ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (84) 7 09 
 
 
 
Vol. 1984/0 256 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), t his file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februa r 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 v om 27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION O F THI EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(84) 709 final  
Brussels, 14 December 1984
Broad oui lines of a mediu i-term iransport infrastructure policy
(Communication fror the Ccemission ;o the Council)
Cot(84) ( 39 final

Broad outlines of a medium-term transport infrastructure policy  
(Communication from the Commission to the Council)
Introduction
1. At its meeting on 10 May 1984 the Council considered the Commission's  
memorandum of 7 May (C0MC84) 235) and called on the Commission to present  
a report, by 31 December 1984, to serve as the basis for :
(i) an outline programme of major transport infrastructure projects to  
be implemented in the medium term,
(ii) objective criteria to be applied by the Infrastructure Committee in  
combination with priorities drawn up by the Member States concerned,
(iii) a method of combining Community funding - both budgetary and non-
budgetary - together with national aid - in order to deploy an adequate  
level of funds for the implementation of the policy as may be permitted  
by the financial means available to the Community.
The aim of this report is to put forward solutions in three separate areas in  
line with the broad approach laid down by the Council.
As the Commission sees it, the first step should be to draw up an inventory  
of schemes of interest to the Community without predetermining the role that  
Community could play in promoting individual schemes. Selection criteria  
could then be drawn up to enable the Community to take effective steps in  
promoting a project using the appropriate instruments. Finally, the pro­
cedures for Community intervention should be formulated.

-  2 -
Once the Council has scrutinized the conelusiens reached in this paper  
the Commission will be in a position to put forward a proper programme  
setting out the funding required to carry out the schemes it comprises.
1 )2. Indeed, the Commission has stressed the need in previous reports to
organize Community action in the field of infrastructure on a multiannual
basis. In its view, such action - notably in the shape of financial support -
2)should be based on clearly-defined criteria .  Finally, the Commission  
believes that the execution of major infrastructure projects will entail not  
only increased funding from the Community budget but also the deployment  
of other financing methods. These concerns are reflected in the Commission's  
proposals with regard to financial support.
(1) in particular :  - Report on bottlenecks;
C0MC80) 323 final of 20 June 1980  
Council Mandate of 23 November 1978.
- Experimental programme;
COMC82) 828 final of 10 December 1982.
- Reports on the implementation of the Council Decision  
of 20 February 1978,
C0MC8D333 final of 29 June 1981 and  
C0MC84) 317 final of 18 June 1984.
(2) in particular :  - Reports on the Community interest of transport
infrastructure investments
- C0MC81) 507 final of 16 September 1981 and
- C0M(82) 807 final of 7 December 1982.
(3) In particular :  - Memorandum from the Commission to the Council on the
continuation of transport infrastructure measures of
Community interest
C0MC84) 253 final ^of 7 May 1984.
(4) - Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning aid to projects of Community
interest in the field of transport infrastructure (0J No C 207, 2.9.76).
- Proposal for a Council Regulation on financial support for a multiannual  
transport infrastructure programme (COM) (83) 474 final of 5.8.1983.

The Commission i  s, however, aware that the Council wishes to get rid of the  
disadvantages of the present system, which relies on a series of circum­
scribed measures.
In this connection and in the light of the Council's examination of the  
May 1984 Memorandum, the Commission feels that a number of points deemed  
to be crucial for the further deliberations need to be made clear from the  
outset.
To begin with there is the importance of a clear definition of the specific  
aims of an infrastructure policy for the Community in its present form.
Infrastructure objectives must dovetail with the goals of the common  
transport policy and be consistent with the broad objectives of Community  
policy as a whole. These objectives are constraints which will have major  
repercussions on infrastructure operations.
If infrastructure measures are to be effective they must focus on a  
relatively limited network defined in the light of the aforementioned  
obj ect ives.
Furthermore, Community funding entails other conditions, notably a positive  
socio-economic result. This will mean adopting a clearly-defined methodology  
incorporating a definition of the criteria listed by the Council.
Finally, an infrastructure programme should be examined in greater depth  
in the light of experience gained hitherto, in particular in the deployment  
of different Community financial instruments.
.  In view of the above considerations, the objectives, scope and method of  
selecting priorities and financial options will have to be clearly defined  
in order to ensure that the council's requirements are met.

