COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Impact Assessment
Date: 2011-10-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community trunk route, air transport, cross-border cooperation, inland waterway, intelligent transport system, intra-EU transport, rail transport, road transport, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network, transport planning

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.10.2011 
SEC(2011) 1212 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Impact Assessment 

Accompanying the document 

PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF 
THE COUNCIL 

on Union Guidelines for the development of the Trans-European Transport Network 

{COM(2011) 650 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1213 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.  PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES . 2 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

Background in the development of the TEN-T policy ......................................................................... 2 

Organisation and timing ........................................................................................................................ 2 

Consultation process............................................................................................................................... 3 

2.  PROBLEM DEFINITION: WHY IS THERE A NEED TO ACT? .......................... 6 

2.1. 

2.2. 

The Europe 2020 Strategy: A renewed political context ..................................................................... 6 

Description and scope of the problem: a fragmented network not fit for purpose ........................... 7 

2.3.  Why is the TEN-T network fragmented? ........................................................................................... 12 

2.4. 

2.5. 

How would things evolve, all things being equal?.............................................................................. 15 

Does the Union have the right to act? ................................................................................................. 22 

3.  POLICY OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 23 

3.1. 

3.2. 

Policy Objectives................................................................................................................................... 23 

Possible trade offs and synergies between the objectives .................................................................. 26 

4.  POLICY OPTIONS FOR TEN-T DEVELOPMENT............................................ 27 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

Two-pronged process leading to identification of policy options...................................................... 27 

Pre-screening of envisaged alternative policy options ....................................................................... 31 

Description of the policy options retained for in-depth assessment ................................................. 37 

5. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POLICY OPTIONS .................................................... 42 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

5.6. 

Economic impacts of the options ......................................................................................................... 43 

Social impacts of the options................................................................................................................ 51 

Environmental impacts: Climate effects, Air pollution, Noise.......................................................... 58 

The positive impact of implementation measures .............................................................................. 62 

Sensitivity analysis of the policy options ............................................................................................. 63 

Choice of the appropriate legal act...................................................................................................... 64 

6.  COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS................................................................... 65 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

6.4. 

Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................................... 65 

Efficiency ............................................................................................................................................... 68 

Coherence .............................................................................................................................................. 70 

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 72 

7.  MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................. 72 

ANNEXES attached: 
- Annex 1: Documents and studies / Ex-post assessments and similar / Audits – assessments 
consulted 
- Annex 2: Ex-Post evaluation of the TEN-T network policy 
- Annex 3: Pre-screening of policy options 
- Annex 4: TEN-T and Environmental Legislation 

1 

 
 
- Annex 5: Monitoring and Evaluation 
- Annex 6: Description and analysis of the modelling work for the TEN-T Guidelines 
- Annex 7: Case Studies 
- Annex 8: Glossary 

1. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

Identification 

Lead DG: Directorate General for Mobility and Transport 
Agenda Planning: 2011/MOVE/009 

Background in the development of the TEN-T policy 

1.1. 
The  Trans-European  transport  network  (TEN-T)  policy  has  been  developing  since  the  mid 
80ies to provide the infrastructure needed for a smooth functioning of the internal market, to 
ensure economic, social and territorial cohesion and to improve accessibility across the entire 
EU territory. The first support framework was set up in 1990, leading to the insertion of trans-
European  networks  in  the  Maastricht  Treaty  (1992)  and  the  adoption  of  a  list  of  14  major 
projects at the European Council in Essen in 1994. The first Guidelines defining the TEN-T 
policy and infrastructure planning were adopted in 1996. 
In 2004, a thorough revision of the Guidelines took into account the EU enlargement and the 
expected changes in traffic flows.1 The list of  Priority Projects covering the Member States of 
the recent enlargement was extended to 30. Apart from theses 30 Priority Projects, which are 
declared to be of "European interest", the Guidelines include maps for each Member State for 
each of the transport modes. All these are declared to be "projects of common interest". 
In addition to the Guidelines, financial and non-financial instruments aimed at facilitating the 
implementation of projects. These instruments include the TEN Financial Regulation2 and the 
Cohesion  Fund,  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  and  loans  from  the 
European Investment Bank as well as coordination initiatives taken by the Commission.  
In  light  of  the  challenges  for  the  TEN-T  policy  that  have  also  been  identified  by  the  White 
Paper 'Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource 
efficient  transport  system3  (hereinafter  "the  White  Paper"),  the  revision  of  the  Guidelines 
accompanied  by  this  impact  assessment  report  defines  a  long-term  strategy  for  the  TEN-T 
policy that would contribute to the transport sector meeting the goals of the White Paper with 
a 2030/2050 horizon. 
1.2. 
For  the  preparation  of  the  revision  of  the  Guidelines,  an  inter-service  group  on  the  TEN-T 
policy review was set up on 6 October 2010 and meetings were organised between December 

Organisation and timing 

1 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;  this 
Decision was replaced by Decision No 661/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 
2010  on  Union  guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  trans-European  transport  network  (recast).  The  recast 
consisted mainly of a codification of the existing Guidelines, the only change of substance consisted in adjusting 
the indicative target dates, from 2010 to 2020, for Member States that acceded on 1 May 2004. 
2  Regulation  (EC)  No  680/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  June  2007  laying  down 
general  rules  for  the  granting  of  Community  financial  aid  in  the  field  of  trans-European  transport  and  energy 
networks. 
3 COM(2011)144 

2

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Consultation process  

2010 and April 2011 in order to collect the views of various services4. For the preparation of 
this  Impact  Assessment,  an  Impact  Assessment  Steering  Group  (IASG)  was  set  up  and  met 
three times between December 2010 and April 20115. Comments from participating DGs have 
been received and taken into account until 13 April 2011. 
1.3. 
With a view to preparing the ground for later policy developments, the Commission launched 
a  reflection  on  the  future  of  TEN-T  Policy  in  February  2009  with  the  adoption  of  a  Green 
Paper  opening  the  debate  on  main  challenges  and  on  key  objectives  for  TEN-T  Policy  and 
possible ways to meet them.6 The Green Paper proposed three network planning options (dual 
structure  with  the  wide  TEN-T  "comprehensive  network"  and  updated  Priority  Projects; 
Priority  Projects  only;  a  new  dual  layer  structure  comprising  the  "comprehensive  network" 
and a "core network"). 
Building on  the contributions  from  stakeholders, the Commission set up six Expert Groups, 
which  between  November  2009  and  April  2010  analysed  a  number  of  key  aspects  of  the 
future  TEN-T  development7.  The  Expert  Groups'  recommendations  were  included  in  a 
Commission  Working  Document  which  was  presented  for  public  consultation  on  4  May 
2010.8  
These  two  public  consultations  attracted  more  than  530  contributions  in  total.  A  large 
majority  of  contributors  supported  the  option  of  a  new  dual-layer  approach  to  TEN-T 
planning, with a "comprehensive network", that would mainly update and adjust the current 
TEN-T, as the basic layer; and a "core network", overlaying the comprehensive network and 
consisted of the strategically most important parts of the TEN-T. Other aspects that enjoyed 
large support and have been particularly relevant for the current exercise were: the promotion 
of  more  environmentally-friendly  solutions 
the 
identification of infrastructural needs from a genuinely European perspective, with a stronger 
view  to  meeting  service  requirements;  continuity  with  previous  developments,  in  particular 
continued  support  for  the  implementation  of  the  current  Priority  Projects  in  a  future  core 
network; and strengthening the link between transport and TEN-T policy, for instance in the 
development  of  interoperability  and  traffic  management  systems.  The  summaries  of  all  the 
contributions received are available on DG MOVE's website. 9  
Large Ministerial and stakeholder conferences were held in October 2009 in Naples10 and in 
June  2010  in  Zaragoza.11  The  Zaragoza  conference  provided  a  framework  for  in-depth 
presentations and discussions with Member States, the European Parliament and stakeholders 

resource  efficiency; 

transport; 

for 

financing;  TEN-T 

4 It involves LS, SG, ECFIN, RTD, ESTAT, ENTR, CLIMA, ENV, MARKT, ELARG, MARE, REGIO, EMPL, 
INFSO, BUDG, ENER, EEAS and MOVE.  
5 7 December 2010, 25 February 2011 and 8 April 2011 
6 "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. 
7  The  fields  covered  by  the  expert  groups  are:  the  structure  of  a  comprehensive  and  core  network  and  the 
methodology  for  TEN-T  planning;  integration  of  transport  policy  into  TEN-T  planning;  intelligent  transport 
systems  and  new  technologies  within  the  framework  of  the  TEN-T;  TEN-T  and  connections  outside  the  EU; 
TEN-T 
on: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tent_policy_review/expert_groups/doc/ten-t_policy_review-
report_of_the_expert_groups.pdf 
8 "Consultation on the future trans-European transport network policy", COM (2010) 212 final. 
9http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/consultations/doc/2009-07-
31_summary_report_green_paper_on_future_ten-t_networks.pdf and 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/consultations/2010_09_15_future_policy_en.htm. 
10 "TEN-T Days 2009: The future of Trans-European Transport Networks: building bridges between Europe and 
its neighbours", 21-22 October 2009: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/ten-t_days_2009/index.html.  
11 Drawing up the EU Core network - Final report, Zaragoza, June 2010: 
https://www.ten-t-days-2010-zaragoza.eu/  

non-financial aspects.  The 

published 

results 

legal 

and 

are 

3

 
 
                                                 
on the Green Paper, on the Commission's working document of May 2010 and on the main 
conclusions of the Expert Groups. 
Taking  into  account  the  results  of  the  public  consultation  process,  the  Commission  came 
forward  in  January  2011  with  a  Staff  Working  Document  that  further  developed  the 
methodology and the planning and implementation scenarios. 12 This Working Document has 
been presented and discussed during the Informal Transport Council held in Budapest on 7th 
and 8th February 2011 and the TRAN Committee of the European Parliament on 14 February 
2011.  
In  light  of  the  above,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  consultation  process  has  been  wide  and 
intensive, meeting all the Commission's minimum consultation standards.  13 In addition, this 
2-year long process of internal and external consultation has played a key role in focusing the 
Guidelines' revision on a limited choice of options.14 
1.4. External expertise used in the assessment  
A wide range of external opinions was collected during the revision process. In addition to the 
already  mentioned  Expert  Groups,  a  number  of  other  studies  and  ex-post  evaluations  were 
carried out. 
An ex-post evaluation was carried out on the 2000-2006 TEN-T Programme and a mid-term 
review  on  the  2007-2013  TEN-T  Programme  was  recently  conducted.  This  is  following 
directly upon the work carried out by the TEN-T Executive Agency (hereinafter TEN-T EA) 
on a mid-term review of the TEN-T Programme, whereas DG MOVE and the Agency jointly 
conducted a mid-term review of the multi-annual programme portfolio. 15 
In parallel, important reviews conducted with the Member States on the implementation of the 
Priority Projects in 2010 have delivered a detailed view of the progress achieved today on the 
projects of European interest16. 
The transport model TRANSTOOLS and the TENconnect studies I and II were used to help 
define the planning methodology. Further studies have been taken into account,  including on 
the TEN-T planning methodology, on the impact of the development of ports on TEN-T and a 
post recession revision of the study "Traffic flow: Scenario, Traffic Forecast and Analysis of 
Traffic on the TEN-T, taking into consideration the external dimension of the Union".17 The 
list of key documents that have been used for the purpose of this Impact Assessment report 
are listed in annex 1. 
1.5. Consultation of the Impact Assessment Board 
Following the submission of a draft report to the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) on 15 April 
2011 and a hearing with the IAB on 18 May 2011, the IAB sent its opinion on 23 May 2011, 
asking DG MOVE to resubmit the draft report.  
In its opinion of 23 May 2011, the IAB made five recommendations that were addressed in 
the final version of the IA report in the following manner: 
(1)  The  report  should  clarify  the  objectives  of  the  proposal  and  explain  the  links  between 
them. 
The  revised  IA  defines  more  clearly  the  general  objective  of  the  proposal  and  establishes  a 
closer  link  between  the  general  objective  as  revised  and  the  specific  objectives.  The 

12 "The New Trans-European Transport Network Policy. Planning and implementation issues", SEC(2011) 101. 
13 Further details can also be found on DG MOVE's internet site at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/consultations/index_en.htm.  
14 In this respect, see section 4 and annex 3 of the present impact assessment report. 
15 For ex-post assessments, see annex 2. 
16 TEN-T Progress Report, Implementation of the Priority Projects, June 2010: 
17"Trans-European transport network planning methodology" and "Supplementary model calculations supporting 
TEN-T network planning and impact assessment" (TENconnect 2)  

4

 
 
                                                 
possibility  of  trade-offs  or  synergies  between  these  objectives  and  of  addressing  them  in  a 
balanced way within the policy options have also been assessed in a new subsection 3.4. The 
objective related to the standards for management systems and harmonisation of operational 
rules on the TEN-T projects of common interest has been detailed further.   
(2)  The  report  should  improve  the  presentation  of  policy  options  and  consider  assessing  in 
greater detail a wider range of policy options. 
Section  4  of  the  report  has  been  revised  to  include  a  summary  of  the  planning  and 
implementation  scenarios  assessed  to  generate  the  policy  options,  as  well  as  to  clarify  the 
criteria and the pre-screening process used to discard a number of unviable options, initially 
presented in Annex 3. The revised IA report also includes a short description of each option, 
as well as a summary of the qualitative assessment of the options' effectiveness with regard to 
achieving each of the specific objectives of the policy initiative. The argument why only two 
policy options (in addition to the baseline scenario) have been retained has been strengthened. 
The differentiation between the baseline and Policy Option 1 has been strengthened as well as 
the rationale for retaining Policy Option 1 for in-depth assessment.  
(3)The report should improve the assessment of impacts 
The revised IA report explains in the beginning of section 5 why the results of a fully-fledged 
modelling exercise of the expected impacts of the envisaged Policy Options could not be used 
as  the  primary  support  for  the  assessment  of  impacts.  An  annex  has  been  added  to  the  IA 
report to provide full transparency on this aspect (see new annex 6). As the Board suggested, 
the modelling results have been used to provide an order of magnitude of impacts. They also 
have  been  considered,  where  available,  in  conjunction  with  the  results  of  other  studies  to 
complement the qualitative analysis of impacts. The assessment of various impacts has been 
strengthened.  Amongst  others,  the  description  of  environmental  impacts  has  been  improved 
and  includes  a  more  thorough  assessment  of  the  "rebound  effect".  Also  the  impact  on 
employment and their link to the estimated investment needs have been substantiated further. 
Finally, the revised IA report discusses in more details how the expected policy impacts are 
likely to be affected by the implementation aspects and by the budgetary constraints faced by 
Member States. 
(4) The report should be clearer about the differences in expected impacts of policy options 
The  revised  IA  report  substantiates  and  explains  in  greater  detail  why  the  expected  positive 
impacts  are  likely  to  be  higher  in  policy  Option  2  compared  to  Option  1.  To  this  end,  the 
comparison of options in section 6 of the report has been further developed.  
(5) Procedure and presentation 
Following the Board's recommendation, the different positions of the stakeholders have been 
better reflected throughout the report, especially in section 4 of the IA. The revised IA report 
also makes more clear use of proportionality and subsidiarity as conditions that need to be met 
by all policy options as part of the process of policy options pre-selection.  
The revised IA report addresses also  the technical comments transmitted by the IAB to DG 
MOVE.  
A revised version of the IA report has been sent to IAB on 15 June 2011.On 7 July 2011, the 
IAB  issued  a  positive  opinion  on  the  revised  IA  report,  which  contained  three  main 
recommendations for further improvement: 
(1) Further strengthen the assessment of options 
Following the IAB recommendation, the qualitative assessment of the impact of options has 
been  further  improved,  particularly  by  strengthening  the  argumentation  with  regard  to  the 
expected occurrence of modal shift and the ensuing consequences for air and noise pollution. 
More examples on the impact of transport infrastructure on employment have been added and 
short term and long term impacts have been distinctly highlighted.  

5

 
 
PROBLEM DEFINITION: WHY IS THERE A NEED TO ACT? 

(2) Improve the comparison of options 
The  IAB  noted  that  some  of  the  scores  assigned  to  options'  effectiveness  in  addressing  the 
problem  drivers  were  not  consistent  with  the  qualitative  assessment  developed  earlier. 
Consistency has subsequently been ensured. 
(3) Report the stakeholders' views 
Following  the  IAB  recommendation,  the  stakeholders'  views  have  been  more  consistently 
reported throughout the document. 
With regard to procedure and presentation, the IAB also recommended that efforts be made 
to bring the length of the report closer to the recommended 30 pages. Efforts to this end have 
been made, but giving the wide scope of the policy area covered, the wide ranging changes 
proposed and the high number of initial policy options that needed to be assessed, the margins 
for shortening the length of the report were limited.18  
2. 
As noted earlier, it is through the Maastricht Treaty that the Union has been given the task of 
contributing to the establishment and development of trans-European infrastructure networks 
in the area of transport.19 The goal inscribed in the Treaty is to support the development of the 
internal  market,  reinforce  economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion,  link  islands,  landlocked 
and peripheral regions with the central regions of the Union and bring the EU territory within 
closer reach of its neighbouring states.20 
2.1. 
The recent economic crisis has wiped out years of economic and social progress and exposed 
structural  weaknesses  in  Europe's  economy.  To  get  the  EU  economy  back  on  track,  the 
Commission  adopted  on  3  March  2010  the  Europe  2020  strategy  (hereinafter  'the  EU2020 
Strategy')  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth.  The  strategy,  setting  out  a  vision  of 
Europe's  new  social  market  economy  for  the  21st  century,  21  was  endorsed  by  the  European 
Council on 17 June 2010. 
Promoting sustainable transport has been identified as one of the means for achieving one of 
the three key EU2020 priorities: sustainable growth.22 The ensuing 'Resource efficient Europe' 
flagship of the EU2020 Strategy called for the modernisation and decarbonisation of transport 
through,  amongst  others,  infrastructure  measures,  and  announced  the  intention  of  the 
Commission  "to  accelerate  the  implementation  of  strategic  projects  with  high  European 
added  value  to  address  critical  bottlenecks,  in  particular  cross  border  sections  and  inter 
modal nodes (cities, ports, logistic platforms).23 It also called on Member States to "ensure a 
coordinated  implementation  of  infrastructure  projects,  within  the  EU  Core  network,  that 
critically  contribute  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  overall  EU  transport  system".  Transport 
infrastructure being considered as the backbone of the internal market, this objective has been 

The Europe 2020 Strategy: A renewed political context 

18 Tables and figures, which are presented in a high number in the report in order to better illustrate the argument 
and  support  the  reader  in  following  the  wide  scope  of  argumentation,  are  as  a  rule  not  counted  within  the 
recommended 30 pages length of a report. 
19 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFU), Title XVI, art. 170 – 172. 
20 A Communication on improving transport relations with third countries, which refers also to the importance of 
connecting the TEN-T with the networks of the neighbouring countries will also be adopted later this summer.  
21 COM(2010) 2020 
22  The  conclusions  of  the  Report  on  the  “Consultation  on  the  Future  Trans-European  Network  Policy”  also 
stressed that stakeholders widely agree that the TEN-T network should be developed in a sustainable way with 
regards to low carbon transport systems. 
23 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2011)21.  

6

 
 
                                                 
also retained as one of the "Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence" in the 
recently adopted Single Market Act24. 

The Transport White Paper: new priorities for TEN-T 

As  a  follow  up  of  the  EU2020  Strategy,  the  Commission  adopted  on  28  March  2011  a 
roadmap  towards  a  competitive  and  resource  efficient  transport  system25.  This  strategy  sets 
out to remove major barriers and bottlenecks in many key areas across the fields of transport 
infrastructure  and  investment,  innovation  and  the  internal  market.  The  aim  is  to  create  a 
Single  European  Transport  Area  with  more  competition  and  a  fully  integrated  transport 
network which links the different modes and allows for a profound shift in transport patterns 
for passengers and freight. The White Paper aims at dramatically cutting carbon emissions in 
transport by 60% by 2050.   
More specifically, the White Paper has concluded that no major change in transport  will be 
possible  without  the  support  of  an  adequate  network  and  a  smarter  approach  to  using  it. 
Infrastructure  planning  and  adequate  development,  i.e.  defining  where  transport  flows  and 
which  (combination  of)  modes  as  well  as  technologies  are  available  for  use,  are  seen  as 
essential  components  in  the  process  of  redefinition  of  the  transport  system  to  inverse  its 
current unsustainable trends.  

The EU Budget Review: new financing framework for TEN-T 

The EU2020 Strategy also urged that all EU policies, instruments and legal  acts,  as  well as 
financial  instruments,  be  mobilised  to  pursue  the  Strategy’s  objectives.  Consequently,  in  its 
"EU Budget Review" Communication26, the Commission suggested ways to adapt the budget 
to tomorrow's requirements and set a number of key principles to better target the use of EU 
funds to secure the Union objectives, and as set out in the EU2020 Strategy: prioritisation - 
"directing  resources  where  the  rewards  can  come  more  quickly,  more  broadly  and  more 
strongly";  focusing  on  the  EU  added  value  -  "plug  gaps  left  by  the  dynamics  of  national 
policy-making,  most  obviously  addressing  cross-border  challenges 
like 
infrastructure,  mobility,  territorial  cohesion…-  gaps  which  would  otherwise  damage  the 
interests of the EU as a whole".27  
Cross-border  infrastructure  is  given  as  "one  of  the  best  examples  of  where  the  EU  can  (…) 
deliver better value results. Transport, communication and energy networks bring enormous 
benefits to society at large".28 

in  areas 

2.2. 
Description and scope of the problem: a fragmented network not fit for purpose 
The  EU  27,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  well  endowed  with  transport  infrastructures.  It  currently 
counts 5,000,000 km of paved roads, out of which 61,600 km are motorways, 215,400 km of 
rail lines, out of which 107,400 km electrified, and 41,000 km of navigable inland waterways. 
Its maritime ports handled 414 million passengers and 3,934 million tonnes of freight in 2007, 
while  about  14  million  tonnes  of  freight  and  almost  800  million  passengers  were  carried 
through its airports. 
Whereas  most  of  these  transport  infrastructures  have  been  developed  under  national  policy 
premises,  the  TEN-T  policy  has  helped  to  complete  a  large  number  of  projects  of  common 
interest,  interconnecting  national  networks  and  overcoming  technological  barriers  across 
national  borders.  Amongst  the  success  stories  is  the  high-speed  railway  line  linking  Paris, 

24 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions COM(2011) 206/4 
25 White Paper for Competitive and Sustainable Transport, COM(2011) 0144 
26 COM(2010) 700 
27 COM(2010) 700 final, p. 4-6. 
28 Ibid, p. 9. 

7

 
 
 
                                                 
Brussels, Cologne/Frankfurt, Amsterdam and London. It has not only interconnected national 
networks  and  marked  a  breakthrough  of  a  new  generation  of  railway  traffic  across  borders, 
but it has also provided citizens and business travellers with a competitive travel option within 
Europe.  Similarly,  the  fixed  rail/road  link  between  Denmark  and  Sweden,  linking  up  two 
regions  on  each  side  of  Øresund,  has  led  to  a  significant  increase  in  cross-border  trade 
patterns  and  has  served  as  a  powerful  lever  of  economic  development,  in  particular  the 
emergence of a common labour market between Copenhagen and Malmö.  
As regards intelligent transport systems, TEN-T policy has helped in particular to prepare the 
various modal intelligent transport systems (ITS) projects, such as European Railways Traffic 
Management System (ERTMS), the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research 
(SESAR), Vessel Traffic Management and River Information Services. 
Nevertheless,  the  wide  consultation  process,  the  external  expertise,  the  ex-post  assessments 
conducted and the internal analysis used over the last two years have shown that the European 
Union  does  not  dispose  yet  of  a  complete  trans-European  infrastructure  network,  and 
especially  not  for  rail  and  inland  waterways,  where  essential  parts  are  still  missing  and 
constitute  important  bottlenecks.  The  infrastructure  network  in  the  EU  today  is  indeed 
fragmented, both from a geographical and a multi-modal perspective. It is also not sufficiently 
integrated in the international trade flows that feed the European internal market. 
Despite  important  efforts  towards  improvement29,  European  rail  and  inland  waterway 
networks are still lacking capacity and efficiency. Only the road network is nearly complete 
and provides access to intermodal nodes, albeit significant improvements are  still needed in 
EU12. The air and sea transport networks are available, but no priorities have been given to 
establish a 'hierarchy' within those networks and/or a good interconnection30. 
2.2.1 The infrastructure network is fragmented between countries 
Missing cross-border sections 
The  current  fragmentation  of  EU  infrastructure  networks  can  be  illustrated  by  Figure  1 
showing the current status of implementation of the Priority Projects. Even if good progress 
has  been  achieved  (the  green  sections)  many  of  the  planned  Priority  Projects  will  not  be 
completed  by  the  deadline  agreed  and  set  in the current Guidelines (around 2015 – 2020 in 
most of the cases). On some sections works will start only after 2013. This is mainly the case 
for cross-border sections which clearly appear to be the most complex projects31 on the TEN-
T in terms of implementation. This led the 2010 TEN-T Priority Project progress report32 to 
conclude that today’s TEN-T mainly consists of an assembly of national sections that are not 
yet or only partially interlinked.33 

29 Eighteen of the current thirty Priority Projects are entirely dedicated to rail and two to inland waterways. 
30 Court of Auditors Report on Ports 
31 By "projects", it is meant here sections that are being allocated funding on the basis of the TEN-T Guidelines. 
A project is in general a section of a Priority Project. 
32 Progress Report 2010—Implementation of the Priority Projects: http://ec.europa.eu/transport 
33 The report gave a list of cross-border bottlenecks that are still left for completion. For instance, the biggest rail 
freight market at this moment, Germany, is lacking good cross-border connections with works ongoing or still to 
be  started  on  each  of  them  (with  the  Netherlands,  continuation  of  the  Betuwe  Line  to  Duisburg;  with  France, 
works  ongoing  between  Saarbrücken  and  Mannheim,  and  between  Strasburg  and  Offenburg;  with  Denmark, 
missing access routes to the Fehmarn; with Austria, connection München to Salzburg under works until 2025 at 
least, with the Czech Republic, the connection between Praha and Dresden is still to be upgraded; with Poland, 
Berlin – Warsawa needs an improved interconnection, the same for Dresden to Wroclaw. In a similar way, Italy 
has not any flat trajectory to the rest of the EU. The future Swiss Gothard tunnel will offer the fastest possibility 
for  crossing  the  Alps  with  just  one  locomotive  and  no  obligation  to  adapt  train  length  in  accordance  with  the 
physical  parameters  of  the  Alpine  crossings  as  of  2019.  For  Inland  Waterways,  the  barriers  are  less  directly 
linked  to  cross-border  sections  as  for  rail,  but  the  bottlenecks  do  have  just  the  same  detrimental  effect  (like 
Straubing – Vilshofen or missing links such as the Seine-Escaut). This phenomenon can be observed in Figure 1 
for almost all cross-border sections. 

8

 
 
                                                 
Divergences between eastern and western parts of Europe 
For  the  time  being,  a  considerable  disparity  in  the  quality  and  availability  of  infrastructure 
persists  within  the  EU.  The  Member  States  which  joined  the  EU  in  2004  and  2007  have  a 
motorway network of a limited extent (about 4.800 km, though they are readily catching up 
on  this),  have  no  high  speed  rail  lines  and  –  more  importantly  –  their  conventional  railway 
lines are often in poor condition.34 
The initial Guidelines and Priority Projects were approved well before the last two rounds of 
enlargement.  While  the  revision  of  the  Guidelines  in  2004  partly  addressed  this  matter,  an 
imbalance between old and new Member States continues to endure, not least due to widely 
differing  starting  endowment  levels.35    Figure  1  illustrates  that  North-South  connections  are 
predominant whereas East-West connections are still lacking. 
Missing connections with neighbouring and overseas countries 
Despite  high  traffic  volumes  on  many  connections  between  the  EU  and  the  neighbouring 
countries,  the  Guidelines  so  far  have  not  included  these  connections  among  the  priority 
objectives.  Apart from these, 36 the Priority Projects do not include links to the neighbouring 
countries. Moreover, most of the major Seaports, the connecting points of the EU to overseas 
countries, are not included in the Priority Projects.  
2.2.2 The infrastructure network is fragmented between and within transport modes 
Multi-modal "hard" infrastructure is missing 
By functioning mostly separated from each other, the different modes are further fragmenting 
the network. Currently, important ports and airports remain poorly linked to the rail network, 
and a large share (>40%) of long distance freight transport (> 300 km) is carried out by road 
transport in isolation.37 Inland waterways are also in many cases not connected with logistics 
centres.  
Intermodal  nodes,  enabling  the  exchange  of  passengers  and  goods  across  modes,  are 
underdeveloped. Important nodes in cities, such as big railway stations and major airports, do 
in many cases not have well functioning multimodal links. The lack of intermodal nodes, and 
therefore of efficient co-modality options, increases infrastructure capacity bottlenecks in all 
modes, and in particular in road, rail and ports. 

