Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Cohesion and transport
Date: 1999-01-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU regional policy, common transport policy, economic and social cohesion, regional disparity, structural policy, sustainable development, sustainable mobility, transport infrastructure, transport network

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  14.01.1999 
COM(1998) 806  final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE  COMMISSION 

TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

COHESION AND TRANSPORT 

Contents 

1.  Introduction 

2.  Cohesion  and  Transport 

2.1  The reduction  of interregional  disparities  and  the  role of  transport 

2.2  Employment  and  transport 

3.  Policies to develop Europe's  regional accessibility and  cohesion 

3.1  The Union's  Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds 

3.2  Spatial  planning  at European  level: the ESDP 

3.3  Cohesion  and  the Common  Transport  Policy 

4.  The Way  Forward 

4.1  Competitiveness  and  Employment:  maximising the effectiveness  of the 

Community's  contribution 

4.2  Linking  up the Union  and  beyond: implementing  the  TEN 

4.3  Promoting  accessible, sustainable  transport  services 

Statistical  Annexes 

Infrastructure  and  transport  mode  indicators 

I. 
II.  The financing  of the European  Regional Development Fund  in the field  of 

transport 
A. The period  1994-99 
B. The period  1989-93 (Objective  1) 

III. The Financing  of trans-European  transport  infrastructure  by the TEN  Budget 

line 

IV.  The financing  of transport  infrastructure  by the Cohesion  Fund 

V.  The financing  of transport  infrastructure  by the  EIB 

1. Introduction 

1.  Transport  plays  a  key  role  in  efforts  to  reduce  regional  and  social  disparities  in  the 
European  Union  and  in  the  strengthening  of  its  economic  and  social  cohesion  as 
confirmed  in  the  Commission's  first  Cohesion  Report  (1996).  The  objective  of  this 
Communication  is to consider  ways  in which  the  Common  Transport  Policy  (CTP)  and 
EU structural policies  financed  notably by the Structural Funds  and  Cohesion Fund  can 
promote  a more balanced  and  sustainable development  of  the Union's  territory,  notably 
by  improving  the  situation  of  peripheral  or  weaker  regions  and  disadvantaged  social 
l 
groups  . 

2.  The  Common  Transport  Policy  aims  to  promote  efficient  and  sustainable  transport 
systems  that  meet  the  needs  of  both  people  and  business.  Policy  choices  which  set 
frameworks  at  the  Union  level  for  transport  infrastructure  development  and  service 
provision  clearly  have  implications  for  the relative  accessibility  of  regions  and for  their 
competitiveness  and  economic  development  prospects,  and  these  aspects  are  being 
integrated  into  the  CTP.  The  Community  also  contributes  to  the  establishment  and 
development  of  the  trans-European  transport  infrastructure  network,  including  the 
financial  support provided  by the TEN-transport  budget  line. At  the  same time,  through 
the  Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds,  as  well  as  through  the  European  Investment  Bank 
within its field  of  activity, the Union  is directly  involved  in co-financing  investments  in 
the provision  and modernisation  of transport  infrastructure  and  in measures  to ensure its 
most  effective  use  in  its  weaker  regions,  in  the  context  of  broadly  based  development 
programmes  to promote  regional  convergence  . These  contribute  in  a fundamental  way 
to the integration of European territory as a whole. 

3.  This  Communication  suggests  ways  in  which  efforts  in  the  two  policy  fields  can  be 
combined  to  make  a  more  effective  contribution  to  the  development  of  the  weaker 
regions  and the opportunities  available to disadvantaged  groups  and  hence to  improving 
economic  and  social  cohesion.  The  starting  point  is recognition  of  the need  for  greater 
coordination  in  the  future  development  of  the  CTP  and  EU  regional  policies, 
respectively,  beginning  from  the  stage  of  their  conception.  On  this  basis,  a number  of 
concrete  recommendations  are  made  for  the  development  of  the  European  transport 
system, focusing  on the achievement of the following  objectives: 

- 

improving 
employment; 

regional  economic  development  prospects,  competitiveness  and 

-  contributing  to  balanced  development 

in  the  Fifteen  and  creating  conditions 

favourable  to the integration of new Member States; 

Article  129B puts emphasis on the role of the TEN to make available to all EU-citizens the advantages generated by the internal market, especially 
by the provision of better links from the periphery to the centre of the EU-territory.  The Amsterdam Treaty strengthens the need for  special 
attention to be given to ultra-peripheral regions by EU policies. 

2 

This particularly concerns the weakest regions (Objective  1) where development is lagging behind and with the lowest levels of GDP per head, 
generally less than 75% of the Community average.  The Union also assists areas affected  by industrial decline (Objective  2 of the Structural 
Funds), rural problems areas (Objective  5b) and areas of very low population density (Objective  6). The latter, located mainly in the more 
prosperous Member States, have much lower needs in terms of infrastructure  provision. 

-  promoting  sustainable  mobility  and  ensuring  the  availability  of  transport  services  to 

those without the use of private cars and those with impaired  mobility. 

2. Cohesion  and  Transport 

2.1 The reduction of interregional  disparities and the role of transport 

4.  The  geographical  imbalances  within  the  European  Union  are  considerable,  with  a 
centralisation  of population  and economic  activity  in some areas  - accompanied  by high 
costs  in  terms  of  congestion,  pollution  and  urban  sprawl  - and  depopulation  in  others. 
Particular  accessibility  problems  are  encountered  by  the  Union's  peripheral  and  island 
regions. The First Cohesion Report confirmed  a strong association between  geographical 
peripherality  and  relatively  low  standards  of  living  as  measured  by  regional  GDP  per 
head. This is a relationship that holds across a Union composed  of countries  and  regions 
of quite different  historical  experience.  While the explanation  is undoubtedly  complex, 
it. seems clear that even in the age of information  technology, transport facilities  for  both 
passengers and freight  are often  critical for regional competitiveness  and prosperity. 

5.  The  long-term  link between  levels  of  economic  development  and  transport  is  generally 
transport  system  is  essential  for  economic 
uncontested.  An  efficient  European 
development  and  to  enable  citizens  of  the Union,  economic  operators  and  regional  and 
local  communities  to  derive  full  benefit  from  an  area  without  internal  frontiers. 
However,  certain  other factors  imply  that the link requires  close examination.  First,  for 
certain kinds of economic  activity, the transport of freight  accounts for  a relatively  small 
part of total production  costs  and accordingly  its influence  on the location  of  economic 
activity may not be decisive. 

6.  Secondly,  while  improved  transport  facilities  generally  make  a  less  developed  region 
more attractive for  investment by increasing access to inputs and to markets for  outputs, 
and by facilitating  business  travel,  there  are  instances  where  improvements  in  transport 
have  made  it  easier  for  firms  in  more  developed  regions  to  supply  goods  and  services 
directly  to poorer  ones,  with  the  potential  to  hinder  the  latter's  economic  development 
prospects  (although it is always difficult  to assess the level of development  which would 
have occurred  in the absence  of the  investment).  An extreme example  of  an area  which 
combines  a  relatively  high  transport  endowment  with  lagging  development  is  the 
Mezzogiorno,  while  the  opposite  could  be  said  to  apply  to  Ireland  or  the  Nordic 

7. 

4 
regions  . 
It is clear that investment in transport alone will not lead to the reduction of development 
disparities. The success of improvements  in transport depends  on complementary  efforts 
to ensure that  the disadvantaged  regional  economies  are in a better  position  to  seize the 
opportunities  created.  The  evidence  suggests  that  in  such  a context,  carefully  selected 
investments  in  transport  infrastructure  in  Greece,  Spain,  Ireland,  and  Portugal  have  had 
positive  long-run  effects  on  private  investment  and  economic  development  in  the 
regions, although there may be wide variations in final  impact. 

3 

In most cases transport costs represent less than 5% of the total production cost 

4 

In Italy, it has been argued that improved transport during the  1950s, and reduced delivery costs, between North and South 
removed a key factor  sheltering firms in the South from  northern  competition and helped  to accelerate  de-industrialisation. 

