Special Report No 8/2010 ‘Improving transport performance on trans-European rail axes: Have EU rail infrastructure investments been effective?’
Date: 2010-12-03
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: action programme, common transport policy, intra-EU transport, rail network, rail transport, transport infrastructure

european 
court of audItors

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
n
s
s

I

0
1
0
2

8
o
n

t
r
o
p
e
r

l

a
i
c
e
p
s

ImprovIng transport performance 
on trans-european raIl axes: 
Have eu raIl Infrastructure 
Investments been effectIve?

en

 
 
 
 
special r eport no 8 

 2010

ImprovIng transport 
performance on 
trans-european 
raIl axes: Have  eu 
raIl  Infrastructure 
Investments been 
effectIve?

(pursuant to article 287(4), second subparagraph, tfeu)

european court of audItors

european court of audItors 
12, rue alcide d e g asperi
1615 luxembourg
luxembourg

tel. +352 4398-1
fax +352 4398-46410
e-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

special r eport no 8 

 2010

a great deal of additional information on the european union is available on the Internet.

It can be accessed through the europa server (http://europa.eu).

cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication

luxembourg: publications office of the european union, 2010

Isbn 978-92-9207-818-8

doi:10.2865/97788

© european union, 2010

reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

contents

3

Paragraph

Glossary

I–III 

EXECUTIVE sUMM ary

1–14 

INTroDUCTIoN

1–3 

BaCKGroUND

4–14 

EU INTErVENTIoNs rEGarDING raIlWays

5–10 

legIslatIve  measures at eu level

11–14 

eu co-fInancIng  of raIl  Infrastructure

15–18 

aUDIT sC oPE  aND  aPProa Ch

19–61 

oBsEr VaTIoNs

19–24 

 DEfINITIoN of PrIorITy ProjECTs aCCorDING To DEMoNsTraBlE NEEDs IN TErMs of EXIsTING aND
aNTICIPaTED raIl sErVICEs

21 

tHere were weaknesses  In tHe procedure to defIne  prIorIty  projects  In 2004

22–24 

 tHe  prIorIty  projects do not represent defInItIve descrIptIons of tHe maIn 
trans-european raIl axes

25–38 

TarGETING, sElECTIoN aND aPProVal of EU fINaNCIal sUPPorT

28–31 

 concentratIon of ten-t co-fInancIng at cross-border locatIons Has Improved sInce 2006,  
but mucH  remaIns to be acHIeved

32 

33 

 tHe co-ordInators  Have  Had a posItIve  Influence  In concentratIng  Investments and facIlItatIng 
developments on tHe  prIorIty  projects

IdentIfIcatIon of bot tlenecks could be 

Improved

34–38 

tHere were weaknesses  In selectIon and approval procedures at tHe  commIssIon

39–48 

 CoNsTrUCTIoN of EU Co-fINaNCED INfrasTrUCTUrE aCCorDING To sPECIfICaTIoNs aND ITs 
aVaIlaBIlITy for UsE

41–43 

planned  Infrastructure  Is delIvered  In lIne wItH  specIfIcatIon

44 

tHere are sometImes delays before  Infrastructure becomes avaIlable for use

45–48 

cost escalatIons were observed for all sectIons, mostly due to unforeseeable reasons

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
4

49–61 

52 

53–61 

 TraNsPorT PErforMaNCE oN ThE sECTIoNs BENEfITING froM EU INVEsTMENT IN ThE CoNTEXT of 
ThE PrIorITy ProjECTs

 performance on sectIons dedIcated to HIgH-speed passenger servIces Is In lIne wItH 
expectatIons

 for sectIons supportIng conventIonal freIgHt or mIxed traffIc, transport performance Has 
not yet met expectatIons

62–66 

CoNClUsIoNs aND rECoMMENDaTIoNs

–  sUMMary of MaIN EUroPEaN lEGIslaTIoN IN rEsPECT of ThE raIl INDUsTry
–  TEChNICal sPECIfICaTIoNs for INTEroPEraBIlITy

aNNEX I 
aNNEX II 
aNNEX III  –  lIsT of TEN-T PrIorITy ProjECTs
aNNEX IV  –  EU Co-fINaNCED INfrasTrUCTUrE sECTIoNs saMPlED for ThE aUDIT
aNNEX V 

– 

aNNEX VI  – 

aNNEX VII  – 

 Co-orDINaTors aPPoINTED By ThE CoMMIssIoN IN rEsPECT of raIl PrIorITy 
ProjECTs as aT jUNE 2010
 EU Co-fINaNCED sECTIoNs rEVIEWED for ThE aUDIT: sTaTUs of CoNsTrUCTIoN aND 
UsE
 oVErVIEW of sysTEM CoNsTraINTs aT Cross-BorDEr loCaTIoNs oN TraNs-
EUroPEaN raIl aXEs oBsErVED DUrING ThE aUDIT

rEPly of ThE CoMMIssIoN

Photo 1 – Unhooked locomotive before 
shunting at Brennersee station

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

© european court of auditors, february 2009. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
glossary

5

DG: directorate g eneral of the commission.

Essen Projects: 14 projects of common interest in respect of trans- european network defined at 
the essen e uropean council in 1993.

European Co-ordinators: persons appointed by the commission to facilitate the coordinated 
implementation of certain projects, in particular cross-border projects or sections of cross-border 
projects included among the projects declared to be of european interest.

European rail Traffic Management system (ErTMs):  a specific initiative at european level that 
seeks to contribute to the creation of a seamless european railway system by replacing the different 
national train control systems in europe. It is made up of two technical components, the european 
train control system (etcs) and global s ystem for m obile communications – r ail (gsm-r).

European regional Development  fund (ErDf):  financial instrument designed to promote eco-
nomic and social cohesion between the regions of the eu. erdf interventions are mainly imple -
mented through operational programmes encompassing a large number of projects.

Infrastructure Manager (IM): any body or undertaking responsible in particular for establishing 
and maintaining railway infrastructure. this may also include the management of infrastructure 
control and safety systems.

Instrument for structural Policies for Pre-accession (IsPa): one of the instruments to assist the 
candidate countries of central and eastern europe in the preparation for accession in the period 
2000–2006. Its objectives were to help candidate countries to apply eu environmental standards 
and to upgrade and expand transport networks, including links with the trans-e uropean network. 
these projects were converted into cohesion fund projects at accession.

Interoperability: technical compatibility of infrastructure, rolling stock, signalling and other rail 
systems, as well as procedures for approving rolling stock for use across the european rail net-
work.

Priority Projects: 30 projects of common interest made up of sections of the ten-t network in-
cluded in the ten-t guideline.

railway Undertaking (rU):  any public or private undertaking licensed according to applicable 
community legislation, the principal business of which is to provide services for the transport of 
goods and/or passengers by rail.

regulatory Body:  a body independent from any infrastructure manager, charging body, allocation 
body or applicant. a railway undertaking has a right to appeal to the regulatory body.

TGV / hsl / a VE: trains à grande  vitesse / High speed line / a lta velocidad española.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

I.
eu ro p e a n   un i o n   p o l i c y   i n   re s p e c t   o f   ra i l-
ways entails, on the one hand, legislative 
m e a s u re s   a d d re s s i n g   t h e   o p e n i n g   o f   t h e 
e u r o p e a n   r a i l   m a r k e t   a n d   a l s o   i n t e r o p -
e r a b i l i t y   a n d   s a f e t y   i s s u e s ,   a n d ,   o n   t h e 
o t h e r,   c o - f i n a n c i n g   r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e 
d e ve l o p m e n t   u n d e r  t e n- t  a n d   co h e s i o n 
po l i c y.   t h e   c o u r t ’s   a u d i t   f o c u s e d   o n   e u 
c o - f i n a n c i n g   o f   r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e   a n d 
e x a m i n e d   i t s   e f fe c t i ve n e s s   i n   i m p ro v i n g 
the  pe r for mance o f trans-e u rop e an axes.

II.
t h e   c o u r t   c o n c l u d e d   t h a t ,   t h r o u g h   c o -
f i n a n c i n g   t h e   d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   r a i l   i n f r a-
s t r u c t u re,   t h e   e u  c o n t r i b u t e d   t o   p ro v i d-
i n g   n e w   p o s s i b i l i t i e s   fo r   t r a n s -e u ro p e a n 
r a i l   t r a n s p o r t .   s o m e   a c t i o n s   c o u l d   h o w -
e ve r   b e   t a k e n   i n   o rd e r   to   a c h i e ve   gre ate r 
value for eu mo n ey :

—  the  def init ion  o f t he pr ior it y proje c ts, 
the main mechanism for co - ordinating 
a n d   c o n c e n t r a t i n g   e u  f i n a n c i a l   r e -
s o u rce s,   h a s   n o t ,   to   d ate,   b e e n   b a s e d 
on an analysis of ac tual and anticipat-
ed  t raf fic  fl ows  and  the  axes   to  whi ch 
th ey co r resp o nd  do no t rep re se nt  d e -
finitive descriptions of the main trans-
europ ea n rail axes ;

6

executIve  
summary 

—  t h e   c o n c e n t r a t i o n   o f   t e n- t  c o - f i-

n a n c i n g   a t   c r o s s - b o r d e r   l o c a t i o n s 
h a s   i m p r o v e d ,   a n d   t h e   co - o r d i n a t o r s 
a p p o i n t e d   b y   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   t o   f a-
c i l i t a t e   c r o s s - b o r d e r   a n d   o t h e r   s e c -
t i o n s   h a ve   m a d e   a   p o s i t i ve   c o n t r i b u-
t i o n .   H o w e v e r,   m u c h   r e m a i n s   t o   b e 
ac hie ved  at   the se  loc ations  and  th ere 
i s   a   n e e d   t o   i m p r o v e   a n a l y s i s   a b o u t 
b o t t l e n e c k s .   t h e r e   w e r e   w e a k n e s s e s 
i n   a p p r o v a l   p r o c e d u r e s   f o r   c o h e s i o n 
fund projects, and there remains room 
fo r   i m p rove m e n t   i n  t e n- t  p ro j e c t   s e -
lec tion  procedures;

—  c o - f i n a n c e d   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e   p r o j e c t s 
d e l i v e r e d   t h e   p l a n n e d   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e 
to specification, and, once completed, 
h a v e   c r e a t e d   n e w   a n d   i m p r o v e d   r a i l 
transpor t possibilities on key sec tions 
o f   t h e   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s.   a m e n d m e n t s 
to technical specifications we re made 
d u e   t o   c i r c u m s t a n c e s   t h a t   c a m e   t o 
light dur ing construc tion and cost es-
c alations  were common ; an d

—  m e a s u ra b l e   i m p rove m e nt s   h ave   b e e n 
a c h i e v e d   o n   l i n e s   d e d i c a t e d   t o   h i g h -
s p e e d   p a s s e n g e r   s e r v i c e s ,   b u t   r a i l 
s e r v i c e s   a r e   n o t   y e t   o p e r a t i n g   f u l l y 
at   a n t i c i p ate d   l e ve l s   o n   co nve n t i o n a l 
m i xe d   a n d   f r e i g h t   l i n e s   w h o s e   u s e   i s 
i n f l u e n c e d   b y   a   r a n g e   o f   f a c t o r s ,   i n-
c l u d i n g   s ys te m   co n s t ra i nt s   i n   t h e   ra i l 
n e t w o r k   e s p e c i a l l y   a t   b o r d e r   l o c a-
tion s.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

7

executIve  
summary

III.
th e   co u r t   re co m m e n d s   t h at   t h e   co m m i s-
sion  sho u ld:

— 

in fu tu re co nsiderations o f th e d ef in i-
tion of the priorit y projec ts, work with 
member states and railway institutions 
to   i d e n t i f y   t h o s e   t ra n s -e u ro p e a n   co r -
ridors for which there is significant ac-
tual  o r ant icip ated demand, s tre n g th-
e n i n g   t h e   e u r o p e a n - l e v e l   k n o w l e d g e 
a n d   a n a l y t i c a l   b a s e s   w h e r e   n e c e s-
sar y ;

—  b u i l d   o n   t h e   r o l e s   p l a y e d   t o   d a t e   b y 
t h e   c o - o r d i n a t o r s   a n d   e n s u r e   t h a t 
d e c i s i o n s   r e g a r d i n g   t h e   t a r g e t i n g   o f 
t e n -t   f u n d s   a re   s u p p o r t e d   b y   r o b u s t 
an al ysis o f imp or tant b ott len eck s ;

—  make sure that procedures for approv-
ing projects under the cohesion polic y 
are robust, and also improve the qual-
i t y   o f   c o s t - b e n e f i t   a n a l y s e s   fo r   t e n -t 
sele c t io n p ro ced ures ;

—  buil din g  o n  pas t   exp er ience,   tak e   t he 
l e a d   i n   f a c i l i t a t i n g   t h e   e x c h a n g e   o f 
k n ow l e d g e   a n d   e x p e r i e n ce   a b o u t   ra i l 
i n f r a s t r u c t u r e   d e v e l o p m e n t   a m o n g s t 
proj ec t  pro mo ters;  an d

—  c o n s i d e r   p l a c i n g   i n c r e a s e d   e m p h a s i s 
on alleviating prac tical constraints for 
cross-border rail transpor t that are not 
p e r   s e  r e l a t e d   t o   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e ,   a n d 
e n co u ra g e   a n d   f a c i l i t at i n g   co l l a b o ra-
tion  a mo ng st   m em be r  st ate   rail  in sti-
tutio ns  to  t his  e nd.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

IntroductIon

8

1. 

2. 

B aC KGr oU N D

 I n recent years, transpor t volumes in the european union have 
i n c re a s e d   s i g n i f i c a n t l y,   w i t h   g ro w t h   i n   f re i g h t   t r a n s p o r t   vo l-
u m e s   o u t s t r i p p i n g   g d p  g r o w t h   b e t w e e n   1 9 9 5   a n d   2 0 0 7   ( s e e 
Figu r e  1).

 this situation is expec ted to continue in the period up to 2020 
with recent predictions suggesting that growth in freight trans-
por t w il l be bo r n e mo stl y by  road an d se a t ra ns por tati on ( se e 
Figure 2) whilst the passenger car will account for the vast ma-
jority of growth in passenger transpor t (see Figure 3). europe’s 
railways stand to account for only a small par t of the expec ted 
grow th ; inde ed,  it s rel ative s hare  of t he  trans por t m ar ket  a s a 
wh o le  is pre dic ted to fal l.

f I G UrE   1

G r o W Th   I N  Tr aNsPo rT   E U - 27   ( 1 99 5 - 2 007 )

140 %

135 %

130 %

125 %

120 %

115 %

110 %

105 %

100 %

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

GDP

Freight tonne km

Passenger km

S o urce: eu energy and transport in figures: statistical pocketbook 2009, european commission (dg energy and transport). 

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
9

3. 

 t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   h a s   i d e n t i f e d   t h r e e   i m p o r t a n t   o b s t a c l e s   t o 
d e ve l o p i n g   a   s t ro n g   a n d   co m p e t i t i ve   eu ro p e a n   ra i l   t ra n s p o r t 
indu st r y :

 ο

 ο

r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e   i s   n o t   w e l l   a d a p t e d   t o   c a t e r   fo r   t r a n s -
e u r o p e a n   s e r v i c e s ,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r,   t h e r e   a r e   m i s s i n g   l i n k s 
bet ween national rail net works (especially at cross-border 
l o c a t i o n s ) ,   t h e r e   a r e   b o t t l e n e c k s   o n   i m p o r t a n t   a xe s   a n d 
m u c h   o f   t h e   r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e   i n   u s e   t o d a y   i n   e u r o p e   i s 
several decades old (some as old as a centur y) and in need 
o f rep l aceme nt  or up grade;

t h e   e u r o p e a n   r a i l   n e t w o r k   i s   m a d e   u p   o f   a   p a t c hw o r k   o f 
n a t i o n a l   r a i l   n e t w o r k s   t h a t   h a v e   h i s t o r i c a l l y   d e v e l o p e d 
to   m e e t   n at i o n a l   n e e d s,   e a c h   d e ve l o p i n g   s i m i l a r,   b u t   n o t 
i d e nt i c a l,   n at i o n a l   te c h n i c a l   a n d   o p e rat i o n a l   c h a ra c te r i s -
tics and administrative procedures; interoperabilit y prob -
l ems  nee d to  be ad dres sed;  and

 ο

r a i l   s e r v i c e s   i n   e u r o p e   h a v e   h i s t o r i c a l l y   b e e n   p r o v i d e d 
w i t h i n   n a t i o n a l   m a r k e t s   o n l y ;   a   c o m p e t i t i v e   m a r k e t   f o r 
t ran s-e u rop ea n s er vices need s to em erg e.

f I G UrE   2

fo rE C a sT   f rE I GhT  Tr aNsPo rT   Gr o W Th   E U - 2 5  ( 1 99 8 - 2 020 )

m
k
s
e
n
n
o
t
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

0

1998

2010

2020

Road

Rail

Inland Waterways

Pipelines

Sea

S o urce: keep europe moving, assess, dg transport and energy, annex II, pp. 35-36.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
10

E U   I N T Er V E N T IoNs   rE Ga rD I N G   r aIl Ways

4. 

 eu inter ventions in respec t of  europe’s railways entail t wo pol-
ic y  ins tru ment s,   on  th e  one  han d,   le gi slat ive  me as ure s  ai me d 
at opening the european rail market and promoting interoper-
abilit y (as well as rail safet y and passenger r ights), and on the 
o t h e r,   c o - f i n a n c i n g   o f   n e w   a n d   u p g r a d e d   r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e 
(see Figure 4).  overall progress depends on mak ing the most of 
the   s ynergies  bet ween  these  in st r ume nt s;   for   exa mple,   n ewl y 
c o n s t r u c t e d   c ro s s - b o rd e r   r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u re   m ay   n o t   b e   f u l l y 
u s e d   i f   t h e   m a r k e t   fo r   t ra n s -e u ro p e a n   s e r v i ce s   t h e re o n   i s   n o t 
prop e r l y devel op ed.

f I G UrE   3

fo rE C a sT   Pa s sE N G Er   Tr aNsPo rT   Gr o W Th   E U - 2 5  ( 1 99 8 - 2 020 )

m
k
r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

9 000
8 000
7 000
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
0

1998

2010

2020

Bus and Coach

Railway

Tram and metro

Air

Passenger car

S o urce: keep europe moving, assess, dg transport and energy, annex II, pp. 35-36.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
11

f I G UrE   4

E U   Po lI C y   Go a l s   aN D   I NsTr U M E N T s   I N   rEsP E C T   o f   r aIl Ways

opening the rail 
transport market 
to competition

policy goals

Improving 
interoperability  
and safety

developing rail 
infrastructure

o 

o 

eu co-financing 
instruments
 provided under ten-t policy 
and cohesion policy

 ten-t priotity projects are 
the main targeting  
mechanism:

•	

•	

14 essen projects defined 
in 1993

revised list of 30 priority 
projects defined in 2004

eu legislative instruments

council directive on the development of the  
community’s railways (1991)
o 

 separation of formerly integrated railway companies 
into national railway infrastructure managers and  
railway undertakings

o  establishement of rail industry regulatory bodies

first railway package (2001)
o 
o 

 opening the international freight market
 clarification of the formal relationship between the 
state, infrastructure manager and railway undertakings
 licensing of freight operators
 capacity allocation and infrastructure charging

o 
o 

second railway package (2004)
 common approach to rail safety
o 
 interoperability of the high-speed and conventional rail  
o 
systems
 opening of international freight services on the entire 
network from 1 january 2007

o 

o  establishment of the european railway agency

third railway package (2007)
o 

 opening of international rail passenger services market 
from january 2010
 certification of train crews

o 
o  rail passengers’ rights and obligations

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

12

5. 

6. 

7. 

lE G Is l a T I V E   M Ea sUrEs   aT   E U   lE V El

M a r k e t,  i n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y  a n d  s a f e t y

 eu legislation in 1991 1 required integrated railway companies to 
be s ep arated into n ational  rail in fra st r uc t ure m an age r s  (‘ Im s’) 
and railway under tak ings (‘ru s’). I t also required that national 
rail  in du str y  regu l ator y  b odies   be   s et   up  to  su per vis e  th e  rail 
mar k et at  nat io nal  l evel.

1  council directive 91/440/eec of 
29 july 1991 on the development of 

the community’s railways (oj l 237, 

24.8.1991, p. 25).

 si n c e   2 0 0 1 ,   e u  d i r e c t i v e s   h a v e   b e e n   p u l l e d   t o g e t h e r   i n   s o -
c a l l e d   ra i l w ay  ‘p a c k a g e s’  a d d re s s i n g   a s p e c t s   o f   m a r k e t   o p e n-
i n g,   i n t e ro p e r a b i l i t y   a n d   s a fe t y   w h i c h   h ave   to   b e   t r a n s p o s e d 
i n to   n a t i o n a l   l e gi s l a t i o n   a n d   i m p l e m e n te d   by   m e m b e r   s t a te s 
(see Fig ur e  4 for  a su mmar y  o f  e u legislative ins tr uments an d 
A nnex  I fo r det ailed  references  t he re to) .

 common technical standards have been for malised at eu level 
t h ro u g h  te c h n i c a l   sp e c i f i c a t i o n s   fo r   I n t e ro p e r a b i l i t y   ( ‘ t sI s’ ) , 
w h i c h   i n c l u d e ,   i n t e r   a l i a,   s t a n d a r d s   r e g a r d i n g   t h e   e u r o p e a n 
r ail traffic management system (‘er tms ’) (see Box 1). the task 
o f   d e ve l o p i n g  ts I s   h a s   b e e n   d e l e g ate d   by   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   to 
t h e   eu ro p e a n   r a i l way   ag e n c y   ( s e e   A n n e x   I I   fo r   a   s u m m a r y   o f 
publ ishe d tsIs ).

B oX   1

EUr oP EaN   r aIl  T r a f fI C   M aNa G E M E N T   sysT E M   ( ‘ ErT Ms ’ )

ertms seeks to contribute to the creation of a seamless  european railway system by replacing the dif-
ferent national train control systems in europe. It also facilitates high speed rail transport, allows for 
increased capacity on rail lines and improves safety. several commission decisions, including regarding 
the ertms deployment plan 2, require that newly constructed lines are equipped with ertms and that 
certain corridors are so equipped by specific dates. 500 million euro out of a total budget for ten-t of 
8 billion euro in the period 2007-2013 was earmarked to support the adoption of ertms by railway 
undertakings and infrastructure managers.

2  commission decision 2009/561/ec of 22 july 2009 amending decision 2006/679/ec as regards the implementation of the technical 
specification for interoperability relating to the control-command and signalling subsystem of the trans-european conventional rail 

system (oj l 194, 25.7.2009, p. 60).

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
13

8. 

