Understanding the Policy and Program Structure 

of National and International Freight Corridor 

Programs in the European Union

Sponsored by

In cooperation with

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Highway Research Program

AUGUST 2012

International Technology

Scanning Program
2 Introduction

NOTICE

The Federal Highway Administration provides 

high-quality information to serve Government, 

industry, and the public in a manner that 

promotes public understanding. Standards and 

policies are used to ensure and maximize the 

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality 

issues and adjusts its programs and processes 

to ensure continuous quality improvement.
1. Report No.

FHWA-PL-12-023

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of 

National and International Freight Corridor Programs 

in the European Union

5. Report Date

August 2012

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) 

Anthony T. Furst, Eric G. Madden, Eduardo Asperó, 

Monica M. Blaney, David F. Long, Bernardo J. Ortiz, 

Robert L. Penne, Ernest B. Perry, George E. Schoener, 

Renee Sigel, Spencer L. Stevens, Kenneth L. Sweeney, 

Juan C. Villa

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

American Trade Initiatives

P.O. Box 8228

Alexandria, VA 22306-8228

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-C-00027

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of International Programs

Federal Highway Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State Highway 

 and Transportation Officials

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTR: Hana Maier, Office of International Programs

16. Abstract

Growing global competition requires maximizing the efficiency of freight movement on the U.S. transportation 

network. The Federal Highway Administration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, and National Cooperative Highway Research Program sponsored a scanning study to learn how the 

European Union and various member states developed, evolved, and implemented freight transportation corridor 

programs on national and cross-jurisdictional levels.

The scan team learned that European Union transportation policies focus on corridors and on connecting transport 

chains to and from neighboring countries and overseas, making freight transport more efficient and sustainable. It 

observed that a unifying vision linking transportation and the economy is a key element of the Trans-European 

Transport Network. Team recommendations for U.S. implementation include coordinating freight-planning efforts 

throughout North America, determining low-cost efforts to improve freight transportation, and using private-sector 

planning resources to aid public-sector planning, 

17. Key Words

European Union, freight corridor program, 

freight policy, Trans-European Transport Network, 

transportation infrastructure

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

from the: Office of International Programs, FHWAHPIP, Room 3325, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Washington, DC 20590

international@fhwa.dot.gov

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

19. Security Classify. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classify. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

56

22. Price

Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Technical Report Documentation Page

Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union iii

Understanding the Policy and Program Structure 

of National and International Freight Corridor 

Programs in the European Union

Anthony T. Furst (FHWA Cochair)

FHWA 

Eric G. Madden (AASHTO Cochair)

Pennsylvania DOT

Eduardo Asperó

Mexico Intermodal Transportation 

Association 

Monica M. Blaney

Transport Canada

David F. Long

International Trade Administration

Bernardo J. Ortiz

Mexico Ministry of Communications 

and Transport 

Robert L. Penne

AASHTO

Ernest B. Perry

Missouri DOT 

George E. Schoener

I-95 Corridor Coalition 

Renee Sigel

FHWA

Spencer L. Stevens

FHWA

Kenneth L. Sweeney

Maine DOT 

Juan C. Villa (Report Facilitator)

Texas Transportation Institute 

for

Federal Highway Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation

American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials

National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program

AUGUST 2012

Prepared by the International Scanning Study Team
iv 

The International Technology Scanning Program, sponsored by 

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), and the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP), evaluates innovative foreign technologies 

and practices that could significantly benefit U.S. highway 

transportation systems. This approach allows for advanced 

technology to be adapted and put into practice much more 

efficiently without spending scarce research funds to re-create 

advances already developed by other countries.

FHWA and AASHTO, with recommendations from NCHRP, 

jointly determine priority topics for teams of U.S. experts to 

study. Teams in the specific areas being investigated are formed 

and sent to countries where significant advances and innovations 

have been made in technology, management practices, 

organizational structure, program delivery, and financing. 

Scan teams usually include representatives from FHWA, State 

departments of transportation, local governments, transportation 

trade and research groups, the private sector, and academia. 

After a scan is completed, team members evaluate findings and 

develop comprehensive reports, including recommendations for 

further research and pilot projects to verify the value of adapting 

innovations for U.S. use. Scan reports, as well as the results of 

pilot programs and research, are circulated throughout the 

country to State and local transportation officials and the private 

sector. Since 1990, more than 85 international scans have been 

organized on topics such as pavements, bridge construction and 

maintenance, contracting, intermodal transport, organizational 

management, winter road maintenance, safety, intelligent 

transportation systems, planning, and policy. 

The International Technology Scanning Program has resulted 

in significant improvements and savings in road program 

technologies and practices throughout the United States. In 

some cases, scan studies have facilitated joint research and 

technology-sharing projects with international counterparts, 

further conserving resources and advancing the state of the art. 

Scan studies have also exposed transportation professionals 

to remarkable advancements and inspired implementation of 

hundreds of innovations. The result: large savings of research 

dollars and time, as well as significant improvements in the 

Nation’s transportation system.

Scan reports can be obtained through FHWA free of charge 

by e-mailing international@dot.gov. Scan reports are also a

vailable electronically and can be accessed on the 

FHWA Office of International Programs Web site at 

www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.

International Technology Scanning Program
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union v

Safety

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe (2010)

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe (2010)

Improving Safety and Mobility for Older Road Users in Australia 

and Japan (2008)

Safety Applications of Intelligent Transportation Systems in 

Europe and Japan (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, 

Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)

Roadway Human Factors and Behavioral Safety in Europe 

(2005) 

Traffic Safety Information Systems in Europe and Australia 

(2004) 

Signalized Intersection Safety in Europe (2003) 

Managing and Organizing Comprehensive Highway Safety in 

Europe (2003) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Commercial Vehicle Safety, Technology, and Practice in Europe 

(2000) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European 

Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe 

(1999) 

Road Safety Audits—Final Report and Case Studies (1997) 

Speed Management and Enforcement Technology: Europe and 

Australia 1996) 

Safety Management Practices in Japan, Australia, and New 

Zealand (1995) 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety in England, Germany, and the 

Netherlands (1994) 

Planning and Environment 

Reducing Congestion and Funding Transportation Using Road 

Pricing In Europe and Singapore (2010)

Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability (2010)

Streamlining and Integrating Right-of-Way and Utility Processes 

With Planning, Environmental, and Design Processes in 

Australia and Canada (2009)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion 

Management (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives to 

U.S. Practice (2006)

Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, 

England, and New Zealand (2005)

Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, 

Japan, and New Zealand (2004) 

European Right-of-Way and Utilities Best Practices (2002) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2002) 

Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Across European Highways 

(2002) 

Sustainable Transportation Practices in Europe (2001) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments (1999) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and 

Technology (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

Policy and Information 

Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National 

and International Freight Corridor Programs in the 

European Union (2011)

Outdoor Advertising Control Practices in Australia, Europe, and 

Japan European (2011)

Transportation Research Program Administration in Europe and 

Asia (2009)

 Practices in Transportation Workforce Development (2003) 

Intelligent Transportation Systems and Winter Operations in 

Japan (2003) 

Emerging Models for Delivering Transportation Programs and 

Services (1999) 

National Travel Surveys (1994) 

Acquiring Highway Transportation Information From Abroad 

(1994) 

International Guide to Highway Transportation Information 

(1994) 

International Contract Administration Techniques for Quality 

Enhancement (1994) 

European Intermodal Programs: Planning, Policy, and 

Technology (1994) 

International Technology Scan Reports

International Technology Scanning Program: Bringing Global Innovations to U.S. Highways 
vi International Technology Scan Reports

Operations 

Freight Mobility and Intermodal Connectivity in China (2008)

Commercial Motor Vehicle Size and Weight Enforcement in 

Europe (2007)

Active Travel Management: The Next Step in Congestion 

Management (2007)

Managing Travel Demand: Applying European Perspectives to 

U.S. Practice (2006)

Traffic Incident Response Practices in Europe (2006)

Underground Transportation Systems in Europe: Safety, 

Operations, and Emergency Response (2006)

Superior Materials, Advanced Test Methods, and Specifications in 

Europe (2004) 

Freight Transportation: The Latin American Market (2003) 

Meeting 21st Century Challenges of System Performance Through 

Better Operations (2003) 

Traveler Information Systems in Europe (2003) 

Freight Transportation: The European Market (2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Methods and Procedures to Reduce Motorist Delays in European 

Work Zones (2000) 

Innovative Traffic Control Technology and Practice in Europe 

(1999) 

European Winter Service Technology (1998) 

Traffic Management and Traveler Information Systems (1997) 

European Traffic Monitoring (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

Winter Maintenance Technology and Practices—Learning from 

Abroad (1995) 

Advanced Transportation Technology (1994) 

Snowbreak Forest Book—Highway Snowstorm Countermeasure 

Manual (1990) 

Infrastructure—General 

Freeway Geometric Design for Active Traffic Management in 

Europe (2011)

Public-Private Partnerships for Highway Infrastructure: 

Capitalizing on International Experience (2009)

Audit Stewardship and Oversight of Large and Innovatively 

Funded Projects in Europe (2006)

Construction Management Practices in Canada and Europe 

(2005) 

European Practices in Transportation Workforce Development 

(2003) 

Contract Administration: Technology and Practice in Europe 

(2002) 

European Road Lighting Technologies (2001) 

Geometric Design Practices for European Roads (2001) 

Geotechnical Engineering Practices in Canada and Europe 

(1999) 

Geotechnology—Soil Nailing (1993) 

Infrastructure—Pavements

Warm-Mix Asphalt: European Practice (2008)

Long-Life Concrete Pavements in Europe and Canada (2007)

Quiet Pavement Systems in Europe (2005)

Pavement Preservation Technology in France, South Africa, and 

Australia (2003) 

Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments (1999) 

South African Pavement and Other Highway Technologies and 

Practices (1997) 

Highway/Commercial Vehicle Interaction (1996) 

European Concrete Highways (1992) 

European Asphalt Technology (1990) 

Infrastructure—Bridges 

Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability in Europe (2010)

Bridge Evaluation Quality Assurance in Europe (2008)

Prefabricated Bridge Elements and Systems in Japan and Europe 

(2005) 

Bridge Preservation and Maintenance in Europe and South 

Africa (2005) 

Performance of Concrete Segmental and Cable-Stayed Bridges in 

Europe (2001) 

Steel Bridge Fabrication Technologies in Europe and Japan 

(2001) 

European Practices for Bridge Scour and Stream Instability 

Countermeasures (1999) 

Advanced Composites in Bridges in Europe and Japan (1997) 

Asian Bridge Structures (1997) 

Bridge Maintenance Coatings (1997) 

Northumberland Strait Crossing Project (1996) 

European Bridge Structures (1995) 

All publications are available on the Internet 

at www.international.fhwa.dot.gov.
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union vii

Contents

Executive Summary ......................... 1

Introduction.................................. 1

Objectives ................................... 1

Host Country Information ....................... 1

Summary of Findings ........................... 2

Conclusions .................................. 3

Implementation Plan............................ 4

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................... 5

Background .................................. 5

Purpose and Objectives.......................... 5

International Technology Scanning Program .......... 6

Scan Team Members ............................ 6

Host Country Information ....................... 7

Report Organization............................ 7

Chapter 2: EU Freight Transportation 

System Structure ............................. 9

European Union ............................... 9

EU Freight Transportation System................. 10

Chapter 3: EU Freight Transportation 

Corridor Policies............................. 13

Freight Corridor Policy ......................... 14

Findings on Policy ............................ 14

Chapter 4: Planning Processes ............... 19

Key Findings on Planning ....................... 19

Chapter 5: Sustainability of Freight 

Transportation............................... 25

Inland Waterways ............................. 25

Key Findings on Sustainability.................... 26

Chapter 6: Funding Structure ................ 29

Public-Private Partnerships ...................... 29

Road Charging ............................... 31

Key Findings on Funding ....................... 32

Chapter 7: Freight Corridor 

Implementation and Operations.............. 33

Project Coordination .......................... 33

European Rail Operations....................... 33

Key Findings on Operations ..................... 34

Chapter 8: Conclusions and 

Implementation Plan......................... 35

Conclusions ................................. 35

Recommended Implementation Actions ............ 37

Appendix A: Scan Team Members ........... 39

Appendix B: Host Country Contacts.......... 43

Appendix C: Amplifying Questions........... 45

Figures

Figure 1. EU international freight corridor program 

scan team members. ............................ 7

Figure 2. EU’s enlargements in the 2000s ........... 9

Figure 3. Trans-European Transport Network 30 

priority axes and projects........................ 11

Figure 4. DG MOVE and TEN-T EA functions..... 12

Figure 5. Trans-European road comprehensive 

network .................................... 16

Figure 6. Core network possible city nodes and 

port clusters ................................. 18

Figure 7. Development process for Hungarian 

expressway network............................ 20

Figure 8. Components of the evaluation process of 

the German Federal Infrastructure Plan ............. 21

Figure 9. Corridor 1: Berlin-Verona/MilanoBologna-Napoli-Messina-Palermo ................. 22

Figure 10. Hungarian long-term development plan 

of the expressway network (2034) ................. 22

Figure 11. Polish east and south corridor connections . . 23

Figure 12. Danube inland waterway system ........ 26

Figure 13. TEN-T funding and financing 

framework (2007–2013)........................ 31

Figure 14. Antwerp-Valencia rail line characteristics . . 33
viii 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 1

Executive Summary

Introduction

To provide efficient goods movement on the U.S. transportation 

network, the United States will need to undertake new 

approaches. An approach advanced by industry groups as a 

potential path forward for the continued economic prosperity 

and competitiveness of the United States is a focus on corridorlevel thinking. A corridor approach can help focus the Nation’s 

assets and resources on key transportation infrastructure that 

supports national economic activity.

The European Union (EU) adopted the corridor approach 

in the mid-1990s and has continually evolved its freight 

corridor program with the admission of new member states, 

increased freight volumes, and the changing demands, including 

environmental sustainability, placed on the transportation 

network. The EU views this corridor approach as strategically 

important to its global economic competitiveness. Given EU’s 

experience with this concept, the scanning study was designed to 

engage the European Commission and key member states in the 

policy, funding, and programmatic implications of integrating 

corridors into their transportation planning. 

Objectives

The purpose of the scanning study was to learn from the EU 

and various member states how they developed, evolved, and 

implemented freight transportation corridor programs on a 

national and cross-jurisdictional level. The scan indentified 

opportunities for North American freight corridors and 

developed contacts in other countries that the United States may 

partner with in the future. The information gathered during the 

scan will help stakeholders make informed decisions, allow for 

stronger strategies and approaches, and create better programs. 

The project had the following specific goals:

■ Identify innovative freight policy issues as they relate to 

freight corridor programs.

■ Understand the institutional, organizational, and 

administrative structure of freight corridor programs, 

including the planning, programming, development, 

and implementation of those programs.

■ Understand how specific corridors are selected, 

including the method used for prioritization.

