Following on from the planning process these five implementation steps ensure the successful adoption, approval and implementation of the SUTP.

The first three steps on ‘objectives and targets’, ‘allocating finances’ and ‘assignment of responsibilities’ parallel the similar and related steps in planning process. Each step helps to move the city towards a more sustainable transport system and ‘making a difference’.

The latter two steps ‘adoption and approval’ and ‘monitoring and assessment’ are central to the success of the SUTP. They provide the political and technical foundation for the SUTP and can deliver a ‘step change’ in the policy and practice of urban transport. They can guarantee that the SUTP is a ‘living document’.

Why
A vision will remain nothing more than a dream unless it is accompanied by clear objectives and relevant targets which, when achieved, will make that dream a reality. Appropriately defined objectives and targets provide the basis for monitoring the SUTP.

SUTP Targets and objectives should be integrated with those in the relevant regional, national and EU strategies and action plans. Targets and objectives alike should include details of the key dates when progress towards them will be monitored in addition to when ‘interim’ and final achievement is expected.

How
Objectives should be expressed in general terms, so that the range of options to meet them can be considered. The objectives must contribute to the vision. Objectives are preferably expressed in terms of the desired outcomes and related to people’s daily life. The objectives need to have a time frame of 5-10 years.

Targets are the ‘stepping stones’ on the path to reaching a city’s objectives and visions.

• Targets help to meet challenges and to achieve change - the ‘drivers’ and the ‘impacts’ analysis in the ‘self assessment report’ help to understand the greatest challenges facing a city and those areas in which changes can have the greatest impact.

• ‘Quick wins’ are actions that help to build confidence, support and momentum and reach the targets – they achieve the greatest and quickest change with the fewest resources. Use the baseline review as the starting point.

• Targets have to be SMART:
Specific – precisely described using quantitative and/or qualitative terms that are understood by all stakeholders.
Measurable – the current ‘situation’ or ‘state’ is known and has been measured. Resources are also in place to measure the changes (qualitative and quantitative) that occur.
Achievable – based on the technical, operational and financial competencies available and stakeholder agreements/commitments that have been made
Realistic –based on the risks that are known and managed as well as the resources available.
Timed –‘interim’ progress (qualitative and quantitative) is defined with key dates for the achievement (of targets or objectives)

As an example, a SUTP target might be:

“The Lundby Partnership will increase the proportion of total travel to work trips made by cycle from 10% (2007) to 12% in 2008, 14% in 2009 and 20% by 2010. The partners have committed the finan-cial and human resources to carry out a timed and planned programme of capital investment (new infrastructure) and soft measures (education and incentives). Progress towards the targets will be monitored annually as well as the revisions to the targets agreed by the partnership in consultation with stakeholders.”

When defining targets that affect or demand actions by various stakeholders, involving the concerned stakeholders is crucial. For example, large employers in the city should be involved in influencing work travel. Involving citizens and NGOs in target-setting can form the basis for behavioural change.

Measures are actions that, when carried out, will achieve a planned change. Actions when completed achieve a target. The SUTP should include measures that are expressed as actions to be carried out in the ‘short’, ‘medium’ and ‘long’ term. The SUTP involves monitoring the success of these measures in achieving the SUTP targets and objectives. Short-term measures happen now, this year and next year. They deliver ‘quick wins’ and build a sound foundation for the success of the medium-term measures that deliver the planned changes over the next 2-5 years. The long term measures are made up of annual/short-term measures implemented ‘bit by bit’ that together deliver the vision: such actions as constructing new rapid transit systems, providing cycle safety training for all children, etc. Without these, the SUTP will never be achieved.

To form feasible strategies, the measures defined above should be ranked according to their feasibility. Actions that are easy to implement should be taken first (quick wins). The selected actions should be checked for their potential for further progress later on, they should be ‘flexible platforms’ to implement visionary actions and not lead to lockins in the wrong directions.

Checklist
• Objectives, targets and measures with the SUTP have been clearly defined
• There are specific objectives for personal transport
• There are specific objectives for freight transport
• Target values have been defined for the city’s transport indicators
• Time plan has been decided on when the target values should be reached
• List of planned SUTP actions has been defined
• The expected effect of the planned actions have been assessed
• The actions are sufficient to reach the cities targets
• There is no SUTP-targets that lack defined actions to reach them

Why
Sufficient and appropriately allocated finances are a prerequisite for the successful implementation of the SUTP. The finance must be available to implement the actions identified in the SUTP and within the planned timeframe. Planned actions without the necessary human and financial resources are nothing but aspirations that cannot be implemented and are bound to fail.

