32 Amendments of Tilly METZ related to 2021/2075(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Considers that the main challenges that urban areas face are related to high levels of congestion, CO2 emissions, noise and air pollution as well as road safety; stresses that congestion has huge socioeconomic costs, particularly in terms of lost productivity; notes that urban mobility is responsible for 40% of all CO2 emissions of road transport and up to 70% of other pollutants from transport; recognises that air and noise pollution has a negative impact on both physical and mental health; notes that 38% of road deaths take place on urban roads and 70% of these are pedestrians, cyclists and powered two wheelers;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that lockdownthe Covid-19 pandemic has had a considerable impact on mobility demand and the choice of transport mode, particularly towards cycling, especially in urban areas; notes that the social distancing introduced as part of sanitary measures in the EU has led citizens to take up mobility options other than public transport in order to avoid gatherings of people; is concerned that the temporary increase in the use of private car in this particular context can have long-standing detrimental impacts in terms of emissions and congestion, unless proactive policies are put in place to foster the return and further uptake of public transport and active mobility means;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Is concerned that despite the Covid-19 pandemic which improved air quality in many regions due to a sudden drop in mainly road transport, most EU countries broke at least one EU air pollution limit in 2020; notes that the new WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs) presented on 22nd September 2021 provide clear evidence of the damage air pollution cause on human health, including at lower concentrations than previously known and welcomes the fact that they recommend new air quality levels to protect the health of human populations; reminds that EU limits are in general far above the WHO maximum thresholds and calls therefore on the Commission to align its air quality directives with these new WHO AQGs;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1 b. Welcomes the Special Report 06/2020 on Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU1a by the European Court of Auditors; takes good note of its conclusions that EU cities are not sufficiently moving towards more sustainable and environmentally friendly modes of transport and that the EU funds dedicated to sustainable mobility are not yet effectively used so as to fulfil their objectives; recalls that in the report the ECA has estimated that congestion is costing the EU around €270bn a year, and also that achieving fluid movement of people in urban areas could spur economic growth and boost workers’ productivity by up to 30%; _________________ 1aECA Special Report 06/2020 on Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU: No substantial improvement is possible without Member States’ commitment https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADoc uments/SR20_06/SR_Sustainable_Urban _Mobility_EN.pdf
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 c (new)
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1 c. Considers that a more optimal allocation of scarce urban road space remains one of the core levers for a mobility transformation, fostering that cities shift away from car-centric strategies towards people and place-based resources, through improved movement of people rather than vehicles; underlines that the pandemic has favoured the rediscovery of proximity shops and activities, as theorised by the 15-minute city concept, with increased flexibility and where walking is predominant;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 d (new)
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1 d. Notes that the increased teleworking during the lockdown period had a huge impact on mobility demand and resulted in global reductions of CO2 emissions between 8% to 75% depending on the city; believes that teleworking will remain an attractive option for many workers, at least part time, and this will have an impact on the planning of future urban mobility;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 e (new)
Paragraph 1 e (new)
1 e. Points out that, according to the Commission's Handbook on external costs of transport1a, private vehicles are by far the largest contributor to negative externalities within passenger transport modes and that besides generating congestion and emissions related to their traffic, also when parked cars occupy a large part of the urban space, which is already increasingly scarce due to the growing trends of urbanisation; considers that reduction in emissions and other externalities requires discouraging individual road transport and the mass transition of users from private transport to collective public transport; calls to the respective competent authorities to direct public investment at public services, instead of promoting individual mobility, in order to accelerate the decarbonisation of road transport; _________________ 1a Handbook on external costs of transport - Version 2019 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication- detail/-/publication/9781f65f-8448-11ea- bf12-01aa75ed71a1
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 f (new)
Paragraph 1 f (new)
