ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (80)323
Vol.1980/0116

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE, Euratom) n°354/83 duConseil du1erfévrier 1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublic des archives historiques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergie atomique (JO L43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telque modifié parlerèglement (CE, Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JO L243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossier estouvert aupublic. Lecaséchéant, lesdocuments
classifiés présents dans cedossier ontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article 5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No354/83 of 1February 1983
concerning theopening tothepublic ofthehistorical archives oftheEuropean Economic
Community and theEuropean Atomic Energy Community (OJ L43, 15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC, Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003 (OJ L243,
27.9.2003, p.1),this fileisopen tothepublic. Where necessary, classified documents inthis
filehave been declassified inconformity with Article 5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr.354/83 des Rates vom 1.
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L43vom 15.2.1983,
S.1),geändert durch dieVerordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom 22.September 2003
(ABI. L243 vom 27.9.2003, S.1),istdiese Datei derÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurden dieVerschlusssachen indieser Datei inÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel 5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM (80)323 final
*
Brussels .20iune 1980
REPORT ONBOTTLENECKS AND
POSSIBLE MODES OFFINANCE
(presented bytheCommission totheCouncil )
l°>~f çrv
I®3
1 ZX AJ _'
COM (80)323 final
/ . γ

Report onbottlenecks ana poacable modes offinance
PRESENTATION
1.1.Atitsmeeting on23November 19/8,the Counoil oalled ontha
Commission tosubmit areport before 1January 1980 onbottlenecks
intransport infrastructures and possible modes offinance .
Atthis meeting the Council was discussing the proposal for a
Regulation onthe financing oftransport infrastructure projects
ofCommunity interest .
The Council 'srequest isexplained inparagraphs 2.1 »and 2.2,
The problems brought upbytho drafting ofthe report are set out in
paragraphs 3to'3«4® Thepositions ofthe Member States ,asstressed
inthe Transport Infrastructure Committee ,andtheresulting delay
inpresenting the report are explained inparagraph 3»5 »
1.2,The survey ofbottlenecks should proin.de the Council with enoverall
view ofthe infrastructure inadequacies ofCommunity communications
from which tojudge the appropriateness oftaking oertain steps
proposed bythe GoromiBeion .
Tiie i-standardi a&t1onofcriteria foridentifying bottlenecks ,whioh
wastheoriginal intention ,raninto difficulties inpractice
(para ,3*1 *}*Tnview ofthe facrc that thebottleneck isnotalways
-j indicator tohandlo ,particularly asregards oertain trans -
j,;;:n.orios ^many Member States went beyond thephase ofidentifying
tothe more advanoed phase ofpresenting projects .

-2-
Although "thecontributions oftheMember States erenotcompletely
identioal ,theCommission nevertheless takes theview that they fit
perfectly well into thework schedule wanted bytheCounoi'1 (para .
4#2»)»Thanks totheoooperation oftheMember States ?itwaspossible
toform anaccurate picture ofthemain shortcomings ofthenetworks
affecting thsprogress oftraffic andinmany cases toacquire
information onthe investment measures which the Member States thirk
necessary todeal with thein ,
1.3® Thequestion wasraised ofselecting only the bottlenecks of
Community importance (para *3«2.)»
The selootion was sca&a pragmatically bylimiting the geographio scope
ofthereport tobasic network links ofCommunity significance (para®
3.3.).Obviously ,this selection isnotimmutable .Thepossibility of
amending orsupplementing itwill have tobeexplored inthefuture ,
inparticular inthe light ofthe outcome offorward studies .
Itispresumed that thebottlenecks andtheprojects intended todeal
with them ,which arelocated onthese links ,ore ofCommunity
significance .This presumption ofCommunity EignffiGance does not
>'anticipate the extent andnature ofanyCommunity interest –which will
have tobeestimated case byoase –especially with aneyetofinancing ,
1.4.Finally ,thecontributions oftheMember States enable asatisfactory
review tobemade ofthereality ofpresent requirements andoftheir
scope onthe communications which areimportant fortheCommunity .These
requirements areconsiderable despite the slowdown ingrowth andthe
energy crisis .
They areanalysed inpaints 4®1 .and4.3 .and summarized inAnneres 4to
12.
1.5 .TheCommission isnotmaking adirect link between theinvestment projects
deriving directly orindirectly from the contributions oftb.3Member
States andtheir eligibility forCommunity financing .
Ho.'ever ,thebudgetary restraints weighing upon alltheMember States
prompt thethought that notallthese requirements aralikaly tobemet .

-3-
atleast not within the time limits toliewiahed for .Insofar as
thoimplementation ofoertain projects oould provide greater
benefits atCommunity level than those estimated merely forthe
Member State oonoemed ,thequestion ofComarunity finanoing i,Ba
me.tter tobeconsidered (para .5•!•)♦
1»6©Therepor-t'a second aimistoexplain totheCouncil thefinancing
arrangement awhich ,atCommunity level ,could help tooarry outspeoifio
investment projeots .
Inpara ,5»2 ,theCommission provides adescription oftheexisting
financial instruments ajidtheir possible uses .
Starting with therequirements proper tothefinancing oftransport
infrastructure projeots ofOommunity interest ,theCommission sets out
theconditions with which thenewfinancing arrangements should oomply
andprovides afuller explanation ofitsproposal foraRegulation on
finanoial support forprojects ofCommunity interest (para ,5*3•)•
1.7 ,This report presents aninitial approach tothe Community aotion aimed
atidentifying thepractical projects whioh could receive Community
finanoial support .
These projects oennot bespecified until thefollowing conditions have
been mot :notification ofprojects bytheMember States ,assessment of
their Community interest andselection ,bearing inmind finanoial
restrictions andtherequirement that there should beoptinrum benefit
tothe Oommunity ,
1.8 ,TheCommission takes theview that thereport provides information
oomplete enough andusable enough toenable anew step tobetaken in
developing Community aotion .inr9speot ofinfrastructures .
\

-4-
InitBoonolusions (para .6.)the Commission emphasizes the
following aotions ,which should ,gohand inhand .
JF '
(i)theswift setting upofafinanoial system providing
Community aidforthe implementation 6fprojects of
Community interest }
(ii)theutilization oftheoonsultation prooedure provided for
"bythe Council Peoision of20February 1978 forprojects
ofCommunity interest .
The Commission points outthat this highly flexible procedure is
apreliminary tothe prooedure for examining projects under the
proposed Regulation onfinanoial support .
Application ofthis procedure does not anticipate financial
interventions ,but makes itpossible toassess projects of
Community interest ,mainly inthelight of"their inter­
dependence ,thelikely development oftraffic between the Member
States ,Community policies ,andnational plans and programmes .
The Commission takes the view that consultation procedures could
beinitiated right now onsome oftheprojeots outlined inthe
contributions from the Member States .Suoh consultations would
make itpossible todraw upareserve list ofprojeotB where
Community interest was more dearly defined ,vhioh would enable the
Member States -asthe second phase -toselect projeots which
might beeligible for Community aid.

-5~
2.Tf!S GOUT'TOIL SFEOTOTr
2s,I»Atitsmeeting on23November 197Qf "theCounoil called onthe
Cominisaion "tosubmit toitby1January 1930 sreport onthe
.^R.,-ranBPQ*|rtin-fragtrttotttrtB end ,onthe
possible isad«a offina.7iocs M»
This roqueot vagmade during thaCoimoil'e gonoral debate onthe
Commission 'sproposal foraRegulation onthefinanoing of
transport infrastructure projects ofCommunity interest ,"Several
delegations pointed outthat itwould beimportant forthose
praotical projects forwhich Conaminity financing oould be
oonBidared under this procedure andforthamodes ofthis
finanoing tobespecified rapidly .
Atthe end ofthe debate the Council also celled onthe Commission
Mincollaboration with the Committee inthe field oftransport
infrastructure aftoovolva criteria for©•mlmting projects of
Community interest ".
2,2 .Inview ofthe contert inwhich these request swere voiced ,tha
Counoil evidently wanted thafollowing steps tobetaken in
logioal orders
(i)aninitial identification ofthose bottlenecks ofwhich the
elimination would beofparticular interest totheCommunity ,
thne obtaining anidea ofthe scope andnature ofthe
Community *8infrastructure requirement s;
(v,.)anexamination ofthedortallsd financing arran,ygm sntblikely
\ohelp theimplementation of"praotical projects "which
might beselected inview ofthese requirement b|
*Toxt oftheminute aoftheCounoil meeting

-6-
(lii)thodra^rin /yupofcriteria forangoaninf *projootn of
Community interest making' itpossible toaoaees the spooifio
oonoequenoes forthe Community oftheimplementation of
projects foreliminating "bottlers oka .
The Counoil setno date forthe oompletion ofthethird
I
task .The Commission intends tosubmit therequested report
tothe Council inthe course ofl<?8l after further consult­
ations with theTransport Infrastructure Committee ,However ,
theCommission already hasavailable certain findings on
modes offinance which are sraffioiently usable tobausefully
enumerated inthis report *
3.THE PROBLEMS BROUGHT UPBTTHE PRA.FT1HC1 OFTHE REPORT
Prom thebeginning ,thetask entrust edtotheCommission presented a
number ofproblems related finparticular t*tothomenrAns endthesoops
oftheoono^pt ofabottleneok atheidgrrgjfioation ofthe"Cosraurit .?;
nature "ofbottlenecks ,and the Boone ofthe retraeerfcod report , ,
3.1 .Meaning and soopa ofthe concept ofabottleneck
Bottlenecks andinvestment requirements ,i.e ,projects ,arenot
oneandthe same thing .Thebottleneck isnomore than auseful
indicator inaninitial approaoh totheCommunity 9Binfrastructure
requirements ,
3.^.1 .Nevertheless this indicator mayvary insophistication depending
onthefactors built into itandthemethods bywhich these are
calculated . . s
(i)Abottleneok canbeidentified notonly bymeans ofa
saturation rate butalso byother faertors such as,in
particular ,average speed .Using awide interpretation ,it
would bepossible todescribe asabottleneck svy seotion of
aroute failing toprovide aoertain level ofservice and
ensure the baeio perfomonoe oneisentitled toexpect ofa
trancport mode .
(ii)Where abottleneck iadefined exclusively onthebasis ofa
saturation rate ,avarying nvmber ofparameters may be
embodied inthe calculations according tovarious mcrthoda .

-7-
Itisnot easy todefine the level oftraffio atwhioh aninfra­
structure isdescribed aainaxlequat eand const ituteaabottleneck *
Afactor dlaoov -niblo a3traffio satura tion .prasaptB alaTRC
nnnbev ofproblem swhen one ccmes touseit»
3.1.2 .For some ?TMibor frfcatc tsidentification ofbottlenecks isnotan
important phase inthe planning process .
Notallthe Member States automatically identify bottlenecks asa
praliialnary step inselecting projeotB for assessment $they choose
their projects onfar wider and more flexible bade a.Itisnotuntil
the trtSjge ofevaluating projects isarrived atandtheir profit­
ability isbeing calculated that data ontraffio and the
characteristics ofinfrastructures are brought in.
For other Member States ,onthe other hand ,particularly those with
alarge number ofcongested routes and few opportunities for
diverting traffio toalternative .route® ,the bottleneck isinitself
agood indicator ofinfrastructure requirements .
Furthermore ,the situation varies depending onthetransport mode
involved .The bottleneck oonoept ismore applicable toroads than to
railways orinland waterways ,1MO–w»wA<WBawB –mmatmm –awwawwaw 1nti TI iWWi
Particularly where the bottleneck isregarded asashortfall inthe
oapacity ofthe infrastructure inrelation toexisting traffic ,the
UBe ofthis concept oould lead tomistaken conclusions inrespect of
railways and inland waterways#
3,1,3 .The diversity ofinterpretations and ofmethods ofidentifying
bottlenecks andtbe varying availability ofdata from Member State
toMember St&tea lad the Commission topropose criteria flexible and
varied enough torefleot -without excessive effort onthepart of
iu,tioo '..,ladministrations -the same types ofsituation inallthe
Miii.il ■..jrStates and,where possible ,forall modes oftransport .
^hoR-£ c.'iterig are sgtoutinAnnex 1,
3,2,Cnnmunlty character ofbottlenecks
The quetrtion also arose whether itmight beappropriate toadopt
selection oriteria (inparticular ,theoriterion ofthe amount of

•■ο*· ·
I
international traffic )tmder which only bottlenecks ofaCommunity
oharaoter would berecognized .Thefollowing cornmenta muot bemadet
3#2»1»Thacrite rion ofthaamount ofintra^-Communl *vtraffic onaepocifio
route oannot boapplied tomany networks forlack ofdata .Further­
more ,important asthis criterion maybe,itoannot boregarded as
decisive .
Much intrar-Community traffic ielong haulage whioh cemtake various
alternative routes .Precisely because ofthebottlenecks internat iorial
traffio oanincertain cases switch toother ,less connected .routes .
The Community interest ofaproject aimed ateliminating a
bottleneck must therefore derive from thapotential international
traffio onthe seotion under consideration saidnot from theexisting
international traffic ,Hanoe theimportance ofknowing starting
points anddestinations which ,particularly inthe oase ofroad
transport ,arevery poorly doauraejptad .
3e2.2 .The Community 'sinterest intheelimination ofabottleneck isnot
limited tothebenefits directly accruing totheusers ofthenew
infrastructure ,Itdepends onthe effects ofthis infrastructure in
othor soctorg among which wemayoit® energy ,thebuilding industry ,
regional development ,thedevelopment oftrade andeoonomio
integration .
This viewpoint isoonrpat iblewith theDecision of£0February 1979 ,
which states that aproject ofCommunity interest isanimportant
project aimod ateliminating abottleneck ,having animpact on
Community traffic orinfluencing aCommunity polioy orinvolving new
«
transport techniques .
3«2.3 »Toavoid allambiguity ,itisappropriate topoint out atthis
point that use ofthegtmoral andflexible criteria oftheBocision
v
of20Fdbraary 1973 aims atensuring that projocto likely tointerest
theCommunity besubject ottheCommunity examination process
provided forbythat Decision ,Use ofthese criteria does not
preju&iog thoproviso form«ideoope cfCoii-auaity intereirt .Evaluation
ofthai ,inptu-ticmlar within thaterns oftheFiliation proposed by
tii'j Coonr.ieai.ott onfinancial support forproject of ■Cowraur.lty interes -';
oaoh oaa® individi'^ily ia "theli^ht ofitseoonomio

-Q_
Y
feasibility and on .thabasis ofthe various planning alternative
andafter ex^iiaing -thepossibility ofapplying measures oxd&hie
the im'SErtmoivt field ,
3»3 «Tho FC-~o^rtphio socp *oftharoport
Intha light ofthese considerations 9the Gomiflia^ion put forward the
pragsatlo proposal that networks ofraoogniaed intemat ionsl oharaot or
beregarded asconstituting the scope ofthis report .This approaoh
makes itpoaoibla todraw upalist ,ofbottlenecks inrespect of
which itmay beassumed that x>rojoo+3intended todeal with them are
likely tohave aGomnnmity oharaoter ,particularly ontk® oritarion
oftraffio .
The proposed networks are asfollows *
(i) road network tthenetwork ofmajor international roads covered
byth«Ikropean agreems&t signed inQoneva .on
15Eovs.m'ber 19751
(ii)rail network ;thelines oovered bythe UIOmaster plan (Annex
IItothe 1973 issue )j
(iii)inland Trg-tertroy network >inland waterways ofclass IV,
Tothese basic networks the Commission added alimited number oflinks '
nooaod mainly for -greater cohesion .Italso proposed that consideration'
begivsn tothe ©ain aaa crossings forming vital links botwcan land
networks andtocertain links crossing theterritory ofnon-»Ccnuiiimlty
co-ant rleaimport tmt for oomsnni 0ationaeither between Member States
(including Oraeoc )orbetween the Community asawhole andcertain
non–Cociia'iani tyoountri08«
J,<5.The Cosraieslon also took the view that ,for laok ofadequats data ,the
?n"..-t -iQ-qld df-.?.lonlywith tb'~crlatin,^' cituation »
< r?-. ofths^anapgrt Infratrtrtaotura Co^TOlttoa
..'.k...••iuoiott wanted the Transport Infrastructure Committee set up
.r.lo :tha Xfeoision of20FoToraary 1978 tobeoloeely assooiated with
tho p:running anddrafting ofthoreport 9particularly the esoticn on
bottlenecks .
Atthe Committee 'smeeting on5 3.979 sScanmisoion departments
sujj.it'ved aworking paper oetti'ag o'tcfcproposal® oncriteria forthe
ifio'ai.a.fi.ca'tioa of "bottlenecks a»d ontha soope ofthe report .

