COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER
Date: 2011-03-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common transport policy, land transport, sustainable development, transport safety

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 28.3.2011 
SEC(2011) 359 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying document to the 

WHITE PAPER 

Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource 
efficient transport system 

SEC(2011) 358 final 
SEC(2011) 391 final 
COM(2011) 144 final 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This  document  provides  the  executive  summary  of  the  Impact  Assessment  Report  on  the 
Commission’s  White  Paper  on  Transport  Policy,  which  lays  down  a  long-term  strategy  that 
would allow the transport sector to meet its goals with a 2050 horizon.  

1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The  transport  system  has  provided  Europe  a  high  degree  of  mobility  with  an  ever 
increasing  performance  in  terms  of  speed,  comfort,  safety  and  convenience. 
However, an in-depth ex post evaluation undertaken by the Commission has shown 
that, while several features of the transport system have improved in the last decade - 
notably its efficiency, safety and security - there has been no structural change in the 
way the system operates. The inability of past policies to modify the current transport 
 emissions, 
paradigm is one of the main causes of unsustainable trends: growing CO2
persistent oil dependency1 and mounting congestion. 

The Commission has carried out an analysis of possible future developments of these 
problems  at  unchanged  policies.  This  analysis  indicates  that  the  share  of  CO2 
emissions from transport would continue increasing to almost 50% of total emissions 
by 2050. Oil products would still represent 89% of the EU transport sector needs in 
2050. Congestion would continue to pose a huge burden on the society. 

On  the  basis  of  the  conclusions  of  the  ex  post  evaluation,  the  Commission  has 
identified four main root causes that prevent EU transport system to develop into a 
sustainable system: 

•  Inefficient  pricing:  Today,  most  of  the  external  costs  of  transport  are  still  not 
internalised. Where existent, internalisation schemes are not co-ordinated between 
modes and Member States. Moreover, many taxes and subsidies which have been 
designed  without  the  internalisation  goal  in  view  have  a  distorting  effect  on 
behaviour. 

•  Inadequate research policy: In spite of the substantial efforts dedicated to transport 
research policy and the promising results being obtained, a wide variety of market 
and  regulatory  failures  hinder  the  fast  development  and  deployment  of  key 
technologies for sustainable mobility. 

•  Inefficiency  of  transport  services:  The  achievement  of  a  single,  integrated  and 
efficient  transport  system  is  delayed  today  by  a  number  of  remaining  regulatory 
and market failures such as regulatory barriers to market entrance or burdensome 
administrative procedures which hamper the efficiency and the competitiveness of 
multimodal and cross-border transport. Besides, investments to modernise the rail 
network  and  the  transhipment  facilities  have  been  insufficient  to  address  the 
bottlenecks  in  multimodal  transport.  Modal  networks  continue  to  be  poorly 
integrated. TEN-T policy has lacked financial resources and a true European and 
multimodal perspective. 

•  Lack of integrated transport planning: When taking land-use planning or location 
decisions  both  at  local  level  and  at  continental  level,  public  authorities  and 

1 

for more than 95% of its needs worldwide and 96% in EU-27. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

3. 

7. 

companies  often  do  not  properly  take  into  account  the  consequences  of  their 
choices  on  the  operation  of  the  transport  system  as  a  whole,  which  typically 
generates inefficiencies. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

Pursuant to Articles 90 and 91 of the TFEU, the Common Transport Policy should 
contribute  to  the  broader  objectives  of  the  Treaties.  The  prime  objectives  of  the 
Common Transport Policy are to complete the internal market for transport, ensure 
sustainable development, promote a better territorial cohesion and integrated spatial 
planning, improve safety and develop international cooperation. 

The  issues  being  addressed  by  the  White  Paper  on  Transport  have  transnational 
aspects  which  cannot  be  dealt  with  satisfactorily  by  Member  States  only.  These 
aspects  need  to  be  coordinated  at  EU  level.  The  identified  problems  have  different 
spatial effects and strong variability meaning that impacts across the EU could vary 
considerably.  There  is  a  need  to  ensure  that  solidarity  is  enshrined  in  the  future 
transport policies. 

Due its scale, action at EU level can leverage greater results and magnify the efforts 
in many domains such as capacity building, research, information and data gathering, 
exchange of best practice, development and cooperation. 