- 4 -
The Commission will frame definitive proposals on the programme and the  
appropriate financial instruments on the basis of the broad outline that  
emerges from the Council's scrutiny of this paper.
The objectives
4. The definition of objectives which will help to identify projects of Community  
interests is a prerequisite for the formulation of an outline programme. The  
Commission has set out its ideas as to these objectives on a number  
of occasions. The objectives Cor priorities) proposed have been defined  
in relation to :
Firstly, the frame of reference provided by the transport policy and its
specific aims. In devising the various facets of this policy, efforts  
to come up with an effective transport system have constantly  
encountered a number of constraints, e.g. :
(i) the development of a system to help promote integration of the  
national economies. If one examines real transport conditions  
it can be seen that the existence of natural obstacles and the  
peripheral situation of certain regions are obstacles to the  
achievement of such an objective;
(ii) an inter-modal structure that will enable each mode of trans­
port to fulfil its specific role;
(iii) a more equitable balance between the revenue and expenditure of  
the authorities responsible for administering the  
infrastructure;

Secondly, the actual situation in the network with regard to level of
service (speed, frequency). Major routes or corridors where the 
overall level of service is patently inadequate can be identified 
in relation to an average level of service.
On this basis, the Commission reasserts the proposals it put forward in its 
memorandum of May 1984 which set out the following objectives :
(a) support for projects on routes carrying major trade flows within the
Community and representing a particular burden for the transit countries;
(b) choice of adequate solutions to problems in the field of land-sea links,  
in particular on Continent-United Kingdom-Ireland routes;
(c) gradual development of links, particularly high-speed rail links, with a
high level of service between major urban centres.
(d) better integration of outlying connections into the Community network.

-  6 -
These different objectives should be taken into account both in relation to  
the development of the networks and the appraisal of the projects.
Development of networks of Community interest
5. In previous reports aimed at providing an overview of the inadequacies of  
existing infrastructure and of the investment requirements, the Commission  
based its investigation on relatively tight-mesh networks.
If the Community's action is to focus on those projects of greatest im­
portance to the Community, a basic network comprising those links deemed to  
be the most crucial for Community trade should be identified. Moreover,  
concentrating the action of the Community on basic networks comprising the  
smallest possible number of links will make it easier to assign funds with 
optimum efficacy.
As a first step, clear-cut criteria should be used to identify in the form  
of geographical networks (and without prejudging the level of service to be  
furnished )  the objectives proposed by the Commission and endorsed in prin­
ciple by the Council in May 1984.
The Commission is proposing three communication networks of Community in­
terest which have been chosen on the basis of different criteria reflecting  
the importance of the links for the Community, such as percentage of  
international traffic, dependence of a Member State's trade on the route,  
and volume of transit traffic.
The method used for defining these networks is given in Annex 1  .
The three networks are shown in Annexes 2, 3 and 4.

- ? -
6. These networks are not definitive and could be modified depending  
on the development of traffic flows or to take account of new  
evidence of the Community interest of certain links, in particular  
where itineraries comprising a number of variants are concerned.
Subject to these modifications, the three networks should be considered  
as the geographical scope of the Community action. This means, among  
other things, that the networks will serve as a criterion for the  
initial selection of projects of Community interest. In other words,  
the Community interest of the projects will be established on the basis  
of the location of these networks.
7. It should be noted that none of the three networks provides an adequate  
level of service on the majority of the links it comprises. This state  
of affairs has already been highlighted in the report on bottlenecks.
There has been little change in the meantime where railways and inland  
waterways are concerned. Although certain sections of motorway have
been opened to traffic since 1980, the continual increase in road traffic  
on main routes has led to the saturation of other sections. The number  
and dimensions of the schemes put forward by Member States in the experimental  
programme illustrated the need for major development of the networks.
Furthermore, in view of the potential demand, it should be noted as a  
first approximation that the performance of the railways on certain  
routes is quite inadequate if one considers the possible benefits available  
from the high-speed system. The Commission has already made a study into  
the scope for developing a high-speed network, the special features of  
which will enable it to meet the needs of users in harmony with the  
objectives of economy, environmental protection, development of  
research and industry, and the constraints of profitability. Special  
attention should therefore be given to projects involving high-speed  
development. This is why - on the basis of potential demand, and  
without ignoring the scope for improving the level of service obtainable  
from existing equipment by means of small scale measures in specific  
areas - we are proposing an examination of the scope for introducing  
a high-speed service on part of the rail network deemed to be of Community  
interest. A blueprint for such a high-speed network is given in  
Annex 5.