How
Actions to implement SUTP polices and plans can only be carried out if there are sufficient resources available – people with the necessary time and competencies, money to pay for infrastructure investments, and to pay for printing, consultancy, specialist, information technology, stakeholder involvement etc. The ‘financing plan’ for each action must be explicit in describing all the costs associated with the successful implementation of the action within the agreed timeframe. Contingency resources finance and time should be included to allow for unmanaged risks. Some actions will require indemnification against delays or unexpected costs.

Each action must have an ‘implementation plan’ that provides the details of “who does what, where, when and how, what are the monitoring and reporting arrangements, and who pays for what and when”. The implementation plan for some of the SUTP ‘medium term’ and ‘long term’ actions may include ‘preparatory actions’: making applications for grant or loan funding, persuading stakeholders to contribute required human and operational resources, purchasing land, or making changes to the legislation, etc. These preparatory actions must be completed before the necessary resources are in place to implement the SUTP actions. Until these preparatory actions are completed, the SUTP action is only an aspiration – the necessary resources are not yet available. The SUTP must differentiate and distinguish any actions for which resources are not yet available.

Each SUTP action must be implemented according to a schedule. This schedule is prepared as based on the availability of the resources and the priority of each action. ‘Quick win’ actions are a priority, for the reasons outlined above.

Checklist
• There is a finance plan for each action
• There is an implementation plan for each action
• There is a time plan for the suggested actions
• Sufficient funds have been allocated for the suggested actions

The city of Gdynia has been successful in defining the SUTP actions and in identifying and allocating finances for the SUTP related investment and development needs in the city. Alicja Pawlowska, Co-ordinator in Traffic Engineering Department, tells that the city has implemented several urban transport projects co-funded by European Union, including Intelligent Management Systems, safe crossroads and biking paths.

To facilitate and secure the financial basis for the urban development Gdynia follows and takes actively part in international funding programmes. In addition to the European Cohesion Funds, the city has participated in European Framework Programmes and in Baltic Sea Region Interreg Programmes.

The experiences from Gdynia confirm that realistic and properly allocated finances are prerequisites for successful implementation of the SUTP. The actions defined in the SUTP must be realistic and a way of checking that is to investigate if it exist proper finances to implement them. “It is to identify the actions that fulfill the targets in a sufficient way and it is to find and allocate adequate finances to the actions planned in the SUTP”, says Pawlowska.

In Gdynia one of the biggest recent transport investments has been the implementation of Intelligent Transport System (ITS) on one of the main communication arteries in the whole urban region. It allows public transport to have priority in traffic lights on the intersections. According to Pawlowska it also reduces traffic and makes the traffic in the city more efficient.

In another example the local authorities wanted to improve the safety of pedestrians in the city. “Then we successfully applied European Funds for a financial support for rebuilding three dangerous crossroads”, says Pawlowska. From these and many other cases Gdynia has learnt that good and realistic project ideas and action plans and well-defined financial allocation plans are also preconditions for positive funding decisions.

Why
All too often the responsibility for implementing plans is not agreed to or is unclear. This is usually a contributing factor to the implementation failure of plans and the latter doing little more than gather dust on the shelves.

If people are given responsibility, encouragement, resources and are motivated, things happen! When actions result in success, changes happen! Without all of these characteristics, the same people will see barriers and problems rather than solutions and opportunities. The SUTP needs to be managed by an organisation that supports people in their work, where there is an attitude of ongoing learning, and where mistakes and failures are opportunities for the organisation and individuals to learn - not the chance to blame someone! And all successes should be celebrated – if you want more of them!

How
A municipal unit/department and a named person/position (e.g., head of department) should be as-signed overall responsibility for the implementation of the SUTP. This unit should be given a clear mandate to coordinate SUTP work within the municipality. Because of the inter-sectoral nature of SUTP-work, responsibility for specific areas or fields of SUTP-work can however be distributed to different municipal departments. For each area and task, a responsible person, goals and milestones should be defined. The coordinator with the overall responsibility for the implementation of the SUTP should ensure that progress is monitored and milestones reported.

If the city has some kind of performance-related remuneration /benefit system – for example, performance-based salary increments - this could be used as an incentive for active participation and achievement of the goals defined in the SUTP.

Ensure that each planned action has been assigned sufficient funding in the budget and that one person/position is responsible for implementation.

Many actions may need to be implemented through inter-sectoral cooperation or in partnership with stakeholders. Nevertheless, one person within the municipality should be assigned as responsible and their progress should be monitored. Again it is of importance to stress that the actions should be on the right ambition level, in accordance with the amount of funding assigned and the responsibility of the person. For example, an action that requires high-level support in city and council decision-making should not be assigned to a junior officer.

The level of ambition of each task and action should match the assigned and available resources in addition to the capacity of the responsible department.

