ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(79)550
Vol.1979/0189

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement(CEE,Euratom)n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernantl'ouvertureaupublicdesarchiveshistoriquesdelaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement(CE,Euratom)n°1700/2003du22septembre2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003,p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance withCouncilRegulation(EEC,Euratom)No354/83of1February1983
concerningtheopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropeanEconomic
Community andtheEuropeanAtomicEnergyCommunity (OJL43,15.2.1983,p.1),as
amendedbyRegulation(EC,Euratom)No1700/2003of22September2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003,p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary,classifieddocuments inthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformitywithArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung(EWG,Euratom)Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar1983überdieFreigabederhistorischen ArchivederEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung (EG,Euratom)Nr.1700/2003vom22.September2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003,S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeit zugänglich.Soweit
erforderlich,wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenanntenVerordnungfreigegeben.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(79)550 final
Brussels .14november 1979
THE ROLE OFTHE COMMUNITY INTHE
DEVELOPMENT OFTRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
(Mémorandum ofthe Commission )
C0M(79 )550final

INTRODUCTION
1. Nearly twenty years have now been spent ondeveloping
the Co ,Timon Transport Polir.y . ,
Sofar the results obtained doless than justice tothe
efforts that have been made and tothe obvious need forprogress
inthis field ,which wasexplicitly cited inthe Treaty of Rome
asessential tothe success ofthe Common Market ,toeconomic
growth and tothe unity ofthe peoples ofEurope .
2.. The improvement oftransport constitutes -together with the
suppression ofcustoms duties and quotas which has already been
achieved -one ofthe principal means ofremoving thebarriers to
trade between Member States .Ineconomic terms ,transport iscompar
able inimportance with major sectors such asagriculture and steel
Inall,itaccounts for :
-6%ofthe Community 'sgross national product
i.e. more than agriculture ,
-15 %oftotal capital investment ,
-nearly AO %ofcapital -^vestment inthe public sector .
Hencp tiie importance whicr ,the authors ofthe Treaty of RO".P
gave tothe achievement of aCommon Transport Policy.

2
\
3. Sofar.the Common Transport Policy has mainly concentrated..... ,. . 1onthe activities oftransport operators ,both private and public *
Theobjective has been totree these operations asfar aspossible
from restrictive regulations ,tosuppress unfair discriminat ion,
toallow free competition ,and only tocreate Community rules where
the proper functioning ofthe transport market makes these absolutely
necessary .
/
This objective isstill far from being achieved but,little by
little ,progress isbeing made .
4. The Commission isconvinced that itisineveryone 'sinterest
toallow transport operators freedom ofoperation ,while promoting ^
inthis field aselsewhere ,good working conditions and high
standards ofsafety .This has been our constant approach indeveloping
the .rules ofthe Common Transport Policy .
Theobjectives oftransport infrastructure policy aredifferent .
Infrastructure shapes the form oftransport activities ;itssignifi­
cance can only grow asthe part itplays inthe broad economic arid
social framework isrecognised .
Transport infrastructure isdirectly dependent onpublic
authorities ,who assume responsibility for construction ,upkeep
and for the necessary funding .
Communication tothe Council of24th October ^1973,C0MC73 )1725 final
Communication tothe Council of30th June,1976,C0M(76 )336 final

-3-
5. The Commission has arrived atthe conclusion that the Common
Transport Policy will not achieve the objectives defined foritin
the Treaty and play its part inthe economy asa4rjhole unless it
i >
relates more and more totransport infrastructure .The reasons for
this new impetus ^which originates largely inrecent economic
developments ,areclear .The following important points can benoted :-
-internat ional traffic between Member States has developed
faster than national traffic ;onsome-major links itplays a
significant role inthe formation ofbottlenecks ,
-the growing interdependence ofnetworks makes itinconceivable
toconsider one state as :anisolated planning entity , .'
infrastructure will play acrucial role infuture transport
operations ,
-the increased difficulties faced bythe national -admini strat ions
with the financing ofinfrastructure projects which ,insome
cases ,'can justify action atthe Community level .
Furthermore ,aconsiderable degree ofoverlapping exists ,notably
inthefield ofinfrastructure ,between the transport -sector and the
other sectors ofthe economy .This isparticularly true at.this time
when energy problems are likely tohave a.direct effect onthe con­
ditions ofdevelopment oftransport .Another example isnew industrial
activities .Their much needed development isless tied than inthe past
totraditional geographic locations ,and hence likely togive rise
tolarge new demands for infrastructure investment .

Ingeneral ,over and above thefield oftransport planning ,
infrastructure decisions have consequences oneconomic ,social and
regional development ,which must also betaken into account .An
approach which combines the various criteria isneeded toappreciate
the Communities role .
6.Infrastructures which areessentially theresponsibility ofthe
public sector ,and have adecisive effort onthe future oftransport ,
areparticularly appropriate forjoint planning and application of
aCommon Policy .
However ,the preparation and definition ofsuch apolicy presents
many complex problems which differ from those which have been
encountered sofar inthe context ofthe Common Transport Policy .
The Commission isfully aware ofthe scope ofthe undertaking
and isconvinced that infrastructure isanessential element ofthe
Common Transport Policy ;ithas decided toput forward its views
inorder tostimulate thought and discussion among all interested
groups :Members ofParliament ,public authorities ,transport
operators ,users ,the construction industry and trade unionists .
7. This isthe aimofthe paper .Having outlined the reasons which ,
inthe Commission 'sview,justify and require Community action in
this field ,the Commission puts forward ideas astothe form this
action could take andthe concrete results that might beachieved ,
onthe lines ofwhat has already been proposed and undertaken .

THENEEDFORACOMMUNITY POLICYFORTRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
8.Uptonow,transportinfrastructures havebeenconsidered as
essentially anationalquestion.Governments havegenerallypaid
closeattentiontoinfrastructure development andhavegivenita
prominentplaceintheireconomicplanning,particularly overthe
past20years.
9.Inthefaceoftheincreasingtrafficassociated witheconomic
growth,majornationalprogrammes havebeeninstitued :motorway
networks,highspeedrailroutes/improvedinlandwaterways and
aconsiderable networkofpipelines.
Sincethe1960s,thegrowthoftrafficbetweenMemberStateshas
beenfarmorerapidthanthegrowthofdomestictraffic.Inthelast
decadethevolumeofintra-Community traffichasincreasedtwiceas
quicklyasthevolumeofpurelynationaltraffic.Intra-Community
trafficislikelytocontinuetoincreasefasterthannationaltraffic
ascanbeseenfromtheforecasts inAnnexI.
10.Butwhenweexaminethepresentinfrastructure networkasawhol«
alongwiththepoliciespursuedatnationallevel,somesignificant
pointsemerge: ?

-6-
-generallyspeaking,theexistingnetworksare,conceived and
executedinaccordance withnationalobjectives .Withsome
exceptions,theimprovement oflinksbetweenneighbouring
countries hasnotreceivedsufficient attention .
-Thelinkbetweenthedevelopment ofnationalnetworksandthe
transportpoliciesoftheMemberStatesis,notalways
evident.Itseemsthatnationalinfrastructure programmes are
sometimesprimarilydetermined byconsiderations otherthan
thoseoftransportpolicy.Itisasignificant factthat,in
someMemberStates,theresponsibility foratleastpartof
infrastructure development andforoveralltransportpolicy
hasbeenandsometimes remainsdividedbetweendifferent
Government departments .
-Inthelastdecades,successivepriorities,differingfrom
oneMemberStatetoanother,havebeengiventotheinfra­
structureofthevarioustransport modes.Takingaglobaland
rathersimplified viewadisproportionate priorityhasbeen
giventothedevelopment ofroadsandmotorways.
-Thebasisonwhichnationalprogrammes areestablished,their
motivation,thecriteriaonwhichchoicesarebrsedvarywidely
betweenandsometimesevenwithinMemberStates;themethods
andprocedures usedarealsodifferent.Consequentlyitis
clearthat,whiletheinfrastructure networksoftheMember
Statesareonthewholereasonablysatisfactory ,thereis
certainly someduplication ofeffortandsomeinadequacies .
11.Withtheincreasing economicintegration oftheCommunity some
oftheseproblemshaveassumedanewdimension,whilequitenew
problemshavebeencreated.