See, for example, LSE: "Study of the socio-economic  impact of projects financed  by the Cohesion Fund (1997).  Study 
financed  by the European  Commission. 

2.2 Employment and Transport 

8.  Transport  can  contribute  to  employment  in  a  number  of  ways.  First,  investment  in 
transport  infrastructure  contributes  to  employment  in  both  the  long-run  and  the  short-
run. Short-run  effects,  which arise during the construction  phase, are easiest  to measure. 
This is often  one of the attractions of public investment in transport infrastructure.  While 
the  short-term  boost  to  employment  is  welcome,  especially  in  high  unemployment 
regions, it is not the primary objective  of investment  in transport  infrastructure,  which is 
to  secure  long-run  gains  in  the  form  of  increased  competitiveness  and  the  creation  of 
durable employment.  It is the latter which are the main concern  of the Union's  cohesion 
policies.  This  means  that,  in  the  context  of  the  regional  programmes,  a  careful 
assessment  has  to  be  made  of  the  contribution  of 
to 
competitiveness  and  employment  compared  to  alternative  investments  in  fields  such  as 
SMEs, R&D and human resources. 

in  transport 

investment 

9.  Secondly, efficient  transport  systems are essential for  the operation  of the labour market 
to ensure  the  widest  access  of  workers  to employment.  Some  of  the  unemployment  in 
Europe derives from  the friction  in the labour market  which results from  poorly planned 
transport  systems  which can be an obstacle to the mobility  of unemployed  workers even 
over  comparatively  short  distances,  for  example,  within  a  single  conurbation. 
It  is 
increasingly  recognised  that  provision  for  non-private  car  users  is  fundamental  in  this 
respect,  as  well  as  having  important  efficiency  and  environmental  benefits.  The  key 
concern here is often  not the provision  of new transport  infrastructure,  but the provision 
of transport services (particularly public transport). 

3. Policies to develop Europe's  regional accessibility  and  cohesion 

3.1  The Union's Structural and Cohesion Funds and the EIB 

10.  Improving economic  and  social cohesion  is one of the Union's  central  objectives.  Since 
the  reform  of  the  Structural  Funds  in  1988, it  has  led  to  a considerable  increase  in  the 
allocation  of  Union  resources  for  the  promotion  of  investment  in  capital  and  human 
resources in order to eliminate the development gaps. The statistical evidence shows that 
the  weakest  regions  of  the  Union  - eligible  under  Objective  1 of  the  Structural  Funds  -
have considerable investment deficits  compared to the rest of the Union, with major  gaps 
in  economic  infrastructure,  including  transport  (see  annex).  Infrastructure  deficits  also 
exist in other assisted regions situated  in the more prosperous Member  States, especially 
in the more remote and peripheral regions. 

11.  Union  support  has  attempted  to redress  the gaps,  situating  its  efforts  in broad,  strategic 
development  programmes  aimed  at  accelerating  investment  in  key  infrastructures, 
supporting  improvements  in  human  resources  and  improving  the  general  business 
environment.  Since  1989,  actions  under  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund 
(ERDF) - the largest of the four  Structural Funds and the major  source of Union  finance 
for  infrastructure  investment  - have  been  coordinated  with  those  under  the  other  Funds 
in the realisation of the development programmes. 

12.  Since  1993, the Structural Funds have been complemented  by the Cohesion Fund, which 
supports investment projects  in trans-European  transport networks, as well as investment 
in environmental  infrastructure. 

13.  The  ERDF  participates  in  the  financing  of  investment  in  transport  infrastructure  in  the 
least  developed  regions  designated  as  Objective  1 (where,  as  a  general  rule,  GDP  per 
capita  is  below  75% of  the EU  average). This  has  included  a direct  contribution  to the 
development of the TEN. 

14.  The  strategic  plans  for  the  assisted  regions, known  as Community  Support  Frameworks 
(CSFs),  lay  down  the  priorities  and  the  guidelines  for  the  investments  in  transport 
infrastructures.  Outside  the  CSFs, certain  programmes  organised  at  the. initiative  of  the 
Commission,  such  as  REGIS  (for  outermost  regions)  or  INTERREG  (cross-border  co 
operation), also support investment in transport  infrastructure. 

15.  During  the  first  programming  period,  1989-1993,  in  Objective  1  CSFs  the  Structural 
Funds  (ERDF)  devoted  some  ECU  8  billion  (1994  prices)  to  investment  in  transport 
infrastructure  (almost  50%  of  a  total  of  ECU  16.2  billion  for  investment  in  basic 
infrastructure).  For  the  present  period,  1994-99,  some  ECU  13.7  billion  has  been 
provided  for  investment  in  transport  in  the  Objective  1 regions.  Of  this,  some  70%  is 
intended  for  roads  and  motorways,  16% for railways, 3% for  airports,  5% for  ports  and 
4.5%  for  other  transport-related  actions  (developing  intermodal  transport,  public 
transport as well as transport studies). 

16.  With  regard  to the  Cohesion  Fund,  some 50% of  the finance  available  support  projects 
to  improve  transport  infrastructure,  with  an  exclusive  focus  on  the  TEN  in  accordance 
with the terms of the Treaty.  The Cohesion Fund presently  intervenes  in four  countries, 
(Greece, Spain, Ireland  and  Portugal), investing  more than  ECU 5 billion between  1993 
and  1999 to develop  important  TEN  links 
- some 69% for  roads  and  motorways, 23% 
for railways, 4,4% for airports, 3% for ports and 0,5% for VTS. 

17.  As result of the effort  since the  1989, the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund have been 
a major  source of finance  in the development  of Europe's  transport  infrastructure,  while 
contributing to improving the accessibility of its peripheral  and remote regions, although 
catching  up will remain  a long-term challenge  (see  statistical  tables).  At the  same time, 
it  is recognised  that  the  transport  needs  of the  weaker  regions  of  the  Union  are  not  the 
same  as  those  of  the  stronger  regions;  it  is  neither  necessary  nor  desirable  to  seek  to 
reproduce  the  transport  systems  of  the  latter  in  the  former,  for  example,  with  regard  to 
the  balance  between  the different  modes. The  reduction  of  unfavourable  environmental 
impacts  of  transport  and  the  promotion  of  a  shift  towards  the  more  environmentally 
friendly  modes of transport must also be encouraged in the peripheral  and remote areas. 

18.  The EIB also contributes through its lending to the fulfilment  of the economic  and social 
cohesion objectives  of the Community. Regional development  is one of the top priorities 
of the EIB  since  its inception. Two thirds of the Bank's  lending  are directed  to regional 
objectives,  of  which a large part  - about  one third -  to financing  transport  infrastructure 
projects  (see  Annex  IV).  EIB  action  is  carried  out  in  close  co-ordination  with  the 
Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds  and  TEN budget.  In  particular  one  quarter  of  the  EIB's 
lending  for  regional  development  projects  includes  co-financing  operations  with  the 
Structural Funds. 

6  The Cohesion  Fund and the ERDF are helping to develop TEN priority projects  with regard to the Greek motorways, the 
Portugal/Spain intermodal  links, the Ireland/UK/Benelux road corridor, HST South, the Cork/Dublin/Belfast rail link. 

3.2 Spatial planning at European level: the ESDP 

19.  The  regional  policies  of  the  Union  contribute  to  overcoming  the  problem  of  uneven 
development  in Europe. Additional  and complementary  efforts  are, however, required at 
the  transnational  level  in  order  to  promote  a  more  balanced  development  across  the 
territory  as a whole. This applies in particular to transport, where the history of  separate 
national  development  has  resulted  in  a  network  which  has  many  inconsistencies  at 
European  level,  involving  incompatible  systems  and  technical  standards  as  well  as 
duplication  and waste. The need for  a more coherent transport  system at European  level, 
which  simultaneously  promotes  more balanced  use of  the territory,  has been  recognised 
by the Union in the Treaty itself  with regard to trans-European networks, as discussed in 
section 3.3 below. 

