EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg, 14.12.2021 SWD(2021) 472 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EU) 1315/2013









































{COM(2021) 812 final} - {SEC(2021) 435 final} - {SWD(2021) 471 final} - {SWD(2021) 473 final}



Table of contents 1Introduction: Political and legal context 1.1Political context 1.2Legal and policy context 2Problem definition 2.1What are the problems? 2.2What are the problem drivers? 2.3How will the problem evolve? 3Why should the EU act? 3.1Legal basis 3.2Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 3.3Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 4Objectives: What is to be achieved? 4.1General objectives 4.2Specific objectives 5What are the available policy options? 5.1What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 5.2Description of the policy options and measures 5.2.1 Links between the problems, problem drivers and specific objectives in relation to each policy option

5.2.2 Contribution of each policy option to the European Green Deal 5.3Discarded policy measures at an early stage 6What are the impacts of the policy options? 6.1Economic impacts 6.1.1 Investment needs 6.1.2 Impacts on GDP 6.1.3 Impact on SMEs 6.1.4 Administrative burden 6.1.5 Impacts on transport activity 6.2Social impacts 6.2.1 Impacts on employment 6.2.2 Road Safety 6.2.3 Connectivity and cohesion, including outermost regions 6.2.4 Accessibility for all users 6.2.5 Impacts on health 6.3Environmental impacts 6.3.1 CO2 emission reduction 6.3.2 Air Pollutant emissions reduction 6.3.3 Impacts on noise, biodiversity and water 6.4Impacts on resilience of the transport infrastructure incl. maintenance

7How do the options compare? 7.1Effectiveness 7.2Efficiency 7.3Coherence 7.4Proportionality and subsidiarity 7.5Summary of the comparison of options, including stakeholder views 8Preferred option 9How will actual impacts be monitored and evaluated? Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation Annex 3: Who is affected and how? Annex 4: Analytical methods Annex 5: Links between the conclusions of the TEN-T ex-post evaluation and the impact assessment Annex 6: Overview of specific policy objectives, measures and policy options Annex 7: Resilience case - Potential risk of flooding of EU27 transport infrastructures ANNEX 8: Discarded Policy Measures Annex 9: TEN-T Key Performance Indicators



Glossary

Term or acronym Meaning or definition AF Alternative Fuels AFIR Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation CEF Connecting Europe Facility CNC Core Network Corridors EGD European Green Deal ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management System ESIF European Structural and Investment Fund ETC European Transport Corridors ETS Emission Trading Scheme GHG Greenhouse Gases GT Gross Tonnage HDV Heavy Duty Vehicle IA Impact Assessment ITS Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) IWT Inland Waterway Transport IWW Inland Waterways LDV Light Duty Vehicle MaaS Mobility as a Service MoS Motorways of the Sea MS Member State(s) NAPCP National Air Pollution Control Programme NECP National Energy and Climate Plan OPC Open Public Consultation OPS Onshore Power Supply OR Outermost Region(s) P2W Powered two wheelers PO Policy Option PM Particulate Matter Emissions RFC Rail Freight Corridors RoPax Roll-On-Roll-Off-Passenger-ship/ferry RRF Recovery and Resilience Facility RRT Rail-Road-Terminal SO Specific Objective SSMS Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy SSS Short Sea Shipping SUMP Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan TEN-T Trans-European Transport Network TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union VOC Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions WFD Water Framework Directive



11 Introduction: Political and legal context This impact assessment (IA) accompanies a legislative proposal for the revision of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 – Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T). The aim of the TEN-T Regulation is to build an effective EU-wide and multimodal transport infrastructure network across the European Union. 1.11.1 Political context The European Green Deal , adopted by the European Commission in December 2019, puts climate action at its core, by setting an EU climate neutrality objective by 2050. In the domain of transport, the European Green Deal (EGD) calls for a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transport in order for the EU to become a climate-neutral economy by 2050, while working towards the zero-pollution ambition. It also calls for shifting a substantial part of the 75% of inland freight carried today by road to rail and inland waterways. Short-sea shipping and zero-emission vehicles can also contribute to greening freight transport. The transport sector should also contribute to the objectives of the biodiversity strategy for 2030 which aims to put Europe's biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030. To achieve this systemic change, the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (SSMS) sets out the need to: (1) make all transport modes more sustainable, (2) make sustainable alternatives widely available in a multimodal transport system and (3) put in place the right incentives to drive the transition. As regards the second pillar, the SSMS sets the following concrete milestones: rail freight traffic will increase by 50% by 2030 and double by 2050; transport by inland waterways and short sea shipping will increase by 25% by 2030 and by 50% by 2050; traffic on high-speed rail will double by 2030 and triple by 2050; scheduled collective travel under 500 km should be carbon-neutral by 2030 within the EU; by 2030, there will be at least 100 climate-neutral cities in Europe. To create the enabling conditions in terms of infrastructure for such systemic change, the revision of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013, including all delegated Regulations and delegated acts that followed its adoption, is a key action of both the EGD and the SSMS. It is part of a package of legislative initiatives aiming at contributing to the goals of decarbonisation, digitalisation and higher resilience of transport infrastructure. Next to the revision of the TEN-T Regulation, there will be the review of the Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) Directive and the urban mobility package – all due by the end of 2021. Closely related to TEN-T is also the revision of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive into a new Regulation (AFIR) as part of the ‘Delivering the European Green Deal’ initiatives that have been presented in July 2021. 1.21.2 Legal and policy context “Connecting Europe” is the very purpose of the TEN-T. The TEN-T policy as defined in the Regulation is about connecting businesses and economic operators by creating the arteries that are necessary for smooth passenger and freight transport flows, which are in return vital for the internal market. TEN-T is about connecting European citizens, since it allows for better and faster transport connections throughout Europe, and especially crossing the borders. It is about connecting regions since the TEN-T ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion by improving the accessibility across the EU, including a better connectivity of the outermost regions and other remote, insular, peripheral and mountainous regions as well as sparsely populated areas. It is also about connecting Europe with the rest of the world, since transport connections to our neighbouring and other third countries are of paramount importance for accessing world markets and making Europe a strong global actor. And finally it is about connecting funding and financing since the TEN-T Regulation defines the priorities and conditions for (European) funding and financing decisions. The TEN-T Regulation provides a key legal basis for infrastructure-related measures for all forms of transport in the EU and aims at creating a multimodal network of rail, inland waterways, short sea shipping routes and roads which are linked to urban nodes, maritime and inland ports, airports and terminals across the EU. The TEN-T is hence the very basis for an infrastructural response to enable sustainable forms of transport, to provide for improved multimodal and interoperable transport solutions and for an enhanced intermodal integration of the entire logistic chain. The TEN-T Regulation translates the overall purpose of a European multimodal transport system into four specific objectives: 1) Contribution to the cohesion of the Union; 2) Contribution to the efficiency of the transport network; 3) Contribution to the sustainability of the transport network; 4) Increased benefits for all users of the transport network. The main elements and features of the current TEN-T Regulation thereby are: ·A Europe-wide network indicated in the maps annexed to the Regulation and identified through a coherent EU-wide planning methodology. The current TEN-T covers around 30% of passenger inland traffic and close to 70% of freight inland traffic and is composed of two multimodal network layers: oa ‘comprehensive’ network which is the ground layer to ensure accessibility of all European regions: it is comprised of 123,274 km of railway lines and 114,459 km of roads, 557 ports (294 maritime ports, 223 inland ports, 40 maritime/inland (mixed) ports), 220 Rail-Road-Terminals (RRT) and 353 airports; oa ‘core’ network which is the part of the comprehensive network of highest strategic importance and of highest implementation priority because it captures the major transport flows across Europe. The core network is comprised of 67,448 km of railway lines, 49,741 km of roads and 15,732 km of inland waterways, 164 core ports (80 maritime, 60 inland ports and 24 maritime/inland (mixed) ports), 116 RRT and 93 airports. ·The Regulation sets clear completion deadlines – 2030 for the core network and 2050 for the comprehensive network. ·Ambitious and binding infrastructure standards and requirements for all transport modes to achieve interoperability and quality of the network, for both comprehensive and core network; for the latter it defines particularly high capacity and quality standards. ·Innovative implementation instruments to ensure the realisation of the core network by 2030, i.e. nine core network corridors (CNC) as well as two horizontal priorities (European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and Motorways of the Sea (MoS)) led by eleven European Coordinators. Synergies with other EU policy instruments