-  8 -
8. In order tc obtain an idea of the investment requirements of these net­
works we have to examine whether the various routes or route sections  
provide an adequate Level of service in the Light of recent technical  
advances. To this end, the Commission will rely on the assessments it  
made in the report on bottlenecks. The assessments, which will be dis­
cussed further below (see point 11), will provide confirmation of the  
socio-economic justification of the levels of service envisaged as a  
first step. These studies should primarily concern schemes to which  
Member States assigned priority in drawing up the experimental programme.  
This would give a clear picture of the levels of service desired in the  
network.
Annex ô illustrates the way ahead in that it lists, as examples, projects  
from the Experimental Programme where these form part of the networks pro­
posed under point 7. The object is thus to illustrate the effects of an  
initial selection based on information communicated by Member States to  
the Commission when the Experimental Programme was being drawn up or,  
additionally, during the examination of the measures to implement this 
programme. Before a definitive version of the outline programme can be  
established, Member States will have to update this basic information  
within the Infrastructure Committee.
The proposed approach should not be confined to the three modes of land  
transport. As the Commission has stressed on many occasions, infrasturcture  
policy must take account of harbour and airport requirements. The Commission  
will, with the Member States, study how to select harbours and airports  
whose inadequate capacity is detrimental to the development of Community  
traffic.
I

- 9 -
Selection methods with regard to financial intervention by the Community
9. Ascertainment of inadequate levels of service (traffic saturation, very  
low average speed) or the existence of scope for enhancing the performance  
of the rail network cannot automatically entail an investment decision,  
which at both national and Community level (particularly where the  
Community's participation in an operation by a Member State is desired)  
depends on the conclusions of the assessments being conducted.
At the Council's request, the Commission has proposed a methodology for  
assessing projects of Community interest. It is analogous to the systems  
used by the Member States themselvesandrdoes not rule out the application  
of national methods. Compared with the latter, the Community approach  
makes it possible to :
a) ensure that the cross-frontier effects of the project have been  
taken into consideration;
b) compare projects, from the Community viewpoint, by using comparable  
values;
c) provide a basis for estimating Community financial support.
The Commission has made practical use of a number of projects communicated  
by the Member States. These assessments, some of which are well advanced,  
have made it possible to verify the eligibility of the projects selected  
so far by the Commission for financial support.
It is desirable that an increasing number of projects should be  
assessed in this way.

-  10  -
10. The usefulness of the project evaluation is enhanced by the fact that it  
is possible to take account simultaneously of the choices between modes of  
transport and the interdependence of the projects. An evaluation at Communi­
ty level should and could take account in particular of the fact that  
the implementation of a number of the projects will entail major  
deviations of traffic and, as a consequence, modify the needs and  
priorities of competing or complementary links.
Furthermore, the pursuit of indicative programming presupposes the  
possibility of assessing alternative groups of projects corresponding not  
only to different assumptions (scenarios) of economic development but also  
to different notions of the response in respect of infrastructure to  
transport requirements (strategy).
The system developed by the Commission and now applied by computer to  
assess projects will make it possible to conduct traffic simulations on  
all the networks, especially as their number is limited. The system thus  
lends itself to evaluations of alternative programmes to develop the  
networks of Community interest which the Member States and the Commission  
wish to compare.
This system is described in Annex 7.
A trial comparative study on the various alternatives for developing the  
inland waterway network is already being conducted by the Commission.
The results are summarized in Annex 8.

-  11 -
Throughout the discussions conducted to date the Commission and the  
Council have been aware of the need for evaluations- It has not always  
been possible when drawing up lists of projects eligible for financial  
support under the 1982, 1983 and 1984 budgets to conduct such thorough-  
going assessments.
Devising a medium-term programme entails systematic use of such evaluations  
but this does not preclude the Council - pending adoption of a programme -  
from continuing and improving the current practice of assessing the  
interest of the schemes on the basis of a limited number of key data.
Studies of a number of vital projects undertaken in the past have revealed  
that only a very small number of the factors determining the socio­
economic benefits for the Community of a project is liable to influence  
the overall evaluation in any significant way. These earlier studies  
also revealed that by limiting the examination to physical data one did  
not substantially detract from the interest of the exercise while avoiding  
problems posed by having to convert the various national values used  
(discounting rate, time). This practice thus meets the fundamental  
requirement that the results of the analysis should be comparable. These  
considerations led us to propose - as a rough guide - the following three  
key criteria:
(a) direct economic profitability expressed by simultaneous assessment of  
two elements:
- degree of saturation of existing equipment, and
- time gained by the user once the project has been completed;
(b) Community interest in the strict sense expressed by an assessment of  
two elements:
- the proportion of trans-frontier traffic in the volume of current or  
envisaged overall traffic, and
- the proportion of a Member State's trade carried on the route on  
which the project is located;