9. 

ten- t  n e t w o r k  a n d  t h e p r i o r i t y p r o j e c t s

 the treaty provides for the eu to promote the inter- connec tion 
and inter- operability of national networks 3. the trans-e uropean 
tr a n s p o r t   n e t w o r k   ( t e n -t )   s e t s   o u t   t h e   m a i n   t r a n s p o r t   a xe s 
along  w hic h eu rop ea n fina ncial suppor t for  rai l inf ras tr uc ture 
has  be en direc ted.

 o f   p a r t i c u l a r   i m p o r t a n c e   a re   t h e   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s   w h i c h ,   i n i-
tially identified following the essen  european council in 1993, 
were defined in order to fur ther concentrate eu investments on 
th e m os t  impo r tant axes.  since 20 04 , th e list has inc reas ed  to 
30  p r ior it y  pro jec t s  (19  o f  w hich  refer  to  rail   trans por t)   wh ic h 
has been enshrined in ten- t guidelines 4. this list was informed 
b y   t h e   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s   o f   a   H i g h   l e v e l   gr o u p   c h a i r e d 
b y   f o r m e r   c o m m i s s i o n e r   k a r e l   va n   m i e r t   ( s e e   F i g u r e   5  f o r   a 
s u m m a r y   o f   t h e   m a i n   m i l e s t o n e s   i n   t h e   d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   t h e 
ten- t net work and the  prior it y projec ts and A nnex III for a list 
o f   t h e   pr i o r i t y   pr o j e c t s ) .   B o x   2   s h o w s   s o u r c e s   o f   f i n a n c e   f o r 
th e p r ior it y p ro jec t s.

10.  

 I n   2 0 0 9 ,   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i n i t i a t e d   a   b r o a d   r e v i e w   o f   t e n- t 
polic y in which future political and economic challenges such 
as the achievement of climate change objec tives, fur ther eco -
n o m i c   g r o w t h ,   e c o n o m i c   a n d   s o c i a l   c o h e s i o n   a s   w e l l   a s   t h e 
strengthening of europe’s international role were considered 5. 
t h e   co m m i s s i o n   p ro p o s e d   o p t i o n s   fo r   f u t u re  t e n- t  d e ve l o p -
m e n t   w i t h   a   v i e w   t o   p r e p a r i n g   a   m a j o r   l e g i s l a t i v e   p r o p o s a l , 
inclu ding  a revisio n o f the t en- t g uide lin es.

3  the treaty establishing the 
european community (1992),  

article 154. trans-european 

networks exist in the fields of 

transport, telecommunications and 

energy.

4  decision no 884/2004/ec of 
the european parliament and 

of the council of 29 april 2004 

amending decision no 1692/96/ec 

on community guidelines for the 

development of the trans-european 

transport network (oj l167, 

30.4.2004, p. 1).

5  green paper ten-t: a policy 
review: towards a better integrated 

trans-european transport network 

at the service of the common 

transport policy, com(2009) 44 final, 

4.2.2009.

B oX   2

soUr C Es   o f   fI NaN C E   f o r  ThE   P rIo rI T y   P r o jE C T s

according to recent estimates, up to 2007 126,35 billion euro had already been invested on the priority 
projects, 154 billion euro was expected to be invested between 2007 and 2013, with 119 billion euro still 
to be invested thereafter. member states’ own national budgets account for 66 % of the total invested 
on the priority projects between 1996 and 2013 (see Table 1).

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
14

f I G UrE   5

MIlEsT oN Es   I N  ThE   D E V EloP M E N T   o f  ThE  T E N - T   N E T W o rK   aN D  
P rIo rI T y   P r o jE C T s

1994  a group of representatives of the Heads of state or govern-
ments proposed a list of 14 ’projects of european interest’  
(10 referring to rail infrastructure).  the so-called ’essen projects’ 
were included in the first formal ten-t guidelines.

2001  the commission issued a white paper on the european 
transport policy for 2010, particularly noting the need to revital-
ise the railways.

2004  based on proposals from the member states and acced-
ing countries, a High level group recommended ten-t network 
projects of common interest up to 2020. 30 so-called priority 
projects (19 referring to rail infrastructure) were eventually  
formally agreed upon by the council. 

2005  the revised lisbon strategy emphasised the importance of 
transport infrastructure for europe’s strategic development high-
lighting the need to efficiently accommodate increasing global 
and intra-european trade flows, address environmental concerns 
and support social and economic development.

2006  updated ten-t guidelines came into force, introducing the 
possibility of a 30 w co-financing rate for cross border locations 
and providing for the appointment of co-ordinators.

2009  the commission carried out a formal consultation with 
stakeholders concerning the basis for a better integrated ten-t 
network and the possible future nature of the priority projects. 
Issues highlighted for debate included the definition of core  
networks and the development of intelligent transport systems.

2010  the commission is due to publish a white paper concern-
ing the ten-t network.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

15

11.  

12.  

E U   Co-fI NaN C I N G   o f   r aIl   I Nf r a sTr U C T UrE

 s ources of funding for the 30 pr iorit y projec ts (except g alileo) 
inclu ding  rail t ran sp or t,  are s umm ar is ed  i n  Tabl e  1 6.

6  article 17 of regulation (ec) 
no 680/2007 of the european 

 r ail infrastruc ture sec tions co -financed by the eu under  ten- t 
a n d   co h e s i o n   po l i c y   a re   b a s e d   o n   n at i o n a l   p ro p o s a l s   a n d   i m -
p l e m e n te d   by   n a t i o n a l   a u t h o r i t i e s.  th e re   a re   d i f fe re n t   aw a rd 
a n d   s e l e c t i o n   p ro c e d u re s   fo r   t h e s e   t wo   s c h e m e s   a t   t h e   co m-
mis sio n.

parliament and of the council of 

20 june 2007 laying down general 

rules for the granting of community 

financial aid in the field of the trans-

european transport and energy 

networks (oj l 162, 22.2.2007, p. 1). 

every two years the commission 

is required to submit a report on 

ten-t activities. whilst generally 

providing a sound description of the 

current situation, the audit revealed 

that the commission’s may 2008 

report contained inaccuracies in the 

figures presented regarding historic 

investments.

TaBl E   1

f U N D I N G   s oUr C Es   f o r   I N V EsT M E N T s   I N  ThE   30   P rIo rI T y 
P r o jE C T s   (E XCl U D I N G   G a lIlEo ) ,  1 99 6 - 2 01 3

1996-1999
EU-15

2000-2006
EU-27

2007-2013
EU-27

(billion euro)

TEN-T

EU grants

Cohesion Fund

ERDF

EIB

Other sources (national)

Total investments in TEN-T Priority Projects

1,35

3,83

1,46

9,78

16,23

32,65

2,80

7,00

4,81

16,10

63,00

93,70

5,40

12,30

4,70

25,00

106,60

154,00

Totals

9,55

23,13

10,97

50,88

185,83

280,35

%

3 %

8 %

4 %

18 %

66 %

100 %

the court noted the difference in overall investments in the period 2007-2013 of 154 billion euro to 151 billion euro reported by 
ten-t priority project progress report.

S o urce: ‘ ten-t funding in figures’ dg transport and energy website:  
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/funding/doc/funding_figs.pdf

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
13.  

14.  

 und er  t en- t  po lic y,  the  eu co -fin ance s studies  an d wor k s  (s ee 
Table 2 for maximum co -financing rates).  co -financed projec ts 
in respect of works typically address the construction of cer tain 
par ts or technical elements of a sec tion of the priority projec ts. 
pro jec t s  are   sel ec ted  o n  a  co mpet it ive  basi s   followin g   t he   as-
s e s s m e n t   o f   p r o p o s a l s   s u b m i t t e d   b y   m e m b e r   s t a t e   a u t h o r i-
ties. proposal evaluation procedures culminate in a rank ing of 
proj ec t s  wit h  eu  co -f in ancing  bein g  alloc ated  to  t he   proje c ts 
evaluated as the best. dg  mobility and transpor t is responsible 
for ten-t polic y. organising the evaluation procedure is one of 
the  ta sk s recentl y del eg ated to  th e te n- t exec utive a ge nc y.

 und er  co hes io n   po lic y,   eu  co - finan c in g  is  available  for   qual i-
f y i n g   m e m b e r   st ate s   u n d e r   t h e   co h e s i o n   fu n d 7  a n d   t h e   e r d f 
( s e e   Ta b l e   2   f o r   m a x i m u m   c o - f i n a n c i n g   r a t e s ) .   d g  r e g i o n a l 
polic y is responsible for cohesion polic y. co -funding for cohe -
sion  fu nd  p roj ec ts 8  and   fo r  maj or   proj ec ts  unde r  th e  e rdf 9  is 
sub jec t  to  co mmis sio n ap proval unde r s pec if ic  r u les  apply i ng 
to   e a c h   fu n d.  th e   co m m i s s i o n’s   a p p rov a l   p ro ce d u re s   i nvo l ve 
c h e c k i n g   t h e   co n s i s te n c y   o f   p ro p o s e d   p ro j e c t s   w i t h   n a t i o n a l 
and   regio nal  st rategies  an d  revi ewi ng   th e ir   ove rall   feas ibili t y 
and degree of preparation. cohesion fund regulations stipulate 
t h a t   f u n d i n g   f o r   t r a n s p o r t   s h o u l d   b e   a l l o c a t e d   t o   t h e   t e n- t 
net wo r k ,  in p ar ticul ar the p r ior it y  p roje c ts 10.

16

7  until 2004, financing was also 
available to accession countries 

under Ispa. the projects were 

converted into cohesion fund 

projects at accession.

8  since 2007, projects under 
50 million euro submitted for 

co-financing under the cohesion 

fund do not require approval by the 

commission.

9  the concept of ‘major projects’ 
is mainly defined on the basis of 

the volume of finance involved in 

the projects. the definition covers 

projects ‘whose total cost taken 

into account in determining the 

contribution of the funds exceeds 

50 million euro (article 25 of council 

regulation (ec) no 1260/1999  

(oj l 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1) and 

article 39 of council regulation 

(ec) no 1083/2006 (oj l 210, 

31.7.2006, p. 25) as amended by 

regulation (eu) no 539/2010 of 

the european parliament and 

the council (oj l 158, 24.6.2010, 

p. 1)). for more information on 

the subject, see special report no 

1/2008 concerning the procedures 

for the preliminary examination 

and evaluation of major investment 

projects for the 1994-1999 and 

2000-2006 programming periods.

10  article 3 of council regulation 
(ec) no 1164/94 (oj l 130, 

25.5.1994, p. 1), article 3(1) of 

regulation (ec) no 1264/1999 (oj 

l 161, 26.6.1999, p. 57), article 2(1)

(a) of  regulation (ec) no 1084/2006 

(oj l 210, 31.7.2006, p. 79) stipulate 

that transport spending under the 

cohesion fund shall be allocated 

to ten-t projects and, in particular, 

projects of common interest as 

defined by the ten-t guidelines in 

2004.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
17

TaBl E   2

M aX I M U M   Co - fI NaN C I N G   r aT Es   U N D Er  T E N - T   aN D   Co hEsIoN  
P o l I C y   ( 200 0 - 2013 ) 1

2000-2006

2007-2013

Studies

ERTMS
trackside / on-board

Cross-border sections on Priority Projects

Other sections on the Priority Projects

50 %

10 %

10 %
(20 % from 2004)

10 %
(20 % for bottlenecks)

Cohesion Fund

ERDF

ISPA (until 2004)

85 %

75 %

75 %

T
-
N
E
T

y
c
i
l

o
p
n
o
i
s
e
h
o
C

50 %

50 %

30 %

20 %

85 %

75 %
(80 % for Member States qualifying for 
Cohesion Fund)

–

1  co-financing rates apply to only those project costs deemed to be eligible under the rules governing eu support.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 audIt scope and approacH

18

15.  

 the audit focused on eu co -financing of rail infrastruc ture and 
e x a m i n e d   i t s   e f fe c t i v e n e s s   i n   i m p r o v i n g   t h e   p e r fo r m a n c e   o f 
t r a n s - e u ro p e a n   a xe s.   I n   c a r r y i n g   o u t   t h e   a u d i t ,   t h e   co u r t   fo -
cus ed  on  t he fo ur main areas of  r is k ,  n ame ly :

 ο

 ο

 ο

 ο

w h e t h e r   t h e   p r i o r i t y   p r o j e c t s   h a v e   b e e n   e f f e c t i v e   a s   a 
me cha nism fo r co ncentrating  e u  fund s  on  t he  m ain  tra ns -
european axes, in par ticular, insofar as they have been de -
fined according to demonstrable needs in terms of existing 
and  anticip ate d rail  s er vices ;

whether financial suppor t under ten-t and cohesion polic y  
h a s   b e e n   e f f e c t i v e l y   t a r g e t e d   o n   p r i o r i t y   a r e a s ,   a n d   t h e 
ex te nt   to   which  th is  is  su ppor te d  by   robus t  se le c ti on   an d 
ap p roval p rocedures ;

w h e t h e r   s e c t i o n s   o f   i n f ra s t r u c t u re   co - f i n a n ce d   by   t h e   e u 
h a v e   b e e n   c o n s t r u c t e d   a c c o r d i n g   t o   s p e c i f i c a t i o n s   a n d , 
t herea f ter,  whe ther t hey  have becom e  rea dy fo r  us e w it h-
o ut  u ndue  d elay ; and

whether the infrastruc ture sec tions co -financed by the eu 
have been used in line with expec tations, including in the 
c o n t e x t   o f   t h e   t r a n s - e u ro p e a n   a x i s   o n   w h i c h   t h e y   a re   l o -
cate d.

Photo 2 – Freight train in München ready for departure to Verona via Brennersee station

© european court of auditors, february 2009. 

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
19

11  the audit team was assisted in 
the execution of the fieldwork by an 

independent rail industry expert. 

16.  

17.  

 to carr y out the audit, the cour t analysed a sample of 21 specif-
ic sec tions co -financed by the eu during the 2000-2006 period 
(14 primarily funded under the ten- t financial instrument and 
seven mainly under cohesion polic y). these sec tions related to 
ei ght   o f   the   pr i o r it y   pro je c t s   d ef in ed  i n   t h e  te n -t   g ui del in es. 
taken together, the sample covers a total of 8 683 million euro 
of eu investments representing 77 % of all eu co -financing in -
ves tm ents  on  t he s amp l ed eight pr ior it y  proje c ts, and 36  %  of 
investments from all sources thereon (see A nnex IV for fur ther 
details of the sample and B ox 3 for definition of ter ms used in 
th e re po r t).

 the audit field work was carried out between october 2008 and 
m a y   2 0 0 9 1 1,   a n d   a u d i t   e v i d e n c e   w a s   c o l l e c t e d   t h ro u g h   i n t e r -
views  w it h  m em b er  st ate   of fic ials,  proj e c t  p rom ote rs  and  rail 
ind us tr y  st ake ho l ders,   review   of   docume nts   h e ld  by  th e  com-
mission, technical questionnaires completed by m ember state 
institutions and visits on-the -spot in the m ember states. data 
regarding transpor t per for mance was provided by national in -
frast ru c tu re managers.

18.  

 the audit did not assess the financial or technical super vision 
mecha nisms in p l ace in the m ember  s tates.

B oX   3

DEfI N I T IoN   o f  T ErMs   UsE D   I N  ThE   rE Po rT

a  rail axis is a rail line (or collection of rail lines) that spans a long distance and provides connections 
between several important commercial and/or industrial locations en route. trans-e uropean rail axes 
span more than one m ember state.

a priority project refers to a grouping of sections each of which relate to connections between specific 
commercial and/or industrial locations that have been formally identified as ‘projects of common inter-
est’ in eu legislation in 2004 (d ecision no 884/2004/ec - see  Figure 5). although sometimes referred to 
as axes, these priority project groupings of sections are not, in all cases, linked to together.

a co-financed  project relates to equipment or infrastructure located on a rail section that is part of a 
priority project and for which an eu grant has been approved.

for example, priority project 1 concerns the railway axis berlin-verona / milano-bologna-napoli-m essina-
palermo. for this priority project, the court examined eu co-financed projects relating to sections at 
berlin central station, nürnberg-Ingolstadt, kufstein-Innsbruck, brenner base tunnel, bologna-firenze, 
roma-napoli and m essina patti.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
12  made up of one representative 
from each member state, one 

observer from each acceding 

country and an observer from the 

european Investments bank,  

chaired by former commissioner 

karel van miert.

observatIons

20

D EfI N I T IoN   o f   PrIo rI T y   Pr o jE C T s 
aCCo rD I N G  T o   D E MoNsTr aBlE   N E E Ds
T ErMs   o f   E X IsT I N G   aN D   aN T I C I P aT E D   r aIl  
sEr V I C Es

  I N 

19.  

 given   the   imp or t ance  o f  t he  pr ior it y   proje c ts  as   a  mechan ism 
fo r   co - o rd i n at i n g   a n d   co n ce n t rat i n g   co m m u n i t y   f i n a n c i a l   re -
s o u r c e s ,   i t   i s   i m p o r t a n t   t h a t   t h e i r   d e f i n i t i o n   i s   i n f o r m e d   b y 
a n   a n a l y s i s   o f   d e m o n s t r a b l e   n e e d s   i n   t e r m s   o f   e x i s t i n g   a n d 
antic ip ate d rail s er vices.

20.  

 the cour t assessed whether the procedure by which the list of 
pr ior it y p ro jec t s  was defined i n 20 04  was  robust.

21.  

ThErE  W ErE  W EaK N Es sEs
D EfI N E   PrIo rI T y   Pr o jE C T s   I N  2 00 4

  I N  ThE   Pr oC E D UrE  T o 

 one hundred proposals for specific projec ts and sec tions were 
submitted by current and future member states to a High level 
gro up  con stitu ted in 20 03 12.  th ese were ass essed  fir st agains t 
pre -selec tion criteria and, then, against a set of evaluative cri-
teria defined by the group. the group’s recommendations took 
th e for m o f fo u r l ist s  of  pr ior it y proje c ts in cluding  14 proje c t s 
i n   t h e   p ro ce s s   o f   co m p l e t i o n   ( e s s e nt i a l l y   t h e   es s e n   pro j e c t s ) , 
18 projec ts to star t before 2010, four longer term projec ts and 
15 other impor tant projec ts for territorial cohesion. these rec-
o m m e n d a t i o n s   f o r m e d   t h e   b a s i s   o f   t h e   d e l i b e r a t i o n s   o f   t h e 
europ ea n co unc il  w hen it defined a list  of 3 0 pr ior it y  proje c ts 
( 1 9   o f   w h i c h   re fe r re d   to   ra i l )   i n   t h e  t e n- t  g u i d e l i n e s   i n   2 0 0 4 . 
the cour t ’s analysis revealed impor tant weak nesses in the ap -
p l i c at i o n   o f   t h e   p re - s e l e c t i o n   a n d   e va l u at i o n   c r i te r i a   d e f i n e d 
by  th e grou p:

 ο

g i ve n   t h e   a b s e n ce   o f   a   c l e a r   u n d e r s t a n d i n g   o f   w h a t   c o n-
st it ute d a majo r eu rop ea n axis, th e evaluator s stated  t hat 
they had difficult y to consistently assess the mer its of the 
l oc at io n o f p ro pos ed s ec tions;

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
21

 ο

 ο

v a r i a t i o n s   i n   q u a n t i t y   o f   a n d   a   l a c k   o f   c o n s i s t e n c y   i n   t h e 
a n a l ys i s   p re s e n t e d   i n   s u p p o r t   o f   p ro p o s e d   s e c t i o n’s   e c o -
n o m i c   v i a b i l i t y   a n d   s o c i o - e c o n o m i c   b e n e f i t s   m e a n t   t h a t 
evaluators had problems to compare the proposed projects’ 
me r it s;  and

p ro j e c t   p ro p o s a l s   p ro v i d e d   i n s u f f i c i e n t   a n d   i n c o n s i s t e n t 
i n f o r m a t i o n   a b o u t   p r o j e c t s ’  e x p e c t e d   e u r o p e a n   a d d e d 
valu e,  esp ec ial l y  as   regards  t he  ex tent  of   ex pec te d  t ran s -
eu rop ea n t raf fic.

13  High level group on the trans-
european transport network,  

23 june 2003, report, p. 49.

ThE   PrIo rI T y   Pr o jE C T s   Do   No T   rE PrEsE N T 
D EfI N I T I V E   D EsCrI P T IoNs
Tr aNs- E Ur oP EaN   r aIl   aX Es

  o f  ThE   M aI N   

22.  

 whilst there may be significant similar ities bet ween the pr ior-
i t y   pro j e c t s   a n d   t h e   m a i n   t r a n s -e u ro p e a n   r a i l w ay   a xe s   a s   d e -
f i n e d   by   i n d u s t r y,   t h e   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s   c a n n o t   t h e m s e l ve s   b e 
regarded as definitive descriptions of such axes. the following 
obs er vatio ns con fir m this  view :

 ο

firstly, the High level group’s work did not take as its star t -
i n g   p o i n t   a n   a n a l y s i s   o f   t h e   c u r r e n t   a n d   e x p e c t e d   t r a f f i c 
flows of the main axes, and the group noted this weak ness 
i n   i t s   r e p o r t ;  ‘ t h e   gr o u p   d i d   n o t   h a v e   t h e   t i m e   t o   i d e n-
t i f y   t h e s e   m a i n   a xe s. . .   [ a n d ]   . . .t h e   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s   m a k e 
i t   p o s s i b l e   t o   h a v e   a   f i r s t   i d e a   o f   t h e   l i k e l y   m a p p i n g   o f 
su ch  axes’ 13;

B oX   4

EX aM PlEs   o f   ErT Ms   Co r rI Do r s   No T   CoI N C I D I N G  W I Th   P rIo rI T y 
P r o jE C T s

ertms corridor  b that crosses  germany in a north-south direction does not coincide with a priority 
project between Hannover and m ünchen;

ertms corridor d between barcelona and  valencia only partly coincides with a priority project;

ertms corridor f that crosses germany and poland in an east-west direction does not coincide with any 
priority project. polish authorities have placed more emphasis on this east-west axis, investing 528 million 
euro thereon to date compared to 449 million euro invested on north-south priority project 23.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
22

14  memorandum of understanding 
between the european commission 

and the european railway 

associations (cer – uIc – unIfe – 

eIm – gsm-r Industry group – erfa) 

concerning the strengthening of 

cooperation for speeding up the 

deployment of ertms, july 2008.

15  High level group on the trans-
european transport network – 

report, section 6.4.3, paragraph 11, 

27 june 2003, brussels.

16  com(2009) 279 final 
communication from the 

commission - a sustainable future 

for transport: towards an integrated, 

technology-led and user friendly 

system, brussels 17.6.2009.

17  com(2008) 852 final,  proposal 
for a regulation of the european 

parliament and of the council 

concerning a european rail network 

for competitive freight, brussels, 

11.12.2008.