■ Understand how corridor improvements and operations 

are financed and managed, including cost-benefit 

analysis, and the benefits of such programs.

■ Understand the inner workings of the policies and 

mechanisms of freight programs, including the 

leadership required to develop and implement policies.

■ Identify how freight corridor policies are translated into 

program definitions and project delivery.

■ Identify how performance standards and measures 

are developed and managed as they relate to freight 

corridors’ impact on safety, congestion, mobility, 

reliability, infrastructure condition, air quality, user 

satisfaction, and emergency response.

■ Identify ways to foster international collaboration on 

freight corridor issues.

Host Country Information

Before the scan team went to Europe, it analyzed information 

on development of the freight corridor program in Europe to 

determine which countries to visit. The team decided to visit 

the European Commission (EC) in Brussels, Belgium, five 

member countries, and the European Investment Bank (EIB). 

The EC was chosen because it is the organization that defines 

transportation policies and works with member countries to 

develop implementation plans. The team visited the EC at the 

beginning of the study to gather general information on policies 

and plans pertaining to freight corridor development and 

implementation. The team returned to the EC after visiting the 

member countries to get feedback and more detailed information 

on specific points that arose in meetings with member country 

officials. The team visited the EIB to learn about its role in 

financing transportation infrastructure projects.

The team visited Austria, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, 

and Poland because they have cities that are key nodes on 

priority multimodal transportation corridors and they represent 

a mix of EU founding members and members that joined the 

EU later. The latest expansion of the EU is generating freight 
2 Executive Summary

flows to and from the eastern part of the continent, where 

freight transportation infrastructure is less developed than in 

the western part. These five countries provide a good mix of 

countries in different transportation system development stages 

and geographic locations.1

The scan team identified five topics of interest to guide the scan:

1. Policies: Identify innovative freight policy issues as they 

relate to freight corridor programs and understand the 

benefits of such programs.

2. Planning process: Identify corridor selection, corridor 

prioritization, and project selection processes.

3. Sustainability: Identify the role that environmental 

policies play in freight corridor development and 

implementation. 

4. Funding: Understand how corridors and specific 

projects are financed and managed.

5. Operations: Identify freight corridor operations 

strategies.

Summary of Findings 

Policies

An integrated transport system requires harmonization of 

rules and interoperability of networks. Toward this goal, the 

EC, the EU’s executive body, has launched a series of policy 

initiatives to improve the efficiency of freight transport in 

Europe. Together, they make freight transport in the EU 

more efficient and sustainable.

The scanning study had the following findings on policy:

■ The Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) 

concept serves as a unifying vision for the EU.

■ The TEN-T vision constantly enables long-term 

planning.

■ Each nation viewed transportation infrastructure as 

a key national asset.

1 Although the countries visited do not provide comprehensive perspectives 

of the EU, they represent a broad perspective and capture broad themes on 

the interplay between national and EU objectives. 

■ EU transportation policy brings a comprehensive vision 

to transportation system development.

■ Multiple policies often need to be aligned to achieve 

desired outcomes.

■ Corridor development needs to be grounded in analytics 

and market fundamentals.

■ Core routes or trunk lines need to be integrated with 

their connections to a larger distribution network. The 

new TEN-T will be a two-tier corridor network: core 

and comprehensive.

Planning Process

TEN-T EA assures the technical and financial implementation 

and management of the TEN-T program. It also manages key 

transport infrastructure projects in close collaboration with the 

Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE). 

DG MOVE is responsible for the overall policy, programming, 

and evaluation of the TEN-T program. 

The scanning study had the following findings on the 

planning process:

■ The project application process for EU funds is 

transparent and well defined.

■ Planning processes and the level of TEN-T integration 

into national planning processes in member states vary.

■ Alignment of member state and EU priorities is a 

challenge.

Sustainability

The transport sector poses one of the greatest policy challenges 

for sustainable development in the EU. Transportation activity is 

a major user of nonrenewable energy resources. Road transport, 

the dominant mode of transport, contributes the most to 

greenhouse gas emissions. To reduce the environmental impact 

caused by the prevailing trend to use road and air transport and 

to address increasing congestion problems, the EU wants to 

promote alternative modes of transport. The EU is also looking 

at other tools to promote a more sustainable transport policy:

■ Promote comodality by reinforcing the position of 

railways, boosting maritime transport, and reviving the 

inland waterways transport system.
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 3

■ Develop charges on infrastructure to improve 

the management of freight transport and reduce 

transport’s environmental impact while generating 

funds for new infrastructure. 

■ Promote the use of cleaner cars and fuels.

The scanning study found a strong linkage of transportation 

policy to environmental, social, and sustainability aspects. 

However, aligning theory and practice is challenging.

Funding

The largest proportion of funding for transportation 

infrastructure projects in the EU comes from each country’s 

general revenues. Member states collect direct charges for 

roadway use, including a mix of taxation instruments (fuel and 

vehicle taxes) and user charges, to recover infrastructure costs. 

The most common time-based fee is the Eurovignette.2

 

Other instruments are distance-based tolls levied on individual 

road sections or the full primary network. Some countries, 

such as Germany, also collect tolls on heavy vehicles. The EU is 

working to harmonize tolling systems as well as rates. 

The scanning study had the following findings on funding:

■ Multiple funding sources are available to meet 

project needs.

■ Multiyear funding is necessary to bring a project 

to completion.

■ Different funding opportunities affect TEN-T 

implementation; TEN-T funds are available to all 

members, but Cohesion Funds are available only to 

eligible member states.

■ Tolling policy varies by country.

Project Implementation and Operations

Project implementation. Coordination on cross-border 

sections is often the most complex aspect of TEN-T projects. 

It demands active cooperation among a wide range of 

stakeholders, sometimes using memoranda of understanding 

or letters of intent. Cross-border projects can also be hampered 

by the lack of joint traffic forecasts and general project 

development approaches. This leads to differing investment 

plans and contradictory timelines, capacity planning, 

2 A vignette or sticker based on an agreement between several member states 

that gives access to the network on each other’s territory.

alignment, technical and interoperability characteristics, and 

environmental assessments. 

To facilitate the implementation of the projects necessary to 

advance the 30 priority axes, the EU established and appointed 

European coordinators to meet with heads of states to resolve 

significant project advancement issues, such as funding 

and environmental compliance. The goal of the European 

coordinators is to accelerate project implementation, especially 

in cross-border projects.

Operations. The EU has an extensive railway system. There is a 

strong focus on passenger traffic, but freight transport faces low 

customer satisfaction and a decrease in rail volumes and market 

share. The poor interoperability of the freight railway system in 

Europe is a key problem. The system includes multiple railway 

operators with different power and signaling systems and even 

track gauge. It requires technical compatibility of infrastructure, 

rolling stock, signaling, and other rail systems.

The scanning study had the following findings on operations:

■ Greater harmonization of technology and operations is 

necessary to ensure the success of a European vision. 

■ Corridor coalitions and project coordinators play an 

important role in project development.

Conclusions

The scan team analyzed the information gathered during 

the scan, developed a series of conclusions, and identified 

the relevance of each conclusion to freight transportation 

corridor development in the United States. The general 

conclusions are as follows:

■ A unifying vision linking transportation and the 

economy is a key foundational element of the TEN-T.

■ Multijurisdictional transportation planning and 

implementation will require new management, funding, 

and coordination strategies.

■ Awareness must evolve from an exclusively national 

and local understanding of freight movement to an 

international understanding of how freight movement 

connects to international markets.

■ Any movement toward corridor-level thinking in the 

United States must be grounded in objective, transparent 

facts and market analysis.
4 Executive Summary

■ Benefit-cost analysis is a valuable tool in project selection 

and policy evaluation.

■ Freight policy must align with related policies, such as 

economic, trade, environmental, and land use policies.

■ Stable multiyear funding provides continuity and 

minimizes delays, particularly on large-scale projects.

Corridor-level thinking and action based on connectivity, access, 

thorough analysis, and market needs enable multiple parties to 

transcend differences and connect similarities. This concept was 

integral to establishing the U.S. Interstate Highway System and is 

being replicated in nearly all developing and growing economies. 

This scan studied many of the issues the United States will face if 

it chooses to integrate corridor-level thinking into improving the 

performance of the U.S. multimodal transportation network. 

Implementation Plan

The scan team developed implementation actions that could 

improve freight transportation in North America. Specific 

actions include the following:

■ Perform outreach to transportation agency leaders, 

policymakers, and stakeholder groups.

■ Disseminate the scan report and executive summary.

■ Better use private-sector planning resources to aid 

public-sector planning. 

■ Determine the impacts that occurred when Germany 

implemented the Toll Collect system for trucks.

■ Prepare a supplemental scan report at the conclusion 

of the EU effort to develop core and comprehensive 

networks to discuss and evaluate the process and results. 

■ Develop a list of important national freight corridors 

and port facilities in the United States. 

■ Determine if the European process for arranging private 

freight train slots on the European public rail lines that 

cross country borders could be a model for developing 

a system to create a “one-stop shop” for oversize and 

overweight trucks needing permits from multiple States. 

■ Coordinate freight planning efforts on the North 

American continent.

■ Develop a discussion paper on how the European model 

of having coordinators for major cross-border projects 

could be used in North America to advance multistate or 

multinational projects. 

■ Gather more information on the multicriteria analysis 

the EU uses for its freight corridor effort and assess its 

applicability for transportation planning (including but 

not limited to freight planning) in the United States.

■ Gather information on the types of PPPs used in Europe. 

If they are different from the types of PPPs used or being 

considered in the United States, determine if they could 

be of use in the United States.

■ Determine no- or low-cost efforts that will improve 

freight transportation in North America. 

■ Determine if the analysis being conducted in the 

Netherlands on a new vehicle design that spreads weight 

differently has potential use in the United States. 

■ Establish an ongoing relationship with DG MOVE. 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 5

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

From farm to market to today’s global supply chains, goods 

movement underpins the economies of industrialized and 

developing nations. Transportation networks enable national 

economies and businesses to link with suppliers, markets, and 

consumers throughout a nation and the world. It enables them to 

capitalize on economic and comparative advantages. Maximizing 

that opportunity and leveraging the U.S transportation network, 

American business has fully integrated fluid transportation into 

its operations. This makes the efficiency of the transportation 

network essential to American businesses, households, and 

communities. Safe, swift, and reliable transportation across diverse 

domestic and international supply chains plays a significant role in 

maintaining and expanding U.S. economic activity.

The transportation network, an integral component of the 

U.S. economy, is stressed carrying current volumes. Consensus 

projections are that as the economy rebounds, freight volumes 

will begin growing again. Regardless of whether high growth 

rates return or are replaced by modest growth, the reality is that 

efficiency of freight movement in America today is challenged 

by current volumes and global and domestic demands that 

outpace the capacity of the surface transportation system. The 

result is decreased performance and reliability, steady erosion of 

economic competitiveness, and unwanted contributions to safety 

and environmental problems. 

To provide efficient goods movement on the U.S. transportation 

network, the United States will need new approaches. Corridorlevel thinking is an approach advanced by industry groups, 

including State transportation authorities,3

 and legislation 

proposed in Congress4

 as a potential path forward for economic 

3 Association Stakeholders Call for National Freight Program and Stronger 

Federal Role, www.intermodal.org/stakeholders_files/documents/PR_FSC_

Call_for_National_Freight_Program.pdf.

4 House of Representatives’ Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) 

Committee Blueprint for the Surface Transportation Authorization Act 

of 2009, http://transportation.house.gov/Media/file/Highways/HPP/

OBERST_044_xml.pdf. 

S 3629 and HR 5976, The FREIGHT (Focusing Resources, Economic 

Investment, and Guidance to Help Transportation) Act of 2010, July 22, 

2010, http://lautenberg.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=326598. 

HR 6291: Freight FOCUS (Freight is the Future Of Commerce in the 

United States) Act of 2010, Sept. 30, 2010, http://richardson.house.gov/

list/press/ca37_richardson/FreightFocusAct.shtml.

prosperity and competitiveness in the United States. A 

corridor approach can focus the nation’s assets and resources 

on key transportation infrastructure that supports national 

economic activity.

The European Union (EU) adopted the corridor approach 

in the mid-1990s and has continually evolved its freight 

corridor program with the admission of new member states, 

increased freight volumes, and changing demands, including 

environmental sustainability, on the transportation network. The 

EU views this corridor approach as strategically important to 

its global economic competitiveness. Given the EU’s experience 

with this concept, this scanning study was designed to engage 

the European Commission (EC) and key member states in the 

policy, funding, and programmatic implications of integrating 

corridors into transportation planning. 

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the scanning study was to learn from the EU 

and various member states how they developed, evolved, and 

implemented freight transportation corridor programs on 

national and cross-jurisdictional levels. The scan allowed the 

North American representatives to gain a better understanding 

of the inner workings of the policies, mechanisms, and programs 

that national, State, and local governments will need to address if 

the United States develops a national freight corridor program. 

The scan indentified opportunities for North American freight 

corridors and developed contacts in other countries that the 

United States may partner with in the future. The information 

gathered during the scan will contribute to informed decisions, 

stronger strategies and approaches, and better programs. 

Compared to other scans that are more technical in nature, 

this one was focused on freight policy at the corridor level. The 

following were the specific objectives of the scan:

■ Identify innovative freight policy issues as they relate to 

freight corridor programs.

■ Understand the institutional, organizational, and 

administrative structure of freight corridor programs, 

including the planning, programming, development, and 

implementation of those programs.
6 Chapter 1: Introduction

■ Understand how specific corridors are selected, 

including the method used for prioritization.

■ Understand how corridor improvements and operations 

are financed and managed, including cost-benefit 

analysis, and understand the benefits of such programs.

■ Understand the inner workings of the policies and 

mechanisms of freight programs, including the 

leadership required to develop and implement policies.

■ Identify how freight corridor policies are translated into 

program definitions and project delivery.

■ Identify how performance standards and measures 

are developed and managed as they relate to freight 

corridors’ impact on safety, congestion, mobility, 

reliability, infrastructure condition, air quality, user 

satisfaction, and emergency response.

■ Identify ways to foster international collaboration on 

freight corridor issues.

The scan team identified five topics of interest that were used to 

guide the scan:

1. Policies: Identify innovative freight policy issues as they 

relate to freight corridor programs and understand the 

benefits of such programs.

2. Planning process: Identify corridor selection, corridor 

prioritization, and project selection processes.

3. Sustainability: Identify the role that environmental 

policies play in freight corridor development and 

implementation. 

4. Funding: Understand how corridors and specific 

projects are financed and managed.

5. Operations: Identify freight corridor operations 

strategies.

International Technology Scanning 

Program

To gain a better understanding of how other nations address 

transportation challenges, the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program conduct the International 

Technology Scanning Program. This program seeks out and 

evaluates innovative technologies and practices that could 

improve the performance of the U.S. highway system. The 

scanning approach enables the U.S. transportation community 

to adopt advanced technology much more efficiently without 

spending scarce research funds to re-create improvements already 

developed by other countries. 

