1. III. ANALYSIS OF LAWS & REGULATIONS (Stand 14.09.09)

2. Analysis of Laws & Regulations Contents: Goals of ADD HOME Basic conditions at the place of residence Crucial questions of the analysis Subject-matter of the analysis Products Comparative results and lessons learnt / good solutions Recommendations National results in detail and national conclusions (optional)

3. ANALYSIS of Laws & Regulations Goals of ADD HOME: ADD HOME shall on European level contribute for a better alliance between “housing” and “mobility” at the place of residence ADD HOME shall support free choice of means of transport in housing areas and aims to substitute individual motorized transport by energy saving modes of mobility

4. ANALYSIS of Laws & Regulations Basic conditions at the place of residence that could foster free choice and the increased use of energy saving modes of mobility - I City structure/ kind and place of location location close to or with good connection to the central facilities mixed area of high density good supply for daily and non-daily goods and services in close proximity Public transport (PT) good accessibility of PT stops and lines (local transport and long-distance traffic; regular and on-demand service) fitting to the individual needs/destinations of the residents PT-services; tickets for tenants Bicycle Transportation (BT) good connection to the local network of bicycle paths comfortable, safe, dry and easy accessible bike-parking facilities close to the entrances Access to additional transport items like bicycle trailers or carrier bikes Self-service stations

5. ANALYSIS of Laws & Regulations Basic conditions at the place of residence that could foster free choice and the increased use of energy saving modes of mobility - II Walking Network of internal walking paths offering direct and short connections good connection to the local network of pedestrian paths Car sharing / Car pooling, Taxi Car pooling schemes – origin/site related Car sharing facilities close to the potentially users or especially for a housing area (low) Use of the (own) car Low number of necessary parking spaces Parking management on public ground Separation of costs for parking and housing Traffic calming, car-free zones/areas The nearest PT stop should be at least as close as parking spaces

6. ANALYSIS of Laws & Regulations Basic conditions at the place of residence that could foster free choice and the increased use of energy saving modes of mobility – III Information Access to individual, static and dynamic mobility information (via phone, web, computer, info-panel of housing unit, etc.) Site information like site maps individualized PT marketing for inhabitants Safety Subjective sensation of safety and security at the place of residence (mainly relating to cycling and walking) Additional services Delivery, relocation, shopping or generation services

7. ANALYSIS of Laws & Regulations Crucial questions of the analysis: In what way do the respectively relevant laws and legal instruments support or constrict the realisation of the above-named goals and basic conditions? What are thinkable adjustments, that might ease the realisation of - good conditions for free choice and - an increased use of energy saving modes of transport? Methods: Analysis of the relevant laws and regulations on national, regional and local level; comments; secondary literature

8. ANALYSIS of Laws & Regulations Subject-matter of the analysis: national spatial planning and building laws regional building laws laws on construction and reconstruction subsidies local instruments like zoning and legally binding land use plans national and regional laws relating to transport local laws, regulations and non-binding instruments concerning transport and mobility such as “transport development plan”, “masterplan bicycle transportation” and many more

9. ANALYSIS of Laws & Regulations Products (see download section ADD HOME website  www.add-home.eu):www.add-home.eu National characteristics with information about each analysed regulation, including: –purpose –relevant paragraphs –problematic rules –relevance for ADD HOME, options for adjustment National summaries, including the most important regulations, barriers, options, thinkable adjustments and national recommendations Overall summary, including comparative considerations, lessons learnt from each other and overall recommendations

10. Comparative results of the analysis Public Transport (PT) in residential areas: PT at the place of residence is mainly the issue of local authorities and PT providers (BG: local transport schemes; GER: local PT plan; SL: urban PT plans). Only in Italy the regions write up regional transport plans according to local organization plans. Regulations about the accessibility of residential areas by PT are different. In Slovenia and Bulgaria public transport must be accessible within 5 minutes walking distance (in cities). In Bulgaria also the distance between the bus stops should not be longer than 500m. In Germany and Austria coverage by PT is not guaranteed concretely. Just on the local level accessibility and supply of PT is specifically defined via local PT-plans. In Italy a unique definition concerning accessibility is also missing.