 ο

 ο

s e c o n d l y,   i n   a   s u b s e q u e n t   e xe r c i s e   t o   i d e n t i f y   t r a n s - e u -
ro p e a n   r a i l   c o r r i d o r s   o n   w h i c h   t h e   d e p l oy m e n t   o f   e r t m s 
sh ou l d  b e  p r ior it is ed  (s p on sored   by  k arel vin ck  th e  com-
m i s s i o n - a p p o i n t e d   c o - o r d i n a t o r   ( s e e   p a r a g r a p h   2 6 ) ) ,   a 
b r o a d   c o n s e n s u s   f r o m   t h e   r a i l   i n d u s t r y   w a s   r e a c h e d   a n d 
six such corridors were agreed in 2008 14. I t is obser ved that 
not all of these six industr y-agreed corridors fully coincide 
w ith  the  ro u tes  of  t he p r ior it y p roje c ts ( see B ox 4) ;

thirdly, connec tions to cer tain impor tant sea por ts are not 
inc lu de d in the  pr ior it y proje c ts, includ in g m ar seille, r os-
t o c k ,   br e m e r h a v e n   a n d   le   H a v r e ;   o t h e r   i m p o r t a n t   p o r t s , 
such as gioia  tauro, are located close to a sec tion of a pr i-
ority projec t, but the connec tions thereto are not included 
in t he p r ior it y p ro jec t s;  and,

 ο

f i n a l l y,   t h e   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s   d o   n o t   a l w a y s   c o i n c i d e   w i t h 
t ran s-e u rop ea n axes def in ed by  industr y  a sso c iat ion s.

 th e   i m p l i c at i o n   o f   t h e s e   we a k n e s s e s   i s   t h at   i m p rove m e nt s   i n 
the definition of the priority projects could fur ther enhance the 
co - ord inat ion an d con centration  of  e u  fi nan c ial  re source s.

 I n   i t s   r e p o r t   i n   2 0 0 3 ,   t h e   H i g h   l e v e l   gr o u p   c a l l e d   u p o n   t h e 
com mis sio n  to  im prove  the  analys i s  of   tran s - european  traffic 
f l o w s   s o   t h a t   f u t u r e   r e v i s i o n s   o f   t h e   l i s t   o f   p r i o r i t y   p r o j e c t s 
co u l d   b e   b a s e d   t h e re o n 1 5.   I n   2 0 0 9 ,   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   l a u n c h e d 
a de bate  o n t he fu tu re o f t he tran s -e urope an transpor t polic y 
r e c o g n i s i n g   t h e   n e e d   t o   r e f i n e   t h e   c o n c e p t s   u n d e r l y i n g   t h e 
trans-e uropean rail net wor k and suggested that clearer think-
ing  is ne eded w ith res p ec t  to def in in g  i nves tm e nt  pr i or it ie s 16. 
th e   co m m i s s i o n   h a s   a l s o   s u g g e s te d   t h at   t h e   d e ve l o p m e nt   o f 
t r a n s -e u ro p e a n   r a i l   f re i g h t   t r a n s p o r t   wo u l d   b e n e f i t   f ro m   t h e 
def init ion o f dedic ated  co r r idor s  bas ed  o n  bus i ne ss  c ase s 17.

23.  

24.  

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
23

18  see decision no 884/2004/ec 
and regulation (ec) no 680/2007. 

furthermore, in its response to 

the commission’s communication 

‘reforming the budget, changing 

europe’, the court highlighted that 

‘expenditure with trans-frontier 

effects or common interest is prima 

facie a stronger candidate for eu 

action than expenditure with limited 

geographical effects.

19  special report no 6/2005 on 
the trans-european network for 

transport (ten-t) together with the 

commission’s replies.

20  the commission subsequently 
updated this list in 2007, 2009 and 

2010.

21  article 17a of decision  
no 1692/96/ec of the european 

parliament and of the council  

(oj l 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1).

Ta r G E T I N G ,  sElE C T IoN   aN D   aP Pr o Va l   o f   E U 
fI NaN C Ia l   sU P Po rT

25.  

the  t arge t ing  of eu investments  i s  im por tant  bec aus e:

 ο

 ο

financial needs on the prior it y projec ts are significant and 
fin ancing  fro m al l s ources  is  sc arce;   and

pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s   h ave   a   t ra n s - eu ro p e a n   d i m e n s i o n   w h i c h 
may  go  b eyo nd nat io nal  interes ts.

26.  

 eu legislation identifies the elimination of bottlenecks and the 
fillin g-in  o f  mis s ing  l in ks   (in   par ti c ular   cross   borde r   s ec t ion s) 
a s   k e y   p r i o r i t i e s   f o r   t h e   t r a n s -e u r o p e a n   n e t w o r k 1 8.   I n   a   sp e -
cial  r ep o r t  p ubl ishe d  in   2005 ,  th e  cour t  obser ved  th at ‘ te n- t 
f i n a n c i a l   a i d   i s   a l l o c a t e d   i n   a n   o ve r l y   f r a g m e n t e d   w a y   a n d   i s 
n o t   s u f f i c i e n t l y   fo c u s e d   o n   c ro s s - b o r d e r   p r o j e c t s   ( o r   p r o j e c t 
s e c t i o n s ) ,   a n d   a s   s u c h ,  t e n -t   c o u l d   n o t   a c h i e ve   i t s   e u ro p e a n 
a d d e d   v a l u e   t o   t h e   f u l l e s t ’ 1 9.   s i n c e   t h o s e   o b s e r v a t i o n s   w e r e 
mad e,  imp or tant c hang es have  t aken  pl ace:

 ο

 ο

a n   u p d a t e   t o   t h e  t e n- t  re g u l a t i o n   w h i c h  
i n t e r   a l i a  i n t ro -
duced the possibilit y of ten- t grants for cross-border sec -
t ion s u p  to  a maximum of 3 0 %  of   el igi ble co st s;  a nd

in july 2005, the  commission appointed six co - ordinators
‘ t o   f a c i l i t a t e   t h e   c o o r d i n a t e d   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   c e r t a i n 
projec ts, in par ticular cross-border projec ts or sec tions of 
cro s s-b orde r proj ec ts’ 21  (see  A nnex  V) .

20 

27.  

 for  t he c ur rent  rep or t,  t he co ur t took  stoc k of th ese d evelop -
ment s,  in pa r tic u l ar,  it  reviewed :

 ο

 ο

t h e   c o n c e n t r a t i o n   o f  t e n- t  c o - f i n a n c i n g   o n   c ro s s - b o rd e r 
s e c t i o n s   a n d   t h e   p r o g r e s s   i n   t h i s   r e s p e c t   t o   d a t e   o n   t h e 
pr ior it y p ro jec t s  in th e sample;

t h e   ro l e   p l aye d   by   t h e   co m m i s s i o n - a p p o i nte d   co - o rd i n a -
to rs;

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
24

 ο

 ο

t he q ual it y o f t he anal ysis available  to h elp t arg et bo tt le -
ne cks  on  trans-e u rop ea n axes;  an d

t he ex tent to whic h ap proval pro ce dures  un de r  th e  cohe -
sion fund (and erdf major projec ts) are sufficiently robust 
to   i d e nt i f y   we a k n e s s e s   i n   p ro j e c t   d e f i n i t i o n   a n d   p re p a ra-
t ion , and t he  ex tent to  w h ic h ch ang es  to  s ele c t io n proce -
d u re s   u n d e r  t e n- t  h ave   a d d re s s e d   we a k n e s s e s   o b s e r ve d 
by  th e c o ur t  in it s previo us special r epor t.

CoN C E N Tr a T IoN   o f  T E N - T   Co-fI NaN C I N G   aT 
Cr o s s- Bo rD Er   loC aT IoNs   h a s   I M Pr o V E D   sI N C E 
2006,   B U T   M U Ch   rE M aI Ns  To   B E   aChI E V E D

 the extent to which investments of ten- t funds have been con-
centrated on cross-border locations has increased significantly 
in  t he  2007-2013   programm in g  per i od  com pare d  to  th e  20 0 0-
2006 period. Investments in cross-border locations represented 
37  %  o f t en- t  inve st ment  dur in g  20 0 0-2 0 06,   wh ilst   s uc h   allo -
c at i o n s   fo r   t h e   p e r i o d   2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 3   a re   ex p e c te d   to   a cco u nt   fo r 
71  %.  whil st   th ere  is  no   direc t  evide nce   to  conc lu sively   prove 
their influence on this improvement, the increase of ten- t co -
f i n a n c i n g   r a t e s   f r o m   1 0   %   t o   3 0   %   f o r   c r o s s - b o r d e r   s e c t i o n s 
and the ac tivities of the co - ordinators in encouraging member 
states to propose cross-border sec tions have been fac tors dur-
ing  t his p er io d.

 consistent with the cour t ’s previous finding, according to the 
p r o p o s a l   f o r m s   s u b m i t t e d   b y   m e m b e r   s t a t e s ,   1 4   o f   t h e   s e c -
t i o n s   re v i e we d   fo r   t h i s   a u d i t   c o - f i n a n c e d   b y  t e n- t  t h a t   we re 
app rove d  befo re  2006  wou l d  h ave  gon e   ahe ad   a ny way,   albe it 
with modifications and/or with additional risk . I n contrast, the 
prop o sal   fo r  an  imp or t ant  p roje c t  a pproved   in   th e   20 07 -2 01 3 
period (brenner  base  tunnel) states it would not proceed with-
ou t eu co -financing.

 fo r   e l i g i b l e   m e m b e r   s t a t e s,   t h e   co h e s i o n   fu n d   a n d   e r d f  a re 
a l s o   a v a i l a b l e   f o r   r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e   d e v e l o p m e n t s   ( 7   o u t   o f 
t h e   2 1   s e c t i o n s   re v i e we d   fo r   t h e   a u d i t   re ce i ve d   f u n d i n g   f ro m 
th ese  so u rce s); for examp l e in spain , all of t he  cohe sion fund 
s p e nt   o n   ra i l   i n f ra s t r u c t u re   i n   t h e   2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 6   p e r i o d   wa s   co n-
centrated on the pr ior it y projec ts. However, there is no for mal 
requ irement  to   p r ior itis e  co he sion  fund  inve stments   at  cross 
border l o cat io ns.

28.  

29.  

30.  

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
25

31.  

 m ak ing progress on infrastruc ture developments at cross bor -
d e r   l o c a t i o n s   i nvo l ve s   p o l i t i c a l   c h a l l e n g e s   a s   we l l   a s   t e c h n i-
c a l   o n e s .   t h e y   o f t e n   r e q u i r e   l e n g t h y   n e g o t i a t i o n s   b e t w e e n 
n e i g h b o u r i n g   m e m b e r   s t a t e s   b a s e d   o n   i n t e r - g o v e r n m e n t a l 
c o n fe re n c e s   b e fo re   b i - l a t e r a l   a g re e m e n t s   a re   s i g n e d,   u s u a l l y 
invo l ving  for mal  t reat ies.  an overall review of the s tate of de -
velop me nt   at   1 3  c ros s-b ord er  lo c ati on s  on   t he   sam pled   pr ior-
i t y   pro j e c t s   re ve a l e d   t h a t   m u c h   r e m a i n s   t o   b e   a c h i e ve d,   a n d 
s i g n i f i c a n t   c o n t i n u e d   w o r k   i s   r e q u i r e d   b e fo r e   d e v e l o p m e n t s 
on  t hes e sec t io n s are comp lete d (s ee  Ta b le  3) .

TaBl E   3

INf r a sTr U C T UrE   D E V EloP M E N T s   aT   Cr o s s   Bo rD Er   loC aT IoNs 
oN  ThE   s aM PlE D   P rIo rI T y   P r o jE C T s

Location

In place

Under  
construction

Study /  
preparatory

Planning  
not started

Priority Project 1

Priority Project 2

Priority Project 3

Germany-Austria

München-Kufstein

Austria-Italy

Brenner Tunnel

Germany-Belgium

Aachen-Düren-Köln

Netherlands-Belgium

Rotterdam-Antwerpen

France-Spain (Atlantic)

Dax-Vittoria

France-Spain (Mediterranean)

Perpignan-Figueras





Priority Project 6

France-Italy

France-Germany

Lyon-Turin

Kehl bridge

Priority Project 17

Germany-Austria

Mühldorf-Freilassing

Austria-Slovakia

Vienna-Bratislava

Priority Project 23

Poland-Slovakia

Bielsko Biala - Zwardon

Priority Project 24

Netherlands-Germany

Zevenaar-Emerich

Germany-France

Mulhouse























special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
26

22  position paper of the european 
transport coordinators: mr. karel 

van miert, mr. etienne davignon, 

mr. carlo secchi, mr. laurens jan 

brinkhorst, mr. péter balàzs, ms. karla 

peijs, mr. luìs valente de oliveira,  

mr. pavel telička, mr. karel vinck on 

the future of ten-t policy, brussels,  

6 october 2009.

23  annual report of the european 
coordinator, etienne davignon,  

pp no 3, “south-west european 

High-speed rail link”, brussels, 

august 2009.

ThE   C o-o rD I Na To r s   h aV E   h aD   a   Po sI T I V E 
I Nf l U E N C E   I N   CoN C E N Tr a T I N G   I N V EsT M E N T s   aN D 
faC IlI T aT I N G   D E V EloP M E N T s   oN  ThE   PrIo rI T y 
Pr o jE C T s

32.  

 the  co - o rd inators have had a positive  inf lue n ce  in  th e  t arg et-
ing  o f eu invest ment s,  in p ar tic ul ar  t hroug h:

 ο

 ο

 ο

f a c i l i t a t i n g   c o n t a c t s   b e t w e e n   s t a k e h o l d e r s   i n   o r d e r   t o 
progress developments on problematic sec tions of the pri-
or it y projec ts, especially where it has proved necessar y to 
agree a clear shared vision of the target rail transpor tation 
market and the specifications of the required infrastructure 
d e ve l o p m e nt s 2 2  ( fo r   ex a m p l e,   a gre e m e nt   b e t we e n   fre n c h 
a n d   s p a n i s h   a u t h o r i t i e s   o n   t h e   m e d i t e r r a n e a n   b r a n c h   o f 
priorit y projec t 3 23, and the brenner  corridor platform (see 
B ox   5));

em ph asising  to  m em b er states  t he  impor tan ce of propos-
i n g   p a r t i c u l a r   s e c t i o n s   fo r   e u  c o - f i n a n c i n g   ( fo r   e x a m p l e, 
re g a rd i n g   t h e   bre n n e r   co r r i d o r   o n   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t   1   a n d 
b o t t l e n e c k s   a n d   c r o s s - b o r d e r   s e c t i o n s   a t   s t u t t g a r t   a n d 
b e t we e n   m ü n c h e n   a n d   fre i l a s s i n g   o n   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t   1 7 ) 
whilst emphasising that other sec tions would not be posi -
tively received, such as those including station infrastruc-
t ure  no t rel at in g direc tl y  to t he  o perati on  o f  t rai n s;   and

encouraging co- operation between rail authorities in mem-
ber states regarding improving transpor t per formance and 
alleviating operational and other problems on existing cor-
ridors (such as the IQc (see  Box 14), the technical work ing 
g r o u p   p u t   i n   p l a c e   o n   p r i o r i t y   p r o j e c t   6   a n d   t h e   e r t m s 
co r r ido rs). 

B oX   5

B rE N N Er   Co r rI Do r   P l a Tf o rM

by facilitating interactions amongst Italian, austrian and german stakeholders, karel van miert, the 
co-ordinator at the time, contributed to  the creation of the brenner corridor platform which, building 
on earlier collaboration, has been the key forum for reaching agreement on the objectives and design 
specifications of proposed infrastructure developments (including the brenner base  tunnel).

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
27

I D E N T IfI C aT IoN   o f   Bo T TlE N E C Ks   CoUlD   B E 
I M Pr o V E D

33.  

 a c c u r a t e   a n d   r e l i a b l e   a n a l y s i s   i s   a n   i m p o r t a n t   p r e r e q u i s i t e 
f o r   t h e   i d e n t i f i c a t i o n   o f   b o t t l e n e c k   s e c t i o n s   o f   t h e   p r i o r i t y 
pro j e c t s,   a n d   i s   t h e re fo re   a   k e y   co n s i d e rat i o n   fo r   t h e   p r i o r i t i-
sati on  o f  eu  inve st ment.  However,   a  robust   em pir ic al  analysi s 
of bottlenecks on key trans-e uropean axes is not available and 
the commission relies pr imar ily on m ember states’ own analy-
sis complemented, in recent years, by information gathered by 
th e c o - ord inato rs to  identify s uch  bo ttle n ec k s.

ThErE  W ErE  W EaK N Es sEs
aP Pr o Va l   Pr oC E D UrEs   aT  ThE   C oM M Is sIoN

  I N   sElE C T IoN   aN D 

p r o j e c t s  t h a t   w e r e   n o t  t h o r o u g h l y  p r e p a r e d   w e r e   a p p r o v e d 
u n d e r  t h e c o h e s i o n f u n d

34.  

 the cour t reviewed the extent to which approval procedures for 
r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u re   p ro j e c t s   s u b m i t t e d   fo r   c o - f i n a n c i n g   u n d e r 
t h e   co h e s i o n   fu n d   a n d   a s   m a j o r   p ro j e c t s   u n d e r   t h e   e r d f  a re 
sufficiently robust to identify weak nesses in projec t definition 
and  prep arat io n.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
28

35.  

 fo r   r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e   p r o j e c t s   c o - f i n a n c e d   b y   t h e   c o h e s i o n 
fu n d ,   t h e   c o u r t   o b s e r v e d   t h a t   t h e   e v a l u a t i o n   c a r r i e d   o u t   o f 
p r o p o s e d   p r o j e c t s   t e c h n i c a l   a s p e c t s   w a s   i n s u f f i c i e n t .   I n   t h e 
c a s e s   ex a m i n e d,   t h e   o n l y   re v i e w   o f   p ro j e c t s   s u b m i t te d   u n d e r 
t h e   co h e s i o n   fu n d   wa s   t h e   i nte r n a l   co m m i s s i o n   s o - c a l l e d   i n-
ter-ser vice consultation, through which projec t proposal docu-
m e n t s   w e r e   c i r c u l a t e d   b y   d g  r e g i o n a l   po l i c y   t o   o t h e r   c o m-
m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s   t o   o b t a i n   a n   o p i n i o n .   H o w e v e r,   a   r e v i e w   o f 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s   f i l e s   r e v e a l e d   t h a t   t h e r e   i s   n o   e v i d e n c e   o f 
a  tho rou g h  tech nic al   review   in   s uppor t   of   t hi s   opi nio n.   as  n o 
ex ternal rail infrastruc ture exper ts were consulted in the proc -
e s s,   re l y i n g   s o l e l y   o n   s u c h   a n   i n t e r n a l   c o n s u l t a t i o n   d o e s   n o t 
constitute a sufficient mechanism for technical review. moreo -
ver, insu fficient attention  was  p aid to en s ur i n g t hat approve d 
pro jec ts we re ad equ ately prepa re d. I n  th e c ase  of  the m adr id-
levante projec t, dg regional polic y requested advice from the 
eu ro p e a n   I nve s t m e nt   ba n k   (eIb )   re g a rd i n g   p ro j e c t   p ro p o s a l s. 
H owe ve r,   d e s p i t e   t h e   eIb  r a i s i n g   s p e c i f i c   c o n c e r n s   a b o u t   t h e 
ex tent to which the projec t had been adequately specified, the 
p r o j e c t   w a s   a p p r o v e d   fo r   c o h e s i o n   f u n d i n g.  t h e   p r o j e c t   h a s 
sub se que nt ly  exper ienced  cos t  e s calati on s   of   89   %   co mpared 
t o   t h e   a m o u n t   s p e c i f i e d   i n   t h e   p r o j e c t   p r o p o s a l   d o c u m e n t s 
(see B ox  8).  the co ur t  no tes th at  th e procedure for  a pprov ing 
maj or p ro jec t s has  ch anged  s i nce  2 0 0 7 .

p r o j e c t  s e l e c t i o n  p r o c e d u r e s   u n d e r ten- t  h a v e  b e e n   
u p d a t e d  b u t  t h e r e  r e M a i n s  r o o M   f o r  f u r t h e r  i M p r o v e M e n t

36.  

 t h e   c o u r t   r e v i e w e d   t h e   c h a n g e s   t o   s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e d u r e s   fo r 
ra i l   i n f ra s t r u c t u re   p ro j e c t   p ro p o s a l s   s u b m i t te d   fo r   co - f i n a n c-
i n g   u n d e r  t e n -t,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r,   i n s o f a r   a s   t h e   we a k n e s s e s   o b -
s e r ve d   by   t h e   co u r t   i n   i t s   p re v i o u s   s p e c i a l   r e p o r t   h ave   b e e n 
add ress ed.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
29

37.  

 ch a n g e s   h a v e   t a k e n   p l a c e   i n   s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e d u r e s   fo r   t e n- t 
projec ts following the cour t ’s previous recommendations 24, in 
par tic ul ar :

 ο

 ο

 ο

t h e   u p d at i n g   o f   p ro p o s a l s   e va l u at i o n   p ro ce d u re s,   i n   p a r-
t icu l ar to  inc lud e t he us e of  ex ter n al  expe r ts ;

t h e   co nt r i b u t i o n   m a d e   by   t h e   co - o rd i n ato r s   i n   p rov i d i n g 
contex tual infor mation about the situation on the ground 
o n th e p r ior it y p ro jec t s;  an d

t he  de l egat io n  o f  a  ran ge  of  tas k s  to  t h e  recentl y  cre ated 
t en- t exe cut ive a g enc y 25.

24  special report no 6/2005, 
paragraphs 35, 43, and 52 to 58.

25  commission decision 2007/60/ec 
of 26 october 2006 establishing the 

trans-european transport network 

executive agency pursuant to 

council regulation (ec) no 58/2003 

(oj l 32, 6.2.2007, p. 88).

38.  

 not with st anding t he above, there  i s room for  im provem ent as 
regards the use of cost benefit analysis. It is impor tant that cost 
benefit analysis, along with environmental and socio - economic 
analysis, allows for the merits of proposed projec ts to be com-
pared  dur ing   the  sel ec tio n  p ro ced ure.   a  revie w  of   proj ec t  se -
lection documents revealed that only summar y information was 
submitted regarding a proposed projec t ’s cost benefit analysis 
and  th at, in p rac t ice,  th e info r mati on  conta i ne d in  th es e sum-
mar ies  is  no t consis tent  in  ter ms  of  t he  var i a bl es  covere d, t he 
level of detail or about the assumptions on which the analysis 
has been based. assumptions made regarding projec ted future 
t r a f f i c   f l o w s   a re   e s s e n t i a l   e l e m e n t s   fo r   s u c h   a n a l y s e s.   w h i l s t 
some initiatives have been taken to ensure that traffic flow as-
sumptions are consistent (for example, in respec t of the alpine 
tunnels), these have been isolated exercises. a coherent model 
of european rail traffic flows, which could inform overall polic y 
as we l l as  s pe cific  p roj ec t sel ec ti on ,  has  yet  to  be  d evel ope d.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
30

CoNsTr U C T IoN   o f   E U   Co-fI NaN C E D 
I Nf r a sTr U C T UrE   aCCo rD I N G  T o 
sP E C IfI C aT IoNs   aN D   I T s   aVaIl aB IlI T y   f o r 
UsE

39.  

 fo r   e a c h   o f   t h e   c o - f i n a n c e d   s e c t i o n s   s a m p l e d   f o r   t h e   a u d i t , 
t h e   c o u r t   e x a m i n e d   t h e   e x e c u t i o n   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t   i n s o f a r   a s 
t h e   s e c t i o n   i n f ra s t r u c t u re   h a s   b e e n   co n s t r u c te d   a cco rd i n g   to 
s p e c i f i c at i o n s,   a n d   t h e re a f te r   w h e t h e r   t h e   i n f ra s t r u c t u re   wa s 
made available for use without undue delay. the situation with 
res pe c t  to es cal at io ns  of  p rojec t  cost s  was  als o re v ie we d.