-10-
Moot cftha representatives ofthe Transport Infrastructures Committee
approved the general lines of "the working paporand errr.ranscd readiness
toexamine tho dcrtailed proposals init.
However tthefact emerged fro® technical discmcsioon that many Member
States are somewhat reluctant toidentify bottlenecks "bymethods other
than their own prooedarreG for asoeeaing >infr&Kfcrttottiree %an .altCT "
overcome thodiffi miltien citod above andrrrlv ^rer^-y at«_cor:.?^gun
onuniform oritf-ria proved frinl^lopn .
Inthe light cftho unrewarding disocssions held atthis meting :oftha
Committee ,the Commission deoided toabandon 'its?atiampt toset up
uniform criteria for selecting "bottler.aoks which -desirable asthey
might be did not appear vitalfor aain-depth kaowledge ofthe short­
comings onthe Community® smajor ooDcamnic?,tio:iB routes .
Bach representative vras asked toprovido tbsInformation peoogsarp for
drafting tho report' gahaeawfit.bisrb using the Commission workingcu»wM>w *■'HBitiin mi»!ni 11i*t~11ip»imii^Hwn mia ■■h ibi iiiini>rn«i r»ni u
paper asagaideasfar aapossible .
These contributions were sub'sittad lata -the last not reaching tho CoDnniaoiai–■κι ιII»11II·· ■■ ι·■ι-ΓΤΤΤΤ* -*ΓΤΤΙ --Γ-Τ-ΤΤΓ– κ--·τι-–ΓΤΤ^ΪΤΤΓ -ΐτιτιη· -*-τιτη -«π-·ηηΓ– ■η**Μ*Έ>-Ίηι*·ιι Ι·ΙΙΜ ι··' ^ *
until January 19o0 –sothat tho Commission was unable toconsult the
Committee again until 5February 1980 ,The Commission felt that this
second oonsultation was essential for obtaining information and
aohieving groat orconsistency inthe report then being drafted .The
additional replies announced "bythe representatives inthe following two
weeks took longer than aspected –afurther rssason for the delay in
stOsnittir )^:this roort ,
4.THE CCF'THI BnglOffB
The oowtritnrtiono frca the Sfcatos are B»mcd upand not ort in
c£.rto /r*ap M.o fo^n inAnneres 2to13»
Theoa Annexes areeither analyses dons byConEDl f?adon depart wents ajid
approved 1ythe r&prcsmfcativea ofthe Transport Infrastructixro Committee
or^3cmantaprovided by *those representatives .

-11-
Thetables inAnnexes 2and 3se'e oirtfor road andrail thecriteria adopted
bythe Member States fortheidentification ofbottlenecks (orofprojects
for those Member States whloh have infaot announced projects for certain
transport modes ).
Annexes 4to12provide for each Member State ,where possible ,alist of
the bottlenecks orprojects reported and cartographic depictions ofthem$
Belgium Annex 4 Luxembourg Annex 9
Denmark " 5 Hetharlands w 10
Prance .n.6 Germany M 11
Ireland "7 US " 12
Italy » 8
4.1 »Gonora.1 analvms
Analysis ofthese contributions giv® rise tothe following main oommentsi
4.1.1 .The contributions from the Member States deal with the existing
situation (with afewexceptions ,which arepointed out).
4.1.2 .The contributions from the Member States are ooncamed with thobasic
network rm/r/yestedbythe Commit nion (seepoint ,*6)plus afew
additions whioh the Commission endorses .
4.1.3 .Itislikewise proposed that the following eea oroBg±n,?a '"beamong
the baaio networks included iathe report t
-the Channel (Britlsh r®qu®tst )|
–the Irieh Soai
-tha Psbaiarn Balt (Gierman r®qneat)j
–the Strivits ofMessina .
4.1.4 *Some Meabor States have already reported projects related to a
er-d Rlr -po.ri -.p,. Th«contributions onthis matter are contained inthe
Annoxoa relating toeach Keja'b&x "Scat® .The aboGnoe ofinformation on
aKamber State 5aporta endairports does not mean that there are no
probieaa deriving from insx !equat ©Infrastructures .
The Coiicaission points outinthis connection that while the Docrision
of20Fobrmiry 1SJQ (prooedure forconffaltation onprojects of
Community irrtereot )anditsproposal foraEe^ialation (financial
support forprojects ofCas&Tvmity interest )donotapply toports

-12-
andairports (though they doapply toaccess toports andairports ),
knowledge *ofproject ainvolving ports and airport e
may beonessential factor inthe evaluation ofsome internal
u
transport infrastructure plans .Furthermore ,the facrt cannot "bo
ignored that BOSS ®Member States depend exclusively fortheir trade
with the other Member Spates onthe state ofthalr port and airport
infrastructures .The CornmiBoion therofora record 3itasr-i^ht and
proper that the national contributions bereflected ininformation on
ports and airports which srevital fortraffic between Member States .
4,1.5 .All the fl&mber States have adopted a'definition ofbottleneolcs which
'isn°"trestrictive and which isoften similar tothat proposed bythe
Commission .
They did not merely indicate speoiflo obstaoles which paralyse or
seriously slow down traffic ;they also pointed cart those -sonrtimes
Ionft-stretches ofarotrta where aminiamm level ofservice eaanot
bemaintained .
Identification ofthese points and,above all,these sections derives
inmost oases from the application ofnational assessment procedures ,
which are not uniform .Aswill bepointed outfarther on,this laok
ofuniformity inmethod do«B not mean that results are not comparable .
4.1 »6«For reasons already stated ,moot Member Statoa notified projects ratherv * fctta<s33»*mBaaci *–wniiiaiiBHimH – ouwa»^wwwMw >^ v*&mw£to.ra * o
that bottlenecks for one ormora trans
They took the view that the intermediate stage ofidentifying a
bottleneck should baskipped whore they had .already planned appropriate
investment projects tocope with difficult traffic situations and
whore 9intheir view 8knowledge ofthese projects was ofgreater
significance for the Council from the point ofview ofanassessment
oftho Community 'sinfrastructure requirements .
4.2.Cocraorability ofrenuits
The mo ,1or crnecrfcjo niswhetherthe ap-p g.rantJ.ydigpar atenature ofthos e
ii– MIin mm iini imnm»■ inil mimitniiiiBiw inm I IH I~>IBCIIMII IIWWIIIII MII niflniu HI II* Iiml nw i11nIIan ■iniiin imill ■i^iinninini wuna
contributionn rcxhjofcs tboir isoport .www npiiwi^iiwmiMini >»!■–– m'nu tlaui II

-13-
Since theoritoria uaed were not homogeneous ,the Commission has not
entered the Merabor States' results onthe same map.However ,itdoeB
stress that thse® finfl.ir>ff !?rye coropafri ble withtho aims purou.od by
tho Council and th.it thny Jond themeolvoa tooinl oration atCotrnrmity
lavol.
Inthie oonnacrtion the following commants must bamadot
4.2.1 ,Bottlenecks and projeotB areultimately anindication ,direct or
indirect ,ofinfrastructure sboi-toominga which the Member States have
detected and whioh cannot bedoubted .
4»2»2 «,Coriparability ofcontributions onthe basis ofuniform criteria or
idontioal methods ,which was not .demanded bytho Council ,ianot
nocoGimr.Y for areal knovrled^e ofthe requiremaut sexpressed bythe
Member States .Aneed might bofelt for suoh comparability only if
classification ofprojects (orthebottlenecks making them neoessary )
according totheir profitability ware tobarequired orsimply
envisaged asagoal ,Sac.h anobjoativa isalien tothis report .
4«2e3•At_rll pyontsthonoAiff?r oncs£Jpotwoen thocontributions should
not bempc.ni.fi od.––– <imMI»! NF f.maiu LIM–
Inroppect ofbottlenecks ,anexamination oftho various methods of
calculations used bythe Member 3L-ateatodetermine traffio
saturation thresholds shows that they frequently uso tha saae para­
meters andthat theresults atwhich they arrive fall within a
relatively narrow raoge ,-.
Obviously ,ifatraffic -wolimo uesd asanindicator for
"oottlunaoks 'ismodified ®-«roa slight lyftha way ofpresenting -bottle –
nooka mc-j cban«-o eThat iooris oftha reasons t«hy many Member States
which had workod otrt thoir csm jsethoda ofcaXordaiion were reluctant
toaor.apt anautomatic definition ofbottleaaoka onthe basis of .
uniform figures differing from their own andiasuffioi<srrt1yflexible
todoal tvith thavariety ofcircT<j »stances which arise® Nevertheless ,
the reenxlts supplied bythe Msrobor States doinfact reflect highly
analogous traffic congestion bitnations .
Where other criteria above &&d boyond thocriterion oftrafflo
saturation are uaed toidentify bottlenecks ,agreat similarity botween
them can beobaervad#

-14-
Theprojects notified ,bythe Member States were pr&parod mainly to
deal' with traffic situations oonsiderod tobointolerable .The
parameters need toassess the level ofservice provided byaninfra -
stmature and,inparticular ,todetermine the location ofa
bottleneck also serve asth© basis for caloolatirg profitability and
BOselecrtlag projects for execution .
Overloaded sections ofaroute ,where speed isfairly low,are indeed
more deserving ofinvestment than seat Ionawith lower saturation
rates andrelatively high speeds ,svozi when the oalaulations take in
other faotors .
4«2«4 .Even before itwas called onbythe Coimoil todraft this report ,the
Ccrr'.-al naion had embarked onastudy onthe problrren ofisfragtmotyre
capacity and ngsescment#
The study includes asection devoted toanattempt toassess sections
ofthe Community *amain communications *Using uzdfonn oritsria ,the
study classifies these onasoale ranging from A(very good )toF
(very bad).'
Because ofthedifficulties enoount sred inobtaining data and because
asufficiently detailed analysis was not always possible ,the
findings ofthe study should beregarded only asindications ofatrend .
Itisnot surprising that the bottlenecks andprojects notified bythe
Member States donot always coinoide with those sections ofnetwork
classified "bythe study aaproviding antunsatisfactory Xevsl of
service (Sand?)»Howewr ,itissignificant that there isafair
decree ofatresia oat,particralar lyaaregards th® aggregate length of
oon^Qatod eocrtiona ,
Amore noticeable discrepancy eppe&ro only inrespect ofthe railways
andinrocpeat ofsome Kembor Skates® This may b®explained bythe
differences' inapplying the criterion ofspeed ,The note inAnnex 13
provides additional information onthe study 'sfinding inthis area .
Ons cftho concliisions which roay bedrawn from the st'ady isthat the
cation oforS.tf-ri ^.for thrs s&?option of would
f:OT V*I7RVA J_y C-:p!* Vt"IBO "Si' CC'W:L"V,*1'.'}.*IHO
4!'l»rf»ii-.iic -or ._* J. «r_-w/ "■' '-Si 'r**_ . ,-íVr>to»C5»4
ir,T*.:Ttrr^crfcrrs o ■?*-dVrtho nr.tic a*^l o*:i&

-15-
The study ,which provides agreat deal ofinformation onEjections of
networks ,vd.ll prove very useful tothe Commission andthe Transport
Infrastructure Committee wh&n concrete cases are examined and the
report ,further developed . <
4.^.5 .Inconclusion ,the Commission takes the view that the contributions
from tha Kcaabor States provide aninventory which ,though itmay yet
bosupplemented oramended ,rofl®crfcs with sufficient acouraoy the
infrautruotural short comings ofth© Community 'smain transport links ,
Thes® shortcomings may besummed upasfollows l
4.3.Sirmlng upofthe finding s
4®3.1 .Roads
Traffic saturation onraod sections ofvarying length isthe
oritorion most frequently used bythe Member States toidentify
bottlenecks orprojects .
Those which are .tobefound onthe networks selected bythe Member
States (essentially theB-road networks )areasfollows *
Belgium –*
Denmark (projects ) 215 teasapproslmat ely
Fr&noe (congo sted length )
Iroland (bottlenecks ) 1
Italy (proloot a)
Luxembourg (bottlaneoks )
Motherlands (bottlenecks )
FRQ (bottlenecks )
UK(projects )
Total
*The considerable amount ofroad building inBelgium over the
last fewyears explains why nobottleneck was oited .__ * .
215 teas approslmat ely
1012 "
320 »
1210 "approximately
40 "
530
1618 » '
1160 Mapproximately
6100 approadmat ely

-16-
Inaddition ,France put forward bottlenecks consisting ofdiscrete
hindranoea (tho"hot spot"ooncept )andcausing wjrras weThese
bottlenecks ,whioh causa disruption eypraBoed inhoin -B-ldlomotroB,
doriva mainly from utilization ofthe network®
Such bottlenecks were also considered tryother Me.j'bar States ,but
were either included among theprojects ornot specifically identified .
Only the F.R.G. was able toprovide figures oninternational traffic ,
asthe other Member States donot seem torecord it.Tom&ka amore
dotailed analysis ofprojects orbottlenecks $data onthis matter would
beneeded oratleast thsife would haVQ tobeanestimate –whioh seems
possible insome cases –onthe haais ofdata onoverall traffio from
one region toaaother . .!
4®3«2 .Rail waya .
Kost JJeaabar States ptrf ;upprojects ,tkssa directly expressing in-'
minimum
disputable ^investment requirements ..Aaimpla criterion ofedacity
interms ofthe nuaxLatau ccuaber oftrains ■which can run during a
specific unit oftime hardly allows ustotake account ofnon-
dissociable railway objectives aimed atimproving thequality oftraffic
handling (speed ,regularity ,rsliability )»For exwaple ,thehigher the
standard ofpunctuality danandad ,tho longer thetolerance times must
beand'the more the capacity oftheline will bereduced .The
contributions from the Msabcr States doJiot seen tohave "talcs ?:;sufficient
account ofthese objectives ,with theresult that the overall results
saaa tocontain sins ofomission rath®r than conoaission® Almost all
Member Ssates notified plana for atatione and tenminals ,the bxLlding
ofwhich isessential for railway traffic .
Itmust shspointed outthat aline inone Member Scat amay skew signs
ofsaturation because alino run bysnothnr Member State 'sRailway does
not hawj the same capacity ontho othar aids oftho frontier .Such
situations aric9 {inparticular ,ontheFranco-Italian border at
o&rtain tizeefi ofthe y»ar .Inthis rspsact tbsro isincreased "Community
interest inprojects aiiasd atdealing with such situations .

-17-
Tho oontribut ions from the Lcjiibar Skates provide -thefoll<x.-lr >^
ovo.-*£ 11v.:■-■■Aofthe )?etworks considered bytho 'Member States
(coaccitially thetssio UIOnetwork )I
Balgium
Derunark
Prance -problem bfew oriu
process ofsaltrtion -
-for afew examples ,
see Annex 6
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Ketherlands
F»Rtt(î «
U.K.T^ Plane for citationsLength ofBGcrtion ,. ../,*/, ,., . \and taroiimu.3 (in­(lnkiloraotrea ) torrid )
mwwmutnwmmummiacim –IIMMBII Ié.A.*«Q–pshi–i *IIHIIMB«– M
710(projecta )
60(projeots )
100
1600(projeots )
70
25*(bottle­
necks )
1110 (")
1153
3
1
1
1
1
19
4
Total more than 3460 kns
*Tiio Bothorlands also reported seven discrete bottlenecks which
disrupt traffio onsections ofroutes .
Data ,oninternational traffic have boen compiled bythe railway
companies but were not provided .These data ceroid no doubt bemade
available when adetailed exssaiiiation ismade ofproject aor
bottlenecks .
4*3.3.Inland rnt vts
Identification ofbottlenecks oninland waterways isextremely ooinplex
inview ofthe number ofparameters involved .

