 Well, good evening everyone and welcome to this event organized from the New Horizons Foundation, an event supported by the collaboration of the, and the help of, from the Henry XIV Foundation and the Green European Foundation. Both of them helped us organize this event. Secondly, I would like you to know those of you who are here and those of you who are following us via Zoom that you have simultaneous interpreting. So on your screen at the bottom there should be a symbol that should allow you to have access to the simultaneous interpretation. And with no further ado, I would like to mention that I have people next to me and people who are not next to me. Some people are connected from abroad. I will introduce their CV. First of all, we all have David Lois, he's a professor of social psychology at UNED, an expert in urban mobility, and he's also a researcher at the center of transport research. We'd like to thank you for being here. Thank you David. Secondly, we have Georgina Montesino and she's an engineer and member of the Association of Public Transport Association who always make important contributions. I know that they've been working on the topic of interest today. And then we have the Laura Diego. Thank you very much for being here. I'm the secretary of fair transition of Comisiones Obreras Catalonia, the union. She's dealt with the topic quite widely and then we have Lina. Oh my God, he cannot pronounce your last name. So I'm not going to even attempt to say it. She is an expert in the area of mobility and particularly mobility and gender. Well, before we start, I will make a quick round in that very same order of introduction. Well, this debate starts from the point that we agree on sustainable mobility. Some people say that are in favor, some others are not so much in favor. But here we have a consensus about sustainable mobility. Okay, the question therefore is entering into the complexity of it all. How can we make it fair? That's why we can we turn sustainable mobility. A clear thing that consider the social dimension redistributive to make a fair transition beyond the concept of green transition. We'd like to focus on this debate. With me for the do as I said, I would like to give the floor to David, who's connected with us from Bilbao. Good evening, everyone. I have a brief presentation that will take me less than 15 minutes to tell you the truth. I will play the Tiffany cricket. Because I will change the question at the order of the question and I will share my screen with you. And here you have it. It's following the line of what we observe in our debate, which is very interesting. I would like to thank two foundations that invited me to be here, making sustainable compatible with social justice and my question was, is it, is it fair the static what we are having right now. That's my question. In the debate we could maybe talk in further detail about the readjustment that we will need to do. But I would like to review to revisit this the situation currently different possibilities. Let me see if I can eliminate the upper banner. In the case of pollution of oxygen nitrogen and suspicion particles generated by these engines we've seen normal conditions in big cities that we have a greater exposition of these particles in low income neighborhoods because they support high traffic flows and the same with noise and children who are greatly affected by because they are growing pre teenagers kids boys girls and the elderly are very vulnerable so we have the intersectionality. We have children and elderly who live in areas that are more deprived. So these neighborhoods are more negatively affected with respect to the road violence will quite the same on favor neighborhoods often have less traffic. Relax with greater amounts of accidents. In Spain we have 250 people died run over by by vehicles and symmetrically this falls amongst the people above 65 years of age. So why is this the urban design we have that generates an environmental stress particularly for people who are not in good shape. Other relevant data includes well information from the UK and we can see that with respect to home incomes. The risk of being run over by a vehicle and fall while walking is three times greater amounts low income levels and groups and we can also see with respect to this this this capacity six or four times more likely who to fall while walking or being run over by a vehicle. Well these. This tells us more about the state of cool and road violence. Here I have a pop up that keeps them interfere with that presentation. One false focus on elderly women who move around their neighborhood because they have to put to the doctor or they go shopping etc other data that I thought I could talk about is the climate crisis issue. Those are the worst isolated in low income neighborhoods and homes. This rule of 3300 is not fulfilled and then we have the effect of the block heat, because we have more asphalt more concrete. We have another variable low income usually depend more on the public transport means, which is the only way of transport that is 100% inclusive and accessible and well normally and buses etc suffer the effect of congestive traffic congestive. Well, as a social psychology this is quite relevant what has to do with different possibilities oftentimes not very well measured of the effects of the type of city that was designed after the 1950s, last century, decreasing meeting points decreasing opportunities of social interaction this generates more marginality. Urbanistic coldness and less cooperation amongst people. I respect all this turns cities in in a crossroads. And this is connected to a more sedentary and less well being a more social lack of trust and greater index of unwanted loneliness in nursing Congress that I attended to. I could see the greater concentrations of people in urban centers generates higher percentages that go to 25% of population of people over 65. This seems to be a perfect storm coming to us. We've heard about the epitome of unwanted loneliness, the feeling of loneliness and the consequences this has on health status. With respect to data, further data, I reviewed some some data about this issue, the use of car depending on your income levels and I could see a piece of research that was presented to the media in the Metropolitan area of Barcelona we see that we have two important pieces of information divided by metropolitan area Barcelona and Barcelona, municipal the municipal Barcelona here we see a general effect of the typology of Well, private transport and more car dependence, it generates a global effect but then income in gray we have the use of normal movements from place to place of car and motorcycle 21% approximately. These are net income levels. This is low income here we are in the middle or high levels. And there's a difference of 10 points between using the car in favor of middle and high income levels in Barcelona capital. And the same this huge cab we have in a metropolitan area and practically with no changes in low income when using the car so when we determine the issues of equality, etc. We can talk about cars as an element that are that are regressive amount of cars and kilometers run with this. This happens quite often and we have data in both in Barcelona and in other countries, both in Europe