20.  Transport  is also an essential element  in the European  Spatial Development  Perspective 
(ESDP).  The  first  official  draft  was  endorsed  at  the  Noordwijk  informal  Ministers 
meeting in June  1997 as a reference  document setting up guidelines for  an integrated and 
common  approach  to  spatial  planning  at  EU  level.  The  ESDP  reinforces  Community 
transport  and  cohesion  goals  by  identifying  the  need  for  improved  accessibility  and  a 
more  efficient  and  sustainable  use  of  infrastructure,  and  providing  support  for  the 
development of the Community's weaker regions. 

21.  Cooperation  between  all  levels  of  government  and  the  private  sector  is  regarded  as 
essential  to  maximising  the  ESDP's  usefulness  as  a  tool  for  promoting  development. 
The strategic  approach  to spatial  development  proposed  by the ESDP seeks to  influence 
the  long-term  future.  To  be  effective,  all  the  relevant  actors  should  be  involved  in 
producing a coherent joint vision for the development of Europe's  territory. 

3.3  Cohesion  and  the Common  Transport  Policy 

22.  The  evolution  of  the  Common  Transport  Policy  (CTP)  demonstrates  an  increasing 
appreciation  of  its  role  in  regional  and  social  development  and  in  European  cohesion. 
The  CTP  was  initially  driven  by  the recognition  of  the  fundamental  role  of  transport  in 
the achievement  of the European  Union's  internal  market  providing  for  the free-flow  of 
goods and  services, labour  and capital  across the national frontiers  between  the Member 
States.  With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, additional emphasis was placed on the 
development  of  a  trans-European  Transport  Network  (TEN),  on  contributing  to 
economic  and  social  cohesion  and  on  the  sustainability  of  transport  systems  in 
environmental  terms.  The  CTP  can  contribute  to  reducing  regional  disparities  and 
improving  economic  and  social  cohesion  in  a  number  of  ways,  creating  many 
opportunities  for  establishing  positive  synergies  with  policies  financed  under  the 
Structural and Cohesion Funds, as discussed in the following  sections. 

The trans-European  Transport Network  (TEN) Policy 

23.  An integrated Europe with a single market requires a comprehensive  network of  modern 
transport links across its territory, connecting all of its major  population centres, and this 
is reflected  in  the  TEN  chapter  of  the  Treaty.  The  Treaty  also  highlights  the  particular 
importance  of  such  trans-European  networks  in  transport  in  order  'to  link  island, 
landlocked  and  peripheral  regions  with  the  central  regions  and  to  the  rest  of  the 
Community'. The Union supports projects of common interest by cofinancing  feasibility 
studies  and  by  providing  loan  guarantee  fee  subsidies,  interest  subsidies  and,  under 

certain  circumstances,  direct  grants.  Some ECU  1.8  billion  is  planned  for  TEN  for  the 
period  1995-1999. 

24.  The Structural  and  Cohesion Funds have also represented  a major  source  of funding  for 
the  development  of  the  TEN.  During  the  current  programming  period,  1994-1999,  the 
ERDF will have contributed  some ECU 3.5 billion  and the Cohesion Fund  some ECU 5 
billion,  to  the  realisation  of  TEN  projects.  During  the  period  1994-1997,  the  EIB 
concluded  finance  contracts  for  loans  for  TEN  transport  projects  totalling  ECU  14.2 
billion. Meanwhile at the end of  1997 the European Investment Fund had provided  since 
the beginning  of  its  activity  in  1994 ECU  510  million  in guarantees  for  TEN  transport 
projects.  In its Agenda  2000 proposals  to establish  a framework  for  the future  financing 
of the Union's  policies, the Commission  stressed  that  'the continued  development  of the 
trans-European  networks  will  serve  to  enhance  both  sustainable  development  and  the 
internal cohesion of the Union by tying regions closer together'  . 

25.  In  1996,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  adopted  Community  guidelines  for 
the development of the Trans-European  Transport Network.  These guidelines define  the 
network  so  that  it  covers  the  whole  territory  of  the  Union.  It  should  improve 
accessibility, with a focus on the links between island, landlocked  and peripheral  regions 
and  the  main  centres,  as  the  Treaty  requires,  as  well  as  connecting  the  major 
conurbations  and  regions  of  the  Community.  One  of  the  priorities  is  the  integration  of 
environmental concerns into the design and development of the network. In response to a 
mandate  in  the  TEN  guidelines,  the  Commission  is  currently  examining  methodologies 
for the strategic environmental assessment of the TEN. 

26.  Needs  in  peripheral  regions  have  been  taken  into  account  in  designing  the  Trans-
European  Network.  In  view  of  the  key  role  played  by  air  transport  in  remote  regions, 
particular  attention  has  been  given  to  smaller  airports  located  on  islands, notably  those 
dependent  on  tourism,  and  in  remote  areas  in  Nordic  and  southern  Member  States. 
Many  of  the  peripheral  regions  have  long  coastlines  and  islands  so  that  incorporating 
maritime  transport  into an overall  integrated  transport network  is particularly  important. 
A  weakness,  however,  has  often  been  the  lack  of  efficiency  in  the  ports  where  the 
intermodal  connections take place.  A proposal to reinforce  the role of ports  in the TEN 
has now been put to the Council and the European  Parliament. 

27.  The completion  of  TEN  in transport  clearly represents  a necessary  condition  for  spatial 
integration  and  raising  accessibility.  However,  studies  confirm  that  to  ensure  the 
maximum  benefit  from  the  TEN  their  development  must  be  integrated  into  a  broader 

o 

strategy  .  Among the conclusions reached on their effects  are: 

- 

- 

the medium-sized  cities in centrally  located  regions and located  on the TEN nodes or 
corridors  tend  to obtain  the major  accessibility  gains. Many  cities  on  high-speed  rail 
and  motorways  networks  can  expect  a  significant  improvement  in  their  physical 
accessibility; 

the  main  metropolitan  areas  are  also  major  beneficiaries  from  TEN  implementation 
but  to  a  lesser  extent  than  the  medium-sized  cities.  This  reflects  the  already  well 
developed transport infrastructure  in those regions. 

7 

European Commission (1997):  'Agenda 2000 : for a stronger and wider  Union' 

Accessibility Study on the Peripheral Regions of the Community Territory: ICON indicator  1995 & 2020, MCR1T 
Barcelona, November  1994 

- 

for  peripheral  and  remote  regions  to  gain  the  maximum  benefit  from  the  TEN, 
complementary  investment in secondary networks will be required. 

28.  Such  issues  have  been  a  major  preoccupation  in  the  preparation  of  integrated  EU 
regional programmes  under  the  Structural Funds  which  have  sought  to combine  support 
for  TEN  projects  falling  on  the  territory  of  the  assisted  regions  with  support  for 
investment in the local networks. 

Public transport 

29.  Local  and regional passenger transport has an important  role in the efficient  operation of 
the  labour  market  and  in  economic  development  as  well  as  a  service  to  consumers.  In 
Europe's urban areas, public transport can help to achieve the Community's  environmental 
objectives  for  example with respect  to noise and air quality  and to improve quality of  life 
and  social  cohesion  by  reducing  the  isolation  of  deprived  residential  districts  and 
improving the accessibility  of city centres in need  of regeneration. Public  transport  is also 
particularly  important  to  those  in  rural  areas  without  access  to private  cars.  In  addition, 
efforts  to make public transport more user-friendly  help to widen the options open to those 
with impaired mobility. 

30.  Public  transport  therefore  has  a  complementary  role  in  the  Union's  general  efforts  to 
combat social exclusion. Estimates suggest that up to 40% of European  households do not 
have access to private cars, so that the availability of public transport systems is a necessity 
for  the  mobility  of  a  large  section  of  the  population,  including  those  with  impaired 
mobility,  and  for  their  access  to  employment  opportunities.' Against  this  background, 
investments  in  public  transport  can  contribute  to  different  policy  objectives  at  the  same 
time  (e.g.  improved  mobility  in  particular  for  less  favoured  social  groups,  reduction  of 
congestion  and  of  C02  emissions)  and  should  be  given  more  attention,  supported  where 
appropriate by the Structural Funds. 

