sustainability

Article Sustainable Urban Mobility in Poznan and -Actual State and Development Perspectives

Joanna Ole´sków-Szłapka 1,* , Irena Pawłyszyn 1 and Joanna Przybylska 2

1 Institute of Logistics, Department of Engineering Management, Poznan University of Technology, 60965 Poznan, ; [email protected] 2 Institute of Finance, Department of Public Finance, Poznan University of Economics and Business, 61875 Poznan, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]

 Received: 31 May 2020; Accepted: 7 August 2020; Published: 12 August 2020 

Abstract: The main goal of this paper is to present and analyze approaches for sustainable urban mobility in Poznan and Oslo. The topic of sustainable urban transport as well as green mobility is currently important from formal perspectives, due to European regulations, and because of ecological conditions and resulting climate changes. The research methodology implemented includes analysis of the literature on the research subject; analysis of EU documents and national policies with respect to financing and development of sustainable urban transport (SUT); development of a questionnaire on SUT in Oslo and Poznan, using the questionnaire to collect opinions on SUTs in Oslo and Poznan, and analyzing respondents’ answers, defining recommendations concerning future activities for urban sustainability in the surveyed cities. The authors provide a review of the actual sustainable urban mobility situations in Oslo and Poznan, compare government support and sources of funding, identify gaps in terms of EU requirements, and try to compare the residents’ expectations with the city’s activities in the field of sustainable transport development. The research group includes students residing in both cities. The group constitutes 10–20% of the total number of inhabitants in cities being the subject of research. The empirical part investigates what their preferences are regarding the use of in the context of sustainable development. On the basis of the conducted research, it can be stated that a sustainable urban mobility is one of the key development directions in Poland and . The respondents see opportunities for developing green mobility in their cities as well as municipalities and the national government encouraging a sustainable urban transport. The implementation of the principles of sustainable development and reconstruction of city development strategy can be achieved by the cooperation of all stakeholders (namely: national government, municipalities, public transport providers, city residents).

Keywords: sustainable transport; urban transportation; green mobility; sustainability

1. Introduction Industrialization impacts on the quality of human life and damages the natural environment. There is growing recognition of environmental sustainability issues in the literature. Industrialization increases human vulnerabilities and results in an increasing demand for waste utilization, renewable energy resources, water infrastructure development, decreasing greenhouse gases emissions, recycling and waste management, provision of health and safety, access to education, reducing inequalities and child labor, and improving quality of life of the community. Governing interfirm relationships for social sustainability is the relationship between governance mechanisms, sustainable collaboration, and cultural intelligence [1].

Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510; doi:10.3390/su12166510 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 2 of 37

Making existing cities and new urban development more ecological and livable is an urgent priority in the global push for sustainability. The challenges of sustainable development are already recognizable—lack of affordable housing, pressure on reducing resources use, gridlocked urban transport systems, air pollution, lack of access to clean water, and others. Ensuring sustainable development is a multilateral process, when, on the one hand, the sustainability of the city directly depends on the sustainability of socioeconomic systems of a higher level (region, state), and on the other hand, the sustainability of the city depends on the stability of all components of the socioeconomic system of the city (business entities, non-governmental institutions, numerous associations of various forms of ownership and organizational form). Today, experts emphasize that the city is a central factor in the social and economic development of mankind, the center of social life and the national economy, and the custodian of culture, heritage, and traditions. Cities play a key role in the processes of population change, production and consumption patterns, spatial structure of settlement, and location of production. The city is responsible for the environmental problems of mankind and the destruction of natural capital. At the same time, the city level is the smallest scale in which a constructive integrated holistic solution to these problems is possible [2]. The development of sustainable mobility systems is, thus, not limited to reducing transport-related negative externalities, as it is also aligned with the larger goal of supporting human and economic development [3–5]. Metropolitan cities and regions depend on good internal mobility. Establishing efficient, environmentally friendly transport systems is a key issue for the future development of European metropolitan regions. Financing public transport is probably the most crucial factor in increasing its attractiveness and use. Developing policy for financing public transport in metropolitan regions requires it to be comprehensive and consistent with city strategy approach [6]. The mobility of goods and people is one of the essential elements of urban development, characterizing urban space and how it functions. As the world population continues to concentrate in cities, the negative impacts associated with transporting people and goods are being exacerbated. Substantial efforts are still required to increase satisfaction with public transport across Europe [7]. In the hereby paper, two European cities have been selected as research objects—Poznan (Poland) and Oslo (Norway). The subject of the research is the analysis of aspects related to sustainable urban mobility in the given cities from three perspectives: strategic plans and perspectives, financial support and investments, and the actual situation based on survey analysis. The main purpose of this work is to present and analyze actions taken for a sustainable urban mobility in Poznan and Oslo. The authors believe that the implementation of the set goal will allow the drawing of conclusions about the current situation in both cities, as well as provide tips on further directions of actions in the field of urban mobility and sustainable urban transport. Research among students, a selected group of people using public transport, is also an added value. Identifying the level of satisfaction of buyers with municipal public transport services and learning about the barriers will enable a better adjustment of the offering of these services to the expectations of buyers. This approach is a reference to the issues raised by Awan, Khattak, Rabbani, and Dhir, who described buyer-driven knowledge transfer activities in manufacturing firms [8]. Moreover, the effective implementation of solutions favoring sustainable development requires the involvement of both—buyers and suppliers [9]. The paper’s structure reflects the research process presented in the Methods section. To comprehensively present research results, the paper is organized as follows: The second section introduces the methodology implemented, presenting the methods and research tools used in the predesigned sequence. The third contains a literature review related to topics discussed in the article. The fourth section provides a framework of urban policy, sources of financing for urban transport as well as plans and prospects for sustainable development in Poznan and Oslo. Section five presents the results, including a validation procedure. The last two sections contain the discussion on the research results and authors’ conclusions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 3 of 37

2. Methods The European Commission strongly recommends that European towns and cities of all sizes should embrace its concept of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans. The urban population is rapidly increasing and this is accompanied by rises in air pollution, traffic congestion, and vehicle fleet. Due to the inevitability and intractability of such effects, much scholarly attention has been directed towards identifying the influencing factors behind urban transport. Having noticed the dynamic increase in sustainable perception of urban transport represented by a growing number of research and publications on the subject and identifying the EU priorities that require moving towards cities with sustainable and more environmentally friendly transport, the authors came with the following research questions:

1. What are key priorities and sources of financing for the development of sustainable urban transport? 2. What are the students’ preferences regarding the use of public transport in the context of sustainable development?

To answer these questions, the authors decided to structure the methodology into the following stages:

(a) Literature analysis on the research subject; (b) Analysis of EU documents and national policies with respect to financing for the development of sustainable transport and key priorities in Poland and Norway; (c) Development of a questionnaire on sustainable urban transport in Oslo and Poznan; (d) Collecting and analyzing respondents’ answers; (e) Defining recommendation concerning future sustainable urban activities in the surveyed cities.

The first stage of the work was the review of the literature and documentation referring to sustainable urban transport, sustainable city transport, and green mobility as well as European Union regulations in terms of sustainable urban mobility plans. The next stage of the research was a survey among inhabitants of Poznan and Oslo targeted to students, as this is the group that often uses public transport in both cities. The survey was conducted by a CAWI (Computer-Assisted Web Interview—website assisted) method. The questionnaire developed by the authors consisted of 64 questions (In this article, the authors will present selected questions from the survey and discuss the results obtained.). The main section comprised questions on means of transportation, available public transport options in a given city, and assessment of time, cost, and distance of public transport. The other sections were dedicated to particular means of transportation such as urban bikes, public transport (/ etc.), carsharing, electric kick scooters, small urban buses, urban scooters, and other means of transportation. Most of the answers available use a Likert scale—a five-point scale used to measure respondents’ agreement with a variety of statements by means of unipolar scales. Hence, the authors provide a review of the actual sustainable urban mobility situation in Oslo and Poznan, compare government support and sources of funding, identify gaps in terms of EU requirements, and try to compare residents’ expectations with the city’s activities in the field of sustainable transport development based on the research group. Considering the current and planned actions taken by the authorities of European cities in the field of shaping the urban transport system, it seems particularly important to carry out research on the expectations of users of this system. In conducting urban transport policy, not only should the priorities and guidelines defined at the European and national level be taken into account, but also—and perhaps, above all—the preferences of city dwellers. This research topic seems to be crucial for the next decades. On the one hand, this subject has been raised for years by researchers and scientists; on the other hand, this subject requires constant changes due to the development of modern technologies. We are witnessing profound changes in the Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 4 of 37 way mobility is evolving, enforced by progresses in Information and Communication Technologies, Big Data, technological advancements in transport, and new concepts of operation of transport systems.

3. Literature Review The term “sustainable development” was introduced in 1980 and was popularized in 1987 in the Brundtland Report—a report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [10]. Another definition was suggested by Paul Hawken: “The word sustainability can be defined in terms of carrying capacity of the ecosystem, and described with input-output models of energy and resource consumption. Sustainability is an economic state where the demands placed on the environment by people and commerce can be met without reducing the capacity of the environment to provide for future generations. It can also be expressed in the simple terms of an economic golden rule for the restorative economy: Leave the world better than you found it, take no more than you need, try not to harm life or the environment, make amends if you do” [11]. Contemporary use of the term sustainability is broad and difficult to define precisely [12]. An extensive literature review can be found in Mensah’s paper [13]. The paper contributes to the discourse on sustainable development (SD) by clarifying further this concept and/or paradigm, and its implications for human thinking and actions in the quest for sustainable human development The four pillars of sustainability are cultural vibrancy, environmental responsibility, economic prosperity, and social justice. Unfortunately, limiting environmental resources results is limiting human, financial, and cultural capital [14]. As the concept of sustainability moves to the forefront of global culture, businesses and governments alike are striving to incorporate economic, environmental, and social considerations into their decision making. Depending on how developed a country is, sustainable land development can take form in a variety of ways. Without sustainable development, it is becoming a widely accepted fact that natural resources will be irreversibly depleted, leading to the planet’s failure to sustain life [15]. Hák, Janoušková, and Moldan [16] have argued that transforming global society, environment, and economy to a sustainable one is one of the most difficult tasks confronting man today, since it is to be done within the context of the planet’s carrying capacity. Based on the foregoing, contemporary theories of sustainability seek to prioritize and integrate social, environmental, and economic models in addressing human challenges in a manner that will continually be beneficial to humans [17,18]. Therefore, it can be stated that a sustainable development aims at achieving social progress, environmental equilibrium, and economic growth [19,20]. It is argued that the sustainable development goals entail complementarities or synergies as well as trade-offs or tensions which have implications for global and national contexts. Sustainable transport is one of the very important aspects of sustainable development. Almost one in three European cities will see their population increase by more than 10% in the next 30 years. This is likely to result in more traffic and greater use of underground and rail services, the capacity of which could reach its limits [21]. There are many definitions of sustainable transport and of the related terms sustainable transportation and sustainable mobility [22]. Mobility can be seen as a complex socio-technical system [23] that stays at the intersection between infrastructural design and human behavior. Mobility is first an engineering challenge related to urban infrastructure improvement [24]. Complex infrastructures providing transport and communications have indeed been classified under the so-called ‘engineering systems’ [25]. Mobility is a key aspect of sustainable urban development. Sustainable urban mobility is constantly challenged by urban dynamics that influence mobility (changes in transportation infrastructure, means of transport, mobility needs, density of people and activities, etc.). Sustainable urban mobility is defined Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 5 of 37 as “sustainable movement of people and goods within an urban geography”, where sustainability “contributes to cities being able to function in a way that minimises air and noise pollution, contributes toward targets to reduce CO2 emissions, promotes economic development of the city, enables good levels of mobility for people and goods, and is affordable to users and taxpayers” [26]. Urban mobility of the future faces many changes that are taking place: new vehicles, changes in vehicle ownership and use models; mobile technologies that equip and empower individuals, etc. [27]. The sustainable mobility approach requires actions to reduce the need to travel (less trips), to encourage modal shift, to reduce trip lengths, and to encourage greater efficiency in the transport system [28]. Although it is debatable, even some authors think that some European cities have shown that it is possible to decouple urban traffic growth from economic growth [29]. Several research areas can provide theoretical, methodological, and applied insight into the development of sustainable mobility. In the last ten years, the mobility problem has been analyzed from different perspectives relating to policy and vision [3–5], conceptual frameworks [28,30–32], social change and learning [33,34], and socio-technical experimentation [35,36]. At the UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) in 1992, national governments endorsed Agenda 21, which states that various sectors of human activity should develop in a sustainable manner. Sustainable transportation is the expression of sustainable development within the transportation sector (sustainable mobility is a synonym used by the European Commission) [37]. The conference entitled Towards Sustainable Transportation was held in Vancouver during the period 24–27 March 1996. It was organized in response to the concerns of governments that transportation poses severe challenges for sustainable development. The United Nation Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) were introduced in September 2015 to describe a distinctive management approach of managing global challenges in multiple spheres of human and natural capital for sustainable development globally [38]. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the United Nations General Assembly’s current harmonized set of seventeen future international development targets. The Official Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted on 25 September 2015 has 92 paragraphs, with the main paragraph (51) outlining the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and its associated 169 targets. Among these goals are: Infrastructure—Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation; Habitation—Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable; Climate—Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts, ensuring that both mitigation and adaptation strategies are in place [39]. As Awan noted, the aim of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals focuses on achieving a common future for all [40]. Traffic is one of the major development problems of any major city of the developing world and a major contributor to . The growth of transport activity raises concerns for its environmental sustainability. In 2017, 27% of total EU-28 greenhouse gas emissions came from the transport sector (22% if international aviation and maritime emissions are excluded). CO2 emissions from transport increased by 2.2% compared with 2016 [41]. The trends of urban development are exogenous trends that have exacerbated the challenges of the urban freight system. To respond to these challenges, urban logistics providers have devoted efforts to finding appropriate endogenous solutions to promote sustainability, effectiveness, and security [42]. According to Sustainable Urbanization Strategy [43], the lack of an integrated and efficient public transport system meanwhile, severely hampers mobility and accessibility to social and economic activities (particularly for those unable to afford private ), while also increasing pollution, traffic hazards, and costs to deliver public services. Recently, in the most developed economies of the European Union, a clear increase in the number of trips by means of public transport has been observed, which is a consequence of continued deterioration of road traffic conditions despite investing huge amounts of money in road infrastructure. Insufficient capacity of , streets, and intersections in particular, relative to very big traffic flows, downgrades the quality of travel and causes more and more congestions on an increasing portion of Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 6 of 37 road networks, not only at rush hours [44]. Moreover, it results in increased expenses on infrastructure maintenance [45]. In 2007, the Commission presented the Green Paper “Towards a New Culture for Urban Mobility” [46]. This Green Paper marked the starting point for a broad consultation with all relevant stakeholders on possible EU action. The consultation confirmed the added value of EU-level intervention in a number of urban transport-related areas. As a consequence, the European Commission published in 2009 an Action Plan on Urban Mobility [47] with 20 concrete EU-level actions to be implemented by 2012. Subsequently, several initiatives were announced on urban transport in the 2011 Transport White Paper “Towards a single European Transport Area”[48]. The main source of EU funding for urban mobility is the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF), at 16.3 billion EUR in 2014–2020. In addition, the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) for transport has provided over 200 million EUR to a number of larger EU cities [49]. Urban mobility studies have been conducted in Brazilian cities [50], in the Boston area [19], in Asiatic countries [51], and in European cities [52–55]. Several cities do not have yet clear visions of what their mobility systems will look like in the future and clear strategies for getting there, with an exception of some cities/countries that already have prepared long-term strategies for transport planning [55]. The acceleration of technology evolution is changing urban mobility at a much faster pace than we have seen in previous decades, leading to an increasingly uncertain future [55]. According to Guidelines on SUMP [56], the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan should be developed based on the following phases: phase 1—preparation and analysis; phase 2—strategy development; phase 3—measure planning; phase 4—implementation and monitoring. The first version of these Guidelines for Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning was published in late 2013. Many cities in Europe and around the world have developed SUMPs, while numerous European Union-funded projects and programs have contributed valuable knowledge that has helped cities to develop this new generation of mobility plans. SUMP defines “A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan is a strategic plan designed to satisfy the mobility needs of people and businesses in cities and their surroundings for a better quality of life. It builds on existing planning practices and takes due consideration of integration, participation, and evaluation principles” [56]. Nowadays, we must remember that the development of transport is not only a sustainable trend but also the implementation of intelligent solutions. In the era of the fourth industrial revolution (i.e., Industry 4.0), innovation is transforming manufacturing plants, logistics processes, and also transportation systems and networks. Deloitte predicts that by 2040, up to 80 percent of urban passenger miles could be in shared autonomous vehicles [57]. The World Economic Forum (WEF) recently released a community paper, Transforming Infrastructure: Frameworks for Bringing the Fourth Industrial Revolution to Infrastructure that outlined how transport leaders could reinvent their industry [58]. Technology touches every aspect of a smart city and integrates all stakeholders. An intelligent transportation monitoring system uses big data analytics to determine traffic patterns and ensure smooth flow of traffic by adjusting traffic lights and signals. Sustained multi-stakeholder partnership is crucial for advancing the technological transformation of infrastructure, ensuring that the fourth industrial revolution’s benefits in life are as ubiquitous as the infrastructure people use every day [58]. Satisfying mobility for both people and goods is essential for the vitality of cities, and a proper functioning transport system is vital for a good life in each city. A large number of scientific articles and other studies prove that the subject of sustainable transport is an extremely current and constantly developing subject. It is undoubtedly a topic that should be explored from different perspectives, such as urban and government plans as well as residents’ expectations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 7 of 37