Checklist

• Responsibilities clearly assigned in the SUTP work
• Each proposed measure has been assigned to a responsible unit/person
• Each unit/person has sufficient resources to realise the measures planned

Why
A less ambitious and politically approved SUTP is more powerful than a highly ambitious and politically unsupported plan. It is extremely important for the successful implementation of the SUTP that it is politically accepted, the progress is monitored, and that its progress is reported to the political leadership.

It is equally important that the principles and reasons for a SUTP are understood and supported by the political leaders of the municipality and the whole organisation. Only then will the SUTP become a powerful tool to achieve a more sustainable transport system. Local politicians and important actors in the city should therefore be informed and involved from the very beginning of the SUTP discussions. Preferably, local politicians are actively involved in the process of developing a transport vision and the development of a SUTP. Active involvement of politicians from the outset will also facilitate the future approval and adoption of the plan

How
The SUTP must be ‘owned’ by the stakeholders, who will carry out the implementation and provide the human and financial resources. It must be owned by the political leadership that will formally and legally adopt and approve the plan. It is never too early in the SUTP preparation phase to involve the political representatives. Local, regional and national politicians can all make a contribution through the stakeholder participation events and in the visioning, setting of objectives and targets. The responsible officers should not only try to involve politicians from the boards dealing with public transportation and transport but also from the environmental/sustainability, social, educational and planning boards.

Because the actions in the SUTP require the commitment of resources beyond the mandate of a single administration it is desirable to create a broad political consensus for the plan in order to ensure its long-term support and stability, regardless of changes in the political leadership. Discussions will be needed at the highest level to agree on the way in which political groups and parties are involved in the SUTP.

The purpose is to allow all political parties and representatives to ‘own’ the plan – to do so it must reflect as many perspectives and views as possible. This will then increase the chances of political and stakeholder support and adoption. Each city will need to decide what is the appropriate political committee/council/board/body that will adopt and approve the SUTP. It will also decide if the same body will be responsible for monitoring, evaluating and reviewing the progress of the SUTP – these regular progress reports provide the intelligence needed to learn from mistakes and failures as well as celebrate and reinforce successes – this will ensure that politicians keep the SUTP as relevant and valid in its contribution to the sustainability of the transport system as possible.

Checklist

• The SUTP has been presented to and discussed by different political parties
• It is clearly defined on what level/by whom the SUTP needs to be adopted and approved to be valid (e.g., the city council)

Before the 1990s, Sundsvall had a severe image problem. “With all its industry and traffic problems, a usual question was ‘how can you live in Sundsvall?’”, says Christer Tarberg, Head of Public Transport.

The city, with the support of its politicians, started a project aiming at reducing the emissions from energy production and industries by the year 2000. “The results were rather good. But by 2000 we still had one problem, traffic. Back then 72 percent of the trips were made by private cars.”

By the time Sundsvall started its SUTP plan along with the BUSTRIP project, the city had already started creating a town vision with the support of the vice-mayor, other politicians, various municipal departments and stakeholders. The final decision on the vision was made in consensus in the city council in 2007.

“The timing for SUTP was right. But we didn’t just look at the traffic plan. Transport strategy was a continuation to the town vision which has a lot of political acceptance from political parties, ordinary citizens and stakeholder. All opinions were collected. After doing all that work it would be difficult to disagree on it.”

Two major problems in Sundsvall regarding transport were the railroad crossing the city centre and the passing European Road 4, looking rather cheerless, bare surfaces of asphalt leading through the city. “Our vision and plans include building the railroad underground and a travel centre above it, and developing the European 4 into more of a boulevard-and–city-type style, with lots of trees and a new bridge.”

The plan also included building houses closer to the city centre and supporting the use of public transport, walking and cycling. “We will proceed step by step; hopefully the situation is better by the year 2010”, Tarberg says, and adds this advice: “Rely on other stakeholders and institutions before solving problems”.

Why
Monitoring and evaluation are essential management tools that provide intelligence to inform SUTP decision-taking. This intelligence provides information on the progress of policies, plans and pro-grammes, on whether targets are achieved on time and actions achieve their planned outcomes, on costs, and with regard to changes in data sets, etc. This intelligence allows decision-makers to manage the SUTP to deliver objectives and meet targets efficiently and within budget. This intelligence helps the municipality, politicians and technical officers to understand how small scale initiatives can contribute to meeting objectives and targets. When this intelligence is shared with stakeholders, it can help to build partnerships.

How
Monitoring means; collecting the data that is required to examine whether a SUTP target is achieved. Monitoring provides the indicators of performance, and the data that describes the changes that are taking place. Monitoring provides the intelligence necessary for evaluation.

