This chapter assesses the extent to which the vision of the 2003 regional Mobility Law, and regional climate goals, are included in plans and strategies, and identifies challenges to translating the vision and targets into action. These include disagreements on the desirability and feasibility of the vision; approaches (or mindsets) within the administration that are not conducive to the transformation needed; and fragmented governance and data shortages hindering holistic action.
Transforming Catalonia’s Mobility System for Net Zero
Abstract
A first step in designing or redesigning a system is to envision it. Catalonia has been a pioneer in identifying the need to transition to a sustainable transport system, with its 2003 Mobility Law. The law provides a vision for the future of the mobility system and introduces a paradigm shift in the region’s mobility model from one based on private vehicles, to one that allows accessibility via the modes of transport with the least environmental and social cost (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2003[1]; Generalitat de Catalunya, 2006[2]).
The law encourages modal shifts towards sustainable transport modes, the rational use of private vehicles and space, and the integration of land use and public transport. Its guiding principles are summarised in Box 1.1 in Chapter 1. A framework for how to translate the law’s vision into action was published in 2006, in the Regional Mobility Guidelines (DNM) (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2006[3]). The law also put forward Generated Mobility Evaluations (EAMGs), which are mandatory studies to make the link between transport and land use throughout all the stages of urban planning. The EAMG evaluates the potential increase in travel caused by new developments, assesses the absorption capacity of transport systems (road, walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure), and suggests measures to deal with the additional mobility demand.
A thorough analysis of regional plans and strategies (Table 2.1) reveals that, in line with the law, the region attributes high importance to modal shifts towards sustainable transport modes such as walking, cycling, and the use of public transport. For example:
There are regional bike and pedestrian strategies to foster the use of active modes (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2019[4]; Generalitat de Catalunya, 2023[5]).
The 2021-2023 Road Safety Plan calls for “enhance[ing] the use of public transport, bicycles and incentivising walking” and “facilitate[ing] modal shifts towards more sustainable modes of transport while incentivising an intermodal system” (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2021[6]).
The Barcelona Metropolitan Transport Authority Mobility Master Plan (PdM) aims to increase active mobility by 7.4% and public transport by 20.9% in its area of competence (in 2025, compared to 2017 levels), which accounts for 75% of the population of Catalonia (ATM Barcelona, 2019[7]).
The Urban Plan of the Barcelona Metropolitan Area (AMB)1 sets a target for a desired modal distribution by 2050 of 50% of trips by foot or bicycle, and 30% by public transport (AMB, 2023[8]).
Catalonia’s Smart Specialization Strategy – the RIS3CAT – calls for prioritising actions “to transform [socio-technical] systems and steer them towards sustainability” (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2022[9]). The forthcoming shared agenda for sustainable mobility systems aims for “a decarbonised mobility system that guarantees accessibility for all while being sustainable, safe, healthy and equitable, prioritising active and collective means of transport and multimodal goods logistics” (Generalitat de Catalunya, Forthcoming[10]).
A technical document informing the forthcoming 2030 Integrated Plan for Energy and Climate (PINECCAT) acknowledges the need to reduce transport demand and to promote modal shifts to energy-efficient transport modes for the transport sector to contribute to reductions in energy demand (Generalitat de Catalunya, Forthcoming[11]).
Note: AMB: Barcelona Metropolitan Area; ATM: Mobility Territorial Authorities.
Many of the plans analysed also acknowledge the need to reduce car use, and to redistribute public space for people-friendly development. For example:
The AMB Urban Plan aims to reduce by half the modal share of private vehicles used on working days by 2050 (AMB, 2023[8]).
Both the Air Quality Plan (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2015[24]) and the Pedestrian Strategy (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2023[5]) highlight the negative impacts of car use (including air pollution and reduced social cohesion), and point to the need to “manage the dominant role of motorized vehicle in the territory” (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2023[5]).
In terms of urban planning, the draft of the revised Mobility Guidelines (DNM) promotes “a new distribution of road space” and the concept of “streets to live”, to improve citizens’ life quality (Generalitat de Catalunya, Forthcoming[12]).
The Barcelona Mobility Territorial Authority (ATM)2 Mobility Master Plan (PdM) aims to reduce private vehicle trips by 2.3% (in 2025, compared to 2017 levels) and promotes traffic calming and greening of public spaces, and the expansion of areas for users of non-motorised vehicles (ATM Barcelona, 2019[7]).
The Barcelona Urban Mobility Plan highlights that “recovering the streets […] not only for walking in optimal conditions, but also as a space for enjoyment and relationships” is key to improving the quality of life in the city (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2022[20]).
The Road Safety Plan calls for action in “rethinking public space towards safer and more sustainable mobility” (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2021[6]).
While several of the plans and strategies present the way in which space is currently allocated as a limiting factor for triggering modal shifts at scale, space reallocation is rarely introduced as a solution for concrete action. Also, none of the documents analysed include space allocation per mode as an indicator to track progress, and data for constructing such an indicator are currently not available (except for Barcelona City).
Despite the richness of plans and strategies in the region, the translation of the 2003 law’s vision into concrete action is still vague in the documents analysed. Throughout the drafting of this report, documentation summarising or mapping priority actions across the territory to achieve the Law’s vision was difficult to find.3
The translation of the climate target into action is on-going via the development of the Integrated Plan for Energy and Climate (PINECCAT). The PINECCAT is a strategic framework for achieving the region’s climate targets. A technical document informing the PINECCAT 2030, presented for public consultation in December 2024, puts forward targets per sector - including a GHG emission reduction target for the transport sector of at least 42.9% by 2030 - and a list of actions to achieve such targets (Generalitat de Catalunya, Forthcoming[11]). While the document does not yet indicate the abatement potential of actions and how they will be prioritised to meet the 2030 and 2050 targets, factsheets per action are being developed by the Catalan Energy Institute and the Climate Change Office, including information on the action’s estimated impact on energy use, emission abatement potential, budget requirements, and responsible authorities for implementing each action. These factsheets aim to inform forthcoming policy prioritisation discussions with different Government Departments. How and whether the actions put forward by the PINECCAT will contribute to the targets and align to the actions in the national Integrated plan for Energy and Climate (PNIEC)4 (Gobierno de España, 2024[25]) is unclear at this stage: the PNIEC has been recently updated (September 2024) and the policy prioritisation to meet climate targets is currently on-going in Catalonia.
