SUMPs in Practice
SUMPs in Practice
On this page
- Practical significance of SUMP in mobility planning and management
- Evolution of expectations towards SUMPs in light of TEN-T regulations and EU mobility policy
- 2.1. Growing role of data, indicators, monitoring and evaluation in the new generation of SUMPs
- 2.2. Growing role of SUMP in planning and financing mobility investments
- 2.3. Growing importance of climate, energy and the environment in SUMP
- 2.4. Growing role of accessibility and social equity in SUMP
- 2.5. Growing role of urban logistics and freight transport in SUMP
- 2.6. Increasing integration of transport and spatial planning within SUMP
- 2.7. Growing influence of digitalisation, data and new mobility services on SUMP
Practical significance of SUMP in mobility planning and management
A Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP) is a strategic plan aimed at improving mobility in a city or functional urban area in a sustainable, integrated and user-oriented way, while enhancing the quality of life of all city users.
In formal terms, it is a framework strategic planning document that helps cities define a vision for the development of their transport systems, set long-term mobility objectives, and select and formalise measures that support accessibility, safety, environmental quality, efficient use of urban space and other important areas in which urban transport systems affect the lives of city residents.
In practice, a SUMP helps cities move from isolated, fragmented transport decisions made spontaneously in response to emerging problems towards a coordinated mobility policy. One of the most important practical functions of a SUMP is to support choices between competing investments and measures. Cities usually have more needs than available funds and resources. Small and medium-sized cities in particular must decide whether to build a new road, modernise public transport, introduce bus lanes, create Park & Ride facilities, develop cycling infrastructure, calm traffic in residential areas, introduce paid parking zones or redesign streets. A SUMP helps assess these options not only in terms of construction costs, but also in terms of their impacts. A new road may improve traffic flow in one location while generating additional car traffic elsewhere. Traffic calming may slow car journeys, but it can significantly improve safety and quality of life in the surrounding area. Paid parking may initially face resistance, but it reduces cruising for parking spaces and improves access to local services. The practical value of a SUMP lies in making such trade-offs explicit. It allows decision-makers to ask: which measure contributes most effectively to achieving the city’s objectives? Which investment improves accessibility for the greatest number of people? Which action reduces risk, emissions or exclusion? Which measures should be implemented first because they are relatively low-cost while generating significant benefits? In this way, a SUMP becomes a tool for prioritisation, not merely a catalogue of possible projects.
A common misunderstanding is to treat a SUMP as a report or document that is prepared, formally adopted and then put on a shelf once the preparation process has ended. Such an approach significantly limits the value and rationale for preparing SUMPs. A practical and useful SUMP should be understood as a continuous process of planning and management. It begins with diagnosis: understanding how people and goods move, where the main bottlenecks occur, which areas are poorly served by public transport, where accidents happen, and which groups of residents experience mobility barriers. The diagnosis should then be followed by consultation with all key stakeholders, definition of objectives, selection of measures to achieve those objectives, allocation of responsibility for implementing measures and achieving objectives, real-world implementation, monitoring of changes in the city’s mobility system as well as the progress and impacts of planned measures, and corrective action where discrepancies are identified between expected and actual results.
This cyclical nature of the SUMP preparation and implementation process is important because urban mobility is not static. Transport behaviours and preferences change, new residential areas are developed, demographic trends shift, social expectations evolve, and technologies influence how people move and communicate. In practice, these changes may occur gradually in line with long-term trends or very rapidly, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic. A SUMP should therefore not be treated as a one-off response to all transport problems, but as a practical tool that enables better decisions to be made over time.
Preparing the document itself is not enough. Its value depends on whether it is linked to investment planning, the budget, spatial planning and day-to-day city management. If a SUMP identifies high quality and accessibility of public transport services as a priority, this should influence budgetary decisions, street design, public transport priority at traffic signals and the city’s parking policy. If improving road safety is a key objective, this should be reflected in speed management, intersection redesign, the organisation of infrastructure leading to schools, and priorities in enforcement and penalties for violations. A SUMP therefore becomes practically useful only when it influences real decisions and the actual condition of the city and mobility conditions within it.
