Identifying Barriers, Hooks and Opportunities WP4
EVIDENCE
Identifying barriers, hooks and opportunities – WP4
COUNTRY PROFILE REPORT
HUNGARY
1.INTRODUCTION
This country profile report discusses the current status of sustainable urban mobility planning in Hungary, with a focus on funding policies, decision-making mechanisms and future outlook. The information contained in this report is based on a series of personal and telephone interviews with a broad mix of mobility experts and decision makers. The collected information does not represent the official standpoint of the experts’ institutions, but should rather be considered as the expression of the interviewees’ private professional opinions. For this very reasonit offers a colourful, honest and representative insight into theviews of the professional community.
A total of 41 interviews were conducted with representatives of the following stakeholders:
- Towns, cities and counties (Budapest, Békéscsaba, Dunaújváros, Pécs, Szentendre, Szeged, Debrecen, Székesfehérvár, Győr, Szombathely,Paks, Csongrád, Kecskemét, Sátoraljaújhely, Vác, Pest County, Fejér County, Komárom-Esztergom County, Zala County)
- Mobility planners, consultants and business entities (Pro Urbe Ltd., Metropolitan Research Institute Ltd. Trenecon Ltd., FőmtervInc., ProTerra Ltd., RÉV8 City Development Inc., Jedlik Ányos Cluster for Electromobility,Hungarian Chamber of Commerce – College of Transport and Logistics)
- NGOs (Association for Urban and Peri-urban Transport, Hungarian Urban Knowledge Centre [MUT], Hungarian Cyclists’ Club, CycleZone, Energy Club Policy Institute)
- Research institutes and academia (Institute of Transport Sciences, SzentIstván University, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest Technical University, Hétfa Research Center)
- Government agencies (Ministry of National Development, Hungarian Transport Administration)
Experts were selected to represent a balanced perspective oncurrent mobility planning and financing in Hungary. In most cases,one leading expert, managerorpolicy maker was interviewed from each organisation. However, in the case of institutes that play a keyrole in mobility planning and financing (e.g. the Ministry of National Development and Budapest’s transport authority, BKK), more than oneexpertwasinterviewed. It must be added that some stakeholders were particularly difficult to reach – such as national government bodies and their associated departments.
The information contained in this report is based on a series of personal and telephone interviews with a broad mix of mobility experts and decision makers conductedbetween Aug to Sept 2015.
2.THE STATUS OF SUSTAINABLE URBAN MOBILITY PLANNING IN HUNGARY
At the time of writing (September 2015), a limited number of documents exist that cover certain parts of the sustainable urban mobility planning cycle, such as the sustainable urban mobility plans (SUMPs) of Miskolc[1],Debrecen[2], some districts of Budapest, and the capital itself. Although a complete SUMP does not currently exist, the interviews confirmed that there is a high level of awareness and knowledge of the concept in the professional community.In fact, sustainable mobility is already prioritised in most local, regional and national urban developmentand transport planning documents.
In terms ofa SUMPthat follows the methodology developed for the European Commission by the EltisPlus project consortium in 2011, Budapest’s BalázsMór Plan[3] comes closest. It fully embraces the concept and, at its current phase of development, corresponds to the first quarter of the SUMP planning cycle. As part of the process,an extensive public consultation was concluded in 2014. A large volume of public feedback was received and is currently being reviewed, and the results will be consolidated and published shortly.TheBalázsMór Planis currently being expanded bythe development of a methodology for assessing and evaluating sustainable urban mobility measures. Overall, it is an excellent example of shifting away from the current project-based mobility planning approachtowards a more holisticperspective.
When asked about the reasons for the slow uptake of SUMPs in Hungary, most experts gave a clear answer: firstly, SUMPs have so far not beenrequired by law or in order to obtain EU funding; and secondly, no earmarked funding has been available.
A number of interviewed city representatives confirmed that they intend to develop a SUMP ifnational funds become available.There is good news in this regard: in the Territorial Development Operational Programme for 2014–2020, the preparation of a SUMP is listed as an eligible cost.