34 Energy and Transport in Europe – Statistical Pocketbook 2010. 
35  The  wide  differences  in  endowment  with  regard  to  transport  infrastructure  across  the  EU,  and  in  particular 
between the old and the new Member States are well documented in the Fifth Report on Economic, Social and 
Territorial Cohesion, November 2010, as well as in DG ELARG's report on transport 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion5/pdf/5cr_en.pdf. 
36  Priority  Project  12,  'Nordic  Triangle',  and  Priority  Project  6,  'Lyon-Trieste-Divaca-Ljubljana-Budapest-
Ukrainian border' and PP24 Rotterdam – Genoa via Switzerland 
37 Source: TRANSTOOLS 

9

 
 
                                                 
 Figure 1: Achievements of the Priority Projects – May 2010 
Source: TENtec 

10

 
 
 
 
Interoperability is lacking 
The  current  TEN-T  is  further  fragmented  by  a  lack  of  interoperability,  i.e.  of  compatibility 
among  the  technical  parameters38,  operational  systems39  and  rules40  that  are  used  on  the 
different Member States' networks. Differing sets of operational rules and standards, based on 
longstanding  traditions  and  legislation  of  individual  Member  States,  are  multiplying  the 
barriers  and  bottlenecks  in  the  transport  system.  The  effectiveness  of  huge  investments  in 
infrastructure  alone  is  severely  hampered  because  interoperability  problems  and  operational 
rules  such  as  train  control  signalling  systems,  document  handling,  language  regimes,  train 
crew certifications, composition of trains, tail lights and so forth are not tackled at the same 
time  as  the  "hard"  infrastructure  in  a  traditional  sense,  comprising  of  aspects  such  as  rail 
gauge, train length, axle loads and traction energy supply systems.41  
As highlighted in the Special Report from the European Court of Auditors,42 rail transport is 
the  most  prominent  example  where  interoperability  between  and  within  transport  modes  is 
missing. The EU currently uses seven gauge sizes and seven types of electric currents (with 
different voltages and frequencies, alternating or direct current, etc).43 In certain cases where 
efficient solutions have been brought about – for  instance  multi-current locomotives  able  to 
circulate  on  several  networks  –  then  these  efforts  and  investments  are  hampered  in  the 
absence  of  harmonisation  of  sometimes  tiny  details  –  such  as  the  manual  exchange  of  tail 
lights marking the end of the train. Figure 2 shows another example of the need to coherently 
address both infrastructure and the way that infrastructure is used. 

Figure 2: Example from the Special Report from the European Court of Auditors 
Road transport is also hampered by interoperability issues. Today, international hauliers need 
on-board  units  that  deal  with  the  Eurovignette,  five  different  national  vignettes  and eight 
different tags and tolling contracts if they wish to drive on all European tolled roads without 
stopping at tollbooths.44  
In addition, the limited penetration of the common European systems such as ERTMS for rail 
and  RIS  for  inland  waterways  as  well  as  the  lack  of  compatibility  between  the  various 

38 Concerning traditional ("hard") infrastructure such as the different types of gauges or electrification systems in 
rail.  
39 For e.g. traffic management systems, signalling and river information systems.  
40 For e.g. train length, axle loads, safety, as well as administrative rules such as document handling, language 
regimes. 
41 Special Report No 8, European Court of Auditors, “Improving transport performance on trans-European rail 
axes: have EU rail infrastructure investment been effective?” 
42 Ibid.  
43 http://www.ertms.com/faq.aspx 
44 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road/road_charging/road_charging_en.htm 

11

 
 
 
                                                 
national  river  and  air  traffic  management  systems  are  yet  other  examples  of  the  various 
factors hindering the integration of the network.45  
Conclusion 
The lack of integration of the TEN-T logically leads to a suboptimal use of the infrastructure, 
by causing detours in traffic and bottlenecks. It results in economic inefficiencies, disparities 
in terms of social and territorial cohesion and higher external costs to the society in the form 
of  congestion,  accidents,  air  and  noise  pollution,  and  other  environmental  impacts.46  The 
fragmentation  of  the  network  is  therefore  an  important  obstacle  to  the  free  movement  of 
people  and  goods,  an  analysis  confirmed  by  the  conclusions  of  the  ex-post  and  mid-term 
review reports (see annex 2). As a consequence, the existing TEN-T is not adequate to support 
the  major  transformation  envisaged  by  the  White  Paper  towards  a  competitive  and  resource 
efficient transport system by 2050.47 
The  subsections  below  analyse  why  today's  TEN-T  is  not  capable  of  supporting  this 
transformation. 
2.3.  Why is the TEN-T network fragmented?  
Following  the  process  of  internal  and  external  consultation,  and  on  the  basis  of  the  various 
assessment reports cited above, the Commission has identified that the fragmentation is due to 
2 main aspects, the conceptual planning of the network configuration and its implementation. 
This  translates  into  four  main  drivers,  contributing  to  the  problem  of  a  fragmented  TEN-T 
network.  These  drivers  are:  the  insufficient  EU-level  planning  of  network  configuration, 
insufficient  adoption  of  common  standards  and  rules  for  the  interoperability  of  networks 
within the TEN-T, the limited cooperation among Member States in project implementation 
and the lack of sufficient conditionality of EU funding instruments. The first driver relates to 
the planning aspect, while the three others concern the implementation48 of the TEN-T policy. 
 2.3.1 Insufficient EU-level planning of network configuration 
Spatial configuration of the network has lacked a genuine European design 
Transport infrastructure has been historically designed to serve national rather than European 
goals  and  national  infrastructure  planning  remains  to  a  large  extent  disconnected  from 
planning  at  EU  level.  This  is  due,  not  least,  to  the  fact  that  Member  States  do  support  the 
largest share of the budget with regard to transport infrastructure investments, including TEN-
T  projects.  Quite  naturally,  national  authorities  see  therefore  investment  efforts  on  their 
respective  territories  mostly  as  national  investments  rather  than  as  contributions  to  a  Union 
objective49.  The  current  methodological  approach  to  TEN-T  planning  and  implementation 
also reflects and reinforces this tendency to approach transport infrastructure from a primarily 
Member States' individual interests perspective.  
Thus, as regards the TEN-T wider/basic layer, where responsibility for completing the large 
numbers of projects concerned rests almost entirely with the Member States, "planning" has 
essentially meant adding together significant parts of national networks and connecting them 
at  the  common  borders.  In  practice,  that  meant  Member  States  submitting  national  network 
maps  outlining  existing  and  planned  infrastructure  for  the  various  modes,  on  the  basis  of  a 
broad  set  of  characteristics  for  network  configuration  presented  in  the  TEN-T  Guidelines. 

45  NAIADES  mid-term  progress  report  and  Commission  Staff  working  paper  on  deployment  of  the  Single 
European Sky technological pillar (SESAR) 
40 See annex 3 of the Impact Assessment accompanying the White Paper (SEC(2011)358) 
47  The  Report  on  the  “Consultation  on  the  Future  Trans-European  Network  Policy”  explains  that  some 
environmental  organisations  explain  that  the  existing  TEN-T  policy  goals  are  inadequate  to  deal  with  climate 
change goals and Europe 2020 strategic objectives. 
48 Implementation refers to the means used to realise the network and optimise its use. 
49 €196 bn within the current financial perspective (2007-2013), compared to €8 bn from the TEN-T Programme 
and €43 bn through ERDF and Cohesion Fund. 

12

 
 
                                                 
These  maps  are  appended  in  Annex  I  to  the  current  Guidelines.  Projects  developing  or 
improving infrastructure along these outline maps are deemed "projects of common interest" 
and are eligible for funding support from the EU budget.50    
The  selection  of  the  Priority  Projects  has  also  been,  to  an  important  extent,  a  primarily 
bottom-up exercise. As a methodological approach, it has been developed in mid-1990s and 
endorsed by the European Council in Essen in 1996 when it adopted a first list of (fourteen) 
Priority  Projects.  It  relies  on  proposals  for  development  of  projects  along  the  (wider/basic) 
TEN-T outline presented by the individual Member States, which are then examined by the 
Commission for their compliance with a set of rather broadly formulated criteria for "priority 
projects", i.e. projects that are to be treated with priority in awarding financial support from 
the EU budget.51 Thirty Priority Projects are currently benefitting from EU financial support 
and their list is appended as Annex III to the current Guidelines. 
The  list  of  projects  inevitably  reflects  the  Member  States'  inclination  to  give  priority  to 
transport sections linking  up  centres  of  national interest  and, as such,  the  bottom-up bias of 
the  selection  process.  There  are  thus  Priority  Projects  without  any  cross-border  dimension 
(Priority Projects 5, 10 and 29), or with a limited regional/national planning scope that lead to 
overall  network  inefficiencies/incongruence.  For  instance,  Priority  Projects  11,  12  and  20 
rather belong to a single traffic flow, whereas Priority Projects 4, 28 and 17 are overlapping in 
important segments (See Figure 1). 
In addition, a focus mainly at modal level, rather than an integrated approach across different 
modes  of  transport  has  been  identified  as  another  consequence  of  the  current  Guidelines 
provisions  with  regard  to  project  selection.  Thus,  some  Priority  Projects  address  rail,  others 
road or inland waterways, but there is no coherence between them leading to a multi-modal 
network approach.  
The predominantly bottom-up  network development is no longer adapted to new framework 
conditions 
Mobility  has  increased  over  the  last  decades  and  has  developed  in  a  context  of  generally 
cheap  oil,  expanding  infrastructure  and  loose  environmental  constraints52.  Now  that  those 
framework conditions have changed, the building of new infrastructure to reduce congestion 
and accommodate higher levels of traffic is less and less a desirable solution. The impact of 
infrastructure on the environment also is a growing concern. In addition, the current economic 
crisis  reasserts  the  importance  of  putting  budget  accounts  into  a  long-term  sustainable  path. 
This  implies  reducing  public  deficit  and  debt  and  improving  the  quality  of  public  finance. 
More  cost-effective  solutions  have  to  be  found  to  tackle  transport  needs  than  relying  on 
expanding ‘hard’ infrastructure. 
2.3.2 Insufficient implementation of common standards and adoption of common rules for the 
interoperability of networks within the TEN-T 
The  TEN-T  policy  so  far  has  lacked  a  true  perspective  of  harmonisation  through  EU 
legislation  to  address  interoperability  issues  across  both  national  networks  and  modes.  The 
Court  of  Auditors  Special  Report  and  the  European  Coordinators  Issues  Paper53  have 
particularly stressed this issue. 
Currently, the TEN-T Guidelines only include target standards in the inland waterway sector. 
With the absence of links between TEN-T policy and existing EU legislation, Member States 

50 See art. 7, Union Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network.  
51 Ibid., art. 23. 
52  Average  mobility  per  person  in  the  EU,  measured  in  passenger-kilometre  per  inhabitant,  increased  by  7% 
between 2000 and 2008, mainly through higher motorisation levels as well as more high-speed rail and air travel. 
(Impact Assessment accompanying the White Paper – SEC(2011)358) 
53 Position Paper of the European Transport Coordinators on the Future of the TEN-T Policy Brussels, 6 October 
2009 

13

 
 
                                                 
instruments  such  as 

have  not  sufficiently  implemented  all  EU  level  technical  specifications:  ERTMS  in  the 
railway  sector;  implementation  of  the  Single  Sky  policy  and  the  ATM  Master  Plan  for  air 
transport; ITS for road transport. 
This  situation  has  prevented  the  TEN-T  policy  to  serve  as  a  useful  lever  to  accelerate  the 
deployment of much needed intelligent equipment on the network. Moreover, there is a close 
legally  binding 
relationship  existing  between  certain  TEN-T 
interoperability and safety standards, and transport market opening. They strongly encourage 
further  initiatives  similar  to  those  taken  in  the  field  of  rail  interoperability.  As  a  result, 
infrastructures  are  underused  due  to  market  arrangements  reflecting  the  situation  before 
market opening.54 
2.3.3 Limited cooperation among Member States in project implementation 
In addition to the lack of Member States  planning coordination, TEN-T  development so far 
has  been  crippled  by  insufficient  Member  States  cooperation  in  order  to  coordinate  their 
projects'  implementation.  This  is  particularly  true  of  Priority  Projects  with  a  cross-border 
dimension, where active cooperation between a wide range of stakeholders is necessary. This 
aspect  is  highlighted  by  the  conclusions  of  a  number  of  specific  studies,  such  as  the  multi-
annual  Priority  Projects  portfolio  review,  the  European  Coordinators'  Issues  Paper  and  the 
Court of Auditors' Special Report.55 
This  limited  cooperation  between  Member  States  on  cross-border  projects  has  had 
implications  at  various  levels:  the  lack  of  joint  traffic  forecasts  led  to  differing  investment 
plans;  the  lack  of  investment  planning  coordination  led  to  disconnected  or  contradictory 
timelines,  capacity  planning,  alignment,  technical  and  interoperability  characteristics,  cost-
benefit  and  environmental  assessments;  the  lack  of  congruent  investment  decisions  coupled 
with Member States' tendency to give priority to national transport sections linking up centres 
of national interest particularly affected investments in TEN-T projects, leading to extensive 
delays.56  
2.3.4 Lack of sufficient conditionality of TEN-T funding instruments 
As indicated above, the TEN-T Guidelines are linked with financial instruments to facilitate 
the  implementation  of  projects  identified  as  being  of  common  interest.  These  instruments 
include:  the  TEN-T  programme,  the  Cohesion  Fund,  the  European  Regional  Development 
Fund (ERDF) and loans from the European Investment Bank. While the TEN-T Guidelines do 
not specifically deal with financial aspects, they do specify the characteristics of the projects 
eligible for financial support from the EU budget and, not least, the criteria for identifying the 
projects  that  are  to  be  funded  with  priority.  As  such,  the  TEN-T  Guidelines  constitute  an 
important instrument of conditionality for the allocation of EU funds. So far, the EU financial 
instruments  supporting  the  TEN-T  development  have  not  proved  sufficient  to  deliver 
complete  projects  within  the  timeframe  agreed  by  the  Guidelines,  nor  to  ensure  a  focus  of 
funding on the projects with highest EU added value. And part of the reasons for this lie in the 
rather loose framework for guiding investment decisions that the TEN-T Guidelines provide.  
The TEN-T Guidelines provide a framework of conditionality of TEN-T funding instruments 
by  means  of  provisions  concerning  both  the  planning  of  the  network  configuration  and  the 
implementation  of  the  projects  developing  it.  As  highlighted  above,  the  current  bottom-up 

54  For  the  most  intensively  used  rail  freight  corridor,  from  Rotterdam  to  Genova,  analysis  has  shown  that  the 
freight  volume  transported  could  be  doubled  if,  alongside  with  infrastructural  improvement,  the  operational 
rules, the slot handling and the interoperability (ERTMS) issues would be addressed. 
55 See Annex 2 
56  Numerous  examples  are  described  in  detail  in  the  annual  activity  report  of  the  European  Coordinators.  For 
instance, the Barcelona – Nîmes rail sections, where the cross-border tunnel is finished, but not the access routes; 
the  Betuwe  Line  in  the  Netherlands  is  finished  but  the  third  rail  track  from  the  Dutch  border  to  the  German 
industrial area of the Ruhr will be completed only by 2015 at the earliest. 

14

 
 
                                                 
approach  to  planning  has  failed  to  ensure  the  development  of  a  TEN-T  configuration  that 
constitutes a fully connected network, and in particular of cross-border links and multi-modal 
connecting points that generate the trans-European and, respectively, multi-modal dimensions 
of the TEN-T – and, as such, its EU-added value. At the level of implementation, the limited 
cooperation  among  Members  States,  particularly  in  cross-border  projects,  means  that  even 
when  planning  did  address  such  high  EU-added  value  links,  delivery  was  significantly 
delayed.  In  addition,  the  lack  of  provisions  for  common  operational  rules  and  standards 
adoption along the TEN-T for most modes, as also pointed out earlier, mean that high "hard" 
infrastructure  investments,  with  important  EU  funding  contribution  and  EU-added  value 
potential, remain significantly underused.  
While the overall situation has improved over the years, especially with regard to the delivery 
of Priority Projects, thanks to new implementation instruments, such as the TEN-T Executive 
Agency (TEN-TEA) and the European Coordinators, and improved conditions for disbursing 
support under the TEN-T programme,57 the delays in implementation of a number of projects 
reflect  the  currently  limited  capacity  at  EU  level  to  guide  implementation  of  EU  projects, 
especially for the cross-border sections. 
Generally,  The  Priority  Project  implementation  mid-term  reviews  and  the  recent  mid-term 
review made clearly apparent that there is still room for improving the impact of TEN-T co-
funding,  notably  by  focusing  on  the  particular  issue  of  cross-border  coordination,  touching 
upon  issues  of  technical  interoperability  and  operational  rules,  and  by  focusing  on  the 
problem that  the  financial perspectives do not permit to overturn the current 7-year limit of 
the perspectives. 
As regards the structural funds, EU funding has largely supported project implementation, but 
projects  implementation  lies  with  Member  States  for  projects  which  generally  need  prior 
approval  by  the  Commission.  The  current  prioritisation  of  investment  in  the  TEN-T 
Guidelines  leaves  many  investments  decisions  follow  rather  national  than  European  value 
added  aspects.  Moreover,  significant  capacity  problems  in  design,  implementation  and 
management of large infrastructure projects on all modes constrain the progress in a number 
of countries eligible under the Cohesion Fund. As the Conclusions of the 5th Cohesion Report 
state,  the  future  Cohesion  Policy  needs  to  impose  stronger  conditionalities  in  order  to 
concentrate  resources  on  European  value  added.  The  discussions  with  Member  States  show 
that they are open for stronger ex-ante conditionalities for TEN-T investments. 
2.4. 
The  Commission  has  carried  out  an  analysis  of  possible  future  developments  for  TEN-T 
policy  in  a  scenario  of  unchanged  policies,  the  so-called  baseline  scenario.  The  baseline 
scenario  is  identical  with  the  Reference  scenario  applied  for  the  Impact  Assessment 
accompanying the White Paper58. The Reference scenario59 is a projection, not a forecast, of 

How would things evolve, all things being equal?  

57  Until  2007,  the  TEN-T  programme  financial  support  was  relatively  scattered,  with  yearly  calls  for  project 
selection,  with  a  limited  funding  on  cross-border  projects.  The  2007-2013  financial  perspectives  brought  a 
significant change by allowing TEN-T co-funding rates up to 30% for cross-border projects. The multi-annual 
programme accompanying it, managed by the newly established TEN-TEA, ensured that up to 60% of the multi-
annual  budget  was  allocated  to  cross-border  projects  decisions.  The  allocations  covered  the  entire  financial 
perspectives,  so  as  to  give  more  long  term  security  to  these  projects.  The  mid-term  review  reports  (2010  and 
2011, see Annex 2) point out however that the targeted higher maximum co-funding rate of 30% for cross-border 
sections is, in practice, not higher than 21% in average. The EU Financial Framework is an additional constraint: 
as  these  difficult  cross-border  projects  often  run  across  several  MFF,  the  final  contribution  from  the  TEN-T 
budget may be as low as 5 to 10%. This left a picture of limited EU impact for a policy area with high EU added 
value.  
58 It is presented in more detail in Appendix 3 of the White Paper Impact Assessment as is the inventory of the 
policy measures included in this scenario. 

15

 
 
                                                 
developments in absence of new policies beyond those adopted by March 201060. It therefore 
reflects  both  achievements  and  deficiencies  of  the  policies  already  in  place.  This  projection 
provides a benchmark for evaluating new policy measures against developments under current 
trends and policies.61, 62.  
The time horizon for the baseline scenario developed below is twofold: 2030 and 2050. 2030 
is the target date for the achievement of the trans-European transport infrastructure framework 
as set in part 3 of this document. The 2050 horizon is required to ensure consistency between 
long-term impacts of proposed options of the trans-European infrastructure network and the 
goals of the White Paper. 
2.4.1 Specific assumptions for infrastructure developments 
In  terms  of  infrastructure  development,  the  baseline  scenario  assumes  that  the  current 
Guidelines will apply, thus continuing the development of the current Priority Projects and the 
wider  TEN-T.  Among  others,  without  prejudging  the  result  of  the  negotiations  for  the 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework,  it  is  assumed  that  the  current  financial  perspective 
approach would be pursued for the period 2014-2020, including the availability of a similar 
TEN-T budget. According to the current forecasts drawn up in cooperation with the Member 
States, the total investment cost of the 30 TEN-T Priority Projects will be realised by 2025, 
which  would  represent  an  accelerated  implementation  pace.63  The  National  transport  plans 
currently discussed between the Commission and the Member States in the Framework of the 
Open Method of Coordination have also been taken into account in this forecast. 
It is also assumed as part of the baseline scenario that, at European level, the Commission will 
continue  its  efforts  to  encourage  Member  States  to  coordinate  their  infrastructure  policies, 
with  a  view  to  exchanging  best  practices  and  identifying  obstacles  to  funding  and  solving 
cross-border constraints. In particular, the Open Method of Coordination is expected to have a 
certain impact through fostering transparency and up-to-date monitoring  of project planning 
and implementation across Europe. Moreover, the European Institutions and Member States 
will  continue  to  rely  on  the  work  of  the  European  Coordinators,64  taking  care  of  11  of  the 
most difficult Priority Projects of the TEN-T network. 
2.4.2 Expected developments 
Impacts on drivers to TEN-T fragmentation  
In the baseline scenario, by definition, the planning of the network will not change since the 
current Guidelines remain unchanged. The current dual layer with the basic layer and the 30 
Priority Projects will be pursued. In 2030, in the baseline scenario, the fragmentation of the 
infrastructure network in general is not likely to improve, despite the completion of Priority 

59  The  Reference  scenario  of  the  IA  of  White  Paper  builds  on  a  modelling  framework  including  PRIMES, 
TRANSTOOLS, PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model, TREMOVE and GEM-E3 models. For the purpose of 
this  IA,  and  more  specifically  the  TEN-Connect  studies,  the  TRANSTOOLS  model  was  considered  as  most 
appropriate  dut  to  its  infrastructure  component.  The  assumptions  used  in  the  studies  are  identical  with  the 
assumptions of the White Paper. In this way, it can be assured that the baselines of TEN-T IA and of the White 
Paper are identical, and that the impacts are estimated on the same basis in the two IAs. 
60 The cut off date for the policy measures included in the Reference scenario (March 2010) is common to both 
initiatives.  In other words, the Reference scenario does not incorporate policy measures that were adopted by the 
Commission after March 2010. In particular, the Reference scenario does not cover the Commission Decision of 
14  October  2010  re-launching  of  the  CARS  21  High  Level  Group  on  the  Competitiveness  and  Sustainable 
Growth of the Automotive Industry in the European Union. For the same reason, it does not capture the recent 
initiatives of car manufacturers as regards electric vehicles (hereinafter “EV”).  
61 For a brief presentation of the models used, see Appendix 5 of the White Paper IA 
62 In addition, the oil price projections are the result of world energy modelling with PROMETHEUS stochastic 
world energy model, developed by the National Technical University of Athens (E3MLab). 
63 Priority Projects 2010 – a detailed analysis. 
64  The  Report  on  the  “Consultation  on  the  Future  Trans-European  Network  Policy”  mentioned  that  several 
contributors highlighted the facilitation role of the European Coordinators for major cross-border projects. 

16

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Projects.  First  of  all  the  absence  of  a  revised  planning  would  mean  that  interconnectivity 
issues across borders as well as multimodality aspects would remain inadequately addressed. 
The same would be the case of connections with the neighbouring countries. 
Second,  as  far  as  the  interoperability  of  networks  is  concerned,  a  certain  progress  will  be 
achieved,  particularly  in  the  interoperability  of  traffic  management  systems  (ERTMS,  ITS, 
RIS, SESAR). But overall, the impact on TEN-T efficiency would be too little, too late.  
As an example, the introduction of ERTMS on the European interoperable network provides 
an important indicator of progress towards interoperability. Currently, around 4000 kilometres 
of lines for commercial services are in service in ten Member States65, in particular high speed 
lines,  and  by  the  end  of  2015,  and  2020,  this  should  grow  to  11  500  km  and  23  000, 
respectively.66 In addition, a binding European Deployment Plan (EDP), adopted on 22 July 
2009, aims at a swift and coordinated deployment by 2015 of ERTMS on 6 Corridors.67  
Nevertheless, even if the above targets are reached by 2020, the interoperable section of the 
TEN-T  will  not  constitute  an  interoperable  European-wide  network  (see  map  below).68  The 
six  corridors  of  the  EDP  represent  only  6  %  of  the  Trans-European  Network  track  length, 
even though they do carry 20% of the rail freight traffic. Moreover, as European Coordinator 
K.  Vinck  noted,  "from  an  implementation  point  of  view,  delays  are  noticed  on  nearly  all 
corridors"69.  

Figure 3:  ERTMS Corridors 
Source: UIC 

65 From the Annual Activity Report of Coordinator Karel Vinck on ERTMS, Brussels, 20 July 2010 
66 According to the figures in the ERTMS contracts signed recently and the national deployment plans submitted 
by Member States. 
67 These 6 Corridors fit in the 9 freight Corridors under Regulation COM(2007) 608 of the rail freight corridors. 
68  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  accompanying  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
Council  and  the  European  Parliament  Progress  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Railway  Safety  Directive 
(Directive  2004/49/EC)  and  of  the  Railway  Interoperability  Directives  (Directives  96/48/EC  and  2001/16/EC) 
{COM(2009) 464 final} 
69 Annual Activity Report of Coordinator Karel Vinck on ERTMS, Brussels, 20 July 2010 

17

 
 
 
                                                 
As regards operational rules, much progress is not to be expected, since the different barriers 
to interoperability (administrative requirements, cross acceptance of vehicles, certification of 
vehicles operators, technical and commercial controls) would not be tackled together. Without 
increased  top-down  coordination  between  Member  States,  the  situation  is  not  likely  to 
improve,  despite  the  involvement  of  the  European  Coordinators  and  the  use  of  the  Open-
Method  of  Coordination70.  As  indicated  in  the  common  report  of  the  Coordinators71, 
interoperability  issues  need  to  be  addressed  in  common  and  alongside  the  planning  and 
financial issues. In the absence of further legal and political commitments, it is unlikely that 
large  and  complex  cross-border  projects  will  be  implemented  and  the  capacity  of  current 
instruments  to  achieve  a  better  conditionality  of  EU  funding  will  remain  limited.  The  co-
funding within the TEN-T budget is likely to be too limited to kick off works on major cross-
border  sections  or  important  bottlenecks  with  cross-border  effects.  Continuing  with  the 
current TEN-T policy approach would still leave key aspects of strategic European interest – 
i.e. solving bottlenecks and filling in missing links, developing multimodal connecting points 
– inadequately addressed. Some improvements could be achieved by means of the continuous 
sustained efforts of the European Coordinators, but their intervention will still address mainly 
the problem, and not its causes. 
Impacts of TEN-T fragmentation 
In  the  baseline  scenario,  with  the  continuation  of  the  current  Guidelines  and  current 
implementation,  the  free  movement  of  goods  will  remain  constrained  by  the  low  level  of 
infrastructural  interconnectivity  between  the  European  markets,  especially  as  concerns  the 
peripheral areas of Europe.72 The current market segmentation of the Internal Market will thus 
endure, limiting the choice for consumers and the size of market for enterprises, especially for 
small businesses.  

Figure 4: Change in accessibility between 2005 and 203073 

70 See chapter 7 
71 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/european_coordinators/european_coordinators_en.htm  
72 See footnote 53 
73 See Impact Assessment White Paper, annex 3. 

