The workshop discussed the implementation issues surrounding this important recent legislation on TEN-T and urban nodes. The regulation requires urban nodes to develop a SUMP by the end of 2027. This obligation can only be met when the planning area and the SUMP governance are in place. The SUMP will also be the basis for strategic projects that can link international transport networks with the local and regional scale. Here are some principal findings from the discussions:

What territory do we plan for?

The audience included authorities with different responsibilities: regions with different smaller nodes, single nodes, larger cities and capitals, and one region without an urban node, requiring connection with urban nodes in the vicinity to improve international connectivity. Different challenges were mentioned: Is the current regional planning area sufficient? How do we deal with cross-border functional urban areas, with international borders, but also borders between regions or provinces? How large do you extend the planning area? The audience was recommended not to overly complicate the definition of the planning area: the relationship between the urban node and adjacent areas can always be explained in the plan, without these areas being formally included. It is also important to include and define the main ports in the planning area (airports, inland or maritime ports, dry ports, etc.).

Institutional cooperation: Who is invited to the table?

The participants were invited to mention institutional stakeholders that can reflect the needs of people, design sound policies, and build on politics to budget the SUMP action and to broker the power needed to get things done. There was an interesting observation about the institutional stakeholders that are dealing with national and international transport networks: They are different from the local stakeholders; they must deal with many nodes, so resources might be an issue. They need to develop a logic at the national level, which might be difficult to align with local needs and priorities.

On the side of the ‘people’, most participants assign that role to the municipalities, closest to the basis. The challenge is then to have an efficient information flow from this level to the other institutional partners involved in the urban nodes' governance and the SUMP design. There are several examples discussed where there is a techno-political agreement between the ‘policies’ and ‘politics’ stakeholders. The question here is how the concerns of citizens are included. Some authorities have the political power to design plans but have no project implementation capacity.

Which strategic projects emerge from the planning process?

In the logic of the TEN-T regulation, there is a focus on projects that connect different scales —local-regional-international — of transport networks and services. These projects can be linear infrastructure projects, such as a tramline or hubs. It was interesting to see that several participants faced the challenges of coping with the negative effects and risks of international through-traffic by rail and road. These transport movements require heavy investments to reduce these negative effects. Rail is an important factor in investment plans. There is also a discussion on whether we need to design projects in view of the availability of funding and requirements linked to these funding options, or whether a sound project is defined as the basis for the search for funding. The truth most likely is somewhere in between these options.

For more findings from the joint in-person meeting of the Small and Medium-Sized Cities Platform, Access, Traffic Efficiency, and Active Travel & Health Working Groups, click here.