[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 25.5.2007

SEC(2007) 313/2

CORRIGENDUMAnnule et remplace pages 15 et 16 dudocuments SEC(2007) 313 du 13.3.2007.

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying document to the Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Trans-European transport network Report on the implementation of the guidelines 2002-2003 pursuant to article 18 of Decision 1692/96/EC {COM(2007)94 final}

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying document to the Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Trans-European transport network Report on the implementation of the guidelines 2002-2003 pursuant to article 18 of Decision 1692/96/EC

ANNEX 1: IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS

INTRODUCTION

Part 1 considers the main developments on the TEN-T modal networks (as outlined in Annex I of the guidelines Decision: road; rail; inland waterways and ports; seaports; combined transport.

Part 2 looks in more detail at the horizontal issues of interoperability, research and development, and environmental protection.

In part 3 there is a general assessment of the development of the TEN-T during the period in question and a more detailed section on the TEN-T priority projects.

The last section - on Community funding, Part 4 - provides an overview of the financing of the TEN-T with particular reference to financial support from the EU during the reference period.

PART 1

IMPLEMENTATION IN GENERAL

With total investment in the TEN-T network in the EU-15, which amounted to EUR 75.3 billion in the 2002 – 2003 period (EUR 34.9 billion in 2002 and 40.4 billion in 2003) the investments increased in comparison with the figures of 2000 and 2001.

In the EU-10 and EU-2 the investments in TEN-T infrastructure also increased from EUR 6.07 billion in 2000 and 2001 to EUR 6.94 billion in 2002 and 2003.

Table 1 shows the investments in TEN-T infrastructure in the years 2002 and 2003 per country and per mode of transport in millions of EUR and in % of the GDP per country.

Table 1: Investments in the 2002 – 2003 period per country and per mode of transport in millions of EUR and in % of the GDP per country

Austria | 4 | 4 |

Belgium | 13 | 3 | 1 | 17 |

Denmark | 21 | 21 |

Finland | 1 | 18 | 19 |

France | 10 | 4 | 22 | 36 |

Germany | 48 | 3 | 12 | 63 |

Greece | 11 | 11 |

Ireland | 6 | 6 |

Italy | 38 | 38 |

Luxembourg |

Netherlands | 9 | 7 | 2 | 18 |

Portugal | 1 | 6 | 7 |

Spain | 33 | 33 |

Sweden | 24 | 24 |

United Kingdom | 47 | 47 |

Total EU-15 | 85 | 18 | 241 | 344 |

- Particular care has been taken to foster the improvement of connections with the TEN-T land networks, including logistic platforms associated with ports and the construction of new port infrastructures, thus advancing along the lines as defined in the guidelines.

Around 57% of the seaports, 100% of the maritime/inland ports and 74% of the inland ports notified to have intermodal transhipment facilities in 2003.

Around 52% of the seaports, 56% of the maritime/inland ports and 52% of the inland ports had a connection to the TEN-T railway network.

The situation is not expected to change significantly in the period to 2020. Ports intend to improve this situation between now and 2020; however, a long-term strategy concerning ports development was rarely available.

- Investments in TEN-T ports in the EU-15

Total investments in TEN-T ports in the EU-15 amounted to EUR 2.46 billion in 2002 and EUR 2.48 billion in 2003 (a total of EUR 4.94 billion in the 2002 – 2003 period).

Around 45% of the measures taken in the 2002 – 2003 period related to the construction of new infrastructures, such as a new freight terminal, a new berth and a new port basin. Around 55% of the measures concerned upgrading, such as extending container terminals or freight terminals, extending berths and deepening of port basins.

The countries with the highest investments in the 2002 – 2003 period were Spain (EUR 0.70 billion), UK (EUR 0.60 billion), Italy (EUR 0.57 billion) and Belgium (EUR 0.50 billion).

[pic]

Figure 13 : Investments in the TEN-T ports in the EU-15 per country in 2002 and 2003 in millions of EUR

- Development of the TEN-T ports in the EU-10 and EU-2

Most of the ports in these countries are inland ports; seaports can be found in the Baltic States, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.

