Decarbonizing Urban Transport: Policies and Challenges in Bucharest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a thorough policy analysis of Bucharest’s urban transport decarbonization in line with EU strategies. It is well-structured and informative, but would benefit from greater numerical clarity, consistency in source citation, and more precise definitions of key metrics (e.g., mode share targets, fleet statistics, and emission benchmarks). The proposed framework is ambitious, but some targets (e.g., 60% modal share, 100 km bike lanes) lack implementation details or baseline references. More concise data presentation and clearer monitoring indicators would enhance the paper’s policy relevance and academic rigor.

1. Add sources of all numerical values in section 2.3.2
2. Specify the methodology used to calculate 13 km/h average peak-hour speed.
3. Add more detail on how the 100 km protected cycle network will be phased.
4. Clarify funding sources (EU, national, etc.) for each proposed intervention in Table 2.
5. Explain what “B-Smart ticket” includes?
6. Give a numeric benchmark for the “Euro 4 ban 2027”. For example: expected number of vehicles affected.
7. Confirm how many of the 300 intersections will receive signal priority by 2030.
8. Clarify the cost difference between current fares and proposed €365 annual pass.
9. Give the cost estimate of installing 3000 EV chargers and who bears the cost.
10. Indicate how many public engagement events are planned annually.
11. State how many Park & Ride facilities currently exist and the target by 2030.
12. Define the limitations and future research.
13. Add more comparisons with other European cities in Table with references.

Author Response

We thank Reviewer #1 for their thoughtful and detailed feedback. We agree that numerical clarity, clearer sourcing, and more precise indicator definitions are essential to the paper’s academic and policy value. Below we respond to each point and explain how we have revised the manuscript accordingly.

Comment 1. Add sources of all numerical values in Section 2.3.2

Response 1:

• All numerical data in Section 2.3.2 have now been accompanied by in-text citations.
• Added additional source of STB statistics

Comment 2. Specify the methodology used to calculate 13 km/h average peak-hour speed

Response 2:

• The initial 13 km/h was from an older source
• The speed is now updated from Traffic Index ranking and cited accordingly

Comment 3. Add more detail on how the 100 km protected cycle network will be phased

Response 3:

• Section 3.1.4 Micromobility Enablement -Achieving 100 km of Lanes in 5 Years was restructure to provide more details

Comment 4. Clarify funding sources for each intervention in Table 2

Response 4:

• Table 3- Summary of Strategic Targets for Bucharest’s Public Transport System has been updated with an additional column identifying funding sources for each proposed intervention (e.g., EU Recovery and Resilience Facility, national transport budget, Bucharest City Hall own budget).

Comment 5. Explain what “B-Smart ticket” includes

Response 5:

• Upon a more detailed analysis, the Bsmart ticket pricing was restructured – please see sub -sections: Integration of STB and Metrorex Fares & B-smart ticket insection 3.1.1 Integrated Governance Approach

Comment 6. Give a numeric benchmark for the “Euro 4 ban 2027”

Response 6:

• Auhors decided to eliminate the “Euro 4 ban 2027” as data was very limited to create a well argued statistics
• Authors transformed the point into “Oxygen” vignette”

Comment 7. Confirm how many of the 300 intersections will receive signal priority by 2030

Response 7:

• Updated lines in the 3.1.2 Increasing Quality Public Transport via Service and Infrastructure Upgrade: “ The TPBI-led “Smart & Green Mobility Integrated System”[51] (part of the 2016–2030 SUMP) aims to equip intersections with signal priority. A traffic management center covering approx. 260 intersections with systems capable of PT priority, though not yet activated [52]. There are plans to expand Public Transport Management (PTM) and integrate PT signal priority, potentially covering another approx. 100 intersections pending funding [52].”

Comment 8. Clarify the cost difference between current fares and proposed €365 annual pass

Response 8:

• Upon a more detailed analysis, the B-smart ticket pricing was restructured – please see sub -sections: Integration of STB and Metrorex Fares & B-smart ticket in section 3.1.1 Integrated Governance Approach

Comment 9. Give the cost estimate of installing 3000 EV chargers and who bears the cost

Response 9: we added the text ,

At the level of September 2023, the Bucharest General Council reported that the number of the EV charging points were around 286 charging stations[54]. Moreover, the Bucharest City Hall announced the installation of 50 electric vehicle charging stations, each with two charging points, at 11 locations within the city. The total invest-ment value is estimated at €3.59 million, and the duration of implementation is 15 months[54].