OBJECTIVES OF EU INITIATIVE 

The  general  policy  objective  of  this  initiative  is  to  define  a  long-term  strategy  that 
would  transform  the  EU  transport  system  into  a  sustainable  system  by  2050.  This 
general objective can be translated into more specific objectives:  

(a) 

(b) 

A  reduction  of  GHG  emissions  that  is  consistent  with  the  long-term 
requirements  for  limiting  climate  change  to  2  °C2  and  with  the  overall  target 
for  the  EU  of  reducing  emissions  by  80%  by  2050  compared  to  1990. 
3  should  be  reduced  by  around  60%  by 
Transport-related  emissions  of  CO2
2050 compared to 19904. 

A drastic decrease in the oil dependency ratio of transport-related activities by 
2050  as  requested  by  the  EU  2020  Strategy  for  transport  calling  for 
“decarbonised transport”.  

(c) 

Limit the growth of congestion. 

8. 

The  first  two  objectives  overlap  to  a  large  extent,  and  should  be  considered  the 
absolute  priority  in  line  with  the  Resource  Efficiency  Flagship  of  the  EU  2020 

2 

3 
4 

The  “Low-carbon  economy  2050  roadmap”  identifies  a  path  for  the  reduction  of  the  EU  GHG 
emissions  by  80%  by  2050  with  respect  to  1990.  In  the  "Effective  and  widely  accepted  technology" 
scenario it is foreseen that the transport sector reduces its emissions by around 60%, industry by around 
80%, the residential sector and services by around 90%, and power generation by over 90%. 
The references to transport-related CO2 emissions relate only to tank-to-wheel emissions.  
As most GHG emissions from transport are CO2 emissions, this target can be considered as equivalent 
to  the  target  of  reducing  GHG  emissions  by  60%,  as  expressed  in  the  Impact  Assessment  on  “Low-
carbon economy 2050 roadmap”. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9. 

4. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

Strategy. There are, however, also significant synergies with the third objective that 
would  typically  call  for  a  more  extensive  use  of  non-motorised  and  of  public 
transport, which reduces both the use of space and the use of energy. 

A the same time, the achievement of the specific policy objectives identified above 
should  ensure  that  that  "current  and  future  generations  have  access  to  safe,  secure, 
reliable and affordable mobility resources to meet their own needs and aspirations"5. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

On  the  basis  of  the  ex  post  evaluation  and  stakeholders’  consultation,  the 
Commission  has  identified  seven  policy  areas  in  which  concrete  policy  measures 
could  have  a  key  role  in  stimulating  the  expected  shift  of  the  transport  system  to 
another  paradigm:  pricing,  taxation,  research  and  innovation,  efficiency  standards 
and flanking measures, internal market, infrastructure and transport planning. 

To  determine  appropriate  EU  policy  action,  the  Commission  has  considered  the 
possible  application  of  isolated  intervention  in  either  one  of  the  seven  policy  areas 
identified above. However, it appears that none of the categories of instruments alone 
or in combination would be capable of tackling at the same time and in a satisfactory 
way  all  the  various  problem  drivers  and  all  the  elements  of  the  specific  policy 
objective. 

Following  the  above  considerations,  in  addition  to  the  “no  new  policy”  option  – 
Policy Option 1, three policy options have been designed to reach the same 60% CO2 
emissions  reduction  target,  and  retained  for  detailed  assessment.  All  three  options 
envisage  action  in  all  seven  policy  areas  and  have  in  common  a  certain  number  of 
initiatives. What distinguishes them is the intensity of intervention that, depending on 
the option, is higher in some specific field and lower in others. 

Policy  Option  3  is  designed  to  show  the  effect  of  policies  that  emphasise  the  rapid 
deployment  of  new  powertrains,  by  imposing  very  stringent  CO2  standards  on  new 
vehicles and by accompanying them with appropriate innovation policies putting in 
place the necessary framework conditions. It is assumed that this approach would be 
the  most  effective  in  reducing  the  costs  and  the  time  of  introduction  of  new 
technologies. 

Policy  Option  2  is  designed  to  show  the  effect  of  policies  that  rely  less  on 
performance  standards  and  on  active  technological  deployment  and  more  on 
managing  mobility  and  on  carbon  pricing.  It  is  assumed  that  the  industry  will  not 
outperform  the  less  stringent  CO2  standards  for  vehicles  and  that  the  necessary 
reduction in emission is achieved – in addition to the full pricing of externalities and 
to the elimination of tax distortions – by letting the carbon price rise by the necessary 
amount. This could be taken to represent the effect of high carbon taxation or of the 
introduction of a transport specific cap and trade system. In case of very high carbon 
price,  the  effect  would  be  equivalent  to  restrictions  in  “fossil  fuel”  mobility  and 
forced modal shift to clean modes. 

