vorlage für eu-projekte

Document Sample
vorlage für eu-projekte Powered By Docstoc
					Table of Content

1.     Executive Summary

2.     General Overview of LEDA
2.1    LEDA topics

2.2    Objectives

2.3    Partnership

2.4    Work flow and methodology

3.     Analysis of EU, national and regional policy papers

3.1    Introduction, methodology and scope

3.2    Summary of results

3.2.1 Nine criteria of sustainable mobility

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

3.3    Conclusions

4.     National Legal and Regulatory Frameworks

4.1    Introduction, methodology and scope

4.2    Summary of results

4.3    Conclusions

5.     Legal and regulatory measures in European cities

5.1    Introduction and approach

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

5.2.1 Introduction


5.2.2 Screening of existing project data

5.2.3. Summary of screening results

5.3    Collecting data for the database

5.3.1 Selection of cities

5.3.2 Selection of measures

5.3.3 The LEDA Database

5.3.4 The database design

5.3.5 Data in the database

5.4    Spread of measures and components

5.4.1 Objectives and procedure

5.4.2 Results

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

6.1.   Introduction, methodology and scope

6.2.   A short description of the 20 measures

6.3    Summary of results

6.3.1 Analyses of the 20 measures

6.3.2 Common aspects and problems of the 20 measures

6.3.3 Successful elements

6.4.   Conclusions

7.     Transferability

7.1    Introduction and scope

7.2    Methodology

7.2.1 General

7.2.2 Transferability simulation exercise

7.2.3 Comparison of city characteristics

7.2.4 Evaluation of the approach
7.3    Process

7.4    Results

7.4.1 Comparative Transferability

7.4.2 Conclusions of the correlation analyses

7.5    Guidelines for assessing Transferability

7.5.1 Rationale

7.5.2 Guidelines


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

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

    primarily in passenger transport

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

    above all implemented at municipal level

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

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

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

    important implementation conditions such as public acceptance are included

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

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

In order to guarantee the fulfilling of the needs of possible users of the LEDA results the
consortium established four Regional User Groups (RUGs) with representatives of
municipalities and associations of cities, representatives of states and members of interest
groups. These RUGs advised the consortium at crucial points of the project, helped in
between with providing contacts, the opportunity for discussion and supporting the research
work, especially the collection of data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• pure legal and regulatory measures;

• legal and regulatory measurescombined with

      • infrastructure measures;

      • financial measures;

      • awareness and information measures.

LEDA looked at these kinds of measure within the traffic and transport sector, concentrating


on passenger transport. The project also examined laws and regulations in related areas such
as land use and the environment in order not to miss interesting but less well-known
regulations. The main focus was on measures that are relevant to towns and cities.

2.2      Objectives
Target groups of the LEDA project were primarily:
 local representatives or stakeholders at city level in order to show them examples of best
  practice and to indicate to them a structured approach to the transferability of measures into
  their city or region
 representatives at the regional, national and European level in order to show them relevant
  barriers for a successful transfer of measures and to give them recommendations to
  overcome such barriers through changes in the legal and regulatory frameworks and by
  supporting actors at the local level by increasing their powers and duties and/or improving
  their financial capacity.

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

Research topics of the LEDA project are legal and regulatory measures for sustainable
transport in cities. According to the Technical Annex of the contract with the European
Commission concrete objectives of the projects were:
 the screening of policy documents in the different countries regarding transport, traffic and
  related areas like land use planning and environmental policy to identify current political
  goals and to check whether these goals support the goals of the LEDA project
 the assessment of the national legal systems regarding transport, traffic and related areas
  like land use planning and environmental policy to obtain general recommendations for
     upper policy levels for changing legal frameworks that support local activities for
     sustainable transport and as a background for the transferability study.
 to screen results of previous and ongoing European research projects which could be useful
  for the LEDA project or as complementary information to be helpful to the users of the
  LEDA Project results.
 to collect data about legal and regulatory measures already implemented in 40 European
  cities and store them in a data base
 to investigate in-depth 20 less well-known but effective measures. In this research the
  following questions were posed:
     – Under what circumstances does the public accept restrictive measures?
     – Which actions accompany successful measures and are there any similarities?
     – Which barriers needed to be overcome and how?
     – Are there minimal requirements for a mixture of measures?
 a transferability study to develop recommendations for changes of legal and regulatory
  frameworks to support local stakeholders transferring effective measures and for
  transferability processes at the local level
 to disseminate the results of the research through
      a brochure aimed at EU level and national and regional decision makers, making
       recommendations about possible beneficial changes in EU, national and regional
       legislation and policy to support cities to introduce legal and regulatory measures more
      a brochure aimed at local authorities and city planners that describes legal and
       regulatory measures with some guidelines for introducing interesting measures in other
      a data base with the inventory of legal and regulatory measures that were collected
       during the LEDA work
      a web site describing the project, informing about its progress and providing the results
       after the research has been completed
      an international conference at the end of the project which shows LEDA results as well
       as results of other projects and can be a means bringing together the LEDA partners and
       the RUG members with members of the target groups of the project

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


2.3    Partnership

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

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

 LEDA partnership
 ILS                                          CERTU
 Research Institute for Regional and Urban    Research Centre for Urban Transport,
 Development of the Federal State of North    France
 Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
 FGM-AMOR                                     The TAS Partnership Ltd
 Austrian Mobility Research, Austria          Specialist Consultants in Public Transport,
 Langzaam Verkeer vzw                         UI
 Centre for Mobility Management, Belgium      Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of
 PLS Consult                                  VATI
 Denmark                                      Institute for Urban and Regional Planning,
                                              Budapest University of Technology,
 DITS                                         MPK s.a.
 University of Rome – ‟La Sapienza‟, Italy    Krakow City Transport Company, Poland
 Bealtaine Ltd                                STUBA
 Taylor Lightfoot Transport Consultants,      Slovak University of Technology,
 Ireland                                      Bratislava, Slovakia
 Anders Nyvig Ltd                             UDI
 Traffic and Urban Planners, Consulting       Institute of Transportation Engineering of
 Engineers and Architects, Denmark             the City of Prague
 Transport Research and Training, The

2.4     Work flow and methodology

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Work package 3: Inventory of legal and regulatory measures

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

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

Secondly, 41 selected cities have been investigated to get a broad overview of legal and
regulatory measures in European cities in the fields of transport, land use and environment. To
guarantee a spread of the selected cities over the European regions regarding size,
infrastructural situation, location within the region(whether part of a metropolitan area or a
rural area) an extensive discussion process took place within the consortium, with the
Regional User Groups (RUGs) and with the European Commission.
According to the LEDA objectives not only pure legal and regulatory measures have been
selected for the investigation. As the inclusion of legal and regulatory measures in a measure
mix seemed to be of highest relevance for a successful policy, infrastructural, financial and
awareness or promotional measures have been included if they have legal or regulatory
components. Relevant city information has also been collected in order to obtain an overview
of the city‟s conditions. Detailed Guidelines guarantee that the city descriptions for the 41
cities as well as the descriptions of the measures are comparable. So the database where the
information is stored offers consistent and helpful information for transferring effective
measures (best practices) to other cities in other countries.

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

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

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

    existing knowledge of a measure

    differences in the implementation of a measure elsewhere in Europe

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

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

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


Work package 5: Study on the transferability of measures

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

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

[Herbert, this is stated earlier]

Work package 2: Regional User Groups (RUG)

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

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

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

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

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

Membership of the RUGs came from the two main target groups of the project: the cities or
city associations and national/regional institutions. International and transnational interest
groups participated in the North-West RUG.
Work Package 6: Dissemination of results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Work package 7: Project management

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

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



3.1       Introduction, methodology and scope

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

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

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

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

The table below gives an overview of the Activities involved and the organisation of work
between the LEDA partners.
     Activity                                                       Partner    in
     Activity 1.1 – Screening of European Union policy documents    AMOR
     Activity 1.2 – Screening of national policy and Austria        AMOR
     regional documents (level I countries)
                                                     Belgium        LV
                                                      Denmark       ANAS
                                                      Germany       ILS
                                                      Ireland       TLTC
                                                      Italy         USalerno
     Activity 1.2 – Screening of national policy and Finland        PLS
     regional documents (level II countries)
                                                     France         LV
                                                      Greece        USalerno
                                                      Luxembourg    LV
                                                      Netherlands   LV
                                                      Norway        PLS
                                                      Portugal      USalerno
                                                      Spain         USalerno
                                                      Sweden        ANAS
                                                      Switzerland   AMOR
                                                      United        TAS
     Activity 1.3 – analysing EU, national and regional policies goals AMOR
     and elaboration of assessment criteria


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

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

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

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

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

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

The ensuing table lists all 74 documents reviewed.

Country     Policy document short title                             Year Main policy
European    The Urban Environment, Green Paper                      1990    Environment
            The impact of transport on the environment, Green Paper 1992    Transport,
            Europe 2000+                                            1991    Land use
            The Future Development of the Common Transport 1993             Transport
            Policy, White Paper
            The Citizens‟ Network, Green Paper                      1995    Transport
            Towards Fair and Efficient Pricing in Transport, Green 1996     Transport
            On Transport and CO2                                    1998    Transport


Country   Policy document short title                           Year    Main policy
          Developing the Citizens‟ Network                      1998    Transport
          Fair Payment for Infrastructure Use, White Paper      1998    Transport
Austria   Austrian Regional Planning Concept                    1991    Land use
          Styrian General Transport Programme                   1991    Transport
          Austrian General Transport Concept                    1991    Transport
          National Environmental Plan                           1996    Environment
          General Transport Concept Graz                        1995    Transport
          Transport Development Plan Linz                       1992    Transport
          Ozone Law                                             1992    Environment
Belgium   Land use structure for Flanders                       1998    Land use
          Mobility plan for the city of Ghent                   1996    Land use, transport
          Spatial Structure for Flanders                        1995    Land use
          Metropolitan Transport-Plan for Brussels              1997    Transport
          Land use structure for Flanders                       1995    Land use
Denmark   Transport Policy Action Plan                          1987    Transport
          The Governments Transport Action Plan                 1990    Transport
          Denmark on it way to year 2018                        1992    Transport
          Traffic 2005                                          1993    Transport
Germany   Resolution on Transport Policy of the First Conference 1992   Transport
          of all Transport, Environment and Regional Planning
          Federal Transport Master Plan 1992                    1992    Transport
          North Rhine-Westphalia Climate Report 1992            1992    Transport,
          Regional Policy Guidance Framework                    1992    Land use
          Political Framework For Regional Planning             1995    Transport, land use
          Transport Master Plan for the Federal State of Baden- 1995    Transport
          Württemberg 1995
          Report on urban development 1996: Sustainable urban 1996      Land use

