No C 303/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 11. 85 
Opinion on the broad outlines of a medium-term transport infrastructure policy (communication 
from the Commission of the Council) 
(85/C 303/04) 
On 20 February 1985 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under the first paragraph of Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, on the broad outlines of a medium-term transport infrastructure policy 
(communication from the Commission to the Council). 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion at its 164th meeting on 11 September 1985, in 
the light of the oral report by the rapporteur, Mr Plank. 
At its 229th plenary session on 25 and 26 September 1985 (meeting of 25 September 1985) the 
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion unanimously: 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Economic and Social Committee would re-
emphasize the point made most recently in its opinion of 
September 1983 (*), namely that the launching of a 
common transport infrastructure policy in the Community 
is long overdue. The Committee consequently supports 
every initiative which furthers such a policy and would also 
refer to the chapter on 'infrastructure problems' in its 
opinion of 28 October 1982 on the 'transport policy of the 
European Community in the 1980s' (2). 
1.2. The Committee thus welcomes the presentation of 
the present document, the Commission's 'broad outlines of 
a medium-term transport infrastructure policy' whose aim 
is to establish a medium-term investment and financing 
programme in place of modest annual budgetary allo­
cations. The Committee has already expressed similar 
views in earlier opinions on infrastructure problems as well 
as in its recent opinion on the economic situation in the 
Community. It would nevertheless emphasize that, in 
addition to the adoption of guidelines: 
— a firm political will is required to realize such a 
programme, and 
— the Council and the Member States must be ready to 
participate effectively in the programme. 
1.3. The Committee expresses its views below on the 
objectives and conclusions of the Commission's communi­
cation as well as on financial aspects and a number of 
particular issues raised in connection with the document. It 
has, however, only general things to say about the annexes 
and does not go into a detailed analysis of, for example, the 
proposals on basic networks. 
2. Aims pursued in the development (expansion and/or 
improvement) of transport infrastructure in the Euro­
pean Community 
2.1. The principal aims in developing the transport 
infrastructure networks of the different modes of transport 
in the European Community are as follows: 
(!) OJ No C 341, 19. 12. 1983, p. 3. 
(2) OJ No C 326, 13. 12. 1982, p. 13. — reduction of the economic, social and environment-
related costs of transporting passengers and goods, and 
hence also an improvement in the productivity of 
transport firms, 
— maintenance and improvement of EEC firms' com­
petitiveness on the world market, especially in the light 
of the rising proportion of hi-tech research and 
development products, for whose manufacture the 
proximity of an international high-speed transport and 
communications network is of increasingly vital 
importance, 
— alignment of living conditions in the Community's less-
developed areas with those obtaining in the Com­
munity's highly-developed areas, particularly from the 
point of view of access to central facilities serving whole 
areas. 
2.2. The EEC transport infrastructure policy objectives 
actually listed by the Commission should be regarded as 
secondary objectives, i.e. instruments for achieving the 
general aims spelt out above. The Economic and Social 
Committee accordingly supports the Commission's 
demand that such aims be clearly spelt out. 
2.3. From the above the Commission draws a number of 
conclusions which are wholeheartedly approved by the 
Economic and Social Committee. 
3. Positive conclusions 
3.1. The Commission states that 'infrastructure objec­
tives must dovetail with the goal of the common transport 
policy and be consistent with the broad objectives of 
Community policy as a whole'. This means that the 
measures proposed by the Commission will have to be 
judged in the light of these general aims. 
3.2. The Commission notes further that there are some 
parts of the Community transport network 'where the 
overall level of service is patently inadequate'. It mentions 
in this context: 
25. 11. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 303/7 
— major transit routes for trade within the Community 
and representing a particular burden for the transit 
country, 
— land-sea links, 
— rail links between major urban centres providing a high 
level of service, 
— better integration of outlying connections. 
