included recently, and the measures have not yet been applied (30%), or else the presence of these vehicles is not sufficiently widespread (56%) in cities as to comprise another strategy for sustainable mobility. The assessment of the development and definition of the goods distribution category in cities is considered to be fairly limited in the mobility plans, similar to the first part of the study. Only 18% of respondents consider the measures of this type to be developed with precision, compared to 61% who say they are defined to only a partial and limited degree. Similarly, these actions are also considered to be poorly implemented, as 63% of respondents say that in cases where these actions are included they have either not been implemented at all, or else the quality of the work is below expectations. The respondents consider the definition of the measures for improvements in intermodality in the mobility plans to be heterogeneous. An approximately similar number of plans have measures considered to have a high (28%) and low (27%) degree of definition, and a similar percentage (29%) say the actions are only partially developed. The assessment of the quality of the implementation of these actions also receives contrasting ratings: 25% are considered effective and correctly applied, whereas 23% are rated as deficient or have yet to be put into practice. The results for accessibility measures indicate that this category is considered in most mobility plans. The measures in 38% of these are said to contain a precise degree of detail and to be well developed, although a significant number of plans (37%) have measures that are rated as being only partially defined. These values are similar to those obtained in the assessment. The evaluation of the degree of implementation of these measures shows similar results. 29% of the actions carried out are considered appropriate and effective, compared to 35% that are seen as failing to meet the expected quality levels. The measures corresponding to road safety show similar results to the previous section. 31% concur that the plans include a comprehensive definition of the measures defined, whereas 36% of respondents say they are only partially developed. However, more respondents (44%) rate the implementation of these actions as having a limited effectiveness than those who consider them to be adequate and correctly applied (26%). 24% of the respondents consider the measures in the category for reduction of air and noise pollution to be precisely defined, compared to 54% who consider the proposal to be insufficiently detailed. 61% say the measures are
included recently, and the measures have not yet been applied (30%), or else the presence of these vehicles is not sufficiently widespread (56%) in cities as to comprise another strategy for sustainable mobility. The assessment of the development and definition of the goods distribution category in cities is considered to be fairly limited in the mobility plans, similar to the first part of the study. Only 18% of respondents consider the measures of this type to be developed with precision, compared to 61% who say they are defined to only a partial and limited degree. Similarly, these actions are also considered to be poorly implemented, as 63% of respondents say that in cases where these actions are included they have either not been implemented at all, or else the quality of the work is below expectations. The respondents consider the definition of the measures for improvements in intermodality in the mobility plans to be heterogeneous. An approximately similar number of plans have measures considered to have a high (28%) and low (27%) degree of definition, and a similar percentage (29%) say the actions are only partially developed. The assessment of the quality of the implementation of these actions also receives contrasting ratings: 25% are considered effective and correctly applied, whereas 23% are rated as deficient or have yet to be put into practice. The results for accessibility measures indicate that this category is considered in most mobility plans. The measures in 38% of these are said to contain a precise degree of detail and to be well developed, although a significant number of plans (37%) have measures that are rated as being only partially defined. These values are similar to those obtained in the assessment. The evaluation of the degree of implementation of these measures shows similar results. 29% of the actions carried out are considered appropriate and effective, compared to 35% that are seen as failing to meet the expected quality levels. The measures corresponding to road safety show similar results to the previous section. 31% concur that the plans include a comprehensive definition of the measures defined, whereas 36% of respondents say they are only partially developed. However, more respondents (44%) rate the implementation of these actions as having a limited effectiveness than those who consider them to be adequate and correctly applied (26%). 24% of the respondents consider the measures in the category for reduction of air and noise pollution to be precisely defined, compared to 54% who consider the proposal to be insufficiently detailed. 61% say the measures are
5146-57cc8518a927a.docx