Contemporary urban mobility challenges addressed by SUMP
Cities usually face many mobility challenges at the same time. Traffic congestion is often the most visible problem, but it is rarely the only or the most important one. Excessive dependence on private cars can lead to inefficient use of street space, high infrastructure costs and limited transport accessibility for people who do not drive. Poor quality public transport can limit access to work, schools, healthcare and services, which is particularly important for people without access to a car. Inconsistent cycling infrastructure can discourage short trips by bicycle, even where distances are suitable. The lack of safe walking routes can limit the independence of children, older people and people with disabilities in moving around the city.
A SUMP helps organise these problems and set priorities. Instead of treating congestion, parking, public transport, cycling, walking, emissions, noise and safety as separate issues, it shows how they are interconnected. For example, road congestion cannot always be solved solely by building new roads, that is, by increasing infrastructure capacity. In many cases, a more effective response may involve improving public transport, better traffic management, safer cycling routes, parking regulation, coordination with spatial planning and changes in street design. A SUMP makes it possible to compare these options and combine them into a coherent package of measures.
It also helps manage conflicts over street space. Urban streets are expected to perform many functions: carrying car, bus, bicycle and pedestrian traffic; enabling deliveries; providing parking; accommodating greenery and public life; ensuring access for emergency services; and sometimes supporting commercial activity. Because space is limited, choices must be made. A SUMP provides a transparent basis for making these choices by linking them to agreed objectives such as accessibility, safety, air quality, climate goals and quality of life.
SUMP as a tool responding to the real needs of different groups of residents
Cities usually face many mobility challenges at the same time. Traffic congestion is often the most visible problem, but it is rarely the only or the most important one. Excessive dependence on private cars can lead to inefficient use of street space, high infrastructure costs and limited transport accessibility for people who do not drive. Poor quality public transport can limit access to work, schools, healthcare and services, which is particularly important for people without access to a car. Inconsistent cycling infrastructure can discourage short trips by bicycle, even where distances are suitable. The lack of safe walking routes can limit the independence of children, older people and people with disabilities in moving around the city.
A SUMP helps organise these problems and set priorities. Instead of treating congestion, parking, public transport, cycling, walking, emissions, noise and safety as separate issues, it shows how they are interconnected. For example, road congestion cannot always be solved solely by building new roads, that is, by increasing infrastructure capacity. In many cases, a more effective response may involve improving public transport, better traffic management, safer cycling routes, parking regulation, coordination with spatial planning and changes in street design. A SUMP makes it possible to compare these options and combine them into a coherent package of measures.
It also helps manage conflicts over street space. Urban streets are expected to perform many functions: carrying car, bus, bicycle and pedestrian traffic; enabling deliveries; providing parking; accommodating greenery and public life; ensuring access for emergency services; and sometimes supporting commercial activity. Because space is limited, choices must be made. A SUMP provides a transparent basis for making these choices by linking them to agreed objectives such as accessibility, safety, air quality, climate goals and quality of life.
Evolution of expectations towards SUMPs in light of TEN-T regulations and EU mobility policy
The importance of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans will increase significantly in the coming years. Until now, in many cities, they have primarily been treated as strategic documents, tools for organising transport policy, or a condition for applying for funding for selected investments. However, this understanding of SUMPs will become increasingly insufficient. The direction of change in European Union policy indicates that SUMPs will gradually move from being general planning documents towards more binding, measurable and implementation-oriented tools for managing urban mobility.
A particularly important driver of change is the revised TEN-T Regulation. It introduces new obligations for cities classified as urban nodes of the Trans-European Transport Network. By 2027, these cities will be required to adopt SUMPs that meet the conditions set out in the Regulation. SUMPs of urban nodes will be subject to assessment in terms of alignment with EU policies, consistency with investment plans, reliability of data and quality of the implementation mechanism. General, descriptive documents without real priorities will therefore lose relevance and usefulness, which should lead to their replacement by updated and more functional versions.
