Indicator-based evaluation of sustainable transport plans:

A framework for Paris and other large cities

Authors

Cline Chakhtoura
The University of Queensland, Australia (celine.chakhtoura@uq.net.au)

Dorina Pojani
The University of Queensland, Australia (d.pojani@uq.edu.au)

Acknowledgment
This is an Authors Original Manuscript of an article whose final and definitive form, the
Version of Record, has been published in Transport Policy, 2016, Vol. 50 : 15-28,
Elsevier, DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.05.014 available online at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X1630289X
Abstract
Using the City of Paris as a case study, this article makes a case for employing clear
indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of sustainable urban transport plans. The article
assesses the extent to which transport sustainability targets have been achieved, and whether
the existing evaluations have been adequate. In addition to exploring the case study, the
article addresses a meta-question: Which set of indicators is the most appropriate to evaluate
transport sustainability achievements in a large and complex city like Paris? The flexible
analytical framework constructed here can serve as an evaluation template for other, similar
places.
Note
Accompanying tables & figures are at the end of this manuscript.

Indicator-based evaluation of sustainable transport plans:

A framework for Paris and other large cities
1. Introduction
In large cities of both developed and developing countries, transport problems have reached
crisis dimensions. The physical and mental health of urban populations is seriously affected
(directly or indirectly) by air, noise, and visual pollution, traffic crashes, congestion, and energy
consumption. As a result, cities are taking a variety of steps to tackle transport problems. But
where evaluations of those efforts have been performed, they have tended to be subjective
rather than based on pre-determined indicators (Black et al. 2002).
Using the City of Paris as a case study, this article makes a case for employing clear and
consistent indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of sustainable urban transport plans. In the
collective imagination, Paris is considered as a beautiful, romantic city a tourists dream.
Notwithstanding this alluring external image, its resident population has suffered from
unsustainable urban transport practices in the past, which have had countless negative impacts
(Hildermeier and Villareal 2014).
In the new millennium, the City has made a concerted effort to become more sustainable in
terms of transport. A number of plans have been produced and ambitious targets have been set.
But, have these targets been realistic and effective? Have they been reached? Has plan
implementation been evaluated objectively? Canvassing existing reports, news articles, and
academic papers, this study strives to answer these questions. Surprisingly, a similar enterprise
has not been attempted before notwithstanding the high profile of Paris, and the fact that
evaluations of urban transport plans (plans de dplacements urbains or PDU) are mandated
every five years and the French national government has recommended the employment of
indicators for this purpose since 2001 (CERTU 2001).
In addition to exploring the case study, the article addresses a meta-question: Which indicator
categories can be included in a framework to evaluate the efforts to advance sustainability in
a large and complex city like Paris? The framework constructed here can serve as a template
for other, similar places. The analysis helps reveal how the use of indicators has evolved across
the various urban transportation plans.

The findings from the present study can be of use to Parisian planners and politicians who
would like to improve the effectiveness of current and future urban transport plans and
programs. They can also be of use to local media reporters and residents who are interested in
seeing transport sustainability claims backed by data. At a more general level, the article can
be of interest to scholars who work on comparative urban transportation research.
The first part of this article reviews the literature on sustainable transport indicators, and
compares existing evaluation frameworks for urban transport. The new framework used in the
case of Paris is presented at this point. Next, the case study context, data collection process,
and methodology are described. The last part of the article discusses the research findings.

2. Literature Review
2.1. The Case for Using Indicators in Urban Transport Sustainability Evaluations
The requirements that a sustainable urban transport system should fulfill are not
straightforward. The definition of urban transport sustainability varies depending on the
approach that policy makers adopt to make it operational and measurable. Given this
ambiguity, indicators are fundamental tools that direct policy makers in the creation and
assessment of policy targets. Indicators are broadly defined as variables representing an
operational attribute of a system, or measuring progress toward an objective. In urban transport
policy, indicators provide the ability to compare developments over time and space (Litman
2015; Gudmundsson 2004). Also, they offer the possibility to clearly evaluate the
environmental, social, and economic outcomes of urban transport policies - the three pillars of
sustainable development (Campbell 1996).
Good targets and indicators are SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and
Time-bound (Doran 1981). Two main types of indicators exist: descriptive indicators and
performance indicators. Descriptive indicators simply indicate the state of a system. As such,
they are useful in evaluating the sustainability of a transport system at one point in time or in
comparing a cross section of settings. Based on these indicators, future policies can be crafted.
However, descriptive indicators are not suitable for policy analysis over time. Performance
indicators can compare descriptive indicators at two or more points in time (e.g., the percentage
decrease in emissions or the percentage increase in cycling rates). Also they can compare a
given state against a target. As such, performance indicators are much more relevant to the
evaluation of urban transport plans (Jordan and Turnpenny 2015).
3

Once researchers have selected the appropriate type of indicators (descriptive or performance)
to employ in a study, they face another dilemma: which set of indicators (i.e., which evaluation
framework) to use? This choice depends on: (a) the scale of the plans to be evaluated (for
example, at city or metropolitan level; (b) the geographical, economic, environmental, and
social context for which they have been prepared; (c) the time in which they are created; and
(d) the availability of data on the impact or outcomes of plans. For example, sustainable urban
transport indicators in European Union cities would likely be different from those chosen for
North American cities given the different context. Similarly, sustainable urban transport
indicators for Amsterdam would likely be different from those chosen to evaluate all European
Union capital cities, given the different scale. Indicators created in the postwar growth period
would be irrelevant in the current climate of low growth and grave sustainability concerns
(Bretagnolle 2009; Gudmundsson 2004).
For these reasons, no existing framework has proven to be universal. While there is currently
no standardized sustainable indicator set for urban transport, considerable progress is being
made in defining how indicators should be formulated and selected. This is important if world
cities are to be compared. In these authors view, a standard framework can be flexible, in the
sense that it can be adjusted based on context and data availability, or updated over time as new
challenges emerge. However, in the current time and for a predetermined duration (e.g., a
decade), a standard framework should address a set number of themes and be equally capable
to evaluate the sustainable transport performance of cities of similar size, including Paris,
Buenos Aires, Nairobi, and the like.
A few authors have already proposed a few such urban transport frameworks. These will be
reviewed next. Note that, frameworks developed to evaluate the performance of states, nations,
or federations, or the performance of transport in general (i.e., which includes intercity
transport), have not been included in this review. Also excluded are analytical frameworks
which have not been tested in a real-world setting, because the application of a set of indicator
to a particular city reveals various difficulties and inconsistencies, which are missed in general
theoretical discussions.
The authors acknowledge that government agencies, transit operators or their associations, nonprofit organization, and EU project teams (that typically include both academics and
practitioners from government agencies) have been preparing indicator-based evaluations in
the last decade, or have been pressing for the adoption of indicators during the evaluation of
urban transport plans; see, for example, Transport for London (2016); UITP (2014); WBCSD
4

(2016); Ecomobility Shift (2016); Civitas Plus II (2016); and Polis Network (2016). This body
of literature provides useful concepts in terms of urban transport sustainability, as well as
relevant discussions of the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of particular indicators or
sets thereof. Therefore, it was reviewed by the authors while constructing the present
framework. However, in an effort to maintain objectivity and avoid bias but also given a
multitude of approaches and the fact that several of the abovementioned projects are still
ongoing, preference was given to frameworks published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals.
2.2. Comparison of Existing Evaluation Frameworks
After an extensive search of scholarly sources, the authors could only identified three studies
that evaluate the transport sustainability of particular cities, which complied with the selection
criteria: Lyon (0.5 million inhabitants), Taipei (2.5 million inhabitants), and Melbourne (4
million inhabitants). They employ various performance indicators, which are listed in Table 1
(Shiau and Liu 2013; Reisi et al. 2014; Nicolas et al. 2003). The three frameworks address
common topics, including: air pollution, noise pollution, traffic accidents, accessibility,
transport cost, and energy consumption. However, the indicators that they employ are
calibrated differently. For instance, the general concept of safety is operationalized as cost
of traffic crashes in Melbourne, risk level in Lyon, and number of injuries in Taipei. While
parking is lumped with economic issues in Melbourne and Lyon, it is treated as a technical
issue in Taipei. All three frameworks ignore important urban transport issues such as
wayfinding and the relationship of transport with other industries. The Lyon and Melbourne
frameworks are structured around the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of
urban transport sustainability. The Taipei framework is unstructured but it contains some
indicators (such as length of bus lanes) which the other two frameworks lack. Clearly, the
indicators employed in these three frameworks depend on the respective citys context.
2.3. Construction of a Framework for Paris
None of the frameworks reviewed above are comprehensive nor a perfect fit for the case of
Paris. Therefore, the authors opted for the creation of a new, composite and flexible framework
(Table 3). While general transport frameworks have been excluded from this review, as noted,
the list of indicators suggested in recent literature review report by Litman (2015) has been
taken into consideration, due to its comprehensive nature. The framework formulated by the
authors allows its users to employ selected indicators. It can also be contracted or expanded as
needed. It can contain context-specific indicators which can be determined after a thorough

