COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the Regulation (EU) N° 1315/2013 on Union Guidelines for the development of a trans-European transport network
Date: 2021-05-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: air transport, combined transport, inland waterway transport, land transport, maritime transport, sustainable mobility, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network, transport planning

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.5.2021  SWD(2021) 117 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the Regulation (EU) N° 1315/2013 on Union Guidelines for the development of a trans-European transport network  {SWD(2021) 118 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 4 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION (REGULATION N° 1315/2013)............................... 13 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 20 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 37 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 43 

5.1.  RELEVANCE ........................................................................................................................... 43 

5.2.  EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................................................... 54 

5.3.  EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................................................ 64 

5.4.  COHERENCE ........................................................................................................................... 72 

5.5.  EU ADDED-VALUE ................................................................................................................ 80 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 87 

Annexes 

Annex 1 - Procedural information and response to RSB comments 
Annex 2 - Stakeholder Consultation 
Annex 3 - Global survey Participants 
Annex 4 - Desk research sources 
Annex 5 - Evaluation Question Matrix 
Annex 6 - Intervention Logic of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 
Annex 7 - Baseline scenario and modelling results 
Annex 8 - Costs and Benefits of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 
Annex 9 – Overview of legislation relevant to TEN-T 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Term or acronym 
ACI EUROPE 
AFID 
APRA 
ASECAP 

A4E 
CBA 
CEF 
C-ITS 
CLECAT 

CEMT 
CER  

CLIA EUROPE  
CF 
CNC 
CCRE 
DG MOVE 
DG ENER 
DTLF 
EASPD 

EATMN 
EBU 
EC 
ECA 
ECF  
ECG 
EDP 
EFIP 
EIB 
EIM 
EMTA 
ERA  
ERFA 
EP 
ERDF 
ERF 
ERRIN 
ERTMS 
ESIF 

Glossary 

Meaning or definition 

Infrastructure 

Airports Council International Europe 
Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Directive 
Association of Passenger Rights Advocates 
Association Européenne des Concessionnaires d’Autoroutes et 
d’Ouvrage à Péage 
Airlines for Europe 
Cost-benefit analysis 
Connecting Europe Facility 
Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems 
European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and 
Customs Services 
Conference of European Ministers of Transport 
Community  of  European  Railways  and 
Managers 
Cruise Lines International Association 
Cohesion Fund 
Core Network Corridors 
Council of European Municipalities and Regions 
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 
Directorate General for Energy 
Digital Transport and Logistics Forum 
European  Association  of  Service  Providers  for  Persons  with 
Disabilities 
European Air Traffic Management Network 
European Barge Union 
European Commission 
European Court of Auditors 
European Cyclists’ Federation 
The Association of European Vehicle Logistics 
European Deployment Plan 
European Federation of Inland Ports 
European Investment Bank 
European Rail Infrastructure Managers 
European Metropolitan Transport Authorities 
European Regions Airline Association 
European Rail Freight Association 
European Parliament 
European Research and Development Fund 
European Union Road Federation 
European Regions Research and Innovation network 
The European Railway Traffic Management System 
European Structural Investment Funds 

2 

 
 
 
Term or acronym 
ESPO 
ETSC 
EU 
EUROPLATFORMS 
E.E.I.G. 
EUROSTAT 
EuroRAP 
FAA 
FEPORT 

FTA 
HSR 
IATA 
ICT 
INE 
IRU 
ITS 
LTS 
MMTIS 
MoS 
MS 
MFF 
NGOs 
OPC 
PIARC 
POLIS 

PRM 
RIS 
R&I 
RFC 
SERA 
SESAR 
SETA 
SMEs 
SUMP 
TEN 
TEN-T 
TENs 
TFEU 
UETR 
UIC 
UIP  
UIRR 
UITP 
UNIFE 
VTMIS 

Meaning or definition 

European Sea Ports Organisation 
European Transport Safety Council 
European Union 
The European Association of Logistics Platforms 

Statistical Office of the European Union 
European Road Assessment Programme 
Federal Aviation Administration 
The  Federation  of  European  Private  Port  Operators  and 
Terminals 
Freight Transport Association 
High-Speed Rail 
International Air Transport Association 
Information and Communication Technologies 
Inland Navigation Europe 
International Road Transport Union 
Intelligent Transport Systems 
Long term strategy 
Multimodal Travel Information Services 
Motorways of the Sea 
Member State of the European Union 
Multiannual Financial Framework 
Non-governmental Organisations 
Open Public Consultation 
World Road Association 
European  Cities  and  Regions  Networking  for  Innovative 
Transport Solutions 
Persons with reduced mobility 
River Information Services 
Research & Innovation 
Rail Freight Corridor 
Single European Railway Area 
Single European Sky's ATM Research project 
Single European Transport Area 
Small and Medium Enterprises  
Sustainable Mobility Urban Plans 
Trans-European Networks 
Trans-European Transport Networks 
Transport, Energy and Telecommunications 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
European Road Haulers Association 
International Union of Railways 
International Union of Wagon Keepers 
International Union for Road-Rail Combined Transport 
International Association of Public Transport 
The Association of the European Rail Industry 
Vessel Traffic Management Information System 

3 

 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

TEN-T policy: Legal context and policy background 

The  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  stipulates  the  establishment  and 
development  of  trans-European  networks  in  the  areas  of  transport,  telecommunications 
and energy infrastructures1. Trans-European networks shall enable citizens of the Union, 
economic operators and regional communities to derive full benefit from an area without 
internal frontiers. They shall also take account of the need to strengthen economic, social 
and territorial cohesion of the Union and to promote its overall harmonious development. 

The  trans-European  transport  network  (TEN-T)  policy  aims  to  develop  a  European 
multimodal  and  interoperable  transport  network  of  roads,  rail,  inland  waterways  and 
maritime routes which is linked to urban nodes, ports, airports and other terminals. The 
network  shall  enable  smooth  global  transport  flows  of  both  freight  and  passengers,  in 
particular by improving cross-border connections and removing bottlenecks and missing 
links. It shall also enhance accessibility and connectivity of all regions, including remote, 
outermost,  insular,  peripheral  and  mountainous  regions  as  well  as  sparsely  populated 
areas.  

The  first  ‘Community  Guidelines’  for  the  establishment  and  development  of  a  trans-
European  network  in  the  transport  sector  (TEN-T)  were  adopted  in  19962.  Since  then, 
TEN-T policy has been steadily advancing – marked by geographical network extensions 
arising  from  enlargements  of  the  European  Community  /  the  European  Union  and  by 
expanding the scope of TEN-T as to strengthen infrastructure quality. This development 
was supported by growing responsibility and commitment of EU Institutions and by an 
increasing ‘ownership’ behaviour of Member States and other stakeholders.    

Key elements and features of the TEN-T policy  

Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013  on  Union  Guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  trans-
European transport network3, which is currently in force, has been the result of the first 
substantial revision of the TEN-T Guidelines since 1996. Following a broad consultation 
process and an impact assessment, it led inter alia to the following key changes in TEN-T 
policy with important new features:  

  The introduction of a Europe-wide dual layer network approach which is based on a 
coherent EU-wide planning methodology4 acknowledged by Member States. Indeed, 
instead of the prior focus on a certain number of priority transport projects across the 
EU,  the  current  Regulation  introduced  a  transport  network  of  EU  added-value 
composed of a ‘comprehensive’ network (i.e. the ground layer to ensure accessibility 
of  all  European  regions)  and  a  ‘core’  network  (i.e.  the  part  of  the  comprehensive 

1   Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Title XVI, Trans-European Networks (Articles 170 

– 172)  

2   Decision  n°  1692/96/CE  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  July  1996  on 

Community Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network 

3   Regulation  (EU)  N°  1315  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December  2013  on 

Union Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network  

4   The  planning  methodology  for  the  trans-European  transport  network  (TEN-T)  of  7  January  2014,  

SWD(2013) 542 final 

4 

 
                                                           
network of highest strategic importance and of highest implementation priority) (see 
chapter 3). 

  The introduction of ambitious and binding infrastructure standards and requirements 
for  all  transport  modes  to  achieve  interoperability  and  quality  of  the  network,  with 
most ambitious standards established for the core network featuring high capacity and 
high quality standards.  

  The  introduction  of  common  completion  deadlines  for  the  core  (2030)  and  the 
comprehensive  network  (2050),  accompanied  by  a  strong  new  implementation 
instrument for the core network, i.e. the core network corridors (a subset of the core 
network representing between 70 and 80% of the core network length, depending on 
the transport mode). This instrument of core network corridors aims to facilitate the 
coherent  and  timely  implementation  of  ‘corridors’  and  is  led  by  European 
Coordinators. 

 

Increased focus on network nodes, both transport nodes and urban nodes as important 
interfaces to enable seamless clean multi-modal transport, including sustainable and 
safe first and last mile connections in cities. 

TEN-T implementation structure and EU coordination and financing framework 

The  introduction  of  the  above  key  elements  in  a  new  legal  form  –  a  Regulation  –  has 
strengthened  the  legal  base  of  the  Union’s  infrastructure  policy  and,  in  line  with  the 
functionality-based network policy, reinforced the basis for the direct  involvement  of  a 
broad range of stakeholders.  

The TEN-T Regulation  provides all relevant actors  (i.e. Member States,  regions,  cities, 
transport industry, infrastructure managers of all transport modes, users etc.) thus with a 
common  policy  framework,  binding  standards  and  requirements  as  well  as  fixed 
deadlines for completion of the network. It works towards the gradual completion of the 
common  and  consistent  European  transport  infrastructure  network.  As  such,  it  adds  a 
European  perspective  to  national  infrastructure  planning  and  addresses  needs  and 
benefits beyond single national approaches.  

However, the planning and construction of transport infrastructure projects is subject to 
sovereign responsibilities of Member States. In other words, the realisation of the TEN-T 
network  is  based  on  national  infrastructure  plans  and  programmes.  The  EU  aims  at 
aligning such national planning as much as possible with the TEN-T objectives. Over the 
more than 25  years of the existence of TEN-T policy5, the interplay of Member States’ 
sovereign  planning  responsibilities  and  established  EU  policy  objectives  has  led  to  an 
increasing mutual alignment: EU planning both builds on and gives direction to national 
transport infrastructure planning and investment. Demand in terms of major transnational 
transport flows is duly reflected in this planning approach.  

To  ensure  a  better  alignment  of  EU  level  and  national  planning,  TEN-T  policy  has 
introduced a set of implementation instruments: first of all, European Coordinators have 

5   On  1  November  1993,  with  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Maastricht  Treaty,  infrastructure  policy  was 
introduced  as  a  European  policy  with  the  trans-European  networks  for  transport,  energy  and 
telecommunications. 

5 

 
                                                           
been appointed as “ambassadors” for the nine core network corridors as well as the two 
horizontal  priorities  of  the  TEN-T  (European  Rail  Traffic  Management  System, 
Motorways of the Sea). They monitor the implementation of the network in view of its 
compliance  with  the  standards  and  assess  whether  network  deficits  are  addressed  by 
planned or ongoing infrastructure projects. To this end, they have established a database 
of  around  3000  ongoing/planned  projects  on  the  TEN-T  network  which  is  regularly 
monitored and updated according to a wide range of criteria (such as financial maturity, 
permitting  and  procurement  status,  reach  of  KPI  standards  etc.).  In  addition,  the 
European Coordinators push forward the implementation of the corridors by bringing the 
relevant  stakeholders  together  in  so  called  “Corridor  Fora”.  They  also  push  for  and 
monitor progress of the implementation of the major cross-border projects, e.g. by being 
member of the respective project boards. Last but not least, they draw up so called “work 
plans” and where applicable also “implementing decisions” for specific projects as to set 
the priorities and milestones for the network.  

Unlike  in  the  energy  and  telecommunication  sectors,  transport  infrastructure  policy  is 
strongly  related  to  Member  States’  budget  decisions.  Indeed,  the  major  share  of  the 
investments  on the TEN-T network is  made by  Member States, in  accordance with  the 
relevant procedures  and processes in place in each Member State. This also means that 
the  main  responsibility  for  the  implementation  of  projects  contributing  to  the 
achievement of the TEN-T objectives, standards and requirements has to be assumed by 
the Member States concerned and, as appropriate, other public and private actors. 

The EU complements the TEN-T infrastructure implementation through support from the 
Connecting  Europe  Facility,  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  as  well  as 
through  instruments  such  as  InvestEU  or  interventions  from  the  European  Investment 
Bank. Furthermore, in its external dimension, it establishes a basis for EU funding in the 
field of pre-accession, enlargement, foreign policy cooperation and development aid.  

All projects contributing to the completion of the network qualify as ‘projects of common 
interest’. So these could be a variety of projects, starting from physical or smart projects, 
projects filling a gap up to projects leading to an upgrade to target standards. Contrary to 
the  preceding  TEN-T  Regulation,  no  selection  of  “priority  projects”  has  been  made. 
Indeed,  all  projects  contributing  to  the  TEN-T  objective  may  benefit  from  EU  support 
under  the  relevant  EU  financing  instruments  mentioned  above.  However,  the  CEF 
Regulation  defines  certain  geographical  sections  (not  projects)  on  the  network  which 
have  a  higher  priority  /  relevance  to  be  funded  (see  Annex  I  of  Regulation  (EU) 
1316/2013).   

In  a  nutshell:  The  competence  to  build  transport  infrastructure  lies  with  the  Member 
States and TEN-T planning is thus also based on Member States’ national infrastructure 
plans  and  programmes.  However,  TEN-T  planning  adds  the  EU  perspective  and 
addresses needs and benefits beyond the single national approaches.  

Delegated Regulations 

Since  the  entry  into  force  of  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013,  the  European  Commission 
adopted  delegated  Regulations,  aiming  to  adapt  the  maps  of  the  network  to  evolving 
conditions: Delegated Regulation (EU) 473/2014 was essentially a technical corrigendum 
of certain maps. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/849 of 7 December 2016 adapted the 
network to take account of certain changes resulting from the quantitative thresholds for 

6 

 
freight  terminals,  ports  and  airports  and  to  adjust  the  maps  to  reflect  implementation 
progress.  

A second category of Commission Delegated Regulations was linked to the strengthened 
cooperation  with  third  countries  in  TEN-T  policy  –  one  of  the  new  fields  of  action 
introduced in Regulation (EU) 1315/2013. Based on high-level agreements on transport 
infrastructure  networks  between  the  Union  and  neighbouring  countries,  the  TEN-T 
Regulation in its Article 49(6) empowers the Commission to adapt the TEN-T to include 
indicative  maps  of  neighbouring  countries.  At  this  point  in  time,  such  indicative  maps 
have  been  adopted  for  the  EFTA  (European  Free  Trade  Association:  Norway,  Island, 
Switzerland,  Lichtenstein),  the  Western  Balkans,  Turkey  and  the  Eastern  Partnership 
countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine)6. The purpose 
of  these  extended  TEN-T  maps  is  that  the  TEN-T  standards  are  applied  also  on  the 
networks  of  third  countries  as  to  allow  for  seamless  connections.  As  such,  they  also 
provide  a  sound  basis  for  foreign  investments  in  these  countries  in  line  with  European 
objectives. 

Interaction with other relevant legislation 

TEN-T  policy  depends  on  complementary  policies  –  even  more  –  it  is  in  combination 
with other policy areas a pillar of EU transport policy. As the EU transport infrastructure 
policy, TEN-T policy is not a purpose in itself. The standards and requirements set in the 
TEN-T Regulation are directly connected with the relevant objectives and needs in other 
transport  sectors/fields  and  thus  with  other  more  sector-specific  legislations  (e.g.  per 
transport mode). 

This  means,  for  example,  TEN-T  rail  infrastructure  –  for  the  sake  of  seamless  cross-
border transport and mobility – has to incorporate interoperability legislation which is set 
in  railway  policy.  Similarly,  road  infrastructure  has  to  take  up  EU  legislation  on  road 
safety.  

TEN-T policy can thus not be separated from those policies. The comprehensive network 
is thereby the geographical basis for all related transport legislation through its standards 
and requirements and thus also the reference base for EU funding from different sources 
(CEF, ESIF, and others). The core network features higher standards and requirements as 
it  is  of  highest  strategic  importance  for  transport  policy  overall  and  captures  the  major 
transport  flows.  Consequently,  by  implementing  the  core  network  the  highest  benefits 
can be gained for wider transport policy objectives (e.g. decarbonisation objectives; user 
benefits through lower transport costs and shorter travel times).  

 

6 
  For  all  these  countries:  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  473/2014  of  17  January  2014 
amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  1315/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards 
supplementing Annex III thereto with new indicative maps, OJ L136, 95/2014, p.10. 
In  addition,  for  Norway,  Island  and  the  Western  Balkans:  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2016/758  of  4  February  2016  amending  Regulation  (EU)  No  1315/2013  of  the  European  Parliament 
and of the Council as regards adapting Annex III thereto, OJ L126 of 14 May 2016, p 3. 
In  addition,  for  the  countries  of  the  Eastern  Partnership:  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU) 
2019/254 of 9 November 2018 on the adaptation of Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European 
transport network, OJ L43 of 14 Feb 2019, p.1. 

 

7 

 
                                                           
those  of  other 

In  this  respect,  it  seems  not  so  much  a  matter  of  separating  the  impacts  of  the  TEN-T 
their 
transport 
Regulation  against 
complementarity  and  synergies  for  the  overall  purpose  of  sustainable  transport.  TEN-T 
performance  on  indicators  such  as  for  modal  shift,  better  service  quality,  spreading  of 
clean vehicle fleets etc. is depending on coordinated efforts in TEN-T and related policy 
fields.  

legislation  but  of  ensuring 

The evaluation: purpose and scope  

The present evaluation covers Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 including its related delegated 
acts concerning network adaptations in EU MS as well as in terms of indicative network 
extensions to third countries. In terms of geographical scope, the reports covers the EU 
27 excluding the UK. Neighbouring countries have also been looked at in a specific case 
study  (see  Evaluation  Question  13).  In  terms  of  time  period,  the  evaluation  looked  at 
2013 onwards.  

This  evaluation  aims  to  assess  if  the  implementation  of  the  core  and  comprehensive 
networks  by  the  2030  and  respectively  2050  milestone  is  well  on  track.  In  addition,  it 
aims  to  assess  whether  its  objectives  and  related  standards  and  requirements  are  still 
relevant and coherent in view of the increased ambitions of the EU’s environmental and 
climate change policies.  

As  such,  this  evaluation  assesses  on  one  side  the  implementation  progress  by 
highlighting and illustrating in particular a number of specific examples (see Chapter 3). 
On  the  other  side  the  direct  contributions  to  the  specific  objectives  are  outlined  (see 
Chapter 5), in particular:  

1.  Contributing  to  efficient  transport  flows  in  the  internal  market  through  the 

removal of bottlenecks; 

2.  Contributing  to  cohesion  through  better  interconnection  between  long-distance, 

regional and local traffic; 

3.  Contributing to sustainability of the TEN-T through standards and requirements 
enabling better conditions for zero and low emission transport along the TEN-T; 

4.  Enabling  increased  user  benefits  through  infrastructure  standards  ensuring  safe 
and secure transport as well as by enabling efficient and high quality service for 
freight and passengers.   

It  can  be  noted  that  these  four  objectives  are  mutually  reinforcing  each  other  and  one 
does not need to be favoured to the detriment of the other.  

Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 basically defines a horizon for its implementation. However, 
as  this  Regulation  does  not  govern  an  EU  programme  with  a  corresponding  budget 
allocation but sets the long-term framework for the development of an EU policy overall, 
there  will  be  need  for  further  action  in  the  future  (e.g.  to  take  account  of  changing 
demand, ensure continuously high quality, adjust to innovation etc.).  

Given  the  very  broad  scope  of  TEN-T  policy,  this  evaluation  has  been  a  complex 
exercise.  The  evaluation  looks  backward  at  what  has  been  achieved  since  2013,  and  it 
looks forward at what would be achieved on the basis of the current TEN-T Regulation; 

8 

 
are  there  any  initial  objectives  which  will  not  be  achieved  and  why,  and  what  new 
challenges need to be taken up in TEN-T policy.   

This  evaluation  is  carried  out  almost  at  mid-term  on  the  way  between  the  last  – 
substantial – revision of the Regulation and the first key milestone of TEN-T policy: The 
year 2030, when the Union will have to prove to its citizens and economic operators that 
TEN-T policy has been successful. It assesses to what extent the implementation efforts 
so far have led to the expected results and benefits and if implementation is on the right 
track towards the 2030 milestone.  

In this context, “expected results” means that the ongoing and/or planned projects on the 
TEN-T  network  are  at  this  stage  in  so  much  advanced  in  their  implementation  and 
sufficiently mature (also in terms of financial maturity) so that their full completion can 
be expected by 2030. It also means that all projects are ongoing and/or planned which are 
needed  to  fully  address  the  lack  of  compliance  issues  on  the  network,  i.e.  that  each 
section  not  yet  compliant  is  being  addressed  by  an  investment  planning  project  which 
will  be  realised  in  due  time.  To  this  end,  a  project  database  of  around  3000  projects  is 
regularly being monitored.  

New  developments  in  transport  policy  and  the  wider  political  environment  of  the  EU 
require  a  thorough  assessment  of  the  existing  Regulation  in  its  entirety.  Therefore,  in 
spring 2019, the Commission services launched an evaluation of the Regulation.  

The evaluation: Expected deliverables and input for policy making  

The  European  Green  Deal7,  adopted  by  the  Commission  in  December  2019,  aims  at 
tackling  climate  change  and  reaching  the  objectives  of  the  Paris  agreement.  Since 
transport  accounts  for  a  quarter  of  the  EU’s  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  the  European 
Green  Deal  calls  for  a  90%  reduction  of  transport  emissions  until  2050.  The  climate 
neutrality objective by 2050, which the Commission proposed in 20188 and the European 
Council9 and Parliament10 endorsed, is one of the central elements of the Green Deal. The 
Commission has proposed to enshrine climate neutrality into EU law11. In order to set the 
EU on a sustainable path to achieve climate neutrality by 2050, with the Climate Target 
Plan12  the  Commission  has  proposed  an  EU-wide,  economy-wide  net  greenhouse  gas 
emissions reduction target by 2030 compared to 1990 of at least 55%.    

In this context, the TEN-T revision is expected to specifically address how these targets 
can  be  achieved.  Thereby,  the  potential  of  TEN-T  policy  to  contribute  to  the 
decarbonisation challenge rests upon two pillars:  

1)  Ensuring  the  integration  of  all  modes  and  their  intelligent  components  into  a 
single  network;  thereby  creating  a  unique  basis  for  efficiency  and  sustainability 
enhancements of the transport system as a whole and  

7   COM(2019) 640 final  
8   COM(2018)773 final 
9 European Council conclusions, 12 December 2019.   
10    European Parliament resolution of 14 March 2019 on climate change and resolution of 28 November 
2019 on the 2019 UN Climate Change Conference in Madrid, Spain (COP 25).   
11   COM (2020)80 final  
12   COM (2020) 562 final 

9 

 
 
                                                           
2)  Ensuring  cross-border  continuity  and  coherence  of  charging  and  refuelling 
infrastructure  for  alternative  fuels  in  transport;  thus  helping  to  stimulate  an 
accelerated  market  penetration  of  low  and  zero  emission  vehicles,  aircrafts  and 
vessels. 

To address the main issues that are of key importance to inform policy making, content-
wise, the evaluation work has been structured to cover 1) objectives and provisions of a 
more  traditional  transport  infrastructure  policy  nature  and  2)  areas  with  a  clear  focus 
newer transport policy objectives such as decarbonisation, digitalisation or resilience.  

Key areas addressed by the evaluation13  

  The  form  /  design  of  the  network,  i.e.  its  geographical  structure  of  the  network 
covering both rail, road and inland waterway links as well as ports, airports and other 
multi-modal terminals; addressing urban nodes as network components; considering 
the  link  with  active  transport  modes;  besides  the  strengthening  of  long-distance 
freight  rail  and  the  reinforcement  of  synergies  between  TEN-T  and  Rail  Freight 
Corridors – looking at weaknesses and opportunities of passenger rail; at bottlenecks 
resulting from changing  transport flows which may have an impact  on demand and 
thereby on the network design. 

  The  features  /  quality  requirements  of  the  network,  i.e.  the  setting  of  binding 
transport infrastructure standards in accordance with related EU transport legislation 
in  fields  such  as  interoperability,  safety,  security  or  accessibility  for  persons  with 
reduced mobility;  provisions on infrastructure requirements as a basis for seamless, 
sustainable  and  efficient  transport  and  mobility  solutions  in  line  with  broader 
transport  policy  objectives  (e.g.  equipment  and  connectivity  of  transport  terminals, 
intelligent  infrastructure  components  to  enable  transport  telematics  solutions, 
deployment  of  certain  alternative  fuel  infrastructures,  resilience  of  infrastructure); 
promotion  of  innovative  solutions,  stimulating  the  use  of  new  technologies  to 
enhance user services and advance decarbonisation;  

  The  identification  of  infrastructure  needs  from  the  perspective  of  private  and 
commercial  users,  e.g.  the  needs  of  providers  of  sustainable  freight  transport 
services,  of  mobility  services  for  passengers  or  of  other  multi-modal  solutions;  of 
transport  operators  seeking  to  enhance  their  service  performance  (e.g.  railway 
undertakings), of  infrastructure managers aiming to improve the efficient use of the 
assets  under  their  responsibility  (e.g.  port  authorities)  or  of    regional  and  local 
authorities seeking smooth first and last mile connections.  

  The  status  of  TEN-T  implementation  at  the  moment  of  the  evaluation  and  the 
prospects for achieving the network completion targets; the effectiveness of relevant 
EU  instruments  –  notably  of  the  core  network  corridors  and  the  European 
Coordinators  in  their  lead  –  and  the  coordination  of  such  instruments;  the 
responsibilities  of  Member  States  and  other  stakeholders  in  implementing  TEN-T 
projects.  

13   Evaluation  Roadmap,  published 

in  September  2018,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-

regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1908-Trans-European-transport-network-Guidelines 

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
To  evaluate  measures  expected  to  help  substantially  modernising  TEN-T  policy  in  the 
light of the more ambitious decarbonisation objectives, a number of specific issues were 
studied in more detail (please refer also to the evaluation method under point 4). These 
address  the  role  of  urban  nodes  in  TEN-T  policy,  digitalisation,  new  transport 
technologies  including  zero  and  low  emission  vehicles  infrastructure,  infrastructure 
resilience,  high-performance  passenger  rail  and  seamless  mobility  for  the  “Trans-
European  passenger”14.  Specific  attention  was  also  given  to  TEN-T  cooperation  with 
third  countries,  an  area  which  is  gaining  increasing  importance  in  view  of  changing 
global trade relations and progressing EU neighbourhood policy. Finally, given their vital 
role  in  ensuring  an  efficient  and  sustainable  TEN-T  policy  overall,  infrastructure 
standards  and  requirements  for  all  modes  and  for  multi-modal  infrastructure  were 
assessed  more  thoroughly,  and  a  more  in-depth  evaluation  was  also  undertaken  for  the 
functioning of the core network corridors as the key instrument to facilitate core network 
implementation.  

Evaluation criteria applied  

In line with the Better Regulation guidelines of the European Commission15, Regulation 
(EU) 1315/2013  has been evaluated against five  main criteria: relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence and added value. These criteria have been applied to evaluate the 
entirety  of  the  legal  provisions  of  the  Regulation  as  well  as  the  approach  to,  and  the 
intermediary results of, its implementation. Issues such as those set out above have been 
specifically in the focus of the evaluation, but they have not been its sole subject.  

The  ‘relevance’  criterion  has  proven  to  be  of  critical  importance,  especially  when 
comparing existing provisions of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 with new needs related to 
the European Green Deal or to technological developments which were not foreseeable a 
decade ago. The preparedness of the TEN-T for a substantial progression to zero and low 
emission  mobility,  digitalization  and  automation  or  resilience  clearly  challenges  the 
‘relevance’ criterion in particular.  

‘Coherence’ has been key in assessing the extent to which TEN-T policy is aligned with 
relevant transport policy needs and developments. Discrepancies may have occurred over 
the last years as a result of evolving transport policy, for example in areas such as urban 
nodes,  railway  policy,  aviation  or  maritime  transport.  Coherence  is  certainly  of  vital 
importance when ensuring continuous equipment of TEN-T with charging and refuelling 
infrastructure  for  zero  and  low  emission  vehicles,  aircrafts  and  vessels,  in  line  with 
relevant EU initiatives. Similarly, ‘coherence’ may be at stake when assessing needs to 
adjust  the  network  to  climate  adaptation,  security  or  other  new  infrastructure  resilience 
challenges;  thus,  ‘coherence’  between  TEN-T  policy  and  other  policy  areas  beyond 
transport.  

14   “Trans-European passenger” is neither an official term nor an official concept. It has been used for the 
purpose of this evaluation to assess the potential of seamless and barrier-free mobility for cross-border 
travellers on the TEN-T. 

15   SWD(2017)350 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
‘Effectiveness’  is  of  major  importance  for  assessing  the  ability  of  Regulation  (EU) 
1315/2013 to stimulate the achievement of the general TEN-T objectives – facilitation of 
the  internal  market  and  contribution  to  social  and  territorial  cohesion  –    as  well  as  the 
wide  range  of  specific  objectives.  Chapter  3  below  will  showcase  some  representative 
examples,  illustrating  the  implementation  progress  made  since  2013,  outlining  success 
factors  or  obstacles  related  to  the  development  to  date  and  assessing  strengths  and 
weaknesses towards full completion targets. Such an evaluation can only be made in an 
exemplary  way,  given  the  broad  scope  of  the  TEN-T  and  the  wide  range  of  areas 
combined in it. 

The  implementation  of  the  TEN-T  core  network  is  facilitated  through  a  number  of 
implementation instruments such as the core network corridors, European Coordinators, 
work  plans  and  corridor  fora  involving  a  large  number  of  stakeholders.  Furthermore 
Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013  empowered  the  Commission,  subject  to  Member  State 
approval, to draw up Implementing Acts for the cross-border and horizontal dimensions 
(ERTMS,  MoS)  of  the  core  network  corridor  work  plans.  The  evaluation  has  been 
looking  into  the  ‘Efficiency’  of  these  instruments  and  assessed  in  how  far  they  are 
deemed  useful  and  appropriate  by  stakeholders.  Furthermore  the  evaluation  assessed  if 
and  in  how  far  Member  States  fulfil  their  reporting  obligations  under  Regulation  (EU) 
1315/2013  and  the  burden  associated  to  this.  Finally  the  evaluation  looked  at  the 
efficiency of the integration between Rail Freight Corridors and core network corridors 
and explored whether the Regulation  provided for an efficient  use of the TEN-T to  the 
benefit of freight and passenger transport.    

Last but not least, the evaluation looked at the added value of TEN-T policy overall. In 
relation to future TEN-T policy challenges, notably in the fields of decarbonisation and 
digital/technological  transition,  new  perspectives  may  be  at  stake  to  further  strengthen 
the  EU  added  value  of  TEN-T  policy.  Even  more  than  the  ‘traditional’  TEN-T 
infrastructure approach, such developments may imply unique opportunities to boost the 
European added value thanks to a well-established and integrated infrastructure policy.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION (REGULATION (EU) 1315/2013) 

2.1. Base line and points of comparison  

The  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  2013  revision  of  the  TEN-T  guidelines16 
highlighted  the  success  of  the  policy  since  its  beginnings  in  terms  of  infrastructure 
development,  interconnecting  national  networks,  overcoming  technological  barriers 
across national borders and deploying intelligent  transport systems. At the same time it 
concluded  that  the  European  Union  does  not  dispose  yet  of  a  complete  trans-European 
infrastructure network due to several factors: 

  The  infrastructure  network  in  the  EU  was  still  fragmented  geographically,  i.e. 
connections between Member States (cross-border links) were insufficient and major 
European  transport  axes  presented  significant  gaps  and  lacked  continuity;  TEN-T 
infrastructure availability and quality diverged between eastern and western parts of 
Europe; missing connections with neighbouring and overseas countries had negative 
impacts on international trade flows that fed the European internal market. 

  The network was fragmented in terms of infrastructure quality levels of transport 
modes  and  lacked  appropriate  “multi-modal”  infrastructure,  hampering  connections 
between modes and the development of integrated services. 

 

Interoperability was insufficient. 

  The  level  of  integration  of  “hard”  and  “intelligent”  infrastructure  to  enable  decent 

telematics services within and between all modes was insufficient.  

Reasons for these persisting problems were identified in the Impact Assessment: 

  An  insufficient  EU-level  planning  of  the  network  and  a  spatial  configuration  that 

lacked a genuine European design. 

  A  predominantly  bottom  up  approach  to  infrastructure  development  that  no  longer 
corresponded to the framework conditions (increasing mobility vs environmental and 
public budget constraints). 

  An insufficient implementation of common standards.  

  Lacking integration  of binding  rules for interoperability into the TEN-T. 

  A limited cooperation among Member States in project implementation.  

  A lack of sufficient priority setting and conditionality of TEN-T funding instruments. 

The  Impact  Assessment  concluded that without  EU intervention, these problems  would 
continue to affect transport flows within the internal market and between the Union and 
third  countries,  to  impair  social,  territorial  and  economic  cohesion  within  the  EU,  to 
constrain  smooth  accessibility of  all regions  of the Union (including peripheral,  insular 
and  outermost  regions)  and  to  hamper  the  achievement  of  sustainability  and  efficiency 
objectives  in  transport  (see  below  on  the  expected  impacts  and  Annex  3  for  details  on 
how the situation might have developed without TEN-T).  

16   Commission Staff Working Paper: Impact Assessment Accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of 
the  European Parliament and of the  Council on Union  Guidelines  for the development of the Trans-
European Transport Network, SEC(2011) 1212 final of 19.10.2011 

13 

 
 
                                                           
With  the  adoption  of  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013  on  Union  Guidelines  for  the 
development  of  the  trans-European  transport  network  (TEN-T),  the  Union  intended  to 
reinforce the legal basis in order to overcome these problems and to further enhance this 
policy in view of its fundamental objectives enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union17 (TFEU).  

Description of the logic of the EU Intervention and its objectives18 

Taking  the  2013  Impact  Assessment  as  a  starting  point,  this  chapter  describes  the 
presumed  logic  underlying  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013  (see  Annex  4).  It  reflects  the 
following  categories,  which  have  been  endorsed  by  the  Steering  Group  (see  Annex  1) 
accompanying the main evaluation study and the overall evaluation process: 

  General objectives of the 2013 TEN-T Regulation 
  Expected outcomes (connected with specific objectives set out in the Regulation) 
  Expected Outputs 
  Actions needed  
 
Inputs needed 

General objectives  

On  21  December  2013,  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013  on  Union  Guidelines  for  the 
development of the trans-European transport network entered into force, about two years  
after the publication of the impact  assessment and the submission of the Commission’s 
proposal19.  

The  TEN-T  Regulation  builds  directly  on  Title  XVI  of  the  TFEU  and  abides  to  the 
fundamental objectives enshrined therein. Furthermore, it was guided by the Roadmap to 
a Single European Transport Area20 (the 2011 Transport Policy White Paper setting out 
the  overall  EU  Transport  Strategy  for  the  period  until  2050)  and  the  Europe  2020 
strategy21  (promoting  sustainable  and  efficient  transport  as  a  cornerstone  of  sustainable 
growth and the flagship “Resource efficient Europe”). 

On this basis, the Regulation has aimed at generating positive impacts on the following 
overarching EU policy objectives:   

1.  To support the smooth functioning of the internal market;  
2.  To strengthen the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the Union; 
3.  To  contribute  to  further  economic  growth  and  competitiveness  in  a  global 

perspective as well as to sustainability.  

Specific objectives/outcomes 

As an overarching objective TEN-T shall contribute to the creation of a single European 
transport area which is efficient and sustainable, increases the benefits for its users and 
supports inclusive growth and cohesion. These four specific objectives are further broken 
down as shown in the table below:  

17 Title XVI, Articles 170 - 172 
18  A  graph  of  the  Intervention  logic  as  well  as  further  details  on  the  actions,  inputs  and  external  factors, 

identified as impacting on Regulation 1315/2013 since its adoption, are presented in Annex 3 

19 COM(2011) 650 final 
20 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144 
21 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC2020&from=en 

14 

 
 
                                                           
Table  3:  Specific  objectives  and  targets  underpinning  them,  laid  down  in  Regulation 
(EU) 1315/201322 
Specific 
objective 
/outcome  

Contributing to efficient 
transport flows in the 
internal market 

Contributing 
to cohesion 

Enabling increased user 
benefits 

Contributing to 
sustainability of 
the TEN-T 
TEN-T modes 
which are socially 
and 
environmentally 
sustainable and 
contribute to 
environmental 
objectives 
Enhanced enabling 
conditions for zero 
and low emission 
transport along the 
TEN-T  
Enhanced  
sustainability and 
inclusiveness in 
economic terms  

Coherent and continuous 
infrastructure requirements 
as basis for high-quality, 
efficient and sustainable 
transport services in line 
with user needs 

Infrastructure standards 
ensuring safe and secure  
transport 

Seamless mobility and 
accessibility for all 
passengers, with an 
additional focus on 
responses to natural and 
human-made disasters, 
unforeseen events etc.  

Removed bottlenecks and 
bridged missing links 
across the EU 

Geographically 
balanced 
infrastructure 
across the EU 

To be 
achieved 
through… 

Optimized interconnections 
and interoperability of 
national transport networks 
for all transport modes;  

Promotion of efficient, high 
quality transport 
contributing to economic 
growth; 

Connectivity 
and 
accessibility 
for all EU 
regions 
Reduced 
infrastructure 
quality gaps 

Better 
interconnection 
between long-
distance, 
regional and 
local traffic 

Enhanced connectivity 
between the EU and 
neighbouring and other 
third countries 

Enabling efficient use of 
infrastructure and cost-
efficient application of 
innovative technologies 

Source: Regulation (EU) 1315/2013, own elaboration 

This  matrix  summarizes  the  four  specific  objectives  of  the  TEN-T  and  the  targets 
underpinning  them,  as  set  out  in  Article  4  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  However,  this 
structuring must not be interpreted as a rigid attribution of individual targets to specific 
objectives.  The  four  specific  objectives  of  the  Regulation  -  contributing  to  efficient 
transport  flows  in  the  internal  market,  contributing  to  cohesion,  contributing  to 
sustainability of the TEN-T and enabling increased user benefits - are intrinsically linked 
and complement one another. Taking the example of investments in cross-border railway 
infrastructures,  it  can  be  shown  that  these  lead  to  more  efficient  transport  flows 
benefitting  the  internal  market  and  at  the  same  time  increase  the  sustainability  of  the 
transport  system.  Through  improved  connectivity,  they  also  address  the  cohesion 

22   The  outcomes  are  allocated  to  the  specific  objective  they  most  contribute  to,  however  it  should  be 
noted that most outcomes contribute to more than one specific objective e.g. “enhanced connectivity 
between the EU and neighbouring and other third countries” not only benefits the internal market but 
also the users of transport infrastructure. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
objective  and  benefit  users  through  improved  transport  services.  As  such,  there  is  no 
trade-off  between  the  different  objectives  but  rather  complementarity.  In  an  approach 
which  builds  on  a  reinforced  integration  of  infrastructure  and  related  transport  policy 
objectives  as  a  key  towards  the  achievement  of  the  challenging  decarbonisation 
objectives  of  transport,  this  complementarity  of  the  objectives  creates  synergies  for  the 
whole transport system. 

Outputs 

Pursuing  these  outcomes  and  specific  objectives  has  been  geared  towards  two  key 
outputs of the initiative:  

1.  Two layers of the network structure 

The  dual  layer  TEN-T  structure  comprises  the  comprehensive  and  the  core  network 
which  display  strong  functional  interrelations.  They  result  from  a  coherent  and 
transparent  methodological  approach,  enable  a  resource  efficient 
infrastructure 
management,  as  well  as  the  provision  of  seamless  and  sustainable  transport  services  of 
high quality and user benefit. 

While the core network is based on a more EU level approach based on major transport 
flows and key geographic criteria, the comprehensive network builds more a bottom up 
approach connecting national networks of the Member States. As such, both networks are 
complementary. In addition, the comprehensive network is the geographical basis for all 
related  transport  legislation  (through  its  standards  and  requirements)  and  the  reference 
base for EU funding from different sources. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1: TEN-T core network for passenger rail to be completed by 203023 

Source: Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 

2.  TEN-T Cooperation with neighbouring and third countries 

Agreements with neighbouring and third countries have been signed in order to support 
cooperation, notably with a view to connecting the TEN-T with infrastructure networks 
of  neighbouring  countries.  Amongst  the  main  outputs  in  this  area  have  been  the 
indicative  extension  of  the  TEN-T  maps  to  neighbouring  regions  through  adoption  of 
Commission  Delegated  Regulations  (see  chapter  1).  Besides  this  adoption  of  indicative 
TEN-T maps, policy cooperation with different geographical areas of the world includes 
inter alia exchanges of experience and common analysis on subjects of mutual interest.  

23   The map illustrates – with the example of the passenger rail component – the TEN-T core network, to 
be  completed  by  2030.  It  gives  an  overview  of  the  network  sections  (incl.  connections  to  airports) 
which – when the Regulation was adopted were already completed and fully functional as well as of 
the sections which need to be upgraded or newly built. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.2. Expected impacts (based on the 2011 Impact Assessment)  

In  order  to  address  the  problems  identified  in  the  2011  Impact  Assessment  substantial 
changes were introduced to the 2013 TEN-T guidelines. The main impacts, which were 
expected  to  be  generated  from  these  changes  (notably  the  genuine,  dual  layer  network 
approach,  coherent  infrastructure  standards  and  requirements  including  for  smart, 
innovative  and  more  efficient  infrastructure  management,  core  network  corridors  as  an 
implementation tool) are the following: 

Expected  impacts  on  the  transport  sector:  The  changes  were  expected  to  lead  to 
modal-shift  towards  the  most  sustainable  modes  of  transport  and  to  support  a 
concentration of trans-national traffic and long-distance flows (freight and passengers) on 
major  TEN-T  axes  as  well  as  to  enhance  resource  efficiency,  both  in  infrastructure 
provision  and  use.  Innovative  information  and  management  systems  were  expected  to 
provide support for logistic functions,  inter-modal integration and sustainable operation 
in  order  to  establish  competitive  door-to-door  transport  chains  in  line  with  user  needs. 
Increased multimodality and the introduction of the core network corridors was expected 
to contribute to a reduction in congestion. 

Expected impacts on the economy: the new TEN-T approach was expected to further 
enhance the infrastructural basis for economic operators and citizens to benefit from the 
internal  market  and  the  free  movement;  to  help  stimulating  balanced  economic 
development  in  all regions  of the Union;  to  contribute to  the  global  competitiveness  of 
the Union through enhanced connections with third countries and to stimulate economic 
development  in  innovative  sectors.  Overall:  to  contribute  to  economic  growth,  both 
during  infrastructure  construction  and,  in  the  long-term,  through  improved  connectivity 
and efficiency of trade flows within Europe and with the rest of the world.  

Expected  impact  on  economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion:  The  changes  were 
expected to have positive impacts on connectivity and accessibility for all regions of the 
Union, including peripheral, outermost and insular regions – with benefits for territorial, 
economic  and  social  cohesion  within  the  Union.  Notably  the  new  network  structure, 
ensuring complementarity between the core and comprehensive network layers, aimed at 
strengthening  cohesion.  In  this  context,  the  development  of  TEN-T  was  expected  to 
overcome remaining differences in network structure and quality between States joining 
the Union before or after 2004 respectively.   

Expected  social  impacts:  the  genuine  network  structure,  including  the  introduction  of 
coherent  standards  and  enabling  intelligent  solutions,  was  expected  to  make  a  positive 
contribution  to  employment  and jobs  - not only  in the short term  through construction, 
but also long term through the enhanced efficiency of a real network. Furthermore, on the 
basis of the improved infrastructure policy, significant positive employment effects were 
expected  in  the  transport  sector  overall,  notably  through  the  enabling  of  new  service 
opportunities within and across all modes. 

Expected impacts on public health and safety: positive impacts were mainly expected 
through a reduction in road accidents (through higher infrastructure safety standards), the 
implementation of intelligent transport systems as well as by modal shift. 

Expected impact on climate change: Positive impacts were assumed to result especially 
from  efficiency  gains  in  the  transport  system  overall  brought  by  the  new  network 
structure,  including  its  enhanced  multi-modal  basis  and  the  promotion  of  sustainable 

18 

 
modes, as well as by  a more coordinated approach to project implementation within this 
network; by the promotion of more sustainable modes of transport, the implementation of 
intelligent transport systems and the stimulation of technological innovation in transport 
and infrastructure development.  

Expected  impact  on  air  pollution:  Overall,  the  efficiency  enhancements  of  the  new 
TEN-T  policy  were  expected  to  lead  to  reductions  in  greenhouse  gas  emissions  (see 
above, impact on climate change) and of other air pollutants. Congestion reduction, as a 
benefit  of  the  new  network  structure  and  the  related  efficiency  gains,  was  expected  to 
significantly  contribute  to  this  objective.  Furthermore,  the  promotion  of  “greener” 
transport solutions, notably through the deployment of infrastructure enabling the use of 
renewable energy sources, was expected to strengthen this impact.  

Expected impacts on energy use: These impacts were expected to be closely related to 
the impacts on climate change and air pollution, building on two pillars: efficiency gains 
and enabling cleaner vehicle technologies.  

Expected  impact  on  noise  emissions:  It  was  expected  that  positive  impacts  could  be 
achieved  -  despite,  an  increase  in  transport  activity  -  through  the  implementation  of 
higher quality transport infrastructure, the promotion of more silent vehicles and to some 
extent through modal shift. 

Expected impacts on land use and biodiversity: Transport projects may have negative 
effects  on  land  use  and  biodiversity,  resulting  in  particular  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. 
However, the multi-modal core network / corridor approach, which is expected to lead to 
a  concentration  of  traffic  flows  on  major  axes,  was  expected  to  contain  these  negative 
effects.  Furthermore,  at  the  level  of  individual  projects,  in  any  case  the  relevant  EU 
legislation  on  environmental  protection  has  to  be  complied  with  and,  additionally, 
solutions  which  are  generating  positive  environmental  effects,  are  given  increasing 
importance.   

19 

 
 
 
3.  IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

Description of the current situation (progress between 2013 and 2020) 

Since  the  entry  into  force  of  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013  on  21  December  2013, 
significant progress has been made by Member States and a wide range of other public 
and  private  actors  (transport  infrastructure  managers,  regional  and  local  authorities, 
transport industry etc.) to implement projects of common interest which contribute to the 
gradual completion of the core and comprehensive networks.  

As the short outline of TEN-T policy principles has shown, this trans-European network 
encompasses  a  broad  scope  of  infrastructure  fields.  They  range,  for  example,  from  the 
traditional  railway  infrastructure  construction  project  to  ‘intelligent  solutions’  or  to 
charging  and  refuelling  infrastructure  for  low  and  zero  emission  mobility.  The 
implementation  efforts  –  both  time-  and  budget  wise  –  may  vary  significantly  between 
the different project types.  

A  major  cross-border  construction  project,  usually,  requires  long  preparatory  times  for 
intergovernmental  agreements,  budgetary  decisions,  permitting  and  procurement 
procedures,  technical  studies  etc.  and  it  is  implemented  in  phases.  For  these  kind  of 
projects,  the  seven-year  evaluation  period  at  stake  may  have  seen  the  deployment  of 
enormous efforts (planning, permitting, construction) while there is no direct impact felt 
yet (no new sections on the network, no new user services) as preparation, construction 
or  testing  are  still  ongoing.  The  reporting  of  impacts  –  for  example  in  terms  of  user 
benefits,  modal  shift  and  decarbonisation  effects  or  economic  development  -  remains 
therefore limited. Other project categories - of a shorter term nature - are implemented in 
large numbers and show more immediate effects. 

In the following, the current status of the implementation of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 
shall be presented in two ways:  

A.  through  a  general  overview  of  the  progress  and  further  prospects  of  TEN-T 
implementation, including the overall status of projects along the nine core network 
corridors and  

B.  through  a  specific  demonstration  of  achievements  or  challenges  in  selected  areas 

which illustrate  the broad scope  of  TEN-T policy.  

The  information  in  this  part  essentially  builds  on  the  following  sources:  The  work 
concerning the nine (geographical) core network corridors and the European Rail Traffic 
Management System (ERTMS) as a horizontal core network priority, which is facilitated 
by European Coordinators, designated by the European Commission (in agreement with 
the  Member  States  concerned,  and  after  consulting  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council) and who are acting on its name and behalf24. This coordination instrument at EU 
level was introduced in the 2013 Regulation in order to streamline the implementation of 
the  core  network.  Secondly,  the  information  is  based  on  sectoral  work  within  the 
Commission,  specifically  in  the  fields  of  inland  navigation25  and  ‘Alternative  Fuel 

24   see Regulation (EU) 1315/2013, Art 45(4) 

20 

 
                                                           
Infrastructure’26. Lastly, the findings of the study on ‘National Plans and Programmes in 
Member States’ with a view to TEN-T development have been drawn upon (see Chapter 
4 ‘data sources’).  

A.  General overview on the status and prospects of TEN-T implementation 

Member States’ approaches to meeting TEN-T development objectives 

To enable the Commission to assess the status of network planning and implementation 
prospects for the TEN-T as a whole, Article 49(2) of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 obliges 
Member  States  to  inform  the  Commission  about  their  national  plans  and  programs, 
drawn up with a view to the development of the trans-European transport network.  

Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013  obliges  Member  States  to  fully  implement  their  respective 
national  sections of the  network which  -  altogether  -  generate network benefits  beyond 
the sum of gains at national level. From this perspective, as part of the TEN-T evaluation, 
a study was undertaken (see chapter 4 for details) which focused on two key questions: 

 

 

Are Member States (each of them individually) covering the corresponding TEN-T 
objectives, in their respective plans and programs, in a sufficient way? 
Are all major TEN sections / projects “secured”, especially with regard to the 2030 
completion target for the core network? 

Concerning  the  first  question,  it  can  be  concluded  that  existing  national  plans  and 
programs  on  transport  infrastructure  development  vary  significantly  between  Member 
States.  Differences  relate  to  time  horizons  (from  very  short  term  to  up  to  12-year 
perspectives),  nature  (legally  binding  or  non-binding,  master-plan  type  or  more  project 
based approach) or reference to  TEN-T objectives  (identifiability of projects  etc.). This 
diversity, which is related to traditional national approaches, makes it a challenge for the 
Commission  to  monitor  planning  and  implementation  of  the  network  in  a  harmonized 
way. In spite of this diversity in formal terms, the study results show that, de facto, TEN-
T  policy  objectives  and  corresponding  commitments  by  Member  States,  are  reasonably 
well  addressed  in  national  planning  and  programming  approaches.  The  TENtec 
information  system  and  the  systematic  stock  taking  in  the  framework  of  the  technical 
analysis  of  the  core  network  corridors  has  helped  the  Commission  overseeing  the 
situation.  Nevertheless,  some  way  of  ensuring  more  coherence  and  strengthening 
commitment could enhance effectiveness in TEN-T implementation. 

Member States’ responses to the second question showed that, in spite of incoherence in 
the  approaches  to  infrastructure  planning  and  implementation,  the  key  TEN-T  policy 
milestone - the completion of the core network by 2030 - heads in the right direction: The 
analysis found that only between 5 and 10 major infrastructure construction projects are 
not  covered  in  national  plans.  Between  40  and  50  projects  out  of  the  around  3000 
projects of the project list face delays which may put at risk the achievement of the 2030 
deadline, although most Member States concerned appear confident that they will be able 
to remedy this situation. Especially Cohesion States underline that their compliance with 

25   Work of an Expert Group assessing the needs of a Good Navigability Status 
26   Drawing on the implementation of Directive 2014/94/EU on Alternative Fuel Infrastructure as well as 

on the preparation of its revision 

21 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
the  deadline  depends  on  the  allocation  of  substantial  contributions  from  the  Cohesion 
Fund.  A  number  of  other  projects  -  for  justifiable  reasons  -  are  well  underway  but 
expected to be completed a few years after 2030. Even in case there are delays on certain 
sections, the investments  and developments  of the rest  of the network  remain useful  as 
the  development  of  infrastructure  is  a  long-term  activity  and  the  benefits  of  such 
investments will be seen for very long time after finalisation.  

Setting  a  common  deadline  for  the  achievement  of  the  core  network  has  proven  to  be 
very  useful  in  mobilising  authorities  and  infrastructure  managers,  giving  also  more 
reassurance that individual investments on the network will yield higher benefits through 
network effects of investments on other sections on the network. 

Overall, this situation shows that the efforts made since 2013 to move from a fragmented 
project implementation approach towards a genuine Europe-wide network approach have 
been successful. The TEN-T has been a key framework for Member States to concentrate 
investment on. This alignment of national action with a common European objective can 
be seen as one of the principle achievements of this EU policy. 

The dual layer network approach  

Today  the TEN-T network is  based on  a  coherent  EU-wide planning methodology that 
has been acknowledged by the MS. It consists of a dual layer network structure: 

  The comprehensive network layer: The TEN-T Regulation (Chapter II) sets out a 
wide range of requirements, to be met by the infrastructure of the comprehensive 
network, so as to enable it to duly contribute to the above four specific objectives. 
Such  requirements  include,  inter  alia,  binding  rules  on  safety  or  interoperability, 
provisions  on  smart  infrastructure  equipment  to  generate  telematics  applications 
within  and  between  all  transport  modes  or  infrastructural  needs  for  the  seamless 
integration of terminal infrastructure into the network.  

  The  core  network  layer:  The  core  network  must  feature  at  least  the  same 
standards  and  requirements  as  the  comprehensive  network.  In  many  cases,  it  is 
subject  to  higher  standards  and  requirements  –  both  in  terms  of  quality  and 
capacity needs.  Given the high concentration of cross-border traffic flows on the 
core network, its  contribution  to the expected outcomes /  the achievement  of the 
specific  objectives  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  is  particularly  high.  Therefore,  its 
completion is of particular priority for the EU, its Member States and other public 
and private stakeholders. This clearly justifies the binding target year 2030. 

