Max Report Template

Project acronym: EPOMM-PLUS Project title: Partners Learning Urban Sustainability

Mobility Management Monitors [Romania] 2009

Date of preparation: Sept.-Nov. 2009

Start date of project: 2. June 2009 Duration: 36 month

Version: 1 Prepared by: Magda Burlacu/ Lucian Ionescu Checked by: Verified by: Status: Dissemination level: Table of Contents

1 Basic information...... 5

1.1 Your contact information...... 5

1.2 General information on your country...... 5

1.3 Gouvernance infrastructure for transport and mobility in your country...... 5

2 Governance of Mobility management...... 5

2.1 Does the definition of MM as endorsed by EPOMM * reflect how MM is defined in your country? If not, what are major differences?...... 5 2.2 Short history of Mobility Management (20 lines max)...... 5

2.3 What are the major strategies for promoting and implementing MM at different governance levels in your country *?...... 5 2.4 Are there any policies or legislative measures that (indirectly) counteract the promotion of MM*?...... 5

3 Implementation of Mobility Managament...... 5

3.1 How advanced is your country in Mobility Management ?...... 5

3.2 How advanced is your country in the following fields of Mobility Management?...... 5

3.3 Are MM concerns integrated into other major policies/programmes in particular in investments in transport infrastructures, road pricing schemes, traffic management schemes*? (20 lines max)...... 5 3.4 How far is MM an objective or an outcome of the land use planning system*?...... 5

3.5 Are the European Structural Funds * used to fund MM measures in your country?...... 5

3.6 Which other European funding programmes are used in your country to fund MM? Who is using them *? 5

4 Trends and further developments...... 5

4.1 What is effective in you country in the field of MM? Why ?(15 lines max)...... 5

4.2 General outlook on the development of MM (15 lines max)...... 5

5 Knowledge infrastructure of MM...... 5

5.1 List networks, organisation and associations active in MM *...... 5

5.2 Key MM experts and policymakers *...... 5

5.3 Key websites...... 5

5.4 Key documents...... 5

6 Next steps for the Mobility Management Monitors...... 5

6.1 Suggestions on the use of MMMs for further dissemination *...... 5

6.2 Improvement of this template for next years *...... 5

of 14 1 Basic information

1.1 Your contact information

- Name: Magdalena Burlacu, Lucian Ionescu - Organisation: REC Romania - Tel: +40 21 316 73 44 - Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

1.2 General information on your country

- Area: 237.500Km.2 - Population (2008): 21.530.0001 - GDP per capita: 12.285 $ - Motorisation (cars/1 000 inhabitants, bikes/1 000 inhabitants *) : 136 cars/1 000 inhabitants (2006), increasing significantly from 110/ cars 1.000 inhabitants in 2002 - Road fatalities: in 2008 a total number of 10472 severe car accidents have been recorded with a total number of 2999 victimes, which translates in the average 139 fatalities per million inhabitants - Modal split *

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total number of 2345,3 2448,9 2505,3 2435,3 2530,4 2641,8 passengers (Millions) Urban transport 2032,9 2131,9 2172,9 2110,6 2200,0 2300,0 (car, bus, trolley and tram) Inter-city and 312,0 317,0 332,0 325,0 330,0 342,0 international travel out of which Rail 94,8 99,4 92,4 94,4 92,0 95,0 Cars and buses 216,3 216,5 238,0 228,0 235,0 243,0 Inner waterways 0,174 0,214 0,218 0,189 0,3 0,35

Air 1,17 1,33 1,75 2,1 3,1 3,4

As such, the modal split at national level for 2008 was as following: 87.06% local/ urban transport ((bus, trolley and tram), 9.19% cars and coaches for inter-city travel, rail with 3.59% and only 0.12% airfair.

Looking at the recent year dynamics of mileage passenger units, it can be noticed that road transports is the main driver for the increase of volume of passengers’transport, in comparison with the rail transport which entered into a modest decline in the last 5 years.