While the Mobility Law does not include quantitative targets or indicators to track progress, the upward trend of commuting trips and car-centric travel patterns in several areas in the region (see Chapter 3) suggest that its vision has not yet been entirely implemented. Stakeholders interviewed and having participated to the February 2024 workshop (see Annexes A and B) agreed that implementing the law has been challenging, and discussions revealed the following specific challenges, each of which is discussed in the sections which follow:
The vision in the Mobility Law has led to disagreements on its desirability and feasibility.
Approaches or mindsets within the administration are not conducive to transforming the system.
A fragmented governance set-up and a lack of resources and harmonised data is hampering holistic action.
2.2.1. Actors disagree on the desirability and feasibility of the vision
While interviews reflected broad agreement on the part of stakeholders on the need to transition towards a sustainable or “clean” transport system and achieve the region’s climate goal, discussions during the stakeholder’s workshop revealed disagreements over what a desirable system would look like and the types of realistic changes necessary to get there.
An important disagreement concerns private vehicle fleets. During interviews and discussions at the February 2024 workshop, all stakeholders agreed on the need to reduce private car use. There were, however, two opposing views on what is possible and desirable in terms of the size and evolution of the private vehicle fleet. Some stakeholders considered that reducing the size of the private car fleet is necessary to achieve climate and well-being goals and to operationalise the vision in the 2003 Mobility Law. Stakeholders holding this view also highlighted the importance of a more active role by the Government of Catalonia (Generalitat) in implementing the law, including to support and bring on board actors potentially negatively impacted by the transition. Other stakeholders, including representatives from the industry sector, argued that reducing the overall vehicle fleet would negatively impact the automobile industry and related jobs in the region,5 and that therefore this change would not be desirable. These stakeholders see the automobile industry as a fierce opponent of any changes involving reducing the size of vehicle fleets, and they had little hope that this could change.
Some of the stakeholders interviewed also pointed to a mismatch between the importance granted to environmental sustainability in plans and strategies, and in practice. For example, some argued that sustainability “came as a second thought” or “something to be done later on, if needed”, rather than as “part of a project’s conception from the onset”. The Mobility Guidelines had already highlighted back in 2006 that, while there is a societal desire and a clear objective for environmental sustainability, the pathway to that objective is unclear (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2006[3]).6
Stakeholder interviews also revealed limited confidence in the public sector’s capacity to trigger the modal shifts needed to fulfil the Mobility Law’s vision. Some of the limiting factors identified included:
peak demand saturation of public transport services (in the Barcelona area)
rail competences being shared with the national government
the need for prohibitively expensive investments7 to achieve the law’s vision
fragmented governance hindering co-ordinated decision making (see Section 2.2.3)
a “fear of failure” or lack of an experimentation culture in government
concerns over the effectiveness8 and popularity of measures such as space reallocation.
2.2.2. Approaches (or mindsets) are not conducive to system transformation
Mobility systems are greatly influenced – and shaped – by public policies. Public policy decisions are guided by institutional mandates, which are, in turn, shaped by ideas or mindsets (Figure 2.1).9 Systems, in turn, reinforce the underlying mindsets that have shaped them (Systems Innovation Network, 2021[26]; Saltmarshe, 2018[27]).
In Catalonia, the 2003 Mobility Law calls for the transformation of the mobility system from one centred on private vehicles to one that guarantees access to places and opportunities to all citizens via sustainable transport modes (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2006[2]; Generalitat de Catalunya, 2003[1]). The analysis of inputs from interviews and workshop discussions revealed a potential misalignment of stakeholders’ mindsets with the transformation required for achieving the Mobility Law.10
Source: Adapted from Systems Innovation Network (2021[28]). Extracted from (OECD, 2022[29]), Redesigning Ireland’s Transport for Net Zero: Towards Systems that Work for People and the Planet, https://doi.org/10.1787/b798a4c1-en.
Several stakeholders interviewed pointed to the predominance of a reactive mindset in the region and saw it as a barrier to implementing the paradigm shift embodied in the law. A reactive approach constrains policy action to containing or reducing the harm of current and predicted mobility demand and limits the government’s capacity to influence this demand (Box 2.1). When discussing the region’s mobility policies, stakeholders mentioned a tendency to react and manage current demand. The measurement frameworks in the plans and strategies analysed also reveal a reactive, rather than a transformative, approach. Most of the indicators focus on tracking patterns of behaviours and outcomes driven by the transport system (the “tip of the iceberg” in Figure 1.3 in Chapter 1), with limited information on the system’s characteristics that would enable – or may be hindering – the achievement of the law’s vision (the part “below water”). Chapter 5 discusses the need to set targets and indicators that shed light on the system’s structure.
A common assumption informing transport and climate policy is that a person’s choice to drive a car or a motorbike is based on individual preference: when income levels allow, most people choose to drive and own a car or motorbike (or several of them). Based on this assumption, motorised transport demand is the sum of individual choices, and is exogenous to the system in which these choices are embedded.
Policy packages designed based on this mindset see demand as a “given” and constrain transport and climate policies to react to current and predicted demand. Policymakers taking a reactive approach assume that motorised transport demand will increase, and identify policies to accommodate the increase and to minimise its harm (ITF, 2021[30]): they predict future demand and provide for it (Goodwin, 2021[31]; Goulden, Ryley and Dingwall, 2014[32]). For example, policy packages may focus on building more road infrastructure to reduce traffic congestion or allocate more public space for parking. They may, in parallel, reduce the harm of this growing demand by providing financial incentives for people to purchase electric or energy-efficient vehicles.