11. Lessons learnt / good solutions Public Transport in residential areas: Recommendable: the regulations in Slovenia and Bulgaria, that PT stops must be accessible within 5 minutes walking distance (in areas of high density/urban context) Worth considering: Bulgaria: distance between bus stops in urban areas is supposed to be between 250 – 500 m (in areas of high density/urban context) Worth considering: Instruments like the German local PT plan (Nahverkehrsplan) - focussing on PT issues - are adequate to define specific standards on the local level

12. Comparative Results of the Analysis Bicycle Transportation (BT) and Walking in residential areas - I: Bicycle parking: In Germany a general duty to build parking spaces for bikes is included in many building laws at the Federal State level (9 of 16 cases). In Austria building bicycle parking facilities is obligatory in Salzburg and Oberösterreich generally and for multistorey houses in most provinces. In Slovenia the local administrations are free to define standards related to bike-parking facilities or not. There is no duty to construct them. In Bulgaria local authorities should consider the construction of bicycle parking lots together with the bicycle tracks. In Italy the construction of parking spaces for bikes isn’t obligatory, but financial incentives are given by national administrations for their construction to foster convenient conditions for bicycle parking.

13. Comparative Results of the Analysis Bicycle Transportation (BT) and Walking in residential areas - II: Bicycle paths: The construction of bicycle paths itself is always matter of the local tools such as development plan or land use plan. In all participating countries they give the opportunity to fix in detail the provision of bicycle paths in parts of municipal areas. Cyclists in Austria, Germany and Slovenia are bound to use the signposted paths and lanes when provided. In Italy cyclists are free to use the normal road infrastructure, even if paths and lanes are provided for them. Walking: The operative tools on local level do sufficiently offer options for the planning, construction and signposting of infrastructure for pedestrians – in the form of pedestrian zones or walking paths. But unlike as in case of cycling, special programs fostering good conditions for walking are missing.

14. Lessons learnt / good solutions Bicycle Transportation and Walking in residential areas: Recommendable: obligatory construction of parking facilities for bikes in the context of new housing constructions (Germany and Austria). Worth emulating: informal instruments to foster cycling like “National Cycling Plan” (Austria, Germany), “Regional plan about financing bicycle mobility” (Italy) or the “Working group bicycle friendly communities”  North-Rhine- Westphalia (Germany). Worth emulating: the Slovenian Decree on Spatial Order; it can be considered as a good example for the priority of sustainable modes of transport (planning the road infrastructure in the following order: pedestrians, cyclists, PT and other motor traffic). Worth considering: regulation, that cyclists are free to use the normal road infrastructure, even if paths and lanes are provided for them (Italy).

15. Comparative results of the analysis Private car use in residential areas I - Car parking: The handling of car parking is one of the key issues for energy efficient car use in residential areas. Nearly overall exists a legally defined duty to build a sufficient number of car-parking spaces, mostly depending e. g. on the number of residents, visitors, PT frequency, number of households. In Austria and Germany (with exceptions) reference values (connected with the regional building laws) are given as guidelines to local authorities. In Bulgaria the number of obligatory parking spaces is determined on national level. In Italy local authorities have to realize urban parking programs including the need to identify the dimensions of parking spaces In Slovenia a minimum of 1.5 parking space is defined on national level. Local authorities are free to enact related local legislation. In practise a schematical approach is usual; variations to 1.5 or 2.0 parking spaces per accommodation unit are uncommon.

16. Lessons learnt / good solutions Private car use in residential areas I – Car parking: Recommendable: existing or planned situational conditions like a good PT- connection, infrastructure for walking and cycling, additional services etc. should come into account, when planning the number of parking spaces (Germany, Slovenia). Recommendable: a general limitation to a maximum of 1.0 per accommodation unit (as in some places in Switzerland). Worth emulating: the opportunity to make a payment instead of building parking spaces, if that is not possible (Austria, Germany) is also a positive aspect. Local authorities should be allowed to use the payment for public transport, bike and ride or bike-parking facilities. Worth considering: the “Berliner (Germany) solution” (no duty at all) as well as the “Vienna (Austria) solution” (very low number of parking space per housing unit)  should be discussed in the European context.

17. Comparative results of the analysis Private car use in residential areas II – Car-sharing: The success of car-sharing depends in a great extent on the closeness to the users  exclusive parking facilities near to the customers are essential But reserving of parking spaces on public ground is a problem in some participating countries. In Germany it is still not allowed to reserve parking spaces for car-sharing vehicles - but changes are already in the pipeline. In Italy and in the city of Graz (A) in contrast it is allowed to reserve parking spaces for car-sharing vehicles on public ground and parking on public ground is for free. In Italy the use of public bus lanes is also possible. In Austria (Voralberg) the provision of Car-sharing parking spaces is credited with positive points for the construction subsidies. In Bulgaria and Slovenia Car-sharing isn’t public-regulated at all.