Country   Policy document short title                           Year    Main policy
          Decision of the Federal Government on the Climate 1997        Environment
          Protection Programme
Ireland   Sustainable Development : A Strategy for Ireland      1997    Transport
          Operational Programme for Transport 1994-1999            1994    Transport
          Dublin Transport Initiative-Final Report                 1994    Transport
          Energy efficiency in urban public transport in Ireland   1994    Transport,
          LUAS Dublin‟s proposed Light Rail System                 1997    Transport
          EU Structural Funds in Ireland                           1997    Transport
          World Class to Serve the World                           1995    Transport
          Citizens network                                         1996    Transport
Italy     Decree 27 March 1998 - Sustainable mobility in urban 1998        Transport,
          areas                                                            environment
          Instruction to draw up, to adopt and to put in practice 1995     Transport
          Urban traffic Plans
          Legislative Decree n° 285 30 April 1992 " The New 1993           Transport
          Highway Code"
          Legislative Decree n° 422, "Functions and tasks 1997             Transport
          conferred to the Region and the Local Authorities in
          Urban Public Transport"
          Urban Traffic Plan of the city of Turin                  1995    Transport
          Urban Traffic Plan of the city of Bologna                1996    Transport
          Methodologies for drawing up and managing Urban 1998             Transport
          Traffic and Mobility Plans
          Decree 1994 - Attention and alarm level for pollution in 1994    Transport,
          urban areas                                                      environment
          Decree 1994 - Technical rules for measuring pollution 1994       Transport,
          levels in urban areas                                            environment
          Regulation of road traffic in the highly congested areas. 1986   Transport
          Urban Traffic Plans
United    Planning Policy Guidance: Transport (PPG13)              1994    Land-use, transport
          Planning Policy Guidance: Town Centres and Retail 1996           Land use
          Developments (PPG6)
          “A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone”, White 1998      Transport
Country   Policy document short title                              Year    Main policy
          “Air Quality and Traffic Management” LAQM. G3(97)        1997    Transport,
Finland   Action programme for reducing the adverse effects of 1996        Transport,
          transport to the environment                                     environment


             Habitat II – Sustainability as a challenge               1996    Environment
France       The National Law on air and the rational use of energy   1997    Environment
Greece       The Master Plan of Athens                                1985    Transport, land use,
             Prioritisation measures in Greece                        1994    Transport
Luxem-       National Plan for a Sustainable Development              1997    Transport, land use
bourg                                                                         environment,
Nether-      Second Structure Plan for Transport and Traffic          1990    Transport
             Integral Policy Line for Traffic and Transport           1998    Transport
Norway       The basis For Transport Policy                           1996    Transport
             Regional planning and land-use policy.                   1997    Land use
Portugal     Ratification of the Revised Evora General Urban Plan     1993    Transport
             Evora‟s Integrated Transport and Parking System: Report 1992     Transport, land-use
             and Characterisation of the System
             Lisbon‟ Municipal Director Plan                          1994    Land-use, transport
                                                                              and environment
             Integrated Transport System                              1998    Transport
Spain        Traffic By-laws of the Municipality of Madrid            1998    Transport
             Law n° 5/ 16.5.1985 of Asamblea de Madrid                1985    Transport
             Law 38/1972, 22nd December, about atmospheric 1972, Environment
             environment protection, et.al.                et.al.
Sweden       Heading for a new transport policy                       1997    Transport,
Switzerland The future of transport in Switzerland – scenarios for the 1995   Transport
            development of passenger and freight transport until
Step 2: country-by-country analysis of the policy documents
        (Activities 1.1, 1.2)

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

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

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

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

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

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


3.2        Summary of results

3.2.1      9 criteria of sustainable mobility

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

    1. Reducing the need to travel A general and fundamental criterion whereby mobility
    and/ or reducing individual management is the prime strategy. That is, a combination of
    car usage (traffic avoidance)    primarily “soft” measures predominantly targeted at the travel
                                     demand side (as against “hard” infrastructure or command and
                                     control-type of measures).
    2. Improving accessibility       Improving the accessibility of places and the mobility of
                                     people, particularly the disadvantaged such as children and
    3. Improving traffic safety      Improving safety for transport users and the environment.
    4. Promoting public transport, Improvement of the flexibility, availability, accessibility and
    cycling and walking              attractiveness (fares, vehicles) of public transport, also making
                                     public transport affordable. Fostering non-motorised travel by
                                     foot or bicycle
    5.       Promoting         clean Stimulation of technology advances such as hybrid vehicles,
    technologies, reducing energy fuel cells, new fuels, etc., introduction of transport telematics.
    6. Introducing fair pricing      Introduction of fair and efficient prices for transport users and
                                     operators. These should better reflect the “true” costs of
                                     transport, including external cost factors such as environmental
                                     and pollution costs.
    7. Optimisation of existing Better use of facilities to reduce the need of provision for new
    infrastructure and services      car infrastructure.
    8. Promotion of sensible urban Move towards more sensible land use patterns to reduce the
    design and land-use              need to travel by car and to enhance the quality of the (built)
    9.    Direct    mitigation    of Mitigation of effects of transport such as noise, vibration,
    environmental      stress    and emissions, climate change, visual intrusion, community
    impacts                          severance, etc.

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

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


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

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

 Accessibility is a multi-faceted concept throughout all documents: it means proximity of
   transport infrastructure and services, access to remote areas, as well as accessibility of
   places for certain user groups, particularly for children and the aged.
 Accessibility as a policy goal features particularly strongly in the Commission‟s two
   papers on the Citizens‟ Network (1995, 1998). According to these documents, public
   transport services need to be accessible for all citizens.
 In national papers, accessibility is generally used in connection with accessing public
   places, economic centres or work places. An important factor for measuring the
   competitiveness of traffic systems is accessibility, a term interpreted in different ways.

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

Pricing of transport users and operators
 This is obviously one of the most contentious and controversial transport policy issues.
   National policy papers often point to the need of more cost effectiveness, however, their
   policies tend to remain rather undetermined and vague. A radical shift in pricing policy is
   deemed feasible only if done jointly with all other European countries.
 The pricing issue stands out as a matter in which the Commission is clearly leading the
   way: two of the most significant recent policy documents were reviewed: the 1995 Green
   Paper “Towards fair and efficient pricing in Transport” and the 1998 White Paper “Fair
   Payment for Infrastructure Use”. Both papers acknowledge the fact that true costs of
   transport are not being paid for. This is because there are a number of effects (such as
   congestion or air pollution) that are not reflected in the price a user or operator has to pay.
   The uncovered costs are “externalised”, i. e. burdened on the wider public. This instance
   in turn leads to a distortion of the market and a non-rational consumption of scarce
   resources (e. g. energy, clean-air, time). It also fails to establish an overall (society-wide)
   optimal allocation of these resources. A gradual and progressive harmonisation of
   charging principles in all major commercial modes of transport is therefore put forward by
   the Commission.

Alternatives to car use (public transport, walking, cycling, etc.)
 The improvement of passenger public transport is also high on the agenda of both the
   Commission‟s and the national policy papers. Public transport is generally recognised as
   the most promising alternative to the individual car (at least for medium and long range
   While public transport is usually dealt with in the member states‟ domain, the
    Commission has also become active to develop supportive strategies. Both the 1995 Green
    Paper “The Citizens‟ Network” and its follow-up, the 1998 “Developing the Citizens‟
    Network”, strongly endorse the importance of well-functioning and efficient public
    transport systems throughout the Community. The key policy objectives are improvements
    in flexibility, availability, accessibility and attractiveness (fares, vehicles), and also to
    make public transport affordable. Also, the enforcement of inter-modality is a vital aim: by
    increasing door to door services and linking the TEN with local public transport systems.
    The measures to be taken extend to “hard” infrastructure, inter-modal facilities, attractive
    ticketing, timetables, financial (dis-)incentives (tolls, parking fees etc.), and car-restraint.
   Non-motorised transport is a particularly sustainable way of travelling. This is frequently
    emphasised in the national papers. Measures (strategies) are discussed that promote
    walking and cycling, such as in Denmark and the Netherlands. By contrast, EU documents
    do not seem to go into much depth on these issues.

Environment and land use
 The Commission alongside national policy makers generally recognises the fact that
   environmental and land use issues are inextricably tied up with transport and traffic, both
   in terms of the problems and the measures to be taken.
 The improvement of urban environment is the overriding aim of the 1990 Green Paper on
   “The Urban Environment”. In the area of urban planning, the lines of action are principally
   to work out guidelines for the integration of environmental issues and the planning
   process. Furthermore, the guidelines for the environmental impact assessment should be
   applied. Less advantaged districts in the city should be linked better to other districts. In
   the area of urban transport, it is suggested that city authorities be encouraged to make
   better use of space in favour of public transport (use of space and road planning).
 The 1992 Green Paper “The impact of transport on the environment” adopts as its general
   aim to foster and, eventually, bring about sustainable transport patterns. The Green Paper
   suggests numerous measures such as standardisation, measures to ensure freedom of
   service in traffic, true costs, research, traffic planning measures, fiscal and economic
   instruments. The aim is to influence the traffic users to opt for clean technologies and
   environment-friendly means of transport.
 The 1998 White Paper “On Transport and CO2“ proposes a package of measures for the
   transport sector reflecting the EU‟s commitment to the Kyoto target. The package
   encompasses improved logistics (road freight), better fuel economy and taxation (car),
   decrease of tariffs for rail freight, inter-modality, combined transport and logistics,
   increased minimum fuel tax levels, fair and efficient pricing (internalisation of external
   costs of transport), etc.

Traffic avoidance versus traffic improvement
 Broadly speaking, the documents only sparingly, if at all, mention an overall imperative to
   reduce the need to travel (i. e. traffic avoidance). The papers as a rule tend to be rather
   vague on this issue. Only a few national papers are particularly specific about need for the
   reduction of trip numbers and lengths at large.
 While the environmental problems stemming from transport are widely acknowledged in
   nearly all papers, it is also stressed that transport contributes significantly to the national
   and regional economic prosperity. The documents are inclined not to question the levels of


    traffic as such (i. e. the extent of the movements of people and goods). Instead, they
    advocate to render transport more “sustainable”, that is, less harmful in an environmental,
    social and economic sense. This contrasts with the premises of traffic avoidance.
   As for the European Commission, the 1993 White Paper on “The future development of
    the Common Transport Policy” (CTP) advocates a so-called “global approach” to the CTP
    respecting the concept of sustainable mobility. The close interrelationship between the
    internal market and the CTP is emphasised. The CTP should fulfil a number of
    fundamental objectives, notably to ensure the free movement of goods and persons, to
    strengthen economic and social cohesion throughout the Community, and to guarantee
    transport safety and social welfare.
   The more recent EU papers highlight the importance of making better use of already
    existing infrastructure (road and rail), and to proceed to further building of infrastructure
    only where deemed necessary and appropriate. Car restrictive measures are treated with
    little determination but rather vaguely or reluctantly. The evident absence of such policies
    is offset by comprehensive commitments to improving public transport.
   In Germany, Denmark and Austria, amongst a few other nations, the multiplicity of
    possible measures have been condensed to three major strategy strands. These are in the
    order of priority: traffic avoidance, modal shift and traffic improvement (meaning the
    “betterment” of non-transferable transport).
   In other countries, such as in Italy and the most other Mediterranean ones, the focus is
    more on a single key criterion, notably the reduction of individual car usage in city centres.
    Occasionally, criteria such as public transport promotion and car restraint come under a
    generic term called „push and pull”.
   Some national programmes explicitly call for new infrastructure as a means to meet
    societal and economic goals. The 1991 paper on spatial development in the Community
    (Europe 2000+) clearly points to the necessity of further expansion of networks and the
    offering of incentives to companies to locate at low-cost locations. Environmental
    protection is also mentioned, however, special attention is given to technical measures.
    The paper considers an expansion of fast traffic connections to be the most effective way
    to improve competitiveness. Sensible land use is of greatest importance for long term
    economic well being and environmental enhancement.