The spectacular increase intrade between Member States
has put anend tothe often secondary character ofcross-f ront ier ~
routes .Newtrafic flows have made their impact andthere isevery
reason toassume that they will continue toexpand ,while still
more new flows will develop .Little bylittle ,thenational
economies areacquiring aCommunity -dimension that canonly become more
significant .Atarough estimate itappears that ifexisting
economic difficulties donot multiply ,the demand fortransport
could double between now and the year 2000 .Torespond effectively
tothis increased demand ,aCommunity infrastructure network will
have tobedeveloped ,based ,ofcourse ,onthe existing national
networks ,but specifically designed tomeet the increased demands
ofintr a-Community movement .Responsibility forthis new approach
clearly lies with the Community asawhole .
12. Thus,Community interest will beadded tothe national criteria
which have,uptonow,quite legitimately guided infrastructure
programmes .Where transport infrastructures are concerned /itrarely
happens that these interests are contradictory ;but they may lead
toconflicting decisions onroutes ,design andespecially onpriorities
Without attempting acomprehensive analysis atthis point one can see
that acost-benefit assessment ,the normal basis for economic and
financial evaluations ,cangive one setofresults when calculating
only the benefits tothe country which undertakes the development ,
but adifferent set when the interests ofaneighbouring country or
ofanyother countries are included .Itshould "also benoted that,

-8-
assoon asatransport infrastructure project reaches acertain
tevel ofimportance ,itisLikely tohave repercussions ontraffic
throughout the whole Community network .Thus the Community interest
insuch major projects will have tobetaken into account and
may even insome cases bedecisive .Afurther discussion ofthis
concept ofCommunity interest can befound inAnnex II.
13. Inthis new situation where thepositive consequences for the
other Member States should betaken into account together with the
project 'scosts -borne byone member ,itisessential tohave as
precise anestimate aspossible ofthe Community interest ofaproject .
Acase bycase estimate ofCommunity interest will,onthe one
hand, provide anindispensable Community view ofnational decisions ,
notably onthe choice ofpriorities ,and,onthe other hand,
provide abetter linkage between national financing andpossible
Community support forprojects .
14. The Common Transport Policy weare seeking tobuild inaccordance
with the intentions ofthe Treaty ofRome must give aproper place to
infrastructures .Inevery aspect ofthepolicy -access tothe market ,
transport costs ,technical andsafety regulations ,working conditions ,
transport systems -the measures adopted must take account ofthe
present state ofour network ofcommunications andofplans for ,
improvement .Likewise ,plans fordeveloping infrastructure must be
fully co-ordinated with plans fortheprovision oftransport services .

-9-
These ire-flections point tothe conclusion that the Community
must now prsoare a -medium and long term policy f0rtransport
-infrastructure :this policy will take special account ofthe
effects that transport infrastructure investment has onsectors
other than transport .
II. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IN RELATION TO OTHER SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY
15. Ithas long been recognized that major routes not only influence
the flow oftraffic ,but also ,through the choice ofline,their
construction and use have both economic and social consequences .These
consequences are somany and various that itwould bedangerous to
pretend toexplore them here,even superficially .But assoon asit
comes tothe planning and execution ofactual projects ,the public
interest demands that all these associated factors ,however apparently
remote ,should beconsidered inaddition tothose factors stemming
more directly from transport itself .Ofcourse /many ofthese factors
present problems ofmeasurement and quantification which make itdif­
ficult toweigh them accurately inconventional calculations and
studies ,butdifficult though itmay be,this problem cannot beover­
looked . '
16. Transport infrastructures often involve investments which make
major demands onfinancial resources .One need only think ofthe

-10-
construction cost ofamotorway oranairport ,the modernization
ofarailway ,orthe building ofamajor canal .Public finance is
normally involved ,though States will sometimes draw also onthe
resources oftheprivate capital markets .Consequently ,investments
intransport infrastructure are bound tofigure prominently inthe
general economic ,financial and budgetary policies ofMember States .
Themultiplier effects onthe industries involved and,through them ,
onemployment generally ,have tobecarefully considered .
Ingeneral the development oftransport infrastructure inthe
Community has special importance today duetoitspossible reper­
cussions onthe economy ;this isespecially the case forthe Community 's
current attempt tore-establish asatisfactory level ofgrowth ,
designed tofacilitate both the sectoral adjustments needed toface
uptothe new international situation and toreduce unemployment .
With this inmind the Commission has already stressed the importance
ofstimulating both public andprivate investment inanumber of
documents sent tothe Council .Inthis context the development of
transport infrastructure can constitute animportant contribution to
therealisation ofthe objectives ofthe Community 'seconomic policy .
17. Adynamic and coherent policy inthe field oftransport infra­
structure can only have afavourable influence onthedirection and
growth ofthe industrial sectors concerned .
V V

-11-
The increased demand generated by apolicy for the
*
development oftransport infrastructure concerns both the construc­
tion and equipment sectors aswell asthat oftransport vehicles
which between them represent between 3-4%ofthe Community 's
gross domestic product .Taking into account the correlation between
the development oftransport infrastructure and t-he expansion of
demand inthese branches ,the establishment offorecasts ofmedium
and long term growth implies ,inorder tocreate apoint ofreference ,
aknowledge ofthe various options which could beopen atthe level
ofthe development ofinfrastructure policy .This must becoherent
and developed from the viewpoint ofall modes oftransport .
•Acoherent policy for the devei nent oftransport infra­
structure can also beanimportant stimulating factor fortechnologica
innovation .The level ofservice demanded from major infrastructures
has tobetaken into account (e.g. inrelation totheinstallation ■
and equipment ofairports ,high-speed international transport links ,
orbridges andtunnels ).Tomeet these needs can require the develop­
ment ofnew technologies inthe industrial branches concerned and
must therefore beamotive force for technological progress inthese
industries . ■
18. Theinception ofaCommunity policy forinfrastructure has
aparticular importance forfrontier regions .For along time,
these regions have been disadvantaged bytheexistence ofnational
frontiers :they should bethefirst tobenefit from .theelimination
ofthese frontiers aseconomic barriers .

