Fact sheet 1.1 - What is EcoMobility?

Some key data:

Featured in this Fact sheet: l 20Gt: the increase of global CO2 emissions
between 1900 and 2000 (Source: World
1) What is EcoMobility? Resources Ins�tute)
EcoMobility is environmentally sustainable mobility. It guarantees accessibility and allows people to
move around without relying on private motor vehicles. It includes non-motorized transport, such l 6.45 Gt (23% of the total): the amount of
as walking and cycling, public transport, and other new modes of transport that will help us move emissions from transport in 2006 (Source:
away from relying on fossil fuel and private motor vehicles. IEA)
2) Why EcoMobility? l 3,644,732.33Gg CO2 equivalent: the
Modern life requires us to be mobile, but our present behavior and the complex nature of mobility amount of CO2 emissions from transport in
today impacts on the environment, health and infrastructures, counterac�ng the benefits it should 2006 in the 40 most developed countries.
bring. When considering these cross-sectoral impacts and economic cost of transport we need to 85% of this was produced by road
provide for comprehensive solu�ons. EcoMobility offers as a solu�on combina�ons of different
transport modes to reduce dependency on private motorized vehicles and the nega�ve environmental transport. (Source: UNFCCC).
and social costs. EcoMobility also brings accessibility and easy commute to all. This will increase l 13%: the percentage of total GHGs
transport sustainability in terms of: climate impact, health problems, urban development, reduced
�me wasted and economic cost savings. emissions deriving from transport in 2004
(IPCC).
3) Examples and good prac�ces.
l 4.3 Gt: the amount of CO2 emissions from
More than 50% of urban trips are under 5km and could easily be changed to more sustainable modes.
Therefore, local government authori�es must lead the charge on transport policies, in close coopera�on road transport per year in 2004 (IPCC).
with other local organiza�ons and ins�tu�ons represen�ng different stakeholders. The concept of l Between $1,000 and $200: the annual cost
EcoMobility can be easily implemented in rela�vely smaller ci�es (see for instance Stockholm) but it
is not limited to smaller communi�es. Large ci�es are now showing significant results from adop�ng of traffic jam (in wasted �me and fuel) per
comprehensive policies and integrated ac�ons. New York and London are two examples. driver in the United States: (Source: Texas
Transport Ins�tute).
4) What are the main conclusions?
It is clear that we need to change our mobility behavior, shi� to more sustainable modes and improve l 1% of EU GDP: the cost of traffic conges�on
energy efficiency. Sca�ered transport ini�a�ves, single transport mode focus and haphazard funding within the European Union
over the past 30 years have limited results and are way below what we need to do to keep our level
of mobility in a carbon restricted world. This can only be achieved with less conven�onal means. l Less than 5km: the length of 50% of the
Integrated, rather than modal based, strategies, incorpora�ng a wide variety of modes, will provide total number of daily trips. 65% of these
much more effec�ve solu�ons to our transport problems. trips are made my car (Source: Eurostat)
l 80%: the percentage of all GHGs emissions
produced in ci�es. These figures will rocket
1) What is EcoMobility? Note in the next 20 years.
Non-motorized means of transport
EcoMobility: include: l 5 billion: the number of people who will
l walking - cycling - wheeling: walking, be living in ci�es by 2030 (i.e. 60.5% of the
a) integrates all environmentally using the bicycles, tricycle, velo-mobile, total world popula�on)(Source: UN).
sustainable forms of mobility wheelchairs, mobility scooter, walking l Par�cular a�en�on should be paid to
b) combines non-motorized transport, aids, scooters, skates, push scooters, developing countries: between 2000 and
public transport, car sharing and trailer, hand carts, shopping carts/ 2030, Asia’s urban popula�on will increase
other forms of energy efficient trolleys, carrying aids and the above from 1.36 billion to 2.64 billion, Africa’s
transport vehicles with suppor�ng electrical drive from 294 million to 742 million and that of
(preferably powered by renewable La�n America and the Caribbean from 394
c) allows everybody to have be�er energy sources);
choices of how to move around, in million to 609 million (State of the Worlds
par�cular in the local environment Ci�es Report, UNDFP)
The use of public transport is referred
d) reduces the use of privately owned to as “passengering” and includes: l 3.1 million: the number of motor vehicles
motorized vehicles. in Beijing. China is now the largest emi�er
l the use of buses, trams, subways, light of GHGs. About 1,000 to 1,200 vehicles
rail, trains, ferries, collec�ve taxis and added to the Chinese ci�es congested
taxis (if low-emission) roads every day.