Installing 3,000 EV chargers in Bucharest is feasible with an estimated budget of €10.5–15 million. The National Recovery and Resilience Plan[2] committed the funding for the construction of 6,500 charging stations by 2026. This rollout is viable through partnerships across European, national and municipal funding alongside private investment, paving the way for a scalable and sustainable EV charging network.

Comment 10. Indicate how many public engagement events are planned annually

Response10: no updates in the article because

• Authors did not find, to the best of their knowledge, any resource accessible that specifies City Hall or TPBI a specific number of consultations yearly.
• TPBI public documents emphasize stakeholder engagement but don’t enumerate consultation events or publish a calendar.

Comment 11. State how many Park & Ride facilities currently exist and the target by 2030

Response 1:

• we added the following information “Currently, there are 7 Park & Ride car parks operational in the Bucharest–Ilfov area. By 2030, the aim is to develop a total of 65 Park & Ride facilities in the region[13].”

Comment 12. Define the limitations and future research

Response 12: added section Limitations and future research ;

This study is based on secondary data, expert reports, and comparative policy analysis, which provides a robust yet indirect perspective on Bucharest’s mobility challenges and decarbonization potential. A key limitation is the absence of original empirical data (e.g., user surveys, traffic measurements, stakeholder interviews) to validate behavioral trends, institutional bottlenecks, or public sentiment shifts. Moreover, while the paper draws parallels with leading European cities, it does not offer a fully quantitative benchmarking or scenario modelling approach that could refine policy forecasting.

Future research could address these gaps by conducting longitudinal studies on the impact of specific interventions, such as the expansion of bus lanes or the introduction of low-emission zones, on mode shift, emissions, and user satisfaction. Another promising direction would be to assess the equity impacts of sustainable mobility re-forms across demographic groups, using tools like social impact assessment or transport justice frameworks. Finally, as institutional reform is a critical factor in poli-cy success, further studies could explore how governance structures like TPBI evolve over time and what mechanisms enhance their accountability, coordination, and adaptability in the face of political change.

Comment 13. Add more comparisons with other European cities in Table with references

Response 13:

• We expanded the section 2.3.2 Public transport network and usage patterns in Bucharest
• Added Table 1 Comparative Urban Mobility and Quality of Life Indicators in Selected European Cities and respectively the comments
• See lines 512 - 529

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very interesting and deals with a timely aspect of transportation engineering. The presented data for urban mobility trends are given in a meaningful manner. The following comments are given for the authors:

1_ The objective statement is unclear or even missing. At the end of the introduction, you are expected to clearly add the related statement.

2_ For the paper’s structure, a methodological flowchart could also be added (see also point No. 4).

3_ I would also suggest adding some discussion points about the role of infrastructure in the fuel consumption efficiency and the overall decarbonization attempt, and how an optimized road design can aid toward achieving sustainability goals in transportation. You may see and cite https://doi.org/10.3390/modelling5030039

4_ A problem with this paper is the absence of tables and figures. Too much text, that albeit valuable, needs to be accompanied by a more illustrative presentation.

5_ References are out of the requested mdpi format. Please consult the related guidelines.

6_ I would also suggest making some more general recommendations without being limited to a localized scale, that of Bucharest. I mean how this study could also inspire other researchers or decision-makers/stakeholders toward the goal of decarbonization.

7_ There are additional acronyms (e.g., CRF, NGO) that should be added in the abbreviation list.

8_ I am a bit confused about which is the preferable type for your paper. Is this really an article or it seems more like being a review paper? In the former case, you must clearly present new data and produce new knowledge rather than simply making a synthesis. Please reconsider.

Author Response

We sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for the positive remarks and constructive recommendations. The following actions have been taken to address each point.

 

Comment 1. The objective statement is unclear or missing

Response: We revised the final paragraph of the introduction to include a clearly articulated objective:

The study’s original contribution lies in bridging the disjuncture between EU/ national climate goals and on-ground implementation in Bucharest. Drawing on the multi-level governance perspective and referencing the “Avoid–Shift–Improve” framework for sustainable mobility, we evaluate how policy priorities are interpreted and operationalized in Bucharest’s urban mobility system. The research objective is thus: to assess the alignment between EU and Romanian decarbonization policies and Bucharest’s implementation practices, and to derive a framework that includes recommendations based on lessons for governance, stakeholder coordination, and systemic reform.