-18-
Essentially ,tne wcsnber States report sal
(i)Bottlenecks orprojects determined bydiffionl ';i«n ofpanrrf.n ,*?
lonlra (alook with -lees capacity oroffioionoy than other
looks onthat rout aslooks with difficult aocasa )orother
particular points .
(ii)Bottlenecks orpsH>jecta covering sootions uhicV >donothc-vathe
ideal ,dlmnnrdor'.s for the clang ofVOES "-1on^igr^cd –which
generally means that -the draught has to "bereduced and the ■
vessols *profitability isimpaired –or 'sections .having a
p-iallcr ZFVX ®than the other sect ions ofthe rout 0and thus
preventing the use ofvessel® ofhigh© *-classes ,,
Flans for improving each sections can bejustified only with refarenoe
topotential traffic (wl®9 andstructure )andtothefindings of
profitability studies ,wiiioh aredifficult and -aymerfcimos rather hit–
or-mioa .This means thai insoma oases the intention of .the Member'
States wagtoreport the existence ofaniai&nd .waterwa ypioxming
problaa without atthe same tisie taking astand onthe esdlstsnas ofa
bottleneck orthe appropriateness ofaninvestment measure .
Toinclude inasummary table ofbottlenecks' identified bythe Member
States projects which Lava been approved (laparticular ?theJiotherlands
asidBelgim )andprojects which areenvisaged (inpartiotuar tI^anea ,
Gerc:a:.iy uidItaly )could wall losxi tofalse interpretations ofthe -
Member States® implementation intentions® Itistherefore prsf arable to
ooiiotilt the Annexes ,which show the sise of -the aoknowl ©d^xd recrcire –
msnta andthe planning alternatives which eadst forthe Cosnatmifcy 's
main inland ,waierwaye,
4o3«4 *links no^-C oir-nt^dty coimt rjgg - "
Tho Hkabar States provided noinformation onthe short 00®ing-a ofinfrs >-
etraak-arsQ related tocosmunioaiions with noa-Co /r.rcotnity countries
essential for Comarcbity trade .
Itnrast bopointed otri ;"THA.% tha '^r":'."CY;,'L^^ T^OV~R >V9
Τ;.- ·,Λ,Γ,. ·_;Ι."- ^ &ΤΙ,-·-};···^Γ;~"Ι'·'.V^ΤΛ~'■'·."Γ' Ί, ."Μ,0Τ\<?Τ"<*3

-19-
This report oould provide auseful basis for "the Community toform
anopinion onplana for the infrastructure aofthose communication
links with non–Community oountriea whioh are the most vital for
Community trader
3.FNIAIRCNRG ART?TTQF NRCIRs
Tho Cov^icpion jnyiot Faking adirect linlc between the investment projects
dcrivin ?directly orindiroctly from the projects and bottlen ecks listed
inthe Annexes and their need for Community financing
The problem facing the Commission isaBfollows 8
5.1 *The problea
The contributions from the Member Statesprove that considerable
investments are needed onthe Community 'smajor transport links .It
ispresumed that amajor portion ofthese projecrfcs are ofCommunity
interest inthat their implementation would affect other Member
States besides the oneinwhose territory they are located ,particular­
lyfrom the point ofview ofimproving trade bstween Member States .
The 'Member States are not necessarily able tohandle their investment
require onis9above all not attheright time –afailing likely to
prove expansive for the Coraznanity *Anoptianau yield from irnnssrfcmsnt
projects onthe major linka requires aminimum ofcoordination of
their implementation inepace aad time 0F&therffloi 'e,the implementation
ofcertain projects oanitself boofepeoifio benefit tothe Community .
What wetherefore have toknow iswhether aMember State can find a
oolufcion tothe financial problems itencounters byusing ex!.sting
Community financial instrument a,when aprojeut ofCommunity interest
isinvolved .Uhere the reply ishotfully satisfactory ,thought will
have tobegiven tothe question ofhow other financial systems
should boconstructed .

-20-
5.2,The exj-frtln .^inntrT?scms .■'
5.2.1 .-The main fimne't alinaiT-cmeTrts ofimportance fortransport infra *-
structures arothe European Investment Bank (EIB)jthe new Community
instrument (NCl),aids towards the payment ofinterest onloans either
from the ElBorthe NIC aspart ofthe implementation ofthe European
Monetary System andtheRegional Development Pond (EKDP).Thetable in
Aimez 14summarizes the main characteristics ofthese four financial
instruments . 1
5.2.2 .Their anal eoen bejudged from the following figures .Between !95«»
theyear ofitscreation ,andthe endof1978 * "the ELJ3provided'
I418.1 million units ofaocorxit ,iae.15.1 %ofalltheloans 5t
granted ,for some 84lending 1,operations inthetransport and
eonmitsni oations infrastructure sector .
Inthethree years whioh followed itsoreation (1975-77 )»theEuropean
Regional Development Fund devoted more than 165million xm?is of
account ,i*e.12.8'£ ofitstotal appropriations ,-totransport ar.d
ooraarani cations' infra wtrucrture investment projects .
Sofar the NCI has been involved only toth-a extent ofaloan of
20million units ofacooimt for improves arststotheIrish road network .
These figures shew that Coararasity fonds allocated tothetransport
infrastrucriure ofthe Member States hava "been considerable inreoarrt
ycasta .However ,itshould not beoonoluded that these funds have made
itpossible -orwill make itpossible -tomaet allthe yequesrts from
the Member States corresponding tothe requirement hofthe.common
xtransport polioy .
5.2.3 .The folow ir-o ;rain opTnng-ntB have tobemade l
(i)There aregeographical limits tointervention the case oftwo
inatrtsraentss the EEL *.Vandinterest relief grants under the Boropeon
Monetary System , -
(ii)Nan-repayable subsidies canbegranted only bytho K?DP,while EtJS
interest rolief grants oak beapplied only toEXB and NCI loans for
projo -.-jBinoountrlea vihich both participate fully inthe TfS and
aro ccasidor^d tobe?less proyparo'sza .
(iiiJCTVia r:n SCI grs-nt loóa»3 orit*mas de-eratrlacd by rulix *on
theeditai v.*y &■)% * lo?zaffiV-.n a«tot >-.r:a.àa r^':.ireu ..--nt3
00",3-*

(iir)InCOEIQ cases theparticular criteria ,forthe UEQoftheexisting
instrument acanlimit their ability toiatavnron .iinthe fie'j.d of
transport infrastructure with tho aim ofcontributing tothe
aohift-veTiont ofacoherent oomnroni cations network ,Some oftheee
criteria -regional development ,eoonomio /powth and ,increased
investment -are how-aver vdde enough tooover projects intended
toeliminate bottleneoka *
(v)Because ofthelimitations whioh inanycaso militate aginst the
use ofthe eslcrtirrj instruments ,tb«eyetam proposed bythe
Commission for giving financial aidtocertain projects ofCommunity
■interest should bo serfc tipassoon aspossible tocomplete the range
ofinstrBriwntB available *
The priroioles ofnow financing arrane^msuts
The limitations ofthe existing instruments set off asearch for a
win 1'wwinwmmii ■■ .it^k i»^h mmaiiii i .■jmj.i iiif mm' "iwiwin iwh iinwrw– ~"w ■n i~r,
financing ;cichf -raojr.qM'-y ,:itpor .-d/bletcmead upth^jjnnlfimeot&titai of
infrastructure project ,smostinff the r&cp;d.i-criurntB ofthe eonsaon transportW3– u^i 1BB»I «1li" IIMI IlIII'Hi II)>MM'tAwiWIi «1*1 1|IUntu IlIWIW !IHHi*i i&tk .'.■.Tg>Wai»r'iHMti»1Wil!llfr»il*W|i»>tT«UWI"W*i p––
policy ,Tliaprinciples vrhich itseems advisable toembody in «mch a
sohesne should beasfollow a*
(i)Thefinanoir /rofrvfraot motV'.re <ji.aawaiter fornaticns.1 bodies *
* rrr>^awCTvjrjfT>JC aww.-gnw imiai -r ■■'
Kh^ra aoall iswade for specific Consaranity support forthe
financing ofdistinct and olearly defined projects ofCommunity
interest ,this support shall beCTxpplemontary »
(ii)There mu&t beachsok onwhether these project 3areattended by
opti "tvniconditions for jraplran^af ,ation *inparfcioa3 arthose whioh help
toimprove service onthe Oomnranlty fsmajor communications axes *
(iii)Where financial aidisgranted ,itshould lead toimplementation of
theproject ox"Ccnaranity interest »Whore applicable ,it .should rnake ^
itpossible tomuster various means offinancing sothat large sums
can beallooated toalimited rrtanbar ofpj-oj?ctg .Itmust therefor©
bemade possible touse loans and guarantees alongside non-
repayable subsidies .This financial support isjustified bythe
Comrranity interest ofthe project® This means ,inparticular ,that
there should beacorrelation between the non-repayable subsidy and
the increased benefit for the Community resulting from implement­
ation oftheproject *Inthelatter case .Community interest must
not merely bestated ingeneral terms ,but must beevaluated .The

-22-
praotioal Bifjnifioanoe ofthis prinoipl© roquiroe that oortain
explanations already made tothe Transport Infrastructure Committee be
briefly recapitulated .
5.4.Financing a-rran /roiiiearb sand Conmmlty inter opt ofprojects
5.4.1.Aprime indicator ofthe ma.ogiit-nde ofapro.1eot*a Community interest
istho international traffic onthe route improved "bythe implement­
ation ofthat project ,foritcan "beused todetermine thebenefits
derived byusers from Member States other than the Member State in
•whose territory theprojeot islooated .This indicator should beused
with caution inthat this traffio between Member States isnot always
easily identifable .nevertheless theyardstick ofinternational traffio
isaparticularly appropriate and handy instrument for measuring
Community interest .
Obviously ,itplays apreponderant r8le indetermining theprojeotB
whioh the Member States are required tonotify tothe Commission
pursuant totheDeoision of20February 1978 *I"tisthe main wayof
assessing theprojects ,implementation ofwhich will haVe anotable
effect onlong-distance international traffio .
5.4.2 .Comffiunit.y interest must bemore fully appreciated byconsidering the
quantifiable general benefits forthe Community .Taking this approach ,
• ■ '
Community interest would bemeasured not only onthebasis ofthe
oonaoquenoes forinternational users ofthe improved route ,but also
interms oftheeffects oneuoh factors as,for example ,thelosses or
gains ofoperators inother Member States ,total energy consumption ,
trade andregional development ,andthobuilding andcivil engineering
industries .
5.4.3 .Itwill benecessary toolarify the nature ofthose impacts onthe
CoiEnuaity whioh are linked with the external effects ofinfrastructures .
Inparticular ,the qffocto onthe network will have tobeexamined
-since ,according toArticle 5oftheDecision of1978/"tb®objective
ofConiiEUBity action istocontribute *totho h&Tfsonious development of
the network ofGommrmlty interest .
Determination ofsrach anetwork raicoa problems similar tothose faoed
bythe Mtaaber States atnaticmal levol .Ei© States all identified
aprincipal network ofmajor SCCQS fortraffic between rag-ions sHowever ,
those gsmb areoftea important forregional traffio -which isntanerically
groater ih~,n national traffio .This fact was soocptod "bythe Ktaibor

-23-
Sfratea ,for anational n©+.tm\c whioh XBTmifiod andofuniform qvj&lity
iaregarded asanessential olesnemi ofthe fjra'ieporfc system *
Extrapolation ofthis pariLncj.pl© tothe Coac -Ciii --;/IottoIialogiool *The
raality ofthe Corr.vi'mity ,its equilibrium anditadsvelopment depend on
keeping its main communications atahigh standard .Inrespect ofthose
ooranrumcationsy whioh donot include links ofpurely loop J.orregional
Interest ,Coram unity interest 9ataayrate that portion ofitwhioh is
identified with "benefits forrisers ,ienot gatsged bymeans ofcalculat­
ions which are necessarily "based onademarcation bei-reon theinter­
national traffio and the Mc-bor States *domestic traffic .
These considerations c;uinot "boignored under tho long-term ,prospect that
the Community will aohieve great orintegration ,They should tmderly any
new Community financing system eothat itcan e"ily beused for the
financing ofprojects ,the implementation ofwhich guarantees a
minimum threahold ofunification ofthe Community 'smain communications .
5.4.4 .The report onthe evaluation ofprojects ofCommunity interest ,which
will heaerrt tothe Council onconclusion ofthe work "being done "bythe
Commission incooperation with the Transport Infrastructure Committee
will gointo these considerations ingreater depth .Onthe basis ofa
pilot study itwill provide more specific information onmethods of
calculating theidentifiable effects :-Jbi.ch amajor project can have on
the Community .
Itisalready possible tojailorfinancial intoyvention toConnTiTmity
interest idth satisfactory olascnoss .Itwould "berairaalistic tomake
thepossibility offinancial intervention dependant ontheavailability
ofcomplete and foolproof mothoda proved right inmsAT cases .Asis
generally the case ineconomics ,practice and n»Tfchodology must advance
hand inhand .Methods ofevaiimt Ing -Gouraronlty ii-rfccrest ,onwhioh there
hasalready "been some experimentation ,os,:i beperfect 3donly gradually
asthey are applied toother practical cases®
Tho considerations sot outinpsas .5®3 «and 5®4«lead ustoenvisage the
following new financing arrangements ,,
5.5*Anal-rein ofnew crranraiaontB forf?racial intor%'cvrtxcn
WRIWR a-NM ^ r NUrim n ^NM » -tm r'R"– ~ Irm ' 1tinnni m;■ I i7»»NlF i;■THII
5®5»1 .One proposal that has been mooted incertain circles isaprovision
that tho impl cmcntationofeg .ah.project choytldbaeovsrod byale/?aland
financi alarrange ?sntbetwoonthe Kembor States ,vihich would negotiate
their contributions under the aegis ofthe Community onthebasis ofthe
benefits they would derive from it.Under the existing procedures

(Decision of20February 1978 )»"theCommission would ,verify that the
projeot was ofCommunity iirteregt and oompatible with other projects .
The Commission would assist inassessing the specific . Community
9interest ofprojects and would ,ifnecessary ,provide funding from
existing financial instruments onapplication bythe Member States .
Inview ofthe wide variety ofpossible situations ,the Commission
reoognises that suoh aformula could beuseful insome oases ,butit
cannot beregarded asanexclusive "solution *
.5.2.The system offunding based oncontributions from the Member States
\ 'aocording tothe benefits derived from thetraffic angle hasthe
following drawbacks :
(a)Itwould require vary long load times andcould only bejustified
for very large projects .
Itisnotsufficiently flexible tobeable Quickly to"reserve *
projects ofCommunity interest which ,beoauoe ofeconomic un­
certainties ornational priorities ,oarrnot beoarried oud bythe
Member States .Itcannot adaprt toallthe different situations which
mayarise .Hon-repayable contributions are,furthermore ,notthe
only way ofexpediting the implementation ofinfrastructure projects
ofCommunity interest# Support inthe form ofloans orguarantees ,
-for example ,forprojects offering ahigh financial return may,in
some cases ,prove not only sufficient butalso highly effective ;
inothers ,subsidies orinterest-relief grants combined with loans
orguarantees may bemore suitable ..
(b)Itisbased onaconcept ofCoronnraity inter oErtwM .ohislimited
solely tothe benefits tousers operating intormtional transport
sarviooe .
(o)Itiabased ontheJprinoiple ofthedivision ofbenefits among .
•Member States .Although tsohnioally possible itisdebatable
whether this can b® don® onthe basis ofatraffic situation at
any given time .Above ail,however ,this system sotais tobebased
onthe principle that +5hecontributions made by"^10Member States
toth«impleinantation ofc?ach project mast sratch the benefits they
darive from it.This principle isput iji'zo practice bymeasures whioh
belong tothefield ofintcrt^-atata co-operation® The •usefulness of
euoh co-operation .insome casos cannot bsdenied ^but erach measures
cannot bytkom&elvos cake lipoasibi© toput into exToct the ooranon
transport policy provided foriaarticle 75ofthaTreaty .

-25-
The Commission believes tno pr&vio-as system could with advantage be
developed along -the following linesi
(a.)prcidl aauitable 1en.o.lfremc-*ork _at^onnnyniity levolfora
£orma :icntnycrtcm of^moral finrnolal it-report forprojects of
Community interest irrespsotivo oftheir size ,the type of
funding required ,the I3ember States involved aud the way inwhich
the benefit aderived are shared among them ,
(b)establishing alink between the amount 'endform ofaidprovided
and the overall benefits tothe Community .
ThiB does not mean that there would not tintime fbeacorrespondence
batweon the financial burden imposed oneach Keraber State byCommunity
aid and the benefits which itderives from the projects .
5.6.The Byatemproposed bytho Ccirmi .anion • .
Tho oyster;proposed bytheConrirl anion inthe Pe-rxlation onfinancial
support saca atomeat these condit ions .
Financial support will only begiven toprojects ofCosaaranity interest
which gothr&Ti^h the ooncult ation procedure sot upbythe Dsoision of
20February 1976 asaoheok that they are comp'Atibj ?with anoverall
strategy .
The financial support may taks various forms ?lean guarantees t
gubaitiies orintaroet relisf .Itdoes not exclud® thepossibility of'
other types ofCcmcraai t;yftm&iag .
Sinoo support isprovided bytlis Comaranity assuch ,the non-r Gpayabl e
contributions (eubeidiea andinter astrelief grant a)have tooome from
the Badgat •Subsidies and intwrast relief graivbs relate closely tothe
gauga ofthe bsnefit ofaprojoot tothe Coiri -ninity ,
Although loans and g'naraataae are or<iy granted onprojects ofinterest»
tothe uoraiaunity ^they are not determined according tothe amount of
this intfcrocrte Loans and goaraatoea eapplasj®nt existing Community
financial iiicrtruiaunt ii,orar<&ueo& alone ,tohelp encourage the
iiaplasezrtation ofprojects ofCcr^ruMty interact which cannot -be
carried out byaMember Stscts .

