Green Paper - TEN-T: A policy review - Towards a better integrated transeuropean transport network at the service of the common transport policy
Date: 2009-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cross-frontier data flow, environmental protection, frontier region, sustainable development, transport network, transport policy

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 4.2.2009 
COM(2009) 44 final 

GREEN PAPER 

TEN-T: A policy review  

TOWARDS A BETTER INTEGRATED TRANSEUROPEAN TRANSPORT 
NETWORK AT THE SERVICE OF THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
GREEN PAPER 

TEN-T: A policy review  

TOWARDS A BETTER INTEGRATED TRANSEUROPEAN TRANSPORT 
NETWORK AT THE SERVICE OF THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 

Foundations on which the future TEN-T policy should rest........................................ 3 

Issues at stake for further TEN-T development ........................................................... 7 

Possible options for further TEN-T development ...................................................... 16 

Information for those responding to the Green Paper ................................................ 16 

INTRODUCTION 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

1. 

Trans-European  transport  network  (TEN-T)  policy  aims  to  provide  the  infrastructure 
needed for the internal market to function smoothly and for the objectives of the Lisbon 
Agenda  on  growth  and  jobs  to  be  achieved.  It also sets  out to help ensure  accessibility 
and  boost  economic  and  social  and  territorial  cohesion.  It  supports  every  EU  citizen's 
right to move freely within the territory of the Member States. Furthermore, it integrates 
environmental  protection  requirements  with  a  view 
to  promoting  sustainable 
development.  

The  €400  billion  invested  so  far  in  a  networ k  that  was  established  by  Decision  of  the 
European Parliament and the Council in 1996, and last amended in 2004,1 has helped to 
complete  a  large  number  of  projects  of  common  interest,  interconnecting  national 
networks  and  overcoming  technological  barriers  across  national  borders.  There  is 
however still a long way to go to implement the initial plans fully – because of both the 
intrinsic  long-term  nature  of  the  projects  involved  and  the  considerable  delays  in  the 
completion of many projects.  
Almost a third of the amount invested so  far  has  come  from  Community  sources.2 The 
individual European citizen may not however always find it easy to see the results of the 
overall TEN-T policy or the European added value generated by the contributions from 
the  Community.  Objectives  have  been  rather  broad,  which  has  made  it  impossible  to 
meet them in full with the instruments available. In certain respects, they may also have 
lacked  specificity,  which  has  made  it  difficult  to  focus  action  and  generate  effective 
impacts and visible results. The Commission therefore believes that it is not only time to 
ask  why  the  objectives  have  only  been  partially  achieved  but  also  whether  these 

1 

2 

Decision  No  1692/96/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  Community 
guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  trans-European  Transport  Network,  as  last  amended  by 
Decision No 884/2004/EC of 29 April 2004 
Grants  from  the  TEN-T  budget,  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  the  European  Regional  Development 
Fund, plus loans from the European Investment Bank 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
objectives  are  still  sufficient  to  give  forward-looking  answers  to  future  problems,  and 
what means are needed to fully achieve tomorrow's TEN-T policy objectives. 

While transport policy aims to promote economically and environmentally efficient, safe 
and secure transport services within the internal market and beyond, TEN-T policy needs 
to  ensure  that  they  operate  to  best  effect,  based  on  an  integrated  and  innovative 
infrastructure  that  keeps  pace  with  technological  developments  in  the  energy, 
infrastructure and vehicle3 sectors. It should reflect, more than it has so far, established 
European  objectives  –  not  only  in  the  transport  sector  but  also  in  the  wider  political, 
socio-economic, environmental and institutional context.  

In addition  to strengthening  TEN-T's  role within the Lisbon Agenda, Europe's growing 
global role requires due attention to be paid to the development of future TEN-T policy. 
Europe's  economic  growth  and  the  creation  of  jobs  also  depend  on  its  international 
competitiveness, which needs to be supported by good transport connections with other 
parts of the world. Good connections to all of Europe's immediate neighbours, including 
Africa, are furthermore vital from an economic, political and security point of view.  

Over  and  above  everything  else,  the  fight  against  climate  change  requires  Europe-wide 
measures  to  underpin  Europe's  leading  role  in  the  world.  Transport  and  transport 
infrastructure  are  areas  which  offer  considerable  potential  for  positive  contributions. 
Climate change objectives should be placed at the centre of future TEN-T policy and be 
reflected in a truly European approach. Through a process that integrates economic and 
environmental  objectives,  is  clearly  oriented  towards  the  needs  of  efficient  freight  and 
passenger  services  on  a  co-modal  basis  and  involves  innovation,  future  TEN-T  policy 
should  provide  a  sound  basis  for  an  effective  contribution  to  the  Community's  climate 
change objectives.  

All  this  justifies  undertaking  a  fundamental  review  of  TEN-T  policy  rather  than  just 
reviewing  and  possibly  updating  outline  plans  and  priority  projects.  While  building  on 
the experience gained and the results achieved so far, the policy approach needs first to 
be subject to a broad review. Given the scope of the task – in political, socio-economic, 
environmental, institutional, geographical and technical terms – the Commission seeks to 
involve stakeholders on as broad a basis as possible, so as to ensure that available expert 
knowledge,  experience  and  views  are  duly  taken  into  account.  This  is  why  the 
Commission is beginning the TEN-T review process with a Green Paper, summarising its 
current reflections and inviting contributions, before coming up with possible legislative 
and other proposals.  

2. 

• 

FOUNDATIONS ON WHICH THE FUTURE TEN-T POLICY SHOULD REST  

The EC Treaty  

Articles  154  –  156  of  the  EC  Treaty  define  Trans-European  Networks  policy  and  its 
contribution  to  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  internal  market,  social  and  economic 
cohesion  for  the  benefit  of  all  its  citizens,  economic  operators  and  regional  and  local 
communities,  inter  alia  by  targeting  Community  action  to  promote  interconnection  and 
interoperability  of  national  networks,  and  access  to  such  networks.  Furthermore, 
sustainable development must be integrated into the policy. The TEN-T guidelines were 

3 

The term "vehilce" as used throughout this paper refers to transportation means of all modes  

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
subsequently  developed  to  help  implement  the  Treaty  provisions  stipulating  that  they 
identify  projects  of  common  interest  and  that  the  Community  may  support  projects  of 
common interest supported by the Member States. To further facilitate implementation, 
the  Commission  may  also  take  initiatives  to  promote  coordination  between  Member 
States.  