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

The screening exercise reveals that more sustainable transport patterns are set as a goal in all
documents. This is done in a more or less explicit manner. The aims and strategies associated
with sustainable transport were grouped into nine so-called criteria of sustainable transport.
Admittedly, the headings chosen for them are arbitrary, however, they proved very workable
throughout the study.
As pointed out above, the policy papers arose from varied national backgrounds. Some papers
cover a particularly wide range of criteria (such as the high level comprehensive policy papers
of the UK, Denmark, Austria, Germany and Italy) whereas others are rather limited in their

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

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



4.1      Introduction, methodology and scope

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

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

The findings present some general answers to the following questions:

    What measures to promote sustainable mobility are decided on (and implemented) at what
     level of government?
    What can city governments do by themselves and what are the procedures they have to
     follow within their respective legal (regulatory) framework?

The outcomes of Activity 1.4 are a vital prerequisite for the transferability study in Work
Package 5. The latter will examine the potential transferability of legal and regulatory
measures from one country to the other. As a matter of fact, the legal and regulatory
frameworks of a country determine a city‟s scope for independent actions. There are obvious
differences in the degree of centralisation or decentralisation regarding the competencies in
urban transport matters between the countries in Europe as well as between regions in
The analysis was carried out for all 15 EU member states, 5 central and eastern European
states (EU membership candidates), Switzerland and Norway. A differentiation was made as
to the depth of the analysis. The LEDA full partner home countries (denoted as “Level I”
countries) were treated in more detail than the remainder (“Level II” countries). This
arrangement was deemed appropriate in order to restrict this otherwise vast array of research
given the relatively tight budget and time restraints. The countries, levels and partners in
charge of the analysis are listed below:
Activity 1.4 - national legal and regulatory frameworks
Country                         Partner    in Country                             Partner     in
                                charge                                            charge
Level       I Austria           AMOR           Level     II Hungary               VATI
countries      Belgium          LV             countries    Luxembourg            LV
               Denmark          ANAS                        Netherlands           LV
               Germany          ILS                         Norway                PLS
               Ireland          TLTC                        Poland                MPK SA
               Italy            USalerno                    Portugal              USalerno
               Slovenia         UI                          Sweden                ANAS
Level      II Czech Republic UDI                            Switzerland           AMOR
countries      Finland          PLS                         Slovakia              STUBA
               France           LV                          Spain                 USalerno
               Greece           USalerno                    United                TAS

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

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

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

           general characteristics of the country (population, area, other)
           constitution, legal and administrative system
           structure of the state, levels of government (national, regional, local),
            important authorities / organs and bodies)
           general division of powers and duties between the various authorities /
            levels of government

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

Task 2: analysis of the powers and duties in transport, land use and
environmental policy
This is the core task of Activity 1.4. Nine transport, environmental and land use policy areas
were specified as a basis for the analysis. For each country, the various levels of government
(national, regional, local) were then looked at regarding their powers and duties in each of the
policy areas. This analysis was conducted in more depth in level I countries than in level II
countries. In the latter case the policy areas were not itemised but treated in an integrated way
with only the most important aspects pointed out.
The policy areas are listed in the following table. It is necessary to note that all policy areas
may overlap in certain instances. The areas were chosen such as to ensure a sound coverage of
all topics relevant for urban transport. It is acknowledged at this stage that policy areas (1) –
(3), (8) and (9) are of a more general nature, thereby having a role in all aspects of transport,
whereas areas (4) – (7) are very specific and crucial to the urban realm.

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

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

       Policy area                     Items (indicative)
       (1)     Road      and       rail planning, co-ordination, construction and
       infrastructure                   maintenance of the road and rail infrastructure
                                        systems, etc.
       (2) Road traffic and vehicle rules governing road traffic, vehicle standards,
       rules                        driver training, road safety requirements, etc.
       (3) Road transport taxes and taxation, pricing, duties and other charges in
       charges                      association with the purchase and operation of
                                    road vehicles (vehicle, fuel and infrastructure)
       (4) Public road and rail organisation, financing and regulation of public
       transport                transport. Includes items such as ownership,
                                operation, level of service, fare structure, etc.
       (5) Parking      and    traffic management of parking (location, fees, time),
       calming                         restrictions of car-traffic as regards speed,
                                       routing, weight, time, etc.
       (6) Cycling and walking         measures to promote non-motorised modes of
       (7) Alternative transport       alternative solutions and concepts, such as car
                                       sharing, car pooling, demand responsive public
                                       transport, mobility management (soft measures),
       (8) Land use                    as far as of general interest for transport, spatial
                                       planning, building rules, integration of land use
                                       and transport measures
       (9) Environment                 as far as of general interest for transport,
                                       measures regarding air pollution minimisation
                                       and prevention, noise abatement, etc.
4.2      Summary of results

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

The legal and regulatory framework of the countries
   A formal constitution exists in most countries. There is some basic and fundamental
    legislation setting the rules for the general division of powers and competencies between
    the various levels of government. The UK is a notable exception with no codified
    constitution in place. This means, the division of powers is enacted in normal law.
   All countries have a parliamentary democracy. Some countries have the status of a
    constitutional monarchy (e. g. Denmark, the UK) whereas other countries are republics.
   Each state has a unique structure of government. There are at least two levels of
    government, national and local. Most countries also have an intermediate regional level.
    Each level is equipped with varying legislative and (or) executive powers. In principle,
    three types of structure can be discerned: federal, regionalised (semi-federal), and unitary.
   Federal structure: this is realised only in Austria, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland.
    These countries are expressly defined as a union (a federation) of “independent” smaller
    states. These join to build up a “federal” level of government that has genuine legislative
    powers. The constitution of the state entitles the federal parliaments to pass and enact their
    own legislation in certain set policy areas. This latter point is not the case in non-federal
    states. Sometimes, federal governments have total legislative and executive autonomy in
    certain policy areas.
   Unitary structure: only the national government makes law which may be implemented
    and enforced at any level. These countries are essentially Denmark, Finland, France,
    Greece, Ireland, the UK, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Luxembourg and the new
    EU member candidate states. Usually, unitary states have no or only poorly empowered
    regional governments and it is at the local and the national levels where most of the
    administrative duties are discharged. However, the degree of decentralisation of powers
    varies by state and also over time. Currently, lower-tier authorities in, for instance, France,
    Ireland and Portugal appear to have gained more autonomy than in other countries. In
    some countries, particular regions are granted exceptionally far-reaching powers delegated
    to them by the national level, such as in France (Corsica) and in the UK (Wales, Scotland,
    Northern Ireland).
   Regionalised structure: this is not truly federal since the state is not a federation.
    However, there are strong regional administrations at work. They are geared with
    considerable autonomy. Regions sometimes can produce law. Italy and Spain fall in this
   In all, the structures of the various states reviewed prove to be very complex. Admittedly,
    the three-way categorisation is not a clear-cut one and the borders between unitary,
    regionalised and federal structure are arguably blurred and also changing over time.
   More to this, there is a discernible trend towards regionalisation in Europe. That is,
    unitary states evidently have been loosing ground as a result of decentralisation
    (devolution) of national powers. Competencies have increasingly been delegated down to
    lower tiers (such as in The Netherlands and Sweden). One but not the only cause for this
    may be the terms of the European Union Structural Funds (with the regional level being
    eligible for most of the funding only).
   Contrarily, the federally structured states seem to be the most stable ones with only minor
    shifts of competencies occurring at present times.
   Lastly, there is also a trend towards the integration of various sectional policy areas at the
    national level of government (for instance, the formation of the Department for
    Environment, Transport and the Regions in the UK).

The powers and duties regarding road infrastructure construction,
maintenance and financing
   In all states the responsibilities are shared between the various levels. Usually, there is
    national legislation in place setting the framework for all types of road networks: national
    (usually trunk roads and motorways), regional and local. Also, lower level authorities
    often act on behalf of the national level as regards construction and maintenance of
    national roads.
   National legislation is in place in all countries to regulate matters concerning rail
    transport. Following EU legislation, steps have been undertaken in all member countries
    to restructure their railway systems. This includes mainly the formal separation of
    infrastructure and transport service provision.
   Regional road legislation is in addition enacted in the federal countries. In most cases,
    national law overrides regional law.
   Belgium is a notable exception: the national level has no competencies whatsoever in road
    infrastructure matters. This is instead dealt with on the regional level.
   Principally, each authority is responsible for its own road infrastructure network whereby
    national tax and duty revenue is allocated to the authorities in charge. Taxation is usually
    imposed on the national level, based on national legislation.
   The Trans European Road Networks are dealt with on the national level.
   Within the framework of national (sometimes also regional law), municipalities have wide
    responsibilities to manage their local road network. They can re-allocate road space to
    modes other than the car (cycling, bus priority lanes, etc.). However, in some countries
    (such as Belgium, the UK) upper-level regulatory and/or financial controls are discernibly
    tighter than in others.
   The impacts of high-ranking road networks are substantial and crucial. National and
    regional roads run across or feed into the local network and cities are therefore widely
    exposed to traffic induced elsewhere. The legal and regulatory frameworks in all countries
    give local governments only relatively marginal powers to take influence on higher-tier
    road infrastructure.

The powers and duties regarding road transport taxes and charges
   Fuel duties and vehicle registration taxation are classical sources of revenue at the national
    level in all countries. Taxation of HGVs follows different rules than taxation of cars. Each
    country has a more or less complex system as to how distribute its revenue between the
    different levels of government.
   National toll roads are common in some states, such as in Italy where tolling is applied to
    the whole motorway network. In other countries, such as Austria, tolling is confined to
    certain stretches of the system whereas in some countries (like the UK) tolls are missing
   Tax exemptions and (or) incentives to promote environmentally friendlier vehicle
    technology has been introduced in many of the member states. On the other hand, tax
    deductibility exists widely for travel to work by car (Austria, Germany, amongst others).
   The concept of internalisation of external costs of transport is now acknowledged in many
    national strategic policy papers. However, this has as a rule not been translated into
    binding legislation as yet.
   Normally, local authorities receive tax revenue from their superior (national) levels to
    spend on their duties regarding public transport, road infrastructure, etc. In the formerly
    communist countries, there is now a severe shortage of national subsidies going to local
    level. For instance, in Poland and Hungary no national money is allocated to the local
    level for public transport financing.
   Local governments are in most countries entitled to impose local parking charges (UK,
    Austria, Netherlands, etc.). In federal countries such as Austria and Germany, this is
    controlled by regional level legislation.
   In France, larger cities levy a tax on wages that is earmarked for public transport. In the
    UK, local authorities are entitled to impose local congestion charges. In Norway, local
    governments are entitled to introduce time-differentiated tolls. This has resulted in “peak
    spreading”, i.e. traffic becoming more evenly spread over the day.
   In countries like Italy, Slovenia or Portugal, road pricing can be introduced on
    municipality level. In Sweden, charges can be set with the only purpose to regulate total
    passenger mileage.
   Local parking fees remain with the municipalities in most cases, however, they sometimes
    also go to the state (e.g. Denmark).