1 2 3 4 5
2) Why EcoMobility?
l Current road transport level increases
are unsustainable. The percentage of
CO2 emissions from transport is steadily
rising. In 2006 global CO2 emissions were
28 billion tons. Of this, the transport
sector was responsible for 23%, or 6.45
billion tons. Moreover, according to IEA
es�mates, worldwide transport CO2
emissions will increase by almost 1.5
�mes to 9 billion tons by 2030.
Map of global air pollu�on. The map clearly shows a high concentra�on of air pollu�on
in the most densely populated areas (Source: European Space Agency)
l The direct and indirect costs of inefficient
road transport are highest in the
urban environment. It is also here that
the nega�ve effects of transport are
borne mainly by those not inside the
motor vehicles. In both developed and
developing countries the highest levels of
air pollu�on are registered and it is mainly
traffic related. Traffic is responsible for
road conges�on, delays and associated
costs. According to Forbes Magazine, car
World’s CO2 Emissions by Sector in 2006*1 *2 speed in the 20 most congested ci�es in
Europe range from 19km/h in Berlin and
London to 46km/h in Vienna, with an
overall average of 30.5 km/h. The average
commercial speed in most ci�es has
hardly changed since the �me of the horse
and carriage as there are few ci�es (over
500,000 popula�on) that are not suffering
from conges�on.
l The EU has es�mated that the cost of
conges�on in Europe amounts to 1% of
EU GDP per year (European Commission,
COM(2007) 551).
l The correla�on between traffic density
and greenhouse gases emissions from
urban areas is clear.
l In order to make urban road traffic
Trends in Transport CO2 Emissions: 1980- more sustainable, we need to develop
2030*1 *2 strategies that focus not only on the
development of fuel-efficient cars but
also on more effec�ve uses of alterna�ve
transport and mobility solu�ons. If
vehicle numbers do not decrease,
many conges�on-related problems will
remain. Implemen�ng a comprehensive
change towards EcoMobility requires the
adop�on of a new culture in land use and
urban transport planning altogether.
l An urban-focused star�ng point makes
sense. According to UN es�mates, by
2030 about 5 billion people out of 8
billion will be living in ci�es and private
motorized transport will increase
accordingly. A Eurostat study shows
that in most European countries each
passenger undertakes, on average, 3
trips per day. Most of these (between
20 and 50%, depending on the country
considered) are work or school related
and 50% of the total trips are shorter
than 5 km. For these journeys, the car
is the most popular means of transport,
accoun�ng for 66% of them. More eco-
friendly transport modes could easily
become an alterna�ve, provided that
they offer similar levels of flexibility and
reliability.
l A fundamental prerequisite for success
is the ability to reduce the number of
motorized trips without sacrificing the
ability of people to move quickly and
conveniently within their local areas.
EcoMobility also has a challenge to
develop special service solu�ons for
certain groups like the elderly and
handicapped to provide them with be�er
travel op�ons.
l Every city has different characteris�cs
and needs. Local authori�es/
governments are the key players
in cultural change through more
environmentally friendly transport
systems. Other stakeholders have to be
included in the reform process as well,
namely policy makers, members of the
transport business sector, technical
exper�se, and users. EcoMobility
requires the coordina�on and
coopera�on between all these groups to
become truly effec�ve.
l EcoMobility can act as a catalyst in
building coopera�on among different
stakeholder groups. It promotes the
implementa�on of a new mobility
culture through its integrated and
comprehensive approach to transport.
The result - harmony amongst various
mobility sectors and community
segments.
1 2 3 4 5
3) Examples and good prac�ces
a) Examples
CITY NEW YORK
CHARACTERISTICS It is the most densely populated major city in the United
OF THE CITY States, with an es�mated 8,274,527 people, occupying just
under 790 km2. The popula�on of greater metropolitan New
York is also the na�on’s highest, es�mated at 18,815,988
people occupying over 17,400 km2.
DATA ON Of all people who commute to work in New York City:
TRANSPORT AND
MODAL SPLIT − 32% use the subway
− 25% drive alone
− 14% take the bus
− 8% travel by commuter rail
− 8% walk to work
− 6% carpool
− 1% use a taxi
− 0.4% ride bicycles to work
− 0.4% travel by ferry.
54% of households in New York City do not own a car, and
rely on public transporta�on.
MAIN ACTIONS The city is implemen�ng PlaNYC 2030, a comprehensive long-
term sustainability vision.
Public transport:
− A select bus service was implemented. New York has
now one of the largest fleets world wide of hybrid
buses. The majority of other buses use natural gas
− From 1995 to 2005, ridership on city buses and
subways grew by 36%, compared with a popula�on
gain in the city of 7%. In the suburbs a
14% increase in ridership on Metro-North and the Long
Island Rail Road outpaced a suburban popula�on gain
of 6%. With drama�c increases in fuel prices in 2008,
as well as increased tourism and residen�al growth,
ridership on New York buses and subways grew 3.1%
up to a 2.37 trips a year compared to 2007. This is the
highest since 1965
− A new central terminal, PATH World Trade Center
sta�on, is under construc�on. It will allow easy
transfer between the PATH system, several subway
lines and proposed new projects. It is expected to
serve 250,000 travelers daily.
LONDON
London is the 3 most densely populated capital in Europe.
rd
Its metropolitan area counts 7,556,900 people distributed on
1.577 km2. A density of 4,792 inhabitants per km2.
London has a large and complicated transport system. In
Greater London there are 13,600km of roads, 3,730km of
bus routes, 329km of metro lines, 28km of new tramways
and 788km of na�onal rail lines. Every day 23.8 million
journeys are made on this transport network.
Of all the journeys made within London:
− During 2006/07 public transport accounted for 36%
− 18% were by bus, which equated to approximately
6 million journeys made every weekday, and this
figure is growing
− 10% were by London Underground in 2006, totaling
4 million journeys per weekday or 1 billion trips per
year
− Rail and DLR journey stages increased by 6% each;
− Over 480,000 are made by bicycle every day. Since
2000, the number of recorded cycle journeys has
increased by 83%.
38% of London households do not own a car, compared to
only 23% of households across Great Britain as a whole.
On November 2008 the Mayor of London’s transport strategy,
“Way to go!”, was released. This document assesses past
achievements and envisages a long-term plan to develop London
transport system. The strategy addresses different issues.
Public transport:
− Major investments are going to be made for the
development of the railroad and underground
networks. (Crossrail, 30% increase in the capacity of
the tube)
− Implemen�ng of improved bus services and increases
in coverage
− Introduc�on of Oyster
cards, adop�on of further security measures, adop�on
of strict bus lane enforcement measures.
1 2 3 4 5
3 Examples and good prac�ces