31.  The  Communication  and  Action  Programme  on  the  Citizens'  Network  underlines  the 
importance  of  alternatives  to the use  of  the private  car  and,  more  generally,  to  ways and 
means to fulfil  the potential of public passenger transport in Europe. 

Public services 

32.  The  liberalisation  of  the  European  Union's  transport  sector  under  the  CTP,  to  create  an 
open and competitive  market, has been  embedded  in a legislative  framework  which  seeks 
to provide  the conditions  which  will  ensure  the  availability  and  affordability  of  transport 
services  for  all  European  citizens.  The  liberalisation  of  services  in  the  absence  of  an 
appropriate regulatory framework  could result, firstly,  in the under-provision  of services to 
less-densely  populated,  rural  or  remote  regions  and,  secondly,  in  the  establishment  of  a 
system of preferences  between transport modes which is inefficient  and unsustainable over 
the longer-term.  There  is thus the danger that the efforts  of  the Union  under  its  regional 
programmes  to develop  new  opportunities for  such  areas  could  be  seriously  undermined. 
The Union has explicitly recognised  in the new Treaty agreed in Amsterdam in June  1997 
that  market  forces  alone  are  not  always  sufficient  by  the  inclusion  of  a  reference  to  the 
importance  of  services  of  general  economic  interest  'in  promoting  social  and  territorial 
cohesion'. 

33.  From  a  cohesion  point  of  view,  an  important  consideration  is  to  ensure  that  the  CTP 
creates  frameworks  that  enable  the  maintenance  of  transport  services,  which  are  less 
profitable  in  purely  financial  terms,  but  have  a  high  socio-economic  value.  Where 

transport  services  are  unable  to  recover  the  operating  costs,  at  least  in  the  short-term, 
public service contracts may be necessary for regional development or social reasons. 

34.  At the  same  time,  there  is  a need  for  caution  in the definition  of  public  services  and  the 
allocation of public service contracts.  Such contracts must be granted through procedures, 
which  are transparent,  objective,  and,  from  the point  of  view  of  the  allocating  authority, 
neutral.  In  some  instances,  the  granting  of  unlimited  and  exclusive  rights  to  individual 
operators in the land transport sector has not been a guarantee of service quality. 

35.  EU  frameworks  for  public  service  contracts  currently  in  operation  include  those  in  the 
maritime  sector  in  relation  to  the  provision  of  often  less  profitable  services  for  island 
communities.  Member  States  are permitted  to link the granting of  cabotage rights to the 
establishment  of  public  service  rules,  which  oblige  the  shipping  companies  concerned  to 
operate regular  services  to, from  or between  islands  . In  the  air transport  sector  Member 
States  may  impose  public  service  obligations  to  guarantee  provision  on  routes  serving 
peripheral or less-developed  regions or on other non-profitable  routes considered  vital  for 
the  economic  development  of  the  region  concerned 
.  Public  service  obligations  have 
already been applied on more than 120 individual routes. 

Fair and efficient pricing  of Transport 

36.  An  important  issue  is  that  of  the  pricing  of  transport  services.  To  help  to  ensure  an 
efficient  allocation  of resources, the prices paid  should reflect  the true cost  of  resources 
consumed.  These  should  not  just  concern  the  private  costs  involved  but  include  the 
external costs associated with environmental damage from transport, losses due to  traffic 
congestion,  accidents,  etc.  (the  so-called  externalities).  This  is  recognised  in  the 
Commission's  White  Paper  on  transport  infrastructure  charging,  which  advocates  that 
infrastructure  charges  should normally reflect  marginal costs at the point  of use and that 
the external  costs  of  transport  should  be  internalised  through  appropriate  combinations 
of  taxes  and  tolls.  This  is  seen  as  the  best  way  to  ensure  efficient  transport  and 
sustainable mobility  over the longer term for  the benefit  of all regions and economies of 
the Union. 

37.  The more efficient  use of  transport  will lead  to reduced  transport  costs  for  the  whole of 
society and to reduced costs for  some producers.  However,  in some instances, transport 
costs  may  rise.  This  may  particularly  be  the  case  for  producers  located  in  peripheral 
areas,  dependent  on  a  single  mode  of  transport,  and  selling  over  long  distances  to  the 
major  markets at the centre in competition with local producers. Some peripheral  regions 
may therefore  wish to take steps to promote the competitive position  of  such producers, 
by helping them to adapt production  structures in favour  of products with higher value to 
weight  ratios  and  by  improving  the  quality  and  diversity  of  major  transport  systems, 
supported  where  appropriate  by  the  Structural  Funds  and  Cohesion  Fund.  In  general 
,  suggests  that 
however,  the  White  Paper,  which  takes  account  of  Cohesion  issues 
where there  is little infrastructure  and  congestion  in rural  or peripheral  regions,  charges 
reflecting  these  costs  would  be  low,  so there  is no  reason  to  believe  that,  as  a  general 

Council Regulation 3577/92. In addition, the guidelines on state aid to maritime transport allow, under certain conditions, direct 
assistance to shipowners to cover operating losses incurred from public service obligations concerning scheduled services to 
ports serving peripheral regions of the EU or routes with low'traffic  density considered vital for the economic development of 
these regions. 
Council Regulation 2408/92 
The White paper recognises that the effect  of changes in transport prices on peripheral or less developed areas needs to be 
examined. Such charges  would be differentiated  so that regions with less congestion  and pollution  would be less affected.  In 
those instances where there would be concern  that higher transport user charges would impede the economic development of 
peripheral or less developed areas, there may be a case for flexible  and gradual implementation  of price  reforms. 

10 

rule,  peripheral  and  less  developed  regions  would  be  adversely  affected  by  the 
application  of  a  marginal  cost  charging  scheme.  Moreover,  as  highlighted  above,  the 
system  is  likely  to  generate  significant  overall  benefits,  which  would  also  accrue  to 
economically  less developed regions. 

Transport System Integration  and Intermodality 

38.  A key characteristic  of a successful  transport network resides in  its capacity  to  combine 
different 
transport  modes  into  a  coherent  transport  system  for  the  movement  of 
passengers  and  freight.  The geographical  situation  of most of  the poorer  Member  States 
is such that more than one mode of transport  is often  needed  to ensure  connections  with 
the  centre especially  for  the movement  of freight.  In  the  Communication  on  Intermodal 

12 

Freight Transport  (1997) 
, the Commission identified  opportunities  for the development 
of  intermodal  transport  which  could  offer  new  choices  to  operators  and  shippers  and 
greater  cost-effectiveness  over  long distances. Many  of  the bottlenecks  identified  in the 
transport  system  are  of  direct  relevance  to  the  peripheral  regions  of  the  Union.  As  a 
further  measure  to  promote  intermodal  transport,  the  Commission  has  adopted  a 

13 

proposal to integrate seaports, inland ports and intermodal terminals in the TEN 

. 

Public and Private  Financing 

39.  There  is  a  long  tradition  of  public  financing  of  transport  infrastructure  and  related 
services,  although  experience  differs  from  Member  State  to  Member  State.  Over  time, 
however, there has been a tendency for more involvement by the private sector  reflecting 
a  desire  to  introduce  more  market  discipline,  sometimes  through  privatisation,  and  to 
reduce pressure on public budgets. By mixing public with private financial  resources and 
management,  the viability of projects  can often  be enhanced. Private  sector  participation 
will  be  determined  by  the  prospect  of  suitable  revenues  within  acceptable  limits  of 
uncertainty,  and  the  allocation  of  risks  between  public  and  private  sector  has  to  be 
carefully  considered 

. 

