Movement is undoubtedly one of mankind's most fundamental needs. Each of us needs to move from our homes to another destination for a whole host of reasons: going to work or school, doing the shopping or visiting friends and relatives, going to play sports or relaxing during our free time, tourism travelling, etc. Broadly speaking, movement is not only a need but an opportunity, for growth, meetings, learning, change, knowledge.
European transport policies are based on the 2001 White Paper and its subsequent review, published in 2006. Mobility is understood both as a fundamental right of every citizen, and as a strategic support for the economy. The transport sector, including all of its constituent parts (services, infrastructures, equipment), provides jobs for 10 million people and represents 7% of European GDP (2006 data). It performs an essential role both within the daily lives of all citizens (going to school/work, managing family life, tourism and free time), and for companies (transportation of goods). Among the most recent documents produced by the European Union on the theme of mobility and transport is the new White Paper (Note 1), which was adopted on 28th March 2011 and contains a strategy for rendering Member States' transport systems more efficient and sustainable. One of its main objectives is to encourage reasoned changes in daily habits towards a more active lifestyle, such as through cycling or walking, and towards alternative choices to the car, made possible by improvements in local public transport. The problem is not only linked to choosing public over private means of transport, but more involved in rebalancing the reliance on train use in the public transport sector.
Over recent decades, Europe has seen a constant increase in mobility demand. On the one hand this is due to an increase in distances travelled and to the new needs of citizens in the majority of EU Countries. On the other, it is also the result of an increase in number of vehicles in use in new Member States. Furthermore, business delocalisation has led to an increase in distance between the sites of several production processes and those of assembly or final consumption.
The growing demand for mobility has however created some negative consequences, including the congestion of important road and rail axes, city centres and airports, particularly in Central-western European regions where population density and industrialisation levels are higher and problems of environmental decay (atmospheric and sound pollution) and social degradation (accidents and deaths linked with transport systems) have affected the quality of life of citizens.
In order to reduce congestion and protect the environment, the EU committed itself to disassociate mobility demand growth from economic growth and to rebalance the various means of transportation in order to limit the excessive predominance of road-based transport. Among the most heavily incentivised policies are the greater and better use of existing infrastructures through inter-modality, the combination of more than one transport method; and the introduction of technological innovations which allow for better traffic flow management, rapid information on infrastructures and maintenance requirements.

Mobility demand is defined as the quantity of journeys made within a determined area, in a determined period of time, covering determined distances (Note 2). It depends on a consistent number of factors: the population settlement type and the morphology of the area concerned, the demographic characteristics of residents (particularly age and family type), lifestyles, economic activities present, etc. When these factors alter over time, journeys are also impacted by social and economic dynamics. In contrast to demand for goods and services, mobility demand is defined as 'derived' insofar as it does not represent an end in itself but a means to satisfy other needs (study, work, make purchases, use services, etc). The social and economic variables of an area also have a significant impact on two characteristic dimensions of mobility: the distance to reach a destination and the duration of the journey. At the same time, the way in which mobility is carried out depends not only on individual preferences, but on transport supply in the area in terms of dimensions and spread of services and infrastructures, cost, quality, speed and flexibility of the method used.
Growth in mobility cannot be considered as the final objective of transport policies, but it should nevertheless be of help towards the improvement of citizens' quality of life, where needed. An indiscriminate increase in mobility would not only represent a heavy economic burden but would provoke unacceptable social and environmental costs. This explains the growing interest of institutions towards mobility demand management and the creation of an efficient transport system.
In the 2001 White Paper on transport, the European Union expresses the hope that economic growth rates were not strictly linked to an increase in passenger and goods mobility. In particular, economic development should have maintained higher growth rates than those for people and goods mobility.
In reality, the comparison between GDP trend and mobility demand expressed in terms of passenger-km (Note 3) demonstrates that in the region of Veneto, overall mobility among the 14-80 years old population on a weekday grew considerably from 2005 to 2009, experiencing a significant reduction in 2010. This substantial increase in passenger mobility on weekdays does not correspond to an equally strong economic growth rate: GDP only increased slightly until 2007 and then dropped, above all in 2009.