3.3. The Commission finally takes the view that, 
because the possibilities of part-financing transport 
infrastructure projects are necessarily limited: 
— financial resources should not be spread thinly over a 
large number of small, hastily-completed projects, but 
should be concentrated on a limited number of 
measures in the main Community network, 
— financial resources should be made available on a 
continuous basis, and 
— additional financial sources should be tapped. 
3.4. These Commission statements are in line with what 
the Economic and Social Committee has said in earlier 
opinions (i) and for this reason are fully supported by the 
Committee. The Committee would particularly stress the 
need to tap other financial resources so that an important 
contribution can be made to the task of ensuring that the 
Community's infrastructure policy objectives are achieved 
as soon as possible. 
4. Aspects ignored or insufficiently taken into account in 
the Commission's document 
4.1. The Committee consequently regrets that because 
of limited funds some of these objectives receive lower 
priority when the Commission actually moves on to the 
concrete task of presenting an infrastructure policy. This is 
particularly true of the following areas. 
0) OJ No C 138,9. 6. 1981, p. 61 (memorandum on the role of the 
Community in the development of transport infrastructure; 
report on bottlenecks); 
OJ No C 341, 19. 12. 1983, p. 3 (communication from the 
Commission to the Council on a transport infrastructure 
experimental programme); 
OJ No C 358, 31. 12. 1983, p. 7 (proposal for a Council 
Regulation on financial support for a multiannual transport 
infrastructure programme). 4.2. The Commission proposes three networks of 
Community interest — a rail network, a road network and 
an inland waterways network (Annexes 1 to 4). Since 
parallel routes in and between the various networks 
influence one another, the designated links should be seen 
as wide corridors, not specific routes. 
4.3. As far as the road network is concerned, 'in 
principle only the direct links between capitals and cities of 
over 500 000 inhabitants have been included' (Annex 1). 
Thus, the better integration of outlying connections will 
not be achieved. In its opinion of 28 September 1983 (2) on 
the communication from the Commission to the Council 
on a transport infrastructure experimental programme, the 
Committee attached crucial importance to the inclusion in 
the programme of measures 'to improve the structure and 
level of development of less-developed regions' since 
transport infrastructure projects of this kind 'are capable of 
giving a considerable boost to these areas' structural 
development and may thus help to relieve congestion in 
conurbations, too'. The Economic and Social Committee 
therefore strongly urges the Commission to (a) consider 
such links when it revises the draft transport networks of 
Community interest and (b) to drop its rule limiting links to 
between towns of over 500 000 inhabitants. 
4.4. The ESC would point out in this connection that the 
inclusion of a link in the basic network does not mean that 
Community investments will be needed for all sections of 
the network. Expanding the basic network does not 
therefore imply that funds will have to be spread around 
more thinly. The ESC also considers that if the Regional 
Fund and integrated Mediterranean programmes (IMPs) 
are used to part-finance routes serving to secure the 
integration of less-developed regions, it will be necessary to 
apply the same principles and evaluation procedures as 
apply when projects are part-financed on the basis of these 
'broad outlines'. 
4.5. The ESC considers that the real impact of the 
Commission's proposals will depend basically on how the 
implementation programme is coordinated and balanced 
between the three modes of inland transport. Proper 
coordination and balance is essential in order to promote 
the development of the European economy and meet the 
needs of the entire Community. The ESC also takes the 
view that this programme must not aggravate overcapacity 
in the transport sector by creating new infrastructures 
parallel to existing networks. 
4.6. With regard to 'harbours and airports whose 
inadequate capacity is detrimental to the development of 
Community traffic', the Commission merely announces 
that it intends to study with the Member States how these 
harbours and airports can be selected for inclusion. In its 
opinion on the experimental programme, the Economic 
and Social Committee had already strongly emphasized the 
great importance of including projects from the following 
sectors: sea transport, maritime ports, air transport, 
(2) OJ No C 341, 19. 12. 1983, p. 3. 