CITY NEW YORK LONDON

MAIN ACTIONS Cycling:
(con�nued) − As of February 2009, about 170 miles (260 km) of
painted lanes run in streets, and the network is growing
− 49 acres of roads and parking spots have been
converted to bike lanes, pedestrian areas, and public
plazas since PlaNYC 2030 has been enacted
− Bike riding has increased by 35 percent over the past
year
Walking
− Over 98,000 trees have been planted
− Car free Sundays introduced
− As part of its standard opera�ons, the city’s
Department of Transporta�on also recycles 40 percent
of its asphalt.
Cycling:
− Crea�on of the London Cycle Network. Over 550km of
the 900km network completed to date.
− Communica�on and informa�ve campaigns put in place
in order to incen�vize the use of bicycles and more
responsible behaviors
− Installa�on of 10,000 cycle parking spaces at schools
and colleges, 40,000 spaces on London’s streets, and a
further 1,600 at sta�ons across the capital
− Set up of the Cycling Centre of Excellence in 2001 to
guide the development of cycling ini�a�ves in London.
Walking:
− Ongoing programme to improve pedestrian
crossings across London;
− Different ini�a�ves for the promo�on of
walking and walking paths in London (e.g. Six
Strategic Walking Routes and Walkfinder)

These achievements were spurred by the introduc�on of the

“conges�on charge”, a fee applied to access the city center. The
conges�on charge led to:

- reduc�on of traffic entering the original charging (21 per cent

lower than pre-charge levels, 70,000 fewer cars a day);
- there has been a six per cent increase in bus passengers during
charging hours;
- there has been a 12 per cent increase in cycle journeys;
- £137m being raised, in the financial year 2007/08, to invest back
into improving transport in London.

STAKEHOLDERS PlaNYC is supported by Campaign for New York’s Future, a coali�on One of the most relevant developments is Crossrail, a new railway
INVOLVEMENT of civic, business, environmental, labor, community and public crossing London and connec�ng the area West of London with that
health organiza�ons. on the East. This project is brought about with the support of the
Crossrail Railway Stakeholders Forum.

Three years of discussions with the different stakeholder bodies

was undertaken before the ini�al conges�on charging scheme
was introduced. Par�cular efforts were made to get the business
community on board.

ACHIEVEMENTS - New York is amongst the least pollu�ng ci�es in the US (taking
into account its popula�on) and its CO2 emissions amount to 1/3 of
the US average.
- New York CO2 emissions over the last year have remained stable,
in spite of the increase in popula�on and traffic.
- 2009: New York is the first American city to win the ITDP
Sustainable Transport Award
- London has experienced a 16.4% reduc�on in CO2 emissions over
the last three years, despite the overall increase in traffic flows
within the city.
- London transport plan has the ambi�ous objec�ve of cu�ng CO2
emissions by 60% by 2030
- 2008: London wins the Ins�tute for Transporta�on and
Development Policy (ITDP) Sustainable Transport Award

