EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 19.10.2011 
SEC(2011) 1212 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
Impact Assessment 
Accompanying the document 
PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF 
THE COUNCIL 
on Union Guidelines for the development of the Trans-European  Transport Network 
{COM(2011) 650 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1213 final}  
 
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTAT ION OF INTERESTED PARTIES. 2  
1.1. Background in the developmen t of the TEN- T policy ......................................................................... 2  
1.2. Organisation and timing ........................................................................................................ ................ 2  
1.3. Consultation process........................................................................................................... .................... 3  
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION: WHY IS THERE A NEED TO ACT? .......................... 6  
2.1. The Europe 2020 Strategy: A renewed political  context ..................................................................... 6  
2.2. Description and scope of the problem: a fragmented network not fit for purpose........................... 7  
2.3. Why is the TEN-T ne twork fragmented? ........................................................................................... 12 
2.4. How would things evolve, al l things bein g equal?.............................................................................. 1 5 
2.5. Does the Union have the right to act? .......................................................................................... ....... 22  
3. POLICY OBJE CTIVES ..................................................................................... 23  
3.1. Policy Objectives.............................................................................................................. ..................... 23  
3.2. Possible trade offs and synerg ies between the objectives .................................................................. 26  
4. POLICY OPTIONS FOR TE N-T DEVELO PMENT............................................ 27  
4.1. Two-pronged process leading to iden tification of policy options...................................................... 27  
4.2. Pre-screening of envisaged alt ernative policy  options ....................................................................... 31  
4.3. Description of the policy options re tained for in-depth assessment ................................................. 37  
5. IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POLICY OP TIONS .................................................... 42  
5.1. Economic impacts of the options ................................................................................................ ......... 43  
5.2. Social impacts of the options.................................................................................................. .............. 51  
5.3. Environmental impacts: Climate e ffects, Air pollution, Noise.......................................................... 58  
5.4. The positive impact of implementation measures.............................................................................. 62  
5.5. Sensitivity analysis of  the policy options..................................................................................... ........ 63  
5.6. Choice of the appropriate legal act............................................................................................ .......... 64  
6. COMPARISON OF TH E OPTION S................................................................... 65  
6.1. Effectiveness .................................................................................................................. ........................ 65  
6.2. Effici ency ..................................................................................................................... .......................... 68  
6.3. Coherence...................................................................................................................... ........................ 70  
6.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... ........................ 72  
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................. 72  
 
ANNEXES attached: 
- Annex 1: Documents and studie s / Ex-post assessments and similar / Audits – assessments 
consulted 
- Annex 2: Ex-Post evaluation of the TEN-T network policy - Annex 3: Pre-screening of policy options - Annex 4: TEN-T and E nvironmental Legislation 
 
 2- Annex 5: Monitoring and Evaluation 
- Annex 6: Description and an alysis of the modelling work for the TEN-T Guidelines 
- Annex 7: Case Studies - Annex 8: Glossary   
1. P
ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
 Identification
 
Lead DG: Directorate General for Mobility and Transport 
Agenda Planning: 2011/MOVE/009  
1.1. Background in the development of the TEN-T policy 
The Trans-European transport network (TEN-T ) policy has been developing since the mid 
80ies to provide the infrastructure needed for a smooth functioning of th e internal market, to 
ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion and to improve accessibility across the entire 
EU territory. The first support fr amework was set up in 1990, leading to the insertion of trans-
European networks in the Maastricht Treaty  (1992) and the adoption of a list of 14 major 
projects at the European Council in Essen in  1994. The first Guidelines defining the TEN-T 
policy and infrastructure pl anning were adopted in 1996. 
In 2004, a thorough revision of the Guidelines t ook into account the EU enlargement and the 
expected changes in traffic flows.
1 The list of  Priority Projects  covering the Member States of 
the recent enlargement was extended to 30. Apart from theses 30 Priority Projects, which are 
declared to be of "European interest", the Gu idelines include maps for each Member State for 
each of the transport modes. All these are decl ared to be "projects of common interest". 
In addition to the Guidelines, financial and non- financial instruments aimed at facilitating the 
implementation of projects. These instruments include the TEN Financial Regulation2 and the 
Cohesion Fund, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and loans from the European Investment Bank as well as coordi nation initiatives take n by the Commission.  
In light of the challenges for the TEN-T polic y that have also been identified by the White 
Paper 'Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system
3 (hereinafter "the White Paper"),  the revision of the Guidelines 
accompanied by this impact assessment report defines a long-term strategy for the TEN-T policy that would contribute to th e transport sector meeting the goals of the White Paper with 
a 2030/2050 horizon. 
1.2. Organisation and timing 
For the preparation of the revision of the Guidelines, an inter-service group on the TEN-T 
policy review was set up on 6 October 2010 and m eetings were organised between December 
                                                
 
1 Decision No 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Decision 
No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network; this Decision was replaced by Decision No 661/2010/EU of the European Parliame nt and of the Council of 7 July 
2010 on Union guide lines for the development of the trans-European transpor t network (recast). The recast 
consisted mainly of a codification of the existing Guidelin es, the only change of substance consisted in adjusting 
the indicative target dates, from 2010 to 2020, for Member States that acceded on 1 May 2004. 
2 Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 laying down 
general rules for the granting of Community financial ai d in the field of trans-Eu ropean transport and energy 
networks. 
3 COM(2011)144 
 
 32010 and April 2011 in order to collect  the views of various services4. For the preparation of 
this Impact Assessment, an Impact Assessm ent Steering Group (IASG) was set up and met 
three times between December 2010 and April 20115. Comments from participating DGs have 
been received and taken into account until 13 April 2011. 
1.3. Consultation process  
With a view to preparing the ground for late r policy developments, the Commission launched 
a reflection on the future of TEN-T Policy in February 2009 with the adoption of a Green 
Paper opening the debate on main challenges and on key objectives for TEN-T Policy and possible ways to meet them.
6 The Green Paper proposed three network planning options (dual 
structure with the wide TEN-T "comprehensi ve network" and updated Priority Projects; 
Priority Projects only; a new dual layer struct ure comprising the "com prehensive network" 
and a "core network"). 
Building on the contributions from stakeholde rs, the Commission set up six Expert Groups, 
which between November 2009 and April 2010 anal ysed a number of key aspects of the 
future TEN-T development7. The Expert Groups' recommendations were included in a 
Commission Working Document  which was presented for public consultation on 4 May 
2010.8  
These two public consultations attracted more  than 530 contributions in total. A large 
majority of contributors supported the optio n of a new dual-layer approach to TEN-T 
planning, with a "comprehensive network", that  would mainly update and adjust the current 
TEN-T, as the basic layer; and a "core networ k", overlaying the comprehensive network and 
consisted of the strategically most important pa rts of the TEN-T. Other aspects that enjoyed 
large support and have been particularly releva nt for the current exerci se were: the promotion 
of more environmentally-friendly solutions for transport; resource efficiency; the identification of infrastructural needs from a ge nuinely European perspec tive, with a stronger 
view to meeting service requirements; continuity  with previous develo pments, in particular 
continued support for the implementation of the current Priority Projects in a future core 
network; and strengthening the link between transport and TEN-T policy, for instance in the 
development of interoperability and traffic ma nagement systems. The summaries of all the 
contributions received are available on DG MOVE's website.
 9  
Large Ministerial and stake holder conferences were held  in October 2009 in Naples10 and in 
June 2010 in Zaragoza.11 The Zaragoza conference provided a framework for in-depth 
presentations and discussions w ith Member States, the European  Parliament and stakeholders 
                                                 
4 It involves LS, SG, ECFIN, RTD, ESTAT, ENTR, CLIMA, ENV, MARKT, ELARG, MARE, REGIO, EMPL, 
INFSO, BUDG, ENER, EEAS and MOVE.  
5 7 December 2010, 25 February 2011 and 8 April 2011 
6 "TEN-T: A Policy Review. Towards A Better Integrated Trans-European Transport Ne twork at the Service of 
the Common Transport Policy", COM (2009) 44 final. 
7 The fields covered by the expert groups are: the st ructure of a comprehensive and core network and the 
methodology for TEN-T planning; integration of trans port policy into TEN-T planning; intelligent transport 
systems and new technologies within  the framework of the TEN-T; TEN- T and connections outside the EU; 
TEN-T financing; TEN-T legal and non-financial aspects. The results are published on: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infras tructure/tent_policy_review/expert_groups/doc/ten-t_policy_review-
report_of_the_expert_groups.pdf  
8 "Consultation on the future trans-European transport network policy", COM (2010) 212 final. 
9http://ec.europa.eu/tran sport/infrastructure/consultations/doc/2009-07-
31_summary_report_green_paper_on_future_ten-t_networks.pdf  and 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure /consultations/2010_09_15_future_policy_en.htm . 
10 "TEN-T Days 2009: The future of Trans-European Transport Networks: building bridges between Europe and 
its neighbours", 21-22 October 2009: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/ten-t_days_2009/index.html .  
11 Drawing up the EU Core network - Final report, Zaragoza, June 2010: 
https://www.ten-t-days-2010-zaragoza.eu/   
 
 4on the Green Paper, on the Commission's wo rking document of May 2010 and on the main 
conclusions of the Expert Groups. 
Taking into account the results of the public consultatio n process, the Commission came 
forward in January 2011 with a Staff Work ing Document that further developed the 
methodology and the planning and implementation scenarios. 12 This Working Document has 
been presented and discussed during the Inform al Transport Council held in Budapest on 7th 
and 8th February 2011 and the TRAN Committee of the European Parliament on 14 February 
2011.  
In light of the above, it can be concluded that  the consultation process has been wide and 
intensive, meeting all the Commissi on's minimum consultation standards. 13 In addition, this 
2-year long process of internal and external co nsultation has played a key role in focusing the 
Guidelines' revision on a limited choice of options.14 
1.4. External expertise us ed in the assessment  
A wide range of external opinions was collected during the revision process. In addition to the 
already mentioned Expert Groups , a number of other studies a nd ex-post evaluations were 
carried out. 
An ex-post evaluation was carried out on th e 2000-2006 TEN-T Programme and a mid-term 
review on the 2007-2013 TEN-T Programme wa s recently conducted. This is following 
directly upon the work carried out by the TEN -T Executive Agency (hereinafter TEN-T EA) 
on a mid-term review of the TEN-T Programme , whereas DG MOVE and the Agency jointly 
conducted a mid-term review of th e multi-annual programme portfolio. 15 
In parallel, important reviews c onducted with the Member States  on the implementation of the 
Priority Projects in 2010 have delivered a deta iled view of the progress achieved today on the 
projects of European interest16. 
The transport model TRANSTOOLS and the TENconn ect studies I and II were used to help 
define the planning methodology. Fu rther studies have been take n into account,  including on 
the TEN-T planning methodology, on the impact of the development of ports on TEN-T and a post recession revision of the study "Traffic flow: Scenario, Traffic Forecast and Analysis of 
Traffic on the TEN-T, taking into consideratio n the external dimension of the Union".
17 The 
list of key documents that have been used for the purpose of this Impact Assessment report 
are listed in annex 1.  
1.5. Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board 
Following the submission of a draft report to th e Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 15 April 
2011 and a hearing with the IAB on 18 May 2011, the IAB sent its opinion on 23 May 2011, 
asking DG MOVE to resubmit the draft report.  
In its opinion of 23 May 2011, th e IAB made five recommendations  that were addressed in 
the final version of the IA re port in the following manner: 
(1) The report should clarify the objectives of the proposal and explain the links between 
them. 
The revised IA defines more clearly the gene ral objective of the propo sal and establishes a 
closer link between the general objective as  revised and the specific objectives. The 
                                                 
12 "The New Trans-European Transport Network Policy. Planning and implementation issues", SEC(2011) 101. 
13 Further details can also be found on DG MOVE's internet site at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/tran sport/infrastructure/consultations/index_en.htm .  
14 In this respect, see section 4 and annex 3 of the present impact assessment report. 
15 For ex-post assessments, see annex 2. 
16 TEN-T Progress Report, Implementation of the Priority Projects, June 2010: 
17"Trans-European transport network planning methodology" and "Supplementary model calculations supporting 
TEN-T network planning and impact assessment" (TENconnect 2)  
 
 5possibility of trade-offs or synergies between  these objectives and of  addressing them in a 
balanced way within the policy options have al so been assessed in a new subsection 3.4. The 
objective related to the standards for manage ment systems and harmonisation of operational 
rules on the TEN-T projects of common inte rest has been detailed further.   
(2) The report should improve the presentatio n of policy options and consider assessing in 
greater detail a wider ra nge of policy options. 
Section 4 of the report has been revised to include a summary of the planning and 
implementation scenarios assessed to generate the policy options, as well as to clarify the 
criteria and the pre-screening pr ocess used to discard a number  of unviable options, initially 
presented in Annex 3. The revised IA report al so includes a short description of each option, 
as well as a summary of the qua litative assessment of the options' effectiveness with regard to 
achieving each of the specific objectives of th e policy initiative. The argument why only two 
policy options (in addition to the baseline scenario) have been re tained has been strengthened. 
The differentiation between the baseline and Poli cy Option 1 has been st rengthened as well as 
the rationale for retaining Policy Option 1 for in-depth assessment.  
(3)The report should impro ve the assessment of impacts 
The revised IA report expl ains in the beginning of section 5 why the results of a fully-fledged 
modelling exercise of the expected impacts of th e envisaged Policy Options could not be used 
as the primary support for the assessment of impacts. An annex has been added to the IA 
report to provide full transparency on this as pect (see new annex 6). As the Board suggested, 
the modelling results have been used to provide an order of magnitude of impacts. They also have been considered, where available, in co njunction with the results of other studies to 
complement the qualitative analys is of impacts. The assessment of various impacts has been 
strengthened. Amongst others, th e description of environmenta l impacts has been improved 
and includes a more thorough assessment of th e "rebound effect". Also the impact on 
employment and their link to the estimated invest ment needs have been substantiated further. 
Finally, the revised IA report di scusses in more details how th e expected policy impacts are 
likely to be affected by the implementation as pects and by the budgetary constraints faced by 
Member States. 
(4) The report should be cleare r about the differences in expe cted impacts of policy options 
The revised IA report substantia tes and explains in greater de tail why the expected positive 
impacts are likely to be higher in policy Optio n 2 compared to Option 1. To this end, the 
comparison of options in section 6 of th e report has been further developed.  
(5) Procedure and presentation 
Following the Board's recommendation, the different positions of the stakeholders have been 
better reflected throughout the repo rt, especially in section 4 of  the IA. The revised IA report 
also makes more clear use of proportionality and s ubsidiarity as conditions that need to be met 
by all policy options as part of the pro cess of policy options pre-selection.  
The revised IA report addresses also the te chnical comments transmitted by the IAB to DG 
MOVE.  
A revised version of the IA report has been  sent to IAB on 15 June  2011.On 7 July 2011, the 
IAB issued a positive opinion on the revised IA report, which contained three main 
recommendations for further improvement: 
(1) Further strengthen the assessment of options  
Following the IAB recommendation, the qualitative assessment of the impact of options has 
been further improved, particularly by strength ening the argumentation with regard to the 
expected occurrence of modal sh ift and the ensuing consequences for air and noise pollution. 
More examples on the impact of transport infras tructure on employment have been added and 
short term and long term impacts have been distinctly highlighted.  
 
 6(2) Improve the comparison of options 
The IAB noted that some of the scores assign ed to options' effectiveness in addressing the 
problem drivers were not consistent with the qualitative assessm ent developed earlier. 
Consistency has subsequently been ensured. 
(3) Report the stakeholders' views 
Following the IAB recommendation, the stakeholde rs' views have been more consistently 
reported throughout the document. 
With regard to procedure and presentation , the IAB also recommended that efforts be made 
to bring the length of th e report closer to the recommended 30 pages. Efforts to this end have 
been made, but giving the wide scope of the policy area covered, the wide ranging changes 
proposed and the high number of in itial policy options th at needed to be a ssessed, the margins 
for shortening the length of  the report were limited.18  
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION : WHY IS THERE A NEED TO ACT ? 
As noted earlier, it is  through the Maastricht Tr eaty that the Union has been given the task of 
contributing to the establishment and development of  trans-European infras tructure networks 
in the area of transport.19 The goal inscribed in the Treaty is  to support the development of the 
internal market, reinforce economic, social and territorial cohesion, link  islands, landlocked 
and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Union and bring the EU territory within 
closer reach of its neighbouring states.20 
2.1. The Europe 2020 Strategy: A renewed political context 
The recent economic crisis has wiped out year s of economic and social  progress and exposed 
structural weaknesses in Europe's economy. To get the EU economy back on track, the Commission adopted on 3 March 2010 the Eur ope 2020 strategy (herei nafter 'the EU2020 
Strategy') for smart, sustainable and inclusiv e growth. The strategy, setting out a vision of 
Europe's new social market economy for the 21
st century, 21 was endorsed by the European 
Council on 17 June 2010. 
Promoting sustainable transport has been identif ied as one of the means for achieving one of 
the three key EU2020 priorities: sustainable growth.22 The ensuing 'Resource efficient Europe' 
flagship of the EU2020 Strategy called for the m odernisation and decarbonisation of transport 
through, amongst others, infrastructure meas ures, and announced th e intention of the 
Commission " to accelerate the implementation of strategic projects with high European 
added value to address critical bottlenecks, in particular cross border sections and inter 
modal nodes (cities, ports, logistic platforms) .23 It also called on Member States to " ensure a 
coordinated implementation of in frastructure projects, within the EU Core network, that 
critically contribute to the effectiven ess of the overall EU transport system ". Transport 
infrastructure being considered as the backbone of the internal market, this objective has been 
                                                 
18 Tables and figures, which are presented in a high number  in the report in order to better illustrate the argument 
and support the reader in following the wide scope of argumentation, are as a rule not counted within the 
recommended 30 pages length of a report. 
19 Treaty on the Functioning of the European  Union (TFU), Title XVI, art. 170 – 172. 
20 A Communication on improving transport relations with th ird countries, which refers also to the importance of 
connecting the TEN-T with the networks of the neighbouri ng countries will also be adopted later this summer.  
21 COM(2010) 2020 
22 The conclusions of the Report on the “Consultation on the Future Trans-European Network Policy” also 
stressed that stakeholders widely agree that the TEN-T network should be developed in a sustainable way with 
regards to low carbon transport systems. 
23 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and th e Committee of the Regions, COM(2011)21.  
 
 7also retained as one of the "Twelve levers to  boost growth and strengthen confidence" in the 
recently adopted Single Market Act24. 
The Transport White Paper: new priorities for TEN-T 
As a follow up of the EU2020 Strategy, th e Commission adopted on 28 March 2011 a 
roadmap towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system25. This strategy sets 
out to remove major barriers and bottlenecks in many key areas across the fields of transport 
infrastructure and investment, innovation and the internal mark et. The aim is to create a 
Single European Transport Area with more competition and a fully integrated transport network which links the different  modes and allows for a prof ound shift in transport patterns 
for passengers and freight. The White Paper aims  at dramatically cutting carbon emissions in 
transport by 60% by 2050.   
More specifically, the White Pa per has concluded that no major change in transport will be 
possible without the support of an adequate network and a sm arter approach to using it. 
Infrastructure planning and ade quate development, i.e. defi ning where transport flows and 
which (combination of) modes as well as technol ogies are available for use, are seen as 
essential components in the process of redefin ition of the transport sy stem to inverse its 
current unsustainable trends.  
The EU Budget Review: new financing framework for TEN-T 
The EU2020 Strategy also urged th at all EU policies, instruments and legal acts, as well as 
financial instruments, be mobilised to pursue the Strategy’s objectives. Consequently, in its 
"EU Budget Review" Communication
26, the Commission suggested ways to adapt the budget 
to tomorrow's requirements and set a number of ke y principles to better target the use of EU 
funds to secure the Union objectives, and as set out in the EU2020 Strategy: prioritisation - 
"directing resources where the rewards can come more quickly, more broadly and more 
strongly "; focusing on the EU added value - " plug gaps left by the dynamics of national 
policy-making, most obviously addressing cr oss-border challenges in areas like 
infrastructure, mobility, territorial cohesi on…- gaps which would otherwise damage the 
interests of the EU as a whole ".27  
Cross-border infrastructure is gi ven as "one of the best exam ples of where the EU can (…)  
deliver better value results. Transport, comm unication and energy networks bring enormous 
benefits to society at large ".28 
 
2.2. Description and scope of the problem: a fragmented network not fit for purpose 
The EU 27, taken as a whole, is well endowed with transport infrastructures. It currently 
counts 5,000,000 km of paved roads, out of which 61,600 km are motorways, 215,400 km of 
rail lines, out of which 107,400 km electrifie d, and 41,000 km of navigable inland waterways. 
Its maritime ports handled 414 million passengers  and 3,934 million tonnes of freight in 2007, 
while about 14 million tonnes of freight and almost 800 million passengers were carried 
through its airports. 
Whereas most of these transport infrastructu res have been developed under national policy 
premises, the TEN-T policy has helped to comp lete a large number of  projects of common 
interest, interconnecting nati onal networks and overcoming technological barriers across 
national borders. Amongst the success stories is the high-speed railway line linking Paris, 
                                                 
24 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and th e Committee of the Regions COM(2011) 206/4 
25 White Paper for Competitive and Sustainable Transport, COM(2011) 0144 
26 COM(2010) 700 
27 COM(2010) 700 final, p. 4-6. 
28 Ibid, p. 9. 
 
 8Brussels, Cologne/Frankfurt, Amsterdam and London. It has not only in terconnected national 
networks and marked a breakthr ough of a new generation of ra ilway traffic across borders, 
but it has also provided citizens and business travellers with a competitive travel option within Europe. Similarly, the fixed rail/road link between Denmark and Sweden, linking up two 
regions on each side of Øresund, has led to a significant increase in cross-border trade 
patterns and has served as a powerful lever of  economic development, in particular the 
emergence of a common labour market between Copenhagen and Malmö.  
As regards intelligent transport systems, TEN-T policy has helped in particular to prepare the 
various modal intelligent transport systems (ITS) projects, such as European Railways Traffic Management System (ERTMS), the Single Eur opean Sky Air Traffic Management Research 
(SESAR), Vessel Traffic Management and River Information Services. 
Nevertheless, the wide consulta tion process, the external expertise, the ex-post assessments 
conducted and the internal analysis  used over the last two years have shown that the European 
Union does not dispose yet of a complete tr ans-European infrastructure network, and 
especially not for rail and inland waterways,  where essential parts are still missing and 
constitute important bottlenecks. The infrastr ucture network in the EU today is indeed 
fragmented, both from a geographical and a multi-m odal perspective. It is  also not sufficiently 
integrated in the international trade flows that feed the European internal market. 
Despite important efforts towards improvement
29, European rail and inland waterway 
networks are still lacking capacity and efficienc y. Only the road network is nearly complete 
and provides access to intermoda l nodes, albeit significant impr ovements are still needed in 
EU12. The air and sea transport networks are ava ilable, but no priorities  have been given to 
establish a 'hierarchy' within those networks and/or a good interconnection30. 
2.2.1 The infrastructure network is  fragmented between countries 
Missing cross-border sections 
The current fragmentation of EU infrastructu re networks can be illustrated by Figure 1 
showing the current status of implementation of  the Priority Projects . Even if good progress 
has been achieved (the green sections) many of the planned Pr iority Projects will not be 
completed by the deadline agreed and set in  the current Guidelines (around 2015 – 2020 in 
most of the cases). On some sections works wi ll start only after 2013. This is mainly the case 
for cross-border sections which clearly appear to be the most complex projects31 on the TEN-
T in terms of implementation. This led the 2010 TEN-T Priority Project progress report32 to 
conclude that today’s TEN-T mainly consists of an assembly of national sections that are not 
yet or only partially interlinked.33 
                                                 
29 Eighteen of the current thirty Prio rity Projects are entirely dedicated to rail and two to inland waterways. 
30 Court of Auditors Report on Ports 
31 By "projects", it is meant here sections that are being allocated funding on the basis of the TEN-T Guidelines. 
A project is in general a section of a Priority Project. 
32 Progress Report 2010—Implementation of the Priority Projects: http://ec.europa.eu/transport  
33 The report gave a list of cross-border bottlenecks that ar e still left for completion. For instance, the biggest rail 
freight market at this moment, Germany, is lacking good cross-border connections with works ongoing or still to be started on each of them (with the Netherlands, continuation of the Betu we Line to Duisburg; with France, 
works ongoing between Saarbrücken and Mannheim, and between Strasburg and Offenburg; with Denmark, 
missing access routes to the Fehmarn; with Austria, co nnection München to Salzburg under works until 2025 at 
least, with the Czech Republic, the connection between Pr aha and Dresden is still to be upgraded; with Poland, 
Berlin – Warsawa needs an improved interconnection, the same for Dresden to Wroclaw. In a similar way, Italy 
has not any flat trajectory to the rest of the EU. The fu ture Swiss Gothard tunnel will offer the fastest possibility 
for crossing the Alps with just one locomotive and no ob ligation to adapt train length in accordance with the 
physical parameters of the Alpine crossings as of 2019. For Inland Waterways, the barriers are less directly 
linked to cross-border sections as for rail, but the bottle necks do have just the same detrimental effect (like 
Straubing – Vilshofen or missing links such as the Seine-Escaut). This phenomenon can be observed in Figure 1 
for almost all cross-border sections. 
 