-12-
Many ofthem have moreover suffered from local shortcomings of
infrastructure which should also beremedied .Inthese regions ,
therefore ,infrastructure policy should have two objectives :the
provision ofbetter -connect ions between nearby regions in
adjoining Member States ,and the improvement ofthe cross-frontier
sections ofmajor Community routes .
19. Ithas often been pointed out that the Community could be
gravely disturbed bythe centralizing forces ofthe Common Market
tending toconcentrate economic activity and wealth inregions already
well-favoured and situated close tothe centre ofthe Community .This
can cause the gradual impoverishment ofless well equipped peri­
pheral regions handicapped bydistance .Regional policy exists to
redress the balance anddistribute productive activity more evenly
over theterritory ofthe Community .Anessential condition for
the success ofthis policy isthe development oftransport infra­
structure .Onthe one hand,the less favoured regions must have an
internal network ofcommunications appropriate totheir present and
future needs .Onthe other hand,they must beopened upand linked
tothe main centres inthe Community byrapid modern routes toreduce ,
asfar aspossible ,the handicap ofdistance .
20. Theeffects ofgood infrastructure are not exclusively economic .
Itcontributes tosocial well being and toasteady improvement of
living standards and working conditions .One ofthe essential conditionot exclusively economic ,
steady improvement of
ofthe essential conditions

for the achievement ofthese objectives lies inthe coordination of
investment intransport infrastructure with other .economic and social
investments which generate economic growth .Itisinthis context
that the problem ofopening upless favoured regions bytheprovision
ofbetter links with major Community centres should beconsidered ,
21. However ,theeffects ofinfrastructure are not always beneficial .
Their dievelopment has aprofound and sometimes negative effect onthe
socio-economic structure ,and onthe environment ofthe regions which
they cross .People arerightly becoming more and more conscious of
the indirect effects ofthe development oftransport infrastructure .
The Community hasinitiated apolicy for environmental protection
which isjust getting underway but will grow inimportance inthe
future .
Itwill beindispensable tocarry out attheearliest stage in
the planning process astudy ofthe environmental effects inorder to
introduce secondary effects into the cost /benefit evaluations of
projects .
22.Infrastructure policy isclosely linked with the options open
tothe Community inenergy policy .Transport consumes about 14 %of
total inland energy consumption and 24 %ofpetroleum products in
the Community .
* v
Inview ofthe constraints onthe quantity andprice ofenergy
supplies inthe Community itisimportant that Community 'infrastructure
policy takes proper account ofenergy factors .

-14-
With this objective inmind attention could bedirected to
land-use planning .
\
Inthe last 30years spatial constraints onthe location of
housing and economic activities have become increasingly less
important asthe use ofcars has made people more mobile .Thebenefits
arising from this development have been considerable both inenabling
more efficient organisation ofproduction anddistribution and in
giving people the opportunity toenjoy much greater living space .On
the other hand,these changes have also resulted in'enforced mobility'
which works tothe disadvantage ofthose who donot own acar.Further­
more,the continuation ofthis trend will exacerbate problems ofland
and fuel supply .
Inthe future those responsible for land-use planning will have
totake more account ofthese problems notably inconnection with the
reduction oftravelling distances between home and workplace ,schools
and other facilities *
i
Due importance must beaccorded tothedifferences inthe
energy consumption ofthedifferent modes oftransport ,even though
energy isnotthe only element inthetotal cost oftransport .Labour ,
maintenance and renewal ofvehicles ,equipment andinfrastructure ,
storage costs andjourney time are important also .Hence itisnot
easy tosaywhether measures designed toinfluence thedistribution
oftraffic between modes oftransport arejustified .Itcan however
beargued that,inview ofthepressing constraints onthe Community 's
energy supplies ,the market price ofoilproducts does notreflect
their *full value inthe long term . .

Ifthis isso,itwould seem that market forces left tothemselves
will not result inthe ideal modal distribution .This raises the
question ofadjusting thetransport market soastofavour energy
saving modes . , -
This isanimportant consideration forinfrastructure planning ,
not only because future infrastructure needs will beaffected bysuch
considerations ,but also because the quality ,ofthe available infra­
structure for each mode plays arole indetermining the choices made
bytransport users .
23. The Community isinvolved inall the main areas ofpolicy which
have been briefly touched onabove .Action ontransport infra­
structures must clearly not only take account ofthese policies but
must also bedeveloped inharmony with them .Whether itbegeneral
economic policy ,financial ,industrial and regional policy ,land-use
planning ,agricultural ,social ,employment orenvironmental policy ,
there will belinks with policy ontransport infrastructures .
24. Moreover ,itisclear that ,anaction ofsuch wide scope will
play animportant part inrelation tothe enlargement ofthe Community
toinclude Greece ,Spain and Portugal .Itwill benecessary toensure
that the action makes anefficient contribution tothe economic and
social integration ofthese countries inthe Community .

-16-
III .ACTION PROGRAMME
χ
25.From theoutset ,some fundamental ideas must beborne inmind :
-Community actbn can innowaysupplant action bytheMember States ,
which will continue totake first place inthemaintenance and
development oftransport infrastructures .TheaimofCommunity action
will betocoordinate andorientate national actions 'insuch away
that the national networks asawhole can meet the future needs of
Community traffic asthey arise .Anychanges that might beneeded -
innational programmes will bebased onthe application ofthe
concept ofCommunity interest .
-Thepolicy must be .placed inalong-term perspective where
ambition andrealism gohand inhand .
-Common sense andawareness ofthepractical possibilities must
always act asaguide inthechoice ofconcrete solutions but a
range ofproven methods ofeconomic andtechnical analysis must
also beavailable tothose who have toprepare these decisions .
«
-Community action will only affect links which areconsidered tobe
ofCommunity interest ,that istosay,thelinks whose creation ..
orimprovement would belikely toaidthedevelopment ofthe
Community .

-Theproposedprogrammeofactionmainlyconcernsroad,rail
andwaterwayinfrastructure .Giventheinterrelationship between
allmodesoftransport,someaspectsoftheroleofportsand
airportsmustalsobetakenintoaccountinthisprogramme.
Inparticular,specialimportance shouldbeattachedtothe
development ofportswhichplayanessentialroleinCommunity
traffic.Questionsrelatingtourbanandshort-distance transport
arenotconsidered atthisstageofthediscussion astheyare
robablybetterdealtwithattheregionallevel.
A.FIRSTSTEPS
26.Thefirstmeasurestakenweretheresultofjointeffort'sby
theCommunityinstitutions ,theEuropeanParliament,theEconomic
andSocialCommittee,theCouncilandtheCommission .They
demonstrate therealinterestthatthisquestionarouses.
27.Forecasting
./
Thelife-spanofinfrastructures makesitnecessaryto
forecasttransport needsonarelatively longtermbasis.The
temporary "natureoftheseforecasts andthecontinual needto
updatethemdonotdiminishtheirimportance .
ForthesereasonstheCommunitytookpart,between1973and
1976,inastudyofpassengertransportneedsbetweenthemajor
conurbations ofEurope(StudyCOST33).

-18-
The study ,undertaken with other European countries ,aimed
toestimate supply and demand ininterurban passenger transport
for the horizons 1985 and 2000 .
In1977,the Commission ,with the help ofMember States ,
also undertook aforecast ofgoods transport needs forthe same
horizons ,1985 and 2000 .Thefirst stage ofthis study hasjust
been completed and theresults already obtained are very encouraging .
Models were constructed enabling predictions tobemade ofthe
consequences for inter-regional traffic ,and for the division between
modes ,ofvariations inthe economy (scenario )orintransport
policy (strategy ).
The second phase ofthe study ,intended toaggregate the
passenger and freight forecasts which have been described ,is
underway .Thethird phase will start in1980 and will consist of
anassignment ,orallocation ,ofthetraffic flows between regions
tothe network ofmajor Community routes .
28. Other studies
Theother studies can begrouped under the following themes :
Studies of_i infrastructure cagacity _
This type ofstudy aims todetect weak points inthe network
where ,particularly following the growth ofinternational
traffic ,difficult traffic conditions may appear .Astudy is
inprogress todetermine the conditions under which bottlenecks
appear .