40.  Transport  infrastructures  co-financed  under  the  Structural  Fund  and  Cohesion  Funds 
have  sought  to  maximise  the  use  of  alternatives  to  grants,  including  the  loans  of  the 
European  Investment  Bank,  in  order  to  increase  the  leverage  achieved  by  scarce  Union 
resources, and  to raise efficiency.  Where projects  are non-revenue  generating,  or where 
the  returns  accrue  over  the  long-term,  conditions,  which  are  often  found  in  the  least 
developed  regions,  there  may  be  little  alternative  to  classical  grant  finance.  The 
Commission,  with  the  EIB,  the EIF and  others,  is  examining  how  to  extend  the  use  of 
private finance  in all areas including in those with limited experience of such  financing. 

Transport, environment  and cohesion 

41.  Protecting the environment is a common objective of transport and cohesion -  as well as 
many  other  -  policies  at  the  EU  level.  For  EU  cohesion  policies,  the  environment  is 
recognised  both  as  a  factor  in  the  attraction  of  new  investment  to  the  regions  and  a 
source of new opportunities via, for example, the development of clean technologies.  In 
the  implementation  of  EU  structural  policies,  the  environmental  impact  of  projects, 

12 

13 

14 

Com (97,) 243 final  of 29.5.97 
Com (97) 681 
e.g. the private company builds the infrastructure  and the state (or the user, or shared) pays the usage of the  infrastructure, 
proportionally to the volume of traffic  of the road. 

11 

including  those  in  the  transport  sector,  must  be  assessed  in  accordance  with  the 
principles of sustainable development and in accordance with Community  law. 

42.  Meanwhile,  Community  transport  policy  has  increasingly  emphasised  sustainable 
mobility, which is consistent with the general objective  of cohesion  as successive  Green, 
and  White  papers  have  pointed  out 
.  Most  of  the  environmental  pollution  and 
congestion  problems  occur  in  the  core European  regions  - although  many  of  the  urban 
centres  and  tourist  areas  in  the  poorer  regions  also  have  considerable  problems.  The 
peripheral  and less-developed regions generally enjoy  unique environmental  advantages, 
which  could  be  maintained  provided  that  appropriate  steps  are  taken  now,  including 
improvement in public transport and traffic  management  together with carefully  selected 
infrastructure  development. 

43.  Road  traffic  volumes  for  both passengers  and  freight  have  increased  enormously  in  the 
last  25  years  and  are  still  growing 
. Rail, 
inland  waterway  and  maritime  transport  tend  to  have  relatively  lower  levels  of 
emissions.  Emissions  from  air transport  are growing fast  along  with  demand.  Limiting 
the  environmental  impacts  could  therefore  be  assisted  by  a  modal  shift  to  more 
environment-friendly  forms  of  transport.  This  will  require  a  combination  of  different 
policy measures as discussed in Section 4 below. 

. This  has been  a major  source  of  pollution 

44.  A particular  priority  is to make the most  effective  use  of  existing  capacities  throughout 
the  transport  system,  which  is  necessary  not  only  for  efficiency  reasons  but  also  to 
ensure environmental  sustainability. 

The external dimension: relations with the CEEC and Mediterranean  countries 

45.  The enlargement  of the Union to the east is one of its top policy priorities, governing its 
activities  in  all  fields.  Meanwhile,  the  Union  is  developing  new  relationships  with 
neighbouring  countries  notably  on  the  southern  rim  of  the  Mediterranean.  With  the 
development  of  closer  external  links,  new  challenges  arise  for  improving  territorial 
integration and economic and social cohesion. 

46.  In  the  run-up  to  enlargement,  and  beyond,  a  significant  increase  in  traffic  volumes 
between  the  new  member  countries  and  the  Union  is  expected.  For  the  CEECs 
themselves,  the  challenge  is  one  of  integrating  them  successfully  into  the  Union  at  the 
beginning  of  the  next  century,  achieving  an  appropriate  balance  between  transport 

European  Commission  (1996): A strategy for revitalising the Community's  railways. White paper. COM(96)421; 
European Commission (1997): Communication  on Trans-European  Rail Freight Freeways, COM(97)242; 
European Commission (1997): Communication  on "Intermodality and intermodal freight  transport in the European  Union -
A system's approach to freight  transport - Strategies and actions to enhance efficiency,  services and  sustainability", 
COM(97)243; 
European  Commission  (1995): Communication  on "The Development of Short Sea Shipping in Europe: Prospects and 
Challenges", COM(95)317; 
European Commission  (1995): "Towards fair and efficient  pricing in transport policy- options for internalising the external 
cost of transport in the European  Union" - Green Paper, COM(95)691; 
European  Commission  (1997): Green Paper on sea ports and maritime infrastructure,  COM(97)678. 
Goods transport has grown by 70% and passenger transport by 110% since  1970. This was the result of the high 
development of road haulage (+156%) while rail-cargo decreased by 22% between  1970 and  1995. While the share of road 
in the modal split grew from  48.5% in  1970 to 72.3% in  1995, and is still growing, rail haulage's percentage share fell  from 
31.8 to 14.4% in the same period  [source: EUROSTAT, EU-Transport  in figures, N°2/1997]. 

It is estimated that transport accounts for 25% of the EU-output of carbon dioxide, which is the most important producer of 
the "greenhouse" gases (car-traffic  accounts for  12-13%). These emissions grew 76% in the eighties and are expected to 
grow  by 25% in the present decade. But emissions of other gases and particles such as nitric-oxide are also polluters 
(transport contributes 58% of the total emissions). 

12 

modes.  For the CEECs, as well as for the neighbouring countries on the southern rim of 
the Mediterranean,  transport will be a key factor  in facilitating  the development  of  trade 
relationships. 

47.  With  regard  to future  links  with  the CEECs, the basic  orientations  for  the  development 
of  a  pan-European  transport  network  were  the  subject  of  a  joint  understanding  at 
Helsinki  (at  the  third  Pan-European  Transport  Conference  in  1997),  establishing  10 
priority transport  corridors  linking East and West  and improving  the connections  within 
the  CEEC  region.  With  enlargement,  these  corridors  will  form  the  basis  of  expanded 
TEN for  which  the  preparatory  work  is being  undertaken  in  the  context  of  the  ongoing 
Transport  Infrastructure  Needs  Assessment  ('TINA').  An  interim  report  setting  out  an 
outline  network  has  now  been  completed.  Meanwhile,  under  structural  policies,  the 
Commission  has  put  forward  to  the  Council  and  parliament  a  proposal  for  a  new 
instrument  in  support  of  structural  assistance in the new Member  States  during the pre-
accession  period  (ISPA)  concentrating  resources  on  infrastructure  projects  -  and  by 
analogy  with  the  Cohesion  Fund  - in transport  and  the  environment,  during  this  phase. 
The contribution  under ISPA will provide support for transport infrastructure  to promote 
sustainable  mobility.  It  will  include  interconnection  and  interoperability  of  national 
networks  and.the  TEN  as  well  as  improving  the  access  to  these  networks.  The  new 
transport projects  would be designed to help to ease the full  integration  of new  members 
into the Union early  in the next century  and to underpin  the development  of  competitive 
market  economies.  It  will  also  assist  the  candidate  countries  to  gain  familiarity  with 
Union procedures under structural policies. 

4. 