The same cyclical trend of significant mobility growth and weak economic growth in the first part of the five-year period, followed by the reduction of both variables during the last part of the period also emerges in Italy, though with one important difference: in 2009 in Veneto mobility demand continued to rise in spite of the financial crisis whereas in Italy the trend had already reversed. Although closely linked, the trend in weekday mobility demand seems to move slightly behind the economic situation. In Veneto and Italy, mobility grew more than GDP from 2005 onwards and contracted during the financial crisis: the long-term picture provides indications which go against the objective of the Transport White Paper, registering a greater level of growth in mobility than in the economy. (Figure 17.1.1), (Figure 17.1.2)
With regard to goods, the data available only allows for a separate analysis of, on the one hand, internal transportation (road, rail, river, and canals) and on the other, marine transportation. In order to estimate the internal transportation of goods, we use the tonnes-km indicator, which is the unit of measurement of overall goods traffic: for each transport operation, the quantity moved is multiplied by the length of the journey.
With regard to Italy, the relationship between the economic cycle and the transportation of goods is only analysed from 2006 to 2010 (Note 4). Despite a favourable economic cycle in 2006, goods traffic forewarned of the recession and experienced a serious contraction which appeared to have stopped by 2008. The worsening of the economic situation in 2009 did however lead to a renewed reduction in goods transportation. Through an analysis of marine transportation, it emerges that traffic grew until 2007, at which point it fell. It can however be assumed that during 2006 and 2007 the drop in goods traffic in tonnes-km was partially balanced by the greater contribution of marine transportation.
The assessment of the Italian case should be limited to the last five years, which saw a greater reduction in goods traffic compared to GDP. This was also the case across the European Union, although it began in 2008. There is the lingering suspicion that in Italy too, goods traffic is elastic with regard to GDP, i.e. that small variations in the economic cycle lead to greater variations in the transportation of goods. (Figure 17.1.3), (Figure 17.1.4)
In order to improve quality of life, it is necessary to focus on the time that individuals spend moving around, with the objective of reducing this to a minimum such that it might be used for other activities: taking care of family, rest, entertainment, sport, voluntary work, etc.
Journeys are never an end in themselves and should be seen in relation to individual's need to reach a particular destination. For this reason, it is important to differentiate between reasons for travel by identifying three different macro-groups: work or study, family management or care of people (includes trips to the supermarket, picking up children from school, looking after elderly parents, etc) and free time.
Obviously during weekdays the majority of journeys are made due to work or study reasons (40%), while 33% are related to family management activities and 26% to free time and entertainment. The predominance of these activities on weekdays is even more evident if we observe that 48% of time spent travelling is dedicated to work or study.
If 2005 data is compared to 2011 data however, a significant reduction is noted in the preponderance of journeys made for work reasons, probably a result of the ongoing crisis that began in autumn 2008. (Figure 17.1.5)
In 2010 in Veneto, on average workers spent 20.9 minutes travelling the home-work distance. This is not an excessive amount of time if we consider that the national average is 24.1 minutes. Students in Veneto spent 21 minutes on average getting to school, whereas the national average is 20.2 minutes. Average journey times for students and workers in Veneto are not therefore very different, while there is a reasonable difference on a national level in favour of student mobility.
Student mobility is characterised by a high number of short journeys: in fact more than half (54.4%) last for a maximum of 10 minutes, and the frequency diminishes for the different bands as the time the journey takes increases. This class of journey is also the most frequent for workers, although there is a more homogenous distribution between the first two bands: in Veneto, 36.6% spend a maximum of 10 minutes while 32.5% spend between 11 and 29 minutes. If we take 30 minutes as the maximum length of time acceptable for a home-work/school journey, in order that it does not weigh too heavy on the rest of the day, 85.8% of workers and 81.2% of students fall within these parameters (Note 5).
An analysis of workers by economic sector shows that average home-work journey times do not change considerably in Italy or Veneto, apart from in the case of agriculture, though this only represents a small proportion of total workers. More interesting is the stratification by professional position: on average, employees with a high level of responsibility spend more time reaching their workplace than manual and office workers. As self-employed workers can choose where they work, they tend to cover minimal distances and thus incur the lowest average journey times. In Veneto, all three categories spend less time travelling to/from work on average than the national average: given the density of production centres, it is mainly manual and office workers who benefit from shorter journey times.
With regard to students, journey times are not uniform but increase in correlation with education level. Nursery, elementary and middle schools are spread across the territory, while secondary schools are mostly located in medium- to large-scale town centres, and universities are only concentrated in the biggest urban centres.
