11 Transport:
resource-efficient urban mobility
| (35704)
18136/13
COM(13) 913
+ ADDs 1-7
| Commission Communication: Together towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility
Commission Staff Working Documents
|
| Legal base
| —
|
| Document originated
| 17 December 2013
|
| Deposited in Parliament
| 7 January 2014
|
| Department
| Transport
|
| Basis of consideration
| EM of 27 January 2014
|
| Previous Committee Report
| None
|
| Discussion in Council
| Not known
|
| Committee's assessment
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision
| Cleared
|
Background
11.1 In September 2007 the Commission
published a Green Paper, Towards a new culture for urban mobility,
as a first step to developing an action plan for urban transport.
In a September 2009 Communication the Commission presented an
action plan, which built on the suggestions made by stakeholders
in response to the Green Paper. It was intended to set out a framework
of initiatives in urban mobility, while respecting the principle
of subsidiarity. It proposed short- and medium-term practical
actions to be launched progressively from then until 2012.
The document
11.2 In this Communication the
Commission sets out its commitment to strengthen its action on
sustainable urban mobility in areas where there is EU added value.
As new approaches to urban mobility planning are being developed,
it argues that a step-change is needed to tackle urban mobility
issues in EU cities. The Commission says that:
· many
cities in the EU face common challenges with congestion and accessibility,
seamless mobility along the Trans-European Transport Network,
traffic accidents on urban roads, air pollution, carbon dioxide
emissions and noise pollution;
· the
EU objectives crucial for a competitive and sustainable transport
system are at risk because of transport developments in urban
areas; and
· this
negatively affects the well-being of citizens and effectiveness
of businesses located in urban areas.
11.3 In its impact assessment accompanying
the Communication the Commission examines several options, from
a 'business as usual' scenario to mandatory development of Sustainable
Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs). Its preferred policy option is
non-binding recommendations on SUMPs, with comprehensive requirements
for the policy framework. This option scored best overall in relation
to effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and stakeholder support
and is expected to result in more flexibility and greater stakeholder
buy-in than a legislative approach. The Commission therefore sets
out a range of concepts and tools, developed at the EU level,
which could be adapted to the particular circumstances of each
Member State and then actively promoted at national and regional
levels.
11.4 The Commission suggests a
strategy to overcome a fragmented approach to urban mobility planning
by, for example, promoting the development of common standards
and specifications for joint procurement. In particular, it encourages
Member States to take more decisive and better coordinated action
through the development of SUMPs. The SUMP concept is to improve
the accessibility of urban areas and provide high-quality and
sustainable mobility within the urban area and this approach consists
of several different stages. As a first step, the Plan should
establish a baseline urban mobility performance audit against
which future progress can be measured. It should include performance
indicators, specify performance objectives and set measurable
targets. Further, it should include a delivery plan for the implementation
of the strategy, which should cover a three to ten-year period.
11.5 The Commission says that a
European Platform on SUMPs will be set up, which will support
the further development of the concept and the tools required
for its successful application by local planning authorities,
by coordinating all relevant Commission-supported activities in
this area and fostering broader exchange.
11.6 The Commission says that the
Plan should also include an integrated set of technical, infrastructure,
policy-based and soft measures, including consideration of the
following measures:
· public
transport — a strategy to enhance the quality, security,
integration and accessibility of public transport services, covering
infrastructure, rolling stock and services;
· non-motorised
transport — plans to increase the attractiveness, safety
and security of walking and cycling;
· inter-modality
— a strategy to enhance the quality, security, integration
and accessibility of public transport services;
· urban
road safety — actions to improve road safety based on an
analysis of the main road safety problems and risk areas in an
urban area;
· road
transport — measures to optimise the use of existing road
infrastructure, address 'hot-spots' and reallocate road space
to other modes of transport;
· urban
logistics — measures to improve the efficiency of urban
logistics, including urban freight delivery, while reducing related
externalities;
· mobility
management — engagement with citizens, employers, schools
and other relevant actors; and
· Intelligent
Transport Systems — supporting strategy formulation, policy
implementation and monitoring.
11.7 The Commission also says that:
· it
recommends that a series of measures be taken up at different
levels for matters relating to urban logistics, urban access regulations,
deployment of urban ITS solutions, and road safety;
· in
order to take innovative solutions to the market, it and Member
States should facilitate creation of a single market for innovative
urban transport solutions by developing common standards and technical
specifications;
· to
support Member States' efforts, it intends to set up an expert
group to foster an exchange on how national and EU policies on
urban mobility and transport can be strengthened and to support
co-ordinated working;
· the
Commission services will monitor the implementation and effectiveness
of this initiative through a set of instruments, including the
future European Platform on SUMPs. They will evaluate by 2020
the uptake of integrated urban mobility approaches in the European
Union. Based on these elements, they will assess the need for
further action.
