17 Figure 6. eir Mobility/Transport Plans to be SUMPs

the EIB (Ripa, 2020). Thus, it could not be considered a mobility/transport plan for this study.

Apart from these six cases where three cities do not have any generic mobility plan and the other three have their SUMPs current under development, the other twenty-one EU capitals present at least a transport or mobility plan or even a proper SUMP, as has been shown in Table 3 and illustrated in Figure 5. Moreover, considering their official plan names and their content where it has been mentioned or not to follow the SUMP guidelines, it could be seen (Figure 6) that only five did not declare as SUMP nor mentioned following its guidelines.

Figure 6. EU Capital s declaration of their Mobility/Transport Plans to be SUMPs. Source: Author The main reason behind those five plans that could not be declared as SUMP might be related to the year of their most recent plan publication (Figure 7). For instance, Stockholm and Amsterdam perhaps published their latest plans without even knowing about the SUMP guidelines, as their plans were released before the publication of the 1

st

guidelines. Although Helsinki, Dublin, and Copenhagen have published the last version of their plans after the creation of the SUMP guidelines, perchance they started working prior