WIN-WIN 5 fast and fair solutions for cleaning up urban transport
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
WIN-WIN
5 fast and fair solutions
for cleaning up urban transport
1
This briefing was written by the Clean Cities Acknowledgements
Campaign, a campaign hosted by Transport &
Environment. The Clean Cities Campaign would like to express
their gratitude to all partner organisations that
Lead authors: Zachary Azdad, Jens Müller have contributed to this briefing, particularly
Review: Martin Baierl, Celeste Hicks, Barbara Stoll to Robin Loos from The European Consumer
Design: Laura Yates, laurayates.co.uk Organisation (BEUC) for his insightful review.
The Clean Cities Campaign is solely responsible
© Text 2023 Clean Cities Campaign / for the content of and the views expressed in
Transport & Environment this document.
2
Contents
4 Executive Summary
5 I. Introduction: current crises hit vulnerable
groups the hardest
7 II. Methodology: a systematic best practice
review based on three assessment criteria
9 III. Analysis: The short list of policies every
city should consider
12 Conclusions and policy recommendations
13 Annex I – Long list and descriptive summary
of best practice measures
16 Annex II – Long list and Impact of best
practice measures
20 Annex III – Cost-effectiveness calculations
3Executive Summary
People in cities across Europe are currently facing fairness with regard to vulnerable groups and their
multiple crises : cost of living pressures, health cost-effectiveness. This has resulted in the following
impacts from illegal air pollution and the climate short list of five solutions that are a win-win for
emergency. Each of these can disproportionate- the rapid and fair introduction of clean transport
ly affect marginalised groups, i.e. low-income policies in cities:
households, people living in poorly connected 1. Mobility credits and scrappage schemes that
areas, people of colour and citizens with disabilities. provide targeted financial support to replace
Evidence shows that these groups suffer most from polluting cars with active and public transport
the adverse health effects of polluting road trans- and, where necessary, cleaner vehicles,
port, yet they are often contributing the least to the 2. Bike purchase support schemes,
problem. 3. Reduced public transport fares,
4. Shared mobility hubs in poorly connected
Therefore, we believe that urban transport poli- areas,
cies must be designed in a way that pays special 5. Social leasing of electric vehicles.
attention to the needs of these groups. This will
help prevent those from being unfairly affected and Based on these findings, the Clean Cities Campaign
secure strong public backing for political measures. calls on city leaders and governments to:
▶ Prioritise equity objectives and indicators in
For this briefing the Clean Cities Campaign has transport policies,
conducted a systematic best practice review ▶ Urgently establish a short-term policy pack-
which shows that proven solutions for these chal- age that combines several of the proven meas-
lenges already exist, and can be rolled out across ures listed above,
European cities. A long list of relevant policies has ▶ Set a clear target for zero-emission urban
been established and then assessed on three crite- transport by 2030 – the most effective route to
ria: the speed with which they can be enacted, their healthy, liveable and fairer cities.
Equity Cost-
MEASURE Timeline
Affordability Connection Accessibility effectiveness
Scrappage Short
schemes term
neutral
Reduced costs
Short
for bicycle
term
purchase
Public Short
transport term
Shared
Medium
mobility
term
hubs
Social leasing
Medium-
of electric
long term
vehicles
= depends on local infrastructure
and affected vehicles
4Introduction
Current crises hit vulnerable groups the hardest
Photo: Sorin Gheorghita / Unsplash
European city leaders are currently dealing with the ownership’8 (see details below) which is causing
impacts of concurrent crises which are making life persistently high levels of air pollution and traffic
for many residents challenging. The war in Ukraine congestion.
has triggered a cost of living crisis which affects the
life and mobility of millions of Europeans.1 This adds
to an air pollution crisis from fossil fuel combustion, Cities are at the forefront of taking
in particular from road transport. The EU’s Third action
Clean Air Outlook shows that compliance with the
latest air quality guidelines of the World Health European cities are at the forefront of addressing
Organization (WHO) is still far away.2 these crises. They have been putting in place a wide
range of measures to promote active, public and
This public health crisis has been exacerbated by shared transport (as the Clean Cities Campaign’s
increased wood burning and the re-opening of 2022 City Ranking showed9), and a group of 100 EU
coal mines in several countries.3 At the same time, cities have joined an official EU mission to become
some low-emission zones (LEZs) have been relaxed climate-neutral by 2030.10 Policies that restrict the
– such as the London congestion charge that has use of (the most) polluting cars in cities have seen
been suspended at night – leading to an increase in a particularly strong uptake given their proven
traffic and therefore in emissions.4 Plans to improve effectiveness in tackling emissions,11 with 325
low-emission zones (LEZs) have also been delayed, low-emission zones already in place (a 42% increase
for example in Paris5 and Greater Manchester.6 The since 2019) and zero-emission zones planned in
climate emergency continues to get worse, with 35 European cities by 2030.12 Since the beginning
2022 being the 5th hottest year ever registered.7 of the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine,
many city leaders have stepped up efforts to wean
At the same time, certain groups of commuters transport off fossil fuels, including through new
do not have access to viable alternatives to private pop-up cycling infrastructure, car-free days and
car use and are therefore locked into ‘forced car cheaper public transport.13
5Marginalised groups pollute less, but The Curieuzenair project23 revealed similar results
suffer more for Brussels: areas with higher population density
experience higher NO2 levels while areas with peo-
Emissions from road transport have a strong social ple with higher income have better air quality.