Aside from analysing the time spent reaching the workplace or school, it could also be interesting to analyse the hour at which individuals leave the house as this can significantly impact the negative externalities of mobility: congestion of the infrastructure network. Often, and above all in cities, we can observe traffic jams and incidents which make transport less efficient, waste time and increase stress, thus reducing quality of life.
Congestion is often caused by the fact that too many people need to travel at the same time. Infrastructures do not always succeed in meeting transport demands, particularly during certain hours of the day.
A good 83.9% of students and 70.8% of workers in Veneto leave between 7.00 and 8.30 am in order to go to work or school. The difference is mainly due to the fact that the start of the school day is almost always the same across all levels of education (except university), while workers have a more varied schedule, even if the majority do however leave home between 7.00 and 8.30 am.
In the region of Veneto the peak time at which workers leave home is between 7.30 and 8.00 am. Though the peak falls within the same time band on a national level, distribution in the rest of Italy is more uniform between 7.00 and 8.30 am. Furthermore, students in Veneto leave earlier than the national average: the peak time occurs between 7.30 and 8.00 am in Veneto while in Italy the peak occurs in the subsequent time band.
The choice of transport method is the result of a series of factors, which are considered by the majority of users before beginning their journey: cost, availability, flexibility, speed, convenience, etc.
Private means of transport have clear advantages with regard to flexibility and speed: you can leave when you want, you do not have to abide by the rigid routes of public transport and, except in the event of traffic restrictions, you can arrive directly at your final destination. These are undoubtedly the reasons which make private means so popular.
The fact that individuals prefer cars and more generally, private transport, is evident from an analysis of journeys made on weekdays. In Veneto, when a citizen decides to travel, in 63% of cases he/she does so as the driver of a private vehicle, and in 5.8% of cases, as a passenger. Public transport methods linger behind and are chosen only 5.9% of the time, whereas it is interesting to observe that the proportion of journeys carried out on foot or by bike is 19.3%. Private cars are mainly chosen for quick and widespread journeys, whereas public transport is used less frequently but for longer journeys.
The transport methods used to cover the home-workplace/school distance differ greatly between students and workers. Although it remains the most common form of transportation, for students private transport use drops significantly in favour of public transport, cycling and walking. Workers, on the other hand, are mainly the drivers of private vehicles. The tendency to use cars seems to be due to the limited flexibility of public transport in terms of routes and timetables with reference to the needs of managing a family, though public transport becomes more prevalent as the journey time increases. When commuter journeys exceed 45 minutes, students increase their use public transport such that it becomes almost entirely predominant (91.2% of cases). For workers, private transport remains the main method of transportation, though it drops in importance for medium-length commuter journeys in favour of public transport (24.3% of cases).

A transport system is defined as sustainable if it supplies the population with the means and opportunity to meet their mobility needs in a fair and efficient way, over a long period of time and across the entire territory. Mobility is sustainable if it can find a point of equilibrium between social, economic and environmental aspects, minimising negative impacts and associated costs.
The term accessibility refers to the ease with which people are able to reach goods, services, activities and destinations (Note 6). This can be assessed both in terms of potential access (opportunities that might be achieved) and in terms of activities (destinations and services actually reached). The factor of potential access is fundamental, because even those who do not actually use a service might assess the possibility of doing so in the future. There are many possible ways to improve accessibility: supplying a vast range of alternative transport methods to the car, providing users with information regarding all transport methods, integrating the various methods, creating travel opportunities for low-income and disadvantaged people, boosting services that do not require travel (telecommuting, public administration services (e-government), etc.), using the territory in a rational way by minimising the distance between citizens and services, improving connectivity, managing the roads in a way which involves the presence of preferential lanes if necessary, implementing taxation politicise which favour more efficient transport methods.
We wanted to analyse accessibility to those places in which individuals fulfil their main day-to-day needs (health, relations with the public administration and security forces, food products and transport). The difficulty to reach these services depends on their diffusion across the territory, as well as on the transport system, and changes according to whether one lives in a rural or urban centre. In Italy, 66.6% of people claim to have difficulty reaching the emergency room, which is usually located in large town centres or inter-municipal in rural areas. All other services receive decidedly lower shares. The situation in Veneto is better than in the rest of Italy with regard to post offices, police stations, municipal offices, the possibly of access using public transport and, in particular, the possibility of finding parking in residential areas, which sees a negative differential of 11.4%. With regard to emergency rooms and food products, Veneto has a slightly greater number of unsatisfied citizens. (Table 17.2.1)
In order to make a comparison at a regional level, a concise accessibility index was created summarising the overall ease with which families are able to reach main services (Note 7). The index ranges from 0 to 100, where values close to zero indicate difficultly reaching services and values close to 100 represent high levels of accessibility.