as in the North America in different cities so this is an idea that we have to keep in mind. So I didn't include here the transfer transfers by airplane but there's a relationship between municipal is the metropolitan area and the use of public transport and we can clearly see that even if there is no clear linear relation. There's a trend in the greater public transport the lower the income levels. So we've seen that the famous AIDS towards the consumption of fuels that didn't achieve the goals expected because of a market consideration and legally well it's not really worth mentioning this, but ultimately with respect to fuels the deciles spent twice more times when having a high income level versus the low income laws. Well, another piece of information that I really like is the external costs. This is a piece of information of the European Commission, external costs of road transport cost us 800 billion euro per year and 60% of these costs. Here you have them defined is paid by society as a whole. This is quite an interesting piece of information that will be used to connect with the issue of fairness. And finally the ensemble the total of the population is very much in favor of making changes in cities. Here we are talking about walkability, bike lanes and speed controls. So this is to do with the representative several often insurance, a car insurance company and this is another another another study that was done during the pandemic and transport and environment most of the European society was if able to reduce space for motorized traffic and turn it into this new. Recurrent idea about this and that's all I have to say that maybe I'll talk about it. Maybe later during the debate. Thank you very much. Excellent David. In fact, strong piece of information strong strong information. You gave us Georgina. Now you have the floor. Can you hear me. Yes. When you can please upload my presentation. My name is Georgina I come from the association promotion of public transport. And as our name says, we focus on public transportation. We were asked to talk about the urban toll. And if we go to the next slide one more. Talking about urban toll we have to put into context where we are standing right now in the next slide. We have a summary. Of how we are what we are doing now. First question, how much is it to move a person from point A to point B the orange line we have the cost of the system this is comes from the association of public transportation in Barcelona. And in the black line we have the information about travelers 2020 2021 things went down pandemic, you know, but we can see and we've seen from a long time that there is a decoupling every time it's more difficult and more expensive to move people in public transport we have a certain cost and who pays for it. We will be answered with the green and great lines of great lines is the users conservation and the green is the contribution made by the from the administration the public transportation region system is shared between users and the administration. We can see the in pandemic times administration makes made an important effort and the constant here is clear. The administration had small deficit they have to maintain a status quo costs a system but there are not enough validations in the administration and we can see how everything is distributed such a distribution is totally. Can we go to the next slide please. It's totally random and there is no specific percentage of each one of them in the specific case of the. Barcelona includes government. Municipality and the am B which is the association of transport and well let's add to the crisis we had the fact that in the 2012 we already had the reduction of the contribution of the government. We had to cover the public transportation costs so the administration. Once again. Let's start with the deficit because they had to absorb. The cost that the state is not accepting. So yeah we thought everything sounds good but if we are going to have these operations will happen. We may believe that there are some laws behind. Thank you. Maybe I am very speaking very I'm speaking very fast she says well she is actually. There are some laws but these laws are not deployed in Catalonia we have a low past unanimously that has not been deployed. The taxing instruments have not been used one of them could be the urban toll that we can talk about later. And in fact, they are faced. They are gathered. Well these mechanisms are gathered here it's not that something that we just met up. It's something that already exists the urban tolls. The municipal fees to have access to into a city. For example, in the case of London is not deployed a state law will be. Make this more attractive but now this gives us an idea about how we will deal with this. Then this law will be deployed in springtime supposedly. And it has some parts that are good. It'll improve the current mechanisms but on the other hand. It's better than that it has to be. It has to follow mechanisms of equality. That's what we're asking for at least this should be harmonized with what we had in the past. And what we had was, we didn't know who was offering what because everything was changing every year depending on the crisis that we've gone through it's been changing so we are starting to talk about percentages. But we are speaking about a maximum percentage that will be offered by the state according to the operational cost, but it doesn't talk about a minimum. Minimums are not well known. We have the minimum for users. We have a huge part or we're at least in Barcelona we have at least 30 recuperating. But we are not told about the minimum that the government should offer. Minimum submission to guarantee transport transport. We can go to the next one. We will there are two deficit scenarios in COVID when state AIDS are reduced. We receive a fund to palliate the Ukraine crisis 13 billion euro. And as we heard before out of this 13 billion euro 5000. I'm sorry five billion will be or have been used to support fuels private vehicles are paid by by the higher incomes and for lower incomes and the government said we'll use 300,000. I'm sorry, she corrected herself 1 billion, not 200 200 million for free transport, all this done without studying what we just showed how the current status quo is with respect to the public transport systems and administrations. The question is, is this measure to favor or just to support the climate change. This is a special measure of because we a big investment was made in fuels to help private company, some private owners and companies that benefits much higher income levels. So it doesn't really make sense to say we'll do it for the climate change. But on the other hand, we will try to benefit private vehicles next one please. So, considering this scenario, we presented a possible solution, which is within this taxing mechanisms, which is the urban toll in the next slide. What an urban toll is like this is one of the measures that has worked best in many international experiences is very well known in the case of London. But there are this but this is also applicable in other countries and results are positive. Why do we believe that an urban toll is necessary. Well, next slide explains it. On the one hand, Barcelona, which is where we would like to implement