 9Divergences between eastern and western parts of Europe 
For the time being, a considerable disparity in the quality and availabi lity of infrastructure 
persists within the EU. The Member States which joined the EU in  2004 and 2007 have a 
motorway network of a limited extent (about  4.800 km, though they are readily catching up 
on this), have no high speed rail lines and – more importantly – their conventional railway 
lines are often in poor condition.34 
The initial Guidelines and Prior ity Projects were approved well before the last two rounds of 
enlargement. While the revision of the Guidelin es in 2004 partly addressed this matter, an 
imbalance between old and new Member States c ontinues to endure, not least due to widely 
differing starting endowment levels.35  Figure 1 illustrates that North-South connections are 
predominant whereas East-West c onnections are still lacking. 
Missing connections with nei ghbouring and overseas countries 
Despite high traffic volumes on many connect ions between the EU and the neighbouring 
countries, the Guidelines so far have not included these connections among the priority 
objectives.  Apart from these, 36 the Priority Projects do not include links to the neighbouring 
countries. Moreover, most of the major Seaports , the connecting points of the EU to overseas 
countries, are not included in the Priority Projects.  
2.2.2 The infrastructure network is fragmen ted between and within transport modes 
Multi-modal "hard" infr astructure is missing 
By functioning mostly separated from each other,  the different modes are further fragmenting 
the network. Currently, important ports and airp orts remain poorly linked to the rail network, 
and a large share (>40%) of long distance freight transport (> 300 km) is carried out by road 
transport in isolation.37 Inland waterways are also in many cases not connected with logistics 
centres .  
Intermodal nodes, enabling th e exchange of passengers and goods across modes, are 
underdeveloped. Important nodes in cities, such as big railway stations and major airports, do in many cases not have well functioning multimodal links. The lack of intermodal nodes, and therefore of efficient co-modality options, increases infrastructure capacity bottlenecks in all modes, and in particular in road, rail and ports. 
                                                
 
34 Energy and Transport in Europe – Statistical Pocketbook 2010. 
35 The wide differences in endowment with regard to transport infrastruct ure across the EU, and in particular 
between the old and the new Member States are well docum ented in the Fifth Report on Economic, Social and 
Territorial Cohesion, November 2010, as well  as in DG ELARG's report on transport 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/doco ffic/official/reports/cohesion5/pdf/5cr_en.pdf . 
36 Priority Project 12, 'Nordic Triang le', and Priority Proj ect 6, 'Lyon-Trieste-Divaca-Ljubljana-Budapest-
Ukrainian border' and PP24 Rotterdam – Genoa via Switzerland 
37 Source: TRANSTOOLS 
 
 10
 Figure 1: Achievements of the Priority Projects – May 2010 
Source: TENtec 
 
 
 
 11Interoperability is lacking 
The current TEN-T is further fragmented by a lack  of interoperability, i.e. of compatibility 
among the technical parameters38, operational systems39 and rules40 that are used on the 
different Member States' networ ks. Differing sets of operational rules and standards, based on 
longstanding traditions and le gislation of individual Member  States, are multiplying the 
barriers and bottlenecks in the transport system . The effectiveness of huge investments in 
infrastructure alone is severely hampered be cause interoperability problems and operational 
rules such as train control signalling system s, document handling, language regimes, train 
crew certifications, composition of trains, tail li ghts and so forth are not tackled at the same 
time as the "hard" infrastructure in a traditiona l sense, comprising of aspects such as rail 
gauge, train length, axle loads a nd traction energy supply systems.41  
As highlighted in the Special Report fr om the European Court of Auditors,42 rail transport is 
the most prominent example where interoperab ility between and within transport modes is 
missing. The EU currently uses seven gauge sizes and seven types of elec tric currents (with 
different voltages and frequencies, alte rnating or direct current, etc).43 In certain cases where 
efficient solutions have been brought about – fo r instance multi-current locomotives able to 
circulate on several networks – then these efforts and investments are hampered in the absence of harmonisation of sometimes tiny deta ils – such as the manual exchange of tail 
lights marking the end of the train. Figure 2 show s another example of the need to coherently 
address both infrastructure and the way that infrastructure is used. 
 
Figure 2: Example from the Special Report from the European Court of Auditors  
Road transport is also hampered by interoperabi lity issues. Today, intern ational hauliers need 
on-board units that deal  with the Eurovignette, five diffe rent national vignettes and eight 
different tags and tolling contr acts if they wish to  drive on all European  tolled roads without 
stopping at tollbooths.44  
In addition, the limited penetration of the comm on European systems such as ERTMS for rail 
and RIS for inland waterways as well as the lack of compatibility between the various 
                                                 
38 Concerning traditional ("hard") infrast ructure such as the different types of  gauges or electrification systems in 
rail.  
39 For e.g. traffic management systems, signalling and river information systems.  
40 For e.g. train length, axle loads, safety, as well as administrative rules such as document handling, language 
regimes. 
41 Special Report No 8, European Court of Auditors, “Improving transport performance on trans-European rail 
axes: have EU rail infrastructure investment been effective?” 
42 Ibid.  
43 http://www.ertms.com/faq.aspx  
44 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/road_charging/road_charging_en.htm  
 
 12national river and air traffic management syst ems are yet other examples of the various 
factors hindering the inte gration of the network.45  
Conclusion 
The lack of integration of the TEN-T logically leads to a suboptim al use of the infrastructure, 
by causing detours in traffic and bottlenecks. It results in econo mic inefficiencies, disparities 
in terms of social and territori al cohesion and higher external co sts to the society in the form 
of congestion, accidents, air and noise pollution, and other environmental impacts.46 The 
fragmentation of the network is  therefore an important obstac le to the free movement of 
people and goods, an analysis confirmed by the conclusions of the ex-post and mid-term 
review reports (see annex 2). As a consequence,  the existing TEN-T is not adequate to support 
the major transformation envisaged by the White Paper towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system by 2050.
47 
The subsections below analyse why today's TEN-T is not capable  of supporting this 
transformation. 
2.3. Why is the TEN-T network fragmented?  
Following the process of internal and external consultation, and on the basis of the various 
assessment reports cited above, the Commission has identified that the fragmentation is due to 
2 main aspects, the conceptual planning of th e network configuration and its implementation. 
This translates into four main drivers, cont ributing to the problem of a fragmented TEN-T 
network. These drivers are: the insufficient EU-level planning of network configuration, 
insufficient adoption of common standards and rules for the in teroperability of networks 
within the TEN-T, the limited cooperation amon g Member States in project implementation 
and the lack of sufficient conditionality of EU funding instruments. The first driver relates to 
the planning aspect, while the three others concern the implementation48 of the TEN-T policy. 
 2.3.1 Insufficient EU-level plann ing of network configuration 
Spatial configuration of the network has lacked a genuine European design 
Transport infrastructure has been  historically designed to serve national rather than European 
goals and national infrastructure planning re mains to a large exte nt disconnected from 
planning at EU level. This is due, not least, to the fact that Member States do support the 
largest share of the budget with regard to transport infrastruc ture investments, including TEN-
T projects. Quite naturally, nati onal authorities see therefor e investment efforts on their 
respective territories mostly as national investme nts rather than as contributions to a Union 
objective49. The current methodological approach to  TEN-T planning and implementation 
also reflects and reinforces this tendency to a pproach transport infrastructure from a primarily 
Member States' individual interests perspective.  
Thus, as regards the TEN-T wider/basic layer, where responsibility for completing the large 
numbers of projects concerned rests almost enti rely with the Member States, "planning" has 
essentially meant adding together significant pa rts of national networks and connecting them 
at the common borders. In practice, that meant Member States submitting national network maps outlining existing and planned infrastructu re for the various modes, on the basis of a 
broad set of characteristics for network conf iguration presented in the TEN-T Guidelines. 
                                                
 
45 NAIADES mid-term progress report and Commission Staff working paper on deployment of the Single 
European Sky technological pillar (SESAR) 
40 See annex 3 of the Impact Assessment accompanying the White Paper (SEC(2011)358) 
47 The Report on the “Consultation on the Future Trans-European Network Policy” explains that some 
environmental organisations explain that the existing TE N-T policy goals are inadequate to deal with climate 
change goals and Europe 2020 strategic objectives. 
48 Implementation refers to the means used to realise the network and optimise its use. 
49 €196 bn within the current financial perspective (2007-2013), compared to €8 bn from the TEN-T Programme 
and €43 bn through ERDF and Cohesion Fund. 
 
 13These maps are appended in Annex I to th e current Guidelines. Projects developing or 
improving infrastructure along these outline ma ps are deemed "projects of common interest" 
and are eligible for fundi ng support from the EU budget.50    
The selection of the Priority Projects has also been, to an important extent, a primarily 
bottom-up exercise. As a methodological approa ch, it has been developed in mid-1990s and 
endorsed by the European Council in Essen in 1996 when it adopted a fi rst list of (fourteen) 
Priority Projects. It relies on proposals for development of pr ojects along th e (wider/basic) 
TEN-T outline presented by the individual Member States, which are then examined by the Commission for their compliance with a set of rath er broadly formulated criteria for "priority 
projects", i.e. projects that ar e to be treated with priority in awarding financial support from 
the EU budget.
51 Thirty Priority Projects are currently benefitting from EU financial support 
and their list is appended as Anne x III to the current Guidelines. 
The list of projects inevitably reflects the Memb er States' inclination to give priority to 
transport sections linking up centres of national interest and, as such, the bottom-up bias of 
the selection process. There ar e thus Priority Projects wit hout any cross-border dimension 
(Priority Projects 5, 10 and 29), or with a limited regional/nat ional planning scope that lead to 
overall network inefficiencies/incongruence. For instance, Priority Projects 11, 12 and 20 
rather belong to a single traffic flow, whereas Priority Projects 4, 28 and 17 are overlapping in 
important segments (See Figure 1). 
In addition, a focus mainly at modal level, rath er than an integrated approach across different 
modes of transport has been identified as a nother consequence of the current Guidelines 
provisions with regard to projec t selection. Thus, some Priority  Projects address rail, others 
road or inland waterways, but there is no coherence between them leading to a multi-modal network approach.  
The predominantly bottom-up network developme nt is no longer adapted to new framework 
conditions 
Mobility has increased over the last decades and has developed in a context of generally 
cheap oil, expandi ng infrastructure and loose environmental constraints
52. Now that those 
framework conditions have changed, the buildin g of new infrastructure  to reduce congestion 
and accommodate higher levels of traffic is le ss and less a desirable solution. The impact of 
infrastructure on the environment also is a gr owing concern. In additi on, the current economic 
crisis reasserts the importanc e of putting budget accounts into a long-term sustainable path. 
This implies reducing public deficit and debt and improving the quality of public finance. 
More cost-effective solutions have to be f ound to tackle transport needs than relying on 
expanding ‘hard’ infrastructure. 
2.3.2 Insufficient implementation of common standards and adoption of common rules for the 
interoperability of networks within the TEN-T 
The TEN-T policy so far has lacked a true  perspective of harmonisation through EU 
legislation to address interope rability issues across both national networks and modes. The 
Court of Auditors Special Report and th e European Coordinators Issues Paper53 have 
particularly stressed this issue. 
Currently, the TEN-T Guidelines only include targ et standards in the inland waterway sector. 
With the absence of links betw een TEN-T policy and existing EU  legislation, Member States 
                                                 
50 See art. 7, Union Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network.  
51 Ibid., art. 23. 
52 Average mobility per person in the EU, measured in passenger-kilometre per inhabitant, increased by 7% 
between 2000 and 2008, mainly through higher motorisation levels as well as more high-speed rail and air travel. 
(Impact Assessment accompanying the White Paper – SEC(2011)358) 
53 Position Paper of the European Transport Coordinators on the Future of the TEN-T Policy Brussels, 6 October 
2009 
 
 14have not sufficiently implement ed all EU level technical specifications: ERTMS in the 
railway sector; implementation of the Single Sky policy and the ATM Master Plan for air transport; ITS for road transport. 
This situation has prevented the TEN-T policy to serve as a useful lever to accelerate the 
deployment of much needed intelligent equipm ent on the network. Moreove r, there is a close 
relationship existing between certain TEN-T  instruments such as legally binding 
interoperability and safety standards, and tran sport market opening. They strongly encourage 
further initiatives similar to those taken in th e field of rail interoperability. As a result, 
infrastructures are underused due to market arrangements reflecting the situation before 
market opening.
54 
2.3.3 Limited cooperation among Member St ates in project implementation 
In addition to the lack of Member States planning coordination, TEN-T development so far 
has been crippled by insufficient Member Stat es cooperation in order to coordinate their 
projects' implementation. This is particularly true of Priority Projects with a cross-border dimension, where active cooperation between a wide  range of stakeholders is necessary. This 
aspect is highlighted by the conclusions of a number of specific studies, such as the multi-annual Priority Projects portfo lio review, the European Coordi nators' Issues Paper and the 
Court of Auditors' Special Report.
55 
This limited cooperation between Member States on cross-border projects has had 
implications at various levels: the lack of jo int traffic forecasts led to differing investment 
plans; the lack of investment planning coor dination led to disconnec ted or contradictory 
timelines, capacity planning, alignment, technical  and interoperability characteristics, cost-
benefit and environmental assessments; the lack  of congruent investment decisions coupled 
with Member States' tendency to give priority to national transport se ctions linking up centres 
of national interest particularly  affected investments in TEN-T projects, leading to extensive 
delays.56  
2.3.4 Lack of sufficient conditionali ty of TEN-T funding instruments 
As indicated above, the TEN-T Guidelines are li nked with financial inst ruments to facilitate 
the implementation of projects identified as being of common interest. These instruments 
include: the TEN-T programme, the Cohesion Fund, the European Regional Development 
Fund (ERDF) and loans from the European Inve stment Bank. While the TEN-T Guidelines do 
not specifically deal with financial aspects, th ey do specify the character istics of the projects 
eligible for financial support from the EU budge t and, not least, the cr iteria for identifying the 
projects that are to be funde d with priority. As such, the TEN-T Guidelines constitute an 
important instrument of conditionality for the a llocation of EU funds. So far, the EU financial 
instruments supporting the TEN-T developmen t have not proved sufficient to deliver 
complete projects within the timeframe agreed by the Guidelines, nor to ensure a focus of 
funding on the projects with highest EU added value. And part of  the reasons for this lie in the 
rather loose framework for guidi ng investment decisions that th e TEN-T Guidelines provide.  
The TEN-T Guidelines provide a framework of  conditionality of TEN-T funding instruments 
by means of provisions concerning both the pl anning of the network configuration and the 
implementation of the projects developing it. As highlighted above, the current bottom-up 
                                                 
54 For the most intensively used rail freight corridor, from Rotterdam to Genova, analysis has shown that the 
freight volume transported could be doubled if, alongside with infrastructural improvement, the operational 
rules, the slot handling and the interopera bility (ERTMS) issues would be addressed. 
55 See Annex 2 
56 Numerous examples are described in detail in the annual activity report of the European Coordinators. For 
instance, the Barcelona – Nîmes rail sections, where the cros s-border tunnel is finished, but not the access routes; 
the Betuwe Line in the Netherlands is finished but th e third rail track from the Dutch border to the German 
industrial area of the Ruhr will be completed only by 2015 at the earliest. 
 
 15approach to planning has failed to ensure th e development of a TEN-T configuration that 
constitutes a fully connected network, and in pa rticular of cross-border links and multi-modal 
connecting points that generate  the trans-European and, resp ectively, multi-modal dimensions 
of the TEN-T – and, as such, its EU-added valu e. At the level of implementation, the limited 
cooperation among Members States, particularly in cross-border projects, means that even 
when planning did address such high EU-a dded value links, delivery was significantly 
delayed. In addition, the lack of provisions for common ope rational rules and standards 
adoption along the TEN-T for most modes, as also pointed out ear lier, mean that high "hard" 
infrastructure investments, with important  EU funding contribution and EU-added value 
potential, remain significantly underused.  
While the overall situation has improved over the y ears, especially with regard to the delivery 
of Priority Projects, thanks to new implementation instruments, such as the TEN-T Executive Agency (TEN-TEA) and the European Coordina tors, and improved conditions for disbursing 
support under the TEN-T programme,
57 the delays in implementati on of a number of projects 
reflect the currently limited capacity at EU level to guide implementation of EU projects, 
especially for the cross-border sections. 
Generally, The Priority Project implementation mid-term reviews and the recent mid-term 
review made clearly apparent th at there is still room for im proving the impact of TEN-T co-
funding, notably by focusing on the particular i ssue of cross-border co ordination, touching 
upon issues of technical interoperability and operational rules, and by focusing on the 
problem that the financial perspectives do not permit to overturn the current 7-year limit of 
the perspectives. 
As regards the structural funds, EU funding ha s largely supported project implementation, but 
projects implementation lies with Member St ates for projects which generally need prior 
approval by the Commission. The current prio ritisation of investment in the TEN-T 
Guidelines leaves many investments decision s follow rather national than European value 
added aspects. Moreover, significant capac ity problems in design, implementation and 
management of large infrastructure projects on all modes constrain th e progress in a number 
of countries eligible und er the Cohesion Fund. As the Conclusions of the 5th Cohesion Report 
state, the future Cohesion Policy needs to impose stronger conditiona lities in order to 
concentrate resources on European value added.  The discussions with Member States show 
that they are open for stronger ex-ante conditionalities for TEN-T investments. 
2.4. How would things evolve, all things being equal?  
The Commission has carried out an analysis of possible future developments for TEN-T 
policy in a scenario of unchanged policies, the so-called baseline scenario. The baseline 
scenario is identical with the Reference scenario applied for the Impact Assessment 
accompanying the White Paper58. The Reference scenario59 is a projection, not a forecast, of 
                                                 
57 Until 2007, the TEN-T programme financial support was relatively scattered, with yearly calls for project 
selection, with a limited funding on cross-border projects. The 2007-2013 financial perspectives brought a significant change by allowing TEN- T co-funding rates up to 30% for cross-border projects. The multi-annual 
programme accompanying it, managed by the newly established TEN-TEA, ensured that up to 60% of the multi-
annual budget was allocated to cro ss-border projects decisions. The allo cations covered the entire financial 
perspectives, so as to give more long term security to these projects. The mid-te rm review reports (2010 and 
2011, see Annex 2) point out however that the targeted higher maximum co-funding rate of 30% for cross-border 
sections is, in practice, not higher than 21% in average.  The EU Financial Framework is an additional constraint: 
as these difficult cross-border projects often run across several MFF, the final contribution from the TEN-T 
budget may be as low as 5 to 10%. This left a picture of limited EU impact for a po licy area with high EU added 
value.  
58 It is presented in more detail in Appendix 3 of the White Paper Impact Assessment as is the inventory of the 
policy measures included in this scenario. 
 
 16developments in absence of new po licies beyond those adopted by March 201060. It therefore 
reflects both achievements and deficiencies of th e policies already in place. This projection 
provides a benchmark for evalua ting new policy measures against developments under current 
trends and policies.61, 62.  
The time horizon for the baseline scenario developed below is twofold: 2030 and 2050. 2030 
is the target date for the achievement of the tr ans-European transport infrastructure framework 
as set in part 3 of this document. The 2050 horiz on is required to ensure consistency between 
long-term impacts of proposed options of the tr ans-European infrastructure network and the 
goals of the White Paper. 
2.4.1 Specific assumptions for infrastructure developments 
In terms of infrastructure development, the baseline scenario assumes that the current 
Guidelines will apply, thus continuing the develo pment of the current Priority Projects and the 
wider TEN-T. Among others, with out prejudging the result of  the negotiations for the 
Multiannual Financial Framework, it is assume d that the current financial perspective 
approach would be pursued for the period 2014-2020, including the availability of a similar TEN-T budget. According to the current forecas ts drawn up in coopera tion with the Member 
States, the total investment co st of the 30 TEN-T Priority Pr ojects will be realised by 2025, 
which would represent an accel erated implementation pace.
63 The National transport plans 
currently discussed between the Commission and the Member States in the Framework of the Open Method of Coordination have also b een taken into account in this forecast. 
It is also assumed as part of the baseline scenario that, at European level, the Commission will 
continue its efforts to encourage Member States to coordinate their infrastructure policies, with a view to exchanging best practices an d identifying obstacles to funding and solving 
cross-border constraints. In par ticular, the Open Method of Coordi nation is expected to have a 
certain impact through fostering transparency and up-to-date monitoring of project planning 
and implementation across Europe. Moreover, th e European Institutions and Member States 
will continue to rely on the work of the European Coordinators,
64 taking care of 11 of the 
most difficult Priority Proj ects of the TEN-T network. 
2.4.2 Expected developments 
Impacts on drivers to TEN-T fragmentation  
In the baseline scenario, by definition, the pla nning of the network will not change since the 
current Guidelines remain unchanged. The curr ent dual layer with the basic layer and the 30 
Priority Projects will be pursued. In 2030, in th e baseline scenario, the fragmentation of the 
infrastructure network in general is not likely to improve, despite the completion of Priority 
                                                                                                                                                         
59 The Reference scenario of the IA of White Paper builds on a modelling framework including PRIMES, 
TRANSTOOLS, PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model, TREMOVE and GEM-E3 models. For the purpose of 
this IA, and more specifically the TEN-Connect studi es, the TRANSTOOLS model was considered as most 
appropriate dut to its infrastructure component. The assumptions used in the studies are identical with the assumptions of the White Paper. In this way, it can be assured that the baselines of TEN-T IA and of the White 
Paper are identical, and that the impacts are estimated on the same basis in the two IAs. 
60 The cut off date for the policy measures included in the Reference scenario (March 2010) is common to both 
initiatives.  In other words, the Reference scenario does not incorporate policy measures that were adopted by the 
Commission after March 2010. In particular, the Reference scenario does not cover the Commission Decision of 
14 October 2010 re-launching of the CARS 21 High  Level Group on the Competitiveness and Sustainable 
Growth of the Automotive Industry in the European Unio n. For the same reason, it does not capture the recent 
initiatives of car manufacturers as regards electric vehicles (hereinafter “EV”).  
61 For a brief presentation of the models used, see Appendix 5 of the White Paper IA 
62 In addition, the oil price projections are the result of world energy modelling with PROMETHEUS stochastic 
world energy model, developed by the National Technical University of Athens (E3MLab). 
63 Priority Projects 2010 – a detailed analysis. 
64 The Report on the “Consultation on the Future Trans-European Network Policy” mentioned that several 
contributors highlighted the facilitation role of the Eu ropean Coordinators for major cross-border projects. 
 
 17Projects. First of all the absence of a revised planning  would mean that interconnectivity 
issues across borders as well as multimodality as pects would remain inadequately addressed. 
The same would be the case of connectio ns with the neighbouring countries. 
Second, as far as the interoperability  of networks is concerned, a certain progress will be 
achieved, particularly in the interoperability of traffic management systems (ERTMS, ITS, 
RIS, SESAR). But overall, the impact on TEN-T efficiency would be too little, too late.  
As an example, the introduction of ERTMS on the European interoperable network provides 
an important indicator of progr ess towards inte roperability. Currentl y, around 4000 kilometres 
of lines for commercial services are in service in ten Member States65, in particular high speed 
lines, and by the end of 2015, and 2020, this should grow to 11 500 km and 23 000, respectively.
66 In addition, a binding European Depl oyment Plan (EDP), adopted on 22 July 
2009, aims at a swift and coordinated deployment by 2015 of ERTMS on 6 Corridors.67  
Nevertheless, even if the above targets are r eached by 2020, the interope rable section of the 
TEN-T will not constitute an  interoperable Eur opean-wide network (see map below).68 The 
six corridors of the EDP represent only 6 % of the Trans-European Network track length, 
even though they do carry 20% of the rail freight traffic. Moreover, as European Coordinator 
K. Vinck noted, "from an implementation point of view, delays are noticed on nearly all 
corridors"69.  
 
Figure 3:  ERTMS Corridors 
Source: UIC 
                                                 
65 From the Annual Activity Report of Coordinator Karel Vinck on ERTMS, Brussels, 20 July 2010 
66 According to the figures in the ERTMS contracts signed recently and the national deployment plans submitted 
by Member States. 
67 These 6 Corridors fit in the 9 freight Corridors under Regulation COM(2007) 608 of the rail freight corridors. 
68 Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the 
Council and the European Parliament Progress report on the implementation of the Railway Safety Directive 
(Directive 2004/49/EC) and of the Railway Interopera bility Directives (Directives 96/48/EC and 2001/16/EC) 
{COM(2009) 464 final} 
69 Annual Activity Report of Coordinator Karel Vinck on ERTMS, Brussels, 20 July 2010 
 
 18As regards operational rules, much progress is not  to be expected, since the different barriers 
to interoperability (administra tive requirements, cross acceptan ce of vehicles, certification of 
vehicles operators, technical a nd commercial controls) would not be tackled together. Without 
increased top-down coordination between Member  States, the situation is not likely to 
improve, despite the involvement of the Europ ean Coordinators and the use of the Open-
Method of Coordination70. As indicated in the common  report of the Coordinators71, 
interoperability issues need  to be addressed in common and alongside the planning and 
financial issues. In the absence of further legal and political commitments, it is unlikely that 
large and complex cross-border projects will be implemented and the capacity of current instruments to achieve a better conditionality of EU funding  will remain limited. The co-
funding within the TEN-T budget is  likely to be too limited to kick off works on major cross-
border sections or important bottlenecks with cross-border effects. Continuing with the 
current TEN-T policy approach w ould still leave key aspects of strategic European interest – 
i.e. solving bottlenecks and filling in missi ng links, developing multimodal connecting points 
– inadequately addressed. Some improvements could be achieved by m eans of the continuous 
sustained efforts of the European Coordinators, but their intervention will  still address mainly 
the problem, and not its causes. 
Impacts of TEN-T fragmentation 
In the baseline scenario, with the continuation of the current Guidelines and current 
implementation, the free movement of goods w ill remain constrained by the low level of 
infrastructural interconnectivity between the Eur opean markets, especially as concerns the 
peripheral areas of Europe.
72 The current market se gmentation of the Internal Market will thus 
endure, limiting the choice for consumers and the si ze of market for enterprises, especially for 
small businesses.  
  
Figure 4: Change in accessi bility between 2005 and 203073 
                                                 
70 See chapter 7 
71 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infr astructure/european_coordinators/european_coordinators_en.htm   
72 See footnote 53 
73 See Impact Assessment White Paper, annex 3. 
 
