Figure 43

lack of ownership and adherence to the Iris II Plan has been emphasized, as well as a need for greater coherence and cross-functionality in the actions proposed (Bruxelles Mobilité, 2020b). Therefore, Figure 43 recaps the GM analyses from SUMP Cycle Phase 1, where eight activities have been covered, one partially covered, and another has remained unclear.

Figure 43. Overview of Brussels Phase 1 analyses. Source: Author Although the plan has presented an outstanding outline of the current mobility situation which even has addressed some gaps that need to be fulfilled concluding the milestone of the first phase, it lacks more details related to their planned timeline and its real application to the plan development. In addition, for the following plans, it is necessary to clarify the preliminary evaluations related to human and financial resources to avoid compromising the success of the plan s development.

4.2.2. Phase 2 | Strategy Development

GM has shown details of its strategy process in the (in English, The Strategic component). Therefore, the steps from the SUMP cycle Phase 2 (Strategy Development) have been explored in the analyses below.

Step 4 build and jointly assess scenarios: GM has not clearly presented information about this Step, similar to STEP UMP. Even though Steps 5 and 6 have shown other strategic components in detail as will be further explored GM did not display the future possibilities that may have been discussed through their forums, workshops, and meetings with actors, citizens, and stakeholders. Although the citizens ideas have been shared in the document, they were not scenarios but measures and actions. Nevertheless, it does not imply that this Step did not occur through its planning process, but rather that its alternative scenarios might not have been published in the GM since some of them have not been chosen for it.

Step 5 develop vision and strategy with stakeholders: GM has adopted two types of visions. The first one the City Vision has been aligned with the ambitions of PRDD. Moreover, it has presented seven dimensions, which could be considered the main objectives, represented by one word each: green, social, pleasant, healthy, performant, safe, and efficient. They have shared their specific objectives and covered key problems to which mobility policies must respond. Furthermore, the second one the Mobility Vision offers a cross-cutting vision that responds coherently to the challenges identified in the City Vision. In addition, it has been based on six ambitions: i. (in English, Influencing the overall travel demand); ii. (in English, Reduce the use of the private cars); iii. (in English, Strengthen mobility services); iv. (in English, Guarantee well-structured and efficient transport networks); v. stribution urbaine, une (in English, Support urban distribution initiatives, a reality to be highlighted); vi. (in English, Align the parking policy with the Region's mobility vision).

As can be seen, GM has clearly shown its vision and objectives for all transport modes and mobility elements. In addition, it has been emphasized that GM has resulted from the mobilization of a vast number of actors around 400 people public or private, who have given their opinion, contributed, and co-developed (Bruxelles Mobilité, 2020b). Thus, there was a transparent, participatory approach with citizens and stakeholders throughout the entire process and has exemplified one of the forums which discussed the

vision development, and consequently, has emphasized the political value of GM and also sion as recommended by the SUMP guidelines.

Step 6 set targets and indicators: GM has presented a series of in English primary indicators grouped into five main categories: i. e taux de motorisation et les comportements de mobilité (in English, Motorization rate and mobility behavior); ii. es principales mesures de fréquentation et de flux (in English, The main measures of attendance and flow); iii. a sécurité routière (in English, Road safety); iv. La perception de la mobilité et de la sécurité routière (in English, The perception of mobility and road safety); and v. Les indicateurs environnementaux (in English, The Environmental indicators). Furthermore, these indicators have been presented in tables with description, reference value, target/desired evolution, available subpopulations, and sources Table 6 exemplifies this.

Hence, the described indicators in their vast majority have considered the existing data sources and proposed SMART targets, as suggested by the SUMP guidelines. However, some indicators cannot yet be measured, and GM has also explained that it is either because the data will soon be available, or because the data still needs to be gathered, or because the indicator development on the existing database still needs to be created with other administrations. Hence, in these cases, the tables do not include a reference value but exhibit that the indicator will be available in the coming months; for example, the first indicator in Table 6.