The powers and duties regarding road traffic and vehicle rules
   Regulations concerning vehicle circulation, fuels and technical vehicle standards are in all
    countries set at the national level.
   Enforcement and control of these rules and standards are carried out on various levels, and
    by various authorities (such as the police). In some countries, the responsibilities coincide
    with the hierarchy of the road system concerned.
   Express powers are in most countries given to the local level (e. g. city administration,
    municipalities) to make their own arrangements as to the traffic flows, speed limits, etc. in
    the locality. This refers, however, to the local road network. Often occurring constraints
    are the lack of central (regional) government funding and lengthy approval procedures
    (e. g. Belgium).
The powers and duties regarding public transport service
   In all countries, national legislation sets the overall framework for public transport service
    provision (with respect to the routing, fare levels and structure, operation licensing, quality
    standards, etc.). Supplementary regional law is enacted in some states (such as Austria and
   In countries where deregulation of public transport is advanced (notably the UK), the
    governing legislation is less strict and rigid, prescribing merely minimum standards and
    setting strategic rules.
   Public transport services are offered by either publicly or privately owned operators.
    Public operators are a common appearance in most European countries. Italy may be taken
    as a prime example for mostly publicly owned companies. In the UK, where privatisation
    of the transport sector is almost complete, services are now usually run commercially.
   In most countries, cross-subsidising is common, that is, money coming in from fuel duties
    or other taxation is earmarked for public transport (e.g. in Austria, Switzerland). In France,
    a transport tax is imposed locally within a certain perimeter around a locality. This money
    is devoted to finance public transport in that locality.
   Local level authorities are usually responsible for planning, funding and control
    public transport in their own area (they are, however, bound by national (regional)
    law. A striking exception to this rule is Belgium where regional governments are in
    charge of public transport. Another exception is Ireland where no legislation is in
    place to give local authorities express duties and powers in this matter.
   Public transport services are either run by the municipality itself or contracted out
    to private operators. Often, there is also a mix. Across Europe, urban public
    transport in larger cities has traditionally been regarded as a task incidental to the
   The local authorities’ influence in public rail transport is significantly lower than in
    road transport.
   Severe shortage of national funding for public transport is now (after 1989) a
    common and pressing issue in the central and eastern European countries (e. g. in
    Hungary and Slovakia). The formerly sprawling and well functioning networks and
    services are being curtailed.
   Across most of the countries, there is a striking lack of region-wide co-ordinated
    public transport (for instance Slovenia, UK). Factors impeding regionalisation of
    services are found, inter alia, in the absence of a regional level authority equipped
    with funding capacity, and the deregulation of public transport as a whole making
    co-ordination more than difficult and leading to network fragmentation (as can be
    seen by the UK example).

The powers and duties regarding parking, traffic calming, cycling, walking
   The framework conditions for the policy areas such as parking provision, traffic calming,
    and the promotion of non-motorised modes are enacted in national legislation. This is very
    often the same legislation as for the general traffic rules (see above).
   In addition, national and regional government guidance and best practice advice is often in
    place. Little guidance exists in some states such as Italy, Greece, Slovenia or the Czech
   Municipalities usually can take only little influence in private parking provision.
    However, they often can do so via their spatial planning powers.
   Local authorities draw up their local transport plans containing strategies and
    measures. Usually, they have a wide range of measures at hand and considerable
    discretionary powers. These measures include the designation of pedestrian zones, 30
    kph areas, woonerfs, cycle lanes, reallocation of road space, refinements of traffic
    local rules, parking management, etc.
   Considerable freedom exist (at least in theory) for municipalities to set measures in
    their local network whereas the approval procedures tend to be more tedious for
    regional and national roads. In general, the complexity and length of the planning
    and approval process varies widely.
   There is a considerable variation discernible across the countries as to the extent the
    local authorities go about implementing new schemes. In some countries the
    legislation, approval and financial background is more favourable for local
    authorities (such as in Scandinavia, Germany, The Netherlands) than in others
    where resources and other factors impede such schemes on a wider scale (Greece,
    Portugal, eastern European states).
   In some states, government spending is closely controlled by the central level so
    financial support for a scheme much depends on compliance with national standards
    (e. g. the UK). In Belgium, higher level approval has to be sought by municipalities to
    a much larger extent than elsewhere. Parking and traffic calming is not an issue in
    the Irish legislation so this is entirely up to the local level.

The powers and duties regarding alternative forms of transport and policy
   As a general Europe-wide impression, the legal and regulatory framework is lacking
    substantial provisions for alternative concepts such as car sharing, demand-responsive
    public transport, let alone demand oriented (“soft”) mobility management measures. As a
    rule, all these novel approaches to stimulate less car use are given no or just marginal legal
   In some instances, existing legislation is even counter-productive: parking spaces
    cannot be devoted to car sharing vehicles. This is the case under most national
   Initiatives have become popular in some countries (notably Scandinavia, UK,
    Benelux, Switzerland, Germany, Austria). They were, however, taken on a voluntary
    basis, mostly on the local level. By contrast, they are widely missing in some other
    countries (CEECs).
   Local (sometimes regional) awareness and information campaigns are now
    commonplace in western and northern European countries. However, no legislation
    exists which would commit local authorities to launch such campaigns.

The powers and duties regarding land use and environmental policy
   Most states with a unitary structure have a national planning act complemented by a series
    of supplementary laws and codes on specific subjects, such as building regulations,
    historic monument conservation, etc. In federal countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany,
    also Spain), legislative competence in land use and environment matters also sits with the
    regional parliaments. In other countries (Italy, Greece, Portugal), the planning law is
    piecemeal consisting of numerous acts, by-laws and regulations that have accumulated
    over time.
   All planning systems exhibit an inherent weakness as regards the integration of spatial,
    transport and environmental policy (e. g. stringent prescriptions as to the location of new
    development adjacent public transport). Moreover, building regulations often lack clear
    policies limiting the parking provisions attached to development, they largely fail to
    promote car free neighbourhoods, etc.
   Generally speaking, local authorities acting within the described framework are only
    little successful in steering the amount of car traffic in their locality by means of land
    use policy.
   This may be due to a number of shortcomings, some of which are: flaws inherent to
    the planning system (e. g. decisions taken outside their sphere of influence), too little
    strategic and long term thinking, that is unsound decision making, and decisions
    falling outside the planning system proper (in areas such as energy, transport,
    minerals, housing).
   A notable exception is The Netherland’s ABC planning regime. Considerable
    potential also lies in the powers given to local authorities under the UK planning
    system whereby they can enter planning agreements with the developers requiring
    them to attach transport solutions other the car to their scheme (such as financing
    public transport services).
   National air quality, noise abatement and climate protection legislation are widely enacted
    in the European countries. All areas are of particular relevance for the transport sector.
    The legislation usually prescribes limits and standards to be applied to particular
    pollutants, as well as early warning and monitoring requirements. Laws vary according
    their stringency and implications. However, EU-imposed legislation has had harmonising
   Local authorities in most countries have to prepare plans that come into force in the
    event of harmful situations. The measures being taken may include the express
    reduction of traffic levels (e. g. in France, Austria).
   Monitoring duties are sometimes discharged by the local authorities. In the UK,
    government support for the local councils is rather poor. In Denmark, local
    governments are allowed to some extent to set their own pollution standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        2.5   writing a report (Activity 3.5)

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

This procedure guaranteed

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 Transport RDT Programme (DG VII);

 LIFE programme (DG XI - Environment);

 THERMIE programme (DG XVII - Energy);

 SAVE programme (DG XVII – Energy);


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

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

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

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

NAME                 PROGRAMME                   SUBJECT

ADONIS               DG VII - Transport RTD- analysis & development of new insight
                     programme               into substitution of short car trips by
                                             cycling and walking

AFFORD               DG VII – Transport RTD acceptability of fiscal and financial
                     programme              measures       and      organisational
                                            requirements for demand management

AIUTO                DG VII - Transport RTD- models and methodologies for the
                     programme               assessment of innovative urban
                                             transport systems and policies options

ASTI                 DG XI - LIFE 1              accessible    sustainable    transport
                                                 integration   for    urban    mobility

CAPTURE              DG VII - Transport RTD- cars to public transport in the urban
                     programme               environment
COST 332             COST                        transport and land-use policies

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

ICARO                DG VII - Transport RTD- increasing car occupancy through
                     programme               innovative measures

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

MOBILE               DG XI - LIFE 1              rationalisation   actions     for   urban

MOMENTUM             DG VII - Transport RTD- mobility management for the urban
                     programme               environment

MOTIF                DG VII - Transport RTD- market orientated transport in focus

OPIUM                DG VII - Transport RTD- operational project         for    integrated
                     programme               urban management

PRIVILEGE            DG VII - Transport RTD- priority for vehicles of essential user
                     programme               groups in urban environments

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

SESAME               DG VII - Transport RTD- relation between land use, behaviour
                     programme               patterns & travel demand

TRANSPRICE           DG VII - Transport RTD- Trans-modal       integrated  urban
                     programme               transport pricing for optimum modal

WALCYNG              DG VII - Transport RTD- Enhance cycling and walking instead
                     programme               of shorter car trips

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

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

Name of the project (acronym and full name).

- Nature of the project

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

- Involved partners

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

- Duration and status of the project

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

- Short description of the project

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

- Results and output of the project

Main results and/or output of the project.

- Relevance for LEDA

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

- Contact address

Details on how to obtain more information.

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

5.2.3. Screening summary results
The consortium has screened 21 projects. The main conclusions are:

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

             The subject of the projects is very broad: Although the projects in a very first
              selection proved to be potentially interesting, it was observed that in the end the
              interest for LEDA users was only small. Some projects turned out to treat items
              like emission free vehicles or traffic management systems. These subjects are of
           course of interest for sustainable mobility in urban areas, but are of primary interest
           for LEDA users (as defined above).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


The general objective of the AFFORD project is to promote marginal cost pricing practices in
the context of urban transport, to show that they are desirable and feasible and, in particular to
show how barriers to their implementation, institutional and political, can be overcome.
AFFORD will try to find an answer on the question how the general idea of marginal cost
pricing can be implemented through practical measures, and these will in general have legal
and regulatory components. Other interesting aspects of this project are the transferability and
implementation of the measures.


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

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


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


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

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

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

COST 332: Transport and Land-use policies.

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

There is a need for sectoral, regional and time-scale coherence of the administrative and
planning procedures. By inventorying and analysing different approaches in European
countries the action tackles institutional, organisational and human aspects which may foster
or mitigate such coherence.