1 2 3 4 5
The two case studies illustrated above
prensent the poten�al of sustainable
transport and mobility within two large
Western ci�es. However, traffic and mobility
management is ranking high on the list of
priori�es of smaller municipali�es, too.
Many European medium-sized ci�es are
also engaging in plans to increase transport
accessibility and sustainability. A par�cularly
relevant example is the city of Stockholm,
Sweden.
In developing countries, big diffences
exist. While emerging countries (e.g. India
and Brasil) show a significant degree of
commitment to greening transport and
promo�ng more environmentally efficient
transport, other developing countries do
not include at all this theme among their
priori�es.
b) Good prac�ces
Car sharing
Car Sharing (some�mes called Car Clubs) is
s�ll not widespread but it is rapidly gaining
ground with considerable growth in Europe,
Canada and the USA. As one car, a shared
car replaces 8.3 vehicles (Communauto,
one of the fastest growing and most
successful schemes in Canada) or even 15
cars in a dense city such as Amsterdam
(Greenwheels, a leader in carsharing in the
Netherlands). As a rule of thumb a shared
car replaces 4 to 12 private cars.
Car Sharing started in Switzerland in 1987
and now there are some 75,000 members
(from a total Swiss popula�on of 7.3 million)
with some 1,950 cars at 1,050 loca�ons in
over 400 ci�es, making it one of the leading
Car Sharing enterprises with by far the
highest customer density in the world. This
shows that Car Sharing is not for those who
cannot afford a car but rather for
those that choose not to. The Swiss are
a rather rich na�on with a high na�onal
average of car ownership per capital;
underlining that fact that Car Sharing really
takes cars off the road as the purchase of
second or third cars becomes less a�rac�ve
when compared to the flexible offer of
a “car club.
Bike Sharing
Bike sharing schemes such as Vel’lib in Paris
or Bici in Barcelona are run along similar
lines but without prior booking required.
In some schemes the first half hour is free
or membership is some�mes bundled with
other services such as a public transport
season �cket and carsharing membership, as
in Brussels or Hannover.
4) Summary and conclusions
l EcoMobility proposes an innova�ve
approach to urban mobility to help
create a more sustainable environment
and posi�ve effects on climate change,
ci�zens’ health, �me consump�on and
transport costs.
l This new concept is based on the
great poten�al that environmentally
sustainable transports have to be
further developed and to subs�tute
motorized transports, when
adequate technological, logis�cal
and infrastructural arrangements are
provided.
l Local authori�es and policy makers play
a strategic and crucial role in spurring
new strategies and in transforming
ideas and projects into feasible and
concrete ac�ons.
l However, in order to be effec�ve,
EcoMobility must take place on a much
larger scale: all sectors (businesses,
users, experts, apart from policy
makers) and segments must be
involved in the decision-making process
as much as in the implementa�on
phase.
l A change in mobility behavior is only
possible if people are offered a�rac�ve
alterna�ves. In the majority of cases,
the most sustainable op�on will be
preferred if adequately presented.
l An effort is required to imagine lives
and ci�es less dependent on cars, but
if such a path is undertaken, there
is room not just for improvement,
but also for a deep change in habits
and trends. Some ci�es have started
adop�ng an EcoMobility approach and
are already experiencing significant
improvements.
5) References
For further informa�on on
EcoMobility:
Global Alliance for EcoMobility,
www.ecomobility.org;
Wikipedia, Global Alliance for
EcoMobility, h�p://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Global_Alliance_for_EcoMobility;
For further insights and data on CO2
emissions:
l CAIT, h�p://cait.wri.org/figures.
php
l EEA, h�p://www.eea.europa.
eu/
l IEA, h�p://www.iea.org;
l MEET Conference webpage,
h�p://www.mlit.go.jp/kokusai/
MEET/data_en.html;
l OECD, www.oecd.org;
l UNFCCC, h�p://unfccc.
int/2860.php
l UNFCCC Greenhouse Gas
Inventory Data, h�p://unfccc.
int/ghg_data/items/3800.php;
For a more detailed presenta�on of
New York City and the City of London
transport policies:
New York:
l US Bureau of Transporta�on
Sta�s�cs
h�p://www.bts.gov/publica�ons/
highlights_of_the_2001_na�onal_
household_travel_survey/html/
execu�ve_summary.html
l New York City, Department of
Transporta�on: h�p://www.
nyc.gov/html/dot/html/home/
home.shtml;
l Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Transporta�on_in_New_
York_City
London:
l City of London, list of links
to transports related pages:
h�p://www.cityoflondon.gov.
uk/Corpora�on/LGNL_Services/
Transport_and_streets/;
l Mayor of London Transport
Strategy: h�p://www.london.
gov.uk/mayor/strategies/
transport/index.jsp;
l Facts and figures: h�p://
www.london.gov.uk/mayor/
transport/facts-and-figures.jsp
l Conges�on charge: h�p://www.
london.gov.uk/mayor/congest/
For further general informa�on, please
contact:
The Global Alliance for EcoMobility at:
global.alliance@ecomobility.org
www.ecomobility.org
1 2 3 4 5
 Fact sheet 1.2 - Main Actors on
the EcoMobility Scene
2) Why does EcoMobility
Featured in this Fact sheet:
1) Who are the EcoMobility actors?
require a cross - sectoral
approach?
Mobility involves at least four major categories of stakeholders: policy makers (local, na�onal, regional, global)
and organizing authori�es, who are responsible for inves�ga�ng and defining the final content of transport EcoMobility is based on the integra�on of
policies and guaranteeing their implementa�on; businesses and public or private operators, who provide different means of transport and is aimed
transport and transport related services; experts and academics, bringing specialist insights within the transport at providing everybody with the possibility
sector that help iden�fy needs, and define and evaluate policies; users, the ul�mate actors affected by transport
policies who provide feedback and input and, some�mes, contribute to the development of mobility op�ons of effectua�ng a journey, especially
(including EcoMobility) by raising awareness on specific needs through their communi�es and organiza�ons. The within the urban environment, relying on
role of these users groups is strengthened by the efficiency of their repor�ng and monitoring of the outcomes intermodal transporta�on only, without
of this process. Other stakeholders not analyzed here may also play a role (e.g. public and private operators who need to resort to cars.
may be under contract for the provision of transport and transport related services).
2) Why does EcoMobility require a cross-sectoral approach? l In order to incen�vize everyone,
EcoMobility represents a new approach to mobility and accessibility. It envisages an integra�on of different from individuals to businesses, to
environmentally sustainable means of transport as a subs�tute to private motorized transport. For this avoid the use of private motorized
transport strategy to be effec�ve, a series of infrastructural, technological and service innova�ons as well as transport, viable alterna�ve op�ons
other incen�ves must be simultaneously introduced to achieve eventual adop�on by the popula�on. Such a
comprehensive change requires coopera�on among the different sectors responsible for implemen�ng each of must be available and easy to use.
these varia�ons. This includes an understanding, through dialog between actors, on behavioral change and how They range from the provision of
best to affect it. different transport modes, the
3) Case studies: accompanying informa�on and
this sec�on analyses the experience of No�ngham, in the UK, and of the “IKEA Brussels test metro-bicycle mobility aids, to infrastructure and
combina�on (Belgium)” project. Through these examples, the importance of coopera�on between policy makers, other suppor�ng services (e.g. tax
businesses and users in the implementa�on of a more sustainable transport policy, including a be�er integra�on deduc�ons, carbon credits, events
among different means of transport, is highlighted. for the promo�on of alterna�ve
4) Summary and conclusions: forms of mobility. They may also
reforms within the transport sector require the inclusion of the different stakeholders in all phases, from early include systems for not moving
planning to implementa�on. This will guarantee be�er coopera�on and usually not only helps achieve the overall at all – telecommunica�ons,
goals and objec�ve, but also is more likely to bring significant co-benefits. tele-work, tele-shopping, tele-
educa�on...).
1) Who are the EcoMobility incen�ves for employees and the design l Redirec�ng mobility choices
of the workplace to facilitate sustainable
actors? mobility.
entails the re-think of mobility
opportuni�es and the crea�on
3) Experts’ organiza�ons and academic of new mobility strategies. In
The main actors involved in the mobility and ins�tu�ons: they contribute to highligh�ng
transport sector are: turn, this development requires
specific needs and problems. They can play coopera�on among the different