dimension. A large, growing body of research shows
that low-income households emit the least amount In addition, research shows disproportionate health
of air pollution14 (and CO2)15 while being exposed to effects and economic costs on less affluent people.
the highest levels and being more vulnerable.16 This ▶ Air pollution has twice the impact on lung func-
fact – illustrated in Figure 1 below – raises the equity tion for members of lower-income households
dimension of air pollution, which this briefing aims according to a study published in the European
to address. In this briefing, low-income households Respiratory Journal,24 and the mortality rate has
are defined as households earning less than 60% of been found to be higher for this group as indi-
European median salary.17 cated by research in Madrid and Barcelona.25
▶ The economic impact of air pollution will be
harder to bear for low-income households since
PM2.5, µg/m3
25 it amounts to 1276 euro per city and resident
per year (i.e. 385 million euros/year/city) on av-
20 erage.26
Most disadvantaged citizens
15
14.57 Urban transport policies should take
Wealthiest citizens
10
extra care of vulnerable groups
9.57
The Clean Cities Campaign considers that targeted
5
help is needed to support the groups that are more
at risk, as defined in Chapter 2. This is all the more
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 important considering that certain groups (par-
ticularly among commuters) are locked into ‘forced
Figure 1: Unequal exposure to air pollution in Europe. car ownership’. This term refers to the fact that due
Definition: “Most disadvantaged” designates the poorest to a lack of viable transport alternatives, certain
quintile of the population while “Wealthiest” designates citizens have no choice but to own a car.27 Research
the richest quintile in London shows a clear correlation between poor
Source: European Environmental Agency, 2022 access to public transport and increased car owner-
ship rates.28
At the same time, these groups often suffer from
‘transport poverty’ , which is defined as an individ-
Research shows that in many cases, poorer neigh- uals’ and households’ inability or difficulty to meet
bourhoods and/or ethnic minorities are exposed to the costs of private or public transport, or their lack
higher levels of air pollution: of or limited access to transport needed for their
▶ This is particularly true for London18 and sever- access to essential socio-economic services and ac-
al other UK cities19 such as Birmingham, Leeds, tivities, taking into account the national and spatial
Liverpool, (for particulate matter, PM2.5 and ni- context.29
trogen dioxide, NO2) but also for cities such as
The Hague, Amsterdam and Lille for NO2,20 or Consequently, the priority is to provide alternatives
Grenoble for PM2.5.21 to these groups as a matter of priority, allowing
▶ Research in Madrid shows higher exposure to them to access essential services, participate in
PM10 and PM2.5 for low-income households, society and reach their workplaces. Alternatives to
and overall increased exposure to air pollution cars should be prioritised, unless no viable alterna-
for more vulnerable people like children.22 tive to car use can be made available.
6II. Methodology
A systematic best practice review based on three assessment criteria
Photo: Viktor Keri / Unsplash
A wide range of policies is available to cities that Criteria & research question
tackle polluting road transport. The EU’s urban mo-
bility platform Eltis contains more than 220 articles Given the challenges laid out above, what matters
on case studies of best practice examples in various in the current context is the following:
European cities.30 For this briefing, a systematic ap- ▶ Relevant policies must address equity issues
proach has been followed in order to identify rele- by benefiting vulnerable groups first,
vant best practice policies, assess their effectiveness ▶ Given the urgency of the current crises, the
with regard to the challenges outlined above and measures should also be suitable for a rapid
establish a shortlist of the most suitable, proven roll-out, ideally within a few weeks or months,
measures that European cities should implement. ▶ And as public funds are scarce, cost-effective
The review process is illustrated in Figure 2 solutions are needed.
1. 2. 3. 4. These three dimensions are respectively reflected
Definition Long list Assessment Establish- in the equity, timeline and cost effectiveness crite-
of scope of relevant of measures ment of
and criteria policies on the short list ria which are described in Table 1.
long list
Figure 2: Summary of the review process
7Equity Timeline Cost-effectiveness
Affordability - low-income house- Short-term: 2 to 3 months Cost-benefit metric Revenues -
holds: make sure that all people costs per beneficiary/vehicle/etc.
can afford to move Medium-term: deployable in 3 months
or within a year
Connection - people in poorly con-
nected areas: all neighbourhoods Long-term: only deployable in several
are connected years
Accessibility - people with disabil-
ities & the elderly: all people have
mobility options
Table 1:
Indicators for assessing the best practice measures
These three dimensions of equity tackle the differ- This leads to the following research question:
ent aspects of transport poverty as defined in the
introduction. Research question
Which measures can cities take that provide
In short, the equity criterion explores who the equitable, rapid and cost-effective solutions to
measure is designed for, more precisely whether address both the cost of living and air pollution/
it is helping the people more at risk.* This is based climate crisis?
on the definition of ‘equity’ used by the EU’s Eltis
platform on how to perform social impact assess-
ments31 and the principles of inclusive mobility.32 ** Scope of the review to identify and
assess relevant policies
The timeline indicator shows how quickly a giv-
en measure can be deployed based on existing The following approach has been followed to iden-
examples, while the one on cost-effectiveness also tify best practice examples of measures that fulfil
considers the costs and benefits of the measures the criteria developed above (equity, connection,
for society where possible. cost-effectiveness):
1. First, every relevant case study on the EU’s ur-
ban mobility platform Eltis has been reviewed
(222 in total, the cut off date was 16th of January
2023).