No C 303/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 11. 85 
airports, and access routes to harbours and airports. It 
therefore urges the Commission to complete its preliminary 
work in this field and propose measures of Community 
interest. In the view of the ESC the links between Italy 
(Trieste, Bari) and Greece deserve to receive particular 
attention. 
4.7. The Economic and Social Committee would like to 
see a proper balance between modes of transport when the 
Community's transport infrastructure is developed. There 
must be no undesirable 'artificial' shift of traffic from one 
mode to another as a result of bottlenecks or overcapacity 
in one or other of the infrastructure networks. 
4.8. With regard to the procedure for selecting projects 
eligible for Community aid, the Commission initially 
proposes only three main criteria, namely: 
— direct economic profitability, 
— Community interest in the strict sense, and 
— consistency of the project with measures taken or 
envisaged on a Community scale. 
4.9. Although these criteria are undoubtedly important 
for project selection, they nevertheless represent too 
narrow a basis, especially in view of the factors bearing on 
assessment given by the Commission itself. This is 
evidently recognized by the Commission when it states that 
projects should also be scrutinized 'in the light of the 
objectives of the common transport policy'. How this is to 
be done, however, is not stated. 
4.10. One criterion which should certainly be included is 
'the importance of a project for the development of 
outlying areas'. The Economic and Social Committee 
would also refer in this connection to its 'questionnaire 
concerning the Community interest of selected transport 
infrastructure projects in the Community', attached to the 
opinion on the experimental programme. In particular it 
believes that the following factors must be duly taken into 
consideration in making any assessment: 
— repercussions on traffic safety, 
— general economic, sectoral and regional repercussions, 
particularly in the field of employment, 
— environmental repercussions, 
— repercussions on energy consumption, and 
— repercussions on living and working conditions and job-
creating projects. 
In the view of the Economic and Social Committee there is 
no doubt at all that public opinion would be totally out of 
sympathy with any move to make project eligibility 
dependent solely on the three main criteria listed earlier 
without any regard for the factors mentioned above. 4.11. We must not overlook the importance of the need 
to ensure that systems of charging for the use of 
infrastructure keep in step with infrastructure investments. 
An unsuitable system may lead to an economically 
inefficient choice of transport mode and route, particularly 
in international transport. Before decisions are taken on 
large-scale infrastructure projects, an investigation should 
therefore be carried out into whether the system of charging 
for the use of infrastructure establishes suitable conditions 
for a transport decision, or whether the system should not 
perhaps be altered. 
4.12. The Economic and Social Committee has the 
following comments to make on the procedure for 
evaluating the Community interest of transport infrastruc­
ture projects (COM(84) 709 final, Annex 7): 
— The information given in Annex 7 does not permit a full 
and proper assessment of TASC's value for evaluating 
projects. It would appear, however, that TASC at the 
present time is used as an instrument for assembling 
data on infrastructure projects, in other words provid­
ing a 'quantitative framework' for the assessment 
process. 
— The comparative assessment of projects also requires an 
'evaluative framework' and rules governing the amalga­
mation of quantitative and qualitative data. These can, 
however, be laid down only on the basis of Community-
policy criteria, as has already been pointed out by the 
Section for Transport and Communications in its report 
on the communication from the Commission to the 
Council on a transport infrastructure experimental 
programme. It is not clear from Annex 7 whether such 
aspects are taken into consideration in TASC. 
— The Economic and Social Committee wholeheartedly 
welcomes the Commission's intention to develop and 
expand TASC, notably by developing the multi-criteria 
analyzer programme. This intention accords with the 
request made by the Economic and Social Committee in 
its abovementioned opinion. 
5. Particular questions partly taken into consideration and 
partly ignored by the Commission's document 
5.1. The Economic and Social Committee shares the 
Commission's view that rail links providing a high level of 
service should be set up between major urban centres in the 
Community. In its proposed studies the Commission 
should aim to shed light on the obstacles hindering the 
creation of such links, particularly where international 
routes and densely populated areas are concerned, and 
should examine ways in which such obstacles could be 
overcome. 