1 f. Points out that restrictive measures imposed during the lockdown have shown that more space can be made available for walking and cycling, as well as for the hospitality sector and commerces, and it is up to local authorities to keep up with it also in the long term; salutes that cities are reducing parking spaces and creating mobility hubs where it is possible to access a variety of shared services like electric car, bike and e-scooter sharing, welcomes in this regard measures such as park and ride inter- modal facilities for commuters from outside urban areas to reach the city by rail and/or public transport; considers it a positive trend that, together with the remarkable increase of car-free city centres across Europe and the establishment of ultra-low emission zones, contributes to prevent congestion and reduce emissions;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 g (new)
Paragraph 1 g (new)
1 g. Notes that during the COVID pandemic access to public transport stations dropped by almost -70% in Europe; urges public authorities to put in place strategies and campaigns to promote the retake of public transport, tackling any safety concerns passengers might still have; considers that a level of occupancy allowing for social distancing must be ensured, which requires an adequate frequency of service;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 h (new)
Paragraph 1 h (new)
1 h. Stresses the importance of the socioeconomic dimension of guaranteeing an adequate public transport network and quality of service, also in the urban periphery, particularly in terms of reducing existing inequalities and preventing further disadvantages exacerbated in the absence of proper public transport for the least favoured people; reminds that the high total costs of ownership of private cars, among other aspects, are an important barrier for many as well as the growing trend under the Mobility as a Service logic of individuals and families not owing a car; emphasises therefore that mobility policies must be designed under the premise that citizens need to be fully mobile without a car, including people with disabilities;
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. SRecognises that public transport is the backbone of sustainable urban mobility; therefore stresses the need for local authorities to reengineercontinuously support actions within public transport in order to ensure safe, healthy and environmentally sustainable commuting options and to complement public transport with on-demand and shared transport services; making it an efficient, accessible and affordable alternative to private car use; calls furthermore on Member States and local authorities to firstly increase the outreach and frequency of public transport and equip it with additional integrated digital infrastructure, making it more compatible with on-demand management such as e-bikes and e-scooters as well as shared transport services and collaborative innovation platforms;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Calls on the Commission to ensure that Urban Mobility Framework places at its forefront the provision of the necessary tools to support the expansion of affordable, attractive, accessible and green public transport, including securing adequate funding in order to enable it achieving its maximum potential to deliver these objectives;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Suggests the Commission and Member States who have not implemented it to respectively assess the feasibility and consider establishing free public transport;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 c (new)
Paragraph 2 c (new)
2 c. Notes that people with disabilities and reduced mobility face additional barriers that often hinder the accessibility to public transport services which is often not enough adapted to their needs and time requirements; stresses the need of making public transport accessible for everybody, also for people with disabilities and reduced mobility; and points out that the increased demand for these services due to the aging population can provide a boost to the systematic consideration of these users; urges public authorities to actively involve people with disabilities and reduced mobility in the identification of needs and in the design of solutions, and in particular duly ensure their participation in the SUMPs procedure;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 d (new)
Paragraph 2 d (new)
2 d. Underlines that people with disabilities are vulnerable users at risk of social exclusion; stresses that beyond infrastructure and service flexibility, inclusion often depends on the behaviour and awareness of other users and points out that according to research one in four disabled people do not use public transport due to negative attitudes from other passenger; regrets that although a stated SUMP objective is to “ensure that all citizens are offered transport options that enable access to key destinations and services”, people with disabilities are only mentioned twice in the guidelines, and that a dedicated topic guide does not exist;