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


The MOBILE project aims to decelerate the increasing trend in car-based mobility in the city
of Linz (AT). It develops a mix of organisational and awareness raising measures with
particular weight on the self-enhancing character of these measures.
The project is of both direct and indirect interest for LEDA. Linz is one of the selected cities
for WP 3 anyway, and MOBILE measures are already contained in the inventory. Other
measures do not have a strong legal component, and are of indirect relevance. They might
however be of interest for LEDA users that are also interested in organisational and awareness
measures; in this respect they are related to the measures that are developed under the
MOMENTUM project.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

5.3.1 Selection of cities

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the survey of the LEDA Project it was therefore important to include as many measures
from the 41 different European cities as possible. And it was important to include measures
from cities, which represent:
 Large cities with a high number of inhabitants who are dealing with the problems of
  congestion etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selection criteria           Continuum

Size of city                 Large       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Small

Macro Location               Centre      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Periphery

Micro Location               Metropolitan area - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Country side
                                    1                                             2
Socio-economics              HGR          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LFR

Transport capacity           High         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Low

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

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

City name                        Country                                  Inhabitants

    High Growth Regions
    Less Favoured Regions
Athens       Greece           3 150 000

Madrid       Spain            3 029 734

Budapest     Hungary          1 886 215

Copenhagen   Denmark          1 380 000

Dublin       Ireland          1 180 000

Helsinki     Finland          950 000

Krakow       Poland           750 000

Leeds        United Kingdom   727 000

Lisbon       Portugal         666 390

Bremen       Germany          550 000

Oslo         Norway           480 000

Gothenburg   Sweden           450 000

Edinburgh    United Kingdom   448 850

The Hague    Netherlands      444 000

Florence     Italy            432 112

Bologna      Italy            427 272

Lyon         France           415 000

Aachen       Germany          254 000

Strasbourg   France           250 000

Utrecht      Netherlands      234 000

Bergen       Norway           223 000

Ghent        Belgium          223 000

Erfurt       Germany          207 000

Linz         Austria          203 000

Modena       Italy            171 000

Dijon        France           150 000

Heidelberg   Germany          132 000

Almere       Netherlands      130 000

Aalborg      Denmark          125 000
Bruges                       Belgium                      116 000

Oulu                         Finland                      113 600

Lund                         Sweden                       92 000

Luxembourg                   Luxembourg                   80 000

Hasselt                      Belgium                      68 000

Maroussi                     Greece                       64 092

Trencin                      Slovakia                     59 000

Lemgo                        Germany                      44 500

Wiener Neustadt              Austria                      42 000

Evora                        Portugal                     34 851

Zug                          Switzerland                  22 000

Piran                        Slovenia                     18 000

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

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

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

 Having a legal and regulatory component

 Decided and used at the local level

 Influencing passenger transport effectively with distinguishable effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 In general plans have not been included as measures as it is compulsory for all cities to
  make the plans. However plans can be important conceptual frameworks for the inventory.
  An exception is the aforementioned French Urban Travel which have to be included
  because of the specific interest of the European Commission.
 The construction of a plan has not been accepted as a measure, as a plan has no effect in
  itself. But a plan can consists of a number of proposals with well-defined measures,
  which – if implemented – will have effects on transport, land-use and environment. These
  measures should be part of the inventory (especially innovative measures).

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

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

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

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

5.3.3 The LEDA Database

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

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

   Country

   Inhabitants

   Area in sq. Km.

   Special characteristics

   Modal split

   Car ownership

   Number of public transport passengers

   Public transport network

   Length of streets

   Length of soft modes network

   Administrative features

   Geographical features

   Transport policy

   Land use policy

   Environmental policy

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

Measure category:

          Land Use Measures

          Environmental Measures

          Transport and Traffic Measures with a further differentiation:

                               organisation of transport,

                               regulation of car ownership,

                               administrative parking regulation,

                               physical parking regulations,
                               parking road signs,

                               administrative traffic regulation,

                               physical traffic regulation, and

                               traffic road signs

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

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

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

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

5.3.4 The database design
The illustration below shows the relationship diagram for the database structure. The
relationship diagram for the database structure shows that the database contains the following

   Cities

   Measures

   City name

   Measure category

   Mode category
                              1    City name
                                                                    1   Measure types
 er                                                                     Measure type
name                
                            Measures                                              1   Measure categories
istrative                  Measure number
                            City name
                                                                                      Measure category

cteristics                  Measure title
                            Measure type
                            Measure category               
 e                          Mode category                  
ng                          Year of implementation
wnership                    Current status of measure
 twork                      Measure priority
 ssengers                   Implementor
h of streets                Approver                                              1   Mode categories
ork for soft mode           Grouping 1
 port policy                Grouping                                                  Mode category
use policy                  Description 1
onmental policy             Description 2

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

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

                    5.3.5 Data in the database

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

                                  City                  Measure Title

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

                                                        Restricting traffic in city centre on Saturdays

                                                        Traffic calmed design for the main square

                                                        Residential parking permit areas

                                                        Developing bicycle priority streets

                                                        On-street bicycle lanes

                                                        Direct access bicycle routes to city centre
2   Aalborg   Automated parking information system                       3

              Company Bicycles programme

              Bus priority

3   Almere    Dense network of cycling paths                             3

              High quality public transport with bus lanes

              Improving cost coverage of high quality public transport

4   Athens    License plate based traffic restrictions                   4

              Traffic cells

              Parking policy

              Bus lanes

5   Bergen    Cordon pricing                                             5

              ServiceBus: fixed route paratransit

              Residential parking permit areas

              Traffic cells

              Road pricing

6   Bologna   Promoting the new trolleybus and tram lines                8

              On-board bus location system

              VideoBus: on-call paratransit

              New bicycle path network

              Traffic calming devices implementation

              Pedestrian areas

              Parking organisation

              Access-code based traffic restrictions

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

              Traffic cells in residential area near city centre

              Parking regulation in city and district centres

              Enlarging the bicycle network

              Priority for cyclists

              Parking facilities for bicycles
                  Speeding up public transport

                  House and work areas with accessibility criteria

8    Bruges       Advanced stop line for bicycles                                      10

                  Special assigned areas in streets for deliveries

                  Bus lanes

                  Encouraging development near main railway station

                  Network of paths for bicycles and pedestrians

                  Two tariffs system for parking management

                  Introducing one way streets (traffic cells)

                  30 km/h zones with physical measures

                  Restricting lorries and coaches in city centre

                  Equal standards for parking places and bicycle sheds

9    Budapest     Bus priority scheme in main streets                                  5

                  Traffic calmed urban boulevard

                  Traffic calmed ring road

                  Designating a pedestrian area

                  Capacity reducing reconstruction of primary road

10   Copenhagen   Parking fees in a greater coherent area                              10

                  Reserved parking for specific groups

                  Special parking permits for electric vehicles

                  Municipal parking control

                  Coherent bicycle network

                  Bicycle route in special quarter

                  City-bikes: free bicycle loan programme

                  PrioBus: satellite based bus prioritisation and information system

                  Limiting new parking spaces in city centre

                  Pedestrian street with slow vehicle traffic allowed

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

                  ABC localisation policy: applying parking norms
                 ABC localisation policy: communicating and enforcing parking measures

12   Dijon       Parking fee collection agent                                            1

13   Dublin      Quality Bus Corridors (QBC)                                             4

                 Talbot Street Environmental Traffic Cell

                 Strategic cycle network

                 Vehicle clamping

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

                 Road pricing

                 Car free housing development

                 Green commuter plans

                 Car share scheme


                 Central area parking control

                 Licensing accessible taxis

15   Erfurt      Restricting traffic in city centre on Saturdays                         6

                 30 km/h zones in city centre and residential areas

                 Residential parking permit areas

                 Opening pedestrian precincts to cyclists

                 Two-way bicycle traffic on one-way streets

                 Enlarge tram network and higher operation speeds

16   Evora       Residential parking permit areas                                        6


                 Parking pricing

                 Traffic cells

                 Pedestrian policy

                 Improving urban transport

17   Florence    Ecological minibus network                                              7

                 PersonalBus: STS (special transport service)
                  PersonalBus: in low demand areas

                  EuroToll: integrated toll payment system

                  NaturBus: natural gas buses

                  Controlled parking zones

                  Tellers; PT fleet integrated management

18   Ghent        Sustainable transport modes oriented city centre                  7

                  Parking policy to discourage long term parking

                  Location policy for living and working

                  Traffic calming measures

                  Bus and tram priority

                  Direct access bicycle routes to city centre

                  Two tariffs system for parking management

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

                  KomFram: real-time public transport information system

                  Environmental Zones: limiting diesel vehicles

20   Hasselt      Restricting lorries and coaches in city centre                    3

                  Contra-flow bus lane on ring road

                  Free public transport for everybody

21   Heidelberg   Pedestrianising the historic city centre                          11

                  30 km/h zones in all residential areas

                  Parking regulation in the city centre

                  Residential parking permit areas

                  Integrating parking and mobility management (Bergheim district)

                  Speeding up public transport

                  Enlarging the bicycle network

                  Priority for cyclists

                  Building or assigning bicycle parking facilities

                  Children's pedestrian network in residential area (Kirchheim)

                  Parking spaces for car sharing vehicles
22   Helsinki   Payment for on-street parking                                    1

23   Krakow     Car free zone combined with parking scheme                       3

                20 km/h zones with road humps

                Park and Ride

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

                City centre car parking policies

                East Leeds Quality Bus Initiative

                Guided bus lane

                Licensing accessible taxis

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

                City centre traffic management

                Safe Routes to Schools programme

                Mini-bus network

25   Lemgo      Implementing a new CityBus Network                               7

                Guidance of buses at the central station

                Closing the city centre to through traffic

                Bus/bicycle-only street

                Residential parking in the historic city centre

                Cycle roads, lanes and protection lanes

                Guidance of cyclists at crossings and roundabouts

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

                LIBE: infra-red guided traffic light control system

                Priority for cyclists at traffic lights

                30 km/h zones with physical measures in residential areas

                Residential parking permit areas

                Establishing collective off-street parking for residents

                Constructing and operating a bypass road (pubic/private)

27   Lisbon     Road pricing                                                     6

                Parking pricing
                  Pedestrian policy


                  Bus lanes

                  Priority for public transport at traffic lights

28   Lund         Environmental Zones: limiting diesel vehicles                      12

                  30 km/h zones in all residential areas

                  Regulating semi-public and private carparks

                  Bicycle parking enforcement

                  General parking tariff system

                  Obligation for bicycle parking in future developments

                  Pedestrian precinct in city centre

                  Priority for ServiceBus at traffic lights

                  Reserved parking for deliveries

                  Residential parking permit areas

                  Traffic cells

                  Limiting new parking spaces in city centre

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

                  Parking policy to discourage commuter traffic

                  Parking privilege for residents

                  Park and ride

                  Parking supply according to demand and priorities

                  Ticketing agreement for public transport

                  Loading and unloading zones

                  Closing the city centre to through traffic

30   Lyon         Coherence between traffic and urban planning                       3

                  Reducing the number of private parking places

                  Residential parking permit areas

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

                  CVC: computerised car pool matching service
                  Employer trip reduction plans

                  Bus lanes

                  Parking control operation

                  Pedestrian zones

                  Regulation of loading and unloading operation

32   Maroussi     Traffic calming programme                                           4

                  Parking meters

                  Free public transport (mini-bus) network

                  Land use control

33   Modena       Upgrading the public transport network                              3

                  Taxis as public transport night service

                  Traffic calming devices implementation

34   Oslo         Cordon pricing                                                      1

35   Oulu         Separate network for bicycles and pedestrians                       9

                  Bicycle traffic development programme

                  Private bus company

                  Private company managing on- & off-street parking

                  Dedicated parking enforcement agents

                  Substituting kerbside parking with multi-storey carparks

                  40 km/h zones in residential areas

                  Bus/taxi lanes

                  Traffic calmed (20 km/h) residential areas

36   Piran        Comprehensive and integrated traffic calming                        1

37   Strasbourg   Delivering purchases to Park+Ride facilities                        2

                  New traffic plan

38   Trencin      Designating a pedestrian area                                       1

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

                  Alternative financing of public transport

                  Easy accessibility of public transport facilities
                               Discouraging car use at new housing locations

40        Wiener Neustadt      Bus routes with public transport priority sign                    3

                               Step-wise implementation of traffic calming

                               Parking spaces for car sharing vehicles

41        Zug                  Priority for buses at traffic lights                              5

                               Bus lanes on all primary access roads to the city

                               Bi-directional bus lane on a primary access road

                               30 km/h zones in residential areas

                               Traffic calming in the historic city centre

5.4.1 Objectives and procedure

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

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

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

     Status                                               Score

     Not implemented                                      1

     Implemented to some extent                           2

     Implemented on a wide scale                          3
For the checklist analysis a statistical scoring system was used to determine the usage of the
various measures. The system used assigns the values („scores“) illustrated in the above table.