40.  

 A nnex VI shows the status of use of the 21  eu co -financed sec -
tion s revie we d for the au dit.

Pl aN N E D   I Nf r a sTr U C T UrE   Is   D ElI V ErE D   I N   lI N E 
W I Th   sP E C IfI C aT IoN

41.  

 th e   1 4   co m p l e te d   s e c t i o n s   i n   t h e   s a m p l e   d e l i ve re d   t h e   te c h-
n i c a l   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e   d e f i n e d   i n   t h e   s p e c i f i c a t i o n s .   ju s t i f i a b l e 
amendments to technical specifications were made due to cir-
cumstances that came to light during construction. In one case, 
ce r t a i n   te c h n i c a l   co n d i t i o n s   we re   n o t   f u l l y   a nt i c i p ate d   i n   t h e 
des ign  sp ec if ications ( see B ox 6) .

B oX   6

TE ChN I C a l   CoN D I T IoNs   No T   fUl ly   aN T I C I P aT E D   I N  ThE   D EsI G N  
sP E C IfI C aT IoNs

whilst the nürnberg-Ingolstadt line was constructed according to specification to support mixed use, it 
became clear during safety testing that, because of air pressure issues, trains could not pass each other 
in the tunnel sections. the line is now used only by high-speed passenger trains.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
31

42.  

43.  

 th e   f i ve   s e c t i o n s   u n d e r   co n s t r u c t i o n   a t   t h e   t i m e   o f   t h e   a u d i t 
were also being built as specified. for the two long-term alpine 
tunnel sec tions (m ont- cenis, brenner (see Photo 5, p. 37)), the 
n a t u re   a n d   e x t e n t   o f   a d j u s t m e n t s   t o   t e c h n i c a l   s p e c i f i c a t i o n s 
that are being made during the planning and explorator y stag-
es are in l ine with w hat can b e expe c te d given  th es e  s ec ti on s’ 
par tic ul ar  com pl exit y.  thes e  a dj ust m ent s  are  bei n g  mad e,  for 
ex a m p l e,   i n   o rd e r   to   t a k e   a cco u nt   o f   e nv i ro n m e nt a l   co n ce r n s 
or  o the r deve lop ments.

26  the netlipse project supported 
under the sixth european 

framework programme for research 

and technological development 

(www.netlipse.eu).

 the co u r t  no ted t he exper ience  of  a  proj ec t  su ppor ted by  t he 
c o m m i s s i o n   t o   f a c i l i t a t e   a   n e t w o r k   f o r   t h e   d i s s e m i n a t i o n   o f 
k n ow l e d g e   o n   t h e   m a n a g e m e nt   a n d   o rg a n i s at i o n   o f   l a rg e   i n -
fras t ruc t ure  p ro jec t s  in euro pe 26. I t  provided useful outcomes 
in terms of developing contac ts between projec t managers and 
exchanging prac tical k nowledge, and offers an experience that 
coul d  b e bu il t u p on in fu tu re ini ti ati ve s.

B o X   7

P E r P I G N a N - f I G U E r a s   I N T E r N aT I o N a l   s E C T I o N

the perpignan-figueras international section (44 km 
long including the 8 km perthus tunnel) will allow ap-
propriately  equipped  uIc-gauge  trains  to  travel  be-
tween france and spain without stopping and provide 
for improved flow of freight and passenger traffic. It 
was one of the only public-private partnerships in the 
audit sample, and the contractor completed construc-
tion of the infrastructure at the end of 2009. as a result 
of thorough and detailed preparation, the project was 
completed more or less on time and on budget. How-
ever, whilst the line is connected to the rail network at 
perpignan, there is, as yet, no connecting line on the 
spanish side in figueras. the works between barcelona 
and figueras to make this connection in uIc gauge are 
ongoing, but will not be completed before 2012. there 
is, therefore, no prospect of the new international sec-
tion being available for full use for at least two years 
after completion. an interim solution involving the in-
stallation of a third rail between girona and figueras to 
allow both uIc and Iberian gauge trains to use the line 
may be in place by the end of 2010, but, at best, it will 
provide for only partial use of the new line.

Photo 3 – New lines on 
the Perpignan-Figueras international 
section not yet used

© european court of auditors, march 2009. 
© european court of auditors, march 2009. 

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
32

ThErE   a rE   s oM E T I M Es   D El ays   B Ef o rE 
I Nf r a sTr U C T UrE   B E C oM Es   aVaIl aBlE   f o r   UsE

44.  

 a t   t h e   t i m e   o f   t h e   a u d i t ,   a l l   e xc e p t   t w o   o f   t h e   1 4   c o m p l e t e d 
sections had become available for use. However, for one impor-
tant cross-border section (the perpignan-f igueras international 
s e c t i o n   b e t we e n   fra n ce   a n d   sp a i n   ( s e e   B ox   7   a n d   P h o to   3) ,   a 
d e l a y   i n   c o n n e c t i n g   w i t h   n e i g h b o u r i n g   s e c t i o n s   m e a n   t h a t , 
despite the infrastruc ture being completed, it has not become 
ava il ab le  fo r u se.

Co sT   EsC a l aT IoNs  W ErE   oBsEr V E D   f o r   a l l 
sE C T IoNs ,  Mo sTly   D U E  To   U Nf o rEsE EaBlE 
rEa s oNs

45.  

 es c a l a t i o n s   i n   p r o j e c t   c o s t s   w e r e   o b s e r v e d   i n   a l l   c a s e s   ( s e e 
B ox  8).   I n  near ly   all   cas es,  thes e  esc alat io ns   aros e  for   rea son s 
l i n k e d   to   u n fo re s e e a b l e   f a c to r s   t h at   c a m e   to   l i g ht   d u r i n g   t h e 
construc tion phase, such as unexpec tedly difficult geographi-
cal conditions, environmental protec tion requirements, safet y 
r e q u i r e m e n t s   a n d   h i g h e r   t h a n   e x p e c t e d   b i d s   f r o m   c o n t r a c -
tors 27.

27  academic research reports that 
mega-projects are very complex 

undertakings and, historically, 

escalations of costs significantly 

beyond initial budgets are very 

common, indeed ‘cost overruns 

of 50 % to 100 % in real terms are 

common, and overruns above 100 % 

are not uncommon’. flyberg b, 

bruzelius n and rothengatter w, 

‘megaprojects and risk: an anatomy 

of ambition’, cambridge university 

press, 2003, page 44. see also Hugo 

priemus, bent flyvbjerg, bert van 

wee: decision-making on mega-

projects: cost-benefit analysis, 

planning and Innovation, edward 

elgar publishing ltd, 2008,  

Isbn 1845427378.

B oX   8

Co sT   EsC a l aT IoNs   oBsEr V E D   I N  ThE   sE C T IoN   rE V I E W E D   f o r  ThE  
aU D I T

cost information was available for 19 out of the 21 sections audited. 11 sections experienced cost es-
calations of up to 49 %, six sections experienced escalations between 50 % and 100 % and two sections 
experienced escalations of more than 100 %. overall, the extent of these escalations was in line with 
those observed in other studies of large scale transport infrastructure projects. of the sections reviewed, 
the warsaw-gdynia section (funded under cohesion policy) has seen the most significant cost escalation, 
a rise of 166 % from an estimate of 475 million euro in the project proposal in 2004 to 1 265 million euro 
according to latest estimates in november 2009.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
33

46.  

47.  

 pro j e c t s   t h at   we re   s u b j e c t   to   t h o ro u g h   a n d   d e t a i l e d   p re p a ra-
t i o n   w e r e   l e s s   l i k e l y   t o   e x p e r i e n c e   e s c a l a t i o n s ;   f o r   e x a m p l e , 
th e  per p ignan-fig ueras  which  was  completed  more  or   le s s  o n 
time and on budget (see Box 7). In comparison, projec ts whose 
preparation was less thorough and detailed faced a higher risk 
of exper iencing more significant escalations; for example, the 
m a d r i d -l e v a n t e   s e c t i o n ,   a b o u t   w h i c h   t h e   eIb  e x p re s s e d   c o n-
c e r n s ,   h a s   t o   d a t e   s e e n   a   c o s t   e s c a l a t i o n   o f   8 9   %   ( s e e   p a r a-
grap h 35).

 the se  co st es cal at io ns  did no t have  a d ire c t i mpac t  on  th e  e u  
b u d g e t   b e c a u s e   t h e   i nve s t m e n t   by   t h e   e u  w a s   l i m i te d   to   t h e 
amounts initially granted. However, they should be considered 
in the light of the large scale investment needs on the pr iorit y 
pro j e c t s,   a n d   t h e   f a c t   t h at   t h e   at t ra c t i o n   o f   p r i vate   s e c to r   i n-
vestment has been recognised as being increasingly impor tant. 
t h e   r i s k   o f   p ro j e c t   c o s t   e s c a l a t i o n s   c a n   e x a c e r b a t e   c o n c e r n s 
reg ard ing   l ow   rates   of  retur n  an d  th ere fore   repres ent  a  d is in-
cent ive fo r p r ivate sec tor  inves tor s.

48.  

 I n   o r d e r   t o   t a k e   a c c o u n t   o f   t h e   c o m p l i c a t e d   n a t u r e   o f   t h e 
projec ts and the risk that cost escalations may be experienced, 
s o m e   p r o j e c t s   ( f o r   e x a m p l e ,   b r e n n e r   b a s e   tu n n e l )   s e t   a s i d e 
contingencies, in order to mitigate the impac t that such esca -
lat io ns co ul d have on overal l  budg ets.

Tr aNsPo rT   P Er f o rM aN C E   oN  ThE   sE C T IoNs  
B E N EfI T I N G   f r oM   E U   I N V EsT M E N T   I N  ThE 
CoN T E X T   o f  ThE   PrIo rI T y   Pr o jE C T s

49.  

 High-speed passenger ser vices are generally conceived as ser v -
ing the market between impor tant urban areas capable of com-
pet ing   w it h  ro ad  and   s ho r t-haul  ai r   trans por t;   of fer i n g   point-
to -po int  jo ur n eys  that  are  rel iab le,  co mfor tabl e  and  above   a ll 
fast is ther fore of pr ime impor tance. for freight transpor t, the 
rati onal e  is  d if ferent;   the  lo nger   th e   jour n ey   t he   mo re   pote n-
tial t here  is fo r rail to b e compe ti ti ve  vis - à-v i s ot he r  mo de s of 
transpor t, especially roads. travelling across more than one na -
tional net work is necessar y for longer distance trans-e uropean 
route s.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
 
34

50.  

 w h e n   i t   i s   c o m p l e t e d   a n d   i n   s e r v i ce,   t h e   e x t e n t   t o   w h i c h   r a i l 
infrast ruc t ure  is f ul l y us ed depen d s on  rail s er vi ce s operati n g 
as antic ipated. the cour t  exami n ed :

 ο

 ο

whether transpor t per formance is in line with expectations, 
on the one hand on sec tions dedicated to high-speed pas-
senger ser vices, and on the other, on conventional sections 
for f reig ht  or mixed  u se;  a nd

t he ex tent  to  w hich s ys tem cons trai nt s lim it  th e pe r for m-
ance on the axes on which the eu co -financed sec tions are 
l oc ated a nd t he p rogress  m ade  to  alle vi ate  th e m.

51.  

 Annex VI shows the status of use of the eu co-financed sections 
reviewed fo r t he audit.

Photo 4 – AVE High-speed passenger train at Chamartin station before departure on the 
Madrid-Segovia-Valladolid line passing through the 28 km Guadarrama tunnel

© european court of auditors, march 2009. 

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
35

P Er f o rM aN C E   oN   sE C T IoNs   D E D I C aT E D  To   hI Gh-
sP E E D   P a s sE N G Er   sEr V I C Es   Is   I N   lI N E  W I Th  
E X P E C TaT IoNs

52.  

 eight of  the 21 s ec tions rev ie we d fo r  th e a udit  contr i bute d to 
the construc tion of new high-speed passenger lines, of which, 
a t   t h e   t i m e   o f   t h e   a u d i t ,   s e v e n   a r e   i n   s e r v i c e   (P h o t o   4 ) .   r a i l 
ser vices are running as expec ted on six of these lines, and the 
pro bl e ms  del ay ing   the  co mmen ce me nt   of   f ull  rai l  se r v ice s  on 
th e o the r l ine have recentl y b ee n re so lved ( Hsl Zuid) .   proje c t 
p r o m o t e r s   t y p i c a l l y   p r e d i c t e d   t h a t   t h e   p r o j e c t s   w o u l d   h a v e 
s i g n i f i c a n t   i m p a c t s   i n   t h e   t a r g e t   m a r k e t s,   a n d   d a t a   av a i l a b l e 
shows that ac tual per for mance achieved has been in line with 
these expec tations (see Box 9). the fac t that this infrastruc ture 
is  d ed icated  to   wel l  defin ed   an d  h om og en ous  s er vi ces   m ea ns 
th at   it s  use,  wh il e  hig hl y  tec hn ic al,   is   n ot   co mpl i c ated   by  t he 
nee d to  acco mmo date a mixed  u se.

B oX   9

h I Gh   s P E E D   Pa s sE N G Er   sEr V I C Es   M E E T I N G   oBjE C T I V Es

the madrid-barcelona  ave section has led to a decrease in travel time between the two cities from 6h35 
(in 1998) to 2h30, gaining market share from air services routes. passenger numbers increased from  
2,62 million (2007) to 5,8 million (2008).

the berlin central station section achieved a 25 minutes saving when changing trains between  north-
south and east- west axes, and also provides completely new journey opportunities.

the tgv  est (p hase 1) section allows for speeds up to 320 km/h and thereby travel time between  paris 
and strasbourg has decreased from 3h50 to 2h20, and between paris and luxembourg from 3h35 to 
2h05, leading to reduced air services between paris and airports close to the cities now benefitting from 
the high-speed rail connection.

as well as improving direct passenger transport, the frankfurt a.m.-köln and  nürnberg-Ingolstadt high-
speed passenger lines freed capacity on the established mixed use / freight lines.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
36

28  position paper of the european 
transport coordinators:  mr. karel 

van miert, mr. etienne davignon,  

mr. carlo secchi, mr. laurens 

jan brinkhorst, mr. péter balàzs, 

ms. karla peijs, mr. luìs valente 

de oliveira, mr. pavel telička, 

mr. karel vinck on the future of ten-t 

policy, brussels, 6 october 2009.

53.  

54.  

f o r   sE C T IoNs   sU P Po rT I N G   C oN V E N T IoNa l  
f rE I GhT   o r   M I X E D  Tr a f fI C , Tr aNsPo rT 
P Er f o rM aN C E   h a s   No T  y E T   M E T   E X P E C TaT IoNs

 o f the sec tions reviewed for the audit, 13 related to infrastruc-
ture for mixed use or for freight, of which only five had entered 
s e r v i c e.  t h e s e   s e c t i o n s   g e n e r a l l y   h a d   a s   t h e i r   o b j e c t i ve s   t h e 
alleviation of bottlenecks, increasing capacit y and shor tening 
jour ney  times ( see als o B ox  1 0 re gard i ng  t he  a lpine  tunn els ).

 the achievement of per formance objectives on the five sections 
t h a t   a r e   i n   s e r v i c e   h a s   b e e n   p r o b l e m a t i c   t o   t h e   e x t e n t   t h a t 
none are yet being used as planned. the main fac tors influenc -
i n g   t h e   a c h i e ve m e n t   o f   p e r fo r m a n ce   o b j e c t i ve s   a re   t h o s e   re -
lating, on the one hand, to the demand for ser vices that could 
potentially operate on the infrastruc ture and, on the other, to 
i n t e ro p e r a b i l i t y   a n d   o t h e r   c o n s t r a i n t s   i n   t h e   r a i l   s y s t e m   t h a t 
cause trans- european rail ser vices to be inter rupted. this con -
f i r m s   t h a t   o v e r a l l   p r o g r e s s   o n   t r a n s - e u r o p e a n   r a i l   t r a n s p o r t 
depends on achieving synergies between the effec ts of legisla-
t i ve   m e a s u re s   i n   re s p e c t   o f   m a r k e t s   a n d   i n te ro p e r a b i l i t y   a n d 
co - f i n a n c i n g   p o l i c y   m e a s u re s,   a   v i e w   a l s o   e m p h a s i s e d   by   t h e 
co - o rdin ato rs 28.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
37

B o X   1 0

s P E C I a l   s E C T I o N s : T h E   a l P I N E  T U N N E l s   aT   B r E N N E r   a N D 
M o N T - C E N I s

these are particularly large scale sections creating tunnels between austria and Italy (brenner) and 
france and Italy (mont-cenis) to facilitate more efficient freight and passenger transport by avoiding 
the need to traverse over the alps via the existing restricted routes, which is undesirable from both a 
transport and an environmental perspective. while anticipating mixed use, the tunnels have freight 
transport as their primary focus; project promoters expect to have a transformational market impact on 
the target routes by facilitating significantly higher freight volumes than is currently possible, gaining 
significant overall market share compared to other transport modes. the projects are long term endeav-
ours spanning 10-15 years which are currently in their planning and exploratory phases.

Photo 5 – Entrance to the exploratory tunnel for the Brenner Base Tunnel at Fortezza

© european court of auditors, february 2009. 

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

38

29  report from the commission 
to the council and the european 

parliament, second report on 

monitoring development of the 

rail market, com(2009) 676 fi nal, 

brussels, 18.12.2009.

55.  

56.  

s y s t e M  c o n s t r a i n t s  h a v e  a  n e g a t i v e   e f f e c t  w h i c h  c a n  b e 
s i M i l a r  i n  s c a l e  t o  t h e  p e r f o r M a n c e   g a i n s  r e s u l t i n g  f r o M 
c o s t l y  i n f r a s t r u c t u r e  i n v e s t M e n t s

 the  use   whic h  is   made  of  rail   in f rast r uc t ure   d epe nd s  o n  a  va-
r i e t y   o f   f a c to r s,   i n c l u d i n g   g e n e r a l   e co n o m i c   c o n d i t i o n s 2 9,   re -
lated developments at por ts, tunnels etc (see Box 11) and also 
inve st me nt  el sew here in the rail s ys te m  (s ee  B ox   12).

 s y s t e m   c o n s t r a i n t s   a r e   a l s o   o f   c o n s i d e r a b l e   i m p o r t a n c e .   fo r 
tra n s - eu ro p e a n   h i g h - s p e e d   p a s s e n g e r   s e r v i ce s   s u c h   a s   t h o s e 
operated between paris, brussels and london, specific arrange -
m e n t s   a r e   m a d e   t o   e n s u r e   t h a t   t r a i n s   d o   n o t   h a v e   t o   s t o p   a t 
borders. for example, locomotives are equipped to be interop -
erable with multiple trac tion energy and train control (signal-
ling) systems, and t here is agreem ent about operat ion al r ule s 
g ove r n i n g   t h e s e   s p e c i f i c   l i n e s   e tc.  wh i l s t   co m p l i c ate d,   t h i s   i s 
made   p o ssibl e  becau se  th e  ser v ice   i s  d ed icate d  to  th is   si n gl e 
purpose, and there is a clear willingness of the par t of the main 
stak eho l ders  to  addres s  p otent ial  proble ms.

Photo 6 – Stock of wagon axles at the TRANSFESA gauge changing facility 
at Cerbère on the France / Spain border

© european court of auditors, february 2009. 

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
39

B oX   1 1

s E C T IoNs   o f   I Nf r a sTr U C T UrE  Wh o sE   E X PloI T aT IoN   C aN   B E 
rEa lIsE D   oNly   WhE N   oThEr   D E V EloP M E N T s  TaK E   Pl a C E

the betuweroute runs in an east-west direction between the port of rotterdam and the border between 
the netherlands and  germany; it is dedicated solely to freight traffic. whilst the line infrastructure be-
came fully available for rail services in june 2007, with a realistic maximum capacity of 380 trains a day 
on average, 20 trains a day are currently running which is expected to increase to 150 per day by 2013: 
the phasing-in of locomotives compatible with the ertms level 2 signalling system has been a limiting 
factor to date. It is anticipated that traffic will increase to 380 per day after planned developments of 
the second m aasvlakte at the port have been realised.

the utilisation of the eu co-financed section being constructed at  kufstein-Innsbruck, on the brenner 
corridor between münchen and verona, will be constrained by the volume of traffic that can cross the 
mountain pass at the brennersee station. this situation will be significantly improved only in 2022, 
when the rail lines through the brenner base tunnel currently under construction come into operation 
on the corridor.

the exploitation of the perpignan-figueras international section depends in part on the flows of freight 
traffic between spain and france, and developments that take place at ports (such as barcelona) will 
have an important influence.

B oX   1 2

INf r a sTr U C T UrE   D E V EloP E D  To   sU P Po rT   sEr V I C Es   f o r   WhI Ch 
sP E C IfI C   D E M aN D   Is   No T   E X P E C T E D   I N  ThE   s h o rT  To   M E D I U M 
T ErM

the roma-napoli and  bologna-firenze high-speed high-capacity lines have been constructed to carry 
both freight and passenger trains. to allow for freight trains to run as well as passenger trains, significant 
investments were required in respect of inter-connections to the conventional line. the construction of 
tunnels, bridges and viaducts in order to reduce gradients was also necessary as well as increasing axle 
load capacity. no freight trains yet operate on these lines, and, whilst such developments are expected 
at some points in the future, there are not yet specific plans amongst train operators in place to do so.

on roma-napoli, bologna-firenze and pioltello-treviglio, the available freight locomotives are not ca-
pable of travel at the stipulated minimum speed of 120 km/h.

the raca-trnava-piestany line supports train speeds up to 160 km/h; however, no trains capable of these 
speeds currently run in slovakia.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

40

57.  

 H o w e v e r,   t h e   s i t u a t i o n   fo r   c o nv e n t i o n a l   l i n e s   w h i c h   s u p p o r t 
mixed freight and passenger use is more problematic. crossing 
b o rd e r s   b e t we e n   s o m e   n a t i o n a l   r a i l   s ys te m s   re m a i n s   co m p l i -
cated to the ex tent that many trans-european rail ser vices are 
i n te r r u p te d   by   t h e   n e c e s s i t y   to   s t o p   a t   b o rd e r   l o c a t i o n s.  th e 
cour t obser ved various complications, including differences in 
gauge, trac tion energy, train control (signalling) systems, train 
l e n g t h   a n d   o p e r a t i o n a l   r u l e s .   a d d i t i o n a l   r e a s o n s   w h y   t r a i n s 
h a v e   t o   s t o p   a r e   n o n   a c c e p t a n c e   o f   r o l l i n g   s t o c k   a u t h o r i s e d 
for  us e  in  o the r  m emb er  states,   t rai n   c re w  trai ni n g  and   ce r ti -
f i c a t i o n ,   t e c h n i c a l   a n d   c o m m e rc i a l   c o n t ro l s,   re a l - t i m e   t r a f f i c 
management (see A nnex VII for a review of these problems to -
get her w it h exa mp les  from th e s ec ti on s sam ple d for  t he  au dit 
and the trans-european axes on which they are located). whilst 
these complications at the borders do not necessarily individu-
a l l y   e n t a i l   s i g n i f i c a n t   d e l a y s ,   t h e i r   c u m u l a t i v e   e f f e c t   c a n   b e 
sign ific ant,  in  p ar tic u lar  they  can   le ad  to   t raf f ic   m anag e me nt 
problems, running the risk of traffic jams and consequent delay 
(see B ox  1 3).