 

Comment 2. Add a methodological flowchart

Response:

• A new figure (Figure 1) that presents a methodological flowchart illustrating the paper’s structure was added in section Materials and Methods

 

Comment 3. Discuss the role of infrastructure in decarbonization

Response:  we added “ 2.3.1 Transport Infrastructure

Infrastructure quality and configuration significantly influence energy use and emissions in urban transport systems. A recent modelling study [21] demonstrated that smoother pavement surfaces, optimized intersection signal timing, and geometric enhancements can reduce CO₂ emissions by up to 15% on key urban corridors. In contrast, reactive infrastructure expansion, such as road widening without modal shift incentives, risks triggering induced demand. Therefore, in cities like Bucharest, infra-structure decarbonization must prioritize efficient traffic management, micromobility enabling designs, and demand-side controls to avoid counterproductive outcomes.”

 

Comment 4. Paper lacks figures and tables

Response:

We have substantially improved the visual structure by adding more figures

• Figure 1: Methodological flowchart
• Figure 4 Stakeholders of the public transport in Bucharest - funding and operating
• Table 1 Comparative Urban Mobility and Quality of Life Indicators in Selected European Cities

 

Comment 5. References not in MDPI format

Response:

• We formatted all references according to the MDPI style. The Style files „Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute „ for Mendeley was used.

 

Comment 6. Make more general recommendations

Response:

• The Conclusion section has been revised to include transferable recommendations.
• See lines 1264-1276; 1314-1317

 

Comment 7. Abbreviation list incomplete

Response:

• We included a full abbreviation list at the end of the manuscript. Entries like CRF, NGO, are all defined upon first use and listed alphabetically.

 

Comment 8. Article vs. review format

Response:

• We acknowledge the concern regarding the article type. This is a case-study-based policy analysis paper, not a traditional systematic review. While it synthesizes secondary sources, it builds a context-specific analytical narrative and proposes a conceptual framework. This clarification is now included in both the Methods and Conclusion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the manuscript tackles a timely and relevant topic, its contribution to academic literature is not clearly articulated. The paper heavily synthesizes existing policy documents and reports but lacks novel analytical insights or original empirical work. To enhance academic value, the authors should better highlight their original contributions—whether analytical frameworks, empirical analyses, or policy recommendations specific to the Bucharest context. More detailed coments are provided as follows.

1. While the paper presents a useful synthesis of EU and Romanian urban mobility policies, it does not clearly articulate what its novel academic contribution is. For example, the introduction (lines 8–21) and Section 2.1 (lines 70–176) summarize well-known strategies like the Green Deal and “Fit for 55” without identifying a unique research gap or theoretical framework developed by the authors. The authors should clearly state whether the value lies in a new conceptual framework, empirical insights from Bucharest, or a comparative approach.
2. The "Materials and Methods" section (lines 57–69) claims a policy analysis and stakeholder mapping approach, yet no details are provided about how this was conducted. It is unclear whether qualitative interviews, surveys, or any analytical frameworks were applied. Simply stating that “the analysis integrates quantitative data and qualitative insights from news and expert reports” (lines 64–65) is insufficient for academic rigor. A transparent, replicable methodology is essential.
3. Sections such as 2.2 and 2.3 (lines 177–544) present a thorough compilation of Romanian and Bucharest-specific transport policies and infrastructure developments. However, they are largely descriptive and do not engage in critical analysis or comparison. For instance, the paragraph on car ownership trends (lines 441–481) discusses correlations but does not analyze implications or causality. Including empirical validation, such as survey data analysis or stakeholder interviews, would greatly enhance the depth.
4. While Section 3.2 (lines 773–805) identifies key actors (TPBI, STB, City Hall, etc.), it provides only a superficial overview of their roles without addressing governance challenges such as fragmentation, overlapping mandates, or political resistance. For example, the note that "Bucharest's governance aspects are currently split among STB, Metrorex, and six district administrations" (lines 666–669) should be expanded with analysis of how this impacts implementation of mobility reforms.
5. The manuscript tends to describe intended outcomes (e.g., electrification, congestion pricing) optimistically but underplays the political and practical difficulties, such as the failed “Oxygen Vignette” (line 750). Section 3.1.5 (lines 739–761) on discouraging car use briefly mentions political sensitivity, but more critical discussion is needed—what are the barriers, public attitudes, or institutional failures that hinder progress?