18

 
 
  
                                                 
In addition, the expected rise in fuel costs and congestion levels by 2030 will lead to further 
divergence  in  accessibility  at  regional  level.  Peripheral  areas  with  a  high  share  of  road 
transport are expected to worsen their situation, facing higher average transport cost increases 
than  central  areas.  Moreover,  with  economic  activity  continuing  to  demonstrate  signs  of 
concentration  in  central  EU  regions,  transport  costs  may  hamper  economic  growth  and  job 
creation in peripheral regions.74  
In the baseline scenario, the poor connection with neighbouring and 3rd countries and the lack 
of European-wide corridors providing easier access to EU markets for imports and an easier 
exporting route for exports, especially towards Eastern Neighbours, will limit the capacity for 
imports and exports with 3rd countries. The lack of adequate hinterland connections for major 
EU  ports  will  create  similar  issues,  since  they  would  not  prove  an  attractive/cost  efficient 
point of (physical) access into the EU market. 
It can be deducted from the above that the baseline scenario would have little if any positive 
impact on EU competitiveness. Indeed, its impact could be negative, due to the constraints on 
the  free  movement  of  goods,  accessibility  (see  map  above)  and  trade  with  third  countries 
resulting  from  the  lack  of  infrastructure.  Moreover,  the  development  of  intelligent  transport 
systems and management systems will be limited to the development foreseen in the current 
legislation (see above). 
Impact on the transport system 
In the baseline scenario, the Transport system will continue to be made of modes mostly co-
existing apart from each other, with modal share following the current trends. Therefore, the 
potential  efficiency  gains  from  co-modality75  would  be  limited  to  the  initiatives  already  in 
place. Road transport, for which most of the European-wide network is realised, will continue 
to grow but will be hampered by congestion problems around major nodes. Though its share 
will be somewhat diminished, road will remain the main long distance transport mode. With 
transport prices continuing  to rise in line with rising  oil prices, the overall efficiency of the 
transport  system  is  therefore  likely  to  further  decline  as  highlighted  in  the  2011  Transport 
White  Paper.  Rail  transport  efficiency  would  remain  low  due  to  continuing  physical 
fragmentation  and  interoperability  problems  of  the  European  network.  Maritime  transport 
would  be  affected  by  the  lack  of  connection  between  ports  and  the  other  modes  (hinterland 
connections).  

Total transport activity is expected to continue to grow in line with economic activity. Total 
passenger  transport  activity  would  increase  by  51%  between  2005  and  2050  while  freight 
transport activity by 82%.76 The growth will not however be distributed proportionally among 
transport modes, nor across EU Member States. 
In terms of modal split, the various modes are in general expected to maintain their relative 
importance at EU level. Passenger cars are expected to remain the largest mode, with almost 
70%  of  total  passenger  activity,  though  this  would  represent  a  decrease  of  3%  compared  to 
2005 levels. Air, on the contrary is expected to grow by 3.4%, reaching 11.8% of total activity 
and  consolidating  its  position  as  the  second  most  important  passenger  mode  (in  terms  of 

74  At present,  the  Iberian  Peninsula  is  connected  by  a  new  rail  link  to  the  rest of  the  EU network  in  the  same 
gauge. This link was realised with TEN-T support and helped in its implementation by the European Coordinator 
appointed. Since the recent opening of this line, a frequent shuttle between Barcelona and Lyon is operational. 
These efforts are being continued to strengthen the rail links on both sides of the Pyrenees, for both freight and 
passenger transport. Similar efforts are being made for connecting the Baltic (Rail Baltica) and Bulgaria / Greece 
(via Priority Project 22). 
75  Co-modality  refers  to  a  "use  of  different  modes  on  their  own  and  in  combination"  in  the  aim  to  obtain  "an 
optimal and sustainable utilization of resources". 
76 This increase corresponds to an average annual increase of 1.2%, a rate that is slower than the assumed 1.7% 
annual  increase  of  GDP.  Passenger  transport  activity  includes  international  aviation,  while  freight  transport 
activity also includes international maritime. 

19

 
 
                                                 
passenger*kilometres). Railways are expected to gain 0.2% and reach 6.3% of total passenger 
transport  volume.  As  regards  freight,  total  transport  volumes  are  expected  to  grow  by  42%, 
with road and maritime transport growing at comparable rates. Rail is expected to grow faster 
(by almost 50%), aided by an expected slower increase in fuel costs and the positive impacts 
of the opening of the rail markets.  
The  geographic  distribution  of  transport  growth  is  not  uniform.  In  absolute  terms,  road 
transport in EU-15 will attract most of the growth in demand. EU-10 and EU-2 will increase 
their transport volumes much faster though in relative terms, by 76% and 96% respectively. 
Growth is expected to be high for all modes in these member states, with road being the one 
growing fastest. Inland waterways traffic, especially in the Danube, is also expected to grow 
by more than 80%. 

Source: Impact Assessment Report accompanying the White Paper on Transport (2011) 
In the baseline scenario, road traffic congestion, expressed as congested versus total driving 
time,  is  to  increase,  according  to  the  White  Paper  Impact  Assessment.  Congestion  costs  are 
projected  to  increase  by  about  50%  by  2050,  to  nearly  200  bn  €  annually.  The  lack  of  new 
planned infrastructure connecting the peripheral areas would worsen this situation, as would 
the  limited  development  of  intelligent  transport  systems  and  interoperability,  especially  for 
rail.  Cooperation  among  Member  States  (and  sometimes  also  between  Member  States  and 
local  authorities)  would  continue  to  remain  limited,  thus  failing  to  leverage  the  potential  of 
synergic efforts at EU level to address major bottlenecks and inadequate or inexistent cross-
border sections and, therefore, to reduce congestion. 

Figure 5: Congestion by 2030 in reference scenario 
Source: Impact Assessment to the Transport White Paper, Annex 3 

In the baseline scenario, the administrative burden on transport operators will remain the same 
as far as the implementation of the TEN-T Guidelines is concerned. Still, the administrative 

20

 
 
 
burden  will  be  reduced  in  line  with  the  existing  legislation  for  rail  freight,77  reporting 
formalities for ships or the Single European sky 
Impact on the environment 
According  to  projections  presented  in  the  White  Paper  Impact  Assessment  Report,  fuel 
consumption (Mtoe) and emission of CO2 (Mio tonnes) are expected to increase by 15 % in 
2020  (EU-25)  in  the  baseline  scenario.  Oil  products  would  still  represent  89%  of  the  EU 
transport sector needs in 2050.78  
By  implementing  existing  legislation,  NOx  emissions  and  particulate  matter  would  drop 
however by about 40% and 50%, respectively, by 2030 and roughly stabilise afterwards. 79 As 
a  result,  external  costs  related  to  air  pollutants  would  decrease  by  60%  by  2050.  These 
projections are also supported by TENconnect II study results  
The  above  data,  coupled  with  that  concerning  the  efficiency  of  the  transport  system, 
congestion and innovation presented earlier,  indicate that the baseline scenario would have a 
negative  impact  on  energy  use  on  both  a  2030  and  2050  time  horizon,  due  to  its  negative 
impacts  with  regard  to  the  overall  efficiency  of  the  transport  system,  including  reducing 
congestion, encouraging modal shift and promoting innovative technologies development and 
adoption.   
The  impact  on  land-use  change  would  be  very  limited  as  far  as  TEN-T  infrastructure  is 
concerned,  since  no  further  planning  would  be  made  and  only  the  already  planned 
infrastructure  may  be  built.  However,  it  would  not  prevent  Member  States  from  building 
projects of their own interest. It can be concluded that, if continuing with the current policy 
approach,  the  identified  problem  of  infrastructure  network  fragmentation,  in  a  context  of 
expected  increases  in  transport  activities,  would  lead  to  increasingly  negative  economic, 
social and environmental impacts over time. With no policy change, the EU will not have the 
necessary infrastructure for addressing the goals inscribed in the Treaty and the priorities set 
out in the White Paper. 
Sensitivity analysis 
Considering  the  high  degree  of  uncertainty  surrounding  projections  over  such  a  long  time 
horizon, especially for such a complex system as transport network, an evaluation is provided 
below for the possible impact of external factors on the assumptions underlying the baseline 
scenario.  
First,  the  high  degree  of  uncertainty  regarding  budgetary  constraints  at  the  level  of  the 
Member  States  and  the  unknown  factors  concerning  the  next  EU  multi-annual  financial 
framework  and  the  TEN  Financial  Regulations  needs  to  be  taken  into  consideration80.  The 
development  of  hard  and  soft  infrastructure,  being  extremely  costly,  very  much  depends  on 
the  public  and  private  resources  available.  The  situation  described  above  in  the  baseline 
Scenario is rather an optimistic scenario (Figure 1 of this document, from the 2010 Progress 
Report  illustrates  the  existing  delays  on  many  sections  of  the  Priority  Projects)  in  terms  of 
infrastructure  development  since  it  considers  that  the  EU  and  the  Member  States  will  have 
sufficient  resources  available  to  complete  the  30  Priority  Projects  by  2025.  However,  if 
investments in transport infrastructure are seen as a way out the crisis81, the development of 
the TEN-T could be accelerated further. 

77 Regulation 913/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a European rail network for 
competitive freight 
78 Ibid 
79 According to the Impact assessment of the White Paper, p 74 
80 These questions are developed further in part 5.6.2 of this document. 
81  For  instance  with  a  similar  approach  as  for  the  European  Energy  Programme  for  Recovery,  with  a 
prioritisation of investments on key energy and Internet broadband infrastructure projects. 

21

 
 
                                                 
Does the Union have the right to act? 

2.5. 
Articles  170  –  171  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  Union  define  the  objectives  and 
scope of the TEN-T policy. Article 170 specifies that  “To help achieve the objectives referred 
to  in  Articles  26  [the  completion  of  the  internal  market]  and  174  [economic,  social  and 
territorial cohesion] and to enable citizens of the Union, economic operators and regional and 
local communities to derive full benefit from setting-up of an area without internal frontiers, 
the Union shall contribute to the establishment and development of trans-European networks 
in the areas of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures.” It also specifies that 
"action  by  the  Union  shall  aim  at  promoting  the  interconnection  and  interoperability  of 
national networks as well as access to such networks."  
Article 171 sets the obligation that “the Union shall establish a series of Guidelines covering 
the  objectives,  priorities  and  broad  lines  of  measures  envisaged  in  the  sphere  of  trans-
European networks; these Guidelines shall identify projects of common interest”. 
Article  172  sets  the  Framework  for  the  application  of  the  principle  of  subsidiarity,  by 
stipulating that ''Guidelines and projects of common interest which relate to the territory of a 
Member State shall require the approval of the Member State concerned.'' Moreover, Member 
States, as well as the regional or local authorities, bear the lion share of the financing related 
to the construction, maintenance and management of infrastructure. The need for coordination 
between the Union establishing the Guidelines and the Member States implementing it has led 
to  the  setting  up  of  the  TEN-T  Guidelines  Committee, as stipulated in the Article 21 of the 
current  Guidelines.  This  Committee  has  been  involved  at  every  stage  of  the  revision  of  the 
TEN-T Guidelines. 
In areas which do not fall within EU exclusive competence, EU action has to be justified. In 
the present case, it is therefore necessary that the subsidiarity principle set out in Article 5 (3) 
of the Treaty on the European Union is respected. This involves assessing two aspects. 
Necessity test 
Firstly,  it  is  important  to  be  sure  that  the  objectives  of  the  proposed  action  could  not  be 
achieved  sufficiently  by  Member  States  in  the  framework  of  their  national  constitutional 
system, the so-called necessity test. Given the fact that the overall concept is to create an EU-
wide  integrated  transport  network,  the  Member  States  per  se  are  not  able  to  meet  these 
challenges individually for the following reasons: 
As pointed out in the problem definition, Member States primarily consider transport flows of 
national  importance  when  planning  future  infrastructure.  Infrastructure  planning  to  cater  for 
long  distance  transport  flows  of  European  importance  is,  conversely  not  sufficiently 
considered by Member States. For the same reason, even when planning is cross border, they 
tend to allocate less importance and resources to the building of the cross border sections, as 
has  been  the  experience  with  the  current  Priority  Projects82.  In  some  cases,  the  countries  of 
both  sides  of  a  border  are  interested  in  the  corresponding  project  to  a  different  extent83. 
Regarding  implementation,  the  lack  of  coordination  between  Member  States  leads  to  the 
development  of  different  standards  and  operational  rules  hindering  the  coherence  of  the 
functioning of the TEN-T network and the Internal Market as a whole84. 

82 Priority Project Progress report 2010 
83 In some cases the more central states are less interested in the project than the more peripheral ones. While the 
internal profitability of a project is the same on both sides of the border, there might be considerable differences 
in  its  socio-economic  value:  for  the  more  peripheral  country,  the  project  would  improve  its  accessibility  and 
therefore  may  be  very  important;  however  for  the  more  central  country  it  would  have  little  impact  on  its 
accessibility and therefore not have the same importance. 
84 See Position Paper of the European Transport Coordinators on the Future of TEN-T Policy, 6 October 2009 

22

 
 
                                                 
Therefore, the coordinated development – both in terms of planning and implementation – of 
TEN-T  infrastructure  to  support  long  distance  transport  flows  of  European  interest  and 
economic, social and territorial cohesion needs to be undertaken at Union level.  
The proposed policy options for renewed TEN-T Guidelines will focus on addressing trans-
national  aspects  that  cannot  be  satisfactorily  taken  into  account  by  Member  States,  such  as 
filling  the  missing  links  that  could  facilitate  cross-border  transport,  the  interoperability  of 
equipment  and  establishing  an  internal  market  for  Intelligent  Transport  Systems  (ITS)  and 
services. EU coordination would have thus also a clear added value with respect to setting of 
standards  and  increasing  the  quality  of  services  as  well  as  the  management  of  cross-border 
infrastructure links and international traffic flows. 
Test of EU added value 
Secondly, it has to be considered whether and how the objectives could be better achieved by 
action on the part of the EU, the so-called “test of European added value”. The rationale for a 
European action in the field of TEN-T stems from the trans-national nature of the identified 
problem. However, it has to take into account that a ‘one size fits all’ approach would not be 
an  adequate  response.  Therefore,  an  action  at  EU  level  coupled  with  actions  at  all 
administrative levels would yield significant added value. 
For these reasons, the policy objectives set out in section 3 of the present Impact Assessment 
report cannot be sufficiently achieved by actions of the Member States alone, but can rather, 
by  reason  or  scale  of  the  proposed  action,  be  better  achieved  with  high  involvement  of  the 
EU. 

3. 

POLICY OBJECTIVES 

Section  2  has  shown  that  the  TEN-T  today  is  not  sufficiently  integrated  to  the  extent  of 
supporting  the  major  transformation  towards  a  competitive  and  resource  efficient  transport 
system by 2050. More specifically, it has been explained that the current fragmentation of the 
TEN-T network at all levels is a major obstacle to a smooth and resource efficient functioning 
of the internal market and to economic, social and territorial cohesion. 
This section defines the general, specific and operational objectives of the proposed initiative, 
discusses possible trade-offs and synergies between objectives and verifies their consistency 
with other EU horizontal objectives. 
3.1. 
Policy Objectives 
3.1.1 General Objectives 
The overall aim of this initiative is to provide by 2030 for the establishment of a complete and 
integrated  TEN-T  that  would  maximise  the  value  added  for  Europe  of  the  network.  This 
optimal  network  would  cover  and  link  all  EU  Member  States  in  an  intermodal  and 
interoperable  manner.  This  network  would  also  provide  links  to  neighbouring  and  third 
countries, as well as all transport modes and systems that would support the move towards a 
competitive and resource-efficient transport system by 2050. 
This aim is consistent with the 'Inclusion Growth' initiative of Europe 2020, the Single Market 
Act and with the general goal of the TEN-T policy; to improve the competitiveness of the EU 
economy as a whole, to support the completion of the internal market, and to contribute to a 
balanced territorial development of the Union.  
In addition, as stipulated in the Europe 2020 Strategy, and further detailed in the White Paper, 
the  TEN-T  shall  contribute  to  the  'Sustainable  Growth'  initiative,  and  in  particular  the 
'Resource  Efficiency'  flagship,  by  facilitating  a  reduction  of  GHG  emissions  by  60%  for 

23

 
 
transport.  It  will  also  be  in  line  with  the  renewed  Sustainable  Development  Strategy85  by 
contributing to more sustainable mobility.86 
3.1.2 Specific Objectives 
The general objective of establishing a complete and integrated TEN-T that would maximise 
the value added for Europe of the network can be translated into more specific goals. Each of 
these 4 specific objectives intends to address one of the 4 drivers leading to the problem of 
fragmentation. 
The  first  specific  objective  shall  enhance  the  EU  planning  that  will  enable  to  define  the 
optimal network as defined above and to identify "the missing links" in the current TEN-T: 

•  Define  a  coherent  &  transparent  approach  to  maximise  the  EU  added  value  of  the 
TEN-T,  addressing  aspects  of  network  fragmentation  linked  to  missing  links, 
multimodality, and adequate connections to neighbouring and 3rd countries, as well as 
ensure adequate geographical coverage.  

The  next  three  specific  objectives  shall  design  a  sound  governance  structure  to  secure  the 
implementation  of  the  optimal  network  and  of  the  "missing  links"  identified.  This 
governance structure would foster the implementation of European standards for management 
systems and push for the development of the harmonisation of operational rules and enhance 
MS cooperation. This will ensure that EU funds are allocated to the identified "missing links" 
and  to  the  implementation  efforts  of  these  missing  links.  These  specific  objectives  for 
implementation are:  

•  Foster the implementation of European standards for management systems and push 
for  the  development  of  harmonised  operational  rules  on  the  TEN-T  projects  of 
common  interest.  This  objective  however  does  not  aim  at  imposing  new  specific 
standards and rules, but rather at ensuring the effective adoption and implementation 
of  common  European  standards  already  developed,  both  in  the  field  of  traffic 
management  and  information  systems87  and  in  the  field  of  operational  rules  and 
technical specifications of physical infrastructure.88  

•  Enhance  Member  States  cooperation  in  order  to  coordinate  investments,  timing, 
choice of routes, environmental and cost-benefit assessments for projects of common 
interest.  

•  Ensure that the optimal network configuration is a key element in the allocation of EU 
funding enabling the focus on cross-border sections, missing-links and bottlenecks. 

85 European Council, June 2006 
86  This  goal  is  supported  by  some  environmental  organisations  which  want  to  focus  on  the  reduction  of 
unsustainable  emissions,  costly  congestion  and  less  road  accidents  for  a  more  energy  efficient  and  cleaner 
transport as shown in the Report on the “Consultation on the Future Trans-European Network Policy”. 
87 ERTMS, SESAR etc., see the list detailed in the "operational objectives" sub-section.  
88 Such as train length, axel weight and the like.  

24

 
 
                                                 
Table 2: Mapping problem, drivers and objectives 

Problem 

General objective 

Fragmentation of TEN-T network 

Drivers to the problem 

Planning 
Dr.1  Lack of a genuine European design in the 
spatial configuration of the network 

Implementation 
Dr.2 

Insufficient implementation of common 
standards and adoption of common rules 
for the interoperability of networks 
within the TEN-T 

Establish  a  complete  and  integrated  TEN-T 
network  that  would  maximise  the  value 
added for Europe of a network 
Specific objectives 

Planning 

SO1  Define a coherent & transparent approach to 

maximise the EU added value of the TEN-T network 
Implementation 

SO2  Foster the implementation of European standards for 
management systems and push for the development 
of the harmonisation of operational rules on the TEN-
T project of common interest. 

Dr.3  Limited cooperation among Member 

SO3  Enhance Member States cooperation in order to 

States in project implementation 

coordinate investments, timing, choice of the routes, 
environmental and cost-benefit assessments for 
projects of common interest 

Dr.4  Lack of sufficient conditionality of TEN-

SO4  Ensure that the optimal network configuration is a 

T funding instruments 

key element in the allocation of EU funding allowing 
to focus on cross-border sections, missing-links and 
bottlenecks 

3.1.3 Operational objectives 
In  addition,  the  specific  objectives  have  been  further  detailed  in  the  following  operational 
objectives, with two operational objectives for each of the specific objectives. 
The methodology to define the network configuration should allow to: 

•  connect  all  main  airports  and  seaports  to  other  modes,  especially  (High-Speed) 

railways and inland waterway systems by 205089; 

•  and to shift 30% of road freight over 300 km to other modes such as rail or waterborne 

transport by 2030, and more than 50% by 2050.90 

The implementation of European standards and adoption of common rules should be realised 
by: 

•  ensuring  by  2030  the  deployment  of  European  transport  management  systems 
(ERTMS, SESAR, ITS, RIS, SSN and LRIT) on the projects of common interest9192 
•  and  ensuring  the  commitments  of  Member  States  to  agree  on  common  operational 

rules in order have fully functional projects of common interest by 2030. 

•  The enhancement of Member States cooperation will be realised by: 
•  Obtaining binding commitments by Member States for the implementation of essential 

cross-border projects with a binding timetable;  

•  and  obtaining  binding  commitments  by  Member  States  for  the  implementation  of 

bottlenecks and missing-links on their territory that have cross-border effects. 

89 This is also goal 6 of the Transport White Paper 
90 This is also goal 3 of the Transport White Paper 
91 This is in line with goal 7 of the Transport White Paper. 
92  As  noted  in  The  Report  on  the  “Consultation  on  the  Future  Trans-European  Network  Policy”,  stakeholders 
agree  that  ITS  and  ICT  could  be  a  good  supplement  to  classical  infrastructure  investment,  to  boost  energy 
efficiency and environmental sustainability. 

25

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The optimal network configuration shall allow: 

•  ensuring  priority 

for  cross-border  projects,  bottlenecks  and  missing-links, 

interoperability and intermodality; 

•  and  ensuring  conditionality  of  EU  funding  upon  compliance  with  EU  environmental 

legislation (SEA, EIA & Natura 2000).93 
Possible trade offs and synergies between the objectives 

3.2. 
The overall goal in developing the TEN-T, and of the current revision process, is to maximise 
EU added value of the TEN-T network. Efficiency, from the point of view of the EU, could 
be seen as fulfilment of the whole set of objectives laid down in the Treaty in a balanced way, 
against  the  corresponding  costs  and  efforts.  Achieving  a  sound  balance  between  traffic 
demand  in  central  regions  and  accessibility  in  peripheral  ones  is  therefore  in  this  context, 
efficient. 
The approach to planning the network configuration, as set out in the first specific objective, 
will  be  aimed  at  identifying  the  optimal  network  configuration  from  an  EU-added  value 
perspective. This methodology shall therefore find the right balance between a large coverage 
of the Union by the network and the need to take into account the main traffic flows, in order 
to solve the potential conflict between territorial cohesion and economic competitiveness. A 
geographical approach for strategic network planning does not necessarily contradict a purely 
traffic driven/competitiveness approach, as the geographical distribution of main nodes (major 
cities and economic centres) is the main driver of major long-distance traffic flows.  
As  set  out  in  the  fourth  specific  objective,  an  optimal  network  configuration  shall  be  a  key 
element in optimising the conditionality for the use of EU funds. As such, there should be no 
trade  off  between  a  network  configuration  that  adequately  covers  the  entire  territory  of  the 
Union and an efficient allocation of EU funding. On the contrary, ensuring that EU funds are 
allocated  only  to  projects  aimed  to  develop  parts  of  the  optimised  network  configuration, 
coupled  with  stronger  measures  as  concerns  implementation  requirements  (as  ensured  by 
specific objectives 2, 3 and 4), will ensure that EU funds are allocated primarily to projects 
that  ensure  a  high  EU-added  value.  Moreover,  the  approach  to  define  and  implement  the 
network  shall  be  flexible,  based  on  traffic  needs:  a  four-line  motorway,  multi-modal 
connections or a high-speed rail line will not be needed on each connection of the network. 
Therefore,  costs  shall  be  in  line  with  the  needs,  allowing  for  the  maximisation  of  the  EU 
added value by a smart approach for the allocation of EU funds.  
Another  possible  trade  off  would  be  between  the  objectives  of  "Inclusive  Growth"  and 
"Sustainable Growth". Building new infrastructure can lead to an increase in traffic and so to 
increased  emissions  of  pollutants  and  greenhouse  gasses.  The  TEN-T  policy  aims  at 
addressing  this  trade  off  first  of  all  by  enhancing  modal  shift,  as  set  out  in  the  1st  and  2nd 
operational  objectives.  Nevertheless,  infrastructure  planning  measures  alone  would  not  be 
sufficient. They would need to be combined with a strong implementation approach and other 
transport policy measures (such as pricing, cleaner technologies …) in order to make transport 
more efficient and cleaner. Some of these measures are included in the operational objectives 
of the TEN-T Guidelines and some of them are part of the general transport policy, as set out 
in  the  Transport  White  Paper.  In  this  way,  transport  infrastructure  planning  and 
implementation  can  serve  both  general  objectives  of  inclusive  and  sustainable  growth  by 
being a main implementation tool of multiple initiatives of transport policy. 

93  The  Report  on  the  “Consultation  on  the  Future  Trans-European  Network  Policy”  states  that  “EU  funding 
should be made fully conditional upon maximum effort to avoid areas of high nature and biodiversity value.” 

26

 
 
 
                                                 
POLICY OPTIONS FOR TEN-T DEVELOPMENT  

4. 
This  section  will  explore  alternative  policy  options  aimed  at  establishing  a  complete  and 
integrated TEN-T network by 2030 as described in section 3 above.  

4.1. 

Two-pronged process leading to identification of policy options 

As described in the first section of this report, the input of the process of internal and external 
consultation, together with the findings of external studies and assessments, has allowed the 
Commission  to  identify  more  precisely  the  problem  to  be  solved,  the  four  main  underlying 
drivers and the corresponding fields for action, namely the conceptual planning and the means 
for  implementation  as  explained  in  part  2.4  above,  and  possible  actions  that  would  be 
appropriate to address those issues. On this  basis, the two-pronged process described below 
was  applied  for  generating  a  range  of  possible  policy  options  that  could  address  the  drivers 
identified  earlier  as  leading  to  TEN-T's  current  fragmentation  and  help  thus  achieve  the 
objectives set out in section 3 of this report.  
4.1.1. Identification of generic scenarios for planning and implementation 
The Commission has first identified a range of possible generic policy scenarios in each field 
for action (planning and implementation). The scenarios are presented in Table 3 below. 
Coherence with the overall EU Treaty objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion, 
with  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  its  main  priorities,  with  the  priorities  set  in  the  White 
Paper  for  transport  and  the  budgetary  principles  set  out  in  the  EU  Budget  Review 
Communication (as outlined in part 2.1 of this report), has provided the main conceptual grid 
that guided the Commission in considering the generic scenarios in the first place. 
Five  "planning  scenarios"  have  been  envisaged:  business-as-usual,  guidelines  discarded, 
selection  of  new  PPs  (or  Essen),  Core  Network  and  dense  comprehensive  network.  The 
"planning scenarios" have been developed starting from the three policy options proposed for 
consideration in the first stage of the public consultation (Green Paper, February 2009), and 
taking  into  consideration  the  subsequent  stakeholders'  input.94  The  possible  planning 
scenarios  submitted  to  public  consultation  in  February  2009  included  one  scenario,  namely 
"Priority  Projects"  only,  which  was  later  not  retained  as  part  of  the  planning  scenarios 
considered  for  the  present  IA.  A  majority  of  stakeholders  considered  this  scenario  as 
forfeiting  the Treaty  objectives of ensuring overall internal market accessibility and support 
for economic,  social  and territorial cohesion, as it diverts EU focus and funding away from 
the development of the overall/comprehensive TEN-T. The lack of coherence of this possible 
planning scenario with the overall Treaty objectives is therefore the reason why this scenario 
has not been eventually retained among the planning scenarios considered for policy options 
development.95, 
Five  "implementation  scenarios"  (i.e.  addressing  issues  such  as  standards  allowing 
interoperability, cooperation among Member States and conditionality of funding) have been 
elaborated:  business-as-usual,  guidelines  discarded,  regulatory  approach  only,  reinforced 
coordination  and  EU  full  operational  management.96  These  alternative  "implementation 

94  The  Report  on  the  “Consultation  on  the  Future  Trans-European  Network  Policy”  mentioned  while  most 
Member  States  clearly  point out  that planning  and  implementation has to be done  by them,  some  associations 
and European organisations preferred a centralised approach led by the EU level. 
95 It was subsequently substituted with a "dense comprehensive network" planning approach that, intuitively, was 
deemed to better ensure such coherence.  
96 These scenarios were developed following the recommendations of the expert groups set up to develop further 
the  TEN-T  policy  revision  options  following  the  input  of  the  stakeholders  during  the  February  –  April  2009 
public  consultation process. The recommendations of  "Expert group  3  –  intelligent  transport  systems  and new 
technologies within the framework of the TEN-T", "Expert group 5 – TEN-T financing" and "Expert group 6 – 
legal issues and non-financial instruments for TEN-T implementation", in particular, made apparent the need for 
coordinated intervention also at TEN-T implementation level.  

27

 
 
                                                 
scenarios" had not been distinctly considered in the first stage of public consultation. Rather, 
the need for tackling, at the same time, both planning and implementation aspects of the TEN-
T policy became apparent following the public consultation process.  