 19In addition, the expected rise in fuel costs and congestion levels by 2030 will lead to further 
divergence in accessibility at regional level. Peripheral areas with a high share of road 
transport are expected to worsen  their situation, facing higher av erage transport cost increases 
than central areas. Moreover, with economic activity continui ng to demonstrate signs of 
concentration in central EU regions, transpor t costs may hamper economic growth and job 
creation in peripheral regions.74  
In the baseline scenario, the poor connection with neighbouring and 3rd countries and the lack 
of European-wide corridors providing easier acc ess to EU markets for imports and an easier 
exporting route for exports, especially towards Ea stern Neighbours, will limit the capacity for 
imports and exports with 3rd countries. The lack of adequate hinterland connections for major 
EU ports will create similar issues, since they  would not prove an attractive/cost efficient 
point of (physical) acces s into the EU market. 
It can be deducted from the above  that the baseline scenario w ould have little if any positive 
impact on EU competitiveness. Indeed, its impact could be negative, due to the constraints on the free movement of goods, accessibility (see  map above) and trade with third countries 
resulting from the lack of infrastructure. Moreover, the development of intelligent transport systems and management systems will be limited to the development foreseen in the current legislation (see above). 
Impact on the transport system 
In the baseline scenario, the Transport system will continue to be made of modes mostly co-
existing apart from each other, with modal share following the current trends. Therefore, the potential efficiency gains from co-modality
75 would be limited to the initiatives already in 
place. Road transport, for which most of the Eu ropean-wide network is re alised, will continue 
to grow but will be hampered by congestion problems around major nodes. Though its share will be somewhat diminished, road will remain  the main long distance transport mode. With 
transport prices continuing to rise in line with  rising oil prices, the overall efficiency of the 
transport system is therefore likely to furthe r decline as highlighted in the 2011 Transport 
White Paper. Rail transport efficiency w ould remain low due to continuing physical 
fragmentation and interoperability problems of  the European network. Maritime transport 
would be affected by the lack of connection between ports and the other modes (hinterland 
connections).  
Total transport activity is expected to continue  to grow in line with economic activity. Total 
passenger transport activity would increase  by 51% between 2005 and 2050 while freight 
transport activity by 82%.76 The growth will not however be  distributed proportionally among 
transport modes, nor across EU Member States. 
In terms of modal split, the various modes are in  general expected to maintain their relative 
importance at EU level. Passenger cars are expected to remain the largest mode, with almost 
70% of total passenger activity, though this would represent a decrease of 3% compared to 
2005 levels. Air, on the contrary is expected to grow by 3.4%, r eaching 11.8% of total activity 
and consolidating its position as the second mo st important passenger mode (in terms of 
                                                 
74 At present, the Iberian Peninsula is connected by a new rail link to the rest of the EU network in the same 
gauge. This link was realised with TEN-T support and he lped in its implementation by the European Coordinator 
appointed. Since the recent opening of this line, a fre quent shuttle between Barcelona and Lyon is operational. 
These efforts are being continued to strengthen the rail lin ks on both sides of the Pyrenees, for both freight and 
passenger transport. Similar efforts are being made for c onnecting the Baltic (Rail Baltica) and Bulgaria / Greece 
(via Priority Project 22). 
75 Co-modality refers to a "use of different modes on their own and in combination" in the aim to obtain "an 
optimal and sustainable utilization of resources". 
76 This increase corresp onds to an average annual increase of 1.2%, a rate that is slower than the assumed 1.7% 
annual increase of GDP. Passenger tr ansport activity includes international aviation, while freight transport 
activity also includes international maritime. 
 
 20passenger*kilometres). Railways are expected to  gain 0.2% and reach 6. 3% of total passenger 
transport volume. As regards freight, total tr ansport volumes are expected to grow by 42%, 
with road and maritime transport growing at compar able rates. Rail is expected to grow faster 
(by almost 50%), aided by an expected slower increase in fuel costs and the positive impacts 
of the opening of the rail markets.  
The geographic distribution of transport growth  is not uniform. In absolute terms, road 
transport in EU-15 will attract most of the gr owth in demand. EU-10 an d EU-2 will increase 
their transport volumes much faster though in relative terms, by 76% and 96% respectively. 
Growth is expected to be high for all modes in  these member states, with road being the one 
growing fastest. Inland waterways traffic, especi ally in the Danube, is also expected to grow 
by more than 80%. 
Source: Impact Assessment Report accompanyi ng the White Paper on Transport (2011) 
In the baseline scenario, road traffic congesti on, expressed as congested  versus total driving 
time, is to increase, according to the White Paper Impact A ssessment. Congestion costs are 
projected to increase by about 50% by 2050, to  nearly 200 bn € annually. The lack of new 
planned infrastructure connectin g the peripheral areas would wors en this situation, as would 
the limited development of intelligent transport systems and interoperability, especially for rail. Cooperation among Member States (and so metimes also between Member States and 
local authorities) would continue to remain lim ited, thus failing to leverage the potential of 
synergic efforts at EU level to address major bottlenecks and inadequate or inexistent cross-border sections and, theref ore, to reduce congestion. 
 
Figure 5: Congestion by 2030  in reference scenario 
Source: Impact Assessment to the Transport White Paper, Annex 3 
In the baseline scenario, the administrative burd en on transport operators will remain the same 
as far as the implementation of the TEN-T Guidelines is concerned. Still, the administrative 

 
 21burden will be reduced in line with th e existing legislati on for rail freight,77 reporting 
formalities for ships or the Single European sky 
Impact on the environment 
According to projections presented in the White Paper Impact Assessment Report, fuel 
consumption (Mtoe) and emission of CO2 (Mio tonnes) are expected to increase by 15 % in 2020 (EU-25) in the baseline scen ario. Oil products would sti ll represent 89% of the EU 
transport sector needs in 2050.
78  
By implementing existing legislation, NOx em issions and particulate matter would drop 
however by about 40% and 50% , respectively, by 2030 and r oughly stabilise afterwards. 79 As 
a result, external costs re lated to air pollutants would decrease by 60% by 2050. These 
projections are also supported by TENconnect II study results  
The above data, coupled with that concerning the efficiency of the transport system, 
congestion and innovation presented earlier,  indicate that the ba seline scenario would have a 
negative impact on energy use on both a 2030 and 2050 time horizon, due to its negative impacts with regard to the overall efficiency  of the transport syst em, including reducing 
congestion, encouraging modal shift and prom oting innovative technologi es development and 
adoption.   
The impact on land-use change would be very limited as far as TEN-T infrastructure is 
concerned, since no further planning would be made and only the already planned 
infrastructure may be built. However, it woul d not prevent Member States from building 
projects of their own interest. It can be concluded that, if c ontinuing with the current policy 
approach, the identified problem of infrastructure network frag mentation, in a context of 
expected increases in transport activities, would lead to increasi ngly negative economic, 
social and environmental impacts over time. W ith no policy change, the EU will not have the 
necessary infrastructure for addressing the goals inscribed in the Treaty and the priorities set out in the White Paper. 
Sensitivity analysis 
Considering the high degree of uncertainty surrounding projections ov er such a long time 
horizon, especially for such a complex system as  transport network, an evaluation is provided 
below for the possible impact of external fact ors on the assumptions un derlying the baseline 
scenario.  
First, the high degree of uncer tainty regarding budge tary constraints at the level of the 
Member States and the unknown factors concer ning the next EU multi-annual financial 
framework and the TEN Financial Regulations  needs to be taken into consideration
80. The 
development of hard and soft infrastructure, being extremely costly, very much depends on 
the public and private resources available. Th e situation described above in the baseline 
Scenario is rather an optimistic scenario (F igure 1 of this documen t, from the 2010 Progress 
Report illustrates the existing delays on many sec tions of the Priority Projects) in terms of 
infrastructure development since it considers th at the EU and the Member States will have 
sufficient resources available to complete the 30 Priority Projects by 2025. However, if 
investments in transport infrastructu re are seen as a way out the crisis81, the development of 
the TEN-T could be accelerated further. 
                                                 
77 Regulation 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a European rail network for 
competitive freight 
78 Ibid 
79 According to the Impact assessment of the White Paper, p 74 
80 These questions are developed further in part 5.6.2 of this document. 
81 For instance with a similar approach as for the European Energy Programme for Recovery, with a 
prioritisation of investments on key energy an d Internet broadband infrastructure projects. 
 
 222.5. Does the Union have the right to act? 
Articles 170 – 171 of  the Treaty on the F unctioning of the Union de fine the objectives and 
scope of the TEN-T policy. Articl e 170 specifies that  “To help  achieve the objectives referred 
to in Articles 26 [the comple tion of the internal market] and 174 [economic, social and 
territorial cohesion] a nd to enable citizens of the Union, economic operators and regional and 
local communities to derive full benefit from setting-up of an area without internal frontiers, the Union shall contribute to the establishmen t and development of trans-European networks 
in the areas of transport, telecommunications an d energy infrastructures.” It also specifies that 
"action by the Union shall aim at promoting th e interconnection and interoperability of 
national networks as well as access to such networks."  
Article 171 sets the obligation that “the Union sh all establish a series of Guidelines covering 
the objectives, priorities and broad lines of measures envisaged in the sphere of trans-
European networks; these Guidelines shall identify projects of common interest”. 
Article 172 sets the Framework for the appli cation of the principle of subsidiarity, by 
stipulating that ''Guidelines and projects of comm on interest which relate to the territory of a 
Member State shall require the approval of th e Member State concerned.'' Moreover, Member 
States, as well as the regional or local authorities, bear the lion share of the financing related to the construction, maintenance and management of infrastructure. The need for coordination 
between the Union establishing the Guidelines an d the Member States implementing it has led 
to the setting up of the TEN-T Guidelines Committ ee, as stipulated in the Article 21 of the 
current Guidelines. This Committee has been i nvolved at every stage of  the revision of the 
TEN-T Guidelines. 
In areas which do not fall within EU exclusive competence, EU action has to be justified. In 
the present case, it is therefore necessary that the subsidiarity pr inciple set out in Article 5 (3) 
of the Treaty on the European Union is resp ected. This involves assessing two aspects. 
Necessity test 
Firstly, it is important to be sure that the objectives of the proposed action could not be 
achieved sufficiently by Member States in the framework of their national constitutional system, the so-called necessity test. Given the fact  that the overall concept is to create an EU-
wide integrated transport network, the Member States per se are not able to meet these 
challenges individually fo r the following reasons: 
As pointed out in the problem definition, Member States primarily consid er transport flows of 
national importance when planning future infras tructure. Infrastructure  planning to cater for 
long distance transport flows of  European importance is, c onversely not sufficiently 
considered by Member States. For the same reas on, even when planning is cross border, they 
tend to allocate less importance and resources to  the building of the cr oss border sections, as 
has been the experience with the current Priority Projects
82. In some cases, the countries of 
both sides of a border are inte rested in the corresponding pr oject to a different extent83. 
Regarding implementation, the lack of coordi nation between Member States leads to the 
development of different standards and opera tional rules hindering th e coherence of the 
functioning of the TEN-T network and the Internal Market as a whole84. 
                                                 
82 Priority Project Progress report 2010 
83 In some cases the more central states are less interested  in the project than the more peripheral ones. While the 
internal profitability of a project is the same on both side s of the border, there might be considerable differences 
in its socio-economic value: for the more peripheral country, the project would improve its accessibility and 
therefore may be very important; however for the more central country it would have little impact on its accessibility and therefore not have the same importance. 
84 See Position Paper of the European Transport Coordinators on the Future  of TEN-T Policy, 6 October 2009 
 
 23Therefore, the coordinated development – both in terms of planning and implementation – of 
TEN-T infrastructure to support long distance transport flows of European interest and 
economic, social and territorial cohesion n eeds to be undertaken at Union level.  
The proposed policy options for renewed TEN-T Guidelines will focus on addressing trans-
national aspects that cannot be satisfactorily taken into account by Member States, such as 
filling the missing links that could facilitate cro ss-border transport, the interoperability of 
equipment and establishing an internal market for Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) and services. EU coordination would have thus also  a clear added value with respect to setting of 
standards and increasing the quality of services  as well as the management of cross-border 
infrastructure links and international traffic flows. 
Test of EU added value 
Secondly, it has to be considered whether and ho w the objectives could be better achieved by 
action on the part of the EU, the so-called “test of European added value”. The rationale for a 
European action in the field of TEN-T stems from the trans-national nature of the identified problem. However, it has to take into account that a ‘one size fits all’ approach would not be 
an adequate response. Therefore, an action at EU level coupled with actions at all 
administrative levels would yield significant added value. 
For these reasons, the policy objectives set out in section 3 of the present Impact Assessment 
report cannot be sufficiently achieved by actions of the Member States alone, but can rather, 
by reason or scale of the proposed action, be be tter achieved with high involvement of the 
EU. 
3. 
POLICY OBJECTIVES  
Section 2 has shown that the TEN-T today is not  sufficiently integrated to the extent of 
supporting the major transformation towards a competitive and resource efficient transport 
system by 2050. More specifically, it has been e xplained that the curren t fragmentation of the 
TEN-T network at all levels is a major obstacl e to a smooth and resource efficient functioning 
of the internal market and to econom ic, social and territorial cohesion. 
This section defines the general, specific and operational objectives of the proposed initiative, 
discusses possible trade-offs and synergies betw een objectives and verifies their consistency 
with other EU horizontal objectives. 
3.1. Policy Objectives 
3.1.1 General Objectives The overall aim of this initiativ e is to provide by 2030 for the establishment of a complete and 
integrated TEN-T that would maximise the va lue added for Europe of the network. This 
optimal network would cover and link all EU  Member States in an intermodal and 
interoperable manner. This network would al so provide links to neighbouring and third 
countries, as well as all transport modes and systems that would support the move towards a 
competitive and resource-efficient transport system by 2050. 
This aim is consistent with the 'Inclusion Growth' initiative of Europe 2020, the Single Market 
Act and with the general goal of the TEN-T polic y; to improve the competitiveness of the EU 
economy as a whole, to support the completion of the internal market, and to contribute to a 
balanced territorial development of the Union.  
In addition, as stipulated in the Europe 2020 Strategy, and furthe r detailed in the White Paper, 
the TEN-T shall contribute to the 'Sustainable  Growth' initiative, and in particular the 
'Resource Efficiency' flagship, by facilitati ng a reduction of GHG emissions by 60% for 
 
 24transport. It will also be in line with the renewed Sustainable Development Strategy85 by 
contributing to more sustainable mobility.86 
3.1.2 Specific Objectives 
The general objective of establishing a complete and integr ated TEN-T that would maximise 
the value added for Europe of the network can be translated into more specific goals. Each of these 4 specific objectives intends to address on e of the 4 drivers lead ing to the problem of 
fragmentation. 
The first specific objective shall enhance the EU planning  that will enable to define the 
optimal network as defined above and to iden tify "the missing links" in the current TEN-T: 
• Define a coherent & transparent approach to maximise the EU added value of the 
TEN-T, addressing aspects of network fragmentation linked to missing links, 
multimodality, and adequate connections to neighbouring and 3
rd countries, as well as 
ensure adequate geog raphical coverage.  
The next three specific objectives  shall design a sound governan ce structure to secure the 
implementation  of the optimal network and of the "missing links" identified. This 
governance structure would foster the implementa tion of European standards for management 
systems and push for the development of the harmonisation of operational rules and enhance 
MS cooperation. This will ensure that EU funds are allocated to  the identified "missing links" 
and to the implementation efforts of these missing links. These specific objectives for implementation are:  
• Foster the implementation of European standards  for management systems and push 
for the development of harmonised operational rules  on the TEN-T projects of 
common interest. This objective however does not aim at imposing new specific 
standards and rules, but rather at ensuring the eff ective adoption and implementation 
of common European standards already de veloped, both in the field of traffic 
management and information systems
87 and in the field of operational rules and 
technical specifications of  physical infrastructure.88  
• Enhance Member States cooperation in or der to coordinate investments, timing, 
choice of routes, environmental and cost-ben efit assessments for projects of common 
interest.  
• Ensure that the optimal networ k configuration is a key elem ent in the allocation of EU 
funding enabling the focus on cross-border sections, missing-links and bottlenecks. 
                                                 
85 European Council, June 2006 
86 This goal is supported by some environmental organisations which want to focus on the reduction of 
unsustainable emissions, costly congestion and less ro ad accidents for a more energy efficient and cleaner 
transport as shown in the Report on the “Consulta tion on the Future Trans- European Network Policy”. 
87 ERTMS, SESAR etc., see the list detailed in  the "operational objectives" sub-section.  
88 Such as train length, axel weight and the like.  
 
 25 
Table 2: Mapping problem,  drivers and objectives 
Problem  General objective 
Fragmentation of TEN-T network   Establish a complete and integrated TEN-T 
network that would maximise the value 
added for Europe of a network  
Drivers to the problem  Specific objectives 
Planning  Planning 
Dr.1 Lack of a genuine European design in the 
spatial configuration of the network SO1 Define a coherent & transparent approach to 
maximise the EU added value of the TEN-T network 
Implementation  Implementation  
Dr.2 Insufficient implementation of common 
standards and adoption of common rules 
for the interoperability of networks 
within the TEN-T SO2 Foster the implementation of  European standards for 
management systems and push for the development 
of the harmonisation of operational rules on the TEN-
T project of common interest. 
Dr.3 Limited cooperation among Member 
States in project implementation SO3 Enhance Member States cooperation in order to 
coordinate investments, timing, choice of the routes, 
environmental and cost-benefit assessments for 
projects of common interest 
Dr.4 Lack of sufficient conditionality of TEN-
T funding instruments SO4 Ensure that the optimal network configuration is a 
key element in the allocation of EU funding allowing 
to focus on cross-border sections, missing-links and 
bottlenecks 
 
3.1.3 Operational objectives 
In addition, the specific objectives have been  further detailed in the following operational 
objectives, with two operati onal objectives for each of the specific objectives. 
The methodology to define the netw ork configuration should allow to: 
• connect all main airports a nd seaports to other modes,  especially (High-Speed) 
railways and inland waterway systems by 205089; 
• and to shift 30% of road freight over 300 km to other modes such as rail or waterborne 
transport by 2030, and more than 50% by 2050.90 
The implementation of European standards and adoption of common rules should be realised 
by: 
• ensuring by 2030 the deployment of Euro pean transport management systems 
(ERTMS, SESAR, ITS, RIS, SSN and LR IT) on the projects of common interest9192 
• and ensuring the commitments of Member States to agree on common operational 
rules in order have fully functiona l projects of common interest by 2030. 
• The enhancement of Member States  cooperation will be realised by: 
• Obtaining binding commitments by Member Stat es for the implementation of essential 
cross-border projects wi th a binding timetable;  
• and obtaining binding commitments by Member  States for the implementation of 
bottlenecks and missing-links on their territo ry that have cross-border effects. 
                                                 
89 This is also goal 6 of the Transport White Paper 
90 This is also goal 3 of the Transport White Paper 
91 This is in line with goal 7 of the Transport White Paper. 
92 As noted in The Report on the “Consultation on the Future Trans-European Network Policy”, stakeholders 
agree that ITS and ICT could be a good supplement to classical infrastructure investment, to boost energy 
efficiency and environmental sustainability. 
 
 26The optimal network conf iguration shall allow: 
• ensuring priority for cross-border pr ojects, bottlenecks and missing-links, 
interoperability and intermodality; 
• and ensuring conditionality of EU funding upon compliance with EU environmental 
legislation (SEA, EIA & Natura 2000).93 
3.2. Possible trade offs and synergies between the objectives 
The overall goal in devel oping the TEN-T, and of the current revision process, is to maximise 
EU added value of the TEN-T ne twork. Efficiency, from the point  of view of the EU, could 
be seen as fulfilment of the w hole set of objectives laid down in  the Treaty in a balanced way, 
against the corresponding costs and efforts.  Achieving a sound balance between traffic 
demand in central regions and acc essibility in peripheral ones is therefore in this context, 
efficient. 
The approach to planning the network configurati on, as set out in the firs t specific objective, 
will be aimed at identifying the optimal ne twork configuration from an EU-added value 
perspective. This methodology sha ll therefore find the right bala nce between a large coverage 
of the Union by the network and the need to take  into account the main traffic flows, in order 
to solve the potential conflict between territorial cohesion and economic competitiveness. A 
geographical approach for strategic network pl anning does not necessarily contradict a purely 
traffic driven/competitiveness approach, as the ge ographical distribution of main nodes (major 
cities and economic centres) is the main driv er of major long-distance traffic flows.  
As set out in the fourth specific objective, an  optimal network configuration shall be a key 
element in optimising the conditionality for the us e of EU funds. As such, there should be no 
trade off between a network configuration that adequately covers the entire territory of the 
Union and an efficient allocation of EU funding. On the contrary, ensuring that EU funds are 
allocated only to projects aimed to develop parts of the optimised network configuration, 
coupled with stronger measures as concerns  implementation requirements (as ensured by 
specific objectives 2, 3 and 4), wi ll ensure that EU funds are al located primarily to projects 
that ensure a high EU-added va lue. Moreover, the approach to define and implement the 
network shall be flexible, ba sed on traffic needs: a four-line motorway, multi-modal 
connections or a high-speed rail line will not be needed on each connection of the network. 
Therefore, costs shall be in line with the n eeds, allowing for the maximisation of the EU 
added value by a smart approach fo r the allocation of EU funds.  
Another possible trade off would be between the objectives of "Inclusive Growth" and 
"Sustainable Growth". Building new infrastructure can lead to an increase in traffic and so to increased emissions of pollutants and gr eenhouse gasses. The TEN-T policy aims at 
addressing this trade off first of all by e nhancing modal shift, as set out in the 1
st and 2nd 
operational objectives. Neverthele ss, infrastructure planning measures alone would not be 
sufficient. They would need to be combined with a strong implementa tion approach and other 
transport policy measures (such as pricing, clea ner technologies …) in or der to make transport 
more efficient and cleaner. Some of these measur es are included in the operational objectives 
of the TEN-T Guidelines and some of them are part of the general tran sport policy, as set out 
in the Transport White Paper. In this way, transport infrastructure planning and implementation can serve both general objectives  of inclusive and sustainable growth by 
being a main implementation tool of mu ltiple initiatives of transport policy. 
 
                                                
 
93 The Report on the “Consultation on the Future Tran s-European Network Policy” states that “EU funding 
should be made fully conditional upon maximum effort to avoid areas of high nature and biodiversity value.” 
 
 274. POLICY OPTIONS FOR TEN-T  DEVELOPMENT  
This section will explore alternative policy options aimed at establishing a complete and 
integrated TEN-T network by 2030 as described in section 3 above.  
4.1. Two-pronged process leading to identification of policy options 
As described in the first section of this report, the input of the process of internal and external 
consultation, together with the findings of ex ternal studies and assessments, has allowed the 
Commission to identify more precisely the prob lem to be solved, the four main underlying 
drivers and the corresponding fields for action, namely the conceptual planning and the means 
for implementation as explained in part 2.4  above, and possible actions that would be 
appropriate to address those issues. On this basis, the two-pronged process described below 
was applied for generating a range of possible policy options that could address the drivers 
identified earlier as leading to TEN-T's curre nt fragmentation and he lp thus achieve the 
objectives set out in section 3 of this report.  
4.1.1. Identification of generic scenar ios for planning and implementation 
The Commission has first identified a range of po ssible generic policy scenarios in each field 
for action (planning and implementation). The sc enarios are presented in Table 3 below. 
Coherence with the overall EU Treaty objective of economic, so cial and territorial cohesion, 
with the Europe 2020 Strategy and its main priori ties, with the prioriti es set in the White 
Paper for transport and the budgetary princi ples set out in the EU Budget Review 
Communication (as outlined in part 2.1 of this report), has pr ovided the main conceptual grid 
that guided the Commission in considering the generic scenarios in the first place. 
Five " planning scenarios " have been envisaged: busine ss-as-usual, guide lines discarded, 
selection of new PPs (or Essen), Core Ne twork and dense comprehensive network. The 
"planning scenarios" have been developed startin g from the three policy options proposed for 
consideration in the first stage of the public consultation (Green Paper, February 2009), and 
taking into consideration the su bsequent stakeholders' input.94 The possible planning 
scenarios submitted to public consultation in February 2009 included one scenario, namely 
"Priority Projects" only, which was later not re tained as part of th e planning scenarios 
considered for the present IA. A majority of stakeholders considered this scenario as forfeiting the Treaty objectives of ensuring overa ll internal market accessibility and support 
for economic, social and territorial cohesion, as it diverts EU focus and funding away from 
the development of the overall/comprehensive TEN -T. The lack of coherence of this possible 
planning scenario with the overall Treaty objectiv es is therefore the reason why this scenario 
has not been eventually retain ed among the planning scenarios considered for policy options 
development.
95, 
Five " implementation scenarios " (i.e. addressing issues su ch as standards allowing 
interoperability, cooperation among Member Stat es and conditionality of funding) have been 
elaborated: business-as-usual, guidelines disc arded, regulatory approach only, reinforced 
coordination and EU full operational management.96 These  alternative "implementation 
                                                 
94 The Report on the “Consultation on the Future Trans-European Network Policy” mentioned while most 
Member States clearly point out that planning and implementation has to be done by them, some associations 
and European organisations preferred a centralised approach led by the EU level. 
95 It was subsequently substituted with a "dense comprehensive network" planning approach that, intuitively, was 
deemed to better ensure such coherence.  
96 These scenarios were developed following the recommenda tions of the expert groups set up to develop further 
the TEN-T policy revision options following the input of  the stakeholders during the February – April 2009 
public consultation process. The recommendations of "Expert group 3 – intelligent transport systems and new 
technologies within the framework of the TEN-T", "Expert group 5 – TEN-T financing" and "Expert group 6 – legal issues and non-financial instruments for TEN-T impl ementation", in particular, made apparent the need for 
coordinated intervention also at TEN-T implementation level.  
 