•  Specifics  

The TEN-T Guidelines envisage the establishment of a single, multimodal network as the 
ultimate  policy  objective,  covering  both  traditional  ground-based  structures  and 
equipment  (including  intelligent  transport  systems)  to  enable  safe  and  efficient  traffic. 
Increasingly, it also involves the deployment of innovative systems that not only promise 
benefits for transport but also have substantial potential for industrial innovation.  

Projects of common interest within TEN-T differ considerably from each other in many 
respects:  planning  processes,  geographical  extension  and  cost,  implementation  periods 
and  life  span,  as  well  as  investment,  implementing  and  operating  structures.  TEN-T 
policy  has  to  cater  for  a  broad  range  of  approaches  whereby  Member  States  play  a 
leading role in traditional infrastructure provision and work alongside the private sector. 
The  nature  of  the  network  itself  therefore  places  particular  responsibility  on  all  of  the 
actors  involved  to  share  objectives  and  play  their  respective  parts  in  achieving  those 
objectives.  

•  Past achievements  

Positive changes resulting from the implementation of TEN-T policy are already visible. 
National rail and road networks have become interconnected at many points and railways 
across  borders  are  beginning  to  become  interoperable.  Community  funding  has 
concentrated on major high-speed rail projects, opening up a new generation of passenger 
traffic  that  can  compete  successfully  with  air  and  private  cars.  Finance  has  been 
channelled,  under  the  Cohesion  Fund,  into  major  projects  connecting  countries  and 
regions with differing levels of development, thereby helping to reduce disparities. It has 
had  a  significant  catalytic  effect  and  has  enabled  some  of  the  most  challenging  and 
complex  projects  (geologically,  technically,  financially,  legally/administratively)  to  be 
taken  forward.  It  has  promoted  pilot  schemes  for  public-private  partnership  solutions, 
which allow lessons to be learnt in terms of financing and project management.  

TEN-T policy has also stimulated the development of intelligent transport systems. Apart 
from Galileo, this sector has – in the fields of road, rail, air and waterborne transport – 
made  significant  progress  through  TEN-T-supported  projects  at  European  or  euro-
regional level, many of which would otherwise not have been implemented or launched.  

TEN-T policy has begun to provide responses to issues in the field of freight transport, 
where  expected  growth  (an  increase  of  34%  between  2005  and  2020)  underlines  the 
importance  of  introducing  real  co-modal  solutions  to  overcome  problems  such  as 
congestion, rising carbon dioxide emissions, infrastructure and organisational gaps. The 
motorways  of  the  sea  concept  –  truly  multi-modal  in  nature  –  deserves  considerably 
increased attention in further TEN-T development. It promotes “cleaner” freight transport 
on a co-modal basis, also linking the EU to the external world.  

•  An assessment of strengths and weaknesses  

Network planning 

EN 

4 

   EN 

First  and  foremost,  the  TEN-T  Guidelines  are  the  Community's  instrument  for  policy 
definition  and  network  planning.  The  projects  of  common  interest  identified  in  these 
Guidelines  can  be  defined  through  their  location  on  outline  plans  and/or  through  their 
characteristics.  

The  Guidelines,  as  adopted  in  1996  and  last  amended  in  2004,  include  two  planning 
layers:  a  comprehensive  network  layer  (outline  plans  for  rail,  road,  inland  waterway, 
combined transport, airport and port networks) and a second layer of 30 priority projects 
– i.e. selected projects of common interest.  

The  comprehensive  network  comprises  altogether:  95 700  km  of  road  links,  106 000 
km  of  railway  links  (including  32 000  km  of  high-speed  links),  13 000  km  of  inland 
waterways, 411 airports and 404 sea ports. Most of these links and nodes already exist. 
However,  almost  20 000  km  of  the  road  links,  over  20 000  km  of  railway  links 
(overwhelmingly  high-speed  lines)  and  600  km  of  inland  waterway  links  remain  to  be 
built or substantially upgraded – at an estimated cost of €500 billion according to recent 
estimates of Member States.4 

"Planning"  this  Community  network  has  essentially  meant  adding  together  significant 
parts  of  national  networks  for  the  different  modes  and  connecting  them  at  national 
borders. While certainly appropriate in the early days of TEN-T policy, the adequacy of 
this  approach  became  progressively  weaker  with  each  enlargement.  TEN-T  network 
planning has not been driven by genuine European objectives that would ensure that the 
whole  is  greater  than  the  sum  of  its  parts.  Irrespective  of  Member  States'  sovereign 
responsibility  in  the  field  of  infrastructure  planning  and  implementation  on  their 
territories, the question of how national planning can be combined with a European level 
of  planning  that  takes  account  of  objectives  outside  each  individual  Member  State’s 
perspective  becomes  more and more relevant as the EU expands  and networks become 
increasingly complex.  

By and large, the TEN-T priority projects cover major rail, road and inland waterway 
axes  that  traverse  several  Member  States.  Chosen  in  2004  for  their  high  relevance  to 
transnational  traffic  flows,  cohesion  and  sustainable  development  objectives,  they  were 
subjected  to  a  common  socio-economic  evaluation.  However,  questions  still  arise,  for 
example,  as  to  the  methodological  soundness  of  their  selection,  the  potential  for 
interconnection  and  extension  (both  geographically  and  modally),  the  approach  to 
coherent  capacity  and  quality  standards,  and  the  means  of  better  stimulating  their 
completion within the planned timeframe.  

In addition to defining projects of common interest through their location in outline plans 
and inclusion in the list of priority projects, the Guidelines set out "characteristics" and 
specify objectives and criteria for identifying projects of common interest. In the field of 
intelligent transport systems,  this kind  of conceptual approach has formed  the  basis for 
the definition of projects of common interest.  

Network implementation 

The  TEN-T  Guidelines  are  linked  with  instruments  to  facilitate  the  implementation  of 
projects  identified  as  being  of  common  interest.  These  are  a)  various  financial 

4 

European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport, TEN-T – Implementation 
of the Priority Projects, Progress Report, May 2008 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
instruments  based  on  the  relevant  legislation,  including  the  TEN  Financial  Regulation5 
and  the  Cohesion  Fund,  ERDF  and  loans  from  the  European  Investment  Bank,  and  b) 
non-financial instruments, such as coordination initiatives taken by the Commission.  