v>
-12 -
(c) the extent to which the project is consistent with measures taken  
or envisaged on a Community scale. This criterion is crucially  
important in a multinational context. The possible adverse impact  
of a national project on congestion in neighbouring countries does  
not constitute a natural concern for the national planner.
Systematic use of these criteria would make it possible to make a stringent  
selection of Community infrastructure projects and would thus reduce the  
risk of spreading the means available too thinly over too many projects.
The Commission recognizes that compliance with these criteria will not  
guarantee that a project eligible in accordance with these criteria will  
in all cases contribute ideally to an objective deemed to be desirable.
These projects should therefore be scrutinized in the light of the  
objectives proposed and, more generally, in the light of the objectives  
of the common transport policy.
Financing
.  The overview of the various financial instruments presented in the  
Memorandum of 9 May indicates a range of possibilities adapted to specific  
infrastructure requirements.
(a) As infrastructure investment is, by its very nature, a productive  
investment, loans are the most obvious and foremost method of financing.  
In view of their eligibility criteria and allocation procedures,  
Community loan instruments are without question an attractive prospect.
(b) The impact of these instruments may, in certain cases, be reinforced by  
subsidies or interest rate reductions from the budget. This would apply  
to the financing of equipment which will benefit users in several Member  
States when the country making the expenditure, either from its budget  
or by borrowing, is compensated only partially by tax or other revenue.

- 13 -
Although an adequate system of tariffs for the use of such infrastructure  
would offset these charges, Community interest may determine the  
execution of joint projects where strictly national interests do not  
fully coincide.
Finally, the raising of national resources for large scale works in  
many instances involves more than obtaining the budgetary appropriations  
or borrowed funds required during the period of construction. In such  
instances it may well be justified to give assistance out of the  
Community's budget funds. This possibility is of particular interest where  
a country has a substantial lag to make up in completing its section of  
a Community route. However, it should be noted that Community assistance  
can only complement and in no way replace national resources.
(c) The granting of a Community guarantee for large-scale projects may be  
justified where a project is profitable only in the longer term and  
depends on factors inherent in the development of the Community itself,  
notably where the development of trade is concerned.

- 14 -
13. The only financial instrument in the field of transport infrastructure  
that has been used in practice in the form of measures adopted by the  
Council is that of subsidies out of the Community budget. The Commission  
proposal of 1976 provided for a system of fixing budget appropriations  
which will ensure that continuity of action which is indispensable for  
the harmonious development of the network of routes of Community interest.  
The Commission's 1983 proposal provides a response to the same objective  
for a trial period of five years. In preferring solutions covering a  
limited period of time, the Council has made it difficult for agreement
to be reached on the selection of projects at a time when the selection  
procedure operated to the detriment of large projects. The development  
of an outline programme in line with the objectives and criteria  
accepted by the Council would facilitate such selection.
But a programme of this nature cannot be properly carried out unless  
it comprises an appropriate financial package with an overall estimate  
of Community financing over a period of several years. Such estimates should  
of course leave room for possible deployment of other types of financing  
in accordance with procedures to be worked out.
14. At the end of the day, the establishment of a multiannual financing  
programme providing for identification of projects and an estimate of  
the total budget funds necessary for effective support is the only  
realistic answer to the twin concerns expressed within the Council,  
namely that:

- 15 -
Ci) effective action should be taken in a limited number of  
significant cases;
(ii) there should be a measure of balance in the medium term
between the different modes of transport and the different  
sections of the network.
In accordance with the approach proposed by the Commission, an estimate  
of the costs as currently forecast has not been formulated at this  
stage since this would, as a corollary, entail drawing up formal  
proposals for projects. However, the following elements can be taken  
into consideration:
(i) an estimate of the overall construction cost of the projects put  
forward (Annex 9).  This overall cost estimate - which does not  
comprise certain projects whose future is unsettled, e.g.: the  
fixed Channel link, the Paris-Brussels-Cologne high speed train  
link - is of the order of 7 000 million ECU for all three modes  
of land transport. Assuming that Community participation in the  
cost of these projects is 25%, the charge to the Community budget,  
spread over a period of ten years, would be 175 million ECU  
annually.
(44T—presentation of data making it._possi_ble to estimate the impact
of an allocation of budget resources based on tKe requirements of  
different Member States. The calculations are based on the share 
of national networks in the overall network, and on the average  
level of service (Annex 10).

^ < |S*B
- 16 -
15. On this basis it will Later be possbiLe to establish a quantified programme  
comprising detailed projects to provide an indication of the Community  
resources called for as well as the financing operations. These estimates  
will be based on an assessment of what the public and private promotors  
of the project are likely to be able to contribute and the role the  
Community financial instruments might play in mobilizing the necessary  
resources. The Memorandum of May 1984 lists the possibilities in this  
connection (paragraphs 2.1 to 2.7).
Proposals for further action on transport infrastructure
16.1. The foregoing arguments confirm that it would be possible to draw up
a medium-term outline programme and provide further information on the  
type of work to be done and the procedures to be followed in order to  
turn this programme into an essential aid for the completion of major  
projects on networks of Community interest. The Council is therefore  
asked to approve the general form of the medium-term outline programme  
referred to and further developed by the Commission in this report.
16.2. An important step in drawing up a programme is to define the basic  
geographic networks on whose routes projects of Community interest  
will be identified and possibly adopted to form part of the programme.  
The work the Commission has already done with the help of the Transport  
Infrastructure Committee will enable the former to submit a list of  
networks of Community interest.