The overall status of TEN-T planning in Member States with regards to the coverage of 
TEN-T  objectives  and  the  completion  deadline  2030  is  described  in  chapter  3b.  It  is 
outlined there that TEN-T policy objectives and corresponding commitments by Member 
States, are reasonably well addressed in national planning and programming approaches 
and the completion of the core network by 2030 heads in the right direction (with only a 
small number of projects expected to miss this deadline see also point 4 below). 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 

The comprehensive network  

The  TEN-T  bring  together  networks  of  all  transport  modes.  The  geographical  scope  of 
the three land transport  modes is  shown in  the  following overview  table for  the 27 EU 
Member States27:  

Table 1: TEN-T network length by mode: comprehensive network 

TEN-T Railway 
network  

TEN-T Road 
network  

TEN-T Inland 
waterway network  

Length (km)28* 

113.000 

106.600 

15.700 

* The respective modal network lengths, as adopted with Regulation (EU) 1315/2013, have been rounded up or off to 
hundred.  The  detailed  network  alignments  are  continuously  monitored  through  the  geographical  information  system 
TENtec, which is publicly accessible.   

The  ‘comprehensive  network’  referred  to  in  Table  1  includes,  besides  rail,  road  and 
inland  waterway  connections,  also  ports,  airports  and  multi-modal 
transport 
infrastructure.  It  serves  as  the  geographical  reference  for  EU  legislation  and  policy 
objectives  in  relevant  fields  of  transport.  Such  legislation  concerns,  inter  alia,  railway 
policy (with interoperability as a key pillar of TEN-T policy, or with  the integration of 
Rail Freight Corridors), inland navigation (with the taking over of standards agreed upon 
in  international  agreements)  or  road  safety  (with  the  integration  of  relevant  EU 
legislation). Amongst  the transport policy  related requirements  of TEN-T infrastructure 
are features to enhance multi-modal transport solutions (e.g. equipment and accessibility 
of  nodes)  as  well  as  smart  infrastructure  equipment  to  facilitate  efficient  infrastructure 
use. 

The particular importance of the ‘comprehensive network’ resides in its relatively dense 
structure as key basis for accessibility of all EU regions, in particular outermost regions 
recognised  in  article  349  TFEU29,  as  well  as  other  peripheral  and  insular  regions 
Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 foresees its full completion by 2050.  

The  comprehensive  network,  through  its  geographical  structure30  as  well  as  the  set  of 
infrastructure  components,  requirements  and  development  priorities31  provides  the 
fundamental basis for the identification of ‘projects of common interest’. Any project, 
which aims at filling a missing network link or at reaching common TEN-T infrastructure 

27   Network  data  excluding  UK.  To  be  noted,  however,  that  in  the  backward-looking  part  of  the 
evaluation  (2013-2020),  UK  related  aspects  could  not  always  be  easily  separated  from  the  overall 
policy evaluation.   

28   Basis: Annex 1 of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 
29   In its Communication ‘A stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions’ 
(COM(2017)  623  final),  the  Commission  committed  itself  to  “better  meet  the  outermost  regions 
accessibility needs and facilitate their participation in the Trans European Transport Network”; "; and 
to considering “how TEN-T policy, including the Motorways of the Sea Programme, can better meet 
the outermost regions' needs and take into account their geographic position” 

30
  Annex I of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 
31   Chapter II of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
standards  and  requirements,  is  defined  as  a  project  of  common  interest32.  Besides 
Member  States,  bearing  the  largest  share  of  the  responsibility,  such  projects  may  be 
identified, prepared, implemented and financed by any other relevant actor, depending on 
the projects’ specific nature. While all projects of common interest have to comply with 
the  requirements  set  out  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  questions  of  detailed  alignment, 
the  respective  national 
technical  design,  procedural  approaches  etc.  belong 
responsibility  (subject  to  obedience  to  relevant  EU  legislation  in  fields  such  as 
interoperability, environmental protection etc.)  

to 

In  order  to  ensure  steady  implementation  of  such  projects  of  common  interest,  striving 
towards  the  completion  of  the  common  European  transport  infrastructure  network  by 
2050,  a  combination  and  concentration  of  financial  efforts  is  needed  at  various  levels: 
public and private, European and national.   

Projects of common interest may benefit from EU support under relevant EU financing 
instruments, notably the Connecting Europe Facility, the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF. 
The  main  responsibility  for  the  implementation  of  TEN-T  projects,  however,  has  to  be 
assumed by the Member States concerned and, as appropriate, other public and private 
actors.  

 

The core network 

The TEN-T core network has been designed on the basis of the comprehensive network, 
i.e. it is a “selection” of comprehensive network infrastructure33. While the planning of 
the comprehensive network was significantly building on a bottom-up method, the core 
network  results  from  a  Europe-wide  planning  method  which  combines  economic  and 
territorial  criteria.  The  core  network  emphasizes  the  TEN-T  infrastructure  of  highest 
importance for major international transport flows and for a balanced interconnection of 
all EU regions. It links the major cities and transport nodes as economic centres and key 
transhipment hubs. The heavy concentration of EU-wide transport flows makes the core 
network both a critical factor for the interaction of infrastructure and transport policy and 
a  possible  showcase  for  its  success.  Therefore,  in  a  number  of  cases,  Regulation  (EU) 
1315/2013  sets  higher  quality  and  capacity  requirements  than  for  the  comprehensive 
network, and it sets a much more ambitious completion target, namely 2030.  

The  following  overview  shows  the  scope  of  the  core  network  in  the  27  EU  Member 
States34,  as  adopted  by  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013,  and  it  illustrates  the  extent  of  the 
upgrading and construction works needed for its full completion until 2030:  

32   The  definition  of  a  project  of  common  interest,  set  out  in  Article  7  of  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013, 
specifies  further  conditions  for  projects  of  common  interest,  notably  their  economic  viability  on  the 
basis of socio-economic cost-benefit analysis and compliance with relevant Union and national law, in 
particular with Union legal acts on the environment, climate protection, safety, security, competition, 
state aid, public procurement, public health and accessibility.   

34   Network data for the network maps, as adopted with Regulation (EU) 1315/2013, excluding the UK. 
To  be  noted,  however,  that  in  the  backward-looking  part  of  the  evaluation  (2013-2020),  UK  related 
aspects could not always be easily separated from the overall policy evaluation.    

24 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
Table 2: TEN-T core network length by mode and state of infrastructure 
Existing infrastructure, 
to be upgraded to core 
network standards35  or 
for capacity extension 

Total 
length 
(km)* 

Existing 
infrastructure in 
line with core 
network standards 
and requirements 
32.800 
33.700 
14.000 

22.000 
10.800 
900 

Rail  
Roads 
Inland 
Waterways 

63.100 
47.800 
15.80036 

‘Missing 
links’ in 
core 
network  

8.300 
2.300 
900 

*The respective modal infrastructure lengths, as adopted with Regulation (EU) 1315/2013, have been rounded up or off 
to hundred. The detailed network alignments are continuously monitored through the geographical information system 
TENtec, which is publicly accessible.   

The  necessary  upgrading  and  new  construction  projects,  including  enhancements  in 
transport nodes, represent a key challenge for the core network completion until 2030  – 
and  thereby  of  TEN-T  policy  overall.  The  coordinated  and  timely  completion  of  these 
projects  entails  genuine  opportunities  and  generates  substantial  benefits  beyond 
nationally-focused  infrastructure  policies.  It  sets  the  direction  for  public  and  private 
investment in infrastructure construction and upgrading along the TEN-T and contributes 
to  an  efficient  use  of  financial  resources.  At  the  same  time,  it  stimulates  and  channels 
innovative solutions which enhance the sustainable and efficient functioning of the core 
network  as  a  whole.  All  this  makes  TEN-T  policy  vital  as  enabler  of  seamless  cross-
border-mobility and transport for private and public users. 

Table  2  shows  that  there  are  differences  in  terms  of  reached  compliances  between  the 
different transport modes. Indeed, there is far less non-compliant road infrastructure than 
rail or IWW infrastructure. This lies in the fact that a large part of the road core network 
was already existing upon the entry into force of the Regulation while this was less the 
case for rail and IWW. In addition, the standards required for road are far less ambitious 
than those for road.  

Core  network  corridors  as  the  key  instrument  to  stimulate  and  coordinate  project 
implementation 

The revision of the TEN-T Regulation in 2013 introduced several instruments aimed at 
facilitating the implementation of the TEN-T as an integrated system. One of these tools 
are core network corridors (CNCs). The key objective of CNCs is to facilitate an efficient 
implementation of the core network, thereby concentrating in particular on a coordinated 
development  of  the  TEN-T  infrastructure  (in  particular  cross-border  sections  and  the 
removal of bottlenecks), the integration of transport modes as well as interoperability.  In 
geographical  terms,  they  cover  nine  corridors  of  a  length  between  3000  km  (Rhine–
Alpine)  and  more  than  9000  km  (Scandinavian–Mediterranean  and  Atlantic)37.  In  total, 
they  represent  between  70  and  80%  of  the  core  network  overall.  These  corridors  are 
complemented by two Horizontal Priorities, the European Railway Traffic Management 

35   Data  are  based  on  Member  States’  reporting,  with  the  possibility  of  some  incoherence  in  the 

assessment of the “compliance” status  

36   In the Inland Waterway sector, core and comprehensive networks are identical, i.e. all TEN-T inland 

waterway infrastructure must comply with the standards and requirements of the core network  

37   The length of rail infrastructure is referred to here; the length of road and inland waterways is mostly 

smaller 

25 

 
 
 
                                                           
System (ERTMS) and the Motorways of the Sea concept (MoS) that support the network 
optimisation  and  which  are  both  also  supported  by  a  respective  European  Coordinator. 
While  MoS,38  are  introducing  new  intermodal  maritime-based  logistic  chains,  ERTMS 
deployment39  is  about  introducing  and  enforcing  a  European  wide  rail  traffic 
management, safety and signalling system. 

Since each of the geographical CNCs represents an “extract” of the core network – with 
all its transport modes, nodes as well as standards and other requirements – coordination 
needs are enormous. They reach from efforts to harmonising investment in key projects 
to  stimulating  soft  initiatives;  from  ensuring  the  smooth  interconnection  of  transport 
modes  for  effective  multi-modality  to  the  corridor-wide  implementation  of  coherent 
infrastructure  standards.  This  requires  strong  lead  by  the  European  Coordinator 
respectively concerned (see chapter 4 for details); it depends on active involvement of a 
wide  range  of  stakeholders  directly  concerned  by  the  challenges  at  stake;  it  calls  for 
comprehensive  technical  analysis  to  underpin  decisions,  which  is  ensured  by  the 
Commission with the help of external expertise.  

The  nine  CNC  (see  figure  2  below)  follow  the  most  important  long-distance  transport 
flows  along  the  core  network.  Integrating  rail,  road  and  (where  available)  inland 
waterway  axes  and  connecting  the  major  urban  centres  and  transport  nodes  (ports, 
airports,  terminals),  they  offer  unique  opportunities  to  enhance  resource-efficient 
functionality  and  to  advance  sustainable  transport  solutions.  This  approach,  aiming  to 
optimise the functioning of the corridor for the benefit of major long-distance transport 
flows within the EU and beyond,  allows to  concentrate investment  (public and private, 
including  from  EU  sources)  and  to  set  priorities  from  a  cross-national  perspective.  In 
work  plans,  published  about  every  two  years  and  approved  by  the  Member  States 
concerned,  each  European  Coordinator  takes  stock  of  developments  and  defines  action 
towards the respective corridor objectives until 2030. Since 2013, there have been rounds 
of exchanges with the TRAN Committee of the European Parliament on four work plan 
editions.  Members  of  the  European  Parliament  show  strong  interest  in  this  process  and 
support it in various ways.  

38   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/motorways_sea_en 
39   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/ertms_en 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 2: The nine TEN-T core network corridors 

Source:  DG MOVE/TENtec  

The CNC instrument has been implemented since the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 
1315/2013 (see also chapter 5). Notably rail and inland waterway projects have been in 
the  centre  of  the  promotional  efforts  –  both  in  terms  of  coordination  and  financial 
support. Financial support has been, in the first instance, provided from the Connecting 
Europe  Facility  and  the  Cohesion  Fund.  Especially  in  countries  eligible  for  Cohesion 
Fund  support,  corridor  work  has  also  helped  filling  major  gaps  on  the  road  network. 
Particular emphasis of Coordinators’ work has been placed on key cross-border projects 
of  the  core  network  –  such  as  the  Lyon-Torino  or  Brenner  base  tunnel  projects,  the 
Fehmarn Belt fixed link, the Rail Baltica or the Seine – Scheldt inland waterway project. 
Today,  there  is  confidence  that  all  these  projects  will  be  completed  until  2030.  Such  a 
positive prospect would have been unthinkable without the steady efforts of the European 
Coordinators concerned.  

Although  somewhat  less  in  the  limelight,  European  Coordinators  have  also  been  very 
successful  in  ensuring  smooth  connections  between  land  transport  and  maritime  and 
aviation infrastructure. The interconnection of maritime ports with rail, inland waterway 
and  road  links  of  the  corridors,  in  particular,  has  been  vital  for  their  efficient  overall 
functioning. Infrastructure quality enhancements in the transport nodes, such as maritime 
ports have also been in the focus of Coordinators’ work. This has included infrastructure 
and  equipment  enabling  smooth  multi-modal  operations,  but  also  pilot  action  on 
alternative fuel infrastructure to contribute to cleaner transport solutions.   

Last but not least: An efficient and sustainable functioning of core network corridors is 
only possible when due attention is paid to urban nodes along these corridors. They are 
origin,  destination  or  transit  sites  for  most  freight  or  passenger  movements  on  the  core 
network.  In  this  respect,  corridor  work  has  included  efforts  to  enhance  TEN-T  transit 
infrastructure  in  major  cities.  This  contributed  to  reducing  congestion,  which  has 
negative effects  on both  urban mobility and the corridor. Another key issue of corridor 

27 

 
 
 
work in urban nodes relates to the inter-connection of TEN-T nodes, such as airports and 
rail stations or ports and the rail network.  Finally, passenger hubs – such as major TEN-
T  railway  stations  –  have  been  enhanced  to  facilitate  transfer  functions  between  long-
distance and local or regional transport. Such last mile connections are key – both from a 
quality  and  a  sustainability  perspective:  The  most  modern  high-speed  railway  line  will 
give away benefits when not smoothly connected with the users’ final destination.  

The  latest  version  of  the  corridor  work  plans40  consolidate  the  progress  made  with  the 
development  of  the  nine  corridors  since  2013.  The  work  plans  themselves  and  the 
analytical  work  underlying  them  show  that  a  total  of  around  1200  projects  have  been 
completed  along  these  corridors  since  2013.  They  represent  an  overall  investment  of 
around 110 billion Euro41. In this context, it should be taken into account that ‘projects’ 
are defined from the perspective of organizational and procedural aspects in the Member 
State(s) concerned. This implies that a missing link on the TEN-T may be broken down 
in several such projects, and that the listing also includes a wide range of upgrading and 
quality  enhancing  projects  of  different  type  and  size.  Furthermore,  it  has  to  be  kept  in 
mind  that  –  given  the  long-term  nature  of  TEN-T  policy  –  the  cost  of  the  completed 
projects cannot be directly attributed to the 2013–2020 period as implementation of part 
of  the  projects  started  before  2013.  On  the  other  hand,  the  cost  overview  neglects  that 
fact that preparation on works are ongoing for other projects.    

Looking  towards  the  2030  horizon,  the  work  plans  and  the  studies  underpinning  them 
show that around 3000 projects remain to be completed along the core network corridors. 
European  Coordinators  are  making  continuous  efforts  to  facilitate  this  work.  In  the 
majority of the cases, they assess that the prospect for reaching the objectives are sound. 
Some specific problems (including delays for administrative or financial reasons) call for 
reinforced efforts.  

Infrastructure upgrading to reach common standards as a key part of corridor work 

The  quality  enhancement  of  TEN-T  infrastructure  to  reach  the  standards  and 
requirements  set  out  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation  is  a  major  challenge  towards  the  full 
completion of the core network until  2030. The status of the compliance of the TEN-T 
infrastructure  with  such  requirements  has  been  assessed  in  the  technical  analysis 
supporting the core network corridor activities. Its results are published in the work plans 
of the European Coordinators and have been summarized in the latest Progress Report on 
TEN-T Implementation42. Figure 3 gives an overview of this status (reporting date: end of 
2017)  for  13  important  requirements.  It  has  to  be  taken  into  consideration  that  this 
overview is not directly related to implementation activities during the evaluation period. 
It  reflects  the  overall  status  of  the  infrastructure  of  the  TEN-T  as  it  was  adopted  with 
Regulation (EU) 1315/2013. Large parts of this network were already existing; featuring 
the required quality levels at the time of the adoption of this Regulation (to a significant 
extent  through  TEN-T  action  under  previous  versions  of  the  TEN-T  Guidelines).  The 
overview, concerning the nine core network corridors, shows that:  

40   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t_en 
41   Source: Corridor studies and their related project lists.  
42   Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Progress report on implementation of the TEN-
T network in 2016-2017; COM(2020) 433 final, of 26.8.2020  

28 

 
                                                           
 
For rail, the situation regarding binding infrastructure standards which are essential for 
the  provision  of  continuous  services  along  TEN-T  corridors,  is  largely  positive.  This 
concerns  especially  electrification,  the  minimum  line  speed  of  100  km/h  and  the 
minimum axle load of 22,5 tons for freight lines as well as the nominal European track 
gauge  of  1435  mm  (between  86  and  100%  compliance  rate).  A  significant  challenge 
remains the improvement of infrastructure to enable the operation of freight trains with at 
least  740  m  length  –  a  key  requirement  to  enhance  the  capacity  for  rail  freight  and 
thereby  the  potential  for  modal  shift.  Even  more  problematic  is  the  situation  regarding 
the track side deployment of the European Rail Traffic management System (ERTMS) – 
a  key  condition  for  interoperability  and  the  enhancement  of  safety  and  more  efficient 
capacity use.   

For the TEN-T  core network infrastructure in  the  inland waterway sector, 85% of the 
infrastructure meets the requirements of a minimum draught of 2.5 m and of a minimum 
height  of  5.25  m  under  bridges.  One  of  the  major  challenges  for  the  future  will  be  to 
ensure good navigability conditions on free flowing rivers, also because of increasingly 
frequent periods of extreme weather events. The high coverage of inland waterways with 
the European River Information Services (RIS) may contribute to address this problem, 
and in particular it improves safety, quality and efficiency of inland navigation. 

Figure 3: Compliance Status 2017 of main TEN-T requirements on the core network 
corridors43

Source:  Progress Report on TEN-T implementation 2016-2017 

43   The  detailed evaluation of the compliance  with standards per transport mode and per country and/or 
corridor can be found in the TEN-T implementation reports, in the corridor studies as well as on the 
TENtec database.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
For  road  infrastructure,  the  TEN-T  Regulation  requires  express  road  or  motorway 
standard,  which  is  achieved  to  100%.  Besides  this  requirement  of  a  rather  structural 
nature, the Regulation includes some specific quality related standards and requirements, 
such as compliance with EU legislation on road safety. It also requires equipment with 
safe and secure parking areas, traffic management (intelligent transport systems) as well 
as alternative fuel infrastructure. The status regarding safety standards will be assessed 
separately in this chapter.  

Concerning the infrastructural conditions to enhance multi-modal transport, a positive 
situation  has  been  reached  already  with  regard  to  the  interconnection  of  ports  to  rail 
(89%).  Nevertheless,  in  the  light  of  the  unprecedented  challenges  of  decarbonisation, 
efforts may need to be accelerated – also in the framework of a reviewed approach to the 
maritime dimension of TEN-T policy, which aims at a reinforced integration of shipping 
routes, ports and land corridors. Concerning the interconnection of airports with rail, the 
situation is less advanced at this stage. An area which clearly calls for more attention is 
the  integration  of  airports  in  freight  transport  chains  –  a  need  which  has  also  become 
particularly evident in the Covid-19 situation.  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
B.  Selected areas illustrating specific challenges  

The filling of missing links 

While many of the major infrastructure projects of the TEN-T underwent long periods of 
decision  making  and  preparation  without  having  got  ready  for  use  at  the  time  of  this 
evaluation, for others the long-lasting efforts have yielded results recently. An example is 
the  high  speed  railway  line  between  Berlin  and  Munich,  which  is  part  of  the 
Scandinavian  -  Mediterranean  Corridor.  The  project  was  conceived  after  the  German 
reunification as one of the “German unity transport projects44”. The € 10bn project was 
approved as early as in 1991 and includes the upgrade and new construction of railway 
lines  between  the  two  cities.  First  parts  where  inaugurated  already  in  2003  and  the 
complete line was put in operation in December 2017. 

The  project  is  cutting  travel  times  between  Munich  and  Berlin  by  more  than  2  hours 
(from 6h to under 4h) making rail a viable alternative to air travel. Within one year of its 
operation  rail  passenger  numbers  between  Berlin  and  Munich  doubled  making  rail  the 
dominant mode on the relation with a modal share of 46% (air 30%, car 24%) and saving 
a  considerable  amount  of  CO2.  Significant  contributions  from  the  TEN-T  funding 
programme and CEF have been made with co-funding rates of up to 20% for works on 
certain sections of the line since the mid-nineties. In summary this project shows on the 
one hand the complexity and time intensity of such major transport projects and on the 
other hand it showcases the concrete impact of EU and national investments into TEN-T 
and the direct benefits for citizens and the environment. 

Implementing the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) 

The overview in figure 3 above shows the extent of the efforts still needed to achieve the 
2030  target  in  specific  areas  (only  11%  compliance  rate  in  2017).  In  the  light  of  this 
seemingly pessimistic status, however, the European Coordinator for ERTMS has set up 
work plan, which justifies confidence in the achievement of full ERTMS deployment by 
2030, in line with the obligation enshrined in the TEN-T Regulation.  

ERTMS is a key pillar of the “intelligent” components of the TEN-T infrastructure. It is a 
communicating  system  which  includes  elements  for  the  equipment  of  tracks  and  of 
rolling stock. Its key benefits include:  

Table 4: Key ERTMS benefits 

Objective 
Contributing to interoperability of 
railway transport along the TEN-T, 
as an objective enshrined in the 
TFEU and in relevant Technical 
Specifications on Interoperability45  
Increasing  capacity  of 
the  rail 
system  

Specific benefits 

Enabling full and TEN-T-wide provision of 
seamless cross-border railway services; 
strengthening competitiveness of rail as a 
sustainable transport mode; stimulating 
competitiveness of EU industry in the supply sector 
ERTMS  allows 
reduction  of  minimum 
distances  or  times  between  trains,  leading  to 
capacity gains of up to 30%. 

the 

        Verkehrsprojekte Deutsche Einheit – VDEare  

44
45   TSI  adopted  pursuant  to  Article  6  of  Directive  2008/57/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 

Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community 

31 

 
 
                                                           
Higher performance  

Safety increase 

Reduced likelihood of failure;  enhanced reliability 
of the system and punctuality of services 
Increased  overall  protection  level  compared  to  the 
majority  of  national  protection  systems,  thanks  to 
continuous supervision of the speed of train 

While first discussions on the development of ERTMS started as early as 40 years ago, 
progress has been steady in an area where national systems have long-standing tradition 
and  transition  costs  are  high.  In  the  1990s  and  the  first  years  of  the  new  millennium, 
Europe spent significant efforts in Research and Development to make this system ready 
for deployment (Between 2007 and 2013, deployment was stimulated with EU Funds 1.2 
billion Euro from TEN-T and Cohesion Fund together).  

ERTMS has become a big success story outside Europe already, with 51.000 km of lines 
being  equipped  on  the  trackside  and  5180  vehicles  being  in  operation  or  having  been 
contracted  as  of  2020.  Within  the  EU  since  the  entry  into  force  of  Regulation  (EU) 
1315/2013, more 5000 km of TEN-T tracks have been equipped with ERTMS along the 
nine core network corridors. 

The TEN-T Regulation stipulates full ERTMS deployment for the core network by 2030, 
and for the comprehensive network by 2050. In 2017, the European Commission adopted 
an ERTMS Deployment Plan which set deadlines for some sections of the core network 
corridors for the period 2017 – 2023.  

The  measures  to  implement  this  plan  included  the  attribution  of  new  powers  to  the 
European  Railway  Agency,  concerning  the  fields  of  trackside  approval  and  vehicle 
authorization.  Furthermore,  as  regards  funding,  2.7  billion  Euro  (grants  from  the 
Connecting Europe Facility and the Cohesion Fund) were allocated to ERTMS between 
2014 and 2020 which represents an increase of 125% compared to the previous funding 
period.  This  has  been  complemented  by  the  introduction  of  innovative  financing 
mechanisms (in 2017), which attracted notably projects for on-board equipment.    

Building  on  these  plans  and  their  implementation,  the  new  European  Coordinator, 
Matthias  Ruete,  was  in  a  position  to  summarize  in  his  work  plan  published  in  June 
202046, past progress and future objectives with regard to ERTMS equipment of the nine 
core network corridors as follows:  

Table 5: ERTMS deployment on the core network corridors 

12/2016 

12/2017 

12/2018 

12/2019 

05/2020 

ERTMS in 
operation 
Source: First work plan of the European Coordinator for ERTMS 

10 % 

11% 

9 % 

7 % 

12% 

2023 
(planned ) 
31% 

2030 
(planned  
97% 

It shows that considerable efforts still need to be undertaken to reach compliance with the 
ERTMS requirements. To meet such challenges, the European Coordinator for ERTMS 
already  made  considerable  efforts  that  ERTMS  is  finally  widely  accepted  by  Member 
States,  rail  infrastructure  managers  and  rail  operators.  In  addition,  detailed  milestones 

46   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/work_plan_ertms_2020.pdf 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
and objectives are laid down in the work plan of the European Coordinator which have 
been  agreed  upon  with  Member  States.  Overall,  the  work  plan  underlines  that  the 
achievement of this objective is vital for the transport sector overall to meet its zero and 
low emission objectives, as laid down in the European Green Deal, and  – not least – to 
make a significant contribution to the digital transition in transport. At the same time, the 
Coordinator calls for reinforcement  of the TEN-T Regulation to  ensure  achievement  of 
the 2030 objective. This should notably address a reinforced focus on existing gaps and 
full  implementation  of  highest  track  side  standards  as  well  as  the  appropriate 
encouragement of relevant on-board equipment of rolling stock.  

Inland Waterways in TEN-T  

The TEN-T inland waterway network consists to a large extent of free flowing rivers and 
to  a  smaller  extent  of  canals.  For  inland  waterway  transport,  coherent  infrastructure 
standards  are  a  key  condition  for  smooth  transport  operations  which  cross  to  a  large 
extent national borders. Besides rail, well performing inland waterways are vital for the 
shift of long-distance freight transport to sustainable modes.  

However,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  85%  of  the  TEN-T  inland  waterway  infrastructure 
(including  locks,  bridges  etc.)  meets  key  requirements  of  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013 
(including  through  implementation  efforts  before  2013),  performance  of  inland 
navigation  does  not  achieve  its  full  potential,  notably  for  the  following  reason:  The 
current  parameters  for  Inland  Waterway  Infrastructure  (see  above,  table  3)  do  not 
guarantee coherent performance for all waterway stretches, as waterways in Europe are 
characterised  by  a  heterogeneous  hydro-morphology.  This  suggests  that  “navigability” 
could be more appropriate as a TEN-T parameter in order to enable the provision of good 
continuous navigation services along waterways.  

An Expert Group set up by the Commission assesses needs for an adjusted approach. It 
addresses  both  a  more  mode-specific  solution  on  infrastructure  and  its  complementing 
with  “navigability”  requirements.  Especially  the  long  draught  period  in  2018  led  to  a 
sharp drop in inland waterway transport on all major TEN-T inland waterways. This calls 
for a more tailored solution beyond fixed and uniform inland waterway standards.   

Infrastructure requirements such as the depth of the navigable channel and the clearance 
under  bridges,  which  refer  to  reference  water  levels,  may  require  more  flexibility. 
Increasing attention may also need to be given to locks and movable bridge availability. 
The level of flexibility related to Good Navigation Status can be matched with coherent 
performance  through  the  definition  of  a  non-deterioration  and  protection  principles  for 
navigable  channel  depth,  bridge  height  and  lock  availability,  the  full  use  of  River 
Information Services or an adequate density of inland ports in order to ensure that target 
values are not falling below the values implemented today by Member States but help to 
shift more freight transport to inland waterways. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
Enhancing road safety  
Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 integrated relevant legislation, setting binding standards for 
the safety of the TEN-T Road Network. This included:    

  The  Road  Infrastructure  Safety  Management  (RISM)  Directive47  which  sets 
requirements  for  audits  (of  new  roads),  inspections  and  hot  spot  identification  (of 
existing  roads).  The  2019  revision  of  this  Directive48  extended  these  provisions, 
having  proven  to  be  very  successful  on  the  TEN-T,  to  other  major  EU  roads.  For 
TEN-T roads, it brought an additional quality requirement, namely the obligation for 
Member  States  to  carry  out  network-wide  safety  risk  assessments  which  must  feed 
into a prioritised action plan. This  enhanced TEN-T standard,  related to  the revised 
RISM Directive, is expected to save 3 200 lives and prevent 20 700 serious injuries 
by 2030. 

  The  Tunnel  Safety  Directive49  which  sets  minimum  safety  requirements  for  road 
tunnels  on  the  TEN-T  and  clarifies  the  organisation  of  safety  management  and 
operating procedures for tunnels. As these provisions were introduced in response to 
a  number  of  serious  crashes  in  major  EU  road  tunnels  in  recent  decades,  it  can  be 
assumed that the new binding standards have helped avoiding accidents.  

Overall,  TEN-T  policy  has  triggered  substantial  investment  in  the  safety  of  road 
infrastructure  (refurbishment,  safety  upgrading  of  existing  roads  etc.)  and  –  not  least  – 
the  filling  of  missing  links,  leading  to  significant  safety  enhancements  especially  in 
newer Member States. Support from EU sources, including from the Cohesion Fund and 
EIB  loans,  has  been  important  in  this  respect.  Road  safety  related  TEN-T  action  has 
clearly  helped  to  reduce  road  fatalities  and  serious  injuries.  It  contributed  to  the  43% 
decrease of road death in Europe between 2010 and 2019, in spite of increasing mobility.   
However,  22,800  people    still    lost    their    lives    on    EU    roads  in    2019    and    about 
135,000    were    seriously  injured.  To  achieve  the  EU’s  ambitious  “Vision  Zero” 
objectives  by  2050,  measures  in  the  TEN-T  need  to  be  further  significantly  reinforced. 
The digital transition, one of the key pillars to be reinforced in the future TEN-T policy, 
may significantly contribute to this objective.  

Promoting charging and refuelling infrastructure for zero and low emission mobility 

Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 includes the objective of promoting low carbon transport. As 
one  important  measure  to  help  achieving  this  objective,  it  stipulates  the  provision  of 
infrastructure  to  facilitate  the  energy  supply  for  alternative  propulsion  systems.  These 
provisions address notably electricity supply systems for road transport as well as Liquid 
Natural  Gas  (LNG),  inter  alia  in  the  maritime  sector.  An  EU  Directive  concerning  the 
deployment  of  alternative  fuel  infrastructure  –  with  a  close  connection  to  the  TEN-T 
infrastructure  –  was  adopted  10  months  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  TEN-T 
Regulation (AFID)50. This Directive sets certain requirements for the equipment of TEN-
T infrastructure, which had to be reflected in relevant National Policy Frameworks.  

47   Directive 2008/96/EC 
48   Directive (EU) 2019/1936 
49   Directive 2004/54/EC 
50   Directive 2014/94/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  October  2014  on  the 

deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure 

34 

 
  
 
 
                                                           
The provisions of the TEN-T Regulation, aiming to stimulate and facilitate developments 
in  this area, allowed  –  for the first  time in  TEN-T policy  –  for EU funding of relevant 
projects under the Connecting Europe Facility. This resulted in a considerable number of 
projects - both on e-mobility and alternative fuel solutions – having been supported since 
2014. In the e-mobility sector, for example, the following pilot actions mobilized actors 
across national borders and helped paving the way for a clean mobility future:  

  A study on a pilot deployment of 29 multi-standard fast chargers along the TEN-T 
corridors in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, gathering data about market needs, 
the  planning  of  charger  networks  and  the  link  with  ICT  solutions  (aiming  at  an 
Electric  Vehicle  Rollout  Masterplan  for  the  two  States);  a  study  and  pilot 
deployment  of  38    fast  charging  stations  along  TEN-T  corridors  in  Belgium, 
France, Italy and the United Kingdom (focusing on issues of interoperability in an 
EU-wide  non-proprietary  open  standard  system  as  well  as  on  EU-wide  business 
readiness). 

  Pilot deployment of 85 multi-standard fast charging stations along TEN-T corridors 
in  Poland  and  Slovakia,  addressing  the  issue  of  battery  storage  to  cover  peak 
demand,  interoperability  in  terms  of  roaming  and  customer  service  management 
and business models (see figure 4 below). 

  A  study  and  pilot  deployment  of  221  multi-standard  fast  charging  stations  along 
TEN-T  corridors  in  Germany  in  Belgium  to  stimulate  an  increased  coverage  of 
chargers in these States, in view of future roll-out; including the development of an 
open  source  ICT-platform  across  the  entire  electric  vehicles’  value  chain  to 
facilitate integrated end-to-end services, available to all market participants. 

35 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Promotion of re-charging infrastructure for e-mobility in Eastern Europe 

Overall, these actions mirror the advancement of electro-mobility charging infrastructure 
along  the  TEN-T  during  the  period  2014  –  2020  through  pilot  action,  towards  the 
preparation  for  mass  markets.  Under  point  5,  more  details  are  provided  on  the 
effectiveness  of  TEN-T  action  during  the  evaluation  period  in  terms  of  broad  scale 
deployment.  

This development, however, has now reached a point where further progress towards the 
ambitious EU commitments for zero and low emission mobility is hampered by the lack 
of  binding  standards  for  charging  and  refuelling  infrastructure  for  all  modes  along  the 
TEN-T.  Standards,  aligned  with  the  ongoing  revision  of  the  Alternative  Fuel 
Infrastructure  Directive  as  well  as  the  FuelEU  Maritime  and  the  ReFuelEU  Aviation 
initiatives,  are  expected  to  strengthen  cross-border  continuity  and  to  facilitate  and 
accelerate coherent implementation, facilitated by the European Coordinators.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  METHOD 

Short description of methodology and data sources 

The evaluation of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 on Union Guidelines for the development 
of the trans-European transport network started in September 2018 with the publication 
of  the  evaluation  Roadmap.  An  Inter-service  steering  group  accompanied  and  oversaw 
the exercise (details in Annex 1). The evaluation builds in particular on the Support study 
for the TEN-T evaluation by  Coffey  consultants51, on the support study  for the  TEN-T 
policy review, by Panteia52 and experiences in implementing Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 
notably the work carried out in the framework of the core network corridors since 2013. 
A  standard  triangulation  approach  was  applied  to  address  the  evaluation  questions, 
through different angles: desk research, interviews and surveys. 

Baseline: The aim for developing the baseline scenario is to assess what would happen in 
the medium (2030) and long-term (2050) if the TEN-T core and comprehensive network 
did  not  develop.  The  starting  point  for  developing  the  baseline  scenario  has  been  the 
baseline scenario underpinning the Impact Assessment accompanying the revision of the 
TEN-T  Regulation53.  Building  on  this  scenario,  the  macro-economic  and  technological 
assumptions have been updated  in line with those used for the modelling underpinning 
the strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate-neutral 
economy  by  2050    (LTS/Clean  Planet  for  All  communication).  In  addition,  policy 
measures  adopted  by  the  end  of  2019  have  been  considered  in  the  baseline  scenario, 
except  for  the  implementation  of  the  TEN-T  regulation.  In  addition,  a  counter-factual 
scenario  has  been  developed  that  assumes  the  completion  of  the  TEN-T  core  and 
comprehensive network. By comparing the two scenarios, this shows the impacts of the 
revised TEN-T regulation. 

1.  Evaluation support study54 
The main evaluation study was launched in April 2019 and builds on two pillars: Desk 
research as well as open and targeted stakeholder consultations.  

Desk  research:  an  in-depth  desk-based  review  of  existing  literature  and  data  (global 
desk research) relevant to the evaluation topics was carried out collecting and analysing 
data from:  

  Legal  documents, 

including 

relevant  Directives,  Regulations,  Delegated 

Regulations and legislative proposals; 

  Studies,  documents,  work  programmes,  reports,  evaluations  and 

impact 

assessments linked to TEN-T policy and funding; 

  Existing data/statistics available at national and EU level; 
  Additional  sources  retrieved  through  the  exploratory  interviews  and  an  initial 

mapping exercise. 

51   Support  study  for  the  evaluation  of  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013  on  Union  Guidelines  for  the 

development of the trans-European transport network. 

52   Support  study  for  the  TEN-T  policy  review,  concerning  relevant  national  plans  and  programmes  in 

member states. 

53   SEC(2011) 1212 final 
54   Not yet published 

37 

 
 
                                                           
Open  Public  Consultation:  the  Commission  as  the  first  step  of  the  formal  revision 
process between the 24th of April and the 17th of July 2019 carried out an Open Public 
consultation.  The  questionnaire  was  available  in  all  official  EU  languages.  This 
consultation  generated  more  than  600  responses  from  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders, 
including  public  authorities  (from  international  to  local),  infrastructure  managers, 
commercial  transport  users,  civil  society  and  citizens.  Importantly,  more  than  150 
stakeholders  -  including  a  number  of  Member  States  and  key  European  Associations  - 
used  this  initial  step  already  to  submit  position  papers  highlighting  strengths  and 
weaknesses  of  the  policy  and  –  notably  –  its  future  opportunities  and  needs.  The  OPC 
results  were  analysed  in  detail  by  Coffey  consult  and  fed  into  the  overall  evaluation 
process. 

Targeted  stakeholder  consultations:  the  approach  to  consult  expert  stakeholders 
designed by the consultant consisted of three main elements: online surveys, interviews 
and case studies on issues of specific importance. The aim of the  targeted consultations 
was to collect data from specific stakeholder groups at local, national and EU level.  

It  has  to  be  underlined  that  this  evaluation  report  presents  the  stakeholder  views  at  an 
aggregate  level.  Generally,  stakeholder  views  showed  a  very  coherent  perception  of 
views  and  no  noteworthy  distinction  could  be  found  between  different  stakeholder 
groups, unless otherwise specified in this report.  

Online surveys: A survey questionnaire (global survey) was designed on the basis of the 
revised evaluation questions matrix and preliminary findings from the tasks carried out as 
part of the inception phase. It has been implemented between 20 January and 16 March 
2020  in  order  to  collect  data  on  stakeholders’  perceptions  of  and  experiences  with  the 
TEN-T  Regulation,  its  implementation  and  outcomes  to  date,  and  their  views  on 
recommendations  for  future  EU  policy  developments  in  this  area.  Overall,  more  than 
2000 stakeholders with expertise in the subjects at stake have been contacted for online 
surveys. In total 198 valid responses were received. Part of the stakeholders had used the 
OPC  phase  already  for  elaborate  and  consolidated  contributions  (e.g.  European 
Associations  having  sought  common  positions  amongst  their  members  in  targeted 
conferences.)  In  other  areas  (e.g.  commercial  infrastructure  users),  the  involvement 
through  more  specific  questions  triggered  significant  response  rates  at  the  stage  of  the 
targeted consultation. 

Interviews: In total 44 stakeholders have been interviewed (global interviews) with cross-
sections of respondents to the survey and representatives of relevant stakeholder groups.  
A discussion guide for the interviews has been tailored to the stakeholders interviewed. 
The main aim of these semi-structured interviews was to gain in-depth insights into the 
implementation  of 
success 
factors/challenges  from  the  perspective  of  different  stakeholders.  The  global  interviews 
complemented the desk  research, open public consultation and global survey to explain 
the quantitative data obtained and fill in any gaps, support the thematic case studies, and 
elaborate  on  key  issues  where  data  from  other  sources  were  unclear  or  needed  further 
explanation. Specific interview guide modules and samples have been developed for each 
case study. 

the  TEN-T  Regulation,  progress  achieved  and 

38 

 
 
 
 
Case  studies:  In  addition  to  the  general  evaluation  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  the 
contractor has designed and implemented nine thematic case studies on selected TEN-T 
policy  areas  (for  details  see  Annex  2).  They  were  undertaken  in  areas  in  which  the 
Commission’s  work  during  the  implementation  phase  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  has 
produced evidence that there might be a lack of relevance, both in light of developments 
over  the  last  years  and  of  foreseeable  future  developments.  Each  case  study  has  been 
tailored to address specific evaluation questions and issues, which were further reviewed 
and  updated  during  the  inception  and  interim  phases.  The  approach  to  each  case  study 
included  a  combination  of  desk  review  of  secondary  sources,  specific  survey  modules, 
in-depth interviews and discussions with relevant stakeholders (which complemented the 
global interviews and global survey carried out as part of the consultation). Three online 
workshops  with  stakeholders comprising EU officials, transport stakeholders and social 
partners  have  been  developed  and  implemented  to  validate  the  findings,  and  to  discuss 
conclusions  and  recommendations  of  case  studies  1  (urban),  6  (digitalisation)  and  7 
(innovation and new technologies). The format and content of the workshops follow an 
introductory webinar, consultation via an online bulletin board, and a wrap-up session to 
consolidate the feedback received. 

Representative  examples:  In  the  light  of  the  complexity  of  the  policy,  representative 
examples  have  been  chosen  at  several  instances  in  the  report  to  illustrate  the 
implementation  state  of  play  to  date.  Those  representative  examples  can  be  seen  as  an 
illustrative evidence of the effectiveness of the Regulation. 

The  large  consultation  programme  involving  all  relevant  stakeholders  provides  for  a 
robust and cross-checked evidence base for this evaluation.    

2.  Core network corridor process 

As laid out in chapter 3 above, Article 45 of the TEN-T Regulation states that in order to 
facilitate  the  coordinated  implementation  of  core  network  corridors,  ERTMS  and 
motorways  of  the  sea,  the  Commission  shall,  in  agreement  with  the  Member  States 
concerned,  and  after  consulting  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  designate 
European Coordinators.  

The work of the Coordinators and the corridor process have allowed the Commission to 
gain  a  very  detailed  overview  of  the  status  of  TEN-T  implementation  along  the  core 
network corridors and has given stakeholders the possibility to be directly engaged in this 
process.  It  has  brought  authorities  and  stakeholders  from  different  Member  States 
together who were not necessarily or sufficiently exchanging about the developments in 
their network. In addition, the Corridor Forum meetings have gathered representatives of 
different  transport  modes  around  one  table  to  discuss  about  the  respective  needs  and 
challenges.  

Since  2013,  the  European  Coordinators  have  drawn  up  four  iterations  of  corridor  work 
plans55 (based on Art. 47) for each corridor as well as detailed implementation plans for 
ERTMS56  and MoS57  giving an overview of corridor development, identifying gaps and 
bottlenecks and setting the priorities for the future. The Corridor Work Plans are unique 

55 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/downloads_en 
56 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/work_plan_ertms_2020.pdf 
57 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2020-mos-dip.pdf 

39 

 
                                                           
instruments  in  that  they  provide  transparency  on  the  situation  on  the  corridors,  the 
projects which are ongoing and planned, and even the need to foresee further projects in 
order to achieve compliance with the standards. The work plans are informed  by an in-
depth  analysis  of  external  consultants  that  maps  the  advancement  of  the  corridors 
according to the TEN-T parameters.  

Stakeholders have been involved all along the way especially via the corridor fora (based 
on Art. 46) that bring together representatives of member states, regions, ports, airports, 
road/rail infrastructure managers, terminal operators etc. In total, 15 such meetings have 
been held so far. In addition, Coordinators have set up dedicated working groups looking 
more  in  detail  into  specific  issues  along  their  corridors  (urban  nodes,  ports,  airports, 
roads, railways, maritime, cross-border cooperation etc.).  

Beyond the work in the Corridor Forum and the working groups, the Coordinators have 
been instrumental in engaging with stakeholders and national decision makers (meetings 
with  ministers, site visits, seminars etc.). Their  work has already led to  the adoption of 
three  implementing  decisions  on  crucial  cross  border  projects  (see  efficiency  section). 
Finally, the Coordinators regularly hold seminars between themselves and DG MOVE to 
exchange on best practices along their respective corridors and to provide policy input to 
the DG. 

3.  TENtec  

TENtec is  the database for the monitoring of infrastructure development  on the TEN-T 
network.  It  shows  for  instance  the  compliance  of  the  network  for  a  high  number  of 
indicators. The latest data introduced in this system is however from 2017/2018. TENtec 
is  the  main  source  for  the  corridor  work  plans  and  the  TEN-T  implementation  report 
which have been widely used in this evaluation.  

4.  In-house activities and working groups 
Numerous  activities  across  the  modes  of  transport  that  have  been  and  currently  are 
ongoing  within  DG  MOVE,  have  a  direct  Impact  on  TEN-T  and  consequently  have 
fuelled this evaluation exercise. This is for example, the work with regards to alternative 
fuels  where  an  impact  assessment  is  currently  ongoing  or  the  work  on  the  Rail  Freight 
Corridors, the ITS Directive and on urban mobility currently being evaluated as well as 
the  work  on  Road  Safety  with  two  new  initiatives  recently  adopted.  Furthermore  the 
evaluation has been drawing on the work of various modal working groups such as the 
Digital Inland Navigation Area – DINA expert group, the Digital Transport and Logistics 
Forum  –  DTLF  or  the  NAIADES  sub-group  on  Good  Navigation  Status  –  GNS  sub 
group. Different reports of the European Court of Auditors have equally been taken into 
account  in  the  evaluation  this  concerns  in  particular:  the  2016  report  on  maritime 
transport58, the 2018 report on a European high-speed rail network59, the 2020 report on 
EU transport infrastructures60 and the 2020 report on the EU road network61. 

58 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=37734 
59 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=46398 
60https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did={28F30B2D-1A5F-45D0-B2D4-

F007F2F3811F} 

61 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/NewsItem.aspx?nid=13709 

40 

 
 
                                                           
5.  Support study on relevant national plans and programs in Member States62 
The  general  objective  of  the  study  has  been  to  assess  the  national  transport  and 
infrastructure plans and programmes of Member States and to examine in how far they 
are coherent with and aligned to TEN-T objectives and implementation. In a first step the 
study compiled information on the status of national transport plans and programmes and 
established  an  overview  of  national  planning  systems  through  a  comprehensive  desk 
research.  The  second  step  consisted  of  an  in-depth  assessment  of  national  plans  and 
programmes in each individual EU Member State. Main questions answered have been: 

  Are national plans and programmes (including corresponding financing decisions) 
duly reflecting the obligations under the TEN-T Regulation with regard to network 
planning and implementation? 

  Is  the  TEN-T  –  notably  the  core  network  –  sufficiently  covered  by  national 

planning and programming? 

  Based on the previous aspects, what are “good practice” approaches? Where are the 

gaps and which factors are underlying these gaps? 

The  review  and  assessment  of  the  national  plans  and  programmes  has  been 
complemented by a survey addressed to all member states to validate the findings.  

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  main  limitation  of  the  evaluation  lies  in  the  complexity  of  the  TEN-T  policy  e.g. 
through  its  integrated  approach  to  address  all  transport  modes,  in  the  huge  number  of 
projects to be implemented to reach the TEN-T goals and in the variety of their nature as 
well as in the long-term vision of TEN-T policy (2030/2050 deadlines). Indeed, decisions 
and  regulations  during  the  evaluated  period  of  2013-2020  have  covered  only  a  limited 
period of time which represent just an “extract” of the way to go to reach full completion 
of the TEN-T network. In return, this makes it  often difficult to define clear-cut results 
for  the  specific  evaluation  period  (i.e.  2013-2020)  as  project  preparation  and 
implementation has started sometimes well before 2013 and will continuously go on until 
2030/2050.  

Moreover, the broad scope of the Regulation i.e. its applicability to all member states, to 
all modes of transport, different technologies and infrastructure standards leads to a huge 
amount of available literature and diversity of data sources. Consequently there is also a 
large number of stakeholders involved with naturally diverging interests and views on the 
functioning of the Regulation. 

This  diversity  in  data  sources  and  viewpoints  posed  a  challenge  when  synthesizing 
findings into a coherent narrative especially with a view to incorporating the case study 
findings. Thus the consultants used a systematic and iterative approach to data collection, 
quality  control,  analysis,  validation,  triangulation  and  synthesis  which  the  Commission 
complemented with its own analysis. This should help mitigating the effects of different 
types of bias, help resolve contradictions in the analysis or provide a transparent means 
of explaining why they occur. 

62 not yet published 

41 

 
 
                                                           
Public consultations 

A general problem throughout the consultation activities has occurred due to the fact that 
this evaluation, as outlined earlier, is carried out at the half way point between the entry 
into force of the regulation and the first major milestone in 2030 (completion deadline for 
the core network). Thus stakeholders, in view of the 2030 deadline, found it difficult to 
make a mere backward looking assessment of the provisions of the regulation and tended 
to  rather make suggestions for future changes,  thus  diminishing the evaluative value of 
their responses. 

The open public consultation 

A challenge with public consultations is that they may have limited evaluative value due 
to  the  self-selection  of  respondents  and  often  uneven  or  skewed  participation  in  the 
survey  from  different  stakeholder  groups  and/or  countries.  In  order  to  mitigate  any 
potential bias in the findings, the consultant has taken due care when using the results of 
the public consultation in the final evaluation report. This included the assessment of the 
need for weighting techniques and triangulating the responses to the public consultation 
with results obtained from the evaluation surveys, interviews and case studies. 

In addition, the wording of some questions introduced a bias in the responses provided. 
Typically,  the  yes  /  no  questions  can  bias  the  results  as  it  looks  like  the  responses  are 
positive  or  negative.  In  open  questions,  it  was  noticed  that  some  respondents  provided 
the exact same response. This seemed to indicate that stakeholders belonging to the same 
organisation (e.g.) were consulting on the position to put forward in the OPC. 

Lastly,  the  OPC  generated  a  very  high  volume  of  responses.  This  reflects  the  strategic 
interest in the TEN-T and in the consultation on its key features. But the large number of 
answers,  the  number  and  lengthiness  of  open-ended  questions,  as  well  as  the  lack  of 
structure of the answers to open-ended questions proved to be an additional challenge in 
processing  the  data  and  ensuring  the  analysis  took  into  consideration  all  important 
aspects mentioned by respondents.  

42 

 
 
 
5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1. RELEVANCE 

Relevance  looks  at  the  relationship  between  the  needs  and  problems  that  a  particular 
intervention  aims  to  address.  The  evaluation  aims  to  establish  that  the  intervention,  in 
this case the TEN-T Regulation, is appropriate to address identified needs both when the 
intervention  was  first  adopted  in  2013  and  when  it  is  being  evaluated.  The  evaluation 
questions also explore how fit the Regulation seems to be to tackle future and foreseeable 
challenges. 

5.1.1.  Evaluation Question 1: To what extent are the specific objectives set in 
the TEN-T Regulation  still relevant  to  achieve the  general  objective of the 
TEN-T  policy,  as  set  out  in  the  TFEU,  as  well  as  broader  transport  policy 
objectives? To what extent correspond these objectives to current needs, and 
in how far does the development of the core and comprehensive networks - 
contribute to their achievement?   

The  four  specific  objectives  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  as  outlined  in  point  2,  derive 
directly  from  the  general  TEN-T  policy  objectives  established  in  the  TFEU.  Their 
relevance  with  regard  to  current  problems  and  needs  has  been  a  key  element  of  the 
assessment  undertaken  in  the  main  evaluation  study,  with  the  global  desk  research, 
surveys  and  interviews  having  paid  significant  attention  to  it.  Reactions  to  the  Open 
Public Consultation, especially in a large number of position papers, also contributed to 
this  assessment.  Not  least,  the  various  activities  led  by  the  Commission  in  analysing, 
monitoring  and  promoting  the  implementation  of  TEN-T  policy  under  Regulation  N° 
1315/2013  as  well its interrelation with  other relevant  transport policy action  generated 
rich evidence of the strengths and weaknesses in relation to the four specific objectives. 
Overall,  the  benchmark  for  the  relevance  of  the  specific  objectives  as  well  as  for  the 
targets  and  measure  underpinning  them,  is  the  contribution  to  the  development  of  the 
core and comprehensive network layers.   

The  specific  objective:    Efficiency  of  the  infrastructure  network  in  support  of  the 
functioning of the internal market 

Stakeholders  agree  with    the  continuous  relevance  of  TEN-T  policy  in  facilitating  and 
enhancing transport flows within the Internal Market - in an inclusive way that involves 
all  regions  of  the  Union  –  and  in  supporting  broader  transport  policy  objectives.  For 
example, about two third of the respondents to the Open Public Consultation found that 
TEN-T  policy  has  positively  contributed  to  the  facilitation  of  the  free  movement  of 
citizens and goods. This outcome is underpinned by the Commission’s own experience, 
gained  in  comprehensive  technical  analysis  and  in  expert  meetings,  conferences  and 
other dialogues with the wide range of stakeholders involved in TEN-T policy.  

The  focus  on  the  interconnection  and  interoperability  of  national  networks,  the 
integration  and  interconnection  of  all  transport  modes  as  well  as  the  removal  of 
bottlenecks and missing links remains fully relevant. This is continuously confirmed by 
Member  States,  transport  infrastructure  managers,  regional  /  local  authorities  and  other 
stakeholders: They participate actively – and support strongly – all action related to core 
network corridors which concentrates on such issues. Also, the findings of the study on 
National  Plans  and  Programs  in  Member  States  document  –  through  Member  States’ 
commitment  to  address  TEN-T  bottlenecks  and  missing  links  in  their  national 
infrastructure  planning,  programming  and  financing  processes  –  the  relevance  of  this 

43 

 
 
specific objective.  This is also underpinned by the agreement, in the targeted stakeholder 
consultation (84% of respondents), that the concentration of support from EU Financial 
Instruments  (notably  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  and  the  Cohesion  Fund)  on 
bottlenecks and missing links of the TEN-T has been appropriate.  

While  there  is  thus  broad  agreement  with  the  relevance  of  the  direction  the  TEN-T 
Regulation  sets  for a coherent  and concentrated development  of transport  infrastructure 
towards the completion of the core and comprehensive networks by 2030 and 2050, desk 
research,  stakeholder  consultations  (including  specific  case  studies)  and  relevant  expert 
work  of  the  Commission  also  point  to  certain  areas  where  current  problems  call  for 
adjustment of provisions. In the light of the huge number of projects to be implemented 
to  ensure  timely  completion  –  in  the  first  instance  -  of  the  core  network,  and  the 
increasing  connection  with  sustainability  objectives  and  an  enhanced  user  perspective, 
analytical and governance tools may need to be strengthened. This should also contribute 
to further enhancing coordination between actors across geographical border and sectors. 
Not least, this should help addressing concerns raised by the European Court of Auditors.  