4. State of Research

4.1. Urban Policy—Strategic Documents in Poland and Norway European cities are increasingly contributing to the development of a more sustainable urban system. This system is able to cope with ecological challenges as well as social inequalities in various national countries and regions throughout Europe. According to United Nations forecasts, 83% of the European population (nearly 557 million) are expected to live in cities by 2050 [59]. This change will bring a new set of challenges for city authorities, namely: how to provide the urban population with sufficient water, energy, and waste services, as well as how to manage transport infrastructure sustainably. For successful urban mobility, all transport modes have to be considered equally. The development of sustainable transport in cities is part of the so-called urban policy. In the next part of this section, the most important urban transport strategic documents in Poland and Norway will be discussed. In Poland, there are three main documents: the Strategy for Responsible Development until 2020 (with a perspective to 2030) (SRD) [60], the National Strategy for Regional Development 2030 (NSRD) [61], and the National Urban Policy (NUP) [62]. These documents set out the main lines of action and define the main challenges that face cities. On the other hand, a national strategic document related to transport issues is the Strategy for Sustainable Development of Transport until 2030 [63]. One of the areas described in the Strategy for Responsible Development is transport. According to this document, the number of passenger cars in Poland is persistently growing (more than a twofold increase since 2000). An unfavorable factor is the fact that the average age of cars used in Poland is higher than the EU average, causing a negative impact on the natural environment. It is influenced by the progressing suburbanization of large urban centers, where transport problems are one of the development barriers. They also restrict the range of labor markets and possibility to meet the urban labor market needs by rural residents. It should be noted that this situation is partly due to the suboptimal functioning of public transport systems in cities and their insufficient accessibility for residents (mainly urban-rural and rural areas). The situation presented above is caused, among others, by the lack of integrated spatial and functional public transport on offer in cities, low use of the so-called Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) (Intelligent Transport Systems—systems using information and communication technologies in the field of , including infrastructure, vehicles and its users, as well as in the areas of traffic management and mobility management or for interfaces with other types of transport), insufficiently developed infrastructure, and a lack of modern, low-emission rolling stock. In addition to the noticeable dysfunctions in the transport system, rolling stock is worn out and significantly increases emissions in cities. Moreover, existing public transport systems do not sufficiently address the demographic challenges of an aging society and variable preferences of older people—abandoning the use of passenger cars for public transport. Attention is drawn to the fact that and their integration with urban public transport systems are of particular importance for improving public transport in cities. According to the provisions of the SRD, integrated public transport systems are to be developed in cities using low emission means of transport, especially rail vehicles and electric buses. Eco-mobility chains are also to be created to improve cycling and walking conditions. Cities shall be better connected with functional areas, whereas individual transport will be limited, especially in city centers. The above activities are also part of the European Union’s transport policy, as set out in the White Paper of the European Commission [64]. The authors want to highlight selected goals from this policy:

(1) Ensuring growth in the transport sector and supporting mobility while achieving the 60% reduction target; (2) Creating an effective network of multimodal travel and transport between cities; (3) Development of clean urban transport and commuting opportunities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 8 of 37

The directions of actions specified in the National Strategy for Regional Development 2030 (NSRD) [61] are consistent with the SRD provisions. Strategic goals regarding urban transport are included in challenge 5—“Development of infrastructure increasing competitiveness, investment attractiveness and living conditions in regions”. The document notes that existing public transport systems do not encourage the abandonment of passenger cars and do not sufficiently reflect the demographic needs of peripheral areas (low population density and an aging population). The most common problem is the lack of integrated spatial and functional public transport services, including a pricing policy encouraging changing of urban transport habits. In many cities, the scarcity of convenient connections as well as the shortfall of modern, low-emission rolling stock is still noticeable. Therefore, the strategic directions of urban transport development are the expansion and integration of traffic management systems and passenger information systems, the gradual replacement of the rolling stock used to provide public transport services with ecological, low-emission, and adapted for the elderly and people with disabilities, as well as creating conditions for the development of mobility using drives and alternative fuels, including electromobility and low-emission collective transport [61]. The National Urban Policy 2023 (NUP) is a tool dedicated to the implementation of strategic goals for cities. Its strategic goal is to strengthen the ability of cities and urban functional areas as well as to create sustainable development, jobs, and improve inhabitants’ quality of life. The document defines ten main areas, among which transport and urban mobility can be found [62]. In accordance with the provisions of this document, the goal of the local government’s activities should be to achieve a sustainable mobility in the functional area of the city, i.e., traveling in such an amount and of such a length as results from satisfying the life needs of travelers traveling rationally using individual urban transport subsystems. The rational use of subsystems means that such choices are made by travelers that do not cause undue time losses and excessive costs in the overall balance. Attention is drawn to the fact that efforts to change commuting behavior should be a key priority. The objective is to reverse the trend of increasing dependence on daily use of a passenger car. In the case of coordination of whole activities affecting the residents’ lifestyle changes, it is possible to achieve the aforementioned goal. These activities should build and offer alternative transport options which assist in changing urban mobility. One of such methods is so-called speed zoning using engineering and organizational solutions. City councils should definitely switch to a new approach in this area and solutions based on slowing down car traffic, preferring bicycle traffic, and encouraging walking. The NUP also notes that investments in the public transport system should be prioritized. However, due to the fact that the implementation of investments in the area of public transport generates future expenditures on system performance, in this context, the basis of investment decisions on a reliable economic calculation is of particular importance. The public transport activities comprise, among others: solutions for privileged transport (e.g., lanes, separate bus routes, priorities for traffic at intersections, etc.), preparation and organization of operational interchanges, providing convenient access routes to stops and stations, rational location of park and ride or bike and ride points, construction of bike infrastructure, i.e., elements significantly broadening the impact of public transport, as well as launching comprehensive and interactive passenger information. At the same time, actions should be taken to encourage residents to use public transport by connecting it with the main public spaces and services in the city. The crucial component of city transport development is the creation and evolution of innovative traffic management and monitoring systems—ITS—where the possibility of using cheaper solutions (e.g., bus lanes, priority for public transport, limiting the transit function for cars) cannot be applied. ITS should support the change of mobility through the development of dynamic passenger information, facilitating the use of public transport, especially in the event of disturbances. The wide availability of mobile communication systems will also allow current traffic information, parking spaces availability, optimal transport connections, etc. The aforementioned solutions will increase the efficiency of the communication system and improve traveling conditions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 9 of 37

According to the provisions of NUP, an extremely important element of an urban transport policy must be the planning and conducting of comprehensive actions in order to change a mobility model towards green and sustainable mobility. Actions taken at all levels of central and local government must be aimed at reducing the role of a passenger car in favor of other modes of transport. The demand for alternative transport means can be carried out through mobility management tools for planning, coordinating, organizing, and controlling the movement of people within the framework of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans prepared by the European Commission and prepared by the city authorities. The main method to achieve the above goal is to ensure an efficient service of urban areas by the public transport system, which reduces the need to use a passenger car or even limits the sense of having it. Legal, technical, and organizational activities, reinforced by economic factors included in the system determining the amount of fees, ticket tariffs, and tax solutions implemented consistently and comprehensively will contribute to better commuting behavior of inhabitants. The introduction of solutions promoting public transport should be supported by actions, leading to the perception of the bicycle as an independent means of transport. It should be implemented by creating an urban bicycle infrastructure ensuring 100% availability of bicycles by potential sources and destinations. Public bike systems should be developed and integrated in parallel with other transport modes, followed by a public car system (e.g., with electric drive). This last solution, as well as others, known from Western European countries, operating on the principle of car sharing, can become a real mechanism for limiting the use of the car by residents only to the situation when it is actually necessary. These solutions should be developed by local governments and where direct public action is not justified, at least widely promoted, and supported. The last of the strategic documents that should be mentioned in the context of sustainable urban is the Strategy for Sustainable Transport Development until 2030 (2019). The main goal of the national transport policy presented in the strategy is to increase the country’s transport accessibility and to improve the safety of traffic participants and the efficiency of the transport sector. From the point of view of the subject of this article, attention should be paid to the following actions:

(1) Change in individual and collective mobility (promotion of collective transport); (2) Improvement in the safety of traffic participants; (3) Reduction in the negative environmental impact of the transport.

It is worth noting that the implemented urban transport activities are in line with the European Union’s priorities in the field of urban transport, i.e., urban mobility plans, the use of public transport on a wider scale, the promotion of alternative forms of urban movement [46,65]. In Norway, at the national and local level, we can distinguish a few documents, strategies, and plans, managing directions of investments and changes implemented in the scope of urban transport. Furthermore, the authors present the most important of them. The 2018 White Paper on Rural and Regional Policy [66] is the latest regional policy framework in Norway, in which comprehensive plans for land use, housing, and transportation have been proposed for the whole Oslo area. In Norway, in 1998, the government directed four transport agencies to prepare a joint proposal for the first long-term national transport plan. The official steering documents comprise: National Transport Plan, Action Programme, Annual National Budget, Appropriation, Projects. The current government has made transportation one of its main priorities. A key objective is to implement the highly ambitious National Transportation Plan 2018–2029 [67] and to develop a transportation system emphasizing value creation, safety enhancement, and development of a low-carbon society. The National Transport Plan is published by the Ministry of Transport and Communications, but the main actors in preparation are the state transport agencies and the state-owned company—. The National Transport Plan is submitted to the (the Parliament) in the form of a White Paper every four years. The National Transport Plan 2018–2029 was presented to the public and submitted to the Storting in April 2017. This is the fifth plan under the current planning Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 10 of 37 system. NTP point out that in the largest urban areas, public transport must be strengthened to the extent necessary to ensure that the growth of passenger transport in urban areas can be absorbed by public transport, cycling, and walking [67]. The Climate Agreement means that passenger growth in large cities will be absorbed by public transport, cycling, and walking. To follow up this objective, a new way of organizing transport policy in Oslo’s urban areas is already introduced and furthermore, will be developed. The new urban environment agreements entail a more comprehensive approach in urban policy, whereby the government, county authorities, and municipalities unite in negotiations and undertake to pursue joint objectives enshrined in the urban environment agreement. Such mutual urban environment agreements are a new way of organizing the collaboration between central and local authorities. The urban environment agreements will include targets and measures for increasing public transport use, cycling, and walking, and measures to reduce the use of cars and land to support environmentally friendly transport. In the long term, this will enable most people to use public transport for city travel [68]. In Norway, the report “One year closer 2019. Norway’s progress towards the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development” was elaborated. It comprises 17 goals and some issues connected with urban transport are covered by Goal 9—Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and foster innovation and Goal 11—make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Ensuring sustainable urban development while accommodating population growth in the future will be challenging. The government is working continuously to develop more efficient and effective frameworks and tools, in partnership with cities and local government authorities. Sustainable, inclusive, livable, and attractive cities and other urban areas are important priorities for the Norwegian Government. The goal for major urban areas is zero growth in climate gas emissions. To achieve this “zero growth goal”, growth in passenger traffic should be achieved by public transport, cycling, and walking. Four urban areas have committed to the goal by signing urban growth agreements. The agreements between municipalities, counties, and the state include a reward scheme for public transport. The government will begin negotiations for five more urban areas. The purpose of these agreements is to focus on transport and land use as means to reduce car emissions and congestion. Norway supports the global BreatheLife campaign, which mobilizes communities around the world to take action to reduce air pollution and limit climate change [69]. According to OECD Economic Surveys, Norway will need to substantially reduce transport-related greenhouse gas emissions to achieve targets. Norway has long been encouraging zero-emission vehicles. In addition to further development of public transport, innovative new approaches to transport should be considered. One option is massed ride sharing, in which most individual private car rides are replaced by rides in shared taxis or shared minibuses and facilitated by digital platforms. Furthermore, ride sharing intensifies car use, which means the comparatively high purchase prices of electric vehicles is more strongly offset by the gains from low marginal running cost [70]. Policy actions to achieve massed ride sharing could include support for digital platforms, adaptations to metropolitan infrastructure, for example, access routes for shared rides to rail stations, alongside demand-side measures to encourage and/or enforce shared rides to replace individual car rides [71]. Oslo strategies for achieving zero-growth or reduction comprise among others: improving conditions for walking and bicycling and improving public transport services. In Oslo, sustainable modes become relatively more competitive than the private car (faster, more comfortable, etc.) It can be observed in the city improved accessibility by bike and foot. The Transport 2025 programme [72] addresses a major societal challenge, and is part of the Research Council’s follow up of the objectives set out in the Strategy for the Research Council of Norway 2015–2020: Research for Innovation and Sustainability; the Research Council of Norway’s Strategy for Sustainability, 2017–2020: Research for Sustainable Societal and Industrial Development; Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 11 of 37 the Strategy for the Research Council of Norway for an innovative business sector, 2016–2020; and the Research Council’s strategy for innovation in the public sector, 2018. Among challenges of above program is urbanization and urban and regional development. According to the Transport 2025 programme, the design and implementation of transport policy instruments is currently divided between the central, county, and municipal levels which are jointly responsible for developing adequate mobility solutions. There is a great need for new knowledge, new innovations, and new working methods that provide more integrated urban mobility solutions [72]. “Nordic Sustainable Cities” is one of six flagship projects within Nordic Solutions to Global Challenges, an initiative launched by the Nordic prime ministers. Nordic Sustainable Cities directly links to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11: Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. The project “Attractive towns: Green redevelopment and competitiveness in Nordic urban regions. Towns that provide a good life for all” was launched in 2017. The overall goal of this project is to find ways to create attractive and sustainable towns. One of the spatial dimension strategies is developing of a sustainable mobility system. It assumes that promoting slow traffic conditions and car sharing can be ways to develop a more sustainable urban mobility system without reducing accessibility for certain areas, social groups, or demographical changes (i.e., aging population) [73]. According to The Norwegian Government’s strategy for cooperation with the EU 2018–2021, the government will seek to ensure that the transport sector makes its share of emission reductions, so that they can fulfil our obligations under the Paris Agreement and Norway’s 2030 climate commitment. Norway would like to see more stringent European emission requirements for cars, vans, and heavy vehicles, as this would encourage the development of more energy-efficient vehicles, increased use of new technology, and greater emission reductions in the transport sector [74].