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for a revision of the Commission guidelines on developing and implementing sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs) to include a new objective to improve the resilience of mobility systems in case of rapid fluctuations in mobility demand; notes that demand management and land-use planning can lower traffic volumes; stresses that facilitating active mobility and guaranteeing protection of active road users should become an integral part of urban mobility and infrastructure design, which should be included within SUMPs, where the Commission already recommends including road safety as a horizontal objective;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Considers that future SUMPs should be the basis of mobility transition, going beyond traffic management and instead focus on creating an affordable, accessible and efficient green public transport offer and incentivising active mobility, particularly through adequate investment in cycling infrastructure;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recognises that urban logistics are an essential public service; calls on local authorities to develop dedicated sustainable urban logistics plans that integrate freight into the planning of more dynamic and flexible uses of curb spacnotes the increased demand in home deliveries, also by cars, vans and powered two-wheeled vehicles such as mopeds, as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, adding to congestion, increased emissions and pollution; calls on local authorities to develop dedicated sustainable urban logistics plans that integrate freight into the planning of more dynamic and flexible uses of curb space; underlines that cargo bikes have huge potential for transporting goods in urban areas including last-mile logistics, and can play an important role in reducing congestion, emissions and pollution; hence, urges EU support fore- bikes and cargo bikes; considers it crucial to establish regular safety assessments in order to improve the standards of these bikes and the cycling infrastructure;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Calls on the Commission to come up with a recommendation on the safety of delivery personnel, also within the gig economy, including requirements for employers and companies to ensure the provision and use of safety equipment and safe vehicles, as well as training in the digital tools they might have to use, such as applications and interactive platforms; calls also on the Commission and Member States to ensure that professional van drivers undergo appropriate training and to address the issue of van drivers’ fatigue and speeding, particularly as a result of the large increase in the number of home deliveries;
Amendment 75 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on the Member States and local authorities to reassessprioritise and increase their investments in sustainable urban mobility and to give priority to investments in safe and active mobility infrastructure in order to accelerate the rethinking of space and transport modes, to invest in zero-emission vehicle procurement for public transport, maintain and upgrade its infrastructure including sufficient quick charging stations for electric vehicles and light means of transport, as well as ensuring multimodal integration; reminds the importance of a robust digital infrastructure that will improve the general experience of all passengers and be adapted to the post- COVID-19 needs of transport workers; calls furthermore on the Commission to lead the transition by proposing tools, such as single integrated ticketing, which can increase the uptake of public transport; stresses that coordination between different key stakeholders and accessibility for all are considerable challenges in the digital era;
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Notes that bike sales have experienced a boom almost everywhere as cycling has increased as a response to the Covid-19 pandemic; calls on Member States and local authorities to dedicate adequate investments in active mobility infrastructure and to do their utmost to ensure that active mobility infrastructure that have been put in place during the pandemic become permanent and are further expanded in order to promote safe, sustainable and active mobility, which has also significant health benefits and reduce congestion; in this regard, calls on the Commission to publish a strategy on active mobility to capitalise on these changes as well as mobilise funding;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5 b. Stresses the importance of improving liveability and life quality in urban areas and welcomes plans for supporting the creation of climate-neutral cities; underlines in this regard the importance of reducing the centrality of private motorised vehicles in the public realm in order to reallocate more public space to citizens and children in particular; welcomes the European-wide annual car-free Sunday initiative given its widespread popularity and positive impact on road safety and other negative externalities, and suggests to increase its frequency to at least once a month;
Amendment 90 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 c (new)
Paragraph 5 c (new)
5 c. Underlines that gender-related differences, such as physical and social characteristics, result in inequalities in mobility opportunities; takes note of the recent study2a highlighting that although women are motivated to travel actively for health reasons, concerns about their personal safety and harassment vulnerability, convenience and appearance are barriers preventing them from cycling and walking; underlines that a further modal shift into sustainable public transport and active mobility would require ensuring accessibility for everyone, especially taking into account the needs of women in terms of scheduling, destination and mobility patterns, accessibility of buses and wagons, security and safety as women tend anyway to use public transport and walk more than men; calls on the Commission and Member States to put forward recommendations to encourage the participation of women in the planning of urban mobility solutions and in decision-making processes; _________________ 2aSustrans, 2018. "Are We Nearly There Yet? Exploring Gender and Active Travel"