review of the targets set in local transport plans. As a starting point, the authors have suggested
a menu of indicators which combines all the recurring indicators in the three existing
frameworks and all the recurring targets in the transport plans for Paris. Where an indicator
was expressed in different ways in the existing frameworks, the method that matched the one
employed in Paris was selected (Table 4).
The new framework can be used to evaluate a single plan or multiple plans, at one point in time
or over time. Unlike the three existing frameworks (Lyons, Melbournes, and Taipeis), it
differentiates between goals (abstract targets) and objectives (specific and measurable targets).
This approach has been put forward by other authors as well, who discuss the use of indicators
in transport, including Talvitie (1999), Cambridge Systematics and High Street Consulting
Group (2010), and Rupprecht Consult (2013). However, these authors do not necessarily focus
on urban transport in specific settings. For example, Talvities (1999) study, which proposes
90 indicators, grouped into indispensable, primary, and secondary categories, is
concerned with road transport. The report by Cambridge Systematics and High Street
Consulting Group (2010) address performance management in state-level transportation
agencies, based on insights from practitioners, with a focus on lessons learned regarding the
implementation of performance management programs. The report by Rupprecht Consult
(2013) provides guidelines for European cities on how to prepare sustainable urban transport
plans, but also touches upon the need to set SMART performance targets.
The focus of the present framework is primarily (though not entirely) on sustainability
outcomes rather than processes or expenditures to reach those outcomes (though cost and
process are admittedly important factors). Also, the framework is suitable for cities rather than
states, nations, or federations.
In creating the framework, the authors were aware of the tension between convenience and
comprehensiveness. A smaller set of indicators is more convenient to use, but may overlook
important impacts and therefore distort planning decisions. A larger set can be more
comprehensive but have unreasonable data collection costs and be difficult to interpret (Litman
2015). The present framework can be as comprehensive or as convenient as desired. The
number of indicators which populate each category can be expanded or reduced based on data
availability, and the categories themselves might be scoped in or out as needed (for example,
as innovations such as electro-mobility or driverless cars become more common, these can be
included). For the purposes of this study, the framework addresses the most common themes
identified through the literature review, but it also fits the context of Paris.
6

3. Case Study Context

Paris (population: 2.5 million) is located in the center of le-de-France, a vast metropolitan
region of 12,000 million inhabitants (Fig. 1). Commuting flows between the city and the region
are substantial. The city proper is circumscribed by a major ring road (Priph). It has a high
population density: 21,500 inhabitants / sq. km. The population has grown slowly but steadily
since 2000 by 15,500 inhabitants per year on average (APUR 2013). In addition, the city
accounts for the largest number of overnight tourist trips in Europe. In 2013 alone, nearly 30
million tourists visited Paris (Office du Tourisme et des Congrs 2014). To cater for a massive
travel demand from residents, regional commuters, and tourists, the capital of France needs a
sustainable transport system.
Transport in Paris has evolved over time. From the horse-drawn omnibuses of 1828 to the
contemporary electric underground subways, the city has experienced a full spectrum of
transport technologies and modes (Margairaz 1998). Today, its transportation system
encompasses vehicular roads, cycle paths, buses, suburban rail, and metros. The public
transport network is coordinated and financed by a government agency called the Syndicat des
Transports d'le-de-France (STIF). STIF is in charge of preparing transport plans alongside
the City of Paris. Other agencies have a stake in urban transport as well, including: Rgime
Autonome Des Transports Parisiens (RATP), Socit Nationale des Chemins de Fer Franais
(SNCF), and Organisation Professionnelle des Transports d'Ile-de-France (OPTILE). Since
2000, the City of Paris and STIF have prepared seven urban transport-related plans mostly
covering the City area (intra-murros) rather than the entire le-de-France. These are listed
below:
1. Transport Plan 2000 (Plan de dplacements urbains 2000, STIF)
2. Urban Plan 2006 (Plan local durbanisme de Paris 2006, City of Paris)
3. Pedestrian Initiative 2013 (Paris piton 2013, City of Paris)
4. Cycling Plan 2010-2014 (2010/2014 Un coup dacclrateur pour le vlo, City of Paris)
5. Transport Plan 2014 (Plan de dplacements urbains 2014, STIF)
6. Air Quality Plan 2015 (Plan de lutte contre la pollution lie au trafic routier 2015, City
of Paris)
7. Cycling Plan 2015-2020 (Plan vlo 2015-2020, City of Paris, awaiting adoption)
The present study has evaluated the achievement of sustainability targets set forth in the first
four plans. The last three plans were deemed too recent for an adequate evaluation.
7

4. Data and Method

To evaluate the plans, the authors relied on secondary data from four sources: (1) internal
evaluation studies; (2) academic articles; (3) press articles, and (4) online portals. A few notes
on the data collection and some limitations:

The internal evaluations were performed by the City of Paris and STIF. Most of the
reports are unpublished. They were obtained directly from the City of Paris and STIF.
To date, internal evaluations have been performed only for the Transport Plan 2000, the
Urban Plan 2006, and Cycling Plan 2010-2014, which are older than five years. The
Urban Plan 2006 was reviewed as part of a larger evaluation which considered housing
issues as well, and therefore the evaluation of transport outcomes was rather minimal
in this case (City of Paris 2009 a, b, c).

The academic articles were collected through Google Scholar and the University of
Queensland library. The search was conducted using both English and French
keywords. The authors were able to identify just a handful of pertinent studies
(including Tironi 2011 and 2013; DeMaio 2009; Tan et al. 2009; Ripert and Browne
2009; Hildermeier and Villareal 2014). This suggests a serious research void in this
topic. The available studies have focused on vehicle sharing schemes such as Vlib
and Autolib. Other aspects of urban transport sustainability have been ignored.

The press articles were published by the two most-read Parisian newspapers,
20minutes and Mtronews. They were identified by conducting a search in the two
newspapers online archives. Nearly 70 relevant articles were reviewed, which cover
the period between 2000 and 2015 (Table 2). This suggests that, unlike academia, the
popular press has been very interested and active in covering transport issues in Paris and rather critical. In a few cases, only evaluations from the press were available.

In a few cases, documents in online portals were consulted. One such portal is Eurostat,
a website maintained by the European Commission, which provides statistics and
indicators for a number of European cities and regions. Other local portals include
Airparif and Association pour la Prevention de la Pollution Atmosphrique (APPA),
which monitor air quality, and Atelier Parisien dUrbanisme (APUR), which publishes
planning news for the Paris region. The websites of the City of Paris, the national
railways, and other agencies with a stake in the Paris transport system were crossreferenced as well.

5. Findings
Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8 summarize the evaluations performed by the authors for the Transport
Plan 2000, the Urban Plan 2006, the Cycling Plan 2010-2014, and the Pedestrian Initiative
2013 respectively. For each particular goal or objective, a unique indication or interpretation
of the evaluation result has been provided, based on the following categories:
A. fulfillment of the goal/objective or beyond
B. some progress
C. no progress
D. opposite direction
E. no clear data available
As mentioned, the targets of the Transport Plan 2014, the Air Quality Plan 2015, and the
Cycling Plan 2015-2020 were not evaluated because these plans are too recent. However, these
plans were carefully reviewed in terms of content.
To summarize the information provided in Tables 5-8: for the most part, the plans reviewed in
this article have achieved their goals and objectives. There has been a noticeable shift from
private cars to public transport and other modes both in the inner city and the peripheral ring
road. This is in part due to stricter parking controls although the provision of delivery zones
remains problematic. Bus and rail services have become more reliable, frequent, and extensive,
and their use has increased. However, taxi and car sharing services have lagged behind in terms
of quality or penetration. Considerable progress has been made in non-motorized transport
planning and implementation. The cycling path network has expanded, and transit services are
now better integrated with bicycle and pedestrian transport. Cycling rates have increased
substantially, and the local shared public bicycle scheme (Vlib) is very popular. However,
more needs to be done in terms of pedestrian and especially cyclist safety, as the rate of
accidents and fatalities is concerning. Bicycle parking has increase but not to the desired target.
The mobility needs of disabled persons also require more attention in certain areas (such as
wayfinding for the blind). Pollution and energy issues have been tackled but not to a full extent.
The following discussion focusses on the quality and adequacy of the evaluations and how to
understand some of the strengths and weaknesses of them. The discussion is based on the
authors interpretations, which are informed by the critical literature on performance
management.