this urban toll is one of the city with the greatest density of vehicles. And these vehicles are not used 100%. The average use is 1.19 people with enriched two people per vehicle. But on the other hand, we use over 60%, 65% actually of the urban space. So we are devoting a lot of urban space to a vehicle that is not moving just one person and something 1.19%. Is this measure enough to incentivize the model change? That's what we are intending to achieve. Obviously, just one measure like zero costs won't force a model change. We have to add other measures that we call the attack plan, which are complementary measures to reconvert the urban areas like in the case of Barcelona. We have an urban highway or motorway called Avenida Mediviana to specify to reduce the amount of lanes. We include the bus lanes, a bike lane that will help the current infrastructure. All these complementary measures to an urban toll should be propitiated to guarantee that the urban toll can be used and is good. We defend measures that are restrictive, such as the urban toll or freedom of use. If they come on their own, they will do nothing. You will achieve maybe a peak for a moment. So there's a small model change. But if you want to maintain that change, you have to undertake other measures like, for example, public transport, improving the frequency, improving the quality of services, etc. More particularly, what we observe for Barcelona is a four-year-old toll that coincides with the area of low emissions area that has a legal framework and we can add it to it. In the next one, we see the summary of what I just said, what we can do achieve with these measures, other than promoting the model change, is to reduce the transit flow. We currently have a lot of traffic, and we have some measures that can help in that attempt. Also, these measures come with an income. It's part of the funding of the public transportation, together with the public healthcare system. But this would allow us to have some kind of structure in the funding of public transport so that it doesn't depend on users and on the administration. There should be mechanisms with which we can generate the income and private vehicles should be incentivized to start using public transport means. Increasing an offer, etc. Benefits that we expect to achieve are listed here. Let's go to the next slide because here we have an important thing to consider. Just to finish my introduction, this fits very well in the topic of the discussion. These measures such as three zero payment can favor very specific groups people the elderly people would be difficult this. But this is what we have. Well, we have a next one. We have the current scenario in Catalonia. We have 10,000 agents involved in the social actions. And each one has different criteria different ways of implementing different sources. Some things that can be bought in one place but nothing the other. Anyway, there is a quite sad panorama with respect to looking for information if a person comes here for the first time and tries to find such rates. We won't be able to use or find it easily. ATMs only have a social fees amongst young people, teenagers, monoparent and numerous families and people in the situation of unemployment, but also for the elderly people with disabilities or risk of exclusion. There is nothing absolutely nothing and we are going to go stabbing which are to the for ATMs which are the four companies of the different provinces of Catalonia that manage the mobility fees. There is a big difference in prices with respect to the young, which is the card for young people it only exists in Barcelona province in the rest of Catalonia. The young people of the rest of Catalonia don't move or if they move they will have to try to find their discount, their special fee. What I believe is even worse is that in Barcelona we still have a T17 that goes from four to 16 years of age, mandatory education structures, but in the rest of Catalonia kids don't seem to go to the institute because it's only applicable at 12 years of age. Well this is the comparison we have and we can see as everything is focused in Barcelona, we know that we are missing some things. We also know that we have a lot more than in other areas of Catalonia this is important to consider. It's a comparative agreement with respect to different territories of the same country. We cannot have all these difficulties as and if we go to the next slide we'll see that we can have a comparative analysis by territory there is not an integrated ticket. For example, during the week I am in my municipality I move around with my card, but when I want to go and spend my weekend with a lot of people I have to use a very expensive ticket I had to pay for it. It's not integrated and therefore once I go to the other place I have to buy another ticket to move around there. What do I do at the end? Well I take my car. This is the answer. If we don't propitiate a system like simple tickets or group tickets both for schools or young people's associations in the case of young people we have the T16 that they cannot be used outside of their municipalities so we'll need a special card for groups. But only for school children. Also when you go out with your friends it's cheaper to use a public transportation system than a car. And sometimes taking your car if you divide everything into five because it's five people that fit in the car it is cheaper than if you take a train. Information is crucial here. Social fees, fair fees, fees that are for everyone that can be hidden. You have to find it easily, surfing the web or simply asking. If we go to the next slide we'll see that in this case this summarizes what we just said before. It's true that ATM doesn't have special fees for the elderly. Well the other body has it but not really the other body has fees that are not good for rent for the nearby trains, the trains of the nearby area. We have other trains that cannot be used in different times of the day. Well it's a real mess believe me. People don't really feel like taking public transportation after certain age groups or amongst young people because it's cheaper to share a car or because there's such a big amount of information that is generating this information. And I don't have anything else to say for the moment. As a final consideration I would like to say that what we hope to see is that these measures that are taking place. These discounts that that that graciousness is something that will happen now but that we don't know will happen in the future people are plotting here in the room. It made a good contribution with respect to the levels of income you also talked about the territorial and generational balance when we talk about social aspects we're not speaking about income levels. Definitely but there is another important dimension which is generational and territorial balance balances when we want to turn this into justice. And justice has to be applicable in different social spheres, volumes of people, big volumes of people that on the one hand or the other can be out of the area of protection, the public transportation or sustainable mobility may give. Let me give the floor to Laura. Thanks for the invitation. Well, I will also connect with some of the things that David and Gina said. I work in the union