Index values are high across Italy (Note 8), demonstrating the fact the citizens do not experience difficulties in reaching the majority of services. In the Northern regions, index values are higher, whereas greater accessibility problems are experienced in the South. Veneto has a significantly higher index value than the national average, even if it is lower than its neighbouring regions and that of the region of Marche. (Figure 17.2.1)
One of the essential destinations of everyday life for people with children of a compulsory school age is the school. Families were asked to judge how difficult it was to reach nursery, elementary or middle school, depending on the education level of their children. The fact that families did or did not respond according to whether the child attends or does not attend a determined school allowed for the construction of a separate index concerning education. The concise index ranges from 0 to 100, with 0 representing difficulty in reaching school sites and 100 representing high levels of accessibility. The concise accessibility index for school sites is decidedly higher than that of services, across all the Italian regions. Moreover, the difference between the region with the highest school accessibility index value (Lombardy) and the lowest (Calabria) is lower than the value calculated for this index by also taking other services into account. This fact is very important as it means that easy access to schools is ensured. Even if very slim, regional differences between the North and the South persist, with the Southern regions being penalised more extensively. Veneto is among the regions with the highest index value, following Lombardy, Friuli Venezia Giulia and Umbria (Figure 17.2.2)
One aspect to bear in mind about transport systems is economic accessibility to transport. This means that every individual, independent of his/her economic situation, has the right to travel and to have access to fundamental everyday activities (medical care, food shopping, education, work and socialising).
The value of the concise accessibility index was thus calculated with regard to essential services for families who declare themselves to be living under difficult or completely insufficient economic circumstances. The index values show that good accessibility to fundamental services is ensured and provided, on average, to all citizens, even if difficulties increase in Southern regions. It is however clear that significant differences do exist between more and less wealthy people, both in Veneto and Italy. Moreover, the accessibility index for less wealthy individuals in Region assumes significantly higher values compared to the Italian average (Figure 17.2.3)

The latest information available on a national level relative to 2011 provides evidence of a drop in mobility consumption, due to the economic crisis of recent years: the number of journeys made overall during an average weekday was equal to little more than 106 million, a 14% drop on 2010 values and the lowest value of the last 10 years. With reference to motivations, between 2010 and 2011, the number of work- and study-related journeys increased (from 36.7% in 2010 to 37.1% in 2011), as did journeys for family management (from 30.6% in 2010 to 34.3% in 2011). At the same time, the number of journeys made for free time dropped (from 28.6% in 2010 to 26% in 2011).
In this context, the absolute value of journeys across all the different means of transportation has decreased, even if at a varying intensity. The reduction in journeys made by bike or on foot has been particularly accentuated (-22.3% from 2010 to 2011); the absolute value now lies at less than 20 million, which is the lowest level over the past 10 years. Also of interest is the drop in journeys made by individual means of transport: -15% for motorbike journeys and -12.7% for car journeys (4.4 million journeys on motorbike and 69.6 million by car are also at their lowest levels in the 'Audimob' historic series). With reference to public transport, the reduction in journeys has been more contained (-4.4%). In terms of modal share, there has been a slight increase in collective transport, which reached 8.9% in 2011 (from 8.2% in 2010), a consistent level for two-wheel motorised vehicles (5.1% in 2011 and 5.3% in 2010) and a reduction in the share of sustainable mobility (from 20.8% in 2010 to 18.8% in 2011) and car travel (from 71.3% in 2010 to 70.6% in 2011).
Somewhat similar considerations can be made in reference to the data for the region of Veneto: the average number of daily journeys per capita has dropped to 2.8 (3.1 in 2010) for a total of 56.6 minutes spent travelling everyday. The proportion of work journeys has not changed (39.4%), free time journeys have reduced (25.5% compared to 27.1% in 2010), and family management journeys have increased (33.3% up from 30.1% in 2010); car use has increased (85% up from 83.3% in 2010) and public transport use has dropped (11.9% compared to 13.1% in 2010).