6. Discussion
The urban transport plans for Paris have different thematic focus, scope, and targets. While the
two Cycling Plans and the Pedestrian Initiative 2013 focus on increasing the modal split of
non-motorized modes, the Urban Plan 2006 and the two Transport Plans have a much broader
set of targets. The primary aim of the Air Quality Plan 2015-2016 is to curb pollution.
However, the plans do share many common concerns, including: increasing the frequency and
improving the reliability of public transport services; improving the accessibility of public
transport vehicles for disabled persons; improving the quality, comfort, and safety of cycling
paths and pedestrian paths; building charging stations for electric vehicles; curbing
environmental pollution; and reducing car parking spaces around workplaces.
In particular the Transport Plan 2014 and the Cycling Plan 2015-2020 have much in common
with their predecessors the Transport Plan 2000 and the Cycling Plan 2010-2014 respectively.
For example, targets such as provision of cycle parking, shelters, and service points
formulation of new traffic rules to increase safety and flow for cyclists, promotion of
cycling through media campaigns, and creation of bidirectional cycling paths in low-speed
zones are repeated in both Cycling Plans (Table 7).
The repetition of targets in multiple plans, especially in plan updates, can be interpreted in
different ways. Some targets might be repeated simply because they have been not achieved
by the time a plan is updated. But they might also be restated as a way to highlight the
commitment of a city to that particular goal or objective. For example, curbing environmental
pollution is a target of four different plans: the Transport Plan 2000, the Urban Plan 2006, the
Transport Plan 2014, and the Air Quality Plan 2015-2016. While the air quality has improved
in Paris since 2000, the City is clearly committed to continue in this direction (Airparif 2013,
2015). Finally, new plans are often based on former plans for legitimacy and practical reasons.
Since preparing new transport-related plans for large cities is a monumental task, shadows
of former plans (i.e. targets, statistics, and discourse) tend to appear in later plan iterations (see
Qvistrom and Bengtsson 2015).
Often the targets set forth in the Paris transport plans are broad and leave ample scope for
subjectivity and discretion. Most of plan objectives cannot be considered SMART because they
are neither measurable nor time-bound. This approach might be due to two factors. The
planners and consultants in charge of preparing the plans might have been uncertain as to how
bold the targets could be and what resources were available to achieve them. This is
10

understandable. Achieving even a seemingly simple target such as reducing x air pollutant by
x amount can require multiple agency cooperation and substantial resources. Also, myriad
individual users that are emitting said pollutant need to be persuaded to change their behavior.
But, a cynic might argue that the targets have been purposely vague so that an ex-post
evaluation could not possibly determine whether the plan was unsuccessful. Either way,
vagueness weakens the plan legitimacy and might lead to public distrust.
The internal evaluations of the transport plans are limited in number and scope. Generally, they
cannot be considered thorough since a number of targets set in the plans have not been
evaluated. It was sometimes impossible for the authors to find out from the existing literature
whether a target has been met or not.
A selective internal evaluation of targets can be interpreted in different ways. It might be that
some targets were not evaluated because plan implementation was ongoing at the time of the
evaluation. This would mean that the timing of the evaluation was poor and should have been
adjusted to account for the time it takes to achieve certain goals and objectives. However, it is
also important for targets to be time-bound from the start (i.e. have a clear implementation
timeline).
On the other hand, due to the inherent biases of an internal evaluation (i.e., a desire to showcase
the achievements of a plan), some targets might have been purposely skipped because the city
had failed to achieve them. For instance, the internal evaluation of the Urban Plan 2006 (Table
6) did not cover certain issues, such as passenger comfort in public transport vehicles, which
were later raised by the press as highly problematic.
In most cases, external evaluations support internal evaluations. However, a careful
comparison of both reveals some contradictions and omissions in internal evaluations, and
suggests an extent of sugarcoating of issues. For example, an in-depth internal evaluation of
Cycling Plan 2010-2014 was performed in 2013. It revealed that most of the plans targets had
been met. Curiously, the targets evaluated in the internal evaluation report were very specific
(i.e., length of cycling lanes, etc.) while the targets in the plan itself were very broad (Table 7).
One might be inclined to think that, in this case, the objectives were determined during the
evaluation based on what had actually been achieved.
While the internal evaluation of Transport Plan 2000 stated that the quality, comfort, and safety
of cycle paths have been improved, a few journal articles pointed to substantial problems with

11

cycling in Paris: inefficient public bicycle equipment, lack of safety, and poor nighttime
visibility for cyclists (Table 5).
Another problem with internal evaluations is that they are often performed once and not
followed up. For example, Transport Plan 2000 was internally evaluated in 2007. The analysis
revealed that, overall, the targets had not been achieved or the results were negligible (STIF
2007). Another internal evaluation has not been performed since. For up-to-date information,
the authors had to rely on external evaluations performed after 2007. They revealed that public
interventions undertaken between 2007 and 2014 have resulted in a successful achievement of
most of the targets set in Transport Plan 2000 (Table 5).
In the case of Urban Plan 2006, only external evaluations were available. The analysis showed
that many transport targets have not been achieved in their entirety. More actions are needed
to shift the modal split in favor of public transport, to facilitate the mobility of older adults and
disabled people, and to manage parking. Some targets e.g., on environmental pollution and
the relationship of transport with other industries - were not evaluated by any source (Table 6).

7. Conclusion
This article sought to answer three main questions: (1) Which set of indicators should be used
to evaluate the effectiveness of urban transport plans? (2) In the case of Paris, have transport
sustainability targets been achieved? (3) Have the existing evaluations been adequate, and if
not, how can they be improved?
In regard to indicators, a new analytical framework is proposed, which has identified the
indicator categories that could be useful to evaluate the efforts of a large city like Paris to
advance sustainability. The framework is flexible and can be adapted to a range of
circumstances. The authors recommend its use in other real-world settings to further test its
robustness. However, once a set of indicators has been selected for a particular city, it is
important to apply it consistently over time in order to evaluate and assess all transportation
plans. This is critical in ensuring the consistency of goals and objectives over time.
In this case, the framework helped shine a light on how the use of indicators has evolved across
the various urban transportation plans in Paris. Some indicators were used consistently in the
various plans while others were not. Some indicators were emphasized in the evaluation of a
plan, while others were marginalized. Shining a light on the consistencies and inconsistencies

12

in the use of indicators in several plans over time has helped reveal certain inherent conflicts
and gaps within the transportation planning sector in Paris.
Overall, there have been substantial achievements in Paris in terms of sustainable transport
targets. Despite some negative feedback, the analysis suggests a commitment of the City of
Paris, STIF, and other agencies to urban transport sustainability. Among the evaluated plans,
the Cycling Plan 2010-2014 prepared by STIF appears to have been the most successful in
meeting its targets. Some areas need more attention, including public transport services, active
transport infrastructure, parking measures, and transport plans for companies. Overlaps
between plans must be minimized and plans must be better connected to each other, for
example with new versions acting as a continuation of earlier versions rather than as reiterations
of those. Also, future plan targets need to meet SMART criteria and be thoroughly evaluated,
possibly by external, independent and professional bodies.
However, a lack of progress toward these areas does not necessarily imply a lack of effort on
part of the public sector. Peoples mobility choices do not depend solely on the availability and
quality of certain modes but also on broader social, economic, and cultural forces, including
lifestyles, international migration, and growth cycles on which the local authorities might have
little control. Therefore, in any evaluation analysis, caution is advised when establishing causal
linkages between urban transport plans and the evolution of mobility.
With regard to evaluations, the analysis suggests that public sector staff performing internal
evaluations has more inside information and access to data. However, it is likely that external
evaluations are more objective, if critical. Ideally, they would be performed by independent,
professional organizations or consultants. But external evaluations need to be treated with
caution too as they can report incorrect or biased information especially newspapers which
might have certain vested political interests or might aim for sensation. Therefore, a sound
analysis involves a careful comparison of both internal and external evaluations. Finally, it may
well be that major plans may need more time than expected to materialize before ex post
evaluations are rolled out; on the other hand, postponing evaluations could make it more
difficult to distinguish the effects of plans from other influences.

References
Airparif. 2013. Evolution de la qualit de lair Paris entre 2002 et 2012. Report, available
at http://www.airparif.asso.fr/_pdf/publications/rapport-pdp-130703.pdf Last viewed on
12 September 2015.
13

