ACTIVITY 7.2: Define integrated measure packages


By Tom Wood / Updated: 28 Nov 2019


Experience shows that isolated measures can only have a limited impact, while packages of measures can positively reinforce each other and help to overcome implementation barriers. A measureinfo-icon package combines different measures to contribute more effectively to the objectives and to increase their acceptability. To identify the most useful measure packages, different ways of grouping them should be explored and tested.

A detailed impact appraisalinfo-icon of the main measures and measure packages is needed at this stage to avoid unrealistic projects, confirm innovative ideas and ensure cost-effectiveness, often using standardised methods such as multi-criteria analysis (MCA) or cost-benefit-analysis (CBA).

The final packages selected with the help of citizens and stakeholders should not only maximise the contribution to the objectives, but also strive for the integrationinfo-icon of transport modes (intermodalityinfo-icon) with land-use planning and other sectoral planning activities (e.g. environmental, health or economic measures, see Activity 2.2).



  • Use the packaging of selected measures to help overcome barriers to implementing specific measures and to exploit synergies.

  • Ensure integration of transport modes (intermodality).

  • Strive for integration with land-use planning and other sectoral planning activities.

  • Ensure ownershipinfo-icon and high acceptance of your measure packages among decision-makers, citizens and other stakeholders.

What is a ‘Measure Package’?

A measure package is a combination of complementary measures, often from different categories, which are well coordinated to address the specific dimensions of a problem more effectively than single measures and to overcome the barriers to their implementation. An example would be the combination of measures to discourage car use, such as parking controls, with measures to promote alternatives, such as improved bus services and cycling lanes.


Your measure packages should support and encourage different fields of action, including walking. A measure package for walking could, for example, be formed around a signature project or key intervention, such as a pedestrian zone or a ‘superblock’ (see also good practice example of Vitoria Gasteiz below). Such a package of redesigning an urban area into a pedestrian zone should include different types of measures that support each other. In addition to the core measure of restricting car access and redesigning the streets with a focus on attractiveness and accessibilityinfo-icon (e.g. more green spaces and trees, seating and toilets, clean and well-lit streets), this could include:

  • Temporary pedestrianisation on selected summer days or Sundays in the months before, optimally combined with public events

  • Construction of bicycle parking at the edges and improvement of cycle paths in nearby streets

  • Creation of off-street parking closeby (e.g. parking garage with low fees for residents)

  • Improvement of bus connections in the vicinity

  • Solutions for freight delivery to shops (e.g. time slots for delivery vehicle access in the morning/evening, or creation of nearby micro-hub with cargo bikes for the last mile)

  • Proactive communication towards shop owners and the public (e.g. using customer satisfaction surveys and turnover statistics before and after pedestrianisation)

  • Reduction of speed limits and installation of safe crossing points for pedestrians in the surrounding streets

More guidance on how to create healthy, efficient and sustainable walking communities as part of Sustainable Urban Mobilityinfo-icon Planning can be found in the Practitioner Briefing Supporting and Encouraging Walking in Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning.



  • Identify options for packaging measures. There are different methods to group measures, for example

    • by type of measure (striving for a mix of land use, infrastructure, regulation, management and service, behavioural, information provisioninfo-icon and pricing measures in a package),

    • by acceptability (grouping popular and less popular but effective measures into packages, e.g. incentives and restrictions),

    • by objectiveinfo-icon or challenge (adding measures that contribute to the same objective or solve the same problem to a package),

    • by geography (combining measures in the same area into one package),

    • by costs (combining an effective but expensive key measure with measures that create revenues to achieve lower net costs),

    • by bundling for external financing (grouping measures in need of external financing that:

i) support one clearly defined objective; ii) are implemented in the same impact area; iii) share the same project owner; and iv) have similar implementation periods), or

  • around bigger projects (such as a new bike network, seeking measures which complement and reinforce that project).

  • Group measures into packages to benefit from synergies and increase their effectiveness. The key to decide which measures come together in a package is to identify which ones will work well together, or may be needed to make other measures viable. Measures in a package should interact while achieving more together than either would on its own (synergyinfo-icon), or facilitating other measures in the package by overcoming the barriers to their implementation.

    • Ensure that intermodality is taken into account. This may include links to the long-distance transport networks such as the TEN-T network.