4.2. Sources of Funding for Urban Transport in Poland and Norway—The Actual State The sources of financing investments in the field of sustainable transport development in cities are funds from the European Union budget and national public funds. In the 2014–2020 programming period, urban transport is supported from the national level by the Infrastructure and Environment Operational Program and the Eastern Poland Operational Program, as well as from the regional level by the Regional Operational Programs. The decision regarding the allocation of significant funds for the development of transport in cities resulted from the previous diagnosis. Despite the existing public transport support, the main problems are likewise a congestion of urban infrastructure with individual road traffic and an insufficiently developed public transport system. The increasing congestion of streets with individual traffic leads to an increase in the cost of transporting goods and people, and the progressive degradation of urban road infrastructure. Moreover, it negatively affects environmental status, health of inhabitants, and comfort of living in cities. Therefore, a necessary condition to improve the quality of urban space and reduce traffic nuisances will be to reduce automotive congestion in cities by creating an attractive alternative to individual car communication. In the Operational Program Infrastructure and Environment 2014–2020 (OPI&E-pl. POIiS) [75], actions for sustainable mobility were included, among others, under objective 4—Supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy in all sectors. These activities are complementary to driving traffic out of cities (construction of bypasses or exit routes). Combining these types of interventions has the chance to bring the effect of improving the quality of urban space and reviving city centers. Implementation of transport investments will be accompanied by activities to increase safety, including ITS implementation, retrofitting of rescue and traffic control services, and institutions involved in conducting campaigns and trainings on traffic safety. Under objective 4, some activities related to shaping mobility (including sustainable multimodal urban mobility) may also be supported. Investments contributing to the development of sustainable urban transport are part of the following priority axes of OPI&E: Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 12 of 37

Priority axis IV: Road infrastructure for cities; • Priority axis VI: Development of low-emission collective transport in cities. • Support under priority axis IV is, among others, envisaged for investments that will result in the removal of traffic from cities and improvement of road safety. The objective of priority axis VI is a greater use of low-carbon urban transport through the development and integration of public collective transport systems in cities. The purpose of priority axis VI is greater use of low-carbon urban transport through the development and integration of public collective transport systems in cities. It is assumed that the actions will reduce the congestion in cities, improve traffic flow, and reduce the negative impact of transport on the natural environment in cities and their functional areas. The support is granted for investments in the development of public transport, designed to increase its safety, quality, attractiveness, and comfort. The expected projects include aspects reducing/minimizing the impact of noise/vibration/air pollution and elements promoting sustainable development of the urban layout. In cities with rail transport (trams), the development herein of a branch of public transport is preferred, primarily through investments in rail infrastructure. Purchases of vehicles with alternative propulsion systems (electric, hybrid, biofuels, hydrogen, etc.) will be prioritized. The investments can be both infrastructural (construction, reconstruction, expansion of the network, interchange centers, and elements of road and street equipment with infrastructure serving public transport and passengers) as well as rolling stock. There are also projects with other elements complementary to the basic linear infrastructure, including ITS, improving the functioning of the entire transport system. Projects cannot cover repair works and maintenance of the infrastructure. The allocation of funds for 2014–2020 in the Operational Program Infrastructure and Environment in priorities IV and VI are presented in Table1.

Table 1. Allocation of funds in IV and VI priority axes of the Operational Program Infrastructure and Environment in the years 2014–2020 in EUR (ERDF—European Regional Development Fund, CF—Cohesion fund).

Priority Axis European Union National Contribution ERDF CF State Budget Local Government Units IV 2,842,766 0 312,697,366 193,316,692 VI 0 2,299,183,655 0 405,738,293 Source: [75].

The RPO envisages investments to improve safety and traffic capacity on regional roads, among other things, in cities. The implemented urban transport activities are in line with the EU priorities for urban transport, i.e., urban mobility plans, the use of public transport on a larger scale, promotion of alternative forms of urban mobility. The Eastern Poland Program is a separate financing instrument for investments in sustainable transport in cities. It is an additional financial support instrument for five voivodships of Eastern Poland: Lubelskie, Podlasie, Podkarpackie, Swi˛etokrzyskie,and´ Warmian-Masurian, which is a supplement and strengthening of activities carried out under regional and national programs for 2014–2020. Activities in the field of sustainable transport are envisaged under priority axis II—Modern transport infrastructure. Under priority axis II, investments in creating new or expanding existing ecological integrated urban transport networks and improving the transport systems of five voivodship cities, i.e., Białystok, Kielce, Lublin, Olsztyn, and Rzeszów, together with their functional areas or ITI implementation areas, can be implemented. In provincial cities, these activities are covered by the 4th thematic objective and Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 13 of 37 there are 506,012,230 EUR planned for their implementation, of which 430,110,395 EUR are from the EU budget and 75,751,835 EUR are from national funds from the state budget [76]. Meanwhile, in Norway, the most important source of funding is public support. Important funding solutions in the current Norwegian model include public transfers in the form of state and county grants, user fees, and government grant schemes such as the Ministry’s incentive scheme to improve public transport and reduce the use of cars in urban areas. In sum, these elements constitute a framework of formal and legal procedures for financing. The Transport programme provides funding for research, innovation, and pilot projects in the transport field. The total national framework for transport is NOK 933 bn, based on the information presented in the National Transport Plan 2018–2029 [66]. There is a strong increase in government funds for urban areas—in total, NOK 66.4 bn for the period covered by NTP. The government intends to allocate 66.4 billion NOK during the plan period to urban areas through urban environment agreements, urban growth agreements, and the reward scheme for public transport. The government also intends to allocate 24 billion NOK to measures for public transport, cycling, and walking. Furthermore, the government will set aside 17.2 billion NOK to the reward scheme for public transport and will allow for the use of funds to be spent entirely on the public transport operation. A significant part of the transport growth can be covered by cycling and walking if suitable conditions are put in place. An important aspect of this transport plan is to target efforts to increase the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists through urban environment agreements and urban growth agreements. In some urban areas, the building of cycle superhighways may be introduced. The Reward Scheme rewards urban areas that implement measurable steps to improve the competitiveness of public transport at the expense of private vehicle traffic. Increased cycling provides better traffic flow, a cleaner environment, and other social benefits, particularly in terms of better health. The government aims to increase the cycling share from the current 4 per cent to 8 per cent by the end of the plan period and will set aside NOK 8.2 billion (EUR 1 billion) for measures for cyclists and pedestrians. On May 15 2019, the report, Action Plan 2020–2023, was issued, specifying the amount of funds allocated to the development of various elements of urban transport [77].

4.3. Sustainable Development in Poznan and Oslo—Plans and Perspectives

4.3.1. Poznan City The Ministry of Infrastructure, based on the Sustainable Transport Development Strategy, promotes implementation in the cities of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP). SUMP is a local strategic document, which holistically responds to the problems and challenges of transportation in cities. Those plans are not obligatory, but many Polish cities adopted SUMPs. Many initiatives on the national level promote and support wider implementation of those plans. The Plan for Sustainable Development of Public Transport for the City of Poznan for 2014–2025 [78] was adopted in its original version in 2014, and then, it was updated in 2019. One of the main strategic goals of the transport policy of Poznan is the expansion/development of public transport. It is noted that the area of Poznan city is an integral part of the entire Poznan metropolitan area as well as the Poznan district. It is also pointed out that it is necessary to use and integrate various means of transport, such as metropolitan railways, suburban bus lines, urban bus lines, and tram lines. The vision of public collective transport is not only the development of infrastructure, but also a number of organizational, legal, and promotional activities shaping transport behavior of the inhabitants of the Poznan metropolitan area. Therefore, the integration of transport systems is a crucial. The passenger should not wonder whether to choose communal buses, marshal’s railways, or urban transport. The passenger should receive public collective transport as one system to ensure the best connections. It is, therefore, important to ensure that the passenger receives one coordinated timetable, one ticket, a common passenger information system, and even, where possible, the same marking of vehicles Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 14 of 37 or stops. Achieving such integration is a very difficult task. The best solution would be to create a joint unit of individual self-governments dealing with the organization and management of transport. Actually, this is impossible (transport associations can only create local government units of the same level), but legislative work is being conducted to create such a possibility. Another aspect raised in the document is the fact that no one should be excluded from the use of public transport. Transport must take into account the needs of the elderly and disabled people. Barriers to the use of transport must be removed, both in terms of access to the network and vehicles. Transport services should be relatively cheaper so that there is no risk of exclusion due to poverty. Undoubtedly, the biggest competition for public transport is road transport. Pursuant to the provisions of the strategy, from the point of view of collective transport interest, road transport activities should go in three directions:

1. Integration of road transport, with public transport occurring mainly through the construction of P + R parking lots. Such car parks should be located at the main entrances to Poznan and in the Poznan metropolitan area at major railway stations. Access from the P + R car park to the city center by public transport should be fast and reliable. 2. Restrictions for car transport. With the constant increase in motorization and the deterioration of access to public transport resulting from the suburbanization process, there is a need to protect some areas of the Poznan metropolitan area against the effects of excessive car traffic. Bans (entry, parking) can be used, as well as charging to discourage making car trips (as is the case with the Paid Parking Zone). Regardless of the form of the restriction, the area of their application should grow. 3. Investments in transport. The main purpose of these investments cannot be to improve car traffic. The main goal should be to improve public transport. In this light, the construction of beltways makes sense when we improve the movement of public transport vehicles in the area inside these beltways. All major road investments should include improvement solutions for public transport, e.g., bus lanes, locks, and priorities.

A bike system shall also be developed. Its growth does not limit to the development of public transport and, if properly integrated, may even foster it. Bike rental networks and the construction of R&D car parks will be important elements. The development of the bike route network does not prevent the development of the public transport network; what is more, it is possible in justified cases to use bus lanes for cycling. However, this should not take place over long distances and in places where it is possible to separate or build bike pathways. The generally presented vision of public urban transport is sustainable transport, allowing for the development of each branch, but taking into account the needs of others, environmentally friendly transport that reduces both gas and noise emissions, and prosocial transport, preventing the exclusion of the elderly, the disabled or the poor, transport accepted by residents of Poznan Metropolitan area, with which they identify and which they willingly use. In 2015, the so-called intelligent traffic management system was launched under the project “ITS Poznan System”. The project will cover the west of Poznan (OZ). It is recommended to further develop ITS Poznan throughout the entire area of the City of Poznan (in particular, the system of bus stop boards). In connection with the progressing development of mobile telephony enabling Internet access, the possibility of using these devices for broad information on the public transport offered (timetables, travel planning, interchange points) should be taken into account. Data showing directions of investment expenditures of Poznan city related to the development of sustainable transport in 2017–2020 are presented in Table2. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 15 of 37

Table 2. Investment expenditures of Poznan city related to the development of sustainable transport in 2017–2020.

Total Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 * 2017–2020 PLN PLN PLN PLN PLN Area % % % % % Million Million Million Million Million Tram routes—construction and 74.8 59.5 179.1 75.7 263.0 72.6 322.5 65.7 839.4 69.0 modernization Reconstruction of transport hubs 5.4 4.3 5.7 2.4 6.2 1.7 60.8 12.4 78.1 6.4 Bus infrastructure 1.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.1 Construction and modernization of 7.5 6.0 9.1 3.8 11.7 3.2 14.8 3.0 43.1 3.5 pavements Pedestrian–cycling paths 8.9 7.1 8.1 3.4 12.6 3.5 19.1 3.9 48.7 4.0 Construction of bike paths 8.3 6.6 15.9 6.7 33.9 9.4 35.4 7.2 93.5 7.7 The zone of limited parking 6.7 5.3 4.9 2.1 5.8 1.6 21.5 4.4 38.9 3.2 Construction of parking P&R 5.5 4.4 5.1 2.2 24.7 6.8 11.8 2.4 47.1 3.9 System supporting traffic management 1.9 1.5 2.9 1.2 2.1 0.6 2.8 0.6 9.7 0.8 System of public bikes 2.6 2.1 2.7 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.5 Public transport—others 2.7 2.1 3.2 1.4 2.3 0.6 2.5 0.5 10.7 0.9 Total 125.8 100.0 236.7 100.0 362.5 100.0 491.2 100.0 1216.2 100.0 * Planned expenditures. Source: Elaborated based on [79–82].

Investment outlay related to the implementation of the assumptions of sustainable urban transport in Poznan in the period 2017–2020 are showing the predominance of expenditure on the modernization and expansion of the tram network. In total, 839.4 million PLN was spent for this purpose in the entire analyzed period, which constituted almost 70% of the discussed group of expenses. Therefore, the city authorities focused on the development of urban transport, with particular emphasis on electrically powered tram lines. Investments in the development of the tram line network are accompanied by traffic restrictions in the city and related investments: reconstruction of transport hubs, construction of P&R car parks, and expansion of the limited parking zone in the city center. At the same time, the city’s network of pedestrian–bicycle paths and bicycle paths is being expanded—expenditure for these purposes in the period under analysis consumed almost 12% of all expenses discussed. In the years 2017–2019, 5.5 million PLN was allocated for the construction of a public bicycle system.

4.3.2. Oslo City The Ministry Oslo and its sustainable actions are worldwide recognized, and the city is listed on different rankings. The Mobility in Cities Database [83] highlights how Oslo is one of the global cities with the most promising changes in urban mobility patterns in the last 20 years. For instance, the number of trips made by public transport increased at a faster pace than the population in Oslo, and at a faster pace than in cities such as Vienna and Berlin, but at a slower pace than in Geneva and London. The ambition of Oslo is to become the leading sustainable city in the world. By following the Oslo Urban Ecology Programme (“The Bykologisk Programme”), Oslo eventually drives to a sustainable environmental city. The transportation plan is another more obvious and main focus in the general development plan. The developments achieved so far are transit, traffic tolls, and auto free zones. In 2019 and beyond, Oslo acts as an ambassador for sustainable urban development, sharing and promoting best practices that have been tried and tested in this Norwegian city to inspire others to make meaningful environment changes. A total of 56% of all public transport journeys are powered by renewably energy on zero-emissions trams, train, and , and public transport journeys have increased by 50% since 2007 [84]. Oslo’s ‘Climate Budget’, an initiative consisting of 15 separate measures across five sectors, includes energy/building, heating, transport, and congestion from other mobile resources and the Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 16 of 37 maritime sector. Oslo City Council aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the city by 50 percent by 2020, 95 percent by 2030, and to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. —the company that covers the —has set a clear standard for environment-friendly public transport in the future. Ruter has stated that all the modes of transport it operates, including buses, boats, minibuses, and taxis, will become entirely emission free by 2028. Following agreement with Oslo City Council and Oslo and County Council, Ruter is participating in a European Joint Hydrogen Vehicle Initiative, JIVE 2, which is part-funded by the EU research and innovation programme “Horizon 2020”. The project intends to promote the commercialization of fuel cell buses, and thus, speed up the timing for when this becomes a more cost-effective and reliable alternative. Ruter can replace the current fleet with a zero-emission fleet by 2027 [85]. With the managing by Ruter, Oslo has the most extensive public transport system. It includes the six-line , which runs underground through the city center and operates to the suburbs further away. In addition, there is the six-line Oslo Tramway, which operates the areas close to the city center and the Oslo , which runs the railways through the country. The bus network also covers the city and it consists of 32 city lines and regional buses to the neighboring county of Akershus. The purpose is to increase rapid communication and consist with environmental concern as well as social communication. The urban structure of public transportation routes run through, connecting the city center, city districts, and transport nodes. The direction to the structure leads to the urban development. The Norwegian Centre of Expertise (NCE) Maritime CleanTech is developing the high-speed, zero-emission Urban Water Shuttle. Entur company (Entur operates the national registry for all public , collecting data from 60 public transportation operators) works to increase the use of public transport in Norway, and runs a national registry containing data from all public transport operators in the country. These data are open and free for use by app and service developers. Entur also uses the data in a route planner for door-to-door journeys across Norway [86]. According to the report “Sustainable urban mobility and public transport situation in ECE capitals”, for cities having provided data, the longest network of bicycle lanes is in Oslo. The main network of cycle tracks is to make the bicycles the most used and attractive mode of transport. The track is created with green corridors to follow and also a quick and easy connection between the city center, local urban centers, and transport nodes [87]. With good planning processes, Oslo city center will become a more sustainable city center with less air and noise pollution, and it can become a city center by that will increasingly attract visitors and shoppers. The public grants for the operation of public transport in Oslo mainly go through Routes. In addition, the state purchases passenger traffic services from NSB in metropolitan region. Ruter’s task is to develop, plan, order, and market a public transport service as the biggest possible degree and helps to achieve the goals that the municipality of Oslo County Council has set within the financial framework made available. In 2016, public transport was supported 350 million. This is an increase of 16 million compared to the previous year and represents an increase of 4.9 per cent. The overall bases for the action program for 2017–2020 are Ruter’s long-term plans and strategies. Annual budget letters, organizational and financial frameworks, and decisions in the municipality of Oslo county municipality or the state are premises which are used in the work on the action program. This plan is Handlingsprogram 2020–2023. An annual new investment of NOK 2–4 billion provides increased reinvestment needs. It requires an escalation of the investment and reinvestment grants, such that by 2030/40, it is around NOK 2.5 billion a year for maintenance and reinvestment. Planned transport expenses from 2017 according to the Handlingsprogram 2017–2020 are presented in Table3. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 17 of 37

Table 3. Proposal for action program and priorities Oslo package 3, expenses in 2017–2020.

Total Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2017–2020 NOK NOK NOK NOK NOK Area % % % % % Million Million Million Million Million Signaling and security subway systems 44 3.3 410 16.3 706 34.5 842 38.0 2002 24.7 Large public transport project-Subway 569 42.9 1269 50.3 616 30.1 627 28.3 3081 38.0 and tram in Oslo Operations and smaller investments 426 32.2 426 16.9 426 20.8 494 22.3 1772 21.9 Upgrading of tram infrastructure in 40 3.0 40 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 80 1.0 Majorstuen Northern collective strand, upgrading 45 3.4 45 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 90 1.1 tram infrastructure Storgata, upgrading tram infrastructure 35 2.6 37 1.5 36 1.8 0 0.0 108 1.3 Grefsenveien including Storo junction, 21 1.6 135 5.4 37 1.8 26 1.2 219 2.7 upgrading tram infrastructure Other upgrading and renewal of the 146 11.0 158 6.2 224 11.0 224 10.2 752 9.3 tram infrastructure Total 1326 100.0 2520 100.0 2045 100.0 2213 100.0 8104 100.0 Source: Elaborated based on [88].