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

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

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

1 PEDESTRIAN                                       None       Some       Wide

1.1 Infrastructure

1.1.1 pedestrian precinct in city centre                      11         25

1.1.2 pedestrian precinct in district centres      8          18         9

1.1.3 obligation for future pedestrian shortcuts   18         6          8

1.2 Pedestrian Prioritisation

1.2.1 all pedestrian phase                         19         7          2

1.2.2 extended pedestrian phase                    18         11         3

2 BICYCLES                                         None       Some       Wide

2.1 Bicycle Networks

2.1.1 bicycle path                                 7          13         14

2.1.2 dedicated bicycle lane                       14         17         7

2.1.3 bicycle priority street (cycle road)         21         10         3

2.1.4 contra-flow bicycle traffic                  14         7          13

2.1.5 shared bus/bike lane                         18         12         4

2.1.6 cycling in pedestrian precinct               6          15         12
2.1.7 obligation for future bicycle shortcuts         18     5      8

2.2 High Quality Bicycle Networks

2.2.1 direct access bicycle path                      14     16     2

2.2.2 signed bicycle route                            8      15     8

2.3 Bicycle Prioritisation

2.3.1 bicycle provisions at intersection              14     12     5

2.3.2 bicycle priority at traffic light               20     7      6

2.3.3 recessed vehicle stop bar                       12     17     2

2.4 Bicycle Parking Facilities

2.4.1 set aside bicycle parking                       8      11     11

2.4.2 on street bicycle parking                       18     11     5

2.4.3 nearby indoor bicycle parking                   19     7      7

2.4.4 obligation for future indoor bicycle parking in 19     5      8

2.4.5 obligation for future indoor parking at shopping 19    7      5
centres and work sites

2.5 Bicycle Parking Enforcement

2.5.1 bicycle parking enforcement                     26     4

3 PUBLIC TRANSPORT                                    None   Some   Wide

3.1 Dedicated Space For Public Transport

3.1.1 dedicated bus lane                              8      18     13

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

3.1.3 contra-flow bus traffic                         17     15     3

3.1.4 contra-flow bus lane                            22     12     2

3.1.5 shared tram/bus lane                            24     7      3

3.1.6 separated bus or tram street                    19     11     2

3.1.7 transit shortcuts                               16     11     6

3.2 Public Transport Prioritisation                   1      1      1

3.2.1 transit priority at traffic light               11     12     16

3.3 Financial Support
3.3.1 free public transit                                 28     6      2

3.4 Quality Bus Corridors

3.4.1 smart bus corridor                                  15     11     3

4 MOTOR VEHICLES                                          None   Some   Wide

4.1 Parking Regulation in City Centres and District Centres

4.1.1 short term parking                                  8      9      17

4.1.2 paid parking                                        12     9      16

4.1.3 short term, paid parking                            15     5      17

4.2 Residential Parking

4.2.1 residential parking permit area                     6      12     16

4.2.2 reduced/free residential parking fee                13     9      12

4.2.3 public/private parking garage                       22     17     2

4.3 Target Group Parking

4.3.1 reserved car sharing parking                        28     5      2

4.3.2 reserved car pool parking                           25     8      4

4.3.3 reserved electric vehicle parking                   27     4      6

4.3.4 reserved target group parking                       15     15     9

4.3.5 reserved parking for deliveries                     8      14     12

4.4 Parking Enforcement

4.4.1 private parking enforcement                         25     4      4

4.4.2 dedicated parking enforcement                       8      7      18

4.4.3 double parking tariffs                              25            10

4.4.4 vehicle clamping                                    25     6      6

4.5 General Parking Requirements

4.5.1 reduced parking requirement                         17     14     5

4.5.2 maximum parking requirement                         14     7      12

4.5.3 maximum parking in an area                          19     10     11

4.5.4 off- for on street parking exchange                 12     19     5

4.6 Traffic Calming
4.6.1 single street speed limit                         8           19          9

4.6.2 area wide low speed zone                          7           13          15

4.6.3 traffic calming on main roads                     14          16          5

4.6.4 woonerf (living street)                           12          15          7

4.7 Traffic Access Management

4.7.1 physical access restriction                       13          18          8

4.7.2 traffic cells                                     9           15          9

4.7.3 access management                                 17          13          10

4.7.4 access pricing                                    28          2           2

4.7.5 road pricing                                      28          4           2

4.7.6 HOV only access                                   28          4

4.7.7 HOV only lane                                     22          6           2


5.1 Intermodality

5.1.1 bike and ride                                     8           9           11

5.1.2 park and ride                                     5           14          11

5.1.3 free transit during parking time                  24          4           1

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

Measures most widely used                               None        Some        Wide

1.1.1 pedestrian precinct in city centre                            11          25

4.2.1 residential parking permit area                   6           12          17

4.4.2 dedicated parking enforcement                     8           8           17

4.6.2 area wide low speed zone                          7           13          16

2.1.1 bicycle path                                      6           14          13

4.1.1 short term parking                                8           9           16
2.1.6 cycling in pedestrian precinct                        6            14           12

5.1.2 park and ride                                         5            15           10

3.2.1 transit priority at traffic light                     10           12           16

4.3.5 reserved parking for deliveries                       8            14           13

4.1.2 paid parking                                          12           8            16

5.1.1 bike and ride                                         8            8            11

3.1.1 dedicated bus lane                                    8            18           12

2.4.1 set aside bicycle parking                             8            10           11

4.1.3 short term, paid parking                              14           5            16

1.1.2 pedestrian precinct in district centres               8            17           9

4.6.1 single street speed limit                             8            18           9

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

Measures rarely used                                        None         Some         Wide

4.7.6 HOV only access                                       29           4

2.5.1 bicycle parking enforcement                           28           4

4.7.4 access pricing                                        28           2            2

5.1.3 free transit during parking time                      24           4            1

4.7.5 road pricing                                          28           5            2

4.3.1 reserved car sharing parking                          28           6            2

3.3.1 free public transit                                   27           6            2

4.7.7 HOV only lane                                         23           6            2

1.2.1 all pedestrian phase                                  19           6            2

4.4.1 private parking enforcement                           24           4            4

3.1.5 shared tram/bus lane                                  23           7            3
4.3.2 reserved car pool parking                             25          8               4

3.1.4 contra-flow bus lane                                  23          12              2

4.3.3 reserved electric vehicle parking                     27          4               6

3.1.6 separated bus or tram street                          19          11              2

2.1.3 bicycle priority street (cycle road)                  20          10              3

4.2.3 public/private parking garage                         22          16              2

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

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

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


















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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        achieved goals

        related policies

        acceptance (meant as public approval)

        overall European area distribution

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

1     DITS         Increasing accessibility               Lisbon          Portugal

2     DITS         Parking policy                         Evora           Portugal

3     DITS         Traffic calming measures               Bologna         Italy

4     LV           Shared bus/bike lane                   Ghent           Belgium

5     LV           Parking charge system                  Ghent           Belgium

6     LV           Global parking policy                  Luxembourg      Luxembourg

7     PLS          Access pricing                         Oslo            Norway

8     PLS/ANAS     Environmental zones                    Lund            Sweden

9     ILS          Bicycle priority street (cycle road)   Lemgo           Germany

10    ILS          Limited access to the                  Erfurt          Germany

                   city centre

11    TLTC         Quality bus corridors                  Dublin          Ireland

12    AMOR         Bi-directional bus lane                Zug             Switzerland

13    AMOR         Car sharing parking space              Wiener Neustadt Austria

14    NEA          ABC location policy                    The Hague       Netherlands

15    NEA          “Getting the business in the right The Hague           Netherlands

16    CERTU        Transport levy on companies            Strasbourg      France

17    CERTU        Air quality legislation                Lyon            France

18    ANAS         Pedestrian streets                     Copenhagen      Denmark

19    TAS          Accessible taxis                       Edinburgh       UK

20    VATI         Bus priority scheme                    Budapest        Hungary

According to the geographical point of view, the distribution is as
 the north-west Europe area dealt with 11 measures

 the Scandinavian area dealt with 3 measures

 the Mediterranean area dealt with 3 measures

 the alpine and eastern area dealt with 3 measures

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

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

                                Quality bus corridors in Dublin

                                Bi-directional bus lane in Zug

                                Transport    levy    on    companies     in

                                Bus priority scheme in Budapest

                                Accessible taxis in Edinburgh

Accessibility regulations (5)   Increasing accessibility in Lisbon

                                Traffic calming measures in Bologna

                                Access pricing in Oslo

                                Environmental zones in Lund

                                Limited access to the city centre in Erfurt

Parking Policies (4)            Parking policy in Evora

                                Parking charge system in Ghent

                                Global parking policy in Luxembourg

                                Car sharing parking space in Wiener

Land use and                    ABC location policy in The Hague

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

                                Air quality legislation in Lyon

Cycling and                     Bicycle priority street in Lemgo
    walking (2)                     Pedestrian streets in Copenhagen

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

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

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

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

6.2. A short description of the 20 measures
Here follows a short description of each measure, containing basic
information about the context, the implementation, the goals and the reasons
for success.

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

The objectives of this plan are:

   to upgrade the (public) transport network through:

     the expansion of the subway network;

     the construction of a railway crossing the Tagus river;
     the refurbishment and modernisation of the tram network;

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

     the promotion and stimulation of water transport;

     the closure of two ring roads.

   to improve the land use structure through:

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

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

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

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

     the creation of traffic cells and a pedestrian sidewalk along the

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

     the linking of new commercial areas with old residential areas.

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

Parking Policy - Evora - Portugal
Evora is the main urban and cultural centre of the Alentejo region. To
conserve its cultural heritage, the city has implemented an integrated parking
and traffic system called „SITE‟.

The main goals of „SITE‟ are:

   to reorganise and control traffic and parking;

   to improve public transport;

   to improve environmental conditions in the city;
   to promote the rational use of energy.

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

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

   traffic cells in the city centre;

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

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

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

   new ring roads outside the city walls;

   replacement of traffic light controlled crossings by mini roundabouts.

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

Other important success factors are:

   a professional communication and information campaign;

 changes to the road network before the implementation of parking

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

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

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

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

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

 area-wide low speed zones;

 remodelling main roads to give more space to alternative modes;

 dedicated bus lanes;

 upgrading the general urban environment.