The revised TEN-T approach changes the way cities are perceived. They are no longer viewed only as local transport systems, but nodes connecting local, regional, national and European traffic. A city functioning as a TEN-T node should ensure efficient links between urban, rail, road, air, port, terminal and logistics transport, depending on its function in the network.
As a result, future SUMPs will have to address the issue of the “first and last mile” more strongly, for both passengers and goods. It will not be enough to plan a bus or cycling network within the city’s administrative boundaries. It will be necessary to show how residents and users can reach railway stations, interchange nodes, terminals, ports, airports, industrial areas and logistics centres. The Commission points out that urban nodes are the starting and ending points of journeys and freight movements within the TEN-T system, as well as places of transfer and transhipment between different modes of transport.
This will require extending the SUMP perspective beyond the core city itself. Commuting areas, suburbanisation, daily flows between municipalities and links with regional transport will have to become an integral part of the diagnosis and action plan. Stronger coordination will also be expected between municipalities, metropolitan associations, regional authorities, the state, rail and road infrastructure managers, public transport operators and entities responsible for logistics.
Growing role of data, indicators, monitoring and evaluation in the new generation of SUMPs
The second key change will be the growing importance of measurability. A future SUMP will have to show not only a vision for mobility development, but also how progress will be measured. The European Commission indicates that the revised TEN-T Regulation requires the adoption of an implementing act defining a limited number of indicators related to sustainability, safety and accessibility. These indicators are intended to support the monitoring of SUMP implementation and allow cities and stakeholders to assess progress.
In practice, this means that SUMPs will have to contain more precise data on, among other things, the modal split, public transport accessibility, road safety, emissions, noise, air quality, public transport punctuality, access to services, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, and transport exclusion. Already in the New EU Urban Mobility Framework, the Commission pointed to the need to collect data on, among other things, greenhouse gas emissions, congestion, road fatalities and serious injuries, modal split and access to mobility services.
The way in which the quality of the document is assessed is also likely to change. Until now, a SUMP could be considered good if it contained a coherent diagnosis, objectives and catalogue of measures. In the future, it will become increasingly important whether the city can demonstrate progress: for example, a reduction in the number of accidents, an increase in the share of public transport and active mobility, improved access to stops, shorter travel times to public services or reduced emissions. The value of a SUMP will therefore depend increasingly on the data system, not only on the quality of the strategic narrative.
Growing role of SUMP in planning and financing mobility investments
Another change will be the stronger link between SUMPs and investment financing. It can be expected that, in order to be eligible for external funding, transport projects will have to be not only listed in the SUMP, but also logically derived from its diagnosis, objectives and priorities. This means moving away from the practice of creating long lists of projects that include almost all possible investments, without a clear hierarchy or assessment of their impact.
A future SUMP should contain a realistic implementation plan: a timetable, institutional responsibilities, estimated costs, possible funding sources, sequencing of measures and a monitoring mechanism. According to the description of requirements set out in the annex to the TEN-T Regulation, a SUMP should combine a long-term strategy for the development of multimodal infrastructure and services with a short-term implementation plan.
This change will be particularly important for cities applying for external funds, including EU, national or regional funding. In practice, funding institutions are likely to expect an answer to the question of whether a given investment genuinely contributes to achieving the objectives of the SUMP.
Growing importance of climate, energy and the environment in SUMP
Future expectations towards SUMPs will be more strongly linked to climate, energy and environmental policy. The European Green Deal and the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy envisage a profound transformation of the transport system. The European Commission indicates that the EU transport system is to undergo a green and digital transformation, resulting in a 90% reduction in transport emissions by 2050.
This means that SUMPs will have to refer more strongly to the decarbonisation of transport, air quality, noise, energy efficiency and climate resilience. It will not be enough to make general declarations about supporting public transport, walking and cycling. It will be necessary to show how specific measures contribute to reducing emissions and energy consumption. This applies, among other things, to the electrification of bus fleets, the development of charging infrastructure, low-emission zones, priority for public transport, reducing unnecessary car trips and creating shorter chains of everyday journeys.