Photo 7 – Traﬃ  c control facility at Brennersee station

© european court of auditors, february 2009. 

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
41

B o X   1 3 

f r E I G h T  T r a I N   j o U r N E y   f r o M   M Ü N C h E N  To   B r E N N E r s E E   s TaT I o N

a technical and commercial control is carried out before departure from münchen (see Photo 2, p. 18), 
checking that the train is properly constituted and that the braking system is fully operational. the train, 
which is equipped with two locomotives, is driven by a single german-speaking driver.

entering the austrian rail network at kufstein, no changes are necessary to the train because the op-
erational rules in germany and austria are harmonised, the respective rail authorities formally accept 
each other’s standards regarding certain small differences. a third locomotive is added to assist in the 
ascent to brennersee (see Photo 8).

on reaching the mountain-top brennersee station (austria-Italy border), shunting is carried out to re-
move the two locomotives no longer required. other tasks made necessary by differences between the 
Italian and austrian operational rules are carried out, namely:

 ο

 ο

change of driver: Italian operational rules require two Italian–speaking drivers (licensed to drive in 
Italy), who replace the single german speaking driver (licensed to drive in germany and austria);

change of tail markers: in germany and austria, reflective boards are required at the back of the 
train)30, whereas it is not acceptable to carry reflective boards in Italy where illuminated tail lights 
are required (see Photo 9, p. 47).

although a technical control was carried out before leaving münchen and the journey to verona is only 
448 km (namely less than the maximum 700 km required by Italian regulations), a further control is 
carried out at brennersee station which takes about 25 minutes. this additional control is carried out 
because the Italian ru does not accept the technical control done by the german railway undertaking 
in münchen. no such additional control is carried out on the journey in the opposite direction because 
the german railway undertaking accepts the control done earlier by its Italian counterpart.

30  the precise designs of the refl ective boards under german and austrian operational rules diff er slightly but each accepts the boards of 
the other.

Photo 8 – Freight train climbs the Alps in Austria towards Brennersee station

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

© european court of auditors, february 2009. 

42

58.  

 m a k i n g   p r o g r e s s   o n   a l l e v i a t i n g   s u c h   c o n s t r a i n t s   h a s   t h e   p o -
tential to facilitate improvements in trans- european transpor t 
th at   are  o f  co mp arab l e  s cal e  to  pe r for man ce   g a ins   t hat   re s ult 
f ro m   s i gn i f i c a nt   i nve s t m e nt s   i n   i n f ra s t r u c t u re   (Ta b l e   4  s h ows 
a   c o m p a r i s o n   f r o m   p r i o r i t y   p r o j e c t   1 ) .   su c h   p r o g r e s s   w o u l d 
e nt a i l   m o re   i n   te r m s   o f   co - o p e rat i o n   b e t we e n   m e m b e r   st ate s 
auth or ities  than  financial  invest m e nt  i n  i nf ra s tr uc tu re.

TaBl E   4

25  M I N U T Es   s a V E D   aN D   25   M I N U T Es   D El ay   
oN   P rIo rI T y   P r o jE C T   1

25 minutes

The journey time saved by constructing a new 
high speed line between Nürnberg and Ingol-
stadt in Germany at an overall cost of 2 336 mil-
lion euro (with EU co-financing of 134 million 
euro from TEN-T)

The additional time needed for a technical con-
trol for trains entering Italy at the Brennersee 
station at the Austrian-Italian border, because 
the Italian railway undertaking does not accept 
the technical control already carried out at the 
point of departure in München by its German 
counterpart

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
43

59.  

60.  

 whilst the existence of these constraints on impor tant corridors 
is  wel l   k now n  in  t he  rail   indust r y   in   europe,   a  st udy   th at  fully 
describes such problems, quantifies their impac t and identifies 
possible solutions is not available at european level for all the 
imp o r tant  axe s.

31  directive 2008/57/ec of the 
european parliament and of the 

council of 17 june 2008 on the 

interoperability of the rail system 

within the community (oj l 191, 

18.7.2008, p. 1).

 alleviating system constraints on trans- european axes requires 
a gre e m e nt   b e t we e n   m e m b e r   st ate s.   at te m p t s   to   d o   s o   at   eu -
ro p e a n   l e ve l   a re   re l at i ve l y   re ce nt   d e ve l o p m e nt s   a s   a c h i e v i n g 
p ro gre s s   i n   a   b i l a te ra l   co n te x t   h a s   h i s to r i c a l l y   b e e n   d i f f i c u l t . 
the re  is  a  not ab le   excep tion,  wh i c h  h as   se en   s ome  i mpor tant 
successes, where institutions from member states are co - oper-
ating to improve the per formance of rail transpor t on a railway 
axis (s ee B ox  1 4) .  o t her su ch in it iative s are d evelopi n g,  of ten 
with the suppor t of the commission appointed co - ordinators, 
for examp l e in resp ec t of t he bren ne r  c or r idor.

61.  

 pro gre s s   o n   o n e   to p i c   h a s   b e e n   a d d re s s e d   at   eu ro p e a n   l e ve l, 
w i t h   e u  l e gi s l a t i o n   a d o p te d   i n   2 0 0 8   a i m e d   a t   f a c i l i t a t i n g   t h e 
mut ual   accep tan ce  o f  rol l ing  stock   a mo ng s t  nat io nal  rail  ne t-
wor ks 31.

B oX   1 4

IN T ErNa T IoNa l   G r oU P   f o r   IM Pr o V I N G  ThE   QU a lI T y   o f   r aIl 
T r aNsPo rT   I N  ThE   N o rTh -soU Th   Co r rI Do r   (r oT T ErD aM- GE No a ) 
( ‘ I Q C ’ )

since 2003, german, dutch, Italian and swiss authorities relating to rail transport have been co- operating 
to analyse and solve problems on the corridor. they have made some notable achievements, for  example 
in respect on mutual recognition of drivers and cross acceptance of approval procedures for rolling 
stock.  In  2008,  a  european  economic  Interest  group  was  set  and  a  programme  management  office 
was established to manage the work of the group. a 14-point action plan has been approved, which 
 echoes the findings of this report by highlighting the importance of aspects such as ertms deployment,  
operational rules and train crew certification as key constraints for trans-european transport.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
conclusIons and 
recommendatIons

44

62.  

63.  

 th ro u g h   co - f i n a n c i n g   t h e   d e ve l o p m e n t   o f   r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u re, 
the eu has contributed to providing new possibilities for trans-
european rail transpor t. s ome ac tions could however be taken 
in ord er to  achieve greater  value  for  e u mon e y.

 the priority projec ts are the main mechanism for co - ordinating 
and concentrating financial resources, it is therefore impor tant 
t h a t   t h e i r   d e f i n i t i o n   r e f l e c t s   p r e s e n t   a n d   a n t i c i p a t e d   n e e d s . 
H o w e v e r,   t h e y   h a v e   n o t ,   t o   d a t e ,   b e e n   d e f i n e d   b a s e d   o n   a n 
anal ysis   o f  c ur rent  and  expec ted   t raf f ic   flows   an d  d o  n ot   rep -
res ent  definit ive  des cr ip t ions   of   th e   mai n   t rans -e uropean  rail 
axe s  (s ee  paragrap hs 19 to 24) .

r E C oM M E N D aT IoN   1

t h e   co m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d ,   i n   o r d e r   to   co n ce nt r ate   eu  f u n d s , 
i n   f u t u r e   c o n s i d e r a t i o n s   o f   t h e   d e f i n i t i o n   o f   t h e   p r i o r i t y 
proj e c t s:

o  w o r k   w i t h   m e m b e r   s t a t e s   a n d   r a i l w a y   i n s t i t u t i o n s   t o 
s t re n g t h e n   t h e   eu ro p e a n - l e ve l   k n ow l e d g e   a n d   a n a l y t i-
c a l   b a s e s  c o n c e r n i n g   e x i s t i n g   a n d   e x p e c t e d   r a i l   t r a f f i c 
fl ows;  and

o 

ide nt ify  t ho se  trans-e u ropean  cor r idors  for   whic h  the re 
is s ignif ic ant ac tu al  or  ant icipated  de m and .

64.  

 the   t arget ing  o f  eu  infrast ruc ture  invest me nt s  un de r   te n- t  is 
impor tant. concentration of ten- t co -financing at cross-border 
l o c a t i o n s   h a s   i m p ro ve d,   b u t   m u c h   re m a i n s   t o   b e   a c h i e ve d   a t 
th ese  l ocat ions on the pr ior it y proje c ts sample d.  th e co - ordi-
n ato r s   h ave   m a d e   a   p o s i t i ve   co nt r i b u t i o n   b u t   t h e re   i s   a   n e e d 
to improve analysis about bottlenecks. there were weak nesses 
at   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   i n   a p p rova l   p ro ce d u re s   fo r   co h e s i o n   fu n d 
p ro j e c t ,   a n d   t h e re   re m a i n s   ro o m   fo r   i m p ro ve m e n t s   fo r  t e n- t 
pro jec t  sel ec t ion  p rocedu res ( see  pa ragraphs  2 5   to  3 8 ).

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
45

r E C oM M E N D aT IoN   2

t h e c o m missi o n sh o ul d:

o  e n s u r e   t h a t   a   r o b u s t   a n a l y s i s   o f   t h e   m o s t   i m p o r t a n t 
b o tt l enec k  s ec ti ons  on  th e  pr ior it y   proje c ts  is   available 
t o   s u p p o r t   d e c i s i o n s   r e g a r d i n g   t h e   t a r g e t i n g   o f   t e n- t 
fu nds ;

o  b u i l d   o n   t h e   r o l e s   p l a y e d   t o   d a t e   b y   t h e   c o - o r d i n a t o r s 
a n d   co n s i d e r   a p p o i nt i n g   f u r t h e r   co - o rd i n ato r s  to   cove r 
o the r p r ior it y p ro jec t s;

o  make sure that procedures for approving projec ts under 
t h e   co h e s i o n   po l i c y   a re   ro b u s t,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   a s   re g a rd s 
r e v i e w   o f   t e c h n i c a l   c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s   a n d ,   i n   v i e w   o f   t h e 
s u b s t a n t i a l   r i s k s   o f   c o s t   e s c a l a t i o n s ,   e n s u r e   t h a t   p r o -
posed projec ts have been thoroughly prepared, drawing 
on industr y good prac tices as demonstrated by projec ts 
t hat  have  b ee n real is ed on time  and  on  budg et ;  a n d

o 

imp rove  the   q ual it y  of   cos t- ben ef it   an alys es   in   suppo r t 
o f se l ec t ion p ro ced ures  un der te n- t.

65.  

 e u  co - f i n a n ce d   i n f ra s t r u c t u re   p ro j e c t s   d e l i ve re d   t h e   p l a n n e d 
infrastruc ture to specification, and, once completed, have cre -
ated new  and im p roved rail t ran s por t pos s ibili ti e s  on  ke y  s ec-
t i o n s   o f   t h e   pr i o r i t y   pr o j e c t s .   I n   m a n y   c a s e s   a m e n d m e n t s   t o 
technic al sp ec if icat ion s were made  due  to c irc ums tan ce s th at 
cam e to  l ig ht dur ing co ns truc tion  ( se e  paragra phs  3 9   to  48 ) .

r E C oM M E N D aT IoN   3

t h e co m missi o n sh o u l d t ake th e l e a d in  f a cili t atin g  th e e x-
ch an g e  o f  k n ow l e d g e   an d  e x p e r i e n ce  ab o u t  r ail  inf r as tr u c-
ture   d eve l o p m e nt   am o n gs t  p roj e c t   p ro m ote r s ,   b uil d in g   o n 
p as t  e x p e r i e n ce su ch  as  th e n e tlips e  p roj e c t  to d o s o.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
46

66.  

 measurable improvements have been achieved on lines dedicat-
ed to high-speed passenger ser vices that are operating fully as 
pla nned. H owever,  t he us e of co nve nti on al s e c ti ons  for  m ixe d 
and   freight  us e  benefiting   from   e u  co - fina nc ing  is  inf luen ced 
by   a   r a n g e   o f   f a c t o r s   t h a t   m e a n   t h a t   r a i l   s e r v i c e s   a re   n o t   ye t 
operating fully at anticipated levels. system constraints persist 
i n   t h e   e u r o p e a n   r a i l   n e t w o r k ,   e s p e c i a l l y   a t   b o r d e r   l o c a t i o n s 
(see p a ragrap hs 4 9 to 6 1) .

r E C oM M E N D aT IoN   4

t h e c o m missi o n sh o ul d:

o 

consider the ex tent to which greater value for eu money 
co ul d b e achieved  by p l ac ing inc rea s ed  emph a sis  on  al-
leviating prac tical constraints for cross-border rail trans-
p o r t  t hat are not p er  s e related  to  i nf ras tr uc ture ;  and

o  e n c o u r a g e   t h e   e m e r g e n c e   o f   a n d   p r o v i d e   s u p p o r t   f o r 
c o l l a b o r a t i o n   a m o n g s t   m e m b e r   s t a t e   r a i l   i n s t i t u t i o n s 
a t   c o r r i d o r   l e v e l  ( s u c h   a s   t h e   s t r u c t u r e   i n   p l a c e   o n   t h e 
r o t te rd a m - g e n o a   co r r i d o r )   i n   o rd e r   to   a d d re s s   b a r r i e r s 
to  sm oo t h rail  trans p or t  on  exis ti n g  in fras tr uc ture.

 this  r ep o r t was ado p ted by chambe r II, h ea ded by  m r  m or ten 
l e v ys oHn ,   m e m b e r   o f   t h e   co u r t   o f   au d i t o r s,   i n   lu xe m b o u rg 
at it s m eet ing  o f 8 s ep te mb er  2 01 0.

Fo r  th e  Co u r t  o f  Au d ito r s

vítor m anuel da sI lva caldeIra 
Presi d e nt

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
47

Photo 9 – Tail lights required for operation in Italy awaiting attachment at Brennersee station

© european court of auditors, february 2009. 

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special report no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-european rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

48

aN N EX   I

sU M M a r y   o f   M aI N   E Ur oP EaN   lE G Is l a T IoN   I N   rEsP E C T   o f  ThE 
r aIl   I N D UsTr y

Legislative act

Development of the Community’s 
railways

Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the develop-
ment of the Community's railways

Amendments

Directive 2001/12/EC
Directive 2004/51/EC
Directive 2007/58/EC

European Railway Agency

Licensing

Regulation (EC) No 881/2004 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 29 April 2004 establishing a European 
Railway Agency

Regulation (EC)  
No 1335/2008

Council Directive 95/18/EC of 19 June 1995 on the licensing 
of railway undertakings

Directive 2001/13/EC
Directive 2004/49/EC

Allocation of railway infrastructure 
capacity and charging for the use of 
infrastructure

Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway 
infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use 
of railway infrastructure

Decision 2002/844/EC
Directive 2004/49/EC
Directive 2007/58/EC

State Aid rules

Communication from the Commission Community guide-
lines on State aid for railway undertakings

(2008/C 184/07)

Interoperability of the conventional 
rail system

Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the 
trans-European conventional rail system

Directive 2004/50/EC
Directive 2007/32/EC

Interoperability of the trans- 
European high-speed rail system

Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoper-
ability of the trans-European high-speed rail system

Directive 2004/50/EC
Directive 2007/32/EC

Interoperability of rail system 
within Community

y
t
e
f
a
S

Railway safety

Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail 
system within the Community

Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's 
railways

Commission Regulation (EC) No 653/2007 of 13 June 2007 
on the use of a common European format for safety certifi-
cates and application documents in accordance with Article 
10 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council and on the validity of safety certificates 
delivered under Directive 2001/14/EC

Directive 2008/110/EC

s
t
e
k
r
a
m
d
n
a
s
e
i
d
o
B

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
e
p
o
r
e
t
n

I

y
t
i
l
i

b
a
r
e
p
o
r
e
t
n

i

d
n
a
y
t
e
f
a
S

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
 
 
49

aN N EX   I

s
r
e
k
r
o
w
y
a
w

l
i
a
R

s
t
h
g
i
r

r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
P

Train drivers

Mobile workers

Public service obligations

Passenger rights

Legislative act

Amendments

Directive 2007/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 23 October 2007 on the certification of train driv-
ers operating locomotives and trains on the railway system 
in the Community

Council Directive 2005/47/EC of 18 July 2005 on the Agree-
ment between the Community of European Railways (CER) 
and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on 
certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers 
engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway 
sector

Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger 
transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council 
Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70

Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ 
rights and obligations

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
50

aN N EX   I I

T E ChN I C a l   sP E C IfI C aT IoNs   f o r   I N T Er oP Er aB IlI T y

Category

Description

Maintenance Subsystem

Control-command and signalling
Control-command and signalling - Corrigendum

High Speed TSIs

(adopted by Commission Decision)

Infrastructure Subsystem 

Energy Subsystem 

Rolling stock Subsystem 

Operation Subsystem 

Control and command Subsystem ERTMS and modifying Annex A to 
2006/679

Control and command Subsystem ERTMS modifying Annex A to 2006/679 
and Annex A to 2006/860

Infrastructure Subsystem

Operation Subsystem Annex A, Annex P 9

Rolling stock Subsystem
Rolling Stock - Corrigendum 

Energy Subsystem

Control-command and signalling - modifying Annex A  
to Decision 2002/731/EC of 30 May 2002
Control-command and signalling - modifying Annex A  
to Decision 2002/731/EC of 30 May 2002 - Corrigendum

Control-command and signalling - modifying Annex A  
to Decision 2006/860 for high speed and conventional rail

Revised High Speed TSIs

(adopted by Commission Decision)

Reference

2002/731/EC

2002/732/EC

2002/733/EC

2002/735/EC

2002/734/EC

2006/860/EC

2008/386/EC

2008/217/EC 

2008/231/EC 

2008/232/EC 

2008/284/CE 

2004/447/EC

2007/153/EC

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

51

aN N EX   I I

Category

Description

Telematics applications for freight services

Noise aspects of conventional rolling stock

Control-command and signalling 

Control-command and signalling

Conventional rail TSIs

(adopted by Commission Decisions / 
Regulations)

Control and command Subsystem ERTMS and modifying Annex A 
 to 2006/679/EC 

Command Subsystem ERTMS modifying Annex A to 2006/679 and  
Annex A to 2006/860

Rolling stock – freight wagons - Amendment of Decisions 2006/861/EC and 
2006/920/EC

Operation and traffic management - Annex P 5: Amendment of Decisions 
2006/861/EC and 2006/920/EC Annex P 9

Transversal TSIs
(High Speed and Conventional Rail)
(adopted by Commission Decision)

ERTMS deployment plan

Safety in railway tunnels

Persons with reduced mobility

Reference

62/2006/EC

2006/66/EC

2006/679/EC

2009/561/EC

2006/860/EC 

2008/386/EC 

2006/861/EC
2009/107/EC

2006/920/EC
2009/107/EC

2009/561/EC

2008/163/EC 

2008/164/EC 

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

52

aN N EX   I I I

lIsT   o f  T E N - T   PrIo rI T y   Pr o jE C T s

’Essen Projects’
(1996 TEN-T Guidelines)

Priority Projects
(2004 TEN-T guidelines)

High-speed train/combined transport north-south: Nürnberg- 
Erfurt-Halle/Leipzig-Berlin Brenner axis: Verona-München

PP1 Railway axis Berlin-Verona/Milan-Bologna-Napoli-Messina-
Palermo

High-speed train (Paris-Brussels-Köln-Amsterdam-London)

PP2 High-speed railway axis Paris-Brussels/Brussels-Köln- 
Amsterdam-London

High-speed train south: Madrid-Barcelona-Perpignan- 
Montpellier; Madrid-Vitoria-Dax

PP3 High-speed railway axis Lisboa/Porto-Madrid-Barcelona- 
Perpignan-Montpellier; Madrid-Vitoria-Dax-Bordeaux-Tours

High-speed railway axis east

Betuweroute

PP4 High-speed railway axis east

PP5 Betuweroute

High-speed train/combined transport: Lyon-Trieste

PP6 Railway axis Lyon-Trieste-Divaca/Koper/Divaca-Ljubljana-
Budapest-Ukrainian border

PP8 Multimodal axis Portugal/Spain-rest of Europe

Railway axis Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer 

PP9 Railway axis Cork-Dublin-Belfast-Stranraer

Öresund fixed link 

PP11 Öresund fixed link

Nordic triangle railway-road axis

PP12 Nordic triangle railway-road axis

West Coast Main Line

PP14 West Coast Main Line

PP16 Freight railway axis Sines/Algeciras-Madrid-Paris

PP17 Railway axis Paris-Strasbourg-Stuttgart-Vienna-Bratislava

PP19 High-speed rail interoperability on the Iberian peninsula

PP20 Fehmarn Belt railway axis

PP22 Railway axis Athina-Sofia-Budapest-Vienna-Prague-
Nürnberg/Dresden

PP23 Railway axis Gdańsk-Warsaw-Brno/Bratislava-Vienna

PP24 Railway axis Lyon/Genoa-Basel-Duisburg-Rotterdam/
Antwerp

PP26 Railway-road axis Ireland/United Kingdom/continental 
Europe

PP27 Rail Baltica axis Warsaw-Kaunas-Riga-Tallinn-Helsinki

PP28 Eurocaprail on the Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg railway 
axis

PP29 Railway axis if the Ionian/Adriatic intermodal corridor

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

53

aN N EX   I V

E U   Co-fI NaN C E D   I Nf r a sTr U C T UrE   sE C T IoNs   s aM PlE   f o r  ThE 
aU D I T

1. 

2. 