with respect to the area of sustainability. And some of my colleagues are members of their APTP they're part of their DNA but for a long time. We consider the possibility of mobility to treat it from our union to deal with it because you may do without certain transport but you know going to work. We need to have a may of mobility we had to express an opinion, and we accepted the paradigm of a cultural changes of sustainability. And we said, sure. We have to analyze this but not in a way. We don't have to be so purist that we don't see any problems in fact as we heard from our colleagues that territorial differences the differences in income levels differences to accessibility public transport was an interesting thing for us. Besides the reasons that we heard from the beta we know and we accept because they are true. Public health and the quality of air public space noises how they affect our health. Obviously we accept that but we are interested as a union to promote sustainable mobility in the workplace for three main reasons there may be more reasons but I would like to point out three. Public health public health is a good thing but labor health is a different story. We know that year after year. And except the years 2020 2021 pandemic because of the reduction of level mobility and telework figures went down but we know that you're after a year there's an increase of labor accidents. Therefore, in the case of Catalonia 2019 includes 2020,000 accidents, some of them were very severe some of them were deadly. We have to consider that accidents in itinerary continue increasing and they have a mortality level attached to it. Such a mortality part of these accidents that cause death are due to transit or traffic accidents. Therefore, having to mandatory use your own car or motorcycle is a risk factor, because you may not have enough to take a public transport system. And second element is the issue of the equity or or or inequality is true. The possession of a car or the ownership of a car or a vehicle is quite select and not everyone can because of age considerations income levels gender sometimes because if there is a vehicle in the family unit. There's a predominance of being used by men rather than women because of migrant peoples that do not have their driver's license. In Spain, they cannot have access to it maybe so in many areas in various labor spheres, we could see that the only mobility policy is to facilitate the access with a private car with a private vehicle isn't a factor of exclusion. Young people who are practicing and don't have a driver's license and oftentimes they want to work at a company and through training that they want to go and work to an industrial polygon. There's no public transport there's no way to have access they say no, I can't accept this training option and labor option. But also for companies this may be a problem when having access to to qualified workers that cannot have access to their company through their own cars or vehicles. And another element that is being treated in this type of analysis is the talent management managing new talent when we talk about companies that are very problematic telecoms, where they have professional workers from all over the place that focus in a hop. I'm thinking about San Juan and next to San Cougat. They will these people value other topics, value other things. Time management is very important being able to combine labor and family and not having to move around with their private car. So accessibility with a go to public transport offered is something that should be kept in mind by many companies. And the third element that I wanted to present to you is the collective issue because from companies. We see that mobility is well it's up to you, something which is very individualized. If you accept labor offering you will have your own needs to get there. And we consider that this is this has to be analyzed under a more collective perspective that's why we ask responsibility to the public administration, depending on their responsibility. When there is an urban mobility plan they should consider specifically mobility due to labor and not mobility in general. Oftentimes, we see municipalities who don't face the industrial polygon that the industrial area that is 500 meters from from the city, and they don't extend the urban. Transport media and there's some transport meets and am I running out of time will come and also it's people to companies, companies have to be responsible of the of the transport of workers. Of the company of the headquarters but also outsourced services, it's difficult to include or not including the mobility policies, these people, visitors, collaborators, etc. They have to consider the whole range of possibilities because in a nutshell, this is the way to calculate their their CO2 foods print. In terms of internalized things this was something that we as a society have to accept what this has to be internalized, because there's no other alternative. And in that respect, an instrument that we think is very powerful, but that is impreused are the company transport plans. We have seen industrial areas that are far from the urban mesh, we have industrial areas near Barcelona, like Albasos area, one pastel area, and all the other industrial areas that continue. Next to the Besos River. And they have difficulties, real difficulties. And whenever there is free parking area, and you can invest a non productive soil. And that's, you know, that makes people, people's lives happen easier. But we may generate a problem of traffic congestion how to manage in the parking space and there's a problem of x traffic and accidents increase labor accidents that have an impact. And as far as costs are concerned to companies so it's not just specific off of industrial areas that are far from the downtown areas of cities far and distance remote very lost without communication whatsoever. It's something which may happen frequently in any type of industrial area, no matter how close or far it is from the center of the city. And that there should be an active participation of workers. These should be under dynamic instrument because we could see that the planning has not been analyzed has not been reviewed in many, many years and people bought maybe an apartment vital strategies. Well, tell us to revisit this because some decades ago. People try to live near where they worked, and there was less distance between the homes and the workplace. This has changed with relocations with all the policies or lack of policies of social housing. You don't have many alternatives you tend to live farther and farther away. Now it seems like things are changing. You know, I live outside because I can afford it. And I come to Barcelona because I have to. This is something that needs to be considered. And on the other hand, in the mobile urban mobility plans this should be considered this should be kept in mind with the state law of climate change and energy transition. They're considered the municipalities with over 50,000 people that must have a sustainable mobility plan. While implementing low emission areas. This responsibility is there for us. This is a key element to foster product transport and collective transport, wherever you cannot do it, whatever you cannot create a specific