Despite the fact that private transport continues to represent the preferred means of travel, one can however attempt to grasp the occasion presented by the financial crisis as an opportunity for change and to re-launch sustainable mobility; an attempt to change the current cultural model that defines the private car as the single or principal means of transportation and re-launch public transport methods.
However, in order to make public transport an opportunity to shift transport habits, public transport offer needs to high quality.
User satisfaction with the quality of public transport is extremely important, both for transport and city planners and for businesses within the sector. Organising a high quality public transport system represents a veritable challenge and a valid alternative to the car, with important benefits for the environment and in terms of traffic reduction. The quality of the service has a strong influence on user choice: if public transport experiences are positive, it will probably be kept in mind for future journeys.
The analysis is focused on three main public transport methods: buses and trams, which travel mainly within the town/city area, extra-urban buses, which typically connect one town to another, and trains.
Both in Veneto and in Italy public transport has difficulties in reaching a large number of users: all the three means of transport considered are used by less than a half of the population. The train is the means that attracts the largest proportion of users: in Veneto, 36.8% have travelled by train at least once in the past year. Decidedly lower figures emerge for the bus (22.9%) (Note 9) and the extra-urban bus service (17.5%). Compared to the national situation, a greater number of people in Veneto are willing to view the train as a travel option, whereas differences are less noticeable for the remaining two forms of transport. In Italy, the bus has more users than in the region of Veneto (24.7%): this is in part due to the distribution of the population in many small- to medium-sized centres in which the bus struggles to compete with the car.
The train, however, loses its appeal among commuters: in Veneto, the percentage of users who travel by train everyday or more than once a week drops to 2.5%, below than the national average. On the other hand, the train is often used to cover longer distances and appears uncompetitive for short-range trips. The bus is the method of public transport with the greatest shares, including among users who make frequent use of the service, with a share of 9.6%. The extra-urban bus services have dropped significantly: the percentage of users who use them to travel everyday or more than once a week is 6% (Figure 17.3.1), (Figure 17.3.2)
To be of a high quality, public transport should respect timetables, have a large number of routes, be accessible to all without leaving part of the territory unserviced or excluding individuals on a low income, ensure a high level of comfort during the journey with clean windows, no bad smells, sounds or vibrations, presence of onboard air conditioning, low numbers of crowds and punctual and accurate user information (route departure and arrival times, access points to the service, eventual changes, etc.).
The concise index of user satisfaction regarding service quality summarises the judgement of passengers on the main characteristics (Note 10) of the bus, extra-urban bus and the train. As in the case of accessibility, the index ranges from 0 to 100, where values approaching 0 indicate low satisfaction with service quality and values close to 100 demonstrate high levels of appreciation. For each of the three methods of public transport, user satisfaction in Veneto was higher than the Italian values, even if the differential is only significant in the case of the bus and extra-urban services. In Veneto, the quality of bus and extra-urban services is almost identical, though the differential with the Italian index is particularly evident in the first case, since in Italy average satisfaction is a great deal lower for bus services. Veneto is located near the top of the regional rankings for the bus and, despite the fact that user judgements do not differ greatly from the Italian average, for the train. This data highlights the fact that the variability of overall satisfaction between the regions is greater for the bus and more concentrated for the train. Trentino Alto Adige achieves the highest quality levels for all three transport methods, whereas Southern regions register the lowest index values with the occasional exception (Molise for the bus, Molise and the Abruzzi for extra-urban buses and Campania for the train). Furthermore, it is clear that Lazio, Campania and Lombardy, i.e. the three regions that are home to cities with over a million inhabitants, have low public transport index values for road services and high values for the train. While road-based public transport is slowed by traffic, train travel does not have this problem and is mainly concentrated in connections towards the main cities.
Overall, if we consider a value of 50 as the minimum level for a satisfactory standard of service (Note 11), then the Veneto user gives a positive judgement for the bus and extra-urban bus, and a partially negative judgement for the train. It is worth nothing however, that there is much work still to be done because even for road-based public transport, the index values are not much higher than 50. (Figure 17.3.3)
One would imagine that the higher the quality of public transport services, the greater the number of citizens using the service. In reality, the relationship between the two variables is not always so clear-cut. The Paerson correlation index is 0.49 for the train, 0.39 for the extra-urban bus and just 0.17 for the bus and tram. In the case of the bus, for example, the regions of Lazio and Liguria have a high number of citizens who use the service at least once a year, but satisfaction index values are not particularly high. If we were to exclude these two regions, the Paerson index would increase to 0.40.