As the main pillar of EU transport infrastructure policy, the TEN-T Regulation acts as enabler and also depends on complementary policies. The standards and requirements set in the TEN-T Regulation are directly connected with the relevant objectives and needs in other transport sectors/fields and thus with other more sector-specific legislations (e.g. per transport mode). This means, for example, that the TEN-T rail infrastructure – for ensuring seamless cross-border transport and mobility – has to comply with interoperability legislation set in railway policy. Similarly, TEN-T road infrastructure has to take up and comply with EU legislation on road safety. The implementation of sectoral policies also needs a strong TEN-T Regulation framework since the TEN-T provide the infrastructure network for the implementation of other sectoral measures or other pieces of legislation, some of which however go beyond the TEN-T. The TEN-T Regulation performance on indicators such as those related to modal shift, better service quality, uptake of recharging/refuelling infrastructure, etc. depends on coordinated efforts with related policy fields. This particularly relates to the synergies between TEN-T and AFIR as well as TEN-T and ITS, since both are intrinsically dependent on each other. For instance, the AFIR regulates the provision of charging/fuelling points on the TEN-T whilst the TEN-T Regulation provides the infrastructure basis for their wide deployment in a European network perspective. Similarly, the ITS regulates the provision of intelligent transport systems on the TEN-T, as part of a broader package of measures. Both AFIR and ITS need a definition of the TEN-T for their implementation (i.e. a geographical scope of application), which is provided by the maps contained in the TEN-T Regulation. These considerations also apply to other initiatives which are part of the SSMS action plan, such as the revision of the Rail Freight Corridor Regulation, the revision of the urban mobility package, the launch of the NAIADES III initiative etc. The full potential on modal shift, better service quality, uptake of recharging/refuelling infrastructure, etc. can only be achieved when also these initiatives, including the revision of the TEN-T Regulation, are implemented together. However, it needs to be underlined that the TEN-T Regulation (and thus its revision) only regulates the network in its design and structure, its standards and requirements and its governance and monitoring structure. For instance, the TEN-T Regulation will define the alignment of the European Transport Corridors that shall replace the Rail Freight Corridors and Core Network Corridors as announced in the SSMS. In this regard, the TEN-T Regulation will already make one important step ahead of the revision of the RFC Regulation (foreseen in 2022) which will then regulate operational questions of rail freight transport in view of the ETC. Funding and financing of the TEN-T The investment needs to realise the TEN-T network under the current Regulation are significant – about EUR 1.5 trillion for the TEN-T comprehensive network and other transport investments up to 2050. They could never be realised with EU funding and financing alone. Therefore, a sound mix of grants at national and EU level, of innovative financing (e.g. blending instruments) and of private financing (e.g. loans) is needed to realise the TEN-T in line with the standards defined in the current Regulation, but also in line with each of the policy options elaborated in this impact assessment. In terms of EU funding, the TEN-T Regulation is directly linked to the Regulation of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) as it defines the projects of common interest that are eligible under CEF. In addition, the TEN-T infrastructure is largely funded by the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF) and since recently also through the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). Indeed, all national recovery and resilience plans (RRPs) submitted so far to the European Commission for financing by the EU Resilience and Recovery Facility include both reforms and investments in favour of sustainable transport. Based on those 22 plans endorsed so far, more than 62 EJR billion has been climate tracked in the policy area of sustainable mobility. The TEN-T network has been an important area of investment within this field, with many investments in rail transport to both aid the modal shift and make rail transport greener and safer. Relevant projects in RRPs relate to newly built or upgraded railways on the TEN-T core and comprehensive networks, as well as the reconstruction and modernisation of existing railway lines on the TEN-T networks. The RRF can also support projects assisting multi-modality across the TEN-T network. At the same time, the TEN-T implementation does not limit itself to EU funding only. On the contrary, the TEN-T will be mainly realised through national funding and through other (private) financing sources. For instance, the TEN-T implementation report for 2016 and 2017 states that the total investment made in the TEN-T network in 2016 and 2017 amounts to more than EUR 91 billion. The majority of these investments have been met by national resources (73%). Out of the EUR 91 billion, EUR 11.5 billion were financed through EIB loans, EUR 9.8 billion were co-funded by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ERDF and CF) and EUR 3.1 billion by the CEF. Hence, it is clear that a major part of funding will have to be assured by Member States who also are the primary actors in terms of project planning. Evaluation of the existing Regulation The evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation (SWD(2021)117final) concluded that the TEN-T provides all relevant actors (i.e. Member States, regions, cities, transport industry, infrastructure managers of all transport modes, users) with a common policy framework which works towards the gradual completion of the common and consistent European transport infrastructure network. As such, it adds a European perspective to national infrastructure planning and addresses needs and benefits beyond single national approaches. However, the evaluation also concluded that efforts need to be stepped up in order to reach new political targets. Indeed, since the establishment of the TEN-T Regulation in 2013 the policy context has changed significantly, particularly through the adoption of the EGD and the SSMS as well as the Zero Pollution Action Plan (ZPAP). The links between the conclusions of the ex-post evaluation (incl. the shortcomings identified) and the impact assessment are presented in Annex 5. 22 Problem definition The TEN-T Regulation covers a very comprehensive, integrated and inter-sectoral field of intervention. Indeed, it encompasses not only all forms of transport and all types of transport nodes but also provides a harmonised framework to address a wide variety of cross-cutting issues such as the digitalisation of and innovation in transport infrastructure, interoperable solutions, cooperation and governance aspects for infrastructure planning and investments as well as monitoring and reporting systems for the TEN-T. These issues are addressed by specific policy interventions, with the TEN-T providing for the infrastructure basis of European transport. As a result, the problems addressed by the TEN-T revision are widespread and highly interdependent (see Figure 1) and address not only problems with regard to the TEN-T infrastructure as such (e.g. in terms of network design, network infrastructure, standards etc.) but also with regard to the governance of the TEN-T. To address the complexity at stake, the following problem definition has been developed based on the results of the evaluation of the current TEN-T Regulation and the objectives set by the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy, the Zero Pollution Action Plan and more generally the European Green Deal. 2.12.1 What are the problems? Due to its very broad policy nature, the TEN-T revision has inevitably to address a mix of problems which can be grouped into four main categories: Problem area 1: Insufficient and/or incomplete TEN-T infrastructure standards and lack of integration of standards for alternative fuels infrastructure on the TEN-T that does not enable higher use of more sustainable forms of transport Transport is one of the main sources of greenhouse gas, air pollutant and noise emissions. Transport (excluding international maritime traffic) currently accounts for almost a quarter of all EU GHG emissions (road transport alone represents 20% of the total) and is a major contributor to air pollution, a problem particularly acute in urban areas. The current TEN-T Regulation partially addressed this problem by introducing certain infrastructure standards which render the sustainable modes of transport, i.e. rail, inland waterways and short sea shipping, more competitive and efficient, and increase their capacity and hence incentivize more activity in sustainable forms of transport. The TEN-T evaluation states that future challenges of the European transport system overall – with ambitious climate change objectives, the digital transition or a significantly enhanced focus on user expectations – will place increasing demand on TEN-T policy. The evaluation emphasized that the TEN-T shall keep pace with the new ambitions on decarbonisation until 2030 and beyond by a substantial reinforcement of the concrete measures and requirements (i.e. standards) underpinning the sustainability objective. In this regard, a recalibration of certain standards or requirements and an integrated network approach, centred on interoperability and efficiency increase, is needed. The evaluation of the current TEN-T Regulation also concluded that its potential as an infrastructure basis for modal shift has not been fully exploited yet. For instance, progress in implementing the existing requirement to enable the operation of freight trains with at least 740 m length – which would significantly increase productivity and capacity of rail freight transport and thereby the potential for modal shift – remains unsatisfactory even on the horizon 2030. Similarly, the UNECE’s White Paper on IWT highlights that one of the major challenges will be to ensure good navigability conditions on free-flowing rivers, especially due to increasingly more frequent periods of extreme weather events and their impacts on water levels and respectively on water bound traffic. Last but not least, the potential of short sea shipping as an alternative to road transport within Europe has not been fully exploited yet. It lacks a concrete definition, objectives and a coherent and integrated concept for its development in Europe. The problem of standards also relates to their completion date. Indeed, the deadline for completion of the comprehensive network by 2050 comes too late in order to still support the climate law targets by 2050. Similarly, the evaluation also outlined that a strengthened complementarity between core and comprehensive networks could also be ensured through an alignment of standards and requirements in fields such as railway infrastructure, rail safety or urban nodes. Indeed, the fact that there are differing ambitions with regard to standards and requirements for both network layers challenges their functional complementarity in terms of a seamless connectivity throughout the TEN-T. Last but not least, the TEN-T Regulation focused so far on setting standards per transport mode, but disregarded the potential of alternative fuels deployment, even though the TEN-T’s Europe-wide network approach offers a unique opportunity for the wide deployment of alternative fuels. The lack of continuous and coherent coverage of alternative fuel infrastructure for all modes of transport and across the entire TEN-T is one great challenge and problem. TEN-T does so far not exploit this network potential and also does not cater for the adequate infrastructure in place that is needed for the successful deployment of alternative fuels (e.g. on safe and secure parkings on roads).