it
- 17 -
16.3. The continuity of action required to ensure the best possible  
execution of the outline programme represents a certain guarantee  
as to the possibility of financial intervention. The Commission is  
prepared to make an overall estimate of the total charge to the  
Community budget of the implementation of a medium-term programme.
In order to obtain an estimate of financial requirements that is as  
precise as possible, the Commission attaches particular importance  
to the Infrastructure Committee helping to examine the provisional  
list of projects drawn up on the basis of earlier communications from  
the Member States, and particularly to the projects being examined
in the light of the Experimental Programme. The budgetary timing for  
the medium-term programme would need to be developed on the basis of the  
approach which would be decided at the time.
16.4. By using an appropriate evaluation method (objective criteria) it will be  
possible to change the outline programme into an effective medium-term  
programme. The Commission considers that the method proposed to the  
Council makes it possible to associate in a practical way all the  
authorities concerned in the process of evaluating the Community interest.

- 18 -
16.5. The Commission considers that methods of combining financing
by the Community from budget and non-budget sources with finance raised  
nationally must be considered individually for each of the large-scale  
projects regarded as urgent from the point of view of the Community as  
a whole. The first project to be examined is the fixed link across the  
Channel on which the Commission is in a position to provide certain  
conclusions.
16.6. The specific action implied by the other stages of the formulation  
of the outline programme, its implementation and its financial  
implications justify the creation of a legal framework to ensure close  
coordination between the Commission and the Member States and give the  
programme something of an operational aspect. If the Council so requests,  
the Commission is prepared to providethenecessary additional material for
its proposals in this filed. In the light of the guidelines which emerge from  
the Council on the basis of this Communication the Commission will work  
out definitive proposals regarding the programme and the appropriate  
financial instruments.

ta
- 19 -
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex 1 
Annex 2 
Annex 3 
Annex 4 
Annex 5 
Annex 6
Annex 7
Annex 9Method of drawing up the list of networks  
Basic network of roads  
Basic network of railways  
Basic network of inland waterways  
Draft high-speed network
Draft Experimental Programme routes forming part of  
the basic network
Possible evaluation system developed by the Commission  
Summary of the results of a study to evaluate alternative  
methods of structuring the inland waterway network
Estimated cost of projects (indicative)
Annex 10 Presentation of a system for allocating resources

LI
ANNEX I
Method for drawing up the list of networks of Community interest
RAIL
The proposed basic network is made up of three sub-units:
(a) the definition of 18 international routes adopted by the "infrastructure"  
Committee of the Group of Ten of the International Union of Railways  
(IUR);
(b) several sections which, as a result of the work done by the Commission  
with a view to establishing a system of forecasting long-term demand for  
transport, have proved to be important from the point of view of potential  
intra-Community traffic;
(c) in two instances it was considered necessary to add alternative routes  
(the inter-city line between Antwerp and Aachen and the line from Ulm via  
Splügen to Milan).
ROADS
The basic network consists of a map of E roads (European Agreement on Main
International Throughroads (AGR)).
In principle only the direct links between capitals and cities of over
500 000 inhabitants have been included. In two cases it proved useful to add
alternative routes, namely in the case of the Luxembourg-Metz-Nancy-Dijon
route and the Regensburg-Passau-Graz-Zagreb route.
INLAND WATERWAYS
1. The Community interest network of inland waterways has been defined  
so as to form a consistent body of wide-gauge waterways used by  
international traffic.

ANNEX I
Here "consistent” is taken to mean that all the inland waterways  
belonging to the suggested European network should form an unbroken  
whole permitting the smooth flow of traffic and avoid the breaking  
of loads.
"Wide-gauge" is taken to mean waterways making up a network which  
can be used at least by Class IV vessels of the ECMT classification.
"Used by international traffic" is taken to mean waterways which at  
least potentially contribute to maintaining the flow of international  
traffic.
On a practical level the following steps were taken:
(a) a basic or reference network was defined, consisting of existing  
waterways and planned waterways which will clearly form part of the  
basic network (Seine-Scheldt and Saône-Rhine);
(b) further 7 links were added; if these are redeveloped it will make  
for better inter-connections in the basic network.




D R A FT HTGH-SPEED N E T W O R K *  N N E -X
Draft network established on the following basis;
(a) North-South and East-West routes l inking the Commnity's main towns ard cities; 
C b ) Present traffic flows and potential demand on these routes.