1 Source: estimated figure for 31. Dec 2007 provided in a press release of National Institute of Statistics

of 14 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total number of 33283 34095 36803 36877 38920 40169 passengers (Millions passengers x km) Urban transport 13523 14386 14890 14419 14040 14720 (car, bus, trolley and tram) Inter-city and 19760 19709 21913 22458 24075 25449 international travel out of which Rail 8529 8639 7985 8092 7900 8200 Cars and buses 9455 9438 11811 11735 12150 12630 Inner waterways 16 19 24 13 25 29

Air 1760 1613 2093 2618 4000 4590 - The rapid increase of car ownership in Bucharest and most large cities of Romania resulted in personal cars gaining more weight in relation to public transport. The case of Ploiesti, one large industrial city north of Bucharest is illustrated below.

1.0 Modal Share City Profile – 2007

PLOIESTI Source: Master plan for transport in Ploiesti

Walking 36.6 %

Bus / Trolley Bus 27.4 %

Car 20.0 %

Tram 7.3 %

Non public bus and taxi 4.9 %

Motorcycle 0.1 %

Taxi 1.7 %

Train 1.2 %

Cycling 0.9 %

In the national and local statistics there are no data available on percentage of Car – Single occupancy vehicle.

1.3 Gouvernance infrastructure for transport and mobility in your country

Most important institutional roles in the Romanian transport sector are defined by a number of national laws, in the following two areas: a) Planning and management of transport infrastructure; b) Traffic management

of 14 c) Organization/ licensing of public transport operators Some of the respective roles/ institutions are detailed in the table below, with the important distinction/ notes pertaining to the regional and local levels. The local level of public administration can be further divided in Counties or “Judetz” which are corresponding to NUTS 3 level in EU and the actual Municipalities/ City Council. The “Regional” level in Romania corresponds to each of the 8 Development Regions, which are the equivalent of NUTS 2 level in EU – these regions have only recently been enacted (since 1998) only for the purpose of management of EU funds, but they don’t have administrative capacities and power in many other respects.

Policy making * Policy delivery * Financing *

National The Ministry of Transport and MTI has a two-fold status: a state The MTI is a primary credit release Infrastructure is the established authority and a sectoral body, the authority in relation to the state body of central public administration later function actually refers to policy budget and is overseeing the financial delivery in the filed of transport. This which develops the national policies management of projects funded under function is carried out either directly or concerning transport. through one of the 54 subordinated SOP Transport. bodies. The two chambers of Romanian Secondly, another important actor in Parliament are involved in the the funding of transport infrastructure elaboration and adoption of laws for The Management Authority within MTI and mobility is the Ministry of Regional the Transport sector (e.g Law no 92/ is the main responsible body for Development and Tourism which identification and approval of 2007 on Public Transport Services), hosts the Management Authority of investment projects under SOP but the MTI is the originator of Transport. Regional Operational Program. numerous Governmental Decrees, Within ROP there are two strategic Ministerial Orders which regulates funding areas (called Priority Axis) of many specific aspects in the field. relevance for the MMM. Under Axis 1 funds are allocated for One key national policy for the Supporting sustainable Urban purpose of this assesment is the development, which gives priority to Sustainable Transport Strategy for reabiliation of urban infrastructure and the periods 2007-2013, and to 2020, improvement of urban services, 2030, which has been enacted by including transport and mobility, Ministerial Order 508/ 2008. equipment for communicating to the citizens useful information (interactive Within the MTI, a Management digital displays, etc), traffic Authority for Sectoral Operational management system. Program for Transport has been Under Priority Axis 2, funds are established. The SOP Transport allocated for enhancement of local represents the strategic planning and regional transport infrastructure. framework that defines the priorities and objectives for the development As concerns taxation of car usage, it of the sector for the 2007-2013 takes several forms in Romania: period, and main directions for - monthly/ annual tax for allocating the 5.7 Billion Euro drivind on national roads, funding from ERDF and CF. based the rovignette system - the proportional taxation Secondly, an important role of policy including in the price of fuels maker is played by Ministry of - first vehicle registration tax Environment and Forest who is in charge with the implementation of The revenues generated under the National Strategy and Action Plan first two tax mechanisms are on Climate Change, including also a ultimately allocated through Ministry chapter/ priority action towards of Transport for national road controling the GHG emissions from reabilitation and maintenance, transport. whereas the last one generates revenues for the Environmental Fund