So  far,  the  instruments  available  have  not  been  sufficient  to  deliver  full  completion  of 
projects  of  common  interest  within  the  timeframe  agreed  in  the  Guidelines.  This  is 
particularly true of the comprehensive network. Responsibility for completing the large 
numbers  of  projects  concerned  rests  almost  entirely  with  the  Member  States,  whose 
investment  decisions  are  essentially  driven  by  national  objectives.  Community  funding 
under  the  Cohesion  Fund  has  supported  project  implementation  in  eligible  Member 
States,  and  has  thus  also  contributed  to  the  access  function  (including  access  to  ultra-
peripheral  regions);  TEN-T  funding  has  only  been  able  to  address  policy  objectives  in 
part.  Overall,  Community  resources  spent  so  far  have  barely  enabled  citizens  and 
economic operators to "see the difference" – the European added value – of Community 
action in relation to the comprehensive TEN-T as a whole. Investment efforts by Member 
States on their respective territories are mostly seen as national investments rather than as 
contributions to a Community objective. 

The situation has been different with priority projects, which have been at the centre of 
Community  efforts  –  both  financially  and  in  terms  of  coordination.  Although  the 
Community financial resources available are still not sufficient to meet the needs of these 
projects in full, action – directed towards more limited and commonly agreed objectives 
– has been far more effective and visible. The approaching completion of some of these 
projects  provides  a  concrete  illustration  of  the  potential  benefits  of  the  TEN-T  policy 
objectives  set  out  in  the  Treaty.  A  key  TEN-T  priority  project  such  as  the  high-speed 
railway line linking Paris, Brussels, Cologne/Frankfurt, Amsterdam and London has not 
only interconnected national networks and marked a breakthrough of a new generation of 
railway  traffic  across  borders,  it  has  also  allowed  citizens  and  business  travellers  to 
experience the benefits of free movement within Europe.  

The Motorways of the Sea priority project (covering infrastructure, facilities, procedures, 
technologies  and  services)  is  intended  to  foster  quality  and  high-capacity  integrated 
multi-modal,  door-to-door  transport  services  with  a  maritime  leg.  It  is  defined  in  the 
TEN-T  Guidelines  by  way  of  a  conceptual  approach  setting  out  objectives  and 
procedures for identifying projects of common interest. This has helped the Community 
to  develop  practical  application  of  a  co-modal  transport  solution  aimed  at  improving 
accessibility  and  reducing  emissions  from  road  freight  transport.  Various  Community 
and  national  instruments  are  available,  including  the  TEN-T  budget,  which  mainly 
addresses super- and infrastructure in ports and hinterland connections. The complexity 
of procedures for obtaining public financial support and the lack of clear objectives and 
criteria have however hindered any broad implementation of the concept so far.  

As regards intelligent transport systems, TEN-T policy has helped in particular to prepare 
Galileo  and  the  Single  European  Sky  Air  Traffic  Management  Research  (SESAR)  − 
major  European  projects  which,  once  operational,  are  expected  to  make  the  use  of 
transport  infrastructure  far  more  efficient.  In  road,  rail  and  air  transport,  as  in  Vessel 
Traffic Management and River Information Services, ITS projects have been developed 

5 

Regulation  (EC)  No  680/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2007 
laying  down  general  rules  for  the  granting  of  Community  financial  aid  in  the  field  of  trans-
European transport and energy networks 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
in  a  flexible  way,  on  the  basis  of  characteristics  set  out  in  the  TEN-T  Guidelines.  This 
conceptual  approach  makes  it  possible  to  incorporate  technological  developments, 
market needs and cooperation initiatives between partners from different Member States 
and,  combined  with  the  50%  funding  possibility  for  project  preparation,  has  had  a 
significant  impact  on  the  development  of  cross-border  projects  which  might  not  have 
existed otherwise. This kind of flexible approach to project development, based on pre-
established objectives and criteria, should also be lend itself to achieving other transport 
policy  objectives  –  the  provision  of  efficient  (both  economically  and  environmentally), 
safe, secure and high quality transport services.  

•  Expected transport demand  

The  planning  of  future  transport  infrastructure  is  closely  linked  to  demand  forecasts  – 
whether  at  national  or  EU  level.  However,  while  aiming  to  provide  transport 
infrastructure that responds in full to future demand, planning authorities face a range of 
uncertainties  regarding  factors  that  drive  demand,  such  as  economic  and  population 
trends,  energy  prices,  transport  pricing  and  taxation,  the  development  of  urban  and 
territorial  structures,  behavioural  changes,  and  technological  developments.  On  the 
policy side, demand management measures are gaining increasing importance and should 
also  be  taken  into  account  in  infrastructure  planning.  These  include  in  particular 
infrastructure  charging,  the  internalisation  of  external  costs  and  the  application  of 
intelligent transport systems.  

Business-oriented  development  of  transport  services  in  an  evolving  internal  market 
should  also  encourage  efficient  use  of  infrastructure,  and  have  an  impact  on  the 
development  of  demand.  Building  on  a  co-modal  approach  that  involves  both  effective 
coordination  across  national  borders  and  ITS  applications,  services  of  this  kind  are 
growing  rapidly.  EU  transport  policy  focuses  on  a  range  of  initiatives  in  the  field, 
including the Freight Logistics Action Plan, the proposal for a Directive on Rail Freight 
Corridors and the Single European Sky policy.  

Business activities may be able to grow within the existing infrastructure framework in 
the shorter term, but as they evolve, the transport policy response will need to evolve too, 
which  could  impact  both  on  transport  infrastructure  provision  and  its  "phasing".  The 
future  TEN-T  policy  needs  to  be  sufficiently  flexible  to  link  transport  policy  and 
transport infrastructure development in the short, medium and long term.  

Q1 

Should the Commission's assessment of TEN-T development to date cover 
any other factors?  

3. 

ISSUES AT STAKE FOR FURTHER TEN-T DEVELOPMENT  

Reviewing TEN-T policy –  with  the  central question of how to  shape  the future  multi-
modal  network  and  how  to  ensure  timely  completion  –  requires  a  sophisticated 
combination,  at  the  different  levels  involved,  of  planning  approaches,  implementation 
capacities  and  know-how.  While  duly  respecting  Member  States'  sovereign  rights  for 
projects  concerning  their  territories,  the  increasing  complexity,  innovative  nature  and 
geographical scope of the tasks at stake also call for a strong Community role.  

Based on the above assessment of policy, a number of issues for the future are outlined 
below.  