In Oslo, the main direction of development is investments aiming to enlarge and modernize the metro as well as to maintain adequate security for people using this mode of urban transport. Expenses for this purpose in the years 2017–2020 constitute almost 63% of all expenses in the given group. Over 15% are contributions related to the modernization and expansion of the tram network. Table4 refers to urban transport expenditures based on the Financial Planning Operational Program 2017–2021 and Table5—Revenue in Oslo Package 3 in the period 2020–23 in NOK millions. These tables present financial assumptions of Oslopakke 3 and Handlingsprogram.

Table 4. Financial Planning Operational Program in 2017–2020.

Total Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2017–2021 NOK NOK NOK NOK NOK NOK Area Million Million Million Million Million Million Traffic revenues 4171 4539 4657 4770 4838 22,975 Service sales Oslo—ordinary 1842 1961 2030 2101 2174 10,108 operation Other operating income 115 119 119 119 119 591 Traffic advertising 18 19 19 19 19 94 Oslo package 3 677 704 694 687 671 3433 Externally funded reports 25 0 0 0 0 25 The reward scheme 176 146 141 126 121 710 Funding Fossil-free 2020 and 0 0 60 55 7 108 hydrogen bus − Bus 2844 2955 3027 3055 2989 14,870 Tram 865 880 865 850 835 4295 Boat 203 208 208 208 208 1035 Ticket checks, tickets, 298 306 306 306 306 1522 commissions, and grants Means to achieve environmental 195 431 614 760 926 2926 and mobility goals Total 11,429 12,268 12,740 13,056 13,199 62,692 Source: Elaborated based on [88]. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 18 of 37

Table 5. Revenue in Oslo Package 3 in the period 2020–2023.

Total Year 2020 2021 2022 2023 2020–2023 Revenue NOK Million NOK Million NOK Million NOK Million NOK Million Tolls 4030 3891 3707 3501 15,129 State subsidy for collective and bike measures under the City 181 624 430 356 1591 Environment Agreement Urban Environment Agreement 768 1320 1341 1601 5030 50/50 projects 1 Reward Funds 280 280 280 280 1120 Ticket revenue/collective 164 164 164 164 656 contribution State highways 250 260 253 245 1008 Municipal funds Oslo 367 353 336 334 1390 Total 6040 6892 6511 6481 25,922 Source: Elaborated based on [77]. 1 State grant to the Fornebubanen under the Urban Environment Agreement.

Comparing financing contributions related to sustainable development of city transport in Poznan and Oslo, it can be stated that in both cities, completely different rules apply in this respect. In the Polish public finance system, the expenditure presented (Table3) is financed directly from the city budget. It should be mentioned that—in accordance with the principle of material unity binding in Poland—the city’s budget revenues are not targeted. These revenues are mainly local taxes and the city’s shares in the income tax from natural and legal persons. They contribute to the city’s budget and are, then, divided into various spending directions, including expenditure on sustainable transport development. Therefore, a lot depends, in this situation, on the awareness and the will of municipal authorities, who make decisions on what to allocate specific funds to. On the other hand, a different situation in this respect occurs in Oslo, where a program dedicated to the development of sustainable transport was adopted. This program sets out the objectives for which funds are to be spent, indicating priority actions, and points out the sources of financing for these expenses. The program has a multi-annual character, which means that sustainable development activities are consistent and more stable.

5. Survey Results As a result of the survey, which was conducted at the turn of January and February 2020 (The results refer to the situation before COVID-19 and do not include restrictions related to the pandemic situation), 1737 responses were obtained from Poznan and Oslo. The respondents to whom the survey was addressed were young people studying at universities. About 25% of respondents also were employed. In terms of gender, 41% were women and 59% were men who took part in the survey. Table6 presents structure of the research sample. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 19 of 37

Table 6. Structure of the study sample.

Poznan (985 Respondents) Oslo (752 Respondents) less than 20 years 23.91% less than 20 years 36.36% 20–25 years 75.16% 20–25 years 45.45% 26–30 years 0.82% 26–30 years 13.64% above 30 years 0.12% above 30 years 4.55% In total: 100.00% In total: 100.00% Poznan Oslo Woman Man Woman Man 41.05% 58.95% 40.91% 59.09% studying and studying and studying and studying and studying studying studying studying working working working working 73.72% 26.28% 76.95% 23.05% 77.78% 22.22% 69.23% 30.77% Source: own elaboration.

The results of the collected student’s responses are presented below. The first question of the survey asked the respondents what means of transport they use most often. Figure1 shows the distribution of respondents’ answers. It can be seen that young people from Poznan and Oslo most often choose public transport, i.e., trams, buses, as the main means of transport (Poznan—almost 95% of respondents; Oslo—73.7% of respondents). Just over 10% of respondents from Poznan use city bikes. Only 4.5% of respondents use electric kick scooters available in Poznan; currently such means of transportis not available in Oslo. Oslo is not also equipped with urban scooters. On the other hand, in Poznan, only 0.5% of respondents use them. Therefore, the conclusion is that the use of city bicycles, electric kick scooters or urban scooters is poorly developed in the analyzed cities, and therefore, more attention should be given to them in the context of their development and promotion. On the contrary, data from secondary sources show thatSustainability the city 2020 bike, 12 network, x FOR PEER in REVIEW Oslo is very well developed, which makes it possible to conclude20 that of 38 respondents prefer other means of transport or their own bicycles instead of city bikes.

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% public small urban urban bikes electric kick urban carsharing own car transport buses scooters scooters Poznan Oslo

Figure 1. The most frequently used means of transport in light of the conducted research. Figure 1. The most frequently used means of transport in light of the conducted research. In Oslo, quite a big number of respondents (15.3%) use carsharing, whereas in Poznan, the level of usingThe carsharing second question is around concerned 2%. A fairly the largerecognition group ofof respondents, which of these as in means Oslo andof transportation Poznan, prefer are to actually available in specific cities (Figure 2). Respondents from Oslo indicated that all suggested travel by their own car (36.8% and 26.3%, respectively). types of transport are available in the city, but there are no urban scooters and electric kick scooters rental points. Most likely, respondents confused means of urban transport with privately owned means of transport.

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% public small urban urban bikes electric kick urban scooters carsharing transport buses scooters Poznan Oslo

Figure 2. Availability of public transport options in Poznan and Oslo.

The third and fourth question in the survey verified how many respondents spend time on commuting every day (Figure 3a), as well as what average distance they travel each day (Figure 3b). Figure 3a shows that almost 63% of respondents from Poznan require up to 1 h for travel time every day, and about 32% of those surveyed spend 1 to 2 h on travel. In Oslo also, most of the respondents spend to transport up to 1 h—near to 69%. In turn, Figure 3b shows that just over 29% of students from Poznan travel daily up to 5 km, 33% from 5 to 10 km/day and 16.4% from 10 to 15 km/day. Quite a large group (13.4% of respondents from Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 38

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% public small urban urban bikes electric kick urban carsharing own car transport buses scooters scooters Poznan Oslo

Figure 1. The most frequently used means of transport in light of the conducted research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 20 of 37

The second question concerned the recognition of which of these means of transportation are actuallyThe available second question in specific concerned cities (Figure the recognition 2). Respondents of which from of theseOslo meansindicated of transportationthat all suggested are actuallytypes of availabletransport in are specific available cities in (Figure the city,2). but Respondents there are no from urban Oslo scooters indicated and that electric all suggested kick scooters types ofrental transport points. are Most available likely, in respondents the city, but thereconfused are nomeans urban of scooters urban transport and electric with kick privately scooters owned rental points.means of Most transport. likely, respondents confused means of urban transport with privately owned means of transport.

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 38 public small urban urban bikes electric kick urban scooters carsharing transport buses scooters Poznan Oslo Poznan) travels over 20 km every day. In Oslo, the results obtained are very similar to the situation in Poznan, solely more Figurepeople 2. travelAvailability more than of public 20 km transport a day options(26.3% inof Poznanrespondents). and Oslo. Figure 2. Availability of public transport options in Poznan and Oslo. The third and fourth question in the survey verified how many respondents spend time on The third and fourth question in the survey verified how many respondents spend time on commuting every day (Figure3a), as well as what average distance they travel each day (Figure3b). commuting every day (Figure 3a), as well as what average distance they travel each day (Figure 3b). Figure 3a showsup tothat 1 almost 63% of respondents from Poznan require up to 1 h for travel time every day, and abouthour 32% of those surveyed spend 1 to 2 h on travel.up 5 Inkm Oslo also, most of the respondents spend80.00% to transport up to 1 h—near to 69%. 40.00% In turn, Figure60.00% 3b shows that just over 29% of students from Poznan30.00% travel daily up to 5 km, 33% 40.00% from 5 to 10 km/day and 16.4% from 10 to 15 km/day. Quite a large group20.00% (13.4% of respondents from 20.00% over 20 from 5 to over 5 from 1 to 10.00% 0.00% km 10 km hours 2 hours 0.00%

from 15 from 10 from 2 to to 20 km to 15 km 5 hours Poznan Oslo Poznan Oslo (a) (b)

FigureFigure 3. Average 3. Average daily dailytravel travel time time(a) and (a) average and average daily daily distance distance traveled traveled by public by public transport transport (b) in ( b) in PoznanPoznan and Oslo. and Oslo.

It wasFigure analyzed3a shows what that means almost of transport 63% of respondents available in from the city Poznan are used require by upthe tolargest 1 h for group travel of time people,every i.e., day, those and for about whom 32% it takes of those up to surveyed 1 h to reach spend their 1 todestination. 2 h on travel. Almost In Oslo100% also,of people most in of the bothrespondents cities (Poznan—95.71%; spend to transport Oslo—96.24%) up to 1 h—near use public to 69%. transport in this case, i.e., trams, buses, etc. Much lessIn (Poznan—10.17%; turn, Figure3b shows Oslo—14.12%) that just over use 29% city of students bikes. fromThe share Poznan of travel using daily such up means to 5 km, of 33% transportfrom 5as to electric 10 km /kickday andscooters, 16.4% urban from scooters, 10 to 15 km or /carsharingday. Quite ais largemuch group smaller. (13.4% of respondents from Poznan)In the next travels and fifth over question, 20 km every the day.authors In Oslo, asked the what results is the obtained average are monthly very similar amount to theof charges situation in incurredPoznan, for transport. solely more In peoplePoznan, travel students more pay than monthly 20 km anear day to (26.3% 13.5 EUR of respondents). (56 PLN) and in Oslo, 82.36 EUR (959It NOK). was analyzed In Oslo, such what fees means are due of transport to significantly available higher in the costs city in are Norway used by than the in largest Poznan. group of people,Comparing i.e., those the costs for whom to average it takes wages up to in 1 individual h to reach theircountries, destination. it should Almost be noted 100% that of people the costs in both dedicated to commuting in Poznan constitute 1.4% in relation to the net remuneration in Poland (average monthly salary in 2019—962 EUR). In Oslo, these costs amount to 2.72% compared to the net salary in Norway (average monthly salary in 2019—3033 EUR). Oslo ranks second in this respect because a smaller percentage of commuting costs in relation to average earnings is paid by respondents from Poznan. The sixth question refers directly to public transport, and more precisely, the frequency of its use by respondents. Figure 4 shows that 98.25% of people use Poznan trams and buses. In Oslo, public transport is mainly used by 84.21% of respondents. A significant difference can be seen in the case of city bikes, which are used by 63.16% of respondents in Oslo and 32.13% of respondents in Poznan. In Poznan, 16.62% of students use electric kick scooters, while in Oslo, it is used by 10.53% of students. The obtained research results draw attention to the need to develop particular types of transportation, as it will directly contribute to the development of green mobility in the city. Less than 4% of respondents use urban scooters in Poznan and 9.15% carsharing. Such mode of transport is not popular because of its cost. On the other hand, 47.37% students from Oslo indicated that they use carsharing. It may also be dictated by the better financial standing of students in Norway. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 21 of 37 cities (Poznan—95.71%; Oslo—96.24%) use public transport in this case, i.e., trams, buses, etc. Much less (Poznan—10.17%; Oslo—14.12%) use city bikes. The share of using such means of transport as electric kick scooters, urban scooters, or carsharing is much smaller. In the next and fifth question, the authors asked what is the average monthly amount of charges incurred for transport. In Poznan, students pay monthly near to 13.5 EUR (56 PLN) and in Oslo, 82.36 EUR (959 NOK). In Oslo, such fees are due to significantly higher costs in Norway than in Poznan. Comparing the costs to average wages in individual countries, it should be noted that the costs dedicated to commuting in Poznan constitute 1.4% in relation to the net remuneration in Poland (average monthly salary in 2019—962 EUR). In Oslo, these costs amount to 2.72% compared to the net salary in Norway (average monthly salary in 2019—3033 EUR). Oslo ranks second in this respect because a smaller percentage of commuting costs in relation to average earnings is paid by respondents from Poznan. The sixth question refers directly to public transport, and more precisely, the frequency of its use

Sustainabilityby respondents. 2020, 12, Figurex FOR PEER4 shows REVIEW that 98.25% of people use Poznan trams and buses. In Oslo,22 public of 38 transport is mainly used by 84.21% of respondents.

100.00% 100.00% YES NO are not available in the city YES NO are not available in the city 80.00% 80.00%

60.00% 60.00% 40.00% 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 4. 4. TheThe scope scope of of the the use use of of means means of of pub publiclic transport transport in in Poznan Poznan and and Oslo. Oslo. (a ()a )Poznan; Poznan; (b (b) )Oslo. Oslo.

FigureA significant 5 is the answer difference to the can seventh be seen question—h in the caseow of often city bikes,do people which use are public used transport? by 63.16% An of analysisrespondents of the in answers Oslo and obtained 32.13% indicates of respondents that in inPoznan, Poznan. 66.41% In Poznan, of respondents 16.62% of use students public use transport electric everykick scooters,day and 22.51% while inuse Oslo, it at least it is usedseveral by times 10.53% a week. of students. In Poznan, The 1.34% obtained of respondents research results ride a drawcity bikeattention every to day the needand toslightly develop more—2.68%—several particular types of transportation, times a week. as itIn will total, directly 59.07% contribute of Poznan to the respondentsdevelopment have of green never mobility used city in bikes. the city. Almost Less than 95% 4%of respondents of respondents from use Poznan urban scooters have never in Poznan used urbanand 9.15% scooters, carsharing. less than Such 90% modehave never of transport used cars is notharing, popular almost because 77% have of its never cost. Onused the electric other hand,kick scooters,47.37% studentsand almost from 60% Oslo have indicated never used that city they bikes. use carsharing. It may also be dictated by the better financial standing of students in Norway.

100.00%Figure5 is the answer to the seventh question—how100.00% often do people use public transport? An everyday analysis of the answers obtained indicates that in Poznan, 66.41%everyday of respondents use public transport 80.00% a few times a week 80.00% every day anda few times 22.51% a month use it at least several times a week. Ina few Poznan, times a week 1.34% of respondents ride 60.00% a city bikeseveral every times day a year and slightly more—2.68%—several60.00% times a week. In total, 59.07% of Poznan a few times a 40.00% never respondents have never used city bikes. Almost 95%40.00% of respondentsmonth from Poznan have never used urban20.00% scooters, less than 90% have never used carsharing, almost 77% have never used electric kick 20.00% scooters,0.00% and almost 60% have never used city bikes. 0.00%

(a) (b)

Figure 5. The frequency of public transport usage in Poznan and Oslo. (a) Poznan; (b) Oslo.

In Oslo, similar to Poznan, near to 60% of respondents use public transport every day, almost 16% use it few times a week, and 21.05% several times a year. In total, 10.53% of Oslo respondents practice city cycling several times a month. Slightly more (almost 16% of respondents) use city bikes several times a year. However, the majority (almost 74%) do not use city bikes at all. Additionally, a fairly large percentage of respondents have never used city electric kick scooters (94.74%), scooters (84.21%), or carsharing (78.95%). These means of transport are used, at most, several times a month. If the frequency of using appropriate means of transport is analyzed in terms of the respondents’ gender, it should be indicated that more women than men use public transport in Poznan every day (72.87% and 61.92%, respectively). When it comes to the daily or several times a week use of city bikes and electric kick scooters, men take the advantage here (city bikes: women—3.13%, men—4.65%; electric kick scooters: women—1.28%, men—2.08%). In Oslo, women also use public transport more frequently than men (66.67% and 53.85%, respectively). In opposition to public transport, more men than women use city bikes several times a Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 38

100.00% 100.00% YES NO are not available in the city YES NO are not available in the city 80.00% 80.00%

60.00% 60.00% 40.00% 40.00% 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%

(a) (b)

Figure 4. The scope of the use of means of public transport in Poznan and Oslo. (a) Poznan; (b) Oslo.

