1. Funding and financing sustainable mobility
Paul Curtis
Vectos
CREATE Final Conference, May 2018

2. Funding

3. Parking revenue Vienna parking management system
First district introduced 1993 and has expanded five times since to include more districts
Provides revenue which is invested in public transport and traffic safety
Sends positive message to citizens that public transport is priority

4. Road charging London congestion charge Weekdays, £11.50 per day
Net income £160m per year boosting budget of the Transport Authority TFL
Source: City Metric– TfL Statement of accounts

5. Land Value Capture
LVC mechanisms seek to capture a proportion of land value gains to fund the transport infrastructure which causes them
Copenhagen
land closest to metro line and stations is majority-owned by the municipality
raises funding through the increase in land and property value.
London
LVC being considered
review of historic land value increase resulting from new transport infra shows large potential.

6. Private Investment
Copenhagen sees a growth in private investment for large schemes
EG the pedestrian and cycling harbour bridge by MAERSK via a charitable fund.
Twenty per cent of funding for cycle infrastructure, in the last few years, has come from private sector sources forming important PPPs.
Exploit Corporate and Social Responsibility opportunities

7. Local Taxation
Paris Versement Transport is a hypothecated transport tax
private companies (10 staff or more) pay a tax
revenue ring fenced for transport investment
makes up 65% of the regional transport authority (STIF) budget.
Vienna local payroll tax has contributed to the cost of extending the metro

8. Public funding through smart justification
Transport for London advocates walking and cycling schemes to apply HEAT and SART in appraisals
Health Economic Assessment Tool
measures monetised value of reduced mortality of users of new infrastructure
Sickness Absence Reduction Tool
Applies the research proving that physically active employees take 25% fewer absence days, hence increased business output
Royal College Street scheme, Camden 2012: cost £475k vs SART + HEAT benefit value £441k
Skopje cycle infrastructure justified as reduced road space (and hence demand) for cars

9. Developer contributions to local infrastructure
Developers in Tallinn funded infrastructure improvements as part of new residential / retail centres.
Shopping centre bus service connects with the port
In London “Section 106 agreements” are made obliging developers to invest in congestion mitigation measures:
cycling, public transport, car sharing

10. CO2 quotas
Estonia sold unused CO2 quotas to Spain to fund electro-mobility programme:
National EV charging network in Estonia has 300 EV charging points and 500 EVs for social workers.
Romanian Ministry of Environment gained €10m from the selling GHG certificates.
Funded bicycle lanes in Bucharest city centre,

11. Sponsorship
Businesses funded new bus stops in Amman (offered free advertising in return)

12. Sponsorship / PPP
Private sponsorship of bike share scheme Tallinn (SIXT)
Launched November 2016 (100 bikes and 10 locations initially)
The city has made available free locations and advertising.
Similar business model as London Cycle hire scheme

13. Financing (Lending)

14. Financing
Precedent for loan financing from main institutions in following S1cities for urban infrastructure and PT fleets
Municipal services Skopje – World Bank
PT upgrade, street refurbishment Tallinn – EIB €100m
SUMP training Tallinn - JASPERS
SMART Romania Programme - EBRD
Loan financing to bring forward SUMP measures in Romanian cities
Upgrading public transport e.g. low emission buses in Sibiu and road infrastructure
SUMP development Bucharest-Ilfov – EBRD and JASPERS
BRT and TMMP in Amman - French Development Bank

15. EBRD Green Cities Programme
Set up 2016 to support governments, municipalities and private companies to improve quality of life in cities.
€250m total budget for more than 30 cities
Eligible cities >100k population and must initiate a ‘trigger’ project in municipal infrastructure addressing climate change.
€5m loans available
Pilots already being delivered in Georgia, Armenia and Moldova.
Stage 1 cities could therefore introduce a CREATE Stage 3 measure, as part of a wider plan, therefore unlocking €5m loan

16. Funding + Financing blending
The EU and donor agencies advocate blending of funding and financing instruments, EG:
EU + EBRD / EIB
Financing component can act as match funding for EU grants
Reasons why financing not fully exploited
credit rating insufficient
need for urban transport plan
need for de-centralised public services
administrative burden
high risk / not mitigated
weak business case, ROI

17. Summary

18. Summary of main sources to reach and consolidate Stage 3 status
Central Grants
Government shares national tax revenue
Local Taxes
Employer contributions
Property Taxes
Rates, levies
Direct Income
Fares, commercial activities
Borrowing
From commercial sources or IFIs
Convergence Ahead

19. Findings
Cities use innovative ways of financing and funding sustainable urban mobility
Cities with SUMPs are able to unlock funding and financing more quickly as they show long term vision and low risk investment
Some cities do not exploit financing options until funding has been exhausted
Possible to combine the two to accelerate journey to stage 3

20. Findings
Successive ROPs have become more geared towards sustainable urban mobility and moving away from car centric priorities.
This shows the transition from stage 1 and stage 3 within EU programmes, as cities develop their base infra.
CAUTION! Different investment sources can pull cities in opposite directions since mobility priorities vary at different levels (Stage 1 vs Stage 3)
Local / National / Private / EU / EBRD / EIB

21. EBRD priorities for lending
Mixture of Stage 1, 2 and 3 priorities
infrastructure investment (S1)
on-street parking schemes
improve road network via asset management
PT investment (S2)
urban trains, trams, trolley buses, bus fleet renewal (Diesel, CNG)
eTicketing and traffic management
Green Cities Programme (S3)
..’ to meet env’tl challenges and improve people’s quality of life in cities’

22. Thank you !