Airparif. 2015. Les diffrents polluants et leur evolution. Webpage, available at

http://www.airparif.asso.fr/pollution/differents-polluants Last viewed on 5 May 2015.
Association pour la Prevention de la Pollution Atmosphrique (APPA). 2007. Le vlo en
ville: incongru ou salutaire? Report, available at
http://appa.asso.fr/_docs/7/documents/21_090206042455.pdf Last viewed on 27
September 2015.
Atelier Parisien d'Urbanisme (APUR). 2006. Les transports en communs en le-de-France,
une grande cause rgionale. Report, available at
http://www.apur.org/sites/default/files/documents/4P21.pdf Last viewed on 29 September
2015.
Atelier Parisien d'Urbanisme (APUR). 2013. Paris, une population toujours en hausse.
Report, available at
http://www.apur.org/sites/default/files/documents/paris_population_hausse.pdf Last
viewed on 29 September 2015.
Black, J., Paez, A., and Suthanaya, P. 2002. Sustainable urban transportation: performance
indicators and some analytical approaches. Journal of Urban Planning and Development
128(4):184-209.
Bretagnolle, A. 2009, Villes et rseaux de transport: des interactions dans la longue dure
(France, Europe, tats-Unis). PhD Diss., Universit Paris 1 La Sorbonne.
Cambridge Systematics and High Street Consulting Group. 2010. Transportation
Performance Management: Insight from Practitioners. NCHRP Report 660. Available at:
www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=14384 Last viewed on 4 March 2016.
Campbell, S. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the
contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning
Association 62(3):296-312.
Centre d'tudes sur les Rseaux, les Transports, l'Urbanisme. 2001. Observatoires des plans
de dplacements urbains: De la mthode aux indicateurs. Report. Available at:
http://www.certu-catalogue.fr/observatoires-des-plans-de-deplacements-urbains.html Last
viewed on 3 March, 2016.
City of Paris. 2009a. Elaboration / mise en rvision du plan local durbanisme de Paris.
Unpublished report.
City of Paris. 2009b. Approbation du projet de modification du plan local durbanisme de
Paris. Unpublished report.
City of Paris. 2009c. Avis sur lengagement par le Maire dune procedure de modification
du plan local durbanisme de Paris. Unpublished report.
City of Paris. 2010. 2010/2014 Un coup dacclrateur pour le vlo. Report, available at:
http://next.paris.fr/viewmultimediadocument?multimediadocument-id=85049 Last
viewed on 21 August 2015.
City of Paris. 2013. Paris piton. Report.
City of Paris. 2013. Plan vlo 2010-2014: Evaluation in itinere. Unpublished report.
City of Paris. 2014. Plan local durbanisme de Paris. Report, available at
http://pluenligne.paris.fr/plu/page/PLU?page_id=1 Last viewed on 19 August 2015.

14

City of Paris. 2015. Plan Vlo 2015-2020. Webpage, available at:

http://www.paris.fr/actualites/paris-se-dote-d-un-nouveau-plan-velo-2255 Last viewed on
1 November 2015.
City of Paris. 2015a. Plan de lutte contre la pollution lie au trafic routier. Report, available
at http://presse.paris.fr/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Dossier-de-presse-Plan-Antipollution1.pdf Last viewed on 20 August 2015.
City of Paris. 2015b. Velib. Website, available at: http://www.velib.paris/ Last viewed on 1
November 2015.
Civitas Plus II. 2016. Project website. Available at: http://www.civitas.eu/thematiccategories/civitas-plus-ii Last viewed on 3 March, 2016.
Dablanc, L, Diziain, D & Levifve, H. 2011, Urban freight consultations in the Paris region,
European Transport Research Review, 3(1), pp. 47-57.
Delano, B. 2010. Rglementation gnrale des jardins et bois appartenant la Ville de
Paris y compris les Bois de Boulogne et de Vincennes. Report, City of Paris. Available
online at http://api-site-cdn.paris.fr/images/155185.pdf Last viewed on 1 October 2015.
DeMaio, P. 2009. Bike-sharing: History, impacts, models of provision, and future. Journal
of Public Transportation 12(4):41-56.
Doran, G. 1981. There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write managements goals and objectives.
Management Review 70(11):35-36.
Driancourt, H. and Gouverneur, M. 2013. The Paris Piton Initiative: Enhancing the
pedestrian experience in Paris. Presentation at Walk21, Munich 11-13 September.
Available at:
http://www.call.walk21munich.com/presentations/BS301_DRIANCOURT_Hlne.pdf
Last viewed on 1 November 2015.
Ecomobility Shift. 2016. Indicator descriptions. Available at: www.ecomobilityshift.org/en/project-downloads/category/8-shift-manual?download=32:appendix-1indicator-descriptions Last viewed on 3 March, 2016.
Eurostat. 2015. Transports - zone urbaine largie. Data file, European Commission.
Available at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do Last viewed on 1 November
2015.
Gudmundsson, H. 2004. Sustainable transport and performance indicators. Issues in
Environmental Science and Technology (20):35-63.
Hildermeier, J and Villareal, A. 2014, Two ways of defining sustainable mobility: Autolib
and BeMobility Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 16(3):322-333.
Jordan, A. and Turnpenny, J. 2015, The Tools of Policy Formulation: Actors, Capacities,
Venues and Effects. New York and London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Litman, T. 2015. Well measured: Developing indicators for sustainable and livable transport
planning. Report, Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Available online at
http://vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf Last viewed on 1 November 2015.
Margairaz, M. 1998. Les histoires et chronologies mles des transports Parisiens (18281997). In H. Zuber, Guide des Sources de lHistoire des Transports Publics Urbains
Paris et en le-De-France XIXe-XXe Sicle, pp. 25-54. Paris: CNRS Universit de Paris I,
La Sorbonne.
15

Meyer, M. 2005. Use of performance measures for surface transportation in different

institutional and cultural contexts: Cases of Australia, Japan and New Zealand.
Transportation Research Record 1924:163-174.
Nicolas, JP, Pochet, P. & Poimbeuf, H. 2003. Towards sustainable mobility indicators:
application to the Lyons conurbation, Transport Policy, 10, pp. 197-208.
Office du Tourisme et des Congrs. 2014. Le tourisme Paris, les chiffres cls 2013.
Webpage, available at: http://presse.parisinfo.com/etudes-et-chiffres/chiffres-cles/letourisme-a-paris-chiffres-cles-2013-edition-2014 Last viewed on 26 September 2015.
Polis Network. 2016. Project website. Available at: http://www.polisnetwork.eu/about/aboutpolis Last viewed on 3 March, 2016.
Qvistrom, M. and Bengtsson, J. 2015. What kind of transit-oriented development? Using
planning history to differentiate a model for sustainable development. European
Planning Studies DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1016900.
RATP 2010, Rapport dactivit et developpement durable 2007, RATP, Paris,
<http://www.ratp.fr/fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/201006/ratp_rapport_annuel_2007_fr.pdf> Last viewed 9 March 2016.
Reisi, M., Aye, L., Rajabifard, A., and Ngo, T. 2014. Transport sustainability index:
Melbourne case study. Ecological Indicators 43:288-296.
Renvois, F 2015, Avis sur le bilan conomique et social du tramway T3 sur les boulevards
des Marchaux Sud Paris, CGED, Paris, <http://www.cgedd.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/no_010205-01_cle725f85.pdf> Last viewed 9 March 2016.
Ripert, C. and Browne, M. 2009. La dmarche exemplaire de Paris pour le transport de
marchandises en ville. Les Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport 55:39-62.
Rupprecht Consult. 2013. Guidelines: Developing and implementing a sustainable urban
mobility plan. Report, European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans.
Available at: http://www.eltis.org/sites/eltis/files/guidelines-developing-andimplementing-a-sump_final_web_jan2014b.pdf Last viewed on 10 September 2015.
Shiau, T. and Liu, J. 2013. Developing an indicator system for local governments to
evaluate transport sustainability strategies. Ecological Indicators 34:361-371.
Socit Nationale des Chemins de Fer Franais (SNCF). 2014. Un nouveau systeme
dinformation voyageurs dans nos gares: Premiers Retours. Webpage, available at:
http://malignel.transilien.com/2014/10/06/un-nouveau-systeme-dinformation-voyageursdans-nos-gares-premiers-retours/ Last viewed on 29 September 2015.
Syndicat des Transports dle-de-France (STIF). 2000. Plan de dplacement urbain de la
rgion Ile-de-France 2000. Report, available at: http://pdu.stif.info/Mediatheque.html
Last viewed on 19 August 2015.
Syndicat des Transports dle-de-France (STIF). 2007. Rapport dvaluation du PDU dIlede-France. Report, available at: http://www.pduif.fr/L-evaluation-du-PDUIF-de2000,102.html Last viewed on 10 September 2015.
Syndicat des Transports dle-de-France (STIF). 2014. Plan de dplacements urbains 2014.
Report, available at: http://pdu.stif.info/Mediatheque.html Last viewed on 19 August
2015.
Talvitie, A. 1999. Performance indicators for the road sector. Transportation 26(1):5-30.
16

Tan, A., Sun, G., Krummert, K., Ely, M., and Goh, A. 2009. Journeys, Sharing Urban
Transport Solutions, no. 2, LTA Academy, Singapore, viewed 29 September 2015.
Tironi M. 2011. Repairing and maintaining a public bicycle system: the case of Vlib in
Paris. Paper presented at the 22nd International Cycling History Conference, Paris, 2528 May.
Tironi, M. 2013. La ville comme experimentation: Le cas du Vlib Paris. PhD Diss.,
cole Nationale Suprieure des Mines, Paris.
Transport for London. 2016. Travel in London reports. Available at:
https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/travel-in-london-reports Last viewed
on 4 March 2016.
Union Internationale des Transports Publics. 2014. Future of urban mobility. Report.
Available at:
http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/members/140124%20Arthur%20D.%20Little%20
%26%20UITP_Future%20of%20Urban%20Mobility%202%200_Full%20study.pdf Last
viewed on 3 March, 2016.
USAID. 2011. Evaluation: Learning from experience. Report, Washington, DC. Available
at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2151/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf
Last viewed on 10 October 2015.
World Business Council on Sustainable Development. 2016. Sustainable mobility project
2.0. Report. Available at: http://www.wbcsd.org/work-program/sectorprojects/mobility.aspx Last viewed on 3 March, 2016.

17

Figures

Figure 1: Map of Paris and le-de-France.