-19-
Studies to_evaluate Community jnterest _
These studies draw upon the work noted above and are evidently
essential for assessing priorities andjustifying financial
intervention t>ythe Community .
The Commission requested consultants tostudy methods ?nd
measures todetermine Community interest inmajor infra­
structure projects and toexamine asapractical example the
various possibilities for afixed link across the Channel .
Almost all ofthese studies have been started very recently ,:
thanks tothe European Parliament ,which fully appreciated
their importance and ensured that special provision was made
forthis purpose inthe 1978 budget .
\
29. Community measures
Inparallel with the work onthese studies ,the Commission
presented two proposals tothe Council :
-toimprove the consultation procedure instituted in1966 andto
set upaCommittee ontransport infrastructure ;
-toprovide for Community financial support forcertain major
transport infrastructure projects .
These two proposals were favourably received bythe Economic
and Social Committee and the European Parliament .

-20-
In1978,theCounciladoptedthefirstproposal,which
1becamethedecisionof20.02.1978 settingupaconsultation
procedure.
Thisdecisionisextremelyimportant,becauseofits
politicalimplications anditscontent.
Fromthepoliticalpointofview,itdemonstrates that,
liketheCommission,theCouncilisconvincedthatactioninthe
transportinfrastructure fieldmustfromnowonoccupyanimportant
placeinthedevelopment oftheCommonTransportPolicy.
Thisimportanceisunderlined bythemeasuresadopted.It
wasdecidedthat:_•
-MemberStateswillcommunicate totheCommissiontheirprojects
andprogrammes forthedevelopment oftansportinfrastructure .
Theprojects maybethesubjectofconsultation ,examination and
discussion withrepresentatives ofotherMemberStates;
-ACommittee onTransportInfrastructure isestablished within
theCommunity.Itconsistsofrepresentatives ofMemberStates
andhasthewidestpossibletermsofreference.Asitsmaintask,
itistoexamineeveryaspectofthecommunications networkof
interesttotheCommunity.Furthermore,thedecisioncontains
ageneraldefinitionoftheideaofCommunityinterest.
TheCommittee hasbeensetupandhasstarteditswork.The
standingandexperienceofitsmemberstestifytotheimportance
theMemberStatesattachtoit.
10JL54of29.2.1978,p.16/17
\

-21-
The Commission isconvinced that this Committee will become , ■ .
anessential instrument for the future tasks tobeundertaken .
B. FUTURE PROGRAMME
30. The achievement represented bythese first results diould not
beunderestimated .They indicate awill toadvance along the line
already traced out.Nevertheless the major tasks await definition
and realisation . :
31. Interms oflegislation ,the next step will bethe adoption by
the Council ofthe proposed regulation onfinancial support for
infrastructure projects ofCommunity interest .
Ithas been clearly demonstrated that,inrelation to
infrastructure the identification ofCommunity interest can be
auseful aid fcr national decision making .Realisation ofcertain
large projects which always represent aheavy financial burden for
the State onwhose territory they are located ,can have ahigher
economic oriority atCommunity level than atnational level .It
would oeappropriate that the Community assists the State concerned
insucr circumstances .
reisconsidered logical that the Community should give financial
assistance for the implementation ofitspolicies -inareas such >as
agriculture ,regional development and employment .There can beno
reason whytransport should beanexception tothis rule when infra­
structure improvement isacondition fortheeffective functioning
oftransport Inthe Community both now and inthe future .

-22-
Financial aid from the Community will assist the execution of :
-projects tobeundertaken intheterritory ofaMember State or
another country which will allow abottleneck affecting Community
traffic toberemoved ,
-cross-frontier projects which donot have sufficient priority at
national level tobeincluded inthe national budgets but which
are very important tothe Community due tothe stimulation they could
bring tothe development ofeconomic links between regions situated
oneither side offrontiers ,
-projects which donot have sufficient priority atthe national
level tobeincluded ineven the long term programme but which have
greater importance from the Community viewpoint ifspecific Community
objectives are taken into consideration , '
-projects which facilitate the standardisation ofequipment and the
co-ordination ofwork onthe Community network and which would also
increase theprofitability ofcomplementary infrastructure situated
inother Member States .
32. The proposed financial instrument fortransport infrastructure
projects will complement theexisting instruments which can beused
tofurther the development oftransport infrastructure .These

-23-
instruments are loans ofthe European Investment Bank (EIB),the
i\ietoCommunity Instrument (NCI),bywhich the Commission isenabled
tocontract loans tofinance investment inindustry ,energy and
infrastructure ,the Regional Development Fund (ERDF),and the system
Vofinterest rebates available tocertain states participating inthe
European Monetary System (EMS).
Annex III provides anoverall view ofthe instruments which
enable the Community togive financial aid toinfrastructure projects
ofCommunity interest .
y
Notwithstanding thepossibilities ofthe instruments mentioned
above ,itisclear that the creation ofaspecific mechanism can be
justified byanumber ofarguments :
1. The special criteria used for the existing instruments -regional
development ,economic growth -limit their possible applications in
thefield oftransport infrastructure ,especially inthe context of
establishing acoherent Community network .
2. Two instruments ,ERDF andthe EMSinterest rebate programme
are subject togeographical limits ,
3. Subsidies can only beprovided bythe Regional Development Fund ;
interest rate reductions associated with the entry into force ofthe
European Monetary System can only beapplied toloans granted bythe
Eurc^an investment Bank andthe New Community Instrument for
projpr ?:?inthe least prosperous members ofthe Community .
4. The EIB and MCIonly grant loans under theprevalent conditions
ofthe capital markets .

-24-
These limitations indicate the need for aninstrument specifically
designed tomeet the requirements ofinfrastructure policy .
Clearly the useofthe proposed instrument will beclosely
linked tothe existing Community financial instruments inorder that
they can beused tomaximum effect incoordination with national
action ,which inany event will continue toplay the primary role .
33. The system proposed bythe Commission isadapted tothe
particular requirements towhich Community action inrelation to
1transport infrastructure gives rise .
-Only projects ofevident and accepted Community interest will be
eligible .'
-The assistance offered will betailored tothe needs ofeach
project accepted for aid.
-The initiative will rest inthe hands ofthe Member States which
submit projects . 1
-Theroles ofthe Commission ,Parliament and Council will besuch
astonecessitate close collaboration between those three
Institutions .
-The intervention ofthe Infrastructure Committee will provide an
additional guarantee ofbalanced and valid project selection .
1
cf.Communication tothe Council 30.6.1976 -C0M(76 )336 final

-25-
"Itwill notbenecessary toneke anychanges inthebudget procedures
currently inforce :projects will beproposed inthecontext
ofthe Commission 'sannual budget inthe normal way.
Itisclear that the approach outlined will enable the "
proposed regulation toplay amajor role inafuture Community
infrastructure policy whilst avoiding the dangers ofduplication
orill considered intervention .
?>. The studies already underway constitute anessential basis
ror aninvestment policy ;they must becontinued and completed .
Theirecasting studies wilt need tobekept uptodate and improved .
Inthe Commission 'sopinion ,they should bedeveloped into permanent
tools and the inevitable element ofuncertainty should bereduced
tothe minimum .Inaddition tothose studies ,two reports were
requested bythe Council atitssession of23rd November 1978 .These
reports relate to :
-bott lenecks ,
-criteria for evaluating projects ofCommunity interest .
There isnodoubt that these reports ,which arepresently in
hand,will provide valuable information tothe Council andthe
Commission .