public transportation line. These can be group solutions with the crisis we've gone through this vision of industrial area. Maybe a good incentive and a good instrument for quite a long time we heard about instruments like the creation of a mobility manager. This is a figure that has been talked about. It goes beyond this topic but in the national agreement on industry. We signed some month ago one of the proposals was the law of industrial areas and this would be a good instrument to create this managers figure that managers many services services of mobility could be one of the services. Work on the rate integration in the data, for example, it's a real drama for our friends there, we have to break away from the first circle, the first crown, the urban integration. This works for Barcelona, but beyond Barcelona between municipalities that do not cross Barcelona. That is where we have a problem with inter-urban buses. Let's think about this set of policies. We can incorporate new technologies as well. They may be our allies. We have many companies that use the area of mobility and they have an app. Help people. It's a matter of exploring these apps, exploring these possibilities and maybe with respect to the industrial areas, a solution could be found amongst the different companies. A feasible solution I would like to insist on the fact that it is important to have workers participate in it and unions as well because oftentimes what we found was the implementation of a service. For example, a company bus only for the matrix company of the company and those groups of people that have lower incomes, cleaning people, catering people, watch men and women, they would use that because of their economy. They would use the service, but they are excluded. So we have to think from a more social standpoint, not only the economic standpoint is important, but everything is important. We have to see creative solutions and we can see many possibilities. Let me stop here. Thank you very much for your kind attention. Thank you very much for this important intervention, connection between work and labor mobility, how we manage mobility that is mandatory, a type of mobility that is what most people use and how we approach it because there's a need to solve this because many groups of people don't have a range of possibilities when using or not using public transport. Hello, Lena. Can you hear me well? Yes, I can hear you. Hello, thank you very much for the invitation. My name is Lena Evide Fjell and I am assistant to a member of the European Parliament in the Green Group. And yeah, this is a very relevant topic and one of the main challenges of the ecological transition. The issue is not only how to decarbonize the transport sector without making it more unfair, but actually to use this necessary process to bring about more social justice. And we have a very good opportunity now, for instance, with a recovery and resilience facility. But it's really important how we design this. We can't again do the wrong investments and the wrong policy choices because yeah, we are simply running out of time. As you know, the EU Commission has proposed a green deal in order to foster this transition, including a European climate law that sets the objective within the EU legislation of achieving climate neutrality by 2050, and also an intermediate target to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% until 2030. And this will require a huge transformation of all the sectors. And therefore, in order to achieve this, the European Commission has proposed a so called fit for 55 package. And this is a set of around 15 legislative proposals, and many of them has a particular emphasis on the transport sector, as it could not be otherwise. Because indeed, there are two sectors where the emissions are still not reducing, but they have actually been increasing in the last years. It's the building sector and the transport sector. And for that reason, the Commission proposed last year to extend the current emission trading scheme, the ETS to buildings and transport. Because until now, the sectors covered by the ETS have been power and heat generation, energy intensive industrial sectors, and also aviation within Europe. And the ETS, as you maybe know, it sets an absolute limit on the total amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted. And over time that limit is reduced, so the total emissions are supposed to fall. And this worked quite well, at least in the power sector. But we Greens and European Parliament were against introducing this trading system for buildings and transport, because it would have a too high impact on the most vulnerable people. And also, we believe it's not the most effective way to reduce emissions. But together with this new ETS to as it's called. The Commission also proposed a social climate fund, which is supposed to compensate for the impact on vulnerable groups of this new emission trading system. So what could be financed under this fund for the transport sector, the European Commission proposed firstly measures and investments intended to finance the uptake of zero and low emission mobility and transport, including transport and shared mobility solutions. And secondly, a temporary direct income support to vulnerable households. And to access this fund member states have to set up social climate plans where they lay out the investments and measures the plan and the criteria for who would be eligible for this direct income support. In the beginning of the summer this year, the European Parliament adopted its position on both the new ETS to system and on the social climate fund. And yeah we Greens were very happy that the position that was adopted by the parliament for sees that is new extension of the ETS to buildings and transport from the beginning will only apply to commercial buildings and road transport. So to start with citizens will not be directly affected. And the parliament also strengthened the proposal of the social climate fund and determined that the general objective of the fund is to contribute to a socially fair transition towards climate neutrality that leaves no one behind, which is precisely the topic of this seminar. The parliament also introduced a definition of mobility poverty, and that's for the first time in EU legislation. And that is to make sure that the fund reaches, especially those who need it the most. And this was one of the priorities for us greens and something that we really pushed for. We also voted for more detailed social climate plans, asking the member states to provide a detailed analysis analysis on the main causes of mobility poverty, and to set targets and objectives to reduce the number of people in mobility poverty. And on this social climate fund, we have had very long discussions in the green group, as for how to balance the funding between the structural investments, which are more long term, and the temporary direct income support. Because on the one hand, in these time times of rising fuel and energy prices. We voted to help people to pay their bills. But on the other hand, we have to make sure to not only help people today, but to make sure we make the right investments that can actually help lifting people out of poverty in the long term. And that contribute to a sustainable transport