EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 19.10.2011 
SEC(2011) 1213 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 1212 final}  
 
EN 2   EN This document provides the executive summar y of the Impact Assessment Report on the 
Commission’s revised Union Gu idelines for the development of the Trans-European 
Transport Network.  
1. PROBLEM DEFINITION : A FRAGMENTED NETWORK NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE  
The EU 27, taken as a whole, is well endowed  with transport infrastructures. But these 
infrastructures do not, as yet, provide the Union with a complete trans-European network that 
can adequately fulfil the objectives set out fo r it. The TEN-T is fragmented, geographically – 
particularly between countries, and modally – both between and within transport modes.  
Missing cross border links constitute today si gnificant bottlenecks for freight and passengers 
flows on important European axes. They affect  connections both across the Union's Member 
States and with its neighbours. In addition, th e considerable and enduring disparity in the 
quality and availability of infrastructure be tween the older and the newer Member States 
means also that East-West connections are hard ly developed compared to North-South ones, 
which are predominant on the TEN-T map.  
Viewed in a modal perspective, the infrastruc ture network is also fragmented. Intermodal 
nodes, enabling the exchange of passengers and goods across modes, are underdeveloped in 
many of Europe's main railway stations, airpor ts and ports. The lack of intermodal capacities, 
together with important missing or poor quality  sections along the ra il and inland waterways 
networks, lead to insufficient exploitation of co-modal options  and increase infrastructure 
capacity bottlenecks in all modes.  
In addition, differing sets of ope rational rules and st andards, based on lo ngstanding traditions 
and legislation of individual Member States, are multiplying the barriers and bottlenecks in the transport system. Rail transport is a promin ent example where ("soft") interoperability 
problems due to varying national operational rule s such as train control signalling systems, 
document handling, language regimes, train crew certifications, tail lights and so forth, and 
non-aligned physical infrastructure parameters su ch as rail gauge, train length, axle loads and 
traction energy supply systems are severely hampering the effectiveness of huge trans-
European investments in (" hard") infrastructure.  
Four drivers to the problem ha ve been identified, corresponding to two fields of action: the 
conceptual planning and the means for implem entation. The causes leading to fragmentation 
are: the insufficient EU-level planning of  network configuration; the insufficient 
implementation of common standards and adopti on of common rules for the interoperability 
of networks within the TEN-T; the limited c ooperation among Member States in project 
implementation and the lack of sufficient c onditionality of TEN-T  funding instruments. 
2. I
S EU ACTION JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF SUBSIDIARITY ? 
The need for coordinated development of a tran s-European network in the area of transport 
infrastructure to support transp ort flows within the single Eur opean market and the economic, 
social and territorial cohesion needs has been  recognised by the intr oduction of specific 
provisions in the EU Treaty.  
 
EN 3   EN Articles 170 to 172 of the Treaty on the F unctioning of the Union define the general 
objectives and scope of EU act ion in supporting the establishm ent and development of the 
TEN-T. In addition, a string of significant ne w policy strategy documents adopted by the 
Commission (the EU 2020 Strategy, the Bu dget Communication, the White Paper for 
Transport, the Single Market Act) has brought a new political  context in which the TEN-T 
policy is to be developed.  
Article 172 sets the Framework for the application of the principle of s ubsidiarity by requiring 
the approval of Member States re garding projects on their territo ry. 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 Comm ittee, which has been involved at every stage 
of the revision of the TEN-T Guidelines. 
3. OBJECTIVES OF TEN-T  POLICY REVISION  
The overall aim of this initiative is to establ ish by 2030 a complete and integrated TEN-T that 
would maximise the value 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 also provide links  to neighbouring and third countri es, as well as all transport 
modes and systems that would support the move towards a competitive and resource-efficient 
transport system by 2050. 
This general objective can be translated into more specific goals, to  be achieved by 2030. 
Each of these 4 specific objectives intends to  address one of the 4 drivers leading to the 
problem of fragmentation. 
The first specific objective shall enhance coordination in EU planning:   
• Define a  coherent & transparent approach to maximise the EU added value of the 
TEN-T , addressing aspects of network fr agmentation linked to missing links, 
multimodality, and adequate connections to neighbouring and third countries, as well as ensure adequate geographical coverage .  
The next three specific objectives  shall design a sound governan ce structure to secure the 
implementation of the optimal network confi guration thus identified:  
• 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 does not ai m at imposing new specific standards and 
rules, but rather ensuring the effectiv e adoption and implementation of common 
European standards already developed. 
• Enhance Member States cooperation  in order to coordina te investments, timing, 
choice of routes, environmental and cost-ben efit assessments for projects of common 
interest. 
• Ensure that the optimal network configuration is  a key element in the allocation of 
EU funding  allowing a focus on cross-border sec tions, missing-links and bottlenecks . 
These specific objectives have been further de tailed into operational objectives, as follows. 
 