Table 3: Numbers and types of TEN-T ports in the EU-10 and EU-2

Number of ports | Inland ports | Seaport / inland port | Seaport (class A) | Total |

Cyprus | 2 | 2 |

Czech Republic | 11 | 11 |

Estonia | 5 | 5 |

Hungary | 7 | 7 |

Latvia | 3 | 3 |

Lithuania | 1 | 1 |

Malta | 2 | 2 |

Poland | 1 | 3 | 4 |

Slovakia | 2 | 2 |

Slovenia | 1 | 1 |

Bulgaria | 8 | 2 | 10 |

Romania | 8 | 4 | 1 | 13 |

Total | 36 | 5 | 20 | 61 |

In 2003, around 53% of all ports in the EU-10 and EU-2 had transhipment facilities. Only around 50% of all ports in these countries had a connection to TEN-T rail. This has remained almost the same since 1996.

- Investments in TEN-T ports in the EU-10 and EU-2

Detailed investment information or long-term investment strategies were either not available or difficult to obtain. Therefore, the investment figures cannot be entirely relied upon.

Total investments in TEN-T ports in the EU-10 and EU-2 amounted to EUR 192 million in 2002 and EUR 164 million in 2003 (a total of EUR 357 million in the 2002 – 2003 period). In comparison, EUR 381 million was invested in the 1996 – 2001 period. This means that the average annual investments in TEN-T ports increased in the 2002 – 2003 period, compared to 1996 – 2001.

Around 60% of the measures taken in the 2002 – 2003 period related to the construction of new infrastructures, such as a new freight terminal or container terminal. Around 40% of the measures were upgrading measures such as upgrading of terminals, upgrading of berth and deepening of the port basin.

The countries with the highest investments in the 2002 – 2003 period were Romania (EUR 138.5 million), Bulgaria (EUR 81 million) and Estonia (EUR 56 million).

[pic]

Figure 14 : Investments in the TEN-T ports in the EU-10 and EU-2 in 2002 and 2003 in millions of EUR

- Illustrative examples of developments in TEN-T ports

Developments in several ports illustrate the progress made in the 2002 – 2003 period:

- During the period, a limited number of ports (Portuguese ports for a study on harmonisation of procedures, Dutch ports for TEAMS (Trans-European Automated Manifest System), Genoa, Vuosaari, Wilhelmshaven) received support for a total amount of EUR 8 million from the TEN-T budget.

- Cyprus: development of the port of Larnaka mainly as passenger port, by making use of a public/private partnership (PPP). Construction of a new passenger terminal and extension of the container storage capacity in the port of Limassol.

- Hungarian National Public Port Győr-Gönyű: The construction of 140 hectares of new port facilities was continued and is to be completed by 2005 material dredged from the river bed in front of the port is being used. Preparations have been made for the design and construction of an embankment along a new shore section.

TEN-T airports

- Development of TEN-T airports in the EU-15[9]

Intra-EU and domestic air transport accounted for 449 billion person-km in 2003. This is 7.5% of total intra-EU passenger transport and an increase of 46% since 1995. In comparison, overall passenger transport in the same period increased by 16%[10].

The TEN-T airport network consists of airports of common interest that are situated within the territory of the Community and are open to commercial air traffic. Airports are classified differently according to the volume and type of traffic they handle and according to their function within the network. They should allow for the development of air links and the interconnection of air transport and other modes of transport.

The international connecting points and the Community connecting points constitute the core of the trans-European airport network. Links between the Community and the rest of the world mainly run via the international connecting points. The Community connecting points essentially provide links within the Community, while extra-Community services still account for a small proportion of their business. Regional connecting points and accessibility points facilitate access to the core of the network or help to open up peripheral and isolated regions.

60 out of 350 airports, which handle more than 80% of all passengers and more than 90% of extra-Community international traffic, are therefore regarded as ‘international connecting points’, although they also handle most of the intra-Community traffic.

Around 57% of the international system airports, 28% of the international airports and 15% of the Community and Community system airports had a connection to the TEN-T railway network in 2003. This is a slight increase compared to 1996. Only 3% of the national and regional airports had a connection to the TEN-T railways network.