3.1 Network planning 

EN 

7 

   EN 

•  The future of the comprehensive network  

The current comprehensive network has been essential for fulfilling the “access function” 
referred  to  in  the  Treaty,  and  it  has  proven  its  worth  as  basis  for  support  under  the 
Cohesion Fund. Furthermore, it has formed an important basis for the implementation of 
Community legislation in the transport sector – e.g. rail interoperability and road tunnel 
safety.  Its  shortcomings,  on  the  other  hand,  have  been  the  discrepancy  between  the 
overall planning ambitions and the means of stimulating and monitoring implementation, 
and a lack of focus from a European perspective.  

Maintaining the comprehensive network layer of the TEN-T would involve reviewing the 
methodology  for  updating  and  monitoring  it,  and  reviewing  the  instruments  needed  for 
full and timely implementation, whereby Member States would certainly have to assume 
more binding responsibility. Abandoning it, on the other hand, would for instance require 
special attention to be given to ensuring the network access function.  

Q2 

What  further  arguments  are  there  for  or  against  maintaining  the 
comprehensive  network,  and  how  could  the  respective  disadvantages  of 
each approach be overcome? 

•  Possible incorporation of a 'priority network'?  

The current priority projects approach reflects major traffic flows between a starting and 
an  end  point,  without  taking  account  of  their  continuity,  and  fails  therefore  to  capture 
successfully  any  additional  'network  benefits'.  To  do  so,  and  thus  also  to  enhance  the 
economics  of  TEN-T  projects  of  high  Community  interest,  the  current  priority  projects 
approach  could  evolve  towards  a  priority  network  approach.  This  kind  of  network 
approach would also allow more systematic incorporation of the nodes (which are often 
the  main  source  of  congestion  and  other  inefficiencies),  ports  and  airports  as  the 
network's entry points and the main inter-modal connection points that underpin strong 
network integration. By combining existing infrastructure links and nodes with planned 
infrastructure  in  a  single  network,  the  past  achievements  of  TEN-T  policy  could  also 
generate additional value. 

Any  approach  towards  such  a  network  should,  as  a  starting  point,  build  on  common 
agreement  on  clear  goals  and  on  a  transparent  and  objective  planning  methodology. 
These  should  take  account  in  particular  of  major  traffic  flows,  both  within  the 
Community  and  with  other  parts  of  the  world,  of  cohesion  objectives  through 
connections between regions with different levels of development and different territorial 
features,  of  connection  to  pools  of  economic  development,  of  the  "value  of  efforts 
already spent" on TEN-T development, of environmental objectives, of other Community 
policy  objectives  (e.g.  competition),  of  progressive  efforts  towards  more  efficient 
infrastructure  use,  of  the  diversity  of  Member  States’  situations,  and  of  the  sharing  of 
planning responsibility at Community and national level.  

A  –  geographically  defined  –  priority  network  should  ensure  continuity  of  the  current 
priority projects and build on them  where justifiable. Climate change  objectives should 
first  and  foremost  guide  any  approach  towards  the  development  of  a  possible  priority 
network.  This  kind  of  network  should  therefore  be  truly  multi-modal,  enabling  major 
freight  and  passenger  traffic  flows  to  cross  the  European  Union  as  efficiently  – 
economically  and  environmentally  –  as  possible,  on  a  co-modal  basis.  This  calls  for 
optimal  interconnection  of  modes  –  for  example,  through  hinterland  connections  of 
maritime and inland waterway ports or through railway connections to airports – and the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

inclusion  of  major  projects  in  intelligent  transport  systems.  While  seeking  to  make  a 
noticeable contribution to the Community's 20/20/20 climate change objectives, TEN-T 
policy  should  also  take  account  of  the  need  to  adapt  to  the  possible  consequences  of 
climate change (such as rising sea levels or changing heat patterns). The vulnerability of 
the  TEN-T  to  climate  change  and  potential  adaptation  measures  should  therefore  be 
assessed,  and  attention  should  be  given  to  the  question  of  how  to  "climate  proof"  new 
infrastructure. Furthermore, in order to assess fully environmental impacts of the TEN-T, 
the requirements set out in the UNECE Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment 
to the ESPOO Convention should be met.  

This priority network should be distinguished by full interoperability (i.e. implementation 
of  European  Rail  Traffic  Management  and  all  other  Technical  Specifications  in  the 
railway  sector;  implementation  of  the  Single  Sky  policy  and  the  ATM  Master  Plan; 
interoperability  in  other  ITS  sectors)  and,  furthermore,  target  agreed  capacity  standards 
for  all  infrastructure  components  involved.  (Currently,  the  TEN-T  Guidelines  only 
include  target  standards  in  the  inland  waterway  sector.)  Other  Community  action  that 
interrelates  with  infrastructure  design  –  such  as  the  possible  introduction  of  larger  and 
heavier road vehicles or intelligent motorways – should also be taken into account.  

A priority network would bring past achievements and current and future challenges of 
TEN-T  policy  closer  together.  Within  this  framework,  the  EU  could  streamline  the 
identification of projects of common interest and determine more objectively its support 
for  them  through  Community  instruments,  provided  projects  are  evaluated  on  a 
harmonized basis. It would, after all, combine infrastructure measures of different scales 
– from large long-term projects to projects of smaller scope that can be implemented in 
the  shorter  term  and  thereby  enhance  the  effectiveness  and  visibility  of  Community 
action. 

Q3 

Would  this  kind  of  priority  network  approach  be  better  than  the  current 
priority  projects  approach?  If  not,  why  not  and  what  are  the  particular 
strengths of the latter? If so, what (further) benefits could it bring, and how 
should it be developed?  

•  A "conceptual pillar"  

The conceptual approach of TEN-T could be considerably broadened in order to cater for 
infrastructure needs resulting from business-oriented measures in the different transport 
service  sectors.  Sector-related  policy  objectives  and  criteria,  as  set  out  in  the  TEN-T 
Guidelines,  could  guide  operators  in  the  development  of  projects  of  common  interest. 
Aiming  mainly  to  optimise  the  use  of  existing  infrastructure  capacities  initially,  this 
approach could reflect  evolving infrastructure needs, alongside growing demand, in the 
longer  run.  It  could  also  introduce  more  flexibility  into  the  concept  of  projects  of 
common  interest,  thus  making  it  possible  to  respond  to  market  developments  that  are 
currently  difficult  to  foresee.  It  would  establish  a  direct  link  in  particular  between  the 
Community's  transport  policy  objectives  (such  as  the  promotion  of  sustainable  freight 
transport  through  various  legislative  and  policy  actions,  efficient  and  sustainable  air 
transport  through  the  Single  Sky  policy  and  SESAR)  and  its  infrastructure  policy  and 
thereby  direct  TEN-T  towards  its  main  objective  of  serving  as  a  basis  for  transport 
services that meet established Community objectives.  