Figure 5 is the answer to the seventh question—how often do people use public transport? An analysis of the answers obtained indicates that in Poznan, 66.41% of respondents use public transport every day and 22.51% use it at least several times a week. In Poznan, 1.34% of respondents ride a city bike every day and slightly more—2.68%—several times a week. In total, 59.07% of Poznan respondents have never used city bikes. Almost 95% of respondents from Poznan have never used urban scooters, less than 90% have never used carsharing, almost 77% have never used electric kick scooters,Sustainability and2020 almost, 12, 6510 60% have never used city bikes. 22 of 37

100.00% 100.00% everyday everyday 80.00% a few times a week 80.00% a few times a month a few times a week 60.00% several times a year 60.00% a few times a 40.00% never 40.00% month 20.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00%

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 5. 5. TheThe frequency frequency of of public public transpor transportt usage usage in in Poznan Poznan and and Oslo. Oslo. (a ()a Poznan;) Poznan; (b (b) )Oslo. Oslo.

InIn Oslo, Oslo, similar similar to to Poznan, Poznan, near toto 60%60% ofof respondents respondents use use public public transport transport every every day, day, almost almost 16% 16%use use it few it few times times a week, a week, and 21.05%and 21.05% several several times times a year. a Inyear. total, In 10.53%total, 10.53% of Oslo of respondents Oslo respondents practice practicecity cycling city cycling several several times a times month. a month. Slightly Slightly more (almost more (almost 16% of 16% respondents) of respondents) use city use bikes city several bikes severaltimes atimes year. a However,year. However, the majority the ma (almostjority (almost 74%) do74%) not do use not city use bikes city bikes at all. at Additionally, all. Additionally, a fairly a fairlylarge large percentage percentage of respondents of respondents have neverhave usednever city used electric city electric kick scooters kick scooters (94.74%), (94.74%), scooters scooters (84.21%), (84.21%),or carsharing or carsharing (78.95%). (78.95%). These means These of means transport of transport are used, are at most,used, severalat most, times several a month. times a month. IfIf the the frequency frequency of of using using appropriate appropriate means means of of transport transport is is analyzed analyzed in in terms terms of of the the respondents’ respondents’ gender,gender, it it should should be be indicated indicated that that more more women women than than men men use use public public transport transport in in Poznan Poznan every every day day (72.87%(72.87% and and 61.92%, 61.92%, respectively). respectively). When When it comes it comes to the to daily the daily or several or several times timesa week a use week of usecity ofbikes city andbikes electric and electric kick scooters, kick scooters, men mentake takethe advant the advantageage here here (city (city bikes: bikes: women—3.13%, women—3.13%, men—4.65%; men—4.65%; electricelectric kick kick scooters: scooters: women—1.28%, women—1.28%, men—2.08%). men—2.08%). InIn Oslo, Oslo, women women also also use use public public transport transport more more frequently frequently than than men men (66.67% (66.67% and and 53.85%, 53.85%, respectively).respectively). In In opposition opposition to to public public transport, transport, more more men men than than women women use use city city bikes bikes several several times times a a month in Oslo (city bikes: women—4.26%, men—5.75%). There is also a clear a clear advantage of men in using carsharing in both cities. The eighth question was asked to indicate the level of satisfaction of respondents with the use of specific means of transport (Figure6). In total, 59.06% of respondents assess their level of satisfaction as very high or high for the use of public transport in Poznan. Almost 35% of respondents assess their level of satisfaction as average for the use of trams and buses. In turn, 52.88% of respondents are satisfied with the use of city bikes, and 38.12% are average satisfied with the use of a given means of transport. A total of 55.04% of respondents indicate that their level of satisfaction with the use of electric kick scooters is high or very high, while little above 32% of respondents define this level as average. For urban scooters, the figures are: 52.45%—satisfied and very satisfied; 29.37%—average satisfied. With regard to carsharing, almost 64% of respondents described their level of satisfaction as high/very high, and 26.32% as average. It should be noted here that for any means of commuting, the “very low level of satisfaction” option did not exceed even 5%, and the “low level of satisfaction” option 9%, except for city scooters, which received 13.29% of respondents’ answers in a given option. This means that travelers are generally satisfied with the available means of transport in the city of Poznan. It is also interesting that public transport received the smallest percentage of negative answers—6.14% (the sum of the answers “low level of satisfaction” and “very low level of satisfaction”). In Oslo, the comparison obtained almost 50.15% satisfied answers indicating “very high” and “high” options. In total, 30.64% of respondents are also satisfied with using city bikes and 77.78% of respondents are satisfied with carsharing services. In both cases, the sum of “high” and “very high” answers is taken into account. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 23 of 38

month in Oslo (city bikes: women—4.26%, men—5.75%). There is also a clear a clear advantage of men in using carsharing in both cities. The eighth question was asked to indicate the level of satisfaction of respondents with the use of specific means of transport (Figure 6). In total, 59.06% of respondents assess their level of satisfaction as very high or high for the use of public transport in Poznan. Almost 35% of respondents assess their level of satisfaction as average for the use of trams and buses. In turn, 52.88% of respondents are satisfied with the use of city bikes, and 38.12% are average satisfied with the use of a given means of transport. A total of 55.04% of respondents indicate that their level of satisfaction with the use of electric kick scooters is high or very high, while little above 32% of respondents define this level as average. For urban scooters, the figures are: 52.45%—satisfied and very satisfied; 29.37%—average satisfied. With regard to carsharing, almost 64% of respondents described their level of satisfaction as high/very high, and 26.32% as average. It should be noted here that for any means of commuting, the “very low level of satisfaction” option did not exceed even 5%, and the “low level of satisfaction” option 9%, except for city scooters, which received 13.29% of respondents’ answers in a given option. This means that travelers are generally satisfied with the available means of transport in the city of Poznan. It is also interesting that public transport received the smallest percentage of negative answers—6.14% (the sum of the answers “low level of satisfaction” and “very low level of satisfaction”). In Oslo, the comparison obtained almost 50.15% satisfied answers indicating “very high” and “high” options. In total, 30.64% of respondents are also satisfied with using city bikes and 77.78% of respondents are satisfied with carsharing services. In both cases, the sum of “high” and “very high” answersSustainability is 2020taken, 12 into, 6510 account. 23 of 37

60.00% 60.00% very high high average low very low very high high average low very low

50.00% 50.00%

40.00% 40.00% 30.00% 30.00% 20.00%

10.00% 20.00%

0.00% 10.00%

0.00% public small urban electric urban carsharing transport urban bikes kick scooters buses scooters

(a) (b)

Figure 6. The levellevel ofof satisfaction satisfaction with with using using public public transport transport in Poznanin Poznan and and Oslo. Oslo. (a) Poznan; (a) Poznan; (b) Oslo. (b) Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 38 Oslo. The goal of the ninth question was to identify the most important advantages of different modes expensive. The other circumstances for above transport are availability (63.16% of respondents), of publicThe goal transport of the (Figure ninth question7). In Poznan, was to the identify respondents the most indicated important that advantages public transport’s of different (i.e., modes trams health and ecology (almost 32% of respondents), travel time, and comfort (both about 21% of ofand public buses) transport biggest (Figure advantages 7). In Poznan, are accessibility the respon (18.17%),dents indicated price (65.25%), that public and transport’s travel time (i.e., (49.56%). trams answers). The health and ecology for city bikes was chosen by a similar number of surveyed as in andAs the buses) fourth biggest criterion, advantages the respondents are accessibility distinguished (18.17%), health price and(65.25%), ecology and (25.66%). travel time Speaking (49.56%). about As Poznan. Another advantage was price (26.31% of surveyed) and availability (15.79% of surveyed). thecity fourth bikes, criterion, the respondents the respondents consider distinguished health and ecology health (44.43%),and ecology accessibility (25.66%). Speaking (31.55%), about and price city More respondents than in other cities chose the advantage of comfort for carsharing (almost 32%). bikes,(25.95%) the as respondents the biggest advantages. consider health In turn, and the biggestecology advantages (44.43%), ofaccessibility electric scooters (31.55%), are accessibility and price In both cities, the most important advantages of public transport are, therefore, price, (25.95%)(23.62%), as comfort the biggest (18.72%), advantages. health and In turn, ecology the (17.90%),biggest advantages and travel timeof electric (17.84%). scooters Poznan are accessibility respondents availability, and travel time; bicycles as a means of transport are chosen primarily for health and (23.62%),use scooters comfort because (18.72%), of travel timehealth (12.71%), and ecology comfort (17.90%), (11.37%), andand accessibility travel time (8.1%). (17.84%). Carsharing Poznan is environmental reasons; and carsharing is enjoyed by people who value privacy and comfort. respondentschosen primarily use scooters for comfort because (23.44%), of travel privacy time (19.94%), (12.71%), and comfort travel (11.37%), time (12.01%). and accessibility (8.1%). Carsharing is chosen primarily for comfort (23.44%), privacy (19.94%), and travel time (12.01%). 100.00% 100.00% In Oslo,price most respondentsavailability selected price as the biggest advantageprice for publicavailability transport (almost 79% of respondents),comfort despitetravel the time fact that in this city, pricescomfort for public transporttravel timeare the most 80.00% 80.00% health and ecology safety health and ecology safety

60.00% privacy I have no opinion 60.00% privacy I have no opinion

40.00% 40.00%

20.00% 20.00%

0.00% 0.00%

(a) (b)

FigureFigure 7. 7. TheThe most most important important advantages advantages of of using using public public transport transport in in Poznan Poznan and and Oslo. Oslo. (a (a) )Poznan; Poznan; ((bb)) Oslo. Oslo.

WhenIn Oslo, analyzing most respondents the results selectedin terms priceof sustainabl as the biggeste development, advantage and for more public precisely, transport the (almost health and79% ecology of respondents), criterion, despite it is worth the fact noting that inthat this a city,given prices criterion for public is more transport important are the for most women expensive. as in Poznan,The other and circumstances also in Oslo. for The above importance transport of are a given availability criterion (63.16% in terms of respondents), of the analysis health of using and ecologypublic transport(almost 32% is perceived of respondents), by 31.11% travel of time,female and students comfort from (both Poznan about 21%(22.16% of answers). of male Thestudents health from and Poznan),ecology forin terms city bikes of the was analysis chosen of by the a similaruse of city number bikes—52.98% of surveyed of asfemale in Poznan. students Another (38.48% advantage of male students) and in terms of the use of electric kick scooters—22.44% female students (14.74% of male students). In Oslo, the distribution of responses is slightly different. The importance of the health and ecology criterion in terms of the analysis of public transport is noticed by 33.3% of female students and 23.08% of male students from Oslo; in terms of the analysis of the use of city bikes, men have a slight advantage (43.68% of female students and 45.48% of male students). Men in both cities see other aspects as more important, such as accessibility, comfort, and privacy. Owing to the tenth question, it was possible to obtain information on how respondents assess the technical condition of individual means of commuting (Figure 8). The condition of Poznan trams and buses is rated as good by 33.20% of respondents and as rather good by 51.08% of respondents, which in general, constitutes nearly over 84% positive answers. The condition of city bikes in Poznan is assessed as good by 19.79% of respondents and by 40.28% of respondents as rather good. The distribution of answers regarding the electric kick scooters indicated 27.41% of satisfied users and 42.07% of rather satisfied users, respectively. Subject to urban scooters (it should be mentioned that this is the mode of transport that is least often used by respondents in Poznan), the percentage of the highest indications is about 32.97% and the percentage of “rather good” answers is 34.41%. The technical condition of shared cars is evaluated as good by 46.13% of respondents and rather good by 32.87% of respondents. City bikes received the largest percentage of negative responses (16%). Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 24 of 37 was price (26.31% of surveyed) and availability (15.79% of surveyed). More respondents than in other cities chose the advantage of comfort for carsharing (almost 32%). In both cities, the most important advantages of public transport are, therefore, price, availability, and travel time; bicycles as a means of transport are chosen primarily for health and environmental reasons; and carsharing is enjoyed by people who value privacy and comfort. When analyzing the results in terms of sustainable development, and more precisely, the health and ecology criterion, it is worth noting that a given criterion is more important for women as in Poznan, and also in Oslo. The importance of a given criterion in terms of the analysis of using public transport is perceived by 31.11% of female students from Poznan (22.16% of male students from Poznan), in terms of the analysis of the use of city bikes—52.98% of female students (38.48% of male students) and in terms of the use of electric kick scooters—22.44% female students (14.74% of male students). In Oslo, the distribution of responses is slightly different. The importance of the health and ecology criterion in terms of the analysis of public transport is noticed by 33.3% of female students and 23.08% of male students from Oslo; in terms of the analysis of the use of city bikes, men have a slight advantage (43.68% of female students and 45.48% of male students). Men in both cities see other aspects as more important, such as accessibility, comfort, and privacy. Owing to the tenth question, it was possible to obtain information on how respondents assess the Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25 of 38 technical condition of individual means of commuting (Figure8). The condition of Poznan trams and buses is rated as good by 33.20% of respondents and as rather good by 51.08% of respondents, which in Therefore, one should pay attention to a given means of transportation, because the poor condition general, constitutes nearly over 84% positive answers. The condition of city bikes in Poznan is assessed of bicycles may lead to a collision or accident of road users. as good by 19.79% of respondents and by 40.28% of respondents as rather good. The distribution of In Oslo, more than 50% of respondents recognized a technical condition of public transport as answers regarding the electric kick scooters indicated 27.41% of satisfied users and 42.07% of rather good and rather good, but also, more near to 36% evaluate this condition as bad and rather bad. This satisfied users, respectively. Subject to urban scooters (it should be mentioned that this is the mode of may be due to the varied technical condition of different vehicles in public transport. City bikes, transport that is least often used by respondents in Poznan), the percentage of the highest indications according to the surveyed, are in a good condition (25% of respondents) and simultaneously, in a bad is about 32.97% and the percentage of “rather good” answers is 34.41%. The technical condition of condition by the same number of respondents. The better situation is for carsharing, and 50% of shared cars is evaluated as good by 46.13% of respondents and rather good by 32.87% of respondents. respondents evaluate its technical condition as good and 33.33% as rather good. City bikes received the largest percentage of negative responses (16%). Therefore, one should pay In both cities, the technical condition of the available urban mobility modes should be analyzed attention to a given means of transportation, because the poor condition of bicycles may lead to a and, if possible, dependent on technical resources, further improvements should be done. collision or accident of road users.

100% 100%

80% 80%

60% 60%

40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0% public small urban electric urban carsharing public small urban electric urban carsharing transport urban bikes kick scooters transport urban bikes kick scooters buses scooters buses scooters bad rather bad difficult to say rather good good bad rather bad difficult to say rather good good

(a) (b)

Figure 8. TheThe assessment assessment of the technical technical condition of public transport in Poznan and Oslo. ( (aa)) Poznan; Poznan; ((b)) Oslo.Oslo.

InThe Oslo, eleventh more question than 50% that of respondentsthe authors will recognized present aunder technical this conditionarticle will of be public the assessment transport asof goodthe amount and rather of fees good, for individual but also, moremeans near of transportation to 36% evaluate (Figure this 9). condition In total,as 35.2% bad of and Poznan rather users bad. Thisdetermine may be that due the to prices the varied of city technical buses and condition trams are of di highfferent or very vehicles high. in Prices public are transport. medium City for bikes,more than half of users (51.23%). As for city bikes, in 17.47% of cases, fixed usage prices are perceived as high or very high, and in 41.45% of cases, as medium. Poznan respondents estimate the prices for renting scooters and scooters as definitely too high (81.53% and 68.38%, respectively of the indications “very high price” and “high price”). This confirms the previously presented information on the reasons for not using the means of transport. The fee for car renting is also considered as too high (67.90%). In Oslo, almost 20% of respondents perceive fees for public transport as very high and high. A total of 42% of respondents believe that the level of fees is average, and for 31.58% of respondents, this level is low. Urban bikes’ fees by more than 60% of surveyed are assessed as high and medium (in each group 33% of answers). The level of fees was assessed as low and very low: for carsharing by 33% of respondents, urban scooters by 25% of respondents, and city bikes by 33% of respondents. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 25 of 37 according to the surveyed, are in a good condition (25% of respondents) and simultaneously, in a bad condition by the same number of respondents. The better situation is for carsharing, and 50% of respondents evaluate its technical condition as good and 33.33% as rather good. In both cities, the technical condition of the available urban mobility modes should be analyzed and, if possible, dependent on technical resources, further improvements should be done. The eleventh question that the authors will present under this article will be the assessment of the amount of fees for individual means of transportation (Figure9). In total, 35.2% of Poznan users determine that the prices of city buses and trams are high or very high. Prices are medium for more than half of users (51.23%). As for city bikes, in 17.47% of cases, fixed usage prices are perceived as high or very high, and in 41.45% of cases, as medium. Poznan respondents estimate the prices for renting scooters and scooters as definitely too high (81.53% and 68.38%, respectively of the indications “verySustainability high 2020 price”, 12,and x FOR “high PEERprice”). REVIEW This confirms the previously presented information on the reasons26 of 38 for not using the means of transport. The fee for car renting is also considered as too high (67.90%).