This is the fourth freight-related scan conducted under the 

International Technology Scanning Program. The main objective 

of these scans has been to understand how other nations address 

increased freight flows on their transportation systems. The first 

scan focused on the EU and investigated the issues, constraints, 

opportunities, and challenges it faced in developing a policy of 

open boundaries and the strategies it uses to implement that 

policy. The report on that scan is Freight Transportation: The 

European Market (FHWA-PL-02-009). The second scan in 

2002 investigated the characteristics of trade flows between the 

United States and Latin American countries. The team studied 

how the scan countries handle trade-related transportation 

infrastructure, border crossings, and freight security, and issued a 

report titled Freight Transportation: The Latin American Market

(FHWA-PL-03-013). The third scan in 2007 investigated how 

China provides intermodal access to its new ports and employs 

investment strategies to foster freight mobility and intermodal 

connectivity. The report is Freight Mobility and Intermodal 

Connectivity in China (FHWA-PL-08-020). 

Scan Team Members

The scan team included representatives of FHWA, AASHTO, 

the federal transportation agencies of Canada and Mexico, the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, the I-95 Corridor Coalition, 

and the private sector. Representatives from Canada and 

Mexico were invited to participate in the scan because these 

neighboring countries are engaged in corridor development and 

are interested in developing freight transportation corridors at 

the North American level. The U.S. Department of Commerce 

is collaborating with the U.S. Department of Transportation to 

support the need for improved transportation infrastructure to 

support the supply chains integral to U.S. economic activity. The 

members of the scan team were the following:

■ Anthony T. Furst (cochair), FHWA 

■ Eric G. Madden (cochair), Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation (DOT)

■ Eduardo Asperó, Mexico Intermodal Transportation 

Association 

■ Monica M. Blaney, Transport Canada

■ David F. Long, U.S. Department of Commerce 

International Trade Administration
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 7

■ Bernardo J. Ortiz, Mexico Ministry of Communications 

and Transport 

■ Robert L. Penne, AASHTO

■ Ernie B. Perry, Missouri DOT 

■ Kenneth L. Sweeney, Maine DOT 

■ B. Renee Sigel, FHWA

■ George E. Schoener, I-95 Corridor Coalition 

■ Spencer L. Stevens, FHWA

■ Juan C. Villa (report facilitator), Texas 

Transportation Institute 

Appendix A contains contact and biographical information for 

the scan team members.

Figure 1. EU international freight corridor program scan 

team members: (front row, left to right) Spencer Stevens, 

Renee Sigel, Leo Penne, Monica Blaney, Bernardo Ortiz, 

(back row, left to right) Ken Sweeney, Ernie Perry, Eduardo 

Asperó, Juan Villa, Tony Furst, George Schoener, Eric 

Madden, and David Long.

Host Country Information

Before the scan team went to Europe, it analyzed information 

on the development of the freight corridor program in Europe 

to determine which countries to visit. The team decided to visit 

the EC in Brussels, Belgium, five member countries, and the 

European Investment Bank (EIB). The EC was chosen because 

it is the organization that defines transportation policies and 

works with member countries to develop implementation 

plans. The team visited the EC at the beginning of the study to 

gather general information on policies and plans pertaining to 

freight corridor development and implementation. The team 

returned to the EC after visiting the member countries to get 

feedback and more detailed information on specific points that 

arose in meetings with member country officials. The team 

visited the EIB to learn about its role in financing transportation 

infrastructure projects.

The team visited Austria, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, 

and Poland because they have cities that are key nodes on priority 

EU multimodal transportation corridors and they represent 

a mix of EU founding members and members that joined the 

EU later. The latest expansion of the EU is generating freight 

flows to and from the eastern part of the continent, where 

freight transportation infrastructure is less developed than in 

the western part. These five countries provide a good mix of 

countries in different transportation system development stages 

and geographic locations.5

Report Organization

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the 

EU experience in planning, programming, developing, and 

implementing its freight corridor program, as well as to 

recommend specific implementation actions that could create 

better freight transportation programs in the United States 

and North America. 

Chapter 2 presents the structure and evolution of the EU freight 

transportation system and provides a context for understanding 

the details in later chapters.

Chapters 3 through 8 were organized around the topics of 

interest the scan team identified: 

■ Chapter 3 contains information on freight 

transportation corridor policies in the EU.

■ Chapter 4 addresses planning processes at the EU and 

member country levels.

■ Chapter 5 discusses sustainability of freight 

transportation in the EU.

■ Chapter 6 presents the funding structure for freight 

transportation corridors.

■ Chapter 7 includes information on freight corridor 

operations.

■ Chapter 8 provides the scan team’s conclusions and 

implementation plan.

5 Although the countries visited do not provide comprehensive perspectives 

of the EU, they represent a broad perspective and capture broad themes on 

the interplay between national and EU objectives. 
8 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 9

European Union

In 1957, Belgium, France, the Federal Republic 

of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the 

Netherlands signed the Treaties of Rome, which 

created the European Economic Community 

(EEC). The EEC established a customs 

union, expanding the earlier cooperation in 

the European Coal and Steel Community 

(ECSC). In 1967, the Merger Treaty among 

the six created a single set of community-wide 

institutions, collectively referred to as the 

European Communities.6

The first enlargement of the EEC came in 1973 

with the admission of Denmark, Ireland, and 

the United Kingdom. The next enlargement, 

from nine to 12 members, came with Greece’s 

entry in 1981, followed by Portugal and Spain 

in 1986. In 1990, after the fall of the Iron 

Curtain, the German Democratic Republic 

(the former East Germany) became part of 

the community as part of a newly reunified 

Germany.

The European Union was formally established 

when the Maastricht Treaty came into force in 

November 1993, and in 1995 Austria, Finland, 

and Sweden joined the newly established EU. 

The Norwegian government lost a second 

national referendum on membership.

In May 2004, eight Central and Eastern 

European countries (the Czech Republic, Estonia, 

Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and 

Slovenia) and the Mediterranean islands of Cyprus and Malta 

joined the EU, increasing membership to 25. This was the largest 

single enlargement in terms of people, landmass, and number 

of countries. Bulgaria and Romania became the EU’s newest 

members in 2007, to yield today’s total of 27 member states. 

6 The ECSC expired in 2002, but the European Atomic Energy Community 

remains a distinct entity, the only one of the three communities to exist 

beyond 2009.

EU is not a federation like the United States, nor is it 

simply an organization for cooperation between governments, 

like the United Nations. The countries that make up the 

EU (its member states) remain independent sovereign nations, 

but they pool their sovereignty to gain a strength and world 

influence they could not have on their own.

In practice, pooling sovereignty means that member 

states delegate some of their decisionmaking powers to 

shared institutions they have created so that decisions on 

specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically 

Chapter 2: EU Freight Transportation System Structure

Figure 2. EU’s enlargements in the 2000s.

n European Union pre-2004

n Joined the EU in 2004

n Joined the EU in 2007
10 Chapter 2: EU Freight Transportation System Structure

at the European level.7 The EU’s decisionmaking process in 

general and the codecision procedure in particular involve 

three main institutions:

■ The European Parliament, which represents EU’s citizens 

and is directly elected by them

■ The Council of the European Union, which represents 

individual member states

■ The EC, which seeks to represent and uphold the 

interests of the union as a whole 

The EC is the EU’s executive body. It drafts proposals for 

new European laws and manages the day-to-day business 

of implementing EU policies and spending EU funds. The 

commission monitors member states’ compliance with 

European treaties and laws.

EU Freight Transportation System

Since the EU was formed, it was recognized that for the common 

European market to function smoothly an integrated transport 

system that allows the free movement of goods within EU 

territory was needed. This was acknowledged as a key element 

for the economic growth and territorial cohesion of the EU. 

However, the diversity of transport infrastructure, equipment, 

and regulation across member states was a barrier to the seamless 

transport of goods across Europe. 

The concept of the Trans-European Transport Network 

(TEN-T), included in the Maastricht Treaty, made it possible 

to develop a plan for transport infrastructure at the European 

level with the help of EU funding. The Maastricht Treaty 

provided the legal basis for TEN-T, giving the EU the authority 

to establish guidelines covering priorities, identify projects of 

common interest, implement measures for interoperability and 

standardization, and provide support to projects with different 

financial tools.

During the Corfu European Council of June 1994, the EC 

agreed on a first list of 11 transportation priority projects. This 

list not only emphasized the concept of removing cross-border 

bottlenecks to facilitate traffic flows, but also the tendency of 

member states to prioritize projects of national importance. 

During the Essen European Council later that year, the project 

list was endorsed and extended to 14 projects known as the 

Essen Projects.

7 Europa, European Union Institutions and Other Bodies, http://europa.eu/

institutions/index_en.htm.

In 1996, the EC initiated the Transport Infrastructure Needs 

Assessment (TINA) project with the aim of stimulating 

development of a multimodal transport network in EU 

accession candidate countries and defining the future TransEuropean transport infrastructure network in the expanded EU. 

At the end of 1999, the TINA project was completed, and the 

final document estimated the necessary investments from 1998 

to 2006 at about €87 billion.

With the imminent enlargement of the EU in 2003, 

the TEN-T policy was reviewed to cover the new member 

states. The result of the new policy was a set of 30 priority 

axes and projects, covering high-speed and conventional 

railways, road motorways, the “Motorways of the Sea,” 

multimodal corridors, airports, inland waterways, and the 

Galileo navigation system.8

 Figure 3 presents the 30 priority 

projects. These 30 projects are not construction projects, 

but road, railway, inland waterway, air, and multimodal 

corridors or axes.

The rationale behind creating an effective TEN-T is that 

it benefits all European citizens by allowing more efficient 

and environmentally friendly transport, while reinforcing 

economic and social cohesion across the continent. The 

European Council created the Directorate General for 

Energy and Transport (DG TREN), which is responsible

for overseeing the TEN-T program. In 2006, the EC and DG 

TREN established the TEN-T Executive Agency (EA) to 

manage all projects that are part of the TEN-T program. In 

2010 the DG TREN was split between energy and transport, 

with the transport function taking on the acronym DG 

MOVE (Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport). 

Figure 4 presents the relationship and functions of 

DG MOVE and TEN-T EA. 

While DG MOVE ultimately decides which infrastructure 

projects are included in TEN-T and provides some funding 

for each project, it is ultimately up to individual national 

governments to fund a majority of the work done in 

their countries. 

The relationship and coordination between member states 

and the TEN-T EA vary by country. For instance, in Hungary 

the Transport Ministry Managing Authority delegated its 

operational tasks to the Coordination Center for Transport 

8 The Galileo program is Europe’s initiative for a state-of-the art global 

satellite navigation system.
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 11 Figure 3. Trans-European Transport Network 30 priority axes and projects.
12 Chapter 2: EU Freight Transportation System Structure

Development, which manages the operational tasks related to 

TEN-T. Activities include the following:

■ Management and supervision of ongoing projects

■ Payments and financial issues

■ Fund management and budgetary cases

■ Contract management and problem solving

■ Closing tasks and solving auditing requirements

European Commission (DG MOVE): 

defines the policy

TEN-T EA: 

turns the policy into action

■ Makes political decisions on the TEN-T 

program

■ Defines strategy, objectives, and priority areas 

of action

■ Makes the final financing decisions

■ Monitors and supervises the TEN-T EA

■ Implements the TEN-T program on behalf 

of the European Commission and under its 

responsibility

■ Efficiently manages the entire project life cycle, 

including the following:

■ Organizing calls and evaluations

■ Giving support to member states

■ Prepares financing decisions

■ Provides key feedback to the European 

Commission

Figure 4. DG MOVE and TEN-T EA functions. 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 13

Chapter 3: EU Freight Transportation Corridor Policies

The transport of freight, from raw materials to finished goods, 

is essential to economic activity and to the quality of life in 

the EU. It makes division of labor possible, allows economies 

of scale, and mobilizes comparative advantages. Effective 

transportation policy is fundamental to freight transport and 

key to European competitiveness.

Well-organized freight transport contributes to sustainable, 

energy-efficient operations and will strengthen cohesion by 

enabling businesses across the EU, including the peripheral 

regions, to have better access and draw more benefits from 

the internal market.9

Developing the EU’s freight policies offers numerous challenges 

and opportunities:

Challenges

■ Congestion in some parts of the European transport 

system negatively affects costs and time of transport 

and increases fuel consumption.

■ Freight transport needs to further reduce its pollutant 

emissions and noise for the EU to meet its climate 

change targets.

■ Freight transport is highly dependent on fossil fuels, 

a large proportion of which are imported.

■ Transport safety and security need to be further 

enhanced.

■ There are signs that transport and logistics-related 

industry sectors are having difficulty attracting 

qualified staff.

Opportunities

■ The heterogeneity of the EU has increased with 

successive enlargements, and the new continental market 

requires swift implementation of updated logistics 

techniques and best practices across the union.

9 The EU’s freight transport agenda: Boosting the efficiency, integration, and 

sustainability of freight transport in Europe, COM(2007)606.

■ Freight transport logistics has become an increasingly 

integrated and concentrated global market in which 

several European companies have established themselves 

as world leaders.

■ The prospects of enhancing trade relations with 

countries outside the EU are relevant. 

■ Accelerated progress in information and communication 

technologies is revolutionizing the way freight transport 

logistics can be organized.

To address these challenges and capitalize on these opportunities, 

the European Commission is simultaneously launching a series 

of policy initiatives: the Freight Logistics Action Plan, the 

Communication on a Freight-Oriented Rail Network, and 

the Communication on an Integrated Maritime Policy for the 

European Union. These policy initiatives reinforce each other 

and constitute a policy agenda to improve the efficiency of 

freight transport in Europe. Together, they will make freight 

transport in the EU more efficient and sustainable. A common 

approach is being implemented with these characteristics:

■ A focus on corridors and connecting the transport 

chains to and from neighboring countries and overseas

■ Promotion of innovative technologies and practices 

in infrastructure, means of transport (such as vehicles, 

wagons (railcars) and vessels), and freight management

■ Simplification and facilitation of freight transport 

chains and related administrative procedures

For the common European market to function 

smoothly, there is a need for an integrated 

transport system that allows the free movement 

of goods within EU territory. This is vital for 

economic growth and for territorial cohesion.

An integrated transport system clearly calls 

for harmonization of rules and interoperability 

of networks.
14 Chapter 3: EU Freight Transportation Corridor Policies

■ Improvement of the quality of transportation 

services offered

Freight Corridor Policy

The TEN-T Guidelines are the EU’s instrument for policy 

definition and network planning. Projects in the guidelines are 

of common interest and can be defined through their location 

on outline plans and/or through their characteristics. The 

guidelines, adopted in 1996 and amended in 2004, include 

two planning layers: 

■ A comprehensive network layer (outline plans for rail, 

road, inland waterway, combined transport, airport, 

and port networks)

■ A second layer of priority axes on which certain sections 

are marked as 30 priority projects (i.e., selected projects 

of common interest)10

In 2009, the EC began a review of the TEN-T policy by 

publishing a green paper (CEC 2009d). A main objective of 

the review is to define how to shape the future multimodal 

network and ensure timely completion, with network 

planning as a key issue. 