Q4 

Would  this  kind  of  flexible  approach  to  identifying  projects  of  common 
interest  be  appropriate  for  a  policy  that,  traditionally,  largely  rests  on 
Member  States'  individual  infrastructure  investment  decisions?  What 

EN 

9 

   EN 

further advantages and disadvantages could it have, and how could it best 
be reflected in planning at Community level?  

•  Infrastructure issues of particular relevance to future TEN-T development 

Regardless  of  the  future  "shape"  of  TEN-T,  there  are  a  number  of  specific  issues  that 
should be duly addressed in future TEN-T planning. These include, in the Commission's 
opinion, the following:  

Differing needs of passenger and freight traffic  

local 

Passenger and  freight traffic present  different characteristics. Freight traffic is  expected 
to  grow  faster  than  passenger  traffic,  average  transport  distances  for  freight  are  longer 
than  passenger  journeys  and  connecting  points  between  modes  and  between  long-
traffic  require  different  measures.  Congestion  problems  on 
distance  and 
infrastructure sections may call for the separation of passenger or freight railway lines. In 
ports and airports, the handling of passengers and freight involves different infrastructure 
requirements, both within the nodes and also in access to these nodes. Freight access by 
lorry to cities requires environmental and urban planning issues to be taken increasingly 
into  account.  Whereas  each  individual  case  should  be evaluated from an economic and 
environmental  point  of view,  the  question may arise as to whether, and to what extent, 
separate planning approaches for freight and passenger traffic should be addressed within 
overall TEN-T policy. In both cases, nodes as transfer points between long-distance and 
urban traffic will need to be considered in future TEN-T policy.  

Airports and ports as Europe's connecting points to the world 

Airports  play  a  key  role  in  passenger  traffic  (particularly,  in  view  of  Europe's  growing 
global role) and are also gaining in importance in freight transport as part of co-modality 
and the logistics chain. They are expected to face significant capacity constraints in the 
coming years. Air transport is particularly sensitive to fuel price, security and economic 
development,  and  the  type  and  scale  of  "projects  of  common  interest"  within  airports 
may therefore be changing.  

As  the  origin  and  destination  of  the  overwhelming  proportion  of  the  Community's 
international trade flows and a key component of freight logistics chains, maritime ports 
have  seen  steady  growth  in  traffic  in  the  last  30  years.  The  expansion  of  port 
infrastructure,  including  the  creation  of  proper  maritime  access  infrastructure,  involves 
long preparatory phases and high cost, however, and therefore poses problems to many 
ports. Insufficient inland connections, in particular for rail, have also been identified as a 
key  obstacle  to  the  proper  integration  of  ports  into  logistics  chains.  Infrastructure 
capacity problems in certain ports and land access to them may have an impact on land 
transport flows across Europe, since, for example, incoming trade flows may concentrate 
on a few major ports only. The distribution of goods via land routes may then aggravate 
congestion problems and have a negative impact on overall transport emissions.  

Waterborne transport in the EU  

On the other hand, the inland waterway network has ample free capacity that is already 
available  or  can  be  activated  with  relatively  limited  financial  resources.  It  connects  the 
major seaports and links the main industrial centres in the hinterland, often along heavily 
congested transport corridors. However, full and efficient use of inland waterways is still 
hampered by a number of bottlenecks and shortcomings. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

As regards the further development of motorways of the sea, they need to be defined in 
terms of objectives, scope and criteria for public support as the stimulus for public and 
private  initiatives.  The  "green  dimension"  of  motorways  of  the  sea  should  be 
accentuated,  possibly  as  part  of  the  green  freight  corridor  concept.  Their  economic 
viability should also be highlighted, and funding through various instruments (at national 
and Community level) should be streamlined.  

Freight logistics  

Freight logistics have become crucial for the Community to meet the economy's transport 
needs in a sustainable way. Based on the principle that each mode is used according to its 
comparable advantages within efficient co-modal transport chains, they play an important 
role  in  helping  the  Community  to  achieve  its  climate  change  objectives.  They  support 
economic growth while making freight transport more efficient – from both an economic 
and  an  environmental  perspective.  To  enable  freight  logistics  to  utilise  their  growth 
potential  to  the  full,  TEN-T  policy  needs  to  ensure  the  right  infrastructure  basis,  in 
particular  in  terms  of  inter-modal  terminals,  rail,  sea  and  river  port  capacity  (including 
land access to seaports), parking areas for commercial vehicles and ITS systems as both 
infrastructure components and means of tracking and tracing goods. The development of 
green  corridors,  within  the  freight  logistics  concept,  is  expected  to  strengthen  the 
environmental  and  innovative  dimensions.  Co-modality,  however,  is  also  an  important 
issue for passenger traffic, where seamless flows should be ensured between the different 
means of public transport (e.g. rail – air), road and public transport and long-distance and 
urban traffic.  

Q5 

How  can  the  different  aspects  outlined  above  be  best  taken  into  account 
within  the  overall  concept  of  future  TEN-T  development?  What  further 
aspects should be taken into consideration? 

Intelligent transport systems  

Intelligent  transport  systems  are  applicable  to  all  modes  of  transport,  as  they  help  to 
optimise  the  individual  modes  and  make  for  seamless  connection.  ITS  has  the  clear 
potential  to  enhance  the  efficiency  of  operations  and  to  improve  safety,  security  and 
comfort  for  the  user  –  as  EGNOS  in  2009  and  then  Galileo  in  2013  become  fully 
operational,  these  effects  will  be  increased.  They  form  the  bridge  between  the  hard 
infrastructure  and  the  increasingly  intelligent  vehicles  making  use  of  it.  But  most 
importantly, ITS is also key to achieving major Community policy objectives in transport 
and beyond, in the field of safety (better informed and supported users), security (tracing, 
identification),  efficiency  of  operations, 
tackling  congestion  (effective  demand 
management  and  cross-modal  network  balancing  through  pricing,  implementation  of 
legal  provisions)  and  fighting  climate  change  (energy  efficiency,  eco-driving,  green 
corridors and a more efficient and effective European co-modal transport system through 
e-freight,  e-maritime).  In  the  air  sector,  for  example,  a  European  network  system 
approach  is  essential  if  the  targets  of  efficient,  safe  and  environmentally  sustainable 
traffic performance are to be achieved.  