The Way Forward 

4.1  Competitiveness  and  Employment:  maximising 

the  effectiveness  of 

the 

Community's  contribution 

48.  The Community's  structural policies  will continue to focus  on promoting  economic  and 
social cohesion,  with  sustainable transport  systems  and  services  as one of the  important 
components.  Business  must  have  access  to  markets,  supplies  and  a  well-trained 
workforce,  and people need good passenger transport services for access to jobs, training 
and  social  activities.  However,  as  set  out  in  the  Commission's  proposed  new  ERDF 
Regulation,  the  emphasis  on  transport  will  vary:  investment  in  major  transport  projects 
in  regions  where  there  are  significant  gaps  in  infrastructure  (especially  cohesion 
countries,  Objective  1  and  peripheral  regions)  will  continue.  But  transport  spending 
from  the  Structural  Funds  in  other  regions  is  likely  to  focus  more  on  small 
infrastructures  linked  to business development  and to some upgrading  and  improvement 
in the use of existing facilities.  In all cases, the priority  attached to developing  transport 
systems  with  the  help  of  the  Structural  Funds  should  be  evaluated  according  to  their 
the  creation  of  durable 
impact  on  growth,  competitiveness,  environment  and 
employment  opportunities  in the context  of integrated  development  programmes  for  the 
regions concerned. In this context, initiatives will be undertaken under the ERDF and the 
Cohesion Funds in EUR(15)  to promote an increased proportion  of  investments  in rail, 
combined  transport,  ports,  maritime  transport  and  public  transport  by  taking  better 
account  of  environmental  and  Common  Transport  Policy  objectives  and  thereby 
improving  the  modal  split reflected  by current  spending  patterns18.  In  the  evaluation  of 
proposals for regional development  programmes by the Member States, the  Commission 
will further  promote intermodal transport as well as urban public transport. 

1! 

see statistical annexes 

13 

49.  The overall economic  and social return over the long-term - giving appropriate  weight to 
the employment  effects  - will continue to condition the Commission's  support  for  large-
scale  projects  under  the  Structural  Funds  and  in  the  appraisal  of  projects  under  the 
Cohesion  Fund.  To  ensure  the  most  effective  results,  the  regional  transport  priorities 
should  be  determined  in  partnership  with  the  relevant  actors  at  the  regional  and  local 
level. 

50.  More  can  be  done  to  improve  the  effectiveness  of  Community  instruments  and  the 

Commission will seek to: 

• 

• 

• 

strengthen  the  leverage  effect  of  EU  grants  under  the  Structural  and  Cohesion 
Funds  and  the  TEN  budget,  by  promoting  the  use  of  forms  of  finance  other  than 
grants  encouraging  greater  participation  of  private  and  loan  finance.  Innovative 
ways  of  organising  public  support  for  transport  should  be  further  examined, 
building  on  work  already  undertaken  by  the  High-Level  Group  on  Public-Private 
Partnerships  in the financing  of TEN projects,  which  examined  how  Public-Private 
Partnerships  (PPPs)  could  accelerate  the  implementation  of'  the  TEN.  The 
Commission  set  out  how  those  recommendations  will  be  implemented  in  a 
Communication 

, which was endorsed by the Council in October  1997; 

promote a balanced approach to transport infrastructure  priorities  and properly  take 
into  account  trans-regional  effects.  Roundtables  to examine  this  will  be  organised 
beginning  in  1999  and  will  be  made  up  of  European,  national  and  regional 
participants.  This  exercise  could  provide  information  useful  to  the  preparation  of 
the  next  generation  of  the  regional  development  strategies  supported  by  the 
Structural  Funds  and  will  take  account  of  the  work  taking  place  on  the  European 
Spatial  Development  Perspective.  In  this  context,  the  ESDP  has  emphasised 
intermodality  and  combined 
the 
opportunities offered  by European ports for coastal and short sea shipping; 

transport  systems  as  well  as  recognised 

as  envisaged  in  Agenda  2000,  improve  co-ordination  between  the  Community 
budget  instruments,  both  for  the  EU15  (the  Cohesion  Fund,  the  Structural  Funds 
and  the TEN transport budget  line) and, in the wider European  and  extra-European 
context  (PHARE,  TACIS,  MEDA,  ISPA)  as  well  as  with  other  EU  instruments 
financing  transport infrastructure  in the Fifteen  and abroad  (EIB and EIF). 

4.2 

Linking up the Union: implementing the TEN 

51.  Developing  a  transport  network  that  supports  the  cohesion  of  the  Union  with  special 
emphasis  on remote and peripheral  regions  will remain  a priority  throughout  the Union, 
not  only  for  the  Structural  Funds  and  Cohesion  Fund  but  also  for  the  TEN-transport 
budget line itself, which has no geographic limitations. 

The  effectiveness  with  which  peripheral  regions  are  linked  into  the  TEN  network 
depends not only on investment in the region concerned, but also in adjacent  regions and 
countries,  through  which  effective  links  must  pass.  By  its  nature,  the  TEN-transport 
budget  line  is  designed  to  take  account  of  these  types  of  situation,  by  helping  in  the 
financing  of infrastructure  in one country where some of the main benefits  accrue to the 
Community  as a whole. This  will be a priority  for  the next financing  period,  2000-2006 
for  which the Commission  envisages  Community  TEN budget needs  of around  5 billion 
ECU. 

19  COM (97) 453 of  10 September  1997 

14 

52.  In order to ensure the most effective  use of infrastructure,  special efforts  will be devoted 
to  ensuring  that  transport  infrastructure  systems  are  compatible  with  one  another  (or 
'inter-operable')  and  that  different  modes  are  integrated.  Particular  attention  will  be 
placed  on  the  "intelligent"  use  of  infrastructure  and  on  the  links  between  the  long 
distance  TEN  and  local,  secondary  networks.  These  issues  will  be  priorities  for  the 
report on the revision of the TEN guidelines due next year. 

For  island  and  many  peripheral  regions, ports  represent  an essential  element  of  a multi 
modal network,  and the Commission's  proposal  to revise the TEN  Guidelines,  currently 
before  Council and EP, would integrate ports more fully  into the TEN-transport  network. 

Extending the TEN in an enlarged Union 

53.  In its Agenda 2000 document, the Commission recognises  that the successful  integration 
of the new Member States into the Union's single market will depend in large part on the 
development  and  modernisation  of  their transport networks.  A  long-term  programme  of 
investment  will  be  a  priority,  already  beginning  in  the  pre-accession  phase.  In  this 
respect,  Agenda 2000 indicated  that though national budgets  will have to bear the  major 
share,  and  the  international  financial  institutions  will  have  an  important  role  to  play, 
substantial  grant  support  will  also  be  needed  from  the  Union  particularly  for  TEN-
related corridors. 

Up  to  1997,  the  PHARE  programme  has  already  allocated  around  ECU  1 billion  to 
transport  infrastructure.  From  1998, the  large-scale  infrastructure  facility  as  part  of  the 
re-orientation  of  the  PHARE  programme  will  begin  supporting  priority  investment 
projects  in  the  countries  of  Central  and  Eastern  Europe.  As  indicated,  the  Commission 
has proposed the creation of a structural instrument for pre-accession  to operate from  the 
year  2000  (ISPA),  which  will  finance  transport  infrastructure  (notably,  but  not 
exclusively,  the  extended  TEN)  and  the  environment.  These  efforts  would  help  in  the 
development  of the pan-European transport network in the CEECs, while contributing to 
cohesion in the wider European  context. 

4.3  Promoting accessible, sustainable transport services 

54.  To safeguard  regional  cohesion,  it is important  to guarantee  the  availability  of  transport 
services,  which  have  a  high  socio-economic  value  to  the  regions  even  if  the  services 
concerned are less profitable  in purely financial  terms. It is for this reason that the Union 
attaches  great  importance  to the  maintenance  of  services  of  general  interest  as  reflected 
in the Amsterdam Treaty.  Similar  considerations  also  apply  to the position  of  the  many 
people who do not have complete access to private cars, where accessible and  affordable 
public passenger transport is essential for full participation  in society - both for  work and 
leisure. The promotion of public transport and non-motorised forms  of transport  (cycling 
and  walking)  also  brings  environmental  benefits  which  may  disproportionately  benefit 
low  income  groups  because  they  depend  on  these  forms  of  transport  for  mobility  and 
because they  are more likely to live in city centres, near busy roads and  therefore  suffer 
the consequences  of air and noise pollution, and accidents. 