-26-
C. THE MAIN AREAS OF ACTION
35. The Commission hopes that the Council will pursue its
examination ofthe proposed financial regulation with aview to
itsearly adoption .Inthe meantime the Commission intends
with the assistance ofthe Infrastructure Committee topursue its
work toattain the following objectives : '
36. Long-term objectives
-Adefinition_of anetwork of_Community
interest and evaluation ofinvestment needs
Anagreement onthe definition ofanetwork would greatly
facilitate the achievement offuture goals .
Theevaluation ofthe investment needed sothat the neL..,,^
can meet Community goals would provide advance information onover
financial requirements foreach Member State andtheCommunity asawho .
Annex IVsets out asanexample some prior guidelines onthe
possible methods ofselection for major Community links andthe
evaluation ofneeds .
Evidently s'.ich anetwork could not befixed and would have to
beadapted tomeet changes ineconomic development and newtransport .
needs .

-Research_into eriter ia_for_the_choice of_Investment and
Cost/Benefit _anaLysis
This task isindispensable notably todetermine onan
objective basis thecriteria toassess the Community interest ofa
project .The Commission believes that useful and reasonable results
can bereached inthese fields ifasuitable methodology isadopted •
initially and the benefits ofexperience are taken progressively into
acrount .
37. Short-term objectives
-Determination of_Bott Ienecks _likely to_hjnder traffic between
Member_St ates
.This has anobvious priority :areport was requested bythe
Council inNovember 1978 .Itisbeing undertaken largely onthe basis
ofastudy described above and with the aid ofthe Transport Infra­
structure Committee .
-Ident ificat ion_and_Examinat ion_of Projects_of Community jnterest
Itiscertainly premature topresent alist ofinvestment
projects ofCommunity interest which could receive financial aid.
Nevertheless ,onthe basis ofexisting information ,itis
possible toundertake ananalysis oftraffic conditions onmany
routes ofCommunity importance .This brings out some obvious inadequa­
cies inthe capacity orthe quality ofinfrastructure and makes it
possible toidentify provisionally some links which merit particular
attention .

28-
FromthisviewpointtheCommission canpointoutanumberof j
linkswhichhavealreadybeenthesubjectofprojectsinvarying j
degreesofdevelopment . '
■ι
Theselinks,groupedbycategory,aregivenhereforillustrative
purposes.Itisclearthattheymustbeamendedorcompletedlater
asandwhentheanalysisofthequalityofserviceoverthe.wholeof j
theCommunityisrefined. I
1
,
1
.Itshouldalsobepointedoutthatthementionoftheselinks ■]
doesnotprejudgetheresultsofanydetailedassessments whichhave
tobeundertaken laterincollaboration withtheMemberStatesconcerned .
-International linksbetweenmajorcentres
Thefollowingraillinksaretypicalofthiscategory:
Brussels-Cologne-Utrecht-Cologne-Frankfurt,
Amsterdam-Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg .
-Linkswithperipheral Regions
Numerouslinkscouldbeincludedhere;asexamplescanbe
mentioned : /
inIreland,linkswiththeNorth(Dublin-Belfast-Derry),
withthewest(Dublin-Cork/Galway);
intheUnitedKingdom,linkswithEastAnglia-notablythe
ports;
andinItalywiththeMezzogiorno andtheIslands.
-LinksaffectedbytheentryofNewMemberStates
Theselinks,bylandandsea,meritspecialattentionnotably
becauseoftheexpectedincreaseintrafficfollowingthe
adhesionofGreece,SpainandPortugal.

-29-
-Links overcoming natural obstacles
There are several links where the sea ormountains greatly'
reduce the quality ofservice :
the Channel crossing ,the Alpine link between Germany and Denmark (via
Fehmarn ),links between ,Germany andItaly andthe Apennines crossings
- "Missing links' between existing networks
Several 'missing links' can beidentified :particularly important
forthe inland waterways are 'European class' links between Belgium
and France and between the North Sea and tire Mediterranean via
aRhine-Rhone canal ;forthe motorway network can bementioned ,,
asjust one ofseveral examples /the link Thionville -Luxembourg -
Trier .
Therole ofselective financial aid from the Community will beto
accelerate the completion ofprojects on such links :they will be
submitted bythe Member States andtheir financial and economic aspects
will beexamined ,with the assistance ofthe infrastructure committee .-
The Commission considers itwill bepossible toexamine anumber
ofprojects each year . .
Itisimpossible toanticipate the results ofthe examinations
ortoattempt anypre-select ion ofthe projects likely tobenefit
from the financial aid. -
38. Theexecution ofthese projects will extend over aperiod of'
years and should beseen inthe context ofalong term development
plan atthe European level . \
Inorder toconsolidate its efforts the Commission will stress
tothe Member States ,particularly atthe infrastructure committee ,
the need toforward anumber ofurgent prpjects rapidly :the
priority ofthese projects innational .programmes can beconsidered
and,where appropriate ,the case foraid from theproposed financial
.-instrument examined .

-30
CONCLUSION
39. Thebrief outline which has been presented has shown how
important the role ofinfrastructure isinthe development ofthe
Common Transport Policy and how great isthe task which remains .
Anumber ofpossible approaches have also been described ..
•The elimination ofobstacles totransport which stem from short­
comings ininfrastructure inorder toensure the most efficient em­
ployment ofnatural .and human resources must beapriority objective
atthe Community level .Although the Member States have devoted
considerable efforts tothe solution oftransport infrastructure
problems and,without doubt ,have achieved important results ,serious
deficiencies persist inthe Community 'stransport links ..What has also
become clear isthat the continued economic integration ofthe Commu­
nity will require that amore global approach beemployed than inthe
past,through the integration into planning ofspecific Community
objectives .
40. This paper has attempted aclearer definition ofthe role
the Community could play inthe field oftransport infrastructure .
Thepossibility' ofthe Member States working closely atthe
Community level toidentify projects ofCommunity interest ,and thus
helping their execution ,isavery desirable objective .Such action
should beextended tocover financial aid injustifiable cases ,notably
where desirable projects donot command sufficient priority atthe
national level orwould overtax purely hational resources .Intervention
isalso foreseen where anumber ofMember States are involved but
there isnopossibility ofsharing .the costs equitably onthebasis
ofthe benefits tobeexpected .This approach would clear the way _
for such projects which areessential tothe economic andsocial
development ofthe Community .
41. This isthe reason why the Commission has thought itnecessary
toopen awide-ranging discussion with allthose concerned andto
present this Paper ,winch is -intends toserve asabasis ,for .joint
consideration and afull 'ebats

31
Listofannexes
ANNEXEI:Developmentofdomesticandinternational transport.
ANNEXEII:Communityinterest,
ANNEXEIII:Communityfinancialinstruments . -
ANNEXEIV:Possiblefutureinfrastructure needsoftheCommunity*

31-$ANNEXI.
Development ofinternational freighttransportwithintheCommunity
(inmillionsoftonnes;transportbyrail,road,andinlandwaterwaysonly)
Goodsdespatched toall
otherMemberStatesfrom:
1974 1985 2000
Belgium:Tonnage
Index66,1
(100)127,7
(193)225,4
(341)
Denmark:Tonnage
Index3,2
(100)7,8
(244)13,2
(413)
France:.Tonnage
Index74,5
(100)134,1
(180)209,8
(282)
F.R.Germany:Tonnage
Index103,0
(100)155,4
(151236,5
(230)
Ireland:Tonnage
Index0,17
(100)0,92
(551)1,95
(1163)
Italy:Tonnage
Index10,9
(100)24,5
(225)37,6
(345)
Luxembourg :Tonnage
Index8,6
(100)11,7
(136)18,4
(214)
Netherlands :Tonnage
Index126,7
(100)237,4
(187)444,4
(351)
UnitedKingdom:Tonnage
Index0,90
(100)3,98
(441)7,52
(833)
TotaltrafficbetweenMemberStates:
Tonnage
Index394,2
(100)703,7
(179)1195,2
(303)
Domestictraffic-allMemberStates:
Tonnage
Index6509
(100)9151
(141)11384'
(175)
*1973
e
Source:FreightForecasting ,Sturty1979. !