EN 4   EN The methodology to define the networ k configuration should enable the: 
• Connection of all main airports and seaports  to other modes, especially (High-Speed) 
railways and inland waterway systems by 2050; 
• shift of 30% of road freight over 300 km to  other modes such as rail or waterborne 
transport by 2030, and more than 50% by 2050. 
The implementation of European standards and adoption of common rules should be realised 
by: 
• ensuring by 2030 the deploym ent of European transport management systems 
(ERTMS, SESAR, ITS, RIS, SSN and LRIT ) on the projects of common interest; 
• ensuring the commitments of Member St ates to agree on co mmon operational rules 
in order to have fully functional projects of common interest by 2030. 
The enhancement of Member States  cooperation will be realised by: 
• obtaining binding commitments by Member States for the implementation of 
essential cross-borde r projects with a binding timetable;  
• obtaining binding commitments by Member St ates to take measures eliminating 
bottlenecks and missing-links on their territo ry that have cross-border effects. 
The optimal network conf iguration shall ensure: 
• priority for cross-border pr ojects, bottlenecks and missing- links, interoperability and 
intermodality; 
• conditionality of EU funding upon complian ce with EU environm ental legislation 
(SEA, EIA & Natura 2000) 
4. POLICY OPTIONS  
A two-pronged process was applied for genera ting a range of possibl e policy options that 
could address the drivers leading to TEN-T's  fragmentation and help thus achieve the 
objectives set out above. First, a range of possi ble generic policy scenarios in each field for 
action has been identified. Five (A) "planning" scenarios have been envisaged – business-as-
usual, guidelines discarded, selection of new PPs (or "Essen 2"), Core Network and dense 
comprehensive network; and five (B) "impleme ntation" scenarios have been developed – 
business-as-usual, guidelines discarded, regulat ory approach only, reinforced coordination, 
EU full operational management.  
Second, policy options alternativ es have been generated through combinations of policy 
scenarios at each level of action. The result has been a matrix of 25 combinations of planning 
and implementation (AB) scenar ios, i.e. 25 (theoretically) possible policy options. As the 
"Guidelines discarded" planni ng scenario was not compatible with any implementation 
scenario, five options involving it  were discarded from the star t. This planni ng scenario was 
subsequently considered as a policy option in its own, without an implementation dimension.  
 