Author Response

We thank the reviewer #3  for the constructive and thoughtful feedback. We appreciate the emphasis on enhancing academic rigor and clarity of contribution. We hope these revisions below clarify our analytical contribution and improve the paper’s academic value.

1. While the paper presents a useful synthesis of EU and Romanian urban mobility policies, it does not clearly articulate what its novel academic contribution is. For example, the introduction (lines 8–21) and Section 2.1 (lines 70–176) summarize well-known strategies like the Green Deal and “Fit for 55” without identifying a unique research gap or theoretical framework developed by the authors. The authors should clearly state whether the value lies in a new conceptual framework, empirical insights from Bucharest, or a comparative approach.

 

Response

 

We have now clearly articulated the paper’s novel contribution: a context-sensitive analytical synthesis of urban mobility governance in Bucharest, framed through transferable lessons for Central and Eastern European (CEE) cities, where gaps remain in both empirical research and policy implementation. This framing is introduced in the revised introduction and conclusion.

 

We clarified the point, in lines 45-52

The study’s original contribution lies in bridging the disjuncture between EU/ na-tional climate goals and on-ground implementation in Bucharest. Drawing on the mul-ti-level governance perspective and referencing the “Avoid–Shift–Improve” frame-work for sustainable mobility, we evaluate how policy priorities are interpreted and operationalized in Bucharest’s urban mobility system. The research objective is thus: to assess the alignment between EU and Romanian decarbonization policies and Bucharest’s implementation practices, and to derive a framework that includes recommendations based on lessons for governance, stakeholder coordination, and systemic reform.

 

 

1. The "Materials and Methods" section (lines 57–69) claims a policy analysis and stakeholder mapping approach, yet no details are provided about how this was conducted. It is unclear whether qualitative interviews, surveys, or any analytical frameworks were applied. Simply stating that “the analysis integrates quantitative data and qualitative insights from news and expert reports” (lines 64–65) is insufficient for academic rigor. A transparent, replicable methodology is essential.

 

Response

The Materials and Methods section has been revised to provide greater detail on our analytical approach, including the use of a structured content analysis of national and EU documents, supported by stakeholder mapping based on published reports and grey literature. We clarify the source triangulation and provide a more transparent methodological rationale.

 

We clarified the point, in lines 98-111

This study adopts a qualitative policy analysis approach to investigate how European decarbonization frameworks are translated into local-level interventions in Bucharest. The methodological structure (illustrated in Figure 1) includes the following stages: (1) review of EU-level strategies (i.e. European Green Deal, the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (SSMS), and the “Fit for 55” package) ; (2) analysis of Romania’s national frameworks and institutional settings (i.e. the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP)[2] and the draft National Sustainable Mobility Strategy[3]); (3) mapping of governance actors and stakeholder roles (i.e. public and private) ; (4) syn-thesis of public transport and mobility data (i.e. STB, TBPI); and (5) assessment of implementation gaps and policy recommendations. The result is a framework for Bucha-rest’s public transport system. The analysis is grounded in secondary data (policy documents, statistics, technical reports, and expert commentary) and uses a conceptual framing informed by multilevel governance theory and the "Avoid–Shift–Improve" (ASI) model for sustainable transport transitions.

 

 

1. Sections such as 2.2 and 2.3 (lines 177–544) present a thorough compilation of Romanian and Bucharest-specific transport policies and infrastructure developments. However, they are largely descriptive and do not engage in critical analysis or comparison. For instance, the paragraph on car ownership trends (lines 441–481) discusses correlations but does not analyze implications or causality. Including empirical validation, such as survey data analysis or stakeholder interviews, would greatly enhance the depth.

 

Response

We have added critical commentary and causal interpretation to the discussion of car ownership, infrastructure outcomes, and urban governance, moving beyond descriptive synthesis. Empirical insights from secondary sources (e.g., surveys, mobility behavior data, stakeholder reports) have been explicitly analyzed rather than summarized.

Updated 2.3.1 Transport Infrastructure – Quantity vs. Quality Dilemma line 44425-440

Bucharest’s infrastructure developments between 2000 and 2024 reflect a sustained effort to address congestion and modernize transport networks. Projects like the Basarab Overpass, smart traffic lights, and 22 km of bus lanes are steps in the right di-rection. However, these projects often suffer from cost overruns, delays, and limited systemic impact due to poor coordination and a reactive planning approach.