Development ofinternational passenge;r-afficwithintheCommunity
Country-to-countryjourneysinexcessof80km,inthousands (bothdirections )
Jo„Tieysbetweenother
yit?n:fcerStatesand:
1970 2000
Number Index Number Index
bf1giv.r~n:Total
~ofwhichbysurfacetransport28
26146
836(100)
(100)•47
43916
128(170)
(161)
Dair^ark:Total
ofwhichbysurfacetransport5
4688
204(100)
(100)9
5610
722(169)
(136)*
Freince:Total
c-fwhichbysurfacetransport40
35214
622(100)
(100)95
70830
368(238)
(198)
-F,3.Serrcany:Total
ofwhichbysurfacetransport51
47434
114(100)
(100)98
80194
112(191)
(170)
Irfllar-d:Total
.cfwhichbysurfacetransportI
3
2680
508(100)
(100)5
2092
044(138)
(81)
Italy:Total
ofwhichbysurfacetransport20
16428
250(100)
(100)50
33188
086(246)
(204)
Luxembourg :Total
ofwhichbysurfacetransport2
2164
026(100)
(100)4
3422
910(204)
(193)
Netherlands :Total
otwhichbysurfacetransport32
29034
880 »(100)
(100)62
52224
656(194)
(176)
u;v.tedKingdom :Total
ofwhichbysurfacetransport15
7876
988(100)
(100)38
10532
762(243)
(135)
Tot.ilinternational traffic
betweenMemberStates:
ofwhichbysurfacetransport99
86832
214(100)
(100)>206
150004
894(206)
(175)
A*,e.-chjourneyiscountedtwice-onceinthecountryoforiginandonceinthecountry
of.Jestmation-thetotalishalfthesumofthefiguresforeachcountry.
So-fca:"ThefutureofEuropeanpassengertransport"0ECD,Paris1977
(ProjectC0ST33) -_

ANNEX 1.
Projections ofthe development ofdomestic and international freight traffic­
•(Low-growth hypothesis )
Index
(1974-100 )300
250J
200
150J
100 '
/
\£- 1 T
1974International
traff ic.
G.D.P.
Domesti c
traf fic.
1985 2000
International traffic between Member States (volume ),
Domestic traffic ,all Member States (volume ). .
Assumed growth ofGross Domestic Product onwhich
the forecasts are based ,.
Source :Freight Forecasting Study ,1979

International passenger traffic
Cross-Channel traffic
>i?velopment ofthe number ofjourneys between the Urnted .Kingdom and :
>a)other countries of b)other Western European
the Community .** countries (non-member
countries )
jNumber IIndex Number Index
?ar (thousand ) I (thousand )
>7; :Otat 11388 (100 ) 8570 (100 )
oryhichsurface traffic 5194 (100 ) 2816 (100 )
>72 Total . 12412 (109 ) 10088 (118 )
o■;which surface traffic 6014 (116 ) 2120 (75)
Total 13702 (120 ) 10958 (128 )
r,fwhich surface traffic 6452 (124 ) 2436 (87)
>74 Total / 14444 (127 ) 9305 (109 )
ofwhich surface traffic 6246 (120 ) 3310 (118 )
)7S Tot^l ' -16402 (144 ) 10594 (124 )
o;which surface traffic 6320 (122 ) 5716 (203 )
ïc.t al 17548 (154 ) 10224 (119 )
orwhich surface traffic 6642 (128 ) 5824 (207 ) -
m Tôt.3i . 18826 (165 ) 10408 (121 )
ofwhich surface traffic 7136 |"(137) 6012 (213 )
J-;c<rneys areclassified according tothe domicile anddestination ofthe passengers
AI:<i:.stall ofthe surface traffic under b)passes viaports inthe continental Member
•Vt.-tos of tfi-2 Community . ' - ' -
■ . . -I . . '
m «■"» xlWV3 .
"'•>onssenvers intransit "
•.)nrngrants
..)■-r.ilita.-y personnel
charter flights ofnational governments .
O UDING Ireland .
■our crs:Coopers and Lybrand Associates Limited and SETEC-Economie (onthe basis ofthe
International Passenger Survey ofthe Department of .Trade ,United Kingdom ).

ANNEX II
Community Interest :the development ofaworkable concept forinfrastructure
planning
1.The notion of'Community interest *intransport infrastructure has been
outlined ,inthe paper ;this annex presents some further details ofthe
problems involved and ofthe research underway totransform the theoretical
concept into apractical guide for Community action .
2.The ma.jor questions :the consultation procedure for transport in­
*)frastructure instituted bythe Council decision of20February 1978
referred to'Community interest' asthe principal criterion for the
selection ofprojects tobenotified tothe Commission .However ,the
definition ofCommunity interest given iswide and could lead to
differences ofinterpretation .This poses the question ofhow to
clarify the definition .
2.1.The draft regulation for amechanism toprovj.de financial aid for
)transport infrastructure projeots gives rise tofurther questions of
application .Asfinancial aid would bebased onthe Community interest
ofaproject ,anevaluation isneeded .The draft regulation calls for a
cost-benefit evaluation with the aim tlnat the results should throw
light onthis question .The problem ishow toquantify the concept of
'Community interest' for aneconomic evaluation .
3*Adefinition of'Community interest *:transport infrastructure projects
are ofvalue tothe Community through the net benefits that they provide
over and above those onthe national level .All Member States already un­
dertake anevaluation ofthe benefits and costs accruing from infrastruc­
ture projects ;hence ,the primary objective of'Community interest' should
betoensure that relevant factors excluded byMember States are taken in­
toaccount .Ingeneral such factors are those that arefelt outside the
frontiers ofthe state concerned .Inaddition arevaluation ofcertain
factors may bejustified totake account ofCommunity interest .
3.1.Indiscussing thefactors likely tofigure in'Community interest' itis
helpful toconsider the concept intwo parts :
*)O.J. no. 1/54P.16
**)O.J. C207/9

first : •direct *interest inspecific rojects following the
guidelines setoutintheConsultation procedure .
second :amacro -economic interest related totheoverall development
ofinfrastructure toensure that long term plans match
Community needs .
!.'Direct 1Community interest isexplicitly referred tointheDecision
onthe 'Consultation procedure where themain attention isgiven to
traffic flows andtheimpact ofthese flows onneighbouring countries
generally .Butthequestion arises :isitnecessary oruseful to
/ · ^
define this interest atthepresent time ?Anumber ofways exist todo
this .Forexample acertain minimum level ofCommunity traffio canbe
specified asnecessary ,aminimum cost threshold canbeBet ,oragain
onemight even specify agiven network which incorporates all routes -
andtherefore projects -ofCommunity interest .There areclear advantages
tobegained from such refinements interms ofefficiency duetothe
elimination ofirrelevant projects .However ,inthe short term ,anduntil
practical experience isavailable from research andactual consul­
tations ,therisk ofeliminating projects ofreal interest isclear .It
istherefore proposed tokeep this question under review andtoreport
onthe possibilities offurther clarificp-'.ion andprecision atthe con­
clusion ofthe research work and the first series ofconsultations .
J.'Community interest' onthemacro economic level maybeeasier toexplain
ingeneral terms butiscertainly more difficult totranslate into prac­
tice .All Member states forecast their future needs for infrastructure
taking economic andsocial developments into account .National pro­
grammes are setupthrough abargaining prooess involving acomparison
offinancial possibilities andcompeting needs inthepublio sector as
awhole .AttheCommunity level thebasio framework ofinfrastructure
plans hasoome andwill continue tocome from national decisions :the
primary task istoensure that theCommunity 'sneeds arereflected in
thenational planning systems .Itisclear that individual Member States
mayrequire anincentive totake thespecific needs oftheCommunity
into account .National planning could require supplementing intwomajor
sectors :
First :inrelation tothe overall size oftheinfrastructure budget
Second :inthewayinwhich thebudget isdistributed
4.Although itisfarfrom evident that important differences could arise
between national andConmiunity objectives *thepossibility ,andits
consequences ,should beconsidered .Thewhole question hinges onthe
difference between the external benefits fortheCommunity arising
from achange innational policy andthedireot costs ,including loss