A reactive approach leaves policymakers ill-equipped to reduce emissions or improve people’s well-being for several reasons:
Although vehicle improvements (e.g. electrification) are important, the literature suggests that they may make driving more appealing, thus increasing the distance driven (the “rebound effect”11) (Orsi, 2021[33]), and contributing to congestion (Kampman, van Essen and Braat, 2011[34])12 and urban sprawl (Orsi, 2021[33]). Policies focused on vehicle improvements, such as financial incentives for the uptake of EVs, may also reinforce the idea that changes in technology are sufficient to achieve climate targets (see Chapter 4), which may reduce public support for climate policies aimed at triggering modal shifts towards active and shared modes (as may be deemed unnecessary).
Policy packages that only react to the undesirable results of the current system leave the system itself intact. For example, some of the stakeholders interviewed saw themselves as “swimming against the current” when trying to improve public transport infrastructure in a system designed to favour private motorised vehicles.
A reactive approach limits the visioning of what is possible in the future. When growing motorised car demand is seen as exogenous to the system (i.e. the sum of individual preferences), policymakers implicitly assume that the future will look like the past: it becomes an (often-linear) extension of the trends observed today. This assumption leaves little room for imagining and advancing towards qualitatively different systems. The assumption that the future looks like an extension of the past may explain why, despite the evidence for its negative impacts, car-centric transport models are pervasive across OECD territories (OECD, 2020[35]; ITF, 2024[36]).13
When taking a transformative approach instead, policy decisions focus on the design of better functioning systems. Rather than assume that the choice to drive is an individual preference to which policies need to adapt, policymakers act upon the assumption that people’s choices are greatly influenced by their environment and the transport and urban system design. These choices are endogenous to the system. Rather than being limited to predicting and providing for an “inevitably growing” demand, they can, instead, decide and provide.
Policymakers taking a transformative approach plan for the transport demand that would allow them to achieve desired goals – such as health, safety, or environmental sustainability – and focus on transforming systems to achieve those results. With a transformative mindset, a multidisciplinary approach (considering land use, urban design, and housing alongside transport infrastructure) becomes central to the design of policy packages.
Interviews also revealed a strong emphasis on mobility, which can limit the government’s capacity to deliver the sustainable accessibility emphasised in the 2003 law. A mobility focus directs policymakers’ attention to minimising the amount of time people spend in traffic, meaning that reducing congestion is the most pressing issue to solve (Box 2.2). For example, discussions revealed that decisions on the modal share in urban planning for economic development were based on ensuring a “good quality of service”, primarily interpreted as maintaining smooth car circulation and reducing congestion.14 The EuroRap study on road safety produced by the Catalan Traffic Service (SCT) adopts a mobility focus by using low congestion levels as a proxy for the system’s “good functioning” (Box 2.4). When discussing modelling exercises being carried out in the region, interviewees explained, for example, that the Catalan Energy Institute’s (ICAEN) energy scenario estimates a 39% increase in mobility demand between 2017 and 2050 (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2023[37]), based on a correlation between income and mobility levels.15 Similarly, the modelling exercise in the forthcoming revision of the Mobility Guidelines estimates mobility demand based on exogenous variables such as the expected evolution of the vehicle fleet, population, and income (Generalitat de Catalunya, Forthcoming[12]).
Transport systems across many OECD territories have been shaped by the idea that mobility and speed are positively correlated with well-being outcomes1 (OECD, 2021[38]; Handy, 2024[39]). Evidence suggests, however, that a positive correlation does not always exist between mobility and well-being. High mobility may, on the contrary, reflect poor accessibility and reduced well-being (ITF, 2019[40]; Ferreira, Beukers and Te Brömmelstroet, 2012[41]). For example, when people need to travel longer distances to get to work or to access basic services due to a lack of closer options, mobility indicators may increase while quality of life may decline.
The notion of accessibility is a better proxy for well-being than mobility. While mobility refers to the ability to cover a larger territory within a given investment of time and money (Levine, Grengs and Merlin, 2019[42]), accessibility refers to connecting places to people effectively (Levine, Grengs and Merlin, 2019[42]). The term incorporates the notions of: (1) mobility; (2) proximity to destinations; and (3) connectivity, reflecting that the purpose of transport is to access locations (Levine, Grengs and Merlin, 2019[42]).
Policy packages designed with an overemphasis on mobility are limiting the transition towards net zero and high well-being for several reasons:
Low congestion is seen as a proxy for a well-functioning system, and thus efforts to reduce congestion are prioritised. Efforts to reduce congestion, however, have had the opposite effect: they have systematically increased congestion by increasing the attractiveness of private vehicles and, thus, the number of people choosing this mode (Transportation for America, 2020[43]; Goodwin, 1996[44]; Hansen and Huang, 1997[45]).
By aiming to minimise the amount of time people spend in traffic (Banister, 2008[46]; Litman, 2013[47]), mobility-focused policy packages favour space-intensive and high-speed mobility, while disregarding the trade-offs between space used for private motorised transport and for other functions. Space is a limiting factor that determines, to a great extent, the relative attractiveness of modes. The allocation of a high share of space to space-intensive and high-speed modes (e.g. private vehicles) is thus at odds with compact development and with policies aiming to foster connected infrastructure for pedestrians, cyclists and users of micro-mobility, public and shared transport (Chapman, 2019[48]).
The conflation between mobility and well-being leads to the idea that to improve well-being, motorised travel demand needs to continue to grow, or should at least not be reduced. This idea excludes – or marginalises – policies such as road space redistribution to sustainable modes, which can trigger behavioural change towards sustainable modes and improve environmental and social outcomes simultaneously (see Chapter 4). It also drives attention away from the need to connect urban planning, housing, and transport policy discussions to reduce transport demand.