2. Secondly, measures have been retrieved
through a screening of media articles in French,
Spanish, Italian, Dutch in addition to English
over the past year via the Meltwater media
monitoring tool.***
3. Finally, the partners of the Clean Cities
Campaign have shared best practice examples
* DG MOVE (2022) lists the more at risk groups as being:
women; citizens with poor IT literacy or limited access to the and experience from across Europe, which have
internet; persons with disabilities and with reduced mobility been analysed and included where relevant.
(e.g. older people); people living in remote areas (notable
rural areas); segregated localities or in less developed
regions; young people and children; and people on low
income, in particular at risk of poverty and social exclusion.
Link.
** ‘Equity’ is here used as defined by Di Ciommo & Shiftan
(2017) and has key components for equity in transport such
as: the benefits and costs that are being distributed and
the population groups over which benefits and costs are
distributed. Link. *** Media Monitoring - Meltwater. Link.
8III. Analysis
The short list of policies every city should consider
Photo: Linus Mimietz / Unsplash
There are different approaches to tackling the While the impact of the short-listed measures is as-
issues laid out above: providing clean transport sessed in the Table 2 below, the impact of the other
alternatives, lowering the costs of transport, or measures listed in Annex I is assessed in Annex II.
(temporarily) exempting those who cannot make
the change immediately. In order of priority, these It is important to stress that some of the measures
measures should: should not be considered as magic bullets, as their
1. make healthy alternatives to (polluting) impact also depends on other factors. For instance,
private cars available; reducing public transport fares is a solution, but
2. make these alternatives affordable; public transport should also offer good service lev-
3. and provide sufficient time for specific els, high frequencies and fast connections in order
groups, as listed below, in order to switch to be an attractive alternative.
to cleaner cars.
When it comes to switching to zero-emission cars,
These approaches are based on the EU’s guidelines local initiatives like non-profit cooperatives for elec-
for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans.33 tric car sharing in Spain should be prioritised and
The application of the criteria developed in Chapter promoted.* Schemes such as social leasing in France
II has led to the establishment of a long list (see should clearly present the conditions for participat-
Annex I). Subsequently the Clean Cities Campaign ing, and protect the rights of the beneficiaries.
decided upon the following short list of policies.
* Som Mobilitat for example, more here: Link.
9Table 2: Shortlist of best practice measure
Description of the measure
Measure Definition Examples Minimum
requirements
& challenges
Mobility credits Targeted financial • United Kingdom: London, including 5,000£ 1. An LEZ has to be in
– also in the schemes providing for wheelchair accessible vehicles place
grants to specific • France: Greater Paris, Région Sud - free train 2. Funding has to be
form of
groups to scrap or rides (for 6 months) made available
scrappage retrofit their older ve- • Belgium: Brussels Region 3. Research on targeted
schemes hicles and use cleaner • Spain: Barcelona groups has to be made
modes of transport or • Germany: Berlin/Bolt campaign beforehand
vehicles.* • Finland: Premiums for EVs, (e)bikes and
public transport
Reduced costs Around 300 subsidy • Finland: Scrapping premium of 1000 EUR 1. Funding has to be
for bicycle schemes exist across for individuals switching from cars to EVs or available
purchase Europe that can be e-bikes. 2. Infrastructure needs to
offered to individuals, • France: subsidy of up to 300 EUR for e-bikes be available
public entities or even if the applicant meets certain income re-
businesses. They can quirements
be used for buying • Italy: up to 500 EUR help for all types of bikes.
certain types of bikes, • Portugal: Reduced VAT for bikes (from 23%
replacing cars by to 6%)
bikes, etc.34
Public Reduced fares for at • Austria: Climate ticket for unlimited public 1. Public transport net-
transport – risk groups transport use, prices ranging from 821 EUR work
reduced fares (for risk groups) to 1095 EUR for a year 2. Available funding
• Austria: 365 euro ticket for unlimited public 3. Demand needs to exist
for targeted
transport use in Vienna
groups in • Portugal, Poland: Lisbon, Warsaw: free public
priority transport for children, students and the
elderly
Shared Setting up multimod- • Scotland: “Shared Transport for all” scheme 1. Political will to provide
mobility hubs al hubs with shared in Edinburgh & Glasgow alternatives
(e)-bikes, micromobili- • Germany: Bremen 2. Hubs have to be built
in poorly con-
ty vehicles, and (e)cars • EU-wide: other examples and shared services bun-
nected areas in areas where poorer dled or made available
people are affected by 3. Ensure that offer
transport poverty and matches demand
forced car ownership
Social Long-term leasing France: plans to support the social leasing of 1. Needs political will and
leasing of of EVs made more 130,000 vehicles, leasing at 100 EUR/month funds
accessible for low-in- 2. Charging infrastructure
electric
come households needs to be present for
vehicles this to be convenient
* Definition from Transport for London, 2022.