-3-
ofpotential direct benefit ,tothe Member State concerned .
3.5.Itisdifficult toform any firm idea astothe appropriate size of
the Community infrastructure budget until theresults ofthe long term
research into Community needs are available .The completion ofthese
studies will require aninput onCommunity policy inother sectors
such asregional orindustrial policy which influence the demand for
transport .When theresults areavailable apicture ofthe Community 's
needs will evolve from discussions with the Member States through the
Infrastructure Committee .Thepossibility ofnominating anetwork of
routes chosen fortheir special Community interest should also be
explored .Thefirst steps have been taken toexamine problems ona
network ofimportant routes identified byusing s
roads sthe 'E*route system ofthe Economic Commission for Europe
railways sthelist ofmain lines shown inthe Xnteraational
Union ofRailways Mast erplan ,giving thequantitative and
qualitative needs ,
waterways gtheclass IY(1350 tonnes )Category oftha Eszropeaa
Conference ofMinisters ofTransport .
•4-sEvaluation ofCommunity Interest ladistinction has been drawn between
the Oomsrcraity interest ofadirect nature andthe broader macro –economic
interest ,Inthe case ofdirect interest the problems ofevaluation are
being approached through apolicy ofextending tha methodology already
applied bythe Member States .Study ofthepossibility ofwidening the
coverage ofnational evaluation toinclude Csasssa&ity factors hasalready -
shown that the approach should befeasible .The ob^ectiT® istoproduce
anassessment ofprojects which iaolndea both Caraunity awdnational
factors ,ina-single evaluation ,although both elements should be
separately identified® This approach isaided bythefact that all
Member States employ -cost-benefit methods orsome variant fortheir
national planning .The psfsvotioal objective istoextend thetraffic
forecasts anathetraffic inpaot study toatsider network outside the
Member State *More general factors such 8.8the iscpact ontrade
generation ,regional polioy eto.will bealse oonsidere ^al'cao'&gh clear­
lysuch factors are more difficult tocpus&tlf^-a
The macro–economi© oftha Ccsmassaityj like thaevaluation of
direct interest ,shooXd "beooasj dered at©aearly pluming stage *This will

-4-
pose difficult problems ofgiving due weight topoliciftn which each have
their ovm objectives .The minimum objective istoprovide guidance for
the decision makar onthe nize ofthe quantifiable traffic benefits tothe
CoiYiiauni t(y.This isrequired insupport ofthe 'compensation *principle
that lies behind the proposed financial regulation *the aim being to
quantify the amount b,ywhich the Community would benefit from aproject
and hence Rive aguide tothe amount ofaid from Comnunity sources .
Research inthis field isprogressing anditishoped tobeable to
develop atrial approach inthe near future .
«
}

.τΚ' V *4 *:■". 0- .ANNEX III
HXIST ING SOURCES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING INTHE COMMUNITY * transport intrastr ..
CUROPEAN RFGIOMAL
DCVtl npMtMT FUNO£UROREAN INVESTMENT flANK
.rt',~\ y'f
-1?.j'J. iM*KjL'Cl**Invest niun't covering mfrastrutt ure
which con-tribute fothe -development
ofcerta-in regions .Investments ininfrastructure projects of
reqidnal or Common interest
Gecif-dph von i.»lirr-itS 1.reoidns established byMember States ,
inapotying their systems ofregional
aids and for which State aids are granted
2.participation ofthe Fund inthe
financing ofspecific measures :
regions tobedetermined bythe Council .1.Community
2.Outside the Community CA.C .P.-And Mediteranea
countries )
;Forr.s ## .îr-t.çr verrt ion 1.Grant S
2.Interest-rate .rebates
on F.IB-loans .OT3points1.Loans •'
2»Guarantees
Pes->.jrceo Fund sbudget -for 1979 i945 MUA.Pro­
bably available for infrastructure -,
projects :70 Z=661,5 WUA naximum
distribution ofthe Fund 'sresources ,
between the Member States According
toquota 1X95 '/•ofthe F.budget )
Specific measures :distribution tobe
determined bythe Council
(5 Xofthe budget )Loans and guarantees accorded in1978 :
.2.140,4 HUA,-;f,.iich rA ■<r
irans--ort 1ifr«:.tructure projects within the
Community .
.me 1r*-'.-;.oAd-vf "Ons 1.Investments must exceed 50.000 UA
2.-invest^ents <.10MUA :
m«3xi^uT »Fund'scontribution 30*
ofnational aid.
-investrents ^10MUA
Fund's contribution 10-30 %
-investments ofparticular importance :
-iaxinun FOnd 'scontribution 40 %
3.Specific measures :conditions tob«]'
determined bythe Councit .1.maximum contribution 50 %ofthe cost ofthe
fixed assets
2.projects must offer prospects ofareasonable
return (commercial criterion )
3.State guarantee orother sufficient security
rrcr^jrtfï 1.Member State submits requests tothe
Commission .
2.Consultation of Fund Committee .
3.Ccns'jltation.of Regional Policy Committee
(projects ^10MUA )
4,Cor^ri ssion decides ,ifnot inaccordance
with the Committee the Council does so.1.Member State /Commission orUndertaking
submit requests tothe Bank . •
2m Consul tation ofCommission and Member stjtf .
3.Bank decides ,ifthe adyice ofthe Copmssionl
isnegative only inunahimity . !
1.Council .Regulation (EEC )No724 /75
of March 1975,asarended by :
2.Council Regulation (EEC )Wo214 /79
of6February 1979 .1.Treaty ,Title IV/articles 1?9rt3 <\
2.Protocol onthe Statute ofthe Elf
3.Annual Report EJB
■'.0TES
1)BEL6IUM
DENMARK
GERMANY
FRANCE
IRELAND1.39
1.20
6.0
16.86
6.46ITALY
LUXEMBOURG
NETWERLANDS39.39
0.09
1.58
UNITED KINGDOM 27.03
''-jltrticturni »nds exarticle 56ECSC and EAGGF quidance (Budget article 84),being specifically aimed atonr
•.tr,r ;>1 r»tee' /agriculture ). The amounts inquestion arerelatively small .
L