an important role in raising the a�en�on actors concerned with the different
1) Governmental organiza�ons and poli�cal of governmental organiza�ons, businesses, aspects of transporta�on,
ins�tu�ons: they are responsible for and civil society on crucial issues, indirectly from ins�tu�ons and experts to
policy- and decision-making and have the determining policy and innova�on businesses and users.
power to determine the direc�on of private outcomes. They also advise governments
and public actors’ choices crea�ng on best prac�ce for detailed and large scale l The EcoMobility Alliance fosters
incen�ve and opportuni�es. design. coopera�on among these
2) Businesses and public or private operators: 4) Users: they can be individuals or collec�ve stakeholders with the purpose of
they are responsible for providing organiza�ons. This category includes the guaranteeing harmoniza�ons of
technological and prac�cal solu�ons to “consumers” of mobility. Their role is crucial: ac�on and a smooth integra�on of
mobility needs. They are responsible on the one hand they can provide input the different means. The ul�mate
for offering transport and transport to the other stakeholders; on the other objec�ve consists in facilita�ng the
services, turning policy into reality. They hand they can determine the success or transi�on towards car-free mobility
are very recep�ve to people’s needs and failure of certain decisions, as they are habits and environments, crea�ng
can influence the prac�cal feasibility of those who eventually choose how to move. ci�es for people.
certain choices. This includes innova�on They are also ideally placed to monitor the
and investments in sustainable mobility, effec�veness of mobility programs.
1 2 3 4 5
3) Interac�ons among the
EcoMobility actors. Case
studies and figures:
This sec�on presents two case studies of
innova�ve ac�ons in the transport sector
that encourage the reduc�on of car use.
They demonstrate the importance of the
par�cipa�on of different mobility actors for
fostering a less car-dependent behavior.
The first case study reports a project
implemented in No�ngham aimed at
reducing the use of private motorized
transport. The successful implementa�on
of the project relied on the inclusion and
par�cipa�on of different governmental
ins�tu�ons and private actors, contribu�ng
to the realiza�on of the ac�ons.
The second case analyses the “IKEA Brussels
test metro-bicycle combina�on (Belgium)”
project financed by the EU. It shows how
the integrated ac�on between public and
private actors can produce innova�ve and at
the same �me acceptable solu�ons to solve
specific problems that hinder the use of non-
motorized transport.
Example 1 - No�ngham
No�ngham is the regional capital of the
East Midlands and center of an urban area
with 500 000 inhabitants. No�ngham has
developed a travel policy for the region,
which includes the city, its urban area and
neighboring rural areas. The project relied
on the joint par�cipa�on of the City Council,
the No�ngham County Council and private
actors.
The following priori�es were defined:
l develop a high quality integrated
transport policy: well served,
good intermodality, access for
the handicapped and rural area
residents;
l encourage economic ac�vity within
the urban area;
l inform the popula�on;
l integrate this policy into local
planning documents;
l develop sustainable districts.
Implementa�on
The city has already implemented several
ac�ons as part of this policy:
Parking: in 1990, a parking strategy was
developed. Regularly updated, it aims to limit
street parking and control the increasing
number of off-street parking spaces.
Park & Ride: in the early 1970s, the city
introduced a strong policy to promote a Park
and Ride system. There are five park and ride
centers with 4 300 spaces linked to a bus
system on the edge of town. There are also
two other sites close to suburban railway
sta�ons.
Shopmobility: it is a service for the
handicapped. It allows them to borrow
wheelchairs (conven�onal or electric) or
special two-wheeled vehicles to move around
in shopping malls.
Travel to work: the Municipality has set
up the “Commuter Planners Club” which
includes the heads of 40 companies in the
region. It determines which ini�a�ves are
most likely to succeed and which appear to
be the most effec�ve, in order to draw up
business travel plans.
Partnership and results
No�ngham transport policy is par�cularly
innova�ve for its comprehensive approach.
To draw up this integrated transport policy,
the town council worked closely with
No�ngham County Council, the regional
authority and in par�cular with regional
company heads on the “Travel to work
opera�on”. An urban mobility counselor was
appointed to promote Green Travel Plans
to help local authori�es and businesses
to develop travel plans for commuters
(home-work travel). For example, Boots,
No�ngham’s biggest employer (6 000
employees) had to draw up and implement a
company travel plan. This was a prerequisite
to obtain a building permit to extend the
company’s estates. The plan encourages
car pooling and improves the bus service
(including the bus traveling to and from the
workplace). Limi�ng the number of parking
places available at the workplace is also an
integral part of the plan.
Example 2 - Brussels
In Belgium, the Brussels public transport
company MIVB and cyclist organiza�on
ProVelo started a new service to s�mulate
the employees of IKEA Anderlecht to go to
work using the combina�on of metro and
bicycle. In the nearest metro sta�on, two
boxes are installed. The boxes contain 8
bikes, reserved for the IKEA staff. The two
partners want to provide the 100 employees
that go to work by public transport on daily
basis with an easier means to cross the
distance from the metro sta�on to the store.
In addi�on, there is clear informa�on and
direc�ons in the sta�on and in the shop on
how to access it by public transport (Metro,
bus and tram connec�ons).
Implementa�on
The ini�ators of the project installed two
bicycle boxes in a metro sta�on located
about 600 meters from the IKEA store. MIVB
chose the bicycle boxes and installed them.
Each of the boxes has a different look and can
contain 4 bicycles provided by ProVelo, and
rented by IKEA. 8 staff members of IKEA have
a key of the boxes and can do the distance to
the store by bicycle. MIVB takes care of the
maintenance and surveillance of the boxes
as well.
Results
The project is aimed at incen�vize employees
to use public transport in their daily trips to
and from work. The coopera�on between
the Belgian public transport authority and
the private company IKEA made integrated
transport possible, reducing employees
dependency on private motorized transport.
Crea�ng the suitable infrastructure for using
integrated transport required an adapta�on
and coopera�on from both sides, the
transport agency MIVB and the business
company IKEA. Without a joint ac�on the
crea�on of suitable condi�ons for the
promo�on of cycling would have cost
more efforts and would have been more
difficult to achieve.
1 2 3 4 5
4) Summary and conclusions
l Reducing the impact of motorized-
transport requires the introduc�on
of new urban and transport policies,
physical, spa�al and technological
solu�ons and a change in everyday
habits.
l Such a shi� implies a commitment
to a new approach to mobility from
different sectors: policy-makers,
businesses, experts and users;
l Coopera�on among these actors
is crucial to raise awareness on
problems, needs and poten�al
solu�ons, to define new and shared
policies, to promote be�er services
and technologies as well as to
assure final acceptance by users
and therefore eventual success. It is
also important to clearly document
the results and to evaluate the
process so that other ci�es can
learn from these examples.
l The reform of the transport sector
is therefore mainly a mul�-level
process. Local governments,
experts and academics, civil society
organiza�ons and businesses
are the principal actors in the
promo�on of a new mobility culture
and policies.
l From the interac�on and
coopera�on among these four
sectors more effec�ve solu�ons
can be envisaged and implemented
and can produce a more significant
impact.
5) References:
For further informa�on on actors and
partnerships within the transport sector:
l Global Alliance for EcoMobility,
www.ecomobility.org
l European Commission, DG
Transport, www.ec.europa.eu
l UITP, h�p://www.uitp.org
For further informa�on on urban
transport policies, reforms and projects:
l European Commission, DG
Transport, h�p://ec.europa.eu/dgs/
energy_transport/index_en.htm
l ELTIS, European Local Transport
Informa�on Service, www.el�s.org
l SMART, University of Michigan,
h�p://um-SMART.org
l Ins�tute for Transporta�on &
Development Policy, h�p://www.
itdp.org
l Interna�onal Transport Forum,
h�p://www.interna�onaltranspor�
orum.org
l Victoria Transport Policy Ins�tute,
h�p://www.vtpi.org
l Managenergy, h�p://www.
managenergy.net
For further general informa�on, please
contact:
The Global Alliance for EcoMobility at:
global.alliance@ecomobility.org
www.ecomobility.org
1 2 3 4 5
 Fact sheet 1.3 - The Socio-Economics of
EcoMobility
l Indirect impacts related to