100% 100%

80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20%

20% 0%

0% public small urban electric urban carsharing transport urban bikes kick scooters buses scooters very low low medium high very high very low low medium high very high (a) (b)

FigureFigure 9. 9. TheThe evaluation evaluation of of the the level level of of fees fees for for us usinging public public transport transport in in Poznan Poznan and and Oslo. Oslo. ( (aa)) Poznan; Poznan; ((bb)) Oslo. Oslo.

ThereIn Oslo, are almost many 20%aspects of respondentsthat can affect perceive the assessment fees for public of the transportprice level as of very various high means and high. of publicA total transport of 42% of respondentsin the cities believeanalyzed. that Therefor the levele, of detailed fees is average, conclusions and for depend 31.58% on of respondents,the level of earnings,this level correlation is low. Urban between bikes’ feesthe frequency by more than of jo 60%urneys, of surveyed and the aredistance assessed to overcome. as high and The medium above results(in each show group that 33% in ofNorway, answers). prices The are level generally of fees perceived was assessed as lower as low compared and very to low: Poland, for carsharing which may by be33% conditioned of respondents, by the urban social scooters status of by citizens. 25% of respondents, and city bikes by 33% of respondents. InThere question are many twelve, aspects the respondents that can affect were the asked assessment whether of the they price use level city bikes of various and how means they of assess public thetransport infrastructure in the cities of bicycle analyzed. paths Therefore, in their city detailed (Figure conclusions 10). In Poznan, depend about on the70% level of respondents of earnings, recognizedcorrelation betweenthat infrastructure the frequency is in of journeys,good or andrather the good distance condition. to overcome. In Oslo, The only above about results 30% show of respondentsthat in Norway, consider prices the are same. generally More perceived respondents as lower in Oslo compared rate cycling to Poland, infrastructure which may as be bad conditioned or rather badby the (30%) social than status in Poznan of citizens. (about 10%). This may be due to the recent investments of the city of Poznan in improvingIn question the twelve,bicycle thepath respondents system and were facilities asked for whether cyclists they while use moving city bikes around and howthe city. they On assess the otherthe infrastructure hand, Oslo is of perceived bicycle paths as a city in their with city the (Figurelongest 10bike). Inpaths Poznan, in the about city. The 70% opinions of respondents of the respondentsrecognized thatmay infrastructureindicate that the is city in good should or take rather steps good to modernize condition. the In existing Oslo, only infrastructure. about 30% of respondents consider the same. More respondents in Oslo rate cycling infrastructure as bad or rather bad (30%) than in Poznan (about 10%). This may be due to the recent investments of the city of Poznan in improving the bicycle path system and facilities for cyclists while moving around the city. On the other hand,good Oslo is perceived as a city with the longest bike paths in the city. The opinions of the respondents may indicate that the city should take steps to modernize the existing infrastructure. rather good

Oslo difficult to say Poznan

rather bad

bad

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Figure 10. The evaluation of the infrastructure of urban bike paths in Poznan and Oslo.

In the thirteenth question, the respondents were asked how they assess the actions of city authorities in the field of promoting and developing infrastructure for city bikes (Figure 11). Almost 54% of respondents from Poznan indicated that they rated the activities of city authorities as good or rather good. In Oslo, the percentage of positive answers is 43%. In Oslo, there is a higher percentage of respondents compared to Poznan who believe that the city authorities are not involved enough in Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 38

100% 100%

80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20%

20% 0%

0% public small urban electric urban carsharing transport urban bikes kick scooters buses scooters very low low medium high very high very low low medium high very high (a) (b)

Figure 9. The evaluation of the level of fees for using public transport in Poznan and Oslo. (a) Poznan; (b) Oslo.

There are many aspects that can affect the assessment of the price level of various means of public transport in the cities analyzed. Therefore, detailed conclusions depend on the level of earnings, correlation between the frequency of journeys, and the distance to overcome. The above results show that in Norway, prices are generally perceived as lower compared to Poland, which may be conditioned by the social status of citizens. In question twelve, the respondents were asked whether they use city bikes and how they assess the infrastructure of bicycle paths in their city (Figure 10). In Poznan, about 70% of respondents recognized that infrastructure is in good or rather good condition. In Oslo, only about 30% of respondents consider the same. More respondents in Oslo rate cycling infrastructure as bad or rather bad (30%) than in Poznan (about 10%). This may be due to the recent investments of the city of Poznan in improving the bicycle path system and facilities for cyclists while moving around the city. On the other hand, Oslo is perceived as a city with the longest bike paths in the city. The opinions of the Sustainabilityrespondents2020 may, 12, 6510indicate that the city should take steps to modernize the existing infrastructure.26 of 37

good

rather good

Oslo difficult to say Poznan

rather bad

bad

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% FigureFigure 10.10. TheThe evaluationevaluation ofof thethe infrastructureinfrastructure ofofurban urbanbike bikepaths pathsin inPoznan Poznan and and Oslo. Oslo.

InIn thethe thirteenththirteenth question,question, thethe respondentsrespondents werewere askedasked howhow theythey assessassess thethe actionsactions ofof citycity authoritiesauthorities inin thethe fieldfield ofof promotingpromoting and and developing developing infrastructure infrastructure for for city city bikes bikes (Figure (Figure 11 11).). AlmostAlmost 54% of respondents from Poznan indicated that they rated the activities of city authorities as good or Sustainability54% of respondents 2020, 12, x FOR from PEER Poznan REVIEW indicated that they rated the activities of city authorities as good27 of 38or ratherrather good. good. In In Oslo, Oslo, the the percentage percentage of of positive positive answers answers is is 43%. 43%. In In Oslo, Oslo, there there is ais higher a higher percentage percentage of respondents compared to Poznan who believe that the city authorities are not involved enough in the theof respondents promotion andcompared development to Poznan of whoinfrastructure believe that for the city city bikes authorities (the sum are ofnot answers involved “bad” enough and in promotion and development of infrastructure for city bikes (the sum of answers “bad” and “rather “rather bad”—37%). In Poznan, the same answer was given by less than 14%. bad”—37%). In Poznan, the same answer was given by less than 14%.

good

rather good Oslo difficult to say Poznan

rather bad

bad

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% Figure 11. The assessment of the activities of city author authoritiesities in the field field of promoting and developing infrastructureinfrastructure forfor urbanurban bikesbikes inin PoznanPoznan andand Oslo.Oslo.

The fourteenth question was to verify whether, according to the respondents, the number of The fourteenth question was to verify whether, according to the respondents, the number of bicycle rental points is sufficient in the analyzed cities. The obtained answers suggest a very similar bicycle rental points is sufficient in the analyzed cities. The obtained answers suggest a very similar distribution of answers in both cities. In total, 62.87% of respondents from Poznan believe that the distribution of answers in both cities. In total, 62.87% of respondents from Poznan believe that the number of bicycle rental points is sufficient, and 37.13% indicate that in their opinion, such points are number of bicycle rental points is sufficient, and 37.13% indicate that in their opinion, such points are missing. In Oslo, on the other hand, 60.00% of respondents declare that the number of bicycle rental missing. In Oslo, on the other hand, 60.00% of respondents declare that the number of bicycle rental points is adequate, while 40.00% contradict this claim. points is adequate, while 40.00% contradict this claim. Verifying the reasons for not using city bikes was the aim of the fifteenth question. This question Verifying the reasons for not using city bikes was the aim of the fifteenth question. This question was a multiple-choice question. Almost 71% of respondents from Poznan indicated that they prefer was a multiple-choice question. Almost 71% of respondents from Poznan indicated that they prefer a di erent mode of transport. In Oslo, around 32% of respondents gave the answer. Apart from a differentff mode of transport. In Oslo, around 32% of respondents gave the answer. Apart from the theabove above answer, answer, we weanalyzed analyzed the the other other reasons reasons for for giving giving up up city city bike bike rides. rides. In In Poznan, Poznan, the main reasons turnedturned outout toto be: be: aa complicatedcomplicated procedure procedure for for renting renting bicycles bicycles (26.07% (26.07% of of respondents), respondents), lack lack of comfortof comfort (20.30% (20.30% of respondents),of respondents), too too much much distance distance to travelto travel due due to highto high physical physical eff orteffort (19.55% (19.55% of respondents),of respondents), high high price price (18.16% (18.16% of of respondents), respondents), and and too too long long travel travel timetime (14.99%(14.99% of respondents). In Oslo, the respondents’ indications were ranked as follows: too long distance to travel (17.14% of respondents), lack of comfort and bad infrastructure of bicycle paths (11.43% of answers each), too long time of reaching the destination (8.57% of respondents), high price and no bikes nearby (5.71% of responses each)—Figure 12. In addition to the available answers, the respondents had the opportunity to indicate their own answer. Among the answers to the most common reasons for not using city bikes in Poznan was owning a bike. In second place was the answer indicating the lack of a bicycle rental point in the nearby area. At the same time, respondents indicated that a small number of bicycle rental points also causes a problem with parking the bike in a convenient place after reaching the final destination. In addition, there were answers regarding the small number of bicycles at the rental points and the inability to take large luggage with them when traveling by a given means of transport. Oslo respondents also pointed to the large distance in reaching bike rental points and the problem of taking the bike to the indicated (inconvenient) location. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 27 of 37

In Oslo, the respondents’ indications were ranked as follows: too long distance to travel (17.14% of respondents), lack of comfort and bad infrastructure of bicycle paths (11.43% of answers each), too longSustainability time of 2020 reaching, 12, x FOR the PEER destination REVIEW (8.57% of respondents), high price and no bikes nearby (5.71%28 of of38 responses each)—Figure 12.

no city bikes Oslo

lack of safety Poznan

complicated rental procedure

bad infrastructure of urban bike paths

bad technical condition of urban bikes

I prefer a different mode of transport

lack of comfort

too long distance to overcome

travel time is too long

price is too high

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% FigureFigure 12.12. Reasons for not using citycity bikesbikes inin PoznanPoznan andand Oslo.Oslo.

In addition to the available answers, the respondents had the opportunity to indicate their own It should be noted that in Poznan, city bikes are used by slightly more women (33.24%) than answer. Among the answers to the most common reasons for not using city bikes in Poznan was men (31.36), while in Oslo, the opposite (30.12% men and 28.03% women). owning a bike. In second place was the answer indicating the lack of a bicycle rental point in the nearby Among men from Poznan who declared no use of city bikes, the most important reasons area. At the same time, respondents indicated that a small number of bicycle rental points also causes (excluding the preference to use a different means of transport) were the complicated procedure of a problem with parking the bike in a convenient place after reaching the final destination. In addition, renting bicycles (23.53% of indications) and lack of comfort (21.46% of indications). The high price there were answers regarding the small number of bicycles at the rental points and the inability to take was only in third place (18.12% of responses). Among women from Poznan, the most important large luggage with them when traveling by a given means of transport. Oslo respondents also pointed reasons were the complicated procedure of renting bicycles (29.66% of indications), too long distance to the large distance in reaching bike rental points and the problem of taking the bike to the indicated to travel (24.72% of indications), and lack of comfort (18.88% of indications). The price was fourth in (inconvenient) location. the ranking according to the opinion of female students from Poznan (18.20% of responses). Women It should be noted that in Poznan, city bikes are used by slightly more women (33.24%) than men also, compared to men, more often indicated the poor technical condition of bicycles and poor bicycle (31.36), while in Oslo, the opposite (30.12% men and 28.03% women). infrastructure in the city as the reasons for not using city bikes. The above results are presented in Among men from Poznan who declared no use of city bikes, the most important reasons (excluding Figure 13. the preference to use a different means of transport) were the complicated procedure of renting bicycles Figure 14 presents why inhabitants in Oslo do not use city bikes. Among the men from Oslo who (23.53% of indications) and lack of comfort (21.46% of indications). The high price was only in third declared no use of city bikes, the most important reasons (excluding the preference for using another place (18.12% of responses). Among women from Poznan, the most important reasons were the means of transport) were too long a distance to travel (23.08% of indications) and lack of comfort complicated procedure of renting bicycles (29.66% of indications), too long distance to travel (24.72% of (15.38% of indications). Furthermore, just like in Poznan, the high price was ranked third (15.22% of indications), and lack of comfort (18.88% of indications). The price was fourth in the ranking according responses). Among women from Oslo, the most important reasons were too long a distance to travel to the opinion of female students from Poznan (18.20% of responses). Women also, compared to men, (33.26% of indications) and lack of comfort (28.64% of indications). The price, just like in Poznan, was morefourth often in the indicated ranking the according poor technical to the opinion condition of offemale bicycles students and poor from bicycle Oslo infrastructure(17.94% of indications). in the city as the reasons for not using city bikes. The above results are presented in Figure 13. SustainabilitySustainability 20202020, ,1122, ,x 6510 FOR PEER REVIEW 2928 of of 38 37

no city bikes 4.45%4.94% lack of safety 5.09%5.39% poor bicycle infrastructure 7.15% 11.01% Sustainability 20poor20, 1technical2, x FOR PEER condition REVIEW of… 9.22% 11.24% 29 of 38 travel time 15.74% 13.93% too long distance to travel 16.38% 18.20% no city bikes 4.45%4.94% high price 18.12% 18.88% lack of safety 5.09%5.39% lack of comfort 21.46% 24.72% poor bicycle infrastructure 7.15% 11.01% complicated procedure of renting 23.53% 29.66% poor technical condition of… 9.22% men11.24%women Figure 13. Thetravel most importanttime reasons15.74% why men/women13.93% do not use urban bikes in Poznan. Figuretoo long 13. distance The most to importanttravel reasons16.38% why men/women18.20% do not use urban bikes in Poznan. Figure 14 presents why inhabitants in Oslo do not use city bikes. Among the men from Oslo who high price 18.12% 18.88% declared no use of city bikes, the most important reasons (excluding the preference for using another lack of comfort 21.46% 24.72% means of transport)no were city toobikes long a12.56% distance to8.56% travel (23.08% of indications) and lack of comfort complicated procedure of renting (15.38% of indications).lack Furthermore,of safety just like23.53% in Poznan, the high price29.66% was ranked third (15.22% of 12.45%men 9.56%women responses).poor Among bicycle infrastructure women from Oslo,11.11% the most10.12% important reasons were too long a distance to travel (33.26% of indications) and lack of comfort (28.64% of indications). The price, just like in Poznan, was Figurepoor technical 13. The mostcondition important of… 6.56% reasons7.80% why men/women do not use urban bikes in Poznan. fourth in the ranking according to the opinion of female students from Oslo (17.94% of indications). travel time 12.15% 11.11% too long distance to travel 23.08% 33.26% no city bikes 12.56% 8.56% high price 15.22% 17.94% lack of safety 12.45% 9.56% lack of comfort 15.38% 28.64% poor bicycle infrastructure 11.11% 10.12% complicated procedure of… 7.69% poor technical condition of… 6.56% 7.80% travel time 12.15% men11.11%women

too long distance to travel 23.08% 33.26% Figure 14. The most important reasons why men/women do not use urban bikes in Oslo. high price 15.22% 17.94%