    •  Check proposed transport and mobility measures regarding integration with land-use planning.

    • Integrate the measures where possible with further sectoral planning activities (e.g. environmental, health or economic measures).

    • Ensure that you are addressing all objectives, including externalities, such as greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and local air pollution.

    • Ensure a balance of short-term and long-term measures.

    • Make sure to have a mixture of investment, operational and organisational measures.

    • Check that all relevant transport modes are addressed, including freight.

  • Test and appraise the alternative packages and their key measures in detail. Modify them based on the results to avoid unrealistic projects and ensure cost-effectiveness. For example, if it turns out in the detailed options appraisal that certain key measures risk being unfeasible, go back to Activity 7.1 and adjust your shortlist of measures to ensure it still achieves your objectives. Consider different assessmentinfo-icon methods and decide which one to use based on your experience, available resources and the types of measures to assess.

    • Because the impacts of measures are complex and hard to predict, models are often used for this purpose. Well-calibrated models allow you to test measures, by themselves or in packages, to predict and compare their impacts with the current situation and with the set of already planned measures (“business-as-usual”). A high- quality model is a powerful planning toolinfo-icon but requires considerable datainfo-icon and capacities to keep it up-to-date. Another limitation of particular relevance to Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning is the inability of many models to represent certain types of measures (in particular freight, walking and cycling, intermodality and some behavioural measures) and to predict disruptive changes (see also an overview of modelling tools below).

    • Cost-benefit analyses (CBA) are widely used to appraise the value for money of larger individual measures, usually for infrastructure projects, and can also consider many of the societal, economic, and environmental impacts of projects. However, CBA usually require extensive data and most cities lack a standardised CBA approach for non-infrastructure measuresinfo-icon.

    • In order to cover criteria that are not monetised, CBAs are often complemented with multi-criteria analyses (MCA), in particular, if the monetisation of certain criteria is deemed too complicated. MCAs allow users to combine quantitative and qualitative assessments depending on data availability for different criteria. Standardised CBAs or MCAs are a requirement in many countries to receive funding for larger infrastructure measures.

    • In many places, a full cost-benefit-analysis or a transport model to simulate policies may be too costly, especially for smaller measures and cities. In such cases, a focus on the most important measures, estimates and/or ‘real-world modelling’ in the form of experimentation can be applied instead.

  • Conduct a risk assessment of the selected measure packages. In its most simple form, this can be a thought exercise which assumptions the effectiveness of the measures depends on, what would happen if these change, and how to mitigate those risks. If possible, also use quantitative methods, for example by running sensitivity tests. This means that the appraisal (or model) is re-run with a range of assumptions. If the preferred package performs well under a number of assumptions, it has been validated. If its performance is variable, then it is less robust and less obviously worth pursuing. This may suggest trying to redesign it to improve its performance.

  • Discuss the selected measure packages with stakeholders and involve them in the selection process, for example in a meeting of the SUMP ‘steering group’. Communicate the measure packages in a transparent and professional way.

  • Actively involve and get feedback from citizens on measures and measure packages. They should be involved in the validation and final selection of packages.

  • Make a final selection of measures and measure packages.


Activities beyond essential requirements

  • Cooperate with other local organisations in a shared transport model. This reduces costs and makes it easier to keep the model up-to-date. Organisations interested in a shared model can, for example, be local universities, neighbouring municipalities or (regional) public transport operators or authorities.


Timing and coordination

  • Once a list of measures has been developed.



✔ Potential packages of measures identified that are expected to realise synergies and overcome implementation barriers.
✔ Packages of measures checked with an eye to integration with land-use planning and other sectoral planning activities.
✔ Shortlisted packages tested and appraised against all objectives to identify the most cost-effective combinations.
✔ Selected packages discussed and validated with stakeholders and the public.
✔ Final set of measure packages selected.



A type of measure that has received growing attention in recent years is placemaking. It can start by using “light and cheap” solutions and strong collaborationinfo-icon with residents to transform streets and public spaces for increased liveability and attachment to place. Allowing cities to make quick improvements, it can be a useful component in measure packages to illustrate the desired changes and to gain further support for other SUMP measures.