Belgium | 2 | 1 | 3 |

Denmark | 1 | 1 | 8 | 10 |

Finland | 1 | 1 | 21 | 23 |

France | 9 | 4 | 5 | 35 | 53 |

Germany | 8 | 6 | 1 | 10 | 25 |

Greece | 7 | 1 | 29 | 37 |

Ireland | 2 | 1 | 9 | 12 |

Italy | 12 | 2 | 5 | 18 | 37 |

Luxembourg | 1 | 1 |

Netherlands | 1 | 4 | 5 |

Portugal | 2 | 1 | 12 | 15 |

Spain | 11 | 4 | 3 | 25 | 43 |

Sweden | 3 | 2 | 35 | 40 |

United Kingdom | 10 | 7 | 4 | 18 | 39 |

Czech Republic | 1 | 2 | 3 |

Estonia | 1 | 4 | 5 |

Hungary | 1 | 2 | 3 |

Latvia | 1 | 3 | 4 |

Lithuania | 1 | 2 | 3 |

Malta | 1 | 1 |

Poland | 1 | 7 | 8 |

Slovakia | 1 | 2 | 3 |

Slovenia | 1 | 2 | 3 |

Bulgaria | 1 | 4 | 5 |

Romania | 1 | 9 | 10 |

Out of 30 projects 18 railways projects are defined and demonstrate the clear mode preference of the EU transport policy.

Table 6: Priority projects: estimated total costs and investments until 2004and notified expected investments 2004-2020 in billion Euro

2 | High-speed railway axis Paris-Brussels/Brussels-Cologne-Amsterdam-London | Rail | 17,5 | 14,8 | 2,7 | 84,7% | 0,7289 |

3 | High-speed railway axis of south-west Europe | Rail | 39,7 | 7,4 | 32,4 | 18,5% | 0,1533 |

4 | High-speed railway axis east | Rail | 4,4 | 1,5 | 2,8 | 35,1% | 0,2294 |

5 | Betuwe Line | Rail | 4,7 | 4,1 | 0,6 | 88,2% | 0,1350 |

6 | Railway axis Lyon-Trieste-Divaca/Koper/Divaca-Ljubljana-Budapest-Ukrainian border | Rail | 38,1 | 1,9 | 36,2 | 5,1% | 0,2735 |

7 | Motorway axis Igoumenitsa/Patra-Athina-Sofia-Budapest | Road | 15,5 | 7,8 | 7,8 | 49,9% | 0,1185 |

8 | Multimodal axis Portugal/Spain-rest of Europe | Multimodal | 13,8 | 6,7 | 7,1 | 48,5% | 0,0433 |

9 | Railway axis Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer | Rail | 0,4 | 0,4 | 0,0 | 100,0% | 0,0120 |

10 | Malpensa Airport (Milan) | Air | 1,3 | 1,3 | 0,0 | 100,0% | 0,0268 |

11 | Öresund fixed link: COMPLETED | Rail/road | 4,2 | 4,2 | 0,0 | 100,0% | 0,1927 |

12 | Nordic triangle railway-road axis | Rail/road | 10,9 | 3,2 | 7,7 | 29,5% | 0,1922 |

13 | UK-Ireland/Benelux road axis | Road | 4,5 | 2,3 | 2,2 | 50,7% | 0,0838 |

14 | West Coast Main Line | Rail | 13,0 | 9,7 | 3,4 | 74,2% | 0,0786 |

15 | Galileo | General | 3,4 | 0,450 | 3,0 | 13,2% | 0,4500 |

16 | Freight railway axis Sines-Madrid-Paris | Rail | 6,1 | 0,002 | 6,1 | 0,0% | 0,0000 |

17 | Railway axis Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Bratislava | Rail | 10,1 | 2,4 | 7,7 | 23,8% | 0,0861 |

18 | Rhine/Meuse-Main-Danube inland waterway axis | IWW | 1,9 | 0,004 | 1,9 | 0,2% | 0,0021 |

19 | High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula | Rail | 35,5 | 2,5 | 33,0 | 7,0% | 0,0260 |

20 | Fehmarn Belt railway axis | Rail/road | 7,1 | 0,004 | 7,0 | 0,1% | 0,0121 |

21 | Motorways of the sea | Sea | 0,2 | 0,0 | 0,2 | 0,0% | 0,0013 |

22 | Railway axis Athina-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-Nürnberg/Dresden | Rail | 12,1 | 0,0 | 12,1 | 0,1% | 0,0070 |

23 | Railway axis Gdansk-Warsaw-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna | Rail | 5,5 | 0,9 | 4,6 | 15,5% | 0,0000 |

24 | Railway axis Lyon/Genoa-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/Antwerp | Rail | 22,7 | 1,5 | 21,2 | 6,6% | 0,0272 |

25 | Motorway axis Gdansk-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna | Road | 7,8 | 0,2 | 7,6 | 2,6% | 0,0048 |