Now that funding is in place, the preparation of a SUMPislikelyto become a criterionfor receiving national/EU funding for larger mobility projects in the current EU budgeting period. A good example of such projects is the development of intermodal transport hubs that are being implemented with national/EU funding in a number of cities.
Another major obstacle tothe extensive application of sustainable urban mobility planning is also being tackled.At the time of writing, the Ministry of National Development is developing detailed guidelines regarding the financial and content-related requirements of a SUMP.These guidelines are expected to be released in the fourth quarter of 2015. Although no further details were obtained about the process, the guidelines are being prepared in response to cities’ requests for clear instructions regarding required contentand cost eligibility.
Onedifficulty inapplying the full SUMP methodology is related tospatial integration. In practice it has been very difficult to bring to one table municipal and mobility stakeholderswho sometimes have conflicting interests (especiallythose from Budapest and the municipalities in its agglomeration, as well as the different public transport service providers). The interviewed experts see the methodology (and,most importantly, the underlying government/EC support) as a very promising impetus torevitalise regional cooperation.
One of the key findings to emerge from the interviewsis that there is a remarkably high level of knowledge about SUMPs among mobility planners (and some policymakers). This knowledge has been acquired through conferences, EC/government communications or websites (such asEltis).Most of the interviewed experts demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of the concept and have already analysed how such a plan would relate to their local context. Even if funding allocations do not necessarily reflect it, there seems to be a broad professional consensus regarding the basic directions of mobility development in Hungary.This isevident in the planning documents described in the next section.
As a concluding remark, some experts voiced concern about the added value of a SUMP at the present time: strategies, project lists and funding sources that define activities in the 2014–2020 budgeting period are already in place, or will be approved in 2016. Considering the time needed to complete a SUMP cycle, the current period would be used primarily only to kick-start the process. Major SUMP-generated measures could only be implemented in the post-2020 period.
3.PESTLE ANALYSIS
This section provides a general overview of urban mobility in Hungary from apolitical, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental (PESTLE) perspective. The statements will be further elaborated in Section 4.
POLITICAL
The main political priorities for mobility development in the 2014–2020 budgeting periodinclude economic growth, greater competitiveness andhigherlevels of employment.There has been a major shift in funding allocations compared to the 2007–2014 budgeting period: while earlier more than 80 percent was spent on road development, in the upcoming periodthis proportion will go down to 51 percent. Of the availabletransport developmentbudget of EUR 3.8 billion, 75 percent will be spent on TEN-T network developments (primarily rail), and 25 percent on urban mobility (primarily urban and suburban public transport).
Most of the experts highlighted that urban mobility decision making and funding arehighly centralised in Hungary as a result of a general trend that began in the early 1990s. Although each city has its own documented strategy and detailed project list, these are largely subject to the availability of national and EU funding, reflecting higher-level policy priorities.
ECONOMIC
The vast majority of city representatives claimed to havelimited local funding sources. In most cases, municipal income is only sufficient for the minimal maintenance of existing infrastructure. This means, primarily, the maintenance of the road network and the public transport service. Exceptions are few — only two or three larger cities reported a satisfactory local economic base.
Thegenerally weak economic base is the main reason why only minor improvements in the interests ofsustainable mobility are financed from municipal funds (e.g. new bike racks, bus stops or street furniture). It also explains why most cities focus on fulfilling legally binding requirements at the expense of voluntary activities (e.g. the development of a SUMP).
The experts provided some concrete figures to demonstrate the difficulties in covering maintenance costs for sustainable mobility. The level of VAT for public transport services has gradually increasedin recent years, from 15 percent, to 20 percent, to 25 percent, and lately to 27 percent, the highest in the world. At the same time, direct state subsidies for public transport are reported to have fallen by 35 percent. Taking inflation into account, the decrease is almost 50 percent. According to current national budgeting roadmaps, further cuts are expected in the coming years.