Concerning urban nodes in TEN-T policy: A very large number of stakeholders – both in 
the specific case study (n° 1) as well as in all forms of open and targeted consultations 
(overwhelmingly regional and local authorities, furthermore various user groups, both in 
the passengers and freight sectors, mobility service providers, transport planners, NGOs 
(in  fields  such  as  people  with  reduced  mobility  or  environmental  protection,  climate 
change, active transport promotion), industry in innovative sectors  – including zero and 
low emission mobility and others – call firmly for increased attention being given to the 
integration  of  urban  nodes’  action  in  TEN-T  policy.  Presupposing  the  successful 
implementation  of  this  area  in  TEN-T  policy  since  2013  (see  EQ  4),  they  claim 
advancement  of  the  provisions  of  the  Regulation  to  meet  current  needs  and  –  more 
importantly  –  be  ready  for  future  challenges.  Sources  refer  to  insufficient  relevance,  
notably in the light of new challenges such as decarbonisation, digitalisation/innovation, 
demographic change, inclusiveness,  efficiency and territorial  cohesion.  Case study n° 1  
evaluated a wide range of urban nodes of different size, geographical location and socio-
economic  importance,  while  paying  particular  attention  to  their  functionality  from  a 
TEN-T  perspective.  Its  key  conclusion  was  the  insufficient  complementarity  between 
TEN-T  policy  and  Sustainable  Urban  Mobility  Plans,  including  their  innovative 
dimension.  Furthermore,  the  case  study  called  for  more  openness  about  the  number  of 
urban nodes to be addressed with TEN-T policy.   

The  area  of  urban  nodes  also  clearly  demonstrates  the  interrelation  between  the  four 
specific objectives as the provisions on urban nodes are relevant for i) the completion of 
infrastructure  projects  within  the  network,  ii)  the  enhanced  accessibility  of  all  regions 
though  urban  nodes  transfer  function  between  long  distance  and  regional  /  local 
networks,  iii)  sustainability  through  complementarity  with  urban  mobility  /  urban 
innovation  and  iv)  improved  user  benefits  through  the  enabling  of  seamless  mobility 
solutions.  

The specific objective: Cohesion 

The objective of cohesion is equally addressed through the actions and efforts outlined in 
the efficiency chapter above. Member States and a wide range of other stakeholders with 
a  strong  direct  interest  in  the  territorial,  economic  and  social  cohesion  are  fully 
committed to  these broad and common efforts.  The alignment of EU support under the 

44 

 
 
Connecting  Europe  Facility  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  under  the  common  TEN-T  policy 
objective is essential in this respect.  

However,  there  have  been  calls  –  in  the  Open  Public  Consultation,  the  Targeted 
Stakeholder  Consultation  and  in  various  expert  fora  –  to  reinforce  provisions  for 
accessibility  of  the  most  remote  EU  regions  –  the  outermost  regions  recognised  by  art 
349 TFEU – as well as peripheral and insular regions. Accessibility and connectivity of 
such  regions  can  also  be  enhanced  by  expanding  TEN-T  policy  on  urban  nodes  to  the 
comprehensive  network,  as  highlighted  in  case  study  n°  1.    Also  the  Own  Initiative 
Report of the European Parliament on the revision of the TEN-T regards it as important 
to  “further  develop  the  TEN-T  to  focus  on  the  interconnection  between  the  core  and 
comprehensive networks in rural, peripheral and outermost regions63 and islands”.64 

Regional needs in general were highlighted by certain stakeholders as an area to be better 
reflected. The importance of further strengthening cohesion between Member States with 
different  economic  power  was  recalled  as  was  the  need  to  make  better  use  of  the 
economic potential of peripheral regions. Responding to such issues seems to be a matter 
of  both  strengthening  specific  targets,  reinforcing  the  implementation  of  the  current 
objectives and strengthening coherence between TEN-T and Regional Policies including 
the  outermost  regions’  policy  which  commits  the  Commission  to  “better  meet  the 
outermost  regions  accessibility  needs  and  facilitate  their  participation  in  the  Trans 
European Transport Network”.65 

The specific objective: Sustainability 

The  specific  objective  of  sustainability  aims  at  ensuring  an  efficient  transport 
infrastructure in Europe while at the same time enabling low carbon and clean transport. 
The  findings  of  the  literature  review  highlighted  the  indispensable  role  played  by  the 
TEN-T Regulation as an enabler for decarbonisation of the transport system as a whole. 
Projections  show  that  the  completion  of  the  Core  Network  Corridors  could  lead  to 
significant  CO2  reduction  from  2015  -  2030.  The  literature  also  points  out  that  the 
completion  of  projects  along  the  TEN-T  corridors  stimulates  modal  shift,  especially 
through  the  implementation  of  major  rail  and  inland  waterway  projects,  as  well  as 
through  the  enhancement  of  a  multi-modal  transport  network  and  the  inclusion  of 
components  such  as  alternative  fuels  infrastructure,  intelligent  and  innovative  transport 
systems,  etc.66  However,  the  modal  shift  in  practice  will  only  be  achieved  once  the 
projects are finalised, especially for the major cross-border projects which can be seen as 
a game changer in making modal shift possible.  

About one third of the respondents of the stakeholder consultation, however, believe that 
the  relevance  of  the  provisions  underpinning  the  “sustainability  objective”  are 
insufficient in the light of new climate targets, notably those as set in the European Green 

63   Regular and reliable connections with neighbouring third countries is particularly important to the EU 
regions  located  in  the  Caribbean  basin,  Latin  America,  the  Atlantic  and  the  Indian  Ocean  (the  EU 
outermost  regions),  and  can  stimulate  growth  and  job  creation  by  attracting  business,  tourists  and 
service operators.  

64     Revision  of  the  Trans-European  Transport  Network  guidelines  (2019/2192(INI)),  2020,  EU 

Parliament, Committee on Transport and Tourism 

65   Communication  ‘A  stronger  and  renewed  strategic  partnership  with  the  EU's  outermost  regions’ 

(COM(2017) 623 final 

66   The impact of TEN-T completion on growth, jobs and the environment, 2018, EC 

45 

 
 
 
                                                           
Deal67,  the  European  Strategy  for  Low-Emission  Mobility68    and  the  Climate  Target 
Plan.  In  strengthening  the  relevance  of  the  TEN-T  objectives  in  this  respect,  particular 
importance  should  be  given  to  the  full  and  binding  equipment  of  TEN-T  infrastructure 
with charging and refuelling infrastructure for zero and low emission vehicles, aircrafts 
and  vessels.  This  need  for  adjustment  of  the  sustainability  objective  is  expressly 
underpinned by the new political priorities of the European Commission, and also by the 
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). An adjustment of objectives on 
TEN-T urban nodes, which are hotspots for greenhouse gas and other harmful emissions, 
also further supports the sustainability objective.   

The specific objective: Benefits for users 

Stakeholders  seem  to  be  less  in  agreement  that  TEN-T  policy  objectives  address  the 
current  and  foreseeable  infrastructure  needs  from  the  perspective  of  users  (34%  in  the 
targeted survey disagreed or strongly disagreed). Interviewees noted that TEN-T policy 
should  take  a  more  nuanced  approach  to  meeting  user  needs  by  catering  to  different 
categories of users, both  commercial and individual. Also case study n°  8 (on enabling 
passenger services) clearly supports this assessment. According to this evidence, and not 
least to a variety of expert work undertaken by the Commission (in fields such as freight 
logistics,  sustainable  mobility,  passenger 
lacks 
appropriateness  to  enable  –  in  a  better  integrated  way  -  seamless,  sustainable  and 
efficient freight logistics and mobility chains for passengers. This should take account of 
innovative  technological  solutions  and  changing  user  expectations.  Furthermore  as 
confirmed  in  the  urban  nodes’  case  study,  it  should  also  include  seamless  ‘last  mile 
connections for TEN-T users, including with active transport modes.  

rights),  TEN-T 

infrastructure 

Network structure  

The TEN-T, consisting of the comprehensive and core network layers which result from 
a single European a planning methodology69, constitutes the key output of TEN-T policy. 
It  can  be  seen  as  unanimously  accepted  by  Member  States  and  stakeholders,  and  their 
planning and programming since 2013 - towards the 2030 / 2050 - has been geared to this 
network. Not least, the dual layer network structure is in the centre of a wide range of EU 
action.  Departing  from  it  now  would  negate  significant  value  generated  from  efforts 
spent so far. Given the role of the TEN-T as an important reference basis for various EU 
legislation on transport, significant network changes could also entail legal ambiguities.  

Significant changes to the network would not only hamper the value of the investments 
and connectivity  gains  already  realised but  would also  very likely reduce the economic 
and employment benefits assessed for the completed network (see question n° 4).  On the 
other hand, minor network adjustments - compliant with the methodology applied for the 
2013  network  design  -  may  be  justified.  Changing  transport  flows  (for  example  in 
relation  to  the  UK’s  decision  to  withdraw  from  EU  membership  or  changing  global 
transport  flows)  may  entail  a  need  for  network  adjustment  in  order  to  avoid  economic 
loss for the Union or part of its Member States.   

Findings from the desk research underline the importance of the comprehensive network 
in  reaching  greater  territorial  cohesion  and  linking  peripheral,  insular  and  outermost 
European  regions.  According  to  the  Passenger  Transport  Executive  Group70,  the 

67 The European Green Deal Communication from the EC to the EP, 2019 
68 A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility, 2016, EC 
69 Planning methodology for the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), SWD(2013) 542 final 
70 The Trans-European Transport Network, Passenger Transport Executive Group, September 2014 

46 

 
  
 
                                                           
comprehensive layer of the TEN-T is essential to ensure the access function of the core 
network,  being  crucial  for  easing  congestion  as  well  as  for  reaching  other  overarching 
objectives set out in the TEN-T Regulation.  

5.1.2.  Evaluation Question 2: explores the appropriateness of the Regulation to 
respond  to  new  technological  needs  (in  particular  in  relation  to  the  digital 
transition),  to  the  demand  for  new  mobility  solutions,  to  the  uptake  of 
research  and  innovation  results  as  well  as  to  the  adaptability  to  changing 
trends and needs  

This question, both with regard to the relevance of the TEN-T Regulation in relation to 
the needs and problems  faced between 2013 and 2020, as  well as to  foreseeable future 
needs,  has  been  covered  by  the  global  survey  and  interviews  of  the  main  evaluation 
study. In the first instance, however, this question has been in the centre of two specific 
case studies undertaken in the context of this evaluation study: n° 4 on the TEN-T as an 
enabler of a future-oriented mobility system  and n° 6 on Digitalisation. The findings of 
these  “external”  assessments  are  complemented  by  some  reference  to  related  internal 
work of the Commission.  

Megatrends,  such  as  climate  change,  demographic  and  technological  change,  including 
increased  digitalisation  and  automation,  bring  significant  opportunities  to  the  mobility. 
Some  fast-moving  trends  in  those  areas  have  emerged  since  the  current  version  of  the 
TEN-T  Regulation  entered  into  force  in  2013.  They  are  expected  to  gain  pace  in  the 
future. The evaluation acknowledges the key role of the TEN-T Regulation in enabling 
transport solutions, and in this respect, its capacity to keep abreast with new trends and 
developments requires in-depth assessment.   

The  literature  review,  undertaken  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  support  study, 
suggests  that  transport  activity  and  mobility  of  passengers  and  transport  of  goods  will 
increase  further  in  the  years  to  come.  TEN-T  policy  tries  to  owe  up  to  these 
developments by focussing on two main areas: a) the full and timely completion of the 
core  and  comprehensive  network  in  its  physical  dimension  (i.e.  the  removal  of 
bottlenecks and missing links, interconnection of modes, interoperability) and b) new and 
innovative  solutions  (technological  and  organisational)  along  this  full-scale  network. 
This  should  enable  step  changes  in  transport  and  mobility  for  freight  and  passengers, 
thereby  making  substantial  contributions  to  the  sector’s  ambitious  objectives  on 
greenhouse gas emission reduction.  

Respondents to the Open Public Consultation for example, expressed the view that TEN-
T policy still has to deal, to a large extent, with more "traditional" infrastructure in order 
to complete the physical network. At the same time, foresight experts saw a need to focus 
more on the digital layer of infrastructure in the future as this could significantly help to 
make a better use of existing infrastructure.  

TEN-T policy and digitalisation  

Looking into the appropriateness of the current TEN-T Regulation for digitalisation, the 
assessment found that the objectives and provisions of Regulation N° 1315/2013 TEN-T 
Regulation have already enabled the deployment of a wide range of digital projects in all 
transport sectors.  It  has  allowed to  promote  a number of projects  at  EU level  (with the 
support of CEF funding) which are intended to pave the way towards a more systematic 
approach to digitalization in TEN-T, aligned with relevant objectives in broader transport 
policy and other related policy fields.  

47 

 
 
Regarding  digitalisation,  the  case  study  (including  desk  research,  interviews  and  an 
expert  workshop),  looks  into  projects  across  the  different  transport  modes,  which  are 
referred to in the TEN-T Regulation (Article 31) as “telematics applications”, and which 
have  been  subject  to  significant  CEF  support  under  its  ‘horizontal  priorities’.  These 
projects  include  the  European  Railway  Traffic  Management  System  (ERTMS),  the 
Single  European  Sky  Air  Traffic  Management  Research  (SESAR),  the  Vessel  Traffic 
Management  and  Information  System  (VTMIS),  River  Information  Services  (RIS)  as 
well as projects in the field of Intelligent Transport Systems in the road sector (ITS). The 
case study confirms that, in these areas, the borderline between “telematics” and digital 
solutions has been, or is about to be, passed. Such projects have been progressing well in 
line  with  continuously  evolving  developments  and  needs,  independently  of  a  certain 
stagnation in the relevant TEN-T terminology.  .   

New  –  and  genuinely  digital  -  projects  are  generated,  building  on  extensive  work  of 
expert  fora  set  up  by  the  Commission  such  as  the  Digital  Transport  Forum,  or  on 
initiatives  of  stakeholder  consortia  supported  by  EU  bodies  such  as  the  European 
Railway Agency. Amongst such digital “forerunner” TEN-T projects are: 

  ELETA71  is  a  rail  specific  and  targeted  project  that  tackled  the  particular  issue  of 
Estimated  Time  of  Arrival  (ETA)  data  within  the  whole  rail  supply  chain 
management.  

  FEDeRATED  builds  upon  the  work  of  the  Digital  Transport  and  Logistics  Forum 
(DTLF). It aims to contribute to the development of a federated network of platforms 
for  data  sharing  in  the  freight  transport  and  logistics  domain  at  EU  level  (and 
beyond) and to enable a smooth and effective public involvement with logistic chains 
for the execution of public duties.72  

With a view to the future,, the digital transition involves unprecedented new challenges 
and opportunities for TEN-T policy, which need to  be seized in a more comprehensive 
way.  Hence,  case  study  on  digitalisation  concludes  that  there  is  a  need  to  update  the 
concept of digitalisation in TEN-T policy (e.g. its components, coverage and objectives) 
and  to  pass  from  individual  actions  to  a  coherent  network-wide  approach.  Besides  the 
technological  side,  this  is  vital  to  boost  the  efficiency  of  TEN-T  infrastructure  use,  the 
generation of new and attractive user services for passengers and freight and, thereby, to 
substantially enhance the “efficiency pillar” of transport decarbonisation.  

TEN-T policy as enabler of a future-oriented mobility system 

Case  study  N°4,  looking  into  the  “TEN-T  as  an  enabler  of  a  future-oriented  mobility 
system”, concentrated on understanding whether the current provisions of the Regulation 
are  future-proof  in  more  general  terms.  Results  showed  that  stakeholders  generally 
agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  TEN-T  Regulation  has  enabled  innovation  in  the 
mobility  system  across  all  modes  and  at  a  multi-modal  level  (77%),  although  the 
effectiveness varies across modes. The current provisions were particularly appropriate to 
support  future  developments  in  the  aviation  (72%  agreement  ratio)  and  road  (65%) 
sectors.  

However, with a view to future opportunities, the case study has shown some elements of 
rigidness in the Regulation that might limit the development of new and forward-looking 
transport  solutions  of  relevance  to  TEN-T  policy.  One  challenging  issue  in  this  respect 
concerns  the  adequateness  of  the  current  TEN-T  provisions  to  enable  an  appropriate 
integration  between  infrastructure,  vehicles  and  connected  services  across  all  modes. 

71 For more information see https://www.railfreight.com/tag/eleta/  
72 Project website - http://www.federatedplatforms.eu  

48 

 
                                                           
Less than half of the respondents from the case study survey (46%) responded positively 
to this question.  

Three examples of future-oriented mobility solutions have been explored in more detail; 
examples from  three areas that have the potential to create significant breakthroughs in 
the  EU  transport  policy,  namely  Connected  and  Automated  Mobility,  the  Single 
European  Sky  Air  Traffic  Management  System  (SESAR)  and  the  Hyperloop.  As 
explained  in  literature,  connectivity  and  automation  are  not  only  complementary 
technologies.  Instead,  they  reinforce  each  other  and  may  merge  completely  over  time. 
The  same  underlying  principle  might  be  applicable  to  vehicles,  which,  with  growing 
communication  and  connectivity  with  the  infrastructure  and  supporting  services,  might 
become  part  of  the  infrastructure  at  large  over  time.  This  scenario  will  challenge  the 
"traditional" layout of hard and digital infrastructure components. Moreover, automation 
and  digitalisation  are  key  enablers  for  all  modes  of  transport.  Therefore,  experts 
interviewed in the frame of Case Study N°4 considered that a high level of flexibility is 
needed  to  incorporate  transport  concepts  that  might  disrupt  the  current  mode-oriented 
structure of the Regulation. 

Desk research in the framework of this case study makes the case for a flexible regulation 
with  regard to  upcoming road automation (as the requirements for road  automation are 
not yet clear), new transport solutions (e.g. Hyperloop) and further developments in the 
SESAR programme (where  artificial intelligence has already  been playing  a significant 
role). In this regard the Regulation should be more appropriately linked with the White 
Paper  on  Artificial  Intelligence  (2020)73  and  consistently  build  on  EU  data  sharing 
policies, such as the Open Data Directive (2019)74 and the Inspire Directive (2007)75. 

Regarding  innovative  mobility  solutions  overall,  there  was  agreement  in  stakeholder 
interviews that automation and digitalisation components need to be better addressed in 
the  TEN-T  Regulation.  Requirements  and  priority  targets  should  be  set  out  for 
comprehensive and core networks. Interoperability is crucial in this respect not only for 
the effective deployment of digital solutions for both passenger and freight transport but 
also in order to ensure that different systems can communicate, thus avoiding a situation 
where a multitude of independent solutions are developed in silos. 

Desk  research  on  Hyperloop,  for  example,  showed  that  this  mode  of  transport  results 
from  a  combination  of  technologies  used  in  other  modes  of  transport.  In  reality,  most 
fundamental technologies required for Hyperloop have an equivalent technology in either 
the  rail  (Maglev)  or  aviation  sector,  combining  efficiently  components  from  aerospace, 
railway and the vacuum industries. Therefore, Hyperloop systems correspond to another 
example that challenge the mode-oriented structure and layout of the TEN-T Regulation.  

As far as the adaptability of the TEN-T Regulation to changing needs is concerned, most 
evidence  collected through the several  data sources and tools pointed out  that the 2013 
Regulation  has  been  sufficiently  flexible  and  adaptive  so  far.  However,  the  transport 
ecosystem  is  changing  very  rapidly,  which  suggests  needs  for  adjustment  to  keep  the 
TEN-T  abreast  with  future  changes.  This  should  take  account  of  the  specific  nature  of 
infrastructure.  Possible 
to  more 
such  new 
particularities in terms of requirements have been referred to in the stakeholder workshop 
under  case  study  6,  including  issues  such  as  openness  for  unforeseeable  developments, 
data needs etc. 

technologies  compared 

traditional 

73 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission-white-paper-artificial-intelligence-feb2020_en.pdf 
74 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1561563110433&uri=CELEX:32019L1024 
75 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32007L0002 

49 

 
                                                           
Core network corridors have been identified as being an instrument able to act as test-bed 
for  new  technologies,  working  across  borders  and  connecting  systems  and  services,  as 
well as facilitating knowledge exchange and cooperation. Furthermore pilot projects for 
real business cases may be deployed on the corridors which can later be used in the rest 
of the network. 

Infrastructure  for  alternative  fuels  (enabling  zero  and  low  emission  mobility  and 
transport)  has  been  covered  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation  essentially  as  a  new  technology 
(Article  33)  and  a  call  upon  LNG  refuelling  stations,  without  however  setting  specific 
requirements. All evidence (from the main evaluation study as well as from initiatives in 
DG MOVE on alternative fuels solutions in the road, maritime and aviation sectors), the 
European  Green  Deal  and  Climate  Target  Plan  objectives)  confirm  that  the  TEN-T 
regulation  has  become  irrelevant  in  this  field.  The  current  Regulation  has  enabled  the 
promotion of a wide range of pilot action to prepare for large scale rollout. However, the 
challenge  is  now  to  ensure  continuous  network-wide  coverage  of  alternative  fuel 
infrastructure, which is coherent (see chapter 5, question of coherence) with relevant EU 
legislation;  legislation  being  prepared  in  parallel  with  this  evaluation  process  but  for 
which clear orientations are already available (for further details, please refer to question. 

5.1.3.  Evaluation question 3: How relevant is the set of infrastructure standards 
and  requirements,  as  included  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  to  help  achieving 
TEN-T and transport policy objectives? To what extent are the provisions on 
standards and requirements appropriate to incorporate market developments, 
to  enable  an  efficient  use  of  the  TEN-T  infrastructure  and  to  achieve  new, 
high-quality  transport  infrastructure  and  transport  innovation  /  reduce 
infrastructure quality gaps?   

Network-wide  infrastructure  standards,  introduced  in  Regulation  N°1315/2013  are 
fundamental  enablers  for  a  well-functioning  European  Single  Transport  Area.  The 
adequate  implementation  of  these  infrastructure  standards  is  seen  as  key  for  a  more 
sustainable, seamless and smarter network76. Network infrastructure standards in TEN-T 
cover both:  

 

 

the binding transport infrastructure standards resulting from the EU legislation in 
relevant  transport  policy  fields  (i.e.  technical  standards  for  interoperability, 
safety); and  
the  transport  infrastructure  requirements  enabling  the  achievement  of  various 
transport  policy  objectives  (such  as  modal  connections  in  transport  nodes,  safe 
and  secure  parking,  intelligent  transport  systems,  provisions  for  equipment  to 
facilitate use functions, etc.).  

Chapter  II  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  sets  out  the  current  standards  applicable  to  the 
comprehensive  network,  while  Chapter  III  sets  higher-level  requirements  for  the 
infrastructure  of  the  core  network  –  which  constitutes  the  most  strategic  part  of  the 
comprehensive network.  

The  TEN-T  Regulation  has  brought  new  opportunities  for  infrastructure  development, 
promoting  safer  and  more  efficient  sustainable  development  for  all  modes.  By  setting 
infrastructure  standards  and  requirements,  the  TEN-T  has  taken  up  relevant  legislation 
and policy objectives in various transport sectors, namely on road safety, interoperability 
or equipment for innovative, smart and clean transport solutions. About two third of the 

76 Progress report on implementation of the TEN-T network in 2016-2017 

50 

 
 
                                                           
respondents  to  the  Open  Public  Consultation  supported  the  promotion  of  harmonised 
standards  and  other  common  infrastructure  qualities  in  TEN-T  policy,  given  their 
importance for the free movement of citizens.  

However,  with  a  view  to  new  challenges  in  transport,  interviewees  –  in  fields  such  as 
intelligent  transport  systems  and  innovation  –  pointed  to  the  particular  need  for 
strengthening  infrastructure  requirements  enabling  decarbonisation.  In  line  with  this, 
global survey results suggested furthermore that a more efficient use of the infrastructure 
could  be  achieved  through  reinforcing  provisions  for  soft  infrastructure  in  the  TEN-T 
Regulation,  notably  in  the  field  of  future-oriented  mobility  schemes  (digitalisation, 
automation, smart mobility chains, as well as other transport infrastructure requirements 
related to EU policies on environmental protection and climate). 

The main evaluation study included in particular two case studies (n° 3, on standards and 
requirements of TEN-T infrastructure and n° 7 (on infrastructure quality / resilience and 
the connection between R&I and the deployment on TEN-T) which looked in more detail 
into the relevance of standards and requirements in general, as well as into the specific 
aspect of infrastructure quality requirements from the perspective of resilience.  

Relevance  of  TEN-T  infrastructure  standards  and  requirements  in  general  (case  study 
n°3) 

In  the  online  survey  of  case  study  3,  a  large  majority  of  stakeholders  (80%  of  the 
respondents)  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  setting  of  a  wide  range  of  other 
infrastructure requirements77 – aiming to advance the TEN-T towards a broad basis for an 
efficient  and  sustainable  transport  policy  overall  –  has  been  relevant  in  relation  to 
different objectives.   

There was broad consensus among stakeholders who confirmed the relevance of TEN-T 
infrastructure requirements notably in the following areas:  

  advancing the basis for an efficient and sustainable transport policy: While there 
was  a  high  agreement  on  the  need  for  such  standards,  only  slightly  more  than 
half found them sufficiently clear 

  enhancing  infrastructure  interconnections  in  urban  nodes  and  facilitating  last 

mile connections (84% agreement) 
  safety enhancement (87% agreement) 
  Accessibility for all users (82% agreement) 
  Security (80% agreement)   

On  the  contrary  only  between  50  and  60%  of  the  respondents  found  the  provisions 
relevant  in  relation  to  the  needs  of  users  of  transport  nodes,  such  as  ports,  airports  or 
multi-modal terminals, as well as of the providers of cross-border transport operations – 
which confirms the outcome from evaluation question n°1, namely that there is a lack of 
relevance of the TEN-T objectives in relation to the needs of users, especially in relation 
to integrated door-to-door services across modes.   

Hence,  as  also  confirmed  by  the  Commission  services  own  work,  there  is  a  significant 
need  to  advance  certain  infrastructure  standards  and  requirements  to  better  align  them 
with various new transport policy objectives. Besides the areas referred to above, this is 
in  particular  the  case  in  areas  such  as  railway  policy,  inland  navigation,  charging  and 
refuelling infrastructure for zero and low emission vehicles, aircrafts and vessels as well 

77  “Other”  referring  to  those  infrastructure  requirements  aiming  for  an  efficient  and  sustainable  transport 
policy (innovative infrastructure components, safety, security, infrastructural requirements to strengthen 
climate mitigation, etc.) 

51 

 
 
                                                           
as  smart  and  digital  infrastructure  features.  On  the  hand  the  standards  on  tunnel  safety 
will remain relevant in their current form as confirmed in a recent impact assessment. 

The  case  study  assessed  the  approach  to  setting  higher  infrastructure  standards  and 
requirements  for  the  core  network,  compared  to  lower  level  standards  for  the 
comprehensive network – which may be seen as some kind of “dual layer approach” in 
terms  of  TEN-T  standards  and  requirements.  Survey  results  and  interviews  with 
stakeholders (to a large extent European Associations representing all transport modes at 
stake,  as  well  as  user  representations)  show  that  this  approach  is  seen  as  relevant  by  a 
large majority of the survey respondents and interviewees. This is supported notably for 
the following reasons:  

  Ensuring continuity of standards throughout the network (94% agreement) 
  Strengthening quality and capacity of the core network where the highest volumes 

of inner-EU traffic are concentrated (96% agreement) 

  avoiding  disruptions  which  may  result  from  exemptions  enshrined  in  related 

legislation, for example on interoperability (90% agreement) 

  allowing  a  smooth  absorption  of  increasing  transport  flows  from  and  to  third 

countries (84% agreement) 

  advancing  solutions  to  enhance  efficiency  and  sustainability  of  the  transport 

system overall (89% agreement) 

  making  the  core  network  the  forerunner  of  innovation  and  new  technologies  in 

transport (80% agreement).  

Nevertheless,  according  to  the  Commission’s  own  expert  work  (based  on  various 
working groups, involving Member States and expert groups), there is a need to extend 
certain (higher) standards from the core to the comprehensive network. This is expected 
to  address  shortcomings  which  have  been  identified  in  areas  such  as  urban  nodes, 
enhanced railway services or user requirements. Not least such an approach appears also 
necessary  to  address  innovative  and  sustainability  objectives  –  such  as  charging  and 
refuelling  infrastructure  for  alternative  fuel  or  digitalisation  /  automation  –  which  are 
more of a horizontal scope. 

With the specific example of maritime transport, it shall be demonstrated that the current 
Regulation lacks relevance in the light of new challenges, although it can be stated that 
the current provisions have been relevant and yielded good results.   

Concerning  maritime  transport  and  Motorways  of  the  Sea,  a  wide  and  intense 
consultation  process  both  inside  the  Commission  services  and  outside  with  Member 
States’ representatives and EU maritime associations, the relevant section of the TEN-T 
Regulation (Articles 20 – 23) 4 present relevance problems in relation in relation to new 
emerging trends (e.g. new market realities and societal challenges) and new legal drivers 
of the maritime sector.  

Most importantly, all experts agreed on the fact that the concept of Motorways of the Sea 
is  overly  complex  and  poses  implementation  problems.  It  could  greatly  benefit  from 
simplification  and  integration  in  an  overarching  and  integrated  concept  of  the  TEN-T 
covering ports, shipping and all other maritime infrastructure elements for the benefit of 
the  entire  ‘European  Maritime  Space’.  Both  sea-shore  and  port-hinterland  connections 
lack  coherence  and  strong  focus  on  multi-modal  connectivity  in  ports.  The  role  of 
maritime ports as strategic multimodal nodes, energy and digital hubs are insufficiently 
recognised  in  the  Regulation.  According  to  the  maritime  experts,  representing  Member 
States and Associations, also a particular view on maritime links with islands, peripheral 
and  outermost  regions  as  well  as  third  countries  would  help  addressing  remaining 
problems.   

Finally, the evaluation undertaken by these experts shows that the inclusion of eligibility 
criteria  into  the  TEN-T  Regulation  (Article  21)  has  proven  to  be  inappropriate.  They 

52 

 
therefore  strongly  call  to  remove  them  from  the  Regulation  and  to  incorporate  them 
instead in a CEF 2 multi-annual work programme or in specific call texts – in line with 
what is already done for other funding priorities. Such elements of inappropriateness of 
the  current  TEN-T  Regulation  could  be  overcome  by  fostering  a  more  holistic  and 
harmonised approach of the TEN-T maritime dimension.   

Infrastructure quality / resilience and connection between R&I and TEN-T policy (case 
study n° 7) 

Stakeholder consultation, interviews and a workshop undertaken in the framework of this 
case  study  points  to  lacking  relevance  in  the  TEN-T  provisions  in  relation  to  climate 
adaptation  /  infrastructure  resilience.    Analysis  in  different  policy  sectors  within  the 
Commission  services  also  highlights  the  need  for  a  revised  approach,  with  the 
introduction  of  additional  infrastructure  standards  and  requirements,  in  fields  such  as 
security, climate adaptation, civil protection or structural infrastructure quality.   

The provisions of the Regulation appear insufficient in relation to the different facets of 
resilience of the TEN-T. The Regulation refers to such issues in a scarce and unspecific 
way (notably in Articles 34 and 35 with references to safe and secure infrastructure and 
to resilience to climate change and natural and environmental disasters). The period since 
the adoption of Regulation N° 1315/2013, however, has seen a number of developments 
which suggest adjustment in the field of infrastructure resilience. 

The  continuity  of  transport  flows  within  the  Union  may  be  suddenly  interrupted  for  a 
number of reasons: extreme weather events which become increasingly frequent, security 
challenges  or  severe  accidents  on  critical  sections  of  the  TEN-T  infrastructure. 
Preparedness  of  TEN-T  infrastructure  for  such  situations  needs  to  be  enhanced,  in  line 
with  relevant  EU  action  in  fields  such  as  civil  protection,  military  mobility,  cyber 
security  and  climate  adaptation.  This  assessment  has  been  confirmed  through  various 
initiatives, including inter alia, the military mobility action plan78 or the preparation of an 
EU strategy on climate adaption.   

Examples of challenges to TEN-T resilience 

One recent  event  has particularly  highlighted the need to  enhance the relevance of  the 
Regulation on structural infrastructure quality: the collapse of the MORANDI Bridge in 
Genova in 2018. Case study n° 7, has looked into this aspect in more detail. It proposes 
to pay increased attention to minimum requirements for particularly vulnerable parts of 
the TEN-T, such as bridges. This is complemented by calls from stakeholders to foresee 
alternative  routes  for  particularly  critical  infrastructure  sections.  The  case  study  also 
highlights  the  need  for  a  life-cycle  approach,  making  sure  infrastructure  assets  are 
maintained  at  a  high  structural  quality  level  throughout  the  time  of  their  use.  It  is 
recommended to draw on new technologies (such as drones etc.) for regular monitoring 
of critical TEN-T infrastructure assets and to streamline maintenance procedures on this 
basis. 

The  COVID-19  outbreak  has  led  to  a  disruptive  impact  on  transport  and  mobility, 
jeopardising the transport of essential goods across borders. Therefore, in March 2020, 
as part of the EU’s response to the coronavirus crisis, the European Commission issued 
a communication on green lanes regarding a cross-border management tool for freight 
transport by road and rail. It also issued other guidance documents aimed at easing the 
impacts of the health crisis on transport across the EU79. The guidance regarding green 

78 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=JOIN%3A2018%3A5%3AFIN 
79 Communication from the Commission on the implementation of the Green Lanes under the Guidelines 
for  border  management  measures  to  protect  health  and  ensure  the  availability  of  goods  and  essential 
services, March 2020 

53 

 
                                                           
lane  border  crossing  points  was  heeded  in  respect  of  relevant  internal  border-crossing 
points of the TEN-T, ensuring the supply of essential goods and the seamless functioning 
of  the  Single  Market  for  goods  and  essential  services.  This  can  be  seen  as  example  to 
demonstrate that even unspecific provisions of the TEN-T Regulation, seen in the context 
of  the  general  and  specific  objectives  of  TEN-T  policy  as  a  whole,  have  been  highly 
relevant to undertake successful action in a case of crisis. 

5.2. EFFECTIVENESS 

Effectiveness  looks  into  the  successfulness  of  the  TEN-T  regulation  in  achieving  or 
progressing towards its objectives. It assesses the progress made to date and the role the 
TEN-T regulation has played in delivering the observed changes. Furthermore it looks at 
areas where progress is lagging and the underlying reasons for that. 

5.2.1.  Evaluation  Question  4:  To  what  extent  has  the  Regulation  delivered  to 
date in relation to its specific objectives as well as to the dual layer network 
structure?  Which  factors  have  hindered  or  promoted  the  achievement  of 
these specific objectives? To what extent has the Regulation been effective 
in  relation  to  the  following  areas:  urban  nodes,  the  promotion  of  new 
technologies and innovation as well as cooperation with third countries? To 
what  extent  have  implementing  tools,  reporting  and  monitoring  provisions 
been effective in achieving of the objectives of the Regulation?   

The latest  two Progress  Reports on TEN-T implementation  which, according to  Article 
49(3) of the TEN-T Regulation, have to inform the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions every two 
years about  the delivery  of TEN-T policy on its objectives, provide an overview of the 
two  reporting  periods  2014/201580  and  2016/201781.  They  show  that  substantial 
investments have been concentrated on the core and comprehensive networks, namely in 
the order of 90 billion Euro respectively. (This combines national and European, public 
and  private  sources).  These  investments  reflect  the  gradual  advancement  with  the 
implementation of the wide range of projects of common interest under the common EU-
wide TEN-T policy objective.  

For the core network more specifically, the work of the European Coordinators has been 
instrumental  for  effective  progress.  During  the  period  2013  –  2020,  a  total  number  of 
more  than  1200  projects  has  been  completed  along  these  corridors,  representing  a  total 
investment of around 110 billion Euro. They include a wide range of activities of varying 
size and nature, and they cover the whole project life-cycle, from studies or geographical 
explorations  to  implementation  work.  On  all  corridors,  the  overwhelming  part  of  the 
investment  was  concentrated  on  rail,  with  the  completion  and  entry  into  operation  of 
major projects such as the full high-speed railway line Paris – Strasbourg in 2016, of the 
Tours – Bordeaux high-speed railway line in 2017 and of the full Berlin – Munich high-

80   COM(2017)  327  final  of  19.6.2017:  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Progress 
Report on the Implementation of the TEN-T in 2014 - 2015  

81   COM(2020)  433  final  of  26.8.2020  :  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Progress 
Report on the Implementation of the TEN-T in 2016-2017 

54 

 
 
                                                           
speed railway line as well as of the Treviglio – Bresica and Antequera – Granada high-
speed rail sections.  

Besides  these  achievements,  which  led  to  travel  time  reductions  and  facilitated  modal 
shift from air and road to rail, a large number of projects concerned smaller action such 
as  the  improvement  of  rail  access  to  freight  terminals,  ports  and  airports,  rail  capacity 
upgrades  in  urban  centres,  the  extension  of  sidings  for  freight  trains,  electrification, 
modernization  or  upgrading  for  740m  trains  in  terminals.  For  other  major  railway 
projects,  such  as  the  Karlsruhe  –  Basel  line  (connecting  the  North  Sea  ports  in  the 
Netherlands with Italy via the Swiss Alpine tunnels) or the “EuroCapRail” line Brussels 
–  Strasbourg  –  Luxemburg,  significant  sums  have  been  spent  to  ensure  steady 
implementation progress. The financial efforts made by Member States for such projects 
have been substantially supported from the Connecting Europe Facility. The share of the 
total  CEF  contribution,  attributed  to  rail,  is  generally  high.  It  differs  from  corridor  to 
corridor  and  reaches,  for  example,  86%  on  the  Mediterranean  corridor  (where  the 
Cohesion Fund envelope of CEF has allowed high co-funding rates in part of the States 
concerned.)82  

Also in the inland waterway sector, important achievements can be reported for the 2013 
– 2020 period. Upgrading has been completed in the Western German Canal system as 
well as on inland waterway locks in the Netherlands. Good progress has also been made 
with  the implementation  of the Seine  – Scheldt  project  (in particular in  Belgium), with 
further  inland  waterway  upgrades  in  the  Netherlands  or  with  lock  modernisations  in 
Romania.  

The  achievements  with  projects  in  these  two  transport  modes  (partly  building  on 
investments under previous TEN-T Guidelines) have contributed to enhancing efficiency, 
quality  and  sustainability  of  services.  However,  they  will  bring  their  full  benefit  only 
once the core network as a whole is completed. In line with the multi-modal dimension 
of the TEN-T, appropriate investment in road and multi-modal infrastructure have been – 
and will continue to be – of no less importance for the gradual network completion and 
its  efficient  and  sustainable  functioning.  In  the  2013  –  2020  period,  Corridor  work  has 
also  included  activities  in  fields  such  as  intelligent  transport  systems  /  digitalization  or 
alternative  fuels.  Unlike  for  ‘physical’  projects,  however,  such  action  has  been  more 
isolated  and  less  subject  to  a  coherent  and  corridor  wide  project  identification  and 
implementation.  To draw full benefit  from  such and other innovative approaches, more 
continuity  along the whole network (with its full completion as vital  precondition) will 
be vital for the future.  

With  regard  to  the  further  project  identification  and  implementation  towards  the  2030 
deadline, the work related to the core network corridors shows that core network projects 
(based on technical analysis and Coordinators’ work plans) shows at  this stage that,  to 
date, up to 3000 projects remain to be completed for full core network completion until 
2030.  This  includes  all  (potential)  projects  at  decision-making,  preparatory  or 
construction stage. The adoption of the Directive “Streamlining Measures for Advancing 
the  Realisation  of  the  TEN-T”  (based  on  a  Commission  proposal  from  2018,  at  an 

82 https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport 

55 

 
                                                           
advanced  stage  of  negotiation83)  is  expected  to  facilitate  and  accelerate  preparatory 
processes  for  the  most  critical  of  these  projects.  The  Coordinators’  Work  Plans84, 
regularly  assess  the  development  of  the  corridor  under  the  respective  Coordinator’s 
responsibility  and  get  the  approval  of  the  Member  States  directly  concerned.  All  four 
series  of  work  plans  adopted  so  far  have  been  subject  to  exchanges  of  views  with  the 
Committee  on  Transport  and  Tourism  of  the  European  Parliament,  and  received  strong 
support.    A  large  part  of  the  identified  corridor  projects  concerns  upgrading  of  the 
infrastructure  towards  TEN-T  standards  and  requirements  set  out  in  the  TEN-T 
Regulation and will lead to infrastructure quality enhancements. Furthermore, particular 
efforts are concentrated on key cross-border projects, which involve high cost, not least 
as  they  at  the  same  time  cross  major  natural  barriers  (mountains  or  water).  Overall: 
Continuous efforts are going on – coordinated between the Commission, Member States 
concerned,  infrastructure  managers  and  other  public  stakeholders  –  to  steadily  deliver 
milestones  on  the  different  types  of  projects.  Depending  on  the  type  and  size  of  the 
projects concerned, they generate continuously positive impacts on parts of the network. 
Besides  the  work  plans  of  the  European  Coordinators,  further  evidence  for  the 
effectiveness  of  TEN-T  implementation  is  provided  in  many  sources  and  on  a  regular 
basis:  online  reports  of  the  work  of  the  European  Coordinators,  project  promoters’  and 
national  governments  publications  on  project  completion  and  reports  of  European 
Associations etc. 

to 

it  by 

The specific category of urban nodes’ projects shall be referred to here again, given the 
particular  attention  attributed 
individual  stakeholders  and  stakeholder 
associations as well as the good coverage by literature.  While the provisions, which were 
newly introduced in 2013, proved to be rather effective in a number of respects, they lack 
appropriateness  in  the  light  of  foreseeable  new  needs  to  boost  sustainability  and  to 
enhance seamless mobility services for the benefit of users (see EQ n° 1). However, the 
introduction  of  urban  nodes  into  TEN-T  policy  in  2013  has  generated  a  strong 
momentum,  stimulating  commitment  amongst  cities,  other  stakeholders  and  experts  in 
relation  to  relevant  TEN-T  objectives.  This  enhanced,  for  example,  the  interrelation 
between  urban  nodes  and  TEN-T  corridors,  put  emphasis  on  the  challenging  issue  of 
multi-level  governance  in  urban  nodes  and  on  the  importance  of  seamless  last  mile 
connections as a key TEN-T interest, highlighted the decarbonisation potential in urban 
nodes,  addressed  their  freight  dimension  and  –  not  least  –  made  it  possible  to  fund  a 
significant number of urban nodes’ projects under the Connecting Europe Facility, with a 
substantial  share  concerning  decarbonisation  and  innovation.    TEN-T  action  on  urban 
nodes developed into a sound policy basis for activities in related areas, such as research 
and innovation (e.g. the Vital Nodes project,  initiatives like CIVITAS85 or websites like 
ELTIS86) or promotional activities through organisations like Eurocities87. 

In  conclusion:  The  impacts  thus  generated  support  all  of  the  specific  objectives  of 
Regulation  N°  1315/2013:  1)  The  efficiency  of  the  network  in  support  of  the  internal 
market,  2)  Cohesion,  3)  Sustainability  and  4)  User  benefits.  This  has  been  clearly 

83 Agreement between European Parliament and Council reached in June 2020, pending  formal adoption 

(See Council document 8726/20) 

84 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t_en 
85 https://civitas.eu/ 
86 https://www.eltis.org/ 
87 https://eurocities.eu/ 

56 

 
                                                           
confirmed in the various stakeholder consultations, literature review and further analysis 
both by external experts and within the Commission.  

5.2.2.  Evaluation Question 5: Have the current provisions for the identification 
and  definition  of  projects  of  common  interest  achieved  their  purpose?  To 
what extent have they enabled the identification and definition of projects of 
common interest in all areas covered by the TEN-T Regulation (physical and 
others,  including  traffic  management,  nodes  etc.),  and  to  what  extent  have 
these  projects  contributed  to  the  specific  priorities  of  the  Regulation, 
including  the  tackling  of  capacity  problems?    To  which  extent  have  the 
implementing  tools  foreseen  in  the  Regulation  helped  implementing  these 
projects?  

Article  7  of  Regulation  N°  1315/2013  defines  the  meaning  of  a  “project  of  common 
interest”. Essentially, a “project of common interest” (within the spirit of the TENs Title 
of  the  TFEU)  is  any  project  that  contributes  to  the  completion  of  the  trans-European 
transport  network.  Given  the  wide  range  of  objectives  to  be  achieved,  and  of 
requirements  to  be  fulfilled,  projects  of  common  interest  encompass  a  broad  variety  of 
categories of action, notably including:  

filling missing links; removing capacity bottlenecks 

 
  upgrading infrastructure in line with the established common TEN requirements 
  enhancing  multi-modal infrastructure, intermodal connections well as the access 

to them 

  equipping  infrastructure  to  enable  telematics  applications  /  the  provision  of 

 

intelligent transport services  
introducing  innovative  solutions  to  TEN-T  infrastructure;  enhancing  and 
equipping the TEN-T infrastructure in any way that helps enabling its sustainable, 
efficient, high-quality performance within the European transport system. 

The definition of such projects has been most clear and coherent, and the identification 
most straightforward, in the fields of filling missing links and of infrastructure upgrading 
to  ensure  compliance  with  the  standards  and  requirements  This  is  also  reflected  in  the 
various  reports  issued  by  the  Commission  (Two-Years  Progress  Reports  and  –  in 
particular – the work plans of the European Coordinators), which document high levels 
of  effectiveness  especially  in  relation  to  the  coherent  and  successful  implementation  of 
common  TEN-T  standards  and,  as  a  result,  positive  impacts  on  targets  such  as 
interoperability  and  continuity.    This  has  been  instrumental  in  enabling  seamless 
transport and mobility across national borders and along the TEN-T infrastructure more 
generally. Thereby, it contributed to  all of the specific objectives of the  Regulation.  At 
the  same  time,  the  evaluation  has  also  increasingly  brought  out  views  claiming  that 
technical standards, and compliance with them, is not in all cases sufficient.  In specific 
cases, it may need to be complemented by key performance indicators guided by service 
objectives.  

The identification and prioritisation of projects addressing capacity needs from a TEN-T 
(rather  than  national)  perspective  –  often  in  situations  where  international,  national, 
regional  and  local  traffic  overlap  and  where  smart  solutions  may  help  enhancing  the 
efficient  use  of  infrastructure  resources  –  has  been  more  difficult.  The  analytical 
assessment  that  underpins  the  work  of  the  European  Coordinators  in  relation  to  their 

57 

 
 
  
  
respective corridors (the so called corridor studies88) addresses this issue by using the best 
available methodological approaches.  When identifying and prioritising projects from an 
overall corridor perspective, beyond the perspective of national infrastructure plans, due 
account is taken of national plans as well as of relevant stakeholder initiatives, input from 
corridor fora and working groups.   

In this way, lists of projects of common interest are established, which are to contribute 
to core network completion by 2030 and which underpin the respective work plans of the 
European Coordinators. In a more discontinuous and diverse way (so far) these lists also 
include  projects  in  smart  or  innovative  sectors  which  may  positively  influence  the 
optimal  corridor  functioning.    This  approach  has  been  of  key  importance  for  the 
identification of funding priorities from EU sources The effectiveness of this approach so 
far,  including  its  benefits  for  transport,  trade,  economic  development,  cohesion  and  the 
environment have been continuously endorsed over the 2013 – 2020 period by Member 
States, EU Institutions, professional stakeholders or NGOs.  

A  different  type  of  challenge  has  been  inherent  in  the  identification  of  projects  of 
common interest in the field of telematics/intelligent transport systems.  In this area, the 
situation depends on whether there is a single Europe-wide policy that drives action all 
across the TEN-T, ensures interoperability and coherent user benefits. This is notably the 
case in  the aviation  (Single European Sky Air Traffic Management  – SESAR), railway 
(European  Rail  Traffic  Management  System  –  ERTMS)  and  river  information  services 
(RIS) sector. The identification and development of individual projects in these areas is 
guided in a coherent and complementary way by a single European concept throughout 
the different parts of the Union. 

Such  projects  have  been  the  result  of  long  EU-driven  preparatory  processes.  They  all 
started as EU research projects and led – via pilot deployment on the TEN-T – gradually 
to larger scale implementation. In the case of ERTMS, for example, the objective is full-
scale  deployment  along  the  core  network  –  as  the  only  solution  considered.  This 
approach  to  transport  telematics  –  which  is  now  quickly  moving  towards  digitalisation 
and  automation  –  generates  significant  benefits  in  economic  and  environmental  terms, 
enhances safety or quality and reliability of services.  

In  these  areas,  the  instrument  of  the  European  Coordinators  has  been  supportive. 
However,  it  would  need  to  develop  further  in  the  coming  years  to  be  ready  to  take  up 
new  challenges  –  in  the  first  instance  to  boost  the  different  dimensions  of  transport 
decarbonisation  (efficiency  enhancement  and  the  binding  equipment  with  infrastructure 
for low and zero emission mobility) and digitalisation.  

5.2.3.  Evaluation  question  6:  To  what  extent  has  the  Regulation,  and  the 
investments made on its basis, enabled smooth, safe, secure and sustainable 
transport flows in all transport modes and at a multi-modal level; i.e. to what 
extent  has  it  facilitated  the  generation  of  transport  services  of  high  quality 
and in line with the needs of users?  Have the needs of all users (including 
PRM) been sufficiently covered? Have the following issues, as key enabling 
factors for high quality user services, been effectively tackled: the removal 
of infrastructure quality  gaps /  coherent  infrastructure quality status,  multi-
modal infrastructure and the application of digital solutions?  

88 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/downloads_en 

58 

 
 
 
                                                           
Amongst  the  goals  of  the  trans-European  transport  network  (TEN-T)  is  to  ensure 
efficient transport flows and to enable services providing seamless, safe and sustainable 
mobility of persons and goods. With regard to infrastructural developments, this builds to 
a large extent on performant trans-national transport axes, free of bottlenecks and missing 
links.  It  is,  furthermore,  dependent  on strong multi-modal infrastructure  and its smooth 
network integration, encompassing – besides the physical interconnection - also the smart 
/ digital TEN-T dimension.   

Evidence  from  the  evaluation  indicates  that,  overall,  the  TEN-T  is  very  effective  in 
facilitating  trans-national  transport  flows.  However,  stakeholder  consultations  in  the 
evaluation  study  as  well  as  the  Commission’s  own  analysis  suggest  that  there  is 
significant room for TEN-T policy to improve its capacity to stimulate the generation of 
high-quality services such as:  

  Services for individual and commercial users,  
  Services for freight transport and passenger mobility (encompassing journeys from 

users’ origin to their final destination),  

  Services  across  transport  modes    (including  components  such  as  the  organisation 
and  delivery  of  actual  transport  operations  as  well  as  planning,  ticketing  and  real 
time information tools for clients / users)  

To achieve this objective, a traditional infrastructure approach resting strongly upon the 
delivery of major infrastructure connections and ensuring continuity of standards, comes 
to  certain  limits.  It  calls for enhancing the effectiveness  of TEN-T policy by  gearing it 
more towards the stimulation of seamless multi-modal transport and mobility chains for 
freight  and  passenger  transport.  This  requires  a  more  effective  combination  of  TEN-T 
elements, varied in scale and nature and coordinated from the user benefits’ angle. 

On  the  ‘traditional’  infrastructure  side,  the  enhancement  of  multi-modal  infrastructure 
(ports, airports, rail/road terminals, railway stations) and its smooth network integration 
– an important condition for high-level services across modes - has been pretty much in 
the  focus  of  TEN-T  policy  already.  Multi-modal  infrastructure  has  been  given  due 
attention in the Core Network Corridor approach, which contributed to enhancing multi-
modal services along these corridors. This observation has been supported by 83% of the 
stakeholders in the targeted consultation.  

Nevertheless, the evaluation shows that there is a need to further boost the effectiveness 
of  the  multi-modal  infrastructure  of  the  TEN-T  as  a  key  basis  for  better  and  more 
sustainable user services. In the Open Public Consultation, only 39% of the respondents 
saw  the  TEN-T  Regulation  as  being  sufficiently  effective  in  promoting  modal  shift 
towards  the  most  sustainable  transport  modes.  EU  funding,  which  has  been  largely 
concentrated on sustainable transport modes (notably on rail and inland navigation axes) 
has  been  indispensable  but  can  deploy  its  full  benefits  only  when  linked  with  a  strong 
policy  on  multi-modal  infrastructure.  This  situation  led  the  Commission  already  to 
strengthening  the  connection  between  land  transport  corridors  and  the  maritime 
dimension  of  the  TEN-T;  thus  to  better  integrate  core  network  corridors  and  ports  / 
motorways  of  the  sea.  Amongst  the  further  paths  for  improvement,  which  have  been 
identified  and  put  on  track  by  the  Commission  already,  is  the  strengthening  of  freight 
terminal infrastructure in the context of the revision of the Combined Transport Directive 
and its integration with the TEN-T Regulation.  

In  the  field  of  passenger  mobility,  it  should  be  noted  that  infrastructure  improvements 
through  TEN-T  are  only  one  of  the  means  to  improve  passenger  mobility.  Indeed, 
pricing and ticketing, timetabling and availability as well as reliability of services play an 
important role. When it comes to infrastructure, the Commission still expects a more in-
depth assessment of the effectiveness of air–rail connections and suggestions for possible 
in 
enhancement,  resulting  from  an  ongoing  study.  Stakeholders  participating 

59 

 
consultations (OPC and surveys), finding from case study n° 8 as well as from specific 
expert  work  of  the  Commission  hint  to  possibilities  for  enhancing  effectiveness  by 
addressing  weaknesses  in  seamless  mobility  chains  for  passengers.  Inter  alia  they  see 
important  potential  in  the  strengthening  of  railway  stations  as  genuine  transfer  hubs 
between TEN-T and last mile journeys.  

In the framework of the main evaluation study, the case study on “Seamless and barrier-
free  mobility  for  the  trans-European  passenger”  (case  study  n°  8)  has  explored  the 
effectiveness of the TEN-T Regulation in stimulating sustainable user services of high-
quality in more detail. Furthermore, the case study on “Digitalisation” (case study n° 6) 
has addressed aspects of importance to the facilitation of seamless and sustainable user 
services.  