Tables
Table 1. Summary of indicators used in existing studies.
MELBOURNE (Reisi et al. 2014)
Environmental
GHG emission
Other air pollutants
Energy use
Population exposed to noise
Land consumption for transport
Social
Fatality and injuries of traffic
accident per capita
Accessibility to facilities and
public transport
Satisfaction of citizens and variety
and quality of transport options
Fatality and injuries resulted from
air pollution
Economic
Household expenditure for
transport
Accident cost
Transport emission costs

LYON (Nicolas et al. 2003)

Environmental
Annual energy consumption and
CO2emissions (total and per
resident)
Levels of CO, NOX, HC and
particles (in g/m3, total and per
resident)
Daily individual consumption of
public space for travelling and
parking (in m2/person)
Space taken up by transport
infrastructure
Noise levels
Risk of accidents
Social
Proportion of households
owning 0, 1, or more cars
Distance travelled
Expenditures for urban mobility:
amounts for private/public
transport (total / percentage of
household income)
Economic
Annual costs chargeable to
residents for their mobility in a
zone
Annual average expenditures for
urban mobility (per person /
household)
Company costs of employee
parking, subsidies to employees
(company cars, etc.), possible
local taxes
Annual public expenditures for
investments and operations
Mobility
Daily number of trips
Structure of trip purposes
Daily average time budget
Modal split
Daily average distance travelled
Average speed (global / per
person)

TAIPEI (Shiau and Liu 2013)

Distribution density of transit
Modal split (transit)
Service intensity of transit
Loading factor of transit
Ratio of park-and-ride lots
Ratio of bus exclusive lanes
Modal split of non-motorized
modes
Occupancy rate of private modes
Truck loading factor
Effect of public depot on freight
shipment
Proximity of transport
infrastructure to designated
environmentally sensitive areas
Air pollutants / GHG
Recycling of used tires
Recycling of end-of-life vehicles
Traffic accidents
Mobility and transport for older
adults and disabled persons
Transport infrastructure in remote
areas
Transport subsidy in remote
areas
Alternative and renewable energy
consumption
Fossil energy consumption by
transport system

Table 2. Database of newspaper articles.

No.

Title of article

Date
Newspaper 20minutes

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67

Fin de vie pour les paves de vlo

Aller travailler vlo pourrait rapporter de largent
Grce Ptit vlib plus besoin daller la campagne pour apprendre le vlo ses enfants
Paris: Cyclistes autoriss griller les feux rouges
Traverser Paris vlo sans mettre le pied terre
La ville de Paris lance son application de recherche ditinraire pour vlo
Aprs le mtro les noctambules auront plus de Noctambus
Les premiers kilomtres hsitants pour le Noctilien
Paris Transilien et vlo font la paire
Les pistes cyclables identifies lempreinte
Semaine Europenne de la mobilit: Les quipements cyclables mis en place Paris ne sont pas trs efficaces
Nouveaux marquages au sol: un an aprs, les Parisiens sont toujours perplexes
Paris: De nouvelles signalisations qui cherchent leurs marques
Vlib, un vrai succs et le signe dune implantation du vlo dans la ville
Scurit routire: Les mauvais cyclistes vont avoir droit des amendes adaptes
Semaine de la mobilit: le grand retour de la marche pied
Oublier sa voiture lors de la 7e journe du transport public
Dans le mtro laveugle
Aprs Vlib, Paris rvolutionne les transports en communs avec Autolib
Premire borne de recharge rapide pour voiture lectrique Paris
Un accord europen en faveur dune taxe pollution pour les poids lourds
Un revtement spcial pour rduire le bruit du priphrique parisien
Vidosurveillance: Les 5000 yeux de la police parisienne
Harclement dans les transports: les cinq mesures phares du plan de lutte du gouvernement
Scurit dans les trains: La rgion Ile-de-France et la SNCF main dans la main
La nouvelle vie nocturne des places de livraison
Paris: Sur la ligne L la multiplication des annonces sonores en gares nervent les riverains
Des transports inconfortables, chers mais qui gardent la cote
Ile-de-France: des lignes restent en difficult selon le bilan 2014 du STIF sur la ponctualit
Paris: Pour la premire fois, la capitale va se passer des voitures
Tourisme: Les trangers saluent laccueil franais
Des taxis parisiens entrent dans lre du numrique
Un nouveau bus entre les 13e et 20e
Tramway: Deux nouvelles lignes ouvrent en dcembre en priphrie de Paris
Paris: Des voies rserves aux bus et taxis sur les autoroutes vers les aroports
Des voies rserves aux bus et taxis ds 2015 en Ile-de-France
Paris: Des espaces pour passer du vlo au train
Paris en fauteuil roulant: on a test cest compliqu
Vers des dlais supplmentaires pour rendre la socit accessible aux handicaps
Des scooters lectriques libre-service ds le 30 juin
Paris: De gros travaux pour mettre la Gare du nord lheure du 21e sicle
Paris: Fin du stationnement gratuit en Aot: Les questions qui se posent
Rsidents ou visiteurs Stationner Paris cotera bientt beaucoup plus cher
Un petit tour au parc, entre la voiture et le train
Des prix et une attractivit amliorer pour les parcs-relais
Paris: Un tiers de la capitale sera 30km/h dici la fin de lanne
La mortalit des cyclistes inquite
Newspaper Mtronews
Les carcasses de vlos enfin jetes
Paris: les cyclistes pourront passer au feu rouge (mais sous conditions)
Ces rues de Paris qui sont les plus dangereuse vlo
Vlib revoit sa tarification la baisse pour son quatrime anniversaire
Vlib lance un tarif social 19 euros
Voici les Vlib pour enfants qui seront installs sur les quais de Seine
La nuit en ville, les cyclistes cherchent accroitre leur visibilit
A Paris, un dplacement sur deux se fait pieds
A Paris, le vlo se fraye un chemin petits pas
Autolib: coup denvoi lundi
Pollution: Paris va subventionner lachat de taxis lectriques
Priphrique limit 70km/h: des effets limits sur la pollution
Bataille des prix Paris: des taxis lancent une offre 10 euros pour les ftards
Voie rserve aux bus et taxis entre Roissy et Paris: Quel gain ou quelle perte de temps attendre?
Prolongement de la ligne 11: lancement des travaux prparatoires
Des garages vlo dans les gares parisiennes
Parisien rjouissez-vous: le scooter en libre service dbarque, (enfin)!
RATP: Lt de tous les travaux
La transformation de la Gare du Nord sur les rails
Paris sans voiture: pour les internautes, lopration est un succs incontestable

2014
2014
2014
2015
2013
2014
2006
2006
2012
2006
2014
2014
2013
2014
2014
2014
2014
2011
2014
2013
2010
2014
2009
2015
2014
2009
2015
2014
n/a
2015
2012
2014
2007
2014
2015
2014
2012
2014
2014
2015
2015
2015
2014
2009
2006
2015
2013
2010
2015
2014
2011
2013
2014
2008
2011
2012
2011
2013
2013
2015
2015
2015
2012
2015
2014
2015
2015

Table 3. Proposed framework.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODES
Goals
Objectives
NON-MOTORIZED MODES
Goals
Objectives
PRIVATE MOTORIZED MODES
Goals
Objectives
MOBILITY OF VULNERABLE GROUPS
Goals
Objectives
ACCESSIBILITY AND WAYFINDING
Goals
Objectives
ALTERNATIVE / RENEWABLE ENERGY
Goals
Objectives
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Goals
Objectives
SAFETY
Goals
Objectives
AFFORDABILITY
Goals
Objectives
PARKING
Goals
Objectives
ENFORCEMENT
Goals
Objectives
SUSTAINABILITY PROMOTION
Goals
Objectives
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER INDUSTRIES
Goals
Objectives
LAND USE
Goals
Objectives
INNOVATION
Goals
Objectives
CITY-SPECIFIC ISSUES
Goals
Objectives

Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation
Evaluation

Table 4. Suggested indicators.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODES
Public transport frequency of service (by location)
Public transport punctuality / reliability (by location)
Public transport vehicle / station quality (heating / air conditioning, cleanliness, overcrowding / image, etc.)
NON-MOTORIZED MODES
Length of cycling lanes (segregated / non segregated)
Provision of bicycle parking facilities by land use (residential / commercial) and type (open / sheltered)
Provision of bicycle service points (area coverage)
Signal timing in favor of cyclists / pedestrians / public transport
Traffic calming zones
Quality of pedestrian paths, crossings, etc.
PRIVATE MOTORIZED MODES
Space consumed by transport infrastructure (roads, parking) by land use type (residential / commercial)
Modal split
Car ownership level
Average daily distances travelled / average number of daily trips (personal / per household)
End-of-life vehicle / vehicle parts recycling (no. of recycled vehicles as % of end-of-life fleet)
Charging stations for electric vehicles (area coverage)
MOBILITY OF VULNERABLE GROUPS
Provisions for the mobility of children / elderly / disabled persons
Public transport vehicle / station accessibility
ACCESSIBILITY AND WAYFINDING
Clarity / frequency of signage and information systems (electronic / conventional)
ALTERNATIVE / RENEWABLE ENERGY
Fossil fuel energy consumption
Renewable energy consumption
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Levels of pollutants / GHGs
Pollution caused by vehicle type (light / heavy)
Noise levels
SAFETY
Number of accidents by type (fatal/non-fatal) and mode (total / per capita)
AFFORDABILITY
Public transport affordability (expenditures as percentage of household budget / subsidies for vulnerable groups,
etc.)
PARKING
Parking provision (max./min. parking spaces by land use)
Parking fees (by location)
ENFORCEMENT
Number of violations by type and location
Fines for illegal parking, speeding, giving the right-of-way to cyclist, pedestrians, etc.
Perception of corruption in enforcement (survey-based)
SUSTAINABILITY PROMOTION
Promotional campaigns (frequency, description, attendance)
Public participation (no. of persons attending public meetings/hearings on transport issues, monthly/annually)
Resident satisfaction (surveys)
RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER INDUSTRIES
Transport plans for companies
Transport plans for schools
Population / building densities (average / in CBD / around transit stations i.e. TOD)
Tourist season plans
Delivery services in pedestrian / traffic calming zones
Freight transport (percentage of traffic volume, impact in terms of noise, pollution, safety, etc.)
LAND USE
Population density (total and by district)
Degree of land use mix/segregation (gini index)
Building heights (average and by district)

INNOVATION
Electro-mobility penetration (no. of electric / hybrid vehicles as % of total fleet)
Driverless cars penetration (no. of driverless vehicles as % of total fleet)
CITY-SPECIFIC ISSUES
Oil security
Transport informality
Car-sharing penetration (Uber, etc.)

Table 5. Evaluation of Transport Plan 2000.*

PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODES
GOALS
Increase reliability of public transport services
Increase frequency of public transport services on
weekends (esp. on peak hours)
Extend bus services in recent public space projects
Improve taxi services

OBJECTIVES
Increase public transport use by 2%
Ensure the continuity of bus service at night
(Noctambus)
Allow bus travel on the peripheral ring road
Create principal bus network between suburbs
Simplify bus ticket pricing system (time-based)
Reduce taxi prices for public transport patrons
Allow bicycles on public transport vehicles

NON-MOTORIZED MODES
GOALS
Improve quality, comfort, and safety of cycle paths
esp. between Paris and suburbs and around train
stations, schools, and sport facilities
Improve quality, comfort, and safety of pedestrian
paths esp. at crossroads and around train
stations, schools, and sport facilities
Active transport links between train stations, key
public facilities, and commercial areas

EVALUATION
[A] (2005) Public transport services are more reliable (STIF 2007)
[A] (2014) Public transport services are generally more punctual. Some train
lines are still problematic (Table 2, no.29)
[B] (2005) Taxis are allowed on bus lines in Hauts-de-Seine (STIF 2007)
[A] (2006) Higher frequency of transport services along the boulevards des
Marchaux with the creation of the T3 tramway (Renvois 2015)
[A] (2006) The T3 tramway provides a faster transport service with time savings
of 7,8 minutes for passengers (Renvois 2015)
[A] (2007) 50% increase of the frequency of subway services between 8pm and
1.15am (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) 15% increase of the frequency of service of the subway line 3 (RATP
2010)
[A] (2007) Higher frequency of service of the subway lines 2 and 7 (RATP
2010)
[B] (2006) Higher frequency of subway line 13 services (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Higher frequency of RER A services in off-peak hours (RATP 2010)
EVALUATION
[A] (2005) Public transport use has increased by 2.6% / year in inner suburbs and
[A] (2007) 1.9% in outer suburbs of le-de-France (STIF 2007)
[A] (2014) Public transport use during work commutes has increased by 1.35%
since 2007 (Eurostat 2015)
[B] (2003) Frequency of Noctambus has increased (Table 2, no.7)
[B] (2005) Noctilien service replaces Noctambus. Hub-and-spoke scheme
replaced by much larger scheme (Table 2, no.8)
[B] (2005) Few new lines between suburbs (banlieues) have been created (11 out
of 149 planned) (STIF 2007)
[A] (2003) T+ integrated ticket was created (two hour validity) (STIF 2007)
[A] (2012) Bicycles were allowed on trains (Table 2, no.9)
[B] (2007) 2% of the T3 tramway users have shifted mode from private vehicles
(Renvois 2015)
[A] (2010) Increase of T3 tramway users by 58% since 2007 (Renvois 2015)
[A] (2006) One additional hour of public transport services (until 2.15am) on
Saturdays (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) One additional hour of public transport services (until 2.15am) on
Fridays nights (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) 13% increase of the use of subway on Saturdays (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Additional services of the bus line 28 at night and on Sundays (RATP
2010)
[B] (2007) Transformation of the Montmartrobus into a Noctambule (RATP
2010)
[A] (2007) 3% increase of public transport use in the RATP network (RATP
2010)
[A] (2007) 5,1% increase of above-ground public transport use in the RATP
network (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) 158 days of more than 1 million RER A users in 2007 as compared to
7 in 2003 (RATP 2010)
[A] (2010) Creation of transport vouchers, the transport solidarity card and new
packages (RATP 2010)
[A] (2005) Pricing schemes have been simplified.
[B] (2005) No extra charge to take animals and luggage on board.
EVALUATION
[A,E] (2007) Cycling and pedestrian paths and have improved in more than 50
suburbs (STIF 2007)
[A] (2006) New signage on cycle paths to increase safety (Table 2, no.10)
[E] (2014) New cycling infrastructure is not efficient (Table 2, no.11)
[C] (2014) Some streets are still very dangerous for cyclists (Table 2, no.50)
[D] (2008) Public perception of poor nighttime visibility (Table 2, no.54)
[C] (2013) Attempt to highlight pedestrian crossings in shared zones, but unclear
signage used (Table 2, no.12 and no.13)

Favor cycle paths and sidewalks over roads in

public space projects

OBJECTIVES
Increase walking rates by 10% for trips of less
than 1 km
Double cycling rates
Promote active transport modes through
communication campaigns
Provide new cycle parking spaces and renew
existing ones if needed
Provide cycle parking in new buildings

PRIVATE MOTORIZED MODES

GOALS
Shift modal split in favor of public and active
transport

OBJECTIVES
Reduce private car use by 3%

MOBILITY OF VULNERABLE GROUPS

GOALS
Facilitate use of public transport for people with
reduced mobility

ACCESSIBILITY AND WAYFINDING

GOALS
Improve general accessibility of public transport
stations
Improve public transport information inside
stations and vehicles

[A] (2006) Construction of the new tramway T3: better comfort for pedestrians
and cyclists (Renvois 2015)
[C] (2000-2009) Frequency of cyclist accidents has not decreased (Renvois
2015)
EVALUATION
[E] (2011) 50% of trips in Paris are on foot (Table 2, no.55)
[B] (2007-2014) Increase of 1.5% in walking during work commutes (Eurostat
2015)
[B] (2002-2003) Growth in cycling by 30-50% (STIF 2007)
[A] (2007-2011) After the creation of Vlib growth in cycling by 50% (Table
2, no.14)
[B] (2000-2010) Number of bicycles up by 400% (Table 2, no.15)
[A] (2002-2012) Doubling of daily bicycle trips (Table 2, no.56)
[A] (2002) Creation of European Mobility Week (Table 2, no.16)
[A] (2005) Creation of Public Transport Day (Table 2, no.17)
[A] (2007) New cycle parking spaces provided (STIF 2007)
[B] (2007) 12% of the T3 tramway users have switched mode from walking
(Renvois 2015)
[A] (2007) 135% increase in cycling after the creation of T3 tramway (Renvois
2015)
EVALUATION
[E] (2011) Modal split during the work commute: 69% public transport; 13%
private car; 3% bicycle; 12% walking (Eurostat 2015; Hildermeier & Villareal
2014)
[B] (2007) 2% of the T3 tramway users switched mode from private vehicles,
86% switched from TC buses and 12% switched from walking (Renvois
2015)
EVALUATION
[A] (2007) 20% reduction of private car use in inner city; 4-10% reduction of
private car use in the peripheral ring road; overall reduction of private car use
4.1% / year (STIF 2007)
[A] (2007-2014) 2.1% reduction of private car use for work commute (Eurostat
2015)
[A] (2002-2007) 44,4% reduction of private car traffic (Renvois 2015)
[A] (2007-2010) 4,8% decrease of private car traffic per year (Renvois 2015)
EVALUATION
[A] (2005) New law on equal opportunity, participation, and citizenship of
disabled people (STIF 2007)
[A] (2007) Station staff trained to help handicapped customers (STIF 2007)
[B] (2000-2006) Improved accessibility of stations (STIF 2007)
[A] (2015) New law making handicapped access mandatory in public transport
vehicles (Table 2, no.18)
[C] Better information systems for the blind are needed in public transport
systems (Table 2, no.18)
[A] (2006) Easy access to the T3 tramway for people with reduced mobility
(Renvois 2015)
[A] (2007) Creation of a new automaton for the blind (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Creation of a radio control service for the blind (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Creation of two video clips for RATP members to help them guide
blind people in transport (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Better accessibility for wheelchairs in 54 bus lines and 47 RER
stations out of 67 (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) All bus lines equipped with audio announcement (RATP 2010)
EVALUATION
[B] (2001-2006) 53 public transport stations have received financial aids to
improve accessibility (STIF 2007)
[B] (2007) Financial aid for taxis to install equipment for people with reduced
mobility (STIF 2007)
[A] (2007) Creation Infomobi - a transport service for disabled people (STIF
2007)
[B] (2008) 94% of T3 users are satisfied with access and connections (Renvois

