ACTIVITY 7.1: Create and assess long list of measures with stakeholders


By Tom Wood / Updated: 28 Nov 2019


The assessmentinfo-icon and selection of measures aims to identify the most suitable and cost-effective measures to achieve your visioninfo-icon and objectives. In order not to forget relevant options, a comprehensive longlist should be created based on your own expert knowledge, the ideas of stakeholders and the public, the experience of practitioners in other cities, and databases of measures and measureinfo-icon types.

To achieve a set of effective measures that realistically fit with the available resources and local circumstances, a transparent assessment of all options on the long list needs to be conducted. The assessment will be guided not only by effectiveness in terms of contribution to objectives, but also by acceptability and value for money. Especially in times of tight budgets for urban transport and mobilityinfo-icon, it is crucial to get the most impact possible for the resources spent.



  • Identify a wide variety of measure options that would contribute to your vision, objectives and targets. Learn from experienced cities and practitioners to consider all relevant options.

  • Select the most promising measures for your local context.

  • Ensure efficient use of available resources and avoid selection of financially unrealistic measures.

  • Conduct a transparent process that provides convincing evidence for the effectiveness and feasibility of selected measures.


What is a ‘Measure’?

A measure is a broad type of action that is implemented to contribute to the achievement of one or more policyinfo-icon objectives in a SUMP or to overcome one or more identified problems. Examples range from land use, infrastructure, regulation, management and service measures to behavioural, information provisioninfo-icon and pricing measures.



Identification of measures (option generationinfo-icon)
  • Produce a systematic overview of measures that are already planned or implemented, based on sectoral mobility plans (e.g. on walking, cycling, public transport, road transport, parking, freight) as well as plans from other relevant policy areas (e.g. land use, energy, environmentinfo-icon, economic development, social inclusioninfo-icon, health and safety)

  • Create a long list of new potential measures that connect to your objectives and vision. Consider new and innovative ideas. Also, include measures that would be implemented by the private sector. Use databases of measures and lists of measure types to identify measure gaps and to be inspired (see Toolinfo-icon section below).

  • Involve stakeholders in drawing up a long list of measures.

  • Be sure to include a mixture of investment, operational and organisational measures for all relevant transport modes in the long list. It also aims for a mix of measures with effects in the short, middle and long term.

  • Learn from others’ experiences. Identify measures that have already been successfully implemented elsewhere and get in touch with their planners. This avoids ‘re-inventing the wheel’ and making costly mistakes that others may already have learnt from.


Databases of urban mobility measures

There is a wide range of possible measures. This means that identifying the most suitable measures for your local context will require some desk work and talking to members of the project team as well as stakeholders.

You may want to consult online databases and documents that provide an overview of possible measures that may match your objectives:

  • SUMPs-UP Manuals on the integrationinfo-icon of measures and measure packages in a SUMP (three versions for beginner, intermediate and advanced cities), including a long list of over 100 measures for 25 categories:

  • CH4LLENGE Measure selection manual - Selecting the most effective packages of measures for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans:

  • EPOMM website for details on mobility management, e.g. the MaxExplorer helping you to identify the most suitable ‘soft measures’:

  • Vital Nodes Toolbox with Appraisalinfo-icon framework, Mapping and spatial design, Good Practices and Fingerprint:

  • Complementary SUMP guidance, Annex D: The different guides include a range of recommended measures for specific topics or contexts.

  • On the European level, the two most encompassing resources for implementations of urban mobility measures (and packages of measures) in cities throughout Europe are the case study sections of Eltis (, i.e. the European Commission’s urban mobility portal, as well as the EC’s website of the CiViTAS Initiative for cleaner and better transport in cities (


Figure 26: Examples of measure areas to address different overall challenges common in urban mobility planning. A challenge can be addressed with a wide range of different measures. The different measure areas displayed in the pie-charts can be used as a control to see if a city uses all relevant areas to address a certain challenge (Sundberg, R., 2018. SUMPs-Up Manual on the integration of measures and measure packages - Step up, p. 9)


Figure 27: Example of a structure to get an overview of the coverage of different types of SUMP measures and the balance of internal and external measures (Sundberg, R., 2018. SUMPs-Up Manual on the integration of measures and measure packages - Step up, p. 13.)


Online tools supporting measure identification and appraisal

Urban Transport Roadmaps
The Urban Transport Roadmaps tool allows users to explore and identify appropriate sustainable transport policy measures, as well as to quantify the transport, environmental and economic impacts of these measures:

KonSULT Measure Option Generator
This online tool allows users to quickly identify those policy measures that fit their situation. Users specify their objectives or problems and the option generator provides a ranked list of 64 measures, with links to detailed measure descriptions:


Assessment of measures (option appraisal)

  • Conduct an appraisal of all measures on your long list to identify the most suitable and effective ones for your SUMP.

    • Consider the likely impact of measures on the performance of the transport system (by changing the demand of travel, by changing the supply of transport facilities, or by changing the cost of provision and operation of the transport system).

    • Assess for each measure the likely performance against each of the city’s objectives (effectiveness), the likelihood of being approved (acceptability), and implications for the city’s budget (value for money). Consider different assessment methods and decide which one to use. The choice depends on your experience and available resources and may include both qualitative and quantitative approaches.

      • A relatively quick approach used by many cities is expert ratings of multiple criteria (simplified multi-criteria analysis), for example in a series of workshops. To follow this approach, a group of qualified experts should be gathered (e.g. the SUMP ‘steering group’ or ‘core team’). After presenting a measure, each expert rates individually, scores are discussed as a group, experts can amend their ratings but do not have to agree on a common score, and finally the averages are calculated to compare and prioritise measures (see Tool section below for an example of how to organise such a rating methodinfo-icon). For a more qualified average, it can be useful to weight the ratings of experts depending on their field of expertise (e.g. environmental experts get a higher weighting in the air quality rating, financial experts in the cost rating, etc.).