 28scenarios" had not been distinctly considered in  the first stage of public  consultation. Rather, 
the need for tackling, at the same time, both planning and implementatio n aspects of the TEN-
T policy became apparent following the public consultation process.  
 
 
29  
 
 
Table 3a: Planning scenarios 
                                                 
97 I.e., as identified based on current, accumulated, experience: mainly cross-border links, multimodal connecting links, links a lleviating bottlenecks, links to neighbouring and 
third countries. Scenarios envisaged in the field of planning 
Name Content 
A1 - Business as 
usual - Same framework as in baseline, incl uding the currently designated 30 PPs; 
- No identification of further PPs. 
A2 - Guidelines 
discarded - No EU guidance towards identification of projects of common interest following the end of the current MFF; 
- No “European interest” priority status as well as any eventual further EU support towards covering financial needs for current PPs. 
A3 - Selection of 
new PPs (or 
Essen 2) - Identification of new priority projects following the current, pr imarily bottom-up approach to project selection, as endorsed b y the Essen European 
Council in 1994; 
- Largely unchanged process with respect to wider TEN-T identification and PP selection; 
- Upgrade of the wider TEN-T (based on projects completed and/or abandoned by Member States); 
- Revision of criteria for Priority Project identification to bette r specify the elements that would constitute the European adde d-value of priority 
projects97. 
A4 - Core 
Network - Enhanced top-down and multi-modal approach to TEN-T planning; 
- Two planning layers: basic layer (comprehensive network resulting from an updating and adjustment of the current wider TEN-T) a nd top layer 
(core network, overlaying the comprehensive network and constitute d of the EU strategically most  important parts of the TEN-T);  
- Definition of methodologies for transparently and coherently identifying the network components for both layers across the terr itory of all Member 
States, and insuring their multi-modality; 
- Continued consultation throughout the process of application of the methodology, ensuring ownership of the process (and results ) of TEN-T 
configuration identification by the Member States. 
A5 – Dense TEN-
T network  Same as in A4, but criteria and standards that in A4 would be applied to entire/comprehensive TEN-T network 
 
 30 
Table 3b: Implementation scenarios 
                                                 
98 Both the financial (TEN-T Programme and Cohesion Fund and EIB loans and grants) and the coordination (TEN-T EA, European Coord inators, TENtec) instruments. 
99 Such as the implementation of the ERTMS corridors,  the ITS Directives, the Single European Sky etc.  
100 At PP level, in the case of A1 and A3 planning scenarios, and at corridor level (or "corridor approach") if combined with a ne twork approach to TEN-T planning, as in the case 
of A4 and A5 scenarios.  
101 As noted in the Report on the “Consultation on the Future Tran s-European Network Policy”, the corridor approach including high -speed rail, ERTMS, green and freight 
corridors into the Core Network and a joint management involving infrastructure managers is seen as key for the development of TEN-T by some contributors. 
102 ERA, EASA, TEN-T EA Scenarios envisaged in the field of implementation 
Name Content 
B1 – Business-as-usual - Same as in baseline, including the current implementation instruments98; 
- Continuation of initiatives currently under way with regard to interoperability standards99 and TEN-T projects. 
B2 – Guidelines discarded - No TEN-T implementation support activities foreseen or fi nanced at the end of the current MFF at EU level. 
B3 – Regulatory approach only - Discontinuation of current coordination instruments, limiting EU  action to a TEN-T Regulation that will strictly define the 
priority projects/network map to be funded, the interoperability standards to be applied and the timetables for completion; 
- Funding strictly conditional upon all criteria and standards being met. 
B4 – Reinforced coordination - Reinforced coordination  at PP level or at Corridor level100101; 
- Coordinated approach ensured by individual PPs or Corridor Decisions at PP/Corridor level in the undertaking of infrastructural  
investments, the management of PP/corridor capacity, the deployment of interoperability standards and traffic management 
systems; the Decisions will place the overall management authority  under the aegis of the Europe an/Corridor Coordinators, while  
the TEN-T EA will continue in its role of suppor t towards project preparation and implementation. 
B5 – EU full operational 
management (through a 
Regulation) - Complete centralised management of the planned network via the EU agencies102 under the coordination of the Commission and 
the European Coordinators; 
- EU level responsibilities including management of project prop osal development and accompanyi ng cost-benefit analyses and 
environmental impact assessments, management of funding and implementation of all TEN-T projects, establishment and 
deployment of interoperability standa rds and systems across the network. 
 
31 4.1.2. Identification of possible policy options 
As pointed out earlier, the cons ultation process made apparent th at only intervention covering 
both fields (planning and implementation) would be capable of tackling at the same time and 
in a satisfactory way all the various problem drivers and addressing a ll the specific policy 
objectives. 
In light of this, the interaction between each of  the five scenario envisaged for action at the 
level of planning with each of the five scenario envisaged for action at the level of implementation (including the respective planni ng and implementation s cenarios pertaining to 
the baseline) has been considered within al ternative policy options.   25 (theoretically) 
possible alternative policy opti ons, constituting potentially vi able policy alternatives for 
achieving the objectives identified in secti on 3 above, were thus initially generated. 
Nevertheless, for reasons of compatibility betw een scenarios, five theoretical combinations 
involving the A2/"Guidelines disc arded" scenario were discarde d from the beginning, as this 
planning scenario is not compatible with any implementation scenario. "Guidelines discarded" 
was considered subsequently as a policy opt ion in its own, without an implementation 
dimension. 
Following this second phase of policy options  generation, a total of 21 possible policy 
options
103, as briefly presented in the tabl e below, have been identified.  
 
 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 
A1 Business as usual 
/ Continuation 
with current 30 
PPs and current 
implementation 
approach  
 Continuation of 
current 30 PPs but 
with no further 
EU 
implementation 
support  Continuation of  
current 30 PPs 
with a purely 
regulatory 
approach to 
implementation  Continuation of 
current 30 PPs 
with reinforced 
coordination  Continuation of 
current 30 PPs 
with full EU 
operational 
management  
A2 Guidelines 
discarded Guidelines 
discarded  Guidelines 
discarded  Guidelines 
discarded  Guidelines 
discarded  
A3 MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) with current 
implementation 
approach  MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) with no further 
EU 
implementation 
support  MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) with purely 
regulatory 
approach to 
implementation  MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) with reinforced 
coordination  MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) with full EU 
operational 
management  
A4 Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive) 
network with 
current 
implementation 
approach  Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive) 
network with 
no EU 
implementation 
support  Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive 
network with 
purely regulatory 
approach to 
implementation  Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive) 
TEN-T with 
Reinforced 
coordination  Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive) 
network with full 
EU operational 
management  
A5 Dense TEN-T 
with current 
implementation 
approach  Dense TEN-T 
with no further 
EU 
implementation 
support  Dense TEN-T 
Purely regulatory 
approach to 
implementation  Dense TEN-T 
with reinforced 
coordination Dense TEN-T 
with full EU 
operational 
management  
Table 4: Identification of possible Policy Options 
 
4.2. Pre-screening of envisaged alternative policy options  
The high number and complexity of the resul ting possible policy options raised issues of 
feasibility and efficiency of an in-depth assessment for all of them, making a preliminary assessment and the discarding of policy options necessary. 
                                                
 
103 See annex 3 of the present report. 
 
 32The Commission performed therefore a prelim inary assessment of the 21 possible policy 
options on the basis of their effectiveness in ad dressing current problem drivers (and, as such, 
towards attaining the policy objectives of th e TEN-T Guidelines revision) and of their 
efficiency. In parallel, the coherence of the possible policy options w ith the principles of 
subsidiarity and proportiona lity has been assessed. 
As regards the effectiveness  criterion, each planning and, respectively, implementation 
scenario has been assessed with regard to it s capacity to have a significant impact on the 
problem driver(s) it was designed to address. This preliminary analysis has proved an effective approach to reducing th e range of policy options to thos e that promised to promote a 
sufficient departure from the current approach (business-as-usual/baseline scenario) in terms 
of achievement of the overal l TEN-T policy objective.  
The selection rule was given by the presumption that only those scenario combinations that 
would ensure a significant (positive) impact  (i.e. rated medium [++] or high [+++]) on all 
problem drivers would be worthwhile consideri ng as viable alternativ e policy options, capable 
of ensuring the achievement of  the overall TEN-T policy goal s. Conversely, any combination 
of scenarios for which the assessment included in sufficient (i.e. negative  [ - ] or none [ 0 ]) 
impacts on any of the drivers was discarded fo r further consideration as a policy option.  
i. Insufficiently addressing the "planning" driver, that underpins aspects of TEN-T 
fragmentation due to the absence of a genuine European design, will mean 
perpetuating current physical – geographi cal and modal – fragmentation problems 
(missing cross-border links, missing or  insufficiently developed inter-modal 
nodes/platforms, traffic bottlenecks) and fa iling to ensure "the establishment of a 
complete and integrated TEN-T that would maximise the value added for Europe of 
the network ".  
ii. Insufficiently addressing the "interoperability" driver, even in a scenario where the 
physical fragmentation aspects are addressed, will lead to a situation where, due to 
limited interoperability, the TEN-T will still fail to function as an "integrated" 
network.
104  
iii. Insufficiently addressing the "limited c ooperation among Member States in project 
implementation" driver would mean failing to fully leverage the efforts towards 
improved European planning coordinatio n and interoperability. Continuing 
incongruence and delays in build ing cross-border links (see p. 13 in this report) would 
lead to an undesirable scenar io where the impact of hi gh investments of EU and 
Member States resources (financial but not  only) would be importantly diluted, as 
sections on the TEN-T with significan t EU-added value will fail to be timely 
delivered.  
iv. Finally, insufficiently addressing the "condi tionality of EU f unding instruments"  
would mean risking that the efficiency of  (limited) EU and Member States funds 
would remain suboptimal. They would continue  to be dispersed towards favourite (i.e. 
highly politically rewarding) Member Stat es projects, rather than being focused 
towards projects that would make most EU added value sense (i.e . from an enhancing 
overall EU competitiveness and balanced territorial development perspective). 
The outcome of this selection process is summar ised in the table 5 below. A more detailed 
assessment of each scenario's impacts on the problem drivers is presented in Annex 3 to this 
report.  
                                                 
104 For example, what would be the added value of a fu lly integrated high-speed rail connecting the North and 
the South of the Continent or the East and the West, if the train had to stop at each border crossing to change drivers, or switch power adaptor or even locomotive, not to mention the number of fire extinguishers as would 
be the case with today's conventional rail transport? 
 
33 Table 5: Effectiveness in addressing current problem drivers 
Impacts on 
Options Planning coordination Interoperability 
(adoption of common 
standards & systems) Member States cooperation in 
project implementation Conditionality of EU funding 
A1B1 
Business as usual / Continuation 
with current 30 PPs and current 
implementation approach  
 [0] 
Continued limited coordination in 
a bottom-up process [0] 
Slow but  not sufficient 
progress  [+] 
Improvements due to continued 
European Coordinators' support [0] 
Current provisions are maintained 
A1B2 
Continuation of current 30 PPs but 
with no further EU implementation 
support  [0] 
Continued limited coordination in 
a bottom-up process  [0/-] 
Rhythm of adoption likely to 
slow down [-] 
Likely deterioration due to removal of 
European Coordinators and TEN-TEA 
support [-] 
Likely shift towards projects of primarily MS 
rather than EU interest 
A1B3 
Continuation of  current 30 PPs 
with a purely regulatory approach 
to implementation  [0] 
Continued limited coordination in 
a bottom-up process  [0/+] 
Progress but in a likely slow 
rythm [+] 
Improvements but likely not to the 
extent aimed for [0/+] 
High on paper but likely limited in practice due 
to implementation inefficiencies 
A1B4 
Continuation of current 30 PPs 
with reinforced coordination  [0] 
Continued limited coordination in 
a bottom-up process  [++] 
Sustained progress due to 
specifically targeted support [+++] 
Substantial increase due to strong 
emphasis on binding coordination 
commitments  [+++] 
High due to strong focus on both binding 
commitments and m easures to support 
implementation  
A1B5 
Continuation of current 30 PPs 
with full EU  operational 
management [0] 
Continued limited coordination in 
a bottom-up process  [++] 
Strong EU-level coordination 
but likely strained 
implementation capacity [-] 
Likely resistance by MS to shifting  
project implementation responsibilities 
at EU agencies level [+] 
High in principle but likely much less effective 
in practice due to inefficiencies in 
implementation in an overly top-down approach 
A2 
Guidelines discarded [-] 
MS are left to choose new projects 
for development in complete 
freedom  n/a n/a n/a 
A3B1 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 2) 
with current implementation 
approach  [+] 
Better criteria leading to better EU 
steering of PP selection process [0] 
Slow but  not sufficient 
progress  [+] 
Improvements due to continued 
European Coordinators' support  [0] 
Current provisions are maintained  
 
 34 
A3B2 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 
2) with no further EU 
implementation support [+] 
Better criteria leading to better EU 
steering of PP selection process  [0/-] 
Rhythm of adoption likely to 
slow down  [-] 
Likely deterioration due to removal of 
European Coordinators and TEN-
TEA support  [-] 
Likely shift towards projects of primarily MS 
rather than EU interest  
A3B3 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 
2) with purely regulatory 
approach to implementation  [+] 
Better criteria leading to better EU 
steering of PP selection process  [0/+] 
Progress but in a likely slow 
rythm [+] 
Improvements but likely not to the 
extent aimed for  [0/+] 
High on paper but likely limited in practice 
due to implementation inefficiencies  
A3B4 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 
2) with reinforced coordination  [+] 
Better criteria leading to better EU 
steering of PP selection process  [++] 
Sustained progress due to 
specifically targeted support  [+++] 
Substantial increase due to strong 
emphasis on binding coordination 
commitments  [++] 
Strong focus on both binding commitments 
and measures to suppor t implementation  but 
diluted by lower levels of coordination in 
planning  
A3B5 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 
2) with full EU operational 
management [+] 
Better criteria leading to better EU 
steering of PP selection process  [++] 
Strong EU-level coordination but 
likely strained implementation 
capacity  [-] 
Likely resistance by MS to shifting  
project implementation 
responsibilities at EU agencies level  [+] 
High in principle but likely much less 
effective in practice due to inefficiencies in 
implementation in an overly top-down 
approach 
A4B1 
Dual layer (core and 
comprehensive) network with 
current implementation 
approach [++] 
Enhanced coordination due to clear 
methodology for network configuration 
applied consistently across all MS [0] 
Slow but  not sufficient progress  [+] 
Improvements due to continued 
European Coordinators' support  [0] 
Current provisions are maintained  
A4B2 
Dual layer (core and 
comprehensive) network with 
no EU implementation support  [++] 
Enhanced coordination due to clear 
methodology for core network 
configuration applied consistently across 
all MS  [0/-] 
Rhythm of adoption likely to 
slow down  [-] 
Likely deterioration due to removal of 
European Coordinators and TEN-
TEA support  [-] 
Likely shift towards projects of primarily MS 
rather than EU interest  
A4B3 
with 
purely regulatory approach to 
implementation  [++] 
Enhanced coordination due to clear 
methodology for core network 
configuration applied consistently across 
all MS  [0/+] 
Progress but in a likely slow 
rythm [+] 
Improvements but likely not to the 
extent aimed for  [0/+] 
High on paper but likely limited in practice 
due to implementation inefficiencies  
 
 35 
A4B4 
Dual layer (core and 
comprehensive) TEN-T 
Reinforced coordination  [++] 
Enhanced coordination due to clear 
methodology for core network 
configuration applied consistently across 
all MS  [++] 
Sustained progress due to 
specifically targeted support  [+++] 
Substantial increase due to strong 
emphasis on binding coordination 
commitments  [+++] 
High due to strong focus on both binding 
commitments and m easures to support 
implementation and strong planning 
coordination  
A4B5 
Dual layer (core and 
comprehensive) network with full 
EU operational management  [++] 
Enhanced coordination due to clear 
methodology for core network 
configuration applied consistently across 
all MS  [++] 
Strong EU-level coordination 
but likely strained 
implementation capacity  [-] 
Likely resistance by MS to shifting  
project implementation 
responsibilities at EU agencies level  [+] 
High in principle but likely much less effective 
in practice due to inefficiencies in 
implementation in an overly top-down 
approach  
A5B1 
Dense TEN-T with current 
implementation approach  [+++] 
Strong planning coordination for entire 
TEN-T (and not just a selected core) [0] 
Slow but  not sufficient  [+] 
Improvements due to continued 
European Coordinators' support  [0] 
Current provisions are maintained  
A5B2 
Dense TEN-T with no further EU 
implementation support  [+++] 
Strong planning coordination for entire 
TEN-T (and not just a selected core)  [0/-] 
Rhythm of adoption likely to 
slow down  [-] 
Likely deterioration due to removal 
of European Coordinators and TEN-
TEA support  [-] 
Likely shift towards projects of primarily MS 
rather than EU interest  
A5B3 
Dense TEN-T 
Purely regulatory approach to 
implementation  [+++] 
Strong planning coordination for entire 
TEN-T (and not just a selected core)  [0/+] 
Progress but in a likely slow 
rythm [+] 
Improvements but likely not to the 
extent aimed for  [0/+] 
High on paper but likely limited in practice 
due to implementation inefficiencies  
A5B4 
Dense TEN-T with r einforced 
coordination  [+++] 
Strong planning coordination for entire 
TEN-T (and not just a selected core)  [++] 
Sustained progress due to 
specifically targeted support  [+++] 
Substantial increase due to strong 
emphasis on binding coordination 
commitments  [+++] 
High due to strong focus on both binding 
commitments and m easures to support 
implementation and high planning 
coordination  
A5B5 
Dense TEN-T with full EU 
operational management  [+++] 
Strong planning coordination for entire 
TEN-T (and not just a selected core)  [++] 
Strong EU-level coordination 
but likely strained 
implementation capacity  [-] 
Likely resistance by MS to shifting  
project implementation 
responsibilities at EU agencies level  [+] 
High in principle but likely much less effective 
in practice due to inefficiencies in 
implementation in an overly top-down 
approach  
Legend: [-] negative; [0] none; [+] low; [++] medium; [+++] high. 
 
36 As the table above makes apparent, following this preliminary assess ment three scenario 
combinations  came out as clearly viable policy options – A3B4, A4B4, A5B4 (in green), 
with a forth at the limit – A1B4 (in yellow). Th e latter combination scores high in terms of 
positive impacts on all but one of the drivers, rendering it potentially relevant for further consideration. Nevertheless, when approached as  a policy option, it became apparent that it 
would not make a viable alternative. A rein forced approach to coordination (B4) could 
importantly improve the rhythm and conseque ntly possibly the cost-effectiveness of the 
current 30 priority projects, but would not solve the central issue of network fragmentation 
due to current planning (A1). As ar gued in part 2 of this report , the currently pl anned priority 
projects simply do not add-up into, nor support,  a geographically coherent, well-integrated, 
multi-modal network, that adequately covers the territory of all the EU Member States. 
 
The efficiency  of each scenario in attaining the sp ecific policy objectives set out was also 
initially considered as part of the preliminary assessment process. However, it became 
apparent that, although an important information, cost estimates would not help discriminate 
among the options for the purpose of discarding them. Nevertheless, the preliminary estimates 
showed that a dense comprehensive network approach (A5) rendered any option including 
this planning scenario far too costly (as compared to the others105) and difficult, if not 
impossible to implement within the envisaged 2030 horizon. Moreover, if fully implemented, the result would be a dense, high standard, a bundantly multi-modal network that would likely 
be under-used (hence little cost-effi cient) on many of its parts. 
In parallel, the Commission has also assessed the coherence of each policy option with the  
principles of subsidiarity and proportionality . As compliance with these principles is a sine 
qua non  condition for any Union policy initiative, any policy option that did not fulfil this 
condition could not therefore constitute a viable alternative for action. The results of this 
screening are presented in the table below (for  the detailed considerations, see Annex 3).   
Planning  A1 
Business as usual/ 
Continuation with 
current 30 PPs A2 
Guidelines 
discarded A3 
MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) A4 
Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive) 
network A5 
Dense TEN-T 
Subsidiarity and 
Proportionality 
Compliance Yes No Yes Yes No 
Implementation B1 
Current 
implementation 
approach B2 
no further EU 
implementation 
support B3 
Purely 
regulatory 
approach B4 
Reinforced 
coordination B5 
Full EU 
operational 
management 
Subsidiarity and 
Proportionality 
Compliance Yes Yes No Yes No 
Table 6 : Compliance with subsidiarity and proportionality principle 
It became thus apparent that any policy optio n that included, at th e level of planning, the 
"A2/Guidelines discarded" or the "A5/Dense netw ork approach" scenarios, and/or at the level 
of implementation, the "B3/Re gulatory approach only" or the "B5/EU full operational 
management", could not constitute viable polic y options, due to their contravening of the 
principles of subsidiarity and/or proportiona lity. Following this assessment, option A5B4 was 
discarded for further consideration as a viab le policy option, in spite of the fact that, 
                                                 
105 It is estimated that the Core Network represents about 25% of the Comprehensive network. Therefore, by 
simply extrapolating the investments needs of  € 215 Bln for the Core Network by 2020, it gives a figure of € 
860 Bln for investments needs on the Comprehensive Network for the period 2014 – 2020. 
 
 37according to the effectiveness criteria, woul d have been most promising in terms of 
addressing current drivers and thus achieving the TEN-T policy objectives.106   
4.3. Description of the policy options retained for in-depth assessment 
In light of the above pre-screening process and taking into account that the pre-screened 
policy options should also respect  the proportionality and subs idiarity principle, the two 
alternative policy options retained for in-d epth impact assessment are the scenario 
combinations "A3B4/Selection of new priority  projects with reinforced coordination" – 
labelled "Option 1", and "A4B4/Core network approach with reinfo rced coordination" – 
labelled "Option 2". The "A1B1/Business as usual" policy option, described extensively 
above in section 2.4 of this report, has featured  in the subsequent impact assessment process 
as the reference/baseline scenario; for conve nience, it has been la belled "Option 0".  
4.3.1. Content of Policy Options 
Policy Option 0: Baseline scenario  
Policy Option 0, which has been presented in sec tion 2 above, represents the future without 
any additional policy interventi on to change current trends. 
Policy Option 1: "Essen 2" with reinforced corridor coordination107 
Under this option, the approach to planni ng the TEN-T remains unchanged, relying on the 
predominantly bottom-up selection process as  endorsed by the Essen European Council in 
1994.108 The Member States will thus continue to be responsible for developing project 
proposals, while the Commission will select and prioritise projects that will be financially 
supported from the EU budget based on the extent to  which the projects fulfil the criteria set 
out in the Guidelines. The 30 Priority Projects included on the current list will continue to be 
developed and funded according to the current Guidelines. 
The current Guidelines’ criteria for TEN-T id entification and selec tion of projects of 
European interests will remain largely uncha nged. The current TEN-T map will be however 
updated, to reflect evolutions in Member Stat es' developed and planned infrastructure. In 
addition, drawing on the experience so far, and ta king into account the expert and stakeholder 
recommendations, criteria will be  revised in order to better sp ecify the elements that would 
constitute the European added-value of the Priority Projects that will be subsequently 
selected. In particular, references to multi-modality  aspects and links to th ird countries will be 
added. This should ensure that new Priority Pr oject proposals will more effectively address 
current fragmentation aspects resulting from a limited coordination in TEN-T configuration 
planning.  
As far as implementation is concerned, the indi vidual Priority Project Decisions will provide 
for a coordinated approach to infrastructural inve stments, management of Priority Project axis 
capacity and building and coordinating transhipment facilities, the optimisation of the use of 
each transport mode (or co-modality), the comprehensive deployment of interoperable traffic management systems and the harmonisation of ope rational rules along the Priority Project.  
                                                
 
106 Another argument that played against its retention was also that of cost-efficiency. As pointed out above, due 
to its dense comprehensive approach to planning, this option would have involved particularly high costs that, at 
a first look, would not have been justifiable in terms of its marginal benefits – i.e. as compared with the other two retained options – and, given the amount of works that it presupposed, would have long exceeded the 2030 
timeline. 
107 This is the combination of A3 planning scenario and B4 implementing scenario, see Annex 3 of the present 
report 
108 In Essen, in 1994, the European Council adopted the first list of 14 transport projects of common interest, 
included in the 1996 TEN-T Guidelines. The selection of the projects was largely based on national priorities (bottom-up approach) rather than European ones (top-down approach). The same approach was used in the 
selection of the renewed list of 30 Priority Projects annexed to the 2004 Guidelines. 
 