The International Transport Forum (ITF, 2021[49]) finds that shifting the policy focus from increasing mobility to improving accessibility “will better deliver on several goals, from climate change mitigation to sustainable development and human well-being". In Catalonia, policy packages designed for sustainable accessibility could support the implementation of the Mobility Law vision and the transition towards net zero systems in several ways: (1) Refuting the idea that private car and motorcycle travel demand needs to keep growing to improve well-being – or that it is not desirable to reduce it – makes the trade-off between increasing mobility and reducing emissions easier to solve. (2) Policy packages guided by the goal of sustainable accessibility focus policymakers’ attention on the balance between mobility and proximity, the importance of space distribution that favours sustainable modes, and on policy options to reduce obliged mobility. The spatial tension between mobility and proximity becomes, therefore, a key element for decision making, as allocating space to space-consuming means of transport, such as private vehicles, limits the options for providing space for more sustainable modes and to create proximity (i.e. locate essential services near where people live). (3) In an accessibility mindset, a “good quality of service” refers to the provision of access involving low mobility and sustainable transport modes, rather than to low levels of congestion, which may lead to the prioritisation of policies that create proximity and favour sustainable modes.
Note: 1 This is analogous to the conflation, at the economy level, between GDP growth and increased well-being; see (Stiglitz, Fitoussi and Durand, 2018[50]).
A focus on improving the “absolute attractiveness” of modes is another barrier to transforming the mobility system. Policymakers using an absolute attractiveness lens treat the infrastructure for different transport modes separately from each other. The focus is on improving each mode’s absolute – rather than relative – attractiveness (Box 2.3). For example, several stakeholders referred to the need to first improve public transport attractiveness, and only then to reduce the attractiveness of cars (for example, by redistributing space attributed to car drivers towards users of sustainable modes). Only a few stakeholders mentioned the potential of connecting public transport with active modes (e.g. cycling) to improve its attractiveness. While stakeholders often perceived the implementation of dissuasive measures for car use, such as road space reallocation, as positive for fostering modal shifts towards public transport, they explained that these measures were not always being actively pushed for or included in projects to improve public transport attractiveness due to fragmented governance and competences. Interviews also revealed a lack of integration of transport and land-use policy in practice, although efforts are on-going to integrate them (for example, via the EAMG).
The indicators and data currently being used to track progress also reflect an absolute attractiveness lens: data are available per mode, but data on the relative attractiveness of modes (e.g. accessibility per mode) were not available at the time of the drafting of this report (2024). For example, AMB has data on access (to places and opportunities) via public transport (AMB, 2023[8]; AMB, 2024[51]), and the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) measures access by foot (via a walkability and urban vitality map). The data are, however, not comparable to each other, limiting the possibility to estimate the relative attractiveness of public transport and walking.
Since Descartes, social systems have been assumed to work like machines (Ackoff, 1997[52]; Capra and Luisi, 2014[53]). Based on this mindset, policies have focused on improving or optimising parts, in isolation, as one would do with a machine when a broken piece needs to be replaced.
In transport policy, a mindset focused on optimising parts translates into policy packages that treat the infrastructure of transport modes separately from one another. Policymakers focused on improving each mode’s absolute attractiveness tend to grant less attention to how a specific mode performs relative to others, and how to generate synergies across modes by connecting them. Policy packages based on absolute attractiveness often add to what already exists. By not dealing with the system’s physical lock-in (currently car-centric in most OECD territories), these policy packages may fail to trigger modal shifts towards sustainable transport.
Evaluation frameworks reflect an absolute attractiveness mindset when the data collected focus on tracking the quality of service for each mode separately. An absolute attractiveness mindset is also reflected in the governance set up, whereby each area of the government is responsible for specific modes, without co-ordinating mechanisms to ensure the most sustainable modes are the most attractive.
Policy packages focused instead on improving the relative attractiveness of modes (i.e., on inverting the modes’ attractiveness gap) expand beyond policies that add to include policies that subtract or redistribute, to account for – and change, if needed – the system’s physical lock-in (see Chapter 5). These packages also include policies that connect modes and that integrate land-use and mobility considerations to create proximity and compact development (thus limiting urban sprawl). This is important for transport policies aiming to foster the uptake of sustainable modes for at least two reasons. First, active modes perform best over short distances, and their attractiveness decreases as distances travelled increase. Second, public transport performs best in high-density areas, and its attractiveness decreases as density decreases (e.g. lower frequencies, fewer places conveniently accessible by bus or train). As the attractiveness of active modes and public transport declines, the relative attractiveness of driving increases, encouraging people to use private motorised vehicles over sustainable modes (See Chapter 3).
2.2.3. Fragmented governance, resource and data shortages are key hindrances
Most of the stakeholders interviewed referred to the transport governance structure in the region as a barrier to achieving the law’s vision. The challenges noted included fragmented decision making and a lack of co-ordination mechanisms, a lack of human and financial resources, and the absence of harmonised data to inform decisions.
In Catalonia, different public administrations are responsible for specific parts of the mobility infrastructure (roads, railway, bus lanes, bike lanes, bike sharing services) and co-ordination among the different administrative levels (including the integration of mobility and land-use policy) has been challenging in practice. Stakeholders saw the fragmentation of decision making as a major challenge to transforming the system. In particular, stakeholders from the ATMs and the AMB highlighted the difficulty of managing public transport in a territory that “is not theirs”, as these bodies do not have complete land-use competences in the territories they manage. Stakeholders highlighted that a lack of co-ordination across municipalities has led, for example, to cities investing in “parts” of bike infrastructure without having a comprehensive plan, the resources, or the competences to build a coherent cycling network.
Despite the willingness of public officials to collaborate, different goals or mandates can reduce opportunities for collaboration and synergies and lead to policy incoherences. Box 2.4 illustrates how responses to road safety could further contribute to the implementation of the 2003 Mobility Law vision via a shared goal across administrations focused on inverting the relative attractiveness of modes.
The Catalan Traffic Service (SCT) is responsible for ensuring road safety and smooth traffic circulation in Catalonia (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2024[54]). It is based in the Department of the Interior, has a Central Service and four Territorial Services (Barcelona, Girona, Lleida and Tarragona) and operates closely with the Police Department (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2024[54]).
The SCT does not have direct competences on infrastructure but it informs infrastructure decisions (by the Department of Territory) via the EuroRAP study. EuroRAP is a European Programme, of which the SCT is a joint member along with the Catalan Automobile Club (RACC) (Servei Català de Trànsit, 2024[55]). Based on EuroRAP guidelines, the SCT produces studies on road quality in which low fatalities (road accident rates) and low congestion (traffic intensity) are proxies for well-functioning systems (Servei Català de Trànsit, 2024[55]). Results of the EuroRAP studies underly road infrastructure expansion decisions, such as the 2+1 project1 (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2021[56]) and the highway AP7 expansion. While potentially necessary in certain areas, the expansion of roads increases the attractiveness of private vehicles and widens the attractiveness gap between private and sustainable modes.