26 | Railway-road axis Ireland/United Kingdom/continental Europe | Rail/road | 4,7 | 2,1 | 2,6 | 44,2% | 0,0070 |

27 | Rail Baltica axis Warsaw-Kaunas-Riga-Tallinn-Helsinki | Rail | 2,7 | 0,0 | 2,7 | 0,0% | 0,0000 |

28 | Eurocaprail on the Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg railway axis | Rail | 1,4 | 0,0 | 1,4 | 0,0% | 0,0000 |

29 | Railway axis if the Ionian/Adriatic intermodal corridor | Rail | 2,5 | 0,0 | 2,5 | 0,0% | 0,0000 |

30 | Inland waterway Seine-Scheldt | IWW | 2,5 | 0,023 | 2,5 | 0,9% | 0,0050 |

Railways | 261,893,000 | 328,695,000 | 590,588,000 |

GNSS | 195,000,000 | 107,400,000 | 302,400,000 |

ITS | 80,157,000 | 119,546,000 | 199,703,000 |

Roads | 24,800,000 | 10,880,000 | 35,680,000 |

Multimodal | 1,150,000 | 20,270,000 | 21,420,000 |

Airports | - | 17,190,000 | 17,190,000 |

IWW | 400,000 | 12,610,000 | 13,010,000 |

Ports | - | 10,045,000 | 10,045,000 |

Total | 563,400,000 | 626,636,000 | 1,190,036,000 |

[pic]

Figure 22 : Distribution of TEN-T budget support by mode of transport in 2002 and 2003

The distribution of the support from the TEN-T budget per country represents the scale and density of the TEN-T network in the various countries. Traditionally, large countries such as Germany and France account for almost one quarter of total TEN-T budget support in this period, while common actions like Galileo, EGNOS and ITS consume more than 40% of the TEN-T budget.

[pic]

Figure 23 : Distribution of TEN-T budget support by country in 2002 and 2003

EUROPEAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND

ERDF contributes to the financing of TEN-T projects. The annual report on the implementation of the Structural Funds in 2002 shows, that about 30% of ERDF funds were committed to transport projects. For the period between 2000 and 2006, the ERDF is expected to provide approx. EUR 6 billion[14] to transport projects on the TEN-T network.

The Cohesion Fund

The Cohesion Fund provides assistance for environmental and transport infrastructure (devoted especially to TEN-T projects) in Member states whose GDP is less than 90% of the average of Member States.

In the 2002 – 2003 period, Cohesion Fund support was available to four countries: Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland. From 2004 onwards, the EU-10 countries can also apply for the Cohesion Fund.

Table 8: Distribution of TEN-T budget Cohesion Fund support by country in the 2002-2003 period in EUR

2002 | 2003 | 2002-03 |

Greece | 114,600,000 | 353,100,000 | 468,277,670 |

Spain | 1,046,200,000 | 825,500,000 | 1,871,600,000 |

Ireland | 107,300,000 | 77,400,000 | 184,740,000 |

Portugal | 236,500,000 | 270,100,000 | 505,760,000 |

Total | 1,504,600,000 | 1,526,100,000 | 3,030,377,670 |

By far the major part of the Cohesion Fund support that was allocated to transport infrastructure TEN-T projects in 2002 and 2003 went to Spain, accounting for almost 62% of committed support. Cohesion Fund support to Portugal is with 16.7% of committed support, also relatively high.

[pic]

Figure 24 : Distribution of TEN-T transport infrastructure Cohesion Fund support by country in 2002 and 2003

Cohesion Fund supported projects mainly encompass railways, as this mode of transport accounts for almost 62% of total commitments in 2002 and 2003.

In conclusion, it can be stated that more than 60% of Cohesion Fund support is assigned to (high-speed) railway projects in Spain. Inland waterway, multimodal projects or ITS and GNSS projects were not funded by the Cohesion Fund in the period of the report.

[pic]

Figure 25 : Distribution of TEN-T transport infrastructure Cohesion Fund support by mode of transport in 2002 and 2003

THE INSTRUMENT FOR STRUCTURAL POLICIES FOR PRE-ACCESSION

ISPA assistance in the transport sector was dedicated to the extension and improvement of the TINA network, which was defined within the TINA process and was the basis of the discussion for the extension of the TEN-T network in the framework of the enlargement process. In order to improve the connections between the European Union and the EU-10[15] and the EU-2 countries, ISPA was committed in a manner similar to Cohesion Funding and is allocated by country.