In contrast, since Hungary’saccession to the EU, large funds have been available for mobility investments.Theseinvestments are predominantly financed from the nationally administeredoperational programmes—an average of 80 percentof which comes from the EU budget.
SOCIAL
As mobility is a concern for almost every individual, members of the Hungarian population have shown a high level of interest in mobility planning — especially within their local neighbourhoods. Mobility tends to beone of the main issues onthe local political scene, and local residents voice their opinions in the run-up to local elections and during consultation processes organised by local municipalities.The results of such processes typically include small-scale mobility interventions, such asselecting the best locations for cycling/pedestrian infrastructure or changing local traffic regulations.
Civil society has gradually lost its influence over the past 25 years, and only a few, larger NGOs now remain. These include the Association for Urban and Peri-urban Transport andthe Hungarian Cyclists’ Club. Interestingly, the Hungarian Motorists’ Club does not carry out any lobbying activities.
A strong civil society is crucial for many reasons, one key area beingpublic awareness raising. An informed public (and, indirectly, informed politicians) is a basic condition for moving towards sustainable mobility — and this is clearly one of the priority areas where improvements must be made.One genuine success story arethe Critical Mass demonstrations, which clearly made a huge contribution toincreasing the number of cyclists in Budapest, boostingpolitical support for cycling, and eventually prompting a number of progressive mobility measures (e.g.reallocatingparking spaces in favour of a cycle lane on a busy ring road, or opening up one-way streets to cyclists).
The popularity of European Mobility Week also deserves a mention.The participation of a total of 181 Hungarian cities in 2015 puts Hungary in third place after Austria and Spain in terms of active support for the campaign.European Mobility Week has already proved to be a very effective means of raising public awareness and increasing political support for sustainable mobility. Although most mobility-relatedawareness-raising activities are connected with European Mobility Week, there are other popular initiativestoo, such as the Cycle to Work campaign.
Citizens and stakeholders have also demonstrated a highlevel of interest during consultation processes formobility-related policies andplanning documents. In the case of Budapest’s SUMP, the BalázsMór Plan, for example, 270 separate commentswere received containing 1,300 requests for changes. Many of them have already been incorporated into the plan. In relation tothe National Transport Infrastructure Development Strategy, 1,700 comments were received from various professional groups and private individuals. All comments were analysed and answered, and selected ones were incorporated.In relation to the Integrated Transport Development Operational Programme for 2014–2020, a large volume of feedback was received from 94 NGOs and professional stakeholdersandwas summarised in 50 printed pages.
TECHNOLOGICAL
Many intervieweesreported the following dilemma:with the large influx of EU funds there is a strong focus on mobility projects that represent some degree of technological improvement.At the same time, municipalities are finding it very difficult to maintain existing infrastructure. In most cases, local decisionmakers are therefore prioritising local funds for maintenanceover technological development.
The experts mentioned certain concrete technological examples that are currently under discussion within the professional community. These includehybrid buses with diesel engines that can be turned off when crossing low-emission zones (e.g. in Kecskemét);the fact that electric vehicles (primarily trams) retain their share in the modal split (and are thus worth investing in,despite the high costs of modernisation);and the controversies surrounding high-speed trains.
With the advancement of the “smart city” concept, some cities (e.g. Kaposvár[4]) have already developed (or are currently implementing) a smart city strategy. The concept is increasingly seen as one that incorporates technology, sustainability and quality of life.Intelligent transport systems (ITS) fit neatly under this rubric, integrating a number of key issues in progressive and future-oriented cities. Funding for ITS-related measures can be obtained from the sources mentionedin Section 4.3 “Funding sources”.