OBJECTIVES
Install information boards along major roads
Create transport guide for tourists
Provide ongoing traffic information for drivers
Install multimodal information displays

ALTERNATIVE / RENEWABLE ENERGY

GOALS
Promote use of alternative energy for private cars,
public transport, taxis, and tourist transport
OBJECTIVES
Develop charging stations in typical tourist sites
Create parking space for electric bicycles

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
GOALS
Contain environmental pollution caused by heavy
trucks
Favor railway and waterway for waste
transportation
Bypass city center for goods transport

OBJECTIVES
Decrease noise/air pollution through adequate road
paving and low speed zones (30 km/h)
Increase freight transport via waterway and
railway by 3%

SAFETY
GOALS
Regulation of road traffic
OBJECTIVES
Social mediation programs, persuasion, better
coordination with the traffic police

2015)
[A] (2007) Creation of information desks in 56 subway and RER stations and
two new Club RATP agencies in Val dEurope and Nation stations (RATP
2010)
[A] (2008) Reopening of the Club RATP agency in La Dfense station (RATP
2010)
[A] (2007) Generalization of audio and visual system of information in bus,
subway and RER lines (RATP 2010)
[A] (2000-2006) Improved accessibility of stations (STIF 2007)
[A] (2007) All bus lines equipped with audio announcement (RATP 2010)
[B] (2014) Increased number of voice announcement boxes in Transilien L-line
stations (SNCF 2014) but press reports suggest public annoyance with policy
(Table 2, no.27)
[A] (2011) Voice announcements installed in all subways; touch screens
installed in stations (Table 2, no.18)
EVALUATION
[A] (2007) Creation of Ma RATP dans la poche smart phone app (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Installation of multimodal information screens in some stations
(RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Generalization of the SIEL system in subway and bus lines which
provides public transport traffic information (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Creation of a multi-lingual rubric on the RATP website for tourists
(RATP 2010)
EVALUATION
[A] (2006) Creation of the T3 electric tramway (Renvois 2015)
[A] (2007) Purchase of 356 buses with dual energy (diesel/biofuel) by RATP
(RATP 2010)
EVALUATION
[A] (2011) Creation of Autolib carsharing service (Table 2, nos.19 and 57)
[B] (2013) First charging station in Balard (Table 2, no.20)
[B] (2013) Financial aid for taxi drivers to upgrade to hybrid cars (Table 2,
no.58)
EVALUATION
[B] (2011) European agreement on polluter pays principle for goods transport
(Table 2, no.21)
[D] (2011) Freight transportation still contributes significantly to noise and
environmental pollution (Dablanc et al. 2011)
[A] (2001) Trucking and industrial activities such as wholesale, textile or
warehousing have been removed from the city (Dablanc et al. 2011)
[B] (2011) Delivery regulation allowing the least polluting trucks to run between
5pm and 10pm (Dablanc et al. 2011)
EVALUATION
[A] (2013) Peripheral ring road was repaved (Table 2, no.22)
[A] (2013) Speed limit on peripheral ring road was reduced (Table 2, no.59)
[C] (2007) Use of railway for freight transport decreased by 1.3% but use of
waterways increased by 0.4% (STIF 2007)
[A] (2007) Implementation of an anti-vibration system on 186 km of subway
routes to reduce noise pollution (RATP, 2010)
[B] (2010) 36% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with the creation of T3
electric tramway (Renvois 2015)
EVALUATION
EVALUATION
[B] (2009) Number of cameras on public transport vehicles has increased (Table
2, no.23)
[A] (2015) Campaign against harassment of women in public transport (Table 2,
no.24)
[B] (2007) More than 80% of RATP staff trained for fire alerts (RATP 2010)
[B] (2007) Installation of 1625 cameras in the public transport network (RATP
2010)
[A] (2007) Complementarity between RATP members and the police: 79,8% of

interventions occur in less than 10 minutes (RATP 2010)

[B] (2007) 7,5% decrease of crimes on subways and RERs (RATP 2010)
[B] (2014) SNCF plans to improve safety in public transport (Table 2, no.25)
PARKING
GOALS
Limit parking time
Adopt parking fees
Create a new parking policy for all travelers in
share zones: cycles, public transports, private
vehicles
OBJECTIVES
Reduce car parking in workplaces with good
public transport access
Enforce illegal parking fines
Specify loading zones for deliveries

EVALUATION
[A] (2006) Parking fees apply in every parking space in inner city (STIF 2007)
[B] (2011) Provision of on-street delivery areas with 30 minutes use limit
(Dablanc et al. 2011)
EVALUATION
[B] (2007) No reduction of car parking but relocation of some lots (STIF 2007)
[A] (2007) Deployment of Parking Overstay Detection System PODS (STIF
2007)
[A] (2009) More than 1000 loading zones specified (Table 2, no.26)
[B] (2011) Provision of numerous, more protected and well-designed on-street
delivery areas (Dablanc et al. 2011)
[A] (2006) Reduction from 650 to 200 car parks along the boulevards des
Marchaux and 2% reduction of car parking in the T3 surroundings (Renvois
2015)

RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER INDUSTRIES

GOAL
EVALUATION
Encourage companies to promote the use of public [B] (2007) The 150 largest trip-generating companies must adopt travel plans for
transport
employees (STIF 2007)
Encourage partnership between tourism industry
and transport industry
Limit the deliveries during peak hours

* A few categories in the proposed framework, such as land use and innovation were not included in Tables 5-8
because no data was available for Paris. However, these categories are important in a general framework that can be
applicable to other cities.
In Tables 5-8, for each particular goal or objective, a unique indication or interpretation of the evaluation result has been
provided, based on the following categories:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

fulfillment of the goal/objective or beyond

some progress
no progress
opposite direction
no clear data available

10

Table 6: Evaluation of Urban Plan 2006.

PUBLIC TRANSPORT MODES
GOALS
Encourage use of public transport
Increase frequency and reliability of public
transport services
Increase comfort in public transport vehicles
Make alternative transport more attractive
Improve taxi services
Extend public transport network to unserved areas

OBJECTIVES
Develop waterway transport line on Seine River
Create new public transport routes

NON-MOTORIZED MODES
GOALS

EVALUATION
[A] (2015) First Car Free Day celebration (Table 2, nos.30 and 67)
[D] (2014) Failed implementation of Autolib carsharing scheme - in competition
with public transport (Hildermeier & Villareal 2014)
[A] (2014) Public transport punctuality has improved in most lines (Table 2,
no.29)
[D] (2010) Survey indicates that 88% of people are uncomfortable with public
transport (Table 2, no.28)
[B] (2016) Touch screen to be installed in 500 taxis (Table 2, no.32)
[D] (2012) Taxi services criticized by tourists (Table 2, no. 31)
[B] (2015) Taxis Bleu starts operation at a fare of 10 euro between midnight and
5.00 am on weekends (Table 2, no.60)
[A] (2006) Better frequency of transport services along the boulevards des
Marchaux with the creation of the T3 tramway (Renvois 2015)
[A] (2010) The new tramway T3 offers better comfort (above ground, less
vibration, acceleration and braking) and three times as many seats as buses
(Renvois 2015)
[A] (2010) Increase of T3 tramway users by 58% since 2007 (Renvois 2015)
[A] (2006) T3 tramway provides a faster transport service with time savings of
7,8 minutes for passengers (Renvois 2015)
[A] (2007) 50% increase of the frequency of subway services between 8pm and
1.15am (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) 15% increase of the frequency of service of the subway line 3 (RATP
2010)
[A] (2007) Higher frequency of service of the subway lines 2 and 7 (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) 13% increase of the use of subway on Saturdays (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Increase of public transport services in unserved areas of the 18th and
19th districts with the creation of bus line La troisime traverse (RATP 2010)
[A] (2006) Increase of subway line 13 services (RATP 2010)
[A] (2009) Increased comfort in subway line 13 with better ventilation and
lighting (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Increased comfort in subway lines 2, 5 and 9 (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Increased comfort in some bus lines (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Higher frequency of RER A services in off-peak hours (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) 158 days of more than 1 million RER A users compared to 7 in 2003
(RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Automation of subway lines 1 and 14 (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Increased services of 140 bus lines in Paris intra-muros and in
suburbs (RATP 2010)
EVALUATION
[A] (2007) New bus line created (Table 2, no.33)
[A] (2014) Two new tram lines created (Table 2, no.34)
[A] (2015) Bus and taxi lines created on A1 and A6 highways (Table 2, nos.35
and 14)
[B] (2014) STIF announces plans to create dedicated taxi and bus lanes in many
highways and national roads (Table 2, no.36)
[A] (2015) Extension of subway line 11 begins (Table 2, no.62)
[A] (2006) Creation of the new tramway T3 that runs through the 13th, 14th and
15th districts (Renvois 2015)
[A] (2012) Extension of T3 traway from Porte dIvry to Porte de Vincennes (T3a
line) and from Porte de Vincennes to Porte de la Chapelle (T3b line) (Renvois
2015)
[A] (2007) Opening of the Olympiade station on the subway line 14 (RATP
2010)
[A] (2007) Extension of the Trans Val-de-Marne (TVM) from Val-de-Marne to
Haut-de-Seine (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Extension of the subway lines 4, 8, 12 and 13 (RATP 2010)
[A] (2009) Extension of the T2 tramway (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Creation of four new Mobilien lines (RATP 2010)
EVALUATION