Given  their  relatively  low  cost  compared  to  hard  infrastructure  building,  and  the 
opportunity  of  combining  and  optimising  public  and  private  sector  investment,  social 
benefits and the return on investment are considerable – on condition that deployment is 
concerted, cross-sector and rolled out all over Europe. 

Q6 

How  can  ITS,  as  a  part  of  the  TEN-T,  enhance  the  functioning  of  the 
transport  system?  How  can  investment  in  Galileo  and  EGNOS  be 

EN 

11 

   EN 

translated  into  efficiency  gains  and  optimum  balancing  of  transport 
demand?  How  can  ITS  contribute  to  the  development  of  a  multi-modal 
TEN-T?  How  can  existing  opportunities  within  the  framework  of  TEN-T 
funding be strengthened in order to best support the implementation of the 
ERTMS European deployment plan during the next period of the financial 
perspectives? 

•  Innovation  

Transport  infrastructure,  including  ITS,  and  the  vehicle  sector  have  considerable 
potential  for  innovation,  and  thus  the  traditional  borderlines  between  infrastructure  and 
vehicles  may  be  shifting.  As  regards  TEN-T  development  over  the  coming  decades, 
questions arise as to how infrastructure will need to adapt to new generations of ITS and 
vehicles (e.g. infrastructure implications of intelligent vehicles) and what consequences 
innovation in infrastructure may have on rolling stock.  

New energy forms in transport may well call for infrastructure to be adapted (e.g. filling 
stations). The latest research on electric and hybrid vehicles is encouraging, because of 
the  possibility  of  shifting  the  CO2  emissions  problem  from  vehicles  to  power  plants, 
where it can be treated more effectively. In the longer term, hydrogen technologies could 
be very helpful for aviation and shipping.  

Besides  technological  innovation,  the  objective  of  ensuring  the  most  efficient  use  of 
infrastructure may also call for organisational innovation.  

Q7 

Do  shifting  borderlines  between  infrastructure  and  vehicles  or  between 
infrastructure  provision  and  the  way  it  is  used  call  for  the  concept  of  an 
(infrastructure)  project  of  common  interest  to  be  widened?  If  so,  how 
should this concept be defined?  

•  A TEN-T "core network"?  

To make TEN-T an effective basis for all relevant transport policy objectives and hence 
highlight its added value as an integral part of the common transport policy, the different 
"pillars"  referred  to  above  could  be  combined  to  form  a  TEN-T  core  network.  Such  a 
network could include both a priority network and a conceptual pillar, thus reflecting the 
need for flexibility and market orientation. It may also evolve over time, ensure optimal 
integration  of  all  infrastructure  ("hard"  and  intelligent)  and  interconnection  between 
modes,  and  act  as  a  vector  for  innovation  –  both  technological  and  organisational.  It 
could  also  become  the  basis  for  the  deployment  of  various  innovative  approaches,  for 
example  in  terms  of  transport  pricing.  A  core  network,  with  clear  European  objectives 
and the highest priorities in the field of transport and other EU policies (Internal Market, 
Cohesion, Sustainable Development/Climate Change etc.), could thus be the centrepiece 
of the Community's efforts in relation to TEN-T policy.  

Q8 

Would  this  kind  of  core  network  be  "feasible"  at  Community  level,  and 
what would be its advantages and disadvantages? What methods should be 
applied for its conception?  

3.2. Implementation level  

TEN-T  policy  is  only  credible  for  the  European  citizen  if  planning  options  and 
implementation capacity match. The planning option chosen and the instruments for its 
implementation must therefore correspond.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

•  Overall financing of the projects of common interest established in the TEN-T plans  

Despite  all  efforts  to  significantly  enhance  the  efficiency  of  infrastructure  use  and 
respond  to  demand  in  the  most  efficient  and  sustainable  way,  completion  of  TEN-T 
remains a major financial undertaking.  

If the comprehensive network is to be retained, the financial implications for completing 
it  would  be  immense.  Community  financial  instruments  in  their  current  form  have  not 
been able to bring about full and timely completion of all the projects involved. For the 
Community  to  ensure,  despite  this  constraint,  that  any  future  decision  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  on  this  matter  is  properly  implemented,  Member  States 
would have to ensure completion of the major part of the projects concerned themselves. 
Given  the  delays  in  the  completion  of  this  network  in  the  past,  a  more  binding 
responsibility for Member States might be called for. The "access function" of TEN-T, as 
referred  to  in  the  Treaty,  might  also  need  to  come  under  the  full  responsibility  of  the 
Member States concerned.  

Projects included in a core network – less extensive than the comprehensive network and 
concentrating on elements of high relevance to achieving the TEN-T policy objectives – 
would  of  course  also  come  at  a  high  cost.  Each  individual  project  of  common  interest, 
however,  should  have  strong  backing  in  established  Community  objectives  and  help  to 
increase the soundness of the overall cost estimate of TEN-T implementation. 

TEN-T planning should allow as accurate as possible a cost estimation for the network as 
a  whole.  Implementation  targets  and  cost  estimates  for  the  TEN-T  Guidelines,  which 
usually have a timeframe of 15 to 20 years, could be split into short, medium and long-
term perspectives. This could provide a sound basis for discussions on TEN-T financing 
as  a  whole,  where  Member  States,  Community  grant  instruments  and  the  European 
Investment Bank will continue to have major roles to play. Given the long-term nature of 
the  largest  TEN-T  projects,  it  is  also  important  to  look  beyond  any  one  period  of 
Community financial perspectives, in order to provide investors with more certainty for 
the entire project implementation period.  

Implementation  of  TEN-T  so  far  has  been  marked  by  enormous  cost  increases.  These 
have  been  caused  by  difficult  geological  conditions,  challenging  technical  solutions, 
changes  in  alignment  for  reasons  of  public  acceptance,  uncertainty  about  capacity 
standards at the outset, measures to ensure compliance with environmental legislation or 
pro-active  environmental  measures,  implementation  delays  and  various  other  problems. 
If  TEN-T  capacity  standards  are  set  at  the  planning  level,  this  may  reduce  uncertainty. 
Pro-active assistance by the Commission, by way of its coordinating role, could address 
the  various  problems  and  promote  exchanges  of  best  practice,  thereby  enhancing  the 
soundness of estimates and facilitating project implementation.  