Initiatives to reduce road safety could be better aligned with the 2003 law if the goal of inverting the attractiveness gap was shared across the administrations (e.g. DoT, SCT, ATMs) (see Section 5.3 in Chapter 5). While the objective of road safety would remain unchanged, a shared goal based on the relative attractiveness of modes could expand the SCT’s policy package and lead to responses to road safety that are aligned with the modal shifts required to achieve the vision in the Mobility Law.2 For example, high congestion or a high rate of fatalities may become opportunities to subtract space from vehicle use and reallocate it to public transport and active modes. Such goal could also strengthen opportunities for collaboration and synergies between the SCT and the Department of Territory.3 The 2024-6 Road Safety Plan already reflects the intention to incorporate public transport and the reduction of private vehicles as a means to improve road safety and sustainability outcomes. The suggested shared goal could lead to the reprioritisation of actions and resources in line with this objective and the roadmap presented in Chapter 5 of this report.
Note: 1 The 2+1 project aims to enhance road safety by implementing sections of roads with three lanes, where the middle lane alternates direction to allow safe overtaking, significantly reducing head-on collisions. 2 Evidence suggests that systems in which active modes and lower speeds are encouraged are safer than car-centric systems (Marshall and Ferenchak, 2019[57]; Yannis and Michelaraki, 2024[58]) and that public transport improvements can significantly reduce road fatalities (Litman, 2014[59]; APTA, 2016[60]). See Box 3.1 in Chapter 3 for more information. Box 4.1 in Chapter 4 provides information on the correlation between road safety and vehicle size. 3 Catalonia could also build on the Safe System framework, applied in several territories to achieve zero road fatalities. The Safe System framework places the responsibility to prevent road accidents with all stakeholders who design, construct, operate and use roads and vehicles, and focuses on building redundancy in the system’s design via a combination of actions. See (Aarts, 2023[61]; ITF, 2022[62]) for more.
The lack of human and financial resources for policy design and implementation, mainly at the local and ATM levels, was a recurring topic in interviews.16 Stakeholder interviews and research by the OECD team as part of this project also revealed an absence of the type of harmonised data needed to inform modelling exercises and policy decisions for achieving the law’s objectives and the climate goal. Stakeholders identified three challenges leading to redundancies, inefficiencies, and knowledge gaps when attempting to inform policy decisions: (1) the fragmentation of data collection and management; (2) a lack of a sharing culture; and (3) a lack of resources to collect up-to-date data.
While some data exist, their fragmentation across geographical areas and transport modes (mirroring governance fragmentation) reduces their quality and usability. Interviews revealed that each territory possesses data relevant to its jurisdiction but lacks comprehensive, interoperable data, which complicates comprehensive decision making. For example, municipalities have a good overview of local transport supply and demand, but lack information at the metropolitan level. The information collected at the metropolitan or ATM levels is only available for certain modes (e.g. walking, public transport). The Geographic Institute of Catalonia collects detailed data on public space, but their data do not allow for the identification of the space allocated to different transport modes because the data collection process has not been designed for this need.17
Stakeholders also referred to the lack of a data-sharing culture across administrations (and with academia) and a lack of human and financial resources for collecting, processing and deploying data for policy decision making and for sharing it with others. Interviewees also shared examples of stakeholders duplicating data purchases from private operators (e.g. the same origin-destination data being purchased more than once to cell phone companies) and referred to a multiplicity of modelling exercises across administrations, and a lack of co-ordination among them. For example, Barcelona ATM, AMB, Barcelona Metropolitan Transports (TMB), and the city of Barcelona all have their own transport models.
Travel surveys at the regional level, which provide valuable information on travel patterns and preferences, do not take place frequently or in a synchronised way. The latest synchronised mobility survey at the regional level dates back to 2006 (DoT, 2006[63]). While the Wider Barcelona Functional Area carries out travel surveys every year, the latest comprehensive travel survey in Terres de l’Ebre, and the Tarragona Functional Area dates back to 2019 (EMEF, 2023[64]; ATM Tarragona, 2020[65]). Travel surveys are on-going in Girona, and Pirineu and discussions on carrying out travel surveys are planned in Ponent.
References
[61] Aarts, L. (2023), European Road Safety Observatory: Road Safety Thematic Report – Safe System Approach, https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/b41a6def-25f2-41e0-a91a-6df965d20435_en?filename=Road_Safety_Thematic_Report_Safe_System_Approach_2023.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2024).
[52] Ackoff, R. (1997), “Systems, messes and interactive planning”, The Societal Engagement of Social Science, http://www.moderntimesworkplace.com/archives/ericsess/sessvol3/Ackoffp417.opd.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2024).
[20] Ajuntament de Barcelona (2022), Pla de Mobilitat Urbana 2024 [Urban Mobility Plan 2024], https://bcnroc.ajuntament.barcelona.cat/jspui/bitstream/11703/128157/1/Pla%20de%20Mobilitat%20Urbana_bcn_2024.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2024).
[51] AMB (2024), Accessibilitat al transport públic del SIMMB [Accessibility to Public Transport of SIMMB], https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/aa8342dc94004e31b98e14d5c01ca1ae (accessed on 29 October 2024).
[8] AMB (2023), Diagnosi - Pla Director Urbanístic Metropolità [Diagnosis - Metropolitan Urban Master Plan], https://smartcity.amb.cat/portal-pdu/diagnosi (accessed on 4 June 2024).
[13] AMB (2019), Mobilitat i infraestructures del transport Metròpolis Barcelona - Quaderns 15 [Mobility and transport infrastructures Metropolis Barcelona - Notebooks 15], AMB, https://urbanisme.amb.cat/divulgacio/publicacions/detall/-/publicacio/mobilitat-i-infraestructures-del-transport/9054094/6724201.