      • Online tools that can support this include, for example, the KonSULT Measure Option Generator and the Urban Transport Roadmaps tool, which can both inform impact appraisal with impartial estimates of expected effectiveness (see Tool section below).

  • Assess the proposed measures with an eye to their realistic and timely implementation with the given resources (pre-feasibility check). Ensure that all costs and benefits – not just those that can be easily measured or valued – are taken into account.

  • Based on the results of your assessment, reduce your long list of measures to a shortlist with the most promising measures.

    • Ensure that both passenger and freight transport flows are considered.

    • Ensure that all modes are equally considered and compared in assessing costs and benefits.

  • Provide a more detailed specification for the measures on your shortlist. Consider where and when the measure should be implemented, and who will use it or be affected by it.

  • Prepare detailed cost estimates of the shortlisted measures that include estimates for all relevant categories: civil works/construction; survey, investigation, design, and mapping; institutional development/capacity development; stakeholderinfo-icon engagementinfo-icon and communications; equipment, vehicles, and materials; consulting services; operation and maintenance; land acquisition; incremental administrative costs; initial working capital, and; taxes and duties. Inadequate cost- estimates are often considered a significant risk in infrastructure investment appraisals.

  • Involve other departments (including the financial department) early on and provide benefits for participating. That will help you to define responsibilities and cost-sharing later on (see Activity 8.3, 9.2).

  • Identify which measures require additional or external technical support for feasibility, technical or market studies.


Tools for measure appraisal

Example table showing how the rating of listed measures can be structured. The rating can, for example, be done by experts from the city in a workshopinfo-icon:

Figure 28: Example of an impact assessment of measures. Effectiveness assessment scale from -2 to 2; -2 = the measure imposes a clear risk on the achievement of the objectiveinfo-icon, 0 = the measure has a neutral effect, 2 = the measure clearly contributes positively. Assessment scale for acceptability and value for money from 0 to 3 (based on Mattson, C., 2018. SUMPs-Up Standards for developing a SUMP Action Planinfo-icon, p. 9).


Activities beyond essential requirements

  • Co-identify measures with key stakeholders, involving them closely into option generation and appraisal.

  • Ask the public for measure ideas, for example in an online format, to inspire your long list.

  • Search for good examples beyond your own city and country.

  • Invite practitioners from other places to your city for advice.

  • Take your local decision-makers on a site visit to a city that has successfully implemented one of your key measures to increase its acceptability.



✔Implemented and planned measures analysed.
✔ Long list of potential measures created.
✔ Exchange of experiences established with planners that have implemented interesting measures in other cities or regions.
✔ Suitable measures assessed with an eye to effectiveness (in terms of contribution to objectives), acceptability and value for money.
✔ Most promising measures selected for short list.
✔ Detailed specifications and cost estimates for shortlisted measures available.


Timing and coordination

  • After vision, objectives, and targets have been defined.

  • First identification, then assessment of measures.


Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) offer a range of measures for your SUMP. However, implementing such technologies should not be seen as a goal in themselves, but rather as a means to clearly contribute to achieving one or several of your SUMP objectives. In many cases, ITS is the enabling technology for other measures, which makes them possible or more effective (e.g. electronic monitoringinfo-icon of access restrictions for certain vehicles as part of the implementation of Low Traffic Zones). Other examples of how to use ITS include: systems that provide multimodal real-time information to facilitate multimodal travel; environmentally friendly traffic and intersection control or corridor management (e.g. public transport priority at intersections); multimodal integrated payment and booking and e-ticketing; automatic road user charging; intelligent parking management and information; reactive and predictive traffic managementinfo-icon and control, including the use of floating vehicle datainfo-icon; fleet management systems.

More about the link of ITS and SUMP can be found in the Practitioner Briefing The role of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning.

More info: 


Classification of measures for the measure selection in different municipalities

The Sustainable Urban Mobility Action Plan (PAMUS) for the Metropolitan Area of Porto (AMP) covers 17 municipalities. To decide which measures to implement in individual municipalities and the metropolitan area as a whole, the measures were divided into nine typologies. To evaluate the measure long list according to the typologies, a cross-matrix analysis of the typologies and objectives was carried out. As the Action Plan was developed within a period of six months, there was no time to involve citizens in measure selection. However, the PAMUS integrated input from a working group comprised of politicians and technicians from the municipalities. This working group helped to narrow down the initial long list of measures.


Author: City of Porto, collected by Ana Dragutescu, ICLEI


Participatory measure assessment informed by an evaluation of the previous SUMP


When developing their second SUMP (PUMS), Granollers focused on involving stakeholders in the re-evaluation and prioritisation of mobility measures. This was achieved through specific activities and debates. Sessions were held with the city’s mobility and health council, economic and social agents, and the city council’s technical staff. Further sessions were also held with citizens and public transport users. During these sessions, participants provided feedback on the technical proposals and gave suggestions for how specific elements and measures within the SUMP might be improved.


Author: Laura Llavina Jurado, City of Granollers, collected by ICLEI


Multi-criteria assessment with structured expert workshops

The city of Bremen used several tools for the SUMP measure selection process. A cost-benefit matrix helped to determine the level of goal attainment of each single measure. The method included an expert evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures with respect to the targets using a qualitative scale for each indicator to reach the targets. Secondly, there was an evaluation of the spatial effect, and finally a ranking of the effects. The classification of the cost of the measures was based on five cost groups. After the classification and the ranking, the cost and effect matrix was finalised showing to what degree targets are achieved with every measure.

Author: City of Bremen, collected by EUROCITIES