Seamless and barrier-free mobility for the trans-European passenger (Case study 8):  

Regulation  n° 1315/2013  includes, in  the Article on New Technologies  and  Innovation 
(Article 33), references to issues such as integrated ticketing or the coordination of time 
tables; thus to – service related requirements which should be enabled by TEN-T action. 
Some pilot action has been promoted on this basis, for example in fields such as Mobility 
as a Service, promoting data sharing between companies. 

Case study n° 8 found that TEN-T policy has been quite effective in enabling passenger 
hubs to fulfil their transfer function (around 75% agreement rate in surveys). However, 
only 30% of survey respondents saw the TEN-T as sufficiently effective in enabling them 
to carry out the entirety of  trips along the TEN-T in accordance with their expectations.   

The case study led to the clear suggestion that TEN-T policy should adopt an integrated 
approach  under  the  user’s  perspective,  taking  into  account  service  requirements. 
Examples  for such requirements  given by  stakeholders included:  provision of complete 
and  reliable  information  across  all  modes  of  transport  from  door-to-door;  user-oriented 
design of hubs, also in intermodal transport; integrated ticketing for the complete traffic 
route;  coordinated  travel  chains.  In  addition  stakeholders  highlighted  that  stronger 
connections  with  the  ITS  Directive  and  other  relevant  EU  policies  would  ensure  that 
developments  on  passenger  services  are  harmonized  and  not  overlapping,  as  well  as 
guarantee greater focus on user needs. Furthermore strengthening the role of urban nodes 
would  enable  a  seamless  flow  of  passengers  between  the  core  and  local  networks  and 
strengthen more sustainable transport modes in urban areas. 

A  specific  dimension  of  case  study  8  addressed  the  accessibility  and  mobility  of  all 
transport  users.  In  this  respect,  the  TEN-T  Regulation  aims  to  ensure,  inter  alia, 
accessibility for elderly people, persons with reduced mobility and disabled passengers. 
Furthermore, Article 37 on accessibility for all users includes a provision that the design 
and construction of TEN-T infrastructure should comply with the relevant requirements 
in  Union  law,  to  allow  seamless  mobility  and  accessibility  for  all  users.  However,  at 
present, besides Member States’ procedures, there is no system or framework to check or 
to monitor whether these standards are systematically implemented (e.g. along the core 
network or at multimodal connecting points or terminals), and if not where these issues 
are located and how severe these are89.  

89  

It should be noted that for railway stations, the PRM-TSI “Technical specification for interoperability relating to 
accessibility  of  the  Union’s  rail  system  for  persons  with  disabilities  and  persons  with  reduced  mobility” 
(Regulation (EU) 1300/2014) impose the legal obligation to use the European register for the accessibility of the 
rail stations. This registry is being managed by ERA, but the timeframe for MS to populate data spans for several 
years, starting from new or upgraded infrastructure and to progressively be introduced to the remaining stations. 

60 

 
 
                                                           
However, the full implementation of technical specifications for interoperability related 
to  accessibility  of  the  Union's  rail  system  for  persons  with  disabilities  and  reduced 
mobility (PRM-TSI)90 will give a boost in this situation91. More generally, online survey 
respondents to case study 8 were divided on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the 
TEN-T  Regulations  provisions  on  accessibility  (specifically  for  elderly  people, 
passengers with reduced mobility and passengers with a disability).  

Digitalisation (Case study n° 6) 

Digitalisation plays an increasingly important role in enabling smooth, safe, efficient and 
sustainable user services in the passengers and freight sector. In particular on freight, the 
work  of  the  Digital  Transport  and  Logistics  Forum  (DTLF)  aims  at  enhancing  the 
effectiveness  of  services  (building  on  current  TEN-T  provisions  on  sustainable  freight 
transport services, innovation and telematics).  

Findings from Case Study 6 showed mixed views on the contribution of digital aspects to 
the achievement of the Regulation’s objectives of ensuring smooth, safe and sustainable 
transport  flows.  For  freight  and  logistics,  respondents  did  see  a  clear  contribution  of 
digitalization  aspects  to  safe  and  smooth  transport  flows  mainly  as  a  result  of  the 
combined contribution of TEN-T and other initiatives ongoing in parallel.  

For  passenger  transport,  the  situation  was  slightly  less  positive.  The  main  barrier 
identified was the lack of 4G and high-speed mobile internet availability in a number of 
areas  which  restricts  the  use  of  digital  solutions.  Given  that  many  solutions  for 
passengers are mobile phone based, this basic connectivity is an important condition for 
the effective deployment of digital solutions (Even though it is outside the scope of the 
TEN-T Regulation).  

On the other hand, the evaluation pointed to positive examples of digital technologies in 
air transport. The desk research suggested that the SESAR project has so far contributed 
to promoting a common vision towards reaching the goals established for improving Air 
Traffic Management (ATM). The emergence of drone-related services is also prompting 
a  surge  of  innovation  in  air  traffic  management,  which  the  European  Commission  is 
championing through its U-space initiative for the safe and secure integration of drones 
alongside manned aviation. 

5.2.4.  Evaluation  Question  7:  How  effective  has  the  Regulation  been  in 
enabling  and  stimulating  investment  in  a  sustainable  and  decarbonised 
transport  system?  More  specifically  (in  addition  to  more  system-efficiency 
focused  side  addressed  in  question  n°  6):  To  what  extent  has  the 
implementation  of  alternative  fuel  infrastructure  along  the  TEN-T  been 
effective?  How effectively has EU funding stimulated this process?  

The European Green Deal92 sets out ambitious targets for decarbonisation, calling for and 
proposing legal ways to ensure the European Union becomes carbon neutral by 2050. In 

90   Commission Regulation (EU) No 1300/2014 of 18 November 2014 on technical specifications for interoperability 

related to accessibility of the Union's rail system for persons with disabilities and reduced mobility.  

91   According to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1300/2014 as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation 

(EU) 2019/772, Member States are required to collect accessibility data by June 2022.  

92   COM(2019) 640 Final - Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, 
the Council, the European Economic  and Social Committee and  the Committee of the Regions  - The European 
Green Deal 

61 

 
 
 
                                                           
this  context,  the  transport  sector  is  committed  to  reach  a  90%  reduction  of  greenhouse 
gas  emissions  by  2050,  compared  to  the  1990  level.  TEN-T  policy  plays  a  key  role  as 
provider of an integrated and all-encompassing infrastructure network and as the “hard” 
basis for the provision of charging and refuelling infrastructure for low and zero emission 
vehicles, aircrafts and vessels.  

From  evaluation  question  n°  6,  it  comes  already  out  rather  clearly  that  investments  in 
TEN-T  have  been  successful  notably  in  one  respect:  Removing  bottlenecks  and  filling 
missing links along major TEN-T axes and – in a reasonable way – integrating urban and 
transport nodes into the network and enhancing their connectivity and functionality. The 
overwhelming  part  of  TEN-T  financing,  both  investment  from  Member  States  and 
relevant funding from EU sources, have contributed to this objective. In the course of the 
evaluation  period, roughly 40 billion  Euro have  been spent every  year  for this purpose 
along the core network, both from national and EU sources (also including EIB loans). 
By focussing funds from EU sources, notably from the Connecting Europe Facility and 
the  Cohesion  Fund,  on  the  highest  network  development  priorities  and  the  most 
sustainable  transport  modes,  effective  contributions  have  been  made  to  enhancing  the 
physical basis for sustainability and decarbonisation. Besides this, Member States and a 
broad  range  of  public  and  private  investors  have  implemented  –  with  or  without  EU 
support  –  a  large  number  of  complementary  “soft-type”  TEN-T  projects  in  support  of 
decarbonisation and sustainability objectives (e.g. intelligent transport systems).  

However, the findings from question n° 6 above show also that potential benefits remain 
unused, given that infrastructure development possibilities from the perspective of user 
services  are  not  yet  fully  exploited.  Ultimately,  decarbonisation  effects  are  generated 
from an efficient use of the infrastructure; from innovative and sustainable transport and 
mobility  solutions  along  the  TEN-T  and  from  a  strong  shift  to  sustainable  modes. 
Reasons  behind  effectiveness  shortages  in  this  area  are  varied  and  include:  a  lack  of  a 
broader user perspective in the TEN-T Regulation (see question n° 6 above); difficulties 
in  generating  and  implementing  relevant  action  due  to  complex  governance  issues; 
unlike for larger infrastructure projects - funding frequently based on individual projects 
rather than on more holistic approaches which reflect broader transport policy objectives.  

This  suggests  that:  Indeed,  investments  have  been  strongly  concentrated  on  the 
development and gradual completion of the physical network structure and on coherent 
and  interoperable  technical  standards.  Nevertheless,  this  has  not  yet  been  sufficiently 
translated into a strong boost of integrated, highly efficient and sustainable services and 
may  have  given  away  efficiency  gains  with  a  view  to  decarbonisation.  Intelligent 
transport  services  in  all  modes,  however,  have  been  already  quite  effective  in  this 
respect.  

Quantifying  the  specific  impacts  of  ITS  deployment  is  not  easy,  as  so  many  different 
factors  can  contribute  to  improvements  in  road  safety,  traffic  congestion  and  emission 
reductions.  Thankfully,  specific  evaluations  of  ITS  implementations  along  the  ITS 
corridors  and  TEN-T  Core  Network  Corridors,  harmonised  and  coordinated  by  the  EU 
EIP project, have researched and highlighted the benefits of ITS for road users, in terms 
of less hours spent in (congested) traffic, reduction of injuries and fatalities, but also the 
reduction  of  CO2-emissions  to  the  benefit  of  everyone.  The  returns  on  investment  for 
these projects were achieved between 3 to 5 years. 

The EU EIP has developed common KPI definitions, levels of service definitions and an 
Evaluation Toolkit93 to support any ITS-related project in gaining a better understanding 
of  the  effects  of  their  implementation.  The  Toolkit  has  been  developed  into  a  publicly 

93 (https://evaluation.itsplatform.eu/EvalLib). 

62 

 
                                                           
accessible online tool for searching ITS Evaluation results by 6 key criteria (Deployment 
KPI,  Benefit  KPI,  Location,  Corridor,  ITS  Directive  Priority  Area  and  ITS  Directive 
Priority Action) and enables users to directly locate Evaluation Reports. The Toolkit was 
launched  in  2019  and  will  continue  to  be  periodically  updated  as  new  results  become 
available. 

The  second  key  pillar  of  enhancing  sustainability  and  contributing  to  greenhouse  gas 
reductions in transport concerns the provision of recharging and refuelling infrastructure 
for zero and low emission mobility along the TEN-T. The findings of the main evaluation 
study  as  well  as  a  wide  range  of  other  evidence  from  expert  associations  and  the 
Commission’s  own  analysis  show  one  particularity  in  TEN-T  policy:  a  quite  general 
provision  in  Regulation  n°  1315/2013  (under  “innovation”,  in  Article  33)  has  triggered 
enormous  action  to  stimulate  alternative  propulsion  systems,  in  particular  electro-
mobility.  In  the  early  phase  of  the  time-period  under  evaluation,  a  number  of  pilot 
projects was stimulated with support from the Connecting Europe Facility.  

Gradually,  the  scope  of  such  action  was  growing.  In  addition  to  CEF,  the  Blending 
Facility  (bringing  together  CEF  grants,  financing  from  implementation  partners  and 
project  promoters  as  well  as,  where  appropriate,  from  International  Financial 
Institutions), has contributed to a massive increase in the deployment of charging points. 
Between 2013 and today, 12100 charging points where deployed with EU support in the 
field of TEN-T, covering both the TEN-T road network as well as urban nodes. In spite 
of  the  absence  of  specific  TEN-T  standards,  EU  funding  was  granted  on  the  basis  of  a 
number  of  basic  conditions,  including  open  access,  data  sharing  arrangements  or  the 
availability  ad  hoc  payment  possibilities.  While  the  large  number  of  charging  points 
appears  impressive,  it  masks  the  fact  that  there  is  a  lack  of  balanced  geographical 
coverage  across  the  Union.  Commitment  for  charging  correlates  with  vehicle  market 
prospects. 

The  advancement  in  high-level  political  agreements  towards  a  carbon  neutral  economy 
has  entailed  fast  developments  on  legislative  initiatives  in  transport  in  relation  to 
recharging and refuelling infrastructure for zero and low emission mobility. In particular 
the  Alternative  Fuels  Infrastructure  Directive  (AFID)  as  well  as  the  Fuel  EU  Maritime 
Initiative  and  the  ReFuel  Aviation  Initiative–  -  all  in  the  process  of  preparing  new 
legislation  -  are  directly  related  with  TEN-T  policy.  Relevant  binding  requirements 
would  have  to  be  integrated  into  a  revised  TEN-T  Regulation,  thereby  ensuring  a 
coherent coverage of recharging and refuelling infrastructure along the whole TEN-T.  

Both stakeholder consultations and literature review, undertaken in the  main evaluation 
study, also clearly underpinned this conclusion. There are strong calls for more specific, 
binding  requirements  in  the  new  TEN-T  Regulation  which  set  a  clear  framework  for 
action and ensures continuity and coherence along the trans-European network.  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
5.3. EFFICIENCY 

Efficiency considers the relationship between the resources used by an intervention and 
the changes generated by it. Efficiency analysis aims to assess whether the benefits of the 
TEN-T Regulation are perceived as proportionate and reasonable when compared to the 
costs of its implementation, governance and compliance. Costs are understood in a broad 
sense, considering not just monetary costs, but also the administrative burden.   

5.3.1.  Evaluation  Question  8:  Are  the  costs  of  the  Regulation  (mainly 
governance  and  advice  mechanisms  of  the  CNCs)  and  the  sharing  of 
responsibility  between  the  different  actors  reasonable  and  proportionate  in 
relation  to  the benefits? Are the  reporting and monitoring provisions clear, 
simple and easy to report? To what extent was the application of innovative, 
technological and operational concepts cost efficient? 

Extent to which cost of governance and advice mechanisms (Coordinators, stakeholder 
fora,  committees,  work  plans  etc.)  of  the  Core  Network  Corridors  are  reasonable  in 
relation to the benefits 

Evaluation  findings  suggest  that  the  cost  of  governance  and  advice  mechanisms  are 
generally  reasonable,  but  suggestions  were  made  to  improve  their  efficiency.  Evidence 
from the global desk research pointed out that the TEN-T corridor approach is recognised 
as  a  multi-level  governance  system  which  has  brought  transport  stakeholders  (such  as 
representatives of EU regions and infrastructure managers of all modes) to work together 
and has effectively focused on delivering EU added value.94 
Most  respondents  from  the  global  survey  (67%)  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  studies, 
such as corridor studies, carried out by European coordinators and their consultant teams 
and the related corridor fora and working groups, are a cost-effective tool to implement 
the  core  network.  Furthermore  they  stressed  that  the  cost  of  governance  and  advice 
mechanisms of the core network corridors are reasonable in relation to the benefits they 
bring (63%). These findings were confirmed in Case study N°2. 

Interviewees from the global interviews expressed a more nuanced view on this question. 
Some mentioned that they found that costs and workload are appropriate and echoed the 
sentiment  that  the  “benefits  have  outweighed  the  costs  by  far”.  Other  interviewees  felt 
that  the  governance  and  advice  mechanisms  are  time-consuming  (participation  in 
corridor fora, revisions  of work plans) and did  not  see added value of certain  reporting 
provisions, such as regularly updating project lists. Personnel and travel costs (mainly to 
attend meetings of the corridor fora) were highlighted by interviewees as the main costs 
with regard to governance and advice mechanisms.  

94 Delivering TEN-T – Facts & Figures, 2017, EC 

64 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 5: Cost effectiveness of different elements of Regulation 1315/2013 (n=198) 

Source: Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) N° 1315/2013 – global survey 

Given  the  length  and  complexity  of  the  core  network  corridors  in  their  geographical 
representation  (above  9000  km  in  some  cases,  including  all  transport  modes  and 
hundreds of important transport and urban nodes), the capacity deployed (staff and time) 
in  relation  to  the  analytical  and coordination challenges involved is  modest.  In spite of 
this  constraint,  the  identification  and  prioritisation  of  projects  from  a  corridor-wide 
perspective has been seen as effective and beneficial. This was, amongst others, endorsed 
in  regular  exchanges  of  views  between  European  Coordinators  and  the  Committee  on 
Transport and Tourism of the European Parliament.  

Requests  especially  in  the  OPC,  from  regional  authorities  and  economic  operators 
(business associations or transport service providers), to complement, adjust or combine 
corridor alignments, hint to certain difficulties in matching geographical corridor routes 
with  transport  demand95.  Related  to  this,  also  the  overlapping  of  corridor  alignments 
(about 15% for rail) entails some questions when it comes to identifying, prioritizing and 
implementing projects from the perspective of the overall corridor functionality and use. 
In  the  case  of  the  study  on  the  impact  of  TEN-T  completion  on  growth,  jobs  and 
environment,  for  example,  the  assessment  of  economic  impacts  of  TEN-T  investment 
was confronted with methodological difficulties and the risk of project double counting 
resulting  from  corridor  overlaps.  This  problem  may  possibly  increase  when  –  as  it  is 
called for in the global survey and in interviews as well as in several case studies  - the 
focus of TEN-T infrastructure on zero and low emission mobility, digitalization and new 
technologies or urban nodes would be reinforced.  It should be noted that at least in the 
case of member states, which have the highest reporting burden of all actors, costs related 
to  TEN-T  governance  (travel,  personnel)  can  be  covered  by  so  called  Programme 
Support Actions financed through the CEF programme. 

Looking  at  these  PSAs  over  the  last  years  allows  to  get  a  rough  impression  of  MS 
financial burden with regard to the participation and contribution in the governance of the 
TEN-T regulation. From 2014 – 2017 figures show that MS on average claimed costs of 

95   This demand relates to corridor alignments and not to the TEN-T network as identified in the TEN-T 

Regulation.  

65 

 
 
                                                           
84.500 EUR annually for participation in corridor fora, working groups and TEN-T days 
as  well  as  delivering  input  to  corridor  studies  and  corridor  work  plans.  Only  some 
Member States use these support actions to support their filling of the TENtec database. 
When putting these figures into relation with the number of TEN-T corridors per MS one 
gets to approximate costs of 20.000 EUR annually per TEN-T corridor per MS.96 

Extent to which the sharing of responsibility between the different actors is reasonable in 
relation to the benefits 

The  way  responsibilities  between  the  actors  involved  in  implementing  the  TEN-T 
regulation  are  shared  were  generally  seen  as  an  area  were  improvements  would  be 
needed. Among the respondents to the global survey, only 42% agreed or strongly agreed 
that  the  sharing  of  responsibility  between  the  different  actors  (including  national, 
regional  and  local  authorities,  managers  and  users  of  infrastructure,  as  well  as  industry 
and civil society) is well-balanced, while 38% disagreed or strongly disagreed with this 
statement (see figure 5 above). Interviewees where more positive on this topic and added 
that the sharing of responsibility between the different actors promotes an effective and 
efficient way of working towards achieving the TEN-T objectives.  

Nevertheless,  a  few  national  authorities  held  a  more  critical  view,  noting  that  a 
disproportionate  share  of  responsibility  rests  on  national  governments  and  other  public 
authorities in contrast to stakeholders from the private sector. At the same time, Member 
States’  paramount  responsibility  for  planning,  financing  and  implementing  TEN-T 
projects  (notably  the  filling  of  missing  links  and  the  removal  of  bottlenecks  along  rail, 
inland waterway and road axes) is inherent in the basic principles of TEN-T policy. The 
results of the study on national plans and programmes (see chapters 3 and 4), assessing 
Member  States’  compliance  with  their  responsibilities  in  ensuring  the  achievement  of 
TEN-T  objectives  respectively  at  national  level,  provide  a  sound  evidence  that  the  
majority of Member States acknowledges this responsibility and is fully committed to it. 

On the other hand, in the broad range of survey activities, interviews, the different case 
studies and the Commission’s expert work, significant responsibilities of non-state actors 
are appreciated. Stakeholders like the European Seaport Organisation (ESPO) or INE, as 
well as CPMR of individual ports (participating in the OPC and being very active in the 
targeted stakeholder consultation) show that they are strongly and actively committed to 
contributing  to  TEN-T  policy.  In  contrast,  with  a  view  to  the  current  lack  of 
appropriateness of the TEN-T in areas such as infrastructure for zero and low emission 
mobility as well as for digitalisation and other innovative technologies (coming out from 
a  broad  range  of  stakeholder  opinions)  private  sector  actors  are  indeed  called  upon  to 
assume much stronger responsibility.   

While  Member  States  largely  stand  by  their  (formal)  responsibility  for  TEN-T 
implementation, case study n° 2 also enquired about the extent to which Member States 
feel accountable for their respective contribution to the common objective of completing 
the TEN-T fully and within the agreed time horizon. In this respect, interviewees agreed 
that  there  is  a  lack  of  accountability.  Part  of  the  Member  States  still  seemed  to 
undervalue  the  incentive  and  additional  benefits  of  aligning  action  across  all  Member 
States.  

This  was  underpinned  by  the  opinion  of  an  interviewee  who  felt  that  the  TEN-T 
Regulation  gave  limited  powers  to  the  Commission  for  ensuring  that  Member  States 
effectively implement projects in line with the agreed planning. In cases where political 

96   It  shall  be  noted  that  these  are  very  rough  estimates.  Not  all  MS  make  use  of  PSAs  and  the  items 
financed  by  the  grants  varies  greatly.  Although  the  co-financing  rate  is  at  100%  some  MS  cover 
additional costs through their own budget. 

66 

 
                                                           
will  or  funding  are  limited,  the  Commission  lacks  the  means  to  effectively  enforce  the 
implementation of projects. This has also been highlighted in a recent European Court of 
Auditors  report97.    Consequently,  in  case  study  n°  2,  interviewees  saw  possibilities  for 
improving 
  the  accountability  of  Member  States  through  agreements  with  the 
Commission  on  binding  timelines  for  the  implementation  of  individual  projects, 
including  a  stronger  role  of  European  Coordinators  in  enforcing  such  agreements.  This 
would  also  help  setting  a  clearer  perspective  and  commitment  in  terms  of  national 
financing and EU support. Not least, this could also strengthen the political responsibility 
for TEN-T project implementation at national level, in response to certain tendencies (as 
perceived by some interviewees) of blaming Europe for failure and claiming success at 
national level.) 

In  principle,  Article  47(2)  of  the  current  TEN-T  Regulation  allows  such  agreements 
already.  It  grants  the  Commission  the  power  to  adopt  implementing  acts  for  the  cross-
border and horizontal dimensions of the core network corridor work plans. However, it 
has been used only to a limited extent. So far there are Implementing Acts for three such 
projects: for the Evora-Merida98 railway line between Portugal and Spain, for Rail Baltica 
between Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland99 as well as for the canal Seine-Scheldt100 
between France and Belgium. 

In addition to this assessment, and to first responses at the level of cross-border sections 
and significant corridor sections, the study on ‘national plans’ and programs assessed the 
sharing of responsibility – especially between Member States and the Commission – at a 
more strategic level. In spite of a good coverage of TEN-T objectives in relevant national 
plans  and  programmes,  it  also  identified  some  shortcomings  in  the  alignment.  On  this 
basis, this study suggests to consider means of reinforcing legal obligations for Member 
States in order to ensure complete coverage of TEN-T objectives at the level of Member 
States.  

Extent to which reporting and monitoring provisions are clear, simple and easy to report 

About  half  (49%)  of  all  global  survey  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the 
administrative  burden  linked  to  updating  and  reporting  provisions  of  the  TEN-T 
Regulation  is  proportionate  to  the  benefits.  While  23%  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed 
with  this  statement,  28%  reported  that  they  “did  not  know”.  Member  states  authorities 
interviewed  were  more  critical  on  this  point  especially  when  asked  about  the  existing 
reporting tools.  While recognising the need and  usefulness of reporting and monitoring 
tools, interviewees mentioned existing issues in relation to TENTec such as: 

  sections  defined  in  TENTec  not  matching  sections  defined  at  the  national  level, 

making data entry complex101; 

  data for reporting and monitoring not being available in the required format, so often 

not included; 

97 https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did={28F30B2D-1A5F-45D0-B2D4-F007F2F3811F} 
98 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/c_2018_2356_f1_commission_implementing_decision_v2_p1_972
036_en.pdf 

99 

100 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/75c54c39-e867-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1/language-

en/format-PDF/source-105190645 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/87fc6dc1-9bd4-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1/language-

en/format-PDF/source-search 

101   The issue of sectioning within TENtec is due to technical developments which happened at different speeds at EU 
and at national level. The Commission is currently preparing a revision of the TENtec system which will among 
others address such issues (e.g. “dynamic sectioning”).  

67 

 
                                                           
  duplication with  other reports (e.g. those submitted to  the Innovation and Networks 

Executive Agency - INEA)  

Interviewees  agreed  that  there  is  scope  to  improve  the  system,  for  example  automating 
and better linking the information. However, many also recognised that as a new system, 
it  requires  time  for  familiarisation  and  that  in  the  future  reporting  and  monitoring  on 
TENTec should become less burdensome. Although not necessarily involved in TEN-T 
reporting  42%  of  Open  Public  Consultation  respondents  had  previously  used  the  TEN-
Tec  system.  Of  those,  the  majority  (59%)  reported  that  they  found  it  ‘very  useful’  or 
‘useful’ while (36%) considered it only somewhat useful.  

Extent  to  which  application  of  innovative  technological  and  operational  concepts  were 
cost efficient 

There was limited information from the evaluation on this sub-question due to a lack of 
information in literature as well as limited stakeholder understanding.   

5.3.2.  Evaluation  Question  9:  How  efficiently  is  the  integration  of  Core 
Network Corridors and Rail Freight Corridors based on the Regulation on a 
“European rail network for competitive freight” working102? To what extent 
has,  the  TEN-T  regulation  addressed  key  efficiency  measures  and  enabled 
efficient  use  of  TEN-T  infrastructure  for  freight  transport  and  high  quality 
and innovative passenger mobility services103. 

Extent  to  which  the  integration  of  the  Core  Network  Corridors  and  Rail  Freight 
Corridors have addressed key efficient measures 

The  RFCs  and  CNCs  are  two  complementary  EU  transport  policy  tools,  pursuing  the 
same  objectives,  in  particular  modal  shift.  Since  entry  into  force  of  the  TEN-T 
Regulation, the RFCs are considered as the rail freight backbone of the CNCs. 

Cooperation between the two structures is already addressed in legislation, in Article 48 
of the TEN-T regulation (“adequate coordination shall be ensured”) and in recital 10 of 
the  RFC  Regulation  (which  requests  consistency  between  the  implementation  of  the 
RFCs and the TEN-T network, at a time when the CNC concept did not exist). 

Cooperation  and  coordination  between  the  two  structures  and  their  stakeholders  have 
been  set  up  as  from  the  creation  of  the  CNCs.  There  have  been  many  initiatives,  good 
practices, past or ongoing, going from mere exchange of information to defined activities 
to  achieve  a  commonly  agreed  goal.  Such  cooperation  has  been  done  mainly  on  a 
corridor basis - although there have been a few horizontal and harmonised initiatives over 
the years – with the Coordinators’ involvement. 

In this respect, a few observations can be done: 
  The competences and areas of intervention of the two corridor governance structures 
are  largely  of  different  nature.  The  RFCs  are  mainly  focused  on  operations  and 
dealing  with  timetabling,  traffic  management,  removal  of  administrative  and 

102 There is an ongoing evaluation of the RFC Regulation, which should, when available, provide specific 
findings on this particular topic that could complement the findings from the current TEN-T evaluation. 
103  This  final  sub-question  might  be  more  adequate  to  contribute  to  another  evaluation  question  with  a 
focus on passenger transport, as the present evaluation question is more connected to freight transport. 
Nevertheless, it has been decided to maintain the question structure as the sub-question also falls under 
the evaluation criterion of efficiency 

68 

 
 
 
                                                           
technical  barriers,  performance  monitoring  and  development  of  services.  In 
particular,  the  RFCs  need  to  be  close  to  market  needs,  while  TEN-T  infrastructure 
development  requires  long-term  project  and  investment  planning.  This  obviously 
justifies differences in organizational structures and stakeholder involvement. 

  The  RFCs  have  a  competence  as  regards  infrastructure  development  and  its 
coordination across borders (Article 11 and recital 16), in particular the drawing up of 
an investment plan of medium and long-term investment for infrastructure, including 
a list of projects and a plan for removing identified bottlenecks. The entry into force 
of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  and  the  creation  of  the  CNCs  has  raised  and  raises 
questions  on  the  status  of  those  provisions.  Besides,  given  the  on-the-ground 
expertise of the RFC stakeholders, there is potential for increased synergy RFC/CNC 
in terms of identification of investment needs and investment planning for rail freight. 
  Although  the  geographical  alignment  is  largely  the  same,  since  the  TEN-T 
Regulation has aligned in 2013 the nodes of the RFCs with those of the CNCs, there 
are  still  differences.  These  differences  makes  coordination  more  complex,  for 
instance  when  it  comes  to  planning  the  deployment  of  the  TEN-T  parameters  for 
freight, or to determining the scope of the transport market studies.  

  There are two main reasons for this misalignment. First the RFC Regulation allows 
for the creation of new corridors and the extension of existing corridors, upon request 
of  the  Member  States.  Second,  there  can  be  different  railway  lines  linking  a  given 
pair of nodes resulting in a different choice for the RFC and for the CNC (especially 
when a line is more dedicated to freight traffic). 

  Linked to  the above, despite Article 48 of the TEN-T Regulation,  there  is  a certain 
degree of overlapping of activities (e.g. as regards transport market studies or studies 
for the deployment of the TEN-T parameters).  
In terms of overall visibility and communication of the Commission transport policy, 
vis-à-vis the sector, citizens and public authorities, the co-existence of two different 
concepts of corridors is sometimes difficult to explain. 

 

However  findings  from  the  global  survey,  interviews  and  case  studies  also  confirmed 
broad  agreement  that  cooperation  of  the  Core  Network  Corridors  and  Rail  Freight 
Corridors has addressed key efficiency measures, namely the removal of bottlenecks, the 
bridging of missing links as well as the optimisation, interconnection and interoperability 
of national transport networks.  

Looking at the sources individually most respondents from the global survey agreed or 
strongly  agreed  that  cooperation  between  core  network  and  rail  freight  corridors  has 
addressed  key  efficiency  measures  in  a  number  of  areas.  More  specifically,  more  than 
half  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  cooperation  between  the  CNCs  and  RFCs  has 
facilitated  the  use  of  new  and  existing  infrastructure  (58%);  helped  to  optimise 
interconnection  and  interoperability  of  national  networks  within  the  European  transport 
network (56%); and has contributed to removing bottlenecks and bridging missing links 
(54%). 

69 

 
 
 
Figure6: In your view, to what extent has the cooperation between core network and rail 
freight corridors addressed key efficiency measures in the following areas (n=198) 

0%

50%

100%

Facilitating the use of new and existing infrastructure

10% 

Optimising interconnection and interoperability of national…

9% 

Removing bottlenecks and complete missing links

16% 

48% 

47% 

38% 

16% 

2% 

23% 

14% 

4% 

26% 

16% 

6% 

24% 

Supporting the application of innovative technologies

10% 

37% 

22% 

3% 

28% 

Reducing operational and administrative barriers

Competition between freight and urban transport in cities

6% 

6% 

34% 

24% 

4% 

32% 

23% 

22% 

6% 

42% 

to a great extent

to some extent

to a small extent

not at all

don't know

Source: Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) N° 1315/2013 – global survey 

There  was  less  agreement  that  the  cooperation  between  core  network  and  rail  freight 
corridors  supported 
technologies  (47%),  reduced 
operational and administrative barriers (40%) and addressed the issue of completion and 
thus capacity between freight and urban transport (29%). 

the  application  of 

innovative 

There were significant differences between EU regions, with  global survey respondents 
from Western Europe rating the extent to which cooperation between core networks and 
rail freight corridors addressed key efficiency measures pronouncedly lower in all areas, 
compared with respondents from the remaining regions.  

Additional  contributions to  the OPC highlighted that the responsibilities between RFCs 
and  TEN-T  CNCs  in  the  field  of  investment  planning  indeed  need  clarification. 
Furthermore activities between the two should be better coordinated and promoted at EU 
level, to enable an efficient functioning of the networks across the Union. 

Findings from case studies 2, 3 and 4 show mixed opinions regarding the degree to which 
the  integration  between  CNCs  and  RFCs  has  been  efficient  (see  box  below).  While 
stakeholders generally confirm that, there is a very close relationship between the RFCs 
and  the  CNCs  they  also  highlight  the  need  for  clarification  of  the  different  roles  and 
competences of CNCs and RFCs, and thus confirm the observations above: 

  The  RFCs  geographical  alignments  reflect  market  needs  for  rail  freight.  Therefore, 

the alignments are partly different from the alignments of TEN-T-corridors.   

  Provisions should be included in  the new TEN-T Regulation,  enabling the RFCs  to 
provide input into the development of the CNC work plan, including their investment 
needs for all core lines and core terminals designated to a specific RFC.  

  Provisions  concerning  the  relation  between  RFCs  and  CNCs  should  not  undermine 
the CNCs’ main responsibility for drafting the investment plans and should in no way 
infringe on the roles and competencies of the RFCs. 

In summary, RFCs are broadly aligned with the TEN-T corridors in geographical terms. 
However,  their  objectives  differ  and  are  complementary.  While  the  TEN-T  deals  with 
infrastructure construction and project identification, the RFC look at the operational and 
customer  side  (timetabling,  slot  allocation  etc.).  Alignment  of  investment  planning  and 
project  identification  between  the  two  legislations  shall  be  ensured.  The  full  benefit  of 
the RFC will only materialize once the underlying network has been developed.  

Extent to which the Regulation enables efficient use of TEN-T infrastructure for freight 
transport 

Freight  transport  and  logistics  are  key  for  European  industry  competitiveness  and 
sustainable  growth  but  depend  on  a  high-quality  transport  infrastructure  network  that 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
allows  efficient,  seamless,  cross-border  co-modal  transport.  In  this  regard  the  TEN-T 
Regulation establishes that in order to ensure the international mobility of passengers and 
goods, the capacity of the trans-European transport network and the use of that capacity 
should  be  optimised  by  removing  infrastructure  bottlenecks  and  bridging  missing 
infrastructure links, thus enabling the efficient use of TEN-T infrastructure. As has been 
shown  in  other  parts  of  this  document  there  has  been  significant  progress  in 
implementing  the  TEN-T  network.  In  the  corridor  studies  and  work  plans  of  the 
European coordinators it is widely acknowledged that implementing the requirements set 
in  the  regulation  has  made  the  network  more  efficient.  However,  given  the  completion 
deadline for the core network being 10 years away major bottlenecks and missing links 
still  need  to  be  addressed  and  the  full  network  benefit  has  not  yet  been  achieved.  For 
example implementation rate of ERTMS (see chapter 3) remains low, the requirements 
for  740m  trains  and  minimum  22.5t  axle  weight  are  not  yet  available  throughout  the 
network and sufficient multimodal terminal infrastructure is often still lacking throughout 
the  territory.  This  is  penalising  the  competitiveness  of  rail  freight.  In  particular  the 
possibility  to  run  740m  long  trains  would  create  immediate  capacity  gains  and  trains 
productivity gains. In addition, while the completion of major infrastructure projects such 
as the HSL Munich-Berlin (see chapter 3), the HSL London-Paris-Brussels-Amsterdam-
Cologne or the Oresund fixed link have greatly improved the efficiency of the transport 
system other major cross-border links such as the Brenner Base tunnel or Rail Baltica are 
not yet completed.  

The  efficient  use  of  TEN-T  infrastructure  requires  the  development  of  the  network  as 
foreseen  in  the  Regulation  as  a  necessary  conditions,  but  further  conditions  for  the 
efficiency of the network are determined in complementary legislation. An example here 
are pricing and tolling approaches that can affect modal choice and thus the efficient use 
of  the  infrastructure  available.  However,  such  measures  are  determined  by  MS 
individually. Another example is the priority setting by Member States in infrastructure 
construction and maintenance investments. 

The  most  noteworthy  contributions  on  this  question  have  been  collected  through  the 
OPC.  Here  survey  participants  were  asked  to  provide  their  feedback  on  the  extent  to 
which the TEN-T guidelines achieved a better and more efficient use of existing and new 
infrastructure  while  increasing  benefits  for  the  users.  While  thirty-two  percent  of 
respondents asserted that the Regulation either completely (10%) or mostly (22%) helped 
to increase the efficiency of infrastructure use and provision in the EU overall and 40% 
reported that it partly helped the picture for the freight sector was much more negative. 
Here only 7% of respondents indicated that the aim had been mostly met, while the broad 
majority was split between those who reported that the objective had been partially met 
(63%), those who believed that it had not been met (16%) and those who did not have an 
opinion on this particular aspect. In addition participants from the OPC recommended the 
adoption of a new EU KPI on infrastructure safety in TEN-T policy and along the TEN-T 
network  in  order  to  ensure  a  better  and  more  efficient  use  of  existing  and  new 
infrastructure. 

Extent to which the Regulation enables the efficient use of TEN-T infrastructure for high 
quality and innovative passenger mobility services104 

This question has been replied to under evaluation question N° 6. 

71 

 
 
                                                           
 
5.4. COHERENCE 

The  evaluation  of  coherence  involves  assessing  whether  or  not  different  actions  work 
well together. It helps highlighting areas where there are complementarities or synergies, 
which  improve  overall  performance;  or  sheds  light  on  issues  that  are  contradictory  or 
cause  inefficiencies.  In  the  evaluation  both  the  "internal"  coherence  -  how  the  various 
provisions and requirements of the TEN-T Regulation to achieve their objectives  – and 
the  “external"  coherence  –  the  alignment  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  with  other  EU 
policies in transport and relevant areas - have been assessed.  

5.4.1.  Evaluation  Question  10:  How  coherent  and  consistent  are 

the 
requirements and provisions set out in the Regulation with one another and 
with  related  transport  policy  fields?  To  what  extent  are  there  differences, 
overlaps and/or inconsistencies? 

Coherence of provisions with one another 

Most  respondents  to  the  global  survey  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  different 
provisions  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  are  coherent  among  themselves  (79%).  Also 
stakeholders  taking  part  in  the  global  interviews  did  not  see  major  contradictions  or 
overlaps.  Respondents to the Open Public Consultation came to a similar conclusion but 
also  considered  that  there  are  a  number  of  gaps  and  inconsistencies  in  the  TEN-T 
Regulation.  

68% of the respondents to the global survey, for example, saw incoherencies between the 
provisions  for  the  different  transport  modes  Stakeholders  from  the  maritime  sector 
(notably from ports) who took an active part in the different consultations, pointed to the 
complexity of the eligibility criteria for Motorways of the Sea and underlined their strong 
similarity with cross-border projects for land transport modes. They also questioned the 
differentiation  between  “tourists”  and  “passengers”  -  which  is  made  in  no  other  sector. 
Stakeholders from the inland waterway sector saw incoherencies. Especially the findings 
in  the  maritime  sector  are  strongly  confirmed  by  expert  work  within  the  Commission, 
which  is  underpinned  by  external  expert  groups  around  definitions  such  as  “core”  and 
“comprehensive” inland ports. 

In  spite  of  the  fact,  that  the  majority  of  the  respondents  to  the  different  surveys  saw  a 
large level of inner coherence between the provisions of the Regulation, the disagreement 
rate remains high and calls for efforts to enhance this coherence.  

Gaps and inconsistencies in the Regulation as seen in the OPC, various targeted 
stakeholder consultations and internal analysis of the Commission 

 

 

Incoherencies between the provisions for the different modes, for example in terms of 
priority setting (very challenging on inland waterways; lacking attention for national 
specificities in rail, different levels of detail and clarity – for example lack of clarity 
around power supply and LNG terminals in seaports). 
Incoherent provisions for the enabling of services for passengers on the one hand and 
for  freight  on  the  other  (the  lack  of  a  passenger  perspective  is,  for  example, 
highlighted in case study n° 8) 

  Repetition around multi-modal infrastructures, where many of the provisions apply in 
a  similar  way  to  the  different  terminal  types  and  could  benefit  from  horizontal 
streamlining    (support  in  OPC  and  strongly  underpinned  by  the  Commission’s  own 
expert analysis) 
Incoherencies  between  objectives,  measures  and  priorities  within  the  provisions  of 
the Regulation  

 

72 

 
 

Incoherencies  between  common  provisions  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  in  level  of 
detail  and  clarity  or  applicability/relevance,  e.g.  in  relation  to  urban  nodes,  safety, 
security, resilience or freight services (results from case study findings, for example 
n°  1,  3,  4,  6,  7,  8  as  well  as  from  own  expert  work  of  the  Commission,  backed  by 
expert group input).  

  Need  for  clearer  links  between  Motorways  of  the  Sea  and  the  Core  Network 

Corridors; 

Besides  the  assessment  of  the  current  provisions  of  the  Regulation,  stakeholders  also 
looked  for  coherence  with  new  developments,  notably  on  military  mobility  and 
infrastructure  for  zero  and  low  emission  mobility.  In  such  areas,  the  Regulation  lacks 
relevance  (see  EQs  2  and  3),  and  the  evaluation  recommends  adjustment  of  the 
Regulation to ensure coherence in the future.    

Coherence of provisions with other transport policy fields 

As  outlined  in  previous  chapters  the  TEN-T  infrastructure  policy  is  directly  linked  to 
most  other  transport  policy  areas  such  multi-modality,  alternative  fuels,  digitalisation, 
freight  and  passenger  transport  services,  automation  etc.  Indeed,  TEN-T  does  not  only 
complement  such  initiatives  but  is  rather  the  infrastructural  basis  for  them  to  function. 
For  example,  there  cannot  be  modal  shift  without  the  respective  infrastructure  in 
sufficient capacity in place. However, looking at the coherence with those other transport 
fields the evaluation has found that even though the provisions of the TEN-T Regulation 
are  mostly  coherent  with  developments  in  other  transport  fields,  rapid  developments  in 
some areas are putting this coherence into question. 

In  this  vein,  most  respondents  to  the  global  survey  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the 
provisions  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation  are  coherent  with  other  ongoing  and  expected 
developments  in  most  transport  policy  areas  such  as  multi-modality  (69%  agreement); 
alternative  fuels  (68%);  digitalisation  (68%);  new  technologies  (65%);  freight  transport 
services  (64%); passenger transport services  (60%); automation (54%).  Agreement  was 
less pronounced in the field of accessibility for all (49%) as well as in the area of new 
mobility  schemes  (46%).  Respondents  to  the  OPC,  partly  asked  about  the  same  policy 
fields (e.g. on alternative fuel infrastructure or an automation) and partly about different 
ones (e.g. urban mobility or new mobility patterns), on the contrary, saw a high degree of 
incoherence.  Only  one  third  found  the  Regulation  to  be  coherent  with  ongoing  and 
expected  future  developments.  Interviewees  called  in  particular  for  strengthened 
provisions to accelerate decarbonisation in transport and meeting the EU climate-neutral 
vision  laid  down  in  the  “A  Clean  Planet  for  All”  Strategy105  (see  also  EQ  1  on 
Relevance).  

Evaluation findings related to coherence with connected policy areas are further detailed 
below. 

Coherence with urban mobility policies 

Findings  from  the  desk  research  carried  out  under  Case  Study  1  underpinned  by 
stakeholders interviewed showed a certain degree of coherence between urban mobility 
policies  and  the  provisions  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  on  urban  nodes,  specifically 
highlighting Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) as potential good practices for 
the connection between  TEN-T network infrastructure  and local/regional infrastructure. 
However,  planning  principles,  such  as  the  top-down  approach  adopted  at  TEN-T  level 

105 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0773  

73 

 
 
                                                           
and the approach for SUMP planning, as well as the single project focus on TEN-T level 
and the integrated measure packages for SUMP planning, were seen as contrasting. 

Comments  from  online  survey  respondents  in  Case  Study  1  highlighted  that  the 
Regulation lacks a focus on functionalities of urban nodes as hubs for both passenger and 
freight transport. In addition, survey findings also suggested that the scope on transport 
nodes is too narrow, as it excludes other relevant local/regional transport hubs. Moreover, 
uptake  of  innovative  solutions  in  urban  nodes  are  not  considered  to  be  adequately 
addressed in the Regulation’s provisions. 

Coherence with developments in the field of alternative fuels 

The TEN-T Regulation foresees that alternative clean fuels shall be made available along 
the core network for maritime and inland waterway, road and air transport. As could be 
seen from the Commission’s own work, this focus on the core network is too narrow to 
really help promoting the uptake of alternative fuels across borders and in all regions of 
the  EU.  Furthermore,  these  provisions  lack  specificity  (while  generally  respecting  the 
principle  of  technological  neutrality),  which  entails  risks  of  isolated  approaches,  cross-
border discontinuity or technological barriers. This is due to insufficient requirements in 
the current AFID Directive which is therefore currently under revision in order to fill this 
gap. The TEN-T Regulation shall provide the geographical  and infrastructural basis for 
the deployment of alternative fuels,  but  will not include new standards or requirements 
for alternative fuels going beyond what the new AFID Directive will define.  

Consequently, respondents  to  the global survey stated a general  lack of attention in  the 
TEN-T  Regulation  on  the  development  of  renewable  energy  (infrastructure)  and 
highlighted  the  need  to  speed  up  the  deployment  of  a  coherent  and  accessible  cross-
border infrastructure for alternative fuels. In this respect, the Regulation was found to be 
outdated  and  in  need  to  be  brought  in  line  with  the  aspirations  of  the  European  Green 
Deal.  Respondents  particularly  emphasised  that  deployment  of  the  alternative  fuel 
infrastructure needed to be made a general priority of the Comprehensive Network as it 
already is for the Core Network and that the TEN-T Regulation needed to fully recognise 
the electrification needs in both networks. 

Relevant  ongoing  initiatives  in  the  Commission  have  already  fully  integrated  such 
stakeholder assessment. The TEN-T Regulation reflects the status of 2013 - in the field of 
alternative fuels as in many other transport policy areas. The EU Directive on Alternative 
Fuel  Infrastructure106 (AFID), setting more specific requirements  – with  a direct  link to 
TEN-T core network infrastructure – was only adopted in 2014. Therefore, it will now be 
an obvious matter of coherence, to take up requirements from the AFID as new binding 
requirements in TEN-T. More importantly, given the fast developments in this sector and 
their  key  importance  for  decarbonisation  in  transport,  the  AFID  is  currently  in  the 
process  of  revision  (legislative  proposal  foreseen  for  mid-2021).  In  order  to  ensure 
coherence, the evaluation points to a need of aligning TEN-T Regulation and the AFID 
which  will  be  revised  in  future.  In  this  context,  the  work  of  the  Commission  also 
confirms  the  need  for  an  extension  of  binding  requirements  from  the  core  to  the 
comprehensive network.  

106   Directive  2014/94/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  October  2014  on  the 

deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure 

74 

 
 
 
                                                           
Coherence with research and innovation policies, new technologies and digitalisation 

More than half (65%) of the respondents to the global survey agreed or strongly agreed 
that  the  provisions  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation  are  coherent  with  expected  developments 
connected  to  new  technologies.  However,  findings  from  the  desk  research  showed  that 
the  implementation  of  new  technologies  and  innovation  in  the  TEN-T  network  still 
follows  an  ad-hoc  approach107.  The  deployment  of  new  technologies  is  at  times 
fragmented and unsynchronised and, the level of research and innovation maturity tends 
to vary between Core Network Corridors. In this respect several stakeholders interviewed 
in Case Study 4 argued that Article 33 of the TEN-T Guidelines on ‘New Technologies 
and  Innovation’  could  be  reinforced  to  better  support  innovation  by  including  testing, 
standardisation, certification and deployment stages for autonomous modes of transport.  

As  regards  digitalisation  the  majority  of  respondents  to  the  case  study  6  survey  (65%) 
agreed or strongly agreed that TEN-T projects in the field of digitalisation are coherent 
with or complementary to relevant research and innovation projects. However, less than 
half (39%) agreed or strongly agreed that the provisions of the Regulation are sufficient 
to  ensure coherence between the deployment  of digital  infrastructure across  the TEN-T 
network,  with  a  larger  percentage  of  respondents  (49%)  disagreeing  or  strongly 
disagreeing with the statement. An example for the deployment of digital infrastructure 
across the TEN-T to promote an innovative technology and to stimulate sustainable and 
attractive  user  services  is  C-ITS.  The  lacking  relevance  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  for 
such  future-oriented  transport  and  mobility  solutions  was  also  highlighted  in  EQ  3 
(reference to case study n° 4).  

Coherence with ITS (road) policy, including the basis for multi-modal and new mobility 
patterns 

Opinions  of  respondents  to  the  global  survey  were  divided  when  asked  whether  the 
provisions in the TEN-T Regulation are coherent with expected developments connected 
to new mobility schemes, with 46% who agreed or strongly agreed, 33% who disagreed 
or  strongly  disagreed.  Stakeholders  consulted  in  the  framework  of  Case  Study  4 
expressed  more  positive  views  on  this  issue  with  more  than  half  (58%)  agreeing  or 
strongly agreeing  

An example of such a new mobility scheme can be found in the ITS Directive, referred to 
in Article 3 of the TEN-T Regulation. It can for example serve as a basis for the adoption 
of a coherent set of rules at EU level in order to create a single market for cooperative, 
connected and automated vehicles. In addition, the Delegated Regulations adopted on the 
basis of the C-ITS Directive, for instance on road safety, real-time-traffic and multimodal 
travel  information,  provide  the  necessary  legal  and  technical  framework  to  steer  and 
ensure  the  interoperability  of  deployed  ITS  services  along  the  TEN-T  network.  The 
Evaluation of the ITS Directive108, pointed out that the integration of ITS applications and 
cooperative  systems  with  transport  infrastructure  can  improve  efficiency,  usability  and 
reduce costs. 

Coherence with passenger rights legislation 

Passengers Rights is a field where constant progress has been made over the last decade. 
Better  protecting  consumers  and  allowing  for  EU-wide  rules  and  procedures  in  case  of 
delays  and  cancellations  of  transport  services  has  been  a  clear  EU  priority.  Although 
TEN-T  is  an  infrastructure  policy,  its  final  aim  is  to  enable  seamless  mobility  for 

107   Issue  Papers  of  European  Coordinators  -  TEN-T  Corridors:  Forerunners  of  a  forward-looking 

European Transport System, DG MOVE, 2016 

108   Commission staff working document Ex post evaluation of the Intelligent Transport Systems Directive 

2010/40/EU {SWD(2019) 369 final}, 2010 

75 

 
                                                           
passengers and freight across the EU. It can thus be a bridge for the different passenger 
rights legislations, especially regarding persons with disabilities and reduced mobility.  

In  this  regard  some  stakeholders  interviewed  for  Case  Study  8  pointed  out  that  it  is 
important  that  TEN-T  policy  acts  as  a  bridge  for  the  different  passenger  rights 
legislations,  especially  regarding  persons  with  disabilities  and  reduced  mobility. 
However  less  than  half  of  respondents  to  the  online  survey  (19  out  of  42)  agreed  or 
strongly agreed that the definition of accessibility (Article 37) in the TEN-T Regulation 
is coherent with other European policies, such as the European Accessibility Act and the 
Regulations on passenger rights. 

Coherence between passenger and freight transport provisions across modes 

Findings  on  Case  Study  3  highlighted  different  views  in  relation  to  the  coherence 
between  passenger  and  freight  transport  in  the  different  modes  of  Transport.  Maritime, 
inland waterways  and multimodal  transport stakeholders argued that passengers are not 
duly taken into account in the TEN-T Regulation. On the other hand, stakeholders related 
to air transport emphasised the opposite, meaning that passengers are well covered while 
the same does not happen with air cargo. 

5.4.2.  Evaluation  Question  11:  How  coherent  is  the  TEN-T  Regulation  with 

other EU policy areas and other Trans-European network policies? 

Coherence with other relevant EU policies 

While  the  TEN-T  Regulation  naturally  links  to  cohesion,  internal  market,  urban  and 
neighbourhood  policies  it  also  links  to  Digitalisation,  Climate,  Environmental,  Energy, 
public health and Research policies  via its  provisions  on  Intelligent  Transport Systems, 
Innovation and Alternative Fuels. Since adoption of Regulation 1315/2013, these policy 
areas  have  been  quickly  evolving  especially  with  a  view  to  Energy,  Climate  and 
Digitalisation  policies  and  the  political  context  has  been  dramatically  changing  most 
notably with the European Green Deal Agenda and the Climate Target Plan. For example 
the Green Deal calls for GHG emission reductions in the transport sector of 90% between 
1990-2050 on the path towards climate neutrality of the economy overall. 

Literature sources clearly point to the fact that the trans-European networks can help to 
deliver  on  long-term  green  and  inclusive  growth  for  the  EU109  and  contribute  to 
achieving  European  climate  goals  and  the  objectives  from  the  COP  21  Paris 
Agreement.110 
The results of the consultation activities undertaken in the course of the evaluation show 
that the TEN-T Regulation is perceived as coherent with regards to other EU policies to a 
certain  extent,  but  further  alignments  are  recommended  to  increase  the  impact  of  the 
Regulation going forward.  

This is confirmed by stakeholders in the global survey who agreed or strongly agreed that 
the TEN-T Regulation is coherent with other EU policies in the areas of: environmental, 
climate  and  resource  efficiency  (76%);  social/territorial  policy  (69%);  urban  policy 
(66%); trade/ international competitiveness (62%); neighbourhood and cooperation with 

109   Reflection Paper – Towards a sustainable Europe by 2030, EC, 2019 
110   European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2017 on logistics in the EU and multimodal transport in 

the new TEN-T corridors (2015/2348(INI)) 

76 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
third  countries  (57%);  international  agreements  related  (56%)  and  research/innovation 
(56%).  