10Assessment according to best practice criteria
Measure Time- Equity Cost-effectiveness
line
Affordability Connection Accessibility
Mobility credits Short term Positive – pro- Positive- enables Positive - Neutral
– also in the vide financial people to circulate People with re- = 3,348 EUR per vehicle
help to low-in- in city centres, in- duced mobility
form of
come cluding low-emis- benefit from it, = 8 to 9 kg of NOx/vehicle
scrappage sion zones and special sup- removed
schemes port schemes
(e.g. for vehicles = 0.03 to 0.042 kg of PM2.5
adapted to removed
wheelchairs) (sources and calculations in
can be set up Annex III)
Reduced costs Short term Positive - as it Positive - de- Depends on Positive – cycling has prov-
for bicycle provides finan- pending also on local context en to generate societal ben-
cial assistance infrastructure - and selected efits of 1 EUR / km travelled
purchase
bikes while car costs 1 EUR / km
travelled (based on Benelux
data)48
Public Short term Positive - as it Positive - but also Depends on Positive - costs of 84 EUR/
transport – is the purpose depends on the local infrastruc- beneficiary/year in Vienna.49
of the measure infrastructure and ture
reduced fares
and is cheaper services
for targeted for risk groups
groups in
priority
Shared Medium Positive - make Positive - if tar- Positive - vari- Depends on local ap-
mobility hubs term clean alterna- geted at poorly ous vehicles will proach- investment
tives cheaper connected areas answer various costs vary between a few
in poorly con-
needs thousand euros (if no large
nected areas infrastructure is required) to
a few hundreds of thou-
sands euros (if additional
vehicles or infrastructure
such as charge points are
required).50
Social Medium Positive - pro- Positive - enables Positive - Positive - access to EVs for
leasing of to long vided financial people to circu- People with re- lower-income households
term help to low-in- late in areas such duced mobility = 7,700 EUR/vehicle for ca.
electric
come house- as low-emission benefit from it 130,000 vehicles per year
vehicles holds zones
11IV. Conclusions & policy
recommendations
Research shows that the current crises are dis- The Clean Cities Campaign calls on
proportionately affecting certain groups such as city leaders and governments to:
low-income households, citizens living in poorly
connected areas and people with disabilities. This
is despite the fact that these groups are generally 1. Prioritise equity objectives and indicators in
responsible for a smaller share of the fossil-fuel urban transport policies, reflecting the fact
consumption and emissions that create the prob- that solutions already exist to tackle air pollu-
lems in the first place.35 tion and the climate crisis, which give special
support to those who need it.
Successful transport policies must therefore be
designed in a way that pays special attention to 2. Urgently put in place and fund a short-term
the needs of these groups. Such policies already policy package that combines several of the
exist and have been tested and proven in many proven measures identified above:
European cities. ▶ Mobility credits & scrappage schemes
▶ Reduced costs for bicycles
▶ Reduced public transport fares
▶ Shared mobility hubs
▶ Social leasing of electric vehicles
Priority should be given to the measures that pro-
mote active, healthy mobility. This should include
redirecting funding from subsidies for cars (espe-
cially polluting ones) to measures recommended
above in order to use public money efficiently (as al-
ready recommended by the Clean Cities Campaign
in 2022).36
3. Set a clear target for zero-emission urban
transport by 2030 - the fastest route to tackling
the multiple crises and building cities that are
healthy, liveable and fairer for everyone.
12Annex I – Long list and descriptive summary of best practice measures
Measure Definition Examples Minimum Transferability Time-
measure
Type of
requirements line
& challenges
Mobility Similarly to a scrappage Spain: Barcelona 1. Necessary funding Medium: Medium
credits scheme, low-income Germany: Berlin/Bolt cam- needs to be available requires signif- term
households would get a paign 2. Alternatives need to icant funding
certain amount of money Finland: Scrapping premi- be sufficiently available and pre-existing
to replace their cars by a um for EVs, (e)bikes and and convenient infrastructure to
cleaner mode of trans- public transport be possible and
port convenient
Scrappage Targeted financial United Kingdom: London 1. An LEZ has to be in High: provided Short
schemes scheme providing grants France: Greater Paris, place that the mini- term
to successful applicants Région Sud - free train 2.Funding has to be mum require-
to scrap or retrofit their rides (6 months) made available ments are met
older vehicles and use Belgium: Brussels Capital 3.Research on targeted
cleaner, greener modes Region groups has to be made
of transport.* beforehand
Bicycle Companies to organise “Fresh Bike” programme in 1. Sufficient biking in- High: provided Short
leasing leasing of bicycle for em- Lund, Sweden frastructure (and bikes that the mini- term
ployees’ daily commuting availability) mum require-
To make cheaper - Financial schemes
2. Political will to pro- ments are met
mote cycling
3. Ensuring that enough
people will participate
to make it useful
Kilometre In order to incentivise The Plan de Mobilité 1. Volunteer companies High: minimum Medium
allowance cycling for daily commut- (Initially Plan de 2. Volunteer employees requirements term
ing, volunteer employees Déplacement d’Entreprise) 3. Decent cycling infra- can be challeng-
benefit from an allow- in France was set up in structure and reasona- es, otherwise not
ance for each kilometre 2017 and offered a 0.25EUR ble distance technical
cycled to work (public kilometric allowance for
transport tickets can also each volunteer employee
be covered). cycling to work. The allow-
ances given to an employee
cannot exceed 200EUR a
year (exempt from taxes).