Featured in this Fact sheet: the economic mul�plier effect

where the price of commodi�es
or services drop and/or their
1) What is the rela�onship between transport, mobility and socio-economics? variety increases.
The socio-economic condi�ons of a region or a household are both the cause and the result of
certain transport systems and mobility op�ons. The structure and nature of a transport system The economic importance of
defined at na�onal and local level has a direct socio-economic impact (i.e. it directly impacts the transporta�on can also be assessed
affordability of transport for a country and for a family and its mobility capacity). At the same from a macroeconomic and
�me, the socio-economic characteris�cs of a territory or household also influences transport microeconomic perspec�ve.
choices and mobility behavior. The main variables affec�ng mobility choices are gender, age,
marital status and household composi�on, income and profession. At the macroeconomic level,
2) What is the rela�onship between EcoMobility and socio-economics? transporta�on and mobility
The spread of the concept of EcoMobility is expected to affect the socio-economics of the area or are linked to: level of output,
household. At the same �me, EcoMobility should be available independently from specific socio- employment and income within a
economic condi�ons. By providing new transport opportuni�es and solu�ons, EcoMobility aims na�onal economy.
at guaranteeing everybody’s access to transport and sustainable mobility for the sake of be�er
environmental, urban and health condi�ons, independently from socio-economic status. Socio- In many developed countries,
economic variables must be taken into account in order to amplify the success of EcoMobility transporta�on accounts
and the change in transport choices and mobility behavior. However, they should be a source of between 6% and 12% of the
opportuni�es rather than an obstacle. GDP.
3) Case study.
In 2002, transporta�on-
The case study analyses mobility behavior of higher income classes in Caracas. It shows how
economic status can be a major determinant of mobility behavior and car-dependency. However, related goods and services
it also shows that such a behavior can be changed if adequate transport solu�ons are provided. accounted for more than
10%—over $1 trillion—of
4) Summary and conclusions.
U.S. Gross Domes�c Product
Transport is key to achieving both economic development and social inclusion. But in today’s (h�p://www.bts.gov/programs/
context it is more o�en perceived as an obstacle to a�aining these objec�ves, rather than a
source of opportuni�es. EcoMobility provides an alterna�ve to this situa�on. By promo�ng an freight_transporta�on/html/
integrated system of sustainable transport op�ons, guaranteeing accessibility for all, it transporta�on.html)
decouples transport from specific socio-economic precondi�ons and overcomes current
shortcomings in the system. Studies1 in Europe and the USA show
that around 30 jobs are created for
every 1 million € invested in public
transport infrastructure and around 57
1) What is the rela�onship At the same �me, the socio-economic
jobs for a similar investment in public
condi�ons of a region or household
between transport, mobility determine transport choices and mobility transport opera�ons.
and socio-economics? behavior and impact on the efficiency of
From a study of 13 public transport
transport.
investments in Europe the regional
The transport sector is a crucial element
economic effects of public transport
for economic development and impacts
the welfare of en�re regions and single 2.1) Transport Systems and investments costs were found to
households. When transport systems Economics have a mul�plier effect of 2 to 2.5. In
Switzerland a country renowned for its
are efficient, they provide economic The economic impacts of faith in public transport, the economy
opportuni�es and social benefits with transporta�on can be classified as as a whole benefits from added value
posi�ve mul�plying effects. When transport direct and indirect: of 4.60€ for every 1 € spent on public
systems lack capacity or reliability i.e when
l Direct impacts related to transport. (source UITP and UNEP/ILO
they are inefficient, they can create an
accessibility change where report on Green Jobs)
economic cost. The use of transport
carries also important social and transport enables larger markets
environmental implica�ons that could and enables to save �me and
cause significant costs. costs.