55.  In  view  of  the  fundamental  regional  and  social  issues  concerned,  the  Commission  will 
ensure that the principle of public  services  in general, and public transport  in particular, 

are fully  recognised  in its own policies 

.  In particular, the Commission will: 

20 

20 

As set out, for example, in "The Citizen' s network  - Fulfilling  the potential of public passenger transport in Europe - Green 
Paper of the European  Commission,  COM(95)601. 

15 

continue  its  efforts  to  introduce  new  contractual  arrangements  for  public  services, 
updating the previous arrangements allowing state aid exemptions in support of public 
service obligations in accordance with Article 77 of the Treaty.  The contracts  should 
permit  public  support  for  loss-making  services  which  are  important  for  regional  or 
social reasons, without infringing  state aid rules, but under clearly defined  conditions: 
the public  contribution  must  be  limited  to  the  additional  costs  of  the  public  service 
obligation  while  exclusive  operating  rights  must  respect  the  necessary  transparency 
and objectivity.  The Commission is examining how to extend the use of this approach 
to land transport modes; 

monitor  the effectiveness  of public  service rules  in transport  in view  of the need  to 
achieve  a  balance  between  removing  remaining  impediments  to  competition  in 
transport in the context of the internal market and ensuring adequate levels of  service 
in the interest of equality of opportunity and cohesion; 

• 

use the results of its current study of existing public service rules and practices in land 
transport  to  bring  forward  proposals  for  a  more  transparent,  effective  and  targeted 
system, which better serves the needs of less advantaged regions and social groups; 

ensure  that  proposals  with  regard  to  public  service  rules  reflect  the  importance  of 
transport networks which are coherent across the different  modes; 

encourage  Member  States,  in preparing  regional  plans  under  the  Structural  Funds, 
to  examine  possibilities  offered  by  more  sustainable  local  and  regional  transport 
systems, including the balance between different  modes. 

16 

Statistical  Annexes 

I. Infrastructure  and  transport  mode  indicators 

INFRASTRUCTURE  and 
TRANSPORT  MEANS 
INDICATORS 

OTHERS 
AVERAGE 
d) 

COHESION 
AVERAGE 
(2) 

EU-15 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

Motorways [(km/km2)*103] 

Railways [(km/ km2)*103] 

Railways (km/million inhab.) 

High Speed Rail Network [(km/km2)*106] 

Inland waterways [(km/km2)*103] 

TRANSPORT MEANS 

Motorization (N° cars/1000 inhab.) 

Buses & coaches (units /1000 inhab.) 

Goods vehicles [(units/ GDP unit) *103] 

Rail wagons (units/ GDP unit) 

(1) all the MS except the cohesion countries 

16,3 
56,0 
441,3 
794,9 
12,4 

450,6 
64,6 
2,2 
94,6 

11,7 
24,5 
309,4 
590,5 
0,0 

316,8 
134,4 
6,9 
67,0 

15,2 
48,2 
418,8 
744,5 
9,3 

428,0 
71,7 
2,7 
91,7 

(2) the four cohesion MS: Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Greece 

[source: DG XVI based on the EUROSTAT  "EU Transports in figures" - 2nd issue 1997] 

17 

- J? 
o" 

a CO 

1^ 

o" 

c* 

8 
rJ 

ft 
8 

fS 
cf 

s r<r 

rt K 

8 
en" 

CO 

<rf 

b 
§ 

8 

CD" 

K 
Uf 

cj 
Si 

*. 
B 

CO 

s 

ft 
S 

a 
a 
s 
s 

to 
as 

8 
It 

in 

IT)" 

* 
«' 

* 
3 

8 
S 

S 

8 
uf 

5 
co" 

ft 
uf 

O) 

s? 

ft 
& 

in 
uf 

9 
fi 

* 
3 

8 
5 

ft 
c*r 

8 
s 

a 
-<** 

s fj 

3 
o" 

8 
«f 

fci 
O 

8 
uf 

LO 
cf 

8 
of 

§ 
cf 

R 
U 

P) 
ef 

8 
* 

8 
of 

8 
to 

•  Lfl 

Tf 

a 
§ 

!5 

ef 

ft 

a of 

8 

CO" 

8 
of 

8 
2 

Si 
C> 

ft 
uf 

s uf 

$ 
fe 

tf 
o 

8 
* 

rfl 
CD 

CD 

s 

88 
cs 

3 
uf 

5T 
uf 

R 
c* 

81 
•<f 

R 
$ 

CO 
i ri 

ft 
$ 

CO 

c\r 

8 
9 

SH 
n" 

R 
8 

* 

ft 
^ 

1 

8 

O 

8 

fci 
o" 

8 
uf 

s? 

CO" 

a to" 

CO 

i rf 

IS 
IS 

K, 
Si 

o> 
p! 

n Jj 

8 

N." 

9 
K" 

8 
5S 

s 
s 

8 
S 

ffi 
jj 

ft 
§ 

81 

!R 
uf 

W 
a 

8 
« 

fS 
R 

a 
B 

Ifi 
S 

8 
S 

3 
3 

8 
8 

o> 
8 

a 
1 

C3 

f? 

8 

! 

S 
8 

(8 
1 

* 
SI 

e 
X 

ID 

5f 
3 

8 
it 

* 
a 

8 
* 

* 
8 

8 
IS 

8 
8 

ft 
R 

"•? 

I 

1 

s? 

•» 

5 
s 

s? 

1 

&5 

1 

s^ 

1 

oS 

c a 

s? 

1 
B 

a? 

^ 

5? 

8 
1 

se 

& | 
J 

,_. 

8 
8 

fc 
n 

s 8 
8 
a" 

8 
8 

^ 
s 

8 
8' 

8 
! 

8 
8" 

8 

CM 

8 
8" 

8 
8 

8 
8" 

9 

S 
(0 

8 
8" 

Si 
$ 

8 
8" 

8 
2" 

8 
8" 

8 
8 

8 
8 

ft 
a 

i  a  1 
5  £  is 

% 

r 

z 
!> 

1 
| 
•8 

1 
| 
•6 

! 
2 

i « 
S 

g 
1 

15 

I 3 

e 
1 
* 
i 

' 

'1 

F 

i 
1 
1 

ST I S 

I 
1 1-
1 

I 1 

o 

CM 

o 
UJ 

s c 
~> m o 

CM 
a> 
n 
is 

se 

To 
o 

a« 

(0 
•a 
c ra 

"C 
QJ 
•C 
"3 
z 

5? 

£ 

0) 
CD 

5? 

(0 
E 
c 
a> 

a 

3? 

•a 
c 

C 
il 

5? 

e 

ID 

Q 

(0 

3? 

» 
< 

gS 

5? 

V 
o 
c 
2 
u. 

o^ 

c 
"(5 
a 

s? 

c 

O 

(0 

£ 
a 
S 

CO 
CM_ 

in 

CO 
u> 
CD 
cn 

CM 

Of 

o 
CO 
of 

CM 
O 
O 

CM 

o* 

CO 
CO 
CM* 

a> 

in 

CO 
CO 
^r* 

CM 

CM 
00 
CO" 

CM 

CM 
CO 
CO 

CM 

o" 

CM-

C M" 

o 

CO* 

o> 
o 
CO~ 
in 

o 
o 

CO 

CO" 

o 
CM 
O* 

CO 

in" 

3 

CO 

C M" 

5 

CO" 

CM 
Cn 
co" 

CO 
of 
CO 

CM 
00 
CM* 

CM 
O) 
to" 

CO 
O) 
o" 
CO 

in 
in 
CO* 
to 

CM 

CO* 
CO 

o 
o 
o" 
O 

o 

o 
r*-
O) 
CM 

o 

o" 

CO 
in 

• *" 

o 
o 
to 

co" 
IO 

00* 
in 

to 
CM 
of 

• 

oq 

CM 
CM 

CM 

CM 
CO 
CM" 

o 
o 
o 
o 

o 
o 
c»" 

o 
o 
o 
o 

o 

o> **" 

s 

3 
IA 

ffl 

0) 
E 
01 

o 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

to 
to 
co" 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o> 

of 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

CM 
cn 

00~ 

o 
o 
cf 
o 

co" 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 
o 
t -" 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 
cn 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 

o 
o 
o* 
o 

s 

uf 
CO 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 
ca 

CO 

o 
o 
cf 
© 

00* 
cn 

o 
o 
o 
o 

to 
r*. 
CM* 
CO 

o 
a. 
<A 
c 
2 
1-
"5 
o 
1-

CM 
CJ> 

CJ)* 

o 
o 
CO 

to" 

O) 
-<>• 
©" 
00 

o 
CO 
o* 

s 
3" 

O) 
CO 
of 
CO 

o 
o 
CM" 

CM 
CO 
<o" 

CM 
O 
co" 
CO 

CM 

O 
u> 
co" 

o 
CO 
in* 

o 
o 
o" 
(0 

o 
in 
in 
CO 

to 
CO 
CO" 
CM 
CO 

CO >• ffl 
5 

£ 

!E 
"D 
c 
(0 
(A 

•o ffl 
o 

1 
! 