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

 discourage car traffic in the city centre;

 increase the accessibility of the city centre for sustainable transport

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

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

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

Shared Bus/Bike Lane - Ghent - Belgium
The shared bus/bike lane is an important means of providing a free flow of
traffic for buses and cyclists. This can encourage public transport and
cycling. The measure was implemented around a square at the southern edge
of the city centre of Ghent: the city library, the city administration and a
shopping centre are located here and the square is also a tram/bus
interchange point. In order to speed up public transport, the city considered
the construction of a contra flow bus lane in a street leading to this square.
This street, however, was also an important part of the bicycle network.
Therefore it was necessary to allow cyclists to use this street as well, even on
a bus lane in contra flow.
This measure was implemented as part of the overall Ghent South project
which started in 1992. Promotion, information provision and public
involvement were organised as part of this project. The public made no
objections to the implementation of a bus lane used by bicycles. The
planning, implementation, enforcement and monitoring did not cause any

The shared bus/bike lane became a success thanks to the co-operation
between city departments such as the Mobility and the Urban Development
Department, the public parking company of the city, the public transport
company „De Lijn‟, the Flemish Ministry of Infrastructure and the National
Ministry of Transport. Acceptance by the public and the ease of enforcement
also contributed to the measure‟s success. The measure does not cause any
traffic safety problems. On the contrary, safety has improved for cyclists,
compared to the situation before the implementation of the lane.

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

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

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

The initial reasoning behind this measure was that:

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

 charging for parking is the only efficient means of restricting parking

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

 the potential to earn small parking fees is reasonably cost effective;
 a parking control system does not work without effective control; the hit
ratio must be high enough.

The City of Ghent has its own parking company which is primarily
responsible for the planning, implementation and monitoring of this
measure. The parking company works closely together with the mobility
department and the City police. The City of Ghent has also implemented a
consultative body, called VERO (Traffic and Land use Planning), consisting
of the city departments involved, the Flemish public transport company „De
Lijn‟ and the Flemish Administration. VERO is a very important means of
enhancing commitment and co-operation between all the bodies involved in
traffic and land use.

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

Global Parking Policy - City Of Luxembourg - Grand
Duchy Of Luxembourg
The parking policy in Luxembourg consists of a set of measures:

 parking privileges for residents through residential parking licenses;

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

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

 a parking policy that discourages commuter traffic.

The aim of this policy is to:

 discourage long term parking in the city centre;

 discourage commuter parking in residential areas;

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

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

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

 a good balance between the different push (parking restrictions) and pull
(park and ride) measures;
     the fact that the park and ride system offers commuters a real alternative
    by means of a network of park and ride sites and frequent bus services to the
    city centre;

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

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

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

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

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

     unsatisfactory traffic flow with significant delays for all traffic;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bicycle Priority Street (Cycle Road) - Lemgo -
Lemgo is a medium-sized city which has established a bicycle priority street
connecting four schools. The street forms an important link between other
cycle lanes in the city. In general, only cyclists are allowed to use this street.
However, other users (cars, trucks) can have access to the street because this
is permitted by an additional traffic sign. Cyclists have priority and may ride
side by side. Those cars and trucks must yield to cyclists at all times. A
regulatory “cycle road” sign is placed at the beginning of the street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Factors contributing to the success of this far-reaching measure include:
 the combination of traffic calming in the historic city centre with a
number of multi-storey car parks outside the inner city, jointly reducing the
number of cars searching for parking spaces in the centre;

 a good public transport network with modern and comfortable

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

   the participation of the Chamber of Commerce;

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

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

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

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

 achieve improvements in all vehicular traffic movements;

 provide safe conditions for cyclists and pedestrians.

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

Each QBC comprises:

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

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

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

 restrictions on parking and turning movements;

 bus priority measures, including „bus gates‟ to enable buses to go straight
on from a left turn only lane at a junction and bypass traffic lights, which
hold back other traffic.
Dublin Corporation and Dublin Bus, supported by the Dublin Transportation
Office, played a key role in the successful implementation of the measure.
The public consultation process and the involvement of a wide range of
agencies ensured effective delivery of the Initiative‟s planning and
implementation stages. These stages involved:

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

 the identification of key radial routes based on passenger volumes;

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

 construction of new bus shelters;

 training the driving staff in customer care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aim of the scheme in Wiener Neustadt is to promote car sharing as an
alternative to individual car use and indirectly to reduce the CO² emission
levels in the city. The city is setting a positive example through this measure
by dedicating public road space exclusively to car-sharing vehicles.

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

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

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

 an A-location is a location with high quality public transport and limited
car access (1 parking place for every 10 employees);
 a B-location is a location with good public transport and good car
accessibility (1 parking place for every 5 employees);

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

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

The measure aims to:

   limit private car use;

   regulate the availability of parking places;

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

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

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

Getting The Business In The Right Place - The Hague
- The Netherlands
„Getting the business in the right place‟ focuses on lateral aspects of the
ABC location policy, in particular the co-operation between cities and the
transport links between offices and newly established neighbourhoods.

The overall aim of this measure is to:

 integrate environmental and accessibility considerations within spatial
planning policy;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Today, the Versement Transport has two main objectives:

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

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

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

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

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

The PDU of Lyon (the first PDU approved in France) is both a technical and
a political document. It sets out the strategy for the development of transport
modes, in conjunction with the master plan for the development of the
metropolitan area. The PDU is also a guideline for co-operative actions
between all the communities of the Lyon region. The aims of this PDU are:
      to establish a global strategy for urban travel consistent with urban
     development (the key element for achieving this goal is the creation of two
     new tram lines, north-south and east-west);

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

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

     Many elements of the PDU were really new:

        the large scale public participation process;

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

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

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

     These elements contribute to a quite positive initial general evaluation of the
     PDU. The Lyon PDU is the first to follow the new air quality law
     framework, with quantified objectives for a reduction of pollution and a
     change to the modal split. It is clear that the PDU is not only a mobility plan,
     but is more comprehensive, covering transport, urban planning, and land use

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

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

     The objectives are:

      to reduce inconvenience from traffic vibration, noise and pollution
     especially from buses;
   to create more attractive and harmonised streets;

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

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

Accessible Taxis - Edinburgh - United Kingdom
The City of Edinburgh Council is the licensing authority for taxis and
private hire cars. The City can determine the quality and quantity of the
vehicles to be licensed. The licensing of accessible taxis by the city
contributes to the general policy for improving transport options for disabled
people, which originated with the former Regional Council. The approach
taken in Edinburgh has now been adopted for UK-wide regulations made
under the national „Disability Discrimination Act 1995‟. These require that
from January 2002, any newly licensed taxis must be accessible to
wheelchair users, and from January 2012, all taxis must be wheelchair

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

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

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

 a vibrant taxi trade in the city, with a good history of vehicle investment
and of delivering service quality;
 a strong local political will to improve access to transport for disabled

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

   legal powers to set local taxi licensing conditions;

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

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

   active enforcement procedures carried out by the police;

   a concessionary fares scheme for disabled people using taxis;

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

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

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

The bus priority scheme comprises a number of related measures:

   new modern buses (including minibuses);

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

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

   restrictions on parking and turning movements by cars;

   improvements to road markings and traffic signs.

The main objectives of the scheme are:
  to facilitate the provision of a faster and more reliable bus service (there
 is no source of finance for increasing the frequency of the services);

  to create better, more comfortable conditions for public transport

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

    to improve road safety.

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

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

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

Public Transport

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

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

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

The French measure deserves special attention because this kind of problem
was dealt with in quite a different way. Indeed, the measure of the „transport
payment‟ was aimed at reducing private car usage very indirectly, supporting,
as the main issue, the public transport operation. The problem is that this kind
of support is currently obtained by a general private mandatory payment for all
the firms with more than 9 employees, so this cannot be considered a
traditional measure, as all the others above mentioned, that acts directly on
infrastructures, or on vehicles or on land use plans and so on. This measure
can be seen as a political, financing device, at national scale, to support public
transport. So outcomes could be evaluated in terms of global benefits, or
achieved goals, without referring to a single city. From this point of view, no
comparison could be made to the other, more „local‟ measures selected.
Moreover, this measure was also different from the national Dutch measures
because, in that case special attention was paid to both to global and local
aspects, while here the measure structure was completely independent from
any local situation. Its global feature explains also why public participation
was not required at all. Anyway, it must be clear that the lack of differentiated
fields of application is not a negative matter, because such legal-financing
measure must be applied in every kind of situation, without special local legal
involvement. Its nationwide application guarantees also very good
transferability possibilities.

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

in: Erfurt, Oslo, Lund, Bologna, Lisbon

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

Parking policies

in: Evora, Ghent, Luxembourg, Wiener Neustadt

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

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

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

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

Land use and environment

in The Hague and Lyon

The Hague experience showed the importance of the integrated approach to
the management of mobility and land development matters. The two measures
were very complex, so here it is not useful to synthesise them. Anyway, both
measures stress the importance of planning suitable patterns of mobility for
every kind of land use. Moreover, an appropriate mobility scheme is able to
eliminate unwanted, massive use of private cars and to promote
environmentally safe modes of transport. Of course, both measures can be
more successfully implemented in future settlements, while their application
in older ones could cause problems, because of their global approach. It must
also be stressed that the case study of The Hague can be considered the most
rational effort to manage parking schemes in existing and in future situations.
The mechanism to assign a given number of parking lots related to the kind of
land use, of on-the-spot activities, to strictly relate business location to
different conditions of private cars and public transport access, to lay out
accessibility profiles seems to be very hard to transfer in consolidated urban
contexts, for solving urgent parking problems. Anyway, the measure is
particularly important because it described a multidisciplinary approach to all
the matters that influence the long term management of urban parking (land
use - public transport provision - demand for car use).

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

Cycling and Walking

in Copenhagen, Lemgo

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

6.3.2    Common aspects and problems of the 20 measures

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

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

Evaluation features

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

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

A common feature of both categories was „pricing‟: almost half of the list was
composed of measures that required payment. So, pricing measures seem to
be a useful tool for fighting non sustainable traffic habits such as unregulated
or illegal parking, through-traffic, indiscriminate access. A very important
matter resulting from the survey of all the measures was that from one initial
input a number of outputs resulted. This means that suitable intervention on
infrastructure, such as new parking regulations or special conditions on
access, especially targeted at solving the negative effects of traffic, was able to
start the process of urban renewal, in which better quality of life, lower
pollution levels and an increase in the use of non motorised modes are among
the most evident effects.

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

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

Measure               City     Overall


                               traffic   Parkin pollutio Accessibil land use more    less
                               control   g      n        ity                 use     use

                                                decreas                     of       of
                                                e                           public   private
                                                                            t        cars

Increasing            Lisbon                                     

Parking policy        Evora             

Traffic     calming Bologna                             

Shared      bus/bike Ghent                               

Parking         charge Ghent             

Parking policy        Luxembour                                           

Access pricing        Oslo                                                         

Environmental         Lund                                       

Bicycle       priority Lemgo                                                         
street (cycle road)

Limited access to Erfurt                                                           
the city centre

Quality           bus Dublin                                                        

Bi-directional    bus Zug                                                           
Car sharing parking Wiener                          
space               Neustadt

ABC         location The Hague                                                    

“Getting            the The Hague                                                  
business in         the
right place”

Transport levy on Strasbourg                                                        

Air         Quality Lyon                                                           

Pedestrian street      Copenhage                                         

Accessible taxis       Edinburgh                                                 

Bus         priority Budapest                                                   

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

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

Implementation phase was run mainly by various departments of a
               municipality, depending upon their own areas of
               responsibility. They had the responsibility for ordering
               equipment and services, carrying out technical activities,
               „building‟ the measure, managing resources and providing
               information. The most commonly involved bodies were:
               departments of transport, of traffic, of buildings, of planning
               or environment.
Enforcement phase was carried out mainly by the city police and it consisted
                basically of levying fines on users who do not comply with
                regulations. Normally, these activities are part of police
                regular duties, so no extra resources are required.