Public Transport tickets were
also covered when com-
plementary to cycling. The
programme was later on ex-
panded from private to pub-
lic sector. The programme
has also been expanded to
e-bikes, and the allowance
is considered to be raise to
385 EUR (since e-bikes cover
more distance)
Work- An employer provides Netherlands (national poli- 1. Sufficient cycling High: minimum Short
related its employees with an cy): up to 1.18% of the wage, infrastructure requirements term
allowance free from tax tax-free in order to buy a 2. Enough volunteer can be challeng-
costs
to buy a bike bike or e-bike employees es, otherwise not
scheme technical
* Definition from Transport for London, 2022.
13Measure Definition Examples Minimum Transferability Time-
measure
Type of
requirements line
& challenges
Shared Setting up multimodal Scotland: “Shared 1. Political will to provide Medium: Medium
mobility hubs with shared (e)- Transport for all” scheme in alternatives Minimum re- term
bikes, micromobility vehi- Edinburgh & Glasgow 2. Hubs have to be built quirements are
hubs
cles, and (e)cars in areas 3.Demand needs challenges and
– in poorly where poorer people are Germany: Bremen to exist the solution is
connected affected by an LEZ and slightly technical
areas forced car ownership EU-wide: other examples
On demand On-demand door-to- RegioTaxi, Netherlands 1. Political will to provide Medium: Medium
taxi vans door vehicles, usually Regional taxi service that alternatives Minimum re- term
(Demand vans, that link up less operates in several regions, 2. Could be hard to quirements are
Responsive connected areas to bus providing door to door scale up challenges and
Transport - or railway stations rides (no fixed stops or 3.Demand needs the solution is
DRT) routes) with lower fares to exist slightly technical
than taxis
Mobitwin, Brussels
Similarly, this programme
offers affordable rides to
people with reduced mo-
bility and / or low income
to get to the city
To set up – Providing alternatives
More examples here
MaaS: Offering itineraries com- Mulhouse: Centralised 1. Decent infrastructure Medium: Medium
integrated bining different mobility on “Le Compte Mobilité”, is needed Minimum term
ticket modes (free access bikes 1st of its kind in Europe 2. Transport providers requirements
services and tram for example), (regroups Bus, trams, bikes need to be on board are challenges
while booking only one in free access, cars in free 3. Demand needs to and the solution
ticket service and parking spots). match the offer is slightly
One single payment at end technical
of each month, no pay-
ment in advance
Helsinki: Centralised under
Whim with different pay-
ment options: each trip,
monthly (49EUR at the
time) with limits of time/
distance for taxis and cars
and premium monthly
MaaS: Free floating vehicles Share now list: Vienna, 1. Providers need to exist Medium-high: Medium
car-sharing electric car fleets are Copenhagen, Paris, 2. Offer has to match Shouldn’t term
made available by cities Budapest, Amsterdam, demand require infra-
or companies (see exam- Madrid, Berlin, Cologne, 3. The use has to be structure change
ples later) for temporary Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, as simple as possible but needs to be
use. They are usually Hamburg, Stuttgart, for the scheme to be scaled up
booked and paid online Munich, Milan, Rome, Turin, attractive
via apps, with a fix price/ Naples.
minute (0.24 EUR/minute
for ShareNow in France) Public schemes exist as
well: Citiz in Rennes and
other French cities.
Social cooperatives for
EVs in Spain: Barcelona,
Madrid, Valladolid
14Measure Definition Examples Minimum Transferability Time-
measure
Type of
requirements line
& challenges
MaaS: Partnership between pri- Madrid city transport ser- 1. Providers need to exist High: mostly Medium
private/pub- vate and public providers vice partnered up with Bird 2. Will to build partner- depends on term
lic providers of mobility services and combined e-scooters ship goodwill
To set up – Providing alternatives
partnership to its existing fleet of bikes
Ramp up Increase the offer of Strasbourg – provide 1. Existing infrastructure Medium if infra- Medium
Metropolitan metropolitan trains as an alternatives with LEZ 2. Quality service and structure exists - Long
trains alternative to private cars connections (due to costs) term (de-
3. Needs to be financial- Low if the infra- pending
ly accessible structure doesn’t on infra-
exist structure)
Social Long-term renting of EVs France: plans to suport the 1. Needs political will Medium to Low Medium-
leasing made more accessible for social leasing of 130,000 and funds given the scale long term
of electric low-income households vehicles, leasing at 100 2. Charging infra- of the measure
vehicles EUR/month structure needs to be and the poten-
present for the scheme tial need for
to be convenient infrastructure
upgrades
Pop-up in- Pop-up cycle lanes (like Paris and London, among 1. Needs to be done High: as the Medium
frastructure coronalanes) to incentiv- other cities, did it during safely in order to avoid Covid pandemic term
Urban design
ise use of bikes the Covid pandemic in confusion and accidents demonstrated
2020 2. Should be planned to
become permanent
Targeted At risk groups would Occasional exemptions: 1. Beneficiaries need to High: technically Short
LEZ ex- include low-income - Brussels Region grants 24 be carefully selected simple term
emptions people that occasionally exemptions / year 2. Number of exemp-
– Would drive in cities and people - Barcelona grants 10 days tions should be tailored
apply to at with disabilities and/or / year and reasonable
Exempt
risk groups reduced mobility 3. It shouldn’t open the
that cannot door to watering down
afford a new the LEZ
vehicle
Flexible rules for people
with people with
disabilities
15Annex II – Long list and impact of best practice measures
Description of the measure Assessment
measure
Type of
Measure Examples Timeline
Mobility Spain: Barcelona Medium term
Credits Germany: Berlin/Bolt campaign
Finland: Scrapping premium for EVs, (e)bikes and public
transport
Scrappage UK: London Short term
schemes France: Greater Paris, Région Sud - free train rides
Belgium: Brussels Capital Region
France (national)
To make cheaper – Financial schemes
Finland: Scrapping premium of 1000 EUR for individuals
switching from cars to e-bike. France: subsidy up to 200 EUR
if the applicant meets certain requirements
Italy: up to 500 EUR help for all types of bikes.