The  wide  range  of  different  project  types  involved  in  TEN-T  development  calls  for 
different  financing  solutions.  With  increasing  market  orientation  in  the  transport  sector 
and  efforts  towards  infrastructure  optimisation,  a  growing  number  of  projects  with  full 
self-financing potential should now emerge. Implementation of Community legislation in 
relation  to  infrastructure  charging  and  internalisation  of  external  costs  should  give 
Member States additional possibilities both for better managing available capacities and 
optimising  the  transport  system,  and  for  financing  new  infrastructure  and  technologies. 
The  role  of  the  private  sector  in  project  delivery  could  also  be  intensified  where 
appropriate.  Community  instruments  supporting  public-private  partnerships  should  be 
further developed where efficiency gains can be expected. The recently created European 

EN 

13 

   EN 

Public-Private  Partnership  Expertise  Centre  is  expected  to  help  further  disseminate 
experience  and  encourage  the  broader  development  of  public-private  partnership 
schemes.  

Q9 

How  can  the  financial  needs  of  TEN-T  as  a  whole  −  in  the  short,  medium 
and long term − be established? What form of financing – public or private, 
Community or national – best suits what aspects of TEN-T development?  

Q10  What  assistance  can  be  given  to  Member  States  to  help  them  fund  and 
their  responsibility?  Should  private  sector 

deliver  projects  under 
involvement in infrastructure delivery be further encouraged? If so, how? 

•  Community financial instruments in support of TEN-T implementation  

Grants,  in  particular  under  the  TEN-T  budget  line  and  the  Cohesion  and  European 
Regional  Development  Funds,  play  a  major  role  in  both  project  preparation  and 
implementation.  Grants  are  allocated 
to 
comprehensive technical and environmental studies and costly geological explorations), 
thus helping to overcome early stage project difficulties, and to the works phase. A key 
issue  for  the  future  as  regards  implementation  of  TEN-T  policy  is  to  streamline  the 
allocation of grants and to link it to the European added value of projects so as to ensure 
the best value for Community money.  

feasibility  studies 

to  studies 

(from 

All  projects  of  common  interest  might  therefore  be  subjected  to  a  harmonised  and 
commonly  recognised  cost-benefit  analysis  that  establishes  the  European  added  value. 
This analysis should cover both external costs and network or cohesion benefits, and take 
account  of  geographical  asymmetries  between  benefits  and  the  financial  cost  of 
investments (one Member State may, for example, be faced with particularly high costs 
for  implementation  of  a  project  on  its  territory,  while  other  Member  States  may  draw 
disproportionate  benefits  from  this  investment).  It  would  allow  grants  from  the 
Community  budget  to  be  allocated  fairly  and  objectively,  and  to  be  limited  to  projects 
with  established  Community  added  value.  Furthermore,  in  order  to  obtain  maximum 
leverage  from  Community  funding  towards  TEN-T  objectives,  the  management  of  all 
available  budgetary  resources  (TEN-T  budget,  Cohesion  Fund,  ERDF  and  EIB  loans) 
needs to be better coordinated.  

In  addition  to  grant  support,  other  instruments  such  as  the  Loan  Guarantee  Instrument 
introduced  in  2007  and  the  Risk  Capital  Facility  (a  pilot  initiative  for  equity  provision 
activity under the TEN-T budget) make for innovative and promising ways of supporting 
TEN-T  projects.  Diversifying  the  portfolio  of  instruments,  in  a  bid  to  increase  the 
leverage  effect  of  Community  support,  to  adjust  support  to  the  particular  needs  of  a 
project and to enable effective project structuring, might also be considered. Innovative 
instruments could include Eurobonds.  

Q11  What  are  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  existing  Community  financial 
(including  "innovative" 
instruments,  and  are  new  ones  needed 
instruments)?  How  could  the  combined  use  of  funds  from  various 
Community resources be streamlined to support TEN-T implementation?  

•  Community non-financial instruments in support of TEN-T implementation 

Coordination – European coordinators and "corridor coordination"  

European  coordinators,  appointed  by  the  Commission  to  help  prepare  and  implement 
certain priority projects, have proven to be effective in a number of instances. Their role 

EN 

14 

   EN 

could be expanded to help stimulate the implementation of more major TEN-T projects 
(in  combination  with  well  targeted  funding  under  EU  financial  instruments).  Critical 
cross-border  sections  should  certainly  remain  particularly  important  in  this  respect, 
thereby heightening the prospects for the entire project.  

Coordination  could  play  a  vital  role  in  any  core  network  approach.  Apart  from  the 
"traditional"  priority  project  coordination  through  European  coordinators,  business-
oriented  "bottom-up"  projects  –  such  as  rail  freight  and  Green  Corridors  –  also  clearly 
call  for  solid  cross-border  coordination.  This  kind  of  "corridor  coordination  approach" 
would need to involve all the relevant stakeholders – infrastructure providers, operators, 
users and local and regional authorities – if solutions are to be developed that are both 
acceptable  to  all  and  technically,  economically and  financially  feasible.  For  them  to  be 
sustainable,  they  should  include  all  the  relevant  infrastructure  components  (e.g.  in  the 
case  of  rail  freight  corridors:  bottlenecks  to  be  removed,  inter-modal  terminals, 
connections  to  ports,  ERTMS  and  ITS  equipment).  For  Community  funding  purposes, 
such projects could be treated as a new kind of "European project", to be dealt with as a 
whole rather than receiving fragmented support.  

Corridor approaches might cover both corridors where the infrastructure implications are 
relatively  small,  but  where  significant  benefits  can  be  achieved  in  the  short  term,  and 
corridors  involving  critical  long-term  projects  such  as  trans-Alpine  and  trans-Pyrenees 
projects.  In  the  latter  cases,  the  approach  may  involve  intermediate  infrastructure 
solutions, thereby helping to improve the economics of the entire project. 

Open method of coordination 

Applying the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) to TEN-T could help to establish a 
common working framework for the Commission, the TEN-T Executive Agency and the 
Member  States,  and  provide  a  common  knowledge  base  on  the  TEN-T  network. 
Implemented through the TENtec Information System and its portal, the OMC will allow 
the main user groups to have access to the data stored in the TENtec database and to GIS 
maps with TEN-T data, and to update them. Allowing public access (e.g. to reports and 
maps  with  information  on  the  network)  could  also  be  a  useful  communications 
instrument  for  providing  information  on  the  Commission's  work  in  relation  to  TEN-T. 
More  systematic  and  comprehensive  information  about  TEN-T  policy  development 
overall is important to raising citizens' awareness of its benefits.  