For example, while overpasses reduce local congestion points, they do little to discourage car use or improve overall travel behavior. In contrast, cities such as Milan or Ghent have reallocated street space toward sustainable modes with greater emissions benefits. Likewise, smart traffic systems in Bucharest remain largely theoretical, with minimal integration across transport modes.

The SUMP for Bucharest–Ilfov targets a €7 billion investment by 2030, with ambitious infrastructure goals: 900 new vehicles, 41 km of new tram tracks, 65 Park & Rides, and a significant metro expansion[15,26,27]. These investments are commendable, yet fragmented institutional roles and unpredictable funding absorption under-mine holistic delivery. The challenge remains to shift from scattered capital projects to integrated mobility systems that prioritize sustainability, reliability, and accessibility.

Updated 2.3.2 Public Transport Network and Usage Patterns in Bucharest – line 584-599

To put things in perspective we have analysis a series of indicators for Bucharest alongside Vienna, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Paris, and Budapest (see table 1).

Bucharest lags significantly in satisfaction with public transport (52%) compared to cities like Vienna (95%) and Amsterdam (93%), despite a relatively high usage rate (~44% modal share). This suggests high dependency but low perceived quality, point-ing to a need for investment in reliability, comfort, and service integration.

Cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, with cycling shares of 35% and 30%, show that strategic investment in bike infrastructure correlates with reduced car use and better air quality. Bucharest’s cycling rate remains negligible due to infrastructure and safety barriers, reinforcing the need for dedicated, protected cycling corridors.

Bucharest presents a paradox of relatively high public transport use but poor in-frastructure satisfaction, low environmental quality, and weak support for active mo-bility. The comparison highlights the urgent need for systemic reform, focusing on in-tegration, infrastructure modernization, and public space design, to align with the best practices of leading European cities.

 

Updated 2.3.3 Private Vehicle Ownership and Usage Trends, lines 527-541

The correlation coefficient of 0.92 between Bucharest’s GDP per capita and car numbers suggests that rising incomes are strongly associated with increased car ownership. However, this should not be interpreted as an inevitable trajectory. In cities like Vienna or Copenhagen, rising GDP coincided with falling car usage due to proactive policies that disincentivized driving and improved alternatives. By contrast, Bucha-rest’s negative correlation (–0.81) between population and GDP may indicate that economic growth is increasingly concentrated among mobile suburban populations, who depend more heavily on private cars due to sprawl and public transport gaps.

The policy implication is clear: unless constraints are introduced on car use and more attractive multimodal alternatives are developed, rising income will continue to fuel car dependency. The failure to reintroduce a “polluter pays” tax or establish meaningful low-emission zones reflects a political unwillingness to challenge car culture. Without fiscal or regulatory deterrents, the modest growth in EVs and hybrids (now about 10% of new sales) will not be sufficient to reverse emissions trends. Importantly, the aging fleet, average age 15.3 years[46], with over 33% above 20 years, continues to anchor the city in a high-emissions equilibrium.

In this context, Bucharest contrasts sharply with peer cities like Budapest and Warsaw, which have begun implementing stricter low-emission zones, congestion pricing pilots, or vehicle entry restrictions. Bucharest's current path, of high owner-ship, weak enforcement, and underwhelming EV infrastructure, risks locking the city into a cycle of worsening congestion, pollution, and modal inefficiency.

2.3.4 Public Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Sustainable Mobility - Lines  681-694

Despite strong ridership figures, many residents still prefer cars for short trips (<3 km) due to safety concerns, unreliable transit, and poor infrastructure for cycling and walking. The modal mismatch reflects systemic failures, not user irrationality.

Survey data showing poor satisfaction with air quality, green space, and walka-bility underline a deeper legitimacy crisis in urban transport policy. The rejection of the 2020 “Oxygen” vignette exemplifies how reform attempts falter without strong civic engagement and equitable design[12].

Critically, EV adoption trends (growing but still <10%) suggest high responsive-ness to subsidies like Rabla Plus[17]. However, without rapid expansion of charging infrastructure, this potential will plateau. Moreover, EVs alone cannot solve conges-tion or reclaim public space, only a mode shift can.

Bucharest thus stands at a crossroads. The foundations for a shift to sustainable mobility exist but require systemic, rather than piecemeal, change: integrated plan-ning, robust enforcement, civic trust, and a clear vision beyond car ownership as a status symbol.