system in the future. And we were quite happy with the final outcome of the report that devoted a larger share up to 60% for in the investments and maximum 40% for the direct income support. On the screens, we also pushed for measures and investments supporting a modal shift from private cars to public shared and active mobility. For instance, we push for investments to make public transport more accessible and affordable infrastructure for active mobility, such as bike lanes and fast cycling routes, and we also pushed for investments supporting different shared mobility routes, like car sharing and pooling. And this logic was finally included in the report from the parliament. Right now, the European Parliament is in the middle of the inter institutional negotiations with the council. So we will have to wait a bit to see what the final outcome will be. This is very recent developments. I could definitely not be here at the commissioners of Reras headquarters in Catalonia, talking about the social dimension of transport policy without putting the accent also on transport workers conditions. And this, as we will see has also an implication for the necessary transition. A few years ago, the European Parliament adopted the so called mobility package, which was supposed to tackle in particular social issues of road transport and to prevent that workers are exploited. The mobility package consisted of three legislative proposals. First, the posting of workers, which sets the rules for drivers when they are working abroad to avoid social dumping. Secondly, driving and rest times, which sets rules for how, how long drivers can drive and how long they need to rest, and also which tackled rules when you go with a lorry to another country. But here there was a loophole before. For example, if a driver goes with a Bulgarian lorry to Spain, without such rules, he or she could stay for an unlimited time. And this clearly opened the door to social dumping practices, whereby more often those drivers worked under semi-slavery conditions. And this precariousness, including also not sleeping or resting in adequate conditions, besides being unacceptable from a worker's rights point of view, it posed increased risks also in terms of road safety. And therefore, during the negotiations, we Greens insisted that the vehicles have to go back to their country of origin on a regular basis. But for that, the right wing and conservative groups were attacking us saying that that would lead to lorries going empty, which would increase emissions. But cynically, that has been the only file when they actually seem to care about emissions. It's a bit demagogic because this legislation is about ensuring social rights and internalizing the cause of road transport. Of course, we should not deny that the environmental implications of this kind of measure. But ultimately, the issue of empty runs is rather actually a failure of logistics because it's calculated that 20% of the trucks that are circulating in the EU are empty. So with better logistic coordination and pooling, this could be avoided. And this will be easier with digitalization and intelligent transport systems. So we could possibly do both respect the social rights and reduce the emissions, which is what we are discussing today. Another growing transport sector that is also known for its precariousness is the platform industry and its particular the driving and delivery sectors. The persons working for Uber and Deliveroo are often working under difficult conditions and are in a vulnerable situation. Many of them are migrants and sometimes they are even working with rented accounts working in someone else's name. During the pandemic, many of these workers like Uber drivers, they lost their job opportunities, but they could not access sick leave or unemployment benefits, neither for workers nor for the self employed. But about one year ago, the European Commission proposed a new directive, which aims at improving working conditions for platform workers. There are about 28 million people in the EU who work through digital platforms, and the majority of them are self employed. But the commission counts that at least five million workers may be wrongly classified. And with the new directive, many of these workers will be legally presumed to be workers to be employed, and they would be guaranteed the corresponding labor rights and social protection. The directive also regulates the algorithmic management for all platform workers. Today, we can see that the opaque algorithmic management can have a negative effect on workers mental health, and it can cause excessive stress. This can also have again a risk on road safety, because delivery riders are paid per delivery, and therefore they are incentivized to cycle or drive as quick as possible. During the last year, we greens have been working hard to strengthen the proposal from the commission. And as you may know, in June, there was a huge leak of confidential files that showed how Uber breached law and actually secretly lobbied governments during its global expansion. It has been quite concerning to see that during the negotiations here in the European Parliament on platform work, conservative and liberals have been echoing the arguments from Uber and other platforms. In the next couple of months, the parliament will vote on its position on the proposal. Until the vote in the plenary, I think it will be important that we greens work together with the trade unions to ensure a progressive outcome. Another priority for the green group is the situation for women in transport and gender mainstreaming is something that we try to always apply to all reports and the legislations that we are working on. The gender topic is raising more general interest and actually next year the European Parliament will adopt a specific report on the situation of women in transport. And if you want, and if you have a bit more time later, maybe I can expand a bit on this, because there are many relevant things to say on that, but essentially a very relevant conclusion is that a strong public transport network has also a gender dimension, because women tend to use public transport more than men. And car-centered transport policies therefore present a gender bias, as Laura Diego has mentioned before. And this shows the role public transport play with regards to social equity. There are some political families, even on the progressive camp, that think that replacing all the combustion engine cars by electric cars will be the perfect solution for the climate crisis. But first of all, electric cars are far from affordable, especially for people with low incomes. And yeah, we all know about the gender pay gap. Secondly, electric cars do not solve the issue of congestion, which is calculated because 270 billion euro yearly at an EU level, and is estimated to reduce the productivity around 30%, according to the European Court of Auditors. However, when it comes to freight transport, electric vehicles still present relevant limitations. So this is why we as Greens decidedly advocate for a massive shift to rail and leaving the electric road transport for the last mile only. So to sum up, it is necessary to incentivize the shift to rail for both freight and passengers and internalizing the social costs of transport. This