The Project for Public Spaces offers a wide range of resources on placemaking:

The online platform URB-I: URBAN IDEAS hosts an inspiring database of placemaking projects, including pictures that compare the “Before and After” situation:

Source: Project for Public Spaces

Figure 29: Placemaking


Tools for measure packaging

A proven approach for systematic and effective measure packaging is the four-step-principle. This approach is advocated by Swedish national authorities for both Sustainable Urban
Mobility Planning in cities and for transport planning on national and regional levels. The steps of the four-step-principle could be described as follows:

  • Step 1: Rethink! Solutions influencing travel demand and choice of transport modeinfo-icon (land-use planning, demand managementinfo-icon/ mobility management).

  • Step 2: Optimise! Solutions for more efficient use of the existing transport system (infrastructure, vehicles etc.).

  • Step 3: Reconstruct! Reconstruction of existing infrastructure.

  • Step 4: Build new! Investments in infrastructure and larger reconstructions.

Even though the naming of the approach implies a sequential use, the approach should more correctly be seen as a ‘way of thinking’ in sustainable mobility planning. The research behind the four-step-principle emphasises the importance of continuously reducing dependence on motorised transport, prioritising more sustainable transport modes and effectively using the existing transport system in order to reduce the need for large reconstructions or building of new road infrastructure. The four-step-principle assures that suitable measures are combined in measure packages to increase cost-effectiveness in Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning.

Source: Sundberg, R., 2018. SUMPs-Up Manual on the integration of measures and measure packages - Step up, p.15-16

Figure 30: Types of measures in the different steps in the four-step-principle (Source: Swedish Transport Administration et al., 2014)


KonSULT measure package generator

The KonSULT online tool can also assist the packaging process. Based on the ordered list of measures resulting from the option generationinfo-icon stage, the tool provides suggestions which measures could complement each other based on a methodology of typically effective combinations:

Further information on CBA and MCA

DG Regio, 2015. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects; Economic appraisal tool for Cohesion Policyinfo-icon 2014-2020,

The Evidence project, 2014. Discusses the challenge in determining a project’s viability; the role of project appraisal (most commonly CBAs) in decision-making at the urban level; and the role SUMPs play in project prioritisation,

TIDE project, 2012. Project guide on cost-benefit and impact analyses in urban transport innovation providing an easy-to-apply tool for urban transport project appraisal, which includes CBA and MCA elements,


Modelling tools in the SUMP process

A transport model is a simplified representation of the real world that allows for testing and evaluating theoretical (“what-if?”) scenarios. The role of transport models is to support public authorities in the design process of future transport infrastructure (including new pedestrian and cycling facilities), and new or changed operational concepts (e.g. intelligent signal control systems). They are continuously developed and adjusted to current mobility trends, sociodemographic changes and sustainable environmental objectives. Typical results include total travel time for the different transport modes and user groups, volumes in the private and public transport networks, emitted air pollutants, etc. The outputs of transport models thereby often feed into further economic calculations or are the basis for political discussion including public involvement.

A transport model can be used to generate reliable and consistent input to the SUMP process, specifically in certain planning stages such as scenarioinfo-icon development, measure appraisal and selection, and monitoringinfo-icon. Modelling results help to predict the impact of different combinations of policies and measures, taking into account the complex interactions and potential reinforcing or rebound effects, thereby helping to define the most effective integrated packages. Beyond their use to define the baselineinfo-icon scenario, they also enable regular monitoring of changes in the transport system during the implementation phase to assess whether you are on track or if you need to react and adapt your actions.

The decision about whether or not to use transport models for the SUMP needs to be taken early in the SUMP process. This depends on the time horizon of the SUMP as well as on the nature of measures under discussion: the more it is expected that these measures will impact transport demand (such as the construction of a new public transport line, the introduction of a new sustainable mode or service, etc.), the more it is recommended to use transport modelling to predict these impacts. The available budget, time, data and the scale of questions determines which model is used.

The three categories of transport models are macroscopic, microscopic and mesoscopic, with the first two being the most commonly used. Macroscopic modelling is typically applied for strategic planning, whereas microscopic modelling is typically applied for operational planning. Macroscopic models focus on large-area choices such as destination, mode and route choice, while microscopic simulations mostly focus on the traffic flow model. Thus, the appropriate modelling level has to be selected to analyse the various impacts of the cities’ measures, as they may differ according to their scope.