In question sixteenlack of, comfort the respondents15.38% were asked whether28.64% in the future, city bikes would have a developmentcomplicated perspective procedure in theirof… city.7.69% The respondents’ opinions were quite similar in both cities (Figure 15). In Poznan, almost 87% of respondentsmen women indicated that in their opinion in the future city bikes will have a development perspective in their city (the sum of “yes” and “rather yes” answers). Almost 63%Figure of respondents 14. The most confirmed important reasonsthe same why thesis men/women in Oslo. do A not small use urbanpercentage bikes in of Oslo. respondents Figure 14. The most important reasons why men/women do not use urban bikes in Oslo. from Poznan indicated that in their opinion, such development will not take place or rather will not In question sixteen, the respondents were asked whether in the future, city bikes would have a take place—7.81% of respondents. In Oslo, 29.63% of respondents expressed the same opinion. developmentIn question perspective sixteen, the inrespondents their city. Thewere respondents’ asked whether opinions in the future were quite, city bikes similar would in both have cities a Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents positively perceive the future in the context of development(Figure 15). perspective In Poznan, almostin their 87% city. of The respondents respondents indicated’ opinions that were in their quite opinion similar in in the both future cities city the development of cycling infrastructure in the analyzed cities, expecting simultaneously from the (Figurebikes will15). haveIn Poznan, a development almost 87% perspective of respondents in their indicated city (the sumthat in of their “yes” opinion and “rather in the yes” future answers). city authorities-specific actions in this direction. bikesAlmost will 63% have of a respondents development confirmed perspective the samein their thesis city in(the Oslo. sum A of small “yes” percentage and “rather of respondents yes” answers). from AlmostPoznan 63% indicated of respondents that in their confirmed opinion, the such same development thesis in Oslo. will A not small take percentage place or rather of respondents will not take fromplace—7.81% Poznan indicated of respondents. that in their In Oslo, opinion 29.63%, such of respondents development expressed will not thetake same place opinion. or rather Therefore, will not it takecan place be concluded—7.81% that of respondents. the respondents In Oslopositively, 29.63% perceive of respondents the future in expressed the context the of thesame development opinion. Therefore,of cycling it infrastructure can be concluded in the that analyzed the respondents cities, expecting positively simultaneously perceive the from future the authorities-specificin the context of theactions development in this direction. of cycling infrastructure in the analyzed cities, expecting simultaneously from the authoritiesThe- lastspecific and seventeenthactions in this question direction. examined whether, according to the respondents, the number of tram/bus lines in the city is sufficient. Just over 70.45% of respondents from Poznan indicated that in their opinion, the number of public transport lines is sufficient, while 29.55% did not agree with this statement. In Oslo, the situation is quite similar—66.67% of respondents believe that access to tram Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 29 of 37

Sustainabilityand bus lines 2020 is, 12 adequate,, x FOR PEER while REVIEW 33.33% of respondents are not satisfied with the current number30 of of38 these lines.

yes

rather yes

Oslo rather no Poznan

no

I do not know

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% Figure 15. TheThe assessment assessment of of the the prospects prospects for the deve developmentlopment of city bikes in Poznan and Oslo. 6. Discussion The last and seventeenth question examined whether, according to the respondents, the number of tram/busA comprehensive lines in the policy city is for sufficient. sustainable Just urban over development70.45% of respondents in a long-term from perspective Poznan indicated is developed that ineither their in opinion, Poland orthe in number Norway. of The public purpose transport of the lines Sustainable is sufficient, Urban while Mobility 29.55% Plans did in not both agree countries with thisis to statement. establish strategies In Oslo, forthe sustainable situation is urban quite development similar—66.67% that gather,of respondents develop, believe clarify, andthat concretize access to tramthe tra andffic-related bus lines aims is adequate, of the sustainable while 33.33% plans of andrespondents other strategic are not documents. satisfied with The the Sustainable current number Urban ofMobility these lines. Plans should be guiding in future planning and budgeting at administrations responsible for urban development and sustainable transport. Despite differences of sources of financing in 6.Poland Discussion and Norway, it can be stated that both countries are developing their urban transport with respectA comprehensive to green mobility policy and sustainable for sustainable goals. urban Sustainable development urban transport in a long-term is recognized perspective as the key is developeddevelopment either priority. in Poland or in Norway. The purpose of the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans in both Strategiccountries documents is to establish in both strategies countries for focus sustainable on mobility urban and development the fact that athat growing gather, population develop, clarify,should and be given concretize possibilities the traffic-related to travel sustainably aims of the in sustainable everyday life.plans Inhabitants, and other strategic visitors, documents. businesses, Theorganizations, Sustainable and Urban commuters Mobility must Plans be should given thebe guiding possibility in tofuture travel planning more sustainably and budgeting in their at administrationseveryday lives. responsible for urban development and sustainable transport. Despite differences of sourcesHaving of financing analyzed in strategicPoland and documents Norway, in it Poznan can be stated and Oslo, that the both authors countries see thatare developing cities are aiming their urbanto enhance transport urban with transport respect and to green the domain mobility developing and sustainable the most goals. is public Sustainable transport, urban such transport as trams inis recognizedPoznan, and as metro the key in development Oslo. Improved priority. mobility for citizens and businesses can make cities be more attractiveStrategic and documents competitive. in Osloboth citycountries is already focus famous on mo duebility to and its sustainable the fact that position. a growing population shouldThe be authors given possibilities believe that to all travel issues sustainably raised in the in hereby everyday paper life. are Inhabita very importantnts, visitors, in termsbusinesses, of the organizations,ecological aspects and sought commuters by cities must of Europe. be given the possibility to travel more sustainably in their everydayEvaluating lives. the results of the survey, it should be stated that the most common means of transport usedHaving by respondents analyzed of strategic the surveyed documents countries in Poznan is public and transport.Oslo, the authors Modern see types that of cities transportation are aiming tosuch enhance as bicycles, urban electric transport kick and scooters, the domain and scooters developing are justthe most being is developed, public transport, and therefore, such as ittrams can bein Poznan,expected and that metro in the in future, Oslo. theirImproved share inmobility the overall for ci statisticstizens and of usingbusinesses public can transport make cities will be increase. more attractiveIt also should and becompetitive. noted that Oslo a large city proportion is already of famous people due prefer to its their sustainable own means position. of transport. Further researchThe directionsauthors believe should that include all issues verifying raised the in criteriathe hereby encouraging paper are owners very important of their own in terms vehicles of the to ecologicalswitch to public aspects transport, sought by including cities of Europe. bicycles or scooters. EvaluatingResearch also the indicatesresults of thatthe survey, a significant it should proportion be stated of that respondents the most common never use means green of transport usedsuch asby bicyclesrespondents or electric of the kick surveyed scooters. countries This is is dictated public bytransport. the lack Modern of services types inthe of transportation city, or a weak suchmarketing as bicycles, campaign electric encouraging kick scooters, potential and scooters users to are use just the being given developed, means of transport.and therefore, Interestingly, it can be expectedone of the that problems in the future, with using their such share services in the is,overal accordingl statistics to respondents, of using public the transport complicated will procedure increase. Itfor also renting should specific be noted means that a of large transport. proportion The of request people is prefer a signal their to own the citymeans authorities of transport. to work Further on research directions should include verifying the criteria encouraging owners of their own vehicles to switch to public transport, including bicycles or scooters. Research also indicates that a significant proportion of respondents never use green transport such as bicycles or electric kick scooters. This is dictated by the lack of services in the city, or a weak Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 30 of 37 simplifying such procedures as well as explaining, on a larger scale, how to rent a specific means of transport. The research also reveals the need to improve public transport system in both of the surveyed cities, as respondents show average satisfaction with its use. Respondents distinguish the price as the main advantage of public transport in all countries. Positive in both cities is the fact that respondents see opportunities for developing green mobility in their cities. This signals the awareness of the respondents about the impact of transport on the natural environment, so they expect for infrastructural and informational support from the authorities. Public transport showed the most minimal changes, with demand remaining constant over the study period. The main improvements were in technology, such as smartphone apps to buy tickets and check timetables. Public and other transport services, timetables and ticketing, and interchanges are not always well connected. Innovation, a re-think of public-private sectors cooperation, and how to engage citizens more directly in new mobility systems and services is essential. Table7 presents a more detailed comparative analysis for both cities.

Table 7. Comparative analysis of both cities.

Poznan Oslo The respondents most often use public transport (Poznan—98%; Oslo—84%). Such a high percentage of indications indicates that public transport infrastructure is quite well developed and there is a demand for it. However, quite a large percentage of respondents value the comfort of driving using their own means of transport (Poznan—26%; Oslo—37%). The choice of own means of transport is related to the amount of distance traveled every day (over 65% of respondents using their own means of transport travel over 10 km a day). The commuting costs in Poznan incurred monthly by The monthly commuting costs in Oslo for the respondents amount to 1.4% compared to the respondents are 2.7% compared to the average average monthly wage in Poland. monthly salary in Norway. The lower percentage of costs incurred for public transport in Poznan is reflected in the greater use of it by respondents. In Oslo, on the other hand, a higher percentage of public transport costs results in a lower percentage of respondents using public transport, and therefore, a higher percentage of those using their own means of transport. Every day, more women (73%) than men (62%) use public transport in Poznan. However, more men (5% and 2%, respectively) use bikes and city scooters than Every day, more women (67%) than men (54%) use women (3% and 1%, respectively). The main reasons Oslo’s public transport. However, more men (6%) use associated with the occasional use of transport such bicycles than women (4%). The main reasons as bicycles and city scooters are: a complicated rental associated with the occasional use of city bikes are: procedure; lack of comfort; too much distance to too much distance to overcome; lack of comfort; too cover; price. The possibility of simplifying the long time to reach the destination; price. procedures for renting certain means of transport should be considered. The high level of user satisfaction shows their satisfaction with the price they should pay for using public transport in both cities, good technical condition of vehicles, their availability, and travel time. In addition, health and ecology are important aspects for respondents in using public transport (Poznan—26%; Oslo—32%). The level of satisfaction of respondents with the use The level of satisfaction of respondents with the use of public transport in Poznan is assessed as high or of public transport in Oslo is rated as high or very very high in 59% of responses. high in 50% of responses. Attention should be paid to the city’s purchase of In Poznan, 1/6 of respondents use electric kick electric kick scooters, as this will reduce exhaust scooters. emissions by using private cars. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 31 of 37

Table 7. Cont.

Poznan Oslo The level of satisfaction of respondents with the use The level of satisfaction of respondents with the use of city bikes in Oslo is rated as high or very high in of city bikes in Poznan is assessed as high or very 31% of responses. The low level of satisfaction is high in 53% of responses, and in the case of using related in particular to the poor infrastructure of scooters—55%. However, the use of city scooters is bicycle paths, the poor technical condition of vehicles limited due to the high price of renting them. in Oslo, as well as the insufficient availability. The biggest benefits that the respondents show in the use of bicycles are above all health and ecology (Poznan—44% of answers; Oslo—42% of answers) and price (in Poznan and Oslo—26% of answers). In Oslo, respondents assess the city authorities’ activities in the promotion and development of infrastructure for city bikes on average—43%. City In Poznan, respondents rate the city authorities’ authorities should identify the reasons for the activities in the promotion and development of not-so-high degree of user satisfaction with activities infrastructure for city bikes well—54%. directed at the development and promotion of cycle paths and turn their attention to the solution of the given issue. In Poznan, as well as in Oslo, respondents indicate that in their opinion in the future city bikes will have a development perspective in their city (Poznan—87%; Oslo—63%). Source: own elaboration.

Activities undertaken by cities in the field of urban transport development are in line with the EU priorities referring to an urban transport, i.e., urban mobility plans. These activities are directed at the use on a wider scale of public transport, promoting alternative forms of urban mobility, development of green transport, in particular, electromobility. The European Union budget, both in (2014–2020) and the future (2021–2028) programming period, provides financial resources for the implementation of investments in this domain. The development of sustainable transport has been recognized as one of the development priorities at the level of EU Member States (including Poland), but also in countries that are not part of the European Union (including Norway). Further research directions will include verifying the criteria encouraging owners of their own vehicles to switch to public transport, including bicycles or scooters, which is important in terms of eco-mobility. Moreover, the authors plan to evaluate sustainable transport from a point of view of smart solutions and how the fourth industrial revolution and its tools are affecting urban transport.

7. Conclusions The main goal of this paper was to present and analyze actions supporting sustainable urban mobility in Poznan and Oslo. To achieve this goal, the literature review was conducted and supplemented with analysis of documents related to the sustainable development of the analyzed cities. In addition, surveys were conducted which gave the basis to identify strengths and weaknesses of urban mobility in the analyzed cities. In order to answer research question 1, a selection and analysis of literature items were carried out and presented in the Theoretical Background section. By analyzing the available literature and a number of documentation, it was found that sustainable urban mobility is one of the key development principles in Poland and Norway. An extensive analysis of financing sources included in the sources of funding for urban transport section allowed the authors to obtain the answer to question 1. The answer to research question 2 was obtained by survey, the results of which were included in the Survey Results section. The authors confirmed that the development of a sustainable transport is included in the strategic plans of both cities and both cities allocate significant financial outlays on their development in the long-term perspective. The distribution of funds shows a preference for urban transport development. The surveyed group of respondents uses various means of public transport in Poznan and Oslo to a large extent, but changes are necessary that will further increase these amounts and eliminate elements Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 32 of 37 that are currently negatively assessed, such as technical condition of the fleet, spatial accessibility, frequency or personal comfort, and safety. Previous studies related to the development of sustainable transport discussed in the literature review emphasize that the development of urban transport is a priority. Reducing negative environmental effects, such as pollutant emissions, or replacing the fleet with a more ecological one, is subject to EU requirements. The transportation sector is in transition all across the world. Sustainability efforts are extending to more and more modes of transport. Oslo was named the Green capital of Europe 2019. In addition to the abundance of tourist attractions, much attention is paid to sustainable development in both cities—Poznan and Oslo. The authors are currently conducting research on the development of electromobility in municipalities in Poland and the results of this study will be presented in future publications. Furthermore, the authors compare findings with Norway which is recognized as an electromobility leader. Launching electric buses is one of the measures to achieve sustainable development goals. As far as the research concerns the situation before the introduction of restrictions related to COVID-19, additional research should be carried out with respect to the current situation in terms of the use of public transport in both cities. The results of these tests can be very different from those carried out in the herein study (e.g., currently using our own means of transport is more secure due to the lack of contact with other people). It is important to emphasize that it takes time to ensure the implementation of the concept of sustainable development. It is very important to increase the efforts of all stakeholders—local government, population, enterprises, and organizations of any form of ownership and organizational subordination (including non-governmental, non-profit, public), unions, associations, and more. Active cooperation of all stakeholders in order to adapt and implement the principles of sustainable development in life is one of the prerequisites for growth today and in the future. Therefore, the implementation of the principles of sustainable development and reconstruction of the city development strategy should be based on the cooperation of all stakeholders. Previous papers developed by the authors describe a Logistics 4.0 maturity model [89,90] and an AI maturity model [91]. It can be background for a developing Logistics 4.0 maturity model dedicated not to enterprises but to cities. Sustainability is also a wider term than solely urban transportation and it could be analyzed from logistics and supply chain management perspectives. Sustainable transport or sustainable supply chain is a system of aligned business activities throughout the lifecycle of products that creates value to stakeholders, ensures ongoing commercial success, and improves the well-being of people and the environment [92] and collaboration is vital to achieving success in sustainable logistics operations [93].