The AFIR Regulation on alternative fuels infrastructure will also be significant. It has applied since 13 April 2024 and establishes mandatory targets for the development of alternative fuels infrastructure, including charging and refuelling infrastructure, interoperability, and information and payment systems for users. SUMPs will therefore have to take into account not only changes in transport behaviour, but also the development of infrastructure necessary for the energy transition of transport.
Growing role of accessibility and social equity in SUMP
In the coming years, the importance of accessibility and social equity will also increase. Traditional transport planning has often focused on capacity, travel time and infrastructure parameters. Future SUMPs will have to respond more strongly to the question of who actually benefits from the mobility system and who is excluded from it. This applies in particular to older people, people with disabilities, children and young people, people without cars, residents of peripheral areas, lower-income groups and users dependent on public transport. A well-prepared SUMP should analyse access to work, education, healthcare, public services, recreational areas and urban space. The mere presence of infrastructure is not sufficient if it does not provide real accessibility. In this sense, SUMPs will increasingly become not only transport documents, but also social documents. They will have to demonstrate whether proposed measures reduce inequalities in access to mobility or rather deepen them. For example, restrictions on cars in the city centre will be more acceptable if they are accompanied by improvements in public transport quality, pedestrian accessibility, cycling conditions and access for people with reduced mobility.
Growing role of urban logistics and freight transport in SUMP
An important direction of change will also be the expansion of the scope of SUMPs to include urban logistics and freight transport. In many existing documents, these issues have been treated marginally, even though deliveries, e-commerce, city centre servicing, heavy goods traffic, terminals and last-mile delivery have a significant impact on street congestion, emissions of harmful substances and noise, safety, and the use of urban space, both private and public. The New EU Urban Mobility Framework pointed to the need to better embed sustainable urban logistics plans within SUMPs and to further develop and implement them across the EU. It can therefore be expected that future SUMPs will include more detailed analyses of freight flows, terminal locations, access rules for delivery vehicles, delivery zones, microhubs, cargo bikes, zero-emission deliveries and links with TEN-T corridors. This is particularly important for cities that are TEN-T network nodes. Freight transport does not end at a motorway, railway line or terminal. Its final section very often runs through urban space, where it competes with pedestrian and bicycle traffic, public transport, parking and the public functions of streets. A future SUMP should identify these conflicts and propose organisational, infrastructural and regulatory solutions.
Increasing integration of transport and spatial planning within SUMP
Another expected direction of change will be the stronger link between SUMPs and spatial planning. Mobility does not depend solely on the quality of roads, bus lines or cycling routes. To a large extent, it results from the distribution of urban functions, such as housing, workplaces, schools, services, retail, healthcare, recreational areas and economic zones.
If new housing estates are built on the periphery without access to public transport, sidewalks and basic services, the transport system will generate greater dependence on the car. If service centres and workplaces are located exclusively in ways that favour car access, subsequent transport measures will have limited effectiveness. Future SUMPs will therefore have to be more closely linked to spatial planning, supporting compact urban structures, mixed-use development and the location of key functions in areas well served by sustainable modes of transport.
Growing influence of digitalisation, data and new mobility services on SUMP
Another expected direction of change will be the stronger link between SUMPs and spatial planning. Mobility does not depend solely on the quality of roads, bus lines or cycling routes. To a large extent, it results from the distribution of urban functions, such as housing, workplaces, schools, services, retail, healthcare, recreational areas and economic zones.
If new housing estates are built on the periphery without access to public transport, sidewalks and basic services, the transport system will generate greater dependence on the car. If service centres and workplaces are located exclusively in ways that favour car access, subsequent transport measures will have limited effectiveness. Future SUMPs will therefore have to be more closely linked to spatial planning, supporting compact urban structures, mixed-use development and the location of key functions in areas well served by sustainable modes of transport.