1 TRANSECON; Urban Transport and Local Socio-Economic Development Final Report 2003 & Public Transport and
the Na�on’s Economy A quanta�ve analysis of public transporta�on’s economic impact prepared by Cambridge
Systema�cs Inc. with Economic Development Research Group October 1999 1 2 3 4
The capacity of a transport system and higher mobility levels are posi�vely correlated to economic growth and income, as
the two graphs below show:
In turn, higher GDP rates generate more demand for mobility, measured in terms of increased number of passengers:
The macroeconomic impact of
transport can be assessed also in
terms of lost produc�vity: the
Bri�sh Chambers of Commerce, for
instance, es�mates that _15 billion
annually is lost from the na�onal
economy due to traffic conges�on. At
EU level, this figure is close to 1% GDP
loss per year.
At microeconomic level transporta�on
is linked to producer, consumer and
produc�on costs.
Transporta�on accounts for
around 4% of the costs of each
unit of output in manufacturing
(but this figure varies greatly
according to sub sectors);
It accounts on average between
10% and 15% of household
expenditures.
Income levels are a main
determinant of individuals’
mobility. The higher the income,
the higher the mobility, both in
terms of numbers of trips and
kilometers traveled.
Income also affects modal
choices. High income households
or countries register the higher
rates of motoriza�on and reliance
on private motorized vehicles,
while in poorer contexts people
rely more on public transport,
cycling or walking.
2.2) Transporta�on and social
status
Transport and mobility behavior is
also related to the social aspect of a
country or a household. The following
graph highlights the different use of
transport in Australia across different
genders, age groups, professional
backgrounds, household structures
and income levels:
1 2 3 4
l More in details, data on modal split from the US and some European countries show clear differences in mobility choices
among different age groups:

Source: dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/19716/1101/1/transitmodel.pdf

1 2 3 4
 0-11 12-17 18-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-74 75+
Pedestrian 29% 18% 20% 19% 18% 17% 18% 25% 34%
Bicycle 29% 52% 23% 17% 20% 23% 22% 24% 17%
Moped/mofa 0% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1%
Motorcycle/scooter 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Passenger car 40% 17% 37% 56% 56% 55% 54% 46% 38%
Bus 1% 5% 8% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 4%
Tram/metro 0% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Train 0% 2% 6% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%
Other 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 1 Modal split by age group in the Netherlands. Source: Wegman & Aarts 2005

l Several studies have revealed the

differences in travel pa�erns between
men and women.
In terms of distance traveled, for
instance, in 2001 in the US men
traveled on average 45 miles per
day against 35 of women.

h�p://nhts.ornl.gov/publica�ons.shtml Access to transport is par�cularly (15%) as well as resistance by male

Other characteris�cs differen�ate
women trips compared to
men’s. Women travel features:
more trips, but shorter average
distance; more household and
family support trips; women in
mul�-person households have an
above average of shopping trips;
more trip chaining; higher use of
public transport, less car use; more
passenger trips.
complicated in developing
countries, crea�ng significant
mobility gaps. Research by the
TRB in Karachi, Pakistan, on the
barriers to women enjoying a
similar level of mobility to men
showed that lack of accessibility
and affordability of transporta�on
(21%), bus frequencies and low
level of services (17%), bus staff
behavior (17%), limited seats
(22%), poorly planned public
transporta�on infrastructure
members of the house to travel
(8%) - highlighted inefficiencies in
the transporta�on system.
h�p://pubsindex.trb.org/
document/view/default.
asp?lbid=776885
Travel behavior differs from country
to country and is o�en the result
of cultural differences. Even in
countries with similar socio-economic
structures, mobility behavior can
present dissimilari�es.