[17] AMB (2019), Urban Mobility Metropolitan Plan PMMU, https://medcities.org/documents/Institut+dEstudis+Regionals+i+Metropolitans+_+High+Level+Trainings+_+GO+SUMP.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[60] APTA (2016), “The Hidden Traffic Safety Solution: Public Transportation”, https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Resources/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Hidden-Traffic-Safety-Solution-Public-Transportation.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2024).
[14] ATM Barcelona (2023), Metropolitan Urban Master Plan - Metrópolis Barcelona, https://urbanisme.amb.cat/es/home (accessed on 26 June 2024).
[7] ATM Barcelona (2019), How we will move? The mobility master plan 2020-2025, https://doc.atm.cat/en/_dir_pdm2020-2025/Memoria_PDM_English.pdf.
[19] ATM Barcelona (2019), Pla director de mobilitat (pdM) 2020-2025 [Mobility master plan (pdM) 2020-2025], https://doc.atm.cat/ca/_dir_pdm2020-2025/DIAGNOSI_PRELIMINAR_pdM_2020-2025.pdf.
[65] ATM Tarragona (2020), Enquestes de mobilitat quotidiana (EMQ) 2020 [Daily Mobility Surveys 2020], https://www.atmcamptarragona.cat/enquesta-de-mobilitat-quotidiana-2020/ (accessed on 28 June 2024).
[46] Banister, D. (2008), “The sustainable mobility paradigm”, Transport Policy, Vol. 15/2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005.
[23] BCN Ecologia (2021), 20 Years of the Urban Ecology Agency of Barcelona, https://bcnroc.ajuntament.barcelona.cat/jspui/bitstream/11703/122999/3/BCNecologia_20%20years_ENG.pdf (accessed on 28 May 2024).
[53] Capra, F. and P. Luisi (2014), The Systems View of Life, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511895555.
[68] Catalonia Trade & Investment (2021), A look into the dynamic Catalan automotive industry, https://catalonia.com/w/report-a-look-into-the-dynamic-catalan-automotive-industry (accessed on 18 September 2024).
[48] Chapman, R. (2019), “Managing the Transition to a Climate-Neutral Economy in Cities and Regions”, OECD/EC, https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/Chapman-2019-Managing-Transition-Regions-Cities.pdf?_ga=2.16879098.23491596.1655119569-1067012004.1649249692 (accessed on 16 April 2024).
[22] DoT (2011), Catalan Transport Infrastructure Plan 2006-2026, https://territori.gencat.cat/ca/01_departament/05_plans/02_plans_sectorials/mobilitat/pla_dinfraestructures_del_transport_de_catalunya_2006-2026/ (accessed on 6 June 2023).
[63] DoT (2006), Enquestes de Mobilitat Quotidiana (EMQ) 2006 [Daily Mobility Surveys 2006], https://omc.cat/ca/w/enquestes-de-mobilitat-quotidiana-emq-.
[67] EIB (2023), The state of local infrastructure investment in Europe EIB Municipalities Survey 2022-2023, https://www.eib.org/en/publications/20230043-eib-municipalities-survey-2022 (accessed on 5 August 2024).
[64] EMEF (2023), Enquesta Mobilitat en Dia Feiner 2022 [Survey on Mobility on Weekdays 2022], https://www.institutmetropoli.cat/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/EMEF_2022_Informe_Resum_Executiu.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2024).
[41] Ferreira, A., E. Beukers and M. Te Brömmelstroet (2012), “Accessibility is gold, mobility is not: a proposal for the improvement of Dutch transport-related cost–benefit analysis”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, Vol. 39/4, https://doi.org/10.1068/b38073.
[16] Generalitat de Catalunya (2024), Informe de progrés del compliment dels objectius de reducció d’emissions de gasos amb efecte d’hivernacle [Progress report on compliance with the objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions], https://canviclimatic.gencat.cat/web/.content/01_EL_CANVI_CLIMATIC/inventaris_demissions/inventaris_demissions_a_catalunya/Informe-Progres-1990_2021_versio_2024-final.pdf.
[54] Generalitat de Catalunya (2024), Presentació. Servei Català de Trànsit [Presentation. Catalan Traffic Service], https://transit.gencat.cat/ca/el_servei/qui-som-que-fem/presentacio/ (accessed on 5 September 2024).
[5] Generalitat de Catalunya (2023), Estratègia catalana dels vianants [Catalan strategy for pedestrians], https://terra.bibliotecadigital.gencat.cat/bitstream/handle/20.500.13045/690/estrategia-catalana-vianants.pdf.
[37] Generalitat de Catalunya (2023), Prospectiva Energetica de Catalunya PROENCAT 2050 [Energy Outlook of Catalonia PROENCAT 2050], https://icaen.gencat.cat/web/.content/10_ICAEN/17_publicacions_informes/PROENCAT/20230512_Proencat-2050_web_Acc.pdf (accessed on 27 May 2024).
[6] Generalitat de Catalunya (2021), Pla de seguretat viària 2021-2023 [Road safety plan 2021-2023], https://transit.gencat.cat/web/.content/documents/seguretat_viaria/PSV/PSV-2021-2023-cat.pdf.
[56] Generalitat de Catalunya (2021), Pla d’implantació d’actuacions viàries de 2+1 a la xarxa de carreteres de la Generalitat de Catalunya [Implementation plan for 2+1 road actions on the road network of the Generalitat de Catalunya], https://terra.bibliotecadigital.gencat.cat/handle/20.500.13045/345#page=1 (accessed on 12 September 2024).
[4] Generalitat de Catalunya (2019), Estratègia catalana de la bicicleta 2025: unim forces per una Catalunya pedalable i pedalada [Catalan strategy for the bicycle 2025: join forces for a cycling-friendly Catalonia], https://territori.gencat.cat/ca/03_infraestructures_i_mobilitat/bicicleta/ecb2025/index.html#googtrans%28ca%7Ces%29 (accessed on 1 March 2024).