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.O.-S., I.P.; methodology, J.O.-S., I.P., J.P.; formal analysis, J.P., J.O.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.P., I.P., J.O.-S.; writing—review and editing, J.P., I.P., J.O.-S.; visualization: I.P., J.P.; data curation: J.O.-S., J.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Awan, U.; Kraslawski, A.; Huiskonen, J. Governing Interfirm Relationships for Social Sustainability: The Relationship between Governance Mechanisms, Sustainable Collaboration, and Cultural Intelligence. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4473. [CrossRef] 2. Kovalevs’ka, A.V.;Zelens’kyy,S.V.Stiykyy rozvytok mist: Sutnist’ ponyattya ta peredumovy vprovadzhennya. Sots. Ekon. 2017, 53–71. 3. ECMT Annual Report 2004, European Conference of Ministers of Transportation. 2004. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/ecmt-annual-report-2004_9789282103463-en (accessed on 2 July 2020). 4. OECD, Guidance on Sustainable Impact Assessment. 2010. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/ greengrowth/46530443.pdf (accessed on 13 May 2020). Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 33 of 37

5. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Mobility for Development and Reducing Mobility ‘Divides’ among Citizens, While Enhancing the Overall Mobility Opportunities. 2009. Available online: http://docs.wbcsd.org/2009/03/MobilityForDevelopment_Summary.pdf (accessed on 4 July 2020). 6. Publication of the Project Catch-MR (Cooperative Approaches to Transport Challenges in Metropolitan Regions), Metropolitan Regions, Moving People: Towards Sustainable Mobility in European Metropolitan Regions. November 2012. Available online: https://www.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_ tevprojects/library/Catch-MR_Guide_Towards-Sustainable-Mobility-in-MRs-1.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2020). 7. Arbib, J.; Seba, T. Rethinking Transportation 2020–2030 the Disruption of Transportation and the Collapse of the Internal Combustion Vehicle and Oil Industries. A Rethink Sector Disruption Report. Available online: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/585c3439be65942f022bbf9b/ t/591a2e4be6f2e1c13df930c5/1509063152647/RethinkX+Report_051517.pdf (accessed on 2 July 2020). 8. Awan, U.; Khattak, A.; Rabbani, S.; Dhir, A. Buyer-Driven Knowledge Transfer Activities to Enhance Organizational Sustainability of Suppliers. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2993. [CrossRef] 9. Awan, U.; Sroufe, R.; Kraslawski, A. Creativity enables sustainable development: Supplier engagement as a boundary condition for the positive effect on green innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 172–185. [CrossRef] 10. United Nations. Bruntland report—Report of World Commission on Environment and Development. In Our Common Future—Sustainable Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 1987. 11. Hawken, P. The Ecology of Commerce; HarperCollins: New York, NY, USA, 1993. 12. Wandemberg, J.C. Sustainable by Design; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2015; p. 122. ISBN 978-1516901784. 13. Mensah, J. Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2019, 5, 1–21. 14. Makrakis, V.; Gkotzos, D.; Larios, N. ICT-Enabled Climate Change Education and Children Rights. J. Teach. Educ. Sustain. 2012, 14, 89–110. [CrossRef] 15. Hayward, G.; Garvin, K. The International Regulatory, Social, and Political Framework. In Sustainable Land Development and Restoration; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2010; pp. 3–11. 16. Hák, T.; Janoušková, S.; Moldan, B. Sustainable development goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 60, 565–573. [CrossRef] 17. Hussain, F.; Chaudhry,M.N.; Batool, S.A. Assessment of key parameters in municipal solid waste management: A prerequisite for sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2014, 21, 519–525. [CrossRef] 18. UNSD. SDG Indicators Global Database. 2018. Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/ database (accessed on 11 April 2020). 19. Gossling-Goidsmiths, J. Sustainable Development Goals and Uncertainty Visualization; Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation of the University of Twente in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Cartography; Enschede, The , 2018; Availableonline: https://cartographymaster.eu/wp-content/theses/2018_GOSLING-GOLDSMITH_Thesis.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2020). 20. Zhai, T.T.; Chang, Y.C. Standing of environmental public-interest litigants in China: Evolution, obstacles and solutions. J. Environ. Law 2019, 30, 369–397. [CrossRef] 21. The Future of Cities. Available online: https://urban.jrc.ec.europa.eu/thefutureofcities/mobility#the-chapter (accessed on 4 July 2020). 22. Litman, T. Sustainable Transportation and TDM. In Online TDM Encyclopedia; Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2009; Available online: https://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm67.htm (accessed on 12 May 2020). 23. De Greene, K.B. Sociotechnical Systems: Factors in Analysis, Design, and Management; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1973. 24. US National Academy of Sciences. Grand Challenges for Engineering. 2008. Available online: www. engineeringchallenges.org (accessed on 15 June 2020). 25. MIT—Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Engineering Systems. 2008. Available online: http://esd.mit.edu (accessed on 11 June 2020). 26. Jaruzelski, B.; Loehr, J.; Holman, R. Making ideas Work. In The Global Innovation 1000; 2012; Available online: https://www.strategy-business.com/article/11404 (accessed on 24 April 2020). Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 34 of 37

27. Lyons, G. Getting smart about urban mobility—Aligning the paradigms of smart and sustainable. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2016, 115, 4–11. [CrossRef] 28. Banister, D. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 73–80. [CrossRef] 29. Jones, P. The evolution of urban mobility: The interplay of academic and policy perspectives. IATSS Res. 2014, 38, 7–13. [CrossRef] 30. Boschmann, E.E.; Kwan, M.-P. Toward socially sustainable urban transportation: Progress and potentials. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2008, 2, 138–157. [CrossRef] 31. Sjöstedt, L. Managing sustainable mobility: A conceptual framework. In Information Systems in Logistics and Transportation; Tilanus, B., Ed.; Elsevier Science Limited: Oxford, UK, 1997; pp. 19–31. 32. Sjöstedt, L. A conceptual framework for analysing policy maker’s and industry roles and perspectives in the context of sustainable goods transportation. In Barriers to Sustainable Transport: Institutions, Regulation and Sustainability; Rietveld, P., Stough, R., Eds.; Spon: London, UK, 2005; pp. 198–222. 33. Black, W.R.; Nijkamp, P. Social Change and Sustainable Transport; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2002. 34. Bloomington, I.N.; Vergragt, P.J.; Brown, H.S. Sustainable mobility: From technological innovation to societal learning. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1104–1115. 35. Brown, H.S.; Vergragt, P.J.; Green, K.; Berchicci, L. Learning for sustainability transition through bounded socio-technical experiments in personal mobility. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2003, 15, 291–315. [CrossRef] 36. Kemp, R.; Truffer, B.; Harms, S. Strategic niche management for sustainable mobility. In Social Costs and Sustainable Mobility. Strategies and Experiences in Europe and the United States, Heidelberg; Rennings, K., Hohmeier, O., Ottinger, R.L., Eds.; Physica Verlag (Springer): Heidelberg, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 167–187. 37. United Nations Sustainable Development. Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment & Development Rio de Janerio, Brazil. 3–14 June 1992. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un. org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2020). 38. Awan, U. Industrial Ecology in Support of Sustainable Development Goals. In Responsible Consumption and Production; Springer: Cham, , 2020; pp. 370–380. 39. United Nations General Assembly Draft Outcome Document of the United Nations Summit for the Adoption of the Post-2015 Development Agenda; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015. 40. Awan, U. Steering for Sustainable Development Goals: A Typology of Sustainable Innovation. In Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A., Wall, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [CrossRef] 41. European Environment Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from . 2019. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases/ transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases-12 (accessed on 24 March 2020). 42. He, Z.; Haasis, H. A Theoretical Research Framework of Future Sustainable Urban Freight Transport for Smart Cities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1975. [CrossRef] 43. SUS, Sustainable Urbanization Strategy, UNDP’s Support to Sustainable, Inclusive and Resilient Cities in the Developing World, United Nations Development Programme. 2016. Available online: http://www.undp.org/ content/dam/undp/library/Sustainable%20Development/Urbanization/UNDP_Urban-Strategy.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2020). 44. Szczuraszek, T.; Chmielewski, J. Sustainable transport development and passenger transport demand in Poland. MATEC Web Conf. 2018, 174, 01021. [CrossRef] 45. Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M.; Stachowiak, A. Maintenance Process Strategic Analysis. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 145, 022025. [CrossRef] 46. European Commission. Green Paper—Towards a New Culture for Urban Mobility. 2007. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0551 (accessed on 10 May 2020). 47. European Commission. Action Plan on Urban Mobility. 30 September 2009. Available online: https: //eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009DC0490&from=PL (accessed on 13 April 2020). 48. European Commission. 2011 Transport White Paper. Towards a single European Transport Area. 2011. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=celex:52011DC0144 (accessed on 20 April 2020). Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 35 of 37

49. Sustainable Urban Mobility in the EU: No substantial Improvement is Possible without Member States’ Commitment, Special Report, European Court of Auditors, Luxembourg, European Union. 2020. Available online: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR20_06/SR_Sustainable_Urban_Mobility_EN.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2020). 50. Nélson Rodriguez de Silva, A.; Da Silva Costa, M.; Macedo, H.M. Multiple views of sustainable urban mobility: The case of Brazil. Transp. Policy 2008, 15, 350–360. [CrossRef] 51. WRI—World Resources Institute. Sustainable Urban Transport in Asia—Making the Vision a Reality; WRI: Washington, WA, USA, 2007. 52. Gil, A.; Calado, H.; Bentz, J. Public participation in municipal transport planning processes—The case of the sustainable mobility plan of Ponta Delgada, Azores, . J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 1059–1628. [CrossRef] 53. Tennøy, A.; Øksenholt, K.V. The impact of changed structural conditions on regional sustainable mobility planning in Norway. Plan. Theory Pract. 2018, 19, 93–113. [CrossRef] 54. World Bank. Global Roadmap of Action toward Sustainable Mobility. 2019. Available online: http://pubdocs. worldbank.org/en/350451571411004650/Global-Roadmap-of-Action-Toward-Sustainable-Mobility.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2020). 55. Burrieza, J. New Mobility Options and Urban Mobility. Challenges and Opportunities for Transport Planning and Modelling. Momentum. 2020. Available online: https://h2020-momentum.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/ 01/MOMENTUM-D2.1-New-Mobility-Options-and-Urban-Mobility.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2020). 56. European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP). Guidelines for Developing and Implementing Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan. 2020. Available online: https://www.eltis.org/sites/ default/files/sump_guidelines_2019_interactive_document_1.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2020). 57. Deloitte. The Future of Mobility. What’s Next? 2016. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/ dam/insights/us/articles/3367_Future-of-mobility-whats-next/DUP_Future-of-mobility-whats-next.pdf (accessed on 3 May 2020). 58. World Economic Forum (WEF). Transforming Infrastructure: Frameworks for Bringing the Fourth Industrial Revolution to Infrastructure; World Economic Forum: Cologny-Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. 59. European Commission. World and European Sustainable Cities. Insights from EU Research; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2010. 60. Council of Ministers Resolution. The Strategy for Responsible Development until 2020 (with a Perspective to 2030). 2017. Available online: https://www.premier.gov.pl/en/news/news/the-government-adopted-the- responsible-development-strategy.html (accessed on 28 July 2020). 61. Council of Ministers Resolution. The National Regional Development Strategy 2030 (NRDS); Monitor Polski, Item 121. 2019. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/fundusze-regiony/krajowa-strategia-rozwoju- regionalnego (accessed on 16 April 2020). 62. Ministry of Economic Development. National Urban Policy 2023. 2015. Available online: www.gov.pl (accessed on 16 April 2020). 63. Council of Ministers Resolution. Strategy for Sustainable Development of Transport until 2030. 2019. Available online: www.gov.pl (accessed on 16 April 2020). 64. European Commission. White Book. Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area—Towards a Competitive and Resource-Efficient Transport System. 2011. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ ALL/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144 (accessed on 13 April 2020). 65. Commission of the European Communities. Green Paper. Towards a New Culture of Urban Mobility. 2007. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0551&from=PL (accessed on 16 April 2020). 66. OECD. The 2018 White Paper on Rural and Regional Policy. 2018. Available online: www.oecd.org (accessed on 20 April 2020). 67. Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications. Meld. St. 33 (2016–2017) Report to the Storting (White Paper). National Transportation Plan 2018–2029. Available online: https://www.regjeringen.no/ contentassets/7c52fd2938ca42209e4286fe86bb28bd/en-gb/pdfs/stm201620170033000engpdfs.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2020). Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 36 of 37

68. Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications. Meld. St. 26 (2012–2013) Report to the Storting (White Paper) Summary. National Transport Plan 2014–2023. Available online: https://www.regjeringen. no/contentassets/3fff99ead75f4f5e8bd751161006bffa/pdfs/stm201220130026000en_pdfs.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020). 69. Norwegian Ministry of Finance; Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Norwegian’s Progress towards the Implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2018. Available online: https: //www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/departementene/ud/vedlegg/utvikling/oneyearcloser_2018.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2020). 70. ITF. Shared Mobility Simulations for Dublin, International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 58; OECD Publishing: Paris, , 2018. [CrossRef] 71. OECD Economic Survey. Norway-Overview. December 2019. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/ economy/surveys/Norway-2019-OECD-Economic%20Survey_Overview.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2020). 72. The Research Council of Norway. Work Programme Transport 2025—Transport. Oslo. December 2018. Available online: https://www.forskningsradet.no/siteassets/programmer/programplaner/transport-work- programme.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2020). 73. Attractive Nordic Towns. Strategies towards a More Sustainable Future, Sweco. October 2019. Available online: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/217782ca1e9e4991bf26e7784d1f1591/ attractivenordictowns_strategiestowardsasustainablefuture.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2020). 74. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Norway in Europe. The Norwegian Government’s Strategy for Cooperation with the EU 2018–2021. Available online: https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/ departementene/ud/dokumenter/eu/eu_strategy.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2020). 75. Operational Program Infrastructure and Environment 2014–2020. Available online: www. funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl (accessed on 15 April 2020). 76. Eastern Poland 2014–2020 Programme. Available online: https://www.polskawschodnia.gov.pl/strony/o- programie (accessed on 2 July 2020). 77. Handlingsprogram 2020–2023, Oslopakke 3, Forslag fra Styringsgruppen for Oslopakke 3. 15 May 2019. Available online: https://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/2711895/binary/1329720?fast_title= Handlingsprogram+Oslopakke+3+perioden+2020-2023.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2020). 78. Sustainable Development of Public Transport for the City of Poznan for 2014–2025. Available online: www.poznan.pl (accessed on 20 April 2020). 79. Descriptional Report on the Implementation of the Budget of the City of Pozna´nfor 2017, Attachment 4. Available online: https://bip.poznan.pl/bip/rok-2017,doc,1222,3581/opisowe-sprawozdanie-z-wykonania- budzetu-miasta-poznania-za-2017-rok,87480.html (accessed on 20 April 2020). 80. Descriptional Report on the Implementation of the Budget of the City of Pozna´nfor 2018, Attachment 4. Available online: https://bip.poznan.pl/bip/rok-2018,doc,1222,3721/opisowe-sprawozdanie-z-wykonania- budzetu-miasta-poznania-za-2018-rok,93747.html (accessed on 20 April 2020). 81. Descriptional Report on the Implementation of the Budget of the City of Pozna´nfor 2019, Attachment 4. Available online: https://bip.poznan.pl/bip/rok-2019,doc,1222,3861/opisowe-sprawozdanie-z-wykonania- budzetu-miasta-poznania-za-2019-rok,100423.html (accessed on 20 April 2020). 82. Resolution No XXI/373/VIII/2019 of 17 December 2019 of the City Council of Poznan—Poznan City Budget for Year 2020, Attachment 4. Available online: https://bip.poznan.pl/bip/budzet-2020,doc,1003,3901/budzet- 2020-r-budzet-miasta,98703.html (accessed on 20 April 2020). 83. UITP. International Association of Public Transport. Mobility in Cities Database, Synthesis Report, Brussels. June 2015. Available online: http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/cck-focus-papers-files/MCD_2015_ synthesis_web_0.pdf (accessed on 25 April 2020). 84. Oslo Starts Its Year as European Green Capital 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/oslo- starts-its-year-european-green-capital-2019-2019-jan-04_en (accessed on 28 April 2020). 85. Emission Free Public Transport in Oslo and Akershus. 1 August 2018. Available online: https://ruter.no/om- ruter/prosjekter/fossilfri2020 (accessed on 28 April 2020). 86. The Explorer. Available online: https://www.theexplorer.no/stories/transportation2 (accessed on 28 April 2020). 87. Oslo Norway-A Sustainable Oslo. Available online: https://oslonorwayasustainableoslo.weebly.com/ transportation.html (accessed on 28 April 2020). Sustainability 2020, 12, 6510 37 of 37

88. Ruter. Handlingsprogramme with Economic Plan 2017–2020 (Handlingsprogram med ekonomiplan 2017–2020). Available online: https://www.as.kommune.no/handlingsprogram-med-oekonomiplan-2017- 2020.5946778-352116.html (accessed on 1 May 2020). 89. Ole´sków-Szłapka, J.; Stachowiak, A. The framework of logistics 4.0 maturity model. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Wrocław, Poland, 2019. 90. Facchini, F.; Ole´sków-Szłapka, J.; Ranieri, L.; Urbinati, A. A Maturity Model for Logistics 4.0: An Empirical Analysis and a Roadmap for Future Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 86. [CrossRef] 91. Tanajura Ellefsen, A.; Ole´sków-Szłapka, J.; Pawłowski, G.; Toboła, A. Striving for Excellence in AI Implementation: AI Maturity Model Framework and Preliminary Research Results. LogForum 2019, 15, 363–376. [CrossRef] 92. Awasthi, A.; Grzybowska, K.; Chauhan, S.; Goyal, S.K. Investigating Organizational Characteristics for Sustainable Supply Chain Planning Under Fuzziness. In Supply Chain Management under Fuzziness, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing 313; Kahraman, C., Öztay¸si,B., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, , 2014; pp. 81–100. 93. Grzybowska, K.; Awasthi, A.; Hussain, M. Modeling enablers for sustainable logistics collaboration integrating Canadian and Polish perspectives. In Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Proceedings of the 2014 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, Warsaw, Poland, 7–10 September 2014; Ganzha, M., Maciaszek, L., Paprzycki, M., Eds.; Polish Information Processing Society: Warsawa, Poland, 2014; Volume 2, pp. 1311–1319. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).