is essential and to invest also in public transport. There is a new trend of some cities introducing free public transport. Luxembourg was the first country in the world to introduce free public transport in the whole country in 2020. And this trend is part of a general shift away from car travel towards travel by bus, train, tram and bicycle. And this modal shift leads to less congestion in our cities, so less traffic jams and less emissions. Provided it has good quality, free public transport is also a social measure, make it possible for everyone, no matter the economic means to travel. But maybe the first question I would get is how do you finance that? But according to a study by the Commission from 2018, it was called the Handbook of External Cost of Transport. It was estimated that on average there is a cost per capita of €1,500 every year associated to public investments linked with the system for private cars like infrastructure and maintenance. And yeah, I think this was also mentioned earlier by David Luiz. This is regardless of whether you have a car or not, €1,500 per year in person. That is a lot of money. And if all of this or at least a significant part would be devoted to public transport, probably there you have sought of an initial answer. But in any case, it's clear that to start with we will need to funding at all levels. At the city level, this can be done by for instance earmarking certain contributions to investments in public transport, like parking charges, city tolls or taxes. National and regional authorities should support those policies and investments also through dedicated taxation. And I think it would be very useful to have specific EU funds for developing public transport. Because this could really accelerate the transition to clean and sustainable vehicles and speed up the digitalization and support new and flexible forms of public transport, such as on demand transport. And finally, we need to be aware that only by making public transport free is not going to make more people use it as also I think Georgina Montesinos mentioned before. Now, it is more important than ever to make public transport more attractive by investing heavily in infrastructure and service quality to make sure that trains and buses are fast, punctual and not overcrowded. In many places, it is also a question about expanding the networks and better coordinating the timetables to make it easier to travel. So to conclude, this is possible and already proven in an increasing number of cities, regions and even full countries. All this is a matter of political will and priority and ultimately for whom the mobility policies are designed. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much. Thank you, Lena. Thank you. Very interesting. I will ask, well, the information we have accumulated with these four interventions, I think that the four of them were extremely complimentary and excellent. We achieved a range, a very big snapshot of the whole situation. Thank you in advance to everyone. Let me ask a question or a possibility to add whatever you want, depending on what you left aside or what other interventions suggested to you. David, I want to ask you a question. I'm sure you can add whatever you want to. It is the relevant role of urban planning and the role that cities have and therefore in terms of mobility. I would like to focus on this only, but the difference between Barcelona and Madrid is very clear, not only because you go to one city, then you go to the other. You realize that there is a big difference between the models, the city models. So European dimension, I will go back to Lena. There's a regional, a local dimension, but the urban planning of cities has a very important, a very important power of dragging policies in terms of sustainable mobility. I don't know how you see this and you can contribute with your contribution. Well, ultimately, psychological terms. How can you design the built spaces? Well, this will orient the behavior of people and social groups. You can design spaces for common life, to share life, or areas that increase social lack of trust, as we could see before. The issue here is that if we compare this with the models, they are a typical model of greater growth, like in most states in North America, but not only in North America. They generate car dependent spheres, a very strong orientation towards the building of hard infrastructures oriented to car use. Ultimately, they generate a spiral of further away commuting. We could see that in Spain after the real estate bubble in many municipalities. People do things without planning, where there was a lack of planning. Therefore, I think, I believe now more than ever, in all the different promotions and developments and when treating consolidated areas, we had to give a priority to areas such as the subjective, social and psychological well-being, adaptation and mitigation, adaptation to the climate license. All these factors have to be key, the core elements, because ultimately the topic of public-private collaboration ended, unfortunately, maybe I'm being too tough, but it ended up in absolute subordination of urban growth. In the hands of some few hundreds of people, this cannot be so, because the result in the case of, for example, of a Madrid community, the growth was huge in the metropolitan area, because of the park and meeting with origin and destination, everything in the metropolitan area, the evolution was no good at all, because the metropolitan area in Barcelona, I don't remember the evolution data, but I know that the capital is balanced in the model distribution, but that's where we have the problem, the new promotions, the new advances and the superpopulation in certain areas. This generates some new types of behavior. Thank you. Let me add something. I thought it was very interesting, the element that includes, I'm not a psychologist, but I don't know how to call it. Well, the attitude that has to do with our culture of mobility, the psychological attitude, the internal behavior that connects with transport, I think there is a public policies dimension, but there's another element which is the cultural change, individual and collective, that it's evident that has big levels of resistance. I don't know if you can add a bit more on this, because there's this dimension that escapes the strict aspect of the public administration. Obviously, they have a role there, but goes beyond. The question is, here's the creation of an imaginarium. I mean, a certain imaginarium, a certain concept was created about mobility and what it should be like, and what cities should be like. It's something very specific of the year, of the 1950s of the past century, through all cultural transmission. It was something similar to what was done with tobacco smoking. Let's not forget the success. The male success, masculinity was built with respect to the car use and some masculinity patterns, which are very toxic, where you assimilate the deposition of a car and the possession of a woman. In publicity, we received all this is difficult to en route, but under a standpoint, under my standpoint, there's been a change, a clear change, maybe 20 years, or we see indicators like what happens in the rest of the world, where girls and boys get their driver's license later