How to use the tool

Background

This tool complements the M&E Framework document and the M&E Plan Template. It serves as the practical, step-by-step ‘indicator selector’ to support cities in building their monitoring system. It helps cities move from broad objectives (e.g., safer streets, higher active mode share, cleaner air, better access to public transport) to a coherent, manageable set of indicators that can be measured consistently over time. It was designed to support small and mid-sized cities in the Baltic Sea Region in setting up clear and realistic monitoring and evaluation systems for sustainable mobility planning.

Remember that selecting KPIs is only one step in building an effective urban mobility monitoring system. Success depends on what happens next: setting realistic baselines, targets, and expected directions of change over the coming years, and ensuring that data are collected regularly and in a comparable way.

For each indicator, it is therefore advisable to define from the outset the data source, update frequency, calculation method, and geographic scope (e.g., the urban node boundary), and most importantly, the people and institutions responsible for data collection and quality assurance. Without clear ownership, even the best KPI set will quickly become outdated or inconsistent.

Equally important is planning how you will respond to the results. Agree in advance what constitutes a meaningful change, which values should be treated as alert thresholds, and who makes decisions. Monitoring should support management: when an undesirable trend emerges, it should trigger concrete actions. A well-designed monitoring system ensures continuity and transparency through stable indicator definitions, documented data sources, a clear reporting schedule, and accessible communication of results. This way, KPIs become a tool for decision-making and dialogue with residents, not just a reporting obligation.

Note on classifications
The additional classifications used in this tool (Themes, Data collection effort, EU alignment, etc.) were developed within the SUMPs for BSR project as practical guidance for cities.

– Importance (critical, high, moderate, complemetary) 

• Critical indicators are essential for management and accountability and are often linked to requirements or standards (e.g., road safety outcomes, basic accessibility measures, key emissions). In most cases, they should be prioritised for monitoring, with clear ownership, a defined reporting frequency, and agreed alert thresholds.
• High-importance indicators are priority metrics recommended for regular monitoring in most cities. They typically form part of the “core dashboard”, while still being reviewed for local relevance and data feasibility.
• Moderate-importance indicators are useful for monitoring, but not essential for every city. They are worth including when they match local priorities and data availability, and can be added to an extended KPI set once the core KPI set is in place.
• Complementary indicators are optional supporting metrics that deepen the analysis, especially in areas that are particularly challenging in a given city and provide additional context and comparability.

– Themes (Accessibility, Safety, Health, Environment, Economy, Governance) are areas frequently highlighted in European mobility planning documents and strategies, adapted here to help cities balance their indicator sets across different objectives.

– Data collection effort (Easy, Medium, Hard) reflects assessment of how demanding an indicator is to monitor:
• Easy: data is usually available from existing administrative or operator statistics (e.g. police accident data, public transport ridership).
• Medium: data can be collected with moderate additional effort, often requiring traffic counts, GIS analysis, or some data processing.
• Hard: data requires dedicated surveys, continuous monitoring, or advanced technology solutions.

– EU alignment distinguishes between indicators that are are part of European monitoring recommendations (Core, e.g. TEN-T urban nodes, SUMI), those that are recommended as good practice in EU guidance (Recommended), and those that are project- or city-specific (Optional).

These classifications are intended as supportive guidance. They were inspired by the EU SUMP Guidelines, the SUMI project, and the revised TEN-T regulation, but simplified for practical use by small and medium-sized cities.

– Level of Indicator Output indicators measure the direct and immediate deliverables of activities or interventions, capturing what has been produced, built, or implemented as a direct result of project actions or investments. Result indicators measure the short- to medium-term effects or changes that occur because of outputs, reflecting how outputs influence behaviour, accessibility, quality, or usage. Impact indicators measure the long-term, higher-level effects that occur as a consequence of results — they capture the ultimate goals or societal benefits of policies and actions.

The Indicator Selector includes a catalogue of 221 proposed KPIs. While this number may seem overwhelming at first, it is important to remember that these indicators are provided as suggestions and inspiration, not as a mandatory checklist. Cities are not expected to monitor all KPIs at once.
Instead, the list is designed to help you build a monitoring system that matches your local goals, capacity, and data availability. Start by selecting a small, realistic “core” set of indicators that you can update regularly and consistently. As your data sources, processes, and responsibilities become established, you can gradually expand the set with additional KPIs to deepen the analysis or address specific local challenges.

Many indicators also overlap and measure similar topics in different ways (e.g., absolute values and normalised versions per resident, per kilometre of network, or per passenger-kilometre). This is intentional, and it gives you flexibility to choose the formats that are most useful and feasible in your context.

Ultimately, the aim is not to collect as many indicators as possible, but to create a practical, decision-oriented monitoring system that supports learning, accountability, and timely action in sustainable mobility planning.