[21] Generalitat de Catalunya (2017), Catalonia Passenger Transport Plan 2020, https://territori.gencat.cat/ca/01_departament/05_plans/02_plans_sectorials/mobilitat/pla_transport_viatgers_catalunya_2020/index.html#googtrans(ca|en) (accessed on 6 June 2023).
[18] Generalitat de Catalunya (2016), Energy and Climate Change Plan of Catalonia 2012-2020, https://icaen.gencat.cat/es/plans_programes/pecac/index.html (accessed on 6 June 2023).
[24] Generalitat de Catalunya (2015), Action plan for the improvement of air quality, horizon 2020, https://mediambient.gencat.cat/es/05_ambits_dactuacio/atmosfera/qualitat_de_laire/qualitat-de-laire-a-la-conurbacio-de-barcelona/pla_millora_qua_aire_2011_2015/index.html (accessed on 6 June 2023).
[15] Generalitat de Catalunya (2014), Strategic Road Safety Plan for Catalonia 2014-2020, https://transit.gencat.cat/web/.content/documents/seguretat_viaria/PESV/pesv_2014_2020_ang.pdf (accessed on 4 June 2024).
[2] Generalitat de Catalunya (2006), DECRET 344/2006, de 19 de setembre, de regulació dels estudis d’avaluació de la mobilitat generada. [DECREE 344/2006, of September 19, regulating studies to evaluate the mobility generated.], https://portaljuridic.gencat.cat/ca/document-del-pjur/?documentId=462370 (accessed on 24 August 2024).
[3] Generalitat de Catalunya (2006), Directrius nacionals de mobilitat de Catalunya [Catalonia’s national mobility guidelines], Departament de Politítica Territorial i Obres Públiques,, https://participa.gencat.cat/uploads/decidim/attachment/file/628/directrius_nacionals_mobilitat_tcm32-36328.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2023).
[1] Generalitat de Catalunya (2003), Mobility Law - LLEI 9/2003, de 13 de juny, de la mobilitat., https://portaljuridic.gencat.cat/ca/document-del-pjur/?documentId=324587 (accessed on 12 June 2023).
[12] Generalitat de Catalunya (Forthcoming), Directrius Nacionals de Mobilitat de Catalunya [Catalonia’s National Mobility Guidelines].
[11] Generalitat de Catalunya (Forthcoming), Integrated Plan for Energy and Climate (PINECCAT 2030) - Technical Document, https://icaen.gencat.cat/ca/participacio/pla-integrat-denergia-i-clima-de-catalunya-2030-pineccat30/index.html.
[10] Generalitat de Catalunya (Forthcoming), RISCAT 2030 as a Mission-oriented Innovation Policy.
[9] Generalitat de Catalunya, E. (2022), “RIS3CAT 2030 Strategy for the Smart Specialisation of Catalonia 2030”, https://fonseuropeus.gencat.cat/web/.content/ris3cat/documents/angles/ris3cat-2030-en.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2023).
[25] Gobierno de España (2024), Integrated National Energy and Climate Plan (PNIEC), https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/211d83b7-b6d9-4bb8-b084-4a3bfb4cad3e_en?filename=ES%20-%20FINAL%20UPDATED%20NECP%202021-2030%20%28English%29.pdf (accessed on 27 September 2024).
[31] Goodwin, P. (2021), Beyond Predict and Provide, https://www.itf-oecd.org/beyond-%E2%80%98predict-and-provide%E2%80%99 (accessed on 30 May 2024).
[44] Goodwin, P. (1996), “Empirical evidence on induced traffic”, Transportation, Vol. 23/1, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00166218.
[32] Goulden, M., T. Ryley and R. Dingwall (2014), “Beyond ‘predict and provide’: UK transport, the growth paradigm and climate change”, Transport Policy, Vol. 32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.01.006.
[39] Handy, S. (2024), “Reflections on the Role of Researchers in Shaping the Ideas that Shape Transportation”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231222861.
[45] Hansen, M. and Y. Huang (1997), “Road supply and traffic in California urban areas”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 31/3, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(96)00019-5.
[66] IPCC (2014), Transport. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/transport/ (accessed on 21 June 2022).
[36] ITF (2024), Towards the Light: Effective light Mobility Policies in Cities, https://doi.org/10.1787/24108871 (accessed on 15 May 2024).
[62] ITF (2022), The Safe System Approach in Action, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[49] ITF (2021), ITF Transport Outlook 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/16826a30-en.
[69] ITF (2021), Public Transport Governance in Greater Barcelona, https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/public-transport-governance-greater-barcelona.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2024).
[30] ITF (2021), Travel Transitions How Transport Planners and Policy Makers Can Respond to Shifting Mobility Trends, https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/travel-transitions-shifting-mobility-trends.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2024).
[40] ITF (2019), Improving Transport Planning and Investment Through the Use of Accessibility Indicators, https://www.itf-oecd.org/transport-planning-investment-accessibility-indicators (accessed on 3 June 2024).
[34] Kampman, B., H. van Essen and W. Braat (2011), Impact analysis for market uptake scenarios and policy implications. Impacts of Electric Vehicles - Deliverable 5, Ecologic Institute/ICF/CE Delft, https://www.ecologic.eu/13731 (accessed on 11 September 2024).
[42] Levine, J., J. Grengs and L. Merlin (2019), From Mobility to Accessibility: Transforming Urban Transportation and Land-Use Planning, Cornell University Press, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctvfc52mj (accessed on 3 June 2024).
[59] Litman, T. (2014), “A New Transit Safety Narrative”, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 17/4, https://doi.org/10.5038/2375-0901.17.4.7.
[47] Litman, T. (2013), “The new transportation planning paradigm”, ITE Journal (Institute of Transportation Engineers), Vol. 83/6, https://trid.trb.org/View/1256859.
[57] Marshall, W. and N. Ferenchak (2019), “Why cities with high bicycling rates are safer for all road users”, Journal of Transport & Health, Vol. 13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2019.03.004.
[29] OECD (2022), Redesigning Ireland’s Transport for Net Zero: Towards Systems that Work for People and the Planet, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b798a4c1-en.