3. 

 a  s a m p l e   o f   2 1   s e c t i o n s   o f   r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u re   t h a t   b e n e f i te d   f ro m   e u  co - f i n a n c i n g   ( a n d 
related f in anc ing decisio ns)  was an alyse d.  th e sec t ion s were loc ated on  eight o f the pr i-
or it y pro jec t s (1, 2 , 3 , 5/2 4,  6, 4/1 7,  1 9 ,  2 3 ).  d eta ils  of th e sam ple are shown in  th e table 
below.

 t h e   s a m p l e   c o v e r e d   a   h i g h   p r o p o r t i o n   o f   e u  i n v e s t m e n t s   o n   r a i l   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e .   ta k e n 
tog et her,  t he   samp le  covers  a  total   of  8  68 3  mi llion   euro  ( 1   6 1 3   m i llion   euro  f rom  ten- t 
a n d   7   0 7 0   m i l l i o n   e u ro   f ro m   co h e s i o n   fu n d,   Is pa  a n d   e r d f) .   th i s   re p re s e nt s   7 7   %   o f   a l l 
e u   co - f i n a n c i n g   i nve s t m e nt s   o n   t h e   s a m p l e d   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s,   a n d   3 6   %   o f   i nve s t m e nt s 
from  al l s ou rces th ereon .

 the  sec tio ns in  the s amp l e, con cer n e d,  w h e re po ssi ble:

 ο
 ο
 ο

 ο
 ο
 ο

se c tio ns  that we re co mp l eted  or   ne ar in g  com ple t ion ,
cro ss -b ord er an d b ot tl enec k s ec t ion s,
imp o r tant p ass eng er an d f reight cor r i dor s  ( provid i ng  som e  coi nc ide nce  wit h er tms 
co r r ido rs),
co nnec t ion s be t ween eu-15  and e u- 10  m ember  s tates,
se c tio ns  where p r ivate financ in g  h ad  bee n  i nve s ted, an d,
ma jo r a l p in e t unnel l ing  s ec tion s.

s E C T I o N s   o f  T h E   P r I o r I T y   P r o j E C T s   Co - f I N a N C E D   By  T E N - T, 
Co hEsIoN   f U N D   ( Cf)   o r   ErDf   rE V I E W E D   f o r  ThE   aU D I T

Dedicated passenger lines

Mixed use line

Dedicated freight lines

Berlin Central Station (DE) [TEN-T]
Frankfurt a.M.-Köln (DE) [TEN-T]
Nürnberg-Ingolstadt (DE) [TEN-T]
TGV Est Phase 1 (FR) [TEN-T]
Madrid-Valladolid (ES) [CF, ERDF, 
TEN-T]
Madrid-Barcelona (ES) [CF, TEN-T]
HSL Zuid (NL) [TEN-T]

In service

Completed 
sections

Awaiting entry 
into service

Sections under construction

Madrid-Levante (ES) [CF, ERDF, TEN-T]

Sections in planning and  
exploratory stages

Pioltello-Treviglio (IT) [TEN-T]
Raca-Trnava-Piestany (SK) [CF]
Roma-Napoli (IT) [ERDF, TEN-T] 
Messina-Patti (IT) [ERDF]

Betuweroute (NL)  
[TEN-T]

Perpignan-Figueras (FR, ES) [TEN-T]
Bologna-Firenze (IT) [TEN-T]

Karlsruhe-Basel (DE) [TEN-T]
Kufstein-Innsbruck (AT) [TEN-T]
Linz-St Polten (AT) [TEN-T]]
Warsaw-Gdynia (PL) [CF]

Brenner Base Tunnel (AT, IT) [TEN-T]
Lyon-Turin Base Tunnel (FR, IT)  
[TEN-T]

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
54

aN N EX   V

Co-o rD I Na To r s   aP PoI N T E D   B y  ThE   C oM M Is sIoN   I N   rEsP E C T 
o f   r aIl   PrIo rI T y   Pr o jE C T s   a s   aT   jU N E  2010

Rail Priority Project
1

3

6

17

19

22

27

ERTMS deployment

Co-ordinator
Pat Cox

Carlo Secchi

Laurens Jan Brinkhorst

Péter Balàzs

Carlo Secchi

Gilles Savary

Pavel Telička

Karel Vinck

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

55

aN N EX   V I

E U   Co-fI NaN C E D   sE C T IoNs   rE V I E W E D   f o r  ThE   aU D I T:   
sT aT Us   o f   CoNsTr U C T IoN   aN D   UsE

Ready for use

Extent of use

t
r
o
h
s
n

i
y
l
e
k
i
l

n
u

l
a
i
t
n
e
t
o
p
f
o
e
s
u

l
l

u
F

m
r
e
t

i

m
u
d
e
m
o
t

e
h
t
n

i

s
t
n
e
m
p
o
l
e
v
e
d
r
e
h
t
o
g
n
i
t
i
a
w
A

k
r
o
w
t
e
n
t
r
o
p
s
n
a
r
t



s
n
o
i
t
c
e
s

m
r
e
t

r
e
g
n
o
L





 













d
e
t
c
e
p
x
e
e
s
u

l
l

u
F











d
e
t
e
l
p
m
o
c
n
o
i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
C





























n
o
i
t
c
u
r
t
s
n
o
c

r
e
d
n
U















e
s
u
r
o
f
e
l
b
a
l
i
a
v
A

























d
e
s
u
y
l
l

u
F













t
h
g
i
e
r
F

n
o
i
t
c
e
s

Betuweroute

Lyon-Turin Base Tunnel

Brenner Base Tunnel

Warsaw-Gdynia

Linz-St Polten

Kufstein-Innsbruck

Karlsruhe-Basel

Bologna-Firenze

Perpignan-Figueras

Messina-Patti

Roma-Napoli

Raca-Trnava-Piestany

Pioltello-Treviglio

Madrid-Levante

HSL Zuid

Madrid-Barcelona

Madrid-Valladolid

TGV Est (Phase 1)

Nürnberg-Ingolstadt

Frankfurt a.M.-Köln

Berlin Central Station

s
n
o
i
t
c
e
s

)
l
a
n
o
i
t
n
e
v
n
o
c
(
e
s
u
d
e
x
i
M

s
n
o
i
t
c
e
s

r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
p
d
e
t
a
c
i
d
e
D

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
56

1  union International de chemins 
de fer.

aN N EX   V I I

o V Er V I E W   o f   s ysT E M   C oNsTr aI N T s   aT   Cr o s s-
Bo rD Er   loC aT IoNs   oN  Tr aNs- E Ur oP EaN  
r aIl  
aX Es   oBsEr V E D   D UrI N G  ThE   aU D I T

G aU G E

1. 

 m o s t   o f   t h e   r a i l w a y s   i n   t h e   e u r o p e a n   un i o n   o p e r a t e   o n   t h e 
u I c 1  s t a n d a r d   g a u g e .   a n   i m p o r t a n t   e x c e p t i o n   t o   t h i s   i s   t h e 
t r a d i t i o n a l   r a i l   n e t w o r k   i n   sp a i n ,   w h i c h   o p e r a t e s   o n   a   w i d e r 
gauge. the gauge difference means that only passenger trains 
equipped with special gauge -adjusting technology are able to 
p a s s   b e t we e n   fr a n c e   a n d   sp a i n ;   a l l   o t h e r   t r a i n s   h ave   t o   s t o p 
a t   t h e   b o r d e r.   fr e i g h t   t r a i n s   c r o s s i n g   t h e   b o r d e r   a r e   e i t h e r 
unloaded and reloaded, or have their axles changed at special 
f a c i l i t i e s   ( s e e   P h o t o   6) .   pro g re s s   o n   a d d re s s i n g   t h i s   p ro b l e m 
is being made through investments in infrastruc ture (four sec-
tion s rev ie we d for the au dit  l o cated  on pr ior it y  proje c ts 3  and 
19 re l ate to  t his):

 ο

 ο

t h e   av e  h i g h - s p e e d   p a s s e n g e r   t r a i n   n e t w o r k   i n   sp a i n   i s 
b eing   cons truc ted  u sing   th e  uIc  gaug e  and   is  planne d  to 
c o n n e c t   t o   t h e   fr e n c h   n e t w o r k   b e t w e e n   pe r p i g n a n   a n d 
fig ue ras  and bet ween I r u n an d  He nd aye,  and ;

a t   i n t e r s e c t i o n s   b e t w e e n   t h e   u I c   a n d   I b e r i a n   g a u g e s 
w i t h i n   t h e   sp a n i s h   n e t wo r k ,   i nte ro p e ra b i l i t y   w i l l   b e   s u p -
por ted through gauge changing devices, for example, near 
ch amar t in st atio n in  m adr id and n ear m edin a del c ampo.

T r aC T IoN   E N Er Gy

2. 

 the interoperability of some national systems remains problem-
atic because elec tr icit y supplied to the railways of neighbour-
i n g   m e m b e r   s t a t e s   o p e r a t e   a c c o r d i n g   t o   d i f f e r e n t   t e c h n i c a l 
stan dards an d t his cau ses compl icat ion s  at  cros s- border  lo c a-
tions (see B ox A). I n view of the signifcant costs and technical 
challenges, the problem is unlikely to be fully solved by invest-
ing  in  n ew dedic ated  energy supply  i n f ras tr uc t ure at  n at ion al 
leve l  and  pragm atic  ap p roac hes  are   ta k e n  i n   pra c t ice.  for  ex-
ampl e, w here  e nergy  systems  are n ot  i nte rope ra ble  ei th e r :

 ο

single power system trains have to stop at borders to change 
locomotives, implying a minimum of about 15 minutes shunting 
and the risk of consequent cumulative further delays;

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
57

aN N EX   V I I

 ο

 ο

i n v e s t m e n t s   a r e   m a d e   b y   r a i l w a y   u n d e r t a k i n g s   t o   e q u i p 
their locomotives to operate on more than energy systems, 
o r ;

die sel  l o como t ives  are us ed, whi ch  wh i lst  st ill i n  com mon 
u s e   a re   s e e n   a s   l e s s   e f f i c i e nt   a n d   a l s o   u n d e s i ra b l e   f ro m   a 
cl e an energ y p ers p ec t ive.

T r aI N   lE N G Th

3. 

 the length of trains allowed on national networks is not always 
consistent, even on the same trans-e uropean corridor. such re -
stric tions are often imposed as a result of charac teristics of the 
infras truc t u re   s uc h  as   t he  availabil i t y   of   pa s sin g   places,  ti ght 
cur ves in t he l ines  or the pres en ce  of  s te e p grad ie nt s ( such  as 
o n   a l p i n e   c ro s s i n g s ) .   fo r   ex a m p l e,   t ra i n s   i n   fra n ce   c a n   b e   u p 
to 600 met res l ong, w hil s t only  4 5 0  m etres  i s all owe d i n  spain 
( pr i o r i t y   pr o j e c t   3 ) .   I r r e s p e c t i v e   o f   g a u g e   d i f fe r e n c e s   a t   t h i s 
b o rd e r,   t h e re fo re,   e i t h e r   f re i g ht   t ra i n s   o f   o n l y   4 5 0   m e t re s   a re 
run   o n  t he  frenc h  s ide  o r,  if   l on ger   train s  are  to  t rave l  to  and 
from france, time needs to be taken to split and rebuild trains 
th us  run ning  the r is k o f additional  de lays  at  th e  borde r.

B oX   a

EX aM PlEs   o f  
s ysT E Ms

I N T Er oP Er aB IlI T y   o f  Tr a C T IoN   E N Er Gy   sU P Ply 

the energy systems of germany and austria are compatible and this does not represent an interoper-
ability problem for single system locomotives, whereas the dutch and german (priority project 5) are 
not interoperable and neither are those of austria and Italy (priority project 1). this is one source of 
complications at cross border locations such as brennersee.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
58

2  commission decision  
2009/561/ec of 22 july 2009 

amending decision  

2006/679/ec as regards the 

implementation of the technical 

specification for interoperability 

relating to the control-command 

and signalling subsystem of the 

trans-european conventional rail 

system ("the european deployment 

plan") [c(2009) 5607 final]. 

aN N EX   V I I

4. 

T r aI N   CoN Tr o l   ( sI G Na l lI N G)   s ysT E Ms

 there are currently more than 20 stand-alone train control (sig-
nalling) systems across the european union that are not inter -
o p e r a b l e   a n d   t h i s   r e p r e s e n t s   a n   i m p o r t a n t   b a r r i e r   t o   t r a n s -
e u r o p e a n   i n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y.   e r t m s  s e e k s   t o   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   t h e 
c re a t i o n   o f   a   s e a m l e s s   eu ro p e a n   r a i l w ay   s y s te m   by   re p l a c i n g 
t h e   d i f fe re nt   n at i o n a l   t ra i n   co n t ro l   s ys te m s   i n   eu ro p e.   I t   a l s o 
f a c i l i t a t e s   h i g h   s p e e d   r a i l   t r a n s p o r t ,   a l l o w s   fo r   i n c re a s e d   c a-
p a c i t y   o n   ra i l   l i n e s   a n d   i m p rove s   s a fe t y.   e r t m s   h a s   t wo   b a s i c 
components: the european train control system (e tcs), an au-
tomatic train protection system to replace the existing national 
s y s t e m s ;   a n d   g s m -r,   a   r a d i o   s y s t e m   f o r   p r o v i d i n g   v o i c e   a n d 
data   comm unicat io n  b et ween   th e   t rac k   a n d  th e   t rain .   a  euro -
pean  d ep l oym ent   pl an  has   b een  agreed  among st  th e   m ember 
s t a t e s 2  i n   r e s p e c t   o f   e r t m s   h o w e v e r,   b a s e d   o n   c u r r e n t   t i m e 
horizons, its deployment is expected to be long, often linked to 
the timescales on the renewal of existing train control systems. 
d ur ing this deployment phase, in circumstances where er tms 
i s   n o t   i n   o p e ra t i o n   a l o n g   t h e   e n t i re t y   o f   a   co r r i d o r   a n d   s o m e 
sec t io ns  co nt in ue  to   b e  ser ved  wi th   on ly   th e   exi st in g   sys te m, 
l o c o m o t i v e s   w i l l   h a v e   t o   b e   f i t t e d   w i t h   b o t h   e r t m s  a n d   t h e 
exis tin g  system s  and  imp l ies  inc re as ed   in st allat ion   a nd  m ain-
ten ance   co sts  fo r   the  train   o perator.  th is  would  affec t   freight 
transpor t in par ticular, where locomotives are nor mally called 
upon to o p erate over a w ider ran ge  of  route s.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
59

3  directive 2008/57/ec of the 
european parliament and of the 

council of 17 june 2008 on the 

interoperability of the rail system 

within the community.

aN N EX   V I I

5. 

DIf fErE N C Es  

I N   oP Er a T IoNa l   r UlEs

 ea ch  m em be r  st ate   has  it s  own   es tablis hed  s et   of   ope rat io nal 
rules  for  rail   t ra ffic  o n  t he  natio nal   n e t wor ks   (s im ila r   to  h ig h-
way codes for roads). these rules dic tate key elements of safe -
t y- re l ate d   t ra i n   e q u i p m e nt   a n d   s t i p u l ate   h ow   d r i ve r s   h ave   to 
behave in all foreseeable traffic circumstances. I n some cases, 
neighbour ing m ember states have broadly similar operational 
rules and accept the operational prac tices of their neighbours 
to the ex tent that trains can run bet ween them without differ-
ences in rules necessitating a stop at the border (for example, 
g e r m a ny   a n d   a u s t r i a ) .   I n   m a ny   o t h e r   c a s e s ,   h o w e v e r,   d i f fe r -
e n c e s   i n   o p e r a t i o n a l   r u l e s   b e t w e e n   n e i g h b o u r i n g   n e t w o r k s 
m e a n   t h a t   t r a i n s   c a n n o t   d r i v e   f r o m   o n e   n e t w o r k   t o   a n o t h e r 
wi th ou t  stop p ing  at  the b o rd er e it he r  to mak e  ad jus tme nts  to 
t h e   t ra i n   ( e x a m p l e s   o f   s u c h   va r i at i o n s   i n c l u d e   r u l e s   co n ce r n-
ing  t ail  mar ke rs, numb er s of  dr iver s,  fi re  ex ti ng uish er s  e tc )  or 
to change locomotives (see B ox 13).  whilst these adjustments 
at the borders do not themselves entail significant delays, the 
f a c t   t h a t   t r a i n s   s t o p   a t   b o rd e r   l o c a t i o n s   c a u s e   c o m p l i c a t i o n s 
fo r   t ra f f i c   m a n a g e m e nt s   a n d   r u n s   t h e   r i s k   o f   c u m u l at i ve   co n-
seq u ent del ay.

C r o s s   aCC E P TaN C E   o f   r o l lI N G   sT oC K

6. 

 r a i l w ay   ro l l i n g   s to c k   h a s   to   b e   s u b j e c te d   to   te c h n i c a l   c h e c k s 
to make sure that is it suitable for using the rail infrastruc ture 
(a  p rocess cal l ed ho molo gat ion ) . th ese ch eck s are c ar r ied  out 
i n   o n e   m e m b e r   s t a t e   i n   r e s p e c t   o f   i t s   o w n   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e   ( b y 
national rail safety authorities) and results in cer tificates being 
i s s u e d   i n   re s p e c t   o f   t h e   ro l l i n g   s to c k .   H owe ve r,   i n   o rd e r   fo r   a 
locomotive or wagon to travel on the network of more than one 
member state, they normally have to undergo the authorisation 
p r o c e d u r e   i n   e a c h   c o u n t r y.  t h i s   c a n   b e   a   l e n g t hy   a n d   s o m e -
tim es  co stl y pro cess.  the refore,  in  the  inte res ts of faci l it ati ng 
a c c e s s   t o   t h e   eu ro p e a n   r a i l   n e t wo r k   g e n e r a l l y,   i t   i s   d e s i r a b l e 
that rolling stock that has been approved in one member state 
can  b e accep te d on th e rail  net wor k  of  anoth er. th is is n ot al-
ways the case, and trains with locomotives that have not been 
a u t h o r i s e   fo r   u s e   i n   t h e   n e i g h b o u r i n g   co u nt r y   wo u l d   h ave   to 
s to p   at   t h e   b o rd e r   to   c h a n g e   l o co m o t i ve s   ( e ve n   i f   t h e re   we re 
o t h e r w i s e   n o   i nte ro p e ra b i l i t y   o r   o t h e r   co n s t ra i nt s ) .   m e a s u re s 
are b eing  tak en at  eu rop ea n union  level to im prove the sit ua-
tion 3.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
 
60

4  directive 2007/59/ec of the 
european parliament and of the 

council of 23 october 2007 on 

the certification of train drivers 

operating locomotives and trains 

on the railway system in the 

community (oj l 315, 3.12.2007,  

p. 51).

aN N EX   V I I

7. 

T r aI N   CrE W   C ErT IfI C aT IoN

 I t   i s   i m p o r t a n t   t h a t   c o m m u n i c a t i o n   b e t we e n   t r a i n   c re w s   a n d 
t ra i n   co nt ro l   ce nt re s   c a n   t a k e   p l a ce   e f fe c t i ve l y   a n d   t h at   t ra i n 
crews are able to dr ive according to the operational rules. ad-
d re s s i n g   s u c h   m a t t e r s   i s   re l a t i ve l y   s t r a i g h t fo r w a rd   fo r   t r a i n s 
that travel only on the rail net work of one member state. How-
eve r, fo r t rans- eu rop ea n rou tes, on wh ich  trains  cross  borde r s 
bet ween national net wor ks, the situation is more complicated 
a s   t r a i n   c r e w s   m a y   b e   r e q u i r e d   t o   s p e a k   d i f fe r e n t   l a n g u a g e s 
and to be cer tified to drive under the operational rules of more 
t h a n   o n e   m e m b e r   s t a t e .   ch a n g i n g   t r a i n   c r e w s   i s ,   t h e r e f o r e , 
a n o t h e r   re a s o n   w hy   t ra i n s   s to p   at   b o rd e r s.   r a i l way   u n d e r t a k-
ing s  o f te n  pragmat ic al l y  p l an  tra n s-e uropean  se r vices  so  that 
c h a n g e s   o f   t r a i n   c r e w   t a k e   p l a c e   a t   t h e   s a m e   t i m e   a s   o t h e r 
ac t io ns co mmon l y neces sar y at borde r s,  s uc h as  c han ge  of  lo -
comotives, hand- over of trains to a different railway under tak-
ing and other fac tors resulting from differences in operational 
rules. I t is also planned so that dr ivers can retur n home within 
o n e   w o r k i n g   d a y.   H o w e v e r,   w h e r e   tr a n s - e u r o p e a n   s e r v i c e s 
re q u i re   c ro s s i n g   b o rd e r s   w i t h o u t   s t o p p i n g,   fo r   e x a m p l e   h i g h 
s p e e d   p a s s e n g e r   s e r v i ce s   s o l u t i o n s   h ave   to   b e   fo u n d   re g a rd -
ing  t rain crew t rain ing  an d cer t ifi cation (see B ox B) . m easures 
are b eing  tak en at  eu rop ea n un ion  leve l to improve the  s itua-
tion 4.

B oX   B

C r o s s   Bo rD Er   s o l U T IoNs   rE Ga rD I N G  Tr aI N   CrE W  
C ErT IfI C aT IoN

on the paris-london high speed lines section of priority project 2, a common set of vocabulary was 
agreed between the french and british rail authorities so that specially trained drivers could drive the 
entire journey.

for the mannheim and metz section of  priority project 4, historically a complicated cross-border loca-
tion, a dedicated training programme to provide special certification for german and french train crews 
was agreed upon.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
61

aN N EX   V I I

8. 

TE ChN I C a l   aN D   CoM M Er C Ia l   CoN Tr o l s

 there are two main reasons why technical and commercial con-
t ro l s   a re   c a r r i e d   o u t .   fi r s t l y,   fo r   l o n g   d i s t a n ce   s e r v i ce s,   s o m e 
national regimes set maximum inter vals at which such controls 
aimed at ensuring the safety of the train have to be carried out 
(for  examp l e,  a  maximu m  of  7 00   k m   i s  re le va nt   in   I taly ) .   H ow-
ever, one case was obser ved where such controls were required 
a t   a   b o r d e r   s t a t i o n   i n   t h e   m i d d l e   o f   a   j o u r n e y   w h o s e   e n t i r e 
length was less than the stipulated maximum. secondly, for rail 
s e r v i c e s   t h a t   i nvo l ve   c ro s s i n g   b o rd e r s   ( i n   p a r t i c u l a r   f re i g h t ) , 
d i f fe re nt   ra i l way   u n d e r t a k i n g s   a c t i n g   a s   co m m e rc i a l   p a r t n e r s 
c o m m o n l y   t a k e   r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   f o r   t h e   t r a i n   o n   t h e   d i f f e r e n t 
n a t i o n a l   n e t wo r k s   h a n d i n g   o ve r   t h e   t r a i n   a t   b o rd e r   s t a t i o n s. 
tr a d i t i o n a l l y,   b o t h   r a i l w a y   u n d e r t a k i n g s   c a r r y   o u t   t h e i r   o w n 
t e c h n i c a l   a n d   c o m m e r c i a l   c o n t r o l s ,   w h i c h   e s s e n t i a l l y   r e p e a t 
th e sam e co nt rol  t w ice.  one c ase was  obser ved where ra i lway 
u n d e r t a k i n g s   f ro m   d i f fe re nt   m e m b e r   st ate s   we re   wo r k i n g   to -
wards agreeing to accept the controls carried out by the other. 
such ‘on-trust ’ handovers can save time at border stations (see 
B ox   C ) .   m e a s u re s   a re   b e i n g   t a k e n   at   eu ro p e a n   un i o n   l e ve l   o n 
th e b as is  of direc tive 2008/57 /e c  to  im prove  t h e  si tuati on.