EN 5   EN The remaining 21 options were submitted to a pr eliminary assessment with regard to their 
effectiveness in addressing the drivers of TEN-T fragmentation. Three scenario combinations 
were subsequently retained as clearly viab le policy options – A3B 4, A4B4, A5B4, with a 
forth at the limit – A1B4. While scoring high in terms of positiv e impacts on all but one of the 
drivers, the latter combination was however di scarded. Due to continued limited coordination 
in planning, it would not solve the central issue of network fragmentation and, as such, would 
not make a viable policy alternative. 
 Impacts on 
 
Options Planning 
coordination Interoperability 
standards & rules Member States 
cooperation Conditionality 
of EU funding 
A1B1 
Business as usual / Continuation with 
current 30 PPs and current 
implementation approach [0] 
 [0] 
 [+] 
 [0] 
 
A1B2 
Continuation of current 30 PPs but with 
no further EU implementation support [0] 
 [0/-] 
 [-] 
 [-] 
 
A1B3 
Continuation of current 30 PPs with a 
purely regulatory approach to 
implementation [0] 
 [0/+] 
 [+] 
 [0/+] 
 
A1B4 
Continuation of current 30 PPs with 
reinforced coordination [0] 
 [++] 
 [+++] 
 [+++] 
 
A1B5 
Continuation of current 30 PPs with full 
EU operational management [0] 
 [++] 
 [-] 
 [+] 
 
A2 
Guidelines discarded [-] 
 n/a n/a n/a 
A3B1 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 2) with 
current implementation approach [+] 
 [0] 
 [+] 
 [0] 
 
A3B2 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 2) with 
no further EU implementation support [+] 
 [0/-] 
 [-] 
 [-] 
 
A3B3 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 2) with 
purely regulatory approach to 
implementation [+] 
 [0/+] 
 [+] 
 [0/+] 
 
 
EN 6   EN A3B4 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 2) with 
reinforced coordination [+] 
 [++] 
 [+++] 
 [++] 
 
A3B5 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 2) with 
full EU operational management [+] 
 [++] 
 [-] 
 [+] 
 
A4B1 
Dual layer (core and comprehensive) 
network with current implementation 
approach [++] 
 [0] 
 [+] 
 [0] 
 
A4B2 
Dual layer (core and comprehensive) 
network with no EU  implementation 
support [++] 
 [0/-] 
 [-] 
 [-] 
 
A4B3 
With purely regulatory approach to 
implementation [++] 
 [0/+] 
 [+] 
 [0/+] 
 
A4B4 
TEN-T Dual layer (core and 
comprehensive)    
Reinforced coordination [++] 
 [++] 
 [+++] 
 [+++] 
 
A4B5 
Dual layer (core and comprehensive) 
network with full EU operational 
management [++] 
 [++] 
 [-] 
 [+] 
 
A5B1 
Dense TEN-T with current 
implementation approach [+++] 
 [0] 
 [+] 
 [0] 
 
A5B2 
Dense TEN-T with no further EU 
implementation support [+++] 
 [0/-] 
 [-] 
 [-] 
 
A5B3 
Dense TEN-T 
Purely regulatory approach to 
implementation [+++] 
 [0/+] 
 [+] 
 [0/+] 
 
A5B4 
Dense TEN-T with reinforced 
coordination [+++] 
 [++] 
 [+++] 
 [+++] 
 
 
EN 7   EN A5B5 
Dense TEN-T with full EU operational 
management [+++] 
 [++] 
 [-] 
 [+] 
 
Legend: [-] negative; [0] none; [+] low; [++] medium; [+++] high. 
In parallel, the coherence of each policy scenario with the  principles of subsidiarity and 
proportionality was assessed. Two planning s cenarios - "A2/Guidelines discarded" or 
"A5/Dense network approach" – and two imp lementation scenarios - "B3/Regulatory 
approach only" and "B5/EU full operational ma nagement" – were found not to comply with 
these principles. Hence, any combination that included either of these scenarios was deemed 
unviable as a policy option. Option A5B4 was consequently discarded for further 
consideration, in spite of the f act that, according to the effectiv eness criteria, would have been 
most promising in terms of addressing current  drivers and thus achieving the TEN-T policy 
objectives.1 
This process of pre-screening of the possibl e policy options has narrowed down the choice 
between two policy alternatives capable on a stand alone basis to address all the root causes of 
the problem identified above:  
– Option 1 (A3B4), combining an approach  to planning that largely continues 
with the current policy, though with certa in amendments in the light of the 
experience accumulated, with a rein forced coordination approach to 
implementation; and 
– Option 2 (A4B4), combining a stronger approach to planning coordination, by 
means of identification of an optimised c onfiguration of the strategic "core" of 
the TEN-T, with the same reinforced c oordination approach to implementation.  
The impacts of both options have been assessed against the baseline scenario, i.e. where the 
current policy approach would be maintained.  
5. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS  
The table below presents an synoptic presenta tion of the different impacts of the policy 
options considered in what concerns other economic, social and environmental impacts: 
  Option 1 Option 2 
Economic Impacts   
Impact on transport sector   
- Modality and efficiency of the Transport 
system + ++ 
- Congestion & travel times + ++ 
                                                 