5 

SEC(2010)  1606  final  (14  December  2010)  Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  "A  European 
Strategy for Clean and Energy Efficient Vehicles - Rolling Plan",  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
15. 

5. 

16. 

Policy Option 4 represents an intermediate approach. It has values for CO2 standards 
and technology deployment in between those of Option 2 and 3. It has full pricing of 
externalities  and  elimination  of  tax  distortions  as  in  Option  2,  but  the  additional 
carbon  price  element  is  only  applied  in  the  urban  context  in  the  form  of  a  shadow 
price acting as a proxy for a wide-range of possible demand management measures. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  assessment  of  impact  of  the  policy  options  is 
surrounded by a significant degree of uncertainty, owing to the very long – 40-year – 
time horizon and to the influence of factors that are difficult to predict or quantify: 
the  many  synergies  and  trade-offs  between  policy  measures;  the  long-term 
technological developments; and the role on welfare of mobility and environmental 
amenities. 

17. 

The  table  below  presents  an  synoptic  presentation  of  the  different  impacts  of  the 
in  what  concerns  other  economic,  social  and 
policy  options  considered 
environmental impacts: 

Summary table of impacts 

Economic impacts 

Transport as a business 

Transport activity 

Modal shift 

Unit costs per user 

Of transport dynamics on: 

Economic growth 

Efficiency of the transport system 

Congestion 

Household transport costs 

Transport-related sectors 

Innovation and Research 

Reduction of administrative burden 

EU budget 

International relations 

Social impacts 

Mobility of citizens 

Degree of mobility 

Choice 

Accessibility 

Distributional impacts 

Employment level and conditions 

Safety 

EN 

Policy Option 2 

Policy Option 3 

Policy Option 4 

= 

= 

= 

+ 

+ 

= 

- 

+++ 

+++ 

= 

= 

- 

= 

= 

= 

- 

++ 

= 

- 

+ 

-- 

+++ 

+++ 

+ 

-- 

+++ 

++ 

+ 

= 

- 

- 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+++ 

+ 

-- 

++ 

--- 

++ 

++ 

++ 

-- 

+ 

+ 

+ 

= 

-- 

--- 

++ 

++ 

= 

++ 

++ 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Environmental impacts 

Climate change 

Air pollution 

Noise pollution 

Energy use/energy efficiency 

Renewable energy use 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+ 

Biodiversity 
Legend:  
= 
+ to +++ low to high improvement compared to Policy Option 1 
- to - - -  low to high worsening compared to Policy Option 1 

baseline or equivalent to Policy Option 1 

+ 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+++ 

- 

+++ 

++ 

+ 

+++ 

++ 

= 

18. 

The table above shows that: 

–  From an economic point of view, Policy Option 4 seems to be overall preferable. 
In fact, while achieving the CO2 target at higher costs than Policy Option 3, it has 
lower congestion costs and the overall benefits of a less distorted pricing system. 

–  Also  from  a  social  point  of  view,  Policy  Option  4  would  be  the  most  desirable. 
Compared  to  Policy  Option 2, it  does not affect drastically the present  lifestyles 
and organisation of society and is therefore expected to have lower social costs of 
adaptation to new circumstances. 

–  From  an  environmental  point  of  view,  Policy  Option  2  is  the  most  ambitious 

option since it covers the broadest range of environmental impacts. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

In terms of effectiveness, Policy Option 2 offers indeed the most appropriate pallet of 
actions to meet the defined objectives. 

As regards the resource efficiency objective (CO2 target and oil dependency), since 
all  three  Policy  Options  have  been  designed  to  reach  the  60%  target,  they  are  all 
effective.  However,  it  must  be  noted  at  this  stage  that  Policy  Option  3  is  highly 
dependent on the successful uptake on large scale of alternative fuels whereas Policy 
Option 2 is the option which is the least exposed to technology risk, and hence can be 
considered more reliable in achieving the GHG emission target.  