Figure 7: To what extent do you agree that the TEN-T Regulation is coherent with other 
relevant EU policies (n=198) 

Environmental, climate and resource efficiency
issues

22% 

0%

50%

54% 

100%

16% 

4% 

4% 

Social/territorial dimension

11% 

 Urban policy, City / urban development
strategies

11% 

58% 

55% 

8% 

2% 

22% 

14% 

4% 

16% 

 Trade and international competitiveness

12% 

50% 

15% 

2% 

22% 

Neighbourhood and cooperation with third
countries
International agreements related with the
transport sector within the EU

12% 

12% 

Research innovation in new technologies

5% 

Public health

9% 

45% 

44% 

51% 

42% 

9% 

2% 

33% 

14% 

3% 

27% 

11% 

3% 

30% 

19% 

5% 

26% 

Official statistical data per mode of transport

7% 

43% 

19% 

1% 

30% 

Internal market

6% 

42% 

7% 

1% 

45% 

Home affairs and security

8% 

38% 

12% 

4% 

38% 

TEN - Energy

6% 

27% 

17% 

4% 

45% 

TEN - Communication

4% 

29% 

7% 

1% 

60% 

Other EU relevant policies not listed above

3% 

6% 

5% 

1% 

86% 

strongly agree

agree

disagree

strongly disagree

don't know

Source: Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) N° 1315/2013 – global survey 

However,  when  asked  to  specify  their  answers  respondents  most  frequently  centred  on 
the topic of environmental, climate and resource efficiency, emphasising the need for a 
closer  alignment  between  the  TEN-T  Regulation  and  the  Renewable  Energy  and 
Alternative  Fuels  Infrastructure  Directives,  and  calling  for  stronger  coherence  between 
the TEN-T Regulation and the new proposal for a European Green Deal. 

The responses to the global interviews point in the same direction. While acknowledging 
the  coherence  of  the  Regulation  with  other  EU  policies  and  initiatives,  interviewees 
called for further alignment with the EU Green Deal; Road safety; Alternative fuels; CO2 
emission  standards;  Clean  Vehicles  Directive.  Furthermore  respondents  mentioned  that 
synergies  with  other  sectors,  such  as  the  energy  sector,  the  defence  sector  (military 
mobility),  the  environmental  sector  and  urban  mobility  (SUMPs)  could  be  better 
developed. Whereas TEN-T policy provides the strategic framework for a wide and long-
distance traffic network, which includes urban nodes as transfer points, urban policy as 
such  addresses  local  transport  within  urban  nodes.  As  such  there  is  no  inconsistency 
between TEN-T and urban policy but instead a high complementarity.  

77 

 
 
Answers to the OPC on this question were mixed and in some instances contradictory to 
the  results  of  the  global  survey  and  the  interviews.  Areas  in  which  more  respondents 
noted  that  there  was  sufficient  coherence  compared  to  insufficient  coherence  included: 
structural  and  cohesion  policy  (45%),  economic/trade  policy  (40%),  and  sustainable 
urban mobility policy  (37%). Areas  in  which more respondents  reported that  there  was 
insufficient  coherence  included:  environmental  policy  (41%),  cooperation  with  third 
countries (32%), and social/employment policy (23%).  

Coherence with other trans-European networks’ policies 

This section looks at the coherence of the TEN-T Regulation with regards the other two 
trans-European networks, Energy and Telecommunications. As specified in Article 5 of 
the  TEN-T  Regulation  the  network  shall  be  planned,  developed  and  operated  in  a 
resource-efficient  way  taking  into  account  possible  synergies  with  other  networks,  in 
particular  trans-European  energy  or  telecommunication  networks.  While  the  three 
regulations  objectives  are  broadly  aligned  and  coherent  with  each  other  the  evaluation 
has  found  very  little  evidence  that  those  synergies  have  occurred  to  the  extent 
anticipated. 

Consequently, the majority of stakeholders consulted on this question stated that they did 
not know whether TEN-T Regulation was coherent  with TEN-Energy (45%) and TEN-
Telecom  (60%)  as  can  be  seen  from  figure  7.  In  case  of  TEN-Energy  33%  expressed 
agreement  or  strong  agreement  that  TEN-T  was  coherent  while  21%  disagreed  or 
strongly  disagreed.  In  the  case  of  TEN-Telecom,  those  numbers  were  33%  and  8% 
respectively.  This  hints  to  a  potential  for  a  better  alignment  and  the  creation  of  more 
synergies  between  the  trans-European  policies.  The  new  CEF  will  rectify  this  to  some 
extent. More synergies can also be expected due to the revised TEN-E Regulation (e.g. 
on alternative fuels).  

Some further evidence on this question could be obtained from the case studies although 
with a more forward looking angle.  

According to case study 4 stakeholders, discussing the growing relevance of ITS systems 
for the completion of the network, and taking into consideration resilience principles, it is 
important  to  recognise  that  the  digital  layer  of  infrastructure  will  allow  to  expand  the 
benefits beyond the TEN-T network and corridors design, spilling effects over regional 
and local streets. 

Nevertheless,  82% of Case Study 4 survey  respondents  considered that  expected future 
challenges  in  transport  call  for  more  synergies  with  the  other  TEN  policies,  with  40% 
arguing that the TEN-T Regulation is not coherent with the objectives and priorities laid 
down  in  energy  and  telecommunications.  Foresight  experts  also  advocated  editing  the 
text  of  Article  31  (telematics  applications)  making  a  direct  link  to  TEN-Telecom. 
Moreover,  further  alignment  between  these  three  areas  has  been  highlighted  by 
Hyperloop  promoters,  who  confirmed 
they  are  discussing  standards  with 
that 
stakeholders from the energy and telecommunication sectors for their prototypes. 

5.4.3.  Evaluation  Question  12:  To  what  extent  is  the  overall  concept  of  the 
to  relevant  EU 

the  Regulation,  complementary 

in 

TEN-T,  as  set 
instruments? 

The  ambitious  goals  to  complete  the  core  TEN-T  network  by  2030  and  the 
comprehensive  network  by  2050  demand  significant  efforts  to  close  gaps  between  the 
Member  States,  removing  bottlenecks  and  overcoming  technical  barriers.  The  TEN-T 
provides the policy framework for EU funding in particular from the Connecting Europe 

78 

 
 
Facility (CEF) and the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), as well as for 
interventions  from  the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB).  Furthermore,  in  its  external 
dimension,  it  establishes  a  basis  for  EU  funding  in  the  field  of  pre-accession, 
enlargement, foreign policy cooperation and development aid.  

More  than  half  of  the  respondents  to  the  global  survey  were  positive  about  the 
contribution  of  these  EU  instruments  to  TEN-T  implementation.    Furthermore,  most 
stakeholders agreed or strongly agreed that TEN-T policy, besides the main instruments 
CEF,  ESIF  and  EIB  interventions,  provides  a  very  good  basis  for  the  combination  of 
relevant EU resources. There are, in particular, strong potentials for complementary and 
the  generation  of  synergies  with  Instruments  such  as  Horizon  2020  and  other  EU 
Research  and  Innovation  programmes  (COST  or  LIFE).    Despite  these  positive  views, 
work  still  needs  to  be  reinforced  in  terms  of  strengthening  synergies  between 
programmes and instruments and their alignment with the policy orientation of the TEN-
T Regulation.  

Extent  to  which  TEN-T  is  complementary  to  EU  funding  instruments  and  programmes 
supporting transport infrastructure 

As  has  been  shown  in  chapter  3  and  as  outlined  in  the  2014-2015111  and  2016-2017112 
Progress Reports on implementation of the TEN-T network significant progress has been 
made in implementing the TEN-T network since the entry into force of this regulation. 
While  the  majority  of  the  funding  for  the  TEN-T  network  is  provided  by  the  member 
states,  the  support  from  the  main  EU  funds  available  for  TEN-T  policy  has  been 
important. These funding instruments and programmes include: 

the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) 

 
  The  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  i.e.  the  European 

Regional and Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF).  

  European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and traditional  
  European Investment Bank (EIB) lending.  

In  addition,  blending  of  EFSI  with  CEF  and  ESI  funds  was  facilitated  in  order  to 
maximise the use of the different forms of EU support113.  

Complementarity with the Connecting Europe Facility 

A  broad  majority  of  respondents  to  the  global  survey  (82%)  agreed  or  strongly  agreed 
that  the  funding  opportunities  under  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF)  are  aligned 
with  TEN-T  priorities  (82%).  There  was  consensus  that  CEF  is  an  important  funding 
mechanism  and  that  the  CEF  transport  blending  facility  is  very  useful.  However, 
stakeholders  noted  that  the  CEF  budget  alone  was  insufficient  to  fulfil  the  TEN-T 
requirements  in  the  Member  States.  This  sentiment  was  mirrored  in  the  interviews 
complemented by the criticism that most CEF funding in the current programming period 
2014-2020  has  been  invested  in  rail  networks,  leaving  insufficient  funding  for  other 
transport modes. 

111   Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Progress report on implementation of the TEN-T network in 2014-
2015 https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/com20170327-progress-report-tent-2014-2015.pdf 

112   Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Progress report on implementation of the TEN-T network in 2016-
2017, 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ea150c2a-e796-11ea-ad25-
2020, 
August 
01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

113   Opportunities  for  the  transport  sector  under  the  Investment  Plan:  Non-paper  to  Ministers  for  8  October  2015 

Transport Council 

79 

 
 
                                                           
Complementarity with other EU instruments 

Global  survey  respondents  expressed  high  levels  of  agreement  on  the  complementarity 
between TEN-T and other EU funding instruments, including with Horizon 2020 (75%), 
ESIF (67%) and other EU Research and Innovation programmes (63%). Although some 
regional differences could be identified. 

  While most respondents from all regions agreed or strongly agreed that TEN-T is 
complementary  to  ESIF,  this  proportion  was  smaller  among  respondents  from 
Western  Europe  (52%),  compared  with  Central  and  Eastern  (82%),  Southern 
(72%) and Northern Europe (69%).  

  Contrarily,  the  proportion  of  respondents  who  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  on  the 
complementarity  of  EU  Research  and  Innovation  Programmes  with  TEN-T  was 
smaller  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  (52%),  compared  with  Southern  (72%), 
Northern (69%) and Western Europe (61%).  

These regional differences can be explained by the fact that ESIF funds are especially 
relevant for cohesion countries, most of them Member States from Central and Eastern 
Europe which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. The participation of these countries in 
Research  and  Innovation  projects  is  increasing  but  is  still  lower  in  comparison  to 
Member States in other regions. 

5.5. EU ADDED-VALUE 

EU-added  value  looks  for  changes  that  can  reasonably  be  argued  are  due  to  the  EU 
intervention, and that exceed what could have been expected from national actions by the 
Member  States.  Under  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  (Article  5  TFEU),  and  in  areas  of 
non-exclusive  competence,  the  EU  should  only  act  when  the  objectives  can  be  better 
achieved  by  Union  action  rather  than  action  by  the  Member  States  alone.  In  this 
evaluation we have explored if the same results would have been achieved in the absence 
of the TEN-T Regulation, what  would have been the impact  of its discontinuation, and 
what  value  brings  an  EU-wide  approach  to  the  development  of  a  trans-European 
transport network. 

in 

the  Regulation?  Could 

5.5.1.  Evaluation Question 13: What is the EU added value of TEN-T policy as 
set 
the  results  have  been  achieved  at 
national/regional level without the Regulation and what would have been the 
impacts  of  its  discontinuation?  What  is  the  added  value  of  the  broadened 
stakeholder community in the implementation of TEN-T? 

Achievement of results at national and/or regional level 

The 2011 White Paper on Transport identifies TEN-T as the infrastructure  pillar of the 
Single  European  Transport  Area.  The  network  approach  of  the  TEN-T  policy  was 
designed  to  remove  bottlenecks  and  allow  seamless  and  interoperable  mobility 
throughout  high  capacity  corridors.  This  ambition  could  not  be  addressed  by  Member 
States alone, since their jurisdiction ends at national borders.  

Within TEN-T, the Core Network Corridors are considered the backbone of the TEN-T, 
connecting  international  hubs  and  economic  areas,  being  key  to  the  free  circulation  of 
goods, services and workers in the international market, as well as connecting with other 
national,  regional  and local  infrastructures.  By that  they are improving the accessibility 

80 

 
 
 
 
of  regions  for  citizens  throughout  the  European  Union.  In  the  time  since  the 
implementation  of  this  approach,  the  Core  Network  Corridors  have  reached  maturity, 
having become an important tool to facilitate trade and international cooperation, which 
is  also  strongly  driven  by  the  unified  efforts  for  reaching  common  infrastructure 
standards.  

The stakeholder consultation has shown a high level of agreement with regard to the EU 
added  value  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  The  vast  majority  of  respondents  to  the  global 
survey  (85%  and  84%,  respectively)  disagreed  or  strongly  disagreed  that  the  results  of 
the TEN-T policy could have been achieved at the regional level and at the national level 
without  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  This  assessment  was  mirrored  throughout  the  Case 
studies and in the global interviews. 

Effects if TEN-T policy would have been / would be discontinued 

As  explained  in  chapter  1,  TEN-T  policy  is  a  well  established  policy  for  almost  three 
decades.  It  has  constantly  been  evolving  and  broadened  in  scope.  As  has  been  shown 
earlier  Member  States  have  aligned  their  infrastructure  transport  plans  to  TEN-T 
priorities  and  objectives  acknowledging  the  need  for  better  pan-European  transport 
connections  in  order  to  enhance  passenger  and  trade  flows  within  the  internal  market. 
The  expected  socio-economic  effects  of  a  discontinuation  of  TEN-T  policy    have  been 
explored in the 2015 study on the cost of non-completion of TEN-T114.  

This  study  analysed  the  impact  of  non-completion  of  the  core  TEN-T network  by  
2030 assuming that  core network  implementation  remains  at  the  status  of  2015. This 
means investment would not be made and transport time and cost savings of the TEN-T 
would not be achieved. The study found that the economic impacts of non-completion of 
the core TEN-T would be very substantial. The GDP of the EU would remain 1.8% lower 
and  about  730,000  jobs  would  not  be  created  in  2030.  The  study  also  found  that 
discontinuing  TEN-T  investments  in  cross-border  projects  and  in  the  deployment  of 
innovative technologies would have the highest adverse effects in terms of GDP growth 
and  employment.  This  confirms  the  added  value  of  TEN-T  in  terms  of  creating  cross- 
border transport links and filling missing links as well as deploying innovative transport 
solutions along the network.   

In  addition  to  those  findings,  a  model-based  analysis  was  carried  out  as  part  of  the 
evaluation support study (see Annex 3 for details). The baseline scenario developed for 
this  exercise  is  drawing  on  the  baseline  scenario  underpinning  the  Impact  Assessment 
accompanying  the  revision  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  of  2013  but  updating  the  macro-
economic  and  technological  assumptions.  In  addition,  policy  measures  adopted  by  the 
end  of  2019  have  been  considered,  except  for  the  implementation  of  the  TEN-T 
regulation.  This  shows  how  the  situation  as  regards  transport  activity  and  emissions 
would  develop  from  end  2019  to  2050  in  absence  of  the  TEN-T  policy.  In  comparing 
those  results  with  the  counterfactual  (see  EQ  15  for  details)  shows  the  impacts  of  the 
TEN-T regulation as revised in 2013. 

In  the  Baseline  scenario  (without  the  TEN-T  Regulation  in  place)  total  passenger 
transport activity is projected to follow a steadily increasing trend from 2010 to 2050. 
The  modal  share  of  road  transport  (i.e.  passenger  cars,  public  transport,  2-wheelers)  is 
found to slightly decrease from 83% in 2010 to 78% in 2050. The reduction in the modal 
share  of  road  is  due  to  the  increase  in  the  growth  of  aviation.  As  regards  the 
developments  in  the  passenger  railway  sector,  model  results  indicate  a  rather  stable 
modal  share  throughout  the  projection  period,  in  absence  of  railway  infrastructure 
investments related to the core and comprehensive network. 

114 Cost of non-completion of the TEN-T, Final Report, Schade et al., 2015 

81 

 
                                                           
In the Baseline scenario, the total freight transport activity is projected to grow in the 
period  2010-2050  driven  by  GDP  growth.  The  absence  of  the  TEN-T  core  and 
comprehensive network implementation fails to provide sufficient transport infrastructure 
coverage and inter-modal  integration (road, rail  and inland navigation) and, as a  result, 
road  freight  continues  to  hold  a  relatively  stable  modal  share  until  2050.  The  modal 
shares  of  freight  rail  and  inland  navigation  (incl.  inland  waterways  and  national 
maritime) are also projected to remain stable throughout the projection period. 

Overall  CO2,  NOx  and  PM  emissions  would  be  higher  in  the  Baseline  scenario  as 
compared to the scenario with the TEN-T in place. 

When asking stakeholders on this specific point the vast majority of respondents to the 
global survey (95% and 92%, respectively) agreed or strongly agreed that through TEN-
T European regions and cities and their citizen’s benefit from enhanced connectivity and 
accessibility (see examples in chapter 3). The sentiment was echoed by interviewees who 
felt  that  if  the  Regulation  were  discontinued  the  negative  impact  would  be  particularly 
felt  in  relation  to  cross-border  sections,  interoperability  and  finally  the  internal  market. 
Ongoing  projects  would  be  affected  as  their  progress  would  be  slower,  they  would  be 
reduced in scope or even fully discontinued. Stakeholders also pointed to the added value 
in the coherent set of standards and requirements promoted by the Regulation which not 
only  fosters  interoperability  but  is  also  beneficial  to  industrial  actors.  In  this  respect 
discontinuing  TEN-T  would  risk  creating/maintaining  a  patchwork  of  national  and 
regional  solutions  hampering  cross-border  interoperability  and  negatively  impacting 
competiveness of the European industry. 

Effects of the Broadened TEN-T community on the development of TEN-T 

Through the tool of corridor fora led by the European core network corridor coordinators 
TEN-T has brought together a variety  of different  stakeholders from  different  levels  of 
government,  different  modes  and  different  member  states  with  a  common  interest  to 
drive  the  development  of  their  respective  corridor  (see  also  chapter  4).  In  the  view  of 
interviewees,  this  has  facilitated  the  exchange  of  views  and  good  practice  and  has 
fostered collaboration, especially along cross-border sections. Consequently, also 90% of 
respondents  to  the  global  survey  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  broadened  TEN-T 
community  adds  value  to  the  establishment  and  development  of  trans-European 
networks. 

Effects in relation to the cooperation with neighbouring and third countries 

the 

trans-European 

transport  network  extended 

As  outlined  in  chapter  one  the  2013  revision  of  the  TEN-T  regulation  newly  included 
indicative  maps  of 
to  specific 
neighbouring countries. Moreover it empowered the Commission to adopt delegated acts 
extending  those  indicative  maps  to  further  neighbouring  regions.  From  the  experience 
gained  with  this  exercise  the  indicative  maps  helped  providing  a  reference  point  for 
cooperation  on  planning  transport  infrastructure  development  in  those  countries,  with  a 
view  to  guaranteeing  continuity  and  fostering  transport  connectivity  of  the  EU.  They 
have  been  of  strong  mutual  interest  for  the  enhancement  of  strategic  multi-modal 
transport connections between the EU and the neighbouring regions concerned as well as 
for the promotion of economic development and exchange. 

Their  planning  is  based  on  the  same  methodology  as  that  of  the  TEN-T  within  the  EU 
and  covers  both  the  core  and  comprehensive  network  layers.  Although  these  indicative 
network  extensions  do  not  automatically  imply  mandatory  applicability  of  all  TEN-T 
standards  and  requirements  which  have  been  set  for  the  EU  Member  States  they  have 
helped  sharing  the  EU’s  methodology  for  transport  infrastructure  deployment  and  for 
promoting  EU’s  technical  standards,  regulatory  aspects  and  best  practices  in  terms  of 
financing. They have furthermore given orientation to International Financial Institutions, 

82 

 
relevant  EU  sources  as  well  as  national  and  private  investors  on  where  to  focus  their 
funding and activities in these region. 

A further new element is the enhanced cooperation between the EU and especially Asia 
in order to re-inforce the land transport corridors between those two regions in line with 
the  EU  Strategy  on  Connecting  Europe  and  Asia.  Also  in  this  respect  the  TEN-T 
regulation  including  the  indicative  maps  to  third  countries  and  the  infrastructure 
standards has proven to be a valuable reference basis in order to align those connections 
in geographical as well as in technological terms.  

5.5.2.  Evaluation  Question  14:  What  is  the  added  value  of  the  broad 
‘infrastructure’  scope  as  defined  in  the  Regulation?  To  what  extent  is  it 
adequate to incorporate ongoing and expected future societal, economic and 
technological  developments?  To  what  extent  are  the  binding  infrastructure 
standards sufficient to establish a high-quality infrastructure? 

As laid out earlier the TEN-T Regulation defines infrastructure in a very broad sense. In 
addition to the items related to the physical infrastructure which are clearly defined (such 
as railway lines, bridges, tunnels, stations, waterways, docks, airports, terminals etc.), it 
includes  much  more  flexible  terms  such  as  “associated  equipment”  or  “telematic 
applications”.  

Extent  to  which  the  ‘infrastructure’  scope  is  adequate  to  incorporate  ongoing  and 
expected future societal, economic and technological developments 

Desk  research  and  interviews  confirmed  that  the  main  areas  where  societal,  economic 
and technological changes are expected to impact the current provisions of the regulation 
relate to digitalisation (including automation), and interoperability. 

Thus  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  support  study  a  dedicated  case  study  on 
digitalisation was carried out. A large majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed 
with statements relating to the added-value of addressing digitalisation at the EU level as 
related  to  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  In  particular,  77%  of  survey  respondents  agreed  or 
strongly  agreed  that  the  TEN-T  Regulation  is  more  effective  than  similar  national 
policies for the deployment of digital technologies across the TEN-T network. According 
to the stakeholders the reasons for this include: 

  The need for cross-border cooperation in developing standards, specifications 
and interoperable systems along the network. One example was the creation 
of  eCall  call  emergency  centres  (aka  PSAPs  –  Public  Safety  Answering 
Points).  The  funding  of  eCall  call  centres  under  CEF  Transport,  while  a 
measure covered by TEN-T, benefits the whole road network and not simply 
the TEN-T corridors; 

  The need to develop a European community of users in order to define needs 

and help shape solutions. 

Digitalisation  efforts  require  a  common  understanding,  common  semantics,  and 
agreements on data types and formats in order for the system to function as a unified and 
seamless one. Accordingly, it is important to have a pan-EU understanding, and in view 
of the majority of interviewees, TEN-T would be the right policy instrument to facilitate 
their development. 

83 

 
 
Looking more ahead interviewees argued that digital  infrastructure115  should be seen as 
part of the physical infrastructure rather than as an add-on, which is  currently the case. 
For the TEN-T network to take full advantage of the efficiency gains brought about by 
digitalisation, a minimum level of digital infrastructure needs to be put in place. The need 
to  ensure  connectivity  along  the  network  was  also  mentioned  as  an  aspect  where 
synergies with TEN-Energy and TEN-Telecom could be explored. 

Extent  to  which  binding  infrastructure  standards  are  sufficient  for  establishing  a  high-
quality infrastructure 

The desk research, the interviews and the survey found that the definition of harmonised 
standards  to  reach  greater  interoperability,  sustainability  and  efficiency  of  the  transport 
infrastructure network have been generally appropriate and of EU-added value. However, 
in  case  of  new  construction,  renovation  and 
standards  are  currently  applied 
modernisation projects. There are currently no provisions in the TEN-T Regulation that 
allow  for  monitoring  that  the  high-quality  of  the  infrastructure,  once  attained,  is  being 
kept  over  time.  While  the  maintenance  of  the  TEN-T  network  is  the  responsibility  of 
Member States, the (predictive) monitoring of infrastructure should be a focus of TEN-T 
policy. 

The  issue  of  Monitoring  and  infrastructure  standards  has  been  further  explored  in  case 
study 7. From the findings, it could be concluded that while TEN-T policy has played an 
important  role  in  the  development  and  improvement  of  infrastructure  along  the  TEN-T 
network,  the  situation  is  less  positive  with  regards  the  reduction  in  the  quality  gaps, 
monitoring  and  infrastructure  maintenance  between  Member  States.  Each  Member 
State  has  a  specific  inspection  regime  in  place  for  the  monitoring  of  infrastructure.116 
On  the  other  hand,  important  strides  have  been  made  in  the  research  relating  to  the 
monitoring of key  infrastructures (such as bridges,  tunnels or retaining walls). National 
and  European  research  have  helped  develop  a  number  of  technologies  which  are  being 
deployed.  As  has  happened  in  other  fields  the  TEN-T  Regulation  could  support  the 
sharing  of  good  practices  and  the  rolling-out  of  these  technologies  by  introducing 
minimum standards for the monitoring of key infrastructure along the TEN-T network. 

Case Study 7 found furthermore that in terms of infrastructure construction, there are no 
binding  standards  set  out  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  Therefore,  different  standards  are 
being used along the TEN-T network. While the result on the quality might arguably not 
differ  much,  the  lack  of  harmonisation  in  these  quality  standards  can  have  an  adverse 
effect  on  the  effectiveness  of  TEN-T  objectives  relating  to  infrastructure  quality.  The 
most widely used technical specifications are Eurocodes, a set of ten European standards 
specifying reference design codes for buildings and civil engineering works. They apply 
to  the  structural  design  of  these  works  including  geotechnical  aspects,  structural  fire 
design  and  situations  including  earthquakes,  execution  and  temporary  structures.  The 
Eurocodes standards are voluntary, but some Member States include them as part of their 
national  legislation.  Some  interviewees  were  of  the  opinion  that  Eurocodes  would  be  a 

115   Digital infrastructure in the context used here refers to the physical assets required for the technologies 
to operate. In its widest definition, this includes unmovable sensors (on the road, rail and waterways 
infrastructure),  sensors  on  vehicles,  connectivity  solutions,  servers  and  data  centres  as  well  as  the 
device used by the final user (mobile phone, GPS device, computer etc). 

116   To  take  the  example  of  bridges,  inspections  are  an  important  element  of  the  life-cycle  approach  to 
these  infrastructures.  Different  procedures  are  in  place  to  ensure  the  monitoring  of  infrastructure  in 
Member  States.  In  France,  they  are  governed  by  the  ITSEOA  (Instruction  Technique  pour  la 
Surveillance et l'Entretien des Ouvrages d'Art).  In Spain, there are three levels of inspections, which 
take  place  at  different  intervals,  and  in  Germany,  periodical  structural  health  monitoring  of  bridges 
take place every 3 to 6 years to grade their structural health. 

84 

 
                                                           
good basis for technical specification for TEN-T infrastructure. However, there are some 
barriers to using Eurocodes. In particular, Eurocodes are technical specifications and not 
standards. As such, they are not compulsory. The case study also found that there were 
disagreements  amongst  stakeholders  as  to  whether  the  introduction  of  some  form  of 
technical requirements for new infrastructure monitoring were necessary.  

5.5.3.  Evaluation  Question  15:  To  what  extent  are  there  socio-economic 
benefits  of  the  EU-wide  network  approach  as  compared  to  an  approach 
focussing on a ‘patchwork’ of disconnected projects? 

This  questions  aims  to  establish  whether  the  EU-wide  network  approach  driven  by  the 
TEN-T Regulation (see chapter 3) has generated socio-economic benefits that would not 
have been possible to the same extent in the absence of the Regulation.  

The  positive  socio-economic  benefits  of  the  TEN-T  regulation  have  been  widely 
acknowledged  in  literature  such  as  in  the  aforementioned  2018  study  on  the  impact  of 
TEN-T completion on growth, jobs and the environment. As highlighted above this study 
concludes that in 2030 by implementing only the TEN-T core network EU-GDP would 
be  1.6%  higher  and  800.000  people  more  would  be  employed  compared  to  a  scenario 
without  TEN-T.  The  predecessor  study  on  the  cost  of  non-completion  of  TEN-T  (see 
EQ13  for  details)  additionally  concludes  that  the  implementation  of  the  core  network, 
including the cross-border projects and the innovative technologies, has been key for the 
growth of Europe’s economy during the 2008 post-financial crisis period. 

Economic  impacts  of  the  completion  of  the  core  network  by  2030,  for  example,  have 
been assessed in a study undertaken on behalf of the Commission and completed in 2019. 
This study has estimated that the full completion of the TEN-T core network generates – 
cumulatively – 7.5 million person years of employment until 2030. It is expected that the 
impacts  may  even  increase  after  2030,  once  the  entire  network  is  completed  and  the 
impacts  from  improved  connectivity  and  accessibility  will  fully  materialise.  Significant 
employment  impacts  are  expected,  besides  the  direct  and  indirect  effects  during 
construction  as  well  as  the  stimulation  of  regional  economic  activities,  in  innovative 
areas. Furthermore, the same study has shown that, thanks to the completion of the TEN-
T core network, a 1.6 percent GDP increase will be achieved by 2030 compared to 2017. 
Furthermore  the  study  showed  the  positive  effects  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  on  the 
efficiency  of  transport  flows  in  the  internal  market,  on  social,  economic  and  territorial 
cohesion  (improved  accessibility  of  all  regions,  entailing  new  economic  opportunities), 
sustainability (congestion reduction through removal of bottlenecks) and on user benefits.  

In  addition  to  that  a  modelling  exercise  has  been  undertaken  in  the  framework  of  this 
evaluation (see EQ13 and Annex 3 for details). The current trends and policies scenario 
developed  for  this  exercise  assumes  the  completion  of  the  TEN-T  core  and 
comprehensive  network  by  2030  and  2050  respectively.  Comparing  it  to  the  baseline 
scenario  (scenario  without  TEN-T  implementation)  shows  the  impacts  of  the  revised 
TEN-T Regulation by 2050 in terms of transport activity and emissions. 

In  terms  of  passenger  transport  activity  the  model  results  indicate  a  shift  towards 
railways starting from 2020 onwards. Railways (i.e. aggregate of conventional and high-
speed rail and tram-metro) are projected to increase their modal share by 1.1 p.p. in 2030 
and  1.8  p.p.  in  2050  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario.  High-speed  rail  was  found  to 
significantly  increase  its  modal  share  to  38%  of  the  rail  transport  activity  by  2030 
(relative  to  34%  in  the  baseline  scenario).  In  absolute  terms,  the  difference  in  the 
transport activity of high-speed rail between the two scenarios is projected to be around 
48 billion-pkm, in 2030 and 100 billion-pkm in 2050. 

85 

 
In  terms  of  freight  transport  activity  the  current  trends  and  policies  scenario  sees  the 
modal  share  of  rail  freight  transport  increasing  by  approx.  2  p.p.  (compared  to  the 
baseline  in  2030),  and  by  more  than  4  p.p.  (compared  to  baseline  in  2050)  to  the 
detriment of road freight transport. Inland navigation also shows some limited increase in 
its modal share by 2030 between the two scenarios.  

Model  results  indicate  higher  CO2  emissions  in  the  baseline  scenario  compared  to  the 
current trends and policies scenario, by about 14 and 31 Mtons CO2 by 2030 and 2050, 
respectively (i.e. 1.8% and 5.4% increase in 2030 and 2050, respectively). In cumulative 
terms,  the  baseline  scenario  shows  higher  CO2  emissions  relative  to  the  current  trends 
and policies scenario of about 73 and 530 Mt CO2 in 2030 and 2050, respectively (i.e. 
0.6% and 2.1% increase in 2030 and 2050, respectively).   

NOx  emissions  would  be  about  22  and  36  ktons  higher  in  the  baseline  scenario 
compared to the current trends and policies scenario by 2030 and 2050, respectively (i.e. 
1.4% and 3.6% increase in 2030 and 2050, respectively). PM emissions are projected to 
be  2  and  3  ktons  higher  in  the  baseline  scenario  compared  to  the  current  trends  and 
policies  scenario  by  2030  and  2050,  respectively  (i.e.  1.7%  and  5.6%  increase  in  2030 
and  2050,  respectively).  In  cumulative  terms,  the  baseline  scenario  shows  higher  NOx 
emissions of about 138 and 680 ktons NOx in 2030 and 2050, respectively, compared to 
current trends scenario (i.e. 0.4% and 1.2% increase in 2030 and 2050, respectively). PM 
emissions in cumulative terms are projected to be 10 and 53 ktons above current trends 
scenario in the baseline in 2030 and 2050, respectively (i.e. 0.5% and 1.6% increase in 
2030 and 2050, respectively). 

These two examples show the positive socio-economic effects of the TEN-T regulation 
in  terms  of  employment  and  GDP  growth.  It  is  furthermore  shown  that  the  Regulation 
positively  contributes  to  reductions  in  emissions  (mainly  through  modal  shift,  by 
enabling  low  and  zero  emission  mobility  as  well  as  innovative  transport  solutions)  and 
thus  to  the  overall  decarbonisation  of  the  transport  sector,  even  though  the  transport 
activity is overall increasing. 

Respondents  to  the  global  survey  also  corroborated  the  findings  from  the  literature 
review.  Asked  on  the  extent  to  which  the  EU-wide  network  approach  contributes  to 
socioeconomic  benefits,  the  vast  majority  indicated  that  it  did  so  to  a  great  or  to  some 
extent. Areas specially highlighted were; improved access to goods and services by users 
and economic operators (90%); improved mobility and accessibility (90%); time and cost 
savings  (86%);  increased  competitiveness  and  attraction  of  economic  activities  (84%); 
wider  range  of  suppliers  and  market  networks  (69%).  Most  respondents  also  indicated 
that the EU-wide network approach contributes to socioeconomic benefits to a great or to 
some  extent  in  the  areas  of  reduction  of  GHG  emissions  (69%)  and  wider  access  to 
labour and other social opportunities (69%). 

86 

 
 
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

The overall evaluation of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013, including two external studies as 
well  as  a  wealth  of  internal  work  of  the  Commission  services  leads  to  the  following 
conclusions:  

Elements of the Regulation that work well  

The  application  of  the  evaluation  criteria  shows  that  the  TEN-T  Regulation  displays 
important strengths which are summarized as follows:  

Relevance 

  All four specific objectives of the Regulation remain relevant. Individually and as a 
package of interdependent and mutually reinforcing objectives, they make relevant 
contributions to the general objectives of TEN-T policy guided by Title XVI of the 
Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  EU  (facilitating  transport  flows  in  the  internal 
market,  contributing  to  social,  economic  and  territorial  cohesion  and  integrating 
sustainability objectives). 

  The specific objective “enhancing efficiency of transport infrastructure to facilitate 
transport  flows  in  the  internal  market”:  Concrete  targets,  such  as  the  removal  of 
bottlenecks and missing links within and between all transport modes, the ensuring 
of  interoperability  and  continuity  of  TEN-T  infrastructure  and  the  setting  of 
common infrastructure standards for both existing and new infrastructure along the 
whole network, have been highly relevant so far, allowing to make steady progress 
with the implementation of projects on the core and comprehensive networks. These 
targets remain fully relevant with a view to completing the core and comprehensive 
networks by 2030 and 2050.  

  The  specific  objective  “contributing  to  social,  economic  and  territorial  cohesion”: 
This  objective,  substantiated  by  targets  such  as  the  ensuring  of  a  balanced 
infrastructure coverage of all EU regions, the interconnection between long-distance 
and  regional/local  traffic  or  the  ensuring  of  accessibility  for  all  EU  regions 
constitutes  a  cornerstone  of  the  implementation  of  the  integrated  TEN-T  network 
approach.  It  has  also  been  fully  relevant  for  the  further  process  towards  the 
completion of the core and comprehensive networks. .  

  The  specific  objective  “sustainability”:  The  sustainable  and  efficient  development 
of  transport  modes  or  the  promotion  of  innovative  measures  to  encourage  low-
carbon  and  clean  transport,  as  targets  substantiating  this  objective,  have  been 
relevant,  but  not  specific  and  targeted  enough.  The  combination  of  infrastructure 
enhancements (including binding quality standards), the facilitation of multi-modal 
solutions through strong focus on nodes, the broad coverage of ‘telematics’ as well 
as a – rather open and flexible – approach to innovation have provided an adequate 
basis  for  the  achievement  of  the  specific  sustainability  objective.  They  have 
provided an appropriate basis for efficiency enhancements or for the promotion of 
pilot  action,  but  not  for  the  deployment  across  the  TEN-T  network.  On  the  other 
hand, the evaluation clearly shows that a TEN-T that shall keep pace with the new 
ambitions  on  decarbonisation  until  2030  and  beyond,  depends  on  a  substantial 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
reinforcement of the concrete targets, measures and requirements underpinning the 
sustainability objective. 

  The  specific  objective  “user  benefits”:  Targets  such  as  the  meeting  of  mobility 
needs of users in good quality, safety and security conditions or the consideration of 
needs for people with reduced mobility have been relevant so far. New types of user 
demand  both  in  the  passenger  and  freight  sectors,  enabled  through  technological 
progress, called for by decarbonisation challenges and stimulated through changing 
user  behaviour,  however,  will  necessitate  significant  adaptations  of  targets  and 
measures  to  keep  up  with  changing  challenges  towards  the  2030  TEN-T  policy 
objectives.  

  The development of the dual layer trans-European transport network with the core 
and  the  comprehensive  networks  –  the  key  output  of  TEN-T  policy  overall  – 
remains  relevant  on  the  path  towards  completion  aimed  at  for  2030  /  2050.  The 
complementarity of the two network layers is  most appropriate to  address notably 
the “internal market” and the “cohesion” objectives in a mutually reinforcing way.  

  The core network, which results from a single EU wide planning method and where 
major  international  transport  flows  are  concentrated,  has  been  highly  relevant  in 
setting  a  coherent  basis  for  the  identification  and  implementation  of  major 
infrastructure projects. This has given clear direction to investment at national and 
European  level,  aiming  to  fill  missing  links,  remove  bottlenecks  and  improve 
quality standards. Any substantial deviation from the design of this network layer or 
from its completion date would risk to diminish the efforts already spent since 2013 
and  reduce  benefits.  Given  the  long-term  nature  of  TEN-T  policy,  furthermore, 
significant work is continuously carried out already now, with a view to meeting the 
2030 completion objective.   

  Core  Network  Corridors,  a  governance  instrument  introduced  in  2013  to  facilitate 
the identification and implementation of projects along such geographical corridors 
(representing  between  70%  and  80%  of  the  core  network),  have  been  extremely 
relevant  in  enhancing  cooperation  across  modes,  Member  States,  regions,  public 
and  private  actors.  Indeed,  the  TEN-T  corridor  approach  is  recognised  now  as  a 
multi-level  governance  system  which  has  brought  transport  stakeholders  (such  as 
representatives  of  EU  regions  and  infrastructure  managers  of  all  modes)  to  work 
together  and  has  effectively  focused  on  delivering  EU  added  value.  This  has  not 
been  the  case  in  the  period  before  2013.  In  addition,  the  identification  and 
prioritisation of projects from a corridor-wide perspective has been seen as effective 
and  beneficial.  As  a  result  and  given  the  challenges  ahead  towards  the  2030 
objective,  the  evaluation  concludes  that  this  instrument  fully  maintains  its 
relevance.  

  The  comprehensive  network,  as  the  ‘lower  level’  network  layer,  also  fully 
demonstrated  its  relevance  so  far.  Its  role  as  the  reference  basis  for  various  EU 
transport policy legislation (such as on rail interoperability) emerged already in the 
first Guidelines in 1996. This capacity has been steadily advancing over time, along 
with  progress  in  the  Acquis  in  relevant  transport  sectors.  The  relevance  of  this 
dimension of TEN-T policy is expected to significantly grow in the future, towards 
the 2030 and 2050 time horizons. Especially the objective of zero and low emission 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
mobility necessitates a wide range of new initiatives within and across all transport 
modes,  which  can  only  deploy  their  full  benefits  when  built  on  a  strong  EU-wide 
infrastructure policy.   

  As  set  out  in  the  EU  Connectivity  Strategy  on  Connecting  Europe  and  Asia,  the 
cooperation with neighbouring and third countries as the second key output of the 
TEN-T  Regulation  has  also  been  very  relevant.  It  has  been  important  to  facilitate 
trade between the EU and neighbouring as well as other regions of the world. Third 
country  cooperation  on  TEN-T  policy  (for  example  with  China)  has  also  been 
appropriate in promoting high European environmental and social standards as well 
as financial sustainability along land corridors to Asia. Common network planning 
activities with  neighbouring countries, leading to indicative TEN-T  extensions,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  appropriate  in  setting  a  stable  framework  for  concentrated 
transport 
investment  supported  by  EU  sources  and  global 
international  financial  institutions.  Again,  recent  international  developments  (such 
as  the  progress  in  the  accession  negotiations  and  signature  of  the  Transport 
Community  Treaty  for  the  Western  Balkans  region)  suggest  that  this  approach 
remains relevant towards the 2030 / 2050 horizons and could further expanded.   

infrastructure 

Effectiveness 

  With  the  completion  of  more  than  2000  projects  along  the  nine  core  network 
corridors  between  2013  and  2020,  and  with  the  identification  of  around  3000 
projects  (mostly  already  ongoing)  towards  the  completion  of  the  core  network 
corridors by 2030, the implementation of the TEN-T Regulation works effectively. 
It demonstrates that, led by a single and strong European policy, action at national, 
regional  and  local,  public  and  private  as  well  as  European  level  is  aligned  and 
implemented in an effective way.   

  The  steady  completion  of  individual  TEN-T  projects  generates  gains  in  terms  of 
travel  time,  service  quality  or  model  distribution;  leading  to  economic,  social  and 
environmental  benefits  in  the  geographical  areas  directly  concerned.  The  sum  of 
such individual positive effects  is,  however,  expected to  be significantly  exceeded 
once the network as a whole will be completed. A study carried out on behalf of the 
Commission  estimated  that  7.5  million  person-years  of  jobs  will  be  created 
cumulatively  until  2030  –  both  during  construction  and  operation,  thanks  to 
enhanced connectivity and accessibility. Furthermore, for 2030, an additional GDP 
increase of 1.6% compared to 2017 is expected. These effects may even accelerate 
after 2030, once the network is fully operational.  

  Areas  and  instruments  that  were  newly  introduced  in  2013  (for  example  TEN-T 
provisions  on  urban  nodes,  provisions  on  innovation  or  –  not  least  –  the  core 
network corridors’ instrument) have been very effective so far. The new reference 
to “innovation”, for example, led to the promotion of 12.000 charging points for e-
mobility since 2013 (with the strong support of CEF funding). On urban nodes, the 
strengthened focus on the interconnection of major transport terminals in cities (e.g. 
rail  and  air  or  maritime  terminals)  as  well  as  on  infrastructure  enabling  smooth 
through  traffic  helped  containing  harmful  emissions  and  reducing  disruption  of 
transport flows along corridors. With a view to the 2030/2050 horizons – especially 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in  relation  to  new  zero  and  low  emission  mobility  objectives  –  however,  further 
effectiveness gains depend on reinforced relevance of the TEN-T Regulation.  

Efficiency 

  Governance across Member States and sectors has reached a completely new level 
of quality which helps to make administrative gains through multilevel governance. 
The most evident example in this respect are the core network corridors. 

  The  coordination  between  core  network  corridors  (focusing  on  infrastructure 
development)  and  rail  freight  corridors  (focusing  on  operational  aspects)  has  also 
led  to  efficiency  gains.  This  streamlines  cooperation  between  different  actors  and 
leads  to  additional  benefits  on  substance,  namely 
through  more  efficient 
management of long distance rail freight services. 

Coherence 

  The  paramount  strengths  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  on  coherence  lies  in  its  close 
integration with  all relevant  transport policy  areas (modal  policies, i.e. rail, inland 
waterways, ports, airports, transport strategies).  

  Coherence was also found to be good in linking the TEN-T as the policy framework 
with relevant financial instruments (notably CEF, ESIF and EIB loans and Financial 
Instruments).  With  a  view  to  new  challenges  towards  the  2030  /  2050  objectives, 
stronger  coordination  with  related  EU  instruments  in  fields  such  as  R&I,  urban 
mobility or environmental protection, however, was found to be appropriate.  

Added value 

  Since its establishment as an EU policy in 1993, the added value of TEN-T policy 
overall  has  always  been  strongly  affirmed  by  Member  States,  regions,  cities  and 
industrial  stakeholders.  Concentrating  efforts  towards  the  creation  of  a  common, 
Europe-wide  transport  network  is  clearly  acknowledged  as  a  vision  (and  well 
progressing achievement) whose benefits go beyond isolated national action. TEN-
T  policy  also  attracts  increasing  interest  outside  the  EU,  notably  in  neighbouring 
States but also in other regions of the world, for example in relation to the extension 
of land transport connections to Asia117.  

  Ensuring a common and coherent EU-wide basis for the identification of ‘projects 
of  common  interest’  and,  correspondingly,  for  the  alignment  of  planning  and 

117   Joint  Communication  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank: Connecting Europe and 
Asia - Building blocks for an EU Strategy,   JOIN(2018) 31 final of 19.9.2018  

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
implementation  efforts  of  a  wide  range  of  actors  is  a  clear  and  widely  recognised 
added value. This was made possible due to the introduction of the full (dual layer) 
TEN-T  network  approach  in  2013.  Such  a  concentration  of  efforts  towards  a 
common  EU  objective  in  transport  infrastructure  policy,  in  combination  with  key 
ambitions  of  broader  transport  policy,  would  not  have  been  possible  without 
Regulation (EU) 1315/2013.  

  TEN-T  cooperation  with  third  countries,  as  one  of  the  areas  which  were  newly 
introduced in 2013, also generated significant added value which would have been 
unachievable through Member States’ action alone.  

Elements of the Regulation that work less well  

Relevance  

 

In  the  light  of  new  political  and  societal  challenges  –  notably  in  the  fields  of 
decarbonisation, digitalisation and increasing risks of unforeseen crisis events – the 
relevance of the TEN-T Regulation was found to be insufficient, especially with a 
view  to  the  2030  and  2050  policy  objectives.  Most  importantly  under  the  two 
specific  objectives  “sustainability  of  the  network”  and  “increased  benefits  for 
users”, the evaluation identified a lack of concrete targets and measures needed to 
ensure  the  appropriate  infrastructural  basis  for  the  achievement  of  the  challenging 
objectives  of  the  transport  system  as  a  whole  and  of  the  European  Green  Deal 
overall.  

  More concretely, in relation to the specific objective “sustainability”, the Regulation 
lacks  relevance  in  fields  such  as  digitalisation,  automation  and  other  forms  of 
innovation  which  go  hand  in  hand  with  infrastructure  development  and  are  vital 
enablers  of  efficiency  enhancements  and  the  massive  spreading  of  zero  and  low 
carbon  mobility.  In  this  respect,  also  interoperability  needs  are  insufficiently 
addressed.  Openness  for  new  and  unforeseeable  developments  is  inadequately 
considered. Current provisions are inappropriate to ensure network-wide continuity 
of relevant requirements (to overcome the present rather isolated approach, largely 
building on pilot action). Step changes in the digital transition, entailing increasing 
integration  of  infrastructure,  vehicles  and  connected  services  across  all  modes  are 
not duly reflected in the TEN-T Regulation.  

  The  above  shortcomings  not  only  hamper  the  achievement  of  the  “sustainability” 
objective but also the generation of “increased benefits for users” which  – both in 
the  passengers  and  freight  sectors  –  are  increasingly  connected  with  digitalisation 
and  innovation.  The  increase  of  user  benefits  through  technological  progress 
depends in a particular way on a fully developed ‘physical’ infrastructure network 
(including strong complementarity between core and comprehensive networks), and 
it also challenges the mode oriented structure of the TEN-T.  

  The evaluation found also shortcomings in relation to the functioning of urban and 
transport  nodes  (insufficiencies  in  network  integration,  design  of  transfer  hubs, 
accessibility  conditions  for  all  users,  last  mile  connections,  smooth  information 
services, complementarity between TEN-T and sustainable urban mobility planning, 
including clean and innovative solutions). They hamper up-to-date responses to new 
user needs for integrated door-to-door services, building on a seamless and efficient 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
combination of various TEN-T elements. This category of problems again, weakens 
the achievement of the “sustainability” and “user benefits” objectives. Although this 
applies to both passenger and freight solutions, it was found to be more evident in 
the passengers’ sector.  

  Finally,  some  specific  quality  requirements  for  rail,  road  and  inland  waterways  as 
well  as  requirements  for  the  maritime  dimension  of  TEN-T  were  found  to  be 
insufficient  or  inappropriate.  Such  problems  (for  example  a  lack  of  coherent 
equipment  of  terminals  to  accommodate  740  m  long  trains)  may  affect  the 
continuity  and  sustainability  of  services,  or  they  undermine  improved  social 
conditions  (for  example  through  a  shortage  of  safe  and  secure  parking  areas  for 
heavy  goods  vehicles).  Such  problems  also  put  the  preparedness  of  TEN-T 
infrastructure  for  extreme  weather  events,  security  threats  or  other  unforeseen 
events  at  risk.  Adaptation  to  climate  change,  international  developments  or 
pandemics, however, require a more resilient TEN-T infrastructure. The increasing 
functional  complementarity  of  core  and  comprehensive  network  layers  challenge 
the  sometimes  differing  ambitions  with  regard  to  standards  and  requirements  of 
both network layers.  

Effectiveness 

  While  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  overall,  has  been  very  effective  in  identifying 
thousands of projects  on the basis of a single Europe-wide policy framework, and 
while  a  large  number  of  them  is  completed  and  brings  benefits  in  terms  of 
connectivity,  accessibility,  sustainability  and  user  improved  user  services  already, 
there remain problems of delays for a number of projects.  It should be recognized 
that the time horizon for the completion of the core network is still nine years ahead 
and  even  29  years  for  the  comprehensive  network.  On  the  other  hand  an  in-depth 
analysis of the implementation of the projects is needed in view of the 2030 horizon 
for the completion of the core network, in view of identifying the possible measures 
needed  to  help  Member  States  reaching  this  objective  (taking  into  account  the 
limited EU and national budgetary means). 

  As  causes  for  project  implementation  delays,  the  evaluation  found  factors  such  as 
complex preparatory procedures, remaining divergences between agreed  European 
objectives and national infrastructure and investment planning or limited EU level 
governance tools compared with the challenges at stake. There remains a challenge 
to  ensure  full  alignment  of  national  interests  and  responsibilities  with  TEN-T 
objectives,  and  in  particular  the  priorities  identified  in  the  corridor  work  plans, 
while  respecting  subsidiarity.  In  addition,  delayed  projects  are  very  closely 
monitored  and  several  measures  are  already  taken  to  reduce  such  delays  (e.g. 
through  the  streamlining  initiative  or  via  a  firm  engagement  of  European 
Coordinators). 

  Effectiveness was also seen at risk as a result of financial constraints. As far as the 
TEN-T  Regulation  is  concerned,  the  latter  can  be  addressed  by  further  boosting 
resource  efficiency  and  strengthening  priority  setting,  while  the  provision  of 
budgetary resources is not subject to TEN-T policy.  

Efficiency  

92 

 
 
 
  While  the  instrument  of  the  core  network  corridors,  including  the  European 
Coordinators, has been found to be both highly relevant and effective, their future 
efficiency  could  be  hampered  by  an  obvious  shortage  of  capacity/  resources  in 
relation to the coordination challenge at stake.  

Coherence 

  A major potential incoherence between the provisions of the TEN-T Regulation and 
other relevant policy areas was found in the field of infrastructure for low and zero 
emission transport and mobility. In these areas, concrete legislative initiatives are in 
preparation  (the  revision  of  AFID  Directive,  FuelEU  Maritime  and  the  ReFuel 
Aviation initiatives). The TEN-T evaluation highlights the importance (in line with 
the  European  Green  Deal)  of  alignment  of  the  requirements  for  the  TEN-T 
infrastructure  with  the  future  legal  requirements  that  may  be  adopted  as  a 
consequence  of  these  new  initiatives.  At  the  same  time,  this  ‘coherence’  problem 
also presents a lack of relevance of the TEN-T Regulation with regard to the need 
for continuous availability of charging and refuelling infrastructure for low and zero 
emission mobility along the whole TEN-T.   

  Some  gaps  were  also  identified  in  relation  to  the  inner  coherence  of  the  different 
provisions of the TEN-T Regulation. While the provisions for the different transport 
modes  follow  a  coherent  structure  (components,  requirements,  development 
priorities), the coverage of transport nodes lacks coherence in this context. Although 
most of the references to  nodes refer to  the freight  sector, commonalities between 
the  different  terminals  in  functional  terms  were  considered  to  be  insufficiently 
addressed.  The  functionality  dimension  for  passengers  is  basically  lacking  for 
waterborne transport and rail (including its key role as transfer points to  local and 
regional  transport  in  cities).  Generally,  also  from  the  user  benefits  perspective, 
freight  and  passenger  transport  are  treated  incoherently.  The  evaluation  also 
identified  some  incoherence  between  the  different  horizontal  provisions  of 
Chapter II on the comprehensive network, e.g. on accessibility for all users, safety, 
security or ‘telematics’.  

  While it has been proven that coordination between core network corridors and rail 
freight  corridors  has  also  led  to  efficiency  gains,  potential  synergies  between  the 
two instruments, e.g. as to ensure better coherence between the infrastructural side 
of the core network corridors and the operational side of the rail freight corridors, 
have  not  been  sufficiently  exploited.  Indeed,  the  coexistence  of  two  separate 
structures  with  sometimes  even  different  geographical  alignments  or  overlapping 
activities is not optimal. Striving for further synergies between and better alignment 
of  the  two  instruments  would  thus  certainly  be  beneficial  in  terms  of  investment 
planning, project identification and governance. 

Lessons learnt  

In  the  following,  the  main  lessons  learnt  are  grouped  in  accordance  with  the  five 
evaluation criteria while, at the same time, taking account of the four subject areas which 
the  evaluation  (network  design,  network 
the  beginning  of 
were 
features/quality, network use and implementation instruments).  

identified  at 

93 

 
 
 
 
 
Relevance 

  All four specific objectives of the TEN-T Regulation remain relevant. Especially for 
the  objectives  “efficient  infrastructure  to  facilitate  the  internal  market”  and 
“territorial,  economic  and  social  cohesion”,  the  targets  and  measures  substantiating 
these objectives remain also widely relevant. The two objectives “sustainability” and 
“increasing benefits for users”, on the other hand, require substantial reinforcement of 
underlying  targets  and  measures.  It  also  needs  to  be  underlined  that  all  objectives 
remain equally important since there are complementary to each other.  

  Nevertheless,  with  regard  to  the  specific  objectives  “efficiency  of  infrastructure 
development  to  facilitate  the  internal  market”  and  “social,  economic  and  territorial 
cohesion”, there is a strong need to advance on requirements enhancing the quality of 
the TEN-T infrastructure. This is essential to cope with future challenges, also in the 
context of sustainability and improved user benefits. Some reinforcement may also be 
needed in relation to the accessibility of peripheral, outermost and insular regions.  

  For  the  specific  objective  “sustainability”,  the  lack  of  appropriateness  to  enable 
decarbonisation in line with the objective of the European Green Deal, to cope with 
the  digital  transition  and  with  challenges  of  natural  and  human-made  disasters  or 
other unforeseen challenges needs to be overcome. This necessitates adjusted targets 
and reinforced / extended requirements. The reduction of transport emissions by 90% 
by  2050  cannot  be  achieved  without  a  proper  TEN-T  network  allowing  for  greener 
transport.  