B oX   C

o N-Tr UsT   h aN Do V Er s   a T   B r aT Is l a Va  V yCh oD

for the handover of trains at the border terminal, both austrian and slovak railway undertakings carried 
out technical and commercial controls, each requiring at least 30 minutes. In order to alleviate this un-
necessary delay, a reciprocal arrangement is being developed whereby the controls carried out by one 
railway undertaking are accepted by the other, with a potential saving of 30 minutes.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
62

aN N EX   V I I

9. 

r Ea l -T I M E  Tr a f fI C   M aNa G E M E N T

 real-time traffic management is especially impor tant for those 
sec tions that are prone to congestion, such as bottlenecks and 
cross-border locations where many trans-e uropean trains have 
t o   s t o p   ( e x a m p l e s   o n   t h e   p r i o r i t y   p r o j e c t s   r e v i e w e d   f o r   t h e 
a u d i t   i n c l u d e   t h e   d u tc h - g e r m a n   b o rd e r   at   em m e r i c h   a n d   t h e 
austria-I talian border at brennersee (see  Photo 7)).  congestion 
can  o ccu r at  th ese l ocations  wh en  t rai n s do  n ot  ar r ive  i n  t ime 
to  t ake - up  t heir  al l o cated ‘sl o t ’  to  enter   t he   ne ig h bour in g   rail 
n e t w o r k   a n d   c o n s e q u e n t l y   h a v e   t o   a w a i t   t h e   a l l o c a t i o n   o f   a 
n e w  ‘s l o t ’.   k n o w l e d g e   o f   t h e   r e a l - t i m e   l o c a t i o n   o f   t r a i n s   a n d 
c o m m u n i c a t i o n   b e t w e e n   t h e   t r a f f i c   m a n a g e r s   o f   n e i g h b o u r -
ing net wor ks are impor tant for managing such circumstances. 
co m m u n i c a t i o n   to o l s   n e e d   n o t   b e   co m p l i c a te d   ( fo r   e x a m p l e, 
co nt a c t s   b e t we e n   d u tc h   a n d   g e r m a n   t ra f f i c   m a n a g e r s   at   em-
m e r i c h   h a v e   r e p o r t e d l y   i m p r o v e d   b y   u s i n g   t e l e p h o n e   a n d 
ema il ). whil st   ef fe c t ive  It -b as ed  inte r face s  aimed  at   integrat-
ing   natio nal  t raf fic  man ag ement   syste ms   have   yet   to  em erg e, 
s o m e   p r o j e c t s   a r e   u n d e r   d e v e l o p m e n t   t o   i m p r o v e   t h e   r e a l -
tim e  info r mat io n  avail ab le   to  rai lway   und er tak ing s  a bout   t he 
pro gres s o f the ir trains ( see B ox  D) .

B oX   D

E Ur oP T Ir aIl s

the europtIraIls tool (under the responsibility of  railnete urope since 2007) has the potential to make 
real-time, online supervision of european rail traffic possible for the first time, and, in doing so, highlight 
where suitable measures for quality improvement could be developed. It could also provide a basis for 
evaluating performance, for example, by comparing planned with actual travel time.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

 
6363

reply of tHe  
commIssIon

I I. t hird  ind ent
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h i s   p o s i t i v e 
a s s e s s m e nt   o f   w h at   t h e  t e n- t  a n d   co h e -
sion co -financed projec ts have delivered. 
I t   w o u l d   e m p h a s i s e   t h a t ,   a s   t h e   c o u r t 
s t a t e s   i n   i t s   p a r a g r a p h   4 7 ,   c o s t   e s c a l a-
t i o n s   d o   n o t   h a v e   a n   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   e u 
b u d g e t   b e c a u s e   t h e   e u ’s   c o n t r i b u t i o n   i s 
fixed at th e be gin nin g of  th e proj e c t.   

I I. four t h ind ent
the commission shares the  cour t ’s analy-
s i s   o f   t h e   m e a s u r a b l e   i m p r o v e m e n t s   o n 
l i n e s   d e d i c ate d   to   h i g h - s p e e d   p a s s e n g e r 
s e r v i ce s.   I t   i s   wo r k i n g   to   i m p rove   t h e   s i t -
uation on conventional mixed and freight 
line s.

I II .  first  ind ent
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a l r e a d y   h a s   c l o s e   c o n-
t a c t s   w i t h   t h e   m e m b e r   s t a t e s   a n d   t h e 
r a i l w a y   I n s t i t u t i o n s .   I t   w i l l   c o n t i n u e   t o 
w o r k   c l o s e l y   w i t h   t h e m .   I n   a d d i t i o n ,   a s 
p a r t   o f   i t s   o n g o i n g   s t a k e h o l d e r   c o n s u l-
t a t i o n   e xe r c i s e   o n   t h e  t e n- t  g u i d e l i n e s , 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i s   l o o k i n g   f o r   i n p u t   o n 
h o w   t r a n s -e u r o p e a n   c o r r i d o r s   fo r   w h i c h 
t h e re   i s   s i gn i f i c a n t   a c t u a l   o r   a n t i c i p a te d 
dem and can best be delivered.

I II .  seco nd  indent
th e   co m m i s s i o n   a g re e s   t h a t   t h e   co o rd i -
n a t o r s   p l a y   a   v i t a l   ro l e   a n d   i t   a p p o i n t e d 
t h re e   n e w   o n e s   o n   8   ju n e   2 0 1 0 ,   b r i n gi n g 
th eir  number to nine.

the commission agrees that fur ther wor k 
o n   d e f i n i n g   a   b o t t l e n e c k   i s   n e e d e d   a n d 
w i l l   c o n t i n u e   t o   w o r k   o n   t h i s .  t h e   e u r o -
p e a n   c o o r d i n a t o r s   h a v e   a n a l y s e d   t h e 
b o t t l e n e c k s   o n   t h e   p r i o r i t y   p r o j e c t s   f o r 
w h i c h   t h e y   a re   re s p o n s i b l e.  th e   co m m i s -
sion has also repor ted on the bottlenecks 
in  its year ly  repor ts. 

EXECUTIVE sUMMary 

II. firs t inde nt
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h e   d e f i n i-
t i o n   o f   t h e   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s   h a s   n o t   b e e n 
b a s e d   o n   a n   a n a l y s i s   o f   t h e   a c t u a l   a n d 
a n t i c i p a t e d   t r a f f i c   f l o w s .   I t   i s   i m p o r t a n t 
to note, however, that while such studies 
have been carried out, both for individual 
p ro j e c t s   a n d   t h e   n e t wo r k ,   t h e y   h a ve   ye t 
to lead to conclusive results and so could 
not be u sed  a s such .

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   p r o v i d-
i n g   a   d e f i n i t i v e   d e s c r i p t i o n   o f   t h e   m a i n 
t r a n s -e u r o p e a n   r a i l   a x e s   i s   l i k e l y   t o   b e 
par ticular ly difficult, as they are in a con-
s t a n t   s t a t e   o f   f l u x   d e p e n d i n g   o n   m i g r a-
t i o n ,   t ra d e   p at te r n s   a n d   t h e   g e o p o l i t i c a l 
c o n t e x t .  t h e   co m m i s s i o n ,   h o w e v e r,   a l s o 
shares the view that the definition of the 
m a i n   n e t wo r k   s h o u l d   b e   b a s e d   o n   o b j e c -
t i v e   c r i t e r i a .   t h e r e f o r e ,   i n   t h e   f u t u r e , 
p r i o r i t y   p r o j e c t s   s h o u l d   c o n t i n u e   t o   b e 
b a s e d   o n   p o l i t i c a l   a g r e e m e n t   b e t w e e n 
the council and european parliament, but 
r e l y i n g   e v e n   m o r e   o n   t h e   b e s t   a v a i l a b l e 
eviden ce. 

II. second indent
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   c o u r t ’s 
r e c o g n i t i o n   o f   t h e   i m p r o v e m e n t s   f l o w -
i n g   f r o m   t h e   c o n c e n t r a t i o n   o f  t e n -t   c o -
f i n a n c i n g   a t   c r o s s - b o r d e r   l o c a t i o n s   a n d 
t h e   w o r k   o f   t h e   c o o r d i n a t o r s .   I t   a g r e e s 
t h a t   f u r t h e r   w o r k   o n   d e f i n i n g   a   b o t t l e -
neck is ne eded and w il l  wor k  o n  th i s.

t h e   co m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   t h e   p ro -
cedures for approving projec ts are sound, 
p a r t i c u l a r l y   f o l l o w i n g   t h e i r   s u b s t a n t i a l 
over haul for the 2007-2013 programming 
p e r i o d .  t h e s e   p r o c e d u r e s   w e r e   s u b s t a n-
t i a l l y   s t re n g t h e n e d   by   t h e   i nte grat i o n   o f 
t h e   c o h e s i o n   fu n d   i n   p r o g r a m m i n g   a n d 
s p e c i f i c   m e a s u r e s   t o   i m p r o v e   p r o j e c t 
p r e p a r a t i o n ,   d o c u m e n t a t i o n   a n d   t h e 
qualit y o f c o mmis sio n ap praisal s. 

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

64

reply of tHe  
commIssIon

INTroDUCTIoN

1 1. fo o tno te  6
w h e n   p r e s e n t i n g   f i g u r e s   r e l a t e d   t o 
i n v e s t m e n t s   i n   i t s   d o c u m e n t s   t h e   c o m-
m i s s i o n   b a s e s   i t s e l f   o n   t h e   i n f o r m a t i o n 
p r o v i d e d   b y   m e m b e r   s t a t e s .   r e c o g n i s-
i n g   t h at   t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   d at a 
w o u l d   b e n e f i t   f r o m   i m p r o v e m e n t ,   t h e 
c o m m i s s i o n   i nv e s t e d   s i g n i f i c a n t   e f f o r t s 
w h i c h   re s u l t e d   i n   t h e   i n fo r m a t i o n   i n   t h e 
c o m m i s s i o n ’s   ju n e   2 0 1 0   r e p o r t   b e i n g 
s i g n i f i c a n t l y   b e t t e r   t h a n   i n   p r e v i o u s 
repor t s. 

1 4.
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   u n d e r l i n e s   t h a t ,   p r i o r 
t o   2 0 0 7 ,   c o h e s i o n   fu n d   p r o j e c t s   w e r e 
a d o p t e d   o n   a   p r o j e c t - b y - p r o j e c t   b a s i s 
a n d   i n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   a v a i l a b l e   b u d g e t 
c r e d i t s .   t h e   l e g a l   b a s i s   f o r   t h e   p r i o r i t y 
proje c ts on ly  applie d af ter  200 4 . 

III. thi rd inde nt
t h e   co m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   t h e   p ro -
c e d u r e s   f o r   a p p r o v i n g   p r o j e c t s   u n d e r 
t h e   c o h e s i o n   p o l i c y   f o r   t h e   2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 3 
p r o g r a m m i n g   p e r i o d   a r e   s o u n d .   t h e 
c o m m i s s i o n   c o n t i n u e s   t o   w o r k   o n   t h e i r 
i m p rove m e nt   a n d   i s   i nve s t i n g   s i gn i f i c a nt 
r e s o u r c e s   t o   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   t h e   i m p r o v e -
ment of p ro jec t  p rep arat ion .

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   c o u r t ’s 
r e c o g n i t i o n   o f   t h e   i m p r o v e m e n t s   m a d e 
t o  t e n -t   s e l e c t i o n   p ro c e d u re s ;   h o we ve r, 
it accepts that there is room for improve -
m e n t   a s   r e g a r d s   t h e   u s e   o f   c o s t - b e n e f i t 
a n a l y s i s .   t h e   t e n- t  ex e c u t i v e   a g e n c y 
i s   w o r k i n g   t o   d e v e l o p   t h i s   f u r t h e r ;   n e v-
e r t h e l e s s ,   g i v e n   t h a t   t e n- t  f i n a n c i n g 
o n l y   c o - f u n d s   a   l i m i t e d   a m o u n t   o f   e a c h 
projec t compared to that funded by mem-
b e r   s t a t e s,   i t   i s   l o g i c a l   t h a t   t h e   o n u s   fo r 
a s s e s s i n g   c o s t s   a n d   b e n e f i t s   s h o u l d   f a l l 
o n   t h e m ,   p a r t i c u l a r l y   a s   a l m o s t   a l l   d a t a 
an d as sum pt io ns o r iginate fro m  th em .

III. fou r th  in de nt
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   r e c o g n i s e s   t h e   i m p o r -
t a n c e   o f   e x c h a n g e s   o f   i n f o r m a t i o n 
a m o n g s t   p r o j e c t   p r o m o t e r s .   t h e   t e n -t 
ex e c u t i v e   a g e n c y   w i l l   f a c i l i t a t e   t h i s 
b y   o r g a n i s i n g   d i s c u s s i o n s   a t   i t s   r e g u-
l a r   w o r k s h o p s   w i t h   c u r r e n t   a n d   p o t e n-
t i a l   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   o n   b e s t   p r a c t i c e s   a n d 
k nowle dg e exchang e b et ween al l proj ec t 
promoter s, par t icul ar l y  in th e rai l s ec tor.

III. fif th  inde nt
b y   a d o p t i n g   te c h n i c a l   sp e c i f i c a t i o n s 
fo r   I n t e r o p e r a b i l i t y   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   h a s 
w o r k e d ,   a n d   w i l l   c o n t i n u e   t o   w o r k ,   o n 
t h e s e   ’p r a c t i c a l   c o n s t r a i n t s ’.   t h e   e u r o -
p e a n   co o rd i n ato r s   a l s o   d e vo te   p a r t i c u l a r 
effor ts  to  t hese iss ues.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

6565

reply of tHe  
commIssIon

B ox 4
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a c k n o w l e d g e s   t h a t   t h e 
e r t m s  c o r r i d o r s   d o   n o t   1 0 0   %   c o i n c i d e 
with pr ior it y projec ts. er tms has require -
ments that need to be met for both infra-
s t r u c t u r e   a n d   r o l l i n g   s t o c k .   t h e   t e n- t 
r e v i s i o n   p r o c e s s   i s   d e s i g n e d   t o   t a c k l e 
this, and one possibilit y being considered 
i s   t o   i n c l u d e   e r t m s  c o r r i d o r s   d i r e c t l y 
into t he p r ior it y  p roje c ts.

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   u n d e r s t a n d s   t h a t   t h e 
po l i s h   a u t h o r i t i e s   w i l l   s u b m i t   a n   a p p l i c a-
tion for funding for the par t of the  polish 
n o r t h - s o u t h   a x i s   f ro m  wa r s aw   t o   g d y n i a 
i n   l ate   2 0 1 0 ,   t h at   t h i s   w i l l   i n c l u d e  e r t m s 
a n d   t h a t   i t   w i l l   h a v e   a n   i n d i c a t i v e   t o t a l 
cost of  38 6 million  e uro. 

2 3.
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h e r e   i s 
scope for improving the definition of pr i-
o r i t y   p r o j e c t s .   t h i s   i s   s o m e t h i n g   t h a t   i s 
b e i n g   a d d re s s e d   t h ro u g h   t h e  t e n- t  re v i-
sion  proce ss.

2 4.
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h e   d e f i n i-
t i o n   o f   t h e   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s   h a s   n o t   b e e n 
b a s e d   o n   a n   a n a l y s i s   o f   t h e   a c t u a l   a n d 
a n t i c i p a t e d   t r a f f i c   f l o w s .   I t   i s   i m p o r t a n t 
to note, however, that while such studies 
have been car r ied out both for individual 
p ro j e c t s   a n d   t h e   n e t wo r k ,   t h e y   h a ve   ye t 
to lead to conclusive results and so could 
n ot  be used as th ey s tood.

oBsEr VaTIoNs

22 .
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   u n d e r s t a n d s   t h a t   t h e 
c o u r t   m e a n s   b y   s t a t i n g   t h a t   ’ t h e   p r i o r -
i t y   p r o j e c t s   d o   n o t   r e p r e s e n t   d e f i n i t i v e 
d e s c r i p t i o n s   o f   t h e   m a i n   t ra n s -e u ro p e a n 
r a i l   a xe s’  t h a t   t h e re   n e e d s   t o   b e   g e n e r a l 
a g r e e m e n t   o n   w h a t   a r e   t h e   m a i n   a x e s , 
a n d   t h a t   t h i s   a g r e e m e n t   s h o u l d   r e m a i n 
as sta bl e as  p os s ib l e over  t ime. 

the commission considers that it is likely 
t o   b e   p a r t i c u l a r l y   d i f f i c u l t   t o   p r o v i d e   a 
d e f i n i t i ve   d e s c r i p t i o n   o f   t h e   m a i n   t r a n s -
e u ro p e a n   r a i l   a xe s,   a s   t h e y   a re   i n   a   c o n-
stant   st ate   o f  f lu x  as   a  fu nc t io n   of   mi gra-
t i o n ,   t ra d e   p at te r n s   a n d   t h e   g e o p o l i t i c a l 
c o n t e x t .  t h e   co m m i s s i o n ,   h o w e v e r,   a l s o 
shares the view that the definition of the 
m a i n   n e t wo r k   s h o u l d   b e   b a s e d   o n   o b j e c -
t i v e   c r i t e r i a .   t h e r e f o r e ,   i n   t h e   f u t u r e , 
p r i o r i t y   p r o j e c t s   s h o u l d   c o n t i n u e   t o   b e 
b a s e d   o n   p o l i t i c a l   a g r e e m e n t   b e t w e e n 
the council and european parliament, but 
r e l y i n g   e v e n   m o r e   o n   t h e   b e s t   a v a i l a b l e 
eviden ce. 

22 . th ird  ind ent
while the commission ack nowledges that 
connec tions to some impor tant sea por ts 
a re   n o t   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s, 
i t   w o u l d   u n d e r l i n e   t h a t   m a n y   a r e .   on 
4   m ay   2 0 1 0 ,   a s   p a r t   o f   i t s  t e n -t   re v i s i o n 
p r o c e s s ,   i t   p u t   fo r w a r d   a   w o r k i n g   d o c u-
m e n t   t h a t   e s t a b l i s h e s   t h e   m e t h o d o l o g y 
f o r   i d e n t i f y i n g   a   f u t u r e   t e n- t  n e t w o r k . 
t h i s   s h o u l d   avo i d   a ny   f u t u re   o c c u r re n c e 
of t he sit uat io n desc r ib ed by  th e c our t.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

66

reply of tHe  
commIssIon

34.
the commission for the 2007-2013 period 
i m p r o v e d   i t s   a p p r o v a l   p r o c e d u r e s   f o r 
major projec ts co -funded by the erdf and 
t h e   c o h e s i o n   fu n d .   la r g e   p r o j e c t s   c o -
financed  under  the  cohesion  fund  in  the 
2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 6   p e r i o d   w e r e   o f t e n   a p p r o v e d 
sec tion by sec tion for budgetar y reasons. 
I n   t h i s   s e n s e   t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   t h e   p re p a r a -
tion of individual sec tions may not reflec t 
t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   p re p a r a t i o n   a n d   d e ve l o p -
ment of the overall axis.

35.
I n t e r n a l   c o n s u l t a t i o n   o f   t h e   r e l e v a n t 
co m m i s s i o n   s e r v i ce s   ( ’i n te r- s e r v i ce   co n-
s u l t a t i o n’ )   h a s   b e e n   a n d   s t i l l   i s   a   c r u c i a l 
e l e m e n t   i n   t h e   a p p r a i s a l   a n d   a p p r o v a l 
process. 

I n   t h e   2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 3   p r o g r a m m i n g   p e r i o d 
the commission has established jaspers, 
which provides technical assistance to the 
new member states in order to contribute 
to the improvement of qualit y of projec ts 
a t   a n   e a r l y   s t a g e .   I t   a l s o   h a s   a   c o n t r a c t 
with  outside  exper ts  for  technical  advice 
in the appraisal of major projec ts.

un d e r   s h a r e d   m a n a g e m e n t ,   t h e   p r o j e c t 
p r o m o t e r   i s   r e s p o n s i b l e   f o r   a d e q u a t e l y 
d e f i n i n g   t h e   t e c h n i c a l   s p e c i f i c a t i o n s   o f 
projec ts. the adoption of technical speci-
fications (see annex I) makes a significant 
c o n t r i b u t i o n   t o   i m p ro v i n g   t h e   t e c h n i c a l 
qualit y  of  rail  infrastruc ture. the  m adrid-
le v a n te   p ro j e c t   w a s   a p p rove d   i n   s t a g e s, 
sec tion-by-sec tion, for budgetar y reasons, 
a n d   n o t   i n   i t s   t o t a l i t y,   a s   t h e   n e t w o r k 
i nvo l ve s   a   to t a l   o f   9 4 0   k m   o f   h i g h - s p e e d 
rail. the eIb was consulted and its recom-
m e n d at i o n s   we re   p ro gre s s i ve l y   t a k e n   o n 
board  in  this  projec t. the  eIb   considered 
the financing of this projec ts justified and 
i t s e l f   i s   p r o v i d i n g   s u b s t a n t i a l   l o a n s   f o r 
it,  in  addition  to  the  cohesion  fund  sup -
por t.

a s   t h e   c o u r t   h a s   s t a t e d ,   t h e   c o m m i s-
s i o n   a c k n o w l e d g e s   t h e   n e e d   t o   r e v i e w 
t h e  t e n- t  p o l i c y.   th i s   re v i e w   i s   c u r re nt l y 
b e i n g   c a r r i e d   o u t   a n d   i n c l u d e s   a n   ex a m i-
n a t i o n   o f   t h e   m e t h o d o l o g y   f o r   d e f i n i n g 
the  fu tu re t en- t ne t wo r k . 

29.
the commission considers that eu financ -
i n g   h a s   h a d   a   s i gn i f i c a nt   i n f l u e n ce   o n   a l l 
the ten- t sec tions reviewed by the  cour t 
fo r   t h i s   a u d i t .  t h i s   h a s   i n c l u d e d   i m p ro v -
i n g   t h e   p r o j e c t s   o r i g i n a l l y   p l a n n e d   o r 
reducing  t heir r is k . 

30 .
th e   co m m i s s i o n   co n s i d e r s   t h at,   i n   co u n-
tries covered by the cohesion fund, many 
r a i l   p ro j e c t s   wo u l d   s i m p l y   n o t   g o   a h e a d 
w i t h o u t   t h e   s u b s t a n t i a l   e u   c o - f i n a n c i n g 
f r o m   t h e   c o h e s i o n   f u n d   o r   t h e   e r d f 
i n c l u d i n g   c ro s s - b o rd e r   s e c t i o n s,   t h e re by 
i m p rov i n g   a cce s s i b i l i t y   a n d   p e r fo r m a n ce 
f o r   a l l   u s e r s .  t h e   r e q u i r e m e n t   i s   t o   g i v e 
p r i o r i t y   t o   t e c h n i c a l l y   a n d   e c o n o m i c a l l y 
m a t u r e   p r o j e c t s   t h a t   a r e   fe a s i b l e   w i t h i n 
t h e   p r o g r a m m i n g   p e r i o d ;   o t h e r w i s e   t h e 
funds may b e l os t to  the ben eficiar ie s.

t h e   d e f i n i t i o n   o f   m a j o r   p r o j e c t s   i n   a r t i-
c l e   3 9   o f   r e g u l a t i o n   ( e c )   n o   1 0 8 3 / 2 0 0 6 
h a s   b e e n   a m e n d e d   t o   m a k e   i t   e a s i e r   fo r 
the m ember states to submit major cross-
border  pro je c ts. 