Benchmarking could also be considered as a way of encouraging Member States to invest 
in  TEN-T.  The  establishment  of  performance  standards,  for  example,  could  help  to 
determine capacities for the different types of infrastructure and serve as a basis for the 
optimisation  of  infrastructure  use  and  identification  of  bottlenecks.  Positive  experience 
has already been made in this respect in the Air Traffic Management Sector whereas it 
has  proved  very  difficult  to  identify  infrastructure  capacity  in  the  rail  sector.  The 
exchange  of  best  practice  promises  a  number  of  opportunities  for  the  facilitation  of 
project implementation – in the field of the management of major projects, public-private 
partnership  approaches,  and  consideration  of  environmental  aspects  in  infrastructure 
planning.  

Q12  How  could  existing  non-financial  instruments  be  improved  and  what  new 

ones might be introduced?  

EN 

15 

   EN 

4. 

POSSIBLE OPTIONS FOR FURTHER TEN-T DEVELOPMENT  

From the points made under point 3, the Commission considers three options for further 
TEN-T development to be possible:  

(1)  Maintaining  the  current  dual  layer  structure  with  the  comprehensive 

network and (unconnected) priority projects 

(2) 

(3) 

Reducing  the  TEN-T  to  a  single  layer  (priority  projects,  possibly 
connected into a priority network)  

Dual layer structure with the comprehensive network and a core network, 
comprising  a  –  geographically  defined  –  priority  network  and  a 
conceptual  pillar  to  help  integrate  the  various  transport  policy  and 
transport infrastructure aspects. 

Table 1 sets out the benefits and disadvantages of these three options.  

Q13  Which of these options is the most suitable, and for what reason?  

5. 

INFORMATION FOR THOSE RESPONDING TO THE GREEN PAPER  

Consultation on the issues outlined in the Green paper will be open until 30/04/2009. 

Contributions may be sent to: 

European Commission 

DG Energy and Transport 

TEN-T 

B-1049 Brussels 

E-mail address: TREN-B1-GREEN-PAPER-TEN-T@ec.europa.eu  

The European Commission will analyse the results of this consultation and use them as 
input for its work on the shaping of this policy area. Please note that contributions and 
the names of the authors may be published on the internet, unless respondents explicitly 
refuse their consent to publication when sending their contributions. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

Structural options for the shaping of TEN-T  

Option   Title  
Dual 
(1) 
comprehensive 
network 
priority 
(current structure)  

and 
projects 

layer: 

Description  
Layer  1:  Comprehensive  network  (modal  outline  plans  and 
traffic  management  systems  as  included  in  current  TEN-T 
Guidelines) maintained in current form. 

Layer 2: Priority project approach maintained in current form. 

Review  and  possible  revision  based  on  provisions  of  current 
TEN-T Guidelines, Articles 22 and 23(3):  

Comprehensive  network  and  priority  projects  may  be  revised 
as part of the review of the Guidelines on the basis of the two-
yearly implementation reports. 

Priority projects will be subject to a progress report by 2010; 
amendments to the project list may be proposed if necessary.  

(2) 

Single 
layer: 
priority  projects  – 
possibly 
in 
extended form  

Single  Layer:  Priority  projects  in  current  form  (amended  as 
necessary),  complemented  by  priority  infrastructure  needs 
resulting  from  requirements  of  various  transport  services. 
Priority projects might possibly be connected, and amended as 
appropriate, into a priority network.  

Expected benefits/disadvantages to be addressed  
Benefits: 

Layer 1: important "medium" for various transport policy objectives 
(implementation of interoperability, safety and other legislation) and, 
in the future, possibly, for new technologies, infrastructure charging, 
etc. Also ensures access function for regions.  

Layer  2:  "visible  part"  of  TEN-T  policy:  subject  to  concentrated 
Community  financial  support  and  coordination  initiatives  of  the 
Commission.  Measurable  results  with  noticeable  effect  on  internal 
market, cohesion and sustainable transport objectives. 

Disadvantages: 

Layer  1:  no  means  at  Community  level  of  ensuring  full  and  timely 
implementation of projects. 

Layer 2: network effect at European level is not optimised.  
Benefits:  

Allows  concentration  of  Community 
instruments  on  highest 
priorities,  offering  better  prospects  for  full  completion  of  network 
within  scheduled  timeframe.  High  visibility  and  credibility  of 
Community policy.  

Disadvantages:  

Comprehensive  network  with  transport  policy  and  access  functions 
disappears  as  Community  network  due  to  the  lack  of  means  of 
ensuring proper implementation.  

EN 

17 

EN 

 
  
(3) 

layer: 

Dual 
comprehensive 
network  and  "core 
network"  

Layer  1:  Comprehensive  network  (modal  outline  plans  and 
traffic  management  systems  as  included  in  current  TEN-T 
Guidelines) maintained in current form. 

Benefits: 

Layer 1: as set out in option (1).  

Layer 2: "Core network" consisting of:  

a)  a  "geographical  pillar"  (defined  in  concrete  geographical 
terms).  This  includes  a  "priority  network"  (starting  from  the 
current priority project approach) which links up and extends 
as  necessary  major  trans-national  axes,  important  nodes  as 
inter-modal  connecting  points 
freight 
terminals, etc.) and major European action in the field of ITS; 

(ports,  airports, 

the  basis  for 

b)  a  "conceptual  pillar"  providing 
the 
identification  of  projects,  corridors  and  network  parts  over 
time;  based  on  short,  medium  and  long-term  service  needs; 
highly  business-oriented.  This  pillar  is  defined  through 
conceptual  features  such  as  objectives,  criteria,  etc.,  and 
provides  a  basis  for 
transparent  and  objective  project 
identification (also as a basis for possible Community funding) 

Layer 2: has greater potential for achieving true network effects and 
subsequent  underscoring  of  MS  commitment  to  completing  this 
network. Also provides a reference basis for transport policies, future 
innovations  (efficient  infrastructure  use,  co-modality,  logistics,  new 
technologies, etc.) and emission reduction objectives. 

coordination)  on 

Overall:  Allows  concentration  of  Community  instruments  (financial 
and 
enhances 
full  network 
effectiveness,  visibility  and  credibility  of  policy.  Establishes  sound 
basis for negotiations on Community budget for 2014-2020. 

completion; 

Disadvantages: 

Layer  1:  lack  of  means  to  ensure  full  and  timely  implementation, 
while ensuring important functions for transport policy and network 
access  

Layer  2:  inclusion  of  "uncertain"  factors  in  TEN-T  planning,  which 
can  only  be  defined  through  objectives  and  criteria  rather  than 
concrete projects. 

EN 

18 

EN