COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 1213 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 1212 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
This  document  provides  the  executive  summary  of  the  Impact  Assessment  Report  on  the 
Commission’s  revised  Union  Guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  Trans-European 
Transport Network.  

1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION: A FRAGMENTED NETWORK NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE 

The  EU  27,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  well  endowed  with  transport  infrastructures.  But  these 
infrastructures do not, as yet, provide the Union with a complete trans-European network that 
can adequately fulfil the objectives set out for it. The TEN-T is fragmented, geographically – 
particularly between countries, and modally – both between and within transport modes.  

Missing cross border links constitute today significant bottlenecks for freight and passengers 
flows on important European axes. They affect connections both across the Union's Member 
States  and  with  its  neighbours.  In  addition,  the  considerable  and  enduring  disparity  in  the 
quality  and  availability  of  infrastructure  between  the  older  and  the  newer  Member  States 
means also that East-West connections are hardly developed compared to North-South ones, 
which are predominant on the TEN-T map.  

Viewed  in  a  modal  perspective,  the  infrastructure  network  is  also  fragmented.  Intermodal 
nodes, enabling the exchange of passengers and goods across modes, are underdeveloped in 
many of Europe's main railway stations, airports and ports. The lack of intermodal capacities, 
together with important missing or poor quality sections along the rail and inland waterways 
networks,  lead  to  insufficient  exploitation  of  co-modal  options  and  increase  infrastructure 
capacity bottlenecks in all modes.  

In addition, 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.  Rail  transport  is  a  prominent  example  where  ("soft")  interoperability 
problems  due  to  varying  national  operational  rules  such  as  train  control  signalling  systems, 
document  handling,  language  regimes,  train  crew  certifications,  tail  lights  and  so  forth,  and 
non-aligned physical infrastructure parameters such as rail gauge, train length, axle loads and 
traction  energy  supply  systems  are  severely  hampering  the  effectiveness  of  huge  trans-
European investments in ("hard") infrastructure.  

the 

Four  drivers  to  the  problem  have  been  identified,  corresponding  to  two  fields  of  action:  the 
conceptual planning and the means for implementation. The causes leading to fragmentation 
insufficient 
are: 
implementation of common standards and adoption of common 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 TEN-T funding instruments. 

insufficient  EU-level  planning  of  network  configuration; 

the 

2. 

IS EU ACTION JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF SUBSIDIARITY? 

The  need  for  coordinated  development  of  a  trans-European  network  in  the  area  of  transport 
infrastructure to support transport flows within the single European market and the economic, 
social  and  territorial  cohesion  needs  has  been  recognised  by  the  introduction  of  specific 
provisions in the EU Treaty.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Articles  170  to  172  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  Union  define  the  general 
objectives  and  scope  of  EU  action  in  supporting  the  establishment  and  development  of  the 
TEN-T.  In  addition,  a  string  of  significant  new  policy  strategy  documents  adopted  by  the 
Commission  (the  EU  2020  Strategy,  the  Budget  Communication,  the  White  Paper  for 
Transport,  the  Single  Market  Act)  has  brought  a  new  political  context  in  which  the  TEN-T 
policy is to be developed.  

Article 172 sets the Framework for the application of the principle of subsidiarity by requiring 
the approval of Member States regarding projects on their territory. 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, which has been involved at every stage 
of the revision of the TEN-T Guidelines. 

3. 

OBJECTIVES OF TEN-T POLICY REVISION 

The overall aim of this initiative is to establish by 2030 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  general  objective  can  be  translated  into  more  specific  goals,  to  be  achieved  by  2030. 
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 coordination in EU planning:  

• 

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 third 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 configuration thus identified:  

• 

• 

• 

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 does not aim at imposing new specific standards and 
rules,  but  rather  ensuring  the  effective  adoption  and  implementation  of  common 
European standards already developed. 

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 allowing a focus on cross-border sections, missing-links and bottlenecks. 

These specific objectives have been further detailed into operational objectives, as follows. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
The methodology to define the network configuration should enable the: 

• 

• 

Connection of all main airports and seaports to other modes, especially (High-Speed) 
railways and inland waterway systems by 2050; 

shift of 30% of road freight over 300 km to other modes such as rail or waterborne 
transport by 2030, and more than 50% by 2050. 

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 interest; 

ensuring the commitments of Member States to agree on common operational rules 
in order to 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;  

obtaining  binding  commitments  by  Member  States  to  take  measures  eliminating 
bottlenecks and missing-links on their territory that have cross-border effects. 