Some member countries argue that the priority project 

approach fails to capture additional network benefits. 

Therefore, one proposal is to evolve toward a priority network 

approach that would allow more systematic incorporation of 

the nodes, ports, and airports as the network’s entry points 

and the main intermodal connection points that underpin 

strong network integration. Other recent developments in the 

TEN-T area focus on plans for linking TEN-T to neighboring 

countries outside the EU.

During the public consultation process on the green paper, 

more than 300 stakeholders expressed their views, most of 

them advocating the idea of an integral policy review. 

Stakeholders supported the commission’s main directions 

for future policy development:

■ Meet new political challenges, such as globalization, 

climate change, technological innovation, and social 

developments.

10 Commission Staff Working Document, TEN-T Policy Review— 

background papers, Brussels, Nov. 5, 2010, SEC(2010) 613 final, http://

ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tent_policy_review/doc/1_en_

document_travail_service_part1_v1.pdf.

■ Conduct a critical review of the TEN-T planning 

concept to strengthen its union dimension.

■ Ensure a strong link between TEN-T and transport 

policy to facilitate efficient, safe, high-quality services 

across the transport modes.

■ Strengthen the instruments to support completion of the 

network within the agreed timescale.

Key messages from stakeholders on the general policy framework 

included low carbon transport, territorial cohesion, and the 

need for a planning tool and not just a funding instrument. On 

TEN-T management and implementation, the consultation 

stressed the idea of maintaining continuity while ensuring greater 

commitment and effectiveness from all involved. 

The planning structure and integration of transport and TEN-T 

policy area captured from the stakeholders call for defining 

a clear methodology and making connecting neighboring 

and third countries an important element. Of the planning 

options presented, stakeholders preferred the one with a dual 

transportation layer that includes a comprehensive network 

and core network.

Findings on Policy

The Trans-European Network concept serves as 

a unifying vision for the EU.

The discussions the scan team had with member state 

representatives clearly indicated that they understood and 

believed in the vision the EU adopted for the Trans-European 

Networks concept. This concept includes pan-European 

coordination of transportation, telecommunications, and energy. 

The scan team discussed the TEN-T with the member states 

and the EC. The TEN-T is undergoing a comprehensive review 

to place it on a firm market-based, analytic foundation. This is 

being done to improve the network and is a major undertaking 

for the EC and member states, a testament to the validity and 

member state buy-in of the overarching vision. 

The long-term vision of the TEN-T is constant.

Although the EC and member states routinely experience 

leadership changes and successive EC presidents advance 

individual initiatives, the core policies of the TEN-T vision are 

steady. That the constancy of the long-term multimodal network 

vision has not caved to political pressures is a key attribute that 

helps attract private funding for transportation projects.
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 15

Transportation infrastructure is a key 

national asset.

Each member state the scan team met with valued high-quality 

infrastructure as a key national asset and the TEN-T concept as a 

mechanism to increase EU competitiveness in a global market. 

The strategic vision integrates transportation 

policy.

As reflected in the TEN-T approach, EU transportation 

policy brings a comprehensive vision to transportation 

development. The transportation policy is founded on three 

overarching objectives:

■ Connectivity and access

■ Economic development and commerce

■ Environment and sustainability

Policy coordination affects outcomes.

Linking policies can bring greater efficiencies, but the lack of 

coherence can complicate implementation. Coherence, or 

the lack thereof, ultimately affects the outcomes and business 

practices of member states and their private sector partners. 

For example, when Germany wanted to implement a cost 

recovery tolling system for its freeways, it integrated the truck’s 

emission signature into the tolling scheme, coordinating 

sustainability and financing policy. As a result, the system now in 

place, Germany Toll Collect, generates annual revenues of €4.4 

billion that are dedicated to transportation infrastructure (as 

opposed to fuel taxes, which go into the general fund). Because 

of its linkage of toll amounts to emissions—a 500-kilometer 

(km) trip costs €70 with newer, cleaner engines and €140 with 

older, dirtier engines—it has been instrumental in driving the 

fleet overhaul to cleaner engines. In just 5 years, the cleanest 

emission trucks rose from just 0.2 percent of trucks paying tolls 

to 56.7 percent. 

In contrast, the EU has an expressed desire to move cargo from 

trucks to rail or water transport as a way of reducing energy 

consumption, emissions, and congestion. However, advancing 

this desire in the current policy framework that prioritizes 

passenger traffic on the EU rail system presents a range of 

challenges. As a result, freight rail works in the margins of the 

rail system and the volume of road transport stays stable. 

A focused corridor-level system is needed.

The EU clearly recognized the need for a transcontinental freight 

network that is multimodal (water, rail, and highway). Member 

states support EU efforts to identify the network because they 

understand the economic necessity of efficiently moving goods 

throughout the EU and globally. 

While all member states endorsed and embraced the TEN-T 

concept, the original application of the TEN-T lacked the 

analytic and market-driven underpinning now desired. The 

original TEN-T implementation leaned toward a more 

individual project-based application and lost some of its corridorbased origins. Implementing connected projects in multiple 

states would be better served with a fresh look at the market, 

particularly with the 2004 expansion of the EU. Consequently 

the EU is revising the TEN-T based on an approach grounded in 

market fundamentals and analytics.

The new TEN-T will be a two-tier corridor 

network: core and comprehensive.

A comprehensive network would connect all member states’ 

transportation networks to the core network. It would be a 

bottom-up approach performed primarily by the member states 

and used to serve them and regional interests. 

Using the concept of a comprehensive network enables every 

member state to see itself in a larger system. There is a need to 

identify the criteria that can be used across all member states to 

determine inclusion in the comprehensive network.

The comprehensive network will include road, rail, inland 

waterways, ports, and airports and will include upgrading the 

existing network through the following: 

■ Upgrading of maps according to progress of 

implementation since the last revision

■ Addition of missing links to close gaps, mainly in new 

member states

■ Removal of dead ends or isolated links if not 

specifically justified

■ Further discussion on ports and airports

Proposals for the comprehensive network will come mainly 

from member states, taking into account that the core 

network will be a subset of the comprehensive network. 

The comprehensive network may form the foundation for 

other important EU policy considerations, such as cohesion 

policy, and regional funds. Figure 5 (see next page) presents 

the roadway Trans-European Transport Network Outline 

Plan to the year 2020.
16 Chapter 3: EU Freight Transportation Corridor Policies

Figure 5. Trans-European road comprehensive network.
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 17

The core network will be anchored on key nodes—population 

centers and freight generators (e.g., maritime ports, border 

crossings) and the links that connect them. This concept could 

be advanced without defining physical corridors (e.g., a particular 

roadway or rail line), but by identifying that a linkage between 

two nodes is a key conduit for people and/or goods without 

defining specific modal infrastructure. This will allow flexibility 

at the member state level, but will most assuredly require 

coordination across multiple nodes and modes. This approach 

enables clustering ports that are in proximity as a single node on 

the core network and corridors that could encompass more than 

one mode (highway and rail).

The core network (a subset of the comprehensive network) 

will be determined using a top-down approach anchored by 

the following principles:

■ Ground the corridor identification in market 

fundamentals, solid analytics, and hard facts.

■ Correspond to the long-term needs of the EU and 

remain stable over a reasonably long period.

■ Be multimodal and coherent, benefiting all or large 

regions of the EU.

■ Be made up of nodes and links of high strategic 

importance and include the main ports and 

airports (gateways).

■ Reflect the main long-distance and international traffic 

flows (existing and potential).

■ Be linked to infrastructures beyond EU member states.

■ Harmonize the system across technology and operations.

■ Make the best use of existing infrastructure.

■ Expand the transportation system only where necessary.

■ Include the “Motorways of the Sea.”

■ Include supplementary infrastructure measures.

■ Allow investment needs and projects to be derived 

top-down.

The market-based approach will rely on a benefit-cost analysis 

that will be modified into a multicriteria analysis process to 

enable inclusion of societal goals. How each criterion will be 

weighed has not been defined. Resolution of the criteria and the 

weighting is key to obtaining buy-in.

A key issue raised in discussions on this approach was how 

to balance the established trunk lines that have volume 

concentrations, economies of scale, and channelization of flows 

and move current economic volumes on existing infrastructure 

with the need for flexibility, redundancy, and new growth 

patterns to new and emerging markets.

EU funding will focus on the core network, and many member 

states see identifying and resolving critical bottlenecks as an 

important output of the process used to establish a core network. 

Planning the core network will be based on main nodes that 

will serve as vertices or cornerstones that will define the network 

polygon, with intra- and intermodal interfaces. The nodes 

will be the following:

■ Cities:

➤ Member state capitals

➤ Other big cities (e.g., mega-cities, city clusters)

■ Gateway ports, port clusters, roll on-roll off (RoRo) 

ports, and Motorways of the Sea ports:

➤ Main entrance and connection points for freight

➤ Linkage of relevant passenger ferries

➤ Main nodes when not part of main city nodes

■ Hub airports:

➤ Main entrance points for passengers (and air cargo)

➤ Connected with rail network (local and regional 

access), with high-speed rail replacing shortdistance flights

➤ As parts of city nodes in all cases, with no main 

nodes on their own

Figure 6 (see next page) shows member state capitals, candidate 

countries, and port clusters—RoRo logistics centers and 

Motorways of the Sea ports.
18 Chapter 3: EU Freight Transportation Corridor Policies Figure 6. Core network possible city nodes and port clusters.
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 19

Chapter 4: Planning Processes

TEN-T EA assures the technical and financial implementation 

and management of the TEN-T program.11 In 2008, the 

mandate establishing this independent agency was extended until 

December 31, 2015.12

TEN-T EA manages key transport infrastructure projects 

from the 2000–2006 and 2007–2013 financial perspectives 

in collaboration with its parent, DG MOVE, which remains 

responsible for the overall policy, programming, and evaluation 

of the TEN-T program. TEN-T EA operates as an intermediary 

between the EC and EU member states. TEN-T EA goals 

include the following:

■ Simplify administrative procedures.

■ Reduce payment delays and reaction time on requests.

■ Use new project management techniques and 

information technology tools (i.e., geographic 

information system, statistical data).

■ Increase the types of services available and target 

information flow to project promoters, member states, 

and the commission.

■ Focus on public-private partnerships.

■ Improve the visibility of EU support to infrastructure 

projects through dissemination activities.

Planning the TEN-T network created a European multimodal 

planning process for infrastructure development, which had not 

existed in all member states. In practice, however, planning the 

network has essentially meant combining significant parts of 

national networks for different modes and connecting them at 

national borders. While certainly appropriate in the early days of 

TEN-T policy, this approach became progressively weaker with 

each enlargement. 

11 Europa, Agencies of the European Union, http://europa.eu/agencies/

executive_agencies/ten-t/index_en.htm.

12 Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency, History and 

Legal Framework, http://tentea.ec.europa.eu/en/about_us/mission__

introduction/history__legal_framework.htm.

Member states’ sovereign responsibility in infrastructure 

planning and implementation on their territories, including 

the question of how national planning can be combined with 

European-level planning that takes account of objectives outside 

each member state’s perspective, becomes more relevant as the 

EU expands and networks become increasingly complex.13 The 

scan team observed different perspectives from countries that 

joined the EU at its inception and countries that joined recently. 

Key Findings on Planning

The project application process is transparent 

and well defined.

TEN-T EA is responsible for coordinating and managing the 

project application and review process for TEN-T projects to 

assure transparency and accountability. 

TEN-T EA evaluates and selects projects that request EU 

funding, and it reviews the projects against a clearly defined and 

well-vetted set of criteria. The selection process is supported by 

independent external experts, whose role is to ensure that only 

the highest quality proposals that best meet the award criteria 

described in the relevant work program and call for proposal are 

selected for funding.

Proposals that meet the eligibility criteria specified for a call are 

evaluated on the basis of the criteria defined in the work program 

and call for proposals. Essentially, these relate to the following:

■ Relevance to the TEN-T priorities and policy objectives

■ Maturity

■ Impact—particularly on the environment

■ Quality—completeness, clarity, soundness, 

and coherence

13 Position paper of the European Transport Coordinators on the Future of 

TEN-T Policy, Oct. 6, 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/

european_coordinators/doc/2009_10_06_position_paper_coordinators_

future_tent_en.pdf.
20 Chapter 4: Planning Processes

The selection process also includes an independent observer, 

who provides advice and recommendations to the agency on 

the following:

■ Conduct and fairness of all phases of the evaluation

■ Ways experts assess the evaluation

■ Any improvements that could be put into practice 

immediately or in the future

The independent observer may not express views on the 

proposals under assessment or the experts’ opinions on the 

proposals. The agency invites successful applicants to enter into 

negotiations. If agreement is reached, individual commission 

decisions are established to support individual projects.

Planning processes at member states vary.

Many of the states visited had detailed project prioritization 

and selection criteria that relied on data to assist in the selection 

of the most effective transportation projects. These processes 

take the TEN-T into consideration at varying levels, mostly as a 

function of the level of funding available from the EU in either 

TEN-T funds or Cohesion Funds.

For example, Hungary, which joined the EU in 2004, has a 

favorable geographic location in relation to missing sections 

of the European transportation network. Objectives of road 

sector development in Hungary, based on the Unified Transport 

Development Strategy, include the following:

■ Create missing international and national road 

connections and raise the standards of the services 

provided by existing ones.

■ Raise the standards of the services provided by road 

network links of regional functions and expand 

capacities to eliminate bottlenecks.

■ Strengthen the underlying structure of main and 

secondary roads, including road reconstruction 

and improvement. 

The EU transportation policy guidelines serve as input to 

the Hungarian transportation policy and development plan. 

Figure 7 shows the Hungarian process for developing the 

expressway network.

Germany provided the most detailed explanation of its focus on 

scenario planning and evaluation based on accessibility, safety, 

environment, and investment cost. The process of developing a 

plan may take 5 years. Germany is developing the new Federal 

Transport Infrastructure Plan that will be finalized in 2015, and 

a new project evaluation methodology and new forecasts. Its 

Figure 7. Development process for Hungarian expressway network.

Transport

Operational

Program

Regional 

Operational

Program

Projects on the

expressway network

and the main road

network

Projects on the

minor road network

New Hungary

Development Plan

(2007-2013)

Unified Transport

Development Strategy

(2007-2020)

National Spatial

Development Plan

(OTrT)

EU Transport Policy HU Transport Policy

Operational

Programs

Subsectoral

Strategies
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 21

priorities are to maintain existing infrastructure first, upgrade 

congested links (“debottlenecking”) second, and add new 

physical capacity last. Figure 8 shows the main components 

of the evaluation process.