28

 
 
 
Name 
A1 - Business as 
usual 

A2 - Guidelines 
discarded 

A3 - Selection of 
new PPs (or 
Essen 2) 

A4 - Core 
Network 

- 
- 

Scenarios envisaged in the field of planning 

Content 
Same framework as in baseline, including the currently designated 30 PPs; 

- 
-  No identification of further PPs. 
-  No EU guidance towards identification of projects of common interest following the end of the current MFF; 
-  No “European interest” priority status as well as any eventual further EU support towards covering financial needs for current PPs. 
- 

Identification of new priority projects following the current, primarily bottom-up approach to project selection, as endorsed by the Essen European 
Council in 1994; 
Largely unchanged process with respect to wider TEN-T identification and PP selection; 

- 
-  Upgrade of the wider TEN-T (based on projects completed and/or abandoned by Member States); 
- 

Revision  of  criteria  for  Priority  Project  identification  to  better  specify  the  elements  that  would  constitute  the  European  added-value  of  priority 
projects97. 
Enhanced top-down and multi-modal approach to TEN-T planning; 
Two planning layers: basic layer (comprehensive network resulting from an updating and adjustment of the current wider TEN-T) and top layer 
(core network, overlaying the comprehensive network and constituted of the EU strategically most important parts of the TEN-T); 

-  Definition of methodologies for transparently and coherently identifying the network components for both layers across the territory of all Member 

- 

States, and insuring their multi-modality; 
Continued  consultation  throughout  the  process  of  application  of  the  methodology,  ensuring  ownership  of  the  process  (and  results)  of  TEN-T 
configuration identification by the Member States. 

Same as in A4, but criteria and standards that in A4 would be applied to entire/comprehensive TEN-T network 

A5 – Dense TEN-
T network  

Table 3a: Planning scenarios 

97 I.e., as identified based on current, accumulated, experience: mainly cross-border links, multimodal connecting links, links alleviating bottlenecks, links to neighbouring and 
third countries. 

29 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Name 
B1 – Business-as-usual 

B2 – Guidelines discarded 
B3 – Regulatory approach only 

B4 – Reinforced coordination 

B5 – EU full operational 
management (through a 
Regulation) 

Scenarios envisaged in the field of implementation 

Content 

Same as in baseline, including the current implementation instruments98; 
Continuation of initiatives currently under way with regard to interoperability standards99 and TEN-T projects. 

- 
- 
-  No TEN-T implementation support activities foreseen or financed at the end of the current MFF at EU level. 
-  Discontinuation  of  current  coordination  instruments,  limiting  EU  action  to  a  TEN-T  Regulation  that  will  strictly  define  the 

- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

priority projects/network map to be funded, the interoperability standards to be applied and the timetables for completion; 
Funding strictly conditional upon all criteria and standards being met. 
Reinforced coordination  at PP level or at Corridor level100101; 
Coordinated approach ensured by individual PPs or Corridor Decisions at PP/Corridor level in the undertaking of infrastructural 
investments,  the  management  of  PP/corridor  capacity,  the  deployment  of  interoperability  standards  and  traffic  management 
systems; the Decisions will place the overall management authority under the aegis of the European/Corridor Coordinators, while 
the TEN-T EA will continue in its role of support towards project preparation and implementation. 
Complete centralised management of the planned network via the EU agencies102 under the coordination of the Commission and 
the European Coordinators; 
EU  level  responsibilities  including  management  of  project  proposal  development  and  accompanying  cost-benefit  analyses  and 
environmental  impact  assessments,  management  of  funding  and  implementation  of  all  TEN-T  projects,  establishment  and 
deployment of interoperability standards and systems across the network. 

Table 3b: Implementation scenarios 

98 Both the financial (TEN-T Programme and Cohesion Fund and EIB loans and grants) and the coordination (TEN-T EA, European Coordinators, TENtec) instruments. 
99 Such as the implementation of the ERTMS corridors, the ITS Directives, the Single European Sky etc.  
100 At PP level, in the case of A1 and A3 planning scenarios, and at corridor level (or "corridor approach") if combined with a network approach to TEN-T planning, as in the case 
of A4 and A5 scenarios.  
101  As  noted  in  the  Report  on  the  “Consultation  on  the  Future  Trans-European  Network  Policy”,  the  corridor  approach  including  high-speed  rail,  ERTMS,  green  and  freight 
corridors into the Core Network and a joint management involving infrastructure managers is seen as key for the development of TEN-T by some contributors. 
102 ERA, EASA, TEN-T EA 

30

 
 
 
                                                 
4.1.2. Identification of possible policy options 
As pointed out earlier, the consultation process made apparent that only intervention covering 
both fields (planning and implementation) would be capable of tackling at the same time and 
in  a  satisfactory  way  all  the  various  problem  drivers  and  addressing  all  the  specific  policy 
objectives. 
In light of this, the interaction between each of the five scenario envisaged for action at the 
level  of  planning  with  each  of  the  five  scenario  envisaged  for  action  at  the  level  of 
implementation (including the respective planning and implementation scenarios pertaining to 
the  baseline)  has  been  considered  within  alternative  policy  options.      25  (theoretically) 
possible  alternative  policy  options,  constituting  potentially  viable  policy  alternatives  for 
achieving the objectives identified in section 3 above, were thus initially generated. 
Nevertheless,  for  reasons  of  compatibility  between  scenarios,  five  theoretical  combinations 
involving the A2/"Guidelines discarded" scenario were discarded from the beginning, as this 
planning scenario is not compatible with any implementation scenario. "Guidelines discarded" 
was  considered  subsequently  as  a  policy  option  in  its  own,  without  an  implementation 
dimension. 
Following  this  second  phase  of  policy  options  generation,  a  total  of  21  possible  policy 
options103, as briefly presented in the table below, have been identified.  

A1 

A2 

A3 

A4 

A5 

B1 
Business as usual 
/ Continuation 
with current 30 
PPs and current 
implementation 
approach 

B2 
Continuation of 
current 30 PPs but 
with no further 
EU 
implementation 
support 

B3 
Continuation of  
current 30 PPs 
with a purely 
regulatory 
approach to 
implementation 

B4 
Continuation of 
current 30 PPs 
with reinforced 
coordination 

B5 
Continuation of 
current 30 PPs 
with full EU 
operational 
management 

Guidelines 
discarded 
MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) with current 
implementation 
approach 

Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive) 
network with 
current 
implementation 
approach 

Dense TEN-T 
with current 
implementation 
approach 

Guidelines 
discarded 
MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) with no further 
EU 
implementation 
support 
Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive) 
network with 
no EU 
implementation 
support 
Dense TEN-T 
with no further 
EU 
implementation 
support 

Guidelines 
discarded 
MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) with purely 
regulatory 
approach to 
implementation 
Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive 
network with 
purely regulatory 
approach to 
implementation 
Dense TEN-T 
Purely regulatory 
approach to 
implementation 

Guidelines 
discarded 
MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) with reinforced 
coordination 

Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive) 
TEN-T with 
Reinforced 
coordination 

Dense TEN-T 
with reinforced 
coordination 

Guidelines 
discarded 
MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) with full EU 
operational 
management 

Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive) 
network with full 
EU operational 
management 

Dense TEN-T 
with full EU 
operational 
management 

Table 4: Identification of possible Policy Options 

4.2. 

Pre-screening of envisaged alternative policy options  

The  high  number  and  complexity  of  the  resulting  possible  policy  options  raised  issues  of 
feasibility  and  efficiency  of  an  in-depth  assessment  for  all  of  them,  making  a  preliminary 
assessment and the discarding of policy options necessary. 

103 See annex 3 of the present report. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Commission  performed  therefore  a  preliminary  assessment  of  the  21  possible  policy 
options on the basis of their effectiveness in addressing current problem drivers (and, as such, 
towards  attaining  the  policy  objectives  of  the  TEN-T  Guidelines  revision)  and  of  their 
efficiency.  In  parallel,  the  coherence  of  the  possible  policy  options  with  the  principles  of 
subsidiarity and proportionality has been assessed. 
As  regards  the  effectiveness  criterion,  each  planning  and,  respectively,  implementation 
scenario  has  been  assessed  with  regard  to  its  capacity  to  have  a  significant  impact  on  the 
problem  driver(s)  it  was  designed  to  address.  This  preliminary  analysis  has  proved  an 
effective approach to reducing the range of policy options to those that promised to promote a 
sufficient departure from the current approach (business-as-usual/baseline scenario) in terms 
of achievement of the overall TEN-T policy objective.  
The selection rule was given by the  presumption that  only those scenario combinations that 
would  ensure  a  significant  (positive)  impact  (i.e.  rated  medium  [++]  or  high  [+++])  on  all 
problem drivers would be worthwhile considering as viable alternative policy options, capable 
of ensuring the achievement of the overall TEN-T policy goals. Conversely, any combination 
of scenarios for which the assessment included insufficient (i.e. negative [ - ] or none [ 0 ]) 
impacts on any of the drivers was discarded for further consideration as a policy option.  

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

links,  missing  or 

insufficiently  developed 

Insufficiently  addressing  the  "planning"  driver,  that  underpins  aspects  of  TEN-T 
fragmentation  due  to  the  absence  of  a  genuine  European  design,  will  mean 
perpetuating  current  physical  –  geographical  and  modal  –  fragmentation  problems 
(missing  cross-border 
inter-modal 
nodes/platforms,  traffic  bottlenecks)  and  failing  to  ensure  "the  establishment  of  a 
complete  and  integrated  TEN-T  that  would  maximise  the  value  added  for  Europe  of 
the network ". 
Insufficiently  addressing  the  "interoperability"  driver,  even  in  a  scenario  where  the 
physical  fragmentation  aspects  are  addressed,  will  lead  to  a  situation  where,  due  to 
limited  interoperability,  the  TEN-T  will  still  fail  to  function  as  an  "integrated" 
network.104  
Insufficiently  addressing  the  "limited  cooperation  among  Member  States  in  project 
implementation"  driver  would  mean  failing  to  fully  leverage  the  efforts  towards 
improved  European  planning  coordination  and 
interoperability.  Continuing 
incongruence and delays in building cross-border links (see p. 13 in this report) would 
lead  to  an  undesirable  scenario  where  the  impact  of  high  investments  of  EU  and 
Member  States  resources  (financial  but  not  only)  would  be  importantly  diluted,  as 
sections  on  the  TEN-T  with  significant  EU-added  value  will  fail  to  be  timely 
delivered.  
Finally,  insufficiently  addressing  the  "conditionality  of  EU  funding  instruments" 
would  mean  risking  that  the  efficiency  of  (limited)  EU  and  Member  States  funds 
would remain suboptimal. They would continue to be dispersed towards favourite (i.e. 
highly  politically  rewarding)  Member  States  projects,  rather  than  being  focused 
towards projects that would make most EU added value sense (i.e. from an enhancing 
overall EU competitiveness and balanced territorial development perspective). 
The  outcome  of  this  selection  process  is  summarised  in  the  table  5  below.  A  more  detailed 
assessment of each scenario's impacts on the problem drivers is presented in Annex 3 to this 
report. 

iv. 

104 For example, what would be the added value of a fully integrated high-speed rail connecting the North and 
the South of the Continent or the East and the West, if the train had to stop at each border crossing to change 
drivers, or switch power adaptor or even locomotive, not to mention the number of fire extinguishers as would 
be the case with today's conventional rail transport? 

32

 
 
                                                 
Table 5: Effectiveness in addressing current problem drivers 

Impacts on 
Options 

Planning coordination 

Interoperability 
(adoption of common 
standards & systems) 

Member States cooperation in 
project implementation 

Conditionality of EU funding 

A1B1 
Business as usual / Continuation 
with current 30 PPs and current 
implementation approach 

A1B2 
Continuation of current 30 PPs but 
with no further EU implementation 
support 

A1B3 
Continuation of  current 30 PPs 
with a purely regulatory approach 
to implementation 

[0] 
Continued limited coordination in 
a bottom-up process 

[0] 
Slow but  not sufficient 
progress  

[+] 
Improvements due to continued 
European Coordinators' support 

[0] 
Current provisions are maintained 

[0] 
Continued limited coordination in 
a bottom-up process 

[0/-] 
Rhythm of adoption likely to 
slow down 

[0] 
Continued limited coordination in 
a bottom-up process 

[0/+] 
Progress but in a likely slow 
rythm 

[-] 
Likely deterioration due to removal of 
European Coordinators and TEN-TEA 
support 
[+] 
Improvements but likely not to the 
extent aimed for 

[-] 
Likely shift towards projects of primarily MS 
rather than EU interest 

[0/+] 
High on paper but likely limited in practice due 
to implementation inefficiencies 

A1B4 
Continuation of current 30 PPs 
with reinforced coordination 

[0] 
Continued limited coordination in 
a bottom-up process 

[++] 
Sustained progress due to 
specifically targeted support 

[+++] 
Substantial increase due to strong 
emphasis on binding coordination 
commitments  

[+++] 
High due to strong focus on both binding 
commitments and measures to support 
implementation  

A1B5 
Continuation of current 30 PPs 
with full EU operational 
management 

A2 
Guidelines discarded 

A3B1 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 2) 
with current implementation 
approach 

[0] 
Continued limited coordination in 
a bottom-up process 

[-] 
MS are left to choose new projects 
for development in complete 
freedom 
[+] 
Better criteria leading to better EU 
steering of PP selection process 

[++] 
Strong EU-level coordination 
but likely strained 
implementation capacity 
n/a 

[-] 
Likely resistance by MS to shifting  
project implementation responsibilities 
at EU agencies level 
n/a 

[+] 
High in principle but likely much less effective 
in practice due to inefficiencies in 
implementation in an overly top-down approach 
n/a 

[0] 
Slow but  not sufficient 
progress  

[+] 
Improvements due to continued 
European Coordinators' support 

[0] 
Current provisions are maintained 

33 

 
 
A3B2 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 
2) with no further EU 
implementation support 

A3B3 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 
2) with purely regulatory 
approach to implementation 

A3B4 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 
2) with reinforced coordination 

[+] 
Better criteria leading to better EU 
steering of PP selection process 

[0/-] 
Rhythm of adoption likely to 
slow down 

[+] 
Better criteria leading to better EU 
steering of PP selection process 

[0/+] 
Progress but in a likely slow 
rythm 

[+] 
Better criteria leading to better EU 
steering of PP selection process 

[++] 
Sustained progress due to 
specifically targeted support 

[-] 
Likely deterioration due to removal of 
European Coordinators and TEN-
TEA support 
[+] 
Improvements but likely not to the 
extent aimed for 

[+++] 
Substantial increase due to strong 
emphasis on binding coordination 
commitments 

A3B5 
MS selection of new PPs (Essen 
2) with full EU operational 
management 

[+] 
Better criteria leading to better EU 
steering of PP selection process 

[++] 
Strong EU-level coordination but 
likely strained implementation 
capacity 

[-] 
Likely resistance by MS to shifting  
project implementation 
responsibilities at EU agencies level 

[-] 
Likely shift towards projects of primarily MS 
rather than EU interest 

[0/+] 
High on paper but likely limited in practice 
due to implementation inefficiencies 

[++] 
Strong focus on both binding commitments 
and measures to support implementation  but 
diluted by lower levels of coordination in 
planning 

[+] 
High in principle but likely much less 
effective in practice due to inefficiencies in 
implementation in an overly top-down 
approach 
[0] 
Current provisions are maintained 

A4B1 
Dual layer (core and 
comprehensive) network with 
current implementation 
approach 

A4B2 
Dual layer (core and 
comprehensive) network with 
no EU implementation support 

A4B3 
with 
purely regulatory approach to 
implementation 

[++] 
Enhanced coordination due to clear 
methodology for network configuration 
applied consistently across all MS 

[++] 
Enhanced coordination due to clear 
methodology for core network 
configuration applied consistently across 
all MS 
[++] 
Enhanced coordination due to clear 
methodology for core network 
configuration applied consistently across 
all MS 

[0] 
Slow but  not sufficient progress  

[+] 
Improvements due to continued 
European Coordinators' support 

[0/-] 
Rhythm of adoption likely to 
slow down 

[-] 
Likely deterioration due to removal of 
European Coordinators and TEN-
TEA support 

[-] 
Likely shift towards projects of primarily MS 
rather than EU interest 

[0/+] 
Progress but in a likely slow 
rythm 

[+] 
Improvements but likely not to the 
extent aimed for 

[0/+] 
High on paper but likely limited in practice 
due to implementation inefficiencies 

34

 
 
 
[++] 
Sustained progress due to 
specifically targeted support 

[+++] 
Substantial increase due to strong 
emphasis on binding coordination 
commitments 

[++] 
Strong EU-level coordination 
but likely strained 
implementation capacity 

[-] 
Likely resistance by MS to shifting  
project implementation 
responsibilities at EU agencies level 

[++] 
Enhanced coordination due to clear 
methodology for core network 
configuration applied consistently across 
all MS 

[++] 
Enhanced coordination due to clear 
methodology for core network 
configuration applied consistently across 
all MS 
[+++] 
Strong planning coordination for entire 
TEN-T (and not just a selected core) 
[+++] 
Strong planning coordination for entire 
TEN-T (and not just a selected core) 

A4B4 
Dual layer (core and 
comprehensive) TEN-T 
Reinforced coordination 

A4B5 
Dual layer (core and 
comprehensive) network with full 
EU operational management 

A5B1 
Dense TEN-T with current 
implementation approach 

A5B2 
Dense TEN-T with no further EU 
implementation support 

A5B3 
Dense TEN-T 
Purely regulatory approach to 
implementation 

[+++] 
Strong planning coordination for entire 
TEN-T (and not just a selected core) 

[0/+] 
Progress but in a likely slow 
rythm 

A5B4 
Dense TEN-T with reinforced 
coordination 

[+++] 
Strong planning coordination for entire 
TEN-T (and not just a selected core) 

[++] 
Sustained progress due to 
specifically targeted support 

[0] 
Slow but  not sufficient  

[0/-] 
Rhythm of adoption likely to 
slow down 

[+] 
Improvements due to continued 
European Coordinators' support 
[-] 
Likely deterioration due to removal 
of European Coordinators and TEN-
TEA support 
[+] 
Improvements but likely not to the 
extent aimed for 

[+++] 
Substantial increase due to strong 
emphasis on binding coordination 
commitments 

A5B5 
Dense TEN-T with full EU 
operational management 

[+++] 
Strong planning coordination for entire 
TEN-T (and not just a selected core) 

[++] 
Strong EU-level coordination 
but likely strained 
implementation capacity 

[-] 
Likely resistance by MS to shifting  
project implementation 
responsibilities at EU agencies level 

Legend: [-] negative; [0] none; [+] low; [++] medium; [+++] high. 

35

[+++] 
High due to strong focus on both binding 
commitments and measures to support 
implementation and strong planning 
coordination  

[+] 
High in principle but likely much less effective 
in practice due to inefficiencies in 
implementation in an overly top-down 
approach 
[0] 
Current provisions are maintained 

[-] 
Likely shift towards projects of primarily MS 
rather than EU interest 

[0/+] 
High on paper but likely limited in practice 
due to implementation inefficiencies 

[+++] 
High due to strong focus on both binding 
commitments and measures to support 
implementation and high planning 
coordination 

[+] 
High in principle but likely much less effective 
in practice due to inefficiencies in 
implementation in an overly top-down 
approach 

 
 
 
As  the  table  above  makes  apparent,  following  this  preliminary  assessment  three  scenario 
combinations    came  out  as  clearly  viable  policy  options  –  A3B4,  A4B4,  A5B4  (in  green), 
with a forth at the limit – A1B4 (in yellow). The latter combination scores high in terms of 
positive  impacts  on  all  but  one  of  the  drivers,  rendering  it  potentially  relevant  for  further 
consideration.  Nevertheless,  when  approached  as  a  policy  option,  it  became  apparent  that  it 
would  not  make  a  viable  alternative.  A  reinforced  approach  to  coordination  (B4)  could 
importantly  improve  the  rhythm  and  consequently  possibly  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the 
current  30  priority  projects,  but  would  not  solve  the  central  issue  of  network  fragmentation 
due to current planning (A1). As argued in part 2 of this report, the currently planned priority 
projects  simply  do  not  add-up  into,  nor  support,  a  geographically  coherent,  well-integrated, 
multi-modal network, that adequately covers the territory of all the EU Member States.  
The  efficiency  of  each  scenario  in  attaining  the  specific  policy  objectives  set  out  was  also 
initially  considered  as  part  of  the  preliminary  assessment  process.  However,  it  became 
apparent that, although an important information, cost estimates would not help discriminate 
among the options for the purpose of discarding them. Nevertheless, the preliminary estimates 
showed  that  a  dense  comprehensive  network  approach  (A5)  rendered  any  option  including 
this  planning  scenario  far  too  costly  (as  compared  to  the  others105)  and  difficult,  if  not 
impossible to implement within the envisaged 2030 horizon. Moreover, if fully implemented, 
the result would be a dense, high standard, abundantly multi-modal network that would likely 
be under-used (hence little cost-efficient) on many of its parts. 
In  parallel,  the  Commission  has  also  assessed  the  coherence  of  each  policy  option  with  the 
principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. As compliance with these principles is a sine 
qua  non  condition  for  any  Union  policy  initiative,  any  policy  option  that  did  not  fulfil  this 
condition  could  not  therefore  constitute  a  viable  alternative  for  action.  The  results  of  this 
screening are presented in the table below (for the detailed considerations, see Annex 3).   

A1 
Business as usual/ 
Continuation with 
current 30 PPs 

A2 
Guidelines 
discarded 

A3 
MS selection of 
new PPs (Essen 
2) 

A4 
Dual layer (core 
and 
comprehensive) 
network 

A5 
Dense TEN-T 

Yes 

B1 
Current 
implementation 
approach 

No 

B2 

no further EU 
implementation 
support 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

B3 
Purely 
regulatory 
approach 

B4 
Reinforced 
coordination 

B5 
Full EU 
operational 
management 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Planning  

Subsidiarity and 
Proportionality 
Compliance 

Implementation 

Subsidiarity and 
Proportionality 
Compliance 

Table 6 : Compliance with subsidiarity and proportionality principle 

It  became  thus  apparent  that  any  policy  option  that  included,  at  the  level  of  planning,  the 
"A2/Guidelines discarded" or the "A5/Dense network approach" scenarios, and/or at the level 
of  implementation,  the  "B3/Regulatory  approach  only"  or  the  "B5/EU  full  operational 
management",  could  not  constitute  viable  policy  options,  due  to  their  contravening  of  the 
principles of subsidiarity and/or proportionality. Following this assessment, option A5B4 was 
discarded  for  further  consideration  as  a  viable  policy  option,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that, 

105  It  is  estimated  that  the  Core  Network  represents  about  25%  of  the  Comprehensive  network.  Therefore,  by 
simply extrapolating the investments needs of  € 215 Bln for the Core Network by 2020, it gives a figure of € 
860 Bln for investments needs on the Comprehensive Network for the period 2014 – 2020. 

36 

 
                                                 
according  to  the  effectiveness  criteria,  would  have  been  most  promising  in  terms  of 
addressing current drivers and thus achieving the TEN-T policy objectives.106   

4.3. 

Description of the policy options retained for in-depth assessment 

In  light  of  the  above  pre-screening  process  and  taking  into  account  that  the  pre-screened 
policy  options  should  also  respect  the  proportionality  and  subsidiarity  principle,  the  two 
alternative  policy  options  retained  for  in-depth  impact  assessment  are  the  scenario 
combinations  "A3B4/Selection  of  new  priority  projects  with  reinforced  coordination"  – 
labelled  "Option  1",  and  "A4B4/Core  network  approach  with  reinforced  coordination"  – 
labelled  "Option  2".  The  "A1B1/Business  as  usual"  policy  option,  described  extensively 
above in section 2.4 of this report, has featured in the subsequent impact assessment process 
as the reference/baseline scenario; for convenience, it has been labelled "Option 0".  

4.3.1. Content of Policy Options 
Policy Option 0: Baseline scenario  
Policy Option 0, which has been presented in section 2 above, represents the future without 
any additional policy intervention to change current trends. 
Policy Option 1: "Essen 2" with reinforced corridor coordination107 
Under  this  option,  the  approach  to  planning  the  TEN-T  remains  unchanged,  relying  on  the 
predominantly  bottom-up  selection  process  as  endorsed  by  the  Essen  European  Council  in 
1994.108  The  Member  States  will  thus  continue  to  be  responsible  for  developing  project 
proposals,  while  the  Commission  will  select  and  prioritise  projects  that  will  be  financially 
supported from the EU budget based on the extent to which the projects fulfil the criteria set 
out in the Guidelines. The 30 Priority Projects included on the current list will continue to be 
developed and funded according to the current Guidelines. 
The  current  Guidelines’  criteria  for  TEN-T  identification  and  selection  of  projects  of 
European interests will remain largely unchanged. The current TEN-T map will be however 
updated,  to  reflect  evolutions  in  Member  States'  developed  and  planned  infrastructure.  In 
addition, drawing on the experience so far, and taking into account the expert and stakeholder 
recommendations,  criteria  will  be  revised  in  order  to  better  specify  the  elements  that  would 
constitute  the  European  added-value  of  the  Priority  Projects  that  will  be  subsequently 
selected. In particular, references to multi-modality aspects and links to third countries will be 
added.  This  should  ensure  that  new  Priority  Project  proposals  will  more  effectively  address 
current  fragmentation  aspects  resulting  from  a  limited  coordination  in  TEN-T  configuration 
planning.  
As far as implementation is concerned, the individual Priority Project Decisions will provide 
for a coordinated approach to infrastructural investments, management of Priority Project axis 
capacity and building and coordinating transhipment facilities, the optimisation of the use of 
each transport mode (or co-modality), the comprehensive deployment of interoperable traffic 
management  systems  and  the  harmonisation  of  operational  rules  along  the  Priority  Project.  

106 Another argument that played against its retention was also that of cost-efficiency. As pointed out above, due 
to its dense comprehensive approach to planning, this option would have involved particularly high costs that, at 
a first look, would not have been justifiable in terms of its marginal benefits – i.e. as compared with the other 
two retained options – and, given the amount of works that it presupposed, would have long exceeded the 2030 
timeline. 
107 This is the combination of A3 planning scenario and B4 implementing scenario, see Annex 3 of the present 
report 
108  In  Essen,  in  1994,  the  European  Council  adopted  the first  list  of  14  transport  projects  of  common  interest, 
included  in  the  1996  TEN-T  Guidelines.  The  selection of  the  projects was  largely  based  on national  priorities 
(bottom-up  approach)  rather  than  European  ones  (top-down  approach).  The  same  approach  was  used  in  the 
selection of the renewed list of 30 Priority Projects annexed to the 2004 Guidelines. 

37

 
 
                                                 
Both  EU  and  Member  States  funding  would  be  committed  through  the  individual  Priority 
Project  Decisions,  which  would  also  establish  binding  timelines  for  completion.  The 
European Coordinators will continue their activity with mandates similar to the current ones 
and relatively enhanced powers, grounded in the Priority Project Decisions. The mandate of 
the TEN-T EA will be maintained and extended to help ensure, alongside the Coordinators, 
added  effectiveness  in  implementation,  not  least  by  supporting  the  development  of  Priority 
Project proposals with high EU added-value.  
Policy Option 2: "Core network" with reinforced corridor coordination109 
Under this policy option, the approach to developing the TEN-T configuration is importantly 
revised.  The  Commission  would  no  longer  seek  to  steer  Members  States'  choices  towards 
developing a European network by setting a number of (better) defined criteria, and offering 
support  for  project  proposal  development,  but  by  taking  a  stronger,  pro-active  coordination 
role. It proposes and works with the Member States to agree upon an a priori configuration of 
the TEN-T, optimised at planning level to address major traffic flows needs, multimodality, 
cohesion and accessibility objectives.  
A  dual-layer  approach  to  TEN-T  development  will  also  be  proposed.  A  basic  layer,  or  the 
"comprehensive  network",  will  be  constituted  of  the  current  wider  TEN-T,  as  comprised  in 
the maps and outline plans annexed to the current Guidelines, updated and adjusted following 
a number of clear and coherently applied rules. A second layer, constituted of the strategically 
most  important  parts  of  the  comprehensive  TEN-T,  identified  according  to  a  specific 
methodology, transparently and coherently applied, will constitute the "core" of the network, 
on  which  project  development  and  implementation  will  be  supported  with  priority.110  This 
will later allow the identification of key projects of European interest on an idealised network 
configuration  that  already  includes  current  missing  links  (including  multi-modal  connection 
nodes and routes) and bottlenecks, and identifies needs for multi-modal connecting platforms 
development. 
EU transparent and coherent planning methodology111 
The  TEN-T  planning  methodology  envisaged  in  Option  2  would  provide  a  coherent  and 
transparent  pan-European  basis  for  the  identification  of  the  configuration  of  both  the 
comprehensive  TEN-T and its strategic core. It was developed by the Commission with the 
support of an expert group, and drawing on the stakeholder (including Member States) input 
and  recommendations.112  The  methodology  provides  distinct  rules  and  criteria  for  the 
identification of the comprehensive network and the core network respectively.  
Comprehensive network 
The methodology concerns the updating/adjusting of the current TEN-T maps, rather than a 
new process of TEN-T outline identification, following a number of principles: updating with 

109 This is the combination of A4 planning scenario and B4 implementing scenario, see Annex 3 of the present 
report. 
110  The  comprehensive/basic  layer  of  the  TEN-T  will  constitute  the  object  of  general  support  at  EU  level 
(including financially, especially in the less endowed regions in the East of the Union), but the main focus will 
be  placed  on  the  development,  with  priority,  of  the  multimodal  core  layer,  as  the  latter  will  carry  the  main 
concentration of trans-national traffic flows, both for freight and passengers. 
111 "The New Trans-European Transport Network Policy: Planning and implementation issues", SEC(2011) 101 
112  The  Commission  established  the  expert  group  in  autumn  2009,  following  the  results  of  the  first  public 
consultation process (February – April 2009), which showed a clear majority support for the dual-layer network 
option. The expert group, chaired by Mr. Jonathan Scheele, former Director of directorate B in DG TREN, met 
four times between October 2009 and March 2010. It developed a recommendation for a Core Network planning 
methodology,  of  which  a  summary  was  included  in  a  Commission  Working  Document  of  4  May  2010 
COM(2010) 212 final, as a basis for a subsequent public consultation. Taking into consideration the results of 
this second public consultation exercise, the discussions at the TEN-T Days in Zaragoza (June 2010), the input 
from Member States, mainly received at the Gödölló Informal Council, as well as the practical experience gained 
in its effective application, the methodology has been fine-tuned in the following months. 