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

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

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

Another important aspect to be highlighted was the survey on the kind of
people involved in the implementation process. On the basis of the
information contained in the WP 3 database, it was clear that the entities
involved could be divided into two categories: internal and external ones.
Bearing in mind that internal bodies were defined as all sections of a city
authority involved directly in the implementation process, such as the
transport or planning departments, all other bodies from outside the city
administration could therefore be defined as external, e. g. roads
administrator, police (at state level), public transport operators, commercial
groups, pressure groups, etc.
With respect to internal bodies, it can be stressed that departments of
municipalities or higher levels of local government were always the main
implementor, even where private companies were involved. The situation
relating to the participation of external bodies was however very different.
There was a variety of external bodies and they can be divided into two main
categories: institutional public bodies that were involved but playing a minor
role in the whole process, and private bodies. In the first case, these were very
often planning, environment, building departments of the relevant
municipality (while the traffic or mobility department played the main role as
internal body) or public transport companies. This means that there was a
quality approach to the issues, because all the problems can be considered
from many points of view at the same time, and might ensure a high guarantee
of success. With respect to the private entities involved, there was a wide
range of very different bodies, including citizens pressure groups, chambers of
commerce, workers unions, private companies, special users and so on. This
could best be summed up as “the more people involved, the better the chance
that the measure will be accepted”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.1        Introduction and scope

Work Package 5 covered the following activities:

    development of guidelines for assessment of the transferability of legal measures (Activity

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

    optimisation of the assessment methodology (Activity 5.3)

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

As a result of the initial discussions, it was decided that a detailed theoretical analysis would
be of limited use to the city practitioners who should be the primary beneficiaries of the
LEDA project. Therefore the approach to assessing transferability has been essentially
Three approaches were therefore adopted to provide the LEDA project with information
relating to the role of institutional and legal frameworks on potential transferability, to identify
key issues that affect transferability, to try to predict transferability and to identify effective
measures that can easily be transferred:

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

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

     a retrospective evaluation of the process taken in the above two approaches, carried out by
     the participants.
The process of assessing transferability took place in 15 Target Cities, each selecting 5 of the
20 measures, giving a total of 78 (one city chose 6 and another 7) transferability studies for
analysis. The process involved:

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

    the use of a decision chain related to relevant aspects of the measures under consideration
This decision chain was considered to be the process which would need to be undertaken by a
Target City when studying the transferability of measures by cross referring their own
situation with that of the Origin Cities in terms of the above aspects. Each Target City
undertook this exercise and completed a Transferability Scale, based on a Lickert Scale, to
show whether there are barriers and, if so, whether it would be possible to overcome them.
In addition, comments were made on the barriers and on any legal and regulatory changes

7.2      Methodology

7.2.1    General

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

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

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

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

   it might be possible to identify key issues that affect transferability by undertaking the
    exercise in practice, particularly to the extent that real practitioners were involved. These
    issues could then be converted into a „checklist‟ which could be made available to any city
    practitioners considering whether measures from elsewhere would easily transfer to their
    own situation
   an attempt could be made to predict transferability on the basis of certain specific city
    characteristics. If successful, this might identify the most important characteristics for
    practitioners to consider, when examining other cities for transferable measures

   if measures can be identified which both:

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

    –    appear likely to transfer easily

    –    then they could be promoted more strongly.

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

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

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

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

7.2.2    Transferability simulation exercise

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

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

   the city‟s objectives

   the existing legal framework

   the political framework

   public acceptability

   ability to enforce the measure.

The transferability was assessed on a three point Lickert scale against each of the above
components. Whilst some participants would have preferred a scale with more options, this
would have significantly increased the complexity of subsequent analysis. In addition, it was
felt that cutting the options down to three would force participants to identify a general trend
position by polarising the issues. The three points on the assessment scale were:

        1 - Fundamental barrier

        2 - Current barrier but could in principle be overcome

        3 - No barrier

and participants were instructed to choose one of the above.

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

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

7.2.3    Comparison of city characteristics

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

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

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

   aspects of the measure itself

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

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

However, an attempt to consider various characteristics of all five variables would have
created a major statistical burden. Two assumptions were duly made. The first assumption
was that a choice of relevant city characteristics could be made that would also reflect the
nature of the region or country in which the city is located. This is not unreasonable - for
example, a high level of central control will be reflected in a low level of city autonomy; a low
level of central control should be reflected in a high level of local autonomy, and so on.

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

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

In this way, two classification matrices were developed. The first matrix was designed to be
applied to individual measures, and to identify 17 characteristics of the measure within the
city where the measure is enacted. These cities became known as 'Origin Cities'. The second
matrix was designed to obtain information about the individual cities where transferability
was to be simulated. These cities became known as 'Target Cities'. The second matrix
identified 13 characteristics, which were matched pairs with 13 of the set of 17 applying to the
Origin Cities and associated measures.
For four characteristics it was felt necessary to ask separate questions about the position
within the Origin City and the way in which this affected the measure. For example, it was
hypothesised that comparability between road systems might promote transferability.
Consequently, the nature of the road system was included as an important characteristic of
Origin Cities. For some measures, the nature of the road system would be critical. However,
this would not be the case for all measures, so it was necessary to identify those measures
influenced by this feature. Consequently, in respect of this characteristic the following two
questions were asked:

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

   "Does the measure reflect the nature of the City's road system?"
Three other characteristics were treated similarly.

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

The city / measure characteristics were chosen, following discussion amongst study partners
and with RUG members, as likely to have some causal relationship with transferability. For
example, some measures depended upon a significant degree of integration of traffic
management, public transport management and / or land-use functions in the Origin City
where they were studied in detail. It was hypothesised that such measures would be more
likely to transfer to a Target City with an equivalent level of functional integration and less
likely to transfer to a Target City where such functions were separated out to different
departments or agencies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: Complete local autonomy in these areas

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

C: Fully centralised state, little local autonomy.
Care was taken to ensure that the 'polarity' of the questions matched i.e. an 'A' answer to an
Origin City question was similar to an 'A' answer to a Target City question.

7.2.4    Evaluation of the approach

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

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

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

   Did you understand the Question?

   Did you understand the wording of the options made available?

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

7.3      PROCESS

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

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

An ideal sample structure would have been for each Measure to be considered by at least three
Cities. In practice, however, so as to promote active participation in the research, Cities were
allowed to choose the Measures they wished to consider for transfer. This meant that the
transferability of certain Measures, such as 'Access Pricing', 'Limiting Access to the City
Centre on Saturday' and the 'ABC Location Parking Policy' was considered in more Target
Cities (9, 8 and 10 respectively) than that of other measures, such as 'Increasing Accessibility
in Residential Areas', 'Car-Sharing Parking Spaces on Public Property' and 'Air Quality
Legislation' (1, 1 and 2 respectively). The Figure below sets out which measures were studied
in which cities.

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

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Getting business in the right place (The Hague)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Car sharing parking space (Wiener Neustadt)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Transport levy on companies (Strasbourg)
                                                                                                                                                                               Two-stage parking charge system (Ghent)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Licensing of accessible taxis (Edinburgh)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ABC location parking policy (The Hague)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Bicycle priority street / bus lane (Lemgo)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Limited access to city centre (Erfurt)
                                                                                                         Traffic calming measures (Bologna)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Global parking policy (Luxembourg)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Pedestrian street (Copenhagen)
                                            Increasing accessibility (Lisbon)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Bus priority scheme (Budapest)
                                                                                                                                              Shared bus / bike lane (Ghent)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Quality bus corridors (Dublin)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Bi-directional bus lane (Zug)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Environmental zones (Lund)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Air quality legislation (Lyon)
                Measure (Origin City)

                                                                                Parking policy (Evora)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Access pricing (Oslo)

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

Bratislava                                                 

Bremen                                                     

Budapest                                                   

Copenhagen                                                 

Cracow                                                     

Dublin                                                     

Florence                                                   

Ghent                                                      

Leeds                                                      

Linz                                                       

Ljubljana                                                  

Luxembourg                                                 

Madrid                                                     

Oslo                                                       

Zug                                                        

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

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

Three groups are apparent:

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

    access    pricing

    shared    bus / bike lane

    limited   access to city centre on Saturday

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

    getting   business in the right place

    traffic   calming measures

    quality   bus corridors

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

    licensing   of accessible taxis

    environmental       zones

    air   quality legislation

    parking    policy

    bus   priority.

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

   car sharing parking space
   bus priority scheme

   quality bus corridors.

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

   increasing accessibility in residential areas

   system of two-stage parking charges

   global parking policy

   environmental zones.

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

7.4.1    Comparative Transferability

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

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

Separate analysis by transferability factor (city objectives, legal, political, etc.) is no more
revealing. Nor is a disaggregated analysis comparing individual Target City averages rather
than taking an average figure for all the Target Cities related to a particular measure (as was
done in the initial analysis).
It was hypothesised that the use of headline averages to describe the Target and Origin Cities
might be misleading. For example, two cities with the same average score across all the
different characteristics may actually be very different, because that average may be made up
through differential scoring of specific characteristics. The process is further confused if we
make the logical hypothesis that certain characteristics will be more significant for specific
measures than other characteristics. Responsibility for parking may be far more relevant to a
parking policy measure than, for example, control and ownership of public transport.

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

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

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

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

7.4.2    Conclusion of the correlation analyses

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

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

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

The results do not disprove the view that key transport practitioners at city level are best in a
position to screen measures, on the basis, in particular, of their local knowledge of the
political framework and public acceptability factors, Such practitioners need to be provided
with information about possible measures in a structured form. This supports the creation of
the LEDA database of Measures as a useful, pan-European toolbox for practitioners.


7.5.1    Rationale

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

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

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

7.5.2    Guidelines

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

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

a) the city authority determines which issue(s) or problem(s) need to be addressed
b) databases of measures, such as the database developed in the LEDA Project, are searched
   in order to identify those measures which address the issue(s) or problem(s) identified.
   The European Commission‟s ELTIS initiative may also be an extremely useful tool for
   this purpose. Cities should consider making maximum use of their local powers (relatively
   extensive powers already exist for most municipalities to implement sound and effective
   measures covering parking management, traffic calming, public transport, cycling and
   walking, without waiting for change from above). In order to exploit this potential, cities
   should exchange information and enter intensive discussion on a European wide scale.

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

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

             these actors compare the five aspects:

                  city objectives

                  legal framework

                  political framework

                  public acceptability

                  enforcement issues

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

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

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

d) once a choice of measure has been made, there are few general rules to guide the process
   of transferring the measure, other than the need to pay particular emphasis to consultation.
   The fact that the most significant barriers to transfer relate to political frameworks and
   public acceptance underlines the vital importance of obtaining political and public support
   for particular measures. Consultation processes are an essential element in ensuring that
   these issues of political and public acceptability are addressed. Consultation processes are
   often built into the legal and regulatory framework governing the introduction of measures
   in many countries. However, consultation processes also have a cultural dimension and
   therefore it is not possible to present a standard process for all to follow. Suffice it to say

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

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

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

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

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

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