1 / 7

Access restriction schemes

Access restriction schemes. Technical workshop "Urban Mobility Package" Brussels, 13 th June 2013 Mark MAJOR DG MOVE Unit C1 : Clean Transport and Sustainable Urban Mobility. Scope of Initiative 32 EU Framework for Urban Road User Charging and Access Restriction Schemes (ARS)

vaughn
Download Presentation

Access restriction schemes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Access restriction schemes Technical workshop "Urban Mobility Package" Brussels, 13thJune 2013 Mark MAJOR DG MOVE Unit C1 : Clean Transport and SustainableUrbanMobility

  2. Scope of Initiative 32 • EU Framework for Urban Road User Charging and Access Restriction Schemes (ARS) • - Review effectiveness of ARS • - Identify existing barriers to implementation • - Assess impacts of current lack of harmonisation • - Assess potential of ARS on introduction of clean vehicles • - Policy/strategy recommendation for EU framework • - Identify minimum standards

  3. Definition of “Access Restriction Schemes” • Case studies with ARS/road user charging: • Urban Access Restriction (ISIS/PWC, 2009) • CURACAO Deliverable D3 (2009) • Urban Aspects of Internalisation of External Costs (Ecorys/CE, 2012) • CIVITAS Initiative (I, II and Plus) • Urban Freight Transport (MDS, 2012) • Additional information from several cities (Milan, Amsterdam, etc.) • Any comments on the definition of an ARS ? “Any policy measure implemented to manage the demand for access for certain or all road vehicles to an urban area”

  4. From a wide range of measures to an ontology Any comments on this ontology?

  5. General conclusions on ARSs II • No harmonised systems of ARS, incurring substantial societal costs • Inadequate practices on evaluation (data and methodologies) • No information system of sharing best practices (esp on Parking) • Given the many local specificities EU’s role should be focused on a limited number of issues, removing the main causes of inefficiencies in the current system

  6. General conclusions on ARSs VIII • Harmonisation brings benefits: what to harmonize? • We conclude that harmonisation is most important in : • emission norms • technology use (for example access technologies, such as stickers/On-Board Units/GPS/other, payment modes, IT platforms, etc) • information provision, common language • establishing standards for monitoring and evaluation methodologies

  7. Policy questions/ • 1) How could the EU level facilitate a more harmonised development of ARS by local authorities? • 2) Would you support EU harmonisation of: • (i) Emission norms • (ii) Technology • (iii) Information provision • (iv) Evaluation methodologies • 3) Are there other aspects where EU harmonisation would have significant benefits? • 4) Are ARS a necessary element to be addressed in a SUMP framework?

More Related