Draft network of Co-unity interest (road)
The thicker black line denotes the following projects  
fro« the Experimental Program»«
* i. Netherlands - FR6 axis IE 305 ; Enschede - Senaan  
border project
2. North-South axis fro« Copenhagen towards Austria and  
Suitzerland (E 45) : projects in Denmark and between  
Hamburg and Hannover
3. Luxembourg - Trêves
4. Development of Volos - Athens
5. Development of Igoumenitsa - Patras
6. Construction of various by-passes between Dundalk 
and Rcsslare
7. Belgiuflt/Hetherlands - FU S via Aachen and Cologne
8. Ireland - Continent via Holyhead, Harwich, Dover
9. Development of Stranraer - Newcastle
Alternative routes <i) Sinplon axis <ii> I*PA  
motorway to be included in the case of capacity  
constraints on main axes
Fixed channel link
4

(i)
\
a
'O
S 3Draft network of Community interest (rail)
The thicker black line denotes the following projects
fro· the Experimental Programme.
1. Brussels - Namur - Luxembourg - Metz)
2. Paris - Brussels - Cologne
3. Athens “ Thessaloniki - Yougoslav border
4. Helsingdr - Copenhagen - Hamburg - Bilan axe :  
projects in Denmark, between Lubeck and Hamburg,  
and. Chiasso - Milan
5. Amsterdam - Rotterdam - Munich - Bologna axe :  
projects in the Netherlands and between  
Brenner and Bolzano and Verona - Bologna
6. Salzburg - Villach
7. Colchester - Harwich
ft transhipment station developments ; namely
at Cologna Eifeltor, Regensburg and Kornwestheim
alternative rail route, <i) Antwerp - Maastricht  
~ Aachen (ii) The Splugen,to be included in the case  
of capacity constraints on main axes
Fixed Channel Link
Cii)
9 *3^
*
* r**  * » ·

ECHEUEAnnex 6 p.3
*HXAUN':CH«t>0
/ \  / \  J '
Punkckqu£
CCMFiCGNIm
k # m *Mit
r—  \
Draft network of.Community interest (inland waterways),
The thicker black line denotes the following project«  
from the Experimental Programme.
1. France-Belgium axis * Development of the i-ys
2. Development of the canal du Centre
3. Development of the Albert Canal
C. Deepening of the lover Rhine betveen Duisburg  
and the Dutch Border.

ANNEX 7
THE EVALUATION OF THE COMMUNITY INTEREST OF TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE  
PROJECTS: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND PROPOSALS FOR EVALUATION WITHIN THE  
FRAMEWORK OF A MEDIUM-TERM PROGRAMME
1. In 1981 the Commission presented a report (ref. 1) that set out a methodology  
for the evaluation of transport infrastructure projects. In essence the  
proposed system was designed to align with and, whlere necessary,supplement  
the existing national systems of project evaluation.
2. After consideration the Council decided that the Commission's proposals merited  
a practical field trial. Projects that were chosen were typical of the type that  
the Community could be called upon to finance in the future under an infra­
structure financing system.
3. Later, in 1982, the Commission presented to the Council a report (ref. 2) that  
set out the results of the application of the methodology to a number of  
projects. Subsequent to the presentation of this report the Council has accepted  
a number of projects for Community financing. Furthermore, given the allocation  
of further funds to the specific budget line that has been established for this  
work, the Commission has been able to refine the system further and respond
to suggestions and comments from numerous sources. The results of this work are  
now incorporated in a computerised evaluation system that is referred to as  
T.A.S.C. (Transport Assessment System for the Community). The T.A.S.C. system  
has been applied to a wide range of projects covering the whole of the Community  
and all modes of transport. In general the T.A.S.C. system has shown itself to  
be a most useful tool for providing the essential background information that  
the Commision and the Council will require to judge the value of projects for  
the Community. At present the T.A.S.C. system is being revised in the light of  
the extensive testing experience to which it has been subject: these revisions  
are outlined below (para.7). However, the Commission is now confident that given  
the minimum amount of data that is essential for the quantified appraisal of  
projects, a practical evaluation can be presented.
4. In the light of the proposals the Commission is putting forward in this paper 
the structure of the evaluation process is clearly subject to revision. Perhaps  
the major innovative feature of the Commission's proposals is the construction
1. COM (81) 507 final
2. COM (82)807 final