Table 9: Distribution of ISPA support (commitments) by mode in million EUR (source: Annual report 2000 to 2003 on the Instrument for Structural Policy for Pre-Accession)

2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | Total |

Road | 224.8 | 303.7 | 246.6 | 302.7 | 1,077,8 |

Rail | 283.6 | 210.7 | 284.0 | 218.7 | 996,9 |

Airports | 28.0 | 12.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40,0 |

Rail/Road | 0.0 | 4.2 | 7.4 | 3.3 | 14,8 |

IWW | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 1,2 |

Total | 536.4 | 530.5 | 539.1 | 524.7 | 2,130.7 |

ISPA funding (commitments) amounted to around EUR 1.06 billion in the 2002 – 2003 period. Almost all ISPA funding is assigned to road and railway projects, leaving a small amount (about 2.5%) to support inland waterway and airports.

[pic]

Figure 26 : Distribution of ISPA funding by mode of transport in million Euro in 2000 till 2003

EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK LOANS AND EUROPEAN INVESTMENT FUND

The main purpose of the European Investment Fund (EIF) is to grant guarantees for loans concerning TEN-T projects. The EIF is funded by the EIB for 40%, by the Commission for 30%, and by banks and other financial institutions for 30%. In the future financing horizon EIB will have about 50 billion EUR available to lend to TEN-T projects for the 2004 – 2010 period.

Table 10: Distribution of EIB loans by mode in million EUR (source: European Investment Bank)

2003 | 2,571 | 1,570 | 417 | 1,430 | 103 | 6,091 |

2002-03 |4,835 |2,801 |641 |3,566 |145 |11,989 | |In the 2002 – 2003 period, EIB loans are mainly focused on roads (33.0%), airports (31.9%), and railways (26.9%). No loans were granted to inland waterway projects.

[pic]

Figure 27 : Distribution of EIB loans by mode of transport in 2000 to 2003

Traditionally, the large Member States (Spain, Germany, Italy, UK and France) account for more than 80% of total EIB loans in 2002 and 2003.

[pic]

Figure 28 : Distribution of EIB loans by country in 2000 to 2003

[1] OP cit: 5

[2] OP cit: 5

[3] OP cit: 5

[4] OP cit: 5

[5] The rail network is composed:of the conventional rail networkof the high-speed rail network, which are according to article 10.2c of the decision 884/2004/EC divided into:(a) specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h;(b) specially upgraded high-speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h;(c) specially upgraded high-speed lines or lines specially built for high speed and connected to the high-speed rail network which have special features as a result of topographical or environmental, relief or town-planning constraints, on which speed must be adapted individually.

[6] Note: In a majority of ports, the port services are provided by private operators. Therefore, information is rarely available centrally, and the information that is available is often incomplete or lacks homogeneity. Detailed information is only available in a limited number of cases.

[7] OP cit: 5

[8] Category A international seaports: ports with a total annual traffic volume of not less than 1.5 million tonnes of freight or 200,000 passengers which (unless impossible) are connected with the overland elements of the trans-European transport network and therefore play a major role in international maritime transport.Category B Community seaports: ports with a total annual traffic volume of not less than .0.5 million tonnes of freight or between 100,000 and 199,999 passengers, which are connected (unless impossible), with the overland elements of the trans-European transport network and are equipped with the necessary transhipment facilities for short-distance sea shipping.Category C regional ports: these ports do not meet the criteria of categories A and B but are situated in island, peripheral or outermost regions, interconnecting such regions by sea and/or connecting them with the central regions of the Community.

[9] Due to liberalisation and privatisation, most major airports are in private hands and managed accordingly. Therefore, it was often difficult to obtain information, as data are rarely centralised by national authorities.

[10] OP cit: 5

[11] Due to the fact that many airports now have private managements, there are some uncertainties as to the investment figures, as investment data are rarely centralised by national authorities and are difficult to obtain from the individual airports. Long-term strategies as to the development of airports were rarely available, as well.

[12] OP cit: 5

[13] Regulation (EC) No 807/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks

[14] Source: European Commission. The Trans-European Transport Network; Report of the High-Level Group, June 2003. Estimation of the share of ERDF allocated to TEN-T

[15] From 2000-2003 eligible for ISPA grants were: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania. Cyprus and Malta were not eligible for ISPA as they participated in other EU programmes.