[38] OECD (2021), Transport Strategies for Net-Zero Systems by Design, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0a20f779-en.
[35] OECD (2020), OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/959d5ba0-en.
[33] Orsi, F. (2021), “On the sustainability of electric vehicles: What about their impacts on land use?”, Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 66, p. 102680, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102680.
[27] Saltmarshe, E. (2018), Using Story to Change Systems, https://ssir.org/articles/entry/using_story_to_change_systems (accessed on 19 March 2021).
[55] Servei Català de Trànsit (2024), EuroRAP: European Road Assessment Programme, https://transit.gencat.cat/ca/seguretat_viaria/projectes_europeus/projecte-eurorap/ (accessed on 12 September 2024).
[50] Stiglitz, J., J. Fitoussi and M. Durand (2018), Beyond GDP: Measuring What Counts for Economic and Social Performance, https://www.oecd.org/publications/beyond-gdp-9789264307292-en.htm (accessed on 28 February 2024).
[26] Systems Innovation Network (2021), Reflexive Thinking Canvas, https://www.systemsinnovation.io/post/reflexive-thinking-canvas (accessed on 25 March 2021).
[28] Systems Innovation Network (2021), “Systems Awareness: A Guide for Systems Innovators”, https://media2-production.mightynetworks.com/asset/d8f5dc9b-994e-4cab-93d6-b068b22b7f35/Systems_Thinking_Overview_Guide.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2024).
[43] Transportation for America (2020), The Congestion Con: How more lanes and more money equals more traffic, https://smartgrowthamerica.org/resources/the-congestion-con-how-more-lanes-and-more-money-equals-more-traffic/#:~:text=This%20report%20examines%20why%20our,a%20counterintuitive%20but%20well%2Ddocumented (accessed on 4 June 2024).
[58] Yannis, G. and E. Michelaraki (2024), “Review of City-Wide 30 km/h Speed Limit Benefits in Europe”, Sustainability, Vol. 16/11, p. 4382, https://doi.org/10.3390/su16114382.
← 1. The Metropolitan Barcelona Area (AMB) is a public institution composed of representatives from the Municipality of Barcelona and 36 adjacent municipalities. Legally considered as a local government by the Barcelona Metropolitan Area Law, the AMB operates between the local and the provincial levels. See (ITF, 2021[69]) for further information.
← 2. Catalonia has four Mobility Territorial Authorities (ATMs): ATM Àrea de Girona, ATM Camp de Tarragona, ATM Àrea de Lleida, and ATM Barcelona. ATMs are provincial public consortia in charge of planning, overseeing public transport fare integration, developing Mobility Master Plans (PDMs) at their territorial level, and supporting municipalities to develop local Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) and Generated Mobility Evaluations (EAMGs).
← 3. Although not directly related to the 2003 law, the RIS3-MCAT has conducted a mapping of research and investment projects funded by the EU for sustainable mobility. See Annex K.
← 4. The PNIEC includes transport-related actions, estimated energy savings and public funds allocated to each action. Public funds are allocated as follows: i) 4 million EUR to zero-emission zones and investments in public transport; ii) 4.7 million EUR to actions promoting modal shifts towards rail freight transport; iii) 76.7 million EUR for vehicle fleets’ efficiency improvements and traffic management enhancement; and iv) 114 million EUR for the promotion of electric vehicles (Gobierno de España, 2024[25]).
← 5. In 2021, the automobile industry employed 38 845 people (Catalonia Trade & Investment, 2021[68]), accounting for approximately 0.5% of the population in the region.
← 6. The document also mentioned a “fierce fight between the different transport modes”, and a lack of will on the part of the administration to engage in a societal debate to ensure the internalisation of transport costs (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2006[3]).
← 7. The view that public transport services could only be improved with major investment in railways was widespread amongst the stakeholders interviewed. Interviews revealed a “priority hierarchy” between investments in “hard” infrastructure – such as railways and tram lines – and “softer” investments, such as improving bus lines, with hard infrastructure tending to be favoured. While many of the stakeholders interviewed identified the improvement of bus services as an effective means to trigger modal shifts towards public transport, they referred to a mindset focused on “big infrastructure” as one of the reasons why buses currently do not receive more attention in the region.
← 8. Several stakeholders considered that road space reallocation would displace traffic, rather than reduce it, and thus relocate problems from one street to another. See Chapter 4 for more on the effect of road space reallocation on traffic reduction.
← 9. Mindsets refer to the unquestioned ideas or assumptions through which humans understand the world.
← 10. This section focuses on those mindsets identified as not conducive to system transformation. It does not provide a comprehensive overview of the ideas shared by the stakeholders interviewed.
← 11. Rebound effects measure the degree to which a reduction in costs of driving translates into more kilometres driven than would otherwise have been the case (IPCC, 2014[66]), offsetting some of the environmental benefits of the technological improvement. For example, Orsi (2021[33]) estimates that cost advantages of EVs would see an increase in a household’s mileage of up to 18%.
← 12. EV scenarios for Europe conclude that “funding, subsidies and non-financial incentives for EVs can create a rebound effect, where total passenger transport increases compared to the status quo”. The authors find that this rebound effect can increase congestion, GHG emissions and energy consumption (Kampman, van Essen and Braat, 2011[34]).
← 13. Mindsets affect system design, and the system design, in turn, reinforces the underlying mindsets having shaped them. In car-centric systems, cars are – by design – the most convenient, and sometimes the only, transport option. In these systems, the idea that “car use increases as income rises” holds true: when people can afford it, they choose the most convenient option.
← 14. As explained by the stakeholders interviewed, urban planning regulations for economic development need to find a balance between the region’s economic attractiveness and the minimisation of impacts from generated transport demand from a new development, with the first often having a higher weight.
← 15. The ICAEN scenario focuses on the decarbonisation of the energy sector. The mobility sector is included in the model to estimate future energy demand.
← 16. A shortage of resources at local and sub-regional levels is a recurrent issue across EU territories (EIB, 2023[67]).
← 17. According to stakeholders, this is partly due to a disconnect between the Geographic institute and the institutions closer to mobility “day-to-day policy needs”.