-2- ANNEX 7
of a series of networks for each mode of transport. The concentration of effort  
on a network that is of primary interest to the Community in terms of the flows  
of international and transit traffic is clearly a step forward that has major  
repercussions upon the totality of the Commission's proposed machinery in this  
field. In the context of the proposals for evaluation the two principal  
consequences are:
First: working within the framework of a network will permit a more extensive
examination to be made of the consequences of projects over a wide area,  
Second: the possibility of evaluating large projects that have major
consequences will be created.
The net result of these changes will be to simplify the process of evaluation and  
make the results more directly relevant to the questionsthe Committee for Transport  
Infrastructure will have to consider.
One of the major advantages for the T.A.S.C. system resulting from the concentration  
upon a limited network is in the field of data collection. Given the current  
shortcomings of the data available on traffic flows in the Community the creation  
of a network will be a major advance.
First: the process of data collection will be considerably simplified, as only
data on the limited network will be required,
Second: comparatively cheap and simple methods can be used to control and assess  
the information.
Third: full consideration can be given to the specific problems of long-distance
and international traffic where the real needs for Community action lie.
To date it is clear that, notwithstanding the demonstrations the Commission has  
been able to present, certain doubts have subsisted concerning the capability of  
the system proposed by the Commission to handle a very wide range of projects in  
any mode of transport anywhere in the Community. Clearly, there is some  
foundation for doubts if only to the extent that, on the grounds of cost  
effectiveness, the Commission cannot handle either very diverse projects or small  
projects without the expenditure of considerable resources. The move to concentrate 
the attention of the Community upon a limited network of clear prima facie  
relevance to many Member States should go far to remove any doubts on this score.
It has been noted above (para.4) that as a result of practical experience the  
Commission proposes to modify the T.A.S.C. system with a view to increasing  
its usefulness in the context of a programme on a given pre-identified network.
The main ways in which it is intended to modify the T.A.S.C. system are as follows;

-3- AWEX 7
First: the system will be incorporated into a data base tha> will provide
extensive information on the chosen Community networks,
Second: a set of standard "tools" will be incorporated to facilitate the  
study of the effect of the project on the network,
Third: the work on the multi-criteria analyser will be further developed,
Fourth: the facilities, available to the Commission, will be amplified and  
expanded.
It is hoped that the work outlined above will be completed within the next few  
months. To a large extent this work will be undertaken in the context of  
improving the Commission's data and analysis methods for the whole of the  
transport sector. The Commission considers that the application of the T.A.S.C.  
system should not be obligatory. However, considerable efforts have been and will 
be made to ensure that T.A.S.C. is flexible and thus suitable for a very wide  
range of applications. The use of the T.A.S.C. system would considerably  
simplify the evaluation of a number of projects spread throughout the Community  
network. It is proposed that the T.A.S.C. system be made available on an  
electronic exchange system within the framework of the development of the  
programme. In the short term the use of traditional methods will be a satis­
factory alternative.
Conclusion
This note has set out the background to the development of the Community  
evaluation system T.A.S.C. The T.A.S.C. system has been extensively tested upon a 
a number of projects and proved to be both practical and versatile. Given the results of this testing,  
the T.A.S.C. system is to be improved and extended. This improvement  will be tailored specifically to  
the Community programme.
The creation of a limited network of Community interest will go a long way towards  
removing any remaining doubts on the ability of the Commission to identify the  
Community interest of projects. The intention is to develop a data base for the  
networks that will help to point up the needs and problems of the network. The  
T.A.S.C. system will be clearly adapted to the network and fully capable of  
working in the context of a PROGRAMME.

ANNEX 8
to the Outline Programme
Summary of the method used in, and the results obtained from,  
a study on developing a network  
of inland waterways of Community interest
1. The planned additional links which were adopted to help form a comprehensive  
network of Community interest can be combined in different ways for  
construction purposes, depending on whether only one of the various projects  
is carried out or a number of related projects is completed.
2. Ten variants were evaluated from the point of view of the advantages they  
would bring to international inland waterway navigation. For this purpose,  
traffic on the whole network was simulated for each variant so that all  
the effects of traffic diversion arising out of each project could be taken  
into accounts
With the results of these simulations, supplemented by estimated cost/  
benefit ratios for each variant, it was possible to classify each variant  
according to profitability from the point of view of the advantages  
gained for international navigation.
3. Finally, the study included an economic analysis of large link-up projects  
which took into consideration certain non-quantifiable criteria of  
Community interest. As a result of this study it is possible to confirm  
that the projects adopted for the most profitable variant resulting from  
the previous stage would merit inclusion in a master plan for a network
of inland waterways of Community interest.