1 Other arguments that played against its retention were its very high costs, resulting in limited cost-
efficiency, and extensive infrastructure developments required that could not be delivered within the 
2030 timeline.  
 
EN 8   EN - 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 - - 
 
The analysis has shown that: 
– Both Options 1 and 2 would have an overall higher positive economic  impact, 
both at macroeconomic level and for the European transport system, as compared to a baseline scenario. Option 2 appears to be preferable, having higher positive impacts on all aspects assessed. 
– With regard to social impacts, both Option 1 and Op tion 2 would have higher 
positive impacts as concerns job creation than if continuing with the current policy approach. The impact on safety is  also likely to be positive in both 
options, though to a lesser extent, due to the rebound effect of increased transport volumes on an improved network configuration in both options. Option 2 would be preferable due to overall higher positive effects.  
– With regard to environmental  aspects, the rebound eff ect of improved transport 
efficiency in Options 1 and 2 will limit the positive impact of the reduction of emissions and energy use thanks to congestion reduction and induced modal 
shift. In Option 1, the impact on land-us e and biodiversity is likely to be 
 
EN 9   EN particularly negative, since the selection of new Priority Proj ects would lead to 
the building of new infrastructure, while it will remain limited in Option 2, thanks to efforts to optimally interconnect existing infrastructure. Option 2 appears to be preferable from this poi nt of view too, due to higher overall 
positive impacts. 
The assessment of the impact of the policy options is surr ounded by a certain degree of 
uncertainty, owing to the influence of factors th at are difficult to predict or quantify. These are 
either factors inherent to the policy options, such as po ssible changes in the network 
configuration or the imp act of budgetary decisions at Union, Member States or regional level; 
or factors external to transport infrastructure  policy choices, such as the many synergies and 
trade-offs with other transport policy measur es, long-term technologi cal developments or 
environmental amenities. 
6. C
OMPARISON OF OPTIONS  
Each alternative option retained would bring si gnificant improvements, when compared to the 
baseline policy approach, both in terms of effec tiveness in the implementation of the specific 
policy objectives and in terms of economic, social and environmental impacts. Option 2, due 
to stronger coordination ensured at both pl anning and implementation levels, would have 
overall higher positive impacts. 
In terms of efficiency, the economic, social a nd environmental benefits of Option 2 are higher 
than those of Option 1, while the costs of impl ementing these options are similar, rendering a 
better cost-benefit ratio in Option 2 than in Option 1. 
Finally, Option 2 is likely to be more eff ective in limiting trade-offs across the economic, 
social and environmental domain than both two other policy approaches. 
7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
The Commission evaluates and reviews the Pr ogress of the implementation of the TEN-T 
policy through annual Progress Reports, a pr actice that will accompany TEN-T policy 
implementation regardless of the choice of policy approach in the future. 
In addition, the Commission, its  agencies, notably the TEN-T Executive Agency and the 
European Coordinators, whose mandate and ro le would be maintain ed all options, would 
continue to constantly monitor a set of indicat ors that measure the extent to which the policy 
operational objectives, as set out in this report, are achieved.