of 14 The Ministry of Environment is the Administration - AFM. The AFM main player in the policy pertaining operates under the Ministry of taxation of firstly registered vehicles Environment and provides subsidies in the country. having both positive and negative effects towards MM goals: - small grants for municipalities to establish new cycling paths; - vouchers for aqcuisition of new cars based on the adequate dismantling of old ones.

The Regional Development Agencies Regional are playing the Role of Intermediary Bodies in the implementation of Regional Operational Program, being involved with project selection and supervision of implementation.

Local The main responsibilities of According to Law 92/2007concerning, Municipalities are responsible with Mayoralities and City Councils of local public transport, personel and securing funding for investment, relevance refers to: freight public transport are maintenance and operation of public - elaboration of Master Plans for organised by local authorities. transport services within cities, respective cities; actually such whereas bus-lines between cities are master plans have been only Within most County Councils in leased out to private companies. recently elaborated with Technical Romania, there are County Transport Assistance funded by EBRD or Authorities organized. Their role is to ERDF and only for a limited ensure the organization, coordination number of large cities – Ploiesti, and control of services delivery for Brasov, etc. public transport. - general land use planning that have an impact on the licensing of transport infrastructure

of 14 2 Governance of Mobility management

2.1 Does the definition of MM as endorsed by EPOMM * reflect how MM is defined in your country? If not, what are major differences?

“Management of mobility” has not yet been absorbed as a technical and official term in Romanian. Despite the fact that some of its constituting elements – chiefly encouragement of public transport versus personal cars and usage of bycicle have been already promoted in the initiatives of public authorities and NGOs campaign, the concept is still brand new and relatively difficult to understand, due to its soft-measures focus.

The terminology related to MM has been used as such only in EU-wide projects which involved different Romanian local authorities as partners.

2.2 Short history of Mobility Management (20 lines max)

Following the collapse of Romanian Comunist regime, the embracing of free market philosophy and consequent increase in car ownership was paralleled by the quasi-total lack of long-term planning for the transport sector. Decades after the totalitarian leader Ceausescu Nicolae introduced some illogical regulations to limit personal cars traffic (for a certain Sundays only cars with even registration plate numbers were allowed to drive on the streets, after which only the uneven numbers gained the respective right), any measure to reduce car traffic received a negative feed-back from the public opinion. Soon after 2000, however when the growing numbers of cars exceeded the limited circulation and parking capacity in most large cities, such measures began to make sense again. Especialy the lack of parking space has been a disincentive factor limiting usage of personal cars for short travels within large cities, but most decision makers (Mayors and City Council members) refuse to consider it as a tool for changing the last years patterns of urban mobility. Instead, they are looking to attract funding for building multi-level, under ground parking stations. In addition, in many cities public transport has been granted to wide category of users, considered on a social protection basis – elder people, students.

The manifold negative effects generated by last years (2002-2008) pattern of urban traffic are given high priority in the political and public debates (for example the ill-maintained roads and traffic jams were main issues approached by candidates to the Mayorality of most cities in Romania), but MM is not usual regarded as a possible solution.

Only in Bucharest and few other large cities fares covering all public lines in an integrated and cost-effective manner have been introduced, with an uncertain effect of encouraging public transport against personal car. Few Western shops (Carefour, Ikea, etc) have introduced their own minibuses lines to enable consumers to reach more remote locations, but these lines did not gain public appreciation. Cycling has seen growing recognition in Bucharest, especially since 2006, after environmentalist attitudes were embraced by celebrities and politicians, which were also interested for adequate promotion in the media. Several byking associations/ NGOs have been established in the 1990s, but they had a limited impact on the public policy agenda at local and national level.

of 14 2.3 What are the major strategies for promoting and implementing MM at different governance levels in your country *?