U 

0 

1 

O 

s 
'io a. 

in •c 
0 
fi 
le? 

V) 
t: 
o 
0_ 

3 

a 

at 
c 
e 
2 
i-

u 
c 

S « 

'55 
to 
n 
« 
u 
c 
£ 
O 
a> 
1-

Z3 
O 
UJ 

•Q 
lO 

O 
UJ 
"-> 
OQ 
O 

Q) 

ra 

Jo 
eg" 
00 

eo_ 
eo" 
in 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 
« 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

eo 

(A 

IS 

£ 

!c 
13 
C 
(0 
(A 
TJ 
(Q 
O 

5? 

o 
1-

s^ 

•a 
c « 
c II 

# 

T3 

c « 
s 

# 

u 
c 
jo 

U-

3? 

C 
eg 
§ 
o 

© 

w 

E 
o 
5 

o 
o 
o 
o 

X 
CD 
Q 

CM* 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 

o 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 

o 
o_ 
o" 
o 

eo 
in 
«  I  -a 
^  •  o 

.s 

u 

o 

s 

o 

1 

o 

(A 

>* 
5 
ra 
a. 

E  r" 
E  2 

a) 
u 
c 

.2 
'Jo 

(A ffl 
« 
o 
c 
•C 
o 
a> 
1-

(A 
o 

3 « 
a 
0) 
E 
a> 
JZ 

O 

t 
o 
a. 
(A 
C 
(0 

15 
o 
i-

D> 
C 

(A 
t: 
o 
a. 
< 

(A 
t 
O 
0. 

B 

O 

3? 

15 
O 
1-

gS 

T3 

C « 

C 
iZ 

.gS 

c 

V 

CD 
S 
(/) 

s? 

.2 

in 

3 < 

32 

c 
A 

0) 
O 

o 
UJ 

c 
* 
o 
->T3 
? ! •* 
<Q 
CO  0) 

C  t; 

1-

ta  $ 

.a 
n 

er  ^ 

ra 
(7) 
« 

i 

o 

CN 

to 
oo~ 
to 

o 
CM 

C\l 
00 

OO 

O 
CM 

•«t" 

>» 
<0 
S 

!E 
•a 
c 
<0 
(A 
"D 
<n 
O 
K 

CM 

CM 

CO 

s 

•c 
o 

1 

o 

s 

o 

1 

o 

n 
5 
"5 
a: 

r-. 
00 

u> 
to 
in 

00 

o" 

to 

CD 
u 
c 

n « 

in 
V) 

c 

CM" 

to 

o 

ra 
"5 
o 
'E 
J= 
o 
01 
t-

•e 
o 
a. 
5 

(A 

O 
a. 

CO 
00 

to 

CM" 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

to 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

to 

to 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

(13 
CO 
r>" 

o 
o 
o 
o 

o 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

o 
o 
o" 
o 

oo 

00 

00 

CM 

CM" 

o 
o 
o 
o 

CM 

o ^" 

(fl 
£ 
3 
U) 
(0 

tt> 
E 
« 
5 

o 
a. 
(A 
c 
ta 

H 

"J3 

o 
1-

CD 
Q 

tx 

c 

•£ 

y 

B.  The financing of the European Regional Development Fund in the field of transport: 

the period  1989-1993 

Objective  1  (Community  S u p p o rt  F r a m e w o r k s) 

(expenditure  in  million  ECU  1994  prices) 

Member State 

Payments 
1989-93 

Transport 
Infrastructure 
Investment 

Total ERDF 
expenditure 

Transport 
as % of 
total 

SPAIN 

GREECE 

PORTUGAL 

IRELAND 

ITALY 

UK 

FRANCE 

T O T AL 

3 290.0 

10115.0 

1 500.0 

1 415.0 

832.0 

511.0 

314.0 

220.0 

8 245.0 

8 910.0 

4 588.5 

8 531.5 

1 516.5 

1 218.5 

8 082.0 

43 125.0 

32.5 

18.2 

15.9 

18.1 

6.0 

20.7 

18.1 

18.7 

[Source:  DG XVI,  CSFs 1994-99] 

22 

III. The Financing of trans-European  transport  infrastructure  by 

the TEN Budget  line 

Modes 

Support  in  t he 
period  1995-1998 
(MECU) 

% 

Rail (including combined 
transport) 

Road 

Inland waterways 

Sea/Ports 

Airports 

Traffic  management 
(all modes) 

TOTAL 

827 

175 

14 

24 

56 

248 

62 

13 

1 

2 

4 

18 

1344 

100 

[Source:  DG  VII] 

23 

IV. The Financing  of Transport  Infrastructure  by the  Cohesion 

Fund 

(Commitments  for TEN Transport  Projects by Member  State  and  mode) 

Member State 

Commitments 
1993-97 

Transport 
sector 

MECU 

% 

SPAIN 

TOTAL 

roads 
railways 
ports 
airports 
VTS(1) 

PORTUGAL 

TOTAL 

roads 
railways 
ports 
airports 
VTS(1) 

GREECE 

TOTAL 

roads 
railways 
ports 
airports 
VTS(1) 

IRELAND 

TOTAL 

roads 
railways 
ports 
airports 
VTS(1) 

TOTAL 

TOTAL 

roads 
railways 
ports 
airports 
VTS(1) 

3 059.8 

2 214.8 
746.2 
0.0 
73.2 
25.3 
1013.8 

742.2 
158.2 
51.4 
62.0 
0,0 
884.4 

456.9 
253.4 
71.0 
103.0 
0.0 
510.5 

377.8 
91.0 
36.5 
3.3 
2.0 

5 468.2 

3 791.7 
1 248.8 
158.9 
241.5 
27.3 

100.0 

72.4 
24.4 
0.0 
2.4 
0.8 
100.0 

73.2 
15.6 
5.1 
6.1 
0.0 
100.0 

51.7 
28.7 
8.0 
11.6 
0.0 
100.0 

74.0 
17.8 
7.1 
.0.6 
0.4 

100.0 

69.3 
22.8 
2.9 
4.4 
0.5 

(1) VTS: vessel traffic 
systems for  maritime 
surveillance 

Source: Annual Report of the 
Cohesion Fund 1997 

24 

V. The Financing  of Transport  Infrastructure  by the  EIB 

(individual loans and  credits on global  loans) 

Year 

Area 

MECU 

% 

1989-93 

TOTAL ACTIVITY 

17  809.0 

100.0 

Objective 1 

Objective 2 + 5b 

Total  1+2+5b 

5  598.0 

5  016.0 

10  614.0 

31.4 

28.2 

59.6 

1994-1997 

TOTAL ACTIVITY 

25  035.0 

100.0 

Objective 1 

Objective 2+ 5b+6 

Total  1+2+5b+6 

7  820 

8  222 

16  042 

31.2 

32.8 

64.0 

Source: EIB 

25 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(98) 806 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

07  13  01  09 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-98-810-EN-C 

Office  for  Official  Publications of the European  Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

<&r