33 .
the commission agrees that fur ther wor k 
o n   d e f i n i n g   a   b o t t l e n e c k   i s   n e e d e d   a n d 
w i l l   c o n t i n u e   t o   w o r k   o n   t h i s .  t h e   e u r o -
p e a n   c o o r d i n a t o r s   h a v e   a n a l y s e d   t h e 
b o t t l e n e c k s   o n   t h e   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s   t h e y 
a re   re s p o n s i b l e   fo r.  th e   co m m i s s i o n   a l s o 
re p o r te d   o n   t h e   b o t t l e n e c k s   i n   i t s   ye a r l y 
repor t s. 

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

6767

reply of tHe  
commIssIon

the commission disagrees with the impli-
c a t i o n   t h a t   s u b s e q u e n t   c o s t   e s c a l a t i o n s 
w e r e   a l l   l i n k e d   t o   t h e   eIb ’s   c o n c e r n s .   I t 
considers that as explained in reply to 46 
other fac tors were responsible.

37. first indent
the  commission  would  like  to  emphasise 
t h a t   e x te r n a l   e x p e r t s   a re   a t   t h e   h e a r t   o f 
the ten- t projec t selec tion process.  there 
is also an ex ternal obser ver who provides 
c o m p r e h e n s i v e   f e e d b a c k   t o   t h e   t e n -t 
exe c u t i ve   ag e n c y   o n   t h e   w h o l e   e x te r n a l 
evaluation process.

38.
w h i l e   t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e 
cour t ’s  recognition  of  the  improvements 
made  to  selec tion  procedures,  it  accepts 
t h a t   t h e r e   i s   r o o m   f o r   i m p r o v e m e n t   a s 
r e g a r d s   t h e   u s e   o f   c o s t - b e n e f i t   a n a l y -
s i s .   I n   t h e   f u t u r e ,   t h e   t e n- t  ex e c u t i v e 
a g e n c y   w i l l   d e v e l o p   a   m o r e   s y s t e m a t i c 
a p p ro a c h   to   co s t- b e n e f i t   a n a l ys i s   t a k i n g 
into account existing work . I n order to do 
this it will work with the projec ts selec ted 
i n   p r i o r i t y   3   o f   t h e   2 0 1 0   a n n u a l   c a l l   t o 
i m p r o v e   p r o j e c t   p r e p a r a t i o n ,   i n c l u d i n g 
by   d e ve l o p i n g   c o n s i s t e n t   a p p ro a c h e s   t o 
cost-benefit analysis.

never theless,  given  that ten -t  financing 
o n l y   c o - f u n d s   a   l i m i t e d   a m o u n t   o f   e a c h 
projec t when compared to that funded by 
member  states,  it  is  logical  that  the  onus 
for assessing costs and benefits should fall 
o n   t h e m ,   p a r t i c u l a r l y   a s   a l m o s t   a l l   d a t a 
and assumptions originate from them.

as far as the coherent model of european 
r a i l   t r a f f i c   f l o w s   i s   c o n c e r n e d ,   t h e   c o m-
m i s s i o n   r e m a i n s   t o   b e   c o n v i n c e d   t h a t 
t h e   a d d i t i o n a l   i n s i g h t s   i t   wo u l d   p ro v i d e 
w o u l d   j u s t i f y   t h e   p o t e n t i a l l y   s i g n i f i c a n t 
l e v e l   o f   r e s o u r c e s   n e e d e d   i n   o r d e r   t o 
br in g it  to fruition .

44. 
a   m e m o r a n d u m   o f   u n d e r s t a n d i n g   w a s 
a d o p te d   o n   8   ju n e   2 0 1 0 ,   s e t t i n g   o u t   t h e 
steps  to  remedy  this  situation. the  three 
member states concerned by pp3 (f rance, 
spain and p or tugal) have signed it. 

45.
the  commission  would  like  to  emphasise 
that  cost  escalations  are  t ypical  for  large 
infrastruc ture projec ts.

46.
the commission agrees on the benefits of 
t h o r o u g h   a n d   d e t a i l e d   p r o j e c t   p r e p a r a-
t i o n ;   h owe ve r,   a s   t h e   co u r t   s t ate s   i n   t h e 
p r e v i o u s   p a r a g r a p h ,   c o s t   e s c a l a t i o n s   i n 
the cases studied generally arose for rea-
sons linked to unforeseeable fac tors.

c o n c e r n i n g   t h e   m a d r i d -l e v a n t e   s e c t i o n 
(but also other equally complex projec ts), 
the cost increases mentioned by the cour t 
could be due to a variet y of fac tors, some 
of  which  are  unforeseeable.  for  example, 
high  inflation  in  construc tion  projec ts  in 
spain and an unforeseen increase in costs 
due to difficult geological conditions have 
h a d   a   s i g n i f i c a n t   e f f e c t   o n   t h e   m a d r i d -
levante projec t cited by the c our t. 

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

47–48.
the  commission  shares  the  cour t ’s  opin-
ion that the cost escalations did not have 
a   d i r e c t   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   e u   b u d g e t   a n d 
notes that the cour t has not documented 
any indirec t impac ts either.

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w o u l d   l i k e   t o   u n d e r -
l i n e   t h at,   a cco rd i n g   to   t h e   n e w   m o d e l   o f 
financing decisions for ten- t funds for the 
p e r i o d   2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 3 ,   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a n d 
projec t  promoters  have  to  submit  a  stra-
tegic ac tion plan (sap) detailing how the 
projec t will be implemented, including in 
te r m s   o f   p ro j e c t   p l a n n i n g,   t h e   r i s k   m a n-
a g e m e n t   p l a n   a n d   p r o j e c t   g o v e r n a n c e . 
th e  t e n- t  exe c u t i ve   ag e n c y   h a s   a l re a d y 
developed guidelines on this issue and is 
w o r k i n g   o n   t h e   e xc h a n g e   o f   g o o d   p r a c -
tices between beneficiaries.

Box 8 
the warsaw- gdynia, stage II projec t faced 
m a ny   p ro b l e m s   t h a t   a re   i n d e p e n d e n t   o f 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s   a p p r o v a l   p r o c e d u r e s , 
s u c h   a s   s i gn i f i c a n t   d e l ays   i n   t h e   te n d e r -
i n g   p ro ce d u re s,   p ro b l e m s   w i t h   l a n d   p u r -
chase and ensuring access to the building 
site,  as  well  as  disputes  with  contrac tors. 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   h a s   r e p e a t e d l y   r a i s e d 
the issue of cost overruns on the warsaw-
g d y n i a ,   s t a g e   I I   p r o j e c t ,   a n d   t h e   po l i s h 
a u t h o r i t i e s   h a v e   a n n o u n c e d   t h a t   t h e y 
w i l l   s u b m i t   a   m o d i f i e d   p r o p o s a l   f o r   i t . 
the  commission  made  it  clear  that  it  will 
not process this modification without the 
polish authorities submitting a horizontal 
analysis on cost overruns in the rail sec tor 
and how they are dealt with. 

68

reply of tHe  
commIssIon

54.
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   w i t h   t h e   c o u r t 
t h a t   o ve r a l l   p ro g re s s   o n   t r a n s -e u ro p e a n 
rail  transpor t  depends  on  achieving  syn -
e rgi e s   b e t we e n   t h e   e f fe c t s   o f   l e gi s l at i ve 
measures affecting markets and interoper-
ability and co -financing polic y measures.

Box 11
the commission is closely monitoring this 
situation in the framework of ertms  corri-
dor a. I t has adopted a  european develop-
ment plan for ertms, as well as a proposal 
for a regulation for r ail freight corridors, 
w h i c h   w a s   a d o p t e d   o n   1 5   ju n e   2 0 1 0   b y 
the european parliament and the council. 
moreover, the commission has appointed 
ten- t c oordinators.   

B ox 1 2
th e   co m m i s s i o n   i s   awa re   t h at   n o   f re i g ht 
trains  currently  use  the roma-napoli  and 
bologna-f irenze high-speed, high capacity 
lines. However, thanks to the introduc tion 
of  these  high-speed,  high- capacit y  lines, 
t h e re   h a s   b e e n   m o re   c a p a c i t y   fo r   f re i g ht 
t r a n s p o r t   o n   t h e   e x i s t i n g   c o n v e n t i o n a l 
l i n e s.   I n   a ny   c a s e,   m o s t   o f   t h e   e x p e c t e d 
b e n e f i t s   f ro m   t h e   e r d f  f u n d e d   s e c t i o n s 
re l ate   to   p a s s e n g e r s’  i m p rove d   a cce s s   to 
the  rail  net work  and  not  to  freight  trans-
por t. 

57.
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a c k n o w l e d g e s   t h a t 
progress towards interoperabilit y is slow. 
r a d i c a l   h a r m o n i s a t i o n   i s   n o t   p o s s i b l e , 
gi ve n   t h a t   ra i l   i n f ra s t r u c t u re   a n d   ro l l i n g 
stock have long lifetimes and the sec tor ’s 
investment costs need to remain realistic.

ne v e r t h e l e s s ,   t h e   a m o u n t   o f   i n t e r o p e r -
a b l e   i n f r a s t r u c t u r e   a n d   r o l l i n g   s t o c k   i s 
i n c r e a s i n g   a n d   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   d e r o g a-
t i o n s   r e q u e s t e d   b y   m e m b e r   s t a t e s   f r o m 
t h e   co m m i s s i o n’s   i m p l e m e n t i n g   l e g i s l a -
t i o n   s e t t i n g   o u t  te c h n i c a l   sp e c i f i c at i o n s 
fo r   I n t e ro p e r a b i l i t y   ( t sI )   i s   l i m i t e d.   t h i s 
s h o w s   t h a t   t h e   e x i s t i n g   t sI s   a r e   b e i n g 
i m p l e m e n t e d   s u c c e s s f u l l y.   a s   f a r   a s   t h e 
t e n- t  n e t wo r k   i s   co n ce r n e d,   t h e   tsI s   a re 
e x p e c t e d   t o   b e   c o m p l e t e d   i n   2 0 1 0 .   t h i s 
will benefit both ten- t and  cohesion pol-
ic y funded projec ts.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

6969

reply of tHe  
commIssIon

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n’s   n o v e m b e r   2 0 0 8   p r o -
posal for a regulation creating a struc ture 
for each rail freight corridor is also signifi -
c a nt   i n   t h i s   re s p e c t.   I t   w i l l   d e ve l o p   re i n-
f o r c e d   c o o p e r a t i o n   b e t w e e n   I n f r a s t r u c -
t u r e   m a n a g e r s   o n   t r a f f i c   m a n a g e m e n t 
( o p e r a t i o n a l   m e a s u r e s )   a n d   i n v e s t m e n t 
(mainly to remove bottlenecks and harmo-
n i s e   te c h n i c a l   co n d i t i o n s ) .   I t   i s   b a s e d   o n 
the experience with the rotterdam- genoa 
and a ntwerp -l yon/basle corridors.

th e   co m m i s s i o n   w i l l   co nt i n u e   i t s   e f fo r t s 
b y   c o n c e n t r a t i n g   o n   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a-
t i o n   o f   t s I s   t h a t   w i l l   d e l i v e r   s i g n i f i c a n t 
b e n e f i t s   i n   t h e   s h o r t   a n d   m e d i u m   t e r m , 
such  as  telematics  applications  in  signal-
l i n g,   f re i g h t   a n d   p a s s e n g e r   t r a n s p o r t .   I t 
h a s   a l s o   s e t   u p   co r r i d o r   o rg a n i s at i o n s   to 
identify and tack le all issues that hamper 
t h e   co m p e t i t i ve n e s s   o f   ra i l   f re i g ht   a l o n g 
axes. 

as   f a r   a s   t h e   m e a s u re s   i n   p a ra gra p h   8   o f 
annex vII are concerned, the  commission 
considers that steps are being taken at the 
european level to improve the situation:

1)  

2)  

in the framework of direc tive 2008/57, 
a c t i v i t i e s   a r e   o n g o i n g   t o   c l a s s i f y   a l l 
n a t i o n a l   r u l e s   r e g a r d i n g   r a i l   t r a f f i c , 
asse ss   whic h  o nes   are  eq uivalent  a nd 
t h u s   avo i d   d u p l i c at i o n   o f   co nt ro l s,   i n 
par t icu l ar at  the bo rders

i n   t h e   f r a m e wo r k   o f   t h e   e r t m s   c o r r i -
d o r s ,   w o r k i n g   g r o u p s   a r e   i d e n t i f y i n g 
a l l   e x i s t i n g   o b s t a c l e s   -   i n   p a r t i c u l a r 
d e l a y s   a t   t h e   b o r d e r s   -   b y   l o o k i n g   a t 
th e o b st acl es sp ec ific to each  bo rde r. 

60.
t h e   e u r o p e a n   c o o r d i n a t o r s   h a v e   m a d e 
effor ts  to  alleviate  system  constraints  on 
c o r r i d o r s ,   w h i c h   w i l l   b e   e x t e n d e d   a s   a 
re s u l t   o f   t h e   p ro p o s e d   re g u l at i o n   o n   ra i l 
freight.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

70

reply of tHe  
commIssIon

reco mmend at ion  1 .  firs t ind ent
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a l r e a d y   h a s   c l o s e   c o n -
tacts with the member states and the rail-
way  I nstitutions.  I t  will  continue  to  wor k 
closely with them on rail traffic matters.

reco mmend at ion  1 .  second  in dent
as par t of its ongoing stakeholder consul-
t a t i o n   e xe rc i s e   o n   t h e  t e n- t  g u i d e l i n e s, 
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   i s   l o o k i n g   f o r   i n p u t   o n 
how this can best be done.

64.
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   c o u r t ’s 
a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t   o f   t h e   i m p r o v e m e n t s 
f l ow i n g   f ro m   t h e   co n ce nt rat i o n   o f  t e n- t 
co -financing at cross-border locations and 
t h e   w o r k   o f   t h e   c o o r d i n a t o r s .   I t   a g r e e s 
t h a t   f u r t h e r   w o r k   i s   n e e d e d   t o   d e f i n e   a 
bottleneck and will work on this.

the commission notes that cohesion fund 
p r o j e c t   a p p r o v a l   p r o c e d u r e s   h a v e   s u b -
stantially changed from 2007.

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   c o u r t ’s 
r e c o g n i t i o n   o f   t h e   i m p r o v e m e n t s   m a d e 
t o  t e n- t  s e l e c t i o n   p ro c e d u re s ;   h owe ve r, 
it accepts that there is room for improve -
m e n t   a s   r e g a r d s   t h e   u s e   o f   c o s t - b e n e f i t 
analysis. 

CoNClUsIoNs aND   
rECoMMENDaTIoNs

62.
the commission welcomes the work of the 
cour t, which is especially timely given the 
upcoming revision of the ten- t networks.

63.
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   w i t h   t h e   c o u r t 
t h at   pr i o r i t y   pro j e c t s   a re   t h e   m a i n   m e c h-
a n i s m   fo r   c o - o rd i n a t i n g   a n d   c o n c e n t r a t-
ing financial resources on ten-t net works 
a n d   c o n t i n u e s   t o   p u r s u e   t h i s   c o u r s e , 
w h i l e   e n s u r i n g   c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y   w i t h 
r e g i o n a l   d e v e l o p m e n t   o b j e c t i v e s   a n d 
c o h e s i o n   p o l i c y.   I n   t h i s   l i g h t ,   i t   u n d e r -
stands why the cour t wishes that pr ior it y 
pr o j e c t s   s h o u l d   b e   d e f i n e d   o n   t h e   b a s i s 
o f   a n   a n a l y s i s   o f   c u r r e n t   a n d   e x p e c t e d 
traffic flows. I t is impor tant to note, how -
e v e r,   t h a t   w h i l e   s u c h   s t u d i e s   h a v e   b e e n 
c a r r i e d   o u t ,   b o t h   fo r   i n d i v i d u a l   p ro j e c t s 
a n d   f o r   t h e   n e t w o r k ,   t h e y   h a v e   y e t   t o 
l e a d   to   co n c l u s i ve   re s u l t s   a n d   s o   c a n n o t 
cur rent l y b e u sed as s uc h.

t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   a r r i v i n g 
a t   a   d e f i n i t i v e   d e s c r i p t i o n   o f   t h e   m a i n 
t r a n s -e u r o p e a n   r a i l   a x e s   i s   l i k e l y   t o   b e 
par ticular ly difficult, as they are in a con-
s t a n t   s t a t e   o f   f l u x   d e p e n d i n g   o n   m i g r a-
t i o n ,   t ra d e   p at te r n s   a n d   t h e   g e o p o l i t i c a l 
c o n t e x t .  t h e   co m m i s s i o n ,   h o w e v e r,   a l s o 
shares the view that the definition of the 
m a i n   n e t wo r k   s h o u l d   b e   b a s e d   o n   o b j e c -
t i v e   c r i t e r i a .   t h e r e f o r e ,   i n   t h e   f u t u r e , 
p r i o r i t y   p r o j e c t s   s h o u l d   c o n t i n u e   t o   b e 
b a s e d   o n   p o l i t i c a l   a g r e e m e n t   b e t w e e n 
the council and european parliament, but 
r e l y i n g   e v e n   m o r e   o n   t h e   b e s t   a v a i l a b l e 
eviden ce.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

recomm end at ion  2.  f irst ind ent
the commission agrees that fur ther work 
o n   d e f i n i n g   b o t t l e n e c k s   i s   n e e d e d   a n d 
w i l l   c o n t i n u e   t o   wo r k   o n   t h i s.   t h e   e u r o -
pean coordinators have analysed the bot-
tlenecks on the priority projec ts for which 
they are responsible. the commission also 
re p o r te d   o n   t h e   b o t t l e n e c k s   i n   i t s   ye a r l y 
repor ts. 

recomm end at ion  2.  s econd  ind ent
the commission agrees that the coordina-
tors play a vital role and appointed three 
additional c oordinators on 8 june 2010.

recom me ndatio n 2. t hird in dent
t h e   co m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   t h e   p ro -
cedures for approving projec ts are sound, 
p a r t i c u l a r l y   f o l l o w i n g   t h e i r   s u b s t a n t i a l 
overhaul for the 2007-2013 programming 
period. the commission continues to work 
o n   t h e i r   i m p r o v e m e n t   a n d   i s   i n v e s t i n g 
significant resources to contribute to the 
i m p rove m e nt   to   p ro j e c t   p re p a rat i o n   a n d 
a p p ra i s a l.   as   f a r   a s   t h e   te c h n i c a l   c h a ra c -
te r i s t i c s   o f   p ro j e c t s   a re   co n ce r n e d,   t h e i r 
re v i e w   w i l l   b e   gre at l y   i m p rove d   t h ro u g h 
the continued development of tsIs. 

recom me ndatio n 2. fou r th ind ent
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   a c c e p t s   t h a t   t h e r e   i s 
room for improvement as regards the use 
of cost-benefit analysis. I n the future, the 
t e n- t  ex e c u t i v e   a g e n c y   w i l l   d e v e l o p   a 
more systematic approach to cost-benefit 
a n a l y s i s.  to   d o   t h i s   i t   w i l l   wo r k   w i t h   t h e 
projec ts selec ted in priorit y 3 of the 2010 
a n n u a l   c a l l   t o   i m p r o v e   p r o j e c t   p r e p a r a -
t i o n ,   i n c l u d i n g   by   d e ve l o p i n g   co n s i s te nt 
approaches to cost-benefit analysis.

7171

reply of tHe  
commIssIon

never theless,  given  that ten -t  financing 
o n l y   c o - f u n d s   a   l i m i t e d   a m o u n t   o f   e a c h 
projec t when compared to that funded by 
member  states,  it  is  logical  that  the  onus 
f o r   a s s e s s i n g   c o s t s   a n d   b e n e f i t s   s h o u l d 
f a l l   o n   t h e m ,   p a r t i c u l a r l y   a s   a l m o s t   a l l 
data and assumptions therefore originate 
with them.

reco mmend at ion  3
t h e   c o m m i s s i o n   r e c o g n i s e s   t h e   i m p o r -
t a n c e   o f   e x c h a n g e s   o f   i n f o r m a t i o n 
a m o n g s t   p r o j e c t   p r o m o t e r s .   t h e   t e n- t 
ex e c u t i v e   a g e n c y   w i l l   f a c i l i t a t e   t h i s   b y 
organising discussions at its regular work-
shops  with  cur rent  and  potential  benefi-
c i a r i e s   o n   b e s t   p ra c t i ce s   a n d   k n ow l e d g e 
exchange  bet ween  all  projec t  promoters, 
par ticularly in the rail sec tor.

66.
the commission shares the  cour t ’s analy-
s i s   o f   t h e   m e a s u r a b l e   i m p r o v e m e n t s   o n 
l i n e s   d e d i c ate d   to   h i g h - s p e e d   p a s s e n g e r 
s e r v i ce s.   I t   i s   wo r k i n g   to   i m p rove   t h e   s i t -
uation on conventional mixed and freight 
line s.

recommendation 4. first indent
t h r o u g h   a d o p t i n g   te c h n i c a l   s p e c i f i c a -
tions for I nteroperabilit y the commission 
has worked on these ’practical constraints’ 
and  will  continue  to  do  so. the  european 
coordinators also devote special effor ts to 
these issues.

recommendation 4. second indent
I n   n ove m b e r   2 0 0 8 ,   t h e   co m m i s s i o n   p ro -
p o s e d   a   r e g u l a t i o n   c r e a t i n g   a   s t r u c t u r e 
f o r   e a c h   r a i l   f r e i g h t   c o r r i d o r   t h a t   w i l l 
s t r e n g t h e n   c o o p e r a t i o n   b e t w e e n   I n f r a-
struc ture  m anagers  (super vised  by  m em-
ber states), for traffic management (oper-
a t i o n a l   m e a s u r e s )   a n d   f o r   i n v e s t m e n t 
(mainly in removing bottlenecks and har-
monising technical conditions). I t is based 
o n   t h e   e x p e r i e n c e   w i t h   t h e   r o t t e r d a m -
genoa and a ntwerp -l yon/basle corridors.

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

special r eport no 8/2010 – Improving transport performance on trans-e uropean rail axes: Have eu rail infrastructure investments been effective?

european court of auditors

special report No 8/2010

Improving transport performance on trans-European rail axes:  

have EU rail infrastructure investments been effective?

luxembourg: publications office of the european union

2010 — 71 pp. — 21 × 29.7 cm

Isbn 978-92-9207-818-8

doi:10.2865/97788

how to obtain EU publications

free publications:

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

	at	the	European	Union’s	representations	or	delegations.	You	can	obtain	their	contact	details	 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced publications:

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports 
of cases before the Court of justice of the European Union):

•	

	via	one	of	the	sales	agents	of	the	Publications	Office	of	the	European	Union	 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

Q
j
-
a
b
-
1
0
-
0
0
7
-
e
n

-
c

transport  volumes  In  europe  are  expected  to  contInue 

growIng,  but  europe’s  raIlways  are  facIng  Important 

cHallenges.  trans-european  raIl  Infrastruc ture  Is  In 

need  extensIve  development,  and  tHe  european  unIon 

made  sIgnIfIcant 

Investments  tHrougH 

Its  coHesIon 

polIcy  and  trans-european  net work  polIcy.  tHe  court 

examIned  wHetHer  tHese  Investments  In  Infrastructure 

Have been effectIve.

european court of audItors