38

 
 
                                                 
projects  completed/abandoned  and  changes  in  national  planning;  addition  of  selected  and 
well-defined  missing  links  and  nodes,  especially  in  new  MS;  elimination  of  dead-ends  and 
isolated links in current TEN-T if not justified by geographical particularities; implementation 
of  minimum  standards  for  infrastructure  and  equipment  in  accordance  with  relevant 
legislation currently in place; revision of the selection of seaports and airports according to a 
number of specific criteria (concerning mainly traffic volumes and accessibility conditions). 
As a result, the comprehensive network will directly reflect the relevant existing and planned 
infrastructure  in  Member  States,  while  ensuring  at  the  same  time  the  accessibility  of  all 
regions  of  the  Union.  It  will  include  road,  rail,  inland  waterways,  maritime  and  air 
infrastructure  network  components,  as  well  as  the  connecting  points  between  the  modes.  It 
will feature minimum infrastructure standards, and aim at interoperability wherever necessary 
for seamless traffic flows across the network. All European citizens and economic operators 
should be able to access the Core Network, via the Comprehensive Network, on comparable 
terms. 
Core network  
The  aim  was  to  develop  a  coherent  and  transparent  methodology  that  could  be  applied 
consistently  across  all  Member  States  and  which  comprises  elements  to  enhance  cohesion, 
economic efficiency and environmental sustainability simultaneously. 
In addition to infrastructure interconnectivity and traffic related goals, the methodology was 
crafted  to  take  into  account  a  sound  balance  between  these  planning  objectives  and  larger 
treaty  mandated  goals  such  as  geographical  coverage  and  cohesion,  accessibility  and 
competitiveness. Thus, all "primary city nodes" – corresponding to the capitals of all MS and 
large cities and conurbations across the EU – are linked within the Core Network. Large cities 
and  conurbations  include  the  MEGAs  ("MEtropolitan  growth  areas")  according  to  ESPON 
atlas 2006 and conurbations or city clusters with more than 1 million inhabitants, on the base 
of "Larger Urban Zones" ("LUZ") according to "Urban Audit" (EUROSTAT).  
Adequate connections with neighbouring and other third countries have also been taken into 
account. For this reason, all major seaports of the Union are also considered primary nodes. 
Moreover,  in  order  to  connect  the  Core  Network  with  corresponding  infrastructure  in 
neighbouring countries, the points where the multimodal axes cross the external border of the 
Union  are  considered  primary  nodes.  As  a  result,  the  main  existing  connecting  points  with 
bordering  countries,  including  rail  or  road  platforms  in  the  East  of  Europe  and  the  seaports 
would become connected to the main economic centres of the EU.  
In order to ensure the Member States’  ownership  of the  process (and of the results) of core 
and  comprehensive  network  identification,  continued  consultation  with  the  Member  States 
representatives would be ensured throughout the process of application of the methodology. 

The current Priority Projects will be included in the core TEN-T, but whether in their entirety 
or partially will depend on their meeting the methodology criteria.113 
As far as implementation is concerned, the establishment of multi-modal corridors along the 
core  network,  governed  by  specific  binding  legal  instruments  in  the  form  of  “Corridor 
Decisions"  are  envisaged  to  provide  the  basis  for  modal  integration,  interoperability  and 
coordinated  development  and  management  of  infrastructure.  A  specific  methodology  for 
corridor  identification  will  ensure  that  each  corridor  links  a  number  of  multimodal  nodes, 
supports co-modal transport solutions and involve at least three Member States. The specific 
Corridor  Decisions  will  provide  for  a  coordinated  approach  in  the  undertaking  of 
infrastructural  investments,  in  the  management  of  corridor  capacity,  in  building  (wherever 
needed) and coordinating transhipment facilities (particularly for freight) that optimise the use 

113  This  should  not  however  affect  the  continuity  of  current  Priority  Projects  because  inclusion  on  the  core 
network outlay plan will concern the prioritisation of future funding decisions. 

39

 
 
                                                 
of each transport mode, as well as for the comprehensive deployment of interoperable traffic 
management systems and the harmonisation of operational rules. 

Core network corridors 
Corridors are identified on the core network, following a number of criteria/benchmarks that 
need to be fulfilled. Corridors should:  
- concern the most important cross-border long distance traffic flows of the core network; 
- cross at least two borders between three Member States; 
-  respond  to  high  quality  standards,  increasing  energy  efficiency,  enhancing  security  and 
safety,  and  deploying  new 
information 
management and e-administration procedures; 
- serve as the main instrument for modal integration, interoperability, resource efficiency, as 
well as a coordinated development and management of infrastructure, along the core network. 

technologies,  notably  aiming  at 

improving 

Both EU and Member States funding  would be committed through the  individual  "Corridor 
Decisions ", that would also establish binding timelines for completion. Corridor Coordinators 
will replace the current European Coordinators, but with a similar mandate, grounded in the 
Corridor Decisions. The TEN-T EA, whose mandate will be maintained and extended beyond 
2015, will work together with the Coordinators in order to ensure added effectiveness in the 
development of project proposals along the corridor and in their implementation.  

4.3.2. Comparison of content 
As  highlighted  above,  the  two  alternative  (to  the  current  approach)  policy  options  are  the 
result of a rigorous process of options generation and pre-selection. The aim was to identify 
those options that would, on stand-alone basis, be able to address with a significant degree of 
effectiveness all drivers to the current TEN-T fragmentation.  
This effort to identify the most viable (and real) alternatives for TEN-T policy development 
has lead to options that share a number of characteristics. However, the options also differ in 
important respects, differences that lead to significantly distinct performance. 
Thus, Option 1 shares with the current policy approach (Option 0) the same "soft" approach to 
coordination  at  EU  level  in  planning  the  TEN-T,  by  means  of  a  set  of  criteria  for  project 
content land-marking a primarily bottom-up approach to project development. Nevertheless, 
in policy Option 1, planning coordination is sought to be improved as much as the (shared) 
bottom-up  approach  allows  it,  i.e.  by  strengthened  criteria  for  priority  project  selection  that 
include  more  elements  generating  EU-value  added.  At  the  same  time,  the  coordination  in 
implementation  is  significantly  strengthened  at  the  level  of  PP  through  individual  PP 
decisions compared to Option 0. 
Whereas Options 1 and 2 share the same reinforced coordination approach to implementation, 
they  substantially  differ  as  far  as  their  approach  to  planning  is  concerned.  Coordination  of 
planning  at  EU 
the  TEN-T 
configuration, and in particular of its strategic "core", by means of a coherent methodology to 
be consistently and transparently applied across the territory of all Member States.   
The main content characteristics of the three alternative policy options are summarised in the 
table below, in order to better highlight their shared and, respectively, distinctive elements. 

is  substantially  strengthened,  by  pre-identifying 

level 

40

 
 
Content 

Option 0 

Option 1 

Option 2 

to 

Business as usual: 
-  wider  TEN-T  configuration  as  currently 
annexed 
the  Guidelines  (maps  and 
outline plans dating since 1996) 
-  30  PPs  as  specified  in  the  list  currently 
annexed to the Guidelines (PP proposals as 
approved in 2004). 

current 

range  of 

continuation  of 

Business as usual:  
- 
implementation instruments 
 (a)  financial  –  the  TEN-T  Programme,  the 
Cohesion Fund, EIB loans and grants); 
(b)  coordination  -  TEN-T  EA,  European 
Coordinators, TENtec;  
-  continuation  of  initiatives  currently  under 
way  with 
interoperability 
standards  -  the  ERTMS  corridors,  the  ITS 
Directives, the Single European Sky etc.114  

regard 

to 

g
n
i
n
n
a
l
P

n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

I

in 

the 

and 

developed 

"Essen 2" approach:  
-  wider  TEN-T  map  will  be  updated,  to  reflect 
evolutions 
planned 
infrastructure in the MS; 
- new PPs will be identified; 
-  revised  criteria  for  PP  selection will  better  specify 
the  elements  that  would  constitute  the  European 
added-value  of  priority  projects  (cross-border  links, 
links  alleviating 
multimodal  connecting 
bottlenecks, 
third 
countries).  

to  neighbouring  and 

links, 

links 

in 

level 

the  deployment  of 

Reinforced coordination at PP level: 
-  individual  PP  Decisions  will  ensure  a  coordinated 
approach  at  PP 
the  undertaking  of 
infrastructural  investments,  the  management  of  PP 
capacity, 
interoperability 
standards and traffic management systems;  
-  PP  Decisions  will  place  the  overall  management 
authority  under 
the  European 
the  aegis  of 
Coordinators;115 
-  the  TEN-T  EA  will  continue  in  its  role of  support 
towards project preparation and implementation. 

"Core network" approach:  
- wider TEN-T map will be updated to reflect evolutions in 
the  developed  and  planned  infrastructure  and  adjusted 
according  to  a  specific  methodology  to  ensure  consistency 
across  all  MS;  it  will  constitute  the    "comprehensive" 
network 
- a "core" network, overlaying the "comprehensive" 
network, will be identified, on the basis of  a specific 
methodology, to: include the strategically most important 
parts of the TEN-T, cross all missing links, alleviate all 
major bottlenecks  and ensure optimal multi-modal 
connections;  
- projects of key European interest will be situated on the 
pre-identified strategic network configuration thus 
optimised at the level of planning.  
Reinforced coordination  at corridor level;  
-  individual  Corridor  Decisions  will  ensure  a  coordinated 
approach  at  Corridor 
the  undertaking  of 
level 
infrastructural  investments,  the  management  of  corridor 
capacity,  the  deployment  of  interoperability  standards  and 
traffic management systems; 
-  Corridor  Decisions  will  place  the  overall  management 
authority under the aegis of the Corridor Coordinators; 
- the TEN-T EA will continue in its role of support towards 
project preparation and implementation. 

in 

Table 7: Comparison of Policy Options 

114 Should be noted that these standards are not specific to the TEN-T, nor is their implementation mandatory on all TEN-T projects of common interest (including the PPs).  
115 This would extend the scope of the European coordinators mandate over an entire PP, and all PPs will have a European Coordinator. Currently (i.e. and in a business-as-usual 
scenario), there are only 9 European Coordinators for 11 PPs. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POLICY OPTIONS  

This section provides an assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts that is 
proportionate  to  the  nature  and  purpose  of  this  Impact  Assessment.  The  analysis  of  these 
impacts is mostly derived from a qualitative analysis of the policy options which is supported 
where possible by the conclusions of the qualitative assessment (see annex 6 for more details). 
The  overall  results  of  the  analysis  of  impacts  are  summarised  in  the  table  16  at  the  end  of 
section 6. 
Preliminary remarks on use of quantitative data116 
Quantification  of  impacts,  derived  from  modelling  results  of  the  TENconnect  II  study, 
commissioned by DG MOVE, and compared and contrasted, where available, with the results 
of  relevant  internal  and  external  studies,  are  used  to  give  an  order  of  magnitude  of  the 
expected impacts of planning scenarios. 
The  results  of  the  TENconnect  II  study  represent  the  outcome  of  more  than  three  years  of 
modelling efforts undertaken by two groups of experts under the coordination of DG MOVE. 
Although a series of recalibration and other fine-tuning exercises have improved the accuracy 
of  modelling  results117,  the  latter remain  rather  indicative  due  to  the  numerous uncertainties 
inherent  to  the  modelling  exercise  (the  uncertainties  of  some  influential  parameters  being 
magnified given the long time horizon), undertaken over a long time horizon and with a large 
number  of  parameters  that  were  difficult,  when  not  impossible,  to  integrate  in  the  model. 
Furthermore,  the  study  focussed  only  on  evolutions  directly  linked  to  infrastructure  policy 
measures. Other transport-sector specific policy measures likely to have an important impact 
on  how  infrastructure  will  be  used  in  the  future  (for  instance  pricing  and  other  demand 
management  measures),  envisaged  by  the  Commission  in  the  White  Paper  on  the  future  of 
transport as key to delivering an expected paradigm shift, have not been included in the model 
parameters either.  
In addition, the policy options simulated in TENconnect II are not directly comparable to the 
policy  options  assessed  in  the  Impact  Assessment  exercise,  for  two  main  reasons.  First, 
TENconnect simulated the impacts of planning scenarios only, i.e. without an implementation 
dimension118. In other words, the modelling results do not take account of the effects of the 
different  implementation  strategies,  of  'soft'  measures  such  as  the  application  of  ITS  and  of 
the application of 'best practice.119  
Moreover,  as  explained  in  the  Annex  6,  the  scenarios  of  the  TENconnect  II  study  are  not 
directly  comparable  with  the  Options  used  for  the  purpose  of  this  document.  Though  some 
limited differences exist between the routes chosen, the scenarios of the TENconnect II study 
can be related to the planning scenarios discussed in part 4: the BAU scenario is comparable 
to  scenario  A1,  the  CORE  scenario  is  comparable  to  scenario  A4  and  the  COMP  being 
comparable to scenario A5. For reasons of clarity, when referring to the TENconnect II study, 

116 Annex 6 gives the in-depth quantative evaluation of the planning scenario A4 that forms part of Option 2, the 
core  network.  It  also  quantifies  the  effect  of  planning  scenarios  A1(BAU)  and,  as  an  outliner,  A5,  the  fully 
comprehensive network. 
117 Modelling results show 19 % deviation from real count values in the road network. 
118 The TENconnect simulation was not in fact intended to take into account the implementation dimension of 
the  proposed  TEN-T  Guidelines  policy  revision.  This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  mathematic  models  could  not 
readily  translate  in  figures  for  instance  the  role  of  a  European  Coordinator,  the  level  of  Member  States 
coordination  or  a  Corridor  agreement  on  train  drivers  licensing  or  signalling  systems  on  the  successful 
implementation of ITS on the TEN-T. 
119 See appendix 7. 

42 

 
 
                                                 
the  scenarios  will  be  mentioned  with  their  TENconnect  II  names,  i.e.  BAU,  CORE,  and 
COMP120. 
Second,  the  impacts  of    the  planning  scenario  A3  (Essen  II),  which  is  one  component  of 
Policy  Option  1  of  the  present  IA  report,  could not be simulated given the high uncertainty 
surrounding the selection of Priority Projects by the Member States in a continuing bottom-up 
approach to planning of the TEN-T.  
For these reasons, the modelling results could not be used as conclusive evidence to support 
the  preferred  option,  but  rather  as  orders  of  magnitude  illustrating  logical  reasoning  in  a 
primarily  qualitative  assessment  of  policy  alternatives.  A  number  of  empirical  studies  and 
theoretical  research  available  in  the  field  of  transport  have  provided  sufficient  material  to 
allow  extrapolation  for  the  assessment  of  impacts  of  the  proposed  Options  and  complement 
modelling results where necessary. 
Given that Option 0 has been analysed in many studies and internal evaluations conducted or 
commissioned by the Commission (as quoted in section 2.4. of this report and listed in Annex 
1), more data has been available for this Option than for the two other Options.  

5.1. 

Economic impacts of the options 

The  economic  impacts  of  the  proposed  options  will  be  analysed  in  two  parts.  Firstly,  the 
impacts on the Transport sector will be analysed. In a second step, the impact on the general 
EU economy will be assessed, focusing on the support to the Single Market, GDP growth and 
trade with neighbouring and 3rd countries. 
5.1.1. Impact on transport sector 
Modality and efficiency of the transport system  
In Option 1, new Priority Projects proposals are likely to follow the tendency observed under 
the current policy approach (Option 0), i.e. a predominantly uni-modal focus. While revised 
criteria for priority projects selection will help foster more proposals that take into account the 
multi-modality  dimension,  co-modality  is  not  likely  to  figure  high  among  Member  States' 
priorities  and  would  therefore  not  develop  significantly  further.  Nevertheless,  as  the  road 
network  is,  by  and  large,  already  in  place,  the  majority  of  the  selected  Projects  will  likely 
focus on rail or inland waterways development, favouring a certain modal shift: from road to 
rail  for  passenger  transport,  and  from  road  to  rail  and  inland  navigation  for  freight.  This  is 
likely  to  alleviate  congestion  on  the  road  network  and  improve  its  efficiency.  The 
development of  new infrastructure  for rail and inland waterways is also likely to favour  the 
efficiency  of  those  modes  across  countries.  This  efficiency  will  be  increased  by  the 
application  of  the  reinforced  coordination  approach  to  the  implementation  of  the  selected 
the  development  of  common  rules  and  standards  for 
Priority  Projects,  fostering 
interoperability  along  the  individual  projects.  The  improved  governance  of  the  reinforced 
coordination  approach  to  implementation  should  also  accelerate  the  realisation  of  complex 
cross-border infrastructure and therefore help complete the network by 2030. 
In Option 2, the methodology used  to define the core network would favour more adequate 
transport  infrastructure  coverage  of  the  Union,  modal-shift  and  co-modality.  It  should  thus 
support a concentration of trans-national traffic and long-distance flows – both for freight and 
passengers  –  and,  as  a  result,  a  higher  resource  efficiency  of  infrastructure  use.  Innovative 
information  and  management  systems,  that  will  form  part  of  the  network,  would  provide 
support  for  logistic  functions,  inter-modal  integration  and  sustainable  operation  in  order  to 
establish  competitive  door-to-door  (or,  at  least,  terminal-to-terminal)  transport  chains, 
according to the needs of the users.  

120 The results for the COMP scenario are sometimes given as a basis for comparison 

43

 
 
 
                                                 
The efficiency of the whole transport system would be, as a result, improved. The reinforced 
coordination  approach  to  implementation,  as  in  Option  1,  would  further  enhance  overall 
efficiency.  Moreover,  as  it  would  be  applied  on  corridors  selected  according  to  the 
methodology of the core network, the positive effect would likely concern a larger share of 
traffic flows than in Option 1. 
Administrative burden 
In Option 1, the reinforced coordination approach to implementation on the selected Priority 
Projects  should  foster  the  reduction  of  administrative  burden.  This  should  prove  to  be 
especially  the  case  for  rail  Projects,  for  which  cooperation  between  national  authorities  and 
infrastructure  managers  would  likely  increase.  However,  with  no  coordination  between 
Priority Projects and modes, the impact will not be optimal. 
The  reinforced  coordination  approach  to  implementation  in  Option  2  ensure  common 
operational  procedures  (or  at  least  compatible  procedures)  and  similar  quality  standards  of 
operation over the core. This will include smart information and communication technologies 
such as eFreight121, a system designed to facilitate common communication along and across 
the freight supply chain. However, as the methodology used for selection in Option 2 is likely 
to ensure that more traffic flows would be tackled in the  selected  Corridors as compared to 
Priority  Projects  in  Option  1,  lower  administrative  costs  per  unit  would  ensure  in  Option  2 
than in Option 1. Essentially, Option 2 would provide the integrated infrastructure that would 
enable all businesses to benefit from good operational logistics, as well as for the travelling 
public, more effectively than Option 1.  

TENconnect results on Transport activity  
The following  table  from  TENconnect II report gives an evolution of traffic activity and its 
modal organisation.122 

BAU 

CORE 

COMP 

Passenger car vehicle KM (billion 
PKM) 

Zone external  

2,779 

2,814 

2,892 

Zone internal  

3,034  

3,060 

3,086  

Total passenger car PKM 

5,813 

5,874 

5,978 

Passenger rail KM (billion PKM) 

Zone external  

404  

Zone internal  

119  

398 

117 

394 

115 

Air PKM (billion PKM) 

Freight truck VKM (billion HGV 
VKM)  

All 

All  

1,158 

1,137 

1,118 

266  

272 

277  

Freight rail TONKM (billion 
TONKM)  
Table 10: TENConnect II Traffic flows impacts/ modal split (horizon 2030) 
These  figures  show  a  slight  increase  of  road  traffic  and  a  limited  decrease  of  rail  and  air 
traffic. Since most of the road network already exists while a large share of the European rail 

649 

690  

All  

638 

121 www.eFreightproject.eu 
122 These results are further explained and qualified in the Annex 6 

44

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
network  remains  to  be  built,  the  results  are  counter-intuitive.  This  is  due  mainly  to  the 
particularities of the model parameters. Due to the assumed absence of congestion on the road 
network,  the  CORE  road  network  becomes  highly  efficient,  attracting  increased  traffic.  .  In 
addition, car ownership propensity and thereby car driving (especially outside the core where 
the  saturation  level  is  currently  lower)  are  assumptions  directly  and  iteratively  linked  in  the 
model to levels of income growth. Hence, as the results concerning increased income growth 
were fed back into the model, passenger car traffic grew proportionally. . Finally, as pointed 
out  earlier,  assumptions  concerning  pricing  and  other  measures  of  demand  management, 
strongly  envisaged  to  be  promoted  at  EU  level  in  the  coming  decades,  have  not  been  taken 
into account.  
Indeed, the results are different in the case of the modelling tool used for the assessment of 
impacts in the IA report accompanying the Transport White Paper, which included among its 
parameters  the  entire  array  of  policy  measures  envisaged  at  EU  level  to  induce  the  needed 
transport system paradigm shift. A significant modal shift, particularly from road to (freight) 
rail, is expected. In particular, the preferred policy option, which later informed the proposals 
put forward by the Commission in the White Paper, indicates the "greatest changes…due to 
very  intensive  policies  with  the  objective  of  managing  demand  and  encouraging  a  shift  in 
modal choices."123 
Congestion & travel times 
Traffic  congestion  emerges  when  transport  infrastructure  capacity  approaches  saturation. 
Congestion brings about an increase in travel times as well as increased unreliability of travel 
times. The impact on congestion levels is measured as the reduction of time losses for both 
passenger and freight transport caused by road congestion (in hours).124 
In  Option  1,  the  expected  modal  shift  –  from  road  to  rail  for  passenger  transport  and  from 
road  to  rail  and  inland  navigation  for  freight  –  would  have  a  positive  effect  on  congestion 
levels and is likely to reduce societal costs compared to Policy Option 0. The implementation 
of  the  reinforced  coordination  approach  to  implementation  and  the  related  improvement  in 
interoperability are likely to further reduce congestion on roads, as well as on railways, inland 
waterways,  ports  and  at  cross-border  sections.  However,  as  already  pointed  out  above,  the 
extent of congestion reduction would largely depend on the list of Projects selected and their 
relevance for traffic flows. 
Option 2 should have a greater positive impact on congestion than Option 1. As highlighted 
earlier,  the  multimodal  dimension  and  the  methodology  to  define  the  network  and  the 
corridors should lead to increased network use efficiency and interoperability in Option 2 as 
compared to Option 1, and therefore to higher positive effects on congestion. 

123 SEC(2011) 358, pp. 58 -59. 
124  As  explained  in  the  OECD  2002  report  on  the  Impact  of  Transport  Infrastructure  Investment  on  Regional 
development,  the  principle  underlying  the  assessment  of  benefits  associated  with  travel  time  is  that  transport 
system  users’  economic  decisions  regarding  the  location  of  their  homes,  businesses,  mode  choice  or  route 
followed to get to a specific destination and behaviour in traffic, reflect their valuation of travel time. In other 
words,  users’  willingness  to  pay  in  order  to  save  time  or  the  amount  they  would  accept  in  compensation  for 
losing time could be inferred from their behaviour. Time savings are benefits resulting from an improvement in 
the  efficiency  of  the  transport  system  (shortened  routes,  increased  traffic  fluidity,  better  access  to  connection 
services,  etc.).  For  freight  carriers,  time  savings  will  take  the  form  of  money  savings  given  that  reductions  in 
travel  time  reduce  hourly  costs  of  transport  services  (e.g.  drivers’  wages,  insurance,  etc.)  for  shippers.  For 
consignees,  travel  time  savings  may  be  converted  into  reduced  inventory  costs.  Some  analysts  argue  that  the 
common practice in CBA of valuing commercial vehicle time savings on the basis on drivers’ wage produces 
estimates for value of travel time that are too low, thus capturing only part of the true potential cost savings of 
freight  carriers.  The  concern  is  that  costs  of  capital  equipment,  benefits  from  accrued  reliability  and  reduced 
delivery  time  of  shipments  are  not  explicitly  accounted  for.  On  the  other  hand,  for  passenger  transportation, 
travel time savings normally bring no direct monetary reward. 

45

 
 
                                                 
The following table from the TENConnectII study gives the modelling results regarding time-
saving,  along  two  aspects,  time-savings  at  local  level  (referred  to  as  "Zone  internal")  and 
outside this zone (i.e. for medium to long distance transport, "Zone external"). 

Impact type  

Type  

BAU 

CORE  

Travel time car driver (billion hours)  

Zone external  

30.3  

Zone internal  

39.0  

Travel time car passenger (billion hours)   Zone external  

18.1  

29.9 

37.6 

17.8 

Travel time rail pass (billion hours)  

Zone external  

4.8  

Zone internal  

2.2  

4.7 

2.2 

Zone internal  

23.8  

23.0 

Table 9: TENconnect II Travel time impacts (Figures are an estimate for the whole traffic in Europe, not only 
for the vehicles running on the TEN-T network defined, horizon 2030.) 

The  above  data  shows  that,  in  the  CORE  scenario,  European  car  drivers  would  save  0.4 
billion  hours  when  driving  outside  their  region  (30.3  –  29.9).  In  the  same  scenario,  rail 
passengers  would  save  0.1  billion  hours.    In  relative  terms  (taking  into  account  their 
respective  volume),  the  results  indicate  a  1.32%  increase  in  time  saving  for  car  drivers  and 
2.08% time saving for rail passengers as opposed to a BAU scenario. 
As a general comment, the TENconnect II study shows the positive economic impact of the 
CORE  planning  scenario  compared  to  the  Business-as-Usual.  However,  these  results  are 
based  on  a  limited  number  of  parameters  (saving  in  time/increased  road  traffic)  and  do  not 
take into account other measures such as the application of management and control measures 
facilitated through the application of ITS. 
TENconnect II Consumer surplus as a derivation of time-saving 
Economic  growth  and  consumer  surplus  are  closely  related  in  the  TENconnect  II  results. 
Consumer surplus is here understood as the summation of the benefit of time saved minus the 
total costs for the freight and passengers (tolls, fares, price  of  fuels…). The results give the 
following outcome regarding consumer surplus for the CORE network scenario and, by way 
of comparison, the COMP network scenario, both compared to the BAU scenario: 

Impact type (billion euros)  

CORE vs BAU 

COMP vs BAU 

Consumer 
passenger  

surplus 

- 

Zone internal   44.8 

130.7  

Consumer surplus – freight   Zone internal   0.3 

Consumer 
passenger  

surplus 

- 

Zone external   25.5 

Consumer surplus – freight   Zone external   7.1 

0.9 

94.1  

18.4  

46

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Subtotal – direct benefits 

Subtotal  –  2nd  order  GDP 
effects125 
Total  

77.7 

30.7 

108.4 

243.8 

75.6 

319.4 

Table 8: TENconnect II Total socio-economic benefits (horizon 2030) 

According to the study, compared to the BAU, the CORE brings by 2030 € 77.7 bln of direct 
benefits to the European Consumer. The COMP option triples this amount (including second 
order GDP effects adds some 40% benefit to the core and 31% benefit to the Comprehensive 
networks). 
However, consumer surplus is calculated from the saving in time/increased road traffic caused 
by  the  network.  It  is  therefore  related  to  the  numbers  of  billions  of  passenger  car/km 
calculated  by  the  model.  This  means  in  the  end  that  each  car/km  generated  by  the  network 
gives  a  benefit  to  the  European  economy.  The  benefits  are  calculated  by  distinguishing 
between business travel and various categories of leisure travel activities, hence acknowledge 
the difference in added value to the society.  