LEGISLATIVE
A cost-benefit analysis is mandatoryin the case of all larger mobility projects. Detailed guidelines are providedunder the Transport Development Operational Programme (KÖZOP),published in 2009. As it focuses primarily on line infrastructure, the current methodology is not particularly suitable for assessing the economic and social costs and benefits of integrated, synergeticurban mobility measures. The KÖZOPguidelines are therefore being updated based on the current EU guidelines[5], and a new,extended methodology for cost-benefit analysis will be available as the 2014–2020 projects get underway.Just as at present, the calculation methods will apply to projects overa certain size.
ENVIRONMENTAL
A small number of Hungarian cities reported that they have already introduced, or are about to introduce, an environmental zone in their downtown area. In order to meet the strict environmental criteria, these cities have upgraded their public transport servicesby converting toa low-emission fleetand by implementing other mobility measures.By way of example, Kecskemét purchased 25 hybrid buses from the budget of the Transport OperationalProgramme allocated for the establishment of zero-emission zones.
Sustainable urban mobility is also supported using funds directly aimedat climate protection or energy efficiency. In 2012, for example, EUR 5 million wereallocatedfrom Kyoto emission credits to co-fund the purchase of clean public transport vehicles (primarily CNG and hybrid).The funding covered the difference in cost between a regular diesel-powered bus and a low-emission vehicle.
All larger cities have air quality monitoring stations in central locations or at busy transport hubs. The level of detail and the frequency of monitoring vary, depending on local circumstances.A number of cities publish annual or bi-annual environmental reports, in which the health impacts of transportationare an important element. However, in most cases these reports barely go beyond thepresentationof data and simple analysis.
4.STATUS BASED ON ANSWERS TO KEY QUESTIONS
4.1Power structures/decision making
The main actorswithin the decision-making hierarchy in the field of urban mobility are the cities and the national government. Firstly, local mobility plans, and the corresponding lists of measures, are prepared by local municipalities. These are then matched with the available funds, which come primarily from EU and national sources.
As governance is highly centralised in Hungary (and therefore by default, decision making processes too), in most cases financing is decided at national level. The main decision-making body for urban mobility projects is the Government Committee for National Development. This body selects projects and allocates funding. Since most of these decisions involve EU co-financing, theyalso have to be approved by the relevant directorate general of the European Commission (e.g. DG REGIO in the case of Cohesion Funds and DG MOVE for the Connecting Europe Facility).
European Union funds and national co-funding are managed by the relevant ministry and the managing authority of the particularoperational programme (see Section 4.3 “Funding sources”). These government bodies are assisted by the Monitoring Committee, a multi-stakeholder body that oversees the development and implementation of each operational programme.
Experts pointed out that in the past two decades cities have had less and less decision-making power (and own funds), while their obligations have remained, or even increased,in terms of compliance with national/EU strategies and requirements. This certainly represents a conflict with respect to SUMPs, which aremost effective if there is commitment and funding at city/regional level. In the current framework of a centralised funding and policy-settingenvironment, conditions for the efficient development and implementation of SUMPs are made rather difficult.
As for lobbying activities, a number of city representatives reported that local cycling NGOs are relatively strong and are involved in local mobility policy making. Large, state-owned companies (the most important public transport providers) also have a significant influence. Business entities are primarily involved in the case of smaller, local mobility interventions or in public procurement.In general, it can be said that lobbying does influence the planning process, although in none of the cases was it reported to have excessive influence.
Although such cases are ratherthe exception, experts cited a number of planned or already implemented progressive mobility measures that have been cancelled by local politicians. Examples of suchdiscontinued projects include the reallocation of road space for public transport (bus lanes), the prioritisation of trams over cars at busy intersections, the introduction of parking fees in central locations, and traffic calming in centrally located areas.
A variety of reasons were given for such failures, including the keeping of pre-election promisesto private motorists (even if those promises ultimately prove to beoutdated) or the lack of political courage to push through measures that adversely affect private motorised transport.Examples were also mentioned of local politicians lobbying for a new piece of road infrastructureeven though it wasnot included in any transport development strategy.Such examples show that strategies and corresponding measures generally go hand in hand, but in certain cases they may deviate for political reasons.