1 2 3 4
 of everybody to move quickly
and efficiently, sustainably and
independently, irrespec�ve of their
social status by:
l increasing sustainable mobility
opportuni�es in all age groups.
In par�cular, EcoMobility will provide
integrated sustainable mobility
solu�ons to reduce mobility gaps
amongst children
and the elderly;
l providing more adequate solu�ons for
women which are be�er adapted to
their mobility needs, enabling them
to increase of their independence and
reduce mobility gaps
l providing safer, affordable means
of transport in par�cular in developing
countries to allow everybody’s access
to educa�on, employment and jobs,
markets, and other primary services
(e.g. hospitals)
l Increase the number of non car-
dependent trips in par�cular amongst
men, encouraging the
Mobility gaps = mobility is one of the fundamental components of transporta�on. When use of alterna�ve means of transport
transporta�on is unevenly distributed and/or not available, certain groups can experience on shorter routes and trips to work.
lack of mobility. The lack of mobility opportuni�es affec�ng a specific popula�on group is
referred to as mobility gap. Lack of income, lack of �me, lack of means, the lack of access,
age, gender, are some of the most relevant factors that can generate substan�al mobility gaps 3) Case studies and examples
between different popula�on groups. These mobility varia�ons are par�cularly relevant as
they are likely to have substan�al impacts on the socio-economic opportuni�es of individuals. A�rac�ng higher income class to public
transport in socially clustered ci�es. The
case of Caracas, Venezuela.
2) What is the rela�onship Microeconomic level:
between EcoMobility and In Caracas, as in most socially clustered
l keep transport more affordable ci�es, modal split is highly related to income.
socio-economics? through less car-dependency and
more efficient use of economical, High income popula�on is mostly car
sustainable transport such as
Economic impact of EcoMobility: bicycles, wheeled vehicles, and public
dependent, while lower income people are
cap�ve to public transport.
transport by:
Macroeconomic level:
l providing innova�ve solu�ons and This typical situa�on is explained by the
l create investment opportuni�es services; fact that new residen�al areas for the
through the construc�on of innova�ve l crea�ng efficient public transport upper social levels have been located in
and safe infrastructures to serve new services in all countries, including areas poorly served by public transport,
needs deriving from different mobility developing countries. automa�cally crea�ng a dependency on the
behavior; l Create equitable transport solu�ons that private car.
l create employment opportuni�es allow everybody to move, independent
through the implementa�on of of their economic situa�on and avoiding World-wide social values and fashion are also
services to support different mobility that mode choice is based on economic part of the explana�on (e.g. during the 1970’s,
needs; capacity. a high propor�on of Caracas’s middle and high-
l reduce mobility gaps based on gender, l Provide alterna�ves for the high income ci�zens were systema�cally using their
race or culture and increasing social income classes to convince them to car even in areas where there was a good offer
inclusion their par�cipa�on in the reduce their usage of personal car. of public transport as owning and using a car
labor force; was a signal of social status).
l reduce dependency on fossil fuels and Social impacts of EcoMobility:
increase security of resources; l Increase in both developing and However in 1983 when the metro system
l ul�mately to help alleviate poverty developed countries the ability was inaugurated, a new pa�ern of travel
and reduce social exclusion.

1 2 3 4
behavior started to emerge as the metro
mainly a�racted high-income people.
Many metro riders are also regular car users
but choose to take the metro when it provides
a good alterna�ve. Currently, the transit system
in Caracas is comprised of four main modes:
the metro; the “por puesto”, which are minibus
vehicles of 18 to 32 seats; the jeeps, which are
dual trac�on vehicles of up to 12 seat (most of
them serving hilly areas, which are also usually
the slum areas); and the bus system, consis�ng
of metro-bus and private operators. CA Metro
operates the metro and, since 1987, metro-bus
lines, which are bus feeder services extending
the area covered into the outer city zones.
While the metro and metro-bus offer transit
services to middle and high income users, the
mini-buses and jeeps provide flexible transit
service to low income groups.
The metro and metro-bus services are more
reliable and offer higher quality than mini-
buses and jeeps This higher quality service
is one of the main a�ributes to a�ract the
wealthier people to metro and metro-bus
and since the inaugura�on of the metro
strong adver�sing has not only promoted
its use but also created a different civic
behavior of it’s users.
The analysis of the data collected by CA
Metro on modal split by income shows the
strong correla�on between the quality of
public transport and the income distribu�on
of users, which can not be explained by
tariffs only.
The data collected over the years allows an
econometric analysis of the evolu�on of the
trend. A series of interviews with metro and
metro-bus managers, as well as sociologists
and social psychologists have helped
4) Conclusions
iden�fy the sociological variables with the
highest influence in the travel behavior of
high income popula�on and those quality
a�ributes of metro and metro-bus with
most a�rac�veness. The results could be
indica�ve on how successful policies to
induce a change in modal choice from
cars to public transport could be
implemented even in ci�es where social
segrega�on is extreme.
This behaviour can also be seen in other
ci�es. Zürich is one of the wealthiest ci�es
yet is has a high modal share of public
transport. Surprisingly it does not have a
metro (as decided by its ci�zens in several
public referendums) but it offers a fully
integrated system ‘zurimobil’ around light
rail, tramways, buses and car sharing on
one �cket. Professional people feel quite at
home using the system which is considered
to be quicker and easier than using a car in
the central city area. Curi�ba, Brazil. Curi�ba
has a successful Bus Rapid Transit system
used by all levels of the popula�on and its
also own more cars than the average.
Vienna, the capital of Austria has just (2009)
been voted one of the most live-able ci�es.
It’s ci�zens own a higher than average
number of cars per 1000 head popula�on
but the modal split in Vienna is one of the
highest in Europe.
The mobility op�ons in Vienna are based
on a quality of life approach, which allows
a high level of mobility without the need to
use a car except for trips that are best served
by that mode. This approach has also been
successful in Freiburg, Germany.
l Mobility and accessibility shows
up deep differences in usage
according to many variables;
l The main determinants of
transport choices: economic
condi�on and social
characteris�cs, at individual and
country-level. i.e. GDP, income,
gender, age, marital status and
household structure.
l Socio-economic condi�ons can
therefore lead to inequali�es
and mobility gaps, that is lack
of mobility opportuni�es
for certain groups of less
advantaged people;
l In par�cular, the use of private
motorized transport requires
a higher economic capacity,
specific skills and even
social status.
l For these reasons, private
motorized transport tends to
widen mobility gaps, slow down
economic development and
increase exclusion;
l EcoMobility aims at providing
adequate alterna�ve transport
solu�on and infrastructures
that allow everybody to
move locally without relying
on private motorized transports;
l EcoMobility is expected to
have a socio-economic impact
elimina�ng obstacles to
the mobility of certain groups,
their economic be�erment and
social inclusion.
1 2 3 4