In December 2010, the German Ministry of Transport, 

Building, and Urban Development published the Freight 

Transport and Logistics Action Plan—Logistics Initiative for 

Germany. The plan realigns the German government’s Freight 

Transport and Logistics Master Plan, which was prepared in the 

last parliamentary term, to address current challenges. This plan 

sets the stage for a sustainable and efficient logistics and freight 

transport system in Germany.

Aligning member state priorities and EU 

priorities is a challenge.

EU founding member states need to balance constructing new 

infrastructure for economic development and maintaining 

existing infrastructure. As is the case in the United States and 

Germany, the priority is to maintain existing infrastructure, and 

that continues to consume large amounts of available funding. 

Member states that joined in 2004 or 2007 are focused on 

network expansion, particularly their road networks. They are 

concerned that once the network is constructed all maintenance 

funding will be the responsibility of member states with no EU 

support (mirroring the concern of many States in the United 

States), and their ability to price their networks are subject to 

EU constraints on tolling amounts that are in place to maintain 

some degree of uniformity across the EU.

The EU has an established policy position to shift freight from 

road to rail or water. The new member states have extensive rail 

networks, but they are not in good repair. Representatives of two 

new member states said their priority is to expand their 

road networks because that is what their populations demand 

as they begin to enjoy the benefits of a rising economy. This 

comes at the cost of not putting available transportation 

dollars into their rail systems and highlights the challenges 

of harmonizing EU and national priorities and realizing the 

EU policy goal of shifting freight transport from road to 

rail or water.

EU financial support targeted key sections of the priority axes 

that include cross-border sections or major bottlenecks with 

cross-border implications. Cross-border sections are eligible 

for an up to 30 percent match from TEN-T funds, while 

projects in member states can receive, at most, a 20 percent 

match. Founding member states acknowledge the importance 

of resolving cross-border bottlenecks, but point out that 

bottlenecks within member states can be just as restrictive to 

network or corridor flow as those at the border. Several member 

states suggested that more funding, or comparable match rates, 

be used to incentivize repair of bottlenecks anywhere along 

the axes, including within states, not just at border crossings 

or projects with cross-border implications. This would bring 

EU and national priorities into better alignment. 

The scan team discussed the following transportation issues 

with the EC and member states:

■ Corridor 1, Berlin-Verona/Milano-Bologna-NapoliMessina-Palermo (figure 9, see next page), is a focus of 

the EU. This corridor runs through Austria and requires 

the construction of an €8 billion tunnel through the 

Alps. From a national perspective, this has limited value 

to Austria and poses some environmental challenges for 

the country. TEN-T funding for the tunnel is limited, 

with the bulk of the cost borne by Austria. Aligning the 

Figure 8. Components of the evaluation process of the German Federal Transport Infrastructure Plan.

Overall Traffic

Forecast 2015

Forecast of 

passenger and 

freight transport

Alternative transport

policy scenarios

Apportionment of

Traffic Flows

Calculation of 

with and without 

scenarios for every 

project

Project

Assessment

Environmental risk 

assessment

Benefit-cost analysis

Spatial impact 

assessment
22 Chapter 4: Planning Processes

Figure 9. Corridor 1: Berlin-Verona/Milano-Bologna-Napoli-Messina-Palermo.

Figure 10. Hungarian long-term development plan of the expressway network (2034).
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 23

priorities and funding commensurate 

with those priorities and with each 

jurisdiction’s benefits and costs continues 

to be a challenge and a lesson for North 

America.

■ Hungary has a radial road network with 

Budapest as the hub. The Hungarian 

government wants to integrate that radial 

network with ring roads between the 

spokes to improve national connectivity 

(figure 10). The EU priority is to improve 

the capacity of the spokes to the borders 

to improve EU connectivity, and this 

is where the EU Cohesion Funds can 

be used. From the perspective of the 

Hungarian population, both the spokes 

and the radial ring roads are equally 

important in the long term.

■ Poland is aligning a good deal of its 

transportation infrastructure eastward 

and southward because many of those 

countries were and still are important 

trading partners. Other new member 

states are also aware of the trading 

advantages and opportunities they have 

with the Commonwealth of Independent 

States.14 This alignment establishes EU 

connectivity with their trading partners 

to the east and serves not only the EU, 

but the member states (figure 11). 

■ For many founding member states, the 

level of TEN-T funding for EU priorities 

is such that it does not factor heavily into 

their national transportation plans. In Germany, 

for example, EU funding amounts to potentially 

2 percent of its annual transportation budget. 

Since TEN-T fund is competitive, even that 

small percentage cannot be counted on as a 

stable source of funds. Consequently, national 

priorities take precedence.

14 The Commonwealth of Independent States is a regional organization 

whose participating countries are former Soviet Republics, formed during the 

breakup of the Soviet Union.

Figure 11. Polish east and south corridor connections.
24 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 25

Chapter 5: Sustainability of Freight Transportation

In 2001, the EC presented a 10-year strategy on sustainability 

in the transport sector. The strategy focused predominantly on 

balancing different modes of transport, harmonizing legislation 

in specific sectors, and enhancing transport safety. But an 

enlarged EU, under pressure from accelerating globalization, 

high oil prices, and transport-targeted terrorist attacks, is looking 

at adapting its initial strategy.

Because of its potentially detrimental impact on the 

environment and public health, the transport sector poses one 

of the greatest policy challenges for sustainable development in 

the EU. Transportation activity is a major user of nonrenewable 

energy resources. In the EU, the transport sector is responsible 

for 31 percent of energy consumption.

Road transport is the dominant mode of transport in the 

EU and contributes the most to greenhouse gas emissions, 

accounting for about 84 percent of CO2

 emissions from 

transportation.

To reduce the environmental impact caused by the prevailing 

trend to use road and air transport and to address increasing 

congestion problems, the EU wants to promote alternative 

modes of transport. The 2001 White Paper on Transport15 set 

2010 as the deadline for restoring the balance between road 

and other transport modes to the 1998 level, but with the 

continued rise in road transport, the EC is looking at other 

tools to promote a more sustainable transport policy.

Some proposed measures on freight transportation include 

the following:

■ Promote comodality. The EU wants to achieve 

better integration of different transport modes into 

efficient logistics chains to allow an optimized use of 

all modes that will reduce congestion. An important 

part of this program will be enhancing technical 

harmonization and interoperability across systems 

by reinforcing the position of railways, boosting 

maritime transport, and reviving the inland 

waterways transport system.

15 EuroActiv, White Paper on Transport, www.euractiv.com/en/transport/

white-paper-transport/article-129628.

■ Develop infrastructure charging. Charges on 

infrastructure aim to improve the management of 

freight transport and reduce transport’s environmental 

impact while generating funds for investing in new 

infrastructure. The EC is also preparing a model for 

calculating and internalizing external costs that will 

apply to all modes of transport.

■ Promote the use of cleaner cars and fuels.

Cars represent 10 percent of all EU CO2

 emissions. 

Until now, the commission’s strategy for reducing 

CO2 emissions has been based mainly on voluntary 

commitments from the car industry, but the target of 

limiting CO2 emissions from passenger cars to 120 grams 

per kilometer by 2010 is still far off. In February 2007, 

the commission proposed introducing binding targets.

Inland Waterways

Even though inland waterway transport is energy efficient 

and quiet and takes up little space, the capacity of the inland 

waterways in the EU is considerably underused in terms 

of infrastructure and vessels. The inland waterway system 

could handle much greater volumes of traffic, but is unable 

to do so, according to the EC, because national infrastructure 

investment policies give priority to other transport modes 

without maintaining the inland waterways and eliminating 

network bottlenecks.16

In addition to investment issues, the use of the water for 

transportation purposes must compete with other uses, such 

as human consumption and agricultural demand. To address 

these issues, the EU developed Navigation and Inland 

Waterway Action and Development in Europe (NAIADES). 

The NAIADES program focuses on five strategic interdependent 

areas for a comprehensive inland waterway transport policy: 

market, fleet, jobs and skills, image, and infrastructure. It includes 

recommendations for actions between 2006 and 2013 by the 

EC, member states, and other parties. 

In the market area, the plan calls for expanding services to offer 

reliable door-to-door inland navigation services integrating 

16 Transport Policy for the European Union (2001), White Paper—European 

Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide. 
26 Chapter 5: Sustainability of Freight Transportation

inland navigation in the transport logistics chains. 

The plan is also trying to attract new markets by 

encouraging cooperation with freight forwarders, 

the shipping industry, and ports. 

In the image area, the plan recognizes that the 

inland navigation sector has not kept pace with 

logistics and technological performance, so inland 

navigation as a successful business partner needs 

to be promoted. This is a joint responsibility of 

the industry, politicians, and administrations at 

national and European levels. 

Even though the larger part of the 36,000 

km (22,500 miles) of the waterway network 

has ample free capacities, several bottlenecks 

caused by limited draught, bridge clearance, and 

lock dimensions hinder its full use and reduce 

the competitiveness of the inland waterway 

system. The infrastructure area of the plan 

calls for improving and maintaining waterway 

infrastructures and transshipment facilities and 

implementing the River Information Services to 

support the planning and management of traffic 

and transport operations.17

Key Findings on Sustainability

Transportation policy has a strong 

linkage to environmental, social, and 

sustainability aspects.

The EU and the member states have a strong 

environmental ethic. Collectively, they appear to 

support not only meeting environmental regulations, 

but exceeding them. In their view, global warming 

is a serious threat to their economic well-being and 

they are taking concrete steps, such as enacting 

tolling and taxes that take into account environmental 

performance. “Decarbonization” was a term member 

state representatives repeated often.

The freight system vision of the EU fully supports this 

view and has environmental sustainability as one of its 

underlying tenets. In all the countries the scan team 

visited, this theme was evident. 

17 Communication from the Commission on the Promotion of Inland 

Waterway Transport “NAIADES” —An Integrated European Action 

Programme for Inland Waterway Transport, (SEC(2006) 34).

Aligning theory and practice is always 

a challenge.

Good alignment:

■ Germany’s Toll Collect system links toll amounts to 

emissions, so a 500-km trip costs €70 with newer, cleaner 

truck engines and €140 with older, dirtier engines. This 

linkage has been instrumental in driving the truck fleet 

overhaul to cleaner engines. In just 5 years, the cleanest 

emission trucks rose from just 0.2 percent of trucks 

paying tolls to 56.7 percent. 

■ The Port of Rotterdam is expanding by 2,000 hectares, 

of which 1,000 will be available for land lease. New 

terminal leases require outbound cargo to have a mode 

split of 35 percent truck, 45 percent barge, and 20 

percent rail—a requirement from the Netherlands 

Environmental Agency to gain environmental clearances 

Figure 12. Danube inland waterway system.
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 27

for port expansion. As existing terminal leases are up for 

renewal, this modal split will be part of negotiations. 

Challenging alignment:

■ The European Commission has a policy position to 

move cargo from trucks to rail or water transport 

as a way to reduce energy consumption, emissions, 

and congestion. However, this is an endeavor with 

considerable challenges:

➤ Passenger traffic is prioritized on the EU rail 

system. As noted in this report, a number of 

operational and infrastructure impediments (e.g., 

gauge, electrification, and signalization) need to be 

addressed before freight rail can realistically absorb 

sufficient volume to realize the desired modal shift 

from road to rail. As a result, freight rail continues 

to work in the margins of Europe’s rail system.

➤ Many of the newly admitted member states have 

extensive rail networks. These networks are not in 

good repair, but the infrastructure is in place. 

Before they joined the EU, their economies were 

based more on commodities and manufacturing 

that used rail transportation. Their road networks 

were not well developed because the price of cars 

and fuel was beyond what many could afford. 

Their economic status changed on accession, 

and their populations now wish to expand the 

road networks and increase their mobility. This 

expansion comes at the expense of an extensive 

rail network that remains in a state of disrepair. 
28 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 29

Chapter 6: Funding Structure

The largest proportion of funding for transportation 

infrastructure projects in the EU comes from each country’s 

general revenues. Some countries, such as Germany, have 

additional revenues from tolls on heavy vehicles. In Germany, 

tolling on heavy vehicles generated €3.6 billion in 2009.18

Funding of TEN-T projects draws mostly from the national 

budgets of member states (€196 billion in 2007–2013), while 

the EU contribution is provided through the TEN-T program 

(€8 billion) and the Cohesion and Structural Funds (€47 

billion). (See “Cohesion Fund for Transportation Projects.”)

The dedicated budget for TEN-T projects has been growing, 

but it is still a small portion of the overall cost. The cost of 

the 30 priority axes is about €250 billion, while the TEN-T 

budget has grown as follows:

■ 1995–1999: €1.875 billion

■ 2000–2006: €4.16 billion

■ 2007–2013: €8 billion

Different rules apply to different instruments. Funding under 

the Cohesion and Structural Funds can go up to 85 percent in 

eligible member states (cohesion countries). It is capped at 30 

percent for TEN-T program infrastructure works involving 

cross-border sections and 50 percent for studies. 

The TEN-T program is under direct management, which means 

the EC selects projects to support in line with TEN-T policy 

priorities. The Cohesion and Structural Funds are under shared 

management, which means member states choose the transport 

projects to finance after the commission agrees to the overall 

budget of a given program.

EU funding support includes mainly grants (TEN-T program, 

Cohesion and Structural Funds) or loans and guarantees from 

the EIB and is expected to amount to about 36 percent of 

total TEN-T costs for 2007–2013 (figure 13 on page 31). The 

proportion of national funding for TEN-T projects and the 

18 “Financing of Transport Infrastructure in Germany,” presentation by Julia 

Paul, Division UI21, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban 

Affairs, September 2010.

relatively low rate of community cofinancing available outside 

cohesion countries has often resulted in stronger national 

priority-setting than EU priority-setting.

The EIB has increased its lending activity to TEN-T projects 

from €7.9 billion in 2007 to €10.7 billion in 2010. In addition 

to EIB loans for TEN-T projects, the EIB participates in several 

joint initiatives with the EC, contributing not only funding, 

but also knowledge and best-practice sharing, marketing, and 

administrative support.

Public-Private Partnerships

Public-private partnership (PPP) arrangements have increased 

recently for key transport infrastructure in the EU. The 

constraints on public budgets in the aftermath of the financial 

crisis have emphasized the reality that public authorities are not 

in a position to provide for constantly growing infrastructure 

needs. Consequently, many governments pursue the use of 

alternative models, characterized by increasing private sector 

participation, to leverage the comparative advantage of the 

private sector to implement infrastructure projects that otherwise 

would be unaffordable. 

However, PPP arrangements are complex and more difficult to 

set up than traditionally procured projects. Key to successful 

PPPs are appropriate design output specifications and risk 

allocation to give private partners the opportunity to generate 

profit in line with their allocated risks.

Lack of a balanced funding strategy at the EU level, 

encompassing both member state and community contribution 

and integrating fully private sources, is a major impediment to 

the completion of the TEN-T network. This situation must be 

compared with investment needs, which remain considerable. 