Problem area 2: Capacity bottlenecks and insufficient network connectivity to all regions that hamper multimodality Another problem on the TEN-T are capacity bottlenecks, an insufficient network connectivity which hampers multimodality and a persistent poor connectivity to some regions (in particular the outermost regions). Such capacity bottlenecks appear for all modes of transport since passenger and freight transport volumes on the comprehensive and core TEN-T are growing (see chapter 6.1). This is confirmed by a study on Scenarios for the Development of Multimodal Transport in the TRITIA which highlights that despite a significant number of investments undertaken, the European Union does not have a sufficiently interconnected, interoperable and resource-efficient cross-border multimodal transport infrastructure network. According to the study, this is a result of the different national priorities set by each Member State, which prevent a harmonised approach to ensure a more interconnected infrastructure. In the case of rail infrastructure, the length of infrastructure reaching or exceeding its capacity limits is constantly increasing. The length of tracks declared congested by rail infrastructure managers in the 27 Member States amounted to 2,261 kilometres in 2018 (1,339 km on lines designated to Rail Freight Corridors) – which is almost double the figure from 2015 . Bottlenecks exist mainly in major and smaller urban nodes as well as on intensively used strategic axes on which several flows overlap on a single line. A secondary problem making it more difficult to address the issue of capacity bottlenecks is the lack of commonly applied, objective standards to define the capacity of rail infrastructure and its degree of use . With regard to road transport, most bottlenecks appear in and/or around cities, e.g. congested ring roads. Additionally, for rail they occur on sections where several major domestic and cross-border traffic flows overlap, e.g. in the hinterland of major ports and on the access lines to strategic routes such as the Alpine and Fehmarn Belt crossings. For maritime ports, capacity bottlenecks are mainly caused during a port call which can evolve into a potential bottleneck for the entire logistic chain. In addition, maritime links are not sufficiently well integrated in the entire logistic chain, which is often due to a lack of quality of last mile connections to the port – both sea-side and land-side connections, impacting also on capacity and congestion. In terms of terminals, the distances between rail/road terminals on the TEN-T core and comprehensive networks are still well above 300 km in many regions, limiting the possibility of short (<150 km) road legs. In addition, the availability of terminals is not sufficient throughout Europe in such that it is not possible to use intermodal transport. As regards rail and inland waterways, parts of the EU’s TEN-T rail and inland waterway networks are not capable of handling the type of traffic which operators and users would like to carry. Headroom is insufficient to allow taller load units (or multiple stacks) to be moved by train or barge. Navigation depth prevents larger barges from penetrating further upstream. Route capacity is constrained by lack of passing sidings and level-free connecting loops on busy rail routes, by major variations in water levels on free flowing stretches of rivers, or simply because there are not enough links in the network. Long and slower combined transport rail services have to share the tracks with short and faster passenger services. Missing links and poor connections, including between public transport and active modes of transport, remain the main challenges for integrating the urban nodes on the TEN-T. They can also lead to bottlenecks and congestion at peak hours due to a lack of connectivity, and to a high degree of dependence on personal motorised transportation. Problem area 3: Insufficient safety and reliability of the TEN-T infrastructure Insufficient safety and reliability of the TEN-T infrastructure is another major problem for the efficiency of the TEN-T. Indeed, accidents caused by an inadequate safety level of the transport network significantly add on to the problem of congestion and disturbances of the transport system. Safety and security are therefore at the heart of the transport system and are the precondition to any sustainable transport system. If we look at roads, the EU had about 51 deaths annually per million inhabitants in 2019. The report “Preparatory work for an EU Road Safety Strategy” states that the comprehensive TEN-T (while it only entails around 4% of the total network (excluding urban roads) contributes to a disproportionate 11% of deaths. Even though the infrastructure as such is not formally considered one of the most important causing factors for accidents, higher quality roads lead to less (and less serious) accidents. Compared to road, rail is a very safe mode of transport, although there are still too many fatalities involving railways (especially at level crossings). Altogether 1,721 significant accidents, 885 fatalities and 760 serious injuries were recorded in the EU27 countries plus UK in 2018. A steady decrease in significant accidents and resulting casualties has been recorded in the period 2010-2018, for which harmonised data are available across the Union. Next to safety related issues, the reliability of the TEN-T infrastructure is also often hampered through man-made or natural and climate related events. The impact of temperature increases, changes in precipitation regimes or sea-level rise affect – directly or indirectly – the productivity of nearly all economic sectors in all EU Member States, including transport. This is especially true for regions, in particular outermost regions and other remote islands, being cut off transport links during extreme weather events and other crisis. The recent events during the COVID-19 pandemic have also shown how such events can heavily disrupt traffic, especially cross-border and in remote regions, and how it can hamper the continued supply of essential goods. The limited ability of some modes, in particular rail and inland waterways, to ensure the continuity of traffic during major disruptions of the main network, is aggravated by the non-integration of proper rail diversionary routes into the TEN-T as well as the difficulty to switch to another transport mode if there is a disruption on one of them. Another element adding on the reliability of the transport network is related to foreign direct investments. Such investments on the TEN-T can contribute to the Union's growth by enhancing its competitiveness, creating jobs, bringing in capital, technologies, research and innovation, expertise, and by opening new markets for the Union's exports. However, it has become apparent that under specific circumstances, they could distort transport flows on the network by not complying with TEN-T standards and hence affect security or public order on critical infrastructure. Indeed, while in principle the same standards apply to the TEN-T infrastructure, independent of the source of financing, experience has shown that projects with foreign direct investment have a higher risk of not fully applying all standards. Problems have been observed in case of investments by non-EU companies in the EU. Non-EU investors provide funding but also impose often their own technology which is not compatible with the TEN-T requirements. For example, there have been several cases of investments by foreign companies to develop rail infrastructure with no installation of ERTMS. The risk of non-compliance with technical standards, for instance by using different IT or telematics systems, is therefore higher when the investment stems from outside the EU. This could be to the detriment of transport activities carried out by EU operators. This issue has also been flagged in the Council conclusions “A Globally Connected Europe” of 12 July 2021, where the Council “notes that other key economies have developed their own approaches and tools for connectivity and underlines the need for all such initiatives and actions to apply high international standards.” Greater awareness of such investments is thus necessary to allow intervention of public authorities if it appears that they are likely to affect security or public order. Regulation (EU) 2019/452 provides a comprehensive framework at Union level for the screening of foreign direct investments on the grounds of security or public order . Currently the EU Member States are obliged to notify foreign direct investments when they are undergoing screening pursuant to their mechanism and the Commission and other Member States have the possibility to initiate a cooperation on foreign investments not undergoing screening. The problem is that not all Member States have a fully-fledged screening mechanism allowing the screening of foreign direct investments into critical transport infrastructure. In these cases the EU Regulation does not oblige Member States to perform such monitoring. Only when a Member State performs a control of foreign investments, it must inform the Commission. Last but not least, the control is limited to matters linked to security or public order and thus addresses transport safety indirectly. However it is not aimed at ensuring compliance with requirements like the ones in the TEN-T Regulation (e.g. interoperability of the network). Problem area 4: Inadequate TEN-T governance instruments and TEN-T network design The fourth problem area concerns on the one side the inadequate TEN-T governance instruments and on the other side the design of the TEN-T as such. As regards the TEN-T governance, the evaluation came to the conclusion that the current instruments are powerful, but not entirely sufficient to address the increasing challenges at stake, nor fully adequate to respond to new arising policy priorities. For instance, the scope of the current governance instruments (e.g. European Coordinators’ mandates) is not wide enough to address all new challenges and policy priorities (for instance with regard to resilience and maintenance aspects, climate adaptation issues or the third country dimension of TEN-T – topics and geographical zones that their current mandate (and the related corridor studies) do not cover). The ECA has recommended to strengthen the role of European Coordinators. Next to it, the current Regulation only foresees one work plan by each European Coordinator, whilst in practice they saw the need to do an update on average every two years as to stimulate the discussions with stakeholders and the national priority setting. The sequencing of work plans was thus judged as not sufficient. Most importantly however, the existing governance instruments do not sufficiently address the problem of insufficiently aligned national priorities with TEN-T priorities. Indeed, one major issue is that the priorities defined in the national (investment) plans and programmes are not sufficiently aligned with the priorities set in the TEN-T Regulation and in the Coordinators’ work plans. The related case study of the TEN-T evaluation concluded that the national plans currently do not completely reflect Member States’ obligations under the TEN-T Regulation with regard to network planning and implementation. For instance, TEN-T priorities are not consistently included in national planning and investment programmes. This is partially due to the fact that the work plans of the European Coordinators (and hence their priorities) are not legally binding, even if the plans are adopted by Member States. To adopt binding measures, the Commission has made use of implementing decisions for the implementation of certain major cross-border projects. This has been welcomed by the European Court of Auditors, but has not been exploited at a wider scale, due also to the limitation of the scope of this instrument in the Regulation. In addition, to date, no transport master plan at national level provides an overview of current and expected TEN-T completion rates in terms of compliance with the requirements of the TEN-T Regulation by 2030. Monitoring of progress is therefore rendered more difficult, in particular also since several Member States report in their own national monitoring against other deadlines than the TEN-T deadlines for completion of the network (2030, 2050). There is also no coherent and regular reporting on national priorities which makes the control of respect of TEN-T priorities difficult. In terms of monitoring and reporting at EU level, the reporting landscape of the current TEN-T contains too many elements which are not sufficiently aligned in terms of content, frequency and scope. This leads to a distorted reporting landscape with incomparable outputs due to the absence of coherent and harmonised definitions, data gaps, outdated data and inconsistencies. In addition, current reporting is lacking the coverage of new horizontal reporting priorities to reflect the EU’s political priorities, such as digitalisation, decarbonisation, military mobility, resilience, improvement of services. Furthermore, the process to timely get high quality data to monitor the compliance with the TEN-T standards is cumbersome. The report from the ECA confirmed such shortcomings in the Commission’s monitoring tools.