5.1.2. General economic impacts 

Support to the Single Market 
The  development  of  the  wider  TEN-T  will  have  positive  effects  on  the  free  movement  of 
goods,  market  segmentation,  accessibility,  and  territorial cohesion, especially at the level of 
NUTS2 regions in all the three options considered here. 
Compared to Policy option 0, the development of new Priority Projects in Option 1 is likely to 
increase the level of interconnectivity between the European markets. However, the extent to 
which  expected  higher  interconnectivity  would  be  achieved  would  depend  on  the  list  of 
Priority  Projects  chosen.  As  highlighted  earlier,  experience  so  far  has  shown  that  the  list  of 
projects  is  more  likely  to  reflect  political  choices  rather  than  decisions  based  on  economic 
assessments.  The  problem  of  fragmentation  of  the  network,  and  therefore  of  the  internal 
market, would not be adequately addressed.  
Given that the core network is the top-layer of the wider/comprehensive network, Option 2 is 
likely  to  generate  enhanced  positive  impacts  as  compared  to  Option  1,  due  to  the  synergic 
effects of the two networks. In Option 1, the positive impacts of the comprehensive network 
could be hampered due to continuing limited interconnectivity among the Priority Projects. 
The implementation of the planned infrastructure could be however easier in some cases for 
Option 1 than for Option 2. Member States may be more willing in some cases to implement 
Projects that they have selected themselves rather than Projects that have been selected on the 
basis of a methodology, even if the latter is agreed at EU level and has been largely discussed 
and reviewed with Member States and stakeholders.  
Economic growth 
According  to  economic  literature,  investment  in  network  infrastructure  can  boost  long-term 
economic  growth126.  However,  it  has  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  not  all  studies  converged 

125 2nd order GDP includes: 
 - lower goods prices through lower generalized freight costs (substitution effect) 
- higher factor income because of higher demand from other regions for local goods (income effect) 
- variety effect (utility from richer availability of goods) 
126  See  for  example  the  World  Bank  Report—Connecting  to  Compete  2010  Trade  Logistics  in  the  Global 
Economy  -The Logistical Performance Index and its Indicators 

47

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
towards  this  conclusion,  since  some  are  inconclusive127.  This  Impact  Assessment  assumed 
that infrastructure investment can have a positive effect on growth that goes beyond the effect 
of  the  capital  stock,  due  to  economies  of  scale,  the  existence  of  network  externalities  and 
competition  enhancing  effects.128Studies  have  shown  that  relatively  large  improvements  in 
infrastructure  (and  accessibility)  can  translate  into  gains  in  economic  performance,  though 
limited.129  
A  more  integrated  and  efficient  transport  system  enabling  the free movement  of people and 
goods across the EU and with its neighbours is expected to contribute to economic growth, as 
it  would  allow  for  a  more  efficient  use  of  resources.  The  EU  economy  should  also  benefit 
from  the  increase  in  the  capacity  and  performance  of  the  infrastructure  resulting  from  the 
elimination  of  bottlenecks  and  addition  of  missing  links.  Moreover,  the  building  of  new 
infrastructure would have an important impact on the construction sector; some infrastructure 
projects  like  high-speed  rail  provide  several  years  of  works  for  building  companies  and 
related  businesses.  In  addition,  the  promotion  of  intelligent  transport  systems  and  traffic 
management systems should foster research and innovation for new technologies and create 
new business cases. Finally, the improvement of the efficiency of the transport system and the 
reduction  of  related  obstacles  would  improve  the  economic  conditions  for  both  transport 
businesses and enterprises heavily depending on transport for their activity. 
Option 1 is likely to have a certain positive impact on EU economic performance thanks to 
increased  connectivity,  accessibility  and  connections  with  the  neighbouring  countries,  as  a 
consequence  of  building  additional  infrastructures.  However,  as  argued  earlier,  the  impact 
would depend on the list of Priority Projects to be adopted and may have an unbalanced effect 
between countries. The reinforced coordination approach in the implementation of the Priority 
Projects is likely to enable an increased deployment of intelligent transport systems. It is also 
likely to improve the efficiency of the transport system (see analysis below). It will accelerate 
the realisation of complex cross-border infrastructure and help thus complete the network by 
2030.  It  will  accelerate,  as  a  consequence,  also  the  cumulative  effect  of  GDP  growth.  As  a 
whole,  Option  1  could  have  a  positive  effect  on  EU  economic  growth,  but  will  risk  being 
unbalanced.  
Option 2 is likely to have an increased positive impact on EU growth compared to Options 0 
and  1,  due  to  its  strong  positive  impact  on  interconnectivity  and  accessibility  throughout 
Europe and consequently on the free movement of goods in the EU and with trading partners. 
Moreover,  the  reinforced  coordination  approach  applied  to  core  network  planning  should 
prove  more  efficient  in  implementing  intelligent  transport  systems  and  in  making  transport 
systems more efficient than in Option 1. Option 2 is thus likely to be the option with highest 
positive impact for economic competitiveness. 
GDP results of the TENconnect II study 
The  TENConnect  II  study  gave  comparisons  (with  business-as-usual/BAU)  of  GDP 
performance of both CORE network and COMP network at the planning level.130  
In  TENconnect  II,  the  Economic  growth  (measured  in  induced  GDP  Growth)  is  related  to 
traffic growth. Based on the 2nd GDP effects mentioned in table 8, the map below shows the 
growth  induced  by  the  Core  Network  in  2030  compared  to  the  growth  of  the  Business-as-
usual  scenario  (with  the  completion  of  the  current  Priority  Projects).  This  map  the  positive 

127 See for instance the following summary of studies: 
http://www.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/dtu%20transport/rapporter/rap_7_2010_infrastruktur%20og%20danmarks%
20internationale%20konkurrenceevne.pdf 
128Infrastructure  and  Growth:  Empirical  Evidence  ,  OECD  Economics  Department  Working  Paper  No.  685, 
March 2009 
129 As shown by the ECORYS report, using the SASI model. 
130 See Annex 6. for a more detailed critical analysis of the TENconnect results 

48

 
 
                                                 
benefits  of  the  CORE  for  regions  situated  along  the  eastern  and  southern  shores  of  the  EU. 
Regions  that  are  already  well  connected  (or  that  should  be  thanks  to  the  completion  of  the 
current  Priority  Projects)  do  not  gain  much  from  the  CORE,  unlike  regions  that  were  not 
connected  because  of  the  political  choices  made  when  selecting  the  Priority  Projects;  this 
seems  logical.  However,  while  the  general  results  seem  coherent,  results  are  sometimes 
incoherent for a limited number of regions.131  

Figure 6: TENConnect II GDP effects (horizon 2030) 

Trade with neighbouring and third countries 
The  lack  of  appropriate  connections  with  neighbouring  countries  (mostly  via  cross-border 
connections)  and  third  countries  (via  ports)  is  one  of  the  obstacles  to  the  development  of 
trade,  both  for  imports  and  exports.  The  impact  of  transport  infrastructure  and  the  related 
costs  of  transport  on  trade  have  been  studied  in  the  academic  literature132.  Studies  by  the 
World  Bank  on  countries  logistics  performance  show  the  correlation  between  economic 

131 Ibid.  
132 See for example Limao and Venables (2001) and Radelet and Sachs (1998). 

49

 
 
 
 
                                                 
growth and freight transport logistics effectiveness and efficiency.133 This correlation is also 
supported by other studies134. 
In Option 1, it is likely that the political process leading to the selection of the new Priority 
Projects will limit the number of connections towards neighbours. In a bottom-up approach, 
Member  States  are  more  likely  to  propose  projects  providing  for  connections  between 
themselves rather than connections with non-EU neighbours in order to get more immediate 
results.  However,  it  is  likely  that  Member  States  with  a  maritime  interface  will  seek  to 
connect their main ports in order to develop their hinterland and foster their competitiveness. 
Member  States  with  existing  important  connecting  platforms  with  neighbouring  countries 
might also seek to connect those hubs.  
Option  1  is  therefore  likely  to  improve  connections  with  3rd  countries  compared  to  the 
baseline  scenario.  Yet,  this  improvement  would  be  highly  dependent  on  the  bottom-up 
selection  of  Priority  Projects,  which  may  result  in  omissions  or  inappropriate  connections 
compared  to  the  actual  needs  (as  it  is  currently  the  case  and  has  been  pointed  out  in  the 
problem definition). 
In Option 2, the connection with neighbouring countries is included in the methodology that 
will help define the Core Network (see section 4 above). 
Innovation135 
Innovation  in  technology  can  improve  the  sustainability  of  transport  without  restricting 
economic  growth.  Innovation  can  reduce  the  adverse  environmental  impacts  of  transport 
operations by reducing emissions, noise levels, etc., and can improve their quality in terms of 
speed, comfort, as well as their safety. Similarly, by increasing the competitiveness of certain 
modes  of  transport,  it  can  present  them  with  new  opportunities  and  can  strengthen  their 
position in relation to the other modes (for instance the TGV high-speed trains). 
The ECORYS study explains that much of the technological innovation is undertaken by the 
private  sector.  The  FREIGHTVISION  study  gives  an  inventory  of  probable  technological 
developments and their likely contribution to reducing transports various 'externalities'. Also 
the Super Green136, PROMIT and FREIGHTVISION Projects, give details of 'best practice' in 
rail  freight  transport—see  annex  7.  The  main  role  of  the  EU  is  to  regulate  and  stimulate 
innovation.  Regulation  consists  in  establishing  interoperability  and  in  promoting  the 
introduction of useful technology which, although it is already fully developed, requires the 
imposition of more stringent rules to make it economically justifiable. 
Many drivers can affect the level of innovation. For the purpose of this document, the impact 
of  the  Options  on  innovation  will  be  considered  through  the  level  of  implementation  of 
horizontal activities, i.e. the implementation of traffic management systems and Information 
and  Communication  Technologies  (ICT).  Traffic  management  systems,  by  simplifying  and 
speeding  up  the  technical  interoperability  of  cross-border  transport,  provide  innovation 
opportunities,  stimulating  cross-border  knowledge  transfer  on  effective  deployment,  cross-
fertilisation  and  novel  add-on  services.  In  addition,  the  ITS  market  itself  will  benefit  from 
harmonisation and standardisation efforts, while synchronised actions will lead to coordinated 
deployment and shortening of time to market for new services (reducing the need for venture 

133 World Bank Report—Connecting to Compete 2010 Trade Logistics in the Global Economy  -The Logistical 
Performance Index and its Indicators 
134 Such as Limao and Venables (2001): studying the case of African countries for example they have shown that 
having an infrastructure in the top standards raises trade volumes by 68 percent, equivalent to being 2005 km 
closer  to  other  countries.  The  deterioration  of  the  infrastructure  on  the  contrary  reduces  trade  volumes  by  28 
percent, equivalent to being 1627 km further away from trading partners.   
135 Defined in the ECORYS study as the use of new ideas, processes, goods, services and practices in a more or 
less commercial way, based on any (new) application of science and/or technology. 
136 SuperGreen is a 7FP project that will define criterion for Green Corridors 

50

 
 
                                                 
capital).137  Moreover,  the  development  of  these  systems  in  Europe  thanks  to  the  expanded 
deployment in the TEN-T would favour economies of scale and demonstration that can also 
turn them into innovative export successes for the European industry. 
In  the  Baseline  scenario  interoperability  will  develop  through  enforcing  the  existing 
legislation on ERTMS138 and Intelligent Transport Systems139. However, this development is 
likely to be hampered by the cooperation problems shown in part 2.4.2. Also the ITS Action 
Plan will attempt a role out of appropriate ITS and ICT technologies, but without certainty as 
to  when  such  systems  will  be  universally  applied.  The  reinforced  coordination  approach  to 
implementation  in  Options  1  and  2  is  likely  to  accelerate  the  development  of  traffic 
management  systems  by  improving  governance  and  by  potentially  widening  its  use  on  new 
corridors.  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  all  three  Options  will  have  a  positive  effect  on 
innovation, though in varying degrees - the impact is likely to be stronger for Options 1 and 2 
than for Option 0. 
Conclusion 
Both  Options  1  and  2  would  have  an  overall  positive  economic  impact,  both  at 
macroeconomic level and for the transport business. Option 2 should have a deeper positive 
impact than Option 1 due to the specific methodology for selection of the Core Network and 
Corridors,  which  should  result  in  more  traffic  flows  being  affected  by  the  improvements  in 
infrastructure and soft measures. 

5.2. 

Social impacts of the options 

5.2.1. Employment and Jobs 
Jobs related to infrastructure investments  
Within  the  TENconnectII  methodology,  employment  and  jobs  effects  are  integrated  in  the 
economic/GDP  growth  calculations  above.  Hence,  as  there  are  positive  effects  on  GDP 
growth from a CORE network, then it is assumed that there will be positive effects on jobs, 
not just short term through construction, but long term through the enhanced efficiency that a 
true network would bring. This assumption comes with the caveat that it is possible to have 
growth without job creation. 
According to the economic literature, infrastructure investments help boost economic growth, 
enhance trade and mobility of people and constitute a highly effective engine of job creation. 
One  recent  study  in  the  US  showed  that  infrastructure  investment  spending  creates  about 
18,000 total jobs for  every $1 billion in new investment spending, including direct, indirect 
and  induced  jobs140.  Job  creation  is  mainly  related  to  infrastructure  works,  but  it  is  also 
induced by the indirect economic effect of the use of the new infrastructure. According to an 
impact  assessment  comparing  different  infrastructure  investments  scenarios  in  the  U.S.A.141 
the highest proportion of new jobs would be in construction. For their baseline scenario ($54 

137 From the Impact Assessment accompanying the Communication from the Commission, Action Plan for the 
Deployment  of  Intelligent  Transport  Systems  in  Europe  and  the  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems 
in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other transport modes 
138 Commission Decision 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 [C(2009) 5607 final] (also referred to as "the European Deployment Plan") 
139 Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the 
deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of 
transport 
140How Infrastructure Investments Support the U.S. Economy: Employment, Productivity and Growth, Political 
Economy Research Institute, January 2009. 
141Ibid. 

51

 
 
 
                                                 
billion baseline increase in public infrastructure investment), about 641,000 new construction 
jobs would be generated. Their high-end investment scenario ($93 billion high-end increase in 
public  infrastructure  investment)  would  generate  about  1  million  new  construction  jobs. 
Overall,  about  40  percent  of  all  new  job  creation  through  either  investment  programme—
including direct, indirect, and induced jobs—would be in construction.  
As  pointed  out  in  an  ECORYS  study,142  construction  jobs  created  by  infrastructure 
investments are mostly temporary jobs. However, permanent indirect impacts on employment 
are related to the improved accessibility of a given region by reduced travel time and costs, 
thereby possibly attracting new enterprises and related socio-economic activities resulting in 
the creation of new jobs. The U.S. investments scenarios study shows that about 146,000 new 
manufacturing  jobs  will  result  through  the  baseline  investment  scenario  and  the  high-end 
investment  scenario  will  generate  about  252,000  new  jobs.  About  10  percent  of  the  overall 
new job creation will be in manufacturing. 
Extrapolating  the  above  calculation  to  the  case  of  the  European  Union  and  taking  into 
consideration the investments needs necessary for the chosen options, it can be estimated that 
the following number of jobs could be created by 2020 if the investments to implement the 
infrastructure needs identified are concretised: 

Option 0 
Option 1 
Option 2 

Investments  needs  estimates  by 
2020143 

Job creation estimates by 2020144 

€ 150 billions 
€ 200 
€ 215 

2.03 million jobs  
2.72 million jobs 
2.92 million jobs 

It has to be noted here that this calculation assumes that all the investment needs identified (in 
cooperation with Member States via the TENtec system and the DG MOVE services) will be 
realised  by  2030.  However,  this  depends  on  the  amount  of  budget  allocated  by  the  EU  and 
Member  States  to  infrastructure  investments  in  the  next  decade.  This  question  will  be 
addressed  in  the  Impact  Assessment  on  the  Financial  Instruments  in  support  of  Transport 
Infrastructure and the Impact Assessment of the TEN-T Financial Regulation145. 
Moreover,  a  comprehensive  OECD  2002  report146  on  transport  infrastructure  investment147 
analysed employment impacts and distinguished between first, second and third round effects. 
First  round  effects  concern  direct  employment  in  construction  and  materials  supplying 
industries. The study concluded that for $ 1 Bln investment, 572 million employment income 
has  been  calculated,  resulting  in  almost  20  000  person-year  of  work.148  A  second  round  of 
employment and income effects occurs in the production sector in response to the demand for 
additional inputs required by construction materials supplying industries. The value of these 
first and second round of effects have a total multiplier effect of 2.34, meaning that $1 Bln 
investment  results  in  2.34  Bln  output  in  goods  and  services.  The  same  report  presents  a 

142ECORYS, ibid, p102. 
143 Estimates based on Member States Infrastructure Investment plans (2014 – 2020) established by DG MOVE 
in cooperation with Member states via TENtec database and bilateral meetings in April 201. These figures have 
also been used for the White Paper. 
144 Euro on 2011 basis, 18,000 total jobs for every $1 billion investment, average exchange rate euro – dollar of 
January 2009 (date of the above mentioned study) 
145 N° Agenda planning : 2011/MOVE/019 
146 Impact of Transport Infrastructure Investment on Regional Development, OECD report, 2002: 
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Pub/pdf/02RTRinvestE.pdf 
147 This study is presented in more details in annex 7 
148  As  the  report  was  written  in  2002  the  values  should  be  seen  as  giving  a  general  correlation  and  not  an 
accurate representation of employment levels over the period to 2030. 

52

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
similar exercise for France. As shown in the table below, the ratio of direct and indirect jobs 
compared  to  investment  is  smaller  but  still  significant.149  A  third  round  employment  and 
income  benefits  occur  in  the  guise  of  what  is  termed  “induced”  employment  and  reflects 
producers’  response  to  an  increase  in  the  demand  for  all  goods  and  services.150  These  are 
generally  short-term  employment  effects,  i.e.  linked  to  the  duration  of  the  effective  project 
infrastructure building. 

United States 
11 059 
12 493 
18 694 
42 246 

Direct jobs 
Indirect jobs 
Induced jobs 
Total 
Table 11: Direct and indirect employment effect for the USA and France for EUR 1 billion (FRF 6.56 
billion or USD 1.11 billion -at 2002 prices) (OECD 2002 Report) 
With the projections for the annual cost of the TEN-T given as ranging from € 21.4 billion for 
BAU, through € 28.6 billion for the CORE and   € 30.7 billion, based on the more conservative 
French  data,  the  annual  job  creation  would  vary  from  455000  for  BAU  to  608000  for  the 
CORE.Based  on  the  more  conservative  French  data,  the  total  cumulated  job  creation  to 
implement the infrastructure needs would be the following for 2014 -2020:  

France 
7 940 
8 070 
5 250 
21 260 

Option 0 
Option 1 
Option 2 

Investments  needs  estimates  by 
2020151 
€ 150 billions 
€ 200 
€ 215 

in  worker  years 

Job  creation 
estimates by 2020152 
3.2 million   
4.3 million  
4.6 million  

The  two  studies  mentioned  above  therefore  conclude  with  comparable  results,  showing  an 
important impact of infrastructure investment on job creation, applying to a large category of 
jobs. Since the impact is correlated to the level of investments, Option 2 will have a slightly 
more important impact than Option 1. 
Long-term  employment  effects  of  infrastructure  development  are  not  easy  to  calculate. 
However,  studies  have  highlighted  the  long-term  impacts  of  infrastructure  development  can 
have on the regional economy. For instance, the Severn Crossing bridge was opened in Wales 
in  the  1966  with  the  view  to  improve  communications  between  London  and  South-West 

149  For  example,  the  high-speed  line  Viller-les-Pots  to  Petit-Croix,  counting  140  km  and  €2.312  billion 
investments,  has  generated  about  6500  direct  and  indirect  jobs  during  the  five  years  of  construction. 
http://est.lgvrhinrhone.com/medias/pdf/medias1177.pdf 
150 The OECD report explains that "it should be made very clear that the employment impacts considered here 
are  not  related  to  employment  opportunities  resulting  from  industrial  restructuring  or  other  types  of  economic 
spillover benefits due to highway investment. The income and employment effects considered here result from 
construction  expenditures  working  their  way  through  the  economy,  much  as  in  the  case  of  other  types  of 
exogenous spending. In fact, because the employment estimates considered here are based on fixed relationships 
describing the use of human resources, the possible productivity benefits of transportation improvements on the 
construction industry, materials supplying industries, or other sectors of the economy are not considered." 
151 Estimates based on Member States Infrastructure Investment plans (2014 – 2020) established by DG MOVE 
in cooperation with Member states via TENtec database and bilateral meetings in April 201. These figures have 
also been used for the White Paper. 
152 Explanation for the calculations: the ratio of direct and indirect employment compared to cost is 42246/billion 
Euro in the USA and 21260/billion in France. With the projections for the annual cost of the TEN-T given as 
ranging from € 21.4 billion for Option 0, through € 28.6 billion for Option 1 and  € 30.7 billion for Option 2, the 
results give the following table. Given that the construction programme would last from 2013 until 2030, i.e. for 
a total period of 17 years, then the expected job creation could be as high as: BAU=7.74 million workers over 17 
years; CORE=10.3 million worker years; COMP=11.1 million worker years 

53

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Wales,  towards  Ireland.  The  ex-post  assessment  done  by  the  Cambridge  Economic 
Consultants’ (CEC) in 1987 gave the following results in term of long-term job creation for 
the regional economy: 

Similar  case  studies  are  mentioned  in  the  OECD  report,  showing  the  positive  results  of 
infrastructure  development  on  long-term  job  creation.  However,  in  the  absence  of  clear 
parameters  explaining these results, the impact  of  the  proposed  policy  options  on  long-term 
employment effect cannot be compared for the purpose of this document. 

Effects on employment in the transport sector 
As demonstrated by the Impact Assessment accompanying the White Paper153, in a no policy 
change  scenario  total  employment  in  transport  services  is  projected  to  roughly  maintain  its 
relative share by 2050, resulting in a lower level of absolute employment by the sector. With 
growing  transport  activity  demand,  this  may  negatively  affect  the  workload  and  working 
conditions.  Furthermore,  scarcity  of  labour  and  skills  due  to  ageing  could  further  aggravate 
the shortage of labour already experienced in many segments of the transport sector before the 
crisis. In absence of innovative alternatives, this may also result in higher transport costs for 
society. 
However, total employment in transport services is expected to grow if modal shift occurs, as 
the  Impact  Assessment  of  the  White  Paper  shows,  in  light  of  the  conclusions  of  various 
economic  studies.154  Employment  effects  from  induced  modal  shift  depend  on  the  labour 
intensity of each mode: road transport and inland waterways are more labour intensive than 
maritime  transport,  railways  or  aviation.  Amongst  the  labour-intensive  modes,  the  largest 
employer  is  road  freight  transport,  whose  job  losses  due  to  modal  shift  may,  in  part  be 
compensated by new jobs in multimodal transport services and logistics. It should be born in 
mind  that  prior  to  the  recession  there  was  a  chronic  shortage  of  jobs  in  road  freight  and  so 

153 Annex 3 
154 See for instance, “Climate Change and employment – Impact on employment in the European Union-25 of 
climate change and CO2 emission reduction measures by 2030”, European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), 
Instituto  Sindical  de  Trabajo,  Ambiente  y  Salud  (ISTAS),  Social  Development  Agency  (SDA),  Syndex, 
Wuppertal Institute (2007).  

54

 
 
 
                                                 
providing  alternative  transport  in  a  more  streamlined  network  should  be  seen  as  facilitating 
effective employment in all sectors. 
It  can  also  be  noted  that  the  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  newly  created  infrastructure 
create  jobs.  The  OECD  report  referred  to  earlier  explains  that  for  instance,  a  "motorway, 
analysed  as  a  “company”,  “sells  a  service”  and  thus  brings  in  revenue,  provides  jobs, 
generates substantial intermediary consumption (which may benefit the region served)".  The 
Report explains that for the Motorway section Poitiers Bordeaux, more than 1200 jobs were 
created for the maintenance and operation of this 220 km-section. Most of these jobs are new 
jobs corresponding to a new service. 
The  effect  of  employment  of  the  baseline  scenario  will  be  linked  to  the  construction  of  the 
current  TEN-T  Priority  Projects.  The  European  parliament  Report  on  Accessibility  and 
Cohesion (Annex 2) does not prescribe much overall employment benefit, with winners and 
losers in equal measure. 
The effects of Option 1 should be positive, regarding the economy overall, and there will be 
jobs  facilitating  co-modal  transport  and  modal  shift.  More  substantial,  would  be  the  overall 
economy employment gains that Option 2 would bring through facilitating effective transport 
operation.   

5.2.2. Public Health and Safety 
Safety & accidents 
According to the  TEN Connect I  study,  a business  as usual (BAU)  scenario  would  increase 
the external costs of accidents (road, rail and inland waterways combined) from €128.6 billion  
in 2007 to €144.3 billion in 2020—the increase mainly resulting in new Member States.  
The  TENConnect  II  study  revisited  the  BAU  scenario  and  compared  it  with  the  CORE 
network scenario. 

Impact 
euro)  

type 

(billion 

BAU  

CORE  

Road safety  

136.0 

137.1 

CORE vs 
BAU 
+1.1 

Table 12: TENconnect II results for Road Safety impacts (External costs) (horizon 2030). 
TENconnect  simulation  indicates  a  growth  in  total  costs  of  accidents  in  the  Core  network 
planning scenario (Option 2) as opposed to the traffic forecast on the TEN-T in a continuing 
BAU scenario (Option 0).  The growth of accident related costs in a CORE network planning 
scenario is a consequence of increased traffic thanks to improved system efficiency (i.e. the 
rebound155 effect) as opposed to the BAU scenario. The data needs however to be read with 
the following two qualifications:  
1) The relative overall increase in road safety costs (0.8%) that the TENconnectII modelling 
shows  in  a  CORE  network  planning  scenario  should  be  seen  in  the  overall  context  in  the 
increase of traffic. 
2)  As  a  consequence  of  its  exclusively  planning  starting  point,  as  highlighted  earlier,  the 
TENconnectII model did not take into account a series of other implementation related factors 
that would contribute to mitigating the negative effects in two ways:  

a) a likely increased modal shift in the actual Option 2 scenario, due to a series of non-
infrastructural measures to be promoted in the context of the reinforced corridor coordination 

155 Rebound effects are indirect, second order effects of policy instruments, which are often unintended and 
have the potential to undermine the ultimate objective of the primary policy instrument. 

55

 
 
 
 
                                                 
approach,  that  would  lead  to  a  shift  away  from road  traffic,  resulting  in  less  traffic  on  road 
than estimated by the model and therefore less accidents;  

b)  a  series  of  other  measures  that  would  contribute  to  increased  safety  on  road, 
reducing  thus  the  ratio  of  accidents/gravity  of  per  unit  of  traffic  volume  (as  opposed  to  the 
ratio  used  in  the  model),    such  as  the  use  of  intelligent  traffic  management  systems  and 
services and higher standards with regard to the construction of roads. (Notably, for example, 
the experience and results of Commission's Action Plan for road safety have not been taken 
into account in the TENconnectII simulation.)  
Furthermore,  as  demonstrated  by  the  evaluation  of  the  EasyWay  project156,  the  coordinated 
deployment of ITS services on the trans-European road network) can have significant positive 
impacts.  Thus,  within  the  frame  of  EasyWay  I,  this  has  lead  to  injury  accident  savings  of 
between 10% and 20%, depending on the particular application, rising to approximately 60% 
on some safety critical roads sections.  
The  results  of  the  deployment  of  dynamic  traffic  and  network  management  services  in 
particular, successfully deployed by European road operators to tackle disrupted traffic flows 
on strategic and critical sections of the TEN-T, have proved significant on those parts of the 
network that suffer greater congestion and accident rates. Positive impacts include increased 
capacity rates of up to 9% and a reduction in accidents of typically between 20% and 30%, 
but as high as 63% on particular safety critical sections of the TEN-T. 
Implementation  of  both  ITS  and  state  of  the  art  technological  standards  on  the  physical 
infrastructure is envisaged in all three retained TEN-T policy options but, as argued in the IA 
Report, these are likely to be most effectively and widely deployed in Option 2 as opposed to 
BAU/Option 0 as well as Option 1, due to better and coordinated implementation and wider 
traffic volumes affected. 
5.2.3  Accessibility and territorial cohesion 
As  with  Option  0,  Option  1  is  likely  to  have  an  unbalanced  effect  on  peripheral  areas.  As 
demonstrated in the ECORYS report157, the Priority Projects approach is likely to give more 
weight to countries which are net-contributors to the EU Budget. The result might be a lower 
increase  of  accessibility  for  EU12  countries  compared  to  EU15.  While  the  level  of 
accessibility for EU12 is already significantly lower than for EU15, differences will be further 
accentuated  by  the  expected  rise  in  fuel  costs.  Therefore,  Option  1  is  not  expected  to  bring 
general improvement to territorial cohesion, except for those few regions that are part of the 
new Priority Projects.158 
In Option 2, the impact will be much higher since the network to be financed will be made up 
primarily of selected corridors on a Core Network identified on the basis of a transparent and 
coherent  European  planning  methodology,  purposely  designed  to  ensure  a  balance 
geographical  coverage.  As  a  result,  interconnectivity  between  national  networks  will  be 
improved where it is necessary, as the planning methodology will allow for the identification 
of  network  development  on  the  basis  of  traffic  flows159,  transport  demand  as  well  as 
objectives of territorial cohesion and economic development.  