  For the specific objective “increasing user benefits”, the TEN-T Regulation could be 
advanced  to  strengthen  the  identification,  combination  and  implementation  of 
projects  from  the  perspective  of  integrated  door-to-door  user  services.  This  current 
lack of appropriateness seems to be particularly evident in the passengers’ sector. In 
addressing this relevance issue, digitalisation and other new technologies should play 
a key role.  

  For  the  dual  layer  trans-European  transport  network,  the  design  structure  (in 
accordance  with  the  existing  network  planning  methodology)  as  well  as  the 
completion deadlines of 2030 and 2050 have proven their appropriateness.    

  To achieve the full and timely completion targets, notably for the core network, the 
evaluation shows the need to reinforce implementation instruments at EU level and to 
stimulate a stronger commitment of Member States.  

  Complementarity between core and comprehensive networks could be strengthened. 
This could help overcoming some remaining accessibility and connectivity gaps. Not 
least,  it  is  expected  to  help  ensuring  the  broadest  possible  and  most  effective 
coverage  of  new  infrastructure  quality  parameters,  especially  for  zero  and  low 
emission mobility or digitalisation, and it could facilitate a larger reach of innovative 
user  services.    Where  necessary,  strengthened  complementarity  between  core  and 
comprehensive  networks  could  also  be  ensured  through  an  alignment  of  standards 
and requirements in fields such as railway infrastructure, rail safety or urban nodes.  

94 

 
 
 
 
Effectiveness 

  Effectiveness  of  TEN-T  implementation  –  especially  in  the  light  of  the  new 
challenges and objectives that could be correspondingly extended – could be further 
enhanced  through  a  strengthening  of  EU  instruments  (e.g.  European  Coordinators, 
delegated acts, accountability of Member States).  

Efficiency 

  The TENtec system works relatively well and is mostly appreciated by stakeholders. 
In  relation  to  the  reporting  and  monitoring  obligations  set  out  in  the  TEN-T 
Regulation  more  generally,  the  evaluation  suggests  that  there  is  some  need  for 
streamlining and strengthening these tools of TEN-T policy. 

Coherence  

  Achieving the objectives of the European Green Deal would require that the TEN-T 
infrastructure  requirements  are  fully  aligned  with  the  provisions  resulting  from  the 
other  policy  initiatives  in  the  fields  of  AFID,  FuelEU  Maritime  and  the  ReFuel 
Aviation.  

 

In an appropriate way (by taking account of their new qualities in relation to TEN-T 
policy),  there  is  a  need  to  enhance  coherence  with  the  challenges  of  the  digital 
transition and other new technologies. This requires attention to be given to a proper 
balance  between  fixed  /  long-term  infrastructure  requirements  and  fast  progressing 
developments  building  strongly  on  industrial  innovation;  between  infrastructure 
development objectives and changing user needs.  

  There is some need for enhancing the inner coherence between the provisions of the 

TEN-T Regulations. 

  Synergies  between  trans-European  network  policies  in  transport,  energy  and 
digitalisation  are  important  for  higher  user  benefits,  efficiency  and  the  strongest 
possible contribution to transport decarbonisation.   

To  conclude:  Both  the  work  on  core  network  corridors  and  the  relevant  procedures  in 
Member States show that the planning and decision making process on TEN-T has been 
largely  suitable  to  achieve  the  policy’s  objectives,  in  spite  of  a  need  for  specific 
reinforcements.  

When  the  2013  revision  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  saw  a  shift  from  a  largely  priority 
projects’ based approach to a full network approach, this did not disrupt the continuous 
transport  infrastructure  development  the  EU  had  embarked  on  under  preceding  TEN-T 
legislation.  Key  projects  (notably  the  former  priority  projects,  often  in  pivotal 
geographical  positions)  remained  vital  elements  of  an  overall  European  network.  The 
additional  strong  focus  on  the  functional  side  of  the  network,  through  a  wide  range  of 
common  standards  and  requirements,  reinforced  the  link  between  infrastructure  and 
transport  policy  objectives  as  well  as  service  quality.  Member  States  reflect  TEN-T 
development  objectives  reasonably  well  in  their  transport  infrastructure  related 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
procedures. All this suggests that TEN-T policy, between 2013 and 2020, has well paved 
its way as the infrastructural enabler for the achievement of transport policy objectives. 
However,  future  challenges  of  the  European  transport  system  overall  –  with  ambitious 
climate change objectives, the digital transition or a significantly enhanced focus on user 
expectations as embedded in the European Green Deal and more specifically in the Smart 
and  Sustainable  Mobility  Strategy  –  will  place  increasing  demand  on  TEN-T  policy 
towards 2030 / 2050. In this regard, focusing only on a recalibration of certain standards 
or  requirements  would  not  be  sufficient  to  meet  the  overall  objectives  of  greening, 
digitalisation  and  modal  shift;  instead,  an  integrated  network  approach  centred  around 
interoperability  and  efficiency  increase  and  addressing  all  shortcomings  and  lessons 
learnt identified above is needed.  

A  thorough  assessment  of  the  state  of  implementation  of  the  projects,  in  particular  the 
projects located on the core network which should be completed by 2030, is also needed.  
Based on this assessment possible measures to ensure completion of the network on time 
and according to the EU standards could be identified. 

96 

 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information and response to RSB comments 

  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

  DG MOVE is the lead DG  
  DECIDE Planning Reference: PLAN/2018/2897 

  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

The  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  was  coordinated  by  an  Inter-Service  Steering 
Group, which was established early in the evaluation process. Representatives from 
Secretariat General (SG), Legal Service (LS), Directorate-General for Mobility and 
Transport  (MOVE),  Directorate-General  for  Budget  (BUDG),  Directorate-General 
for  Informatics  (DIGIT),  Directorate-General  for  Research  and  Innovation  (RTD), 
Directorate-General  for  Energy  (ENER),  Directorate-General  for  Employment, 
Social Affairs and  Inclusion  (EMPL), Directorate-General  for Regional and Urban 
Policy (REGIO), Directorate-General for Environment (ENV),  Directorate-General 
for  European  Statistics  (ESTAT),  Directorate-General  for  Economic  and  Financial 
Affairs  (ECFIN),  Directorate-General  for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and 
Industry, 
Technology 
Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs  (GROW),  Directorate-General  for  Climate  Action 
(CLIMA),  Directorate-General  for  European  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement 
Negotiations  (NEAR),  Directorate-General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries 
(MARE), the External Action Service (EEAS) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) 
were appointed to this ISG. 

(CNECT),  Directorate-General 

Internal  Market, 

for 

The  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  met  3  times  from  September  2018  to  October 
2020. 

March 2019 
24 April -17 July 2019  Open Public consultation 
08 May 2019 
April 2020 

Meeting Date 

18 September 2018 

July 2020 

September 2020 

12 October 2020 

March 2021 

Activity 

1st  meeting  of  the  ISG:  roadmap,  ToRs  external  study, 
consultation strategy 
Consultation of ISG on OPC questionnaire (online) 

2nd meeting of the ISG: kick-off external study 
Consultation  of  ISG  on  first  interim  report  of  external 
study (online) 
Consultation  of  ISG  on  second  interim  report  of  external 
study (online) 
Consultation of ISG on draft final report of external study 
(online) 
3rd  meeting  of  the  ISG  (online):  draft  staff  working 
document and draft final report of external study 
Inter-service consultation on the Staff Working Document 

97 

 
 
  EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

The  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  and  Toolbox  were  followed  without  any 
exceptions. 

  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

The  evaluation  has  been  selected  for  scrutiny  by  the  RSB.  The  RSB  received  the 
draft  version  of  the  evaluation  Staff  Working  Document  on  20  October  2020. 
Following a hearing held on 18 November 2020, the RSB issued a negative opinion 
on  20  November  2020.  A  revised  version  has  been  resubmitted  to  the  RSB  on  5 
February 2021 and a positive opinion has been received on 2 March 2021.  

  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The evidence findings of two external support studies prepared by Coffey (Support 
study for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) N° 1315/2013 on Union Guidelines for 
the  development  of  the  trans-European  transport  network)  and  Panteia  (Support 
study  for  the  TEN-T  policy  review,  concerning  relevant  national  plans  and 
programmes in member states.) fed into the analysis of the evaluation SWD.  

The evidence collection for the SWD is also based on the Commission’s experience 
in monitoring and implementing the Regulation and more specifically on the work 
of European coordinators on the core network corridors. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
  RESPONSE TO RSB COMMENTS 

ISSUES 

 COMMENTS 

Main issues to be discussed 

(1)  The  report  does  not  explain  well  how 
the  TEN-T  policy  functions,  as  a 
combination  of  national  and  EU 
transport infrastructure policies and an 
EU coordination framework. It does not 
concerning 
describe  how  policies 
transport 
relevant 
complement 
spending  programmes 
TEN-T. 

demand, 

and 

it  has  achieved 

(2)  The  report  is  not  clear  about  what  the 
TEN-T  policy  was  expected  to  achieve 
by  now.  It  does  not  sufficiently  assess 
what 
in  terms  of 
planning  and  project  completion  and if 
the  contribution  to  its  objectives  is  in 
line with expectations. It does not draw 
clear conclusions on the extent to which 
the  planning  and  decision-making 
process has been suitable to achieve the 
policy objectives. 

(3)  The  evaluation  does  not  sufficiently 
discuss  how  the  TEN-T  framework 
manages trade-offs between its different 
objectives  and  to  what  extent  it  has 
been  successful  in  doing  so.  It  does  not 
come to a clear conclusion on whether a 
change  or  a  reprioritisation  of  these 
objectives  is  warranted  in  light  of  the 
current  progress  and  an  evolving 
political  agenda,  particularly  in  the 
context of the Green Deal. 

(4)  What  competences  do  the  EU  and 
Member  States  have  in  the  TEN-T 
planning  and  investment?  Does  the 
Regulation  interact  with  other  relevant 
legislation? (boxes 1 and 2) 

(5)  Does 

the 

to  assess 
report  aim 
implementation  progress  or  also  the 
direct  contributions  to  the  specific 
objectives? (boxes 1, 2 anot add 4) 

sub-chapters  added 

Two 
to  chapter  1 
‘Introduction’:  ‘Key  elements  and  features  of 
the 
‘TEN-T 
policy’ 
implementation  structure  and  EU  coordination 
and financing framework’ 

TEN-T 

and 

Expected  results  and  benefits  are  addressed  in 
chapter  1  under  ‘purpose  and  scope  of  the 
evaluation’.   

Included in chapter 2, sub-chapter ‘Description 
of  the  logic  of  the  EU  Intervention  and  its 
objectives’ 

sub-chapters  added 

to  chapter  1 
Two 
implementation 
‘TEN-T 
‘Introduction’: 
structure  and  EU  coordination  and  financing 
framework’  and 
‘Interaction  with  other 
relevant 
legislation’  as  well  as  graphic 
illustration  

Addressed  in  chapter  1  under  ‘purpose  and 
scope of the evaluation’.  

(6)  Is  the  TEN-T  planning  and  decision- Addressed in the Conclusions under ‘Elements 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
of  the  Regulation  that  work  less  well’  (under 
Relevance) as well as under ‘What works less 
well’ (Effectiveness) 

Chapter 3 has been entirely reworked.  

Addressed  in  the  conclusions  chapter  (lessons 
learnt) 

between 

making  process  suitable  to  achieve  the 
policy  objectives?  How  does  it  manage 
specific 
trade-offs 
objectives?  Does  it  select  the  right 
projects?  How  well  are  national 
interests  and  responsibilities  balanced 
against the EU’s objectives? (boxes 1, 2 
and 3) 

the 

(7)  Are the transport networks on track to 
achieve  the  2030/2050  TEN-T  targets? 
What  should  have  been  achieved  by 
now? Is what has been achieved due to 
Member State action, EU funding or to 
the EU governance measures? What are 
the  greatest  challenges  or  risks  to  not 
fulfilling the targets? (boxes 2 and 5) 

(8)  With  greater  political  focus  on  the 
green  agenda, 
is  there  a  need  to 
streamline  TEN-T  objectives  or  install 
What 
prioritisation? 
greater 
contribution  can  TEN-T  make 
to 
reduce  transport  emissions  by  90%  by 
2050?  What  are  the  main  obstacles  to 
this under the current TEN-T? Is there 
a 
link  with  the  forthcoming  green 
taxonomy? (boxes 3, 4 and 5) 

1.  Design and methodology (includes scope, baseline, consultation, reliability of data, 

intervention logic) 

it  cover  only 

  The  report  should  clarify  the  scope  of  the 
evaluation:  does 
the 
Regulation  or  does  it  also  consider  the 
related implementing and delegated acts? It 
would be useful to provide an overview of 
the  different  related  pieces  of  legislation, 
which  might  have  an  impact  in  the  same 
area  (e.g.  Connecting  Europe  Facility,  the 
Alternative  Fuels  Infrastructure  Directive, 
etc.).  

  The  report  should  clarify  the  scope  of  the 
assessment  in  terms  of  geography  (all 
coverage? 
Member 
neighbouring 
and  period 
considered.  

countries?) 

States? 

UK 

Scope in terms of legislative acts has been 
addressed under the sub-chapter ‘purpose and 
scope of the evaluation’ of chapter 1.  

Annex 9 ‘overview of legislation relevant to 
TEN-T’ added.  

Geographical and time scope has been 
addressed under the sub-chapter ‘purpose and 
scope of the evaluation’. 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  When 

should 

briefly 

explain 

it  comes 

the  background 
to 
description  and  the  intervention  logic,  the 
the 
report 
differences between the current Regulation 
its  predecessor.  It  should  briefly 
and 
explain 
the 
the  difference  between 
comprehensive  and  core  network,  as  well 
as  how  projects  considered  of  common 
interest are selected. The report should also 
explain  the  roles  of  different  actors  in 
implementing the policy. 

The  differences  between  the  current  and  past 
legislation  as  well  as  the  roles  of  different 
actors in implementing the policy is addressed 
in 
implementation 
‘TEN-T 
structure  and  EU  coordination  and  financing 
framework’ of chapter 1 ‘Introduction’. 

sub-chapter 

the 

The  difference  between 
and 
comprehensive network as well as the iteration 
with projects of common interest is now further 
explained in chapter 3 ‘the dual-layer network 
approach’.  

core 

Addressed in chapter 1 under ‘Interaction with 
other relevant legislation’ and ‘The evaluation: 
purpose and scope’. 

  The initiative is quite complex with various 
layers  of  objectives,  priorities 
and 
requirements.  The  report  should  present 
how  the  policy  was  supposed  to  work. 
What  weight  do  user  benefits  (lower 
transport  costs  and  shorter  travel  times) 
(lower 
have 
emissions)?  What  role  does  modernising 
road  transport  (supply  of  alternative  fuels) 
play  compared  to  modal  shift  (efforts  to 
increase rail transport)? Does infrastructure 
investment  depend  on  complementary 
policies 
to  work  as  an  “enabler”  of 
sustainable transport? 

to  sustainability 

relative 

  Stakeholder  views  are  presented 

in 
aggregate.  The  report  should  provide 
information  on  whether  different  groups 
hold different views. If they do, the report 
should discuss why this might be the case. 

Explanation  provided 
‘targeted stakeholder consultations’. 

in  chapter  4  under 

References 
document.  

introduced 

throughout 

the 

TENtec  as  data  source  has  been  further 
explained in chapter 4.  

links 

to  support 

  The  report  should  systematically  cite  the 
evidence 
its  statements.  It 
should  use  evidence  from  the  effects  of 
completed 
inform  expected 
to 
achievements.  The  report  should  explain 
what  is  collected  through  the  TENTec 
system and whether this served as basis for 
any  of  the  findings.  Moreover,  several 
connected 
currently  being 
are 
evaluated  or  revised  with  accompanying 
impact  assessments  (e.g.  river  information 
systems,  rail  freight  corridors,  alternative 
fuels infrastructure,  passenger  rights,  etc.). 
The  report  should  clarify  when  and  if  it 
from  such 
uses  preliminary 

findings 

files 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
analyses. 

for 

  Concerning the implementation section, the 
report  should  be  more  factual,  explaining 
the  basis 
statements  made  and 
distinguishing  between  what  comes  from 
the  TEN-T  policy  and  what  from  other 
related legislation. For instance, on page 8 
the  report  puts  forward  the  idea  that  the 
TEN-T  Regulation  will  contribute  to  the 
of 
because 
European  Green  Deal 
alternative 
deployment.  This, 
however,  is  covered  by  a  separate  act  as 
well (a directive currently under revision). 

fuels 

  The  report  should  be  clearer  on 

its 
limitations.  Is  the  fact  that  projects  have 
such  long  lead  times  problematic  in  terms 
of  progress  and  objectives  achieved? Why 
is this? To what extent could the evaluation 
consider  the  results  of  finalised  projects 
that  were  launched  under  the  preceding 
Regulation? How do the different pieces of 
legislation  that  apply  in  the  same  area 
influence outcomes? For example, on page 
25  the  report  claims  that  TEN-T  policy 
triggered  investment  in  safety.  However, 
this is also covered by a separate act; how 
to  distinguish  between  the  effects  of  the 
two?  The  Connecting  Europe  Facility  and 
other EU sources of funding support many 
of  the  actions  covered  by  the  TEN-T 
Regulation.  These 
should  be  better 
distinguished in a discussion of effects and 
outcomes. 

  The  report  should  explain  more  clearly 
how  the  European  Court  of  Auditors’ 
reports  in  this  area  have  been  considered. 
For  instance,  the  2020  report  on  transport 
infrastructure  projects  estimates  that  6  out 
of 8 examined projects will not be finalised 
by  2030,  while  the  evaluation  gives  an 
overall positive impression that 2030 target 
for  core  network  will  be  met.  Such 
seemingly divergent conclusions should be 
explained.  

The relation  between  the  different instruments 
has  been  clarified  in  chapter  1.  In  addition, 
chapter  3  has  been  fully  revised  in  order  to 
address the Green Deal aspect more clearly.  

Integrated 
robustness of findings’ of chapter 4.  

in  sub-chapter  ‘limitations  and 

The 
interaction  with  different  pieces  of 
legislation  is  also  outlined  in  chapter  1  under 
‘interaction with other relevant legislation’. 

Partly addressed in the report.  

In  addition,  it  has  to  be  noted  that  the 
Commission as well as Member States did not 
accept  most  of  the  findings  of  the  2020  Court 
of Auditors report especially with a view to the 
cited  delays.  Thus  findings  from  this  report 
have only been used to a limited extent.   

102 

 
  The  report  should  find  a  way  to  better 
present/integrate  case  study  findings.  How 
were  the  case  studies  selected?  Are  these 
the  “representative  examples”  referred  to 
on page 10? Is there a risk that the choice 
of  case  studies  introduces  a  bias  in  the 
analysis  and  conclusions?  For  example, 
many  references  are  made  to  the  urban 
nodes  case  –  how  important  is  this  issue 
compared to other objectives and for TEN-
T’s future development? 

2.  Effectiveness and efficiency 

  The  report  should  clarify  what  has  been 
achieved  so  far,  if  this  is  satisfactory  and 
whether the policy is on track to deliver in 
2030/2050.  Judgements  on  effectiveness 
and  efficiency  are 
largely  based  on 
stakeholder perceptions. There should be a 
greater  attempt  to  establish  objectively 
what has been achieved and why (not). The 
report  should  assess  the  extent  to  which 
progress  so  far  is  due  to  the  TEN-T 
Regulation  and  assess  the  contribution  of 
other  factors  (other  legislation,  national 
action, national and European funding).  

 

Is  there  any  tension  between  the  two 
overarching  objectives  (ensuring  the  key 
flows  for  competitiveness  and  connecting 
remote  regions)?  Are  there  any  objectives 
that  have  been  largely  achieved  and  that 
may  be  less  relevant  in  a  future  TEN-T 
revision? 

Selection  of  case  studies  as  well  as  their 
distinction  with  representative  examples  now 
explained in chapter 4.1. 

sources, 

including 

implementation 

As explained in chapter 4 (‘data sources’) this 
evaluation has been based on a wide variety of 
data 
stakeholder 
consultations, corridor studies and work plans, 
reports,  TENtec 
TEN-T 
representative 
database,  case  studies  and 
examples  among  others.  Judgements  in  the 
report  are 
therefore  not  only  based  on 
stakeholder  perceptions  but  also  underpinned 
(e.g.  on  compliance 
by  concrete  data 
indicators).   

Chapter 4 further refined accordingly.  

The objectives are complementary to each 
other, as reiterated in chapter 2 (see ‘trade-
offs’).  

  The  report  should  be  clearer  on 

the 
differences  in  achievements  across  TEN-T 
requirements and discuss the reasons. 

Cross-reference to relevant data sources added 
to chapter 3 A.  

  Table  2  (page  6)  shows  what  was  missing 
or not yet upgraded from the core network 
in 2013. What about for the comprehensive 
network?  What  are  the  implications  of  the 
differences  between  modes?  The  table 
shows for instance that almost half seemed 
to be missing/not ready for rail. The report 
light  of  such 
should  explain 
statements as the one on page 20 that core 

this 

in 

Table  2  and  related  paragraph  now  moved  to 
chapter  3  as  to  provide  for  better  coherence 
and readability of the report. 

Explanations provided in chapter 3 (in relation 
to  table  2)  as  regards  the  different  to  the 
comprehensive  network  data,  implications  of 
the differences between the modes etc.  

103 

 
 
 
a 

are 

corridors 

successful 
network 
instrument 
in  particular  for  rail  (and 
waterways).  As  regards  rail,  table  5  (2020 
data)  seems  to  show  that  a  considerable 
change  would  need  to  happen  to  reach  the 
2030  goals  (12%  deployment  in  2020  and 
97%  in  2030).  The  report  should  explain 
whether  this  is  feasible  under  the  current 
framework.  

1.  What  are 

the  problems  with 
capacity  projects.  What  are  the 
implications?  How  frequent  is  this 
it  a  problem  of 
problem? 
the 
implementation 
framework or both?  

or 

of 

Is 

Explanations for ERTMS now provided below 
table 5 in chapter 3.  

1.  Addressed in Evaluation Question 5.  
2.  See section ‘Core network corridors as the 
key instrument to stimulate and coordinate 
project implementation’ under chapter 3 

3.  Addressed in Evaluation Question 1.  
4.  Addressed in Evaluation Question 6.  

2.  What 

have 

European 
Coordinators  achieved?  What  are 
the problems?  

the 

3.  TEN-T  has  not  been  sufficiently 
effective  in  promoting  modal  shift 
the 
(page  49).  Why?  What 
magnitude  of  the  issue?  What  are 
the 
for  TEN-T’s 
contribution to the European Green 
Deal? 

implications 

is 

4.  Do  problems  identified  as  regards 
to 
lack  of 
infrastructure  or  other 

passenger  mobility 
implementation  or  a 
physical 
factors? 

relate 

Addressed by footnote 112.  

Addressed in chapter 4.3 and footnote 118.  

  The  report  points  to  difficulties  matching 
geographical  corridor routes  with transport 
demand  (page  54).  What  does  that  say 
about  whether 
right  projects  are 
selected? Is there a need to revise network 
maps? 

the 

  When it comes to efficiency, there seem to 
be  some  complaints  from  stakeholders 
regarding  TENTec.  The  report  should 
explain its role and how it collects data. If 
it  is  from  Member  States,  why  does  the 
following problem occur: ‘sections defined 
in  TENTec  not  matching  sections  defined 
at the national level’ (page 56)? 

104 

 
 
 
the 

rail 

  More clarity should be provided on the link 
between  TEN-T  and 
freight 
corridors  legislation  and  actions.  It  seems 
stakeholder  views  on  the  extent  to  which 
TEN-T  guidelines  helped  with  rail  freight 
are not  so positive.  Beyond  views,  what is 
the evidence on what is missing and what is 
still needed? How much of that depends on 
TEN-T and how much on other legislation?  

  The 

that 

that  would  enable 

report  acknowledges 

‘many 
developments 
the 
efficient  use  of  TEN-T  infrastructure  are 
outside  the  scope  of  the  regulation’.  What 
does  that  mean  for  judgement  on  the 
effectiveness of the Regulation? 

Addressed at the end of Evaluation Question 9.  

Addressed in Evaluation Question 9. 

  Major projects require a long time to plan, 
implement  and  deliver  their  effects.  Given 
that,  the  report  should  explain  what  the 
Commission does to determine whether the 
policy  is  on  track,  the  right  projects  are 
selected and the policy objectives are being 
achieved. 

Addressed through the iteration on the corridor 
work plans and the analytical work on the 
project list, see chapter 3 ‘core network 
corridors’ and chapter 1 ‘TEN-T 
implementation structure’. 

See added paragraph on ‘TEN-T 
implementation structure’ in chapter 1.  

See chapter 3.A (Member States’ approaches 
to meeting TEN-T development objectives)  

  The 

report 

should  provide  a 

frank 
assessment  of  how  far  ownership  and 
commitment from Member States has been 
ensured  under  the  TEN-T  policy.  How  far 
has  planning  and 
investments  priority 
setting  at  national  level  hampered  the 
coordinated  approach  towards  a  connected 
network  that  spans  the  whole  EU?  What 
instruments  does  the  Commission  have  to 
get  Member  States  on  board  to  deliver 
specific  projects  in  line  with  the  EU’s 
investments objectives? How effective have 
they been? 

 

the 

the 

refers 

report 

context, 

(beyond 

should 
In 
this 
consultant’s 
substantiate 
assessment) the rather positive view on the 
Member  States’  plans  and  programmes  on 
TEN-T  implementation.  The  report  for 
to  10  major 
to  5 
instance 
infrastructure  construction  projects  not 
covered by the national plans, and between 
40  and  50  facing  delays  (page  19).  What 
terms  of  overall 
in 
does 
progress? In a another section of the report, 
a  different  figure  of  around  3000  projects 
that  remain  to  be  completed  for  full  core 
network  completion  by  2030  is  presented 
(page  45).  What  does  that  mean  for  the 

that  mean 

105 

 
achievement of the goals? 

it 

  The  report  should  be  clearer  on 

the 
problems 
relative 
identifies, 
importance,  magnitude  and  consequences. 
This  should,  for  instance,  be  improved  for 
the following issues: 

their 

Addressed in Evaluation Question 15.   

3.  Relevance and EU added value 

in 

  The  report  finds  the  sustainability  related 
provisions 
the  TEN-T  guidelines 
insufficient in light of the European Green 
Deal and its increased ambitions (page 34). 
Since  modelling  was  used  to  show  what 
would happen with and without the TEN-T 
policy,  it  would  be  useful  if  the  report 
presented  what  is  likely  to  happen  if  we 
policy 
the 
continue  with 
framework. Also in terms of environmental 
and climate change policy, the report refers 
to a study forecasting considerable benefits 
from  implementing  the  core  network  fully 
(page  35).  What  does  the  forecast  say  in 
terms  of  possible  increases  in  traffic  that 
would increase emissions? 

current 

 

 

In light of TEN-T achievements so far and 
greater political focus on the green agenda, 
do  all  TEN-T  objectives  remain  relevant? 
How  far  do  the  current  objectives  incur 
trade-offs and how effective has the TEN-
T been at managing these? Can any lessons 
be drawn for the future? 

The objectives are complementary to each 
other, as reiterated in chapter 2 (see ‘trade-
offs’). 

In this context, the report should justify the 
role  of  urban  nodes  in  Trans  European 
networks. To what extent is urban transport 
a  matter 
the 
the 
comprehensive network? 

core 

and 

for 

  When 

technological 
developments  and  digital  tools,  the  report 

comes 

to 

it 

See Evaluation Question 1.  

See revised chapter ‘conclusions’.  

106 

 
 
 
to 

diverging 

views 
among 
points 
stakeholders  with  some 
in  favour  of 
focusing on finalising the physical network 
first,  while  others  support  focusing  on  the 
digital  layer  to  make  best  use  of  existing 
physical 
the 
network.  What 
Commission’s  judgement  on  this  issue? 
Should the approach continue with a focus 
on  delivering  infrastructure  projects  or  is 
there  a  need  for  priorities  for  projects  and 
funding to shift? 

is 

Evaluation Question 1 revised.  

Amended in chapter 1 ‘Delegated 
Regulations’. 

Addressed in Evaluation Question 10.  

  Many  of  the  statements  under  evaluation 
question  1  concern  effectiveness  rather 
than relevance. For example, the statement 
that 
‘TEN-T  policy  has  positively 
contributed  to  general  objectives,  such  as 
the  facilitation  of  the  free  movement  of 
citizens  and  goods’  clearly  is  a  statement 
on  effectiveness  (meeting  objectives).  The 
fact that an initiative has been successful in 
meeting  objectives  is  not  an  indication  of 
relevance.  On  the  contrary,  if  objectives 
are  fully  met,  there  is  no  need  for  further 
action,  which  implies  that  the  initiative  is 
no longer relevant. 

  The report points to cooperation with third 
countries  and  mentions  delegated  acts 
producing  tentative  maps  for  linking  our 
network  with  theirs.  It  would  be  useful  to 
provide  some  explanation  of  how  these 
maps are generated and how they are used. 

4.  Coherence 

  The  report  needs  to  be  clearer  about  the 
problems it identifies. For instance, when it 
comes  to  internal  coherence,  it  suggests 
inconsistencies  between  measures  and 
priorities. More explanation would help the 
reader  understand 
its 
magnitude.  

issue  and 

the 

  While the  report  highlights  the  differences 
in  approach  between  urban  policy  and  the 
TEN-T  policy,  it  should  explain  better 
whether  this  in  itself  causes  problems  and 
if so, their consequences. 

Addressed in Evaluation Question 11.  

  The report finds that TEN-T provisions on 
alternative fuels lack specificity (page 62). 

Addressed in Evaluation Question 10. 

107 

 
 
It is not clear however why the Alternative 
Fuels  Directive  is  not  sufficient  and  why 
further 
the  TEN-T  policy 
provisions  on  something  that  is  legislated 
under a different act.  

requires 

  The  report  should  better  argue  how  the 
initiative  complements  other  initiatives  to 
shift  transport  from  roads  to  other  modes, 
or  to  reduce  the  external  costs  of  road 
transport.  Against  this  backdrop,  it  should 
give  a  critical  view  of 
infrastructure 
investment  as  an  enabler  of  sustainable 
transport,  and  the  risks  of  a  mismatch 
between capacity and user demand. 

  The  report  could  further  elaborate  on 
coherence  between  the  TEN-T  and  the 
various  Green  Deal  initiatives  adopted  or 
under development. For instance, how does 
it  relate  to  the  green  taxonomy?  Will  it 
have  an  effect  on  the  current  project 
selection process and methods? 

  The  report  should  better  explain  what 
inconsistencies  it  finds  between  TEN-T 
and passenger rights.  

  More clarity could also be provided on the 
lack  of  evidence  of  synergies  between 
TEN-T  and  the  other  two  trans-European 
networks. 

Addressed in Evaluation Question 10 
(‘Coherence of provisions with other transport 
policy fields’) 

As this initiative was conceived as a backward 
looking evaluation, it did not yet look too 
much into the different Green Deal initiatives. 
However, this will be done in a possible 
Impact Assessment.  

As regards green taxonomy, this is linked to 
the investment decisions taken under the 
Connecting Europe Facility.  

Addressed in Evaluation Question 10. 

Addressed in Evaluation Question 11. 

5.  Validity of conclusions and relevance for future action 

Addressed in chapter 4 ‘limitations and 
robustness of findings’.  

Chapter 6 ‘Conclusions’ completely reworked. 

  The  report  should  be  clearer  about  the 
robustness  of  the  findings  in  the  two 
support  studies.  When  quoting  the  case 
studies  for  instance  or  the  assessment  of 
the  Member  States’  national  planning  for 
TEN-T  network  implementation,  it  would 
be  useful  to  have  an  idea  of  the  level  of 
confidence implied. 

  The  tone  of  the  conclusions  is  overly 
positive.  The  report  concludes  –  without 
presenting  evidence  –  that  respecting  the 
2030  and  2050  deadlines  will  not  be 
problematic,  despite  concerns  raised  by 
ECA.  The  report  should  explain  what  this 
finding  is  based  on  and  explain  why  an 

108 

 
 
 
 
 
 
initiative  was  needed  to  speed  up  the 
network’s  implementation  (Directive  on 
streamlining  measures  for  advancing  the 
realisation  of  the  TEN-T)?  What  is  that 
initiative  supposed  to  bring  in  terms  of 
measures  and  what  does  it  say  about  the 
effectiveness of the policy and the progress 
so  far?  The  report  considers  that  the 
‘completion  deadlines  2030  and  2050 
should  remain  unchanged’.  Is  this  in  line 
with  the  renewed  ambitions  under  the 
European Green Deal? Should it not be for 
the  impact  assessment  accompanying  the 
future  revision  to  determine  whether  the 
reinforced  climate  dimension  would  not 
require adapted processes and timelines? 

  Conclusions  should  build  on  the  evidence 
and  analysis,  without  bringing  new 
elements.  The  conclusions  on  efficiency 
refer to a possible shortage of capacity and 
resources, which is not sufficiently covered 
in the analysis. This is also the case for the 
finding  that  there  is  a  need  to  reinforce 
individual 
targets  underpinning  certain 
specific objectives.  

  The  language  of  the  conclusions  should 
focus  on  the  issues  identified  and  the 
reasons  for  them  and  should  not  prejudge 
the  outcome  of  the  future  revision.  The 
report 
therefore  avoid  being 
prescriptive about next steps.  

should 

  The  conclusions  should  discuss  whether 
efforts  need  a  reallocation,  given 
the 
substantial  differences  in  compliance  and 
progress. They should explain whether the 
Green Deal or other political commitments 
require  a  refocusing  of  the  current  TEN-T 
objectives. 

  The  report  should  explain  whether  the 
conclusions  are  based  on  what  has  been 
delivered  so  far  or  on  estimates  and 
forecasts.  If  the  latter  is  the  case,  then  the 
language  of  the  conclusions  should  be 
more cautious. 

  The  report’s  conclusions  should  point  to 
any  missing  data  or  data  needs  not  
adequately  covered  that  hinder  monitoring 
on whether the policy is on track.  

Chapter 6 ‘Conclusions’ completely reworked. 

Chapter 6 ‘Conclusions’ completely reworked. 

Chapter 6 ‘Conclusions’ completely reworked. 

Chapter 6 ‘Conclusions’ completely reworked. 

Chapter 6 ‘Conclusions’ completely reworked. 

109 

 
Chapter 6 ‘Conclusions’ completely reworked. 

  Conclusions  should  help  decision-makers 
determine  what  to  focus  on,  what  are  the 
priorities, what should be usefully changed 
and why. As such, the report should avoid 
general  statements  such  as  ‘there  is  some 
need  for  enhancing  the  inner  coherence 
between the provisions of the Regulation’. 

6.  Presentation 

  The  report  reads  well  and  presents  the  evaluation  of  a  complex  piece  of  Regulation  is  an 

accessible way. 

  Nevertheless, the report should spell out acronyms, explain jargon and generally not assume 

pre-existing specialised knowledge on the part of the reader.  

Amended.  

  The  report  should  systematically  provide  references  to  sources  underlying  statements  and 
ensure  cross-references  are  completed  (in  a  few  places  ‘please  see  question  x’  does  not 
indicate where to look).  

Corrected.  

The  evaluation  was  further  improved  based  on  the  recommendations  of  the  RSB  in  its 
positive  opinion  of  3  March.  In  particular,  the  conclusion  of  the  evaluation  has  been 
redrafted to highlight: 

 

 

the  need  to  revise  the  Regulation  to  support  the  EU  climate  and  environment 
ambitions  and  the  fact  that  the  improvement  of  standards  on  digitalisation  and 
interoperability of the network are not sufficient;  

the need for further assessment of the gaps in the implementation of the network, 
in particular the core network which should be completed by 2030, and the need 
to analyse possible measures to ensure such completion in time and according to 
the EU standards.  

110 

 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

1.  Overview of consultation activities 

To  ensure  transparency  and  the  validity  of  results,  the  evaluation  used  complementary 
methods to collect data from numerous stakeholders. These included public authorities at 
national,  regional  and 
institutions,  non-
governmental  organisations,  business  associations  and  organisations,  trade  unions, 
sectoral organisations, and citizens in general, as well as European Commission officials 
within  DG  MOVE  and  other  relevant  DGs  with  links  to  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  More 
specifically, the consultation activities consisted of the following:  

levels,  academics  and  research 

local 

An Open Public Consultation on the TEN-T Guidelines was launched on 24 April 2019 
by  DG  MOVE  and  remained  open  until  17  July  2019.  In  total,  604  responses  were 
received to the questionnaire, in addition to 140 documents with evidence supporting the 
responses.  The  evaluation  processed,  analysed  and  presented  the  results  of  the  Open 
Public  Consultation  in  a  stand-alone  report.  Specifically,  the  data  generated  by  the 
consultation has been used as input in the process of designing the approach and tools for 
the  evaluation  case  studies;  evidence  to  include  in  the  assessment  of  the  evaluation 
questions  and  sub-questions;  input  in  the  process  of  formulating  conclusions  and 
recommendations based on emerging results and lessons learned. 

Targeted  consultations  enabled  us  to  collect  data  from  specific  stakeholder  groups  at 
local, national, EU level, as well as from third countries, and to gather feedback on their 
awareness, perceptions and experiences of the TEN-T Regulation, its implementation and 
outcomes to date, as well as their recommendations for future EU policy developments in 
this  area.  These  data  have  fed  into  our  responses  to  the  evaluation  questions  and 
assessment of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value of 
the Regulation. The data will also inform the conclusions about the Regulation’s impact 
and causal effects, and the recommendations. The targeted consultations consisted of: 
 

the design and implementation of a global online survey that has received total valid 
sample of 198 respondents; 
the  design  and  implementation  of  44  in-depth  interviews  with  cross-sections  of 
respondents  to  the  survey  and  representatives  of  relevant  stakeholder  groups  to 
further explore views and issues in more detail; 
the  design  and  implementation  of  nine  thematic  case  studies,  including  desk 
research, in-depth interviews, online survey modules, and online workshops for three 
of them. The findings from the case studies have also fed into the general evaluation 
study in line with the Evaluation Questions Matrix. Although each case study had a 
specific purpose and targeted evaluation questions, the interconnections between the 
case studies has been exploited to maximise the synergies between them, notably in 
relation to consultations with key stakeholders, and to arrive at detailed findings. 

 

 

2.  Consultation challenges 

The  scale  of  the  consultation  programme  has  presented  conceptual  and  logistical 
challenges  which  we  addressed  at  different  stages  of  the  evaluation,  resulting  in  an 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
appropriate coverage of the consultation activities.  
At  a  conceptual  level,  our  lists  of  proposed  stakeholders  and  related  tools  have  been 
designed  to  achieve  the  best  possible  balance  between  interest  groups  and  topics.  We 
have designed a global survey questionnaire with skip logic that directed stakeholders to 
relevant  questions  based  on  their  profiles  and  familiarity  with  key  elements  of  TEN-T. 
The global survey was complemented by specific survey modules linked to the thematic 
case  studies  which  were  administered  only  among  informed  /  relevant  stakeholders  for 
each topic.  
Likewise, we have developed a global interview guide with general questions on TEN-T 
and have complemented this with tailored guides for each case study.  The stakeholder 
samples  and  tools  have  been  discussed  extensively  with  DG  MOVE.  The  sampling 
strategies  were  updated  as  the  evaluation  progressed  and  preliminary  findings  from  the 
initial tasks were made available. 
Our  survey  questionnaires  and  interview  guides  have  been  designed  in  a  user-friendly 
way.  The  questionnaires  have  been  piloted  internally  to  ensure  that  the  questions  are 
clear,  and  that  the  length  of  the  questionnaires  is  manageable.  DG  MOVE  have  also 
provided  a  letter  of  introduction  that  has  been  attached  to  the  invitation  emails.  The 
strong  networks  in  the  transport  sector  developed  by  consortium  partners  have  also 
proved instrumental for engaging with stakeholders in a meaningful way. 
At  a  logistical  and  practical  level,  the  COVID-19  crisis  impacted  during  the  data 
collection phase of the evaluation, leading to the cancellation of the TEN-T days and to 
the  reconfiguration  of  field  work,  including  workshops  that  had  to  be  adapted  to  take 
place online. Stronger and more tailored dissemination efforts were deployed to increase 
response  rates  for  the  case  study  surveys  and  interviews  launched  during  the  targeted 
consultations. For example, we have adapted to stakeholders’ requirements (e.g. written 
input  with  follow-up  conversation  with  national  authorities,  interviews  in  national 
languages).  We  have  also  asked  for  referrals  where  the  stakeholder  was  not  the 
appropriate one to interviewees and DG MOVE. 

3.  Synthesis of consultation Results 

The following sub-sections provide a brief synthesis of the main consultation tools and 
key results.  

3.1. Open Public Consultation 

A total of 604 respondents completed the questionnaire with varying levels of response 
rates  for  individual  questionnaire  items  (this  total  number  includes  the  questionnaires 
completed  online  and  questionnaires  submitted  by  direct  email).  Responses  were 
collected from 32 different countries, the vast majority from EU Member States. The top 
three  contribution  types  were  from  public  authorities  at  national  and  regional  level 
(37%), followed by EU citizens (20%) and companies/business organisations (16%). 
In  addition,  a  total  of  140  documents  were  submitted  as  a  complement  to  the 
questionnaire  launched  in  the  frame  of  the  Open  Consultation.  These  documents  were 
split per level of detail, in opinion pieces (essentially less structured documents), position 
papers  (more  in-depth  and  well-structured  analyses  and  reasoning)  and  others,  which 
include surveys, articles and presentations among the main contributions. 

112 

 
 
 
 
Key findings from the Open Public Consultation 

Regarding  the  general  questions  on  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  the  vast  majority  of 
respondents declared it was very important to have an EU transport infrastructure policy. 
The main focus areas in transport infrastructure policy at EU level were around removing 
physical  and  other  bottlenecks  in  the  network  as  a  whole,  facilitating  multimodal 
transport  chains,  establishing  physical  cross  border  infrastructures  and  ensuring 
connectivity and accessibility of all regions in the EU. 

The  main  areas  identified  for  improvement  in  EU  transport  infrastructure  policy  were 
eliminating  missing  links  in  physical  infrastructure,  further  improving  the  continuity  of 
the  TEN-T  network  and  enabling  a  better  use  of  existing  infrastructure  and  enhancing 
multimodal connecting points. 

The main expected benefits  of the EU transport  infrastructure policy were identified as 
the  development  of  a  European  transport  network  with  uniform  standards  across  the 
region,  increased  focus  on  environmental  and  sustainability  issues  and  improvement  in 
coordination between different governance levels. 

On the form of the TEN-T network, the majority of respondents considered the TEN-T 
corridors as a suitable tool to complete the TEN-T network by 2030. However, they were 
rather critical regarding complementarity of the comprehensive TEN-T network with the 
core network, and regarding the adequacy of the core network to meet the needs of the 
sector and its users. There were also concerns expressed regarding the clear identification 
of bottlenecks and constraints.  

Safety  and  security  issues  were  rated  as  the  most  adequate  characteristics  of  the 
comprehensive TEN-T network, followed by the availability and adequacy of alternative 
fuels infrastructures. Many participants however declared that the comprehensive TEN-T 
network was not adequate in terms of its required characteristics, particularly in terms of 
equipment  for  automated  transport,  the  above-mentioned  availability  and  adequacy  of 
alternative fuels infrastructures and equipment for ITS and digital mobility solutions. 

In  terms  of  the  features  of  the  TEN-T  network,  half  of  respondents  had  favourable 
views on the completeness of the standards and requirements for all modes of transport. 
Those who responded negatively most often indicated missing elements of the standards 
such  as  lack  of  complete  standards  for  waterways  and  ports  or  absence  of  a  fully 
integrated European transport network with uniform standards across the regions. 

Regarding  the  achievement  of  different  features  of  the  TEN-T  network,  stakeholders 
were  most  positive  about  the  stimulation  of  innovative  technologies  and  operational 
concepts and fostering the uptake of alternative fuels and propulsion systems. They were 
least in agreement that the TEN-T Regulation helped to promote a clean and low carbon 
transport  system  overall,  promoting  a  modal  shift  and  mitigating  noise  emissions  and 
other harmful impacts on citizens.  

113 

 
In  relation  to  infrastructure  use,  the  majority  of  respondents  considered  the 
infrastructure objectives as partly achieved. This was particularly the case of the aim to 
increase the efficiency of infrastructure use and provision in the EU, as well as the aim to 
enable  attractive  sustainable  and  efficient  multimodal  transport  in  both  the  passenger 
transport and freight sectors. 

When  asked  to  reflect  on  the  implementation  tools,  stakeholders  provided  mixed 
responses  regarding  the  coherence  between  the  TEN-T  policy  and  other  EU  policies. 
Areas  considered  to  be  more  coherent  with  TEN-T  policy  included  structural  and 
cohesion policy, economic and trade policy and sustainable urban mobility policy. On the 
other  hand,  areas  in  which  more  respondents  reported  that  there  was  not  sufficient 
coherence  included  environmental  policy,  cooperation  with  third  countries,  and  social 
and employment policy. 

More  than  half  of  respondents  were  familiar  with  the  European  coordinators  and  their 
role. Most respondents  who were familiar perceived the usefulness of the coordinators’ 
role in facilitating and accelerating the implementation of the TEN-T core network. 

3.2. Global online survey 

Overall, 204 respondents contributed to the global survey, although the total valid sample 
is 198 respondents. Respondents from Italy, Belgium, Sweden and France were the most 
numerous. There were no responses received from Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, and Slovakia. The top three contribution types were from public authorities 
at national level and company/business organisations, and public authorities at regional 
level.  

Key findings from the global online survey 

In  terms  of  the  relevance  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  most  respondents  agreed  or 
strongly  agreed  that  the  TEN-T  policy  objectives  address  current  and  foreseeable 
challenges  in  the  areas  of  growth  in  transport  /  mobility  demand  (87%),  growth  in 
congestion  (78%),  changes  in  freight  transport  concepts  and  corresponding  transport 
solutions (74%) and climate change and (71%).  

More  than  eight  in  every  ten  respondents  also  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  TEN-T 
policy  objectives  address  a  range  of  current  and  foreseeable  policy  needs,  such  as 
ensuring  high  levels  of  safety  and  security,  supporting  TEN-T  implementation  through 
EU  instruments,  identifying  and  removing  bottlenecks  and  missing  links  for  all  modes 
and defining clear priorities for TEN-T development and boosting their implementation. 

However, over one third of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the TEN-T 
policy objectives address challenges related to scarcity of natural resources, infrastructure 
needs  from  the  perspective  of  users,  and  in  terms  of  supporting  enhanced  transfer 
between TEN-T and local / regional transport.  

In  relation  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  most  respondents  indicated 

114 

 
that the current provisions for the development of the nodes in the network achieved their 
objectives  to  a  great  extent  or  to  some  extent  in  the  areas  of  freight  transport  nodes 
(61%),  passenger  transport  nodes  (57%)  and  logistic  /  railroad  /  combined  transport 
terminals (52%).  

Most respondents also indicated that the TEN-T Regulation achieved its objectives in a 
number  of  other  areas  to  a  great  or  to  some  extent,  notably  in  facilitating  the  free 
movement  of  people  and  goods  within  the  EU  (73%)  and  boosting  the  creation  of  a 
single,  Europe-wide  infrastructure  network  as  the  basis  for  continuous,  seamless  and 
interoperable transport and mobility (72%).  

The wide majority of respondents  agreed or strongly  agreed that the implementation  of 
TEN-T projects contributed to enhancing the overall European transport network (92%). 
Most  respondents  also  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  TEN-T  Regulation  has 
promoted  increased  benefits  for  users  (79%),  improved  transport  connections  and  /  or 
transport flows between Member States (78%) and support to the decarbonisation of all 
transport modes (68%).  

Half of all respondents (49%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the completion of the 
Core  Network  until  2030  would  be  met  if  no  changes  to  the  provisions  of  the  TEN-T 
Regulation are introduced, and respondents were split on the issue of the completion of 
the Comprehensive Network until 2050, with 45% of respondents who agreed or strongly 
agreed and 40% of respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed.  

When consulted about aspects related to the efficiency of the TEN-T Regulation, most 
respondents  agreed or strongly agreed that studies, such as corridor studies, carried out 
by  European  coordinators  and  their  consultant  teams,  are  a  cost-effective  tool  to 
implement  the  core  network  (67%)  and  that  the  cost  of  governance  and  advice 
mechanisms of the core network corridors are reasonable in relation to the benefits they 
bring (63%).  

Most  respondents  also  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  cooperation  between  core 
network  and  rail  freight  corridors  addressed  key  efficiency  measures  in  the  areas  of: 
facilitating the use of new and existing infrastructure (58%); optimising interconnection 
and interoperability of national networks within the European transport network (56%); 
and removing bottlenecks and complete missing links (54%).  

In  relation  to  the  external  coherence  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  most  respondents 
agreed or strongly agreed that the provisions in the TEN-T Regulation are coherent with 
other ongoing and expected developments in the transport policy areas concerned which 
are  directly  connected  with  TEN-T  policy,  particularly  as  regards  multi-modality  / 
combined transport (69%), alternative fuels and digitalisation (68%, respectively). 

Most respondents also agreed or strongly agreed that the TEN-T Regulation is coherent 
with other relevant EU policies, such as environmental, climate and resource efficiency 
(76%),  social  /  territorial  dimension  (69%)  and  urban  policy,  city  /  urban  development 
strategies (66%).  

115 

 
Most  also  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  it  is  complementary  to  other  EU  instruments, 
such as the Connecting Europe Facility (82%), Horizon 2020 (75%), the ESIF (67%) and 
EU Research and Innovation programmes (63%).  

With regards to internal coherence, most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the 
different provisions of the TEN-T Regulation are coherent among themselves (79%), and 
a  slightly  lower  percentage  considered  that  the  different  provisions  are  coherent  across 
modes (68%).  

When  consulted  about  the  EU-added  Value  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  most 
respondents (85% and 84%, respectively) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the results 
of the TEN-T policy could have been  achieved at the regional level and at the national 
level without the TEN-T Regulation.  

The  vast  majority  of  respondents  (95%  and  92%,  respectively)  also  agreed  or  strongly 
agreed  that  European  regions  and  cities  and  their  citizens  benefit  from  enhanced 
connectivity  and  accessibility  and  that  the  discontinuation  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation 
would negatively impact the establishment and development of trans-European networks. 

More  than  nine  in  every  ten  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  the  TEN-T 
Regulation  is  essential  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  EU  Transport  policy  and  that  the 
broadened TEN-T community adds value to the establishment and development of trans-
European networks. The broad majority of respondents also indicated that the EU-wide 
network  approach  contributes  to  socioeconomic  benefits  to  a  great  or  to  some  extent, 
particularly in the areas of access to goods and services by users and economic operators 
(90%),  improved  mobility  and  accessibility  (90%),  time  and  cost  savings  (86%),  and 
increased competitiveness and attraction of economic activities (84%). 

3.3. Global interviews 

44 in-depth interviews were conducted with representatives of 25 EU Member States, 9 
regional  authorities118,  and  8  transport  stakeholders  representing  national  and  European 
transport federations and associations, and relevant programmes and interest groups. 

Key findings from the global interviews 

In terms  of the relevance of the TEN-T Regulation, there was consensus  that all four 
specific  objectives  of  the  Regulation  should  remain  at  the  forefront  of  EU  transport 
policy-making.  However,  interviewees  suggested  that  some  aspects  need  stronger 
prioritisation  in  the Regulation.  This  was particularly the  case for  environmental  issues 
such  as  decarbonisation  and  alternative  fuels,  as  well  as  digitalisation.  Approaches  to 
tackling these issues were also found to require harmonisation across Member States.  

118 The public authority from Cyprus was interviewed both as a national and regional authority. 

116 

 
                                                           
Interviewees found that the specific objectives are still relevant to the current context in 
their  Member  State,  region  or  sector,  and  emphasised  environmental  aspects  (such  as 
greenhouse  gas  reduction,  decarbonisation  and  alternative  fuels)  and  the  COVID-19 
crisis  as  changing  needs  in  their  transport  sectors.  They  considered  the  TEN-T 
Regulation to be flexible to cope with these changing developments and needs but noted 
that new environmental challenges require more weight and priority in the Regulation. 

Interviewees found that the definitions of infrastructure standards and requirements in the 
Regulation  are  generally  appropriate  to  achieve  TEN-T  and  wider  transport  policy 
objectives but found them limited in the case of alternative fuels and also felt that more 
alignment is needed between the TEN-T Regulation and the ITS Directive. 

Interviewees  found  that  it  is  too  soon  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of  the  TEN-T 
Regulation in delivering specific objectives and saw its main achievement at this time in 
fostering cooperation between Member States and promoting a European perspective in 
infrastructure development. The main challenges to overcome in this context are limited 
resources  and  the  prioritisation  of  national  infrastructure  strategies  over  TEN-T 
objectives in some Member States.  

Interviewees  found  that  current  provisions  have  achieved  their  purpose  for  identifying 
and defining “physical” projects of common interest but noted that more flexibility in the 
definition would be desirable.  

In  terms  of  promoting  investments,  interviewees  found  that  the  Regulation  has  a  much 
stronger emphasis on physical infrastructure rather than user  services.  Views were also 
split  on  the  issue  whether  the  Regulation  has  promoted  investments  that  enhance 
sustainability and decarbonisation.  

The  Core  Network  Corridors  were  found  to  be  very  effective  at  facilitating  the 
implementation of the TEN-T core network. The development of the core network was 
deemed to be progressing well in line with 2030 targets, but the challenge of funding is a 
recurrent  issue that needs to  be overcome. The  comprehensive network  was considered 
paramount  for  achieving  connectivity  and  cohesion  in  the  European  Union,  but 
interviewees  noted  that  in  terms  of  completion,  priority  has  been  given  to  the  core 
network due to the more imminent deadline.  

In  terms  of  the  efficiency  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  interviewees  were  split  on  the 
extent that  costs of governance  and advice mechanisms  of the Core Network Corridors 
have generally been reasonable. Some felt that the costs and workloads are appropriate, 
while  others  felt  the  process  is  time  consuming,  did  not  see  added  value  of  reporting 
annual  budgetary  planning,  and  criticised  the  need  to  regularly  update  project  lists  in 
particular.  