 38Both EU and Member States funding would be  committed through the individual Priority 
Project Decisions, which would also establ ish binding timelines for completion. The 
European Coordinators will cont inue their activity with mandates similar to the current ones 
and relatively enhanced powers, grounded in the Priority Project Decisions. The mandate of 
the TEN-T EA will be maintained and extended  to help ensure, alongside the Coordinators, 
added effectiveness in implementation, not leas t by supporting the development of Priority 
Project proposals with high EU added-value.  
Policy Option 2: "Core network" with reinforced corridor coordination109 
Under this policy option, the approach to deve loping the TEN-T configur ation is importantly 
revised. The Commission would no longer seek to steer Memb ers States' choices towards 
developing a European network by setting a numbe r of (better) defined criteria, and offering 
support for project proposal de velopment, but by taking a str onger, pro-active coordination 
role. It proposes and works with  the Member States to agree upon an a priori configuration of 
the TEN-T, optimised at planning level to a ddress major traffic flows needs, multimodality, 
cohesion and accessibility objectives.  
A dual-layer approach to TEN-T development w ill also be proposed. A basic layer, or the 
"comprehensive network", will be constituted of the current wider TEN-T, as comprised in 
the maps and outline plans annexed to the curr ent Guidelines, updated and adjusted following 
a number of clear and cohe rently applied rules. A second layer,  constituted of the strategically 
most important parts of the comprehensiv e TEN-T, identified according to a specific 
methodology, transparently and coherently applie d, will constitute the "core" of the network, 
on which project development and implement ation will be supported with priority.110 This 
will later allow the identification of key projects of European interest on an idealised network 
configuration that already in cludes current missing links (including multi-modal connection 
nodes and routes) and bottlenecks,  and identifies needs for multi-modal connecting platforms 
development. 
EU transparent and coherent planning methodology111 
The TEN-T planning methodology envisaged in Option 2 would provide a coherent and 
transparent pan-European basis for the identi fication of the confi guration of both the 
comprehensive TEN-T and its strategic core. It was developed by th e Commission with the 
support of an expert group, and drawing on the stakeholder (including Member States) input 
and recommendations.112 The methodology provides distinct  rules and criteria for the 
identification of the comprehensive netw ork and the core network respectively.  
Comprehensive network 
The methodology concerns the updati ng/adjusting of the current TEN-T maps, rather than a 
new process of TEN-T outline identification, foll owing a number of principles: updating with 
                                                 
109 This is the combination of A4 planning scenario and B4 implementing scenario, see Annex 3 of the present 
report. 
110 The comprehensive/basic layer of the TEN-T will constitute the object of general support at EU level 
(including financially, especially in the less endowed re gions in the East of the Union), but the main focus will 
be placed on the development, with priority, of the multimodal core layer, as the latter will carry the main 
concentration of trans-national traffic fl ows, both for freight and passengers. 
111 "The New Trans-European Transport Network Policy: Planning and implementation issues", SEC(2011) 101 
112 The Commission established the expert group in autumn 2009, following the results of the first public 
consultation process (February – April 2009), which showed a clear majority support for the dual-layer network 
option. The expert group, chaired by Mr. Jonathan Scheele, former Director of directorate B in DG TREN, met 
four times between October 2009 and March 2010. It developed a recommendation for a Core Network planning 
methodology, of which a summary was included in a Commission Working Document of 4 May 2010 
COM(2010) 212 final, as a basis for a subsequent public consultation. Taking into consideration the results of 
this second public consultation exercise, the discussions at the TEN-T Days in Zaragoza (June 2010), the input 
from Member States, mainly received at  the Gödölló Informal Council, as we ll as the practical experience gained 
in its effective application, the methodology has been fine-tuned in the following months. 
 
 39projects completed/abandoned and changes in national planning; addition of selected and 
well-defined missing links and nodes, especially  in new MS; elimination of dead-ends and 
isolated links in current TEN-T if not justified by geographical particular ities; implementation 
of minimum standards for infrastructure a nd equipment in accordance with relevant 
legislation currently in place; revi sion of the selection of seapor ts and airports according to a 
number of specific criteria (c oncerning mainly traffic volumes and accessibility conditions). 
As a result, the comprehensive network will dire ctly reflect the relevant existing and planned 
infrastructure in Member States, while ensuring at the same time the accessibility of all 
regions of the Union. It will include road, rail, inland waterways, maritime and air 
infrastructure network components, as well as  the connecting points between the modes. It 
will feature minimum infrastructure standards, a nd aim at interoperability wherever necessary 
for seamless traffic flows across the network. All European citizens and economic operators 
should be able to access the Core Network, via the Comprehe nsive Network, on comparable 
terms. 
Core network  
The aim was to develop a coherent and tr ansparent methodology that could be applied 
consistently across all Member States and wh ich comprises elements to enhance cohesion, 
economic efficiency and environmen tal sustainability simultaneously. 
In addition to infrastructure interconnectiv ity and traffic related goals, the methodology was 
crafted to take into account a sound balance between these planning objectives and larger 
treaty mandated goals such as geographical  coverage and cohesion, accessibility and 
competitiveness. Thus, all "primary city nodes" – corresponding to the capitals of all MS and 
large cities and conurbations acros s the EU – are linked within th e Core Network. Large cities 
and conurbations include the MEGAs ("MEtro politan growth areas") according to ESPON 
atlas 2006 and conurbations or city clusters with  more than 1 million inhabitants, on the base 
of "Larger Urban Zones" ("LUZ") accord ing to "Urban Audit" (EUROSTAT).  
Adequate connections with neighbouring and other third countries have also been taken into 
account. For this reason, all majo r seaports of the Union are al so considered primary nodes. 
Moreover, in order to connect the Core Ne twork with correspondi ng infrastructure in 
neighbouring countries, the points where the multimodal axes cross the external border of the 
Union are considered primary nodes. As a resu lt, the main existing connecting points with 
bordering countries, including rail or  road platforms in the East of Europe and the seaports 
would become connected to the ma in economic centres of the EU.  
In order to ensure the Member States’ ownership of the process (and of the resu lts) of core 
and comprehensive network identification, con tinued consultation with the Member States 
representatives would be ensu red throughout the process of application of the methodology. 
The current Priority Projects will  be included in the core TEN-T, but whether in their entirety 
or partially will depe nd on their meeting the methodology criteria.113 
As far as implementation is concerned, the establishment of multi-modal corridors along the 
core network, governed by specific binding lega l instruments in the form of “Corridor 
Decisions" are envisaged to provi de the basis for modal integr ation, interoperability and 
coordinated development and management of  infrastructure. A specific methodology for 
corridor identification will ensu re that each corridor links a number of multimodal nodes, 
supports co-modal transport solutio ns and involve at least thr ee Member States. The specific 
Corridor Decisions will provide for a coor dinated approach in the undertaking of 
infrastructural investments, in the manageme nt of corridor capacity, in building (wherever 
needed) and coordinating transhipment facilities (particularly for freight) that optimise the use 
                                                 
113 This should not however affect the continuity of cu rrent Priority Projects beca use inclusion on the core 
network outlay plan will concern the prioritisation of future  funding decisions. 
 
 40of each transport mode, as well as for the co mprehensive deployment of interoperable traffic 
management systems and the harmonisation of operational rules. 
Core network corridors 
Corridors are identified on the co re network, following a number of criteria/benchmarks that 
need to be fulfilled. Corridors should:  
- concern the most important cross-border long distance traffic flows of the core network; 
- cross at least two borders between three Member States; 
- respond to high quality standards, increasing energy efficiency, enhancing security and 
safety, and deploying new technologies, notably aiming at improving information 
management and e-administration procedures; 
- serve as the main instrument for modal integration, interopera bility, resource efficiency, as 
well as a coordinated development and manageme nt of infrastructure, along the core network. 
Both EU and Member States funding would be committed through the individual "Corridor 
Decisions ", that would also establish binding timelines for completion. Corridor Coordinators 
will replace the current European Coordinators, but with a similar mandate, grounded in the 
Corridor Decisions. The TEN-T EA, whose mandat e will be maintained and extended beyond 
2015, will work together with the Coordinators in  order to ensure added effectiveness in the 
development of project proposals along the corridor and in their implementation.  
4.3.2. Comparison of content 
As highlighted above, the two alternative (t o the current approach) policy options are the 
result of a rigorous process of options genera tion and pre-selection. The aim was to identify 
those options that would, on stand-alone basis, be able to address with a significant degree of 
effectiveness all drivers to th e current TEN-T fragmentation.  
This effort to identify the most viable (and real) alternatives for TEN-T policy development 
has lead to options that share a number of characteristics. Howe ver, the options also differ in 
important respects, differences that lead  to significantly distinct performance. 
Thus, Option 1 shares with  the current policy approach (Option 0) the same "sof t" approach to 
coordination at EU level in planning the TEN -T, by means of a set of  criteria for project 
content land-marking a primarily bottom-up appro ach to project development. Nevertheless, 
in policy Option 1, planning coordination is sought  to be improved as much as the (shared) 
bottom-up approach allows it, i.e. by strengthened  criteria for priority project selection that 
include more elements generating EU-value a dded. At the same time, the coordination in 
implementation is significantly strengthened at  the level of PP through individual PP 
decisions compared to Option 0. 
Whereas Options 1 and 2 share the same reinfor ced coordination approach to implementation, 
they substantially differ as far as their approa ch to planning is c oncerned. Coordination of 
planning at EU level is substantially strengthened, by pre-id entifying the TEN-T 
configuration, and in par ticular of its strategic "core", by  means of a coherent methodology to 
be consistently and transparently applied ac ross the territory of all Member States.   
The main content characteristics of the three alternat ive policy options are summarised in the 
table below, in order to bette r highlight their shared and, re spectively, distinctive elements. 
 
41 Content Option 0 Option 1 Option 2  
Planning Business as usual: 
- wider TEN-T configuration as currently 
annexed to the Guidelines (maps and 
outline plans dating since 1996) 
- 30 PPs as specified in the list currently 
annexed to the Guidelines (PP proposals as 
approved in 2004). 
 "Essen 2" approach:  
- wider TEN-T map will be updated, to reflect 
evolutions in the developed and planned 
infrastructure in the MS; 
- new PPs will be identified; 
- revised criteria for PP se lection will better specify 
the elements that would constitute the European 
added-value of priority projects (cross-border links, 
multimodal connecting links, links alleviating 
bottlenecks, links to neighbouring and third 
countries).  "Core network" approach:  
- wider TEN-T map will be updated to reflect evolutions in 
the developed and planned infrastructure and adjusted 
according to a specific methodology to ensure consistency 
across all MS; it will constitute the  "comprehensive" 
network 
- a "core" network, overlaying the "comprehensive" 
network, will be identified, on the basis of  a specific 
methodology, to: include the strategically most important 
parts of the TEN-T, cross a ll missing links, alleviate all 
major bottlenecks  and ensure optimal multi-modal 
connections;  
- projects of key European interest will be situated on the 
pre-identified strategic ne twork configuration thus 
optimised at the level of planning.   
Implementation Business as usual:  
- continuation of current range of 
implementation instruments 
 (a) financial – the TEN-T Programme, the 
Cohesion Fund, EIB loans and grants); 
(b) coordination - TEN-T EA, European 
Coordinators, TENtec;  
- continuation of initiatives currently under 
way with regard to interoperability 
standards - the ERTMS corridors, the ITS 
Directives, the Single European Sky etc.114  Reinforced coordination at PP level: 
- individual PP Decisions will ensure a coordinated 
approach at PP level in  the undertaking of 
infrastructural investments, the management of PP 
capacity, the deployment of interoperability 
standards and traffic ma nagement systems;  
- PP Decisions will place the overall management 
authority under the aeg is of the European 
Coordinators;115 
- the TEN-T EA will continue in its role of support 
towards project preparation and implementation. Reinforced coordination  at corridor level;  
- individual Corridor Decisions will ensure a coordinated 
approach at Corridor leve l in the undertaking of 
infrastructural investments, the management of corridor 
capacity, the deployment of interoperability standards and 
traffic management systems; 
- Corridor Decisions will place the overall management 
authority under the aegis of the Corridor Coordinators; 
- the TEN-T EA will continue in its role of support towards 
project preparation and implementation. 
Table 7: Comparison of Policy Options 
                                                 
114 Should be noted that these standards are not specific to the TEN-T, nor is their implementation mandatory on all TEN-T project s of common interest (including the PPs).  
115 This would extend the scope of the European coordinators mandate  over an entire PP, and all PPs will have a European Coordinat or. Currently (i.e. and in a business-as-usual 
scenario), there are only 9 European Coordinators for 11 PPs. 
 
42  
5. IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POLICY OPTIONS  
This section provides an assessment of the econom ic, social and environmental impacts that is 
proportionate to the nature and purpose of this Impact Assessment. The analysis of these impacts is mostly derived from a qualitative an alysis of the policy op tions which is supported 
where possible by the conclusions of the qualitativ e assessment (see annex 6 for more details). 
The overall results of th e analysis of impacts are summarised in the table 16 at the end of 
section 6. 
Preliminary remarks on use of quantitative data
116 
Quantification of impacts, derived from mo delling results of the TENconnect II study, 
commissioned by DG MOVE, and compared and cont rasted, where available, with the results 
of relevant internal and extern al studies, are used to give an order of magnitude of the 
expected impacts of planning scenarios. 
The results of the TENc onnect II study represent the outcom e of more than three years of 
modelling efforts undertaken by two groups of experts under the coordination of DG MOVE. 
Although a series of recalibration and other fine -tuning exercises have improved the accuracy 
of modelling results117, the latter remain rather indicative due to the numerous uncertainties 
inherent to the modelling exerci se (the uncertainties of some influential parameters being 
magnified given the long time horizon), undert aken over a long time horizon and with a large 
number of parameters that were  difficult, when not impossible,  to integrate in the model. 
Furthermore, the study focussed only on evolutions  directly linked to infrastructure policy 
measures. Other transport-sector specific policy measures likely to have an important impact 
on how infrastructure will be used in the future (for instance pricing and other demand management measures), envisaged by the Comm ission in the White Paper on the future of 
transport as key to delivering an expected paradi gm shift, have not been  included in the model 
parameters either.  
In addition, the policy options simulated in TENc onnect II are not direct ly comparable to the 
policy options assessed in the Impact Assessme nt exercise, for two main reasons. First, 
TENconnect simulated the impacts of planning s cenarios only, i.e. without an implementation 
dimension
118. In other words, the modelling results do not take account of the effects of the 
different implementation strategies , of 'soft' measures such as the application of ITS and of 
the application of 'best practice.119  
Moreover, as explained in the Annex 6, the sc enarios of the TENconnect II study are not 
directly comparable with the Options used for the purpose of this document. Though some 
limited differences exist between the routes c hosen, the scenarios of the TENconnect II study 
can be related to the planning scenarios discusse d in part 4: the BAU scenario is comparable 
to scenario A1, the CORE scenario is comp arable to scenario A4 and the COMP being 
comparable to scenario A5. For reasons of clarity, when referring to the TENconnect II study, 
                                                 
116 Annex 6 gives the in-depth quantative evaluation of the planning scenario A4 that forms part of Option 2, the 
core network. It also quantifies the effect of planni ng scenarios A1(BAU) and, as an outliner, A5, the fully 
comprehensive network. 
117 Modelling results show 19 % deviation from real count values in the road network. 
118 The TENconnect simulation was not in fact intended to take into account the implementation dimension of 
the proposed TEN-T Guidelines policy revision. This was due to the fact that mathematic models could not 
readily translate in figures for inst ance the role of a Europ ean Coordinator, the level of Member States 
coordination or a Corridor agreement on train drivers licensing or signalling systems on the successful implementation of ITS on the TEN-T. 
119 See appendix 7. 
 
 43the scenarios will be mentioned with their TENconnect II names, i.e. BAU, CORE, and 
COMP120. 
Second, the impacts of  the planning scenario A3 (Essen II), which is one component of 
Policy Option 1 of the present IA report, coul d not be simulated given the high uncertainty 
surrounding the selection of Prior ity Projects by the Member States in a continuing bottom-up 
approach to planning of the TEN-T.  
For these reasons, the modelling results could no t be used as conclusive evidence to support 
the preferred option, but rather as orders of  magnitude illustrating logical reasoning in a 
primarily qualitative assessment of policy alte rnatives. A number of empirical studies and 
theoretical research available in  the field of transport have provided sufficient material to 
allow extrapolation for the assessment of imp acts of the proposed Options and complement 
modelling results where necessary. 
Given that Option 0 has been analysed in many studies and internal evaluations conducted or 
commissioned by the Commission (a s quoted in section 2.4.  of this report an d listed in Annex 
1), more data has been available for this Option than for the two other Options.  
 
5.1. Economic impacts of the options 
The economic impacts of the proposed options w ill be analysed in two parts. Firstly, the 
impacts on the Transport sector will be analysed . In a second step, the impact on the general 
EU economy will be assessed, focusing on the s upport to the Single Market, GDP growth and 
trade with neighbouring and 3rd countries. 
5.1.1. Impact on transport sector 
Modality and efficiency of the transport system  
In Option 1 , new Priority Projects pr oposals are likely to follow the tendency observed under 
the current policy approach (Option 0), i.e. a predominantly uni-modal focus. While revised 
criteria for priority projects se lection will help foster more propos als that take into account the 
multi-modality dimension, co-modality is not lik ely to figure high among Member States' 
priorities and would therefore not develop significantly furthe r. Nevertheless, as the road 
network is, by and large, already in place, the majority of the selected Projects will likely 
focus on rail or inland waterway s development, favouring a certai n modal shift: from road to 
rail for passenger transport, a nd from road to rail and inland navigation for frei ght. This is 
likely to alleviate congestion on the road  network and improve its efficiency. The 
development of new infrastructure for rail an d inland waterways is al so likely to  favour the 
efficiency of those modes acr oss countries. This efficiency  will be increased by the 
application of the reinforced coordination approach to the im plementation of the selected 
Priority Projects, fostering the devel opment of common rules and standards for 
interoperability along the indi vidual projects. The improved governance of the reinforced 
coordination approach to implementation should also accelerate the realisation of complex 
cross-border infrastructu re and therefore help co mplete the network by 2030. 
In Option 2 , the methodology used to define the core  network would favour more adequate 
transport infrastructure coverage of the Uni on, modal-shift and co-modality. It should thus 
support a concentration of trans-national traffi c and long-distance flows – both for freight and 
passengers – and, as a result, a higher resource efficiency of  infrastructure use. Innovative 
information and management systems, that wi ll form part of the network, would provide 
support for logistic functions, inter-modal inte gration and sustainable operation in order to 
establish competitive door-to-door (or, at leas t, terminal-to-terminal) transport chains, 
according to the needs of the users.  
                                                 
120 The results for the COMP scenario are sometimes given as a basis for comparison 
 
 44The efficiency of the whole transport system would be, as a result, improved. The reinforced 
coordination approach to implementation, as in Option 1, would fu rther enhance overall 
efficiency. Moreover, as it would be appl ied on corridors selected according to the 
methodology of the core network, the positive eff ect would likely concern a larger share of 
traffic flows than in Option 1. 
Administrative burden 
In Option 1 , the reinforced coordination approach to  implementation on the selected Priority 
Projects should foster the re duction of administrative burden. This should prove to be 
especially the case for rail Projects, for wh ich cooperation between na tional authorities and 
infrastructure managers would likely increa se. However, with no  coordination between 
Priority Projects and modes, th e impact will not be optimal. 
The reinforced coordination approach to implementation in Option 2  ensure common 
operational procedures (or at least compatible  procedures) and similar quality standards of 
operation over the core. This wi ll include smart information and communication technologies 
such as eFreight121, a system designed to facilitate  common communication along and across 
the freight supply chain. However, as the met hodology used for selection in Option 2 is likely 
to ensure that more traffic flows would be t ackled in the selected Corridors as compared to 
Priority Projects in Option 1, lower administra tive costs per unit woul d ensure in Option 2 
than in Option 1. Essentially, Option 2 would provi de the integrated infrastructure that would 
enable all businesses to benefit from good operati onal logistics, as well as for the travelling 
public, more effectively than Option 1.  
TENconnect results on Transport activity  
The following table from TENconnect  II report gives an  evolution of tra ffic activity and its 
modal organisation.122 
  BAU CORE COMP 
Passenger car vehicle KM (billion 
PKM) Zone external  2,779  2,814 2,892 
 Zone internal  3,034  3,060 3,086  
 
Total passenger car PKM  5,813 5,874 5,978 
Passenger rail KM (billion PKM) Zone external  404  398 394 
 Zone internal  119  117 115 
Air PKM (billion PKM) All 1,158 1,137 1,118 
 
Freight truck VKM (billion HGV 
VKM)  All  266  272 277  
 
Freight rail TONKM (billion 
TONKM)  All  690  649 638 
Table 10: TENConnect II Traffic flows impacts/ modal split (horizon 2030) 
These figures show a slight increase of road traffic and a limited decr ease of rail and air 
traffic. Since most of the road network already exists while a large shar e of the European rail 
                                                 
121 www.eFreightproject.eu 
122 These results are further explained and qualified in the Annex 6 
 
 45network remains to be built, the results are c ounter-intuitive. This is due mainly to the 
particularities of the model parameters. Due to  the assumed absence of congestion on the road 
network, the CORE road network becomes highly e fficient, attracting incr eased traffic. . In 
addition, car ownership propensity and thereby ca r driving (especially ou tside the core where 
the saturation level is currently lower) are assu mptions directly and iteratively linked in the 
model to levels of income growth. Hence, as the results concerning increased income growth 
were fed back into the model, passenger car traffic grew proportionall y. . Finally, as pointed 
out earlier, assumptions concerning pricing and other measures of demand management, 
strongly envisaged to be promoted at EU leve l in the coming decades, have not been taken 
into account.  
Indeed, the results are different in the case of  the modelling tool used for the assessment of 
impacts in the IA report accompanying the Tran sport White Paper, which included among its 
parameters the entire array of policy measures  envisaged at EU leve l to induce the needed 
transport system paradigm shift. A significant moda l shift, particularly from road to (freight) 
rail, is expected. In particular, the preferred policy option, which later informed the proposals 
put forward by the Commission in the White Pape r, indicates the "gre atest changes…due to 
very intensive policies with the objective of  managing demand and encouraging a shift in 
modal choices."123 
Congestion & travel times 
Traffic congestion emerges when transport in frastructure capacity approaches saturation. 
Congestion brings about an increase in travel tim es as well as increased unreliability of travel 
times. The impact on congestion levels is meas ured as the reduction of time losses for both 
passenger and freight transport caus ed by road congestion (in hours).124 
In Option 1 , the expected modal shift – from road to rail for passenger transport and from 
road to rail and inland navigation for freight  – would have a positive effect on congestion 
levels and is likely to reduce societal costs compared to Policy Option 0. The implementation of the reinforced coordination approach to implementation and the related improvement in interoperability are likely to further reduce congestion on roads, as well as  on railways, inland 
waterways, ports and at cross-border sections . However, as already pointed out above, the 
extent of congestion reduction would largely de pend on the list of Projec ts selected and their 
relevance for traffic flows. 
Option 2
 should have a greater positive impact on  congestion than Option 1. As highlighted 
earlier, the multimodal dimension and the me thodology to define the network and the 
corridors should lead to increased  network use efficiency and in teroperability in Option 2 as 
compared to Option 1, and therefore to  higher positive effects on congestion. 
                                                 
123 SEC(2011) 358, pp. 58 -59. 
124 As explained in the OECD 2002 report on the Impact of Transport Infrastructure Investment on Regional 
development, the principle underlying the assessment of be nefits associated with travel time is that transport 
system users’ economic decisions regarding the location of their homes, businesses, mode choice or route 
followed to get to a specific destination and behaviour in traffic, reflect their valuation of travel time. In other words, users’ willingness to pay in order to save tim e or the amount they would accept in compensation for 
losing time could be inferred from their behaviour. Time savings are benefits resulting from an improvement in 
the efficiency of the transport syst em (shortened routes, increased traf fic fluidity, better access to connection 
services, etc.). For freight carriers, time savings will take the form of money savings given that reductions in 
travel time reduce hourly costs of transport services (e.g . drivers’ wages, insurance, etc.) for shippers. For 
consignees, travel time savings may be converted into re duced inventory costs. Some analysts argue that the 
common practice in CBA of valuing commercial vehicle time savings on the basis on drivers’ wage produces 
estimates for value of travel time that are too low, thus capturing only part of the true potential cost savings of 
freight carriers. The concern is that  costs of capital equipment, benefi ts from accrued reliability and reduced 
delivery time of shipments are not explicitly accounted for. On the othe r hand, for passenger transportation, 
travel time savings normally bring no direct monetary reward. 
 
 46The following table from the TENConnectII study gives the modelling results regarding time-
saving, along two aspects, time-savings at local level (referred to as "Zone internal") and 
outside this zone (i.e. for medium to long distance transport, "Zone external"). 
Impact type  Type  BAU CORE  
Travel time car driver (billion hours)  Zone external  30.3  29.9 
 Zone internal  39.0  37.6 
Travel time car passenger (billion hours)  Zone external  18.1  17.8 
 Zone internal  23.8  23.0 
Travel time rail pass (billion hours)  Zone external  4.8  4.7 
 Zone internal  2.2  2.2 
Table 9: TENconnect II Travel time impacts (Figures are an estimate for the whole traffic in Europe, not only 
for the vehicles running on the TEN-T network defined, horizon 2030.) 
The above data shows that, in the CORE s cenario, European car drivers would save 0.4 
billion hours when driving outside their re gion (30.3 – 29.9). In the same scenario, rail 
passengers would save 0.1 billion hours.  In relative terms (taking into account their 
respective volume), the results indicate a 1.32%  increase in time saving  for car drivers and 
2.08% time saving for rail passengers  as opposed to a BAU scenario. 
As a general comment, the TENconnect II stud y shows the positive economic impact of the 
CORE planning scenario compared to the Bu siness-as-Usual. However, these results are 
based on a limited number of pa rameters (saving in time/increas ed road traffic) and do not 
take into account other measures such as the application of management and control measures 
facilitated through the application of ITS. 
TENconnect II Consumer surplus as a derivation of time-saving 
Economic growth and consumer surplus are closely related in the TENconnect II results. 
Consumer surplus is here understood as the su mmation of the benefit of time saved minus the 
total costs for the freight and passengers (tolls, fares, price of fuels…).  The results give the 
following outcome regarding consumer surplus for the CORE network scenario and, by way of comparison, the COMP network scenari o, both compared to the BAU scenario: 
 
Impact type (billion euros)    CORE vs BAU COMP vs BAU 
Consumer surplus - 
passenger  Zone internal  44.8 130.7  
 
Consumer surplus – freight  Zone internal  0.3 0.9 
 
Consumer surplus - 
passenger  Zone external  25.5 94.1  
 
Consumer surplus – freight  Zone external  7.1 18.4  
 
 
 47Subtotal – direct benefits  77.7 243.8 
Subtotal – 2nd order GDP 
effects125  30.7 75.6 
Total    108.4  319.4  
Table 8: TENconnect II Total socio-economic benefits (horizon 2030) 
According to the study, compared to the BAU, the CORE brings by 2030 € 77.7 bln of direct 
benefits to the European Cons umer. The COMP option triples th is amount (including second 
order GDP effects adds some 40% benefit to th e core and 31% benefit to the Comprehensive 
networks). 
However, consumer surplus is calculated from the saving in time/increased road traffic caused 
by the network. It is therefore related to the numbers of billions of passenger car/km 
calculated by the model. This means in the end that each car/km generated by the network 
gives a benefit to the European economy. The benefits are calculated by distinguishing 
between business travel and various categories of  leisure travel activities, hence acknowledge 
the difference in added value to the society.  
 