As regards the TEN-T design, the current TEN-T does not fully match the new needs. For instance, the network as defined in the current Regulation does not fully cover the needs of cross-border rail freight transport, a fact highlighted by the differences in alignment between the Core Network Corridors (CNC) with the Rail Freight Corridors (RFC). Indeed, currently parts of the RFC are not on the TEN-T. Similarly, 93% of the EU military transport network overlaps with the current TEN-T. Considering the costs to build or modernise infrastructure, it is essential to ensure synergies between the two networks by including into the TEN-T those sections of the EU military transport network which also have a civilian use in line with the TEN-T methodology, so that investments can serve the dual use of infrastructure. The problems above render the monitoring and governance of TEN-T priorities difficult. 2.22.2 What are the problem drivers? Several drivers underpin the above mentioned problems and result from regulatory, technological or market barriers. Problem Driver 1.1: Sustainable modes of transport not fully efficient and fully attractive for users Rail freight: The current TEN-T Regulation defines a number of standards and requirements especially for rail freight (e.g. electrification of railway lines, train length of 740 m, 22.5t axle load, deployment of ERTMS) and inland waterway transport that aim at providing the necessary infrastructure for an increased competitiveness and attractiveness of these modes compared to road transport. However, since the entry into force of the TEN-T Regulation in 2013 the modal shares of road, rail and inland waterways have stagnated. This indicates that efforts so far might not have been sufficient, although infrastructure, and therefore TEN-T is not the sole driver influencing modal choice. Many issues are stemming from operational aspects (border procedures, national safety requirements etc.) that are out of scope of the TEN-T and for example dealt with by the RFC Regulation or the Combined Transport Directive. The evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation concluded that the requirements for 740 m long trains and minimum 22.5t axle load are not yet sufficiently implemented throughout the network and sufficient multimodal terminal infrastructure is often still lacking. Indeed, the compliance of the network of the CNC with the 22.5t axle load requirement is at 81% per 2017 data, with outages mainly in Romania, Hungary, Poland and Ireland. For freight train length, the compliance versus the parameter of 740 m or longer sidings for trains is at an average 43% per 2017 data. Especially infrastructure upgrades to enable the operation of freight trains with at least 740 m length remains a significant challenge: this is as a key requirement to enhance the productivity and capacity of rail freight transport. The lack of progress in the implementation of this requirement means that the potential for modal shift remains untapped. In addition, stakeholders in the consultations to the evaluation as well as to the impact assessment indicated the lack of a clear operational definition of the requirement. The current definition leaves broad room for interpretation, e.g. to consider it as fulfilled if the operation of individual 740 m trains is possible during night hours without passenger traffic. However, capacity for freight trains is also needed during day time, including congested peak hours. In this case, the fulfilment of the requirement requires upgrades of sidings, to ‘park’ freight trains while being overtaken by passenger trains. A further issue identified in the evaluation and the impact assessment work, mainly by rail stakeholders, is that (freight) traffic does often not originate and/or terminate on the core network but uses other comprehensive or secondary lines on its journey. Thus stakeholders argue that applying length and weight requirements only on the core network is insufficient to address operational and market needs. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that the current requirements might not be sufficient to support multimodal transport: semi-trailers are a de-facto standard for long-distance freight transport on road, accounting for more than 95% of traffic. However, there is no requirement on the TEN-T rail network to enable the circulation of semi-trailers of the P400 dimension , which optimises the use of the maximum dimensions permissible for road vehicles in most Member States. The circulation of P400 semi-trailers is currently not possible on a significant portion the TEN-T. Road-rail combined transport using semi-trailers has been the most dynamically growing segment of rail freight in the last ten years and accounts for around 20% of traffic of the major operators of intermodal transport in the EU . Given the prevalence of semi-trailers in road transport, a significant potential for further modal shift remains untapped. In this context, operators providing multimodal transport services clearly call for an additional infrastructure requirement making the circulation of P400 intermodal loading units possible on standard wagons throughout the rail network. Rail passenger: The SSMS sets out how the completion of TEN-T, including the high-speed lines, will provide better connections along the main corridors. It further notes that when suitable alternatives are in place at competitive prices, frequencies and comfort levels, people choose the more sustainable mode. It also underlines that the needs of all users should be taken into consideration, including persons with disabilities, persons with reduced mobility, and gender related aspects. In the framework of the TEN-T evaluation stakeholders noted that TEN-T policy should take a step forward with regard to rail passenger services. For example, there currently is no minimum speed requirement for passenger railway lines. Notwithstanding certain success stories like the Barcelona–Madrid or the Berlin–Munich high-speed lines, the overall picture of the TEN-T for passengers is more that of a patchwork rather than a network. This was also confirmed in the special report of the ECA on “A European high-speed rail network: not a reality but an ineffective patchwork”. A case study performed under the TEN-T evaluation concluded that setting a minimum track-speed ambition for passenger railway lines (e.g. 160 km/h) can provide attractive travel times and higher connectivity if operations are coordinated and well-managed. Inland waterways: As regards inland navigation, the Good Navigation Status studyargues that inland waterway transport (IWT) on the TEN-T can only fulfil its transportation role when there is sufficient capacity for cross-border European traffic, which has not yet been achieved. Local waterway sections on the TEN-T which do not have sufficient draught and height under bridges may prevent inland navigation from ensuring efficient, reliable and punctual services. Such bottlenecks may hamper the functioning of the TEN-T, undermining the full potential of inland waterway transport. However, the evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation also found that the specificities and hydro-morphology of inland waterways have not been taken into account in the definition of the TEN-T standards, leading to the establishment of standards that are not realistic in the entire flow of rivers. Short Sea Shipping: The SSMS sets out the goal to increase transport by inland waterways and short sea shipping by 25% by 2030 and by 50% by 2050. The TEN-T Regulation does not yet reflect such objectives, since it does not equally address short sea shipping (SSS) compared to the other transport modes. Indeed, in terms of SSS, only the funding concept of Motorways of the Sea under the Connecting Europe Facility is included in the Regulation. A modal shift from road to SSS would however require a more coherent and integrated concept covering the entire logistic chain, better integrating maritime links into the TEN-T, and establishing more stringent standards with regard to the quality of last mile connections to ports, both in terms of infrastructure and digital systems. Problem Driver 1.2: Lack of integration of alternative fuels infrastructure on the TEN-T hampering seamless mobility The TEN-T will be an important enabler for the roll-out of recharging and refuelling stations. The availability of sufficient and interoperable infrastructure providing minimum services to consumers, is key to foster the market uptake of such vehicles and achieve the EU’s Climate Target Plan objectives, as well as to reduce emissions of air pollutants from traffic. For road transport alone, the European Green Deal sets the objective of having at least one million publicly accessible recharging and refuelling stations in place by 2025 that establishes a springboard for the necessary much larger roll-out of such infrastructure until 2030, as shown in the impact assessment accompanying the revision of the Directive on alternative fuels infrastructure into a Regulation (AFIR). Under the AFIR, requirements for alternative fuels infrastructure would also be foreseen for ports and for electricity supply for stationary aircrafts in airports. At present, the references to the alternative fuels in the TEN-T Regulation are very general, without any stringent requirements. In principle, the infrastructure on the core network should ensure the “availability of alternative clean fuels” for most of the transport modes without going into much detail. Furthermore, following the revision of the AFIR, the TEN-T Regulation will have to be brought in line with the new obligations set out in the AFIR for the core and comprehensive network.



Problem Driver 2.1: Outdated definition and insufficient deployment of digital tools to manage traffic on the entire TEN-T The evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation found that in the current TEN-T Regulation, the topic of digitalisation is a horizontal enabler of relevance to the specific objectives of enhancing the efficiency of the TEN-T, making it more sustainable and increasing the benefits for its users in all modes of transport. However, the evaluation also identified a number of challenges with regard to digitalisation that hamper the deployment of digital tools across the TEN-T:

·There is currently no shared understanding of what digitalisation means in relation to TEN-T policy. The current terminology used in the Regulation only refers to a selection of telematics applications in the different modes (VTMIS, ITS, RIS, ERTMS etc.). Consequently it neglects a broader range of digital systems, applications and services beyond those already existing applications. ·There is limited data available and accessible, for example concerning information such as infrastructure conditions, the position of vehicles/vessels/wagons, cargo, and traffic density. ·From a logistics perspective, digital infrastructure related to terminals needs to be further developed in order to increase the efficiency and service level of terminals and strengthen their role in the multimodal logistics chain. Due attention needs to be paid to the integration, coherence and interoperability of systems – between different transport modes and along the supply chain. As digitalisation is a fast developing field, the evaluation also identified the risk of a potential two-speed deployment to occur, where distinct differences in the level of digitalisation appear, for example, between Northern Europe and Southern Europe, or between Western and Eastern Europe. A more coherent TEN-T framework could help to alleviate this problem and in addition help to avoid the occurrence of insufficient interoperable systems between certain Member States and/or regions. Problem Driver 2.2: Lack of full interoperability of the network As presented under Driver 1.1, the implementation of certain infrastructure requirements on the TEN-T is currently still insufficient, especially in a cross-border context, thus creating bottlenecks for seamless transport flows and negatively impacting on the interoperability of the whole TEN-T. As presented above, a further issue is that infrastructure requirements are not consistently applied to the core and comprehensive networks and thus again creating potential bottlenecks for traffic that is not originating and terminating on the core network. Multimodal transport terminals play a central role in ensuring interoperability of the TEN-T. As has been identified in the evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation, in order to fulfil this role, terminals would need to upgrade their handling capacity to ensure competitive and seamless transport chains for intermodal services. Furthermore, their first and last mile connections (and for ports the wider hinterland connections) ideally need to fulfil the same requirements as the TEN-T infrastructure (e.g. 740 m train length, electrification etc.). The evaluation concluded that this is not sufficiently addressed in the current Regulation which does not set any binding requirements for terminals. The evaluation also concluded that in terms of the deployment of digital tools, interoperability needs are insufficiently addressed and that current provisions are inappropriate to ensure the network-wide continuity of relevant requirements. This is most apparent in the case of ERTMS where the track side deployment, a key condition for interoperability and the enhancement of safety and more efficient capacity use shows the lowest compliance rate of all TEN-T requirements (11% in 2017). Thus a faster and more-wide spread implementation of ERTMS would be a precondition for rail freight interoperability and capacity increases with a view to the objectives defined in the EGD and SSMS. Problem Driver 2.3: Lack of integration of urban nodes in the TEN-T Regulation The evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation found that the current Regulation leads to suboptimal policy results in terms of urban nodes fulfilling their full functionality for the TEN-T (i.e. ensuring a link between urban and interregional/international traffic) and thus foregoing potential for the contribution to the EGD objectives. Decarbonisation of transport and reducing noise and air pollution requires an effective multimodal transport system and accelerated development of more sustainable modes in urban areas. The following issues can be observed with regard to urban nodes in TEN-T: ·Multimodality is currently hampered by the insufficient number of efficient transfer hubs for passengers and freight allowing for a smooth transfer between modes and lacking possibilities for seamless door-to-door travel through integrated ticketing and travel information as well as innovative mobility services. ·Urban nodes frequently present bottlenecks for TEN-T traffic flows due to congestion. The TEN-T does not include requirements to address this problem. ·The lack of complementarity between TEN-T, the sustainable urban mobility planning including clean and innovative solutions as well as e.g. Air Quality Plans and Noise Action Plans. The TEN-T Regulation currently does not provide sufficient clarity of the definition of TEN-T urban nodes. For instance, the Regulation contains a list of 79 urban nodes which were used to structure the TEN-T core network under the TEN-T planning methodology whilst the Article 30 applies a functional definition of urban nodes and refers thus to all urban nodes of the network. This, as the evaluation concluded, weakened the contribution of the Regulation to the objectives of “user benefits” and “sustainability”. Problem Driver 3.1: Insufficient quality and lack of consequent maintenance of infrastructure The evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation concluded that while TEN-T policy has played an important role in the development and improvement of infrastructure along the TEN-T, the situation is less positive with regard to the reduction in the quality gaps caused by insufficient and incoherent infrastructure monitoring and maintenance as each Member State has a specific inspection regime in place. Furthermore, it concluded that insufficient attention is paid to infrastructure quality in the process of building new and upgrading existing infrastructure on the TEN-T. In the case of TEN-T road infrastructure, the special report from the European Court of Auditors on “The EU core road network“ noted that insufficient maintenance by Member States puts the state of the core road network at risk in the medium to long term. National maintenance budgets are steadily decreasing rather than evolving in line with the increasing length of infrastructure and ageing of crucial links. The report states that although this could potentially have an impact on the full functionality of the core network by 2030, the Commission does not have tools to verify whether Member States have a solid system in place ensuring proper maintenance of their networks. Events in recent years like the collapse of the bridge in Genoa in August 2018 as well as issues in other modes of transport have increased the political attention for maintenance of infrastructure. This analysis was also confirmed by stakeholders in the TEN-T evaluation case study on standards who largely agreed that applying a life-cycle approach for example to road infrastructure, aiming to ensure continuously high-quality of TEN-T roads and including, as necessary, aspects of preventive maintenance could contribute to further enhancing the quality of TEN-T road infrastructure and its operation. Similar considerations apply to others modes as well. The current provisions in the TEN-T Regulation on maintenance are however very limited and mainly refer to the need of rehabilitation of railway lines neglected in the past and in the case of ports to equipment that ensures the maintenance of port to port approaches. Problem Driver 3.2: Lack of resilience to natural events or man-made factors Resilience of transport networks is understood as the capacity of the infrastructure to withstand, adapt and recover from crisis and shocks of either technical, administrative or digital nature. It not only concerns natural disasters but also other crisis (incl. new security requirements and new civil and environmental protection needs). Although the current Regulation already specifies that appropriate measures should be taken to ensure resilience to climate change and other environmental disasters, such measures are not further specified.

Especially the concept of climate resilience is of growing importance in light of the increasing adverse effects of climate change that affects different regions and transport modes in different ways. In terms of infrastructure quality, climate change brings about new challenges (such as increased precipitation, rapid and large temperature changes and differences and the increase in the strength and frequency of extreme weather events such as draughts, floods and hurricanes). Various studies have analysed the impacts of climate change on the EU’s transport system but reliable information for the different modes of transport or specifically for the TEN-T are lacking. For the period 1998–2010 annual direct costs for the whole transport sector (infrastructure repair/maintenance, vehicle damage, increased operational costs) due to climate change have been estimated at EUR 2.5 billion. A further EUR 1 billion annually can be attributed to indirect costs from transport disruptions. Immediate effects are the closure of a piece of infrastructure that makes it impossible for a corridor to be used and requires the need for traffic to bypass it (e.g. on the Brenner pass or in the Middle Rhine incident in March 2021). Rail freight transport is particularly affected as it has limited possibilities to re-route traffic via other lines and due to interoperability and infrastructure challenges. Also inland waterways and short sea shipping (SSS) are vulnerable to climate change. For instance, droughts and floods have the most disruptive impacts on inland waterways and ports because extreme (low/high) water levels impose limitations to navigation services. As an example, the IA support study estimated that 108 TEN-T ports are at risk by a 1-in-20-years river flooding event, this is 21% of all ports in the network (see Annex 7). In addition, 10.000 km of TEN-T rail network and 6.700 km of TEN-T road network would be affected. Economic losses due to flooding were estimated in the JRC PESETA IV project which concluded that “in 2050 annual economic losses due to flooding in the EU can be 2.7 times larger assuming a 2°C warming scenario.” With the COVID-19 crisis it became clear that also such types of events can have an adverse and far reaching impact on the transport system and especially on smooth cross- border transport operations to ensure the availability of goods and essential services. Problem Driver 3.3: Lack of safety conditions for TEN-T road infrastructure According to the TEN-T Regulation (Art. 17(3)) the road network shall be constituted of either motorways or express roads or even conventional strategic roads, leaving the choice to the Member States. In this framework, the audit of the ECA has shown different approaches, with some Member States deciding to build exclusively motorways while others are building all three types of road classes. As the type of road has a significant impact on the safety features (separated lanes, level crossings, interchanges etc.) and could also lead to bottlenecks in case a road is not continued on the other side of the border to the same standard, a clarification and streamlining of this requirement in the TEN-T Regulation is needed. The same ECA report criticizes the lack of clarity concerning Art. 39(2)(c) of the TEN-T Regulation, which requires “the development of rest areas on motorways approximately every 100 km […] to provide appropriate parking space for commercial road users with an appropriate level of safety and security”. The auditors suggest that it should be made more explicit what is meant by a safe and secure parking or provide a framework which would allow the determination of sufficient parking availability. So far Member States have applied their own criteria to classify parking areas as safe and secure. However, the “Study on Safe and Secure Parking Places for Trucks” clearly demonstrated that there is a lack of parking areas and a need to set parking standards (net shortfall of approx. 100,000 spaces). It would thus need to be further clarified which level of safety and security standards should apply to rest areas on TEN-T motorways and how frequent such areas should be available throughout the network. In addition, the putting in place of these parkings should also be an opportunity to deploy alternative fuel infrastructures (see driver 1.2). In principle, tunnels over 500 m on TEN-T sections need to comply with the provisions of Directive 2004/54/EC on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network. However there is a legal uncertainty as to the binding deadline for certain tunnels to comply with the Directive. Findings from the evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation confirmed that the challenge of bringing all TEN-T road tunnels over 500 m into compliance with its requirements was not yet completed and so the minimum safety standard prescribed by the Directive is not yet fully in place. Problem Driver 4.1: Multiple and insufficiently coordinated layers of network Coordination between Core Network Corridors (CNC) and Rail Freight Corridors (RFC): Infrastructure development and more efficient operations complement each other in making rail freight transport more competitive. Operational solutions can often be implemented faster and more cost-efficiently than infrastructure improvements (e.g. improved timetables versus construction of new sidings). At the same time, some operational issues cannot be solved without infrastructure enhancements, e.g. repeated, systematic delays of freight trains due to congested infrastructure in urban nodes. In addition, operational issues put at risk the benefits resulting from infrastructure investments. An illustrative example is the question of the dwelling times of freight trains at border stations, which in many cases are in the order of several hours on average and annihilate any gains in transit times achievable by infrastructure investments . As a result, cooperation and coordination between stakeholders involved in the governance of the RFCs and CNCs have been set up as from the creation of the CNCs. There have been a number initiatives, good practices, going from mere exchange of information to agreeing on activities and goals. Such cooperation has been done mainly on a corridor basis. Nevertheless, the coexistence of two separate structures has proven to be suboptimal for the following reasons: ·There are various cases of overlapping activities, for example the RFC investment plan or the RFC ERTMS plan that overlap to a certain extent with the CNC studies and the CNC Work Plans. ·The RFCs and CNCs are not geographically aligned making coordination more complex. This is due to the fact that the RFC regulation allows to add new sections and create new RFC corridors. This also contributes to the duplication of activities. There is therefore an important untapped potential for streamlining, increased effectiveness and synergies. The European Coordinators could benefit more from RFC knowledge and activities, especially in the area of infrastructure investments (e.g. identification of priority projects, coordination of deployment of the TEN-T parameters, in particular 740 m trains). Inversely, the RFCs could benefit more from the European Coordinators’ political influence to progress on operational issues. Dual use infrastructure (Military Mobility): Dual use infrastructure (Military Mobility) is a new dimension of the TEN-T policy, as underlined by the report of the European Parliament on the revision of the TEN-T guidelines. The EU military transport network is a multimodal network, which for the most part (93%) overlaps with the TEN-T. However, there are sections in the military transport network which are not part of the TEN-T, but are also of civilian use and of European added value. These sections which are of dual use could be included in the TEN-T as to increase synergies. Problem Driver 4.2: National investment plans not sufficiently aligned with priorities of the TEN-T Regulation The study on national plans and programmes undertaken in the framework of the TEN-T evaluation revealed that national plans currently do not completely reflect Member States’ obligations under the TEN-T Regulation with regard to network planning and implementation. According to the Art. 49(2) of the TEN-T Regulation, these plans and programmes should contain abstracts allowing the Commission to assess Member States’ progress regarding the development of the TEN-T. However, to date, none of the national plans analysed in the study presents details on how MS are fulfilling their obligations. The TEN-T is in most cases not identified in the plans, nor are the deadlines 2030 (core network) and 2050 (comprehensive network) acknowledged. This hinders an unambiguous assessment of the expected status of the network, of possible delays in the implementation of the TEN-T objectives and consequently renders it difficult to take the appropriate counter measures. Problem Driver 4.3: Lack of competence of European Coordinators in certain fields In its 2020 report on “EU transport infrastructures” the European Court of Auditors has found that although the Coordinators are responsible for long and complex corridors, they have limited resources and only informal powers at their disposal. The Court especially criticizes the non-binding nature of work plans and the limited resources dedicated to corridor forum meetings. It concludes that this framework gives the Commission a too distant role in overseeing the Member States efforts in implementing the network and putting its timely completion at risk. The Court ultimately recommends that the role of the European Coordinators shall be strengthened by enhancing the enforcement of the corridor work plans, by allowing their presence at key meetings of management boards of major projects, and by improving their role in terms of communication of the TEN-T policy objectives. Findings from the evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation point in the same direction with interviewees consulted in the case study on core network corridors stating that neither the Coordinators nor the European Commission currently have the necessary tools to enforce the prioritisation of investment on the core network vis-a-vis Member States. Reinforcing the role of the Coordinators would also allow to address some of the issues described under Driver 4.1 and 4.2.

2.32.3 How will the problem evolve? Problem area 1: Insufficient and/or incomplete TEN-T infrastructure standards and lack of integration of standards for alternative fuels infrastructure on the TEN-T Without additional regulatory action at EU level the problem of insufficient and incomplete TEN-T infrastructure standards as well as the lack of integration of standards for alternative fuels infrastructure is likely to continue to exist. Indeed, as highlighted above, the current standards are not sufficient to address the challenges of today’s TEN-T system and to support the delivery of the SSMS milestones. Rail freight: Slow implementation of the 740 m criterion would persist. Furthermore, without clarifying this requirement, Member States would continue to apply different approaches to fulfil this parameter limiting the interoperability of the network. Furthermore the lack of relevant requirements on the comprehensive network would continue to weaken the attractiveness of rail freight transport as traffic often does not originate or terminate on the core network and as the need to re-route traffic during disruptions of the core network requires adequate infrastructure on the comprehensive network. Finally, by not introducing a requirement making the circulation of P400 intermodal loading units throughout the network possible, a significant potential for model shift of freight to rail would be forgone. The Coordinators’ work plans show significant differences between the corridors as regards the capability of infrastructure to run such loading units. This reduces the market potential of multimodal transport. Rail passenger: In its audit on “A European high-speed rail network” the ECA concludes that the current TEN-T for passengers is more a patchwork rather than a network. Contributing to that is the fact that there is no requirement for a minimum line speed on TEN-T core network passenger lines. This leads to a situation of very differing line speeds between Member States as well as within Member States negatively impacting attractive travel times and reliability of services and thus the potential of shifting more passengers from other modes to (cross-border) rail. Without such a minimum requirement, while catering for specific network situations, it would be very likely that the current situation and thus the patchwork approach would persist. Inland waterways: While it is the safest mode of transport and has significant potential to absorb more traffic from other less sustainable modes inland waterway transport is also very exposed to climate change effects and subject of environmental concerns. Inflexible requirements on draught and height under bridges, which take account of the hydrography of the inland waterway will not guarantee sufficient capacity to absorb additional volumes. On the other hand, as is the case for all sectors of transport, if climate change and environmental concerns (e.g. biodiversity) are not taken into account, an unrealistic picture of the potential of IWT would be given. Short Sea Shipping: Without a more coherent and integrated concept towards short sea shipping covering the entire logistic chain, integrating better the maritime links into the TEN-T, as well as more stringent standards with regard to the quality of last mile connection of ports, the attractiveness and thus the potential of this transport mode for modal shift would be undermined. Alternative fuels: Without an integration of the AFIR standards in the TEN-T, the opportunity to provide a real network perspective for the deployment of alternative fuels across Europe would be missed out. More importantly, infrastructure needs would not be in place to ensure full cross-border transport connectivity on the TEN-T for alternative fuel vehicles. This will not ensure that the TEN-T Regulation supports the decarbonisation and cleaner air objective for the transport sector, in line with the SSMS objective. Problem area 2: Capacity bottlenecks and insufficient network connectivity to all regions that hamper multimodality Without additional action, capacity bottlenecks will continue to appear and grow since passenger and freight transport volumes on the comprehensive and core network are generally growing while the capacity is not increasing at the same pace. On the infrastructure side capacity and multimodality is mainly hampered by the slow implementation of certain standards (or the lack thereof) on the TEN-T, by a lack of capacity in multimodal transport terminals and by the slow implementation of digital tools such as ERTMS. By not addressing these issues this would continue to negatively affect seamless cross-border transport flows but also flows especially around urban nodes where TEN-T infrastructures are often heavily congested. Furthermore, additional capacity and operational efficiency would not be gained if certain standards are not also extended to certain sections of the comprehensive network and last mile sections to transport nodes where most of the traffic originates or terminates. As regards network connectivity, without clarifying the concept of “telematics applications” to also include digital systems, applications and services beyond those already included in the TEN-T Regulation, there would be a significant risk that systems and (new) applications are not applied coherently and at the same speed across the EU, potentially creating new barriers to interoperability and seamless transport operations. Furthermore, by not introducing minimum requirements on digitalisation, for example in terminals or ports, a significant potential for capacity and efficiency increases in such infrastructures that are essential enablers of the multimodal logistics chain would be foregone. Finally, one of the biggest potentials in ensuring better interoperability and additional capacity on the railways lies in the consistent implementation of ERTMS. By not addressing the slow implementation of especially the track side deployment of this technology, a significant potential for capacity increases without constructing new infrastructures would remain untapped. At the same time, by not setting a clear deadline for the de-commissioning of the national legacy systems, increase in operational efficiencies, interoperability and reductions in costs would remain underexploited. Problem area 3: Insufficient safety and reliability of the TEN-T infrastructure While the underlying trend remains downward, progress has slowed sharply in most countries since 2013. Some countries are seeing fatalities even increasing again, and the EU target of halving the number of road deaths by 2020 (relative to the 2010 baseline) will not be met. An insufficient safety level and lack of reliability of the TEN-T infrastructure would thus persist without additional EU level intervention. The TEN-T can however be part of the solution by imposing safety standards for the transport network, in particular the road network. Similarly, the reliability of the TEN-T is impacted by man-made and natural or climate related events. Such events are of increasing nature notably due to the effects of climate change. When building infrastructure, it is therefore needed to already take into account such potential events and plan and construct the infrastructure in a way that it resists to such effects (e.g. no infrastructure extension in flooding areas, built-in sensors in bridges alerting deterioration). Last but not least, foreign direct investments are increasing. It would become problematic if investors decided, for example, to replace technical infrastructure standards or IT systems of a port/airport/infrastructure facility to non-EU or non-TEN-T standards as this may affect continuity of the TEN-T network, hence public order and security of critical infrastructures. Problem area 4: Inadequate TEN-T governance instruments and TEN-T network design Without additional action taken from the side of the EU, the problem of inadequate TEN-T governance instruments and TEN-T design would persist. This would in particular endanger the timely implementation of the TEN-T by the given deadlines. In addition, new arising (policy) priorities such as on greening and digitalisation would not be covered without a strengthened and widened role of the European Coordinators. Similarly, there would be continuous divergence between the work of the European Coordinators on the CNC and the work of the RFC, which would lead to the situation that unused synergies (e.g. in terms of overlapping tasks) would persist. In terms of priority setting, there is a risk that the national priorities would continue to prevail European priorities or at least not be fully aligned. Reporting and monitoring of the TEN-T implementation would not allow reducing the existing burden and red tape to both Member States and the Commission. With regard to the TEN-T design, several of the proposed policy measures (such as the creation of the European Transport Corridors) would not be possible to be implemented without an adaptation of the TEN-T maps.

33 Why should the EU act? 3.13.1 Legal basis The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (Articles 170-172) stipulates the establishment and development of trans-European networks in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures . The Union shall aim at promoting the interconnection and interoperability of national networks as well as access to such networks. It shall take account in particular of the need to link islands, landlocked and peripheral with the central regions of the Union (Article 170 TFEU). For this purpose, the Union shall establish a series of guidelines covering the objectives, priorities and broad lines of measures envisaged in the sphere of trans-European networks. These guidelines shall identify projects of common interest, shall implement any measures that may prove necessary to ensure the interoperability of the networks, in particular in the field of technical standardisation and may support projects of common interest supported by Member States. Furthermore, the Union may also contribute, through the Cohesion Fund set up pursuant to Article 177, to the financing of specific projects in Member States in the area of transport infrastructure. To ensure interoperability of networks cooperation with third countries is equally foreseen (Article 171 TFEU). 3.23.2 Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action The TFEU defines that the trans-European networks shall enable citizens of the Union, economic operators and regional communities to derive full benefit from an area without internal frontiers. They shall also take account of the need to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union and to promote its overall harmonious development. TEN-T policy is thereby, by its nature, a policy that extends beyond Member States borders since it focusses on a single European network scheme across borders. Such European wide network can obviously not be established by one Member State alone. If Member States developed infrastructure purely on their own, national interests would often outweigh the European interest. Indeed, experience shows that Member States tend to prioritise projects on their territory. As such, the benefits of a European sustainable and high quality transport network would be foregone. In this case, it would be likely that issues of cross-border connectivity and interoperability would also not be sufficiently addressed since intra-national connections are mostly prioritised by Member States even if cross-border projects are essential to exploit the benefits of the entire network and to remove bottlenecks which generate congestion. This would not only lead to the risk of a lack of seamless travel connectivity across Europe, but also lead to possible incoherence of national planning approaches. In return, different standards and interoperability requirements in different EU Member States would hamper the seamless transport flows throughout the EU and even increase costs for transport users. Overall, a seamless TEN-T without physical gaps, integrating intelligent and innovative solutions is key to facilitating the internal market, achieving Cohesion objectives and – not least - contributing to the Green Deal objectives. 3.33.3 Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action Since its establishment as an EU policy in 1993, the added value of TEN-T policy overall has always been strongly affirmed by Member States, regions, cities and industrial stakeholders. The EU added value of TEN-T has also been one of the main conclusions of the evaluation of the current TEN-T Regulation. Indeed, concentrating efforts towards the creation of a common, Europe-wide transport network is clearly acknowledged as a vision (and well progressing achievement) whose benefits go beyond isolated national action. Ensuring a common and coherent EU-wide basis for the identification of ‘projects of common interest’ and, correspondingly, for the alignment of planning and implementation efforts of a wide range of actors is a clear and widely recognised added value of TEN-T. The TEN-T core network identifies the infrastructure which is of highest strategic importance and of highest implementation priority because it captures the major transport flows across Europe. Interoperability through technical standardisation is a key area of intervention for TEN‑T policy, as called for by Art 171 of the TFEU. Increasing multimodality by increased use of railways and inland waterways requires a network approach across all EU Member States, as those modes become very efficient over long distances and hence for transnational transport. The interconnection of the national networks by creating or improving cross-border connections is by its very nature of high EU added value. This also accounts for the dimension of urban nodes as it is important that urban traffic is well connected with interregional and international traffic. Indeed, the role of urban nodes on the TEN-T goes beyond the local level, as transport activities on the TEN-T start and/or end in such nodes, or transit them, requiring good coordination between the different levels in order to avoid bottlenecks. However, urban mobility is and shall remain a policy mainly under the remit of the Member States (local authorities). EU action should remain limited to aspects of urban mobility which are connected with interregional and international traffic. This also accounts for the maintenance of infrastructure: while maintaining infrastructure is and will remain the main responsibility of Member States, it is essential to guarantee through minimum rules in the TEN-T Regulation that the TEN-T will continue to provide a high quality of services to citizens and businesses.

44 Objectives: What is to be achieved? The overarching goal of the revision of the TEN-T Regulation is to support the delivery of the objectives defined in the European Green Deal and the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy. Indeed, since the adoption of the TEN-T Regulation in 2013, the policy context has changed substantially – the ongoing revision is thus the opportunity to modernize the legal framework and to align it with the new political priorities. The revision of the TEN-T Regulation will support making transport on the TEN-T greener, more efficient and resilient by promoting more sustainable forms of transport (rail, inland waterways and short sea shipping) and by fostering multimodality and interoperability between them (ports, airports, rail-road terminals). The revision will also contribute to a better integration of the urban nodes as well as the core network corridors with the rail freight corridors. Last but not least the revision should cater for the conditions to efficiently deploy alternative fuels and smart, digital solutions across the TEN-T and to improve and optimise the existing governance and monitoring systems of the current TEN-T Regulation. It should also be noted that all selected objectives received wide support from the consulted stakeholders (see Annex 2). 4.14.1 General objectives The revision of the TEN-T Regulation aims at reaching four general objectives: First of all, it aims to enable to make transport greener in view of the 90% GHG emissions reductions in transport and the zero pollution ambition by 2050. Indeed, the environmental impacts induced by transport not only in terms of GHG emissions and other air pollution emissions, but also in terms of noise or even soil pollution is a serious problem as described in chapter 2. TEN-T can provide the appropriate infrastructure basis as to alleviate congestion (and hence reduce emissions) and reduce GHG emissions and pollution of air and water through incentives for more activity of sustainable forms of transport and through the application of TEN-T standards. The coherent network of the TEN-T thereby also offers the unique opportunity to foster integrated decarbonisation solutions and to provide an overarching policy framework for their deployment. This also benefits various related sectoral legislative acts, such as AFIR or the ITS Directive, as well as future legislative initiatives. Indeed, without the appropriate infrastructure basis and a wide network approach, alternative fuels could not be deployed efficiently since their efficiency and acceptance by end-users depend on a wide deployment on the transport network. The objective of ensuring that TEN-T provides the enabling conditions for a decarbonisation of transport was ranked as most important objective in the public consultation for all groups of stakeholders (see Annex 2). Greening transport also means making it more biodiversity friendly. The Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 sets important objectives in terms of protecting and restoring nature including legal protection of a minimum of 30% of the EU’s land area and 30% of the EU’s sea area as well as maintenance of ecological corridors and restoration of free flowing rivers. Development of new and upgrades of existing transport infrastructure will therefore have to be done in a way which does not jeopardise the achievement of these strategic objectives. Prioritisation of green infrastructure, e.g. in relation to protection of ecological connectivity, can facilitate this process. Site-specific conservation objectives will have to be used as a benchmark for authorisation of any plans of projects, which can affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites. Equally important is to facilitate seamless and efficient transport in order to better connect people and businesses across Europe. The TEN-T Regulation needs to address the existing capacity bottlenecks in the TEN-T, the insufficient intermodality and interoperability links, the lack of connectivity (in particular in urban nodes and remote areas such as the outermost regions) and lack of quality of the last mile connections. The focus should be on research and innovation and technologies which allow for more digital solutions which in return also positively impact the decarbonisation objectives. The resilience of the transport network has shown to be important not only recently in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic but also more generally over the past years. Indeed, several natural disasters due to extreme weather events or man-made disasters (accidents, other disturbances of the traffic) have interrupted the transport flows significantly in the past years. One important objective of the revision is therefore to increase the resilience of the TEN-T to climate change and to natural or man-made disasters. Even if the evaluation of the current TEN-T Regulation has demonstrated that the right implementation instruments are at hand (core network corridors, work plans, etc.), the evaluation also pointed out that there was a need to even further strengthen such tools and to harmonise and streamline the reporting and monitoring instruments. As a cross-cutting overall objective, the TEN-T revision will therefore aim at improving the efficiency of the governance tools of the TEN-T Regulation.