Policies * Action programmes * Legislative measures Promotion & (incl. taxes)* awareness* National ROP, chiefly Axis 1 Adaptation of a limited N/ A N/A Supporting number of trains/ sustainable urban coaches to enable development. boarding of bykes.

Environmental Fund has financed in 2007- 2008 several projects for construction of new bike routes.

Regional N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A Local Transport Master N/ A Campaigns for Car plans being restricted days and developed for few zones. large Municipalities, which hopefully could NGOs awareness integrate MM campaigns to stimulate public transport and biking/ healthy lifestyle.

2.4 Are there any policies or legislative measures that (indirectly) counteract the promotion of MM*?

As mentioned above, the use of Environmental Fund for sponsoring in part the purchase of new cars despite its positive impact on waste management (implementation of End of Life Vehicles Directive in Romania) may have a long term negative impact on MM.

of 14 3 Implementation of Mobility Managament

3.1 How advanced is your country in Mobility Management ?

Please tick the right box

Level 0 Totally nothing happens in the field of MM Level 1 The first initiatives are being started x Level 2 Some successes, but MM is quite unfamiliar Level 3 MM is obtaining a solid position and structural funding

3.2 How advanced is your country in the following fields of Mobility Management?

Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Mobility centres X Intermodal & multimodal mobility X MM in companies (mobility X consultancy, travel plans) MM in public administrations X MM in schools X MM for events & in tourism X Awareness campaigns X Carsharing & Carpooling X MM and land use planning X

Please provide an example of best practice from three different fields among the above mentioned in which public authorities have a specific role: (15 lines max) If there are external evaluation reports of these best practice examples, please provide us with the reports

1 Field: Is this example already available in the ELTIS/EPOMM format ? (Y) Intermodal&multimodal mobility

Parking in the Historical Centre of Sibiu, Romania The increase in the number of vehicles that pass through and park in the Historical Centre of Sibiu has compelled the Municipality of Sibiu to elaborate a traffic study that would lead to the fluidization of the traffic. The basic idea of the new parking management concept is to restrict parking within the Historical Centre.

The Municipality of Sibiu was compelled to elaborate at the end of 2003 a traffic study in cooperation with GTZ, the Romanian-German Society for Technical Cooperation “Improvement of the Traffic situation in Sibiu”, focusing on several problems, one of which was parking management. As a result, the restriction of parking within the Historical Centre was considered and visitors were consequently requested to park at the boundaries of Historical Centre. Thus, the Historical Centre has been subdivided into different parking zones based on the idea that the closer one wants to park to the centre, the more expensive it will be and the shorter the amount of time that one is allowed to stay.

2 Field: Awareness Is this example already available in the ELTIS/EPOMM format ? (Y)

of 14 campaigns “In my town wthout my car”: Brasov

On the 22nd of September 2006, for the first time in Brasov, ABMEE (Agency for the Management of Energy and Environmental Protection Brasov) together with the Brasov Municipality and the Environmental Protection Agency of Brasov organised the “In town, without my car!” campaign. The main objective of the campaign was to stimulate the use of public transport and to promote alternative transport in urban communities. The campaign aimed to raise awareness and introduce new concepts to local public authorities and citizens on the impact that daily activities and traffic have on the environment. Main actions of the event : - contests - information dissemination - concert and skate park - survey of the citizens - air quality measurement

3 Field: Is this example already available in the ELTIS/EPOMM format ? (N)

Velo map of Bucharest

Two NGOs prepared a comprehensive map of Bucharest including major points of interest for cycling, such as: shops, bycicle lanes, parking spaces, organizations, vulcanization centers, renting places, usefull recommendations, etc. The map is constantly up-dated in Ro and En available at: www.hartavelo.ro and www. velomap.ro. The map is a central element of the program “Biking to work/biking to school/ biking to shop”, which aim is to encourage the utilization of the bike in all daily activities, as solution to losing time, money, energy, space, patience and freedom provoked by the traffic. The next step of the NGOs will be to find financing to print the Map and distribute it freely to interested users.