1. While Section 3.2 (lines 773–805) identifies key actors (TPBI, STB, City Hall, etc.), it provides only a superficial overview of their roles without addressing governance challenges such as fragmentation, overlapping mandates, or political resistance. For example, the note that "Bucharest's governance aspects are currently split among STB, Metrorex, and six district administrations" (lines 666–669) should be expanded with analysis of how this impacts implementation of mobility reforms.

Response         

The section on stakeholders and governance (3.2) has been substantially expanded to address the institutional fragmentation, political constraints, and overlapping mandates that impact implementation. We include examples of failed coordination and delayed projects to support this analysis.

3.2. Stakeholders involved in the framework implementation 

lines 1032-1035

This overlapping structure has historically resulted in fragmented authority, overlap-ping mandates, and limited coordination, especially in domains like public space re-configuration or bike lane development, which may require both central and sectoral approvals. This has slowed or obstructed key mobility reforms.

However, their effectiveness has often been constrained by the lack of clear metropolitan authority. While TPBI was created to coordinate the Bucharest–Ilfov mobility system, its role and resources remain limited, often dependent on political consensus between the City Hall and Ilfov County, which is not always forthcoming.

Lines 1064-1067 

However, despite this political discourse, implementation has faced strong resistance from local bureaucracies, sectoral city halls, and even the Traffic Police, which rejected several bike lane projects on legal or safety grounds. This reflects deeper institutional frictions and a lack of integrated decision-making mechanisms.

 

Lines 1085-1096

Yet, coordination between ministries and the municipality has often been reactive rather than strategic. For example, Metrorex and STB remain under separate governance with different planning cycles, hindering system integration. Political turnover and lack of inter-institutional agreements exacerbate delays in infrastructure delivery and digital systems harmonization (e.g., unified ticketing).

Transport operators like STB and Metrorex are responsible for project implementation and service delivery. STB operates under City Hall guidance, executing tasks like expanding networks, purchasing vehicles, and managing services. Metrorex, funded and overseen by the national government, manages the metro infrastructure.

Their mandates are not aligned: STB is managed locally, Metrorex centrally, yet both serve overlapping catchments in the city. This fragmented oversight limits joint planning for schedules, fare integration, and last-mile connectivity.

Line 1114-1116

However, despite their active engagement, their role in formal decision-making is minimal, and participatory planning remains underdeveloped.

Despite the presence of multiple actors with converging goals, the absence of a binding metropolitan authority and the lack of a shared implementation roadmap have repeatedly led to policy incoherence. This undermines continuity and credibility.

1. The manuscript tends to describe intended outcomes (e.g., electrification, congestion pricing) optimistically but underplays the political and practical difficulties, such as the failed “Oxygen Vignette” (line 750). Section 3.1.5 (lines 739–761) on discouraging car use briefly mentions political sensitivity, but more critical discussion is needed—what are the barriers, public attitudes, or institutional failures that hinder progress?

Response

In Section 3.1.5, we have strengthened the discussion of barriers to car restraint policies, particularly in relation to the political failure of the “Oxygen Vignette”, highlighting institutional resistance, public perception, and the lack of enforcement capacity.

 3.1.5 Discouraging Private Vehicle Use: Aligning Prices with Externalities

Introduced paragraphs  

-line 953-956

However, previous attempts to reform parking (e.g., increasing rates in the city center) have faced strong resistance from both the public and local sectoral authorities. Enforcement remains uneven, with illegal parking often tolerated due to political reluctance and under-resourced policing.

Line 960-961

This failure was not merely a matter of poor communication but also reflected a lack of inter-institutional coordination, political opposition from both national and local actors, and low public awareness of the air quality crisis.

 

Lines 967-971

Yet this is among the most politically sensitive reforms, often perceived as penalizing lower-income drivers in the absence of viable public transport alternatives. This subject is politically sensitive, so it should be studied and piloted carefully. Public attitudes remain ambivalent, with surveys showing limited willingness to pay unless transit quality improves significantly.

Lines 976-980

Nevertheless, these cities had strong metropolitan authorities and sustained public engagement strategies—conditions that Bucharest currently lacks. For congestion charging to succeed, institutional reforms (e.g., stronger metropolitan governance, data-sharing mechanisms) and strategic framing (e.g., equity safeguards and reinvestment promises) are prerequisites

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the remarks. It is acceptable from my side.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors incorporated revisions according to the comments.