It was estimated that completing 50,000 km of road axes and 

50,000 km of freight and passenger rail axes will cost about €10 

billion a year for 25 years.19

Private sector financing is quite developed in Europe and has 

long been used for infrastructure projects on the TEN-T. PPPs 

19 Traffic Flow: Scenario, Traffic Forecast, and Analysis of Traffic on the TEN-T, 

Taking Into Consideration the External Dimension of the Union, Final Report, 

December 2009, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/infrastructure/

studies/2009_12_ten_connect_final_report.pdf.
30 Chapter 6: Funding Structure

Cohesion Fund for Transportation Projects

What is the Cohesion Fund?

The Cohesion Fund is a structural instrument that helps member states reduce economic and 

social disparities and stabilize their economies. Since 1994, the Cohesion Fund has financed up 

to 85 percent of eligible expenditure of major projects involving the environment and transport 

infrastructure. This strengthens cohesion and solidarity in the EU. 

Who is eligible? 

A member state is eligible for Cohesion Funds if it has the following:

■ Per capita gross national product, measured in purchasing power parities, of less than 

90 percent of the EU average 

■ A program leading to fulfillment of the conditions of economic convergence in Article 104c of 

the treaty establishing the European Community (avoidance of excessive government deficits)

All new member states (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, 

Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia), as well as Greece and Portugal, qualify for the Cohesion 

Fund. Spain is also eligible for the Cohesion Fund, but on a transitional basis (so-called “phasing out”). 

Cohesion Fund support is conditional. Funding granted to a member state can be suspended if the 

country fails to comply with its convergence program for economic and monetary union (stability and 

growth pact), such as running an excessive public deficit. Until the deficit has been brought back 

under control, no new projects might be approved.

Projects establishing or developing transport infrastructure identified in the TEN-T guidelines are 

eligible for the Cohesion Fund. There must be an appropriate funding balance between transport 

infrastructure projects and environmental projects. 

How are Cohesion Fund projects managed?

Member states submit applications for financing to the European Commission, which generally 

decides on funding within 3 months. The proposals must include key elements explaining what 

is proposed and why, the feasibility and financing of the project, and the impact it will have in 

socioeconomic and environmental terms. All projects must comply with community legislation in 

force, in particular rules on competition, the environment, and public procurement.

The total EU assistance rate cannot exceed 85 percent of public or equivalent expenditure and 

depends on the type of operation to be carried out. For projects that generate revenue, the support 

is calculated taking into account the forecasted revenue.
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 31

have been tested in many forms and shapes since the late 

1980s, and the European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC) was 

formed as a joint initiative of the EIB, European Commission, 

EU member states, and candidate countries. EPEC’s mission 

is to strengthen the ability of the public sector to engage in 

PPP transactions by helping members share experience, 

expertise, analysis, and good practices.20

Road Charging

In 2008, the EU developed a proposal to establish a model for 

assessing the external costs of transport, such as pollution and 

congestion, to serve as the basis for calculating infrastructure 

user charges.21 The goal of the proposal is to set transport prices 

correctly so they better reflect the costs of the actual use of 

vehicles, trains, planes, or ships in terms of pollution, congestion, 

and climate change.

Given the road sector contribution on traffic and emission, 

the proposal calls for charging tolls that vary according to the 

distance traveled, the location, and the time of use in proportion 

to the external costs caused by vehicles. The proposal’s objective 

is to encourage member states to implement differentiated 

charging to improve the efficiency and environmental 

performance of road freight transport. It seeks to amend the 

1999 directive to establish a framework that enables member 

states to calculate and vary tolls based on the costs of traffic20 European PPP Expertise Centre, www.eib.org/epec/index.htm.

21 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 

amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for 

the use of certain infrastructures (SEC(2008) 2208) (SEC(2008) 2209).

based pollution and congestion in a way that is compatible with 

the internal market.

EU member states use several approaches to levy road freight 

transport, including a mix of taxation instruments (fuel and 

vehicle taxes) and user charges to recover infrastructure costs. 

The most common time-based fee is the Eurovignette.22

Other instruments are typical tolls based on distance levied on 

individual road sections or the full primary network. 

EU has a cap on toll fees for all member states, unless a state can 

directly substantiate a higher toll based on the cost of facility 

maintenance and operation. EU is also working to harmonize 

tolling systems as well as the rates—Global Positioning System, 

sticker (vignette), radio frequency identification, etc. The 

European Electronic Toll Service is being developed with the 

anticipation that it will eventually enable road users to easily pay 

tolls through one system throughout the EU.

Germany introduced a distance-based toll for all trucks of 12 

tons gross vehicle weight and above to redistribute these costs 

to all users—from inside and outside Germany. Toll Collect 

is the company that, acting on behalf of the Federal Republic 

of Germany, developed and operates the toll system capable of 

calculating and collecting road use charges based on the distance 

traveled. The system uses a global navigation satellite system.23

22 A vignette or sticker based on an agreement between several member states 

that gives access to the network on each other’s territory.

23 Detailed information is at www.toll-collect.de/frontend/HomepageVP.do;j

sessionid=43AAD1D5F10F0DA4CC2D64D39FE7F7E2.app02.

Figure 13. TEN-T funding and financing framework (2007–2013).
32 Chapter 6: Funding Structure

Key Findings on Funding

Multiple funding sources are available 

to meet project needs.

Many projects have financial plans that are made up of multiple 

sources and partnerships among government, private, and 

quasigovernmental entities (government-owned companies) 

and that represent a mix of grants, bonds, loans, user fees 

(tolls), and taxes. 

Capitalization via the states was used to start the EIB, but it has 

since significantly expanded to the point that EU member states 

no longer contribute to its capitalization or administration; it 

is a self-sustaining entity. It now provides a flexible and useful 

approach to funding corridor development. As a policy bank, it 

incorporates societal goals into its project-selection criteria (e.g., 

all highway projects EIB funds must have a road safety audit) 

while maintaining a hard-nosed analytical rigor in its project 

review. EIB retains its own staff of professionals to perform 

project reviews. 

EIB is the foremost funder of PPPs in the EU. It is limited to 

funding no more than 50 percent of a public or private sector 

project. When EIB is engaged in a private sector project, the 

private sector must be willing to assume the risk in two of three 

risk areas: revenue, construction, and maintenance. 

Multiyear funding is necessary to bring 

a project to completion.

Multiyear funding provides continuity and expectations of 

project completion while minimizing delays in planning and 

implementation because of funding insecurity. However, many 

states have annual budgets and do not have a dedicated funding 

source for transportation projects; together these can hamper 

long-term investments. European fuel taxes are high, but unlike 

the U.S. model of directing fuel taxes to the Highway Trust Fund, 

the taxes go into the general fund where transport must compete 

with other societal demands.

Different funding opportunities reflect 

TEN-T implementation.

Two funds are available to EU members to implement TEN-T:

■ TEN-T funds are available to all members, are 

competitive EU-wide, and are used mostly by the 

founding member states. These funds amount to mere 

fractions of the founding member states’ transportation 

budgets and are not sufficient to tip the scale between 

EU and national priorities.

■ Cohesion Funds are available only to eligible EU 

member states (see “Cohesion Fund for Transportation 

Projects”), but EU must approve their use. These funds 

represent a substantial share of eligible member states’ 

transportation budgets and are sufficient to help shape 

the transportation budgets and projects in these states. 

Tolling policy varies by country.

Regardless of EU efforts to harmonize tolling technologies or 

tolling amounts noted in this report, EU countries have different 

perspectives on tolling:

■ Hungary is solidly on board with the user-pays principle 

and wants to increase tolls across the board on all 

vehicles using the main elements of the transportation 

network. The revenues in the vignette toll system are 

constrained by the EU tolling cap, which is one reason 

Hungary wants to launch a distance-related toll system.

■ Germany has a policy to “facilitate rather than prevent 

mobility.” This translates into a policy of no urban 

charging (e.g., cordon pricing), no passenger tolls, and 

no increase in the heavy goods vehicle (HGV) tolls 

collected through its Toll Collect system. It is, however, 

considering expanding the network on which HGV 

tolls are charged. 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 33

Chapter 7: Freight Corridor Implementation and Operations

Project Coordination

Project implementation at the national level has relatively few 

issues, but coordination on cross-border sections is often the 

most complex aspect of TEN-T projects. It demands active 

cooperation among a wide range of stakeholders. Memoranda 

of understanding or letters of intent have been used for the 

Munich-Salzburg and Vienna-Bratislava cross-border sections 

and between the Baltic States and Poland, as well as for the six 

freight corridors with priority for deploying European rail 

traffic management system (ERTMS).

The other key issue with cross-border projects is the lack 

of joint traffic forecasts and general project development 

approaches. This leads to differing investment plans and 

contradictory timelines, capacity planning, alignment, 

technical and interoperability characteristics, and 

environmental assessments. 

To facilitate the implementation of the projects necessary 

to advance the 30 priority axes, the EU established and 

appointed European coordinators in 2005 to cover priority 

projects 1, 3, 6, 17, 21, 18, and 30, as well as ERTMS. 

Typically, these coordinators are political appointees who are 

well-known former politicians who can work with heads of 

states to resolve significant project advancement issues, such 

as funding and environmental compliance. The goal of the 

European coordinators is to accelerate project implementation, 

especially in cross-border projects. The coordinators have 

developed a comprehensive project approach for the priority 

projects they routinely monitor, indicating which conditions 

should logically be met for EU cofunding.

European Rail Operations

Several issues in the European railway system have led to 

low customer satisfaction for freight moves and a decrease in 

rail volumes and market share, which creates a risk of freight 

traffic losing critical mass. There is a strong focus on passenger 

traffic, both in management and infrastructure investments. 

The interoperability of the railway system in Europe is 

difficult because of the multiple railway operators with 

different power and signaling systems and even track gauge. 

The system requires technical compatibility of infrastructure, 

rolling stock, signaling, and other rail systems, as well as less 

complex procedures for approving rolling stock for use across 

the European rail network. Figure 14 illustrates these issues in 

the Trans-European rail line between Antwerp and Valencia.

The ERTMS project was set up to create a unique signaling 

and communication standard throughout Europe, and in 2009 

the EC adopted a European Deployment Plan for ERTMS 

that provides for the progressive deployment of ERTMS along 

the main European rail routes. Technical specifications for 

interoperability were developed by the European Association for 

Railway Interoperability, representing infrastructure managers, 

railway companies, and industry.

Figure 14. Antwerp-Valencia rail line characteristics.
34 Chapter 7: Freight Corridor Implementation and Operations

Key Findings on Operations

Greater harmonization of technology and 

operations is necessary to ensure success 

of a national vision. 

■ Roadway interoperability is not an issue with physical 

infrastructure in the EU or North America, but both 

regions are dealing with issues related to tolling, 

including the various methods of collecting the tolls 

(electronic versus vignette), the toll rates, and 

emphasis. Germany, for example, emphasizes heavy 

trucks and emissions penalties, while Hungary is 

considering tolling passenger cars along with freight.

■ The EU fully recognizes the need to make its rail 

system interoperable. It has been successful in 

some areas of high-speed passenger movement on 

individual alignments, but on the freight rail side it 

faces substantial obstacles of electrification, gauge, 

signalization, and credentialing. It will take a 

substantial effort to bring these centuries-old 

systems into alignment. The EU is making headway 

on establishing a methodology, called one-stop, for 

coordinating freight rail moves between countries.

Corridor coalitions and project coordinators play 

an important role in project development.

Establishment of the EU corridors and corridor coordinators, 

along with the success of early efforts among France, Portugal, 

and Spain in coordinating corridor and project activities, 

suggests that there is value in developing corridor coalitions 

and leadership to ensure a common vision and organizational 

momentum over the long term. There is also a need for 

corridor leadership that can bridge local needs and EU policy. 

Austria, Germany, and Italy have recognized the value of 

informal working relationships in coordinating projects that 

have mutual benefits. Member states have also found value in 

the EU coordinators, a role they see as one of diplomacy and 

facilitation. EC representatives indicated that coordinators 

have been responsible for moving stalled projects, but that 

not all projects need or require a coordinator.
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 35

Conclusions

The scan team analyzed the information gathered during the 

scan, developed a series of conclusions, and identified the 

relevance of each conclusion to freight transportation corridor 

development in the United States.

Importance of a unifying vision linking 

transportation and the economy

From the beginning, EU member states have considered 

transportation infrastructure both an important element of 

advancing European unity and a critical factor in allowing a 

unified Europe to compete in the international marketplace.

EU expansion has brought additional challenges because the 

development of transportation infrastructure varies widely 

among member states. Nevertheless, the strategic vision of 

a unified EU with strong transportation infrastructure that 

promotes sustainable, environmentally sound economic 

growth, increased trade, and global competitiveness continues 

to be an essential motivation and component of EU policy.

The United States is familiar with the concept of a unifying 

vision, clear focus, and pursuit of a national interest to advance 

transportation projects that support the U.S. economy. It was 

pursuit of a common vision and a national interest that advanced 

transportation projects such as the canals, locks and dams, and 

transcontinental railroads of the 19th century and the Panama 

Canal, Interstate Highway System, and St. Lawrence Seaway of 

the 20th century. Those successful transportation investments 

were transformative. They unleashed the competitive capacity of 

the Nation by creating new economic opportunities that led to 

new industries and settlement patterns. They provided the solid 

underpinning for the rise of the American industrial economy, 

American prosperity, and America as a global power. 

Today’s challenge to develop transportation systems capable of 

sustaining sophisticated supply chains that serve international 

and domestic markets is no less challenging and would be well 

served by a similarly clear focus.

Challenges of multijurisdictional transportation 

planning and implementation

The EU experience offers rich lessons on the challenges 

of coordinating transportation planning across the most 

complex jurisdictional boundaries. Each EU member state 

has its own sovereign priorities and transportation planning 

processes, making the coordination of multistate 

transportation infrastructure development and operations a 

challenge. Aligning priorities and funding for transportation 

infrastructure that spans several countries requires innovative 

approaches and the proper balance of funding commensurate 

with those interests. The EU is implementing processes that 

require high-level project coordinators to streamline the 

implementation of transportation infrastructure projects 

that cross borders. The approach focuses on multimodal 

connectivity rather than individual transportation sectors.

A lesson for the United States is that freight projects that 

serve multijurisdictional purposes will likely require new 

management, funding, and coordination strategies to 

ensure effective corridor development. 

Operationally, the differences in specifications in the rail 

system in the EU make seamless freight rail transportation 

challenging. Track gauge, power, and signaling systems are 

not completely standardized throughout the system, which 

hinders efficient operation. EU standardization efforts are 

being implemented through the ERTMS.

The United States should work with both Canada and 

Mexico to ensure that the railroads that serve the North 

American continent do not encounter these infrastructureor operation-related impediments.