-2fr-
5.7.How "the system proposed bythe Commission might work
Λ
I"tisuptothe Member' States tosubmit projects ofCommunity ,
interest totho Commission andtoapply forfinanoial support ;
the Commission cannot atthis stage make any pronouncement as
I 1
towhat projects will qualify forfinanoial support .The Commission
isprepared topresent anillustrative example oftho working of
its system ,based onreasonable working hypotheses .
5.7.2 .Possible working hypothesis
Pro.1<ït>t s
Average ofthree projects per year 1
(a)Large projeots varying incost
(b)Projeots selected according tothefollowing criteria : V
importance totrade between Member States (particularly
projects toease thecrossing ofnatural barriers ),opening
upofperipheral areas ofthe Community and repercussions
inenergy terms (projeots concerning tfor exaiaplo ,rail routes
whioh carry alarge volume ofcombined rail/roadtraffic )
(c)Projects based largely onMember States' contributions on .
bottlenecks .
*
Forms offinanoial support
: * 1
Guarantees ,loans ,subsidies andinterest relief grants .
Subsidies and interest relief grants ' '*
Amount '
For example ,atotal of60million units ofaocount peryear under .
Item 3781 intheBudget (FiiuSioial support fortransport infra­
structure projects ).
a
Basin ofcalculation
Acontribution of20^towards tho coot ofoneortwoimportant projects
ofrelatively low ooert (totalling 50million u,a.),i.e. 10million
u.a .per year .
Interest relief (twopoints )on of350million u.a.(for oneor
twoprojacts )ji.e. $0million u.a,peryear .

-27-
5.7.3 .For example ,this 60million u.a.(non-repayable )would provide
help over afive-year period and onthis basis ofcalculation
for projeots 'totalling 2000million u0a,
*
Loans and gvarantaos *
5.7.4 .Nofigures are given for loans and guaranty absinoe they would
betoo unreliable given the laolc ofinformation ~inparticular -
about how much oredit could beextended byexisting Community
instruments fortransport infrastructure projeots and what use
Member States would make ofthese two forms offinancial support .
6.CONCLUSIONS
6.1.Before even discussing theproposal for aRegulation onfinanoial
support for infrastructure projeots the Counoil may well aak .
■whether ,given the slowdown ingrowth andthe energy crisis ,the
Community 'sinvestment needs are solarge astowarrant Community
funding ofpractical measures .
There isnodoubt ofthe answer :the fact that the Member States *
contributions oi-e not completely comparable andthat bottleneck and
project are not nsosaa &rily the p.uiaa thing tdor ;anot detract from
the significance oftlx©results ofthe ex8x>oi >.<<« Tala report
h?.pit11p.frtaar-riQXSaand prc;ird-N;infre .ptrs-ot?' TSy .gels onmajor
Coaraunltfy1inka.
6.2.The report also examines arelated aspect ?the Community interest
ofthese needs ,b@oa.usd itmay lead toconfusion .
Adistinction must bemade between general a-id simple criteria
according towhich aproject toremove bottlenecks aay beclassed
asbaing ofCommunity interest (Decision of20February 1978 )and
the economic evaluation ofthis inter® inaot'Aal terms ,which
may berequired under the proposed Regulation .The Commission takes
•Sasview -asdothe majority ofrepresentatives onthe Committee -
that since "bottlenecks orprojects n.--Gcairit e
accepted bythe Member States they are vary likely inmeet oases to
beclassed asbeing ofCommunity interest .

-28-
ί
Another aopeot istheir eligibility for Community oupport ,whioh
requires fuller investigation ofthe various elements ofCommunity
interest and,inthe case ofnon-repayable subsidies ,anactual
assessment ofthis interest .The aspeots ofthis question whioh
will influonoe the ohoioe offunding system are discussed inthe
report .The actual teohniques ofassessment will hediscussed in
,areport whioh the CommisBion will send tothe Counoil atalater
date atitsrequest .Thelatter report isnot neoesBary for Judgment
ofthe system offinancing proposed by'the Commission .
6.3 *Itisessential tooontinue with thesignificant work already
accomplished inthepreparation ofthis report ,inorder tokeep
theresults abreast ofhew developments andtomove onfrom statio
listing ofpresent shortcomings toadynamic means offoreseeing •
future problems *
The main ways inwhioh the "oapital "thus aocamulated oan be
conserved –and the "return"onitenhanoed –ares
(a)tousethefindings offorward studios already undertaken or
planned bythe Commission todetect future shortcomings ininfra­
structures (onagradual basis ,starting with asmall number of
,important Community links )} „
f
(b)toidentify infrastrucrture^inadGquaoies onthemain links toand
from non-Comunity countries byutilising the findings ofECHT
studies etc.|
(o)toobtain abetter understanding ofintra-Ocmiaunlty traffic
flows onmajor Community links ,their impaot onbottlenecks and
possible chsncaa whioh might bemade tothea by .improving
routes ,&adtoinvestigate howfar eorae form® oftraffic
(holiday said he&vy>»g,oods traffic )oontri'te.te totraffic problems .
6.4.The Coffxiioaion taksa th® view tbat this iphcald "baanending task
under %h.<iTransport lnfrastriicc'»ix-e Ccsiraltiea (cuboar s^raph (b)of
Artiola 5(2)oftheCouncil Decision of20February 1978 )aadthat
the rasai-ce should beincorporated inthe regular reports whioh th©
Cor.aiasion isysquired toraoiso toths Couaoil ontha Coxaitiae 's
work under Artiola 6ofth©B^oisioa of20Jte'&ruary 1978 *

-2?~
6.5•.The report deeorioaa and arplffins the Coammaity finanoial inntrrnaentB
widohejcLsrt -and outlines inmora ta« .aoffinancial
support proposed bythe Commission tomeet the^c.cifio needs to
develop infrastrcoinres inthe CoimsTmJty .The EGchrnj mpropor^rd "hythe" •0aMr.rr-.rvr i• rjjgM <».'UA.^ar^x qiacnaiMiaMtJ.j»iW –
"creni srsionoc~ild "r-nvi vn8*projecta of 5ntnr^rrt vhlcfa >?.y?
V orn pHolved .?jdhr.a iha ob-'.m j?a&^;r*trta£i.>a ofoptir~?z opt^d ,simplicity
and cffloimoy Inthe contv'-rt ofoocaaon trsa^oi"t policy#
Thereport does not,however ,list priority projaois which might "be
finanocd "bythe egret em,cdmpiy illuE +rating them onreasonable working
hypotheses .
Nothing else wasposribla .Under the terms ofthe proposal for a
Regulation onfinancial crapport forinfrastructure projects ofComaranity
interest the Jismfcar .States would sand their applications for finanoial
support tothe Commission ,Thair applications would then hedisease ad
with the Member States bsfor® the Commission maJcea its propoeals as
part ofthe Community Budget .Th© Coramlseion may not anticipate the
positions ofthe Kesber States oritself ^ntil the appropriate
procedures have b«aa oqapletedw
6.6# Ccaaunity action xmj "beharapered "bythis dssaend that Member States *
priiEQrresponaibility for ijafrastructixr® ;?should b®taJcea into account#
Soiso Meaber States donot wi&h togive their via ,73onthe proposed
Regulation until thay have fall doiails oftheprojeots tobefinanced ,
whereas the Uaabor States vMoh will have topropose concrete projeots
qmlifying forfondly srereluctant todosountil the Regulation
has been adopted .
The Conixiiseion can donomore than demonstrate –asithas done in .
the report -th® magnitude eicd urgency ofraqulroisonts endthe valtie
oftha finaaoiug Byatom ithas proposed .
6.7.Tha Tpoat constyrcctivo my ofaroj ding dggdle cJraf'Soroimanity level is,
inthe Co?r-dr?r'i<5n ,Bview ,tos

I
-30-
(a)reaoh ep.rly e.'vroemcnt inprinoiple ontha oyntcTi offinancial
erapport proposed bythe Commission ,whioh Ispriaarily abasis
and does not prejudge thoactual projects which will "beoarried
out ;
(b)eTCmino thovalfo ofanrmbor of-pro joctn totheCo^mity as
part oftha bricrf fiven tothe Trarrrroort Infrastructure Coimittee
BWWM »– nil»111"iio–»– mem –wn»a >-.»inamwwt Vtw– Bwwanwm ?–
bytho Deed sionof20February 1978 and einparticular ,within
tha oonenrltation procedure .Thefinancial probloraa which may be
enoount ered bythe Member States in :incorporating these projects
intheir national programmes would emerge atthe same time .
' Member StateB will beasked toindicate whether they consider
some ofthese projects might qualify for financial support from ,
the Community .
6.8.Tha oonquitation procedure doeo not ofnov.ro aanticipate the award
offinancial aid ;it HOtildeaaabla ar-anerve list ofpro .loot atobe
draxm UP,with their interest tothe Community more accurately
esprsssed .Ifsuch alist isdrawn upquickly and subsequently
supplemented ,the Member States will beable ,inasecond phase ,to
atska acareful •selection ofprojaots eligible forfinancial support .
Itshould benoted that the consultation procedure isaprecursor
ofthe prooedura under whioh theprojects are esamined pursuant to
the Regulation onfinancial support .The preparation ofareserve ,
list through the conmiltation procedure would enable the funding
system tobeoome operational assoon asitioapproved .
\ „
>
6.9® The information colle ctedonbottlcnecka arid pro,loot -stand the
Commission fully appreoiatoo its value .will provide acrf^io^mtlv
"broad "basis for consultation on t>xolasts ofCo'^rriJty inteveirt #
I11|·|· IIIIII>11ιιιιι II■,^Π":*:ίΤ1Β-ν#'«·!ιί&»Λν«τζ!«Κηβ!».Β*Η**!· ,Γ««·«·Χ'Κ«·»,'»ι«*Γ:*»*·Ά>»Τ'*ηΓ^4'Ά»τη ι»»ί1Κί«·*«ΚΒΙ«·ηι τβ,.-ΟίΛιίνίΊη ?«ί*ΙΜ »»Β»Μ«β3
The Commission is cswas *«that theprojects mentioned inthe Maabar
V States *Erohmiasiono are notali equally c-uitabia far eonaultation »
The rnoafe efficient procssum-s would 9inthe Gonial ssion *aopinion ,
betohold arsa&ilxnsabor ofconaultst ions onprojoais *?feich appear
atfiratsd^lvo iobeofrelatively substantial Interact tothe
Coanrcnity .Tba Coisaiseion a^ftgacs athat tha laenber S&s.to3 carry out
this pz*®-yel*»otioi »ofprojoorfce eooos*di»g totha following criteria !

-31-
(a)sljjrdfioEiioe tointra^orearonity "trade
(b)potential oonDcquenoca intorso ofenorgy
(o)importance from the viewpoint ofproviding conuootiono .with ,
tho network ofoomiranAoations links ofCoisiraiiity interest . •
Onthesa criteria tho Member States might 1)9enocuragod toeuttait the
following projects totho CoKisiaeion astheir first ohoioas
(a)project aoncongastod sections ofthenettrork through which traffic
froa v^rio-as international routes cruet past (particularly projects
to©as© thecrossing ofnatural barriers )
(b)projects onlinks carrying alarge volume ofcombined transport
traffio orwhich may have alarg© influonoe onthe modal split
(o)projects toopen tipperipheral areaB .

List ofAnnexes
Bottlenecks .Criteria proposed bythe Commission
Criteria used for identification ofbottlenecks orselection of
projeots (Road Network )
Criteria used for the identification ofbottlenecks orselection
ofprojects (Rail Network ) ' '
Contribution Belgium
" Dénia ark
" Franc e
' " Ireland .
w Italy 1
* * y 1
" Luxembourg - '
i
" Netherlands
" F,R.ofGerm&ny
" United Kingdom
Not 3oiltheresults ofasurvey ofthe existing networks of
Member States .
Existing sources for infrastructure financing inthe Community

Annex 1
Bottlenecks
Criteria proposed bythe Commission *
Road bottlenecks
1. Bottlenecks onsections ofroad
– Anexact identification ofbottlenecks implies aknowledge of
extremely precise data onthecharacteristics oftheinfra –
I
structure andtraffic aswell ascomplex methods developed by
traffic
engineers .
- Itseems reasonable tobase the report onoertain simplification
such asareused bycertain national authorities ,since theaim
isnot todefine criteria fordetermining economic activity .
TheCommittee isasked toconsider thefollowing proposals .
2. Itisproposed toadopt theclassification ofroads used inthe
European Agreement onMain International Traffic Arteries ,Geneva ,
15th November 1975 (seeTable l).
*Extract from aworking document drawn upbythasecretariat
ofthaTransport Infraetraotura Committee foritsmeeting of
3rdKay 1979

.■■- . " 54
3. Theuseofaverage daily traffic asanindicator isproposed
since this isavailable inallMember States whereas thehourly traffic ,
whioh ismore meaningful ,isnotalways available .
Abottleneck canbesaid toexist when theaverage daily traffio
exceeds agiven service volume foreach category ofroad .
4. ItQeem9 necessary totake into account theimportant effects of
heavy vehicles ontraffio conditions .
Themethods used byMemberStates vary (maximum to2inage ,conversion
into pcu's,adjustments totake -account ofgradients,' eto.)andthere is
noquestion ofdeveloping acommon method which canbeapplied iyall . '
TheSecretariat proposes that each Member State should remain
free toapply itsownmethods ,inpreparing itscontribution tothe
report andtosimplify them ifnecessary ,provided that s–
' \
a) thevolume ofheavy vehicle traffio isexpressed inpassenger
carunits (asintheGeneva Agreement )"bytheuaecfon©or
more equivalence factors 51
b) different equivalence factors areapplied according totopo­
graphical conditions forroads other than motorways andexpress
- ■
roads .Ifthe .national authorities arenotable touse their
ownmethods ,theSecretariat suggests j'thatthefaotora 2,4and6might beapplied forflat ,undulating andmountainous terrain
respectively . , j1 ^j
5. Speed isthemost important fe,ctor fordetermining level of
\ !
service . Itisproposed that thespeed tobetaken into acoount should
bedefined ,interras inspired bytheHighway Capacity Manual ,asfollows :
overall speed thatadriver canjattain inopencountry between towns while ,
respecting theprinciples ofthe !Highway Code .
This speed should beaboUji :9^km/h'onjaotorwa^ra andexpress roads ,
andabout 60-70 Jca/honother ro|ads .Ingeneral terms thismeans thatthe
I I
driver should notbeexcessively *restricted byother traffic (Q.g .in '
overtaking ).Thisrequirement |canbetranslated intoaservice volume
limit . I

-3-
The maximum service volume figures given inTable 1,based onthe
practices ofnational authorities andthetechnical literature ,are sub­
mitted forthe comments ofthe Committee .These figures are theresult
ofconsiderable simplification :
6. Where government departments are able touse more precise criteria
and alarger number ofvariables ,itwould behelpful ifthey could
indicate which bottlenecks can besaid toexist because the attainable
speeds (asdefined inpoint 16)arebelow thelimits given above asa
guideline . .
7. .Bottlenecks atisolated points
The bottlenecks inquestion are those caused byapermanent obstacle
atasingle point onthe road ,resulting inqueuing inone ormore lanes
over acertain minimum distance ,vehicles being unable toproceed except
very slowly andintermittently .
Congestion ofthis type can perhaps bemeasured asavolume expressed
forinstance inhours-kilometres .However ,the extent ofthe inconvenience
felt bydrivers depends onthe general traffic conditions sothat ,atthis
stage ,itisdifficult toestablish aprecise ,uniform quantitative criterion
for theidentification ofsuch bottlenecks for the purposes ofthe report .
The Secretariat suggests that representatives should provide information on
the location ofthese "hot points "onthe basis ofthe general definition ,
indicating ifpossible their main characteristics (length ofqueue ,duration
oftraffic jams ,periods during which they occur ).TheSecretariat will
then consider thepossibility ofcarrying out amore detailed analysis of
this type ofbottleneck .