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 d (new)
Paragraph 5 d (new)
5 d. Considers that reducing the centrality of private cars, including with measures such as car-free city centres would not only contribute to the climate neutrality of urban mobility but also be an appropriate answer to women’s needs, as they tend to travel with public transport to a greater extent than men;
Amendment 94 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 e (new)
Paragraph 5 e (new)
5 e. Insists that regional and local authorities have a key role to play in all stages: planning, preparation and implementation; strongly supports the "partnership principle" and the inclusion of NGOs and other stakeholders, as well as regional and local authorities, in the consultation process; encourages enabling more direct EU funding for local and regional authorities in order to improve efficiency, ensure consistency and reduce administrative burden; recalls that transparency and proactive communication on available funds is also an important requirement to ensure their most effective use;
Amendment 96 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 f (new)
Paragraph 5 f (new)
5 f. Reminds that 18,844 people lost their lives in road traffic in the EU in 2020 and emphasises that 38% of road deaths occur on urban roads, with 70% of the victims being pedestrians, cyclists and powered two wheelers; emphasises that as the EU becomes more urban, road safety is becoming more and more an urban issue;
Amendment 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 g (new)
Paragraph 5 g (new)
5 g. Reminds that speeding is a key factor in around 30 % of fatal road crashes and an aggravating factor in most crashes; notes that lower speed limit zones have also been introduced in some urban areas as a result of altered mobility patterns of Covid-19; calls on the Commission in its expected recommendation on speed, to make 30km/h the default speed on urban roads, as well as encouraging lower speeds of 15 km/h for residential areas predominantly for pedestrians and cyclists and around schools as a tool for improving road safety and encourage active mobility, such cycling and walking;
Amendment 99 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that the Commission should ensure that access to EU funding programmes for urban mobility, such as the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the Connecting Europe Facility, is conditional on existing or prospective sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs) which among others also ensure the highest standards of road safety and particularly protecting vulnerable road users; calls on the Commission to consider ways of supporting cities in preparing their SUMPs according to the highest standards; calls furthermore on the Commission to establish an indicator on the use of EU funds towards effectively improving urban road safety, and particularly ensuring the highest design standards to protect vulnerable road users and foster active mobility;
Amendment 103 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Considers that the volume of such funding should be enlarged in order for more urban areas to benefit from it; believes that in order to be fully eligible and have priority access to these EU funds, in the field of both urban and inter-urban mobility, programmes, plans and strategies should support particularly rail and cycling infrastructure, including multimodality enablers; requests moreover the Commission to closely monitor that allocated money is actually spent on public transport and active mobility, and to what extent its fragmented budget is delivering;
Amendment 110 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Stresses that the Union should strongly support the development of financing schemes for the purchase and procurement of the still more expensive zero-emission vehicles, particularly for public transport fleets, as requested under the Clean Vehicles directive; believes moreover that EU funding instruments such as InvestEU and CEF could steer investments into zero-emission vehicles and the deployment of related charging infrastructure;
Amendment 113 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Urges all ‘urban nodes’ in the TEN-T network and all other medium and large cities to have a Sustainable Urb an Mobility Plan (SUMP) by 2030 with road safety targets and measures, as foreseen within the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Plan;
Amendment 116 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Reiterates that sustainable development and the management of urban tourism need to be fully integrated into the wider urban agenda. ; notes that especially overtourism can have negative environmental and economic impacts such as increased pollution, loss of biodiversity, congestion, infrastructure maintenance costs and rising prices, particularly in housing, as documented in the TRAN study ‘Overtourism: impact and possible policy responses’1a; therefore calls on the Member States to invest in funding to support the shift towards more sustainable, innovative, resilient and high-quality tourism products and services and further contribute to sustainability, out-of-season travel and the geographical dispersion of tourism flows; _________________ 1a https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/ etudes/STUD/2018/629184/IPOL_STU(20 18)629184_EN.pdf