In  relation  to  the  coherence  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  interviewees  found  that  the 
requirements and provisions set out in the Regulation are coherent with one another, but 
not  coherent  across transport modes  given the  way  that  funding is  allocated. They  also 
found  that  the  Regulation  is  coherent  with  other  EU  policies  and  initiatives  (e.g. 

117 

 
Alternative Fuels Directive, Clean Vehicles Directive, etc.), but also identified gaps such 
as  not  enough synergies with  other sectors  (energy, defence, environment), and  limited 
deployment of ITS solutions beyond the core network.  

As regards the overall concept of the TEN-T being appropriately supported by relevant 
EU funding instruments, interviewees considered the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) 
to be the most important funding mechanism, and appreciated the CEF transport blending 
facility, but noted the CEF budget alone is insufficient to fulfil the TEN-T requirements 
in  their  Member  States.  Some  interviewees  noted  coherence  between  H2020,  CEF  and 
TEN-T and considered EIB to be a useful funding mechanism. Using ESIF and cohesion 
funds was mentioned as a significant source of funding particularly by interviewees from 
Eastern Europe.  

When  consulted  about  the  EU-added  value  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  interviewees 
found that results could not have been achieved at national or regional level without the 
TEN-T  Regulation,  and  that  the  Regulation  has  a  strong  added  value  as  regards 
investments,  international  cooperation,  and  developing  a  pan-European  transport 
infrastructure.  If  the  TEN-T  Regulation  were  to  be  discontinued,  impact  would  most 
greatly be felt in  the areas of  cross-border sections,  cross-border issues,  progression on 
projects, and in terms of territorial cohesion and the internal market.  

3.4. Thematic case studies 

Nine  thematic  case  studies  on  selected  TEN-T  policy  areas  have  been  designed  and 
implemented  as  part  of  the  evaluation.  Each  case  study  has  been  tailored  to  address 
specific evaluation sub-questions and issues, which were further reviewed and updated in 
discussions  with  DG  MOVE  during  the  inception  and  interim  phases.  The  approach  to 
each  case  study  includes  a  combination  of  desk  review  of  secondary  sources,  specific 
survey  modules,  in-depth  interviews  and  discussions  with  relevant  stakeholders 
(complementing the global survey and interviews carried out as part of the consultation). 
Online  stakeholder  workshops  were  organised  as  part  of  case  studies  1,  6  and  7  to 
validate the findings, and to discuss conclusions and recommendations.  

Overview of the thematic case studies 
In  total,  more  than  80  interviews  have  been  conducted  with  stakeholders  and 
representatives of the different policy areas covered by the case studies, and more than 40 
stakeholders  have  participated  in  online  workshops  organised  by  selected  case  studies. 
The case study online surveys have collected more than 680 responses. The table below 
presents an overview of the objectives and focus of each case study and a synthesis of the 
consultation approach. Findings from the case studies are provided in the respective case 
study reports and integrated in the answers to the evaluation questions in the main report. 

118 

 
Table A2-1. Overview of the nine thematic case studies 

Overview 

Consultation approach 

20 interviews with representatives of 
selected urban nodes 
89 responses to dedicated online 
survey 
Online workshop with 17 attendees 

11 interviews with representatives 
and stakeholders of Core Network 
Corridors 
131 responses to dedicated online 
survey 

4 interviews with representatives of 
rail mode (interviews with other 
modes ongoing / in the process of 
being scheduled) 
238  responses  to  dedicated  online 
survey,  including:  Road  (34),  Rail 
(62),  IWW  (37),  Maritime  (48),  Air 
(15),  and  Multimodal  (42)  (NOTE: 
survey  is  still  open  to  encourage 
additional responses) 

15 interviews with representatives of 
CCAM, SESAR, Hyperloop and 
foresight experts 
65 responses to dedicated online 
survey 

Desk-based approach to the case 
study 

the 

relevance, 

effectiveness 

Case study 1: The role of urban nodes in TEN-T policy 
Focuses  on  how  appropriate  and  clear  the  role  of 
urban  nodes  is  in  the  TEN-T  framework,  the 
effectiveness  of  the  set-up  of  urban  nodes  in  the 
TEN-T  Regulation  and  on  possible  challenges 
arising  between  TEN-T  and  urban  nodes  in  terms 
of  coherence  with  local  to  EU-wide  policies  of 
various sectors.  
Case study 2: Core Network Corridors 
Assesses 
and 
efficiency  of  the  core  network  corridors  for  the 
achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  TEN-T 
Regulation.  The  Core  Network  Corridor  approach 
facilitate 
is  a  means 
the  coordinated 
to 
to 
the  core  network  and 
implementation  of 
promote inter-European transport links vital to the 
economic and social development of the EU.   
Case study 3: Infrastructure standards 
Evaluates  whether  the  current  provisions  of  the 
Regulation are still relevant, efficient and coherent 
with the TEN-T policy as well as with the verified 
and  binding 
progress 
documents.  This  case  study  is  mainly  focused  on 
the  TEN-T 
requirements  and 
standards. 

infrastructure 

legislative 

in  other 

Case study 4: TEN-T as an enabler of a future mobility system 
Aims  to  understand  how  well  adapted  the  current 
provisions  of  the  Regulation  are  to  incorporate 
expected future policy, technological and scientific 
innovation  and  to  clarify  whether  the  current 
version  of  the  Regulation  unlocks  future  mobility 
concepts  and  systems  or  can  be  better  adapted  to 
plausible  future  changes.  To  better  frame  this 
discussion,  we  selected  three  representative  areas 
of  the  future-oriented  mobility  system,  including 
road  automation,  the  SESAR  project,  and  the 
Hyperloop. 
Case study 5: High-speed rail 
Focuses  on  the  specific  role  of  high-speed  rail 
within 
the 
the  TEN-T,  paying  attention 
effectiveness and relevance of the provisions of the 
TEN-T  Regulation 
the  network 
planning)  and  their  implementation,  as  well  as 
their  coherence  with  other  relevant  EU  action  – 
notably in fields such as railway policy, territorial 
development or urban nodes. 

(including 

to 

119 

 
Overview 

Consultation approach 

the  difficult 

7 interviews with TEN-T 
stakeholders in the field of 
innovation and new technologies 
Online workshop with 10 attendees 

8 interviews with TEN-T 
stakeholders in the field of 
digitalisation 
52 responses to dedicated online 
survey 
Online workshop with 17 attendees 

Case study 6: Digitalisation 
Evaluates  the  extent  to  which  TEN-T  Regulation 
provisions  are  able  to  bring  the  potential  of  the 
digital revolution to the TEN-T, and to help define 
a  concept  of  digitalisation  fit  for  the  TEN-T 
context.  To  achieve  this,  we  have  approached  the 
horizontal issue of digitalisation from two distinct 
angles: i) digitalisation in passenger transport; and 
ii) digitalisation in freight transport.  
Case study 7: Innovation and new technologies 
Assesses the way new technologies and innovation 
have  been  stimulated  and  implemented  in  TEN-T 
policy.  The  case  study  also  addresses 
the 
coherence  and  complementarity  between  R&I 
(notably European but also other R&I) and TEN-T 
policy.  The  assessment  is  done  both  in  general 
terms and for the example of the quality of TEN-T 
infrastructure.  The  case  study  focuses  on  the 
quality of road infrastructure and the methods and 
standards  to  ensure  the  structural  quality  of  the 
infrastructure;  and 
transition  of 
innovative  solutions  and  research  into  practical 
implications.  
Case study 8: Seamless and barrier-free mobility for the trans-European passenger 
Focuses  on 
the  passenger  experience  when 
travelling  through  the  TEN-T  network.  It  is 
concerned with  the question of how seamless  and 
barrier-free  mobility  can  be  established  for  these 
passengers. Although some relevant provisions are 
included  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation  (e.g.  Article 
37),  this  is  not  an  area  that  is  extensively  or 
comprehensively  covered  by 
the  Regulation, 
particularly  with  respect  to  multimodality  and  the 
subsequent  issues  of  equal  accessibility  for  all 
users, integrated multimodal ticketing, coordinated 
timetables  between  modes,  provision  of  travel 
information  and  consideration  of  passenger  rights 
in the context of multimodal transport.      
Case study 9: The external dimension of TEN-T 
Explores  the  increased  importance  of  fostering 
synergies 
and 
infrastructure  network  policies  and  plans  in  other 
countries 
new 
developments  that  have  taken  place  and  have  an 
impact  on  TEN-T  policy  cooperation  with 
neighbouring  countries,  in  particular  candidates 
and  potential  candidates  to  EU  accession  in  the 
Western  Balkans  and  Turkey, 
the  Eastern 
Neighbourhood  and  the  Southern  Neighbourhood. 
It  also  looks  at  cooperation  initiatives  with  other 
third countries. 

4 interviews with representatives of 
Southern Neighbourhood (interviews 
with representatives of other regions 
ongoing / in the process of being 
scheduled) 
64 responses to dedicated online 
survey, including: Western Balkans 
and Turkey (29), Eastern 
Neighbourhood (19), and Southern 
Neighbourhood (16) (NOTE: survey 
is still open to encourage additional 
responses) 

13 interviews with key organisations 
and groups representing passenger 
services 
43 responses to dedicated online 
survey 

between 

regions. 

reflects 

TEN-T 

policy 

and 

It 

120 

 
Annex 3 Global Survey Participants119 

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS 

Overall,  204  respondents  contributed  to  the  survey.  After  cleaning  the  dataset  to  remove  contributions 
(n=6)  that  were  limited  to  contact  details  for  interviews  and  case  study  research,  but  which  provided  no 
answers to any of the survey questions, the total valid sample is 198 respondents.  

Contribution type 
The top three contribution types were from a national public authority in the EU and a company / business 
organisation, which each comprised 20% of the sample, followed by a regional public authority in the EU 
(17%),  a  business  association  (9%)  and  infrastructure  managers  (8%).  The  figure  below  shows  the 
respondent sample broken down by stakeholder group. 

Figure 1: Sample by stakeholder group (n=198) 

STAKEHOLDER group 

National public authority in the EU 

Company / business organisation 

Regional public authority in the EU 

Business association 

Infrastructure manager 

Local public authority in the EU 

Non-governmental organisation 

EU citizen 

Environmental organisation 

Public authority in a third country (non-EU) 

Transport operator 

Academic / research institution 
Other120 

No response 

Total 

n 

% of total 
sample 

40 

40 

35 

18 

16 

12 

9 

3 

2 

3 

4 

4 

10 

2 

198 

20% 

20% 

17% 

9% 

8% 

6% 

5% 

3% 

1% 

2% 

2% 

2% 

4% 

1% 

100% 

Scope of work, sector and organisation size 
In terms of the scope of work, the largest proportion of respondents (48%)  worked across multiple areas 
(international,  local,  national  and  regional)121,  followed  by  30%  who  indicated  that  they  worked 
internationally. Fewer respondents confirmed an exclusively national (10%), regional (10%) or local (2%) 
scope of work (see Figure 2). 

119 This is an extract from the support study for the TEN-T Evaluation by Coffey consultants 
120 Other respondents include engineers, equality activists, representatives of other European networks and 

public state enterprises, and project managers 

121 Aggregated number of respondents who indicated working in more than one area 

121 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 2: Sample by scope of work (n=198) 

In terms of the transport sector that respondents worked in, most indicated multimodal transport122 (69%), 
followed by road (11%), rail (9%) and maritime transport (7%). There were less respondents working on 
air transport and inland waterways (2%, respectively) (see Figure 3).  

Figure 3: Sample by transport sector (n=198) 

69% 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

11% 

9% 

7% 

2% 

2% 

Multimodal
Transport

Road

Rail

Maritime

Air

Inland
Waterways

Half  of  all  respondents  (48%)  indicated  that  they  worked  for  a  large  organisation  of  250  or  more 
employees. 22% indicated that they worked for a medium-sized organisation (50 to 249 employees), and 
13%, respectively, for a small or micro organisation (see Figure 4).  

Figure 4: Sample by organisation size (n=198) 

Geographical distribution  
The Member State with the largest representation of respondents in the sample was Italy (18%), followed 
by  Belgium  (11%),  Sweden  and  France  (9%,  respectively).  The  Member  States  with  the  smallest 

122 Aggregated number of respondents who indicated working in more than one sector, as well as those who only indicated working in 

multimodal transport 

122 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
representation  of  respondents  in  the  survey  were  Denmark,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Norway  and  the 
United Kingdom, at 1% respectively (see Figure 1 There were no responses received from Cyprus, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Luxembourg, and Slovakia. 

The survey was distributed widely and open to all relevant audiences across the EU Member States. While 
the response rate is not balanced across Member States, to ensure meaningful comparisons, we aggregated 
the data by EU regions and former and new EU Member States (see section 3.1.4).  

Figure 5). There were no responses received from Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, and Slovakia. 

The survey was distributed widely and open to all relevant audiences across the EU Member States. While 
the response rate is not balanced across Member States, to ensure meaningful comparisons, we aggregated 
the data by EU regions and former and new EU Member States (see section 3.1.4).  

Figure 5: Representation of respondents by Member State (n=198) 

0%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Italy

France

Spain

Croatia

Netherlands

Poland

Denmark

Bulgaria

Czech Republic

Slovenia

Hungary

Malta

United Kingdom

18% 

11% 
9% 
9% 
7% 
5% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
4% 
3% 
3% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
2% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 
1% 

123 

 
 
 
Annex 4 Desk Research Sources123 

Title 

Theme 

Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 concerning a European rail 
network for competitive freight, October 2010 
European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed 
Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe, November 2010 
Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for 
Regulation on Union Guidelines for the development of the 
Trans-European Transport Network, December 2011 
Ports: an engine for growth, May 2013 

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 
2013/885 on information services for safe and secure parking 
places for trucks and commercial vehicles, May 2013 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 on data 
and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road 
safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of 
charge to users, May 2013 
Planning methodology for the trans-European transport 
network (TEN-T), SWD (2013), January 2014 
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/962 of 18 
December 2014 on EU-wide real-time traffic information, 
December 2014 
Study on Logistics in the TEN-T Corridor, March 2016 

Directive (EU) 2016/797 on the interoperability of the EU’s 
rail system, May 2016 
Directive (EU) 2016/798 on railway safety, May 2016 

Article 49.3 Study: Review of Existing Sources of 
Information / Data and Support for The Preparation of The 
Progress Report on the Implementation of the TEN-T 
Network, June 2016 
TEN-T Corridors: Forerunners of a forward-looking European 
Transport System, Rotterdam, the Netherlands | Issue Papers, 
June 2016 
Strategy for low-emission mobility, {SWD(2016) 244 final}, 
July 2016 
The implementation of the 2011 White Paper on Transport 
"Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – towards a 
competitive and resource-efficient transport system" five 
years after its publication: achievements and challenges, July 
2016 
The trans-European transport network – state of play in 2016, 
October 2016 
A European strategy on Cooperative Intelligent Transport 
Systems, a milestone towards cooperative, connected and 
automated mobility, November 2016 
Common progress report of European Coordinators, 
December 2016 
Study on permitting and facilitating the preparation of TEN-T 

Railway transport 

Linkages/coherence with other policy 
areas and initiatives 

All transport modes 

Marine Transport, Multimodal Transport, 
Linkages with other policies and 
initiatives, innovation 

Road transport 

Road safety 

EU policy, all transport modes 

Alternative fuels 

Multimodal transport and logistics 

Railway transport 

Railway transport 

TEN-T implementation status and broad 
impact 

Transport corridors and connection with 
non-EU countries 

All transport modes: Low emission 

Road, rail, air, inland waterways and 
maritime 

TEN-T implementation status and broad 
impact 

Cooperative intelligent transport systems 
in road transport 

Transport corridors and connection with 
non-EU countries 
TEN-T implementation status and broad 

123 This is an extract from the support study for the TEN-T Evaluation by Coffey consultants 

124 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
core network projects, December 2016 

impact 

European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2017 on 
logistics in the EU and multimodal transport in the new TEN-
T corridors (2015/2348(INI)), January 2017 
Motorways of the Sea: An ex-post evaluation on the 
development of the concept from 2001 and possible ways 
forward, April 2017 
Horizon 2020 Interim Evaluation, May 2017 

Delivering the Trans-European Transport Network: fact and 
figures, September 2017 
Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2009/33/EU on 
the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road transport 
vehicles, November 2017 
Proposal for a Directive amending Directive 92/106/EEC on 
the establishment of common rules for certain types of 
combined transport of goods between Member States, 
November 2017 
Towards the broadest use of alternative fuels - an Action Plan 
on Alternative Fuels Infrastructure under Article 10(6) of 
Directive 2014/94/EU, including the assessment of national 
policy frameworks under Article 10(2) of Directive 
2014/94/EU, November 2017 
European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2017 on a 
European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility 
(2016/2327(INI)), December 2017 
Council conclusions on the progress of the Trans-European 
Transport Network (TEN-T) implementation and the 
Connecting Europe Facility for transport, December 2017 
Research for TRAN Committee: The new Silk Route - 
opportunities and challenges for EU transport, January 2018 
Report on Regulation 913/2010/EU (COM/2018/066 final; 
SWD/2018/044 final), February 2018 
Mid-term evaluation of the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), 
February 2018 
Action Plan on Military Mobility, March 2018 

An EU that delivers: investments in smart, sustainable and 
safe mobility, April 2018 
Briefing Implementation Appraisal - Trans-European 
Transport Network (TEN-T), European Parliament, April 
2018 
Third Work plans of the European Coordinators, April 2018 

Europe on the move. Sustainable Mobility for Europe: safe, 
connected, and clean, May 2018 
Proposal for a Directive, amending Directive 2008/96/EC on 
road infrastructure safety management, May 2018 
Proposal for a Regulation on streamlining measures for 
advancing the realisation of TEN-T, May 2018 
Special report n° 19/2018: A European high-speed rail 
network: not a reality but an ineffective patchwork, June 2018 
Towards a successful transport sector in the EU: challenges to 
be addressed, December 2018 
Reflection Paper towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030, 
January 2019 
The wise person group on the future of the single European 
sky, April 2019 
Priorities of European Ports for 2019 – 2024: What ports do 
for Europe what Europe do for ports, Memorandum of the 

125 

Multimodal transport and logistics 

Maritime Transport 

Research and Innovation 
TEN-T implementation status and broad 
impact 

Road transport 

Multimodal Transport 

Alternative fuels 

All transport modes: Low emission 

TEN-T implementation status and broad 
impact 

TEN-T implementation status and broad 
impact 

International rail freight corridors 

CEF, TEN-T related financial tools 

All transportations modes that relate to 
military transport 

TEN-T broad impact 

TEN-T implementation status and broad 
impact 

Multimodal transport, transport 
Corridors, Links to third countries 

Sustainability in all transport modes 

Road transport 

The core vs. comprehensive network 

High-speed lines 

Road, rail, air, inland waterways and 
maritime 
Linkages/coherence with other policy 
areas and initiatives 
Single European Sky and Air Traffic 
Management 
Maritime Transport 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
European Sea Ports Organisation for the new Commission and 
European Parliament, May 2019 
ERTMS business case on the 9 core network corridors, June 
2019 
Ex-post evaluation of the Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) 
Directive, October 2019 
Sustainable Europe Investment Plan - European Green Deal 
Investment Plan, December 2019 
Going Climate-neutral by 2050, a strategic long-term vision 
for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate-neutral EU 
economy, December 2019 
The first and last mile — the key to sustainable urban 
transport, January 2020 
Communication from the Commission on the implementation 
of the Green Lanes under the Guidelines for border 
management measures to protect health and ensure the 
availability of goods and essential services, March 2020 
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of 
the Council on streamlining measures for advancing the 
realisation of the trans- European transport network, June 
2020 
Draft Report on the revision of the Trans-European Transport 
Network (TEN-T) guidelines (2019/2192(INI)), from the 
Committee on Transport and Tourism, June 2020 
Progress report on implementation of the TEN-T network in 
2016-2017, August 2020 

ERTMS, railway management system 

Intelligent Transport Systems for Roads 

EU policy, Linkages/coherence with 
other policy areas and initiatives 

EU policy, Linkages/coherence with 
other policy areas and initiatives 

Sustainability in all transport modes 

TEN-T implementation status and broad 
impact 

EU policy 

TEN-T implementation status and broad 
impact 

TEN-T implementation status and broad 
impact 

126 

 
 
Annex 5: Evaluation Question Matrix (EQM) 

Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

Relevance: To what extent does the TEN-T Regulation’s objectives and priorities reflect the current context? 

EQ1: To what extent are 
the objectives set in the 
TEN-T Regulation still 
relevant to achieve the 
general objective of the 
TEN-T policy, as set out in 
the TFEU, as well as 
broader transport policy 
objectives? 

 

 

 

EQ1.1: Extent to which the specific 
objectives in the Regulation (as per 
Article 4: cohesion, efficiency, 
sustainability and increasing the 
benefits for users) are still adequate 
in the current context; 

EQ1.2: Extent to which the specific 
objectives relate to current problems 
and needs;  

EQ1.3: Extent to which the network 
structure (dual layer, links and nodes) 
are still adequate to achieve wider 
objectives. 

  Desk research, including 

TENtec assessment, corridor 
studies, work plans, other 
studies and evaluations 
Analysis of OPC results  
Targeted surveys 
Targeted interviews  

 
 
 
  Case studies 1-9 
  Corridor and in-house work 

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence and examples showing that the areas 
covered by the specific objectives in Art. 4 are 
still high in the European agenda and that they 
relate to current problems and needs 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the TEN-T policy objectives 
address current and foreseeable policy needs 
and challenges in the transport policy area and 
that they relate to current problems and needs 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
specific objectives of the TEN-T Regulation have 
been generally adequate and responded well to 
wider EU policy needs 

Evidence and examples showing that the 
different elements of the network structure 
(dual layer, links and nodes) are still adequate 
to achieve wider objectives 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the different elements of 
the network structure (dual layer, links and 
nodes) are still adequate to achieve wider 
objectives  

 

Level of agreement among respondents to 

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

Analysis of OPC results  
Targeted surveys 
Targeted interviews  

  Desk research 
 
 
 
  Case studies 1-9 
  Corridor and in-house work 

EQ2: How well adapted 
are the provisions of the 
Regulation to incorporate 
expected future policy, 
technological and scientific 
innovation? 

 

 

 

 

 

EQ2.1: Extent to which the Regulation 
is flexible and adaptive to respond to 
changing needs (e.g. future policy, 
technological and scientific 
innovation); 

EQ2.2: Extent to which the Regulation 
is flexible and adaptive to respond to 
new solutions that challenge the mere 
linear form of land transport 
connections and “traditional” modes 
of transport; 

EQ2.3: Extent to which the Regulation 
can accommodate the increasing need 
to deploy alternative fuels, alternative 
fuels infrastructure, passenger quality 
and new mobility schemes; 

EQ2.4: Extent to which the Regulation 
has enabled new technology to 
support infrastructure development; 

EQ2.5: Extent to which the Regulation 
supports the taking up of tested 
research results, including EU funded 
research results. 

global interviews and/or case studies that the 
different elements of the network structure 
(dual layer, links and nodes) are still adequate 
to achieve wider objectives  

Evidence and examples pointing out to areas for 
improvement to the network structure 

Evidence and examples showing that the 
Regulation provisions have been flexible and 
adaptive to respond to changing needs and to 
new solutions challenging traditional” modes of 
transport 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the Regulation provisions 
have been flexible and adaptive to respond to 
changing needs and to new solutions 
challenging traditional” modes of transport 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
Regulation provisions have been flexible and 
adaptive to respond to changing needs and to 
new solutions challenging traditional” modes of 
transport 

Evidence and examples of provisions that have 
been most and least flexible 

Evidence and examples that the Regulation 
provisions have been adequate for enabling the 
deployment of alternative fuels, alternative fuels 
infrastructure, passenger quality and new 
mobility schemes 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 

128 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

strongly agreed that the Regulation provisions 
have been adequate for enabling the 
deployment of alternative fuels, alternative fuels 
infrastructure, passenger quality and new 
mobility schemes 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
Regulation provisions have been adequate for 
enabling the deployment of alternative fuels, 
alternative fuels infrastructure, passenger 
quality and new mobility schemes  
Evidence and examples of ways in which the 
Regulation has enabled or prevented the 
deployment of alternative fuels, alternative fuels 
infrastructure, passenger quality and new 
mobility schemes  

Evidence and examples that the Regulation has 
enabled new technology to support 
infrastructure development and that it has 
supported the taking up of EU funded research 
results 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the Regulation has enabled 
new technology to support infrastructure 
development and that it has supported the 
taking up of EU funded research results 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
Regulation has enabled new technology to 
support infrastructure development and that it 
has supported the taking up of EU funded 
research results  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence and examples of ways in which the 

129 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

Analysis of OPC results  
Targeted surveys 
Targeted interviews  

  Desk research 
 
 
 
  Case studies 1-8 
  Corridor and in-house work 

EQ3: How relevant is the 
set of infrastructure 
standards and 
requirements, as included 
in the TEN-T regulation, 
for the achievement of 
TEN-T and transport policy 
objectives? 

Regulation has enabled or prevented new 
technology to support infrastructure 
development and the taking up of EU funded 
research results  

 

 

 

 

 

 

EQ 3.1: Extent to which the 
provisions of the Regulation have 
been adapted to enable efficient use 
of TEN-T infrastructure; 

 

Evidence and examples that the Regulation has 
enabled the efficient use of TEN-T infrastructure 
and on the appropriateness of infrastructure 
standards and requirements for: 

EQ 3.2: Extent to which infrastructure 
standards and requirements are 
appropriate to achieve TEN-T and 
transport policy objectives; 
EQ 3.3: Extent to which the 
Regulation’s standards are still 
appropriate to assure network 
continuity, interoperability and 
compliance with international 
agreements; 

EQ3.4: Extent to which provisions for 
standards and requirements are still 
adequate to incorporate market 
evolution developments across the 
different transport modes; 

EQ 3.5: Extent to which infrastructure 
standards and requirements including 
telematic provisions are up to date 
and sufficient in responding to 
digitalisation;  

EQ 3.6: Extent to which infrastructure 
standards and requirements are 
sufficient to achieve new, high quality 
transport infrastructure and transport 
innovation reduce infrastructure 
quality gaps. 

o 

o 

o 

o 
o 

achieving TEN-T and transport policy 
objectives; 
assuring network continuity, 
interoperability and compliance with 
international agreements; 
incorporating market developments 
across the different transport modes; 
responding to digitalisation; 
achieving new transport infrastructure 
and reducing infrastructure gaps. 

 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the Regulation has enabled 
the efficient use of TEN-T infrastructure and on 
the appropriateness of infrastructure standards 
and requirements for: 

o 

o 

o 

o 
o 

achieving TEN-T and transport policy 
objectives; 
assuring network continuity, 
interoperability and compliance with 
international agreements; 
incorporating market developments 
across the different transport modes; 
responding to digitalisation; 
achieving new transport infrastructure 
and reducing infrastructure gaps. 

 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 

130 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

Regulation has enabled the efficient use of TEN-
T infrastructure and on the appropriateness of 
infrastructure standards and requirements for: 

o 

o 

o 

o 
o 

achieving TEN-T and transport policy 
objectives; 
assuring network continuity, 
interoperability and compliance with 
international agreements; 
incorporating market developments 
across the different transport modes; 
responding to digitalisation; 
achieving new transport infrastructure 
and reducing infrastructure gaps. 

 

Evidence and examples of ways in which the 
Regulation has enabled the efficient use of TEN-
T infrastructure and on the appropriateness of 
infrastructure standards and requirements 

Effectiveness: How well has the Regulation delivered against its objectives?  

EQ4: To what extent have 
the specific objectives of 
the Regulation been 
achieved to date? 

 

 

 

 

EQ4.1: Extent to which the Regulation 
has delivered on specific objectives of 
the network relating to cohesion, 
efficiency, sustainability and benefits 
for users; 

EQ4.2: Identification of factors that 
have hindered or promoted the 
achievement of specific objectives; 

EQ4.3: Extent to which the dual layer 
network structure contributes to the 
achievement of objectives; 

EQ4.4: Extent to which: (i) the 
definition and role of urban nodes are 
appropriate and clear, (ii) the 
Regulation meets urban nodes needs, 
and (iii) the provisions are effective 
differentiating between core network 

 

 

 

Evidence and examples showing that the 
Regulation has delivered on the specific 
objectives of the network relating to cohesion, 
efficiency, sustainability and benefits for users; 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the Regulation has 
delivered on the specific objectives of the 
network relating to cohesion, efficiency, 
sustainability and benefits for users; 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
Regulation has delivered on the specific 
objectives of the network relating to cohesion, 
efficiency, sustainability and benefits for users; 

 

Evidence and examples pointing out to factors 
promoting or hindering the delivery of the 

131 

Analysis of OPC results  
Targeted surveys 
Targeted interviews  

  Desk research 
 
 
 
  Case studies 1-8 
  Corridor and in-house work 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and comprehensive network nodes; 

EQ4.5: Extent to which current 
provisions for the development of the 
nodes of the network (urban and 
transport nodes) achieved their 
objectives; 

EQ4.6: Extent to which objectives on 
new technologies and innovation 
addressed in the Regulation have 
been achieved and promoted; 

EQ4.7: Extent to which: (i) 
implementing tools, reporting and 
monitoring provisions achieved their 
objectives and (ii) all parties fulfilled 
their obligations set out in Article 49 
of the Regulation; 

EQ4.8: Extent to which Core Network 
Corridors’ governance contributes to 
the achievement of policy objectives; 

 

EQ4.9: Extent to which objectives in 
relation to the cooperation with third 
countries have been achieved. 

EQ4.10: Extent to which 
infrastructure standards contribute to 
achieve interoperability and continuity 
of the network. 

specific objectives of the network relating to 
cohesion, efficiency, sustainability and benefits 
for users; 

 

Evidence and examples confirming the 
effectiveness and/or fulfilment of:  

o 
o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

the dual layer network structure; 
the definition and role of urban and 
transport nodes; 
objectives on new technologies and 
innovation; 
the implementing tools, reporting and 
monitoring provisions; 
the Core Network Corridors’ 
governance; 
objectives on cooperation with third 
countries; 
the interoperability and continuity of the 
network through infrastructure 
standards. 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed on the effectiveness and/or 
fulfilment of:  

o 
o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

the dual layer network structure; 
the definition and role of urban and 
transport nodes; 
objectives on new technologies and 
innovation; 
the implementing tools, reporting and 
monitoring provisions; 
the Core Network Corridors’ 
governance; 
objectives on cooperation with third 
countries; 
the interoperability and continuity of the 
network through infrastructure 
standards. 

132 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies on the 
effectiveness and/or fulfilment of:  

EQ5: Have the current 
provisions for the 
identification and 
definition of projects of 
common interest achieved 
their purpose? 

  EQ 5.1: Extent to which the current 

• 

provisions (especially under Article 7) 
have enabled the identification and 
definition of projects of common 
interest in all areas covered by the 
TEN-T Regulation (physical and 
others); 

  EQ 5.2: Extent to which projects of 

common interest have contributed to 
specific priorities set out in the 
Regulation for the different transport 
modes and multi-modal transport 
infrastructure development, including 
capacity problems, related to: 

• 

o  Railway infrastructure 

o 

(Art. 13), 
Inland waterway 
infrastructure (Art. 16), 
o  Road infrastructure (Art. 

19), 

o 
o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

the dual layer network structure; 
the definition and role of urban and 
transport nodes; 
objectives on new technologies and 
innovation; 
the implementing tools, reporting and 
monitoring provisions; 
the Core Network Corridors’ 
governance; 
objectives on cooperation with third 
countries; 
the interoperability and continuity of the 
network through infrastructure 
standards. 

Evidence and examples showing that the 
provisions for the identification and definition of 
projects of common interest achieved their 
purpose in relation to:  

o 

o 

o 

enabling the identification and definition 
of projects of common interest in all 
areas covered by the TEN-T Regulation; 
contributing to specific priorities for 
different transport modes and multi-
modal transport infrastructure 
development; 
enhancing traffic management. 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the provisions for the 
identification and definition of projects of 
common interest achieved their purpose in 
relation to:  

o 

enabling the identification and definition 
of projects of common interest in all 

133 

  Desk research 
Analysis of OPC results  
 
Targeted surveys 
 
 
Targeted interviews  
  Case studies 3 and 4 
  Corridor and in-house work 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

o  Motorways of the Sea 

(Art. 21), 

o  Maritime infrastructure 

(Art. 23), 

o  Air transport (Art. 26), 
o  Multimodal transport 

infrastructure (Art. 29); 

• 

• 

EQ 5.3: Extent to which current 
provisions for the identification and 
definition of projects of common 
interest reached their objectives in 
traffic management, nodes etc.; 

EQ 5.4: Extent to which implementing 
tools foreseen in the Regulation 
achieved their objectives. 

areas covered by the TEN-T Regulation; 
contributing to specific priorities for 
different transport modes and multi-
modal transport infrastructure 
development; 
enhancing traffic management. 

o 

o 

• 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
provisions for the identification and definition of 
projects of common interest achieved their 
purpose in relation to:  

o 

o 

o 

enabling the identification and definition 
of projects of common interest in all 
areas covered by the TEN-T Regulation; 
contributing to specific priorities for 
different transport modes and multi-
modal transport infrastructure 
development; 
enhancing traffic management. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Evidence and examples pointing out to factors 
promoting or hindering the effective 
identification and definition of projects of 
common interest 

Evidence and examples showing that the 
implementing tools have supported the effective 
identification and definition of projects of 
common interest  
Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the implementing tools 
have supported the effective identification and 
definition of projects of common interest 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that 
implementing tools have supported the effective 

134 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

EQ6: To what extent has 
the Regulation enabled 
smooth, safe and 
sustainable transport 
flows in all transport 
modes and at a multi-
modal level? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EQ 6.1: Extent to which the TEN-T 
achieved high levels of services in line 
with user needs for accessible, safe, 
secure and high-quality transport 
including accessibility for all users; 

 

EQ 6.2: Extent to which investments 
have achieved smooth, safe and 
sustainable transport flows in all 
transport modes and at a multi-modal 
level; 

EQ 6.3: Extent to which digital 
technologies have contributed to 
smooth, safe and sustainable 
transport flows; 

EQ 6.4: Extent to which infrastructure 
quality gaps and maintenance issues 
have been addressed; 

EQ 6.5: Extent to which resilience of 
infrastructure to climate change and 
environmental disasters are 
sufficiently incorporated in the 
Regulation’s provisions; 

EQ 6.6: Extent to which “multi-
modal” components of the TEN-T 
(physical and soft) have enabled 
transport chains. 

 

 

identification and definition of projects of 
common interest 
Evidence and examples confirming the 
effectiveness of the Regulation in enabling 
smooth, safe and sustainable transport flows in 
all transport modes and at a multi-modal level 
through:  

o  high levels of services in line with user 

  Desk research 
Analysis of OPC results  
 
Targeted surveys 
 
 
Targeted interviews  
  Case studies 1, 3, 4 and 6 
  Corridor and in-house work 

needs; 
investments; 

o 
o  digital technologies; 
o 

“multi-modal” components of the TEN-
T. 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed on the effectiveness of the 
Regulation in enabling smooth, safe and 
sustainable transport flows in all transport 
modes and at a multi-modal level through:  

o  high levels of services in line with user 

needs; 
investments; 

o 
o  digital technologies; 
o 

“multi-modal” components of the TEN-
T. 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies on the 
effectiveness of the Regulation in enabling 
smooth, safe and sustainable transport flows in 
all transport modes and at a multi-modal level 
through:  

o  high levels of services in line with user 

needs; 
investments; 

o 
o  digital technologies; 
o 

“multi-modal” components of the TEN-
T. 

135 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

• 

Evidence and examples confirming the 
effectiveness of the Regulation in identifying and 
addressing:  

o 

o 

infrastructure quality gaps and 
maintenance issues; 
resilience of infrastructure to climate 
change and environmental disasters. 

• 

• 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed on the effectiveness of the 
Regulation in identifying and addressing:  

o 

o 

infrastructure quality gaps and 
maintenance issues; 
resilience of infrastructure to climate 
change and environmental disasters. 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies on the 
effectiveness of the Regulation in identifying and 
addressing:  

o 

o 

infrastructure quality gaps and 
maintenance issues; 
resilience of infrastructure to climate 
change and environmental disasters. 

EQ7: How effective has 
the Regulation been as an 
enabler of a sustainable 
and decarbonised 
transport system? 

 

 

EQ7.1: Extent to which the Regulation 
has facilitated investment focused on 
sustainability and decarbonisation of 
the transport system; 

EQ7.2: Extent to which investments 
have resulted in increased 
sustainability and decarbonisation of 
the transport system;  

 

EQ7.3: Extent to which: (i) the 

 

Evidence and examples confirming the 
effectiveness of the Regulation in:  

o 

o 

o 

facilitating investment focused on 
sustainability and decarbonisation of the 
transport system; 
contributing to increased sustainability 
and decarbonisation through these 
investments; 
contributing to the implementation and 
deployment of alternative fuels’ 
infrastructure along the TEN-T. 

  Desk research 
Targeted surveys 
 
 
Targeted interviews  
  Case studies 1 and 5 
  Corridor and in-house work 

136 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

implementation of alternative fuels’ 
infrastructure by Member States and 
industry and the implementation of 
CEF-supported projects along the 
TEN-T have been effective; and (ii) a 
coherent, harmonised and 
interoperable deployment of 
alternative fuels infrastructure across 
Member States’ borders along the 
TEN-T have been achieved;  

 

EQ7.4: Extent to which Regulation 
objectives and projects are present in 
existing Sustainable Urban Mobility 
Plans (SUMPs) of urban nodes. 

 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed on the effectiveness of the 
Regulation in:  

o 

o 

o 

facilitating investment focused on 
sustainability and decarbonisation of the 
transport system; 
contributing to increased sustainability 
and decarbonisation through these 
investments; 
contributing to the implementation and 
deployment of alternative fuels’ 
infrastructure along the TEN-T. 

 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies on the 
effectiveness of the Regulation in:  

o 

o 

o 

facilitating investment focused on 
sustainability and decarbonisation of the 
transport system; 
contributing to increased sustainability 
and decarbonisation through these 
investments; 
contributing to the implementation and 
deployment of alternative fuels’ 
infrastructure along the TEN-T. 

 

 

 

Evidence and examples pointing out to factors 
promoting or hindering investments contributing 
to the sustainability and decarbonisation of the 
transport system 

Evidence and examples pointing out to factors 
promoting or hindering the implementation and 
deployment of alternative fuels’ infrastructure 
along the TEN-T  

Evidence and examples confirming that the TEN-
T Regulation’s objectives and projects are well 

137 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

integrated in SUMPs of urban nodes 

 

 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the TEN-T Regulation’s 
objectives and projects are well integrated in 
SUMPs of urban nodes 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies on the 
effective integration of TEN-T Regulation’s 
objectives and projects in SUMPs of urban nodes 

  Desk research 
Targeted surveys 
 
 
Targeted interviews  
  Case studies 2,3 and 4 
  Corridor and in-house work 

Efficiency: To what extent has the Regulation been cost-effective? 

EQ8: Are the costs of the 
Regulation reasonable and 
proportionate in relation 
to the benefits?  

 

 

 

 

 

EQ8.1 Extent to which cost of 
governance and advice mechanisms 
(Coordinators, stakeholder fora, 
committees, work plans etc) of the 
Core Network Corridors are 
reasonable in relation to the benefits; 

EQ8.2: Extent to which the sharing of 
responsibility between the different 
actors is reasonable in relation to the 
benefits; 

EQ8.3: Extent to which reporting and 
monitoring are clear, simple and easy 
to report; 

EQ8.4: Extent to which application of 
innovative technological and 
operational. concepts were cost 
efficient. 

E8.5: Extent to which the costs to 
comply with quality infrastructure 
standards and requirements are cost 
efficient. 

 

Evidence and examples confirming that the 
costs of the Regulation are reasonable and 
proportionate to its benefits, in particular in 
terms of: 

o  governance and advice mechanisms of 

o 

o 

o 

the Core Network Corridors; 
sharing of responsibility between the 
different actors; 
reporting and monitoring through 
TENTec; 
application of innovative technological 
and operational concepts; 

o  quality infrastructure standards and 

requirements. 

 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the costs of the Regulation 
are reasonable and proportionate to its benefits, 
in particular in terms of: 

o  governance and advice mechanisms of 

o 

o 

the Core Network Corridors; 
sharing of responsibility between the 
different actors; 
reporting and monitoring through 
TENTec; 

138 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

o 

application of innovative technological 
and operational concepts; 

o  quality infrastructure standards and 

requirements. 

 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
costs of the Regulation are reasonable and 
proportionate to its benefits, in particular in 
terms of: 

o  governance and advice mechanisms of 

o 

o 

o 

the Core Network Corridors; 
sharing of responsibility between the 
different actors; 
reporting and monitoring through 
TENTec; 
application of innovative technological 
and operational concepts; 

o  quality infrastructure standards and 

requirements. 

 

Evidence and examples pointing out to 
shortcomings hindering the cost-effectiveness of 
the Regulation, and suggestions for 
improvements 

EQ9: How efficiently is the 
integration of Core 
Network Corridors and Rail 
Freight Corridors based on 
the Regulation on a 
“European rail network for 
competitive freight” 
working? 

  EQ 9.1: Extent to which the 

  Evidence and examples of an efficient 

integration of Core Network Corridors 
and Rail Freight Corridors has 
addressed key efficiency measures, 
including: 

o  Removing bottlenecks 
and bridged links; 

o  Optimising 

interconnection and 
interoperability of 
national transport 
networks; 

o  Optimal integration and 
interconnection of all 

integration of Core Network Corridors and Rail 
Freight Corridors through: 

o 
o 

o 

addressing key efficiency measures; 
enabling the efficient use of TEN-T 
infrastructure for freight transport; 
enabling the efficient use of TEN-T 
infrastructure for high quality and 
innovative passenger mobility services. 

 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed on the efficient integration of 
Core Network Corridors and Rail Freight 

  Desk research, including 

ongoing evaluation of RFC 
Regulation and core network 
corridor studies 
Analysis of OPC results  
 
Targeted surveys 
 
 
Targeted interviews  
  Case studies 2, 3, 4 and 7 
  Corridor and in-house work 

139 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

transport modes; 

Corridors through: 

o  Efficient use of new and 
existing infrastructure;  

o  Application of innovating 

technologies; 

o  Contribution to economic 

growth. 

o 
o 

o 

addressing key efficiency measures; 
enabling the efficient use of TEN-T 
infrastructure for freight transport; 
enabling the efficient use of TEN-T 
infrastructure for high quality and 
innovative passenger mobility services. 

  EQ 9.2: Extent to which the 

 

Regulation enables the efficient use of 
TEN-T infrastructure for freight 
transport; 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies on the 
efficient integration of Core Network Corridors 
and Rail Freight Corridors through: 

  EQ 9.3: Extent to which the 

Regulation enables the efficient use of 
TEN-T infrastructure for high quality 
and innovative passenger mobility 
services. 

o 
o 

o 

addressing key efficiency measures; 
enabling the efficient use of TEN-T 
infrastructure for freight transport; 
enabling the efficient use of TEN-T 
infrastructure for high quality and 
innovative passenger  

Coherence: How coherent is the Regulation internally and with other EU actions?  

EQ10: How coherent and 
consistent are the 
requirements and 
provision set out in the 
Regulation with one 
another and with related 
transport policy fields? 

 

 

 

EQ 10.1: Extent to which the 
Regulation is internally coherent; 

EQ 10.2: Extent to which the 
corresponding provisions of the 
Regulation are coherent with 
developments in areas which are 
directly connected with TEN-T policy;  

EQ 10.3: Extent to which there are 
differences, overlaps and/or 
inconsistencies. 

 

 

Evidence and examples showing that the 
requirements and provisions set out in the TEN-
T Regulation are coherent and consistent with 
one another and with related transport policy 
fields, such as urban mobility policies, research 
and innovation policies, new mobility patterns 
and passenger rights 

  Desk research 
 
Analysis of OPC results  
 
Targeted surveys 
Targeted interviews  
 
  Case studies 1, 5, 6 and 7 
  Corridor and in-house work 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the requirements and 
provisions set out in the TEN-T Regulation are 
coherent and consistent with one another and 
with related transport policy fields, such as 
urban mobility policies, research and innovation 
policies, new mobility patterns and passenger 
rights 

 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies on the 

140 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

coherence and consistency of the requirements 
and provisions set out in the TEN-T Regulation 
with one another and with related transport 
policy fields, such as urban mobility policies, 
research and innovation policies, new mobility 
patterns and passenger rights 

Evidence and examples pointing out to 
differences, overlaps and/or inconsistencies 
between: 
o 

transport modes and relevant policy 
areas; 

o  passenger and freight transport across 

transport modes. 

Evidence and examples showing that the 
Regulation is coherent with other relevant EU 
policies 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the Regulation is coherent 
with other relevant EU policies in the following 
policy areas: 

 

 

 

  Desk research 
Analysis of OPC results  
 
Targeted surveys 
 
 
Targeted interviews  
  Case studies 1 and 7 
  Corridor and in-house work 

EQ11: How coherent is the 
Regulation with other EU 
policy areas  

 

 

EQ11.1: Extent to which the 
Regulation is coherent with other 
relevant EU policies; 

EQ11.2: Extent to which the 
Regulation is coherent with other 
trans-European networks’ policies. 

o 

environmental, climate and 
resource efficiency; 
social / territorial dimension; 

o 
o  urban policy, city / urban 
development strategies; 
trade and international 
competitiveness; 

o 

o  neighbourhood and cooperation 

o 

with third countries; 
international agreements related 
with the transport sector within the 
EU; 
research innovation in new 
technologies; 
o  public health; 
o 

official statistical data per mode of 

o 

141 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

transport,124 
internal market; 

o 
o  home affairs and security. 

 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
Regulation is coherent with other relevant EU 
policies in the following policy areas: 

o 

environmental, climate and 
resource efficiency; 
social / territorial dimension; 

o 
o  urban policy, city / urban 
development strategies; 
trade and international 
competitiveness; 

o 

o  neighbourhood and cooperation 

o 

o 

with third countries; 
international agreements related 
with the transport sector within the 
EU; 
research innovation in new 
technologies; 
o  public health; 
o 

official statistical data per mode of 
transport,125 
internal market; 

o 
o  home affairs and security. 

 

Evidence and examples pointing out to 
suggestions for improving alignment and 
coherence with other relevant EU policies 

124 The question on coherent reporting of official statistical data per mode of transport was formulated in light of the coexistence of different statistical sources (at national and EU level) 
to report on progress achieved across different modes, and the fact that divergences are sometimes identified between different statistical sources. 
125 The question on coherent reporting of official statistical data per mode of transport was formulated in light of the coexistence of different statistical sources (at national and EU level) 
to report on progress achieved across different modes, and the fact that divergences are sometimes identified between different statistical sources. 

142 

 
 
 
                                                           
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

EQ12: To what extent is 
the overall concept of the 
TEN-T, as set in the 
Regulation, 
complementary to 
relevant EU instruments? 

 

 

EQ 12.1: Extent to which TEN-T is 
complementary to EU funding 
instruments and programmes 
supporting transport infrastructure; 

EQ 12.2: Extent to which other EU 
instruments have the potential to 
contribute to TEN-T.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence and examples showing that TEN-T 
Regulation is coherence with relevant EU policies 
in the fields of TEN-Energy and TEN- Telecom 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the Regulation is coherent 
with relevant EU policies in the fields of TEN-
Energy and TEN- Telecom 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
Regulation is coherent with other relevant EU 
policies in the fields of TEN-Energy and TEN- 
Telecom 
Evidence and examples showing that the 
Regulation is complementary to EU funding 
instruments and programmes supporting 
transport infrastructure  
Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the Regulation is 
complementary to EU funding instruments and 
programmes supporting transport infrastructure, 
including: 

o  Connecting Europe Facility (CEF); 
o  other EU funding instruments, such 
as Horizon 2020, ESIF, other EU 
Research and Innovation 
programmes, and others. 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
Regulation is complementary to EU funding 
instruments and programmes supporting 
transport infrastructure, including: 

o  Connecting Europe Facility (CEF); 
o  other EU funding instruments, such 

143 

  Desk research 
 
 
 
  Corridor and in-house work 

Analysis of OPC results  
Targeted surveys 
Targeted interviews  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

EU added-value: What is the EU added value of the Regulation? 

EQ13: What is the EU 
added value of TEN-T 
policy as set in the 
Regulation? 

 

 

 

EQ13.1: Extent to which the results 
could be achieved at the national 
and/or regional level without the 
Regulation, and the impact of a 
discontinuation of the Regulation on 
the establishment and development 
of trans-European networks; 

EQ13.2: Extent to which the 
broadened TEN-T community adds 
value to the establishment and 
development of trans-European 
networks. 

EQ13.3: Extent to which the 
Regulation foresees EC action over 
Member States, including capacity 
to initiate infringement procedures. 

  Desk research 
Targeted surveys 
 
 
Targeted interviews  
  Case studies 1 and 7 
  Corridor and in-house work 

as Horizon 2020, ESIF, other EU 
Research and Innovation 
programmes, and others. 

 

Evidence and examples pointing out to ways in 
which other EU instruments have the potential 
to contribute to TEN-T 

 

Evidence and examples showing that: 

o 

o 

o 

the results could not be achieved at the 
national and/or regional level without 
the Regulation; 
the discontinuation of the Regulation 
would impact negatively on the 
establishment and development of 
trans-European networks; 
the broadened TEN-T community adds 
value to the establishment and 
development of trans-European 
networks. 

 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that: 

o 

o 

o 

the results could not be achieved at the 
national and/or regional level without 
the Regulation; 
the discontinuation of the Regulation 
would impact negatively on the 
establishment and development of 
trans-European networks; 
the broadened TEN-T community adds 
value to the establishment and 
development of trans-European 
networks. 

 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that: 

144 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

EQ14: What is the added 
value of the broad 
‘infrastructure’ scope as 
defined in the Regulation? 

 

 

EQ14.1: Extent to which it is 
adequate to incorporate ongoing and 
expected future societal economic and 
technological developments; 

EQ14.2: Extent to which binding 
infrastructure standards are sufficient 
for establishing a high-quality 
infrastructure. 

o 

o 

o 

the results could not be achieved at the 
national and/or regional level without 
the Regulation; 
the discontinuation of the Regulation 
would impact negatively on the 
establishment and development of 
trans-European networks; 
the broadened TEN-T community adds 
value to the establishment and 
development of trans-European 
networks. 

 

 

 

 

Evidence and examples pointing out to ways in 
which European Commission action could be 
further strengthened (through for example the 
use of Implementing Acts) in order to prevent 
further delays, especially at cross-border 
sections of the network. 

Evidence and examples showing that the broad 
‘infrastructure’ scope is adequate to incorporate 
ongoing and expected future societal, economic 
and technological developments 

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the broad ‘infrastructure’ 
scope is adequate to incorporate ongoing and 
expected future societal, economic and 
technological developments 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
broad ‘infrastructure’ scope is adequate to 
incorporate ongoing and expected future 
societal, economic and technological 
developments 

 

Evidence and examples of the main areas where 

145 

  Desk research 
Targeted surveys 
 
 
Targeted interviews  
  Case studies 3, 4, 6 and 7 
  Corridor and in-house work 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Evaluation Question 

Judgement Criteria/Sub-questions 

Indicators 

Data Source 

 

 

 

EQ15: To what extent are 
there socio-economic 
benefits of the EU-wide 
network approach as 
compared to an approach 
focussing on a ‘patchwork’ 
of disconnected projects?  

 

EQ15.1: Extent to which EU-wide 
network approach demonstrates 
socio-economic benefits compared to 
a ‘patchwork’ of disconnected projects 
including: 

o  wider access to labour or 

 

o 

o 

customers,  
improved mobility and 
accessibility,  
increased social 
opportunities,  

societal, economic and technological changes 
are expected to impact 

Evidence and examples showing that the binding 
infrastructure standards are adequate for 
establishing a high-quality infrastructure  

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that the binding infrastructure 
standards are adequate for establishing a high-
quality infrastructure  

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
binding infrastructure standards are adequate 
for establishing a high-quality infrastructure  
Evidence and examples showing that the EU-
wide network approach demonstrates socio-
economic benefits compared to a ‘patchwork’ of 
disconnected projects  

Proportion of respondents to the OPC, global 
survey and/or case study surveys who agreed or 
strongly agreed that EU-wide network approach 
demonstrates socio-economic benefits compared 
to a ‘patchwork’ of disconnected projects 

  Desk research 
  Baseline scenario exercise 
 
 
  Case studies 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 
  Corridor and in-house work 

Targeted surveys 
Targeted interviews  

o  wider range of suppliers and 

 

o 

markets,  
attraction of economic 
activities and increased 
competitiveness. 

Level of agreement among respondents to 
global interviews and/or case studies that the 
EU-wide network approach demonstrates socio-
economic benefits compared to a ‘patchwork’ of 
disconnected projects 

 

Examples of ways and areas where the EU-wide 
network approach contributes to socioeconomic 
benefits 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 6: Intervention Logic of Regulation 1315/2013 

Source: Support study for the evaluation of Regulation (EU) N°1315/2013; Coffey 2020.