18. Lessons learnt / good solutions Private car use in residential areas II - Car-sharing: Recommendable: it should be legally and easily possible to reserve parking spaces for car-sharing on public ground. Recommendable: housing subsidy codes should consider the implementation of car-sharing as one criteria for public funding. Constructors and developers might get additional funding, if they realise mobility offers for future residents (Austrian system). Worth emulating: an explicitly identification of car pooling and car sharing as collective transport solutions, as it is given in the Italian law n. 340/2000, might help to increase both supply and demand of car-sharing services.

19. Comparative results of the analysis Mobility services for residents: Often the provision of mobility services such as Information on site, PT information and advertisement, Car-pooling schemes, Special boxes for the placement of additional transport items, Good delivery services, shopping services or Incentives on public transport tickets for tenants are based on private initiatives or on initiatives of the public transport providers.

20. Lessons learnt / good solutions Mobility services for residents Even if the idea of mobility services is more or less not regulated legally, good practices can be found in all participating countries – based on private agreements. Recommendable: subsidies for the construction of residential houses can be bound stronger to sustainable transport provision. Worth considering: a stronger integration of “soft measures” in laws and regulations, for example in the laws related to public transport. Another approach could be the integration of costs for mobility services in the tenancy agreement.

21. Recommendations Public Transport in residential areas The construction of residential areas must primarily happen in the catchment-area of public transport as it is mentioned in several spatial planning laws or codes in various countries. For those parts of regions, where no usual PT service can be provided, on- demand solutions and alternative forms of car transportation such as carpooling, car Sharing and neighbourhood cars need to be installed. The PT catchment area’s level of service e.g. regarding the distance to PT stops should orientate on the regulations in Slovenia or Bulgaria. Where provided, PT stops should be directly and easily accessible by foot. The distance should be not longer than the average distance of inhabitants to go to their cars. Furthermore PT stops should integrate bicycle parking facilities fostering intermodal trips. The Slovenian and Bulgarian standards for accessibility of PT stops are worth emulating.

22. Recommendations Bicycle Transport and Walking in residential areas Legally binding regulations about bike parking facilities (relating to quantity, distance to the front door and quality) are needed. Financial incentives e. g. for the construction of bicycle parking facilities are useful in existing residential areas, where the current legal regulations do not apply. Informal instruments to foster cycling should be initiated on the national and regional level. Walking and the respective infrastructure should be considered more carefully. Especially walking routes to relevant PT stops in residential areas should be of high quality and cause a (subject) sense of high security.

23. Recommendations Private car use in residential areas - I A flexible and un-bureaucracy approach relating to the construction of car parking spaces on private properties is needed. Instead of fixed numbers of necessary parking spaces, the concrete needs of the current (and future) residents have to be considered as well as the situational conditions  more flexible and sometimes just temporary effective solutions. Additionally the setting of a minimum of car parking spaces should be exchanged by a maximum (as it is practised in some places in Switzerland and Belgium/Brussels) leaving also the option of no parking spaces at all. In this context the opportunity to make a payment instead of building parking spaces, if that is not possible (Austria, Germany) is also worth mentioning as a positive aspect. Local authorities should be allowed to use the payment for public transport, bike and ride or bike-parking facilities.

24. Recommendations Private car use in residential areas - II The construction of collective parking areas at the edges of residential areas instead of single spaces on private properties might help to increase the quality of neighbourhoods and opens up opportunities for a better use to capacity. The opportunity to reserve parking spaces for Car Sharing vehicles on public ground should be given as in Italy, Graz and e. g. Brussels. A different approach as it is usual in Japan [the one, who owns a car, must prove a car-parking space on private property; otherwise one cannot register a motor vehicle] might be worth to be discussed in the European countries as well.

25. Recommendations Others Development of residential areas needs happen primarily in the catchment area of public transport. The role of spatial and urban planning is crucial to enable sustainable mobility structures. An increased consideration of mobility aspects in housing subsidy codes would be useful (including new construction, renovation/reconstruction as well as the subsidies for flats supporting poor people). Measures fostering the use of sustainable modes of transport should be supported by (additional) financial incentives. The consideration of energy aspects of mobility in the context of the issue of an “energy performance certificate” (in German: Energiepass) should be discussed as well. A stronger integration of soft-policy measures in legal instruments as well as a mandatory character to implement these should be proofed more carefully.