5.1.2. General economic impacts 
 
Support to the Single Market 
The development of the wider TEN-T will have positive effects on the free movement of 
goods, market segmentation, accessibility, and terri torial cohesion, especially at the level of 
NUTS2 regions in all the three options considered here. 
Compared to Policy option 0 , the development of new Prio rity Projects in Option 1 is likely to 
increase the level of interconnec tivity between the European mark ets. However, the extent to 
which expected higher interconnectivity woul d be achieved would depend on the list of 
Priority Projects chosen. As highlighted earlier , experience so far has shown that the list of 
projects is more likely to re flect political choices rather than decisions based on economic 
assessments. The problem of frag mentation of the network, and therefore of the internal 
market, would not be adequately addressed.  
Given that the core network is the top-layer of the wider/comprehensive network, Option 2 is 
likely to generate enhanced positive impacts as  compared to Option 1, due to the synergic 
effects of the two networks. In Option 1, the positive impacts of the comprehensive network could be hampered due to continuing limited interconnectivity among the Priority Projects. 
The implementation of the planned infrastructure  could be however easier in some cases for 
Option 1 than for Option 2. Member States may be more willing in some cases to implement Projects that they have selected themselves rath er than Projects that have been selected on the 
basis of a methodology, even if the latter is agreed at EU level and has been largely discussed 
and reviewed with Member States and stakeholders.  
Economic growth 
According to economic literature, investment in  network infrastructure  can boost long-term 
economic growth
126. However, it has to be borne in mind that not all studies converged 
                                                 
125 2nd order GDP includes: 
 - lower goods prices through lower gene ralized freight costs (substitution effect) 
- higher factor income because of higher demand from other re gions for local goods (income effect) 
- variety effect (utility from richer availability of goods) 
126 See for example the World Bank Report—Connecting to Compete 2010 Trade Logistics in the Global 
Economy  -The Logistical Performance Index and its Indicators 
 
 48towards this conclusion, si nce some are inconclusive127. This Impact Assessment assumed 
that infrastructure investment can have a posit ive effect on growth that goes beyond the effect 
of the capital stock, due to economies of scal e, the existence of ne twork externalities and 
competition enhancing effects.128Studies have shown that rela tively large improvements in 
infrastructure (and accessibility) can translate into gains in economic performance, though 
limited.129  
A more integrated and efficient transport sy stem enabling the free movement of people and 
goods across the EU and with its neighbours is expected to cont ribute to economic growth, as 
it would allow for a more efficient use of re sources. The EU economy should also benefit 
from the increase in the capacity and performan ce of the infrastructure resulting from the 
elimination of bottlenecks and addition of missing links. Moreover, the building of new infrastructure would have an important impact on the construction sector; some infrastructure 
projects like high-speed rail provide several years of work s for building companies and 
related businesses. In addition, the promotion of intelligent transport systems and traffic 
management systems should foster research and innovation for new t echnologies and create 
new business cases. Finally, the improvement of th e efficiency of the transport system and the 
reduction of related obstacles would improve  the economic conditions for both transport 
businesses and enterprises heavily depe nding on transport for their activity. 
Option 1
 is likely to have a certain positive imp act on EU economic performance thanks to 
increased connectivity, accessibility and connectio ns with the neighbouring countries, as a 
consequence of building additional infrastructu res. However, as argued earlier, the impact 
would depend on the list of Priority Projects to be adopted and may have an unbalanced effect 
between countries. The reinforced coordination a pproach in the implementation of the Priority 
Projects is likely to enable an increased deploym ent of intelligent transport systems. It is also 
likely to improve the efficiency of the transport system (see analysis below). It will accelerate 
the realisation of complex cros s-border infrastructure and help thus complete the network by 
2030. It will accelerate, as a consequence, also the cumulative effect of GDP growth. As a whole, Option 1 could have a po sitive effect on EU economi c growth, but will risk being 
unbalanced.  
Option 2
 is likely to have an increased positive impact on EU growth compared to Options 0 
and 1, due to its strong positive impact on interconnectivity and accessibility throughout 
Europe and consequently on the free movement of goods in the EU and with trading partners. 
Moreover, the reinforced coordination approach  applied to core network planning should 
prove more efficient in implementing intellig ent transport systems and in making transport 
systems more efficient than in Option 1. Option 2 is thus likely to be the option with highest 
positive impact for economic competitiveness. 
GDP results of the TENconnect II study 
The TENConnect II study gave comparisons  (with business-as-usual/BAU) of GDP 
performance of both CORE network and COMP network at the planning level.130  
In TENconnect II, the Economic growth (measu red in induced GDP Growth) is related to 
traffic growth. Based on the 2nd GDP effects mentioned in table 8, the map below shows the 
growth induced by the Core Network in 2030 co mpared to the growth of the Business-as-
usual scenario (with the completion of the curre nt Priority Projects). This map the positive 
                                                 
127 See for instance the following summary of studies: 
http://www.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/dtu%20transport/r apporter/rap_7_2010_infrastruktur%20og%20danmarks%
20internationale%20konkurrenceevne.pdf 
128Infrastructure and Growth: Empirical Evidence , OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 685, 
March 2009 
129 As shown by the ECORYS report, using the SASI model. 
130 See Annex 6. for a more detailed critical  analysis of the TENconnect results 
 
 49benefits of the CORE for regions  situated along the eastern and southern shores of the EU. 
Regions that are already well c onnected (or that should be tha nks to the completion of the 
current Priority Projects) do not gain much from the CORE, unlike regions that were not 
connected because of the political choices made  when selecting the Priority Projects; this 
seems logical. However, while the general re sults seem coherent, results are sometimes 
incoherent for a limited number of regions.131  
 
Figure 6: TENConnect II GDP effects (horizon 2030) 
 
Trade with neighbouring and third countries 
The lack of appropriate connections with neighbouring countries (m ostly via cross-border 
connections) and third countries (via ports) is one of the obstacles to  the development of 
trade, both for imports and exports. The impact of transport infrastructure and the related 
costs of transport on trade have been studied in the academic literature132. Studies by the 
World Bank on countries logistics performan ce show the correla tion between economic 
                                                 
131 Ibid.  
132 See for example Limao and Venables (2001) and Radelet and Sachs (1998). 
 
 50growth and freight transport logis tics effectiveness and efficiency.133 This correlation is also 
supported by other studies134. 
In Option 1 , it is likely that the politi cal process leading to the se lection of the new Priority 
Projects will limit the number of connections  towards neighbours. In a bottom-up approach, 
Member States are more like ly to propose projects provid ing for connections between 
themselves rather than connections with non- EU neighbours in order to get more immediate 
results. However, it is likely that Member States with a maritime interface will seek to connect their main ports in orde r to develop their hinterland and foster their competitiveness. 
Member States with existing important conn ecting platforms with neighbouring countries 
might also seek to connect those hubs.  
Option 1 is therefore likely to  improve connections with 3
rd countries compared to the 
baseline scenario. Yet, this improvement would be highly dependent on the bottom-up 
selection of Priority Projects, which may result in omissions or inappropriate connections compared to the actual needs (as it is curre ntly the case and has been pointed out in the 
problem definition). 
In Option 2
, the connection with neighbouring countri es is included in the methodology that 
will help define the Core Ne twork (see section 4 above). 
Innovation135 
Innovation in technology can improve the sustai nability of transpor t without restricting 
economic growth. Innovation can reduce the a dverse environmental impacts of transport 
operations by reducing emissions, noise levels, et c., and can improve their quality in terms of 
speed, comfort, as well as their safety. Similarl y, by increasing the competitiveness of certain 
modes of transport, it can pr esent them with new opportunities and can strengthen their 
position in relation to the other modes (f or instance the TGV high-speed trains). 
The ECORYS study explains that much of th e technological innovation is undertaken by the 
private sector. The FREIGHTVISION study give s an inventory of probable technological 
developments and their likely contribution to reduc ing transports various 'externalities'. Also 
the Super Green136, PROMIT and FREIGHTVISION Projects, give details of 'best practice' in 
rail freight transport—see annex 7 . The main role of the EU is to regulate and stimulate 
innovation. Regulation consists in establis hing interoperability and in promoting the 
introduction of useful technology which, although it is already fully developed, requires the 
imposition of more stringent rules to make it economically justifiable. 
Many drivers can affect the leve l of innovation. For the purpose of this document, the impact 
of the Options on innovation will be considered  through the level of implementation of 
horizontal activities, i.e. the implementation of  traffic management systems and Information 
and Communication Technologies (ICT). Tra ffic management systems, by simplifying and 
speeding up the technical interoperability of cross-border transport, provide innovation 
opportunities, stimulating cross- border knowledge transfer on effective deployment, cross-
fertilisation and novel add-on serv ices. In addition, the ITS mark et itself will benefit from 
harmonisation and standardisation efforts, while synchronised actions will lead to coordinated 
deployment and shortening of time to market fo r new services (reducing the need for venture 
                                                 
133 World Bank Report—Connecting to Compete 2010 Trade Logistics in the Global Economy  -The Logistical 
Performance Index and its Indicators 
134 Such as Limao and Venables (2001): studying the case of African countries for example they have shown that 
having an infrastructure in the top standards raises trade volumes by 68 percent, equivalent to being 2005 km closer to other countries. The deterioration of the infras tructure on the contrary reduces trade volumes by 28 
percent, equivalent to being 1627 km further away from trading partners.   
135 Defined in the ECORYS study as the use of new ideas, processes, goods, services and practices in a more or 
less commercial way, based on any (new) a pplication of science and/or technology. 
136 SuperGreen is a 7FP project that w ill define criterion for Green Corridors 
 
 51capital).137 Moreover, the development of these systems in Europe thanks to the expanded 
deployment in the TEN-T would favour economies of scale and demonstration that can also 
turn them into innovative export su ccesses for the European industry. 
In the Baseline scenario interoperability w ill develop through enfo rcing the existing 
legislation on ERTMS138 and Intelligent Transport Systems139. However, this development is 
likely to be hampered by the cooperation problems shown in part 2.4.2. Also the ITS Action Plan will attempt a role out of appropriate IT S and ICT technologies, but without certainty as 
to when such systems will be universally applied. The reinforced coordination approach to implementation in Options 1 and 2
 is likely to accelerate the development of traffic 
management systems by improving governance and by potentially widening its use on new 
corridors. On the basis of th e above, all three Options w ill have a positive effect on 
innovation, though in varying degrees - the impact is likely to be stronger for Options 1 and 2 
than for Option 0. 
Conclusion 
Both Options 1 and 2  would have an overall positive economic impact, both at 
macroeconomic level and for the transport bus iness. Option 2 should have a deeper positive 
impact than Option 1 due to the specific methodology for selection of the Core Network and Corridors, which should result in more traffic flows being aff ected by the improvements in 
infrastructure and soft measures. 
 
5.2. Social impacts of the options 
5.2.1. Employment and Jobs 
Jobs related to infrastructure investments  
Within the TENconnectII methodology, employment a nd jobs effects are integrated in the 
economic/GDP growth calculations above. Hence, as there are positive effects on GDP growth from a CORE network, th en it is assumed that there w ill be positive effects on jobs, 
not just short term through construction, but long  term through the enhanced efficiency that a 
true network would bring. This assumption comes with the caveat that it is possible to have 
growth without job creation. 
According to the economic literature, infrastructure investments help boost economic growth, 
enhance trade and mobility of people and constitu te a highly effective engine of job creation. 
One recent study in the US showed that infras tructure investment spending creates about 
18,000 total jobs for every $1 billion in new i nvestment spending, including direct, indirect 
and induced jobs
140. Job creation is mainly related to infrastructure works, but it is also 
induced by the indirect economic effect of the us e of the new infrastruc ture. According to an 
impact assessment comparing different infrastr ucture investments scenarios in the U.S.A.141 
the highest proportion of new jobs  would be in construction. For their baseline scenario ($54 
                                                 
137 From the Impact Assessment acco mpanying the Communication from th e Commission, Action Plan for the 
Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe and the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framewor k for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems 
in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport modes 
138 Commission Decision of 22 July 2009 amending Decision 2006/679/EC as regards the implementation of the 
technical specification for interoperability relating to th e control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-
European conventional rail system [C(2009) 5607 final] (also referred to as "the European Deployment Plan") 
139 Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the 
deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of  road transport and for interfaces with other modes of 
transport 
140How Infrastructure Investments Support the U.S. Ec onomy: Employment, Productivity and Growth, Political 
Economy Research Institute, January 2009. 
141Ibid. 
 
 52billion baseline increase in public infrastruc ture investment), about 641,000 new construction 
jobs would be generated. Their high-end invest ment scenario ($93 bil lion high-end increase in 
public infrastructure investment) would generate about 1 million new construction jobs. Overall, about 40 percent of all new job cr eation through either investment programme—
including direct, indirect, and induc ed jobs—would be in construction.  
As pointed out in an ECORYS study,
142 construction jobs created by infrastructure 
investments are mostly temporary jobs. Howeve r, permanent indirect impacts on employment 
are related to the improved accessibility of a given region by reduced travel time and costs, 
thereby possibly attracting new enterprises and related socio-economic activities resulting in 
the creation of new jobs. The U.S. investme nts scenarios study shows that about 146,000 new 
manufacturing jobs will result through the ba seline investment scenario and the high-end 
investment scenario will generate about 252,000 new jobs. About 10 percent of the overall 
new job creation will be in manufacturing. 
Extrapolating the above calculation to the ca se of the European Union and taking into 
consideration the investments needs necessary fo r the chosen options, it can be estimated that 
the following number of jobs could be creat ed by 2020 if the investments to implement the 
infrastructure needs identified are concretised: 
 
 Investments needs estimates by 
2020143 Job creation estimates by 2020144 
Option 0 € 150 billions 2.03 million jobs  
Option 1 € 200 2.72 million jobs 
Option 2 € 215 2.92 million jobs 
 It has to be noted here that this calculation assumes that all the investment needs identified (in 
cooperation with Member States via the TENt ec system and the DG MOVE services) will be 
realised by 2030. However, this depends on th e amount of budget allocated by the EU and 
Member States to infrastructure investment s in the next decade. This question will be 
addressed in the Impact Assessment on the Fi nancial Instruments in support of Transport 
Infrastructure and the Impact Assessme nt of the TEN-T Fi nancial Regulation
145. 
Moreover, a comprehensive OECD 2002 report146 on transport infrastructure investment147 
analysed employment impacts and distinguished be tween first, second and third round effects. 
First round effects concern direct employme nt in construction an d materials supplying 
industries. The study concluded that for $ 1 Bln investment, 572 million employment income 
has been calculated, resulting in a lmost 20 000 person-year of work.148 A second round of 
employment and income effects occurs in the pr oduction sector in response to the demand for 
additional inputs required by cons truction materials supplying indus tries. The value of these 
first and second round of effects have a tota l multiplier effect of 2.34, meaning that $1 Bln 
investment results in 2.34 Bln output in goods and services. The same report presents a 
                                                 
142ECORYS, ibid, p102. 
143 Estimates based on Member States Infrastructure Investment plans (2014 – 2020) established by DG MOVE 
in cooperation with Member states via TENtec database an d bilateral meetings in April 201. These figures have 
also been used for the White Paper. 
144 Euro on 2011 basis, 18,000 total jobs for every $1 b illion investment, average exchange rate euro – dollar of 
January 2009 (date of the above mentioned study) 
145 N° Agenda planning : 2011/MOVE/019 
146 Impact of Transport Infrastructure Investment on Regional Development, OECD report, 2002: 
http://www.internationaltr ansportforum.org/Pub/pdf/02RTRinvestE.pdf  
147 This study is presented in more details in annex 7 
148 As the report was written in 2002 the values should be seen as giving a general correlation and not an 
accurate representation of employment levels over the period to 2030. 
 
 53similar exercise for France. As shown in the table below, the ratio of direct and indirect jobs 
compared to investment is smaller but still significant.149 A third round employment and 
income benefits occur in the guise of what is termed “induced” employment and reflects 
producers’ response to an increase in  the demand for all goods and services.150 These are 
generally short-term employment effects , i.e. linked to the durati on of the effective project 
infrastructure building. 
 United States France 
Direct jobs 11 059 7 940 
Indirect jobs 12 493 8 070 
Induced jobs 18 694 5 250 
Total 42 246 21 260 
Table 11: Direct and indirect empl oyment effect for the USA and France  for EUR 1 billion (FRF 6.56 
billion or USD 1.11 billion -at 2002 prices)  (OECD 2002 Report) 
With the projections for the annual cost of th e TEN-T given as ranging from € 21.4 billion for 
BAU, through € 28.6 billion for the CORE and  € 30.7 billion, based on the more conservative 
French data, the annual job creation w ould vary from 455000 for BAU to 608000 for the 
CORE.Based on the more conservative French data, the total cumulated job creation to implement the infrastructure needs would be the following for 2014 -2020:  
 
 Investments needs estimates by 
2020151 Job creation in worker years 
estimates by 2020152 
Option 0 € 150 billions 3.2 million   
Option 1 € 200 4.3 million  
Option 2 € 215 4.6 million  
The two studies mentioned above therefore conc lude with comparable results, showing an 
important impact of infrastructure investment on job creation, applying to  a large category of 
jobs. Since the impact is correlated to the leve l of investments, Option 2 will have a slightly 
more important impact than Option 1. 
Long-term employment effects  of infrastructure development are not easy to calculate. 
However, studies have highlighted the long-term  impacts of infrastructure development can 
have on the regional economy. For instance, the Severn Crossing bridge was opened in Wales 
in the 1966 with the view to improve co mmunications between London and South-West 
                                                 
149 For example, the high-speed lin e Viller-les-Pots to Petit-Croix, counting 140 km and €2.312 billion 
investments, has generated about 6500 direct and indirect jobs during the five years of construction. http://est.lgvrhinrhone.com/medias/pdf/medias1177.pdf 
150 The OECD report explains that "it should be made very clear that the employment impacts considered here 
are not related to employment opportu nities resulting from industrial restruct uring or other types of economic 
spillover benefits due to highway investment. The income and employment effects considered here result from 
construction expenditures working their way through the economy, much as in the case of other types of 
exogenous spending. In fact, because the employment estimates considered he re are based on fixed relationships 
describing the use of human resources, the possible productivity benefits of transportation improvements on the 
construction industry, materials supplying industries, or other sectors of the economy are not considered." 
151 Estimates based on Member States Infrastructure Investment plans (2014 – 2020) established by DG MOVE 
in cooperation with Member states via TENtec database an d bilateral meetings in April 201. These figures have 
also been used for the White Paper. 
152 Explanation for the calculations: the ratio of direct and indirect employment compared to cost is 42246/billion 
Euro in the USA and 21260/billion in France. With the projections for the annual cost of the TEN-T given as 
ranging from € 21.4 billion for Option 0, through € 28.6 billion for Option 1 and  € 30.7 billion for Option 2, the 
results give the following table. Given that the constr uction programme would last fr om 2013 until 2030, i.e. for 
a total period of 17 years, then the expected job creation coul d be as high as: BAU=7.74 million workers over 17 
years; CORE=10.3 million worker year s; COMP=11.1 million worker years 
 
 54Wales, towards Ireland. The ex-post a ssessment done by the Cambridge Economic 
Consultants’ (CEC) in 1987 gave the following re sults in term of long-term job creation for 
the regional economy: 
 
Similar case studies are mentioned in the OECD report, showing the positive results of 
infrastructure development on long-term job creation. However, in the absence of clear 
parameters explaining these results, the imp act of the proposed policy options on long-term 
employment effect cannot be compared for the purpose of this document. 
Effects on employment in the transport sector 
As demonstrated by the Impact A ssessment accompanying the White Paper153, in a no policy 
change scenario total employment in transport services is projected to roughly maintain its 
relative share by 2050, resulting in a lower level of absolute em ployment by the sector. With 
growing transport activity demand, this may ne gatively affect the wo rkload and working 
conditions. Furthermore, scarcity  of labour and skill s due to ageing coul d further aggravate 
the shortage of labour already e xperienced in many segments of th e transport sector before the 
crisis. In absence of innovative alternatives, th is may also result in hi gher transport costs for 
society. 
However, total employment in transport services is  expected to grow if modal shift occurs, as 
the Impact Assessment of the White Paper show s, in light of the conclusions of various 
economic studies.154 Employment effects from induced modal shift depend on the labour 
intensity of each mode: road tr ansport and inland waterways are more labour intensive than 
maritime transport, railways or aviation. Amongst the labour-intensive modes, the largest employer is road freight transport, whose j ob losses due to modal shift may, in part be 
compensated by new jobs in multimodal transport services and logistics. It should be born in 
mind that prior to the recession there was a chroni c shortage of jobs in road freight and so 
                                                
 
153 Annex 3 
154 See for instance, “Climate Change and employment – Impact on employment in the European Union-25 of 
climate change and CO2 emission redu ction measures by 2030”, European  Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), 
Instituto Sindical de Trabajo, Ambiente y Salud (I STAS), Social Development Agency (SDA), Syndex, 
Wuppertal Institute (2007).   
 
 55providing alternative transport in a more streamlined network should be seen as facilitating 
effective employment in all sectors.  
It can also be noted that the maintenance a nd operation of the newly created infrastructure 
create jobs. The OECD report referred to ear lier explains that for instance, a "motorway, 
analysed as a “company”, “sells a service” and thus brings in revenue, provides jobs, 
generates substantial intermedia ry consumption (which may benefit the region served)".  The 
Report explains that for the Motorway secti on Poitiers Bordeaux, more than 1200 jobs were 
created for the maintenance and operation of th is 220 km-section. Most of these jobs are new 
jobs corresponding to a new service. 
The effect of employment of the baseline scenar io will be linked to the construction of the 
current TEN-T Priority Projects. The Europ ean parliament Report on Accessibility and 
Cohesion (Annex 2) does not prescribe much ove rall employment benefit, with winners and 
losers in equal measure. 
The effects of Option 1  should be positive, regarding the economy overall, and there will be 
jobs facilitating co-modal transport and modal sh ift. More substantial,  would be the overall 
economy employment gains that Option 2  would bring through facilitating effective transport 
operation.   
 
5.2.2. Public Health and Safety 
Safety & accidents 
According to the TEN Connect I study, a busine ss as usual (BAU) scenario would increase 
the external costs of accidents (road, rail a nd inland waterways combin ed) from €128.6 billion  
in 2007 to €144.3 billion in 2020—the increase mainly resulting in new Member States.  
The TENConnect II study revisited the BAU s cenario and compared it with the CORE 
network scenario. 
 
Impact type (billion 
euro)  BAU  CORE  CORE vs 
BAU 
Road safety  136.0 137.1 +1.1 
Table 12: TENconnect II results for Road Safety impacts (External costs) (horizon 2030). 
TENconnect simulation indicates a growth in to tal costs of accidents in the Core network 
planning scenario (Option 2) as opposed to the traffic forecast on the TEN-T in a continuing 
BAU scenario (Option 0).  The growth of accide nt related costs in a CORE network planning 
scenario is a consequence of increased traffic thanks to improved system efficiency (i.e. the 
rebound155 effect) as opposed to the BAU scenario. Th e data needs however to be read with 
the following two qualifications:  
1) The relative overall increase in road safe ty costs (0.8%) that the TENconnectII modelling 
shows in a CORE network planni ng scenario should be seen in  the overall context in the 
increase of traffic. 
2) As a consequence of its ex clusively planning st arting point, as high lighted earlier, the 
TENconnectII model did not take into account a se ries of other implementation related factors 
that would contribute to mitigating the negative effects in two ways:  
a) a likely increased modal shift  in the actual Option 2 scenar io, due to a series of non-
infrastructural measures to be promoted in the context of the reinforced  corridor coordination 
                                                 
155 Rebound effects are indirect, second order effects of policy instruments, which are often unintended and 
have the potential to undermine the ultimate objective of the primary policy instrument. 
 