.-4- ' ' V*
Service V olume
(both directions -daily traffic inpassenger carunits )
Motorway andexpress roads (2x2 lanes ) 40000
for each additional lane .. '. .. 24000
Category II
4lanes ..... . ... 30000
3lanos ■' .. ...... .. .. 15000
Category I .. .. ...... V . .. .i '• 9000
N.B. These figures apply only outside urban ,areas

-S- 3t
Railway Bottlenecks
i
Thetheoretical capacity ofrailway lines ,calculated onthe
assumption oftrains travelling atauniform speed ,isreduced even
more markedly than inthe case ofroads bydifferences inthenature
ofservices provided (intercity express services ,local services ,
goods trains ofvarious types ,combined transport services ,etc.)and
bythe rigorous requirements inrespect ofpunctuality andsafety which
characterize this mode .
Practical capacity can,however ,bemore easily calculated for
each line because thetraffic isplanned and the determining factors .
(signalling ,sidings ,capacity ofstations ,etc.)areprecisely known .
Estimation procedures exist for determining capacity and hence
identifying thebottlenecks with reference tothe demand .The procedures
are based onthe use ofnumerous variables and may,therefore ,pose problems
forpractical application .
Asinthe case ofroads ,itisnecessary tofind auniform basis
foridentifying bottlenecks which can beeasily applied where more through
.studies are not available .
The Secretariat suggests the following guidelines -foridentifying '
railway bottlenecks .
Inadequate capacity oflines inrelation tothe overall traffic volume
9. The line3 inquestion are those where the introduction ofanew
regular service creates severe problems (operating costs increasing more
than receipts ,deterioration ,ofother services ,additional risk ofdelay ).
Asaninitial indication ofthe capacity ofaline ,given acontin­
uous flow ,the figures mentioned bythe UIC inits Master Plan seem
appropriate .These are:- '. '

(Two-rhundred )200-220 trains per daiy cnadouble-track line and
about 60trains .p°r day onasingle-track iine vwith aixed traffic and
suitaole equipc -entofthelina .These figures should beadjusted when
the equipment isnot appropriate ,especially inrecpect ofsignalling
orthelayout ofthetracks (junctions ,central !sedtraffic control ).
The particular conditions oneach line ,which are well known to
therailway undertakings (e.g. proportion ofdifferent types oftrains ,
speed differences :,characteristics oftheline),maylead totheidenti - •
ficatipn ofthe bottlenecks atlower capacity levels . However ,insuch ,
cases itwould bedesirable toknow the main factors taken into considera­
tion »
' • /•
Inadequate capacity atnodal points inrelation tothe overall traffic volume
(shunting yards ,stations where electrified andnon~electrified lines meet ) ■
Itisnot possible toapply avery exact criterion .Itwould be
advisable tobeasrestrictive aspossible while retaining those bottle­
necks which reduce theflexibility ofoperations toanintolerable extent .
Shortcomings inthe infrastructure inrelation tospecific ser-^.ces
10.Intercity passenger traffic .
Asforthe roads ,itseems necessaiy tointrcd-uce thequalitative
criterion ofaminimum level cfservice for passenger services ,In
addition torequirements offrequency end punctuality ,some express trains
should attain agiven commercial speed .Inview ofthe mixture oftraffic ,
maximum permitted speeds ,"deceleration distances andthe inadequacy of
certain stations ,the commercial speed onsome liaes may besolowthat a.
bottleneck iscreated asfar aspassenger traffio isconcerned .
S
Itisproposed that the report should indicate those major lines on
thebasic network ofthe UICMaster Plan where acommercial speed of125 km/h
cannot beattained byexpress trains . "

The lines included inthe Master Plan are those which link
together the category 1traffic zones .Inspeaking ofthe 'major ,lines *
ofthe UIC Master Plan ,anadditional selection oriterion isintroduced .
The Secretariat proposes toselect those lines inthe Master Plan which
link the'following towns : '
- national capitals ,
- towns with more than 750 000 inhabitants .
The basic goods transport services for which the railways are
specifically suitable are whole train-load services ,combined transport
and wagon-load traffic .These services require afairly extensive network
with appropriate characteristics .
Inorder toachieve afairly homogeneous presentation andtoeliminate
all butthe most important aspects ,theSecretariat suggests that the
following criteria should beadopted :- ■
- inadequacy ofshunting yards having significant effects
onlines both toand from theshunting yards (trains out
ofservice for long periods ,congestion oftheline ,delays in
dispatch andpoor quality ofservice )j
- inadequate loading gauge ofthe line preventing the development
ofcombined transport (piggy-back )when apotential demand exists ;
- inadequacy orlack ofterminal facilities ,especially when this
prevents the development ofcontainer transport .
Bottlenecks oninland waterways
11. Calculating thecapacity ofinland waterways isa'difficult task
because ofthe wide variations inthe dimensions and loading of .vessels
and inthe dimensions ofthe waterways themselves .Complex models have
been developed todetermine the capacity oflocks asafunction ofalarge
number ofparameters ,since the capacity ofthe locks usually determines
that ofthewaterway (traffic flow -ineach direction ,time taken foreach
lock operation ,types ofvessel .,frequency ofarrivals atthelock).The
use ofsuch models ,although very helpful inthe preparation ofprojects ,
nevertheless seems less appropriate forassessing the existing traffic
conditions .

Thecharacteristics ofawaterway ^determine Itsclassification
(ECMT classes )andconsequently thetypos ofvessel which canuseit.
Itisoften important toknow whether this limitation onthe types of
vessel which can use the waterway constitutes abottlenaek inrelation
topotential traffic .
The Secretariat has attempted tomake asynthesis ofthe various
considerations relevant tothese points and proposes the following criteria :
12.-Bottlenecks atisolated -points , ^ '
Such bottlenecks occur where apermanent obstacle atone point
limits the flow oftraffic orimposes certain -constraints pnthe .vessels '
draught orheight above water when no.such restrictions apply tothe
•' > l ' «
waterway asawhole .'
Atypical example isthe case ofasingle lock with asmaller
capacity than allthe other locks onthe waterway ,ccnstitixfcixig a - .
significant hindrance .Investigations carried cut bythe waterways authori­
ties should sake itpossible tolocate the important obstacles which still
exist onthe main waterway links .'
' * ' '
13.Saturation criterion
Awaterway ofagiven calss with fairly homogeneous characteristics
along itnwhole lengthy taken together with itslocks ,has aminimum '" .
capacity (generally that ofthetype oflock used)>which can'beestimated "
and which depends onthe types ,ofvessel using the waterway -.
!
Abottleneck can beidentified when the volume oftraffic isclose
to.capacity over sufficiently long andfrequent periods .
The differences between waterways andthestructure ofthetraffic
tbjey carry make itextremely inadvisable tofix any upper limits ,even .as
aguideline . s' i
' V' .
v ;
■Iftherepresentatives agree that .itwould not beexpedient forthe '
report togive such figures ,they are requested toinform theSecretariat of
those waterways intheir countries which areatsaturation point ,ifpossible
with come indication oftheobservable effects ofthis saturation (e.g.
average waiting time ateach lock).

Inexamining awatarray network suoh asthat shown ontha map'itis
clear that there aro l^nlca with inferior characteriotics tothose ofthe
waterways which thGy join .
Such links ,should not,ofoourse ,"beregarded apriori &s "bottlenecks ■
findthe aim ofaooherent network can only "bejustified piithe basis ofreal
needs . ■.*'
Tothe extent that suoh needs have already been shown toexist
(e.g. byastrong demand fortransport ofconsignments ofatype which
suggest that larger vessels would bemore appropriate ),thecriterion of
homog>aneity oould beadopted fortheidentification ofbottlenecks#
TheSecretariat submits thiB proposal forthe Committee 'scomments .
*

Crit crla used foridentification ofcottlenec ,<sorsclec tior;ofproject s
Road Network
X=element taken into account :noprécisé détails provided
Country I
i !Capacit y Speed Level ofservice Frequency of
congestionOther criteria
IFédéral R<jpiù >-
|lieefAverage daily traffic
(number ofvehicles ):
1x2 lane :9*000
1x3 lane :15.000
1x4 lane :30.000
Motorway s
2x2lane :40.000
for each additional
lane inboth direc­
tions : t24.000400 hours per
year ormore
JT.:v.ce Average hourly traf­fic (number ofvehicles )
Ilevel ofsaturation
[width ofthe ]ane:3a50
1x2 lane :1.750
1x3 lane :2,350
4lanes : 3.250 -
Motorway :2x2 lane :4.350
2x3 lanat6.500The seriousness ofbottlenecks (bouchons )
atsingle points ismeasured bythe
average length ofqueues arid the ti&e
taken for thetraffic jamtoclear ,
expressed inhours xkn.*
■'.y x Regional development policy .
Efficiency ofthe whole route
fierlando
IDelays
due to
conges­
tion are
taken
into
accountDuring evening peak
hour inbusiest
direction :
open country -
level C
urban areas -
level D
centres ofcon­
urbations -
level D/EiPriority decided bytaking into acco-nt
also safety ,environmental factors ,
economic and regional policy ai
■ |

Criteria r*for z.z?r .*.i:icati or.cfrottler.ec^s orselection of~ro ^ect s
Hoaç '~gV-"ork
X=»elenent taken into accountj noprécisé détails providef
-ountry
Çapacity Sneed Level ofservice Freq'-ency ofcongestion Other criteria
,Belgium Average daily traf -j
fic (passenger car junit s):
1x2 lanex 12500
1x3 lane :I67OO
1x4 lane :33000
Motorway ?2x2 lane :42800Minimum :
level Dwhen
adjacent sections
have a "better
level .Level Ein
other cases .t
Luxembourg Average hourly traf
fic (passenger car |
!units ):
1x2 lane :15001x3 lane :1800
(1200 in "built-up
areas )
Motorway : .
2x2 lane : 48OOvMinimum :
level C
s
/
s •
»
United
KingdomX
ΛSpeed
restrictions
are taken
into accountX Environmental factors andregional .
policy aims aretaken into account
Ireland
»■Average daily traf­
fic '
Standard 1x2 lane
:9500
Wide 1x2lane :
11500Minimum :
level D
Denmark 70%of(theoretic­
al)capacityI|>
Safety |
S» •
U4

Criteria used forthe 1denxi iicati onofbottlenecks orselection ofprojects
Rail Network
(X=element taken into account }noprecise details provided )
Corn »Iry j
iCapacity ofline Commercial
speedFrequency of
serviceReliability of
servicesTerminal
facilitiesLack ofrai'l
link!Ferry j
capacity j
Fédéral
Rouublic
of
Germany2-track lines :
120 commercial
trains per di­
rection per day.
Single-track
lines ;80com­
mercial trains
per dayt
X'
\
Pran ce 2-track lines :
220 commercial
trains per day
(both tracks
taken together )
*
'1
!
Italy X X X
NecerJ ana
iMinimum s
90km/h
measured
over the
whole link
tofrontierFrequency of
international
servicesReliability of
international
services!
i
Belgivm Prow 12to18
trains per hour ,
per directionMinimum :
125 km/hX X
" _ II
ι ι
;
ι
ι
Luxembourg X Xi
!
UK X X X X L *J X_ !
Ireland Noinformation '
I
<–
*r~ - x

ANNEX 4
BELGIUM
Railway Network
A.Lines with inadequate capacity orwhere commercial speed isless than 125 KM/h
Line
Bruxel 1es-Ar 1on
Bruxelles -Tournai -Prench "border
Bruxel 1es-Ant werp en-J>ut ch
border (Essen )
Bruxelles-Liège –German border
Bruxelles-Mons –French border
(Quévy )
Bruxel les-Oost ende
Total lengthLength
206 KM
100 KM
75 KM
140 KM
80 KM
124 KM '
708 KM*Remarks
Capacity /speed
Capacity /speed
Speed
Capaoity /speed
Speed
Capacity /speed
B.Perry-ports with inadequate capaoityl
Antwerpen
Gent .
Zeeorugge
^Notei total differs from sum of,columns because the section Bruxelles -
Halle (17KM)forms part ofboth theBruxelles-Tournai andthe
Bruxelles-Mons lines .

Annex 4CHEMINS
DE FER
5,Νr
,J
v^ N » » i– >\ f\p ■»*-' \ ~4\
C *•$.^ t ¥>\ \ t\f\' > &
K.-v r &/■* "·-"., „^· . ■ ■-©ja»Μ
'■ ô
Ν ■ ■'"···' ■■..■/' ·. .>***
i
ï
/
# Zo1^ r"~« '
I <F .V <«
^-7\ : «• - .v»\" ® i 'jr , ■
: -i 1•^ 1
""; - *JC " <rT /TV ••.cs'
J\ /■g%% *■ ,>.'^ -//.\ /.I.\V / ■/v-\../ ■\"XtS X;•„/ %S f ■©/ \ IA 1/ \ s • -r-/// ■V i ■
Λ / » ■£' /.■:. ,f'\ /«if «£ S
-?i il/
'®V -" ^" V ce
2>\ «£ ' <
S\S • '■> . , >Z\4 ■ l .C*\a • Y CCv\£ N £N ^ » F; ^-v ll«\ } L-JU
■°\ ' 3_I\ ^ Os
5\ ' /'I\
■Y–' -
\\
\^ -ci*
#*\;
r'
'V
•'./
l
L'i
CC
>
,o
CC
CC
LU
tJ"-
3_
σ^
οω_î (.0
Ui UJ
CC CCï –<
-f> -H
o o
«J
g-
n) ttû -h
•O
rt
C O"TJ
RIo,>» b
«
4) U)tl
ωλ
+»
•H WJ -H
A C t-H
•1-4 H
U (û rtf
.5--s
"•a Î3
«M M B
(S£ (a.
o©@

Inland WaterwaysANNEX 4
BELGIUM*2.
Waterway Section Len /rth Remarks
Haut -Escaut
Canal duCentre
Gent-Brugge
Zuid-Willexn svaartLock .Antoing
Tournai .; 1KM
Downstream from
Oudenaarde 7KM
Class Isection 7KM
Class II.whole length
ofcanal .41KM
Bocholt-Netherlands
border 5KMDimensions smaller than those
ofthe rest ofthewaterway
Nopassing possibilities for
1350 tbarge s
Inadequate dimensions
Inadequate depth ofwaterway
and lock
Total length ''61KM

Annex 4ioy«
BELGIQUE
r VOIES
t NAVIGABLES
/ >rj
y
j
r
V.–\N-~~ . r xX v J \
**n r*y* „*" *■ '
v* . r <•
>• r-- ' >\ I « f\ ^-1 - V-.' \
> Vv
<
f"N > 3
-J ~v **' V
i^ s. 1 ,
fj' ï e/--'
/ \ !\ SC -.17/' 1 I \ XX . 117'\":■*\"VutV––^s.i?' .w «.A /V J1 1I#>• %>V-/^ >V-// ■xi\S .\ lA V. ■ ?
£\ / ■ .v> -c\ V . .*■*!}
2\ »5Ο\ *" ® \ «"- _
\ J w< •
\ O uj\ 1 uO
^ ®>
\\/
l
\
\
\,
\
\
(
I
/>
(
l
I
r
&
W
OI-.5
«> bo
li
M
4-©
S
21

Road Network
List ofprojectsACT ?EX 5
DENMARKyaCU I
Road number Section
E20 Ringst ed-Skovse
Hiulby-Korseb jergLength
26 KM
37 KM
E37
E45Rise Hjarup-Chnstiansf eld
•■N/rreStenderup –Vejle
Vejle-Skanderborg
Rpnnede-Sak akpbing34 KM
17 KM
39 KM
60 KM
Total length 213 KM
Railway Network
List ofprojects
A.Line with inadequate capacity and commercial speed :
Link Section
Kfbenhavn-RMby /Predericia Kpbenhavn-Ringst edLength
60 KM
B.Stations inneed ofimprovement :
Location
Hellerap JStations onthe
Vigerslev jKøbenhavn –Helsing/rLineFacilities needing improvement
Safety installations
C,rerry-pori with inadequate capacity :
R/dbyferry port Perry "berth capacity .