156 EasyWay – Synthesis of Project Evaluation Results 2007-2009, 15 February 2011. 
157  Ex  ante  evaluation  of  the  TEN-T  Multi  Annual  Programme  2007-2013,  ECORYS,  October  2007. 
Accessibility is measured in average speed of interregional road and rail trips (see Annex 2 of the present report) 
158 According to the TENconnect I study, a policy is normally classified as pro-cohesive if it helps economically 
lagging regions grow faster than economically more advanced regions. The implications of European transport 
policy for the regional cohesion were analysed in a series of research projects funded by the EC, for example, 
ESPON 2.1.17, IASON8, and ASSESS9. 
159 The traffic flows were identified by the Member States via the TENtec system, used as a monitoring tool by  
DG MOVE, see Annex 5 of the present report.  

56

 
 
                                                 
It  should  be  remembered  that  the  Core  Network  will  constitute  the  strategically  most 
important  parts  of  the  TEN-T,  as  identified  (on  the  basis  of  the  above  mentioned  planning 
methodology) of the Comprehensive Network –the basic layer of the TEN-T. While the Core 
Network is specific to Option 2, the Comprehensive Network would, essentially, result from 
an updating and adjustment of the current TEN-T and directly reflect the relevant existing and 
planned infrastructure in Member States. It should ensure the accessibility of all regions of the 
Union. It is expected to include road, rail, inland waterways, maritime and air infrastructure 
network  components,  as  well  as  the  connecting  points  between  the  modes.  It  would  feature 
minimum  infrastructure  standards,  and  aim  at  interoperability  wherever  necessary  for 
seamless  traffic  flows  across  the  network.  All  European  citizens  and  economic  operators 
should be able to access the Core Network, via the Comprehensive Network, on comparable 
terms. 
In the TENconnect II study, the comparison of the Business-As-Usual scenario (seen on map 
as  PP)  with  the  proposed  CORE  network  for  Accessibility  is  given  in  the  following  map—
hence the 'added value' of the CORE over-and-above the currently programmed, fragmented 
network is shown. The map is similar to that for GDP. 

Figure 7: Comparison of BAU with the proposed CORE network for accessibility (horizon 2030) 

57

 
 
 
5.3. 

Environmental impacts: Climate effects, Air pollution, Noise 

The 'rebound effect' seen in increases in road and a decrease in rail traffic is the result of the 
assumption of an absence of congestion on the CORE network (see explanation in annex 6)—
hence the CORE not only increases traffic on itself but alleviates congestion on the rest of the 
network  and  this  creates  demand.  Again,  it  is  the  implementation  measures  that  need  to  be 
applied  hand-in-hand  with  network  planning,  so  as  to  achieve  significant  sustainability 
improvements—see case studies report at annex 7.  
5.3.1. Climate change  
According to the business-as-usual scenario of the Commission Communication "A Roadmap 
for  moving  to  a  competitive  low  carbon  economy  in  2050",  EU  transport's  GHG  emissions 
will  increase  by  60%  to  70%  in  2050  in  comparison  to  the  1990  levels.  In  addition,  a  50% 
reduction of emissions in other sectors compared to 1990 would increase transport's share in 
total emissions from 20% (current state) to 50% by 2050. 
The reinforced coordination approach to implementation of Options 1 and 2 would improve 
the  efficiency  of  the  transport  system  and  promote  more  sustainable  transports  through  the 
deployment of intelligent transport systems improving the efficiency of transport operations, 
innovative  solutions  to  promote  low  carbon  transport  and  other  forms  of  "green"  transport 
solutions,  as  well  as  through  stimulating  technological  innovation  in  transport  and 
infrastructure development. Again, due to the specific methodology selection of network and 
corridors, based on a multimodal and traffic-flow approach, the positive effects of Option 2 
are likely to be significantly higher than those of Option 1. 
5.3.2.  Air pollution (NOx, PM, SOX, HCs) 
Air pollution levels, as defined by the Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and 
the Council on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, mostly depend on the vehicles' 
(including ship's) pollutant emissions performance and road traffic congestion in urban areas. 
To a large extent, the reduction of air pollution depends on the enforcement of the legislation 
concerning vehicles emissions160. 
Options  1  and  2  would  contribute  to  further  reduction  in  emissions  thanks  to  their  positive 
impact on congestion reduction, and as a result of induced modal shift.  On the other hand, 
Options  1  and  2  would  facilitate  larger  volumes  of  transport  traffic  flows,  leading  to  an 
increase  of  energy  and  fuel  consumption,  the  so-called  rebound  effect.  Hence,  whether  on 
balance  the  overall  impact  will  be  positive  or  negative  will  depend  on  the  extent  to  which 
cleaner  vehicle  technology  is  introduced.  The  reinforced  coordination  approach  to 
implementation  would  further  contribute  to  the  reduction  of  vehicles  emissions  in  both 
Options,  as  it  enables  better  promotion  of  greener  transport  solutions,  for  example  by 
fostering the replacement of diesel locomotives by electric ones and promoting cleaner road 
transport through technological innovation for both vehicles and the infrastructure. Due to its 
multi-modal and traffic flow based approach, the positive impact of Option 2 would be higher 
than that of Option 1. 
5.3.3. Noise 
According  to  one  study,161  road  generally  accounts  for  approximately  70%  of  total  noise 
emissions by transportation, rail for 10% and air transport for 20%. 

160  Such  as  Regulation  (EC) No 715/2007 of  the European Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 20  June  2007 on 
type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 
and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (Text with EEA relevance) 
161 Noise Pollution Emitted by Transportation Systems, Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue 2009 

58

 
 
 
                                                 
The  reference  scenario  of  the  Impact  assessment  of  the  White  Paper  highlights  that  the 
forecasted increase in traffic would lead to roughly 20 bn € increase of  noise related external 
costs by 2050. Option 0 would thus have a negative impact on noise emissions. 
Option 1 and 2 are not likely to limit traffic growth. However, they will influence modal shift: 
mainly  from  road  to  rail  and  inland  waterways  for  freight  transport,  and  from  road  and 
aviation  to  rail  for  passenger  traffic.  In  relative  terms,  road  and  air  transport  noise  will 
decrease while rail transport will increase overall therefore, noise emissions should decrease.  
Moreover,  with  the  reinforced  coordination  approach  to  implementation,  higher  quality 
infrastructure will be promoted, therefore reducing noise emissions, particularly for rail, road, 
and  multimodal  platforms  (for  instance,  the  promotion  of  rail  electrification  will  foster  the 
replacement  of  heavy  diesel  locomotives  by  lighter  electrified  ones).    In  addition,  as  noise 
emissions  reduction  is  likely  to  come  mainly  from  changes  in  the  motorisation  of 
vehicles/rolling-stock,  the  promotion  of  more  silent  vehicles  through  the  reinforced 
coordination approach to implementation will likely strengthen the overall positive impact on 
the reduction of noise emissions  of  Options  1  and  2.  Option  2  is likely, however,  to have a 
higher positive impact than Option 1, due to the overall higher volumes of traffic affected (as 
highlighted earlier). 
Since the implementation of Priority Projects in Option 1 and of Corridors in Option 2 will be 
ensured under the legal format of Decisions, the social impacts of these PPs/Corridors will be 
studied  in  detail  in  the  subsequent  Impact  Assessments  necessary  for  the  adoption  of  the 
Decisions. 
Results of the TENConnect II on environmental impacts 
For  Noise,  Air  pollution  and  Climate  effects  the  TENconnect  II  study  gave  the  following 
results comparing the CORE & COMPREHENSIVE (For information) with the Business-as-
usual: 

Scenario 

Impact type (€ billion)   

BAU 

CORE 

Traffic noise  

15.1 

Air  pollution 
PM, SOX, HCs) 

(NOx, 

60.5 

Climate effects (CO2) 

94.4 

15.2 

55.0 

95.5 

CORE vs 
BAU 
+0.1 

COMP vs 
BAU 

+0.2 

-5.5 

-5.5 

+1.1 

+1.6 

Table 13: TENConnect II results on environmental impacts (External costs, horizon 2030) 
The results of the TENconnectII simulation show a relative increase in the estimated costs of 
noise and CO2 emissions, but a decrease in those related to air pollution, in a policy scenario 
where the TEN-T is the result of coordinated EU-level planning (core network) as opposed to 
continuing  with  the  current  30  Priority  Projects  (the  result  of  a  bottom-up  approach)  in  a 
business-as-usual  scenario.  The  increase  in  the  costs  related  to  noise  and  CO2  emissions 
reflect, as in the case of road safety data,  the rebound effect of improved efficiency of traffic 
flows  on  an  effective  TEN-T  network,  most  apparent  in  the  COMPREHENSIVE  Network 
scenario.  
Yet, just as in the case of the road safety, the TENconnect II simulation does NOT reflect: a 
network  where  effects  of  multimodality  (an  in-built  dimension  of  network  planning  and 
implementation in Option 2)  have been taken into account - i.e. a shift away from road to rail 

59

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and  air  for  passenger  traffic,  and  to  rail  and  inland  waterways  for  freight;  or  the  impact  of 
coordinated  infrastructural  development  that  envisages  the  use  of  highest  technological 
standards  with  regard  to,  for  example,  the  motorisation  of  road  vehicles,  or  the  sources  of 
electricity used in the power grids of rail on the CORE network;  
A number of studies have however shown that the negative impacts of the rebound effect of 
traffic can be mitigated when measures to improve efficiency are taken in conjunction with a 
series of other measures meant to reduce the environmental impact of the transport sector.  
Thus, the European Environmental  Agency  report on 2009 (TERN) for example starts from 
the  premise  that  more  efficient  vehicles  using  less  fuel  may  in  the  long  run  be  cheaper  to 
operate, lowering the general transport costs and leading, in turn, to more transport, as tasks 
that were earlier too costly to undertake could then be done at a reasonable price. While this 
entails added choice for consumers and thus added welfare, it also means that significant parts 
of  the  environmental  benefits  disappear  in  growing  transport  volumes.  Nevertheless,  the 
report shows, a set of measures including adoption of technological improvements (improved 
engine  and  vehicle  design,  use  of  electric  cars,  low  carbon  fuels,  technologies  encouraging 
behavioural change) and demand control can combine to support the achievement of a 60% 
reduction in CO2 emissions from transport by 2050.  
The  evaluation  of  the  EasyWayI  impacts  provides  another,  though  more  limited  in  scope, 
example in this sense. Results have thus shown that the coordinated deployment of ITS on the 
TEN-T only has led to CO2 savings of up to 4% (between 2007 and 2009), as a consequence 
of reduced congestion (due to increased capacity throughputs by up to 20% where lanes are 
managed dynamically) and reduced accidents. 162 
Last, but not least, the Transport White Paper IA  Report  shows  that  measures  to  modernise 
and increase the efficiency of transport infrastructures are essential for any efforts to achieve 
the 60% CO2 reduction target, but that a more comprehensive and combined set of measures 
is needed to insure the sustainability of the transport system. In particular, the projected modal 
shift to non-road modes will be relying on several measures. Firstly and very essentially, the 
capacity and quality of transport infrastructure of non-road modes will have to be increased 
with a view to carrying higher volumes with high degree of efficiency. However, as shown by 
the  TEN-Connect  II  modelling  results  (see  Table  10),  building  of  infrastructure  in  isolation 
will  not  produce  any  noteworthy  modal  shift.  Therefore  -  secondly,  as  foreseen  in  the 
preferred option of the White Paper, other measures such as internalisation of external costs 
for all modes, taxation of fuels and vehicles, internal marked measures to fully open markets 
and to widely deploy ITS systems, and research and innovation. Combining these measures is 
expected to lead to significant reduction in air and noise pollutants by 2050. Nitrogen oxides 
emissions  would  decline  by  about  50%  relative  to  the  baseline  scenario,  while  particulate 
matter emissions by about 55%. Moreover, there will be a reduction in vehicle related noise 
pollution due to a decrease in the number of vehicles used and to a limited extent due to the 
gradual substitution of internal combustion engines for electric vehicles. External costs related 
to noise would decrease by as much as 46% relative to the baseline scenario by 2050. 163 
5.3.4. Energy use 
The  energy  use  of  the  transport  sector  mostly  depends  on  the  source  of  energy  used  by 
transport operators to cover their needs, on the one hand, and on the energy efficiency of the 

162  Measures  facilitated  through  a  high  ITS  content  that  might  be  considered  as  ready  for  widespread 
deployment, include: cross border traffic management; dynamic lane management; variable speed limits / speed 
limit  enforcement;  co-ordinated  data  exchange  /  real  time  traffic  information  provision.  A  number  of  other 
measures  show  potential  and  after  further  evaluation  by  the  EasyWay  II  programme  should  be  reviewed  and 
considered  for  mainstreaming.  These  include:  co-modal  information  /  journey  planning;  freight  specific 
information / parking guidance. 
163 SEC (2011) 358, p. 74. See also the reference to the WP IA report in subsection 5.1.1 above.  

60

 
 
                                                 
vehicles  used,  on  the  other.    Increased  use  of  renewable  energy  sources  to  power  vehicles 
would  be  facilitated  by  the  development  of  supporting  infrastructure,  such  as  electrified 
railways  and  power  supply  stations  (e.g.  electricity/battery  and  hydrogen)  along  the  road 
infrastructure.  Increased use of biofuels is also important for the further decarbonisation of 
transport,  mostly  in  aviation  and  waterborne  transport,  where  electrification  is  not  really  an 
option.164 
Energy  efficiency  is  the  other  major  contributor  to  the  decarbonisation  of  transport,  as  the 
technology scenario from the Impact Assessment on “Low-carbon economy 2050 roadmap" 
shows.165  Transport  infrastructure  can  contribute  to  increased  energy  efficiency  of  the 
transport  system  by  reducing  congestion,  encouraging  modal  shift  and  co-modality  towards 
more energy efficient transport modes/solutions166 as well as supporting the development of 
innovative transport solutions. Nevertheless, as pointed out above, the impact of greener/more 
efficient infrastructure development depends to an important extent also on external factors, 
such  as  the  growth  of  the  share  of  renewable  energy  used  to  produce  electricity167  and  the 
rhythm of development and adoption of new technologies.168   
Option  1  and  2  should  have  an  overall  positive  impact,  due  to  their  positive  impact  on  the 
energy efficiency and through facilitating the deployment of alternative fuels by the provision 
of recharging and refuelling infrastructure. Option 2 should lead to a higher positive impact as 
compared to Option 1, due to its enhanced planning aspects.   
5.3.5. Land-use & biodiversity 
As  explained  in  the  Impact  Assessment  of  the  White  Paper,  the  greatest  impact  on  other 
environmental  resources  would  be  caused  by  an  increase  in  land  use  for  infrastructure, 
generating  increased  pressure  on  biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services,  due  to  direct  damage 
linked to construction, habitat fragmentation and degradation, and disturbance.  
It must be noted here that, according to relevant Union legislation,169 all three Options would 
include the assessment of the strategic environmental impact at the level of relevant plans and 
programmes  by  MS,  as  well  as  the  assessment  of  environmental  effects  at  the  level  of 
individual projects of common interest (see Annex 4). 
TEN-T projects may pose serious threats to biodiversity and Natura 2000 areas  which  were 
designated to protect the most endangered European species and habitat types. The negative 
impacts  from  transport  projects  might  result  from  physical  reduction  of  natural  habitats, 
landscape fragmentation, migration barriers, collision of vehicles with animals, emissions of 
noise and air pollutants, changes to the water regime and others. It is therefore necessary that 

164 Impact Assessment accompanying the “Low-carbon economy 2050 roadmap", SEC(2011) 288 final.  
165 SEC(2011) 288 final 
166  For  instance  by  promoting  electrified  high-speed  rail  for  passenger  transport  instead  of  aviation  or  by 
promoting electrified rail freight transport instead of road transport. 
167  The  pathways  for  the  decarbonisation  of  power  generation  will  be  analysed  in  the  forthcoming  Energy 
Roadmap 2050. 
168 For instance, the average energy efficiency of passenger cars in 1990 was 43.9 toe/Mpkm. By 2050,  
improves  to  23.9  in  the  reference  scenario  and  it  is  further  reduced  to  13.6  toe/Mpkm  in  the  Effective 
Technology scenario. This is achieved through gradual efficiency improvements of internal combustion engines 
and  subsequently  gradual  hybridisation  leading  eventually  to  high  penetration  rates  for  electric  propulsion 
vehicles (such as for example plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles). 
169Pursuant to Council Directive 85/337/EEC, environmental impact assessments of projects of common interest 
which are to be implemented and by applying Council Directives 79/409/EEC (Birds Directive) and 92/43/EEC 
(Habitats Directive). Moreover as from 21 July 2004 an environmental assessment of the plans and programmes 
leading  to  such  projects,  especially  where  they  concern  new  routes  or  other  important  nodal  infrastructure 
development, shall be carried out by MS pursuant to Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of 
certain  plans  and  programmes  on  the  environment  (SEA  Directive).  MS  shall  take  the  results  of  this 
environmental assessment into account in the preparation of the plans and programmes concerned, in accordance 
with Article 8 of that Directive. 

this 

61

 
 
                                                 
all projects undertaken as part of the TEN-Ts prove full compliance with EU environmental 
legislation,  including  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives,  before  they  are  given  a  green  light  for 
implementation.  
In  addition,  a  multi-NGO  study170  on  the  potential  conflicts  between  the  TEN-T  Priority 
Projects and the EU’s Natura 2000 network of protected areas found that 379 sites that should 
be  protected  by  the  EU  Birds  Directive  and  935  protected  under  the  Habitats  Directive  are 
likely to be affected by the 21 TEN-T Priority Projects analysed. Watercourses and maritime 
areas merit particular attention (see Annex 4). 
In  Option  1,  the  impact  on  land-use  and  biodiversity  is  likely  to  be  very  negative  since  the 
selection of new Priority Projects would lead to the building of new infrastructure. 
In  Option  2,  the  impact  will  remain  limited  by  the  fact  that  the  Core  Network  would  be 
established  mostly  on  existing  infrastructure.  However,  missing  geographical  links,  mostly 
cross-border  between  national  networks  and  bottlenecks  and  new  infrastructure  in  the  new 
Member States, as well as missing modal links connecting modes of transport, would be built. 
Therefore, Option 2 would have a negative, though limited, impact. 

5.4. 

The positive impact of implementation measures 

The  case  studies  of  Annex  7  show  how  the  application  of  today's  'best  practice'  will  reduce 
transport  externalities,  to  more  than  compensate for any increase in traffic volume resulting 
from  the  operation  of  an  efficient  CORE  network  (the  rebound  effect).  These  case  studies 
show  the  needs  for  adequate  implementation  strategies  in  order  to  complement  transport 
planning approaches 
The rail freight studies show a selection of current 'best practice' and how they have managed 
to gain significant improvement in utilisation and modal shift from road to rail. For instance, 
the BRAVO project along the Brenner Corridor saw an increase in traffic volumes of about 57 
percent  over  the  last  three  years.  The  other  studies  focus  on  proposed  networks,  from  the 
central  network  of  NEWOPERA  to  the  'red  banana'  of  FERRMED.  The  benefits  of  the 
corridors are given in terms of modal shift (up to a doubling of 'long distance' freight transport 
volume  by  rail)  and  CO2  reduction  and  the  costs  are  a  similar  order  of  magnitude  to  that 
estimated  in  the  IA  for  the  freight  orientated  rail  network  regulation.  All  conclude  that  the 
cost  of  developing  an  entire  network  with  a  total  length  of  about  25  000  km  amounts  to 
around €170 billion.  NEWOPERA estimated that a  quadrupling of the rail freight trains on 
the  New  Opera  corridor  would  expand  rail  freight's  market  share  from  6%  (2006)  to  16%. 
FERRMED gives estimates of 17% of all inland freight and 24% (more than 500 km) - 28% 
(more  than  1,000km).  But  for  these  gains  to  be  realised  then  all  studies  conclude  for  EU 
Railway Corridors Management.  
The Ports study shows the likely future bottlenecks and congestion hotspots and the necessity 
for  hinterland  connections  that  shift  freight  from  the  ports  as  quickly  and  as  cleanly  as 
possible,  especially  so  for  the  north-range  ports.  The  study  reinforces  the  growing  need  for 
effective and sufficient rail (and IWW) freight transport. 
The EASYWAY study on the application of ITS best practice shows how the 'rebound effect' 
resulting  from  the  operation  of  an  efficient  CORE  network  does  not  need  to  lead  to  higher 
external  costs.  Their  work  has  shown  road  accident  savings  of  between  10%  and  20%, 
depending on the particular application, rising to approximately 60% on some safety critical 
roads  sections.  Congestion  is  improved  with  capacity  throughputs  increased  by  up  to  20% 
where  lanes  are  managed  dynamically;  and  for  the  environment,  reduced  congestion,  along 
with reduced accidents, have resulted in CO2 savings of up to 4%. 

170  TEN-T  and  Natura  2000:  the  way  forward,  an  assessment  of  the  potential  impact  of  the  TEN-T  Priority 
Projects on Natura 2000, Final report – May 2008 

62

 
 
                                                 
Finally,  the  EEA  TERN  study,  FREIGHTVISION  and  the  IA  for  the  Climate  Change 
Roadmap all support the notion of the Transport White Paper, that future sustainable mobility 
can only be achieved by the Cumulative effect of a combination of 'improve', 'avoid' and 'shift' 
measures. 

5.5. 

Sensitivity analysis of the policy options 

The sensitivity analysis of the underlying assumptions has  been  studied  in part 2.4.3 and in 
the Impact Assessment accompanying the White Paper. 
As concerns the main factors inherent to the policy options and affecting the options' impacts, 
they have been identified as:  
a) possible changes regarding the network configuration, since the revised Guidelines will be 
adopted in the ordinary (co-decision) legislative procedure; 
b)  the  impact  of  budgetary  decisions  at  Union,  Member  States  and  regional  level  on  the 
availability of funds for development of TEN-T projects. 
Moreover,  with  Member  States  in  charge  of  the  majority  of  infrastructure  investments,  the 
impact of political cooperation and the impact of local political changes on the realisation of 
infrastructure could prove critical. The reinforced coordination approach to implementation in 
Options  1  and  2  should  lead  to  better  addressing  cooperation  issues,  through  binding 
commitments  inscribed  in  corridor  Decisions.  Nevertheless,  implementation  will  ultimately 
depend  on  Member  States  and  regional  and  local  authorities  and,  enforcement  action  at  EU 
level  would  always  be  limited,  in  respect  of  Union  procedures  and  the  principles  of 
subsidiarity and proportionality.  
5.5.1 On the possible changes regarding the network configuration 
In undertaking Option 2, the Commission would be in possession of a robust instrument for 
designing the network. As pointed out earlier, a methodology has been elaborated by a high-
level group of external experts, which has been published in a report and submitted to a wide 
stakeholder  consultation  in  2010,  and  thereafter  consolidated  and  submitted  again  to  the 
Member  States  and  the  European  Parliament.  Bilateral  discussions  with  the  Member  States 
have focused on fine-tuning certain alignments.  
In  the  same  discussions  it  became  apparent  that  the  Member  States  were  interested  in  a 
number  of  projects  that  were  rather  political  wishes  than  viable,  EU-added  value  projects. 
Whereas in Option 2, on the basis of the methodology, these projects have been refused, the 
least  exceptions  would  turn  the  coherent  methodology  application  into  cherry  picking,  in 
Option 1 that would not be possible. Such projects, in most cases, do not have a significant 
EU-added value, as these projects do not correspond to the economical reality, nor to traffic 
needs. 
It is therefore unlikely that the Core Network of Option 2 will be prone to greater variations in 
the final lead up to the Commission proposal. This would not be however the case of Option 
1, even if DG MOVE had a good knowledge of the projects intended to be proposed by the 
Member States.  
As a consequence, impact and investment estimates are unlikely to vary to a large extent in 
Option 2. But they are likely to vary in Option 1, according to final Member States decision 
during discussions in the Council on the adoption of the new Priority Projects, as well as the 
amendments of the European Parliament. 
With regard to the core network corridors in Option 2, these will be established along the core 
network configuration, based upon the criteria highlighted in chapter 4.2.  As they correspond 
largely  to  parts  of  the  Priority  Projects  and  to  the  rail  freight  corridors,  continuity  of  major 
investments  and  efforts  made  so  far  will  be  ensured,  and  at  the  same  time  bringing  in  the 

63

 
 
methodology and thus linking up the different transport modes, connecting ports, nodes and 
terminals. 
5.5.2 On the consequences of decisions on the Multi-annual Financial Framework after 2013 
and the budgetary constraints on Member states' budgets 
The  investments  estimates  for  both  Option  1  and  Option  2  take  into  account  the  financial 
difficulties  of  the  Member  States,  since  the  investments  figures  up  to  2020  have  been 
discussed  with  them.  As  regards  Option  2,  the  sections  included  in  the  Core  Network  are 
based on the reality of investments capacities up to 2030. Some costly and unrealistic projects 
(such as the Odra-Elbe-Danube Canal) have been deleted from the map.  
The  Multi-annual  Financial  Framework  (MFF)  discussions  and  the  future  European  budget 
available  for  transport  investment  will  have  an  impact  on  both  options  with  regard  to  the 
timing  and  the  capacity  of  the  EU  to  trigger  the  realisation  of  projects.  The  next  MFF  will 
cover only a period up to around 2020, while the Guidelines target a complete and integrated 
TEN-T by 2030. The higher the budget available for the next period, the more projects to be 
completed in the next 10 years, the earlier the positive impacts of the network effect will be. 
A  reduced  budget  for  transport  infrastructure  might  lead  to  later  implementation  dates  and 
hence delayed effects of the TEN-T positive impact. But it should not influence decisions as 
to  whether  projects  are  part  of  the  network  and  would  be  implemented  or  not.  Due  to  two 
decades of TEN-T policy and the decisions taken under the present MFF, the maturity of most 
projects  still  to  be  realised  is  generally  high  and  the  likelihood  of  them  being  realised  until 
2030 is good. 
The Commission adopted its Multi-Annual Financial Framework proposal (COM 2011) 500 
final) on 29 June 2011. This proposal includes a "Connecting Europe Facility" with the view 
to accelerate the infrastructure development that the EU needs. It covers infrastructures in the 
field  of  transport,  energy,  information  and  telecommunication  technologies.  €  21.7  bn  are 
allocated to transport, with an additional €10 bn  ring-fenced for related transport investment 
inside the Cohesion fund. These €31.7 bn should f und pre-identified transport infrastructures 
of EU interest, for which a preliminary list is proposed. This list covers 10 European Mobility 
Corridors  and  Transport  Core  Network  projects,  and  is  thereby  fully  in  line  with  Option  2 
proposing  a  Core  Network  with  a  reinforced  approach  to  implementation  by  means  of 
corridors. Should this Commission Proposal be agreed upon by the European Parliament and 
Member States, it would help accelerating the completion of EU added-value projects in the 
next 10 years, accelerating the expected positive impact presented in this document. 
It should be also noted that the Guidelines are prescriptive, meaning that once adopted, they 
represent  a  commitment  on  the  part  of  the  Member  States  to  complete  the  new  Priority 
Projects, or their part of the Core Network respectively, before 2030. 

5.6. 