5.2. In its abovementioned opinion the Economic and 
Social Committee referred to the particular importance of 
interchanges and the related transhipment capacity. This 
aspect deserves to receive proper attention in the Commis­
sion document. 
25. 11. 85 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 303/9 
5.3. The Economic and Social Committee also believes 
that the Commission document should pay particular 
attention to whether the infrastructure measures are 
suitable from the point of view of improving the conditions 
for combined transport. Of special importance here is the 
building of freight terminals and the adjustment of bridge 
and tunnel clearances. 
5.4. The Economic and Social Committee also wonders 
whether communication networks, particularly those 
involving the new communications technologies, can 
continue to be left out of the infrastructure investment 
programme — especially since such networks are becoming 
increasingly important in the field of transport and in hi-
tech research and development sectors, which are emerging 
more and more as the locomotives of economic develop­
ment. The Economic and Social Committee urges the 
Commission to study this question which, in the medium 
term, is vital for the EEC economy's international 
competitiveness (cf. also point 1 above). Such studies 
should at least go into the question of finding ways and 
means of improving the efficiency of the transport system. 
5.5. The recent decision to expand the Community 
south-westwards makes it necessary to examine measures 
of Community interest in that area and look at ways of 
bringing Spain and Portugal into the basic transport 
networks. 
6. Financial aspects 
6.1. Generally speaking the Economic and Social 
Committee agrees with the Commission's comments on 
financing. It is particularly pleased with the Commission's 
assumption that Community aid can now cover 25 % of a 
project's cost and no longer has to be limited to 20 %, as 
stipulated in the experimental programme. 
6.2. At the same time the Economic and Social 
Committee would reiterate its view that the Community's 
financial contribution should 'vary in the light of the 
Community interest of the project concerned'. The 
principle of laying down a ceiling (now up to 25 %) should 
therefore be reconsidered. 
6.3. As far as the problem of raising sufficient funds is 
concerned, the Economic and Social Committee agrees 
with the Commission that 'loans are the most obvious and 
foremost method of financing'. The possibility of raising 
loans in ECU should also be investigated. The Economic 
Done at Brussels, 25 September 1985. and Social Committee also calls on the Commission once 
more 'to give consideration to the possibility of establishing 
a special fund financed from national charges for the use of 
infrastructure' in order to effectively complement the other 
sources of finance listed by the Commission. 
6.4. The criteria used in drawing up a financial 
programme (Annex 10) are unsatisfactory: 
— Due regard should be paid not only to the length of the 
Community network in the country concerned, but also 
to the extent to which the network and its various parts 
are used. 
— The 'quality of the existing network' must be assessed in 
the light of the quality of the individual sections of the 
network. 
— Annex 10 contains no data at all on the 'ability of the 
country concerned to finance the work'. 
6.5. A three-point scale (A to C) is much too crude an 
assessment grid. There are even doubts as to whether 
Annex 10 will prove to be of any practical importance for 
the purpose of drawing up a financial programme. 
7. Conclusions 
7.1. Whilst regretting that the present infrastructure 
policy is limited and does not include other worthwhile 
objectives of the overall transport policy, the Committee 
affirms its support for the first priority so that tangible 
progress can be made on the main Community networks. 
7.2. Whilst the Committee has suggested further factors 
which should be taken into account in evaluating projects, 
the application of TASC should not be allowed to become 
so excessively detailed — particularly in the field of less 
quantifiable factors — that the period of analysis has to be 
extended and physical progress is seriously delayed. 
7.3. The ESC also assumes, as it has done in previous 
opinions (CES 844/83, point 2.2.4; CES 973/83, point 
3.4.3), that it will be able to play an appropriate role in the 
drawing-up of a list of transport infrastructure projects 
qualifying for Community aid. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR