ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (80)86
V ol.1980/0029

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

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(80)86 final
Brussels.11thApril1980
RELATIONS WITHAUSTRIAINTHETRANSPORT SECTOR/
INPARTICULAR :ACOMMUNITY FINANCIAL
CONTRIBUTION TOTHEBUILDING OFAMOTORWAY
(Communication fromtheCommission totheCouncil)
/ •
/V i \\fC'':-N
rv*' ■
– i y
<s,, .)
^-.v>.4V\ o-.7V/x
COM(80)86final

CONTENTS
V ZÈ31
/ '
I.INITIAL SITUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF RELATIONS WITH AUSTRIA 1
IN THE TRANSPORT SECTOR
1.Transport policy situation 1
1.1.The geographical importance ofAustria fortransport , 1
particularly transit
1.2.Effects onAustria 2
1.3.Austria 'srequest inrespect ofthe financing of
the IKPA motorway 3
1.4.Introduction ofaroad tax inAustria 4
1.5.Initiatives and moves within the European Parliament 5
1.6.Exchange ofviews between the Commission and Austria 6
1.7.Exploratory talks -accession ofGreece 6
1.8.Interim -summing-up 7
2..The wider political context ofrelations between the
Community and Austria inthe Transport sector 8
'2.1.Importance with regard tointegration policy' 8
2.1.1 .The accession ofGreece ' 8
2.1.2 .Intra-Community aspects 9
2.2.Importance for external relations 9
2.2.1 .Cooperation with the EFTA countries , 10
2.2.2 .Relations with Austria 10
2.2.3 .Relations with Yugoslavia 11
2.2.4 .Relations with Turkey and Middle Eastern
countries 13
3.Conclusions ^ 13
II.ANALYSIS OFSPECIFIC TRANSPORT PROBLEMS AND ASSESSMENT OF
MUTUAL INTERESTS 15
4.Transport infrastructure -IKPA motorway 15
4.1.Commission infrastructure policy 15
4.2.Cooperation with certain non-member countries 15
4.3.Community financial contribution towards thebuilding
ofthe IKPA motorway 16

-2-
4.3.1 .Request from the Austrian Government 16
4.3.2 .Evaluation ofCommunity interest 17
4.3.3 .Effect ofthe opening ofthe IKPA motorway 19
ontraffic carried byother lines of
communication (impact onthe network )
4.3.4 .Summary 19
5.Allocation ofinfrastructure costs -Austrian road tax 20
5.1.The problem 2Ck .
5.2.Situation atCommunity level 20
5.3.Situation regarding road tax inAustria 21
5.4.Summary 21
6.Access tothe market 22
6.1.Carriage ofpassengers byroad 22
6.2.Carriage ofgoods byroad 22
6.2.1 . 22
6.2.2 . 23
6.2.3 . 24
6.3.Inland shipping 24
7.Weights and Dimensions 25
8.Cooperation between Railways 26
9.Combined road /rail transport ("ferrout«ge "> 26
10.Other subjects 27
11.Assessment ofinterests from the Transport economy
viewpoint 27
.11.1 .IKPA motorvay 27
11.2 .Austrian road tax 28
11.3 .Road transport quotas 28
11.4 .Other subjects 29
12.Conclusions 29

III.TACTICAL AND NEGOTIATING PROBLEMS
13.Type ofApproach tothe Negotiations andtheir extent
13.1 .Approach bytype ofproblem
13.2 .The broader approach
14.Need for aCommunity decision onthe financing
ofthe IKPA motorway ,
14.1 .Tactical reasons
14.2 .Transport Policy reasons
14.3 .External policy reasons
15.Conclusions
- -7 -, i
IV. PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS
16.1 .Continuation ofexploratory talks
16.2 .Budgetary aspects
V . CONCLUSIONS
ANNEXES
I-Maps '
II-Analysis oftransit traffic inthe NW-SE corridor
III-Forecast ofTransit flow ofgoods and passengers inthe
NW-SE corridor inAustria
IV-Impact ofIKPA ontheexisting andfuture transport
infrastructure

Relations with Austria xnthetransport sector ,inparticular
aCommunity financial contribution tothebuilding ofamotorway
I.
INITIAL SITUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE OF
RELATIONS WITH AUSTRIA INTHE TRANSPORT SECTOR
Transport policy situation
1.1 .Thegeographical importance ofAustria fortransport ,parti­
cularly transit >
Because ofitslocation ,Austria occupies astrategic position in
Central Europe asfarasinland transport isconcerned ,espe­
cially from theCommunity 'spoint ofview .Itisapivot ofgreat
importance forNorth-South traffic inEurope .
' significant ,
A/ andconstantly increasing ,portion ofintra-Community
traffic isobliged togothrough Austrian territory ,particularly
traffic toandfrom Italy .Theaccession ofGreece andthe
growth oftrade between thepresent Community andthis newMember
State will further promote this trend .More broadly :Austrian
overland
territory carries avery large share ofthe/traffic between the
Community anditstrading partners inSouth-Eas tern Europe ,
particularly Yugoslavia ,andintheMiddle East .Theneed to
pass through Austria applies notonly tothecomnercial carriage
ofgoods ,butalso tomovements ofprivate individuals bethey
notably by .private cartourists ormigrant workers /"Itisthus evident ,from the
geographic viewpoint alone ,that thetransit ofgoods and
passengers through Austria isofconsiderable economic and
political importance fortheConmunity /which-consequently -has
every interest in seeing asmooth flow oftraffic through
that country assured . '

-2-
1.2 .Effects onAustria
Conversely ,
/tiiis applies equally toAustria ,which isobliged tobear
theburden ofthis transit traffic andprovide theappropriate
facilities .
Statistics ^showthattransit goods traffic through Austria
hasgrown exceptionally fast inrecent years :between 1972
and 1977 its volume increased from 5.4 million to14million
0
tonnes ,with 95%ofitgoing toorcoming from theCommunity .
This ismore than double thevolume ofroad haulage traffic
transiting Switzerland ,Yugoslavia ,Greece andTurkey .To
provide acomparison :only 8.4million tonnes passed through
territories
Germany and7.9million through France (/6ftransit farlarger
than Austria .Atthesame time ,thevolume oftransit road
traffic through Switzerland hasnever reached acomparable
level andamounts toonly some 0.4million tonnes atpresent ,
because ofvarious restrictive measures ,which have been
inforce formany years ,inparticular ,the28tonne limit
onthetotal weight ofroad vehicles ,both Swiss andforeign ,
using theSwiss road network .
./•
Studies carried outbytheEuropean Conference ofTransport Ministers
(ECTM ),Paris
2Theroad transport ofgoods intransit across Austria amounted to
about 2.25 milliards oftonnes /kmin1977 ;incomparison thelevel
inGermany reached about 5.25 milliards oftonnes /kmin1977 ,ona
much greater road network than exists inAustria .

This increase inroad transit ,together with theincreases
inroad transport from andtoAustria andindomestic traffic ,
hasproduced anincreasingly difficult situation forAustria ,
which isfinding itself obliged ,ever-increasingly andrapidly ,
to :
(i)provide adequate road infrastructure
(ii)allocate public funds forthis purpose
(iii )suffer illeffects ontheenvironment andquality oflife .
Thesituation isaggravated byAustria 'sbeing asmall mountains
country ,sothat there areadditional difficulties infinding
solutions totheproblems oftransit traffic .
1.3 .Austria 'srequest inrespect ofthefinancing oftheIKPA
motorway
Onthenorth -west/south -east route known asthe "Gastarbeiter -
'route""'' ,atpresent usedfortransport between Germany and
Yugoslavia ,thesituation isparticularly difficult
andstretched . This route consists
oflocal roads ,often narrow andinmountainous terrain ,where
theinfrastructure isclearly inadequate tomeet thedemands
ofthetraffic ;itisconsequently noted forfrequent long
traffic jams andanexceptionally high accident rate .Atpresent
about 180O00lorries ayear usethis route in .transit ,repre­
senting about 840million tonne-kilometre ,andtheaverage
2yearly rate ofgrowth isforecast as5,9% .Inaddition ,this
route isvery heavily used bytourists andmigrant workers
coming from orgoing toSouth-Eastern Europe .
Toremedy this situation ,Austria hasdecided tospeed upthe .
construction ofatransverse NW/SEmotorway ,known asthe
"Innkreis -Pyhrn -Autobahn" (IKPA ),which will link theGerman
motorway network atPassau with theYugoslav road network at
- ./. -
"Migrant workers' route "
2See Annexes IIand III

-4-
Spielfeld /Maribor andwill cross Austria passing close to
Linz andGraz\
Inview of :
(i)theimportance toEurope oftheplanned IKPA motorway
asanessential part oftheroad link between thenorth­
west andsouth-east ofEurope ;
(ii)thefact that ,nowandforthefuture ,90%ofthevolume
oftransit traffic using theNW-SE route throuqh Austria
noworiginates orterminates intheCommunity ;
(iii )thebudgetary constraints onthefinancing ofthis motorway ,
Austria made aformal anddetailed request totheCommission
inMarch 1977 forafinancial contribution from theCommunity
towards the faster building ofthemotorway .Austria would like
2this contribution tototal some 370million EUA .
Itshould also bepointed outthat because offrequently
difficult road traffic conditions ,which arehighly acute on
the "Gastarbeiterroute ",local people inAustria have onseveral
occasions blocked roads .Thesituation iscontinuing todevelop
along these lines anditistobefeared that duetopolitical
pressure local ,regional andfederal authorities will be
impelled toimpose restrictions onroad traffic comparable to
those aoolvinq inSwitzerland forsome years ,unless alternative
solutions are found inthe medium term .
1.4 .Introduction ofaroad tax inAustria
Tocope with theconstantly increasing financial burdens of
providing andmaintaining road infrastructures ,atatime of
major budget deficits ,Austria unilaterally introduced on1
July 1973 aheavy road taxaffecting foreign andAustrian
commercial vehicles .Atthesame time ,Austria imposed
seemaps inAnnex I
?seeparagraph 4.3 .fordetails oftheAustrian request

-5-
severe restrictions onthequantity 'ofDiesel fuel which may
bebrought into Austria duty-free inthetanks oflorries .
Discussions carried outbytheservices oftheGonmission in
1977/78with theAustrian authorities ledtotheelimination
ofcertain discriminatory proposals andhelped toachieve a
reduction intherateoftax^ropo^ed .Nevertheless ,these
measures ,intended toobtain payment for ,the viseofinfrastruc­
ture ,havecaused anincrease intransport costs inAustria "^
andadditional delays atthefrontier ,where foreigners are
*
required topaythetax .
(
Atitsmeeting on12June 1978 ,the (Transport )Council adopted
aresolution regretting theintroduction ofthese measures in
Austria ,approving endeavours tofind appropriate solutions at '
European level and inviting 'theCorranission toreport toit
oninitiatives tobetaken tothis end .
While itistrue that Austria has inthemeantime indicated
that itisprepared inprinciple tofall inwith theCommunity
system ofallocating road infrastructure costs ,assoon asthis
system comes into force andoncondition that Austria 'sexcep­
tional situation istaken into account ,thetaxremains avery
serious problem inrelations between theCommunity andAustria .
1.5 .Initiatives andmoves within theEuropean Parliament
Inview oftheparticular importance ofAustria fortheCommunity
inthetransport sector andbearing inmind theincreasingly
difficult situation fortransit traffic ,theEuropean Parliament
hasonseveral occasions taken theopportunity toexpress its
concern andstress ,theneed tofind appropriate solutions
jointly with Austria . –
Forexample ,inthe "Giraud Report "of2February 1976 on
problems oftransit through Austria andSwitzerland Parliament
stressed theconnunity ofinterests inthetransport sector
andcalled forjoint efforts toremedy theinadequacies of
– " ./.
^"According toinformation fromAustria ,foreign hauliers hadtopaya
total of280million Austrian Schillings inthefirst sixmonths ofthe
application oftheroad tax .

-6-
transit infrastructures .Bythesame token ,inthe "Seefeld
Report "of5January 1979 onthestatus anddevelopment ofthe
coirmon transport policy ,Parliament emphasized that theneed to
improve transit through Switzerland andAustria wasapriority
matter .
Thesame issues have prompted numerous parliamentary questions ,
together with anin-depth debate byParliament during itspart-
session of24September 1979 ,when speakers from allthepoli­
tical groups stressed theneed toimprove transalpine transport
andforcloser cooperation between theCommunity andAustria
(and Switzerland )onthis matter .
1.6 .Exchange ofviews between theCommission andAustria
Inthelight oftheconstantly increasing .importance of
transport inbilateral relations with Austria and aspart of
efforts todeepen anddiversify cooperation between the
Community andtheEFTA countries ,aregular exchange ofviews
between Austria andtheCommission ontransport matters was
instituted inMarch 1978 .This exchange ofviews makes it
possible ,inparticular ,tocompare developments inAustrian
andCommunity transport policies ,with theaimofpreventing
excessive divergences andtodiscuss pressing problems .
Although theusefulness ofthis exchange ofviews hasbeen
proved inthemeantime ,particularly inthat each side has
abetter understanding oftheother 'sproblems ,this can
obviously benomore than ajumping-off point forthejoint
implementation ofpractical solutions tothespecific problems
which have been encountered ,particularly inthefield of
transit road traffic .
1.7 .Exploratory talks /Accession ofGreece
Alongside theproblems posed byAustria 'srequest forfinancial
assistance andtheintroduction oftheroad tax ,theCommunity
found itself faced ,more recently ,with yetathird highly
concrete problem :thequantitative restrictions deriving from
thequota andauthorization system applicable inAustria to

-7-
»transit road traffic .
This problem wasdiscussed inthenegotiations onGreek
,accession and ,atthe11th session oftheConference atminis -
1terial level on3April 1979 ,theCommunity andGreece agreed
that
".... inaccordance with theprocedure already agreed upon ,as
soon astheinstruments ofaccession aresigned ,theConmission
will embark onexploratory talks with Yugoslavia andAustria
ν 1 ·
onthearrangements applicable totheinternational carriage
ofgoods byroad with aview tofinding ways andmeans ,if
necessary byconcluding anagreement ,ofapplying themeasures
introduced intraffic between Member States bythevarious
Community acts constituting the 1acquis communaut aire 1to
traffic toand from Greece ." .
Inaccordance with this agreement theCommunity should make
sure ,byreaching anarrangement with Austria ,that theliber a­
,lization measures forintra-Coromunity transport byroad intro­
duced byCommunity legislation arefully applied infuture
traffic with Greece without there being anyinterference inthe
form ofquantitative restrictions onthepart ofnon-Community
coun tries oftransit .
Commission departments held the /opening round ofthese exploratory
talks with theAustrian authorities on19and20July 1979 .It
rapidly emerged that Austria isnotprepared tomake concessions
tomeet thewishes setoutbytheAccession Conference ,unless
theCommunity isprepared tooffer counter benefits interms of
financing transit infrastructures -more particularly thetKPA
Motorway . /
1.8 .Interim suppinq-up \ ■
This outline ofthegeneral situation asregards relations
with Austria inthetransport sector issufficient toshow the
complexity andinterrel atedness oftheproblems ,including the
Austrian request forfinancial aid .These various aspects of
Ltoc .00NF/GR/24/79 , ./.

-8-
transit byroad should belooked atinthebroader settinq
with other problems over transport havinq aneffect on
relations with Austria"'' .However ,the
importance ofrelations between Austria andtheCommunity
inthetransport sector must first beplaced initswider
political context ofintegration policy andexternal relations .
2.The wider political context ofrelations between theConmunity
and Austria inthe transport sector
2.1 .Importance with regard tointegration policy
2.1.1 .The accession ofGreece
Relations between theConmunity andAustria inthetransport
sector play animportant role inthecontext ofGreece 's
accession .Given thegeographical remoteness ofGreece from
Community centres ,and itslack ofconmon frontiers with other
Member States itisobvious that transit through Yugoslavia
andAustria isofparamount importance asfarasland transport
links areconcerned .Greece 'saccession totheCommunity will
mean inthemedium andlong term ,that trade between itand
thepresent Member States will increase significantly ,andwith
ittransport ,especially byroad ,interms ofvolume andof
thenumber ofmovements .Atpresent ,between 75%and85%of
2overland goods transport with Greece isbyroad .Atpresent ,
between 75%and85%ofoverland goods transport with Greece
isbyroad .In1978 ,trade byroad between Greece andthe
Member States amounted to955.000 tonnes (83.3% );compared
with Bl .000tonnes (16.4% )byrail .
Themajor part oftheroad freight carried between Greece
andtheCommunity takes theroute through Yugoslavia and
2Austria known asthe "Gastarbeiterroute ".In1977 ,for
example 90.3% ofGreek exports carried byroad totheCommunity
took this route .Itfollows that replacing theAustrian section
ofthis route byawell-constructed north -west/south -east
motorway isof importance forintra-Conmunity
SeeChapter II,p.15
2See Annex IIand III

-9-
transport andfuture trade with Greece .
Iftheview istaken that itisalso theCommunity 'sduty to
provide good communication links with Greece intheinterests
ofpromoting thelatter' scomplete andrapid integration ,the
building oftheIKPA motorway isofspecial interest tothe
Comnunity .Moreover ,with theenlargement oftheCommunity in
mind theCommission hasdecided toamend itsproposal fora
regulation onthefinancial support forinfrastructure projects
ofcommon interest tomake itcapable ofbeing applied also if
there arenrojects innon-member countries whose execution is
ofparticular importance totheCommunity .
\ / ■
Finally ,itshould also berecalled that inaddition toroad
infrastructure theproblem ofquantitative controls inforce
inAustria ,which hasalready been mentioned ,hasaspecial
importance inthecontext ofGreek adhesion"' ".
2.1.2 .Intra-Community aspects
ι
However ,thestate anddevelopment ofrelations between Austria
andtheCommunity inthetransport sector donot just affect
future trade between theCommunity andGreece ;they also concern
some trade flows between Member States ,notably Italy .The
consequences oftheroad taxandthequantitative restrictions
ontransit show theextent towhich Austrian transport policy
decisions canadversely affect trade ,above allwith Italy .
Theconsequences oftheintroduction oftheroad taxandthe
application ofquantitative restrictions fortransit show to
what extent Austrian decisions ontransport policy canhave a
negative influence ontrade especially with Italy .
Although itiscorrect that theinterest forItaly inhaving a
direct access totheIKPA israther limited ,itisnevertheless
true that Italy hasevery interest toavoid adeterioration of
relations with Austria ;that led todifficulties on
other transit routes ,notably theBrenner ,andthemaintenance
oreven intensification ofAustrian restrictions .
With this inmind ,theCommunity 'sefforts toimprove and
Seeparagraph 1.7 .

-10-
intensify relations with Austria inthetransport sector would
bebeneficial andavoid additional constr»int .<»inth® ftit''re
2.2 .Importance forexternal relations
Apart from matters ofpolitical integration ,relations with
Austria inthetransport sector -andthebuilding oftheIKPA
motorway inparticular -areofparticular)^iof ttheCorrmunity 's
external relations ,namely forcooperation with theEFTA
countries andbilateral relations with Austria ,Yugoslavia ,
Turkey andtheNear East .
2.2.1 .Coop erationwiththeEFTAcountries
Since tariffs between theCommunity andEFTA were finally
removed ,theparties have begun toconsider how their future
relations should develop .FortheCommunity ,this resulted in
theadoption bytheCouncil on18December 1978 ofaCoreper
report ,with theCouncil agreeing that ,"should cooperation
inaddition tothefree trade agreement beconsidered desirable
byboth parties ,theCommunity would beprepared toundertake
such cooperation tothemutual advantage oftheparties
concerned ".InJune 1979 theCouncil instructed Coreper ,with
theCommission 'shelp ,tocontinue efforts toincrease coope­
ration with the EFTA countries .
Against this background ,transport assumes special importance ,
especially inthecase ofAustria ,inview ofitsgeographical
situation .Reinforcement cfrelations with Austria inthe
transport sector ,andmore particularly help from theCommunity
forthebuilding oftheIKPA motorway ,would provide anexanple
oftheCommunity 'swillingness toachieve progress insteppi ;,
upcooperation inallcases ofmutual advantage .
2.2.2 .Relations_with Austria
(a)Theprovisions oftheState Treaty of1955 between Austria .%
theUnited States ,theUSSR ,theUnited Kingdom andFrance have
meant that Austria hasnotapplied tobecome amember ofthe
Corrmunity ,although itdidnegotiate throughout the1960s to
obtain special associate status .Finally ,inJuly 1972 ,it
concluded twofree-trade agreements with theCommunities ,with
which ithasanumber ofother agreements .

Apart from Switzerland ,itiswith Austria that theCommunity
hasachieved itsgreatest trade surplus ,which ,infact ,compares
with thesize ofitstrade deficit with Japan .
(b)Transport hasparticular importance inrelations which Austria
acountry which hasmost ofitsfrontiers incommon with
those oftneCommunity . ) .
Ifonedisregards thethree unsettled problems mentioned above -
namely thefinancing oftheIKPA motorway ,thetaxandquota
restrictions onroad transit -theimportance oftransport ,
especially thecarriage ofgoods intransit ,inrelations with
Austria hasledtheCommunity toconclude anumber ofagreements
with that country .These are :
-anagreement ontheintroduction ofthrough international
rail tariffs forthecarriage ofcoal andsteel through
Austrian territory (1957 ),and ,
-various agreements onthesimplification ofcustoms procedures
andthetransit ofgoods through Austria .
Also ,when thePresident oftheCommission visited Vienna early
last October ,transport matters figured largely indiscussions
beheld with Chancellor Kreisky ,various members oftheGovern­
ment and the Austrian Parliament onbilateral relations between
theCommunity andAustria .ThePresident stressed theneed for
greater cooperation inthefield oftransport .Itemerged ,in
particular ,from these talks that Austria considered financial
support forthebuilding oftheIKPA motorway tobeextremely
important foritsrelations with theCommunity .This isconfirmed
moreover ,bythefact that Austria ,hasrecently begun adiplomatic
offensive inthecapitals oftheMember States toadvance its
cause . : '
2.2.3 .Relations with Yugoslavi a . '
Negotiations between theCommunity andYugoslavia with aview to
concluding acooperation agreement arestill proceeding .The
agreement will enhance cooperation through closer links
between theCommunity andthat country ,which isbound to
mean anincrease intraffic between them -and

-12-
especially goods traffic .Most ofthis traffic will pass through .
Austria .
Thecooperation envisaged will relate totransport ,among other
things andwill aiminparticular to :
improve anddevelop services ,especially asregards land
transport ,inparticular toachieve complementarity ;
-encourage theimprovement ofinfrastructures tothemutual
benefit oftheparties "^".
On14November 1978 ,theEIBandYugoslavia signed aloan
agreement for25million EUA .Theloan -forfifteen years at
9.65% perannum -will finance five sections oftheplanned
trans-Yugoslavia motorway .Work hasbegun andthesecond of
four instalments hasbeen paid over .
Aspart ofanew agreement oncooperation itisplanned that
thefinancial protocol totheagreement will contain certain
provisions with regard tofinancing theYugoslavian road
network .TheEIBhassaid itisready tosetaside 200million
EUAforinvestment projects inYugoslavia ,and itislikely
that these resources will goasapriority toimproving
Yugoslavian road ,rail andtelecommunications networks .
TheCoimunity institutions have therefore already contributed
tobuilding certain sections ofthetrans-Yugoslavia motoiv^y -
andthey might beledtoenvisage other actions ,among them to
financing themotorway link envisaged between theAustrio -
2Yugoslav frontier atMaribor andZagreb .Inthis context the
construction ofthenorth -west/south -east motorway through
Austria should bethought ofasanimportant complementary
element inproviding aneffective infrastructure
network forrelations between theCommunity andYugoslavia ,
notably inthelight ofthelatest political developments .
./.
Council negotiating directives of6February 1979
2SeeAnnex I-point 2

-13-/
2.2.4 .Relations with Turkey andMiddle Eastern countries
' »
Inview ofthespecial economic andpolitical situation of
Turkey ,which isnowtheonly country with associate status ,
theCommunity should consider anything likely topromote the
special relationship with that country .
Allimprovements toroad links with Turkey ,which pass through
non-member countries ,must beconsidered asanappreciable element
inimproving trade ,especially inview oftheacute economic
crisis thecountry issuffering .
TheCommunity hasacooperation agreement with Israel and
preferential agreements with Syria ,Lebanon andJordan .The
desired effects ofthese agreements canonly beenhanced by
theimprovement ofmotorway links even iftheIKPA andtrans -
Yugoslav motorway areonly partial elements .TheGulf countries
have become oneoftheCommunity 'smain export markets .Better
land transport along this route isamajor factor inmaintaining
andimproving theCoranunity 1scompetitiveness inthese markets ,
■ι
which aremuch sought after .
1 \
3.conclusions
This general survey ofrelations between theCommunity and
Austria inthetransport sector andtheir wider significance ,show §
that theproblems arising ,andinparticular anyfuture financial
contribution tobuilding theIKPA motorway ,arehighly charged politi­
cally andgobeyond mere transport matters .They have asubstantial
effect onthewhole range ofbilateral relations with Austria andon
certain aspects ofCommunity integration aswell .
Itisimportant ,forboth political andtransport reasons ,that
satisfactory solutions should befound which will both safeguard and
,further the Gornrtiunity 1sinterests and ,atthesame time ,meet legitimate
Austrian wishes asfaraspossible .From this point ofview itcanbe
taken that themost important common factor istoensure asmooth
flow oftransit traffic through Austria onamutually acceptable basis .
Inview oftheinterdependence oftheComnunity andAustria inthe
field oftransport ,aframework ofsuitable conditions canonly be
created bystrengthening cooperation andbythejoint application of
well-balanced ,practical measures .

-14-
Inorder toclarify thestarting points along thechoosen
route ,itisnecessary ,leaving tooneside thegeneral andpolitical
interest -which isdifficult toquantify -noted above ,todraw up
adetailed list ofpoints ofagreement ordisagreement onboth sides ;
this would relate tothevarious parts oftransport policy which are
important inconnection with Austria .Given thecombination of
political appraisal ,ontheonehand ,andanalyses ofspecific transport
interests ontheother ,itshould then bepossible toputforward
clear policy options sothat theright course ofaction canbeselected .

-15-
II.
ANALYSIS OFSPECIFIC TRANSPORT PROBLEMS AND ASSESSMENT
OF MUTUAL INTERESTS
4.Transport infrastructure -IKPA motorway
1 1 •
4.1,Commission infrastructur 1policy
Inits memorandum onthe role ofthe Community inthe development of
transport infrastructure ^,theCommission stated theconviction that the
common transport policy could notattain its objectives ,asdefined in
theTreaty ,unless italso dealt with transport infrastructure .
The Commission 'sapproaoh toinfrastructures istoavoid the continuance of
action without anoverall concept ofthe infrastructure needs ofthe
Community developed inthe framework ofthe common transport' policy .In
faot ,this isthe object ofthe Council Decision instituting aconsultation
procedure andsetting upacommittee inthefield oftransport infra -
2structure .With the same objective the Commission has proposed tothe Council
aRegulation toestablish machinery toprovide financial support for
certain projects ofCommunity interest ^.
However ,both the decision and the proposal for aregulation relate only
totransport infrastructures inCommunity territory .
4.2.Cooperation with certain non-member countries
Because ofthe increasing flows oftransport between Member States cros­
sing theterritory ofnon-member states ,the objectives ofthe Community 's
transport infrastructure policy oould beserved bythe execution ofcertain
projects outside ^Community territory .This applies particularly toroutes
through Austria and Switzerland .
^OM^) 55Ofinal
QJL54of25February 1978
"^OJC207of 2September 1976.

-16-
With the accession ofGreece ,routes through Austria andYugoslavia
will 'become particularly important .Itaccordingly seems expedient to
extend the concept of"Community interest "toinclude certain infra­
structure projects innon-member states whioh would significantly
improve overland links between Member States .The Commission has therefore
decided toamend accordingly its proposal for aregulation onsupport
forinfrastructure projects ofCommunity interest *.
4.3.Community financial contribution towards building the IKPA motorway
2For the reasons given above Austria has decided tospeed upthe
building ofamotorway linking theAustrian frontier atSpielfeld /
Maribor to the German motorway terminating atPassau .and passing
inAustria nearto Linz and Graz .
4.3.1 .Request from the Austrian Government
Austria has asked the Community for acontribution towards the
building of116.5 Jemofmotorway onthe 3^7 kmtotal length of
the IKPA .The various parts ofthe motorway which are included
inthe request for Community financial support are shown in
Annexe 1.
Tothis end Austria wishes toobtain t
-non-returnabl esubsidies of100 mUCE and
-acontribution tointerest charges reducing the effective rate paid
byAustria to3%;thecost tothe Community would beabout 270 mUCE.
The payment ofthese sums would bespread over about 20years .
Discounting thetotal finanoial outlay to1978 gives the following
figures discounted atanumber ofrates <inmillion UCE
5.5* 6%
254.3 204.8 175.010%
151.3
Doo C0M(80 )58
2„ ',,See para 1.3 »•/

-17-
Thecontribution requested from theCommunity represents 455"of "the
total cost ofthose motorway sections towhich therequest relates .The
cost ofbuilding these sections isonethird ofthetotal cost of
building thewhole motorway .
4.3*2 .Economie evaluation o"Community interest
Theeconomic benefits totheCommunity ofthebuilding oftheIKPA
motorway have been analysed indetail byconsultants .
Themain oonolusion ofthe study wasthat inthe short term neither
other modes oftransport norpossible other routes provide arealistic
alternative tomeet thetraffic demand expected during thecoming decades .
The economic benefits were calculated asfollows :
<. /
-Growth inthevolume ofgoods andpassengers travelling through
Austria along theNW-SE corridor was calculated onconservative
assumptions forthecoming decades ^.Anestimate wasthenmadeofthe
probable share ofroad -transport andoftheproportion ofthis which
will probably use theIKPA motorway .Prom these were calculated the
movements ofcommercial andprivate vehioles togive anidea ofthe
future utilization oftheIKPA motorway .
-Savings intravelling time andacoident costs were then calculated
forthese vehicle movements .Allother benefits ,including savings
inoperating costs ,were disregarded .Thestudy didcover thepossible
'benefits ofother savings butforvarious reasons ,andinthe
interests ofprudence ,these were nottaken into account .
See Annexes IIand III
- '-A

-18-
-The estimated benefits were then opportioned between the
countries ofsouth-west Europe ,the Near East and the Middle
East ,sothat the "Community interest "oould beassessed .
There are two ways ofassessing thebenefits for the Community i
a)onemethod istoconsider thebenefits resulting directly
from acontribution bythe Community ,i.e. ;obase them on
the completion ofthe motorway in1987 instead of1998 .
Discounted to1978 values ,thebenefits forthe Community are
asfollows ,with four possible discount rates »
Discount rate t 3»5% 6% 8% 10%
Benefits (inmillion EUA)t18 14.3 12 10,1
b)Theother method istoassess notonly thebenefits oftheearly
completion ofthe IKPA motorway but alBO theresulting benefits
fortransit traffic ifthe project isfinanced entirely byAustria .
This assessment which takes into account the benefits over the
entire life ofthe IKPA project (50years )gives thefollowing
Iresults t
Disoount rate < 3*5% 6% 8% 10%
Benefits :113 106.4 44.3 32.4
Toestimate the Community interest solely from the viewpoint of
transport economics for apossible application under thefinancial
regulation mentioned inpara 4*1 *above only the advantages noted
under a)should beconsidered .
•/.

-19-
ν
4»3«3 »Effect oftheopening of_the_IKPA motorway_on traffic carried ty_other
lines ofcommunication (impact onthenetwork )
Anassessment ofthe effects ofthe opening ofthe IKPA motorway
must ofnecessity "bebased ,onthe assumption that the links between
itand the German aidYugoslav motorway networks will becompleted .
The works inGermany areinprogress atthe moment .The most immediate
impact will inevitably beonthe "Gastarbeiterroute "inAustria fbut
itwill also affect other routes which are currently congested ,e.g.
the Muni oh-Sal zburg motorway ;traffic onthese will fall substantially *
, The effeots onthe other modes oftransport arediffioult tooalculate .
Generally flittle time would besaved byusing the IKPA motorway
(around one andahalf hours )inrelation tojourney times .Theeffect
oncompeting modes oftransport should belimited ,therefore .Account
should also betaken ofthepossible effeot ofany commercial moves
orinfrastructure projects planned bythe oompeting modes .These
'aspects arediscussed indetail inAnnex III.
4*3*4 *Summary ' »
The foregoing arguments show that expediting thebuilding pfthe IKPA
motorway should theoretically beofdirect benefit tothe Community in
Baving transport costs .How muoh Community support might begiven and
subject towhat political oonditions must still bedisoussed ,however
(seepart IV).
/•

-20-
5.Allocation ofinfrastructure costs -Austrian road tax
5.1.The problem
The planning and financing ofinfrastructure investments underlie
policy inthis field ..This must also "be "backed up "both byapolicy for
the maintenance and optimum use ofsuch infrastructures and onthe
other hand "byasystem ofallocation costs tothe users *The allocation
ofcosts through fuel and vehicle taxes isanimportant aspeot ofthe
Common Transport Policy *.
5.2.Situation atCommunity level
Acting onaCommission proposal ,the Council ofTransport Ministers
approved on12June 1978 thetext ofaDirective tointroduce a
Community system for taxing heavy commercial vehicles ;formal adop­
tion ofthis Directive isstill dependent ,however ,onthe withdrawal
ofareservation "byone Member State ,linking this question toan
agreement onweight and dimensions ofvehicles ,afield where the Com­
mission has already put forward proposals tothe Council .
The Community system oftaxation envisages that anamount has tobe
paid inrespect ofeach vehicle ,inthe form ofdiesel fuel duty and
atax onthevehicle itself ,thetotal being related tothe cost of
using theinfrastructure .The principle oftaxation solely inthe country
ofregistration was chosen inorder tofacilitate trade and not toimpede
frontier orossing (thenationality principle ).Thelevel oftax,however ,
isbased onthetotal distance oovered including the portion performed
inother countries .
Thenationality prinoiple isalready applied inthe form ofreciprocal
exemption inbilateral agreements between Member States ,and with and
between themajority ofnon-member countries .
Other methods ofoharging also exist ,inparticular thecollection of
motorway tolls insome countries .

-21
5.3.Situation regarding road tax inAustria
»
Theintroduction "byAustria from 1July 1978 ofaroad taxalso
payable "byforeign vehicles andcollected atthefrontier ^is
toareversal ofAustrian policy onthe subject ,
since thenationality principle has been replaoed bytheterri­
toriality prinoiple .i.e. charges prorata time spent inAustria .
The coexistence ofthese two principles creates serious problems
s
ofdouble taxation and has led to anincrease inthe cost ,
ofroad transport operations to/from orthrough Austria andhampers
 crossings ofitsfrontiers .Therestrictions onthe importation of
duty-free fuel linked tothetaxconstitute anadditional obstaole .
Inaddition ,this action bytheAustrian authorities has been taken '
asapretext byother non-member countries such asTurkey ,Yugoslavia
2and more recently Switzerland toconsider introducing orincreasing
similar charges .
5.4.Summary ■'■!.' -
The road taxinAustria seems counter tothe Community system andto
thepraotices general inEurope .Itrepresents amajor obstaole ,especially
tointra-Community road transport through Austria .Toremedy this un­
satisfactory situation for the Community ,the main objeotive should
betobring Austria toalign itself ontheCommunity system ^.Itis
therefore important that the proposed Community directive Bhould be
adopted bythe Counoil and putinto effect assoon aspossible sothat
the Community will have afirm negotiating base .The introduction by
all Member States oftaxes levied onAustri&av .vehicles using the
territory ofthe Community isanalternative course ofaotion whioh
should not beexcluded from negotiations with Austria .
- ■ ./•
See pdint 1.4 *
2_ .. . . . .Switzerland now proposes tointroduce aroad tax;itsintroduction
'will however depend onthe result ofareferendum .
^Seepbint 1.5«

-22-
6.Access tothe market
6.1.Carriage ofpassengers "byroad
Multilateral negotiations axeinprogress ^"onthis subject between the
Community andcertain other European third countries }further nego­
tiations are planned .The present negotiations have revealed that
Austria iskeen tosecure greater liberalization .Atpresent ,
there are noparticular problems concerning carriage ofpassengers
inabilateral (Community /Austria )setting .
6.2.Carriage ofgoods byroad .
6.2.1 .The carriage ofgoods byroad between the Member States and
Austria and ofgoods through Austria isasageneral rule subject to
quota arrangements and therefore toquantitative restrictions .
However ,certain types oftransport operation arefree of
quotas oreven authorizations ,under the terms ofResolutions
oftheEuropean Conference ofMinisters ofTransport (ECMT)j
these transport 'operations are largely those which were libe­
ralized inrespect oftrade between Member States bythe Council
Directive of23July 1962 (First Directive ,subsequently a­
mended onseveral occasions !Theextent towhich some operations
have been liberalized iseven sometimes greater than
has happened within the Community itself .
Asfar asnon-liberalized operations are concerned ,authorizations
are issued either from avery small multilateral quota created
bythe ECMT (144authorizations valid inAustria for EEC Member
States ),orunder bilateral quota arrangements between theindi­
vidual Member State ooncerned andAustria .Inmost cases ,these
quotas make nodistinction between transit traffic and exchange
traffic .Asfar asutilization ofCommunity authorizations is
concerned ,valid only intheterritory ofthe Community ,Member
States usually fall back onauthorizations granted under bilateral
quota arrangements fortransit through Austria .
■^Negotiation ofanAgreement ontheinternational carriage ofpassengers by
road bymeans ofoccasional coach and bus services
OJNo70of6August 1962

The consultations with the Member States ,whioh areto
beextended toinclude Greece vhave shown apart from
the road taxlevied byAustria -what all contest -the Member States
saythey aresatisfied with thepresent situation ,except for two
ofthem which consider that too few transit authorizations are
granted byAustria *Two other Member States point outthat they
have refused increases intheir bilateral quotas requested by ,
Austria ^*
Furthermore ,the Member States have unanimously stated their
preference forsettling any problems inthis field inthe framework
oftheir bilateral agreements with Austria *
6.2.2 .Despite this ,the problem ofapplying the Community quota to
Greece ^remains .
Enlargement will entail not only thevalidation ofCommunity
quota authorizations inrespect ofoperations between the present
Member States and Greeoe already held bythese Member States but
also the allocation toGreece ofanappropriate share ofthis quota *
Theutilization ofthese Community authorizations will olearly
depend onthe number oftransit authorizations which Austria grants
t<?the present Member States andtoGreeoe .Atpresent ,theeffect 1
ofthe Community quota oninternational road transport asawhole
isvery small (approximately 6%)butlikely toincrease ;inany
event ,the quota istobeextended toinclude Greece .
Any negotiations with Austria ontheutilization ofthe Community
quota fortraffic from ortothe Member States and Greece isa
Community matter and must therefore ,beconducted bythe Commission
and concluded bythe Council .
•/•
Italy andtheUnited Xingdom
^Belgium andFranoe '
„ 1See paragraph 1*7

-24-
During -thenegotiations concerning theaccession ofGreece ,
theMember States have permitted only exploratory talks onthis
subject ,though notruling outthepossibility ofCommunity -
level negotiations atstage two.Theattitude ofAustria during
these first exploratory talks held with theCommission 'sservices
pursuant totheengagements undertaken bytheCommunity vis-k-via
Greece lead totheconclusion that such negotiations will be
1
necessary .
6.2.3 *Within the context ofthese same discussions Austria had drawn
attention ,inter alia ,tothisinterests ofitscarriers inhaving
a"suffioient"share inthehaulage trade intransit through its
territory .andinobtaining more authorizations for it3traffic
with certain Member States .
Austria has also shown some interest inschemes for cooperation
with Member States and theCommunity concerning participation in
traffic within theCommunity (association with theCommunity quota
scheme ,forexample ).
Depending onthecircumstances ,this interest could also beborne
inmind in sectoral negotiations relating specifically tomarket
access orin negotiations embracing all thetransport interests
ofboth parties .
6.3 *Inland shipping
TheAustrian Government hasmore than once expressed itsdesire for
Austria toberegarded asariparian State oftheRhine andfor its
shipping toenjoy thesame treatment asvessels belonging toRhine
navigation ,even totheextent ofbecoming amember oftheCentral
Commission fortheNavigation oftheRhine (CCR).
This preoccupation oftheAustrian Government assumes aspecial
importance with theimminent oomplotion oftheMain-Danube link
«r
Seeparagraph 1.7 »

-25-
and .theimplementation oftheAdditional Protocol of17October
1979 totheMannheim Convention ,which restricts the right offreedom of
conveyance ontheRhine tovessels belonging tothefleets of
riparian States andtothefleets oftheEECMember States to
meet theunfair competition practised bysome Eastern bloc countries .
Austria 'sinterest ingaining access toRhine navigation could be
afactor inthe context ofnegotiations extending tothetransport
interests ofboth parties fparticularly when onetakes account of
the fact that the admission ofAustria toRhine traffio orits
accession totheConvention ofMannheim depend upon aprior Community
deoision *
7.Weights anddimentions
Theweights anddimensions ofcommercial road vehioles areasubject of
great importance fortheharmonization oftheconditions ofcompetition
inroad transport .
Thelatest Commission proposal *calls foraCommunity-type vehiole .
Themaximum standards considered bytheCommission asmost favourable
from several points ofview (economic ,energy consumption ,etc.)maynot
berecognized tobesobyAustria .Infaot ,thetotal laden weight per­
mitted byAustria is33tonnes whereas theCommission proposal goes upto
44tonnes .
IftheCommission 'spropoBalwere adopted andthemaximum weight of44tonnes
were thus introduced ,themaintenance ofamaximum total loaded weight of38
tonnes byAustria ,would then constitute anadded barrier tointra -
Community trade through this country .
Onehasonly torecall here theadverse repercussions ontransit traffic
through Switzerland oftheweights anddimensions ofvehicles to28tonnes ^
inforce inthat country .torealize theimportance ofarefused byAustria
tofall into line with Community standards .Close cooperation with Austria
♦ I
onthis matter istherefore required .
•/•
COM(78j728final of4January 1979
?Seeparagraph 1.2

-26-
8.Cooperation "between Railways
The Railways' operating deficits areacause ofconcern toallGovern­
ments }and .thecritioal condition oftheRailways isaserious obstacle
totheimplementation ofacommon transport policy .
Some integration oftheMember States' Railways might help toimprove
their operating results ,butthis integration canbeconsidered only
inthevery long term .Meanwhile theCommission isendeavouring toincrease
commercial ,technical andadministrative cooperation between theCommunity 's
Railways .With this inview theCouncil adopted theDecision of20May
1975on "theimprovement ofthesituation ofrailway undertakings ^".A
number ofschemes operated inthis connection could also beadvantageous
totheRailways oftransit countries ,inparticular Austria .Aswith
road transport ,asubstantial proportion ofintra-Community rail traffic
passeB through Austrian territory ,fully justifying theextension of
cooperation between theCommunity 'sRailways totheAustrian railsystem .
9.Combined road/rail_transport ("ferroutage ")
Combined road/rail transport could help Austria with itsproblems in
terms ofroad congestion and environmental protection .Being aware ofthe
value ofcombined road/rail transport forthecarriage ofgoods over long
distances onmajor routes ,theCommunity ,inaDirective of17February
1975 t"backed upbytheDirective of19December 1978 ,haslaid down
common ruJ.es forthecombined road/rail carriage ofgoods between Member
States ,including container traffic ,freeing itfrom anyquantitative
restrictions (quotas )andremoving various administrative constraints
(authorizations ).-
•/.
1OJL152of12June 1975
2OJL48of22February 1975
3OJL5of9January 1979

-27-
The Commission has also proposed tothe Council that negotiations should
•beopened toextend this system tocertain non-Conununity countries ,
including Austria 1.Asetofactions topromote this technique
isalso "being prepared bythe Commission for environmental and energy -
saving reasons inparticular *Itisinthe Community 'sinterests to
harmonize its actiorswith Austria 'sintentions onthis subject .
10.Other subjects
Apart from the matters already mentioned ,others are ofmutual interest
tothe Community andAustria ,inparticular t
–summer time
–transport rates and conditions
-frontier problems
-social conditions intheroad transport seotor (amendment ofthe
AETR agreement ).1
11.Assessment ofinterests from the transport economy viewpoint
The foregoint brings outthefact that ,from thetransport angle ,
Austria and the Community have varying degrees ofinterest inachieving
solutions tothevarious types ofproblem . ^
11.1 IKPAmotorway
Austria would obviously like tosee the IKPA motorway built assoon
aspossible forthis will put anend somuch the sooner tothediffi­
cult situation onthe road corridor which atpresent constitutes
the "Gastarbeiterroute ".Atthe same time ,Austria isextremely in­
terested inobtaining Community financial support forthis project ,
,seeing itsbudget deficit will preclude itsbringing completion ofthe IKPA
motorway forward to1987 onits own. '
•/•
Doc.COM(75)188final
2"European Agreement concerning the work ofcrews ofvehicles engaged
ininternational road transport "ooncluded under the auspices ofthe
Economic Commission forEurope (ECE)

-28-
Furthermore ,assessment oftheCommunity 'seconomic interest inthe
expedited completion ofthis motorway hasshown that theCommunity ,too ,
would derive direct "benefits from itwhich ,although notsogreat as
Austria 's,could ontheir ownwarrant some degree ofCommunity financial
aid .And the long-term "benefits oftheIKPA motorway tothe
Community should also not "belost from sight .
11.2 .Austrian road tax
Austria 'sinterest inaligning its system ofoommeroial vehicle taxation
with theCommunity system (which isnotyetoperative )appears somewhat
limited .Because theCommunity countries with oneexception have not
retaliated against Austria 'sintroduction oftheroad tax ,Austria has
notsuffered ineconomic terms from itsunilateral action ;onthecontrary
ithas "benefitted .
Ontheother hand ,theCommunity has amajor interest inhaving this
Austrian taxmodified toremedy theproblem ofdouble taxation of
Community commercial vehicles travelling toandfrom orviaAustria .
Prom this angle ,ithas every interest inseeing Austria come into line
with theCommunity system oftaxation .
11.3 .Road transport quotas
Although theCommunity quota now covers only asmall proportion ofroad
transport ,itsapplication totransit through Austria will create an
opening for the future and thus help facilitate roadborne trade between
theMember States oftheCommunity ,including Greece .
Austria ,however ,hasnointerest perseinapplying this Community
system tointra-Community traffic intransit .Atneed they have
some interest inbeing able totake part intheCommunity 'ssystem in
sofar asitwould permit Austrian carriers tooperate within and
through Community territory .ButAustria 'sinterest isless than

-29-
theCommunity 'siitstraffic inAustria isconcentrated onafew
very "busy routes ;Austrian traffic isdispersed over thewhole ofthe
Community road network ..
11.4 .Other subjects
Mutual interest asregards the subjects discussed inparagraphs 7"t°
ismore orevenly 1JSS "balanced .However ,itcanonly beresolved in
themedium ,oreven thelong term .Likewise with inland shipping ,
although there theAustrian interest isgreater .
«. .
12.Conclusions
This review ofthedifferent transport-policy sectors important torela­
tions with Austria has shown aseries oftransport problems ofmutual
interest which argue forclose cooperation between theCommunity and
Austria .Adistinction must bemade ,however ,between those issues which
require praotical solutions assoon aspossible andwhich should therefore
begiven priority treatment ,andthose which maybeleft forthelonger
term .Atthesame time ,various degrees andperspectives ofinterest on
.thepart ofAustria andoftheCommunity must bedistinguished .AThemost
aoute problem atthis stage intheAustrian 'seyes istheir request for
afinancial contribution towards theconstruction oftheIKPA motorway .
TheCommunity should obtain theabolition ,or,initsabsence ,asub­
stantial relaxation ofthepresent quantitative restrictions forroad
transit traffic across Austria -noobstacle inAustria tointra-Com­
munity traffic carried outunder theCommunity systems -andarapid so­
lution totheproblem oftheAustrian tax .Itscarcely seems conceivable
1that theCommunity will contribute financially totheconstruction of
theIKPA motorway ifcounter benefits inthese areas arerefused .The
other problems present less urgency ,but itisimportant topoint the
waytosolutions regarding th«& .
Inview ofthecomplexity andinterrelatedness ofthevarious issues ,
their varying degrees ofurgency ,thestanding ofAustrian andCommunity
interests ,andthepolitical considerations ,thequestion ishow ,and
onwhat lines ofbehaviour ,toacttowards Austria .
./.

-30-
III .
NEGOTIATING AND TACTICAL PROBLEMS
13.Type ofapproach tothe negotiations andtheir extent
Intheory one could consider arange ofapproaches for dealing with
Austria onthe various problems mentioned .One extreme would beanapproach
s orsstrictly by/which would aimatresolving each oneofthevarious transport
problems byseparate negotiations inorder toconclude aseparate and speoific
agreement for each problem sector .
The other extreme would consist ofanintegrated approach which would aim
atfinding solutions tothe various problems inthe context ofa"parcel ",
simultaneously orinseveral stages .Between these two extremes one could consider
various combinations ofmatters and oftiming depending upon the urgency ,the
practicability and the opportunity .
13.1 Approach bytype ofproblem
This approach would entail reaching solutions with Austria ineach problem
sector ,inorder toseek trade-offs ofinterests ineach sector instead
ofabalance ofinterests over several problem sectors .For example 1
negotiations might betodeal only with the .icad taxrecently introduced
unilaterally byAustria .
Such anapproaoh would assume that there isamore orless equal level
ofinterests onboth sides atstake ineach problem sothat aspecific
agreement c7U^>eachieved }otherwise (i.e. where there isaclear disparity
ofinterests )sectoral solutions would beunattainable .Ontheother hand ,
the view oan betaken that asectoral approach isabetter way oftaking
account ofthe unique characteristics ofeaoh issue without complicating
the negotiations with considerations arising from other problem sectors .

-31-
Although acertain balance ofAustrian and Community interests oan be
seen insome matters such ascombined road/rail transport ,cooperation
between railways ,etc*,there are others where itishard tosee how the
sectoral approach could apply ,-notably with the main issues the financing
ofthe IKPA motorway *Here itseems impossible towork out &autually ^
advantageous solution atsectoral level ,forAustria 'sinterests outweigh
the Community 's)anditwould appear odd,tosaytheleast ,forthe
Community toaskAustria foroffsets interms of
1financing infrastructures inorder toachieve sectoral balance *Theoffsets
necessary forthe Community inreturn for afinancial contribution tothe
building ofthe IKPA motorway cantherefore come only from another problem
sector (forexample transit authorisations jinother words ,.
anentirely separate approach sector bysector ,without anyregard for develop­
•ments inthe other sectors isnot valid forthis case . -
13*2 *ABroader Approach ' "
13*2*1 *Inthese circumstances itisworth considering whether itdoes not seem
preferable forthe Community topursue the various subjects insome
association with abroader approach inorder toobtain advantages in
trading off oneinterest against another *This would beimpossible if
each subject were dealt with inisolation *

-32-
Atthe same time itwould beneedful toavoid tying one'shands
bytoo close anassociation ofthe subjects insuch awaythat if
one did not satisfy the Au3trians onone subject -e.g. thefinancial
contribution for the IKPA motorway -this could beconsidered asa
own
blookage forthe Community topursue other subjects ontheii/merits .
13.2.2 .Thus asfar asthe main questions ofafinancial contribution towards
the IKPA motorway ,the road tax and the authorisations for road
transit are concerned -matters for which different levels and
interests exist between the Community andAustria -one should envisage
thepursuit ofthese subjects insuch away and with such timing
that the Community could act inone sector without losing sight of
the situation inthe other sectors .Such anapproach should allow
apositive and mutually satisfying result tobeobtained forthe two
sides would seetheir interests safeguarded inthelight ofan ,
overall balance .Inthis perspective apositive result could be
achieved bythe twoparties ifonthe one hand the Community gave
Austria afinancial contribution for the IKPA motorway and onthe
other Austria met the Community 'srequests concerning the road tax
and the authorisations for road transit carried out under the cover
ofthe Community systems .
Atthe same time ,for the other categories such ascombined transport ,
railway co-operation etc.-areas inwhich the level ofinterest
ismore orless the same ,one might envisage the creation ofinitial
bases for more advanced co-operation inthe medium and the long term
between the Community and Austria }possibly some practical measures
could already beenvisaged :inconsidering these other matters

-33-
one should not deprive oneself ofthepossibility ofadvanoing
inone sector bymeans ofooncessions inanother even if
t
for some problems effective solutions can only befound during
several consecutive orparallel stages .
13.2.3 .This broader approach would have the advantage ofproviding a
realistic basis forthe short term priority solutions ofthe
most pressing problems inAustria /Community relations inthe
transport sector ,while astart ismade onthe joint solution
ofother problems .This approaoh will permit the general policy
line ofimproving co-operation between the Community andthe
EFTA countries tobefollowed .
14.Need for aCommunity decision onthe financing ofthe I.K.P.A. motorway
.Itisnow three years since the Austrians first requested financial
support tobuild the I.K.P.A. motorway .Meanwhile ,the problems raised
inthis document must betaken into account within the Community 's
overall relations with Austria .Itisnow essential todraw upthe main
lines for Community action toresolve the problems .Solutions will depend
toalarge extent onthe Council taking decisions onproposals from the .
Commission .Infact the issue issufficiently clear and has reached the
point where the Community should now take the appropriate initiatives
regarding Austria .

-34-
14.1 .Tactical reasons
Change inthe Austrian road ,tax and tosome extent the improvement
ofthe Austrian road-transit quota system especially fortraffic
toand from Greece ,are issues onwhich the Community isasking for
something .Austria has linked the Community 'srequests with a
Community financial contribution tothe I.K.P.A. motorway ,whilst
the Community has seen link between that contribution and the tax
problem .Ifthe Community took upanegative position towards the
Austrian request ,there vrould probably benoprogress towards the
Community attaining itsobjectives (l).IntheAustrian 'sopinion ,
the Community has nothing else totrade inthe transport sector of
sufficient value toobtain the necessary concessions onthe road
tax and Community road transit quotas .
(l)Cf.point 1.7.

-35-
14.2 .Transport policy reasons
« «
From thetransport viewpoint ,itappears desirable to
create theconditions fortheIKPA motorway tobebuilt
swiftly .Notonly arethere economic benefits fortheCommunity -
itisalso :acessary toshow adegree ofEuropean solidarity in
tackling jointly the mounting problems ofroad transit ,
including /thetransalpine region .Asaresult ofthepresent
unsatisfactory situation there isanincreasing tendency
tointroduce unilateral measures suoh astaxes oonoeived as
protective measures intheabsenoe ofEuropean solutions ,butwhich
areliable tobring deterioration intheentire transport system .
Inthese circumstances ,the
Community -which depends onandbenefits sogreatly from ,
thelines ofcommunication aoross theAlps ,needs aotively to
contribute towards the solution oftheproblems inquestion .
Itisinthis spirit that ,during discussion oftheAustrian road
taxon12June 1973 ,theTransport Council asked theCommission
tosubmit areport ontheinitiatives tobetaken toachieve
European solutions .^
Forallthese reasons ,itappears justified anddesirable from
thetransport angle ,that theCommunity decides assoon as
possible ontheAustrian request andtheother related transport
problems inorder tocome toseme olear andquick policy
decisions .The issues tobetaken into consideration inthis
context include notonly theproblem oftheIKPA motorway ,but
also road taxandtransit authorisations .Further ,progress in
these fields could help towards forming abasis foreffective
ca-operation between theCommunity andAustria onarange ofother
issues ofmutual interest .
1)cf.point 1.5«

-36-
14.3 *Erternal policy reasons
Theexternal relations situation also argues for afavourable
decision bythe Commission ontheAustrian request .Austria ,
directly neighbouring the Community ,provides ageographical
bridge toEast and South-East Europe .Itisonthe periphery
offree Europe andispolitically neutral .The Community ,
thus , has aninterest toensure that the economic and
political situation ofAustria isasstable aspossible .
Reference ismade also tothe points set out in
paragraph 2.2.concerning the significance oftransport for
the Community 'spolitical relations with the EFTA countries ,
Austria ,Yugoslavia ,Turkey and middle eastern countries .
Itisagain emphasised ,however ,inview ofGreek acoession ,
that the improvement -oftransport links with Greece via Austria
(andYugoslavia )merit special attention inorder toenoourage its
full andrapid integration .Prom that viewpoint ,themaintenance
ofgood relations with Austria isnecessary and,tothat end,a
positive Community attitude tothefinancing ofthe 3XPA motorway
would notfail tohave favourable effects intheshort andthelong
term ;similarly with intra-Comraunity trade with Italy viaAustria .
15.Conclusions
Inview ofthe foregoing considerations concerning the problems of
negotiation andtactics forthe approach tobeadopted towards
Austria ,itisrecommended that the Community negotiates solutions
with Austria taking account ofthe following guidelines to
betreated inparallel :-

(1)theprinoiple andthemechanisms ofaCommunity
financial contribution towards building the IKPA
motorway andtheprinciple andthe meohanisms of
Austria 'sremoving its quant ititativerestrictions
onroad transit performed byCommunity carriers
under Community regulatory arrangement sj
(2)anundertaking byAustria toalign itself with
theCommunity ^"asystem ofcharging fortheuseof
road infrastructures with the aim ofadapting the
Austrian road taxtothis system -inline with
previous statements tothis effeot bytheAustrian
Government ;
(3)joint declaration ofintent toco-operate andseek
solutions for the other matters ofmutual interest .
(l)Seepoint 1.5 *

-38-
IV.
PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS
16.1 .Continuation ofexploratory talks
Sothat proposals ondirectives fornegotiating ,whioh will complement this
paper ,can beputtothe Council ,the Commission isundertaking assoon as
possible andinthespirit ofthepresent communication ,tocontinue the
exploratory talks ,already begun with theAustrian Government ,onthe
implications ofGreek membership oftheEBC^.
These talks should clarify possibilities ofbringing thefinancial support
into the wider context ofrelations with Austria ,notably inthetransport
sector ,asdescribed inparagraph 15above .Indoing this ,itshould be
possible also togain adearer idea ofthe amount ofand arrangements for
thefinancial support whioh the Community canreasonably acoept .
immediately thereafter acommunication ,together with draft directives for
negotiation ,can bepresented tothe Council .Itisonly inthis waythat
itwill bepossible tomeet the deadlines set byGreek Membership ofthe
Community andtokeep parallel vis-&~vis development ofrelations with
Yugoslavia .
16.2 .Financial aspects
Austria 'srequest for afinancial contribution towards the building ofthe
IKPA motorway amounts toapproximately 370million UAinall spread over 20
years .Itisdivided into contributions taken invarious forms ,e.g.outrightItshould bepossible tocomplete theexplanatory talksyxSfs spring ,BOthat
1)Seepoint 1.7.

-39-
grants orlowinterest loans^"' .
What the Community mayfinally beprepared togrant Austria depends
not only onthe Community 'seconomic interest inearlier building
pfthis motorway butalso onthepolitical interest inhaving afast
road link between Greece and other Member States ,alink also
benefiting transport toand from Yugoslavia ,Turkey andthe Middle
East .Consideration will also have tobegiven tohowfarAustria iswilling
tpsatisfy Community requirements inthe other areas mentioned herein ,
such asroad taxes andauthorisations forroad transit .Thefinal sumwill
thus depend onthenegotiations tobecarried onwith Austria .This also
applies tofixing the form inwhich the contribution asfinally made and
its spread over anumber ofyears .,
draft ofthe 1980
Inthe latest /budget the Commission included abudget line (378l)to cover
credits whose useisdecided oninapplication ofthe regulation about
Xfinancial support forinfrastructure projects ofCommunity interest .
Should the explanatory talks andnegotiations with theAustrian Government
reach conclusions this year ,,apositive .result enabling Community finanoial
support tobedecided onandtomove for,with thefirst installment to
becommitted during the course of1980 ,itwould beopportune touseline
3781 forbudgetary provisions .This ,however ,presupposes that the
regulation onfinancial support would have been adopted bythe Council .
l)Seepoint 4-3.1

-40-
V .
CONCLUSIONS
The arguments put forward inthis Communication onexternal relations
and Community interests intransport lead the Commission topropose
tothe Council :
-torecognise the importance ofimproving relations with Austria inthe
transport sector within the framework ofcloser relationships with
EPTA countries ,particularly inview ofGreek accession toEEC ;
-toadopt afavourable position intheprinciple ofaCommunity financial
contribution for the building ofthe IKPA motorway ;
-totreat thefinancial support intheoverall context ofnegotiations
with Austria aimed atimproving co-operation inthe different sections
oftransport policy ,including theapplication ofCommunity laws to
traffic with Greece crossing Austria ;
-totake note ofthe Commission 'sintention tosubmit draft negotiating
directives assoon asthe explanatory talks with the Austrian Government
onthis subject are completed together with afinancial estimate ;any
Community financial contribution towards theconstruction ofthe motorway
would beincluded inthe Community budget ;
-tospeed upits consideration ofthe Commission 'sproposal onfinancial
support for transport infrastructure ofCommunity interest ,recently
amended ^toallow theIKPAproject tobeincluded inaprogramme of
schemes which could benefit from financial assistance ;
-toadopt definitely assoon aspossible the proposal for adirective
2)onthe adjustment ofnational taxation systems for commercial vehicles
anindispensible element inbringing the Austrian position close tothe
Community policy onimputation ofinfrastructure costs .
^Doc.(COM80)58final of7.2.80 andO.J. No.C207of2.9.76
2)'O.J. No.C95of21.9.68

ANNEXI
.NÜRNBERG
.REGENSBURG
MÜNCHEN
fV&S.TE*«V CH:PASSAUr-t.-•'
SALZBURG
%ÎAZ5TW.Ç
tfi1tw/
-f1.vA.
11C.f«w
viZAGREB
UGENOE :
GASTARBEITERROUTE '
––– INNVIERTEL -u.PYHRN AUTOBAHN
' ■ TAUERN AUTOBAHNUNTERSUCHUNGS ­
GEGENSTAND
Attarnativrouta
Les sections pour lesquelles une contribution financière delaCommunauté
est demandée sont indiquées par uncercle *

.2•
5r
o–Y*\Nürnberg
ocQ.C Vv
2S^
3X» IIXV
il\
O|+^Suben
^^1–^ .Wien
....LX<v BrounouV0i(V &München^– /)V .XV-.'/V**.X/
Salzburg^ sLiezen£>,^ //
^\v X^raz
%^ITRadstadt^\A X
°A °o. NivSpielfeld\l3.Spi"0'°+)T
Plôkenpori«î^T^l<'ch l^Moribor
MonteCroceCarnico\./'il\?LKla9enfurt\\S?^L..W-^.....\\'/AXtunnel JUGOSLAWIEN
VKnfnwnnken-^yv~J \
....tunnel "Q
Udine • #/ ZagrebATriest/ \
Venedig ^ \
Triest 3
Belgrad
ITALIEN
CRIECHENLANO
TÙRKEI

ANNEX II
Analysis oftransit traffic irithe NW-SE corridor
The economic assessment ofthe value oftheInnkreis-Pyhrn motorway
project "(IKPA )tothe Community ismainly based onanevaluation ofthe
advantages togoods and passengers intransit between the Community and
Southeast Europe ,Near and Kiddle East which would aocount from a
earlier completion ofthe motorway than Austria claims possible without
assistance .
The baas atthis Community economic assessment isaforecast oftraffio flow
intheNW-SE corridor through Austria ;theforecast concentrates onthe
flows between the countries principally concerned .The forecast isbased
onananalysis ofatime series ofpast flows .The following tables
illustrate the development inpassenger and goods transport for both
inland transport modes (rail androad )andmaritime transport .
1. Cood3 trancport flows
1.1 . Rail and road
Afirst table gives traffic volumes andtherail/road traffic split .It
illustrates thecentral position which Austria holds inrail traffic
between Northwest and Southeast Europe because ofits geographical
location .
Table 1:Rail/road ratio fortransit traffic through Austria
ontheAustrian /Yugoslavian border (1976 )
Transit trafficRail Road Total
1000 t% 1000 t% 1000 t % -
inthe direction of
Yugoslavia 1,151 47 1,305 53 2,456 100
from the direction
ofYugoslavia.638 •40 940 60 1,578 100
both directions 1,789 44 2,245 56 4,034 100
ailexit zones 8,946 41 12,891 59 21,837 100
Jailentry zones 9,105 42 12,747 58 21,852 100 I

Intabic 2the average values fortraffic distribution between rail and
road setoutintable 1arebroken down into 10main commodity proupu .
Thetable shows that therailway carries thelargest sharo ofbulk good ;;
Table 2: Rail/road ratio fortransit traffic through Austria ontheAustrian /Yugoslavian
~ border (1976 )bymain categories ofgoods
indirection ofYugoslavia from direction ofYueroslavin
3oods category Rail ! Road Rail Road
[1000 t % 1000 t % 1000 t % 1000 t %
Agricultural andforestry
products and live animals 67 56 53 44 "183 35 347
ι65
1 Foodstuffs and fodder i92 41 133 59 .65 24 208
I76
2 Solid fuels 3 92 8 3
.S100
3 Petroleum products 23 49 '24 51 4
»91 9;
4 Ores and metallic waste 4 75 1 25 6 72 2 23
5 Metal products 154 68 73 32 •57 57 43 43
6 Mineral raw materials or
products and building
materials 74 68 35 •32 28 66 24 34
7 Fertilizers 2 89 11 2 99 1
8Chemical products I281 58 200 42 61 75 20 25
9 Machinery ,vehicles ,
processed goods and spe­
cial transport goods!
452 37 785 63 230 43 305 57
Total 1.151
I47 1.305 53 *638 40 940 60
Table 3finally gives asurvey ofthedistribution between modes
according tocountry oforigin and country ofdestination in
Southeast Europe and the Near East .

-3- \
Table 3 :Rail/road ratio forgoods transit traffic through
Austria toS-E Europe /Near East (1975 )(in%)
Country oforigin /
destinationTransit to ... Transit from ..
Rail Road Rail Road
IYugoslavia 79 21 60 40
Greece 33 67 43 57
Romania 87 13 84 16
Turkey 16 .84 ■J 1 99
other Near East and
Middle East States 2 98 100
Asfor road traffic tables 4and 5show the development ofroad transit
traffic inboth directions inthe NW/SEcorridor for 1974-1976/77.
The tables ,inter alia ,lead tothe following conclusions :
-During the period observed the road transit traffic inthe corridor
increased considerably (some 50%) \
-The proportion oftotal NW-SEtransit traffio with origin or
destination inaCommunity country wasover $0% .

Ta->4 :Goods traffic byroad in.NW-SEtransit through Austria .1974 -1S77 {1.000t)
to I
from |V ,( Greece Rorr.arr.a 1-Γ•kev^•οηο ί_τ^–
■ i
1974 [1375 p976 I1977 1574 ;1975 I
i1976 1977 |1974 l
ItlS75
1 I597 6 |1977 '1974 '
: ί197D !1976|1977.jμ9ί4 ια19-6 ,1977 jj1974 |
> 11975 |
■■ ιί1976i!LJ
•Belgium /LuxembourgI 18 23 23 30I
i11I 1
I22 jI 1
!31 1i
I 313 i!3 !i*! I2i11 i!1517 9!
I
Fed .Rep. Germany 197 203 207 239 78 126 171 193 23 22 32 123iI5372 94'"I
i
I-,.Denrr.ark 5 4 3 82 1 3 3 1 1 1 1
j
France 5 7 8 7 5 6 11 •15 10 6 9 9< 6 4 6 5
Cnited Kingdom 13 13 15 20 8 8. 7 9 4 3
I:8 15 13 15
IrelandI• !1 /
Italy2 1 1i
I ** 1 1I 2
Netherlands 39 41 57 61I1418 24 30 3I65 10L!fJ26 19
I
Community total
other countries281
24290
32314
31
I366
41118
{8176
18247
11281
1444
334
952
342
289
6129
11159 ;114
11j8
1
!Total
| _j304 322 345 407 126 195 258 295 47 43 55 44'95|140 |170 :122 ■143 469 644 716 l1168
I1473 868®
*wi-hout "beyond " Source :österreichisches Statistisches .Zentralamt /Bundesministerium fürVerkehr
Table 5:Goods traffic byroad inSE-NW transit through Austria .1974 -.1977 (1,000 t)
Yugoslavia I Greece Romania3
I! Turkev bevond Total
i– -.--i
1974 1975 I11976 11977 i1974 I1975 1976 1977 1974 ,1975 1976 119771
I1974 1975 11976 1977 /j974
I .11975 1976
|1977 1LLII1975 1976 1977
Belgium /Luxembourg 10 28 30 9 10 20 181M1 2 3 5 7 14 ; 8!
I I
IFed.Rep. Germany 140 184 212 216 108 212 293 315 26 26 30 34 49 72 77 60
IDenmark 3 3 5 4 2 4 6 5 1 1 1I
France 8 7 10 9 3 9 12 26 11 9 13 17 5 5 6 6i
i
IUnited Kingdom 16 14 13 13 5 17 8 159|8 3 3!s
!12 7OI*
Ireland 1
Italy2 9 1 1 7 1 1 2 1-
INetherlands II 22 26ι36 !40 8 19 28 2 6 9L13 3111 1091
ICommunity total 201 258 306I312 126 277 367 403 50 I52 581j7ojI 1
!6!108I116 92
Iother countries 26 31 35 43 2 41 12 3LJM ί L_J! »_J1
j
Total _ |227 289 340 35511
I138
J280 379 4ld 53 55 |
II62 1I77
1!73 11151
! i122!
lOOjI27 50 IHI7901
i 19551
1947®
without "beyond "Source :österreichisches Statistisches Zentralamt /Bundcsministerium fürVerkehr

-5-
1.2.Maritime transport
Thestatistics available show the following picture for merchant
shipping between the Member States ofthe Community andthe main
relevant areas :
Table 6:Maritime transport for main countries anddestination areas
(1976 .77;1000 tonnes )
*
Greece Mediterranian
countriesMiddle East
F.R. ofGermany412 9'636 17630
Prance 821 20241 91851
Italy 4269 68998 70051
Netherlands 1291 11966 94000
Belgi um/Lux. 137 5292 7132
U.K. 764 7845 54381
Ireland *
Denmark * 26
TOTAL E.E.C. 7720 123 978 335 045
*figures not avail able >
Sources :Eurostat ,1976 (Greece )
0ECD ,1977 (Mediterranian countries :Gibraltar ,Malta ,
Maròc ,Algeria ,Tunesia ,Libia ,Egypt ,Cyprus ,
Syria ^Libanon ,Israel ,Jordania .
Middle East :Persian Gulf and Red Sea countries
2.Passenger transport flows
Forecasts ofpassenger transport are given inthe study onthefuture of
European passenger transport ,(COST project 33)•Theforecasts have been
modified andinterpreted forthe purposes ofthe IKPA project .
Onthis basis the following table has been made up.Table 7contains a
breakdown ofpassenger transport flows bycount ry-to-country link for road
transport (Ireland andItaly areexcluded ).Thetable shows that the
transit passenger car flow through the corridor islargely dominated by
traffio between theFederal Republic ofGermany andYugoslavia (50,9 %)•

Table 7:Passenger andcar flows inroad transport between Community countries anoYc.gock.via /
Greece /European Turkey in1975 (both directions )
1,000 people (overall ) 1,000 cars (corridor )
ConnectionH,OP Β L(T10 H,OP .Β L<r.
D -YU 776 26 802 35 9 371 .6 20.0 391 .6 50.9
GB -GR 248 4 251 11.3 43,0 1.2 44.2 5.7
D -GR 192 10 202 9.0 47.1 0.4 47.5 6.2
F -GR 122 10 132 5.9 9.4 1.6 11.0 1.4
F -YU 113 16 129 5.8 14.5 3.6 18.1 2.3
NL -YU 121 4 125 5.6 49.9 .3.0 52.9 6.9
GB -YU 111 8 119 5.3 33,8 4.4 38.2 5.0
B/L-YU 97 4 101 4.5 43.9 3.0 46.9 6.1
DK -YU 85 0 85 3.8 40.5 0 40.5 5.3
DK -GR 79 4 83 3.7 20.9 1.8 22.7 2.9
NL -GR 61 6 67 3.0 12.2 2.6 14.8 1.9
B/L-GR 61 6 67 3.0 14.0 2.4 16.4 2.1
F -TR 16 2 18 0.8 3.3 0.8 4.1 0.5
D -TR 13 2 15 0.7 5.1 1.4 6.5 0.8
DK -TR IX 0 11 0.5 4.7 0 4.7 0.6
GB -TR 9 0 9 0.4 2.3 0 2.3 0.3
NL -TR 7 2 9 0.4 2.5 1.4 2.5 0.5
B/L-TR 7 0 7 0.3 2.5 0 2.5 0.3
–r : 1–-£Community 2,129 !
j104 2,233 100.0 721.2 47.6 768 .8 100.0
excluding Italy and Ireland Key :
Source :COST project 33and own estimates H=holiday traffic
B=business travel
OP =other private travel

Αλι\£.Χ 111
Forecast oftransit traffic flow ofroojJp_J*nd_J3nspen£er ^
NW-SEcorridor inAustria
Thepassenger forecasts are derived from COST project 33.Thefreight flows
are derived from aforecast offoreign trade development "between the
relevant countries .
-Thelatter forecasts assume that the volume offoreign trade can be
expected togrow inline with real economic growth forYugoslavia ,Greece
andTurkey .However ,the development outlook forthenational economies of
the Near and Middle East gives ground tobelieve that their overall economic •
growth will exceed that oftheir foreign trade .Theresults oftheforecasts
forthe two groups ofcountries mentioned arepresented inthe following
tables 8+9 *
Table 8:Imports andexports relevant totheproject from/toGreece ,
Yugoslavia ,Turkey according tocountry ofdestination /origin in
1975 and 2000 (1000 tonnes ,$>).
IMP0RTS EXPORT S
Countries 1975 2000Growth
rate p.a.
1975-20001975 2000Growth
raté tJ.a .
1975 -2000
Fédéral Republic
ofGermany
1.000 t
in fo2,114
41.39,772
39.56,3 2,294
40.79,645
35.45.9
United Kingdom /
Netherlands /
Belgium /Luxem­
bourg 1.000 t 1,837 8,807/
6.5 1,922 10,762 7.1
inia 35.9 ~35.6 " "34.1 39.5
Franc e/Switzer-
land 1,000 tI
j
916 5,294 7.3 1,347 6,049 6.2
in % 17.9 21.4 23.9 22.2
Denmark
1000 t 251 866 5.1 72 736
I'9.7
in % 4.9 3.5 !.3 2.7
TOTAL 1,000 t 5,177 24,739 6.5 5,637 27,247 6.5
in% 100 100 loo 100

-2-
Table 9*Imports andexports relevant totheproject from/tothe
Near andMiddle East according tocountry ofdestination /origin in
1975 and .2000 (l000tonnes ,%).
LMP0RTS EXPORTS
!Countries
l
\1975 2000Growth
rate p.a.
1975-20001975 2000Growth
rate p.a.
1975-2000
j
;Federal Republic
!ofGermany
j 1,000
»t 342
22.31,412
20.9I
5.8 2,049
34.27,354
33.15.2
United Kingdom /
|Netherlands /
SDel/rium/Luxem-
;bourg 1,000
i in tfot 665
43.42,212
31.44.8 2,666
44.510,443
47.05.6
/
IFrance /Switzer -
I1 1,000
|t 475
31.03,148
46.67.6 1,156
19.34,155
18.7
i5.3
Denmark
1,000
| in%
}
<1t 51
3.374
1.11.6 120
2.0267
1.23.3
*)
!TOTAL ' 1,000
! in%t 1,532
1006,756
1006.1 5,990
10022,218
1005.4
*)excluding oil andoilproducts
The assumptions about the future distribution oftransport between the com­
peting modes (modal split )were established onthebasis ofpast developments ,
theanticipated extension ofinfrastructure andother factors which influence
goods andpassenger transport (commodity structure ,income trends ,degree of
motorisation ).Theselection ofroutes inroad transport (assignment )was
estimated onthebasis oftime andcost comparisons ,taking into account the
influence oftraffic guidance measures .The conversion ofpassenger and goods
flows into vehicle flows wascarried out bymeans ofaforecast ofthe degree

ofcaroccupancy (persons percar)andoftheaverage loadperlorry ,
■taking account ofempty runs .Theresulting forecast gives estimates of
vehicle flows intransit traffic through theNorthwest-Southeast corridor
ofAustria distributed among theInnkreis-Pyhrn motorway ,theTauern
motorway andthetwo-lane federal roads ("Gastarbeiter route ").The
following results ofthetraffic forecasts areofimportance forthe
estimates ofthe benefits :
-Goods transport inNW-SE road transit through Austria isexpected to
increase from about 2million tonnes in1975 toabout 9«3million tonnes
intheyear 2000 (both directions ).That corresponds toanaverage annua
% '* •-growth of6.4 Theoverall volume ofrelevant foreign trade is,onthe
other hand ,growing atanaverage rate of6.1$perannum .Thegreater
increase oflorry transport results from theabove-average increase in
foreign trade inthose commodity groups which arelargely transported
bylorry .
Lorry flows intransit through theAustrian Northwest -Southeast
corridor sireexpected toincrease from about I65 .OOOlorries in1975 to
some 682.000 intheyear 2000 (both directions ).That corresponds toan
average annual increase of5«9 Thelower growth rate incomparison
with thevolume ofgoods carried results from theexpectation that the
load perlorry will increase asaconsequence ofadecreasing proportion
ofempty runs ./
-Theaverage share oftheInnkreis-Pyhrn motorway inlorry transit
isestimated at71$oftotal flows through thecorridor .That
corresponds toanincrease from about 165,000 lorries ontheIKPA in
1980 tosome 484,000 lorries intheyear 2000 .
-Cartransit through theNW-SE corridor isexpected toincrease from
about 0,9million cars in1975 tosome 1.6million cars intheyear 2000
Theaverage share oftheIKPA isestimated at45 ofcorridor transit .
That corresponds toanincrease from about 470,000 cars in1980 tosome
720,000 cars intheyear 2000 .

AN .,EXTV
.),r-pact of]KPAontheexistin rand future transport infrastructure
I
1.Impact onother road links
1.1 .Onecan .imagine that theIKPA ,once finished naycontribute tore­
lieving theovercharge oftheexisting roads within thecorridor ,
thus helping tocreate amore rational repartition ofthetraffic
flows .
Inorder toappreciate theresults oftheIKPA itisnecessary first
toevaluate the project aspart ofthetotal network inwhich transit
through Austria takes place ,taking into account other road improve­
,ment schemes underway onthenetwork .Inthis context twoother
roadlinks areofprime importance :Nuremberg -Regensburg -Passau ,
which provide major relief totheNuremberg -Munich -Austrian
bordor route andtheimprovement ofroad links inYugoslavia .
By1985 "thedirect IKPA link-up Regensburg -Passau will becom­
pleted .The Spielfeld -Zagreb connection is likely toreach
motorway status atalater stage ,aswill theextension ofthe
road between Ljubljana andtheAustrian frontier ,
this background ithas tobenoted that according toAustrian
estimates theIKPA will becompleted only about I998 should noCommunity
aid begiven tospeed upthe construction .
1.2 .With regard tothesituation after completion ofboth theTauern
andtheInnkreis-Pyhrn motorways the following considerations
were taken into account intheroute split estimate :
Forgoods transport theIKPA will attract byfarthelargest share
oftraffic because itisthefastest ,shortest andcheapest through
road route toallSoutheast European areas beyond Split/Yugoslavia
and totheNear andMiddle East .TheTauern route will largely take
traffic toTrieste andtheAdriatic ports ofYugoslavia and toand
from theNorth Yugoslavian areas .
Taken asawhole thefollowing distribution ofgoods traffic esex­
pected :
Innkreis-Pyhrn motorway : 71%
Tauern motorway : 241°
"Gastarbeiter route " : 55°
TheTauern motorway isgenerally more attractive topassenger trans­
port than togoods transport because inacarthegreater altitude is
notconsidered adisadvantage andbecause theTauern route is
touristically more attractive .This factor isespecially relevant in
holiday traffic inthesummer months ,which largely determines the
volume oftotal passenger transit traffic .

Taken asawhole ,the following route distribution isexpected
for passenger transport :
Innkreis-Pyhrn motorway
Tauern motorway :
"Gastarbeiter route ":45%
45f>
10£
However ,itshould benoted that for passenger traffic this
breakdown issubject toalarge number ofimponderabilia (e.g.
tourist developments ).
\•2.Relation to other transport modes
.1.Rail transport
Incontrast toroad traffic ,there areingeneral few new construction
projects intherail sector .This isaconsequence ofthe loss oftrade
tothe road transport sector which the railways have suffered inmost
western countries .Hence ,from the overall viewpoint there isalack
both ofdemand for new line3 and ofthe financial resources for exe­
cuting new large-scale projects .Railway investment isconsequently
directed mainly towards improving the efficiency ofexisting lines
(e.g. byelectrification ).
The future development ofrailway infrastructure between the European
Community andSoutheast Europe /Near East must also beassessed against
this general background .There may begeneral ideas about the need to
construct new ,efficient -rail connections inthis area .However ,these
mostly donotrelate toprojects which will become relevant tothe
evaluati onsofthe IKPA project within theperiod under consideration .Fur­
thermore ,itisassumed that therail share oftraffic inNW-SE transit
will average out over the period under consideration atabout the level
itheld in1975 .Seen inthe short term this inanoptimistic assumption
forrail and apessimistic oneforlorry transport asthetransport
shares have evolved further infavour ofthe road since 1975 »But seen
over the entire period under consideration itmay beregarded asa
reasonable assumption . ' ' .
2.Inland waterway transport (-Danube ).
Although inland shipping iscertainly ofquantitative importance in
transit "traffic through Austria ,itplays .anegligible role inthe
assessment ofthe IKPA project .For onething ,themajor areas oforigin
ordestination for IKPA traffic in-Southeast Europe andthe Near East
are served either not atall ortoaminimal extent byinland waterway
transport ,another reason isthat theperformance characteristics ofin­
land waterway transport places itmainly .incompetition with rail and

-3-
maritime transport rather than with road haulage .This situation will
not besubstantially altered bythe completion ofthe Rhine-Main -
Lanube Canal .
2.3 -Maritime transport
Ingeneral there isnoclose competitive relationship between maritime
shipping and road transport .The major factors for the customer in
assessing transport performance -cost ,travel time andcapacity -differ
sowidely from shipping toroad transport that foragiven transport
«
requirement the oneisseldom apractical alternative tothe other .
Nevertheless ,therecent past showed arapid increase inimports bythe
Near East countries which led toadirect shift inthe distribution of
transport between maritime and road transport tothe advantage ofroad
transport .The major cause probably lies inthe shortcomings ofthe
Middle East ports .They have lednotonly toanincrease inroll-on /
roll-off transport but also toarise inthe share held bythrough road
transport .This development was assisted bythe fact that the rapid
increase inimports bythe Middle East countries occurred toacon­
siderable degree ingoods categories inwhich the share held byroad
transport ingenerally high over shorter distances oronbetter roads .
For maritime transport itmust beassumed that the developments inthe
Near East with regard toincreased imports and totransport distribution
were tosome extent exceptional phenomena .The growth inimports will
slow down and the extension ofport facilities inthese countries will
reduce thesupremacy ofroll-on/roll -offtransport over container and
conventional general cargo traffic ,aswell aslessen thenecessity for
road transport tocompensate for shortcomings inport capacity .
3.Changes intransport patterns and possible shifts inthetraffic ,re­
lating tocompetition between ports
The competition between theItalian and Yugoslav Adriatic ports
(southern ports )onthe onehand andtheports ofthe Hamburg -Antwerp
range (northern ports )ontheother will not beinfluenced bythe
construction ofthe IKPA motorway .
The stimulus forthis competition will mainly befound inchanges in
major economic patterns which in turn will lead toshifts inpoints
oforigin anddestination oftransit traffic .The following analysis
maygive anindication ofthedirection thecompetition islikely to

The analysis ofthe competitive situation inthe past between the
northern and southern ports revealed ,particulary forthe port of
Triest ,competitive advantages infreight and ship costs aswell asin
the cost oftransport toand from South Germany ,particularly ,Bavaria .
Inaddition there was thepossibility that thehinterland ofthe port of
Triest would extend northwards .These advantages were ,however ,seen
against disadvantages mainly todowith the number and frequency of
sailings ,the efficiency ofport facilities andthe speed ofclearance
atports and borders .Upto1975 "thecompetitive disadvantages
apparently outweighed the advantages ,fortransit transports viaTriest
diminished steadily intheperiod from 1971 to1975 (excluding
pipeline traffic ).This applied particularly totransit traffic
brought toand from Triest byroad ,which decreased bysome
140.000 tonnes (=27$)inthat period .
Inthe recent past there has,however ,appeared tobeaturn forthe
better inthe competitive situation ofthe southern ports .The major
causes are the sharp increase inimports hytheoil countries ofthe
Near and Middle East inthe wake oftheoilprice-rises andthe re­
opening ofthe Suez Canal .The advantage ofbeing geographically located
between the European industrialised countries and the rapidly developing
oilcountries oftheMiddle East isenjoyed equally byallthesouthern
ports ,i.e. byVenice andTriest inparticular ,butalso byGenoa , >
Livorno and Ravenna andthe Yugoslav ports ofRijeka and Koper .Yet not
all the ports -are equally equipped totranslate this geographical
advantage into increased port turnover :
Triest undoubtedly has the most favourable conditions .Installations for
handling container androll-on /roll-off traffic ,which hasincreased
considerably intraffic with the Near and Middle East ,have been built .
Three further roll-on/roll -offramps areplanned andwill beconstructed
totake roll-on/roll -offvessels upto20,000 oreven 30,000 dwtincase
ro-ro-traffic inthe Mediterranean should attain this order of
magnitude inthe future .Inaddition the port ofTriest 'sconnections
with itshinterland have been improved bythe Tauern motorway andthe
introduction ofcontainer freight trains from Nuremberg ,Stuttgart ,
, \
Munich and Salzburg .Further improvements are expected from the planned
Monte Croce Carnico tunnel (Plocken pass),which will shorten the
distance from Munich toTriest byabout 100 km.Finally ,theport of

-5-
Triest has succeeded inincreasing the *frequency ofregular sailings to
the Eastern Mediterranean .The first successes ofthe measures taken in
Tri6st and ofthe accelerated economic development inthe Near East are
reflected inthe development ofTriest' stransit "business in1977 .
Inthe Yugoslav ports considerable extension ofthefacilities is
planned ,particularly inRijeka .Rijeka hashitherto served asa
*transit port mainly for Austria ,Hungary and Czechoslovakia .Trans­
port toand from the Federal Republic ofGermany ismainly concentrated
onrail since its road connections with its hinterland have hitherto
been inadequate .Planned road construction measures will presumably not
becompleted until the mid-80s .