Armo *50
PAN MAHK
VEJE
X/ .
/ FFred«rlk9havn/Λ<τ
l'tfM J ■ " ■ ■
I 'Àrhua<r <J\
1/ 'Horsons^^y ^ \
V«J|«Vf ?^ o 'il !Ve,1,a^V <£/__. rHv/n ..l>.>-^N.X 5 •/°/
^KTEsbjerg j")<§\EJO '\^pS***lrCr\(\ 5X^°%A Ringsted /^
\ 4< \Odense^^vA /T / JJAl rM'^~^SÊrT ■
& \ Jl R.db?V~ \Helsingør
KOBEN HAVN
\* .
Horion
-J–Section with inadoepiate infrastructure
© Bottleneck atsingle point (e.g. built-up area )'
fp)BO/HOforry port with Inadequate facilities

Annex
DANMARK
JERNBANER
.Frederikshavn
Ο
<7
Hol9lnaor
LT/,Vlg«f9l«v (J)
rr\fi
KOBENHA VN
Froderlcl
Go
<7M'à^A-|
<sLJ ■*^Roskiiaew y–V oE
{
,/S BodbyQ^f /~'^^M
Raí 1vaya
Soction ofline with inadeqnute infrastructure
O Bottleneck atsingle point ormieeing rail link between terminals
<J)Station ,marshalling yard eta.with inadequate facilities
fp}Perry port with inadequate facilitioa

Road nvabar
E03
E05
E07
•E15
E17
E19
E21
E42
E44
E46
E50
E52
E60
E62
E70
E806V11/156/80-EN
Orig .FR
PRANCE '
Road Uotwork
Section ' ' Length ofooryrostad BBotion
AvranchGC –Villodicra 22 KM
Paris-Mantes N , 55KM
ChSteauroux-Argonton ) ^
LaSouterraine-Limoges )
Montauban-E 76 ) 178 Kil
Toulouse-Auterive ) (
Pamiers –Foix )
Senlis-Paria ,Parits-Neaours J 1 2Q5^MSoon-Avignon )
Lille-Lens ,Berry auBao-Raioa ) ' ^ChSlons surMarne-Vitry )
Senlis-Paria –(of«513)
Dijon-D8lo 43KM
Lille-Bailleul 16 KM
LaRocho Bernard-Pont chSt eau
Pont ohSt eau-Savenay67 KM PIerneuf -Saint Britrao ) 67KMCaon-Villera Bocage ,Roum>-Saint Martin )
Beauvais-Cleraont ,Jonohery^-RoimB 39KM
Plemouf-Saint Brieuo –(of«E44)
Paris –Rozay enBrie ,S^saano-Père ) .
Champenoise ; 96KM
Saint Dizier-Stainvilla )
25 KM
Bourg enBresse –Nantua 5®KM
Chambéry^-Aiguobelle 26KM
Laoq-Pau .Tarbea ,-Lnnneaosaa 5°KM
Total length 1.012 KM

Fran 08
±Vii X;l'r;.- - ' Roads
B0TTLM3CICS
Boulognrk
"νν^ν^· –νiArc -IV ?
ff ^TTV ?»(Wnlin^^CWtevifle-Méxièret
..u:f/rr ,•?/ 'i*!?Xf >>,*&
Çï.\ P .^0^"^i?i"^v ^*^=1 r-ijr Vv *//
c:xL • –. *sT^zl *S f\
yv.r .,-»,..^vv. -X>^_ «1 /Wa ... V, „/K^¥–>C-MV x.%
*Ni,i
*\ \\/ hil^vn.JW 'g A//\Cl "pteK^ <& >F fît.._ 5a A(,>~ ^X I fNS ? Ul.,„.!„,„n ./ \Sr <>ίΧ' νΜ->")Ι..ςυη^ν' -■< ~–·"–« „ \ί ·)ν-ιγιΙ\_Χ-ΐ£^\ ^2^£/ΛuRo-h^'V Iv-j e„\Rv-r, 3§^KS> *»l e*0 IS . \„«** 3S . £/WV
y^XnpouIrme Xcifrmonl /^CTtand J.£ s/ I st£!ienne «% ^/\»*» /
νν 9
Ar d',u*i ,J
A/ ...A vr,,nF <® .*-&//' JLLJ *SO^\u
lp~~*£gO TOUIoumA ^^ ~
.<JV 'XViW*»0*^ F/ nrDUon% !?/f .^–1 >–.J tittf Perpignan
WWW
©congested sections
bottlenecsksSeal 9 î1/5000 000

Si
ANNEX 6
'FRANCE
Railways
The new high-speed line between Paris and Lyon will ,amongst other
things ,relieve the existing Pari s-Mjon-Macon -Lyon line ,which shows signs
ofcongestion onsome ofits 'seotionsj this congestion will disappear once
the newline isinservice (thefirst part in1981).
Similarly ,south ofLyon ,theelectrification oftheline running
along theright bankeftheRhone ,which was completed inSeptember 1979 »will
.relieve the line ontheleft bank and thus solve the capacity problems which
were apparent ohsome sections bymaking itpossible toachieve abetter
balance oftraffic onboth sides ofthe Rh8ne .
Between Paris and Orleans ,the longest and most heavily used section
oftheline (33kmbetween Etampes andToury )will have athird track atthe
end of1982 .
Once these works have been carried out.,there will remain afew, 1
mostly short ,sections (intheregion of3to5k™)intheParis suburbs ,
especially inthe northern suburbs and ontheline Paris-Orleans ,where the
coexistence ofanintense commuter traffic andinter-city services sometimes ,
gives rise toproblems ofcongestion .Some problems ofthis sort are also
encountered onthe link Paris-Strasbourg around Meaux and onthe approach to
Nancy .

AÎIFEX 6
Inland WaterwayB
LibI:ofpro .iaetsFRANCE
Link
Bassin duNord –
BelgiumRoute
Lower Derule
Scheldt
Valencienne s–MonsLength
20 KM
30 KM
6KM
Rhine-Rhone
Rh8ne-Fo s/Port de
BoucSaSne (Lyon-Auxonne )
St.Symphori en-Mulhouse250 KM
210 KM
15 KM
Paris tasin-Bassin
dxiNord Ssvor&l solutions Q-r©
being studied

Road NetworkANNEX 7
IRELAND
Road number ! Section Length
E01 Border-Dundalk
Dundalk Town
Blake'e Cross-Dublin
Dublin City
Dublin-Rathnew
Wexford Town '12 KM
11 KM
50 KM
E20 Naas^-Port 1aoise
Liraerick City 4
Limerick-Shannon51 KM
22 KM
E30 Cork-Carrigtwohill
Waterford City
Waterford-New Ross14 KM
24 KM
E200 Fermoy-Cork 35 KM .
N4 . ■ Dublin-ICLlcock - 30 KM
i t
^.Drumsna-Sligo / . 61KM
N6 Athlone Town , –
•' >'
Oranmore-Galway 10 KM
Total length >=- 320 KM

Annexe 7.st
IRELAND
;|3Q;j)Section withinadequate infraotructure
OBottleneck atoingle point (e.g.built-up area )
Re/Re)ferry port with inadequate facilities
Belfast/^P\\"
if Dundalk
5 Athlon «~ i
Portlaols *
nJ Water *ord
■– ?//
5^^^ CorkjL-s-a?»"–

AÎWEK f
IRELAND
Railway Network
A.Line with inadequate capaoity and commercial speed:'
«
Link Section Lentfth
Dublin -BelfaBt • •■Dublin-Border 100 KM
B.Rail link missing :
Link between port ofDublin andthe rail network .
I
C.Perry-port with inadequate facilities :Dublin .

Armes 7
Sirtion ofline with inodeqoute infrastructure
®Bottleneck atB.nglo point or.l.sing raillinkbetween terminal *
@Station ,marshalling yardetc.withinadequate facilities
Ferry port with inadoqfuate facilitiesIRELANO
RAILWAYS

AMIS 860
Road NetworkITALY
Road number SectionLen^rth .
E25
E29
E45
E70
E78
E80
E80/E45
E90
E844 '
Autostrada
dei Trafori
Autostrada
Venezia -
MonacoAoata -Traforo del Monte Bianco 37
Aosta –^Traforo del Gran San
Bernardo 20
Perugia-Cesena 130Catania (tangenziale ) 11
I
Torino –Bardonecchia
Grosseto-Fano
Livorno-Civitavecchia
Pianoi-Valmont one
Taranto-Cat anzar o
Messina –Paiermo
Palermo (tangenziale )
Spezzano Albanese (E45)-.
Sibari •(E90)
Vittorio Veneto-Austria
SS52bis Tolmezzo –Monte Croce Gamico
E45/E90 Stretto di.Messina20 KM
130 KM
11 KM
75 KM
220 KM
237 KM ■
50KM (Rome by-pass )
n.a. (four sections )
66 KM
15 KM
21 KMfi
Stro .ppiana-Gravellona Toce 113 KM
160 KM
•33 KM
3KM(Bridge project under consideration )
Total length >saasaaaaaaaoaaaBaaaJMoaaasioaa
Inland waterways
Waterway Section
Litoranea Veneta Laguna diVenezia-Laguna diMarano
Canale Venezia-Po V olta Grlmana-BrondoloLength
50 KM
20 KM
Total length 70 KM
BsBBEiBâasatsBassaaaBau

ÂrmçT 8
Roa(i3
iimil f
: Soctlon with inadequate lnfraetruct u.re
O Bottleneck atoingle point (e.g. built-up area )
.fp)HO/ROferry port with inadequate facilities61
ITALIA
STRADE
î
j;
>/t\K\ < y
■«*. y>c±*s >–' l M*/ /f «• 5 !((^.V:V/ Gri»v«tiior^y \^NS./ g $g^ H^–x^ \ vsliComo È fiVttïorio £|j^\^'X- >'KJ * / t\Vene,°i'S
^^ i K-. ■-*-">•–--v–" >*. / i t-X
\./ν
^ I jf ffrvT^
•v-yv^JLjfe .y >>./ «!\
Fano
9 v^> Si \°\
lfS"W7 K \\f]^J t A ■
) yV 4j/ s\ ,_W /, Oro..^p SL $\-( \\ '
$ rS^£i% >Y/ \\
1 -a r;f *1 f/^ tn\ P$f S
E04*Å ) S
i ■i'*y \νΐ'4 -ν
\v9
V"1*'i;V"*4i 6
V--ÏAi
s,-
^r, .._;'--<'o>"...' v//"' V_. -'"^Y – /sSoi L/ •;v' " ,y//jNeggkyC .
J t:c.90 ■ v/^JjW \"" "*//
\>^s .--V/
V\ •'
V"-"! .»«.';/*
Χ^:ϊ

4.1
V »d
TTM
Rail vayNetwork
Libtofr*cj :ec~'s
A.Lin^s with inadéquate capacity
Lmk :
Geno va^-Vent imiglia
Modano –Torino ' '
Torino-Milano
Torino-Genova
Milano-Padova
Padova-Venezia Mestre
Mx1ano-Bo1ogna
Seregno–B 6rgraine --
Rovato
Chivasso-Casal e–
Valenze-Casalpust er-
lango
Udine-Tarvi sic
Brennero –Verona -
Bologna
Eomodosaola-Milano
Panna-La Spezia
Kesoxna-Pai errno
Messina-CataniaSection
Savona*-V entimigìia
Modane –Bussol eno
Torino-Chivasso •:
Torino-Trofarello
Milano-Tr evlglio
Whole length oflink
Whole length oflink
Whole length oflink
Whole length oflink
Whole length oflink
Whole length oflink
.Whole length oflink
Whole length oflink
Whole length oflink
Whole length oflink
Total lengthRemaries
Bottleneck forecast
1985Length of
0!/ion.
107m
60KM
29KM
i3KM
34KM
28KM
2.18 EM
70KM\alternative East -West
;roivfcea torelieve
158KM]?'ÎIXAN
94KM
351 km
108 KM
105M
132 KM
95KM
1.602 KM
aaapaaisaaiaesaqssanastaaeyacciaaaaeraRs^t :
Stations with i-.adecmat ecapacity
Domodcgsola :frontier station
Airport s
'Theairport systems ofRon?aandMil3^1constitute bottlenecks intheItalian aij
trannport network , „

£n xM
FAI IW\yo
-y–5
OSr-tion oflino vith inad^qau'oa Infraotractxire
oBottlonock at«nSlopoint ornl.sin eraillinkbetween terminal *0station ,nrnrohoUinc ycj-detc.«ilhinadequate facilities
fS\Ferry port vrtth inad-Kjiia^s facilitiesFÇf ~r:VlE
γ[ ,*>0Γ^Λί»*'ίΑ
~™\\/v_i–I\ H™"™-–^r%\î/^ I it
< ù $> t? ■
) %\ g jT"7dm.S
^a<rANkt'///r "/'%» 's
V To,lno^ A.....ndM./ «t 1/ (/X. , !•/\\S "^Parrru •>>/ J\/r v r
v riv £-2 "Soloana /-3 /\ ^ /w
VtrtlmljlU \\ple*\
)j«Jl,Flr.ni . XX\ X,-\? \ ^Ò\Anco«w
? r v\\
>J ,
,s\
0V -\V\XMapoll
^"VS*S^ta'H*Ss\
f ■
I ^
^J
^ 'ormo * ^ i^.o/r:-/ ^yC~ "''■":/ï /
> "•wv*" ./\_,'
';'
"~-"'V ?/X o/Cal<an>6
'\ ^

 Ck fr I ' Annas 8
\ ?\~J Xi* il^
Yf VIENAVIGABILI
■XV. ' ;'V* /ï - % •■■■ ■.../
?i \J/i
GO c» jl J
?ta> * %§ ~
0»hû ."/.»■ 1 ■ \
.c.rt 1 S •■\-
'5'o
oS ' ' »3
"o +> •■" ' »■ 1
c1o g
£/> «n . flo •
„ sS-ie-i ' I\_JVp V
» ,«V •/y "■■■■• i( ï '
" dû
c7 r.ouMDiPT /' ?
« \

6à
Road .NetworkLUXMBOURG
Road number Section
E25 Steinfort
Wondhaff
Cap-Straosen "
Hellange
Prisangø1KM
1KM
9KM
1KM
1KM
E27
E44
E420Luxembourg Ville
Luxembourg Ville –Airport
Sandweiler
Pétange
Baschar âge
Dippach
Luxembourg Ville
Diekirch
Ingeldorf
Ettelbruck
Colmar
Mersch
Lorent zweil er-Kei edorf
Walferdange-Luxcmbourg Ville4KM
3KM
1KM
1KM
1KM
1m
3KM
1,5 KM
1KM
1,5 .KM
1KM
o,5 km
3KM .
4KM
Total length W KM

1)UXCMSQURÛ
ROUTES
– _c*^
(■AtJV
Ν \V
/ .-,LV-.' :
' Vv • \A' .\V : :\Dlehlrch r
r ■- ^"
^ Ettelbruck Qf^ \/
< ■ r • y^">
* ■ ° ^
\ ■ ■»i ^\ ( 'f
L ij^lersch *)
C ' •–^^^Tluxembourg ^S^ j
ppach V^
> I Frisano * % (
'v– •;f) 1 ■
■'->-,y^ .
Roads
-g-j-H-t|j-Section with inadequate infrantructure
© Bottleneck atsingle point (e.g. built-up area )
RO/nOferry port with inadequate facilities

Afwirc q
LUXEMBOURG
Railway Network
A.Line with inadequate oapaoityand permissible speed :
Link Section Len^-th
Brvucel 1os-Arl on-
Luxembourg-Met z
Luxembourg^-Tri er Luxem"bourg-WasB <
B.Marshalling yard with inadequate capaoitysKleinbettingen-LDjcembourg ^-
Prench border
Luxembourg-Waseerhillig
Bettembourg - new marshalling yard under oonotructionj
container terminal needed .35 KM
36 KM

/
IT--vAnnex 9 ^^
chemins oé i-en
J
j/
r
rJ(
r-
\χ
)
Ν
P
l_-
Ν
/
\/
/Kieinbet tingen
ui/
_/
ν^Λ/\
Y
\f'\
\ Bcttembourgqj© 1
^-
L^/nO
r
/
\
!.,'
\jr 1X .l'*V LUXEMBOURG
Pûi 1W/R
Soction ofline with inadeqaute infrastructure
O Bottleneck atoin^le point ormissing rail link between terminals
Station ,marohallin ^yard etc.with inadequate facilitieo
fp^j Ferry port with inadequate facilitieo