The optimal network configuration shall ensure: 

• 

• 

priority for cross-border projects, bottlenecks and missing-links, interoperability and 
intermodality; 

conditionality  of  EU  funding  upon  compliance  with  EU  environmental  legislation 
(SEA, EIA & Natura 2000) 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

A  two-pronged  process  was  applied  for  generating  a  range  of  possible  policy  options  that 
could  address  the  drivers  leading  to  TEN-T's  fragmentation  and  help  thus  achieve  the 
objectives set out above. First, a range of possible generic policy scenarios in each field for 
action has been identified. Five (A) "planning" scenarios have been envisaged – business-as-
usual,  guidelines  discarded,  selection  of  new  PPs  (or  "Essen  2"),  Core  Network  and  dense 
comprehensive  network;  and  five  (B)  "implementation"  scenarios  have  been  developed  – 
business-as-usual,  guidelines  discarded,  regulatory  approach  only,  reinforced  coordination, 
EU full operational management.  

Second,  policy  options  alternatives  have  been  generated  through  combinations  of  policy 
scenarios at each level of action. The result has been a matrix of 25 combinations of planning 
and  implementation  (AB)  scenarios,  i.e.  25  (theoretically)  possible  policy  options.  As  the 
"Guidelines  discarded"  planning  scenario  was  not  compatible  with  any  implementation 
scenario, five options involving it were discarded from the start. This planning scenario was 
subsequently considered as a policy option in its own, without an implementation dimension.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
The  remaining  21  options  were  submitted  to  a  preliminary  assessment  with  regard  to  their 
effectiveness in addressing the drivers of TEN-T fragmentation. Three scenario combinations 
were  subsequently  retained  as  clearly  viable  policy  options  –  A3B4,  A4B4,  A5B4,  with  a 
forth at the limit – A1B4. While scoring high in terms of positive impacts on all but one of the 
drivers, the latter combination was however discarded. Due to continued limited coordination 
in planning, it would not solve the central issue of network fragmentation and, as such, would 
not make a viable policy alternative. 

 Impacts on 

Options 

A1B1 

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

Planning 
coordination 

Interoperability 
standards & rules 

Member States 
cooperation 

Conditionality 
of EU funding 

[0] 

[0] 

[+] 

[0] 

A1B2 

[0] 

[0/-] 

[-] 

[-] 

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

A1B3 

[0] 

[0/+] 

[+] 

[0/+] 

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

A1B4 

[0] 

[++] 

[+++] 

[+++] 

Continuation of current 30 PPs with 
reinforced coordination 

A1B5 

[0] 

[++] 

[-] 

[+] 

Continuation of current 30 PPs with full 
EU operational management 

A2 

Guidelines discarded 

A3B1 

[-] 

[+] 

n/a 

[0] 

n/a 

[+] 

n/a 

[0] 

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

A3B2 

[+] 

[0/-] 

[-] 

[-] 

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

A3B3 

[+] 

[0/+] 

[+] 

[0/+] 

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

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A3B4 

[+] 

[++] 

[+++] 

[++] 

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

A3B5 

[+] 

[++] 

[-] 

[+] 

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

A4B1 

[++] 

[0] 

[+] 

[0] 

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

A4B2 

[++] 

[0/-] 

[-] 

[-] 

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

A4B3 

[++] 

[0/+] 

[+] 

[0/+] 

With purely regulatory approach to 
implementation 

A4B4 

[++] 

[++] 

[+++] 

[+++] 

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

A4B5 

[++] 

[++] 

[-] 

[+] 

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

A5B1 

[+++] 

[0] 

[+] 

[0] 

Dense TEN-T with current 
implementation approach 

A5B2 

[+++] 

[0/-] 

[-] 

[-] 

Dense TEN-T with no further EU 
implementation support 

A5B3 

[+++] 

[0/+] 

[+] 

[0/+] 

Dense TEN-T 
Purely regulatory approach to 
implementation 

A5B4 

[+++] 

[++] 

[+++] 

[+++] 

Dense TEN-T with reinforced 
coordination 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A5B5 

[+++] 

[++] 

[-] 

[+] 

Dense TEN-T with full EU operational 
management 

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

In  parallel,  the  coherence  of  each  policy  scenario  with  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality  was  assessed.  Two  planning  scenarios  -  "A2/Guidelines  discarded"  or 
"A5/Dense  network  approach"  –  and  two  implementation  scenarios  -  "B3/Regulatory 
approach only" and "B5/EU full operational management" – were found not to comply with 
these principles. Hence, any combination that included either of these scenarios was deemed 
unviable  as  a  policy  option.  Option  A5B4  was  consequently  discarded  for  further 
consideration, in spite of the fact that, according to the effectiveness criteria, would have been 
most promising in terms of addressing current drivers and thus achieving the TEN-T policy 
objectives.1 