Portugal: Reduced VAT for bikes (6%)
Bicycle leasing Companies to organise leasing of bicycle for employees’ Short term
daily commuting
Kilometre In order to incentivise cycling for daily commuting, volun- Medium term
allowance teer employees benefit from an allowance for each kilo-
metre cycled to work (public transport tickets can also be
covered).
Work-related An employer provides its employees with an allowance free Short term
costs scheme from tax to buy a bike
16Assessment based on best practice criteria (cont)
Equity
Measure Cost-effectiveness
Affordability Connection Accessibility
Mobility Positive - as success- Positive - free Positive - depends on Positive - as it relies on a private
Credits ful applicants receive floating micromo- the vehicles available company’s initiative
financial help bility vehicles can
improve connec-
tion
Scrappage Positive - provided Positive - enables Positive - People with Neutral
schemes financial help to people to circulate reduced mobility ben- = 3,348 EUR per vehicle
low-income in LEZs efit from it = 8 to 9 kg of NOx/vehicle re-
Positive - provided Positive - enables Positive - People with moved
financial help to people to circulate reduced mobility ben- = 0.03 to 0.042 kg of PM2.5 re-
low-income in LEZs efit from it moved
Positive - as it Depends on infra- Depends on the type (calculations in Annex III)
provides financial structure of selected bikes Positive - incentivise the spread of
assistance EVs for lower-income households
Depends on the scale of the
scheme, and the amount of ap-
plicants
Bicycle leas- Positive - cycling is NA - success of the Neutral - it depends Positive - shared costs of bikes
ing cheaper than private measure depends what kinds of bikes are between public authorities and
car and the measure on existing infra- available private companies makes it more
is designed for em- structure bearable for everyone, and em-
ployees ployees benefits from lower costs
as well
Kilometre Positive - cycling is NA - success of the Depends on what Positive - as the cost is supported
allowance cheaper than private measure depends kinds of bikes are by companies and benefits users.
car and the measure on existing infra- available
is designed for em- structure
ployees
Work-re- Positive - cycling is NA - success of the Depends on what Positive - as the cost of the bike is
lated costs cheaper than private measure depends kinds of bikes are partly supported by the company
scheme car and the measure on existing infra- available
is designed for em- structure
ployees
17Description of the measure Assessment
measure
Type of
Measure Examples Timeline
Shared Scotland: “Shared Transport for all” scheme Medium term
mobility in Edinburgh & Glasgow
hubs in poor- EU-wide: other examples
ly connected
areas
On demand On-demand door-to-door vehicles, usually vans, that link up Medium term
taxi vans less connected areas to bus or railway stations
(Demand
Responsive
Transport -
DRT)
MaaS: Integrated ticket services Medium term
free floating
To set up – Providing alternatives
shared
vehicles
Car-sharing (private & public) Medium term
Madrid city transport service partnered up with Bird and Medium term
combined e-scooters to its existing fleet of bikes
Public Lisbon free public transport for students Short term
transport and the elderly
Metropolitan trains Medium - long
term
depending on
infrastructure
Social leasing France: plans to support the social leasing of 130,000 vehi- Medium - long
of electric cles, leasing at 100 EUR/month term
vehicles
Targeted LEZ Brussels Region grants 24 exemptions / year Short term
exemptions - Barcelona grants 10 days / year
Would apply to
Exempt
at risk groups
that cannot
Flexible rules for people with disabilities and/or Short term
afford a new
reduced mobility
vehicle
18Assessment based on best practice criteria (cont)
Equity
Measure Cost-effectiveness
Affordability Connection Accessibility
Shared Positive – make clean Positive – targeted Positive – various Depends on local approach –
mobility alternatives cheaper at poorly connect- vehicles will answer investment costs vary between
hubs in ed areas various needs a few thousand euros to a few
hundreds of thousands euros (if
infrastructure such as charge
points is required).37
On Positive – make Positive – targeted Positive – accessible to Positive – the service is meant to
demand taxi shared mobility at poorly connect- people with reduced be affordable and is performed by
vans cheaper ed areas mobility volunteers or financed by public
(Demand authorities
Responsive
Transport -
DRT)
MaaS: Positive – as all costs Positive – com- Positive – mixing Positive – in additional to being
free floating are centralised in one bining different transport modes more convenient, it is a more
shared ticket and special modes of transport improves physical efficient way of ticketing and