Up until recent years, the available modelling tools have not fully considered cycling and walking. The EU-funded CIVITAS FLOW project ( worked to improve micro- and macroscopic transport modelling software so that they can more accurately model the existing cycling and walking infrastructure, as well as cycling and walking behaviour. The developments include the extension of the macroscopic travel demand model (including introducing vehicle sharing systems and enhanced stochastic assignment for cycle route choice) and the improvement of features of microscopic transport simulation software (including improved modelling of the interaction between vehicles and pedestrians).

Another type of model are integrated transport and land-use models (Land Use Transport Interaction - LUTI), which have the capability to simulate a wide range of interventions ranging from infrastructural projects, pricing, regulation, co-modalityinfo-icon to planning of urban space. They can also include the impacts of “rebound” effects due to relocations or newly generated demand. However, it is important to highlight that integrated transport and land-use models are complex and data-hungry: their setup requires a significant amount of time and effort as well as technical expertise.

It is important to be aware of the limitations of models at all points in the planning process. Planners and modellers have to use their own judgment as transport modelling isn‘t an exact science and all models have systematic biases. Each model run is based on many assumptions and calculations and each one of them increases uncertainty. Uncertainty is difficult to understand especially when exact figures are presented on a nicely-designed map. There is also a strong temptation to believe forecasts even when they go beyond the capabilities of the model. Uncertainty also grows the more you zoom in. To this end, it is essential to calibrate your model to your local context and not to simply use the default settings.

Therefore, planners’ responsibilities throughout the process are:

  • To commission a sensitivity test

  • To present the limitations together with results

  • To use ranges of outputs and qualitative outputs, not point estimates

  • To avoid zooming in beyond a credible level

Aggregated models called sketch planning models are no transport models in the sense described above but they could be an interesting option for initial policy screening within the SUMP process. They can be built with significantly fewer resources and allow users to explore and identify appropriate sustainable transport policy measures, quantifying their impacts within a consistent framework and setting up the implementation pathway of future scenarios. One typical example of this category is the Urban Roadmap 2030 model developed on behalf of DG MOVE). However, aggregated models cannot replace the use of more disaggregated models for detailed assessment.

Author: TRT Trasporti e Territorio, Rupprecht Consult

More info: 


Combination of parking management with traffic limitation and public transport measures

The City of Krakow considers parking management policy as a means to contribute to some wider goals - such as improving air quality and decreasing congestion, rather than only responding to car parking issues. The municipality of Krakow combines the implementation of parking measures (e.g. removal of parking spots), with traffic limitation measures (e.g. limited traffic zone) and public transport measures (e.g. integration of public transport services), thus reducing the number of vehicles and improving air quality and traffic flow all at once. Providing alternatives to the car and taking a step- by-step approach help to achieve public acceptance of the parking regulations.
Author: Tomasz Zwoliński, City of Krakow, collected by Polis


Mobility management leveraging the opportunity of a tramway project


In 2016, Tampere decided to build its first tramway line. Years of significant car traffic disturbances in the city centre are a good time to encourage people to change their mobility habits. People are open to break their routines since they need to find new modes and routes during the construction time. Tampere has introduced several mobility management actions targeted especially to car drivers including new Park & Ride facilities, promoted public transport and cycling and provided more space for cycling and walking. Large traffic infrastructure investments should not take place without smart mobility management and extended communication with citizens and stakeholders.
Author: Sanna Ovaska, City of Tampere, collected by UBC

GOOD PRACTICE EXAMPLE: Vitoria Gasteiz, Spain

Integration of mobility measures in the superblock model

The Sustainable Mobility and Public Space Plan for Vitoria Gasteiz was designed to give the public space back to the people by the implementation of a new scheme called the superblock model. A superblock is a geographical space that covers several city blocks that can only be used by pedestrians, cyclists, services and neighbours’ cars, while other private cars and public transport are restricted to the streets surrounding the blocks. Apart from the redesign of the urban space, the integration of mobility measures is required to improve the overall quality of the space, such as a new public transport network, traffic light regulation, pedestrian/ bicycle lane networks, urban freight logistics or the expansion of the regulated parking space.

Author: Juan Carlos Escudero, City of Vitoria-Gasteiz, collected by Rupprecht Consult