBaltic Environmental ForumEnvironmental Protection Club Latvia’s Biogas Association Latvian Green Movement Autocarriers Association „Latvian Auto”Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments Latvian Cyclists’ Federation Sustainable Development Agency

www.riga.lv www.sam.gov.lv www.vidm.gov.lv www.raplam.gov.lv www.bef.lv www.vak.lv http://www.latvijasbiogaze.lv/ http://www.zalie.lv/ http://www.lauto.lv www.lps.lv

http://www.lrf.lv/category/jaunumi/ http://www.sdagency.org/index.php?lang=lv

LithuaniaEnvironmental Project Management AgencyMinistry of Transport and Communications

www.apva.ltwww.transp.lt/en

NetherlandsKpVVTask force on Mobility Management

www.kpvv.nl www.tfmm.nl

Poland Institute for Sustainable Development www.ine-isd.org.pl Portugal IMTT www.imtt.pt

Romaniawww.urtp.rohttp://www.hartavelo.ro/http://www.velorutia.ro/

Slovakia

SloveniaMinistry of environment and spatial planningMinistry of transport

www.mop.gov.si/www.mzp.gov.si/

SpainMinistry of Public Works Energy Agency

www.fomento.eswww.idae.es

SwedenSWEPOMM, national networkResSmart, Stockholm region networkMobility Management in Sweden

www.mobilitymanagement.sewww.swepomm.sewww.ressmart.se

UKMinistry of Transport Walking campaignSustainable cities

www.dft.gov.ukwww.campaignforwalking.comwww.sustainablecities.org.uk

SwitzerlandInternet platform for any kind of institutions working in the field of Mobility Management

www.mobilservice.ch

DenmarkDanish RegionsLocal Government Denmark

www.regioner.dkwww.kl.dk

Page 48 of 49

Page 49 of 49