AFiTEX 10
Road NetworkNETHERLANDS
Road number
E19
E22
E25
E30
E35
E312Section
Amsterdam –Schipho 1
Leiden-Zwi jndreoht
Moerdi jk-Breda
W.ringweg ,Amsterdam
Hoorn-W ,ognura
Z.ringweg ,Groningen
Hoogezand-Winschot en
Amst erdam –Utrecht –Vianen
Beesd -Zaltbommel
*s–Hertogenbosch –Eindhoven
Hoek–Den Haag^-Zoeterineer
Gouda /-Utrecht-Amerefoort
Hengelo –01denzaal
Hoek-Maasslui s
N.Ringweg ,Rotterdam
Gouda-Ut reoht-J.faia.rn
Arnh em-Z evenaar
Z.ringweg ,BredaLenfrth
12 KM
42 KM
15 KM
10 KM
10 KM
4KM
15 KM
50 KM
10 KM
40 KM
28 KM
58 KM
12 KM
7KM
12 KM
60 KM
12 KM
10 KM
A32
A50
EW271
m272
HW58Meppel-Heerenvaen
Beekber gen-Arnhem
Nijmogon –Gennep-Vanlo
Venlo –Roermond-Maasbracht
Breda-Ett en-Leur
Total length
Work inprogress
Bottlenecks forecast for 198430 KM
10 KM '
63 KM
36 KM
8KM '
527 M*
200 KM
327 M*
*Note ;total differs from the sumofthe column because thesection Goudar-Utrecht
iscommon toE30acid E35»

nederland
WEGEN
jf IwuwtMw " ^
I 1 'I Mepp«l j|p««"gljv ]
/v> Jyf° "- v/vgTERtwil I,-/ I }fJ^' /T/""^ ( M^te0^T\I\Jr S I Old«ai«al/*/ l"WZ/ ■ Us "SJ /^P*ldo0fn /r'
"•""■•îl./" .. .•é 'fiffes 'I X
^\ÏV_^_3j .'•''(■£// !•!I\ KoElndhovgn «If.! !"fJc-,'' v E16 *?'
.X^s^ r \ Va V .nto»^^v J/T ■^>L /v ;•
.' \
4HM (I"Croticn with inadequate infrastructure
O Bottleneck atsingle point (e.g. built-up area )
fy)HO/i-Oferry port with inadr^u-ite Tc-cilitiea

ANNEX 10 1)
Railway Network
A.Lines with inadequate capacity :NETHERLANDS
Line
Rotterdam -Venlo -Deut sohlandSection
Boxt el-Eindho venLen^th
23KM
B.Bottlenecks atsingle points :
Link Locàtion
Hoek van Holland -
Rott erdara-Hengelo -
Deut Bchland
Rott erdam-ELndho ven-
Venlo-Deut sohlandNear Moordrecht (Gouda )
Near Gouda
Near Deventer
Rotterdam *
Dordrecht *
Near Lage Zwaluwe *
Near BoxtelNature ofbottleneck
Junction-speed limitation
Swing bridge over the Gouwe -
speed limitation
Single track bridge over the
IJeeel
The 'Willems *bridges over the
Nieuwe Maas (swing bridges )
Swing bridge
Junot ion-speed limitation
Junction -speed limitation
*These bottlenecks also lie onthelme Amsterdam -Rotterdam -RoosendaalTBelgium

0ritiSr
NFOfcB LANO
SPOORWEGEH
L
I(
I
t
I
AMSTERDAM
DenMaig
Hocfc v«nHolland/
Rotterdam
RooAerxteai >-»
<y 'rv•»«' O»/–Λ^Λ
\I 1 Dwontor ^'
^^*^wfutrecht C ^
oud »
–^
s
Dord'KNt i,^ ' . ï
Lsge Zwaluw * 1
Brada **. \
( ;0*- r Ctndhoveo .
^ Venlo\U, >
,–^ N.
w (
,s--s, ^?
/ /
- 1 " ■ ■ * '
;Λν '' .
/ ν^Ί
"Τ \ .
r
t
. \.<
– Ν
. «iihinodeqaute infrartructur »Soction o.HM– fcbotwaan
OBoUl.n.c *at«inClopoint ormi.einp rail„nZ)Lu,n sn>*G^ «t. *">«-0FerPyportAth f«um «

ANNSX 10
NETHERLAEDS
Inland Waterways
Waterway
Waal
Hartelkanaal
Amst erdam –Riinkanaal
Kanaal vanZuid-Bevel and
Kanaal WeBsem -Nederweert
Oude Maas
Zuid-Wi11emsvaartSection Lenrrth
Nijmegen
Hartelraond –
_ .80KM
_ 10KM
_ 15KM
Rail bridge , •–
Dordrecht
_ 60KMRemarks
Bend inriver
Class Vwaterway tobe
enlarged toClaBS VT
Class Vwaterway tobe
enlarged toClass VI
Class IIwaterway tobe
enlarged toClaBs IV
Class IIwaterway tobe
enlarged toClass IV
Total length 165KM

sNEPERIAND
VAARWEGEN
\
I,
\
\
V
/
/
/
/
/
AMSTERDAM
1®
D»rtH«ar° «
φ
Dordr*cMUtracM
tr /
iNIJniegenNi .
r xc^ ■ '\
aAm»t«fdam-#N )rt**n**'
^Kanaal vanZuUl -Bawland
-4Kanaal Waaaam-Nadatw ***
>5Ouda Maaa
AZvidWIIIamevaart'î/l->
Inland waterways
j(jQSootion withinadequate capacity
_Bottleneck »tsingle point (e.g.bridge ,lock )

EX 113.ν
P.E. of aEHMAwY
Road Network
Length %ofinternation altraffic
Road number Section > ofsection Normal Holiru-.v period
E22 Heeel –Kirchborgum 16 KM 28 •35
Neermoor-Wost erstede
!30 KM 18 30
E24 Hamburg Bergedorf-Schnakenbek 20 KM 1 1
E27 Kamener Kreuz-Burscheid 81 KM 11-14 16-19
AKLeverkusen-AI )Köln VI./Frechen 19 KM 11 • 18
Weilerswist-Tondorf 38 KM 14 23
Saarbriicker St. Arnural-Saarbriicken
Gersweiler , 3KM 9 13
Saarbrii cken-Saar gemünd 14 KM 50 52
E30 Hannover Bothfeld-Wunstorf /Luthe 19 KM . 11 14
E33 Meckenheim-Bad Neuenahr /Arhwei 1er 7KM 20 '29
E35 Dinslaken-Köln Kömgsforst 85 KM 10-31 15-43
ADMonchof-Frankfurter Kreuz 8KM • 14 20
Darmstädter Kreuz-Walldorf erKreuz 68 KM­ .30 46
Bruchsal-Achern 66 KM 45 64
E36 Vennebeck-Bi elefeld/Senne stadt 45 KM 12 15
Hamm-Karaener Kreuz 11 KM 12 14
AICDortraund N.W.-Recklinghausen S. 11 KM 14 14
Oberhaucener Kreuz-Dui oburg Heuenkamp 16 KM 12-17 17-23
E37 Quickborn -Hamburg Stellingen 18'KM' ; 15-26 19-31
Elbtunnel ,Hamburg 6KM 15 19
Bremen Hemelingen-Bremen ArBten 2KM 9 13
AKMunster S.-Kamener Kreuz > 37 KM 11 12
Westhofener Kreuz-AK Haagen 8KM 14 24
E39 Bad Homburg -Kreiiz -Westkreuz .Frankfurt 14 KM 20-27 35-46
E40 Bensberg Moitsfeld-Bensberg Refrath 6KM 1 5
AD Houmar-AK Aachen < 69 KM 10-44 16-52
Ξ41 AK'.Jeinsberg^-WeinBberg /EQ.lhofen 2KM 5 7
Ilaf tjid-îlundelsheim 6KM .5 7
Ludwi^sburg Nord –Ludwig shurg Süd 3KM 7 9
Stuttgart ZuffenhauBen-AD Stuttgart ;13 KM 7 9
Donaueachingen-Neuhaus (Randen ) 25 KM 55 54
t '

ANTIEK 11 f(
»3- F,R .of 0KRMA.NY
Road network (continued .)
Length %of international traffic
Ror-d number Soction ofsection Normal Holiday period
E42 Frankfurter Kreuz-Prankfurt ,Süd . 3KM .10 15
Offenbacher Kreuz –Höebach 40I® 13–18 19–26
E43 Lindau-Grenze Österreich 4KM 100 100
E45 Burg (Pohraarn)-Nousrtadt 1 • 45 KM 37 35
Stapelf eld-Hamburg Stillhorn 17 KM 6-12 • 10-17
Maschen –1Thieohope 10 KM 11–12 23-24
VJeet enholz –Mellendorf 28 KM 14 25
Laatzen-Hildesheira 29 KM 15 28
Wurz"burg Kiet-^Tennenlohe 104 KM 25 37
Nürnberg N.-Nürnberg Behringersdorf 4KM 22 2,6
ADNürnberg Peucht-Hiltpolstein 15 KM . 26 36
Altmiihtal-Neufahrn 57 KM 25 35
Holzkirchen-AD Inntal (also onE54) 25KM 55 64
E48 Bayreuth-Nenntraannsreuth 12 KM 4 .11 ,
Wunsiedel-Lorenzreuth 6KM 4 J-l
E50 Heilbronn /Neckarsulra-Weinsberg ' 6KM 7 10 .
E52 ADKarl sruhe-Pf orzheim West 17 KM 21 29
ADStuttgart -Mühlhausen 59 KM 14-18 22-26
E53 Freisin^-Wôrth 53 KM 10 11
E54 Stockach-Lindau 74 KM 26-41 35-47 '
Buchloe-Oberpfaffenhofen 44 KM 13 17
Holzkirchen-AD Inntal (alBO onE45) 25KM 55 64
E56 Rosenhof-Platting , 58 KM 34 ' 36
E60 Schwarzbach-Unter Rettenberg 16 KM 43 ' 59
E232 Nordhorn-Lingen ' 20 KM 67 72
Stapelfeld-Cloppenburg , '4KM 35 44
E233 Bremen Industriehafen-Bremen Freihafen 6KM , 2 1 3
E530 Offenburg-Donaueschingen 50 KM 37-4S ,42-50
■E532 Ohlstadt-Mittenwald ' ' 40 KM 49 57
•B309 Bad -Sulzbrunn-Rfronten Weissbach 17 KM 70 11
Total length 1.618 KM
Note :Total differs from stun ofthe column because some sections are common
totwo' Eroutes .
I,

Âr.nox 11
.F.fl.oï G:»rmany jf^
(~~~N_*-L"V / roâos\ΡΛ/,\ \\ I / Λί»\\)/ Situation in1979
L Y7 ?5^ \/ ^ ,I *#»'•*jr*3 1* ^
<C^ <*> «(sX _ I lwr–\ ir–\A \ ?J KOOr ^i Jfr ,Kj\ %*fH^/ ■^->£7. A-.
J S- .^vT \ Jf H~H 5,rt>c<<c jj-'-0".^^* *L/.4r.tvc_T.
f «C- -ïf^V. V Auqvît utkftawjrt 3<■,*v ^S I V - *..jrv V 7uT.r:^ f~~:Z~ •
"Xü^* ■%* / " JL\',v,!l\!,.V,,\M' ff - .er"**".jn\ \ ^ S »/
tv &• _^ "•» * Ti-r . y«r / «x-n\\ /w ^.- i
1/V\ v# \X '/v/'
j * ^ ^–7\\
"(/-/V vl\,., \ Z-«^-v/x5\ v\ y\ox \ ■k ^ A /
>/WL f. .%^S£ y-f/ ./NjL L**^" i\
?- / .,., '4- /V
;-í.\. 46 «T-7S .\
/^j ~^ , '*V')/ rx f r
<1tW
wMm *

AMEX 11
F.R ,of QERMANY 1
·.
Rail NetWork
A•Llnea with inadequate capa,otty »
PERCENTAGE
LINK •' &E52I2H ' J^WTH OPIFrSRHATIOHAL
OFSECTION Traths - ™"~
Karaburg -Lubeck -Puttgarden Bad Schwartau-Puttgardon 80 km- N -.II-,I -■- - –II-–
'15%
Hamburg-Brem© n/Hannover Hamburg-Winaen 30 km 5i
Hmnnov «r-Stuttgart/
Nürnbergnannover-Wùrzburg 365 km*) 5-7%
iColn -Bonn -Main® Köln -Bonn -Koblenz 175 km 18%
Bingerbruck-Mains 35 km 18%
Koln -Troisdorf -Frankfurt Koln-Wieabaden 215 km 18%
Mannh«im-Karlaruhe Schwet zingen-Grabenneu -
dorf .25 km • 31%
Brucheal /Karleruhe®
Stuttgart
Stuttgart-MunchenMuhlacker-Bie tigheim 25 km.10%
Plochlng®n-01ra 72 km 10%
Augeburg-Munchen 70 km 16%
Köln-V»nlo (NL) Ihilken-Kal denkirchsn 15 km
1.107 km
B.Bottlonackn atnodal points (ntatiene' ,marshalling yardo ,etc )
.TYPE OF NODS .
Marshalling y.ird
Station
Station
Station
Main etation
Good G.stationLOCATION TYPE OF NODE LOCATION
1)Köln-Ei feltor
2)Kornveathoim
•(Stuttgart )
3)St.utt^art -
Untorturkheim
*0Aachan-West
5)MUnchen
6)Munohen-Süd
7)Miinchen
5)Nurnborg
Q)Hant>1–Bad
10)
11)H&nnover-Linden
12)F*"ll© r^leben
13)EmrnerichMarahalling yard
Container terminal
Marahalling yard
Marshalling yard
Marshalling yard
Express gooda ertation
Container terminal
.Marshalling yard
Marshalling yard
Marshalling yard
Container terminal
Station
Contai nerterminal1*0 Singen-Hohen tweil
15)Regensburg-Oet
16)Helmetedt
17)Haraburg-Harburg
Hamburg-Hauptbahnof
Hamburg-Hauptgiiter -
banhof
*)S?Ci.irj-i en–Wurztsw rgelso fcr&s part ofthe V'.nle ">rankfurt -Niimb' -jr.^

Α ·,·■..χΠ
P.R. of0»fm»ny
R.lIwayt
Situation in1976 rh /
) 9*°r\(v\ \J ' ''\ mJ?1 rv "t ?..W
V-j'-N» |
/ \ x \ >» / ■^***q t)y/ οΛ
y,–j, ^ -T–. /\5V//- ι<Γ /
\ ___νηό-£* ^ .ι α
^ \ ^νΓ /
«^v ^ i
JJj» \/\ '*■V - ffn«n(e-/'jf V j*\ -v\ –– o^o'^r 1 ifir .J. • / X. % J' Y . v\ –– ©=^0^O»7 «?lf^W j .« . *. .
i \^\ •'MS®' 4"^s,,11,11m7v-^,.. nW"mfvyW»>5 «/fU^Cw^'1-1 *-'-»'•«t^lksS\\/ \ /\| (H-t ^^V:^r-fb^r7=^r
V ? \ ^ -^wawsiy^ _ w -ff c€s*irt .v(-X 'Q '.\ \ f Xj "*"" ® pwjM /
V % / |: / 'wiw.AJ'W -"'-"1-^^
> "I-'b - •£ i nKnol»npur>M •g
,^v ^
^Sw\\y--** Îj^v / \ >u-y \\,^,, x
/IX i / _,•*/x / /xr ■• v

i®
aTINEX11
; «
P.R. ofGERMANY
Inland Waterways
Ifeoonoraic factors used todetermine thepractical capacity of
locks are left out ofaccount ,only afewbottlenecks aretobeexpected
inthewaterway network oftheFederal Republic covered bythis study ,
given thepresent traffic flows ,This also holds forthecapacity ofthe
open stretches ofwaterway .Detailed information onthis matter isnot
atpresent available .
r
TneLower Rhine could becited asanexample ofabottleneck ,which ,
although itoccurs only forlimited periods (atlowwater ),isnevertheless
ofgreat importance because oftheheavy traffio ,including considerable
international traffic .Deepening this stretch by0,3meters would give
comparatively high economic benefits forarelatively email investment .
Asanexample ofabottleneck resulting from the fact that -a
waterway isnotnavigable forstandard vsaeels (■European' dimensions ),
the Elbe–Liibeck canal could becited .The canal cantake vessels ofupto
1000 t.capacity (waterway class III).However ratpresent therelatively
small volume oftraffic doss not ,aooording tocost-benefit calculations ,
justify the enlargement ofthis canal toGlass IV. «

A?mnx il
P.R. of GERMAJJY
Sea Ports
Port
Bnden
Wilhelmahaven
BremerhavenImprovements needed
Deepening ofaooess channel
Inorease incapacity ofsea lock
Straightening the course ofthe River Jade
Facilities for handling bulk goods
Inorease incapacity ofsealook (Goestemiinde /Luneplatte )
Kiel
Brunsbiittel
LubeckInorease incapaoity offreight handling facilities
Sea and estuary crossings
Fehmarnbelt (Germany-Denmark )Increased ferry oapacity orconstruction ofabridge
Ferry services operated fromi >
Kiel '
Brunsbiïttel
LiibeckIncreased ferry capacity

