1. EMTA Questionnaire on Governance and Mobility Plans EMTA General meeting 27-28 April 2009 Valencia

2. Questionnaire Issued by STIF /Audrey Saunion on 21/10/2008 Four questions:  Have you already designed and im^plemented urban/regional mobility plans  Describe in few lines the actual organization of the governance of your mobility plans: who decides? How are decisions regarding loca lprojects implemented? Who is responsible for the following up of the projects?  Inyour point of view what are the positive and negative effects of this organisation?  Have you worked on ways to improve this governance, if yes what are the means you are willing to put into practice

3. PSO REGULATION 1/4 Answers were received from:  Stadregio Amsterdam  Barcelona ATM  Berlin VBB  Birmingham Centro  Brussels Capital Region  Budapest BKSZ  Helsinki YTV  London TfL  Madrid CRTM  Manchester GMPTE  Montreal AMT (extensive study from external consultant no electroniv version available)  Sevilla Consorcio de Transportes  Vienna VOR  Vilnius SP

4. Synthesis First group of answers received  EMTA network has an experience in the field, many examples highlighting diverse success or difficulties  As regard the organisation of the process: consultation phase at all levels always valuable even if translating into delays for it gives weight/ legitimacy (Helsinki) planning and organising priorities (Amsterdam) Follow up through a performance comittee (Manchester)  About implementation of agreed measures/projects and who’s in charge of what Efficiency calls for evaluation of progress made (indicators sevilla/ report on performance Manchester) to re-orient if necessary.

5. Synthesis  How to improve Extending scope of competencies (UK ITAs) Facilitating implementation by training expertise and funding at sub/local level (Amsterdam) Looking for a way to sustain dynamism all along the project (STIF) STIF drew conclusions about its own experience to re-orient the mobility plan (PDU) within overarching regional planning, ellicit political support and better define role of actors. STIF reflected on the benchmarking input and drew recommandations such as:  Have a community or group of communities to stir up the process and political champion  Arrange for high level of communication, for permanent platform of coordination and for training of all actors  Plan regular follow up and process of re-orientation.

6. Synthesis Second group of answers arrived later  Berlin: the mobility plan though not mandatory is an efficient tool that holds the whole transport strategy together  Madrid also sees it as beneficial to higher level of integration in planning and fare policy except Cercanias/ Renfe  Budapest: municipality more responsibel however still pending on insufficient State funding  Vilnius deplores the difficulty in coordinating actions spread over different departments in municipalities  Centro points out the difference in time scale between Central concerns and local concerns (long term planning difficult when pending on central fund / small projects locally funded do not necessarily serve long term vision planning

7. Synthesis Second group of answers arrived later  London enjoys a comprehensive business plan, however reviewing priorities might be necessary inn the current economic context.  Brussels explore a « Pay as you ride » scheme as an alternative to existing schemes of congestion charging. ********* We thank all members for their dedication in answering the questionnaire.