Evaluation produces lessons learned – the understanding and meaning of the intelligence and information gathered in monitoring. This means assessing, interpreting and judging this information and making recommendations about what changes to make to SUTP policies, plans and programmes. It promotes change, efficiency and improvement.

Indicators can be measurements of pressures, features or the effectiveness of plans and programmes. They can be based on physical, economic, environmental, social, technical or political changes over time and can be either objective or subjective. Monitoring gathers the measurements of the changes in the data for each indicator. Objectives and targets have to be expressed in terms of the planned or desired changes to indicators within a given time period.

Embrace monitoring and evaluation
All SUTP plans, policies and programmes of action within municipalities are the result of evaluating a problem and agreeing on a solution. Implicit to this process are the changes that the municipality wishes to achieve, as represented by an indicator or performance (air quality/cycling, children walking to school, etc.)

Select measurable indicators
While the overall ‘vision’ (see section 2.9.) and the ‘objectives and targets’ (see section 3.2.) can be more general (such as “excellent air quality”), indicators should be focused, measurable and realistic, e.g., ‘number of days with PM below limit value’. Only measurable indicators allow performance monitoring, evaluation, programme adjustment and reporting.

Integrating monitoring and evaluation
There should be an explicit timetable for the monitoring and evaluation of progress towards each SMART target – which must be based on measurable and measured indicators. The timetable for monitoring and evaluation should be designed to collect data at relevant times, also to allow for the recommendations from the evaluation to be available to decision-makers. This allows plans, policies and programmes to be revised as based on the lessons learned.

Resources for monitoring and evaluation
The choice of targets and indicators should include an assessment of the costs associated with collect-ing the data necessary to monitor progress. It should also include an assessment of the costs of evaluation being carried out by a competent and/or independent organisation. These assessments should include a calculation of the human resources, time and costs required. There is a need for the roles, responsibilities and accountability for monitoring and evaluation to be clearly allocated as part of the SUTP work plan. Consideration should be given to the benefits of external independent objective monitoring and evaluation with unedited public reporting to provide transparent accountability.

Evaluation
The evaluation should include both “soft” and “hard” findings and recommendations. Hard findings refer to the progress towards measurable objectives and indicators. This information can be used to derive key changes, such as increasing the target for the number of days with PM below limit value. Soft findings should include implementation experiences, fulfilment of overall goals, levels of awareness, impact on gender equality and accessibility, etc. The MOST-MET monitoring & evaluation toolkit, a guide for the Assessment of Mobility Management approaches, can be used when evaluating the soft measures. MOST-MET method is developed by the European project MOST (Mobility Management Strategies development for the next Decades, http//mo.st).

Evaluation reporting
Evaluation should be reported to assist staff to learn and decision-makers to improve performance. It should also reference the evidence of the findings for future use. Evaluation that is publicly reported offers local stakeholders opportunities to contribute to the debate over the choice of programmes and how resources should be allocated.

Acknowledge the achievements
The achievements of the process should be communicated to the public openly, the successes as well as the possible shortcomings and failures. The recognitions of good SUT process should go to those who have done the work. The acknowledgement of the achievements has significant influence to the continuous interest and follow-up of the process.

Checklist
• It is defined how progress towards SUTP -goals will be monitored
• There are set dates for the evaluation of the progress of the SUTP work
• There is a clearly defined unit/person responsible for evaluating the progress of SUTP work against the defined goals and targets
• The unit/person has the necessary competence, tools and resources allocated for the evaluation of the progress towards SUTP targets
• There is a time plan for evaluation of SUTP progress
• It is defined to whom the evaluators will report their results

Monitoring air quality is done in almost all the cities of Europe. However, to use it in an integrated way with transport and urban planning is a step towards understanding the negative impacts and the complex relation between health, transport and urbanisation.

For years, the city of Liepaja was lacking data about the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions in the city centre. One monitoring station was not enough for building the picture on how traffic influences air quality.

During the SUTP process, the city decided to do a pilot action in air quality monitoring and assessment and feed the information into the new plans. Samples were collected from five different places in the hearth of the city centre. It also included modelling the measures with the traffic flows during the summer months. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) dispersion was also monitored.

“We wanted to take this particular topic into account in planning streets and areas with cleaner air with the measures we already used”, says Dace Liepniece, Head of Environmental Department.

“Air quality management is particularly crucial in cities like Liepaja with irregular location of industrial, green and residential areas for securing sustainable development.”

The pilot action included results, modelling and proposals for the city administration, pointing out where the hot spots are. In the implementation of SUTP, actions should be targeted to these particular areas.

“It is very important to prepare this kind of process well in advance - and then take it to the general public and politicians for further decision-making ”, Liepniece concludes.

Presenting the result to the media increases the understanding of the direct health impact of traffic and makes it easier to implement unpopular traffic measures.