The not particularly strong relationship between the service quality index and the percentage of users using the service may depend on many factors: in particularly urbanised areas, the role of public transport is fundamental, but a high level of users also increases the probability of overcrowding, possible delays, lack of seats, and so on; all of which lead to the perception of low quality. The index does not take into account the opinions of those who do not use public transport: those who never travel by public transport probably do not have a positive judgement on the service. Furthermore, there may be some areas in a region that are well serviced, where users perceive a good quality of service, and others with defects that discourage citizens from using public transport. Similarly, the region may have settlement characteristics that oblige the use of a certain method of transport despite the service not being organised in the best way, or vice versa.
The graphs however clearly show that a region like Trentino Alto Adige where users express a higher level of satisfaction with the quality of all three services than in any other region, is also among the highest ranked in terms of the number of citizens who use public transport. Paying attention to the organisation and characteristics of public transport can therefore pay off in terms of increasing the pool of users.
Notwithstanding a good quality index level, the region of Veneto has a fairly low percentage of bus users. This may be a result of the fact that the Veneto has a widespread settlement structure whereby the percentage of citizens living in cities is relatively low compared to other regions.
With regard to the extra-urban bus, Veneto is close to average both for the satisfaction index and for the number of citizens who use the service.
Finally, the train has among the highest percentage of users and perceived quality index value in Italy, even if it is worth remembering that the service quality judgement is considerably lower than that of the extra-urban and bus services (Figure 17.3.4), (Figure 17.3.5), (Figure 17.3.6)
In order to succeed in supporting a sustainable mobility system and grasping the opportunities offered by it, good practices should be acquired and promoted, and reasoned changes in daily habits in favour of a more active lifestyle should be incentivised, including cycling and walking and alternative choices to the private car, which should be made possible by improving the local public transport services.
It is with this in mind that the Veneto region is participating as a partner in the PIMMS CAPITAL Project (Note 13), which is aimed at spreading good practices regarding sustainable mobility across its 12 partner regions. The objective is to transfer good practices to the regions and influence their transport policies and investments in favour of sustainable transport and mobility, encouraging the use of alternative means to the car. Focus has been placed on the use of 'soft' measures (e.g. user information regarding existing services) that will improve the efficacy of 'hard' traffic planning measures (e.g. new train lines, new roads, new cycle paths, etc).
The project is organised into different phases involving the selection of good, importable practices, the observation of good practices in action in the exporting regions, the evaluation of importable elements and import methods, the creation of an Action Plan identifying the concrete steps that should be taken in order to import these good practices and identify the regional authorities competent as concerns the adoption of the Action Plan.
Within the context of the project, the Veneto region has identified the 'Integrated Transport Strategy' created by CENTRO, the West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority, as an importable best practice.
An examination of the CENTRO transport strategy allowed for an assessment of the possibility of applying certain elements to the regions. These elements should be coherent with both the EU Transport White Paper and with the various planning documents of the region itself (Regional Transport Plan, Regional Protection and Atmospheric Recovery Plan, Strategic Regional Document: Territorial Infrastructural Framework). In particular, attention was focused on the different elements, including the application of planning and management methodologies aimed towards sustainable mobility; the coordination of all involved subjects, also via the creation of networks; the integration of transport and mobility services; the development of a user-oriented service both through suitable communication/information and reliable services; the application of innovative technologies to intelligent transport systems for management and communication in transport services.
Within this framework, an element to focus on in order to apply good practices on a regional level is represented by the need to establish coordination between all stakeholders, in a context where the field of expertise of the various subjects overlap with each other (Region, Province and Municipalities) and there is a plurality of both road and rail transport operators. Of equal importance is the development of a user-oriented service, called in the 2001 White Paper as 'Transport with a Human Face' and translated in the 2011 White Paper as the promotion of passenger rights. User involvement is in fact fundamental in order to achieve important results with regard to the promotion of alternative methods to the private car; in this framework, adequate communication is an element that significantly influences the evaluation of service reliability; and communication is a prerequisite to awareness, an essential element in the attempt to create a successful sustainable transport strategy.
The promotion of the identified principles will begin with the creation of pilot initiatives, which will then be extended to other enterprises. EU projects such as PIMMS CAPITAL represent an opportunity for the study and financing of sustainable mobility strategies within the framework of partnership on a European level.