4.24.2 Specific objectives Based on the four general objectives, six specific objectives have been defined which are highly interrelated (see Figure 2). SO1: To provide the infrastructure basis to increase activity by more sustainable forms of transport, notably by incentivizing rail freight and high-speed rail traffic, inland waterways and short sea shipping in line with the milestones of the SSMS In order to address the challenges linked to climate change and air pollution, it is essential to decarbonise transport by boosting the uptake of more sustainable forms of transport, notably rail, inland waterways and short sea shipping, by passengers and freight operators. To this end, the milestones introduced by the SSMS are very ambitious. The TEN-T is the ground building basis for the implementation of such ambitious goals. Only if the right infrastructure is in place, the respective services can follow. SO2: To ensure an improved network quality across TEN-T and to provide for decarbonised multimodal, interoperable solutions and an optimal intermodal integration of the entire logistic chain, including a better integration of maritime links into TEN-T A lack of multimodality and interoperability across the 27 EU Member States and in particularly across borders is still one important challenge to be addressed in order to ensure seamless transport flows along the entire TEN-T. To this end, the revision of the TEN-T Regulation shall concentrate on measures for improved multimodal and interoperable solutions and an optimal intermodal integration of the entire logistic chain. Here in particular the role of inland waterways and short sea shipping links but also of ports and terminals should be better taken into account. TEN-T is unique because of its multimodal character which needs to be further strengthened. This in return would also help in boosting the uptake of sustainable forms of transport, including the increase of efficiency and decarbonisation, low noise and reduced air pollution of each single mode (see SO1). SO3: To digitalise the infrastructure of all modes (as to limit congestion) and to improve safety and security of transport also in view of addressing the needs of passengers and freight The digitalisation of infrastructure of all modes has proven to be an important element in order to limit congestion and hence also GHG and air and water pollution emissions. The TEN-T Regulation will support digitalisation efforts and measures – an aspect which has not been looked at in detail back in 2013, since the technologies were not that advanced yet as they are today. However, digitalisation not only can contribute to the decarbonisation of transport, but is also an important element to improve the safety and security of transport. Ensuring higher safety and security standards along the TEN-T would in addition also contribute to more seamless transport flows since often accidents lead to important traffic disturbances and disruptions and hence to increased costs. It would also contribute to a more equal access and use of the network by female users and workers. SO4: To reinforce the role of the urban nodes as to enable seamless passenger flows between the TEN-T and local networks and develop multimodality in freight transport through better integration of sustainable modes of transport Urban mobility policy is gaining more importance in view of the achievement of the EGD and SSMS objectives. Indeed, the European population is to a large extent concentrated in urban agglomerations, which are therefore the origin and destination of most traffic flows. Hence, traffic in urban nodes is particularly dense and congested, often leading to capacity bottlenecks. It is therefore important that the last mile connectivity not only within urban nodes, but also with the rest of the intraregional and international transport system is of good quality and with better accessibility for all users. This shall be addressed by better connections between short and long-distance travels (“last mile”), e.g. through the creation of multimodal passenger hubs. In addition, the planning at the level of TEN-T needs to be better coordinated with the planning and development at the level of urban nodes. The interaction of urban nodes with TEN-T shall therefore be better taken into account. SO5: To improve the preparedness and resilience of infrastructure, including through better maintenance and a nature-based adaptation to climate change A well-functioning transport system depends on infrastructure that is resilient to natural or man-made disasters. Indeed, several (important) disruptions have occurred over the past years due to such disasters which caused severe negative impacts on the transport flows in terms of delays and increased costs. It is therefore important that TEN-T builds upon an infrastructure that is prepared and resilient to such events. Maintenance of the infrastructure is in this context also of utmost importance as to prevent disruptions and accidents. SO6: To better align national (investment) planning with TEN-T priorities and to increase synergies between different policy instruments (e.g. CNC vs. RFC) TEN-T policy sets priorities of European interest and added-value. However, national priorities are sometimes not fully aligned with European priorities. For instance, from a European perspective it is of utmost important to enhance cross-border connections between two EU Member States in order to allow seamless transport flows across the EU. From a national perspective, national transport sections are however often the prevailing priority. Apart from the priority setting, also the timing of infrastructure investments are often not well coordinated on both sides of a border. It is therefore crucial that there is a better alignment of national (investment) planning and programming with the TEN-T priorities. Moreover, several instruments to foster sustainable transport at European level co-exist (such as the urban and regional policy supported by the European Structural and Investment Funds, several European urban initiatives (Eurocities, Urbact initiatives etc.)). It is therefore important to efficiently exploit their synergies and avoid redundancies. 55 What are the available policy options? 5.15.1 What is the baseline from which options are assessed? The EU Reference Scenario 2020 (REF2020) represents the starting point for assessing the options in this impact assessment. The EU Reference scenario 2020 reflects the range of foreseen national policies and measures of the final National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) that Member States submitted in 2019 according to the Governance Regulation. The EU Reference scenario 2020 also takes into account the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic that had a significant impact on the transport sector. More detailed information about the preparation process, assumptions and results are included in the Reference scenario publication.

Building on the Reference scenario 2020, the Baseline scenario for this impact assessment has been designed to include the initiatives of the ‘Delivering the European Green Deal’ package and other measures of the MIX policy scenario. The MIX scenario follows a balanced approach of carbon pricing instruments and regulatory-based measures to deliver on the ambition of at least 55% emission reductions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050. The Baseline scenario is commonly used by this impact assessment and the one underpinning the review of the ITS Directive, to ensure consistency. In terms of transport network, the Baseline scenario assumes the completion of the core TEN-T by 2030 and of the comprehensive TEN-T by 2050 and no further EU level intervention besides the existing TEN-T Regulation. It also assumes the full electrification of the core TEN-T rail network by 2030 and of the comprehensive TEN-T rail network by 2050, in line with the existing TEN-T Regulation. The assumption of the completion of the core and comprehensive network by the given deadlines has been made as the evaluation results showed that, overall, the completion of the core network can be expected by 2030 or shortly after. Indeed, the evaluation highlighted that “in spite of incoherence in the approaches to infrastructure planning and implementation, the key TEN-T policy milestone - the completion of the core network by 2030 - heads in the right direction”. Certainly, some delays for a limited number of projects are observed based on the very close monitoring of over 3000 projects included in the “core network corridor project list” (a comprehensive database that is monitored every six months and provides regular updates on the progress made in completing the projects). However, the limited number of projects (between 40 and 50 out of over 3000 projects, according to the TEN-T evaluation results) as well as the limited delays of a few years (which is to be considered as minor taking into consideration that the planning and implementation of major infrastructure projects can stretch over more than 20 years and once implemented those infrastructures last for more than 100 years) did not justify a different baseline scenario, since the potential impacts of such delays are not significant when looking at the overall picture. In addition, the evaluation report noted that most Member States concerned appear confident that they will be able to remedy the current delays. Moreover, there are already a number of existing and new instruments aiming at addressing and solving such delays (e.g. European Coordinators, use of implementing decisions ). Most importantly in this context, the Directive on streamlining measures for advancing the realisation of the trans-European transport network will address the issue of delays, by focussing specifically on delays due to lengthy permitting procedures. A maximum time limit of four years will apply to the entire permit-granting process. Member States have to transpose the Directive by August 2023. Finally, the baseline scenario covers the whole TEN-T (core network and comprehensive network); the risk of not delivering on time concerns merely the core network since the deadline of 2050 for the comprehensive network is still in too far future as to properly assess its timely implementation. In the Baseline scenario, EU transport activity is projected to grow post-2020, following the recovery from the COVID pandemic. Road transport would maintain its dominant role within the EU by 2050. Rail transport activity is projected to grow significantly faster than for road, driven in particular by the completion of the TEN-T core network by 2030 and of the comprehensive network by 2050, supported by the CEF, Cohesion Fund and ERDF funding, but also by the measures of the ‘‘Delivering the European Green Deal’ package that increase the competitiveness of rail relative to road and air transport. Passenger rail activity is projected to go up by 24% by 2030 relative to 2015 (62% for 2015-2050). High speed rail activity, in particular, would grow by 68% by 2030 relative to 2015 (155% by 2050), missing however to deliver on the milestone of the SSMS of doubling its traffic by 2030 and tripling it by 2050. Freight rail traffic would increase by 41% by 2030 relative to 2015 (91% for 2015-2050) also not delivering on the milestone of the SSMS of increasing the traffic by 50% by 2030 and doubling it by 2050. Transport activity of inland waterways and short sea shipping is projected to go up by 19% by 2030 and 44% by 2050. This however would also not be sufficient to deliver on the milestone of the SSMS of increasing activity by 25% by 2030 and by 50% by 2050. Congestion costs would increase by about 14% by 2030 and 30% by 2050, relative to 2015. Congestion on the inter-urban network would be the result of growing freight transport activity along specific corridors, in particular where these corridors cross urban areas with heavy local traffic. CO2 emissions from transport including international aviation but excluding international maritime, are projected to be 19% lower by 2030 compared to 2015, and 94% lower by 2050. Compared to 1990, this translates into 1% emission reduction by 2030 and around 90% reduction by 2050. The Baseline scenario shows that the emission reductions from the transport sector would effectively contribute to the ambition of at least 55% emission reductions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050, but this would rely to a significant extent on technological solutions (i.e. the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicles) and carbon pricing. This would depart from the balanced approach of the MIX scenario underpinning the impact assessments accompanying the ‘Delivering the European Green Deal’ package, showing a combined approach of carbon pricing instruments and regulatory-based measures to deliver on the increased climate ambition. This may also result in higher carbon prices, in particular if the decrease in the costs of technology and the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicles would not take place at the projected speed. NOx emissions are projected to go down by 56% between 2015 and 2030 (87% by 2050), mainly driven by the electrification of the road transport and in particular of the light duty vehicles segment. The decline in particulate matter (PM2.5) would be slightly lower by 2030 at 52% relative to 2015 (91% by 2050). The number of fatalities is projected to be 22% lower in 2030 relative to 2015 and 27% lower by 2050, being however far from the milestone of the SSMS of close to zero death toll for all modes of transport in the EU by 2050. The number of serious and slight injuries would go down at lower speed (18% for 2015-2030 and 22% for 2015-2050). The assessment of the policy options in chapter 6 is presented against the Baseline scenario. However, where relevant, the impacts of the policy options are also presented against the REF2020. More detailed information on the Baseline scenario is presented in Annex 4. 5.25.2 Description of the policy options and measures In line with the elaborated intervention logic, i.e. building upon the identified problems and problem drivers and the resulting general and specific objectives, three distinct policy options have been defined. To define these options, numerous possible policy measures were discussed on the basis of extensive consultations with stakeholders, expert meetings, independent res