 56approach, that would lead to a shift away from road traffic, resulting in less traffic on road 
than estimated by the model and therefore less accidents;  
b) a series of other measur es that would contribute to increased safety on road , 
reducing thus the ratio of accidents/gravity of  per unit of traffic volume (as opposed to the 
ratio used in the model),  such as the use of intelligent traffic management systems and services and higher standards with  regard to the construction of roads. (Notably, for example, 
the experience and results of Commission's Action Plan for road safety have not been taken 
into account in the TENconnectII simulation.)  
Furthermore, as demonstrated by the evaluation of the EasyWay project
156, the coordinated 
deployment of ITS services on the trans-European road network) can have significant positive impacts. Thus, within the frame of EasyWay I, this has lead to injury accident savings of 
between 10% and 20%, depending on the particular  application, rising to approximately 60% 
on some safety critical roads sections.  
The results of the deployment of dynamic traffic and network management services in 
particular, successfully deployed by  European road operators to tackle disrupted traffic flows 
on strategic and critical sections of the TEN-T, have proved significant on thos e parts of the 
network that suffer greater congestion and accid ent rates. Positive impacts include increased 
capacity rates of up to 9% and a reduction in accidents of typically between 20% and 30%, 
but as high as 63% on part icular safety critical sections of the TEN-T. 
Implementation of both ITS and state of the art technological standards on the physical 
infrastructure is envisaged in all three retained  TEN-T policy options but, as argued in the IA 
Report, these are likely to be most effectively and widely deployed in Option 2 as opposed to 
BAU/Option 0 as well as Option 1, due to bett er and coordinated implementation and wider 
traffic volumes affected. 
5.2.3 Accessibility and territorial cohesion 
As with Option 0, Option 1 is likely to have an unbalanced effect on peripheral areas. As 
demonstrated in the ECORYS report
157, the Priority Projects approach  is likely to give more 
weight to countries which are ne t-contributors to the EU Budget. The result might be a lower 
increase of accessibility for EU12 countries  compared to EU15. While the level of 
accessibility for EU12 is already significantly lower than for EU15, differences will be further accentuated by the expected rise in  fuel costs. Therefore, Option 1 is not expected to bring 
general improvement to territorial cohesion, except  for those few regions that are part of the 
new Priority Projects.
158 
In Option 2 , the impact will be much higher since the network to be financed will be made up 
primarily of selected corridors on a Core Netw ork identified on the basis of a transparent and 
coherent European planning methodology, pur posely designed to ensure a balance 
geographical coverage. As a result, interconnectivity between national networks will be improved where it is necessary, as the pla nning methodology will allow for the identification 
of network development on th e basis of traffic flows
159, transport demand as well as 
objectives of territorial cohesion and economic development.  
                                                 
156 EasyWay – Synthesis of Project Evaluation Results 2007-2009, 15 February 2011.  
157 Ex ante evaluation of the TEN-T Multi Annual Programme 2007-2013, ECORYS, October 2007. 
Accessibility is measured in average sp eed of interregional road and rail trip s (see Annex 2 of the present report) 
158 According to the TENconnect I study, a policy is normally classified as pro-cohesive if it helps economically 
lagging regions grow faster than economically more advanced regions. The implications of European transport 
policy for the regional cohesion were analysed in a series  of research projects funded  by the EC, for example, 
ESPON 2.1.17, IASON8, and ASSESS9. 
159 The traffic flows were identified by the Member States via the TENtec system, used as a monitoring tool by  
DG MOVE, see Annex 5 of the present report.  
 
 57It should be remembered that the Core Network will constitute the strategically most 
important parts of the TEN-T, as  identified (on the basis of the above mentioned planning 
methodology) of the Comprehensive Network –the  basic layer of the TEN-T. While the Core 
Network is specific to Option 2, the Comprehensive Network w ould, essentially, result from 
an updating and adjustment of the current TEN-T and directly reflect the relevant existing and 
planned infrastructure in Member States. It shou ld ensure the accessibility of all regions of the 
Union. It is expected to include road, rail, in land waterways, maritime and air infrastructure 
network components, as well as  the connecting points between the modes. It would feature 
minimum infrastructure standards, and aim at  interoperability wherever necessary for 
seamless traffic flows across the network. Al l European citizens and economic operators 
should be able to access the Core Network, via the Comprehe nsive Network, on comparable 
terms. 
In the TENconnect II study, the comparison of the Business-As-Usual scenario (seen on map 
as PP) with the proposed CORE  network for Accessibility is  given in the following map—
hence the 'added value' of the CORE over-and- above the currently programmed, fragmented 
network is shown. The map is similar to that for GDP. 
 
Figure 7: Comparison of BAU with the proposed  CORE network for accessibility (horizon 2030) 
 
 58 
5.3. Environmental impacts: Climate effects, Air pollution, Noise 
The 'rebound effect' seen in increases in road a nd a decrease in rail traffic is the result of the 
assumption of an absence of congestion on the CORE network (see explanation in annex 6)—
hence the CORE not only increase s traffic on itself but alleviates  congestion on the rest of the 
network and this creates demand. Again, it is the implementation measures that need to be applied hand-in-hand with network planning, so  as to achieve significant sustainability 
improvements—see case studi es report at annex 7.   
5.3.1. Climate change  
According to the busine ss-as-usual scenario of the Comm ission Communication "A Roadmap 
for moving to a competitive low carbon econo my in 2050", EU transport's GHG emissions 
will increase by 60% to 70% in 2050 in comparison to the 1990 levels. In addition, a 50% 
reduction of emissions in other sectors compared  to 1990 would increase  transport's share in 
total emissions from 20% (current state) to 50% by 2050. 
The reinforced coordination approach to impl ementation of Options 1 and 2 would improve 
the efficiency of the transport system and pr omote more sustainable transports through the 
deployment of intelligent transport systems im proving the efficiency of transport operations, 
innovative solutions to promote low carbon tran sport and other forms of "green" transport 
solutions, as well as through stimulating technological innovatio n in transport and 
infrastructure development. Again, due to th e specific methodology selection of network and 
corridors, based on a multimodal and traffic-flow approach, the positive effects of Option 2 are likely to be significantly higher than those of Option 1. 
5.3.2.  Air pollution (NOx, PM, SOX, HCs) 
Air pollution levels, as define d by the Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and 
the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner ai r for Europe, mostly depend on the vehicles' 
(including ship's) pollutant emissions performan ce and road traffic congestion in urban areas. 
To a large extent, the reduction of air pollution depends on the en forcement of the legislation 
concerning vehicles emissions
160. 
Options 1 and 2  would contribute to further reduction in emissions thanks to their positive 
impact on congestion reduction, and as a result of  induced modal shift.  On the other hand, 
Options 1 and 2 would facilitate larger volume s of transport traffic flows, leading to an 
increase of energy and fuel consumption, the so-called rebound effect . Hence, whether on 
balance the overall impact will be positive or negative will depend on the extent to which cleaner vehicle technology is  introduced. The reinforced coordination approach to 
implementation would further c ontribute to the redu ction of vehicles emissions in both 
Options, as it enables better promotion of  greener transport so lutions, for example by 
fostering the replacement of diesel locomotives  by electric ones and promoting cleaner road 
transport through technological i nnovation for both vehicles and the infrastructure. Due to its 
multi-modal and traffic flow based approach, th e positive impact of Option 2 would be higher 
than that of Option 1. 
5.3.3. Noise 
According to one study,
161 road generally accounts for approximately 70% of total noise 
emissions by transportation, rail fo r 10% and air transport for 20%. 
                                                 
160 Such as Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on 
type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and ma intenance information (Tex t with EEA relevance) 
161 Noise Pollution Emitted by Transportation Systems, Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue 2009 
 
 59The reference scenario of the Impact assess ment of the White Paper highlights that the 
forecasted increase in traffic would lead to roug hly 20 bn € increase of noise related external 
costs by 2050. Option 0 would thus have a negative impact on noise emissions. 
Option 1 and 2  are not likely to limit traffic growth. However, they will influence modal shift: 
mainly from road to rail and inland waterway s for freight transport, and from road and 
aviation to rail for passenger traffic. In rela tive terms, road and air transport noise will 
decrease while rail transport wi ll increase overall therefore, no ise emissions should decrease.  
Moreover, with the reinforced  coordination approach to implementation, higher quality 
infrastructure will be promoted, therefore reducing noise emissions, particularly for rail, road, and multimodal platforms (for instance, the promo tion of rail electrification will foster the 
replacement of heavy diesel locomotives by light er electrified ones).  In addition, as noise 
emissions reduction is likely to come mainly from changes in the motorisation of vehicles/rolling-stock, the prom otion of more silent vehi cles through the reinforced 
coordination approach to implementation will  likely strengthen the overall positive impact on 
the reduction of noise emissions  of Options 1 and 2. Option 2 is  likely, however, to have a 
higher positive impact than Option 1, due to the overall higher volumes of  traffic affected (as 
highlighted earlier). 
Since the implementation of Priority Projects in  Option 1 and of Corridors in Option 2 will be 
ensured under the legal format of Decisions, the social impacts of these PPs/Corridors will be 
studied in detail in the subs equent Impact Assessments necessary for the adoption of the 
Decisions. 
Results of the TENConnect II  on environmental impacts 
For Noise, Air pollution and Climate effect s the TENconnect II study gave the following 
results comparing the CORE & COMPREHENSIVE (For information) with the Business-as-
usual: 
 
 Scenario    
Impact type (€ billion)   BAU CORE CORE vs 
BAU COMP vs 
BAU 
Traffic noise  15.1 15.2 +0.1 +0.2 
 
Air pollution (NOx, 
PM, SOX, HCs) 60.5 55.0 -5.5 -5.5 
 
Climate effects (CO2)  94.4 95.5 +1.1 +1.6 
Table 13: TENConnect II results on environmen tal impacts (External costs, horizon 2030) 
The results of the TENconnectII simulation show a relative increase in the estimated costs of 
noise and CO2 emissions, but a decrease in those related to air pollution , in a policy scenario 
where the TEN-T is the result of coordinated EU-level planning (core network) as opposed to 
continuing with the current 30 Priority Projects  (the result of a bottom-up approach) in a 
business-as-usual scenario. The increase in th e costs related to noise and CO2 emissions 
reflect, as in the case of road safety data,  the rebound effect of  improved efficiency of traffic 
flows on an effective TEN-T network, most apparent in the COMPREHENSIVE Network 
scenario.  
Yet, just as in the case of the road safe ty, the TENconnect II simulation does NOT reflect: a 
network where effects of multimodality (an in -built dimension of network planning and 
implementation in Option 2)  have been taken into  account - i.e. a shift aw ay from road to rail 
 
 60and air for passenger traffic, and to rail and inland waterways for freight; or the impact of 
coordinated infrastructural development that  envisages the use of  highest technological 
standards with regard to, for example, the moto risation of road vehicles, or the sources of 
electricity used in the power grid s of rail on the CORE network;  
A number of studies have however shown that  the negative impacts of  the rebound effect of 
traffic can be mitigated when measures to impr ove efficiency are taken in conjunction with a 
series of other measures meant to reduce the environmental impact of the transport sector.  
Thus, the European Environmental Agency repo rt on 2009 (TERN) for example starts from 
the premise that more efficient vehicles using less fuel may in the long run be cheaper to 
operate, lowering the general tran sport costs and leading, in turn, to more transport, as tasks 
that were earlier too co stly to undertake could th en be done at a reasona ble price. While this 
entails added choice for consumer s and thus added welfare, it also  means that significant parts 
of the environmental benefits disappear in growing transport volume s. Nevertheless, the 
report shows, a set of measures including adop tion of technological improvements (improved 
engine and vehicle design, use of electric cars, low carbon fu els, technologies encouraging 
behavioural change) and demand control can co mbine to support the ac hievement of a 60% 
reduction in CO2 emissions from transport by 2050.  
The evaluation of the EasyWayI impacts provid es another, though more limited in scope, 
example in this sense. Results have thus show n that the coordinated deployment of ITS on the 
TEN-T only has led to CO 2 savings of up to 4% (between  2007 and 2009), as a consequence 
of reduced congestion (due to  increased capacity throughputs by up to 20% where lanes are 
managed dynamically) and reduced accidents. 162 
Last, but not least, the Transport White Paper IA Report shows that measures to modernise 
and increase the efficiency of transport infrastructures are essential for any efforts to achieve the 60% CO2 reduction target, but that a more comprehensive and combined set of measures 
is needed to insure the sustainability of the tr ansport system. In particular, the projected modal 
shift to non-road modes will be relying on several measures. Firstly and very essentially, the 
capacity and quality of transport infrastructure  of non-road modes will have to be increased 
with a view to carrying higher volumes with hi gh degree of efficiency. However, as shown by 
the TEN-Connect II modelling results (see Table 10), building of infrastr ucture in isolation 
will not produce any noteworthy m odal shift. Therefore - secondly, as foreseen in the 
preferred option of the White Pape r, other measures such as internalisation of external costs 
for all modes, taxation of fuels and vehicles, in ternal marked measures to fully open markets 
and to widely deploy ITS systems, and resear ch and innovation. Combining these measures is 
expected to lead to significant reduction in air and noise pollutants by 2050. Nitrogen oxides 
emissions would decline by about 50% relative to the baseline scenar io, while particulate 
matter emissions by about 55%. Moreover, there will be a reduction in vehicle related noise 
pollution due to a decrease in the number of ve hicles used and to a limited extent due to the 
gradual substitution of internal combustion engines for electric vehicles. External costs related to noise would decrease by as much as 46%  relative to the ba seline scenario by 2050. 
163 
5.3.4. Energy use 
The energy use of the transport sector most ly depends on the source of energy used by 
transport operators to cover their needs, on th e one hand, and on the energy efficiency of the 
                                                 
162 Measures facilitated through a high ITS content that might be considered as ready for widespread 
deployment, include: cross border traffic management; dynamic lane management; variable speed limits / speed 
limit enforcement; co-ord inated data exchange / real time traffic information provision. A number of other 
measures show potential and after further evaluation by the EasyWay II programme should be reviewed and 
considered for mainstreaming. These include: co-modal information / journey planning; freight specific information / parking guidance.
 
163 SEC (2011) 358, p. 74. See also the reference to the WP IA report in subsection 5.1.1 above.  
 
 61vehicles used, on the other.  Increased use of  renewable energy sources to power vehicles 
would be facilitated by the development of supporting infrastructure, such as electrified 
railways and power supply statio ns (e.g. electricity/battery and hydrogen) along the road 
infrastructure.  Increased use of biofuels is also important for the further decarbonisation of transport, mostly in aviation and waterborne tran sport, where electrification is not really an 
option.
164 
Energy efficiency is the other major contributor to the decar bonisation of transport, as the 
technology scenario from the Impact Asse ssment on “Low-carbon economy 2050 roadmap" 
shows.165 Transport infrastructure can contribute to increased energy efficiency of the 
transport system by reducing congestion, encouraging modal shift and co-modality towards more energy efficient transport modes/solutions
166 as well as supporting the development of 
innovative transport solutions. Ne vertheless, as pointed out above , the impact of greener/more 
efficient infrastructure development depends to an important extent also  on external factors, 
such as the growth of th e share of renewable energy used to produce electricity167 and the 
rhythm of development and adoption of new technologies.168   
Option 1 and 2  should have an overall positive impact, due to their positive impact on the 
energy efficiency and through facilitating the depl oyment of alternative fuels by the provision 
of recharging and refuelling infrastructure. Option 2 should lead to a higher positive impact as compared to Option 1, due to its enhanced planning aspects.   
5.3.5. Land-use & biodiversity 
As explained in the Impact Assessment of th e White Paper, the greatest impact on other 
environmental resources would be caused by an  increase in land use for infrastructure, 
generating increased pressure on  biodiversity and ecosystem serv ices, due to direct damage 
linked to construction, habita t fragmentation and degradation, and disturbance.  
It must be noted here that, according to relevant Union legislation,
169 all three Options would 
include the assessment of the stra tegic environmental impact at the level of relevant plans and 
programmes by MS, as well as the assessment of environmental effects at the level of 
individual projects of comm on interest (see Annex 4). 
TEN-T projects may pose serious threats to bi odiversity and Natura 2000 areas which were 
designated to protect the most endangered Euro pean species and habita t types. The negative 
impacts from transport projects might result  from physical reduction of natural habitats, 
landscape fragmentation, migration ba rriers, collision of vehicles with animals, emissions of 
noise and air pollutants, changes to the water regi me and others. It is therefore necessary that 
                                                 
164 Impact Assessment accompanying the “Low-carbon  economy 2050 roadmap", SEC(2011) 288 final.  
165 SEC(2011) 288 final 
166 For instance by promoting electrified high-speed ra il for passenger transport instead of aviation or by 
promoting electrified rail freight transport instead of road transport. 
167 The pathways for the decarbonisation of power gene ration will be analysed in the forthcoming Energy 
Roadmap 2050. 
168 For instance, the average energy e fficiency of passenger cars in 1990 was 43.9 toe/Mpkm. By 2050,  this 
improves to 23.9 in the reference scenario and it is  further reduced to 13.6 toe/Mpkm in the Effective 
Technology scenario. This is achieved through gradual efficiency improvements of internal combustion engines 
and subsequently gradual hybridisation leading eventually to high penetration rates for electric propulsion 
vehicles (such as for example plug -in hybrids and el ectric vehicles). 
169Pursuant to Council Directive 85/337/EEC, environmental impact assessments of projects of common interest 
which are to be implemented and by applying Council Directives 79/409/EEC (Birds Directive) and 92/43/EEC 
(Habitats Directive). Moreover as from 21 July 2004 an environmental assessment of the plans and programmes leading to such projects, especially where they concern new routes or other important nodal infrastructure 
development, shall be carried out by MS pursuant to Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of 
certain plans and programmes on the environment (SEA  Directive). MS shall take the results of this 
environmental assessment into account in the preparation of the plans and programmes  concerned, in accordance 
with Article 8 of that Directive. 
 
 62all projects undertaken as part of the TEN-T s prove full compliance with EU environmental 
legislation, including Birds and Ha bitats Directives, before they  are given a green light for 
implementation.  
In addition, a multi-NGO study170 on the potential conflicts between the TEN-T Priority 
Projects and the EU’s Natura 2000 network of protected areas found that  379 sites that should 
be protected by the EU Birds Directive and 935  protected under the Habitats Directive are 
likely to be affected by the 21 TEN-T Priority  Projects analysed. Watercourses and maritime 
areas merit particular attention (see Annex 4). 
In Option 1 , the impact on land-use and biodiversity is  likely to be very negative since the 
selection of new Priority Pr ojects would lead to the bu ilding of new infrastructure. 
In Option 2 , the impact will remain limited by the fact that the Core Network would be 
established mostly on existing infrastructure. However, missing geographical links, mostly cross-border between national networks and bo ttlenecks and new infrastructure in the new 
Member States, as well as missing modal links c onnecting modes of transport, would be built. 
Therefore, Option 2 would have a negative, though limited, impact. 
5.4. The positive impact of implementation measures 
The case studies of Annex 7 show how the app lication of today's 'best practice' will reduce 
transport externalities, to more than compensa te for any increase in traffic volume resulting 
from the operation of an efficient CORE ne twork (the rebound effect). These case studies 
show the needs for adequate implementation st rategies in order to complement transport 
planning approaches 
The rail freight studies show a selection of current 'best practi ce' and how they have managed 
to gain significant improvement in utilisation and modal shift from road to rail. For instance, the BRAVO project along the Bre nner Corridor saw an increase in  traffic volumes of about 57 
percent over the last three ye ars. The other studies focus on proposed networks, from the 
central network of NEWOPERA to the 'red banana' of FERRMED. The benefits of the 
corridors are given in terms of modal shift (up to a doubling of 'long distance' freight transport 
volume by rail) and CO2 reduction and the costs are a similar order of magnitude to that 
estimated in the IA for the freight orientated  rail network regulation. All conclude that the 
cost of developing an entire network with  a total length of about 25 000 km amounts to 
around €170 billion.  NEWOPERA estimated that a quadrupling of the rail freight trains on 
the New Opera corridor would expand rail frei ght's market share from 6% (2006) to 16%. 
FERRMED gives estimates of 17% of all inla nd freight and 24% (more than 500 km) - 28% 
(more than 1,000km). But for these gains to be realised then all studies conclude for EU 
Railway Corridors Management.  
The Ports study shows the likely future bottlene cks and congestion hots pots and the necessity 
for hinterland connections that shift freight fr om the ports as quickly and as cleanly as 
possible, especially so for th e north-range ports. The study re inforces the growing need for 
effective and sufficient rail (and IWW) freight transport. 
The EASYWAY study on the application of ITS best practice shows how the 'rebound effect' 
resulting from the operation of an efficient CO RE network does not need  to lead to higher 
external costs. Their work has shown road accident savings of between 10% and 20%, depending on the particular appl ication, rising to approximately 60% on some safety critical 
roads sections. Congestion is improved with capac ity throughputs increa sed by up to 20% 
where lanes are managed dynamically; and for the environment, reduced congestion, along with reduced accidents, have resulted in CO
2 savings of up to 4%. 
                                                 
170 TEN-T and Natura 2000: the way forward, an assessm ent of the potential impact of the TEN-T Priority 
Projects on Natura 2000, Final report – May 2008 
 
 63Finally, the EEA TERN study, FREIGHTVISION and the IA for the Climate Change 
Roadmap all support the notion of the Transport White Paper, that  future sustainable mobility 
can only be achieved by the Cumulative effect of a combination of 'improve', 'avoid' and 'shift' 
measures.  
5.5. Sensitivity analysis of the policy options 
The sensitivity analysis of the underlying assump tions has been studied in part 2.4.3 and in 
the Impact Assessment accompanying the White Paper. 
As concerns the main factors i nherent to the policy options and affecting the options' impacts, 
they have been identified as:  
a) possible changes regarding the network confi guration, since the revised Guidelines will be 
adopted in the ordinary (co-de cision) legislative procedure; 
b) the impact of budgetary d ecisions at Union, Member St ates and regional level on the 
availability of funds for de velopment of TEN-T projects. 
Moreover, with Member States in charge of th e majority of infrastructure investments, the 
impact of political cooperation and the impact of  local political change s on the realisation of 
infrastructure could prove critical. The reinfor ced coordination approach  to implementation in 
Options 1 and 2 should lead  to better addressing cooper ation issues, through binding 
commitments inscribed in corr idor Decisions. Nevertheless, implementation will ultimately 
depend on Member States and regional and local authorities and, enforcement action at EU level would always be limited, in respect of  Union procedures and the principles of 
subsidiarity and proportionality.  
5.5.1 On the possible changes regardi ng the network configuration 
In undertaking Option 2, the Commission would be in possession of a robust instrument for 
designing the network. As pointed out earlie r, a methodology has been  elaborated by a high-
level group of external experts, which has been published in a report and submitted to a wide 
stakeholder consultation in 2010, and thereafte r consolidated and submitted again to the 
Member States and the European Parliament. B ilateral discussions with the Member States 
have focused on fine-tuning certain alignments.  
In the same discussions it became apparent that the Member States were interested in a 
number of projects that were rather political  wishes than viable, EU-added value projects. 
Whereas in Option 2, on the basis of the me thodology, these projects have been refused, the 
least exceptions would turn th e coherent methodology applicati on into cherry picking, in 
Option 1 that would not be possible. Such proj ects, in most cases, do not have a significant 
EU-added value, as these project s do not correspond to the econom ical reality, nor to traffic 
needs. 
It is therefore unlikely that the Core Network of Option 2 will be prone to greater variations in 
the final lead up to the Commission proposal. Th is would not be however the case of Option 
1, even if DG MOVE had a good knowledge of th e projects intended to be proposed by the 
Member States.  
As a consequence, impact and investment estimates are unlikely to vary to a large extent in 
Option 2. But they are likely to vary in Opti on 1, according to final Member States decision 
during discussions in the Council on the adoption of  the new Priority Projects, as well as the 
amendments of the European Parliament. 
With regard to the core network corridors in Option 2, these will be established along the core 
network configuration, based upon the criteria hi ghlighted in chapter 4.2.  As they correspond 
largely to parts of the Priority Projects and to the rail freight corridors, continuity of major 
investments and efforts made so far will be ensured, and at the same time bringing in the 
 
 64methodology and thus linking up the different tr ansport modes, connecting ports, nodes and 
terminals. 
5.5.2 On the consequences of decisions on th e Multi-annual Financial Framework after 2013 
and the budgetary constraint s on Member states' budgets 
The investments estimates for both Option 1 a nd Option 2 take into account the financial 
difficulties of the Member Stat es, since the investments fi gures up to 2020 have been 
discussed with them. As regards Option 2, the sections included in the Core Network are 
based on the reality of investments capacities up to 2030. Some costly and unrealistic projects 
(such as the Odra-Elbe-Danube Canal) have been deleted from the map.  
The Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) di scussions and the future European budget 
available for transport investment will have an  impact on both options with regard to the 
timing and the capacity of the EU to trigger th e realisation of projects. The next MFF will 
cover only a period up to around 2020, while the Guidelin es target a complete and integrated 
TEN-T by 2030. The higher the budget available for the next peri od, the more projects to be 
completed in the next 10 years, the earlier the positive impacts of the ne twork effect will be. 
A reduced budget for transport infrastructure mi ght lead to later implementation dates and 
hence delayed effects of the TEN -T positive impact. But it shoul d not influence decisions as 
to whether projects are part of the network and would be implemented or not. Due to two 
decades of TEN-T policy and the decisions taken under the present MFF, the maturity of most 
projects still to be realised is generally high and the likelihood of them being realised until 
2030 is good. 
The Commission adopted its Multi-Annual Fi nancial Framework proposal (COM 2011) 500 
final) on 29 June 2011. This pr oposal includes a "Conn ecting Europe Facil ity" with the view 
to accelerate the infrastructure development that the EU needs. It covers infrastructures in the 
field of transport, energy, information and telecommunication technologies. € 21.7 bn are 
allocated to transport, with an additional €10 bn  ring-fenced for relate d transport investment 
inside the Cohesion fund. These €31.7 bn should f und pre-identified transport infrastructures 
of EU interest, for which a preliminary list is pr oposed. This list covers 10 European Mobility 
Corridors and Transport Core Network projects, and is thereby fully in line with Option 2 
proposing a Core Network with a reinforced  approach to implementation by means of 
corridors. Should this Commission Proposal be agreed upon by the Euro pean Parliament and 
Member States, it would help accelerating the co mpletion of EU added-value projects in the 
next 10 years, accelerating the expected posi tive impact presented in this document. 
It should be also noted that the Guidelines are pr escriptive, meaning th at once adopted, they 
represent a commitment on the part of the Me mber States to complete the new Priority 
Projects, or their part of the Co re Network respectively, before 2030. 
5.6. Choice of the appropriate legal act 
The current TEN-T Guidelines have  been proposed and adopted as a  Decision  of the 
European Parliament and of the Council. The Decision is sp ecifically addressed to the 
Member States, rendering the Guidelines binding in their entirety for all the Member States. 
While the Member States have traditionally co nstituted the main actors involved in transport 
infrastructure development and management, deve lopments suggest that the situation will be 
progressively changing within the coming decades. Attracting pr ivate capital in various forms 
of public-private partnerships is an increasing ly sought for option, in pa rticular in contexts 
such as the current one of increased strains put on public budgets (both of the Member States 
and of the Union). 
The Commission has already undertaken in its 2010 Budget Review Communication to 
leverage investments from th e EU budget by providing a framework to enable partnerships 
with banks and other private sector actors in using EU funds, by means of an increasing array 
 