vehicles offers are available improves connec- accessibility booking
tion
Positive – for oc- Positive – uses Positive – depending Positive – especially when organ-
casional use: only existing road on the type of vehicles ised by private companies
0.24 EUR/minute for infrastructure and available
ShareNow in France therefore connects
people
Positive – as it con- Positive – as free Positive – by multiply- Positive – as shared mobility and
stitutes a cheaper floating fleets ing options, especially public transport are cheaper and
mobility option than allow better con- with electric assis- benefit more people
car nection tance
Public Positive – as it is Positive – but Positive – although Positive – as these groups are
transport the purpose of the depends on the depends on the infra- often minorities and it will signif-
measure infrastructure structure icantly alleviate the costs on their
end
Positive – as it is Depends on infra- Depends on how Unclear – this measure has sig-
cheaper than private structure for the accessible the existing nificant costs (8 million/year in
car use short term infrastructure is made Strasbourg) but could also benefit
a huge amount of people
Higher costs if no existing infra-
structure
Social Positive – provided Positive – enables Positive – People with Positive – access to EVs for low-
leasing of financial help to people to circulate reduced mobility ben- er-income households
electric low-income house- in LEZs efit from it = 7,700 EUR/vehicle for ca.
vehicles holds 130,000 vehicles per year
Targeted Positive – it allevi- Indirectly – avoids Positive – should be Positive – no cost per se
LEZ ex- ates targeted groups cost to enter the targeted at reduced
emptions from a cost LEZ mobility people in
- Would need
apply to at
Positive – it allevi- Indirectly –avoids Positive – should be Positive – no cost per se
risk groups
ates targeted groups cost to enter the targeted at reduced
that cannot
afford a new from a cost LEZ mobility people in
vehicle need
19Annex III –
Cost-effectiveness calculations
Scrappage schemes Social leasing
Based on the figures available in the Transport for If 130,000 vehicles per year were offered for social
London report on the ULEZ scrappage scheme,38 leasing from 2023 to 2027, the estimated cost of the
showing that it affected 15,232 vehicles with a 51 measure would be, according to T&E France43, EUR
million £ budget. 1 billion per year, 7,700 EUR/vehicle for ca. 130,000
The scheme is estimated to have removed vehicles per year (including maintenance and
Between 140 and 170 tons of NOx, which amounts repairs). This measure would gradually take over
to 8 to 9 kg of NOx per vehicle. from the purchase bonus, which is not conditional
Between 0,5 and 0,7 tons of PM2.5, which amounts on income level.
to 0,03 to 0,042kg of PM2.5 per vehicle. The models concerned will mainly be in the A and
B segments.44 As an example, the cost of leasing
the Renault Zoé is EUR 139/month.45
Reduced fares for public transport In France, the average distance travelled by car
every year is 12,200km.46
In Vienna, a yearly pass used to cost 449 EUR39 According to the T&E online tool,47 a petrol car from
meaning that public transport users who bought this size emits 215g of CO2/km travelled whereas an
the 365 EUR pass saved 84 EUR in a year of public equivalent EV only emits 47g of CO2/km.
transport. When multiplying this 168g saving by the 12 200 km
In Vienna, 820,000 people benefited from this travelled on average, it amounts to 2.049 tons of
scheme.40 CO2 saved / year / car.
Financing and operation costs amount to 700 mil-
lion EUR of subsidies from the City of Vienna and
the Austrian government every year.41
Multimodal hubs
The investment costs of these hubs vary from a few
thousand euros (e.g. when only signposting and the
relocation of existing sharing services is required)
to a few hundreds of thousands of euros (in cases
where new infrastructure, e.g. charging hubs, or
vehicles are required).42
20References
1 World Economic Forum. (2023). Global Risks 2023: Tensions 26 EPHA. (2020). Researchers call on decision-makers to enable
Peak between Urgent Cost of Living Crisis and Sustainable safe walking and cycling during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Climate Action. Link. Link.
2 European Commission. (2022). The Third Clean Air Outlook. 27 Matioli. (2017). ‘Forced Car Ownership’ in the UK and Ger-
Link. many: Socio-Spatial Patterns and Potential Economic Stress
Impacts. Link.
3 Le Monde. (2022). Despite climate commitments, the EU is
going back to coal. Link. 28 Environmental Defense Fund. (2020).Revealed: the best and
worst parts of London for green cars. Link.
4 Evening Standard. (2023). Number of cars in central London
surged 60% after Sadiq Khan stopped enforcing congestion 29 European Parliamentary Research Service. (2022). Under-
charge in evenings. Link. standing Transport Poverty. Link.