ANNEX 9
Outline programme
Estimated cost of projects mentioned in the experimental programme 1982
c h h iio i — t I ■ rriw w ir  » w mira— < — H  —  >  —f i w t i ^h i in ~  *  ■  i  m i> ~ w  ifc^ n  r i i  iiairr i  ■■■ni r e ti n ufi- 1  n  i  iru w m rn fn r·  ■ mi· ' ■ i  i i riunir ' m'H 1I  *nT i ni r g f'T  rn~— TT j i r i w a r  i.h m w i m i v ì i I'u q
situated on the draft network of Community Infrastructure
.   mu·· ■■1 1 1 1 -1  ■ i n i ·  nil« »· m i 1 1 B « » — ~ i IM III ·-  r  « ~  i—  it— i i i·;···! i ' i l l  I  f  llBTHrll-TTrn      I T   ;w * s-i-» w * u ···
RAIL
Es
timated cost (Mio.ECU,19S2)
1. Brussels - Namur - Luxembourg - (Metz) 1 500
2. Paris - Brussels - Cologne 642
3. Athens - Thessaloniki - Yugoslav border 366
4. Helsing6r - Copenhagen - Hamburg' - Milan 375
5. Amsterdam - Rotterdam - MClnich - Verona 633
6. Salzburg - Villach 84
7. Colchester - Harwich 47
Total cost 3 647
ROAD
Estimated cost (Mio.ECU,1982)
1. Netherlands - Federal Republic of Germariy .
axis (E 30): Enschede - border section 29
2. North-South E 45/E 43; construction of
motorway sections in Denmark; 223
improving Hamburg-Hannover section 75
3. Development of Volos - Athens - Kalamata road 1 050
4. Construction of various by-passes between
Rosslaere and Dundalk 100
5. Widening of motorway between Aachen and Cologne 36
6. Ireland - Continent via Holyhead, Harwich,
Dover, Folkestone - Development of various sections 837
7. Kalamata - Patras - Igoumenitsa; Rio Antirio bridge 300
8. Stranraer - Newcastle; Development of
various sections 138
Total cost 2 788

ANNEX
-  2
INLAND WATERWAYS
Estimated cost (Mio.ECU,1982)
1. France-Belgium axis -
Development of the Lys 58
2. Development of the canal du Centre 154
3. Development of the Albert Canal 264
4. Deepening of the lower Rhine between
Duisburg and the Dutch Border 28
Total cost 504

%b
A N n g X 10
This annex sets out the elements that could guide the Council in the  
definition of a financial program, bearing in mind its often expressed  
wish to ensure an adequate balance between the different parts of the  
network. The use of a general budgetary key has to be rejected for  
well known reasons. Such practice would not only be contrary to the  
Community's aim, but it would also be a serious drawback in terms of  
transport policy requirements since it bears no reference to either the  
need or the benefits that would accrue from Community assistance. If  
these factors are to be taken into account, some other indicators will  
require to be adopted.
Among the indicators that clearly merit attention are the  
following:
First - the length of the "Community" network in the country concerned.  
Second - the quality of the existing network.
Third - the ability of the country concerned to finance the works.
An indication of the distribution of the Community network among the  
various members of the Community is given in table 1 below:
Table 1: Share of the Community network (Roads only)
(nearest 1%)
Country
Greece 6
Germany 17
France 20
Italy 18
Netherlands 5
Belgium 5
Luxembourg 1
UK 15
Ireland 7
Denmark 6
(Estimates subject to verification of the network)
It is also necessary to add an indicator of the quaLity of the network  
in the form of a weighting coefficient that takes account of the existing  
situation.

-2-5f
Annex 10
In the absence of any quantified information on this point it is  
suggested that a weighting based on an assessment of the situation be  
employed. A first attempt at this is shown in the table below:
Table 2: The Road Quality Indicator Factor
Country Indicator of road quality
Greece C
Germany A
France A
Italy B
Nether land A
UK B
Belgium A
Luxembourg A
Ireland C
Denmark A
Note: this index is subject to further analysis.
Assuming that an index of the sort set out above can be developed  
it will be possible to weight the network distances in such a way  
as to take account of the index.
The volume of traffic and the consequent state of the system also should  
be taken into account. On the basis of information available from the  
NVI study etc., a first attempt at developing an index is shown in  
table 3, page 3.
These two indices can now ben combined to give an adjusted distribution  
of the budget. The adjustment and weighting is undertaken on the basis  
of the following approximation: that "A* is ranked as neutral, i.e. 1,  
'8' is ranked at 1.5 and 'C' is ranked at 2. The results of this process  
are shown in table 4, page 3.

-3- Annëx t>
Table 3s The Community networks- Traffic Index
Count ry
Greece A
Germany C
France B
Italy A
Netherlands C
UK C
Belgium A
Luxembourg A
Ireland A
Denmark B
Table 4: The Community network adjusted for Traffic and Quality
Country Original tota l  Adjusted total
Luxembourg  0.5 0.5
Denmark 3 4
Greece 5 6
Ireland 2 2.5
UK 15 21
Germany 19 22
France 23.5 24
Belgium 7 5
Italy 22 12
Netherlands  3____  3_____
100 10
0