Policy Option 2 offers the best possibilities to limit the growth of congestion thanks 
to  its  strong  focus  on  policy  measures  covering  demand  management  and  system 
improvement. In Policy Option 3, which has a strong technology focus, congestion 
still represents a high cost to the society. 

In terms of efficiency, the model provides an indication of the total costs of transport 
of  each  Policy  Option.  These  costs  include:  capital  costs  related  to  transport 
equipment, infrastructure costs for the charging and refuelling of electric propulsion 

6. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
vehicles6, fixed operation costs, variable operation costs (including fuel costs), users’ 
disutility, and external costs of congestion, air pollution, noise and accidents. 

The modelling results indicate that, compared to Policy Option 1, the total costs of 
transport  so  defined  would  be  the  highest  in  Policy  Option  2,  adding  an  additional 
1,193 billion € by 2050. Policy Option 4 follows  adding 1,012 billion € and Policy 
Option 3 about 640 billion €.  

The calculation of total costs – and therefore the comparison between options – does 
not  include  research  and  development  costs  and  infrastructure  costs  referred  to  the 
upgrade  and  possible  extension  of  the  network.  Moreover,  they  exclude  transfer 
payments to the budget (i.e. excise duties, value added taxes, registration taxes and 
other ownership taxes, charges, payments for CO2 allowances in aviation under the 
EU  Emission  Trading  Scheme,  etc.),  which  are  additional  costs  for  the  user,  but  a 
transfer from the point of view of society.  

An estimation of network infrastructure costs will be established by the Commission 
as part of the revision of the TEN-T guidelines and therefore only a rough estimate 
can be offered at this stage. Investment in the network designed to serve the transport 
system  up  to  2050  would  need  to  be  put  in  place  much  earlier.  The  cost  of  EU 
infrastructure development to match the demand for transport has been estimated at 
over  €  1.5  trillion  for  2010-2030.  The  comple tion  of  the  TEN-T  network  requires 
about € 550 billion until 2020 out  of which some € 215 billion can be referred to the 
removal of the main bottlenecks. 

In terms of coherence, Policy Option 4 offers a more balanced solution to the trade-
offs across the economic, social, and environmental domains.  

CONCLUSION 

In general terms, the modelling exercise shows that several policy instruments need 
to be used to put the transport system on a sustainable path, lowering CO2 emissions, 
oil  dependency  and  congestion.  It  also  shows  that  policy  action  has  to  be  very 
ambitious to reach the objective.  

In light of the above, Policy Option 3 is discarded, despite being the less expensive 
option  to  reach  the  60%  target.  This  is  because  it  incorporates  a  high  degree  of 
uncertainty  associated  with  the  technological  component.  It  also  contemplates 
delayed  or  weak  action  on  pricing,  which  would  compromise  the  possibility  of 
bringing  about  the  structural  change  that  undistorted  price  signals  can  determine. 
Finally, it is not sufficiently effective in reducing the cost of congestion to the society 
in comparison with Policy Options 2 and 4. 

Modelling  results  do  not  point  to  huge  differences  in  terms  of  additional  costs 
between Policy Option 2 and Policy Option 4, and indeed the two options have many 
elements in common. The preference is given to Policy Option 4 since it offers the 
advantage  of  greater  balance  between  system  improvement  and  technological 

The investment required for developing the electric road transport infrastructure is estimated at roughly 
140 billion € in Policy Option 3, followed by Policy Option 4 with about 120 billion and Policy Option 
2 with about 80 billion.  

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

7. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

6 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
development. Policy Option 4 would avoid the creation of a pervasive command and 
control  approach  to  mobility,  but  it  would  not  refrain  from  eliminating  price 
distortions  by  internalising  external  cost  of  transport  and  by  introducing  smarter 
taxation. 

However, Policy Option 2 is not formally discarded. Indeed, as said above, all Policy 
Options include a technology component that is low in Policy Option 2, moderate in 
Policy Option 4 and high in Policy Option 3. In this respect, if the technology does 
not deliver as it is projected in Policy Option 4, an approach closer to that in Policy 
Option 2 will be necessary in order to achieve the 60% target by 2050. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  Commission  will  properly  evaluate  and  review  the  White  Paper  on  transport 
policy in line with the evaluation and review of the EU 2020 strategy. In addition, the 
Commission will constantly monitor a set of core transport indicators. 

30. 

8. 

31. 

32. 

EN 

8 

   EN