5 Le Monde. (2022).Zone à faibles émissions : l’objectif zéro 30 Eltis. (2023). Case studies. Link.
diesel à Paris en 2024 ne sera pas atteint. Link. 31 Woodcock et al., (2021). Social Impact Assessment: tools,
6 The Guardian. (2022).Greater Manchester clean air zone roll- methods and approaches. Link.
out delayed until summer. Link. 32 Tovaas, K. (2020). The INCLUSION Project, D3.4, Typology
7 World Meteorological Organization (WMO). (2022). Tempera- and description of underlying principles and generalisable
tures in Europe increase more than twice the global average. lessons. Link.
Link. 33 Rupprecht Consult (editor), Guidelines for Developing and
8 Morelli et al. (2016). Air pollution, health and social depriva- Implementing a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan, Second
tion: A fine-scale risk assessment. Link. Edition, 2019. Link.
9 Clean Cities Campaign. (2022). Benchmarking European 34 European Cyclists Federation. (2020). Money for bikes: Tax
cities on creating the right conditions for zero-emission mo- incentives and purchase premiums for cycling in Europe.
bility. Link. Link.
10 EU Mission: Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities. Link. 35 Oxfam. (2020). Confronting Carbon Inequality. Link.
11 Clean Cities Campaign. (2022). Quantifying the effects of low- 36 Clean Cities Campaign. (2022). The smarter route towards oil
and zero-emission zones. Link. independence: Effective and affordable alternatives to fuel
tax cuts. Link.
12 Updated figures in January 2023 from: Clean Cities Cam-
paign. (2022). The development trends of low- and zero-emis- 37 CoMoUK. (2021). Mobility hub delivery models Funding, pro-
sion zones in Europe. Link. curement and management guidance. Link
13 International Energy Agency (IEA). (2022). A 10-Point Plan to 38 Mayor of London. (2022). ULEZ scrappage scheme evaluation
Cut Oil Use. Link. report. Link
14 Barnes et al. (2019). Emissions vs exposure: Increasing 39 Climate Action Stories. The “Vienna Model”: 365 of Unlimited
injustice from road traffic-related air pollution in the United public mobility. Link.
Kingdom. Link. 40 Deutschlandfunk. (2019). Wien fährt Bahn statt Auto. Link.
15 Chancel et al. (2023).Climate inequality report 2023, fair taxes 41 Climate Action Stories. The “Vienna Model”: 365 of Unlimited
for a sustainable future in the global south. Link. public mobility. Link.
16 Friends of the Earth UK.(2022). People of colour far likelier to 42 CoMoUK. (2021). Mobility hub delivery models Funding, pro-
live in very high air pollution areas. Link. curement and management guidance. Link
17 European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN). (2020). How is pover- 43 Upcoming study as of 16th January 2022
ty measured? Link.
44 Izi by EDF. (2021).Qu’est-ce que le leasing social pour les
18 Logika Noise Air Quality consultants for the Greater London voitures électriques ? Link.
Authority. (2019). Air Pollution and Inequalities in London:
45 Izi by EDF. (2021). Quelle LLD pour une Renault ZOE ?. Link.
2019 Update. Link.
46 Ministère de la Transition Écologique. (2020). Bilan annuel
19 Fecht et al. (2015). Associations between air pollution and
des transports en 2019: bilan de la circulation. Link.
socioeconomic characteristics, ethnicity and age profile of
neighbourhoods in England and the Netherlands. Link. 47 Transport & Environment. (2022). How clean are electric
cars? Link.
20 Fecht et al. (2015). Associations between air pollution and
socioeconomic characteristics, ethnicity and age profile of 48 Gracq. (2022). Le vélo ça ne rapporte pas qu’aux Pays-Bas.
neighbourhoods in England and the Netherlands. Link. Link.
21 Morelli et al. (2016). Air pollution, health and social depriva- 49 City of Wien. (2012).Wiener-Linien-Jahreskarte feiert 30. Geb-
tion: A fine-scale risk assessment. Link. urtstag. Link.
22 Bermúdez Pastor (2022). Contaminación atmosférica y vul- 50 CoMoUK. (2021). Mobility hub delivery models Funding, pro-
nerabilidad social en la ciudad de Madrid. Link. curement and management guidance. Link
23 F. Lauriks, D. Jacobs and F. J. R. Meysman (2022) “Curieuze-
nAir: Data collection, data analysis and results”. 50 p. Universi-
ty of Antwerp. Link.
24 Doiron et al. (2019). Air pollution, lung function and COPD:
results from the population-based UK Biobank study. Link.
25 Tamara Iungman et al. (2022). The impact of urban and
transport planning on health: Assessment of the attributable
mortality burden in Madrid and Barcelona and its distribu-
tion by socioeconomic status. Link.
21Contacts Find out more
Barbara Stoll The Clean Cities Campaign is a European co-
Director, Clean Cities Campaign alition of organisations hosted by Transport &
barbara.stoll@cleancitiescampaign.org Environment. Together, we aim to encourage cities
+44 (0)7985 637 173 to transition to zero-emission mobility by 2030, en-
couraging European cities to become champions
Jens Müller of active, shared and electric mobility for a more
Research & Policy Lead, Clean Cities Campaign liveable and sustainable urban future.
jens.mueller@cleancitiescampaign.org
+32 (0)488 367 353 www.cleancitiescampaign.org
info@cleancitiescampaign.orgYou can also read