M
ANNEX111
N£UPIMANC1*L INSTRUMENT
(N.I.C.)-Interest-rate subsidies
Investments "ininfrastructure projects
•nic*co«tr*t'jte tcconverience and
integration ,takingintoaccountthe
regionalandemploymenteffects*
Community .Investments inmfrastrjctureprojectsinthe
LessProsperousCountriesparticioatina
the£**$,takingintoaccountt^eregionaleffects.
1.ITALY
2.IRELAND
/Interest-rate rebatesof3pointsonEIB-andNIC-loans
1000?ua
500*'-*as1rsttranche,ofwhich
253v-*<*rocriatetoinfrastructure .1000M,JA(In5yearlytranchesof2CC*1UAeach)as
interest-rate rebateso*"*odNIC-loansof
5C9Q''l*(In5yearlytrancesofKOC^UAeach).
,insccordance *tthEI9-condit 1ons inaccordance withEI5-conditions
1.CouncilaoorouvestrancKesandsettles
directivesfor,theprojects.
2.ReojestssubmittedtotheEuropean
Investment Bankdirectlyorthrough
theCommission orMemberState.1.Commission and"emberStatessettleIndicative programs.
2.Consultation ofMemberState
3.Commission decidesontheeligibility
oftheoroject.
6.Bankdecidesonoctroiandconditions
oftheloan.
*1.CouncilDecision (EEC)No870/78
of16October1978
2.Convention deCocoeratlon entrela
Commission etlaSanauedu27novembre3«Commission dextdesontheeligibility oftheproject.
4.Bankdecidesonoctroiandconditions oftheloan.

4)
i-ANNEX IV
The preparation ofestimates ofpossible infrastructure needs
Aforecast has tobeundertaken soastoestimate theorder ofmagnitude of
thefinancial consequences ofadopting aCommunity plan .Theprincipal
elements ofthis are :
(a)Based onthefindings ofCOST 33,theinter-city passenger study
undertaken jointly byO.EcC.E. /E.C.M.Te /EEC ,andusing other sources ,
anappreciation has been made oftheprincipal existing routes inorder
todetermine possible needs for1990/2000 .
(b)Taking account ofworks underway orincluded inthefirm national
programmes ,anestimate wasmade oftheadditional kilometers needed
tocomplete networks ofappropriate quality .Some projects onwhich
additional information was available were considered separately .
(c)^Based ontheimprovements felt tobeneeded (enlargement ,new
building ,etc.)aswell asonafigure foraverage costs ,aglobal
estimate for investment can begiven .
Criteria for the selection ofMajor Community lipk3 .
Theidentification ofanetwork encompassing the links ofprimary
importance forlong distance travel intheCommunity wasundertaken in
the following way :
1.Alist ofnodal towns ofmajor importance forthetransport system
wasprepared using thefollowing criteria s
-national capitals
-towns ofmore than 750.000 inhabitants
-transport centres important forgeographical or
historical reasons
-regional capitals orimportant regional centres ,notably
inregions where thepopulation issparse .
2.Themain existing direct link abetween thenodal towns were identified .
Some links carrying lowtraffic ,andbasically only ofregional orlocal
interest ,were suppressed® Some important links with non–Community coun­
tries ware then added .

These criteria areprincipally geographical .Todefine anoperational
network ofCommunity interest aconsiderable amount ofwork will have to
beundertaken inassociation with theinfrastructure Committee ,drawing
upon theresults oftheforecasting studies .In'bhis respect the following
complementary criteria will prove useful i
–the degree ofsaturation ofprincipal intra –Community links inorder
toidentify existing and future bottlenecks . x
■=–net improvement totraffic ,exchanges and time duetothe completion
ofintra-Comnmnity projects .
–thecontribution toregional development duetothe con,?etion of
links either within member countries orbetween them .~
-the development oftraffic and exchanges induced .inthelor3term
bythe enlargment ofthe Community andthe consequences forthe
loading ofthe network toand from new member oountries .

ANNEXiV
Infrastructure expenditure (inMillionsofECJR-1976prices)
MainCommunityLinks-FutureNeeds
Railways Roads InlandWaterways TOTALAverageannualinvest­
mentexpenditure on
mainCommunitylinks
overthenexttwenty
years.*(a)
Averageannualinvest­
mentexpenditure onall
transportinfrastruc­
ture(1973-1975)
11.564
!
I13.987 4.269 29.820 1.491 12.640
Atcurrentprices.
'Sources:Commission'sreportstotheCouncilontheresultsoftheaccounting systemforexpenditure on,andfromthe
surveyofutilisation of,rail-road,andinlandwaterwaytransportinfrastructures .
N»B.:Thesmallnessofthefigureinthefifthcolumnincomparisonwiththatinthelastcolumnisduetothefact
thattheformerrelatesonlytomajorlinksofCommunityinterest,whereasthelatterincludesalltransport
infrastructure .

·|Γ^*ROADS
MAJOR
COMMUN1TY
LINKST ,fLJ ,VY ROADSS/». '?')
ÉfÊ .**I£r'MAJOR'SE .r-vÎTfe^ COMMUNll
•■•r~ %r^7i>Vti LINKS
S POSSIBLE
'\ FUTURE
<T"~ NEEDS
^ ^\ïr~ NEEDS
srW'r / i
/ i~ir•>> '/•jr,i_l _ i\w iii- / !
_-ff^Q
KEY
UNKS KOTWCtUOCO INPl>N
IXISnNO HIGH STANDAflO LINKS
11NXS FORIVPBOVEVEMT
TOHIGH STANOAfld

I »! 7
f A.v RAEiWAYS%/τ_»η \dp " :f1tf? . - fe *^/ _ <V!AJORV(••n - • i v-Wt t>TiKz .4MiV1*4 COMMUNITY
"■& !"~P POSSIBLE
«Λ& ν~ ™™« ε^£^2- /ST^"*\ NEEDS_c . v\\\ ,sm Jj s .^,./.3™i .,4\\\ A(M-,S Li \Xv^-V^4-~\n rM1s ■s . i. ilv^ \...... K–•w ..«.-r/ ./Γ."λ) υ Κ--ν -~-7,!Ι . –'ίΤ*Γ311 1
■-y^h y.-t\ .tr«P ==>.··'[τ «-. λ. ■ /ι. (Χ
%-ί^ 1 "ΊΛ3– i-Lc -v-^ ■"/jh.rHh' vg
J J J )L\*\/ T^L<>
.s«na _>1#>^ 'C 1 Hi V
G \( \t/ -X X"?o
^r~r
HUWM IJWS <OMl*r»OAL IPtlO^t»rtltt»fl -–- | JT %*SJ q >, S
|»i«"wn 1«I(<^wv»«C 'M»"7I0J•»0«V1 ..mu'ir 1 -\ /
mr<*ITU ""-*»*1Cf-fTVf saf':Ti0»fBftKT,#«,99«,e#8, j| / j^ijMOUstMvionwwi ( / t
> \ %|j ^ f I«•» wo
»•r"=r»t»*«arg*i «XJt^fnun to >3 ••>

INLAND
WATCRWAYS
MAJOR
COMMUNITY
LINKSΓ"..<
i «Mr.,-')»
i:3 L,NKS
.AC/ .WPOSSIBLE
1!_■«%>^-' ^SlA .futureI;cnotify - . 'OrH*\NEEDS
;•r^Cyç■V ^r>>IL__
.Vya{i ■,. .■A£WvW"i
/ρ-^ϋ-^
\. ./""""•■/ϊνι'
Εν*-'^νίν^-^ΓΛ– Γ.-/ ·V;
9
<
I'...
i
i
j
|w-r*iN<nM*r«<wuw mri«m«K«V««mmli 4/ !
III•• ..I..!..–II J-/ * |
........... IV. . !
■_ -,1"?--?,._T..r.-(
k«M uiuntii m*•■