11

Improve quality, comfort, and safety of cycle

paths and pedestrian paths
Favor environmentally-friendly transport modes in
public spaces
Increase cycle parking
MOBILITY OF VULNERABLE GROUPS
GOALS
Improve public space accessibility
Add pathways for people with reduced mobility
OBJECTIVES
Develop special public transport options for
disabled people
ACCESSIBILITY AND WAYFINDING
OBJECTIVE
Modernize largest train stations

ALTERNATIVE / RENEWABLE ENERGY

GOALS
Encourage use of environmentally-friendly
vehicles

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
GOALS
Decrease noise/air pollution by limiting traffic and
speed
Favor waterway/railway for freight/waste
transport

PARKING
GOALS
Provide loading zones for deliveries
Prioritize residential parking

OBJECTIVES
Reduce car parking at workplaces with good
public transport access
Shorten parking times
Increase parking fees
Provide park-and-ride lots at train stations

[A] (2006) Construction of new tramway T3: better comfort for pedestrians and
cyclists (Renvois 2015)
[C] (2000-2009) Frequency of cyclist accidents has not decreased (Renvois
2015)
EVALUATION
[C] (2014) Public space accessibility is still considered poor (Table 2, no.38)
[B] (2014) Work toward inclusive design has started but will take 3-9 years
(Table 2, no.39)
EVALUATION
[C] (2011) Better information systems for the blind people need to be provided in
public transport systems (Table 2, no.18)
EVALUATION
[A] (2014) Modernization of station Gare Cergy Prefecture (Table 2, no.65)
[A] (2015) Modernization of station Gare du Nord (Table 2, nos.41 and 66)
[A] (2007) Renovation of Le Peletier and Simplon stations (RATP 2010)
[A] (2007) Renovation of 27 subway stations (RATP 2010)
EVALUATION
[A] (2011) Autolib created (Table 2, no.19)
[A] (2015) Cityscoot - public electric scooters - created (Table 2, nos.40 and 64)
[A] (2006) Creation of T3 electric tramway (Renvois 2015)
[B] (2007) Purchase of 356 buses with dual energy (diesel/biofuel) by RATP
(RATP 2010)
EVALUATION
[D] (2006-2009) 1,7% increase of traffic speed per year along the boulevards des
Marchaux between 7am and 9pm (Renvois 2015)
[B] (2010) After the creation of T3 tramway in 2006, traffic reduction led to
improvement of air quality (Renvois 2015)
[A] (2007) 36% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with the creation of the
T3 electric tramway (Renvois 2015)
EVALUATION
[D] (2009) Insufficient loading zones, esp. along the Seine (Ripert and Browne
2009)
[A] (2009) More than 1000 loading zones created (Table 2, no.26)
[A] (2011) Provision of numerous, more protected and well designed on-street
delivery areas (Dablanc et al. 2011)
EVALUATION
[B] (2014) Proposal to increase parking fees (Table 2, no.43)
[B] (2015) Free parking eliminated (Table 2, no.42)
[D] (2006-2009) Park-and-ride provision has decreased (Table 2, nos.44 and 45)
[B] (2011) Provision of on-street delivery areas with 30 minutes use limit
(Dablanc et al. 2011)
[A] (2006) Reduction from 650 to 200 on street car parking spots along the
boulevards des Marchaux and 2% reduction of car parking in the T3
surroundings (Renvois 2015)

RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER INDUSTRIES

GOALS
EVALUATION
Develop transport plans for companies

12

Table 7. Evaluation of Cycling Plan 2010-2014.

NON-MOTORIZED MODES
GOALS
Provide secure cycle parking in new residential
projects
Improve Vlib bikes within 2010
Improve cycling links between Paris and suburbs
Promote the use of cycles through communication
campaigns and events
Improve signage for bicycles
OBJECTIVES
Double cycling rates by 2020
Create Maison du Vlo a services center for
bicycles (repairs, riding lessons for children and
adults, etc.)
New rules for bicycles to increase traffic flow
Increase cycling network by 30%
Create bidirectional cycling paths in all 30 km/h
zones
Create safe cycling connections between 30km/h
zones
Allow bicycles in public parks
Create two major cycling boulevards
Create 700 km of new cycling infrastructure by
2014
Extend Vlib network in inner suburbs
Creating 10 new Vlib pods by 2014
Create new Vlib subscription types
Create Villes Vlib club by 2011
Refund annual Velib subscription for public
employees
Identify 11 safe routes by color and number
Display cycling network maps along the northsouth and west-east major cycle paths
Create a cycling route calculator
Increase on-street cycle parking spaces by 1000
annually
Include new bicycle shelters when (re)designing
roads
Remove abandoned bicycles from city streets

EVALUATION
[A] (2007) Vlib bikes were updraged (Tironi 2014)
[D] (2014) New Vlib equipment upgrade is not deemed very efficient (Table
2, no.11)
[A] (2013) Promotional events (Table 2, no.5)
[B] (2013) New signage in major north-south path (City of Paris 2013)
EVALUATION
[A] (2002-2012) Number of cyclists increased by 109.5% (City of Paris 2013)
[A] (2011) Maison du Vlo created (City of Paris 2013)
[A] (2014) Ptit Vlib created to teach children how to cycle (Table 2, no.3)
[A] (2013) New cycling rules in some low speed areas (City of Paris 2013)
[A] (2015) Bicycles allowed to run red lights (Table 2, no.4 and 49)
[B] (2013) 94% of the objectives aimed at increasing cycle network have been
met (City of Paris 2013)
[B] (2013) Creation of 189 km of bidirectional paths in 30 km/h zones (City of
Paris 2013)
[B] (2012) Out of 20 planed actions, 17 were carried out (City of Paris 2013)
[B] (2013) Out of 19 planed actions, only one was carried out (City of Paris
2013)
[A] (2010) Bicycles were allowed in public parks (Delano 2010)
[B] (2013) 658 km of new cycling infrastructure were created (City of Paris
2013)
[A] (2014) New cycling infrastructure reached 700 km (Table 2, no.50)
[B] (2012) Six new Vlib pods were created (City of Paris 2013)
[A] (2014) New service centers were created in 30 inner suburb areas (Tironi
2014)
[A] (2011) First 45 min free policy for Vlib (Table 2, no.51)
[A] (2013) Discounted subscriptions for low-income earners (Table 2, no.52)
[A] (2014) Discounted subscriptions for children (Table 2, no.53)
[A] New signage in major north-south path (City of Paris 2013)
[A] (2014) Online app for cyclists (Table 2, no.6)
[B] (2009-2012) 13,363 on-street cycle parking spaces created (City of Paris
2013)
[B] (2013) Cycling parking spaces increased by 31% (City of Paris 2013)
[B] (2010-2012) Bicycle shelters increased by 400% (City of Paris 2013)
[A] (2013) 79% additional bicycle shelters were planned in new construction
projects (City of Paris 2013)
[B] (2012) Creation of Veligo - secure bike shelters at train stations (Table 2,
nos.37 and 63)
[A] (2010) Actions set up to remove abandoned bicycles recurrence twice
monthly (Table 2, no.48)
[B] (2015) Vlib proves to be very popular (City of Paris 2015)
[D] (2012) Increase of cyclists traffic fatalities (Table 2, no. 47)

RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER INDUSTRIES

OBJECTIVE
Encourage companies to promote cycling in
transport plans for employees

EVALUATION

13

Table 8. Evaluation of Pedestrian Initiative 2013.

NON-MOTORIZED MODES
GOALS
Improve quality, comfort, and safety of pedestrian
paths
Promote walking through participatory approach
Extension of shared spaces
OBJECTIVES
Creation of new 30 km/h zones and new
pedestrian-friendly zones

EVALUATION

EVALUATION
[A] (2013) Creation of 23 new meeting zones and more than 30 new 30 km/h
zones (Table 2, no.13)
[D] (2013) Unclear pedestrian crossings in shared zones (Table 2, no.12)
[B] (2015) Speed limits of 30 km/h apply in one third of city (awaited) (Table 2,
no.46)

14