Evolution from exclusively national and local 

to international understanding

Transportation planning processes in each member state are 

being modified to include a broader international perspective 

beyond that inherent in the EU alone. Project assessment 

Chapter 8: Conclusions and Implementation Plan
36 Chapter 8: Conclusions and Implementation Plan

techniques are being modified at both the EU and country levels 

to take into consideration the linkages to neighboring countries 

outside the EU. Direct and transit relationships with Russia, 

the Far East, and North Africa now figure prominently in EU 

transportation planning processes.

A lesson for the United States is to continue to promote the 

awareness of the extent and impact of domestic and international 

supply chains on U.S. transportation networks, and to continue 

to provide data and information on national goods movement 

that informs State and Federal decisionmaking.

Creation of a foundation for fact-based 

policy decisions

EU experience with corridor planning processes over the past 

5 to 10 years has led European planners to seek improvements 

in the quality and application of market and traffic data used in 

their work. Transportation infrastructure planning processes are 

being modified in consultation with member states to expand 

the use of market information and other hard data to identify 

and define transportation networks (core and comprehensive) 

in ways that are less theoretical and closer to actual or projected 

established demand. TEN-T implementation was leaning toward 

a more project-based, idealized approach and was losing some of 

its corridor-based origins linked to current and historical traffic 

patterns and investments. Implementing connected projects in 

multiple states would be better served with a fresh look at the 

market, particularly with EU expansion. As a result, the EU is 

revising the TEN-T program based on an approach grounded in 

market fundamentals and analytics.

Of relevance to the United States is that any movement 

toward corridor-level thinking must be grounded in objective, 

transparent facts and market analysis.

Alignment of benefits and costs

The European Union is investing considerable effort in 

evaluating projects, taxation rates, and transport fees to balance 

the benefits of efficient freight movement with its costs to 

society. This balancing includes using sophisticated benefit-cost 

analyses, implementing pollution-influenced truck tolls, and 

developing multivariable project-selection criteria. These efforts 

are intended to align freight projects and freight investments 

with the cost that freight movement creates for society.

The United States should evaluate these practices to improve 

project selection and policy evaluation methods.

Alignment of policies

The alignment of policies across the EU has understandably 

not been an easy task. The EU has as a goal, for example, the 

diversion of cargo from trucks to rail or water transport as a 

way to reduce energy consumption, emissions, and congestion. 

However, for policy reasons related in part to environmental 

considerations, passenger traffic is prioritized on the EU rail 

system, which to some extent impedes reliable freight 

movement. Another area of policy alignment that draws 

attention is the expansion of the transportation network as a 

whole and the choice of investments. Based on the demands 

of their populations, many new member states wish to expand 

their road network. In some cases, this comes at the expense of 

an extensive rail network in a state of disrepair.

A lesson for the United States is that freight policy needs to 

be developed in conjunction with related policies, such as 

economic, trade, environmental, or land use. Freight operations 

are heavily influenced by these other factors and must be 

considered in estimating the effectiveness of freight policies. 

Reinforcing the value of stable multiyear funding 

Multiyear funding provides continuity and expectations of 

project completion while minimizing delays in planning and 

implementation because of funding insecurity. Newly admitted 

member states that receive a larger proportion of funding from 

the EU for transportation infrastructure projects benefit from 

multiyear funding. However, many founding member states 

have annual budgets that can hamper long-term investments.

The United States already knows this lesson and in 1991 

shifted its transportation funding to a multiyear (6-year) cycle. 

It should not have to learn this lesson again. 

The scanning study reinforced in team members’ minds 

that the concept of corridor-level thinking and action 

based on connectivity, access, thorough analysis, and market 

needs transcends differences and emphasizes similarities. 

This concept was integral to the establishment of the U.S. 

Interstate Highway System, and it is being replicated in 

nearly all developing and growing economies. This study 

highlighted the value of and many of the issues involved 

in evolving and refocusing the U.S. multimodal 

transportation network toward this concept. 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 37

Recommended Implementation Actions

The scan team used the key findings described in this report 

to develop implementation actions that could improve 

freight transportation in North America. 

The team is formulating a comprehensive implementation 

plan as the United States moves ahead in developing a 

national freight policy and a network of freight corridors. 

The specific actions the scan team identified include 

the following: 

■ Perform outreach to transportation agency leaders, 

policymakers, and stakeholder groups.

■ Disseminate a scan report and executive summary.

■ Better use private sector planning resources to aid 

public sector planning. 

■ Determine the impacts that occurred when Germany 

implemented the Toll Collect system for trucks.

■ Prepare a supplemental scan report at the conclusion 

of the EU effort to develop core and comprehensive 

networks to discuss and evaluate the process 

and results. 

■ Develop a list of important national freight corridors 

and port facilities in the United States. 

■ Determine if the European process for arranging 

private freight train slots on the European public rail 

lines that cross country borders could be a model for 

developing a system to create a “one-stop shop” for 

oversize and overweight trucks needing permits 

from multiple States. 

■ Coordinate freight planning efforts on the North 

American continent.

■ Develop a discussion paper on the how the European 

model of having coordinators for major cross-border 

projects could be used in North America to advance 

multistate or multinational projects. 

■ Gather more information on the multicriteria 

analysis the EU uses for its freight corridor effort 

and assess its applicability for transportation planning 

(including but not limited to freight planning) in 

the United States.

■ Gather information on the types of PPPs used in 

Europe. It they are different from the types of PPPs 

used or being considered in the United States, 

determine if they could be of use in the United States.

■ Determine no- or low-cost efforts to improve freight 

transportation in North America. 

■ Determine if analysis being conducted in the 

Netherlands on a new vehicle design that spreads 

weight differently has potential use in the 

United States. 

■ Establish an ongoing relationship with DG MOVE. 
38 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 39

Anthony T. Furst (FHWA Co-chair)

Director

Office of Freight Management & Operations

HOFM-1, Room E86-322 

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590-9898

Telephone: 202-366-2201 or 202-366-4405

Fax: 202-366-3225

E-mail: tony.furst@dot.gov

Eric G. Madden (AASHTO Co-chair)

Deputy Secretary

Aviation & Rail Freight

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

400 North St., 8th Floor

Harrisburg, PA 17120-0095

Telephone: 717-783-2026

Fax: 717-787-5491

E-mail: emadden@state.pa.us 

Juan C. Villa (Report Facilitator)

Program Manager

Texas Transportation Institute

Texas A&M University System 

3135 TAMU

College Station, TX 77843-3135

Telephone: 979-862-3382

Fax: 979-845-6008

E-mail: j-villa@tamu.edu

Eduardo Asperó 

General Director

Stacktrain Mexico S. de F.L. de C.V.

Blvd. Manuel Avila Camacho No. 40–1402

Col. Lomas de Chapultepec

Mexico, D.F.CP 11000

Telephone: 011+52 55 52 02 73 88

Fax: 011+52 55 52 02 44 88

E-mail: eduardo.aspero@pacer.com 

Representing: Mexico Intermodal Transportation Association

Monica M. Blaney

Senior Policy Advisor

Continental Gateway and Systems Analysis

Strategic Policy Directorate

Transport Canada

Tower C, Place de Ville, 27th Floor

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5, Canada

Telephone: 613-949-4156

E-mail: monica.blaney@tc.gc.ca

David F. Long 

Director

Office of Service Industries                                 

International Trade Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce 

1401 Constitution Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20230                                                         

Telephone: 202-482-0344

Fax: 202-482-2669

E-mail: david.long@trade.gov                          

Bernardo J. Ortiz

Strategic Projects Coordinator

Infrastructure Undersecretary

Ministry of Communications and Transport

Mexico City, Mexico

Telephone: 011+52 55 57 239 483

Fax: 011+52-55-55 389 929

E-mail: bomantil@sct.gob.mx

Robert L. Penne

Program Director

Intermodal and Industry Activities

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials

444 North Capitol St. NW, Suite 249

Washington, DC 20001

Telephone: 202-624-5813

Fax: 202-624-5806

E-mail: lpenne@aashto.org

Appendix A: Scan Team Members
40 Appendix A: Scan Team Members

Ernest B. Perry, Ph.D.

Freight Development Administrator

Missouri Department of Transportation

Multimodal Operations

105 West Capital Ave.

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Telephone: 573-526-5578

Fax: 573-526-4709

E-mail: ernest.perry@modot.mo.gov

George E. Schoener

Executive Director

I-95 Corridor Coalition

1390 Piccard Dr., Suite 200

Rockville, MD 20850

Telephone: 321-939-0793

Fax: 703-997-5531

E-mail: geschoener@comcast.net 

Renee Sigel

Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration Pennsylvania Division

Federal Building

228 Walnut St., Room 508

Harrisburg, PA 17101-1720

Telephone: 717-221-3461

Fax: 717-221-3494

E-mail: renee.sigel@dot.gov

Spencer L. Stevens

Transportation Planner

Office of Planning Oversight & Stewardship

HEPP-10, Room E72-111

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590

Telephone: 202-366-0149

Fax: 202-493-2198

E-mail: spencer.stevens@dot.gov

Kenneth L. Sweeney

Chief Engineer

Maine Department of Transportation 

16 State House Station

Augusta, ME 04333-0016

Telephone: 207-624-3011

Fax: 207-624-3001

E-mail: ken.sweeney@maine.gov

Biographical Information

Anthony T. Furst (FHWA cochair) is the director of the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Freight 

Management and Operations. He directs a multilevel staff 

that develops FHWA freight policy, provides data analysis and 

decision-support tools for transportation professionals, evaluates 

freight projects, develops and promulgates professional capacitybuilding programs and training for freight professionals, provides 

truck size and weight program guidance and interpretation, and 

evaluates and promotes freight technology development for 

national and international deployment. Before joining FHWA in 

2003, Furst held a range of positions in the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (U.S. DOT) Maritime Administration and U.S. 

Secretary of Transportation’s Office of Intermodalism. He was 

the branch chief of the Transportation Security Administration’s 

Maritime Infrastructure Security Branch. Furst retired from 

the U.S. Coast Guard in 2000. He is a graduate of Florida State 

University and has a master’s in business administration from the 

University of Washington. 

Eric G. Madden (AASHTO cochair) is deputy secretary 

for aviation and rail freight for the Pennsylvania Department 

of Transportation in Harrisburg, PA. Madden oversees and 

administers Federal and State financial and technical programs 

for 133 public-use airports and heliports and more than 65 

railroad companies and businesses. In addition to administering 

more than $75 million annually in grants, his offices provide 

licensing, inspection, planning, and environmental assistance. 

He has a bachelor’s degree in Russian language and literature 

from the University of Maryland. Madden is cochair of the 

Delaware Valley Goods Movement Task Force and the South 

Central Pennsylvania Goods Movement Forum and is a member 

of the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Strategic 

Highway Research Program Expert Task Group for Integrating 

Freight Considerations into Collaborative Decision Making for 

Additions to Highway Capacity. 

Juan C. Villa (report facilitator) is manager of the 

Economics, Trade, and Logistics Program at the Texas 

Transportation Institute (TTI), part of the Texas A&M 

University System. His research emphasis includes international 

trade and transportation, development of performance 

measures at land ports of entry, and freight corridor planning 

and development. Before joining TTI in 2001, he was the 

managing director of an international transportation and 

logistics consulting firm in Mexico City. Villa is a graduate of 

the Monterrey Institute of Technology in Monterrey, Mexico, 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 41

and has a bachelor’s degree in electronic engineering and a 

master’s degree in transport studies from Cranfield University 

in England. He serves on the TRB International Trade and 

Transportation, Freight Transportation Planning and Logistics, 

and Freight Transportation Data committees. 

Eduardo Asperó has been chief executive officer of 

Stacktrain Mexico, an agent of Pacer Stacktrain USA, since 

2000. He is also president of Mexico Intermodal Transportation 

Association (AMTI). In this position, Asperó has presented 

several proposals to Mexico’s government to simplify and 

facilitate intermodal operation in Mexico’s customs, ports, 

and railroad operations. He participated in activities related 

to international affairs for merchant marine and port 

administration for the Ministry of Communications and 

Transport from 1979 to 1989. Asperó was also CEO of the 

Company Port Services of Quintana Roo, S.A. de C.V. from 

1989 to 1993, and national coordinator of Integral Port 

Administrations (Port Authorities) from 1995 to 1999, where 

he coordinated the privatization process of port services and 

terminals. Asperó has a degree in international relations from 

the National University of Mexico and diplomas from the 

French Agency for Industrial and Technical Cooperation 

in maritime law, port planning, multimodal transportation, 

and port administration. He is vice president of the Mexican 

Association of Importers and Exporters.

Monica M. Blaney is a senior policy advisor for the 

Continental Gateway and Systems Analysis branch of 

the Strategic Policy Directorate at Transport Canada in 

Ottawa, Canada. Blaney is responsible for the transportation 

infrastructure and freight systems analyses of the AsiaPacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative and the Western 

Canadian Freight Transportation System in Canada’s 

National Gateway and Corridor framework. She is also 

responsible for coordinating transportation data collaboration 

efforts with FHWA. Blaney has served with Transport 

Canada for the past 2 years and has more than 23 years of 

experience in transportation analysis, planning, and 

operations in the private and public sectors. She has bachelor’s 

degrees in statistics and agriculture from the University of 

Manitoba. She is working on a master of business 

administration degree in maritime logistics and business 

through the Australian Maritime College, an affiliate of the 

University of Tasmania. She serves on a National Sciences 

Academy research panel and cochairs the Data Subcommittee 

for the Canada-United States Transportation Border 

Working Group.

David F. Long is the director of the Office of Service 

Industries in the U.S. Department of Commerce. He manages 

a group that follows a broad portfolio of service sectors in the 

U.S. economy, with a strong emphasis on supply chain and 

logistics, and contributes industry and policy expertise to support 

trade negotiations in services and other efforts to enhance 

U.S. economic competitiveness. Long leads the department’s 

supply chain infrastructure competitiveness initiative, a 

logistics-focused program to enhance U.S. competitiveness 

developed in collaboration with the U.S. DOT. In addition to 

his more than 15 years of senior-level commercial and policy 

experience in international telecommunications services, Long 

was a telecommunications trade negotiator with the U.S. 

Trade Representative from 1991 to 1994. Long is a graduate 

of Michigan State University. He has a master’s degree in 

international relations from John Hopkins University’s Nitze 

School of Advanced International Studies and a master of 

business administration degree from Georgetown University.

Bernardo J. Ortiz is the strategic projects coordinator 

for the infrastructure undersecretary of the Ministry of 

Communications and Transport in Mexico. He is responsible 

for the planning, development, and implementation of strategic 

projects for infrastructure modernization and improvement in 

Mexico. These projects include developing a national program 

for infrastructure and transport, a logistical infrastructure 

plan, and other projects related to the integration of road 

infrastructure planning, management, and operation nationwide. 

Ortiz has a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the 

Universidad de las Américas-Puebla and a master’s degree in 

transportation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

He is the Mexican representative to the B1 Technical Committee 

on Good Governance of Road Administrations of the World 

Road Association and vice-treasurer of AMIVTAC (Mexican 

Road Engineering Association). 