3.3 Are MM concerns integrated into other major policies/programmes in particular in investments in transport infrastructures , road pricing schemes, traffic management schemes*? (20 lines max)

At a general definitinory level, MM elements – improvement of public transport services, inter-modal facilities, establishment of new bking routes have been incorporated in the design of ROP – Priority Axis 1, e.g in the applicants guidelines. However, such indications are not sufficient factors for promoting MM and help integrating the concept with other local development priorities.

3.4 How far is MM an objective or an outcome of the land use planning system*? MM is not sufficiently considered as either an objectives or an outcome of land use planning at local level, partially because lack of attention given to soft measures in a period where priority is given to absorbtion of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds towards investments in infrastructure rehabilitation and partially because of the increased supply-oriented thinking (larger roads, more parking spaces) in solving current car congestion problems.

of 14 3.5 Are the European Structural Funds * used to fund MM measures in your country?

Besides already mentioned ROP, there are a number of MM international projects funded from European Structural Funds, having Romanian partners.

Funding Project Title Romanian Partner INTERREG IV C PIMMS TRANSFER (Partner Initiatives for County Council of Timisoarea the development of Mobility Management Services & TRansferring Actions iN Sustainable mobility For European Regions) SouthEast Europe ERDF Mobility Management Scheme Municipality of Iasi

3.6 Which other European funding programmes are used in your country to fund MM? Who is using them *?

National Authorities Regional Local Authorities NGOs Authorities CIVITAS x IEE x x LIFE + INTERREG x Other: (please x specify) FP 7, Romanian Flanders cooperation Program

of 14 4 Trends and further developments

4.1 What is effective in your country in the field of MM? Why ? (15 lines max)

Since MM is only at an infant stage in Romania, it is premature to assess the effectiveness of relevant measures.

4.2 General outlook on the development of MM (15 lines max)

In general, political leaders and high-ranked officials are still reluctant to take clear position in favor of limiting personal car traffic and usage, partially because the recent political –cultural legacy of restrictions imposed during communism. Moreover, they are interested for solutions that could solve on the short-term the urban traffic congestions. Preference is given to hard-measures versus soft-measures, for which possibilities to achieve results based on changed behaviour are not trusted.

However, there are a number of opportunities to continue the media/ public interest for different MM elements, by means of different Awareness raising campaigns organized for example within European Mobility Week (such small campaigns were organized in Bucharest. Ploiesti, Iasi, Suceava, etc. , in 2009 and focused on promoting cycling as a alternative transport mode in urban areas). Also it is important that more Romanian actors (especially local authorities, public transport operators, NGOs) are involved in European partnership projects (eg CIVITAS, IEE)

of 14 5 Knowledge infrastructure of MM

5.1 List networks, organisation and associations active in MM *

Intelligent Transport Systems Romania (ITS Romania) it is an apolitical, patrimonial, non-governmental and not-profit organization, which aim is to encourage, promote, support, co-ordinate, implement and integrate Intelligent Transport Systems in Romania

SMART Environmental Fund- proiect Mobilitatea Urbana- ASOCIAŢIA CENTRUL DE DEZVOLTARE – SMART, Galati

TERRA Mileniul III, e-mail: [email protected], telefon 021 3121227

5.2 Key MM experts and policymakers *

Mr. Radu Popescu, General Manager of RATP Ploiesti (the Local Public Transport Company of Ploiesti Municipality) E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected];

Mr. Dan Dura, Suceava Municipality, Civitas Site Manager E-mail: [email protected];

Ms. Doina Anastase, URTP, National Focal Point – LINK E-mail: [email protected]

5.3 Key websites

www.urtp.ro http://www.hartavelo.ro/index.php?lang=_en# http://www.velorutia.ro/

5.4 Key documents

of 14 6 Next steps for the Mobility Management Monitors

6.1 Suggestions on the use of MMMs for further dissemination *

6.2 Improvement of this template for next years *