Choice of the appropriate legal act 

The  current  TEN-T  Guidelines  have  been  proposed  and  adopted  as  a  Decision  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council.  The  Decision  is  specifically  addressed  to  the 
Member States, rendering the Guidelines binding in their entirety for all the Member States. 
While the Member States have traditionally constituted the main actors involved in transport 
infrastructure development and management, developments suggest that the situation will be 
progressively changing within the coming decades. Attracting private capital in various forms 
of  public-private  partnerships  is  an  increasingly  sought  for  option,  in  particular  in  contexts 
such as the current one of increased strains put on public budgets (both of the Member States 
and of the Union). 
The  Commission  has  already  undertaken  in  its  2010  Budget  Review  Communication  to 
leverage  investments  from  the  EU  budget  by  providing  a  framework  to  enable  partnerships 
with banks and other private sector actors in using EU funds, by means of an increasing array 

64

 
 
of  innovative  financial  instruments.  Transport  infrastructure  is  one  of  the  areas  where 
innovative  financial  instruments  have  been  pioneered  by  the  Commission,  and  for  the  next 
MFF the Commission intends to propose that a significant part of its transport infrastructure 
budget be managed by innovative financial instruments.171 
With  more  actors  besides  the  Member  States  becoming  involved  in  TEN-T  infrastructure 
development,  it  is  important  to  ensure  that  the  Guidelines  be  binding  for  all.172  While  a 
decision, as a legal instrument, may address also other actors than the Member States, these 
actors  need  to  be  clearly  specified.  As  stipulated  in  Article  288  of  the  TFEU,  a  decision  is 
binding only on those to whom it specifies that it will be addressed. However, given that the 
revised Guidelines are intended to cover the period up to 2030, it is difficult to anticipate at 
this  point  in  time  all  the  categories  of  actors  that  would  become  involved  in  TEN-T 
implementation projects over the next two decades.  
The alternative available legal instruments are a regulation or a directive. According to Article 
288 of the TFEU, a regulation shall have a general application, meaning it shall address all 
physical  and  legal  persons  concerned,  and  it  shall  be  binding  in  its  entirety  and  directly 
applicable  in  all  Member  States.  As  such,  a  regulation  appears  a  more  appropriate  legal 
instrument,  as  it  is  more  comprehensive,  without  having  to  be  specific,  and  hence 
discriminating, in its coverage. 
A  directive  shall  be  binding,  as  to  the  result  to  be  achieved,  upon  each  Member  State  to 
which it is addressed. However, Member States are free to decide on the choice of form and 
methods to achieve the prescribed results. This renders a directive an unsuitable choice as a 
legal instrument for the TEN-T Guidelines, since higher coordination among Member States, 
not least at implementation level, is one of the main objectives of the TEN-T policy revision 
initiative.  

6. 

COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS 

6.1. 

Effectiveness 

6.1.1. Improving EU-level coordination in planning the TEN-T configuration 
Compared to the baseline scenario (Option 0), Option 1 should ensure, in a first place, better 
interconnectivity  of  networks  across  countries.  Though  it  shares  with  Option  0  the  current, 
predominantly  bottom-up  approach  to  planning,  and  hence  could  potentially  inherit  its 
predominantly  uni-modal  focus,  a  better  definition  of  criteria  for  priority  projects 
identification,  drawing  on  current  experience  and  assessment  results,  should  support  the 
development  of  project  proposals  with  higher  EU  added-value  on  the  TEN-T.  The 
identification  of  new  Priority  Projects  should 
thus  allow  building  new/connecting 
infrastructure to fill in critical missing links, including improving East-West connections and 
connections with third countries. Nevertheless, insofar as at the level of planning a primarily 
bottom-up  approach  will  prevail,  experience  suggests  that  the  resulting  configuration  will 
remain suboptimal.173  

171 According to proposals currently discussed within the Commission in the context of developing the next MFF 
proposal. 
172  The  Report  on  the  “Consultation  on  the  Future  Trans-European  Network  Policy”  mentioned  that  some 
contributors explained that the legal instrument framing the future TEN-T policy should be binding. 
173  Merely  providing  a  better  definition  of  priority  projects  criteria  will  not,  in  itself,  lead  to  significantly 
improved  coordination  at  EU  level  in  planning  the  development  of  the  TEN-T.  It  should  provide  a  better  EU 
level-steered  approach  to  planning,  by  setting  clearer  defined  and  better  focused  landmarks  but  to  what  will 
remain nevertheless an essentially bottom-up process. Member States would still continue to consider and fund 
with  priority  achieving  national  objectives,  whereby  certain  cross-border  links  or  multi-modal  network 
connections do  not  necessarily  figure  among  the  top  of  the  list.  At  the other  end,  Member States  are likely  to 

65

 
 
                                                 
Compared  to  Option  0,  Option  2  is  also  likely  to  prove  more  effective  in  ensuring  a 
coordinated  approach  to  developing  the  TEN-T  while  addressing,  at  the  same  time,  aspects 
such  as    missing  cross-border  links,  multi-modal  connecting  infrastructure,  links  to  third 
countries.  

The difference between Options 1 and 2 lies primarily in the degree of coordination opted for 
in planning the TEN-T, where Option 2 will propose a stronger top-down coordination at EU 
level. This is particularly true with regard to the identification of the projects of key European 
interest:  

- In Option 2, projects of key European interest will be situated on a pre-identified strategic 
network  configuration  (the  "core  network"),  optimised  at  the  level  of  planning  by  including 
missing cross-border links (including links with neighbouring states), multi-modal connection 
nodes and infrastructure to alleviate critical bottlenecks along major trans-European routes. – 
In  Option  1,  TEN-T  configuration  will  continue  to  stem  from  Member  States'  project 
proposals. Even though better defined criteria for priority projects identification are expected 
to ensure higher converge in Option 1, as opposed to Option 0, towards achievement of EU-
level strategic interests, insofar as at the level of planning a primarily bottom-up approach will 
prevail, as pointed out earlier, the resulting configuration is expected to remain suboptimal.  
At the level of the wider (or "comprehensive") TEN-T, the difference is less marked, but still 
worth noting. While in Option 1 Member States will be asked to provide updated maps to take 
into  account  changes  in  completed  and  planned  projects,  in  Option  2  the  maps  will  also  be 
adjusted according to a number of common principles/rules, ensuring thus a more coordinated 
approach also to the wider/comprehensive network identification.  
6.1.2. Fostering the interoperability of national networks  
The reinforced coordination approach to implementation, shared by both Option 1 and Option 
2,  provides  for  biding  commitments  on  all  actors  involved  (both  public  and  private)  to 
implement  common  technical  and  service  standards  along  the  selected  Priority  Projects  or, 
respectively, Corridors. Interoperability issues are therefore likely to be addressed in a direct 
and comprehensive manner by means of Priority Project/Corridor Decisions in both Option 1 
and Option 2 as compared to Option 0. Nevertheless, due to the higher degree of coordination 
at  planning  level  in  Option  2  than  in  Option  1,  effectiveness  in  ensuring  the  objective  of 
higher levels of interoperability on the TEN-T is expected to be higher in the former than in 
the latter.  
In  Option  2,  it  is  worth  recalling,  projects  will  be  financed  with  priority  along  multimodal 
Corridors that concern the most important cross-border traffic flows along the (core) network, 
cross at least two borders between three Member States, and involve at least three transport 
modes for at least half of the traffic volume along the Corridor. By committing all potential 
actors  involved  in  the  various  projects  along  the  Corridor  to  common  technical  and 
operational  standards,  interoperability  among  at  least  three  national  networks,  inter-modal 
connection among at least three modes and a high threshold for traffic volumes concerned are 
thus ensured from the start.  
In Option 1 however, interoperability standards are only effectively ensured along individual 
Priority  Projects.  Strengthened  EU-added  value  criteria  for  Priority  Projects  should  ensure 
that  more  projects  are  proposed  that  develop  cross-border  links,  following  most  important 
traffic flows, or that involve development of multi-modal sections. Yet these criteria, it should 
be  recalled,  are  not  cumulative,  lest  the  bar  is  set  too  high  to  be  met  by  individual  project 

promote cross-border projects with high political profile but less economic efficiency, such as the Via Carpathica 
or the Central Pyrenean crossing. (See also assessment of planning scenario A3 in Annex 3.) 

66

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
consortia.174 Hence, on average, less national networks, less modes and  less traffic  volumes 
are likely to be concerned by common interoperability standards along a Priority Project than 
along a Corridor. Consequently, it can be concluded, lower levels of interoperability are to be 
expected along a TEN-T of which core develops as the sum of Priority Projects, i.e. Option 1, 
than  along  a  TEN-T  that  is  developed  by  means  of  (priority)  multimodal  Corridors  on  an 
optimised network configuration, i.e. Option 2.  
6.1.3. Enhancing Member States cooperation 
With the reinforced coordination approach to implementation in both Option 1 and Option 2, 
Member  States  cooperation  in  developing  projects  along  the  TEN-T  in  both  Option  1  and 
Option  2  is  likely  to  be  significantly  enhanced  as  opposed  to  Option  0.  The  Priority 
Projects/Corridor Decisions in Option 1 and Option 2, respectively, provide for a coordinated 
approach  to  infrastructural  investments  by  all  actors  involved.  Both  EU  and  Member  States 
funding  would  be  committed  through  the  individual  Priority  Project/Corridor  Decisions, 
which would also establish binding timelines for completion. Infrastructure improvements and 
transport policy measures would closely interact, and their realisation will be brought forward 
by  appropriate  coordination  structures,  under  the  aegis  of  a  Priority  Project  /Corridor 
Coordinator. 
Nevertheless, the overall impact of reinforced coordination is likely to be relatively higher in 
Option 2 than in Option 1, for the same reasons as argued in the case of the interoperability 
objective,  achievement.  More  specifically,  though  specific  effectiveness  in  improving 
Member States coordination is likely to be similar, insofar as more cross-border missing links 
and  higher  volumes  of  traffic  are  expected  to  be  covered  by  individual  Corridor  Decisions 
than  by  individual  Priority  Project  Decisions,  the  overall  impact  on  improving  TEN-T 
delivery is expected to be higher in Option 2 than in Option 1.  
6.1.4. Ensuring highest EU added-value for the use of EU funds 
As  argued  in  section  2.3.4  above,  the  TEN-T  Guidelines  provide  a  framework  for 
conditionality in allocating funds for TEN-T development by means of policy action at both 
planning and implementation level. At the level of planning, conditionality is indirect, but no 
less  effective:  the  higher  the  coordination  of  planning  towards  meeting  EU-wide  priority 
objectives,  the  higher  the  percentage  of  funds that  support  EU-added  value  projects.  In  that 
respect, conditionality of use of EU funding is likely to be higher in both Option 1 and Option 
2  as  opposed  to  Option  0,  due  to  expected  higher  coordination  in  TEN-T  planning.  By  the 
same  token,  the  effectiveness  of  policy  measures  in  Option  2  is  likely  to  be  higher  than  in 
Option 1.  
At  implementation  level,  conditionality  can  be  prescribed  more  directly.  This  is  primarily 
done by means of the rules for awarding financial grants. Yet, as the financial rules for TEN-
T funding will be dealt with in a separate legal document, accompanied by a distinct impact 
analysis,  this  aspect  has  not  been  dealt  with  here.  Nevertheless,  other  implementation 
measures  can  also  help  ensure  that  funding  is  channelled  towards  projects  with  highest  EU 
added value. It is the case for example of the TEN-T EA, which has an important support role 
in  the  development  of  project  proposals  "pipeline".  When  its  work  is  supported  by  better 
planning  coordination  guidelines,  as  is  the  case  in  both  Option  1  and  Option  2,  its 
effectiveness in steering Member States proposals towards higher EU added value projects is 
likely to be higher than in an Option 0 scenario. By the same token, Agency's activity is likely 
to  be  more  effective  in  steering  Member  States'  proposals  towards  higher  EU-added  value 
under Option 2 than under Option 1.  

174 Whereas, it might be worth underscoring, these criteria can be applied cumulatively at Corridor level, as they 
do  not  necessarily  concern,  cumulatively,  single  projects.  Projects  may  develop  only  a  single  cross-border 
section, or an inter-modal connecting point, while respecting the common operability standards prescribed.  

67

 
 
                                                 
At  the  same  time,  by  providing  for  a  coordinated  approach  to  investments  and  bindingly 
committing EU and Member States funds as well as agreed timelines for completion within 
the  individual  Priority  Project/Corridor  Decisions,  the  reinforced  coordination  approach  to 
implementation  in  both  Option  1  and  Option  2  is  likely  to  lead  to  higher  effectiveness  in 
delivering EU-funded projects than in Option 0, contributing thus to enhanced effectiveness 
of  the  use  of  EU  funds.  As  argued  earlier,  increased  effectiveness  in  implementation  in  a 
reinforced coordination approach is likely to concern TEN-T sections with higher volumes of 
traffic,  and  linking  more  national  and  modal  networks  in  Option  2  than  in  Option  1. 
Consequently,  effectiveness  in  increasing  the  efficiency  of  the  use  of  EU  funds  supporting 
higher EU-added value projects is expected to also be higher in Option 2 than in Option 1. 

Option 0  Option 1  Option 2 

Medium 

Medium 

High 

High 

No 

No 

No 

the 

Low 

Low 

High 

lack  of 

fostering 

Medium  

interoperability  by 

Improve  planning  coordination  by  means  of  a  coherent  & 
transparent  approach  to  define  the  network  configuration, 
addressing aspects of network fragmentation linked to missing 
links, multimodal connections and connections to neighbouring 
and 3rd countries; adequate geographical coverage.  
Address 
the 
implementation  of  European  standards  for  management 
systems  and  the  development  of  harmonised  operational  rules 
on the TEN-T project of common interests  
Enhance  Member  States  cooperation  in  order  to  coordinate 
investments,  timing,  choice  of  the  routes,  environmental  and 
cost-benefit assessments for projects of common interests.  
Ensure that the optimal network configuration is a key element 
in  the  allocation  of  EU  funding  allowing  to  focus  on  cross-
border  sections,  missing-links  and  bottlenecks,  in  order  to 
address  the  lack  of  sufficient  conditionality  of  the  TEN-T 
funding instruments. 
Table 14: Effectiveness of envisaged policy options in light of objectives 
Overall, it can be thus be concluded that Option 1 would ensure improved  effectiveness, as 
compared  to  Option  0,  in  achieving  the  objectives  of  physical  interconnectivity  and 
interoperability of  networks,  Member States coordination in implementation of cross-border 
sections,  timely  delivery  and,  generally,  in  delivering  Priority  Projects  with  increased  EU 
added-value.  It  would  not  however  bring  significant  improvements  in  ensuring  the  multi-
modality of the TEN-T, and the investments in enhancing effectiveness of implementation at 
Priority Project level will be diluted due to suboptimal coordination at the level of planning. 
Compared  to  Option  0,  Option  2  is  also  likely  to  better  address  interconnectivity  and 
interoperability  aspects  as  well  as  provide  for  improved  Member  States  coordination  in 
implementation of projects along the TEN-T. Compared to both baseline scenario and Option 
1, it would also better ensure effective multimodality by a priori including multimodal nodes 
and providing for co-modal links on the TEN-T. Moreover, the application of the reinforced 
coordination approach to implementation at corridor rather than priority project level should 
lever the value added of this approach, as a corridor will include a number of current as well 
as  future  priority/key  projects  of  European  interest,  ensuring,  at  the  same  time,  their  multi-
modal and cross-border connectivity (and thus the EU added-value). Among the three options, 
it appears therefore as the one that is likely to ensure the highest degree of achievement of the 
specific objectives of the future TEN-T policy. 

Medium  

6.2. 

Efficiency  

The  argument  in  part  5  of  this  report  has  highlighted  that  the  expected  positive  benefits  on 
economic and social issues, as well as environmental aspects, are likely to be higher in both 

68

 
 
 
 
Option 1 and Option 2 when compared to a business-as-usual scenario in Option 0, and higher 
in  Option  2  than  in  Option  1.  In  this  section,  an  indicative  assessment  of  costs  of  policy 
implementation in all options is provided. 
Two  types  of  costs  can  be  considered  for  the  assessment  of  the  cost  of  each  policy  option: 
investments costs in infrastructure and administrative costs to implement the European TEN-
T policy. The infrastructure investment needs can be estimated from the investments needed 
to complete the targeted network.  
For the purpose of this document, in order to give an order of magnitude of the related costs 
of  the  policy  options  on  the  infrastructure  side,  the  estimated  costs  of  the  policy  options 
during  the  period  2014  –  2020  are  provided.  The  figures  in  the  table  below  constitute  an 
estimation starting from the data provided by the Member States through the TENtec system 
and  data  from  the  Priority  Project  Detailed  Analysis  2010.  For  Options  1  and  2,  they  were 
also  adapted  after  discussions  during  bilateral  meetings,  including  at  director  general  level, 
between DG MOVE and representatives of the Ministries of Transport of the Member States. 
The cost for the EU budget however cannot at this time be estimated, as it will depend on the 
co-funding  rates  and  the  geographical  scope  of  the  TEN-T  Programme.  These  rates,  which 
will be defined in the TEN Financial Regulation to be adopted in autumn 2011, together with 
the geographical scope of the TEN-T funds, will be strongly determined by the result of the 
process for the definition of the next EU multi-annual financial framework (MFF), for which 
the Commission proposal was adopted on 29th June 2011 (see above section 5.5.2). 
The administrative costs are management and administrative costs for implementing the TEN-
T,  through  the  TEN-T  EA  and  the  European  Coordinators.  The  reinforced  coordination 
approach  of  Option  1  and  2  will  require  specific  administrative  and  management  costs 
compared to Option 0175. The table below summarizes the above mentioned elements: 
yearly basis 
Option 0 
Investment needs* 
 -yearly  Investments estimates  
- for 2014 – 2020176 
Administrative costs 
- TEN-T EA 
- Corridor Approach administration 
(for 10 Corridors) 

€ 28.6 billion  
€ 200 billion  

€ 21.4 billion 
€ 150 billion  

€ 30.7 billion 
€ 215 billion  

Option 1 

Option 2 

€ 10 million 

€ 10 million 

€ 10 million 

€ 20 million 

€ 20 million 

TENconnect II Benefits of CORE compared to Business-as-usual 
- direct economic benefits 
- air pollution savings  
TOTAL BENEFITS 
- rebound effect  
*road safety  
*noise  
*climate effects 
Table15: Efficiency of envisaged policy options 

€ 77.7 bln  
€5.5 bln 
83.2 bln 

- € 1.1 bln 
- €0.1 bln  
- €1.1 bln 

175  These  costs  are  related  to  the  cost  of  the  Secretariat  that  will  be  set  up  for  each  corridor,  involving  the 
Coordinators, DG MOVE, the TEN-T EA and the European Bank of Investments. They will also include the cost 
of meetings and other coordination means in order to involve National and local authorities, the Infrastructure 
managers  of  the  countries  involved,  building  companies  and  banks.  In  addition,  the  necessary  studies  will  be 
financed  from  this  budget  to  get  the  data  (on  traffic,  investments,  environmental  studies…)  required  for  the 
efficient management of the corridors. This could also include the financing of small infrastructure such as last 
miles connections and siding in order to increase the profitability and added-value of the Corridors. 
176 See footnote 84 

69

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
* Investments figures for the Core Network were discussed during bilateral meetings between DG MOVE and 
Member States representatives. Investment estimates for Option 1 came from the same source and were based on 
DG MOVE's knowledge of projects that Member States are likely to defend in political discussions (such as Via 
Carpathia, the Messina Bridge or the Botnian Corridor). Figures for Option 0 are based on the figures Members 
States provided via the TENtec database regarding the completion of priority projects.  
As detailed in section 5, the economic, social and environmental benefits of both Option 1 and 
Option 2 are expected to be higher than in Option 0. At the same time, the expected benefits 
across  all  three  domains  in  Option  2  are  expected  to  be  higher  than  in  Option  1,  while  the 
costs of implementing the two options are similar. Therefore Option 2 has a better cost-benefit 
analysis than Option 1. 

6.3. 

Coherence  

As highlighted in the beginning of part 2 of this report, the renewed political context provided 
by the Europe 2020 Strategy and the main priorities it set, with the priorities set in the White 
Paper  for  transport  and  the  budgetary  principles  set  out  in  the  EU  Budget  Review 
Communication,  alongside  the  EU  Treaty-mandated  tasks  to  contribute  to  the  objective  of 
economic,  social  and  territorial  coherence,  have  provided  the  overall  policy  framework  that 
guided  the  Commission  during  the  TEN-T  policy  revision  process  and  in  developing  the 
alternative  policy  options/scenarios  in  the  first  place.  Moreover,  coherence  with  overall  EU 
objectives, strategies, priorities and principles, including subsidiarity and proportionality, has 
constituted  also  an  important  criterion  in  the  process  of  policy  options  pre-selection.    Both 
retained alternative policy options (Option 1 and Option 2), as well as the business-as-usual 
scenario (Option 0), seek to integrate and support therefore, and comply with, overarching EU 
policy objectives and principles. 
With regard to trade-offs across the economic, social and environmental domain, the impact 
analysis  presented  in  part  2  (for  Option  0)  and  part  5  (for  Options  1  and  2)  of  this  report 
suggest the following conclusions: 
-    In  a  business-as-usual  scenario,  negative  impacts  will  concern  all  three  domains.  In  what 
concerns economic and social impacts, the most marked negative effect would be the increase 
of disparities at regional level, in terms of economic growth and jobs, as well as accessibility, 
between  central  and  peripheral  regions.  As  far  as  the  environment  is  concerned,  while  a 
significant  reduction  in  NOx  particles  is  expected,  CO2  emissions  are  likely  to  increase.  A 
positive  trade-off  could  concern  however  land  use,  as  with  no  new  Priority  Projects 
development  and  therefore  EU  funding  support  being  envisaged,    a  number  of  large  and 
complex infrastructural projects are less likely to be undertaken. 
- In Option 1, the expected overall positive impact on EU economic competitiveness and job 
growth  risks,  as  in  the  case  of  the  baseline  scenario,  being  unbalanced,  with  an  increase  in 
disparity  between  central  and  peripheral  areas.  As  these  positive  impacts  are  the  result  of 
increased  transport  efficiency  on  the  TEN-T,  the  downside  of  the  latter  is  that  it  is 
accompanied by an increase in transport volumes and increased costs related to accidents and 
environmental  impacts.  These  negative  rebound  effects  are  nevertheless  likely  to  be 
compensated  to  a  significant  extent  by  higher  quality  infrastructure,  more  energy  efficient 
engines  and  higher  levels  of  renewable  energy  use,  wider  user  of  intelligent  traffic 
management  systems  and  modal  shifts,  particularly  from  road 
the  other, 
comparatively less CO2-intensive and prone to high levels of accidents, modes.  
-  In  Option  2,  the  results  of  the  TENconnect  study  modelling  support  the  (qualitatively 
derived)  expectation  that  the  stronger  coordination  at  EU  level  in  planning  the  TEN-T  has 
positive  impacts  in  terms  of  both  economic  growth  and  accessibility,  as  well  as  pollutant 
emissions. Negative impacts due to the rebound effect concern transport cost externalities in 
terms  of  road  safety,  noise  and  CO2  emissions.  Nevertheless,  the  TENconnect  projections 
indicate  that  these  costs  are  well  offset  by  the  positive  impacts.  Moreover,  when  other 

towards 

70

 
 
transport  policy  related  factors  such  as  greener  technology  and  energy  use,  use  of  ITS, 
induced modal shift, are also factored in, negative externalities are likely to be significantly 
reduced.  
- The positive impacts of these latter measures – particularly ITS adoption and modal shift – 
are likely to be higher on an optimised (fully interconnected, multi-modal) Core network in 
Option  2  than  on  the  sum  of  a  number  (not  necessarily  always  connected  or  enabling  co-
modal transport) Priority Projects in Option 1. Moreover, as the overall positive impacts on 
EU  economic  competitiveness  are  likely  to  be  higher  in  Option  2  than  in  Option  1,  and 
accompanied  by  equally  positive  impacts  in  terms  of  accessibility  and  cohesion,  it  can  be 
concluded that the policy approach in Option 2 is likely to be more effective than the one in 
Option 1 in limiting socio-economic and environmental trade-offs.  
The  table  below,  summarising  the  performance  of  each  option  with  respect  to  economic, 
social  and  environmental  impacts  allows  for  an  overview  of  the  capacity  of  Option  1  and 
Option  2  to  limit  trade-offs  across  the  three  domains.  (The  impacts  of  Option  0,  as  the 
baseline  scenario,  are  taken  as  base  of  reference  for  the  comparative  impacts  of  the  two 
alternative policy options). 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Economic Impacts 

Impact on transport sector 
-  Modality  and  efficiency  of  the  Transport 
system 
- Congestion & travel times 
- Administrative burden 

General economic impacts 
- Trade with Neighbouring and 3rd countries 

- Economic growth 
- Innovation 
- EU competitiveness 

Social impacts 
Employment and Jobs 

- Jobs related to infrastructure investments 

-Effects on employment in the transport sector 

Public Health and Safety 
- Road Safety 

Accessibility & territorial cohesion 

Environmental impacts 
Emissions 
- Climate change 
- Air pollution 
- Noise 
Energy use 
Land-use 

+ 
+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 

+ 
+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

= 
++ 
= 
+ 
- 

++ 
++ 
++ 

++ 
++ 

++ 
++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 
++ 
+ 
+ 
- 

Table 16: Summary table of impacts 
Legend: = refers to a limited or neutral impact, - refers to a negative impact, + and ++ refer to 
different levels of positive impacts 

71

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.4. 

Conclusion 

In light of the above evaluation, Option 2 is identified as the preferred option. Option 2 has 
the  maximum  effectiveness  on  the  drivers  to  the  TEN-T  fragmentation  and  has  the  most 
positive  balance  regarding  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts.  It  is  therefore  the 
most suitable option to address the objectives set out by the Treaty and by the Europe 2020 
strategy. The conclusions of this Impact Assessment are also in line with the outcome of the 
TEN-T  revision  consultation  process  conducted  by  the  European  Commission  between 
February 2009 and May 2010. 
For  the  Guidelines  that  are  being  prepared  in  parallel  with  this  impact  assessment,  a 
Regulation  would  be  the  appropriate  instrument.  Such  a  regulation  would  be  ‘binding  in  its 
entirety’ and ‘directly applicable’. The text must therefore be drafted in such a way that no 
further  transposition  is  required  and  that  the  obligations  from  the  regulation  will  directly 
apply. 
The choice of the legal instrument is being left to the political level. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The Commission will properly evaluate and review the Progress of the implementation of the 
TEN-T policy through annual Progress Reports. 
In  addition,  the  Commission,  its  agencies,  notably  the  TEN-T  Executive  Agency  and  the 
European Coordinators will constantly monitor a set of indicators.177 These indicators will be 
used to measure to what extent the operational objectives set out in section 3 of this document 
are  achieved  or  going  towards  achievement.  The  indicators,  their  related  operational 
objectives and the reporting body are indicated in the table below:  

Operational Objectives 
Connect all main airports and seaports to 
other  modes,  especially  (High-Speed) 
railways  and  inland  waterway  systems 
by 2050 
Allow  to  shift  30%  of  road  freight  over 
300  km  to  other  modes  such  as  rail  or 
waterborne transport by 2030, and more 
than 50% by 2050. 

Ensuring  by  2030  the  deployment  of 
European transport management systems 
(ERTMS,  SESAR,  ITS,  RIS,  SSN  and 
LRIT) 

Indicators 

Reporting body/mean 

Share  of  Major  European 
airports and seaports connected 
with other modes 

• TENtec 

It 

in 

total 

each  mode  of 
Share  of 
transport 
inland 
transport  expressed  in  tonne-
kilometres. 
includes 
transport  by  road,  rail  and 
inland waterways. 
Kilometres/share 
of 
infrastructure  equipped  with 
management systems. 

• Eurostat 
• Alpine Traffic Observatory 
• Priority Projects/Corridors 
implementation Decisions  

• TEN-T EA 

• TENtec 
• Agencies Reports (TEN-T 
EA, ERA, EMSA, EASA) 
• Coordinators' report on the 

Priority Projects or 
Corridors 

Ensuring  by  2030  the  commitments  of 
Member  States  to  agree  on  common 
operational  rules  for  the  projects  of 
common interest 

Number  of  memorandum  of 
understanding, 
and 
treaties 
binding decisions adopted 

• Agencies Reports (TEN-T 
EA, ERA, EMSA, EASA) 
• Coordinators' report on the 

Priority Projects or 
Corridors 

Obtaining  binding  commitments  by  Number  of  memorandum  of 

• Coordinators' report on the 

177 The role of the TEN-T Executive Agency, its management of the TEN-T Programme, the use of the Open-
Method of Coordination through the TENtec system and the role of the EU Coordinators is described in Annex 5 

72

 
 
 
                                                 
Member  States  for  the  implementation 
of  essential  cross-border  projects  with  a 
binding timetable. 
Obtaining  binding  commitments  by 
Member  States  for  the  implementation 
of bottlenecks and missing-links on their 
territory that have cross-border effects. 

that 

Ensuring  priority  of  EU  funding  for 
projects 
cross-border 
address 
projects, bottlenecks and missing-links. 
Ensuring  conditionality  of  EU  funding 
EU 
upon 
environmental  legislation  (SEA,  EIA  & 
Natura 2000) 

compliance 

with 

understanding, 
treaties 
binding decisions adopted 

and 

Priority Projects or 
Corridors 

Number  of  memorandum  of 
understanding, 
and 
treaties 
binding decisions adopted 

• Coordinators' report on the 

Priority Projects or 
Corridors 

• Priority Projects/Corridors 
implementation Decisions  

• TEN-T EA 

• TEN-T EA 

Share  of  EU  funding  allocated 
to such projects and number of 
realised cross-border projects. 
Absolute respect of no funding 
for  projects  not  complying 
with EU Environmental 

Table 17: Monitoring indicators 

73