The European Commission has kicked off what is likely to be a colossal debate with its scheme to halve the EU’s use of conventional cars in cities by 2030 to reduce pollution and lessen dependence on oil imports. It has elicited a huge response from the many different players in the transport sector, with some dismissing it as fantasy and other complaining that it lacks ambition. But who is right?

The European Commission was always going to divide opinion when it unveiled its plans to shift Europeans away from the combustion engine in urban transport. The plans, unveiled by EU Transport Commissioner Siim Kallas on March 28, say all vehicles used in EU cities ought to be powered by low-emission technologies by 2050, lowering discharges blamed for climate change and smog, easing noise and cutting an EU oil-import bill that totaled around €210 billion last year.

The gradual phasing out of ‘conventionally fueled’ vehicles from the urban environment will be achieved by developing fueling and charging infrastructure for new vehicles, promoting public transport - including through road pricing -- and to facilitating walking and cycling, Kallas says. The roadmap, which call for €1.5 billion in infrastructure investments to create a 'Single European Transport Area' over the next two decades, also floats the idea of moving 30% of road freight traveling more than 300km to rail or waterborne transport by 2030.

But the plans have already attracted fierce opposition from many quarters. Ivan Hodac, secretary general of the automobile industry's trade association (ACEA), said the new strategy was a major U-turn, dismissing a principle that the most efficient means of transport should be the one favoured each and every time. "Road transport plays a capital role and cannot be confronted with arbitrary measures," Hodac said. He said the Commission should also be cautious about picking technology winners, for example by mandating that no oil-fuelled cars be allowed in cities by 2050. "It is general practice that EU policy avoids predicting prematurely technology 'winners' and the White Paper must adhere to that," he warned.

The International Road Transport Union (IRU), which represents hauliers and bus companies, said it regretted the proposed shift from road to rail and warned that a modal shift would jeopardise Europe’s transport competitiveness. "Other modes such as rail are simply not up to that task," said the IRU’s Alexander Sakkers.

BusinessEurope, which represents industry and employers, said it accepted that the environmental challenges in the transport sector had to be tackled, but also warned about the type of initiatives to reduce emissions. And UEAPME, which represents SMEs, said the plans were unrealistic, citing "strong financial constraints" including an absence of tax incentives or other schemes to support investment.

Beyond road transport users, the European rail sector – represented by CER, EIM and UNIFE – welcomed the plans, "in particular the strong references to rail taking a greater share in traffic for both freight and passenger transport", they said in a joint statement. Airports Council International (ACI) warned that railways would be unable to absorb extra demand. Olivier Jankovec, director-general of ACI Europe, said “the extensive rail developments announced will only absorb 0.5% of the total demand for air transport”. And the inland navigation sector praised the Commission's goal to transfer freight on ships and trains but said more ambitious measures were needed.

Amongst the EU member states, the British government offered the most vociferous criticism, saying the Commission was interfering with the individual transport choices of Europe’s cities. "It is right that the EU sets high-level targets for carbon reduction, however it is not right for them to get involved in how this is delivered in individual cities,” said UK transport minister Norman Baker.

Environmentalists, however, attacked the plans for their lack of ambition. Campaign group Transport & Environment criticized the decision to delay the vast majority of transport emission cuts until after 2030. "The Commission plans to cut emissions by just 1% a year until 2030, and then 5% a year after that," said the group's director, Jos Dings. "Putting off action and relying on miraculous technological breakthroughs in 20 years is a completely flawed strategy." He said 13 billion euros of annual EU transport infrastructure spending should only go on environmentally "sustainable projects."

Friends of the Earth's transport campaigner, Richard Dyer, also said the measures did not go far enough. "Phasing out cars that run on fossil fuels from cities is a good way to kick-start action but despite these headline-grabbing proposals the emission reduction targets in the plan lack ambition," he said. Franziska Achterberg of Greenpeace went further, saying Commission failed to set out a coherent strategy to decarbonise the transport sector. "This Commission paper blatantly passes the buck to the next generation," she said.

It is too soon to gauge the public’s reaction to the Commission’s plans, but Kallas will undoubtedly take some comfort from a survey published on March 24 that revealed that most Europeans would make greener transportation choices if given the right incentives to do so. The Eurobarometer survey conducted in all 27 EU member states indicated that about 60% of European respondents said they would pay more for a car if it reduced greenhouse emissions. While most of the drivers interviewed noted using public transportation wasn't as convenient as driving a personal vehicle, more than 70% said they would use it more often if they could get one ticket to cover all forms of public transportation. And 66% of car users surveyed said they would be likely to compromise on the car’s size in order to reduce emissions. However, given the timescale for the Commission’s plans, it may take a long time before Europeans have to change their transport behaviour.