in their lives, even if you control the effect of crisis, but that trend continues. Why such a delay happens? Because the central role is being weakened. What about cars and adult life? Aspects like, as I said before, the attitude of the population towards urban changes of wanting better cities. Things have changed, elements such as what is being done in Barcelona, in central Madrid, and other areas. I see a trend in all cities, not only in Spain, but also in Europe. Let's think about Brussels, I think about Paris, let's think about London. All of this would have been impossible to imagine. There have been some levels of resistance, strong resistance in some cases. In many cases, really rooted in the media systems that still observe equivalent positions, as prevalent, and they are minority, but this happens all over the place. But I'm still optimistic, you know? So are we, so are we. I have a question. We should be finishing at 7.30 and we have to be wise in the use of time. I'd like you to explain the urban toll concept. Why do you think the urban toll is so positive? Why do you consider how this affects income levels and the different types of social typologies? Because with these pressure groups and with these banks of resistance, urban tax affects my freedom, some say. But I know that you have a proposal that was quite well structured considering different levels of income while adapting to it. Income levels and urban toll. Can you summarize this? Yes. Working with income is difficult. We could see that in other instances. There's a red line that needs to be crossed. But when we observe the urban toll, we had a question in our minds how to avoid these comparative grievance. I don't know if we need to change to Spanish. It's true. The ownership of a private vehicle is related to high income levels, but at times low income levels need to use a private transport. For example, if we have to move with a person who has a disability and who's not able to use a public transport in those cases, we consider it certain exceptions. Not exemptions, exemptions she provided herself. I don't remember them all now, but we observe these possibilities with vehicles that have a priority of passage. People who need their private cars for a specific need. Going to the hospital on a frequent basis. Low income levels for people who have the need of a vehicle for their work. Sometimes the vehicle is their work tool. Considering some margins and some limits, because at one you have to set limits. Why not me and others? Yes. So we have that's the limit. That's the limit we have. I don't remember the figures, but exemptions were different. We have the different exceptions listed, amongst which we have low income people, address people, unemployed people. All of these are concepts that we see in other spheres, like in ripping and it helps. It's in subventions. Well, thank you. It's on your website. This is very well explained in your website. Laura, you said something which is very interesting. There is a new sector of activity platforms. For example, in the case of home delivery, many people use riders services. And here we have a paradox, because on the one hand, not because companies want that, but it's a transport that we should call sustainable. Because in the city we had to promote this type of sustainable transport, but in social terms, this is a highly precarious and highly taxed group of people. Do you think that the union task, the union work and reflection has to do with the fact that when we gather both elements, the paradox is that this is one of the most sustainable types of transfers, but one of the most precarious types of transport, right? Well, I didn't talk about it. I think that Lina was the person that talked about it, but from our union we analyzed this. First of all, I'm no expert on the topic, but the liberalization is the first step because this opens up new doors to enter in a collective bargaining situation. And from there is where you can affect the transport systems, how much will a company pay, more efficient transport systems, all the issues of rest, of bonuses for different situations. You can analyze whether there are any biases of people in certain groups of people. And therefore it's interesting to see all the area of healthcare and prevention of all the riders and then the bike distribution, the area of analyzing healthcare risks. So the advice that they use are more ergonomic. The first point, as far as I'm concerned, is liberalization. They are considered, they have to be workers working for that platform because that is where we open up the possibility of generating a new analysis and changing things. Yes, it's a paradox, but it's also true that we see alternatives. The camera mistaking organized by the workers themselves, by riders themselves that consider the social criteria as well. And this is a positive element, observing not only economic criteria, but also a sustainable model environmentally, economically and socially. That is what is really interesting. Thank you. Lina, I think you could briefly contribute with respect to mobility and gender. Yes, exactly. As I mentioned before, I can expand a bit on that topic. But yeah, for instance, quite often, families have only one car and studies show that it's mainly men driving the cars and women tend to use public transport to much more than men. So therefore, to have a strong public transport network, it has a gender dimension and that is another reason why it is so important to invest in public transport. But also, when it comes to comes to active mobility, like cycling, for instance, the infrastructure that is designed for it for cycling. There, the risk perception of men and women is different. So a lack of proper safe active mobility infrastructure, it can have an impact on women's willingness to shift to active mobility. And yeah, this of course has consequences for the emission reduction, but it also has health aspects, because as you know cycling brings benefits for both reduce you to emissions and better air quality, and it has positive impacts on health. And yeah, talking about road safety, another example that showcases the gender bias is that of the dummies for the crash tests of cars. Because these dummies simulate an average male body, but of course the male body has different characteristics than a female body. So since cars are designed for men, research has shown that women are actually more likely to be seriously injured in car crashes. And also a study from the UK from May this year showed that women are almost twice as likely as men to be trapped in a vehicle after a traffic coalition. So this is a really important aspect and that's why we have been asking for the development of crash test dummies that represent more variability of both age and gender and size. Yeah, that was just some example but as I mentioned before, it is important to always include the gender aspect in in all transport and mobility legislation that we are working on and yeah this is something that we as greens are always trying to push for. And also, as I said earlier, we'll have a specific report that will be adopted by the parliament next year that will focus on exactly women and transport and there we will raise all these issues there. Thanks. Well, thank you very much for everything.