Robert L. Penne is program director for intermodal and 

industry activities for the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). He is 

responsible for issues involving freight transportation by all 

modes—rail, truck, aviation, ports, and waterways—and for 

liaison with industries with significant interests in freight 

movement and transportation infrastructure. Penne also shares 

responsibility for developing and communicating the case for 

the economic benefits of transportation and demonstrating the 

linkage between transportation and economic development. 

He has developed and carried out programs for advocacy, policy 

development, and research in areas such as transportation, 

economic development, urban development, environmental 
42 Appendix A: Scan Team Members

protection, public finance, training, and tourism and has written 

and edited books, reports, and articles on these subjects. For 

8 years, he initiated and chaired the Transportation Working 

Group of the Governors’ Washington Representatives, 

which supported the advocacy of governors for increased 

transportation investment, and for the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act and Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century authorizations. Penne is a graduate of Seattle 

University and the University of Washington with degrees in 

political science. He served as an adjunct faculty member at the 

University of Maryland Baltimore County. 

Dr. Ernest B. Perry is the administrator of freight 

development at the Missouri Department of Transportation 

in Jefferson City, MO. He is responsible for developing a 

freight program that works across all modes of transportation 

to support efficient freight movement and increased modal 

connectivity and seeks opportunities with the private sector to 

expand freight services and facilities in the State. He is working 

on projects to reestablish freight traffic on the Missouri River, 

develop dedicated truck lanes on a major interstate, and increase 

speed and reliability on a shared-use passenger-freight rail 

corridor. Perry has served with the Missouri Department of 

Transportation for 15 years, working in environmental clearance, 

social science, economics and policy research, and freight 

development. He is a graduate of the University of Missouri–

Columbia and earned a Ph.D. in 2003. He serves on three 

cooperative freight research panels and participates in AASHTO 

technical and policy freight activities.

George E. Schoener is the executive director of the I-95 

Corridor Coalition. Schoener is responsible for directing 

multimodal transportation programs in the most heavily traveled 

corridor in the United States, with emphasis on providing safe 

and efficient freight operations throughout the corridor. The 

I-95 Corridor Coalition is a partnership of State departments of 

transportation, regional and local transportation agencies, toll 

authorities, and related organizations, including port, transit, and 

rail organizations, from Maine to Florida, with affiliate members 

in Canada. Before becoming executive director, Schoener worked 

for the U.S. DOT and FHWA for 33 years. He served as the 

deputy assistant secretary for transportation policy, directing 

the administration’s legislation for authorizing the Federal 

surface transportation program, and developing a national 

freight transportation framework. Schoener is a graduate of 

the University of Minnesota with a degree in civil engineering 

and has a master’s degree in transportation engineering from 

Pennsylvania State University. He serves on the Strategic 

Highway Research Program’s Oversight Committee and several 

TRB committees and chairs projects for the National Freight 

Cooperative Research Program.

B. Renee Sigel is division administrator of the FHWA 

Pennsylvania Division. She heads an office of 40 professionals 

that oversees an approximately $1.4 billion Federal-aid highway 

program in Pennsylvania. Under Sigel’s leadership, FHWA has 

worked with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation 

on numerous initiatives to improve transportation system 

safety and the project delivery process. She serves on the 

FHWA Freight Council. Sigel began working for FHWA in 

1991 as an environmental protection specialist. Since then, 

Sigel has held several FHWA positions, including planning 

and environment team leader in Maryland, transportation 

planner and quality coordinator for Federal Lands Highway 

in Colorado, transportation liaison for the 2002 Winter 

Olympics in Utah, and assistant division administrator in Idaho. 

She serves on the board of the American Society of Highway 

Engineers–Harrisburg Section and is a member of the Women’s 

Transportation Seminar. 

Spencer L. Stevens is a transportation planner for the 

FHWA Office of Planning in Washington, DC. Stevens leads 

the freight planning research effort as part of FHWA’s Surface 

Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative 

Research Program. His research emphasis includes the 

relationship between land use and goods movement, improved 

methods for estimating freight trips in the planning process, 

and the consideration of multimodal freight investment 

tradeoffs. Stevens has served FHWA for more than 20 years in 

various offices across the country. Before joining the Office of 

Planning in 2006, he was the planning team leader in FHWA’s 

Pennsylvania Division. Stevens has a bachelor’s degree in civil 

engineering from the University of New Hampshire. He serves 

on several FHWA technical committees. 

Kenneth L. Sweeney is chief engineer of the Maine 

Department of Transportation. Sweeney is responsible for 

establishing department engineering standards to ensure the 

safe movement of freight and people. Sweeney has a bachelor’s 

degree in civil engineering from Lowell Technological Institute 

in Lowell, MA. He has a master’s degree in public administration 

from the University of Maine in Orono, ME. Sweeney is a 

registered professional engineer and a member of Pi Alpha 

Alpha, the honor society of public administration. He is a 

member of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways 

and the State Board of Licensing for Professional Engineers. 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 43

Austria

Markus Radl

Department of International Relations

Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation, and Technology 

Radetzkystrasse 2

1030 Vienna, Austria

Telephone: 011+43 1 711 62 65 12 09

Fax: 011+43 1 711 621 299

E-mail: markus.radl@bmvit.gv.at

Web: www.bmvit.gv.at

Roland Schuster

Head of Department for Infrustructure Financing

Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation, and Technology

Radetzkystrassse 2

A-1030 Vienna, Austria

Telephone: 011+43 (0) 1 711 62 65

E-mail: roland.schuster@bmvit.gv.at 

Otto Schwetz

President

International Navigation Association Section Austria

Donau-City Strasse 1

A-1220 Wien, Austria

Telephone: 011+43 5 04321

E-mail: scwconsult@aon.at 

Belgium

Kertu Kaera

DG MOVE, Unit A2: International Relations

European Commission

Office DM24 07/120

Rue De Mot/De Motstraat 24, 1040 Brussels

1049 Brussels, Belgium

Telephone: 011+32 22 9 69 209

E-mail: kertu.kaera@ec.europa.eu

Jean-Eric Paquet

Acting Director for Trans-European Transport Network 

& Smart Transport

DG MOVE 

European Commission

Office DM24 08/153

Rue De Mot/De Motstraat 24, 1040 Brussels

1049 Brussels, Belgium

Telephone: 011+32 22 9 81 426

E-mail: jean-eric.paquet@ec.europa.eu 

Alain Baron

Head of Sector 

DG MOVE, Unit A2: International Relations

European Commission

Office DM 24

Rue De Mot/De Motstraat 24

1040 Brussels, Belgium

Telephone: 011+32 22 9 91 527

E-mail: alain.baron@ec.europa.eu 

Dr. Libor Lochman 

Deputy Executive Director 

Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies 

AISBL

Avenue des Arts 53

B-1000 Brussels, Belgium

Telephone: 011+32 2 213 08 82

E-mail: libor.lochman@cer.be

Matthew Arndt

Head of Division

Rail & Road Project Directorate

European Investment Bank

98-100, Boulevard Konrad Adenauer

L-2950 Luxembourg, Luxembourg

Telephone: 011+35 2 243 79 88 642

E-mail: m.arndt@eib.org 

Appendix B: Host Country Contacts
44 Appendix B: Host Country Contacts

Germany

Adam Mutwil

Assistant Head of Division External Economic 

Relations

Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban 

Development

Invalidenstr. 44

D-10115 Berlin, Germany

Telephone: 011+49 30 18 30 02 423

Fax: 011+49 30 18 30 08 07 24 23

E-mail: adam.mutwil@bmvbs.bund.de

Martin Rickmann

Toll Collect GmbH

Linkstraße 4

10785 Berlin, Germany

Telephone: 011+49 (0)30 74077-2400

E-mail: martin.rickmann@toll-collect.de

Hungary

Tamas Revesz

Ministry of Transport, Telecommunication, and Energy

Akademia u. 3

H-1054 Budapest, Hungary

Telephone: 011+36 1 471 84 19

E-mail: tamas.revesz@khem.gov.hu 

Lajos Szucs

Head of Department

Ministry of Transport, Telecommunication, and Energy

Akademia u. 3

H-1054 Budapest, Hungary

Telephone: 011+36 1 795 1700 

E-mail: lajos.szucs@nfm.gov.hu 

Zsolt Volgyesi

CEO

Coordination Center For Transport Development

39 Lovohaz St.

H-1024 Budapest, Hungary

Telephone: 011+36 1 336 8101

E-mail: volgyesi.zsolt@kkk.gov.hu 

The Netherlands

Ruud Staverman

Centre for Watermanagement of Rijkswaterstaat

PO Box 17

8200 AA Lelystad, Netherlands

Telephone: 011+31 (0)6 51271206 

E-mail: ruud.staverman@rws.nl 

Richard Ossendorp

Head of European Affairs

Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management

Plesmanweg 1-6

2597 JG The Hague, Netherlands

Telephone: 011+31 (0) 70 351 7221

E-mail: richard.ossendorp@minvenw.nl 

Richard van der Elburg

Policy Advisor

Centre for Transport and Navigation (Rijkswaterstaat)

PO Box 5044 

2600 GA Delft, Netherlands

Telephone: 011+ 31 8 87 98 23 72

E-mail: richard.vander.elburg@rws.nl 

Frans van Keulen

Chief External Relations Officer

Port of Rotterdam Authority

PO Box 6622

3002 AP Rotterdam, Netherlands

Telephone: 011+31 (0) 10 252 18 07

E-mail: f.van.keulen@portofrotterdam.com

Poland

Graz ̇ yna Sikorska

Department of Transport Policy and Foreign Affairs

Polish Ministry of Infrastructure

Chałubińskiego 4/6

Warsaw, Poland

Telephone: 011+48 22 630 13 37

E-mail: gsikorska@mi.gov.pl 
Understanding the Policy and Program Structure of National and International Freight Corridor Programs in the European Union 45

Corridor—Project Selection

1. How did the European Union (EU) or individual 

countries coordinate, plan, prioritize, and fund 

cross-border and multinational freight infrastructure 

improvement before the Trans-European Transport 

Network (TEN-T)?

2. How do you define a corridor (geography, multimodal, 

function, etc.)? 

3. What factors go into establishing the TEN-T corridors? 

What data (type, frequency, cost), analysis, future 

projections, or performance measures (off and on 

network) are considered? What role does modal share 

play? If modal tradeoffs must be made, what factors go 

into the decision?

4. What role, if any, does the private sector play in corridor 

or project selection?

5. What other economic and transportation goals or 

factors influence corridor or project selection? 

6. How were the initial TEN-T freight corridors selected?

7. Were the TEN-T freight corridors confined to 

EU states?

8. What is the role of the EU and the member countries 

in TEN-T project selection? 

Corridor—Project Prioritization

9. What data were used to prioritize the initial 

TEN-T corridors? 

10. Do you have a performance management program 

that continues to collect these same data after 

improvements are made? If so, has performance 

improved?

11. How are investment priorities established? 

12. Does funding follow corridor prioritization (i.e., is 

there different funding for projects along prioritized 

corridors as opposed to others)?  

13. What is the match ratio for the EU and 

member country?

Corridor—Project Implementation

Funding

14. Who contributes to the costs of corridor improvements 

and how are costs assigned or shared? 

15. What part of the TEN-T is expected to be funded and 

operated by the European Commission (EC)? National 

government? By private companies?

16. Does the EC or national government have a dedicated 

capital budget for TEN-T transportation investments 

or are investments by the government treated as part 

of the general budget? Is funding prioritized for 

TEN-T corridors? 

17. Is the planning and funding completely mode neutral, or 

are modal targets set (e.g., 10 percent waterborne traffic, 

40 percent highway, 40 percent rail, 10 percent air, etc.)?

Performance Measures

18. Who collects data on the performance of the TEN-T? 

What performance measures are used and how are data 

collected? Is there dedicated funding to collect these 

data? If so, what are the budget levels for what data at 

both the EC and national levels?

19. How do the EC and member states develop forecasts 

of projected freight flows?

20. Are there agreed-on metrics across the EU for 

the TEN-T?

Institutional Arrangements

21. Describe the institutional arrangements, relationships, 

and functions between the EC and member states 

and between member states for the TEN-T, including 

planning, development, investments and funding, 

construction, and operation and maintenance. Are the 

institutional arrangements binding?

22. Please briefly describe the relationships among 

the central government, provincial government, 

local government, and private sector as it relates to 

the TEN-T. 

Appendix C: Amplifying Questions
46 Appendix C: Amplifying Questions

23. To what extent has the private sector participated in 

public transportation infrastructure investment? Are 

public-private partnerships and partnering agreements 

used to fund transportation infrastructure, particularly 

financial equity arrangements? Is the private sector 

engaged in strategic or tactical dialogue?

24. How are regulatory functions distributed between the 

EC and the member states (e.g., commercial motor 

vehicle dimensions, driver requirements, etc.)? 

25. How is the dialogue on TEN-T framed—structured, 

facilitated, managed, directional, or iterative? Is this a 

top-down or bottom-up approach?

Environmental

26. How are environmental considerations (air, water, 

etc.) accounted for in your TEN-T corridors? Do all 

EU members have the same or similar environmental 

regulations?

27. Has any analysis been performed on the 

greenhouse gas-reduction aspects of modal split on 

the TEN-T corridors?

28. How are you advancing energy and environmental 

issues related to transportation?

29. How does the EC integrate transportation policy 

with trade and energy policies? What role does freight 

play in trade, energy, and transportation policies?

Planning

30. How often are the TEN-T corridors reevaluated based 

past, current, or projected freight and passenger flows?

31. How far out does each country plan for long-term 

infrastructure needs (10 years, 20 years, more)? Do all 

EU members have the same planning horizon? Use the 

same data projections?

32. How are new corridor segments added? Deleted?

33. Is there a widespread understanding of the importance 

of freight transportation and support for major freight 

infrastructure projects at all levels of government?

34. What are the most challenging issues the EU faces on 

the movement of freight? What do you think will be the 

most challenging issues in the future (for example, 10 

years from now)? 

Operational Characteristics

35. Were bottlenecks on the freight network mainly 

because of infrastructure capacity or border-crossing 

(paperwork) delays?

36. What type of freight movement is TEN-T attempting 

to facilitate? Is there a distinction between or bias 

toward domestic or international? 

37. What investments are the EC and member states making 

in technology advances to address future challenges 

in freight transportation? Are they focused on the 

TEN-T corridors?

38. The United States is embarking on a high-speed 

passenger rail effort. The high-speed bullet trains 

with their own track aside, what lessons can be 

learned from Europe’s experience of operating 

passenger and freight trains on the same tracks? 

What tradeoffs have you made? 



Office of International Programs

FHWA/US DOT (HPIP)

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Tel: (202) 366-9636 n Fax: (202) 366-9626

international@fhwa.dot.gov n www.international.fhwa.dot.gov

Publication No. FHWA-PL-12-023

HPIP/8-12(3.5)EW