Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Transport Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo Methodology for assessing the cost effectiveness of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs). The case of the city of Burgos Jose Maria Diez a, ⁎ , Maria Eugenia Lopez-Lambas b , Hernán Gonzalo a , Marta Rojo a , Andres Garcia-Martinez b a Universidad de Burgos, Spain b Transport Research Centre, TRANSyT, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans SUMP Sustainable measures Urban transport Emissions Cost-effectiveness ABSTRACT 74% of Europeans live and move every day in cities, and 40% of the total CO 2 emissions from transport is caused by urban mobility. The decarbonisation of urban transport can therefore produce a substantial reduction in total CO 2 emissions. Cities have proposed various measures to reduce CO 2 emissions from mobility, concentrating particularly on reducing private individual transport (car) by offering a range of alternatives. Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) are not new in Europe, as numerous precedents in France, UK, Italy and Germany have now been underway for a decade. SUMPs propose a strategy to reduce dependence on private cars by imposing a series of measures. As the plans were designed for the long term (ten to fifteen years), it is only natural to question their ef- fectiveness after a certain time has elapsed. However, there is little literature on this issue. To fill this gap this article proposes a methodology to evaluate Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans using indicators to assess the current situation of the city in terms of the effectiveness of the measures implemented, focusing on the specific case of the city of Burgos in Spain, where the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan was introduced in 2005, and on the results based on the proposed methodology. CO 2 savings are always the primary target of a SUMP. Most assessments highlight changes in behaviour or public perception, but contain no in-depth analysis of cost-effectiveness. This paper aims to calculate a cost analysis for each tonnes of CO 2 saved. This methodology is used in other fields such as lighting and energy, but not in transport due to its complexity. However, effectiveness ratios can be calculated with the available data on modal shift and investments in the SUMP, taking into account the costs as a whole. Other methodologies to determine external cost savings are included in the proposed methodology to achieve a more accurate ratio and consider more external factors. 1. Introduction According to the European Commission and the Green Paper on Urban Mobility (European Commission, 2007), urban transport in the European Union is responsible for almost 40% of CO 2 emissions from the total for the transport sector, and 70% of emissions of other pol- lutants. The same paper reports that 69% of road accidents occur in cities, and one out of three fatal accidents takes place in urban areas, with pedestrians and cyclists the most vulnerable in the system, and the main victims. According to the paper, each year the European economy loses around one hundred billion euros –representing 1% of EU GDP– due to urban congestion. However, these figures are in line with the population distribution: 74% of the European population lives and works in cities, with a projected increase of up to 82% by 2050, according to the European Commission (2012). Dekoster and Schollaert (1999) noted that nearly 50% of car jour- neys in cities cover less than 8 km, and less than 3 in approximately 25–30%. These distances could easily be covered by a more sustainable transport mode (walking or cycling). In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity in the European Union (1992), cities are ultimately responsible for their mobility and for providing accessible, safe and equitable transportation for their ci- tizens (European Commission, 2007). Cities are also in charge of de- veloping a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP), whose main ob- jective is to provide and promote alternative means of transport to private cars (Monzon et al., 2006). The main aims of this paper are to: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.02.006 Received 29 September 2016; Received in revised form 23 January 2018; Accepted 20 February 2018 ⁎ Corresponding author at: Universidad de Burgos, Dpto. Ingeniería Civil, EPS Universidad de Burgos, Campus ‘La Milanera’, Calle de Villadiego, s/n, 09001 Burgos, Spain. E-mail address: jmdmartinez@ubu.es (J.M. Diez). Journal of Transport Geography 68 (2018) 22–30 0966-6923/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T