11.8 In addition to the impact
assessment and the executive summary of the assessment, the Communication
is accompanied by the following working documents:
· A
Concept for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans — which sets
out the concept for the development of SUMPs following consultation
with stakeholders and planning experts;
· A
call to action on urban logistics — which sets a framework
for urban logistics to be integrated into urban transport and
economic development strategies;
· Targeted
action on urban road safety — which calls on Member States
to consider road safety at all steps of the SUMP process and to
address the needs of vulnerable road users, the use of modern
technology, traffic rules enforcement and road safety education;
· A
call for smarter urban vehicle access regulations — which
seeks a common approach to the design and implementation of urban
access regulations, include urban road user charging; and
· Mobilising
Intelligent Transport Systems for EU cities — which promotes
an integrated approach including different transport modes and
mobility services, bringing together both technical and policy
considerations.
The Government's view
11.9 The Minister of State, Department
for Transport (Baroness Kramer), noting that the Communication
is not a proposal for legislation and that the Commission is encouraging
the development of more common standards across Member States,
says that:
· the
Government agrees that competitive and resource-efficient urban
mobility is an important objective; and
· in
the UK there are policies and funding streams in place to enable
local authorities to implement urban mobility strategies —
the Government considers that these already meet the objectives
in the approach the Commission sets out.
11.10 The Minister then comments
on various aspects of the Communication and notes related UK current
activities. She says first that:
· the
Commission's approach is predicated on the basis that local authorities
need support to address urban mobility;
· the
local transport White Paper, Creating Growth, Cutting Carbon,
sets out the Government's vision for a sustainable local transport
system that supports the English national, regional, and local
economies and reduces carbon emissions; and
· the
Government has placed localism at the heart of the transport agenda,
taking measures to empower local authorities when it comes to
tackling sustainable mobility in their urban areas.
11.11 In relation to the Commission's
focus on establishing an integrated approach to urban mobility
with a high level of cooperation, coordination and consultation
between the different levels of government and relevant authorities,
the Minister tells us that:
· in
Scotland regional transport partnerships are required to develop
regional transport strategies, to which local authorities are
obliged to have regard and local authorities are also subject
to statutory duties relating to climate change;
· since
2001, English local authorities have been required, under legislation,
to develop Local Transport Plans (LTPs) for their areas which
take into account the issues that SUMPs are designed to cover;
· LTPs
incorporate evidence based policy and strategies for transport
and mobility that are linked to land-use and environmental strategies
and plans in the urban area;
· they
also involve liaison with national bodies (the national road operator,
the Highways Agency, for example) on strategic infrastructure
in the city area;
· in
respect to the key purpose of the SUMPs of encouraging a shift
to sustainable modes of transport, cities are able to focus on
these issues in their LTPs; and
· the
Government is undertaking targeted interventions to address particular
issues in urban areas and elsewhere, for example Local Sustainable
Transport Funding, Cycle City Ambition grants, Smart Ticketing;
· increasingly,
English cities are looking at a Combined Authority model of governance
which brings together transport, economic development, regeneration
and land-use planning across the wider city area, as envisaged
for SUMPs; and
· the
Government has changed local funding mechanisms to a more cross-departmental
approach with funding pooled in a single Local Growth Fund —
local areas are developing cross-cutting Strategic Economic Plans
against which local funding will be allocated.
11.12 The Minister, commenting
that the more specific transport measures explicitly referred
to are policy areas that have been mostly addressed at both national
and local level for many years, continues that:
· the
UK is a world leader in road safety, for example, and her department's
Strategic Framework for Road Safety sets out a package of policies
that will continue to reduce death and injuries on the urban roads;
· Urban
Traffic Management Control (UTMC) is increasingly the preferred
Intelligent Transport System platform for towns and cities in
the United Kingdom to help traffic flow more smoothly;
· Reading
Borough Council, for example, has used UTMC to provide accurate,
timely and reliable real-time travel information in the urban
area, which in turn has enabled people to plan journeys to avoid
congestion and reduce carbon emissions;
· the
Commission suggests that urban road user charging can be an effective
measure to regulate urban access and generate revenue for investment
in other transport interventions — London is the only city
in the UK to have an extensive road user charging system, although
legislation is available to local authorities should they wish
to implement local charging schemes;
· the
Commission envisages that there should be some basic principles
that apply to road user charging schemes (based on those that
already exist for charging of HGVs in the EU) that ensure, amongst
other things, that such schemes should not discriminate according
to nationality of the user or vehicle registration, that clear
information is available to users, easy payments can be made etc;
and
· while
these principles are not without merit, and seem to be largely
covered in the London scheme, it would not be appropriate to place
too many restrictions on charging schemes which are for local
authorities to develop as suits their area — for example,
the principle of avoidance of any accusation on discrimination
of occasional users could be perceived to be at odds with the
current 90% residents discount scheme operated in London.
11.13 Finally, the Minister says
that:
· while
the approach outlined by the Commission may be helpful to any
Member States which do not already have such policies, the Government
would resist any sort of prescription as to what Member States
should include in their plans; and
· most
of the aims and measures envisaged for SUMPs are already being
delivered in the UK through devolved local measures and national
initiatives.
Conclusion
11.14 Whilst we have no questions
to ask on the Communication and clear it from scrutiny, we draw
it to the attention of the House as an example of where Commission
thinking is in step with UK practice.
| 