This  process  of  pre-screening  of  the  possible  policy  options  has  narrowed  down  the  choice 
between two policy alternatives capable on a stand alone basis to address all the root causes of 
the problem identified above:  

– 

– 

Option  1  (A3B4),  combining  an  approach  to  planning  that  largely  continues 
with  the  current  policy,  though  with  certain  amendments  in  the  light  of  the 
to 
experience  accumulated,  with  a 
implementation; and 

reinforced  coordination  approach 

Option 2 (A4B4), combining a stronger approach to planning coordination, by 
means of identification of an optimised configuration of the strategic "core" of 
the TEN-T, with the same reinforced coordination approach to implementation.  

The impacts of both options have been assessed against the baseline scenario, i.e. where the 
current policy approach would be maintained.  

5. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

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

Option 1 

Option 2 

Economic Impacts 

Impact on transport sector 

-  Modality  and  efficiency  of  the  Transport 
system 

- Congestion & travel times 

+ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

1 

Other  arguments  that  played  against  its  retention  were  its  very  high  costs,  resulting  in  limited  cost-
efficiency,  and  extensive  infrastructure  developments  required  that  could  not  be  delivered  within  the 
2030 timeline.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
- 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 

The analysis has shown that: 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

= 

++ 

= 

+ 

- 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

- 

– 

Both Options 1 and 2 would have an overall higher positive economic impact, 
both  at  macroeconomic  level  and  for  the  European  transport  system,  as 
compared  to  a  baseline  scenario.  Option  2  appears  to  be  preferable,  having 
higher positive impacts on all aspects assessed. 

–  With regard to social impacts, both Option 1 and Option 2 would have higher 
positive  impacts  as  concerns  job  creation  than  if  continuing  with  the  current 
policy  approach.  The  impact  on  safety  is  also  likely  to  be  positive  in  both 
options,  though  to  a  lesser  extent,  due  to  the  rebound  effect  of  increased 
transport  volumes  on  an  improved  network  configuration  in  both  options. 
Option 2 would be preferable due to overall higher positive effects.  

–  With regard to environmental aspects, the rebound effect of improved transport 
efficiency in Options 1 and 2 will limit the positive impact of the reduction of 
emissions  and  energy  use  thanks  to  congestion  reduction  and  induced  modal 
shift.  In  Option  1,  the  impact  on  land-use  and  biodiversity  is  likely  to  be 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
particularly negative, since the selection of new Priority Projects would lead to 
the  building  of  new  infrastructure,  while  it  will  remain  limited  in  Option  2, 
thanks  to  efforts  to  optimally  interconnect  existing  infrastructure.  Option  2 
appears  to  be  preferable  from  this  point  of  view  too,  due  to  higher  overall 
positive impacts. 

The  assessment  of  the  impact  of  the  policy  options  is  surrounded  by  a  certain  degree  of 
uncertainty, owing to the influence of factors that are difficult to predict or quantify. These are 
either  factors  inherent  to  the  policy  options,  such  as  possible  changes  in  the  network 
configuration or the impact of budgetary decisions at Union, Member States or regional level; 
or factors external to transport infrastructure policy choices, such as the many synergies and 
trade-offs  with  other  transport  policy  measures,  long-term  technological  developments  or 
environmental amenities. 

6. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

Each alternative option retained would bring significant improvements, when compared to the 
baseline policy approach, both in terms of effectiveness in the implementation of the specific 
policy objectives and in terms of economic, social and environmental impacts. Option 2, due 
to  stronger  coordination  ensured  at  both  planning  and  implementation  levels,  would  have 
overall higher positive impacts. 

In terms of efficiency, the economic, social and environmental benefits of Option 2 are higher 
than those of Option 1, while the costs of implementing these options are similar, rendering a 
better cost-benefit ratio in Option 2 than in Option 1. 

Finally,  Option  2  is  likely  to  be  more  effective  in  limiting  trade-offs  across  the  economic, 
social and environmental domain than both two other policy approaches. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  Commission  evaluates  and  reviews  the  Progress  of  the  implementation  of  the  TEN-T 
policy  through  annual  Progress  Reports,  a  practice  that  will  accompany  TEN-T  policy 
implementation regardless of the choice of policy approach in the future. 

In  addition,  the  Commission,  its  agencies,  notably  the  TEN-T  Executive  Agency  and  the 
European  Coordinators,  whose  mandate  and  role  would  be  maintained  all  options,  would 
continue to constantly monitor a set of indicators that measure the extent to which the policy 
operational objectives, as set out in this report, are achieved.  

EN 

9 

   EN