Road Network
List ofprojectsANNEX 12
UNITED KINGDOM
Road number
E01
E05
E13/E15/E30
E15 - ,
E16
E18
E22
E28
E30/32Length ofseotions affected
3,5KM
>110 KM
150
»
>57
17
80
107
.118
126KM
KM
KM
KM
KM
KM
KMLocation
Belfast ,Newry
Southampton-Winchester ,
Oxford-W .Midland ^,
W.Midlands conurbation
Great erLondon
Dover-Folkestone
Àshford-Maidstone ,Musselburgh ,
Edinburgh ,Perth ,Perth-Inverness
Dungi ven ,CaBtledawson ,Toome
Hexhaai-Carlisle ,Grjatna-Stranraei'
Holyhead-Chester
Brigg^-Immingham /Grirasby
> I
E13-E15,Ipswich
Colchester ,Chelmsford ,
Newport -Pishguard
A13
A17
A"47/A12
A590
A361/A39
A3010
65
20
54
160KM
KM
83 KM
KM
KM
KM<London-Tilbury
Newark-King 'sLynn
Leicester-Great Yarmouth
-Lowestoft
*
Barrow-E 05
Bideford-Barn staple -M6motorway
Penzance-Exeter
Ports with inadequate RO/ROfaoilities for road vehicles :
North East Ene-land
Tees Dock
Tyne
Tnaraes and Kent-
Dover
Medway
Ram8gâte'
TilburyHaven Ports
Harwich
Ipswich
Lancashire
LiverpoolHumber ]
Grimsby
North Wales
Holyhead
Vi'est Ccuntry
PoolsHawpshire
Portsmouth

Y^Au»12, 6
mmjl-ruction withInadequate infrantructurB
@ Bottleneck atsingle point (o.p.built-up ore0 HO/ROferry portwithinadequate faclUtleaUNITED K*NOOQM
POÀDS ^
,Q
ïfl " ■
'^ " y
_2^ \Perth X ^ \Ρ·Π&^
/^ίγΛ .//Π -'r LS^ J A bu'«" XI^ x °X,V Ve,n*(l(5tr.n,«.\ Y)
ρ 7^β / γ"®€ .ρ*<?(ν)^·
73 ■•"Y/-"I ^
l ,/éTi Huii(»«*£\.-poo^^ T-S3 -V,mm|nflMm
C head ^=aeVv'V'
_~S ■ w..(Wc?n
Sb\/l Midlftrnis V^y~-*HL \ Yarmoulh
/""j/ if CONOOV^^ M^^
/>» _y*<f South«mpton / ( .sTvi /■>
<">\0^Do«.-.F '
^ZJ– FoiK»»*o "*
f V^v
/ " N
«Tn ^ U;-Vu / l–//c>\ J> t

ANNEX 12
UNITED KINGDOM
Railway Network
List ofpro.ieots
A.Lines needing improvement !
Link Section Length ofsection
London-Harwi oh Colohester-Harwi ch .30 KM
85 KM Belfast -Dublin Belfast-Border
B.Rail link missing ! . ■ ■ . „•
Dover Priory station-Dover Hoverport
Belfast Central station-Belfast York Road station (tolink Dublin-Belfast and
Belfast-Larne lines )
C.Stations and ferry ports inneed ofimprovement :
Holyhead station aridferry terminal (inadequate passenger facilities )
Parkestone Quay ,Harwich (inadequate facilities forhandling containers )
Polkestone ferry terminal ) 1
^ ■_ , fl(inadéquate passenger faoilities )Dover ferry terminal J .
D,Train-ferry services with inadequate oapacityl
Dover-France /Belgium
Harwi ch-Dunkerque /Zeebrugge

UNITIO KIHQOOMAnnex 12U.K.
AAILWAYS «J.
Section oflino with inadeqnute infrairtnjcture
0Bottleneck at.in«l«point oraieoing raillink between terminal .
©Station ,mar.halllnc yordeto.withinad.quata fnclUUeo
Ferry port with in&dccfUAt® fftcilitit®
/ ^a/+9
Féir jT -'' .
1-/ \
Λ
)
! \ 4 v
f) |M»neh«lw 1
"rmham I
8ou.h.mp.on \
d\^ L '-'d

MEP 12
' UNITED KINGDOM
Sea Ports
List ofportB where improvements are planned *
-(excluding projeotB relating toRO/fiOfacilities andferry ports ,which are
included under 'Road Network' and 'Rail Network' )
North East England >
Blyth , -s ~
Tees and Hartlepool ,
Tyn9 . ''• ' ,,, ~
Bristol Channel •;
'Bristol ,
Thames and Kent
ILondon (including Tilbury )
/ ' • :
Haven Ports > ■
PeliiBtowe , • '
Ipswioh i
Scotland • . >.i
Forth
Lerwack •
Montrose
Sullom V oe
Lancaahire and Cumbria
Liverpool ,
Workington '
'ΝNorthern East Ansrlia
Lowestoft
/
Sussex and HompBhire .
Portsroouth ,
Note :this list isderived from apreliminary survey of -port capaoity and cannot be
regarded asfinal orcomplete .Projects duetobecompleted in1980 have been \
excluded .-?b
y

Airporte
I.ist ofprolectn ,ΛΤΤνΤΤΧ
4
UNITED KINGDOM
LONDON »
1.Heathrow .
2.Gatwick
3.Stansted
BIRMINGHAM
NEHCASTLE
MANCHESTER
ABEKDEENProject
4th terminal
2nd terminal
New terminal
New terminal
Ebctension ofterminal
Extension ofrunway
Extension ofterminal
*Notei
The following improvements tosurface transport access will probably
beneeded tocope with the increased traffic resulting from the
enlargement ofthe London airport ss-
1.Heathrow -Extension ofthe London Underground rail link
2.Gatwick -New railway station and new line toLondon Victoria Station
3.Stansted -Link toLondon-Cambridge railway line .'
Provision ofdual-oarriageway road

AWEX 13
:■/'.. ' '■.n
s
/ i
Note ontheresults ofasurvey ofthe existing networks of
Member States ,
The .following routes ofthe Community were studied :
-for road traffic : the European road network inthe new
version of1975 }
-forrail traffic : the 197° version ofthe general net­
. .work plan oftheInternational Railway
federation (WC)
-forinland waterways traffic : waterways asdefined inthe CQCT
category IVthrough VII
* ' - '
Inorder to'beable toundertake auniform assessment ofthe traffic situation on
all sections ofthese networks inthedifferent countries ofthe European Com­
munity itwasfirst necessary toselect ordevelop assessment criteria and
corresponding methods ofcalculation .Acomprehensive analysis of,the assessment
criteria and calculation methods applied inthe countries ofthe European Com­
munity revealed that inparticular thecriteria • (
-route capacity } ,;
, ■■ ■-volume oftrafficj
-volume-capacity ratioj v ■ -
-speed } .• ';
-directness ^ v .
-.travelling time :and .
-level ofservice
play amajor role inassessing traffic routes . ,
With respect tothese criteria ,definitions*and calculation methods forall
three categories oftraffic were selected which appear appropriate for' conduc­
ting arough analysis ofthetraffic situation invery large traffic networks .!
Particular problems arose inconnection with determining uniformly applicable
volume calculation methods becau3e the capacity oftraffic routes can bede­
fined inmany different ways and hence thecalculation methods vary widely .After
examining allthe volume calculation methods used ,inthe member Btaxes of

ANWEC ?13
«–2–» jQ
theEEC thefollowing methods were selected foruniform appli­
cation : -
-road traffic :the method described inthe "Highway Capa­
city Manual 1965 "(HCM);
rail traffic :amodified and refined method ofthe Inter­
national Railway Federation (U^IC )andof
theGerman Federal Railways (DB);
-inland waterways traffic :
the method described inthe Federal General
Traffic Plan ofthe ,Federal Republic of
Germany (capacity ofunobstructed routes )
and the method' laid down bytheDutch govern­
ment (Rijkswaterstaat )forthecapacity of
locks .
The concept "level ofservice "was elaborated inthe Highway
Capacity Manual 1965 andhasbeen applied inthepast only to
road traffic .This concept ,together with theway itisde­
fined (asacombination ofthevolume-capacity ratio and
speed ),seems particularly appropriate for apreliminary assess­
ment oflarge networks .For this reason itwas also applied on
anexperimental basis for the categories oftraffic comprising
rail traffic and inland waterways traffic .The definitions of
the level ofservice for these two categories oftraffic
were laid down inasclose agreement aspossible asregards
their content with the KMC definitions f<rroad traffic .
After the preconditions for auniform assessment for all coun­
tries ofthe three types oftraffic network inquestion had
been created through this preliminary w)rk onthetheoretical
aspects ,all the sections ofthese networks were analysed in
sofar asthecorresponding data wera available .The results
oftheanalysis are asfollows :

ANNEX 13
96
-3-
Road traffic
Number ofsections analysed :
Total length ofthenetwork analysed :
ofwhich :with' traffic burden figures :
ofwhich :sections with
Level of
Level of
Level of
Level of
Level of
Level ofservice A
service B
tService C
service D
service E
service F(very good ): «
(good ): :
(satisfactory ):
(sufficient ):
(poor ):
(very poor ):
Rail traffic
Number ofsections analysed :
Total length ofthenetwork analysed :
ofwhich :with .traffic burden figures :
ofwhich :sections with
Level ofservice A:
Level ofservice B:
Level ofservice C: »
Level ofservice D:
Level of'service E:
Level ofservice F: '
Inland waterways traffic
Number ofsections ,analysed :
Total length ofthenetwork analysed :
ofwhich :with traffic burden figures :557
33,636 km
30,383 km
6,435 km (21%)
4,288 km (14-96 )
7,524 km (25%)
4,129 km (1496)
2,844 km (9%)
5,163 km (1796)
315
22,279 km
16,853 km
0km
1,701 km
4,198 km
2,318 km
1,822 km
6,814 km
106
5,977 km
5,938 km:-)
[1096)
[25%)
;14%)
[1196)
[4096)

•AMEX 13
-4
ofwhich :sections with ^ ' /
Level pfservice Aï - 524 km (9%)
Level ofservice B: . 2.354 km (40 %)
Level ofservice Cî 2,145 km (36%)
■■Level ofservice D:. . . J684 km (12%)
•Level ofservice-E : •,: 168 km ('3%)
Level ofservice F: ^ 63km (1%)
This rough survey reveals that thetraffic situation
isrelatively satisfactory with respect tothe road net­
work (6o%of the length ofthe network hasatleast
level C)butthat ,with afigure of17%farelatively large
proportion ofroads have &very poor level ofservice
(level F),this applying inparticular tosections with '
only two lanes (85 %ofall sections with level Fservice
are two-lane long-distance .roads' );.
-isunsatisfactory asregards the railway network (only 35 %
ofthe length ofthe network hasatlaast level Cquality ,
whereby the proportion ofsections that bear aheavy traffic
burden orwhich are overloaded (level F)isvery high at
40.% : ; VV•; ■'
–is,with the exception ofafew sections ,good tovery good
!'-as regards theinland waterways network (85%ofthelength
ofthenetwork hasatleast level Cquality ),whereby the
proportion ofsections 4that bear ah^avy traffic burden or
'which are overloaded (level F)iser+remely low,namely
■1%.,• .•v';. . / -v.:;■ >■ ..
However ,due allowance must bemade .for thefact that the .
definitions chosen for the levels ofservice from Athrough F
forrail traffic and.inland waterways traffic are not .abso­
lutely comparable with the corresponding definitions for road
traffic ;this means that the results ineach case are tobe
viewed more asanindication oftrends rather than asaset
»' ■ - *
ofprecise figures .

* ••*.
I*s
:V.l:
S-'-:
■;**:
Existing sources fojftnfraotructure financing IntheCommunity *
(induiling transport infrosffiKJurc )f
Y
0,
•i*
£
Η,t
r­
«i*'.4,'À -.«?•V- ; 1
.V.••« .'
•.-V
!.»Ο
Higiblc tnfra »
structure projecti
Geographical limits
Form *of
Intervention
Resources
Financial condition *
Procédure *
Βικι,YEuropean Regional Development Fund
Infrastructure investments which contribute tothedeve-
lopmrnt ofcertain regions .
I.Regions established byMember States inttpplytng their
systems ofregional aids andforwhich State aids are
granted .
Participation oftheFund inthefinancing ofspecific
measures regions tohedetermined hytheCouncil .
1.Subsidie *.
2.Interest rebate *of3points ontlB loans .
–Fund budget for1979 :945million u.a.Probably
available forinfrastructure' projects :
70'' ;■-ftM.5 million u.a.maximum .
–Distribution ofthe Fund 'sresources between the
Member States according toquota '(95%of(he
budget ).
–Specific measures .distribution tobedetermined by
theCouncil (5VAofthebudget ).
1.Investments must exceed 50000 u.i.
2.–investments <10million u.a.:
maximum Fund contribution 30%ofnational aid.
–investments >lOmillion u.a :
maximum Fund contribution 10-30% .
–investments ofparticular importance : ■•
maximum Fund contribution 40%.
3.Specific measures :conditions tobedetermined bythe
Council .
I.Member State submits requests totheCommission .
2.Consultation ofFund Committee .
3.Consultation ofRegional Policy Committee
projects >10million u.a.).
4.Commission decides ;ifitsdecision isnotinaccordance
with theCommittee 's,theCouncil decides .
I.Council Regulation (EEC )No724/75-ofJ8March
1975 ,asemended by:
2.Councit Regulation (EEC)No214/79oí6February
1979 .European Investment Bank .V '»*VA
[I« • .*./7
Investments h»infrastucture projects ofregional orCom -
munity interest . ><1
I.Community .
2.Outside theCommunity (ACP and Mediterranean
countries ).
I.Loans .
i .• /
2.Guarantees .
Loans and guarantees granted in1978 :2140.4 million
u.a.,ofwhich 320.4 million u.a.fortransport infrastructure
projects within theCommunity .
1.Maximum contribution 50%ofthecostoftheproject .
2.Projects must offer prospects ofareasonable return
(commercial criterion ).
3.State guarantee orOther sufficient secuntyi
J.Member State .Oynmission orundertaking submits re*
quests totheBank .
2.Consultation ofCommission and Member State .
3.Bank decide *(acting unanimously iftheCommission s
opinion isunfavourable ).
1.Treaty ,Title IV,Articles 129and150.
2.Protocol ontheStatute oftheEIB .
3.EIB Annual Report .
Apart frtwn tnfra»trurtur «wJiunder Article 56ofthefcCSC Treaty andAitwtf 84oftheBudget (EAGCF )which arespecifically aimed atparticular sectors (coalandatecl,
andagriculture ),theamount iinquestion arecomparatively small .

ANFEX 14'
New Cummuniiy Instrument (NCÏ ) F.MS interest rebates
Investments ininfrastructure project *which contribute toconvergence
and inii-gr.ihon .taking into account theregional and employment
effects .Investments ininfrastructure projects inthelessprosperous countries
participating intheEMS .taking intoaccount theregional effect *.
Community . I.Italy .
s
2.Ireland .
Mun * Interest rebate *of.1points onEIB andNCI loan *.
I(IUInulluni ua. *
Mm million u.a . first tranche ,ofwhich
million u.a .appropriate toinfrastructure .I(MX)milium u.a .(infive yeurly tranche *of200 million u.a.each )a*
interest rebates onblB'artd NCI luani of5000 million u.a.0n
yearly tranche *ofI000 million u.a.each ).
j
Inaccordance with EIB condition ». Inaccordante with EIB conditions .
1 »
I('••until approve *tmnchis and establishes regulation *tor the
pmjt'ctvI.Commission andMember "••tales prepare indicative programme *.
2.Requests submitted tothe Iuropcan Investment Bank directly or
through the(ommission orMember State .2.Consultation ofMember Mutes .
.VCommission decides ontheeligibility oftheproject . 3.Commission decides on e'igibi'iJy oftheproject .
4.Rank decides onthegranting andcondition oftheloan .
4.Bonk decides onthegn <oug andcofxlitions of(heJoan .
ICouncil Decision 7K/N70/FFC of IftOctober IV7H I.Council Regulation .-JoI7"W7V of3August IV79 .
2.(o.ifvi.iiion agreement between theCommi'.sion and theRank of
27November 1V7H2.Council Decision 7V/6,>-'JHCof}August IV79 .
*H«ii»MifT » IIV'4 Italy .vovy
Ihiimjr * |it*'» Iuiimhoury OIHJlt
Ir.lrf«l HrpuMv ofOfrmany Mt' « NnhrrlamH MH
United KmgArfn 17.03 •*
Ifclnrej &46'4
million ua•million ofumu ofaccount .
million IUA »million oftr.uropean unit *ofaccount .(