 65of innovative financial instruments. Transpor t infrastructure is one of the areas where 
innovative financial instruments have been pioneered by the Commi ssion, and for the next 
MFF the Commission intends to propose that a signi ficant part of its transport infrastructure 
budget be managed by innovative financial instruments.171 
With more actors besides the Member States  becoming involved in TEN-T infrastructure 
development, it is important to ensure that the Guidelines be binding for all.172 While a 
decision , as a legal instrument, may address also ot her actors than the Member States, these 
actors need to be clearly specified. As stipul ated in Article 288 of the TFEU, a decision is 
binding only on those to whom it specifies that it will be addressed. However, given that the revised Guidelines are intended to cover the peri od up to 2030, it is difficult to anticipate at 
this point in time all the ca tegories of actors that woul d become involved in TEN-T 
implementation projects over the next two decades.  
The alternative available legal instruments are a regulation or a directive. According to Article 
288 of the TFEU, a regulation
 shall have a general application, meaning it shall address all 
physical and legal persons concerned, and it sha ll be binding in its en tirety and directly 
applicable in all Member States. As such, a regulation appears a more appropriate legal 
instrument, as it is more comprehensive, without having to be specific, and hence 
discriminating, in its coverage. 
A directive  shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to 
which it is addressed. However, Member States are free to decide on the choice of form and 
methods to achieve the prescribed results. This  renders a directive an  unsuitable choice as a 
legal instrument for the TEN-T Guidelines, since higher coordination among Member States, 
not least at implementation leve l, is one of the main objectives of the TEN-T policy revision 
initiative.  
6. COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS  
6.1. Effectiveness 
6.1.1. Improving EU-level coordination in  planning the TEN-T configuration 
Compared to the baseline scenario (Option 0), Option 1 should ensure, in a first place, better 
interconnectivity of networks across countries . Though it shares with Option 0 the current, 
predominantly bottom-up approach to plannin g, and hence could potentially inherit its 
predominantly uni-modal focus, a better definition of criteria for priority projects identification, drawing on curre nt experience and assessment results, should support the 
development of project proposals with higher EU added-value on the TEN-T. The identification of new Priority Projects should thus allow bui lding new/connecting 
infrastructure to fill in critical missing li nks, including improving East -West connections and 
connections with third countries. Nevertheless, insofar as at th e level of planning a primarily 
bottom-up approach will prevail, experience s uggests that the resulting configuration will 
remain suboptimal.
173  
                                                 
171 According to proposals currently discussed within the Commission in the context of developing the next MFF 
proposal. 
172 The Report on the “Consultation on the Future Trans-European Network Policy” mentioned that some 
contributors explained that the legal instrument framing the future TEN-T policy should be binding. 
173 Merely providing a better definition of priority projec ts criteria will not, in itself, lead to significantly 
improved coordination at EU level in planning the development of the TEN-T. It should provide a better EU 
level-steered approach to planning, by setting clearer defined and better focused landmarks but to what will 
remain nevertheless an essentially bottom-up process. Me mber States would still continue to consider and fund 
with priority achieving national ob jectives, whereby certain  cross-border links or multi-modal network 
connections do not necessarily figure among the top of th e list. At the other end, Me mber States are likely to 
 
 66Compared to Option 0, Option 2 is also lik ely to prove more effective in ensuring a 
coordinated approach to develo ping the TEN-T while addressi ng, at the same time, aspects 
such as  missing cross-border links, multi-moda l connecting infrastructure, links to third 
countries.  
The difference between Options 1 and 2 lies primar ily in the degree of coordination opted for 
in planning the TEN-T, where Option 2 will pro pose a stronger top-down coordination at EU 
level. This is particularly true with regard to  the identification of the projects of key European 
interest:  
- In Option 2, projects of key European interest  will be situated on a pre-identified strategic 
network configuration (the "core network"), optimised at the level of planning by including 
missing cross-border links (including links w ith neighbouring states),  multi-modal connection 
nodes and infrastructure to alle viate critical bottlen ecks along major trans-European routes. – 
In Option 1, TEN-T configuratio n will continue to stem from Member States' project 
proposals. Even though better define d criteria for priority project s identification are expected 
to ensure higher converge in Option 1, as oppo sed to Option 0, towards achievement of EU-
level strategic interests, insofar as at the leve l of planning a primarily bottom-up approach will 
prevail, as pointed out earlier,  the resulting configuration is e xpected to remain suboptimal.  
At the level of the wider (or "c omprehensive") TEN-T, the differe nce is less marked, but still 
worth noting. While in Option 1 Member States w ill be asked to provide updated maps to take 
into account changes in completed and planned projects, in Option 2 th e maps will also be 
adjusted according to a number of common principles/rules, ensu ring thus a more coordinated 
approach also to the wider/comp rehensive network identification.  
6.1.2. Fostering the interoperabil ity of national networks  
The reinforced coordination approach to impl ementation, shared by both Option 1 and Option 
2, provides for biding commitme nts on all actors involved (bot h public and private) to 
implement common technical and service standards along the sele cted Priority Projects or, 
respectively, Corridors. In teroperability issues are therefore li kely to be addre ssed in a direct 
and comprehensive manner by means of Priority  Project/Corridor Deci sions in both Option 1 
and Option 2 as compared to Option 0. Neverthe less, due to the higher degree of coordination 
at planning level in Option 2 than in Option 1, effectiveness in ensuring the objective of 
higher levels of interope rability on the TEN-T is expected to be higher in the former than in 
the latter.  
In Option 2, it is worth recalling, projects w ill be financed with priority along multimodal 
Corridors that concern the most important cross- border traffic flows alon g the (core) network, 
cross at least two borders between three Member  States, and involve at least three transport 
modes for at least half of th e traffic volume along the Corri dor. By committing all potential 
actors involved in the various projects al ong the Corridor to common technical and 
operational standards, interoperability among at least three nationa l networks, inter-modal 
connection among at least three modes and a high threshold for traffic volumes concerned are 
thus ensured from the start.  
In Option 1 however, interopera bility standards are only eff ectively ensured along individual 
Priority Projects. Strengthened EU-added value criteria for Priority Projects should ensure 
that more projects are proposed that develop cross-border links, following most important 
traffic flows, or that involve development of multi-modal sections. Yet these criteria, it should 
be recalled, are not cumulative, lest the bar is  set too high to be met by individual project 
                                                                                                                                                         
promote cross-border projects with high political profile  but less economic efficiency, such as the Via Carpathica 
or the Central Pyrenean crossing. (See also assessment of planning scenario A3 in Annex 3.) 
 
 67consortia.174 Hence, on average, less national networks , less modes and less traffic volumes 
are likely to be concerned by co mmon interoperability standards along a Priority Project than 
along a Corridor. Consequently, it can be concluded, lower levels of  interoperability are to be 
expected along a TEN-T of which core develops as the sum of Pr iority Projects, i.e. Option 1, 
than along a TEN-T that is developed by mean s of (priority) multimodal Corridors on an 
optimised network configuration, i.e. Option 2.  
6.1.3. Enhancing Member States cooperation 
With the reinforced coordination approach to  implementation in both Option 1 and Option 2, 
Member States cooperation in developing pr ojects along the TEN-T in both Option 1 and 
Option 2 is likely to be significantly enha nced as opposed to Option 0. The Priority 
Projects/Corridor Decisions in Option 1 and Op tion 2, respectively, provide for a coordinated 
approach to infrastructural i nvestments by all actors involved. Both EU and Member States 
funding would be committed through the individual Priority Project/Corridor Decisions, which would also establish binding timelines fo r completion. Infrastructure improvements and 
transport policy measures would closely inter act, and their realisati on will be brought forward 
by appropriate coordination structures, under th e aegis of a Priority Project /Corridor 
Coordinator. 
Nevertheless, the overall impact of reinforced coordination is likely to be relatively higher in 
Option 2 than in Option 1, for the same reasons as argued in the case of the interoperability 
objective, achievement. More specificall y, though specific effectiv eness in improving 
Member States coordination is li kely to be similar, insofar as  more cross-border missing links 
and higher volumes of traffic are expected to  be covered by individu al Corridor Decisions 
than by individual Priority Project Decisi ons, the overall impact on improving TEN-T 
delivery is expected to be highe r in Option 2 than in Option 1.  
6.1.4. Ensuring highest EU added-valu e for the use of EU funds 
As argued in section 2.3.4 above, the TEN-T Guidelines provide a framework for 
conditionality in allocating funds for TEN-T de velopment by means of policy action at both 
planning and implementation level. At the level of planning, conditionalit y is indirect, but no 
less effective: the higher the coordination of  planning towards mee ting EU-wide priority 
objectives, the higher the percentage of funds that support EU-added value projects. In that 
respect, conditionality of use of EU funding is likely to be higher in both Option 1 and Option 
2 as opposed to Option 0, due to expected high er coordination in TEN-T planning. By the 
same token, the effectiveness of policy measures  in Option 2 is likely to be higher than in 
Option 1.  
At implementation level, conditionality can be prescribed more directly. This is primarily 
done by means of the rules for awarding financial grants. Yet, as the financial rules for TEN-
T funding will be dealt with in  a separate legal document, accompanied by a distinct impact 
analysis, this aspect has not been dealt w ith here. Nevertheless, other implementation 
measures can also help ensure that funding is channelled towa rds projects with highest EU 
added value. It is the case for example of th e TEN-T EA, which has an  important support role 
in the development of project proposals "pipeline". When its  work is supported by better 
planning coordination guideline s, as is the case in both Option 1 and Option 2, its 
effectiveness in steering Member States proposal s towards higher EU added value projects is 
likely to be higher than in an Option 0 scenario. By the same token, Agency's activity is likely 
to be more effective in steering Member St ates' proposals towards higher EU-added value 
under Option 2 than under Option 1.  
                                                
 
174 Whereas, it might be worth underscoring, these criteria can be applied cumulatively at Corridor level, as they 
do not necessarily concern, cumulatively, single projects. Projects may develop only a single cross-border 
section, or an inter-modal connecting point, while respecting the common operability standards prescribed.  
 
 68At the same time, by providing for a coordina ted approach to investments and bindingly 
committing EU and Member States funds as well as agreed timelines for completion within the individual Priority  Project/Corridor Decisions, the re inforced coordination approach to 
implementation in both Option 1 and Option 2 is likely to lead to higher effectiveness in 
delivering EU-funded projects than in Option 0, c ontributing thus to en hanced effectiveness 
of the use of EU funds. As argued earlier, increased effectiveness in implementation in a 
reinforced coordination approach is likely to concern TEN-T sections with higher volumes of 
traffic, and linking more national and moda l networks in Option 2 than in Option 1. 
Consequently, effectiveness in increasing the efficiency of the use of EU funds supporting 
higher EU-added value projects is expected to also be higher in Option 2 than in Option 1. 
 Option 0 Option 1 Option 2 
Improve planning coordination by means of  a coherent & 
transparent approach to define the network configuration, addressing aspects of network fragmentation linked to missing links, multimodal connections a nd connections to neighbouring 
and 3
rd countries; adequate geographical coverage.  No Low Medium 
Address the lack of interoperability  by fostering the 
implementation of European standards  for management 
systems and the development of harmonised operational rules  
on the TEN-T project of common interests  No Medium  Medium 
Enhance Member States cooperation  in order to coordinate 
investments, timing, choice of the routes, environmental and cost-benefit assessments for projects of common interests.  Low High High 
Ensure that the optimal network configuration is a key element 
in the allocation of EU funding  allowing to focus on cross-
border sections, missing-links a nd bottlenecks, in order to 
address the lack of sufficient conditionality of the TEN-T 
funding instruments . No 
 Medium  High 
Table 14: Effectiveness of envisaged policy options in light of objectives 
Overall, it can be thus be concluded that Op tion 1 would ensure improved effectiveness, as 
compared to Option 0, in achieving the obj ectives of physical interconnectivity and 
interoperability of networks, Member States coordination in implementation of cross-border 
sections, timely delivery and, generally, in deliv ering Priority Projects with increased EU 
added-value. It would not however bring si gnificant improvements in ensuring the multi-
modality of the TEN-T, and the investments in enhancing effectiveness of implementation at Priority Project level will be diluted due to suboptimal coordination at the level of planning. 
Compared to Option 0, Option 2 is also lik ely to better address interconnectivity and 
interoperability aspects as we ll as provide for improved Me mber States coordination in 
implementation of projects along the TEN-T. Co mpared to both baselin e scenario and Option 
1, it would also better ensure effective multimodality by a priori  including multimodal nodes 
and providing for co-modal links on the TEN-T. Mo reover, the application of the reinforced 
coordination approach to implementation at corri dor rather than prior ity project level should 
lever the value added of this approach, as a corridor will include a number of current as well as future priority/key projects of European interest, ensuring, at the same time, their multi-modal and cross-border connectiv ity (and thus the EU  added-value). Among the three options, 
it appears therefore as the one that is likely to ensure the highest degree of achievement of the 
specific objectives of the future TEN-T policy. 
6.2. Efficiency  
The argument in part 5 of this report has highlighted that the expected positive benefits on 
economic and social issues, as we ll as environmental aspects, ar e likely to be higher in both 
 
 69Option 1 and Option 2 when compared to a busin ess-as-usual scenario in Option 0, and higher 
in Option 2 than in Option 1. In this section,  an indicative assessment of costs of policy 
implementation in all options is provided. 
Two types of costs can be considered for the assessment of the cost of each policy option: 
investments costs in infrastructure and administrative costs to implement the European TEN-T policy. The infrastructure investment needs ca n be estimated from the investments needed 
to complete the targeted network.  
For the purpose of this document, in order to gi ve an order of magnitude of the related costs 
of the policy options on the in frastructure side, the estimate d costs of the policy options 
during the period 2014 – 2020 are provided. The fi gures in the table below constitute an 
estimation starting from the data provided by th e Member States through the TENtec system 
and data from the Priority Project Detailed Analysis 2010. For Options 1 and 2, they were also adapted after discussions during bilateral meetings, including at director general level, 
between DG MOVE and representatives of the Mini stries of Transport of the Member States. 
The cost for the EU budget however cannot at this time be estimated, as it will depend on the 
co-funding rates and the geograp hical scope of the TEN-T Pr ogramme. These rates, which 
will be defined in the TEN Financial Regulation to be adopted in autumn 2011, together with 
the geographical scope of the TEN-T funds, will be strongly de termined by the result of the 
process for the definition of the next EU multi-annual financial framework (MFF), for which 
the Commission proposal was adopted on 29
th June 2011 (see above section 5.5.2). 
The administrative costs are management and administrative costs for implementing the TEN-
T, through the TEN-T EA and the European Coordinators. The reinforced coordination 
approach of Option 1 and 2 will require spec ific administrative and management costs 
compared to Option 0175. The table below summarizes the above mentioned elements:  
yearly basis Option 0 Option 1 Option 2 
Investment needs* 
 -yearly  Investments estimates  
- for 2014 – 2020176  
€ 21.4 billion 
€ 150 billion   
€ 28.6 billion  
€ 200 billion   
€ 30.7 billion 
€ 215 billion  
Administrative costs 
- TEN-T EA - Corridor Approach administration 
(for 10 Corridors)  
€ 10 million  
€ 10 million 
 
€ 20 million  
€ 10 million 
 
€ 20 million 
TENconnect II Benefits of CORE compared to Business-as-usual 
- direct economic benefits 
- air pollution savings  
TOTAL BENEFITS 
- rebound effect  *road safety  
*noise  *climate effects   
€ 77.7 bln  €5.5 bln 
83.2 bln 
 - € 1.1 bln 
- €0.1 bln  - €1.1 bln 
Table15: Efficiency of envisaged policy options 
                                                 
175 These costs are related to the cost of the Secretaria t that will be set up for each corridor, involving the 
Coordinators, DG MOVE, the TEN-T EA and the European Ba nk of Investments. They will also include the cost 
of meetings and other coordination means in order to involve National and local authorities, the Infrastructure managers of the countries involved, building companies and banks. In addition, the necessary studies will be 
financed from this budget to get the data (on traffic, investments, environmental studies…) required for the 
efficient management of the corridors. This could also include the financing of small infrastructure such as last miles connections and siding in order to increase the profitability and added- value of the Corridors. 
176 See footnote 84 
 
 70* Investments figures for the Core Network were discussed during bilateral meetings between DG MOVE and 
Member States representatives. Investment estimates fo r Option 1 came from the same source and were based on 
DG MOVE's knowledge of projects that Member States ar e likely to defend in political discussions (such as Via 
Carpathia, the Messina Bridge or the Botnian Corridor). Figures for Option 0 are based on the figures Members States provided via the TENtec database rega rding the completion of priority projects.  
As detailed in section 5, the economic, social and environmental benefits of both Option 1 and 
Option 2 are expected to be higher than in Optio n 0. At the same time, the expected benefits 
across all three domains in Opti on 2 are expected to be higher  than in Option 1, while the 
costs of implementing the two options are simila r. Therefore Option 2 has a better cost-benefit 
analysis than Option 1. 
6.3. Coherence  
As highlighted in the beginning of part 2 of th is report, the renewed po litical context provided 
by the Europe 2020 Strategy and the ma in priorities it set, with th e priorities set in the White 
Paper for transport and the budgetary princi ples set out in the EU Budget Review 
Communication, alongside the EU Treaty-mandated tasks to c ontribute to the objective of 
economic, social and territorial coherence, ha ve provided the overall policy framework that 
guided the Commission during th e TEN-T policy revision process and in developing the 
alternative policy options/scenarios in the firs t place. Moreover, coherence with overall EU 
objectives, strategies, priorities and principles , including subsidiarity and proportionality, has 
constituted also an important criterion in the process of policy options  pre-selection.  Both 
retained alternative policy options (Option 1 an d Option 2), as well as the business-as-usual 
scenario (Option 0), seek to integrate and s upport therefore, and comply with, overarching EU 
policy objectives and principles. 
With regard to trade-offs across the economic, social and environmental domain, the impact 
analysis presented in part 2 (f or Option 0) and part  5 (for Options 1 and 2) of this report 
suggest the following conclusions: 
-  In a business-as-usual scenario, negative impacts will concern all three domains. In what 
concerns economic and social impacts, the most marked negative effect would be the increase 
of disparities at regional level,  in terms of economic growth a nd jobs, as well as accessibility, 
between central and peripheral regions. As fa r as the environment is concerned, while a 
significant reduction in NOx particles is expect ed, CO2 emissions are li kely to increase. A 
positive trade-off could concern however land use, as with no new Priority Projects development and therefore EU  funding support being envisage d,  a number of large and 
complex infrastructural projects are less likely to  be undertaken. 
- In Option 1, the expected overall positive im pact on EU economic competitiveness and job 
growth risks, as in the case of the baseline  scenario, being unbalanced , with an increase in 
disparity between central and peripheral areas.  As these positive impacts are the result of 
increased transport efficiency on the TEN-T, the downside of the latter is that it is 
accompanied by an increase in transport volumes and increased costs related to accidents and 
environmental impacts. These negative rebo und effects are neverthe less likely to be 
compensated to a significant extent by higher quality infrastructure, more energy efficient 
engines and higher levels of renewable energy use, wider user of intelligent traffic 
management systems and modal shifts, part icularly from road towards the other, 
comparatively less CO2-intensive and prone to high levels of accidents, modes.  
- In Option 2, the results of the TENconnect study modelling support the (qualitatively 
derived) expectation that the stronger coordi nation at EU level in planning the TEN-T has 
positive impacts in terms of both economic grow th and accessibility, as well as pollutant 
emissions. Negative impacts due to  the rebound effect concern tran sport cost externalities in 
terms of road safety, noise and CO2 emission s. Nevertheless, the TENconnect projections 
indicate that these costs are well offset by the positive impacts. Moreover, when other 
 
 71transport policy related factor s such as greener technology and energy use, use of ITS, 
induced modal shift, are also fact ored in, negative externalities are likely to be significantly 
reduced.  
- The positive impacts of these latter measures  – particularly ITS adoption and modal shift – 
are likely to be higher on an optimised (fully interconnected, multi-modal) Core network in Option 2 than on the sum of a number (not n ecessarily always conne cted or enabling co-
modal transport) Priority Projects in Option 1. Moreover, as the over all positive impacts on 
EU economic competitiveness are likely to be higher in Option 2 than in Option 1, and accompanied by equally positive impacts in terms of accessibility and cohesion, it can be 
concluded that the policy approach in Option 2 is  likely to be more effective than the one in 
Option 1 in limiting socio-economic and environmental trade-offs.  The table below, summarising the performance of each option with respect to economic, 
social and environmental impacts allows for an overview of the capacity of Option 1 and 
Option 2 to limit trade-offs across the three domains. (The impacts of Option 0, as the baseline scenario, are taken as base of refe rence for the comparative impacts of the two 
alternative policy options). 
  Option 1 Option 2 
Economic Impacts   
Impact on transport sector   
- Modality and efficiency of the Transport 
system + ++ 
- Congestion & travel times + ++ 
- Administrative burden + ++ 
General economic impacts   
- Trade with Neighbouring and 3rd countries + ++ 
- Economic growth + ++ 
- Innovation + ++ 
- EU competitiveness + ++ 
Social impacts   
Employment and Jobs   
- Jobs related to infrastructure investments ++ ++ 
-Effects on employment in the transport sector + ++ 
Public Health and Safety   
- Road Safety + ++ 
Accessibility & territorial cohesion + ++ 
Environmental impacts   
Emissions   
- Climate change = + 
- Air pollution ++ ++ 
- Noise = + 
Energy use + + 
Land-use - - 
Table 16: Summary table of impacts 
Legend:  = refers to a limited or neutral impact, - refers to a negative im pact, + and ++ refer to 
different levels of positive impacts 
 
 
 726.4. Conclusion 
In light of the above evaluation, Option 2 is identified as the prefe rred option. Option 2 has 
the maximum effectiveness on the drivers to the TEN-T fragmentation and has the most 
positive balance regarding economic, social and environmental impacts. It is therefore the most suitable option to address the objectives  set out by the Treaty and by the Europe 2020 
strategy. The conclusions of this Impact Assessment are also in  line with the outcome of the 
TEN-T revision consultation process conduc ted by the European Commission between 
February 2009 and May 2010. 
For the Guidelines that are being prepared in parallel with this impact assessment, a 
Regulation would be the appropriate instrument . Such a regulation would be ‘binding in its 
entirety’ and ‘directly applicable’. The text mu st therefore be drafted in such a way that no 
further transposition is require d and that the obligations from  the regulation will directly 
apply. 
The choice of the legal instrument is  being left to the political level. 
7. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The Commission will properly eval uate and review the Progress of the implementation of the 
TEN-T policy through annual Progress Reports. 
In addition, the Commission, its  agencies, notably the TEN-T Executive Agency and the 
European Coordinators will constantly monitor a set of indicators.177 These indicators will be 
used to measure to what extent the operational objectives set out in section 3 of this document 
are achieved or going towards achievement. The indicators, their related operational 
objectives and the reporting body are indicated in the table below:  
Operational Objectives Indicators Reporting body/mean 
Connect all main airports and seaports to 
other modes, especially (High-Speed) railways and inland waterway systems 
by 2050 Share of Major European 
airports and seaports connected with other modes • TENtec 
Allow to shift 30% of road freight over 
300 km to other modes such as rail or 
waterborne transport by 2030, and more than 50% by 2050. 
 Share of each mode of 
transport in total inland 
transport expressed in tonne-kilometres. It includes transport by road, rail and inland waterways. • Eurostat 
• Alpine Traffic Observatory 
• Priority Projects/Corridors 
implementation Decisions  
• TEN-T EA 
Ensuring by 2030 the deployment of 
European transport management systems (ERTMS, SESAR, ITS, RIS, SSN and 
LRIT) Kilometres/share of 
infrastructure equipped with management systems. • TENtec 
• Agencies Reports (TEN-T 
EA, ERA, EMSA, EASA) 
• Coordinators' report on the 
Priority Projects or 
Corridors 
Ensuring by 2030 the commitments of Member States to agree on common 
operational rules for the projects of common interest Number of memorandum of 
understanding, treaties and 
binding decisions adopted • Agencies Reports (TEN-T 
EA, ERA, EMSA, EASA) 
• Coordinators' report on the 
Priority Projects or Corridors 
Obtaining binding commitments by Number of memorandum of • Coordinators' report on the 
                                                 
177 The role of the TEN-T Ex ecutive Agency, its management of the TEN-T Programme, the use of the Open-
Method of Coordination through the TENtec system and the role of the EU Coordinators is described in Annex 5 
 
 73Member States for the implementation 
of essential cross-border projects with a binding timetable. understanding, treaties and 
binding decisions adopted Priority Projects or 
Corridors 
Obtaining binding commitments by Member States for the implementation of bottlenecks and missing-links on their 
territory that have cross-border effects. Number of memorandum of 
understanding, treaties and binding decisions adopted • Coordinators' report on the 
Priority Projects or Corridors 
• Priority Projects/Corridors 
implementation Decisions  
Ensuring priority of EU funding for 
projects that address cross-border 
projects, bottlenecks and missing-links. Share of EU funding allocated 
to such projects and number of 
realised cross-border projects. • TEN-T EA 
Ensuring conditionality of EU funding 
upon compliance with EU environmental legislation (SEA, EIA & Natura 2000) Absolute respect of no funding 
for projects not complying with EU Environmental • TEN-T EA 
Table 17: Monitoring indicators