147 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Further Elements of the Intervention Logic 

Actions 

A selection of actions, contributing to the generation of the expected outputs – concretely 
to the completion of the core and comprehensive networks and its indicative extensions – 
is listed below:  
 

Implement  resource  efficiency  in  planning,  development  and  operation  of  the  two 
transport network layers, and in particular of the core network; 
Implement projects of common interest, contributing to core network completion, in 
accordance  with  their  respective  priority  and  maturity  status;  ensure  completion  of 
all projects  by 2030;  

 

  Strengthen  and  facilitate  cross-border  collaboration 

to  overcome  particular 
difficulties, and give highest attention to the timely completion of these most critical 
core network sections; 
Integrate  binding  transport  infrastructure  standards,  resulting  from  EU  legislation, 
such as on interoperability or safety  

 

  Develop  infrastructure  in  line  with  TEN-T  requirements  which  enable  sustainable, 
efficient  and  smart  transport  and  mobility  chains;  which  stimulate  and  support  the 
decarbonisation of transport  

  Develop  transport  infrastructure  requirements  related  to  future-oriented  mobility 

schemes;  

  Make use of new technologies and innovation, including telematics applications and 

clean fuels;  

  Respond  to  transport  infrastructure  requirements,  related  to  environmental  and 

climate protection;  

  Ensure  engagement  of  public  and  private  stakeholders  (including  contribution  of 
Member States and project promoters); at the level of individual projects, ensure the 
respect of relevant EU legislation, in fields such as environmental protection etc.  
  Cooperate with neighbouring and third countries, in particular on network planning 

 

and the implementation of projects 
Introduce an interactive geographical and technical information system (TENtec) to 
monitor  the  status  of  infrastructure  planning  and  implementation  (including  the 
upgrading to standards and other requirements) 

  Apply reporting provisions on TEN-T implementation;  

Inputs  

In  order  to  execute  the  policy  actions  needed  to  generate  the  key  output  (notably  to 
complete core and comprehensive networks; to facilitate indicative network extensions to 
neighboring  countries),  various 
the  TEN-T 
infrastructure  assets  which  are  already  available  –  namely  in  the  form  of  existing  lines 
and nodes compliant with the required quality standards – the following main inputs are 
needed: 

inputs  are  necessary.  Building  on 

148 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  Coverage  of  ‘projects  of  common  interest’  (i.e.  projects  for  new  construction  or 
infrastructure  upgrading)  by  relevant  national  infrastructure  plans,  programs  and 
financing procedures;  

  Engagement  of  various  public  and  private  stakeholders  to  develop,  implement  and 

finance projects of common interest; 

  Stimulating and supporting the action of Member States and other public and private 
investors:  Financial  instruments  at  EU  and  other  levels,  including  the  Connecting 
Europe  Facility  (CEF),  the  Structural  and  cohesion  funds,  the  contribution  of  the 
European  Investment  Bank  and  the  European  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and 
Development;  

  Coordination at  EU level  through the European  Coordinators and the core network 

corridors framework;  
  Legislation  at  EU 

level, 

including 

relevant  guidelines, 

requirements  and 

implementing decisions;  

  Specific  financial  instruments  at  EU  level  (such  as  the  Neighbourhood  Investment 
Platform  and  Pre-Accession  Assistance)  and  other  (non-financial)  types  of  support 
for neighbouring and third countries for actions related to international cooperation. 

External factors impaction on Regulation 1315/2013 

To  complete  the  Intervention  Logic,  reference  should  also  be  made  to  a  number  of 
external  factors,  suitable  to  have  an  effect  on  transport  and  the  related  infrastructure 
development. These include notably: 
  New  commitments  on  zero  and  low  emission  mobility  and  transport,  in  the 
framework  of  the  Commission’s  vision  towards  a  climate-neutral  economy  (to  be 
addressed  notably  through  efficiency  enhancing  measures  within  the  integrated 
network approach) 

  Reinforced  commitments  on  accessibility  for  all  users  and  social  commitments 
relating  to  inclusiveness,  gender  equality  etc.  (to  be  addressed  through  relevant 
infrastructure quality requirements)  
Increased safety challenges, for example in the light of initiatives such as the Vision 
Zero  on  road  safety    (to  be  addressed  through  relevant  infrastructure  quality 
requirements) 

 

  New  security  challenges  relating  to  new  global  risks  (to  be  addressed  through 

 

relevant infrastructure quality requirements) 
Increased  risks  for  TEN-T  infrastructure  in  relation  to  natural  and  human-made 
disasters (to be addressed through relevant infrastructure quality requirements, with a 
particular focus on adaptation to climate change) 

  Changing global trade relations, entailing changing transport flows (to be addressed 

through network adjustment as necessary) 

  Path-breaking  technological  innovation  and  digital  transition  (to  be  addressed 
through  new  infrastructure  requirements  reflecting  the  step  change  in  European 
transport infrastructure policy. 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7: Baseline Scenario and modelling results 

This  section presents  the modelling exercise carried out  by E3Modelling  as regards the 
development of the baseline scenario of the present evaluation study.  

The  structure  of  this  section  includes  the  methods  for  the  development  of  the  baseline 
scenario,  using  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport  model.  Key  results  of  the  baseline 
scenario are also  provided in  an aggregate way  for the EU27;  more detailed results are 
also  provided  in  dedicated  tables.  Further,  a  comparison  of  key  transport  indicators  is 
presented  between  the  baseline  scenario  and  the  scenario  under  current  trends  and 
policies (including the implementation of the TEN-T regulation).  

Finally,  the  section  concludes  by  providing  some  high-level  findings  on  the  impact  of 
Covid-19 on the EU transport activity. Nevertheless, we note that the baseline scenario 
does not consider the impact of Covid-19, as this modelling exercise had started before 
the virus outbreak. 

1  THE PRIMES-TREMOVE MODEL 

The  PRIMES-TREMOVE  transport  model  projects  the  evolution  of  demand  for 
passengers  and  freight  transport,  by  transport  mode,  and  transport  vehicle/technology, 
following  a  formulation  based  on  microeconomic  foundation  of  decisions  of  multiple 
actors. Operation, investment and emission costs, various policy measures, utility factors 
and  congestion  are  among  the  drivers  that  influence  the  projections  of  the  model.  The 
projections  of  activity,  equipment  (fleet),  usage  of  equipment,  energy  consumption  and 
emissions (and other externalities) constitute the set of model outputs.  

The PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model can therefore provide the quantitative analysis 
for  the  transport  sector  in  the  EU,  candidate  and  neighbouring  countries  covering 
activity,  equipment,  energy  and  emissions.  The  model  accounts  for  each  country 
separately which means that the detailed long-term outlooks are available both for each 
country and in aggregate forms (e.g. EU level). 

In the transport field, PRIMES-TREMOVE is suitable for modelling soft measures (e.g. 
eco-driving,  labelling);  economic  measures  (e.g.  subsidies  and  taxes  on  fuels,  vehicles, 
emissions; ETS for transport when linked with PRIMES; pricing of congestion and other 
externalities  such  as  air  pollution;  accidents  and  noise;  measures  supporting  R&D); 
regulatory  measures  (e.g.  CO2  emission  performance  standards  for  new  passenger  and 
heavy  duty  vehicles;  EURO  standards  on  road  transport  vehicles;  technology  standards 
for  non-road  transport  technologies,  deployment  of  Intelligent  Transport  Systems)  and 
infrastructure  policies  for  alternative  fuels  (e.g.  deployment  of  refuelling/recharging 
infrastructure for electricity, hydrogen, LNG, CNG). Used as a module that contributes to 
the PRIMES model energy system model, PRIMES-TREMOVE can show how policies 
and trends in the field of transport contribute to economy-wide trends in energy use and 
emissions.  Using  data  disaggregated  per  Member  State,  the  model  can  show 
differentiated trends across Member States.  

150 

 
 
 
The PRIMES-TREMOVE has been developed and is maintained by E3Modelling, based 
on,  but  extending  features  of,  the  open  source  TREMOVE  model  developed  by  the 
TREMOVE126 modelling community. Part of the model (e.g. the utility nested tree) was 
built  following  the  TREMOVE  model.127  Other  parts,  like  the  component  on  fuel 
consumption and emissions, follow the COPERT model. 

Data inputs 

The main data sources for inputs to the PRIMES-TREMOVE model, such as for activity 
and  energy  consumption,  comes  from  EUROSTAT  database  and  from  the  Statistical 
Pocketbook  "EU  transport  in  figures128.  Excise  taxes  are  derived  from  DG  TAXUD 
excise  duty  tables.  Other  data  comes  from  different  sources  such  as  research  projects 
(e.g. TRACCS project) and reports. 
In the context of this exercise, the PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model is calibrated to 
2005, 2010 and 2015 historical data. 

2  DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO 

The following presents the methodology and the key results of the Baseline scenario in 
an aggregate way for the EU27. The modelling has been carried out at the EU MS level.  

2.1  METHOD FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO 

This section presents the approach taken to develop the baseline scenario to support the 
evaluation of Regulation 1315/2013 on trans-European Network Guidelines. The aim for 
developing the baseline scenario is to assess what would happen in the medium (2030) 
and  long-term  (2050)  if  the  TEN-T  core  and  comprehensive  network  would  not  be 
completed by 2030 and 2050, respectively.  

The  starting  point  for  developing  the  baseline  scenario  has  been  the  baseline  scenario 
underpinning  the  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  revision  of  the  TEN-T 
Regulation129.  Building  on  this  scenario,  the  macro-economic  and  technological 
assumptions have been updated  in line with those used for the modelling underpinning 
the strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate-neutral 

126 Source: https://www.tmleuven.be/en/navigation/TREMOVE    
127 Several model enhancements were made compared to the standard TREMOVE model, as for example: 
for the number of vintages (allowing representation of the choice of second-hand cars); for the technology 
categories  which  include  vehicle  types  using  electricity  from  the  grid  and  fuel  cells.  The  model  also 
incorporates  additional  fuel  types,  such  as  biofuels  (when  they  differ  from  standard  fossil  fuel 
technologies), LPG, LNG, hydrogen and e-fuels. In addition, representation of infrastructure for refuelling 
and recharging are among the  model refinements, influencing fuel choices.  A  major  model enhancement 
concerns the inclusion of heterogeneity in the distance of  stylised trips;  the  model considers that the trip 
distances  follow  a  distribution  function  with  different  distances  and  frequencies.  The  inclusion  of 
heterogeneity was found to be of significant influence in the choice of vehicle-fuels especially for vehicles-
fuels with range limitations. 
128 Source: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics_en  
129 SEC(2011) 1212 final 

151 

 
 
 
                                                           
economy  by  2050130  (LTS/Clean  Planet  for  All  communication).  In  addition,  policy 
measures  adopted  by  the  end  of  2019  have  been  considered  in  the  baseline  scenario, 
except  for  the  implementation  of  the  TEN-T  regulation.  A  counter-factual  scenario  has 
been  additionally  developed  that  assumes  the  completion  of  the  TEN-T  core  and 
comprehensive network. By comparing the two scenarios, this shows the impacts of the 
revised TEN-T regulation by 2050. 

In  liaison  with  PRIMES-TREMOVE,  E3-Modelling  utilized  the  PRIMES-TAPEM131 
sub-module (part of the PRIMES-TREMOVE model) which calculates the evolution of 
the transport activity by transport mode until 2050 using an econometric approach which 
correlates  transport  activity  with  GDP,  fuel  prices,  length  of  motorways  and  railways 
sections.  

Once  the  transport  activity  projections  are  derived  based  on  the  econometric  approach, 
they were fed to the PRIMES-TREMOVE model to quantify the baseline scenario. The 
quantification of the baseline scenario using PRIMES-TREMOVE allowed to derive the 
evolution of key transport system indicators (final energy demand by transport mode and 
fuel,  CO2  emissions  by  transport  mode,  etc.)  until  2050,  by  each  EU  MS.  PRIMES-
TREMOVE also features the COPERT methodology (i.e. average speed-based functions) 
for  the  estimation  of  the  specific  fuel  consumption  in  the  road  transport  by  transport 
mode and technology and has captured the effects  of increased congestion and average 
speeds in the road network (i.e. urban roads, motorways and non-urban links). 

As  regards  the  limitations  of  the  present  methodology,  we  acknowledge  that  the 
quantification  of  this  baseline  scenario  (which  focuses  on  the  TEN-T  infrastructure) 
would  need  to  combine  the  merits  of  a  transport  network  model  along  with  a  detailed 
energy economic model like PRIMES-TREMOVE. The transport network model, which 
would need to cover the time horizon until 2050 in 5 or 10-year time steps for the whole 
EU, would provide a finer representation of the implied changes in transport activity due 
to  the  absence  of  the  core  and  comprehensive  transport  network.  A  transport  network 
model  requires  however  detailed  specifications  for  the  projects  to  be  implemented  at 
section  level.  These  detailed  project  specifications  are  not  known  yet  up  to  2050, 
considering the long term horizon. This was the reason for using the current approach.   

2.2  PRESENTATION  OF  THE  MAIN  RESULTS  OF  THE  MODEL  FOR  THE  BASELINE 

SCENARIO 

In the following, key results of the baseline scenario are presented. 

2.2.1  Transport activity 

The  total  passenger  transport  activity  is  projected  to  follow  a  steadily  increasing  trend 
from 2010 to 2050. The GDP and population growth drives the increase in the activity of 
all  passenger  modes,  albeit  at  different  rates.  The  modal  share  of  road  transport  (i.e. 

130  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/aed45f8e-63e3-47fb-9440-a0a14370f243/language-en/format-PDF/source-

106883045 

131https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/aed45f8e-63e3-47fb-9440-a0a14370f243/language-en/format-PDF/source-

106883045 

152 

 
 
 
                                                           
passenger  cars,  public  transport,  2-wheelers)  is  found  to  slightly  decrease  from  83%  in 
2010 to 78% in 2050. The reduction in the modal share of road is due to the increase in 
the  growth  of  aviation.  Aviation  refers  in  the  figure  below  to  domestic  (national)  and 
international  intra-EU  flights.  As  regards  the  developments  in  the  passenger  railway 
sector,  model  results  indicate  a  rather  stable  modal  share  throughout  the  projection 
period, as a result of the absence of railway infrastructure investments related to the core 
and comprehensive network. The modal share of the inland navigation remains relatively 
unchanged at 1% for the projection period. 

Figure 2.2-1: Passenger transport activity in the EU27 in the Baseline scenario 

m
k
p
G

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Inland navigation

Aviation

Rail

Road

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

35

456

433

35

517

463

37

595

500

38

672

537

40

750

565

41

827

596

42

903

632

43

969

656

43

1037

679

4676 4841 5067 5221 5437 5624 5802 5966 6142

Road

Rail

Aviation

Inland navigation

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

Driven, again, by the GDP growth, the total freight transport activity is projected to grow 
in the period 2010-2050. The rate of growth is greater in the period between 2015-2030 
than  in  the  2030-2050  period.  The  absence  of  the  TEN-T  core  and  comprehensive 
network  fails  to  provide  sufficient  transport  infrastructure  coverage  and  inter-modal 
integration  (road,  rail  and  inland  navigation)  and,  as  a  result,  road  freight  continues  to 
hold  a  relatively  stable  modal  share  until  2050.  The  modal  shares  of  freight  rail  and 
inland navigation (incl. inland waterways and national maritime) are projected to remain 
stable throughout the projection period. 

153 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.2-2: Freight transport activity in the EU27 in the Baseline scenario 

m
k
t
G

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Inland navigation 321

328

406

356

451

381

488

410

530

430

553

445

579

454

591

463

602

375

Rail

Road

1645 1728 1911 2055 2245 2381 2500 2592 2669

Road

Rail

Inland navigation

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

2.2.2  Final energy demand in transport 

The  total  energy  demand  for  passenger  transport  is  projected  to  decrease  from  2010  to 
2050.  Such  reduction  is  driven  by  the  policy  assumptions  included  in  the  baseline 
scenario adopted by end of 2019 (but excluding the TEN-T regulation and including the 
2030 climate and energy targets). These mainly relate to the implementation of the CO2 
standards  for  light  duty  vehicles  for  2030  but  also  other  policy  measures  driving  the 
improvements  in  the  efficiency  of  the  transport  system  and  the  uptake  of  sustainable 
alternative  fuels  and  low-  and  zero-emission  vehicles  (e.g.  the  implementation  of  4th 
Railways  Package,  Clean  Vehicle  Directive  and  Directive  on  alternative  fuels 
infrastructure,  etc.).  The  energy  consumption  of  road  passenger  transport  is  almost 
halved from 191 Mtoe in 2010 to  112 Mtoe in  2050, as  a result of the  uptake of more 
energy efficient technologies and advanced powertrains such as electric ones. The energy 
consumption  of  passenger  rail  and  inland  navigation  remains  relatively  unchanged  at  3 
Mtoe and 1 Mtoe respectively through the projected period and hold a small share of the 
overall passenger transport energy mix. 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  2.2-3:  Final  energy  demand  by  passenger  transport  mode  in  the  Baseline 
scenario 

e
o
t
M

250

200

150

100

50

0

Inland navigation

Aviation

Rail

Road

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

1

38

3

1

41

3

1

44

3

1

46

3

1

46

3

1

46

3

1

48

3

1

50

3

1

51

3

191

188

179

164

150

136

125

116

112

Road

Rail

Aviation

Inland navigation

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

Figure 2.2-4: Final energy demand by freight transport mode in the Baseline scenario 

e
o
t
M

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Inland navigation

Rail

Road

4

4

3

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

69

69

73

72

71

69

69

69

71

Road

Rail

Inland navigation

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The energy consumption of freight transport displays a relatively stable trend despite the 
growing  activity,  due  to  measures  driving  the  improvements  in  the  efficiency  of  the 
transport  system  and  the  uptake  of  low-  and  zero-emission  vehicles  (e.g.  the 
implementation  of  e-documents  for  freight,  CO2  standards  for  heavy  goods  vehicles, 
Clean Vehicles Directive, etc.). Road freight is projected to continue to hold the largest 
share  of  the  final  energy  demand  in  total  freight  transport  throughout  the  projection 
period,  also  as  a  result  of  the  relatively  stable  modal  shares  in  total  freight  transport 
activity. Final energy consumption in freight rail and inland navigation is also projected 
to remain relatively stable.  

2.2.3  CO2 emissions 

The  total  CO2  emissions  in  transport  reduce  from  around  900  Mtons  in  2010  to  about 
600 Mtons in 2050. The main driver of this outcome is the reduction in the emissions of 
passenger transport and, in particular of passenger cars, due to the uptake of efficient and 
cleaner  technologies.  Despite  the  absence  of  the  development  of  the  TEN-T  core  and 
comprehensive  network,  the  baseline  scenario  considers  the  implementation  of  other 
existing  initiatives  like  the  post-2020  CO2  emission  targets  on  car,  van  and  truck 
manufacturers as well as the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Directive, Renewable Energy 
Directive and Clean Vehicles Directive. Such initiatives are driving the market uptake of 
low and zero emission fuels in the transport mix by 2030 and onwards. Some reduction 
in CO2 emissions also takes place in freight transport (mainly to road freight because of 
the  CO2  emission  standards  for  heavy  goods  vehicles);  yet  not  at  the  extent  of  that  in 
passenger transport.  

Figure 2.2-5: CO2 emissions by transport mode in the Baseline scenario 

e
o
t
M

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

Freight transport

Passenger transport

217

666

221

634

213

545

197

451

197

406

Passenger transport

Freight transport

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3  COMPARISON  OF  THE  BASELINE  SCENARIO  WITH  THE  SCENARIO  UNDER  CURRENT 

TRENDS AND POLICIES 

This section presents a comparison of the key results of the Baseline scenario against 
the scenario under current trends and policies (including the implementation of the 
TEN-T  regulation).  Hence,  the  comparison  between  the  baseline  and  the  current 
trends  and  policies  scenario  (so-called  “LTS  current  trends”  below)  indicates 
potential  impact  of  the  TEN-T  implementation  by  2030  and  2050.  The  results  are 
compared at the EU27 level, unless stated otherwise. 
For passenger transport, the model results indicate a shift towards railways starting 
from 2020 onwards. Railways (i.e. aggregate of conventional and high-speed rail and 
tram-metro) are projected to increase their modal share by 1.1 p.p. in 2030 and 1.8 
p.p. in 2050 compared to the Baseline scenario. In contrast, road passenger transport 
is projected to reduce its modal share by about 1 p.p. in 2030 and 1.5 p.p. in 2050 
relative  to  the  Baseline.  Notably,  some  small  reduction  in  the  national  and 
international  intra-EU  flights  transport  activity is taking place in the  current  trends 
scenario relative to the Baseline, mainly driven by competition from high-speed rail.  

Figure 3-1: Modal shares in passenger transport activity in the EU27 in the Baseline 
and the current trends and policies scenario 

100,0%

90,0%

80,0%

70,0%

60,0%

50,0%

40,0%

30,0%

20,0%

10,0%

0,0%

Baseline

LTS Current
Trends

Baseline

LTS Current
Trends

Baseline

LTS Current
Trends

Baseline

LTS Current
Trends

2010

2020

2030

2050

Inland navigation

Aviation

Rail

Road

0,6%

8,1%

7,7%

0,6%

8,1%

7,7%

0,6%

9,6%

8,1%

0,6%

9,5%

8,4%

83,5%

83,5%

81,7%

81,5%

0,6%

11,0%

8,3%

80,1%

0,6%

10,9%

9,4%

79,0%

0,5%

13,1%

8,6%

77,7%

0,6%

12,9%

10,4%

76,1%

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

Road

Rail

Aviation

Inland navigation

High-speed  rail  was  found  to  significantly  increase  its  modal  share  to  38%  of  the  rail 
transport activity by 2030 (relative to  34% in  the baseline scenario).  In absolute terms, 
the  difference  in  the  transport  activity  of  high-speed  rail  between  the  two  scenarios  is 
projected to be around 48 billion-pkm, in 2030 and 100 billion-pkm in 2050. 

157 

 
 
 
 
Figure 3-2: Share of High-Speed rail in total EU27 rail passenger transport activity 
in the Baseline and the current trends and policies scenario 

31% 

34% 
31% 

36% 
33% 

38% 
34% 

39% 

34% 

40% 

35% 

41% 

35% 

42% 

35% 

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Baseline

LTS Current Trends

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

In the following, we present the reduction in the passenger rail transport modal share in 
the Baseline scenario compared to  the current  trends and policies scenario  in  2030 and 
2050 at  the  core network corridor (CNC) level.  For this assessment,  we  considered the 
mapping between the various EU MS and the 9 core network corridors (Table 3-1). The 
modal  share  of  passenger  rail  refers  to  conventional  and  high-speed  passenger  rail  and 
has been calculated by aggregating the specific EU MS which are mapped to a specific 
corridor.  

Table 3-1: Mapping of EU Member States by core network corridor 

Atlantic core network corridor (ATL) 
Baltic Adriatic core network corridor (BAC) 
Mediterranean core network corridor (MED) 
North Sea Baltic core network corridor (NSB) 
North-Sea Mediterranean core network corridor (NSM) 
Orient East Med core network corridor (OEM) 
Rhine Alpine core network corridor (RALP) 
Rhine Danube core network corridor (RHD) 
Scandinavian Mediterranean core network corridor (SCM) 

PT 
PL 
ES 
EE 
IE 
DE 
NL 
DE 
IT 

ES 
CZ 
FR 
LV 
UK 
CZ 
BE 
AT 
AT 

FR 
AT 
IT 
LT 
FR 
AT 
DE 
CZ 
DE 

DE 
IT 
HR 
PL 
BE 
SK 
FR 
SK 
DK 

SI 
SI 
DE 
NL 
RO 
IT 
RO 
SE 

SK 
HU 
NL 
LU 
BG 
LU 
HR 
FI 

BE 
DE 
GR 

BG 
MT 

HU 

HU 

Model results indicate a reduction in the modal share of passenger rail in all core network 
corridors.  The  highest  reduction  is  observed  in  the  case  of  the  Atlantic  CNC,  which  is 
mainly influenced by the large reduction in the high-speed rail in France, Germany and 
Spain in the baseline scenario compared to the current trends and polices scenario. The 
respective modal share is found to decrease by 1.5 p.p. in 2030 in the baseline scenario 
compared to current trends and policies. The smallest reduction is projected to take place 
in  the  Baltic  Adriatic  CNC  (i.e.  0.9  p.p.  reduction  in  2030),  as  all  the  (related  to  this 
specific CNC) EU MS except for Italy and Austria show a relatively smaller reduction in 
passenger rail transport activity compared to other MS like France or Germany.  

158 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  modal  share  of  passenger  rail  in  the  core  network  corridors  is  found  to  further 
decrease  between  the  two  scenarios  in  2050  compared  to  2030,  in  lack  of  the 
comprehensive TEN-T network implementation after 2030. The share of passenger rail is 
projected to decrease in the Atlantic CNC by 2.5 p.p. in the baseline scenario compared 
to  LTS  current  trends  and  policies  scenario,  as  a  result  of  significant  reductions  in  the 
high-speed rail in  France, Germany  and Spain  in  2050. The second largest  reduction is 
projected  to  take  place  in  the  Mediterranean  CNC  (2.3  p.p.  reduction  in  the  baseline 
scenario compared to the LTS current trends scenario), which is driven by the significant 
reductions in high-speed rail transport activity in Spain, France and Italy (and to a much 
lesser extent in the rest of the MS related to this CNC).   

Figure  3-3:  Reduction  in  the  passenger  rail  transport  modal  share  in  the  Baseline 
scenario  compared  to  the  current  trends  and  policies  scenario  (in  p.p.),  at  core 
network corridor level, in 2030 (left) and 2050 (right) 

-1,5 

ATLANTIC 

-2,5 

ATLANTIC 

-0,9 

BALTIC ADRIATIC 

-1,4 

BALTIC ADRIATIC 

MED 

-2,3 

MED 

NORTH SEA BALTIC 

NORTH-SEA MED 

ORIENT EAST MED 

RHINE ALPINE 

RHINE DANUBE 

SCAN-MED 

-1,7 

NORTH SEA BALTIC 

-1,9 

-1,9 

NORTH-SEA MED 

ORIENT EAST MED 

-2,2 

RHINE ALPINE 

-2,0 

-1,8 

RHINE DANUBE 

SCAN-MED 

-1,2 

-1,2 

-1,2 

-1,2 

-1,3 

-1,3 

-1,2 

-2,0

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

-3,0

-2,5

-2,0

-1,5

-1,0

-0,5

0,0

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

As  regards  freight  transport,  the  current  trends  and  policies  scenario  indicates  a  shift 
towards  freight  rail  transport  compared  to  the  baseline  scenario  excluding  the  TEN-T 
regulation. The modal share of rail freight transport is projected to increase by approx. 2 
p.p. in the LTS current trends scenario compared to baseline in 2030, to the detriment of 
road freight transport. Inland navigation shows some limited increase in its modal share 
by 2030 between the two scenarios. The modal shift towards freight rail is projected to 
amplify  when  looking  at  the  developments  by  2050.  The  modal  share  of  freight  rail  is 
found  to  increase  by  more  than  4  p.p.  in  the  current  trends  and  policies  scenario 
compared  to  baseline  in  2050.  The  baseline  scenario  indicates  a  relatively  stable  (and 
slightly reducing in 2050) modal share of freight rail in total freight transport, while the 
current  trends  and  policies  scenario  denotes  an  ever-increasing  modal  share  from  2020 
onwards driven by the completion of the core and comprehensive TEN-T network.     

159 

 
 
 
Figure 3-4: Modal shares in freight transport activity in the EU27 in the Baseline and 
the LTS current trends and policies scenario 

100,0%

90,0%

80,0%

70,0%

60,0%

50,0%

40,0%

30,0%

20,0%

10,0%

0,0%

Baseline

LTS Current
Trends

Baseline

LTS Current
Trends

Baseline

LTS Current
Trends

Baseline

LTS Current
Trends

2010

2020

2030

2050

Inland navigation

Rail

Road

13,7%

16,0%

70,3%

13,7%

16,0%

70,3%

13,1%

16,6%

70,3%

13,1%

16,9%

70,0%

12,9%

16,6%

70,5%

13,2%

18,5%

68,3%

12,4%

16,1%

71,5%

12,8%

20,3%

66,9%

Road

Rail

Inland navigation

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

Figure 3-5 presents the reduction in the freight rail transport modal share in the Baseline 
scenario compared to the current trends and policies scenario in 2030 and 2050 at the cnc 
level, using the mapping between the various EU MS and the 9 core network corridors 
(Table 3-1).  

Model results indicate a reduction in the modal share of freight rail in all core network 
corridors. The highest reduction is observed in the case of the Baltic Adriatic, Orient East 
Med,  Rhine  Danube  and  Scan-Med  CNC,  which  are  mainly  influenced  by  a  large 
reduction  in  the  freight  rail  transport  activity  in  Germany,  Austria  and  Finland  in  the 
baseline  scenario  compared  to  the  current  trends  and  policies  scenario.  The  respective 
modal share is found to decrease by 2.4 p.p. in 2030 in the baseline scenario compared to 
current trends and policies scenario. The modal share of freight rail in the core network 
corridors  is  found  to  further  decrease  between  the  two  scenarios  in  2050  compared  to 
2030, in lack of the comprehensive TEN-T network implementation after 2030.  

160 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  3-5:  Reduction  in  the  freight  rail  transport  modal  share  in  the  Baseline 
scenario  compared  to  the  current  trends  and  policies  scenario  (in  p.p.),  at  core 
network corridor level, in 2030 (left) and 2050 (right) 

-1,7 

ATLANTIC 

-3,7 

ATLANTIC 

-2,4 

BALTIC ADRIATIC 

-5,0 

BALTIC ADRIATIC 

-1,1 

MED 

-2,6 

MED 

-2,2 

NORTH SEA BALTIC 

-4,6 

NORTH SEA BALTIC 

-1,6 

NORTH-SEA MED 

-3,4 

NORTH-SEA MED 

-2,4 

ORIENT EAST MED 

-5,2 

ORIENT EAST MED 

-1,6 

RHINE ALPINE 

-3,4 

RHINE ALPINE 

-2,4 

-2,4 

RHINE DANUBE 

SCAN-MED 

-5,2 

-5,1 

RHINE DANUBE 

SCAN-MED 

-3,0

-2,0

-1,0

0,0

-6,0

-4,0

-2,0

0,0

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

Energy demand in the EU-27 passenger transport sector is projected to be higher in the 
Baseline  scenario  relative  to  the  current  trends  and  policies  scenario  (assuming  the 
implementation of the TEN-T regulation) by 2030 and 2050 (by 2% and 4% or 2.4 and 
4.8 Mtoe, in 2030 and 2050, respectively), due to higher energy use in the road transport 
sector  and  aviation.  Such  developments  are  the  result  of  higher  road  and  air  passenger 
transport  activity  in  the  baseline  compared  to  the  current  trends  scenario,  due  the 
detriment of rail (including high-speed rail).  

The  picture  is  relatively  similar  in  the  freight  transport  sector.  The  baseline  scenario 
shows  higher  energy  use  in  road  freight  compared  to  the  current  trends  scenario 
(approximately  2%  and  5%  higher  in  the  baseline  scenario  compared  to  current  trends 
scenario in 2030 and 2050, respectively), due to the higher road freight transport activity. 

161 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-2: Comparison of energy demand in the EU27 transport sector in the Baseline 
and the current trends and policies scenario  

r
e
g
n
e
s
s
a
P

t
r
o
p
s
n
a
r
t

Road 
Rail 
Aviation 
Inland navigation 

t
h
g
i
e
r
F

t
r
o
p
s
n
a
r
t

Road 
Rail 
Inland navigation 
Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

absolute diff. (in Mtoe) 
2050 
4.8 
-0.3 
0.7 
-0.1 
2050 
3.5 
-0.9 
-0.2 

2030 
2.4 
-0.3 
0.4 
0.0 
2030 
1.6 
-0.4 
-0.1 

relative diff. (in %) 

2030 
2% 
-8% 
1% 
-4% 
2030 
2% 
-9% 
-4% 

2050 
4% 
-9% 
1% 
-7% 
2050 
5% 
-19% 
-5% 

Oil products consumption is projected to be higher in the baseline scenario compared to 
the  current  trends  and  policy  scenario  as  a  result  of  the  higher  modal  share  of  road 
transport in the total passenger and freight transport in the baseline scenario. The baseline 
scenario  indicates  a  higher  consumption  of  oil  products  by  approx.  5  and  12  Mtoe  in 
2030  and  2050  compared  to  the  current  trends  and  policies  scenario.  Electricity  use  is 
projected to be lower in the baseline scenario compared to the current trends and policies 
scenario,  driven  by  the  reduced  transport  activity  of  railways.  In  addition,  the  non-
completion  of  the  TEN-T  core  and  comprehensive  network  is  driving  some  lower 
electrification  of  the  railways  sector  in  the  baseline  scenario  compared  to  the  current 
trends and policies scenario from 2020 onwards. 

The non-completion of the TEN-T core and comprehensive network negatively impacts 
the uptake of alternative fuels such as natural gas and hydrogen in the baseline scenario, 
because of the lower or limited availability of alternative fuels infrastructure on the core 
TEN-T network (e.g. hydrogen refuelling stations, LNG terminals and LNG stations, as 
well  as electricity recharging points). Natural  gas consumption is  projected to  be lower 
by  around  0.9  and  2  Mtoe  in  2030  and  2050,  respectively  in  the  baseline  scenario 
compared to the current trends and policies scenario, as a result of a reduced demand in 
road freight and shipping, due to the limited refuelling infrastructure. 

Total  transport  CO2  emissions  are  projected  to  be  higher  in  the  baseline  scenario 
compared to the current trends and policies scenario by 2030 and 2050. The driver of this 
outcome  is  mainly  associated  with  the  higher  energy  consumption  of  the  more  energy 
intensive transport modes (e.g. cars and trucks) and the lower availability of alternative 
fuels in transport because of the lower availability of refuelling/recharging infrastructure 
along the TEN-T core network. 

Model  results  indicate  higher  CO2  emissions  in  the  baseline  scenario  compared  to  the 
current trends and policies scenario, by about 14 and 31 Mtons CO2 by 2030 and 2050, 
respectively (i.e. 1.8% and 5.4% increase in 2030 and 2050, respectively). In cumulative 
terms, the baseline scenario shows higher CO2 emissions relative to the current trends and 

162 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
policies scenario of about 73 and 530 Mt CO2 in 2030 and 2050, respectively (i.e. 0.6% 
and 2.1% increase in 2030 and 2050, respectively). 

Figure 3-6: Difference in the energy demand by fuel in the Baseline scenario compared 
to the LTS current trends and policies scenario in the EU27 (in Mtoe) 

0,4 

0,9 

Hydrogen

-0,1 

-1,2 

Biofuels

Natural Gas

Electricity

Oil products

-0,9 

-2,0 

-0,9 

-2,1 

5,1 

11,8 

-5,0

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

2030

2050

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

Figure 3-7: Total transport CO2 emissions in the Baseline scenario compared to the 
current trends and policies scenario in the EU27 

LTS Current Trends

Baseline

2
O
C
S
N
O
T
M

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

LTS Current Trends

Baseline

852

855

806

812

745

759

674

694

624

648

588

616

573

604

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

163 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-3: Comparison of cumulative CO2 emissions in the EU27 transport sector in 
the Baseline and the current trends and policies scenario  

Mton CO2 
Baseline 
LTS Current Trends 
absolute diff. 

2015-2030 
12471 
12398 
73 

2015-2050 

25742 
25213 
530 

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

NOx emissions would be about 22 and 36 ktons higher in the baseline scenario compared 
to  the  current  trends  scenario  by  2030  and  2050,  respectively  (i.e.  1.4%  and  3.6% 
increase in 2030 and 2050, respectively). PM emissions are projected to be 2 and 3 ktons 
higher  in  the  baseline  scenario  compared  to  the  current  trends  and  policies  scenario  by 
2030  and  2050,  respectively  (i.e.  1.7%  and  5.6%  increase  in  2030  and  2050, 
respectively). 

Figure 3-8: (left) NOx and (right) PM emissions in transport (excl. intern. maritime) 
in the Baseline scenario compared to the current trends and policies scenario in the 
EU27 

LTS Current Trends

Baseline

LTS Current Trends

Baseline

X
O
N
S
N
O
T
K

2300

2100

1900

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

M
P

S
N
O
T
K

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

LTS Current Trends 2163 1785 1554 1298 1132 1019

947

Baseline

2171 1796 1576 1323 1159 1049

981

LTS Current Trends

Baseline

143

143

117

118

98

100

76

78

61

63

51

54

45

48

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

In cumulative terms, the baseline scenario shows higher NOx emissions of about 138 and 
680 ktons NOx in 2030 and 2050, respectively, compared to current trends and policies 
scenario (i.e. 0.4% and 1.2% increase in 2030 and 2050, respectively). PM emissions are 
projected to be 10 and 53 ktons above current trends and policies scenario in the baseline 
in  2030  and  2050,  respectively  (i.e.  0.5%  and  1.6%  increase  in  2030  and  2050, 
respectively). 

164 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-4: Comparison of cumulative NOx emissions in the EU27 transport sector 
(excl. intern. maritime) in the Baseline and the current trends and policies scenario  

kt NOx 
Baseline 
LTS Current Trends 
absolute diff. 

2015-2030 

2015-2050 

31507 
31369 
138 

55854 
55173 
680 

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

Table  3-5:  Comparison  of  cumulative  PM  emissions  in  the  EU27  transport  sector 
(excl. intern. maritime) in the Baseline and the current trends and policies scenario  

kt PM 
Baseline 
LTS Current Trends 
absolute diff. 

2015-2030 

2015-2050 

2038 
2028 
10 

3410 
3357 
53 

Source: PRIMES-TREMOVE model, E3Modelling 

4  HIGH-LEVEL  FINDINGS  ON  THE  IMPACT  OF  COVID-19  ON  THE  EU  TRANSPORT 

ACTIVITY 

This section aims to present some high-level impacts of the Covid-19 outbreak on the EU 
transport activity. Nevertheless, more in depth analysis would be necessary to assess the 
impact of the Covid-19 on the EU transport sector and the overall EU economic activity, 
considering that newer data are also becoming available. 

Since  the  Covid-19  outbreak,  several  governments  took  drastic  measures  to  contain  its 
wider expansion to  the population.  As a result, the activity in  several  economic sectors 
has  slowed  down.  Particularly,  the  transport  sector  has  been  greatly  affected  due  to 
international  travel  bans,  confinement  measures,  stay-at-home  requirements,  and 
restricted  access  to  public  transport.  In  addition,  global  trade  between  countries  and 
consequently freight transport, decreased to some extent due to lower economic activity 
and reduction in manufacturing output132. 

International travel restrictions led to a steep decline of domestic, intra- and extra-EU air 
traffic, through February, March and April (up to almost 90% less than 2019 levels, the 
lowest throughout the year). From June onwards, analysts anticipate that there will be a 
gradual recovery of flight activity first from domestic and intra-EU flights, as a result of 
increased international intra-EU mobility. Moving towards the last quarter of 2020, and 
assuming  no  second  wave,  extra-EU  flights  are  also  assumed  to  recover,  but  to  lower 
levels than 2019.   

132  https://unstats.un.org/unsd/ccsa/documents/covid19-report-ccsa.pdf  

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 4-1: Reduction of intra- and extra-EU flight activity in 2020 compared to 2019 

Source: EUROCONTROL133 

The activity of the sector can also be determined by looking at the emissions of the 
sector.  

Figure 4-1 indicates a steep reduction in aviation CO2 emissions in the months of March 
and April and to some extent May. Preliminary data for June were indicating a recovery 
of the CO2 emissions and the activity of the sector. 

Figure 4-2: Estimated reduction in CO2 emissions from aviation compared to 2019 

0%
-10%
-20%
-30%
-40%
-50%
-60%
-70%
-80%

f
o
s
n
o
i
s
s
i

m
e
n

i

n
o
i
t
c
u
d
e
R

n
o
i
t
a
i
v
a
U
E
-
a
r
t
x
e
d
n
a
-
a
r
t
n

i

Note: Estimates based on total number of departing flights by aircraft on ground until 11 June 2020. Source: E3Modelling based on 
ICOS data134 

During the first months of 2020, Covid-19 outbreak containment measures were aimed at 
ensuring social distancing in public transport and limiting personal mobility by all modes 
as EU citizens were increasingly being asked by their governments to stay at home. As 
such,  a  reduction  in  passenger  transport  activity  was  observed.  Assuming  that  in  the 
course  of  2020  containment  measures  will  be  gradually  lifted,  an  overall  recovery  of 
passenger transport activity is expected, but to lower levels than before the outbreak.  

133  Available at: https://www.eurocontrol.int/covid19  
134  Le Quéré et al. 2020, available at: https://www.icos-cp.eu/gcp-covid19. Accessed: 19/06/2020. 

166 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  4-3:  Estimated  reduction  in  road  transport  activity  in  Europe  by  the  IEA 
during the first months of the Covid-19 outbreak 

Source: IEA135  

Different passenger transport modes are expected to recover at different rates, as norms 
induced  by  social  distancing  may  not  be  fully  lifted  (e.g.  occupancy  factors  of  public 
modes of transport), particularly demonstrating a preference towards private compared to 
public transport modes. High speed rail transport activity (in terms of pkm) has also been 
substantially decreased during the first months of the Covid-19 outbreak, mainly because 
of  the  reduction  in  the  number  of  passengers  travelling  as  a  result  of  a  preference  of  a 
private transport mode or tele-working.  

The  impact  of  the  Covid-19  outbreak  on  the  EU  freight  transport  sector  has  been  less 
severe than on the passenger transport. Road freight  transport, which largely represents 
intra-EU trade, experienced the lowest reduction in its activity compared to other modes, 
such  as  passenger  transport  modes,  because  the  trade  and  logistic  operations  continued 
during the months of the lockdown. The impact on the Covid-19 on the non-road freight 
transport is expected to be larger in magnitude than in the road freight transport sector. 

135  IEA (2020), Global Energy Review 2020 - The impacts of the Covid-19 crisis on global energy demand and CO2 
at: 

International  Energy  Agency 

(IEA).  Available 

emissions 
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2020 

(Revised  version  April  2020), 

167 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Annex 8: Costs and Benefits of Regulation 1315/2013 

I. Overview of costs – benefits identified in the evaluation 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

[Other…] 

Qualitative 

Quantitative / 
monetary 

Qualitative  Quantitative / 

monetary  

Qualitative  Quantitative 
/ monetary  

Cost  

Recurring 
administrative costs 
for participating in 
the TEN-T 
governance 
(committees, 
corridor fora, TEN-
T days etc.) that had 
to be expected 
following the 2013 
revision 

costs for 
compliance with the 
TEN-T regulation 
e.g. upgrading of 
infrastructure to 
TEN- standards, 
filling of missing 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Negligible 
as reported 
by MS in 
the 
consultatio
ns  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

High  

Source: 
TEN- 
implement
ation 
reports   

168 

Rough 
estimations 
from the 
Programme 
Support 
Actions 
point to 
costs of 
annually € 
20.000 per 
corridor per 
MS 

It has been 
estimated 
that 
implementin
g the TEN-T 
core network 
results in 

Qualitative  Quantitativ

e / 
monetary 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

 
 
 
 
 
 
annual costs 
of around € 
40bn across 
the 27 MS 

 N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

links and removal of 
bottlenecks 

Recurring economic 
and social  
benefits related to 
economic growth 
and employment 
that were somewhat 
expected following 
the revision 

Benefits 

1.6% 
additional 
GDP in 2030 
due to the 
implementatio
n of the TEN-
T  

7.5 million 
additional job 
years are 
estimated due to 
the 
implementation of 
the TEN-T core 
network between 
2018 and 2030 

High  

Sources: 2018 
study on the 
impact of 
TEN-T 
completion on 
growth, jobs 
and the 
environment; 
2015 study on 
the non-
completion of 
the TEN-T 

High 

Sources: 2018 
study on the 
impact of 
TEN-T 
completion on 
growth, jobs 
and the 
environment; 
2015 study on 
the non-
completion of 
the TEN-T 

Recurring 
environmental, 
changes  in 
pollution that were 
somewhat expected 
following the 
revision 

High 

Sources: 
Modelling 
exercise 
undertaken for 
the evaluation 
study 

Non – 
implementation of 
the TEN-T would 
lead to higher 
CO2 emissions of 
about 73 and 530 
Mt CO2 in 2030 
and 2050, 
respectively (i.e. 

169 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0.6% and 2.1% 
increase in 2030 
and 2050, 
respectively) 

NOx emissions of 
about 138 and 680 
ktons NOx in 
2030 and 2050, 
respectively, 
compared to 
current trends 
scenario (i.e. 0.4% 
and 1.2% increase 
in 2030 and 2050, 
respectively). 

PM emissions in 
cumulative terms 
are projected to be 
10 and 53 ktons 
above current 
trends scenario in 
the baseline in 
2030 and 2050, 
respectively (i.e. 
0.5% and 1.6% 
increase in 2030 
and 2050, 
respectively). 

170 

 
 
 
recurring economic, 
social benefits due 
to better 
connectivity and 
accessibility 
expected following 
the revision 

High 

Sources: 
Stakeholder 
opinions and 
data from 
completed 
projects (see 
chapter three) 

Time savings and 
better accessibility 
for passengers on 
completed 
network projects. 
However full 
network effect 
will only occur 
upon network 
completion 

High 

Sources: 
Stakeholder 
opinions and 
data from 
completed 
projects (see 
chapter three) 

Time savings 
in freight 
transport, 
access to 
larger labour 
market 
through better 
accessibility 
and shortened 
travel times 
for employees. 
However full 
network effect 
will only 
occur upon 
network 
completion 

Recurring, social 
benefits due to 
reduction in road 
accidents expected 
following the 
revision 

High 

Source: 
statistics 

Recurring, social 
benefits due to 
reduction in noise 

Medium 

Source: 

In total road 
deaths have seen a 
decrease of 43% 
in Europe between 
2010 and 2019 
partially due to 
higher standards 
on TEN-T roads 
and motorways. 

As traffic volumes 
have increased 
over the 

171 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
emissions expected 
following the 
revision 

stakeholder 
opinions 
(OPC) 

implementation 
period also noise 
levels have been 
on the rise. 
However 
completed 
projects, the 
concentration of 
transport on major 
access and high 
quality 
infrastructure on 
the TEN-T 
somewhat 
countered these 
developments 
however they are 
difficult to 
measure 

172 

 
 
Annex 9 – Overview of legislation relevant to TEN-T 

Legislation in force with relevance to the TEN-T Regulation 

Legislation 

Summary 

Directive (EU) 2016/797 on the 
interoperability of the EU’s rail 
system 

Directive (EU) 2016/798 on 
railway safety 

Directive (EC) 2008/57 on the 
interoperability of the rail 
system within the Community 
(Repealed by Directive 
2016/797) 

Directive 2012/34/EU   

This  Directive  establishes  the  conditions  to  be  met  to  achieve 
interoperability  within  the  Union  rail  system  in  accord  with  Directive 
(EU) 2016/798. The goal is to define an optimal level of technical 
improve  and  develop  rail 
harmonisation,  to 
transport  services  within  the  Union  and  with  third  countries. 
This, in turn, is expected to contribute to the completion of the single 
European  railway  area  and  the  progressive  achievement  of  the 
internal market.  

facilitate, 

This  Directive  lays  down  provisions  to  ensure  the  development 
and  improvement  of  the  safety  of  the  Union  rail  system  and 
improved  access  to  the  market  for  rail  transport  services 
through  1  harmonising  regulatory  structure  in  MS;  2)  defining 
responsibilities  between  the  actors  in  the  Union  rail  system;  3) 
developing  common  safety  targets  (‘CSTs’)  and  common  safety 
methods (‘CSMs’); 4) setting out the principles for issuing, renewing, 
amending  and  restricting  or  revoking  safety  certificates  and 
authorisations;  5)  requiring  the  establishment,  for  each  MS,  of  a 
national  safety  authority  and  an  accident  and  incident  investigating 
body;  and  6)  defining  common  principles  for  the  management, 
regulation and supervision. 

This  Directive  sets  out  to  establish  the  conditions  to  be  met  to 
achieve  interoperability  within  the  Community  rail  system  in  a 
manner  compatible  with  the  provisions  of  Directive  2004/49/EC. 
These  conditions  concern  the  design,  construction,  placing  in 
service,  upgrading,  renewal,  operation  and  maintenance  of 
the parts of this system as well as the professional qualifications and 
health  and  safety  conditions  of  the  staff  who  contribute  to  its 
operation and maintenance. 

to 

the 

rules  applicable 

the  management  of 

This  Directive  establishes  the  single  European  railway  area  laying 
down 
railway 
infrastructure  and  to  rail  transport  activities  of  the  railway 
undertakings,  the  criteria  applicable  to  the  issuing,  renewal  or 
amendment  of  licences  by  a  Member  State  intended  for  railway 
undertakings  and  the  principles  and  procedures  applicable  to  the 
setting  and  collecting  of  railway  infrastructure  charges  and  the 
allocation  of  railway  infrastructure  capacity  being  applicable  to  the 
use  of  railway  infrastructure  for  domestic  and  international  rail 
services 

Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 
concerning European rail 
network for competitive freight 

This  Regulation  lays  down  rules  for  the  establishment  and 
organisation of international rail corridors for competitive rail 
freight  with  a  view  to  the  development  of  a  European  rail  network 
for competitive freight.  

Directive 2002/59/EC 
establishing a Community vessel 
traffic monitoring and 
information system 

This Directive establishes a Community vessel traffic monitoring and 
information system with a view to enhancing the safety and efficiency 
of maritime traffic, improving the response of authorities to incidents, 
accidents or potentially dangerous situations at sea, including search 
and  rescue  operations,  and  contributing  to  a  better  prevention  and 
detection  of  pollution  by  ships,  being  applicable  applies  to  ships  of 
300 gross tonnage and upwards,  

Directive (EU) 2019/883 on port 
reception facilities for the 

This  Directive  aims  to  protect  the  marine  environment  against  the 
negative effects from discharges of waste from ships using ports 

173 

 
 
 
 
Legislation 

Summary 

delivery of waste from ships 
(amending Directive 2010/65/EU 
and repealing Directive 
2000/59/EC) 

located  in  the  Union,  while  ensuring  the  smooth  operation  of 
maritime  traffic,  by  improving  the  availability  and  use  of  adequate 
port reception facilities and the delivery of waste to those facilities. It 
applies  to  all  ships,  irrespective  of  their  flag,  calling  at,  or  operating 
within, a port of a Member State.  Member States have to ensure the 
availability of port reception facilities adequate to meet the need 
of  the  ships  normally  using  the  port  without  causing  undue  delay  to 
ships. 

Directive (EU) 2010/65 on 
reporting formalities for ships 
arriving in and/or departing 
from ports of MS and repealing 
Directive (EC) 2002/6 

The  purpose  of  this  Directive  is  to  simplify  and  harmonize  the 
administrative  procedures  applied  to  maritime  transport  by 
making  the  electronic  transmission  of  information  standard  and  by 
rationalising reporting formalities. These provisions apply to maritime 
transport for ships arriving in and ships departing from ports situated 
in EU MS.  

Regulation 2019/1239/EU 
establishing a European 
Maritime Single Window 
environment and repealing 
Directive 2010/65/EU 

Directive (EU) 2014/94 on the 
deployment of alternative fuels 
infrastructure 

This Regulation establishes a framework for a technologically neutral 
and  interoperable  European  Maritime  Single  Window  environment 
(‘EMSWe’)  with  harmonised  interfaces,  in  order  to  facilitate  the 
electronic  transmission  of  information  in  relation  to  reporting 
obligations  for  ships  arriving  at,  staying  in  and  departing  from  a 
Union port.  

This  Directive  establishes  a  common  framework  of  measures  for  the 
deployment  of  alternative  fuels  infrastructure  in  the  Union  to 
minimise dependence on oil and to mitigate the environmental 
impact of transport. The legislation sets out minimum requirements 
for the building-up of alternative fuels infrastructure. 

Directive (EU) 2010/40 on the 
framework for the deployment 
of Intelligent Transport Systems 
in the field of road transport and 
for interfaces with other modes 
of transport 

This Directive  establishes a framework in support of the coordinated 
and  coherent  deployment  and  use  of  Intelligent  Transport 
Systems  (ITS)  within  the  Union,  in  particular  across  the  borders 
between  the  Member  States,  and  sets  out  the  general  conditions 
necessary  for  that  purpose.  It  provides  for  the  development  of 
specifications for actions related with four priority areas:  

I. 

II. 

III. 

Optimal use of road, traffic and travel data (referring to 
priority actions a, b and c);  

Continuity  of  traffic  and 
services;  

freight  management  ITS 

ITS  road  safety  and  security  applications  (referring  to 
priority actions d, e and f) and   

IV. 

Linking the vehicle with the transport infrastructure. 

Regulation (EC) 886/2013 with 
regard to data and procedures 
for the provision, where 
possible, of road safety-related 
minimum universal traffic 
information free of charge to 
users 

Regulation (EC) 885/2013 on the 
provision of information services 
for safe and secure parking 
places for trucks and 
commercial vehicles 

interoperability  and  continuity 

This Delegated Regulation establishes the specifications necessary to 
the 
ensure  compatibility, 
deployment  and  operational  use  of  data  and  procedures  for  the 
provision,  where  possible,  of  road  safety-related  minimum 
universal  traffic  information  free  of  charge  to  users  on  a  Union 
level in accordance with Directive 2010/40. It applies to the provision 
of information services located in the trans-European road network 

for 

interoperability  and  continuity 

This Delegated Regulation establishes the specifications necessary to 
ensure  compatibility, 
the 
deployment  and  operational  use  of  information  services  for  safe 
and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles 
on a Union level in accordance with Directive 2010/40/EU. It applies 
to the provision of information services located in the trans-European 
road network  

for 

Regulation (EC) 2017/1926 on 
EU-wide multi-modal travel 
information 

This  Delegated  Regulation,  supplementing  Directive  2010/40/EU  on 
ITS, establishes the necessary specifications to ensure that EU-wide 
multimodal  travel  information  services  are  accurate  and 
available  across  borders  to  ITS  users.  It  applies  to  the  entire 
transport network of the Union.  

Regulation (EC) 2015/962 on 

This Regulation establishes the specifications necessary to ensure the 

174 

 
Legislation 

Summary 

EU-wide real-time traffic 
information 

accessibility,  exchange,  re-use  and  update  of  road  and  traffic 
data by road authorities, road operators and service providers 
for  the  provision  of  EU-wide  real-time  traffic  information 
services.  

It  applies  to  the  TEN-T  comprehensive  road  network,  as  well  as 
motorways not included in this network, and priority zones identified 
by national authorities where they consider this to be relevant.  

Directive (EC) 2008/96 on road 
infrastructure safety 
management 

This  Directive  on  road  infrastructure  safety  management  procedures 
ensures that the road network is safe. The Directive’s application 
to the TEN-T road network is binding, but MS can extend its scope on 
voluntary basis. 

Directive 2004/54/EC on 
Minimum safety requirements 
for tunnels in the trans-
European Road Network 

Directive 2004/52/EC on 
Interoperability of electronic 
road toll systems 

Single European Sky legislative 
framework (Regulations (EC) 
549/2004, 550/2004, 551/2004 
and 552/2004) 

This Directive establishes the minimum level of safety for road users 
in tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network by the prevention of 
critical  events  that  may  endanger  human  life,  the  environment  and 
tunnel  installations,  as  well  as  by  the  provision  of  protection  in  case 
of accidents. The Directive is applicable to all tunnels in the Trans-
European Road  Network with  lengths  of  over  500  meters,  but 
MS can extend its scope on voluntary basis 

This Directive establishes the requirements for the interoperability of 
electronic  road  toll  systems  in  the  Community.  It  applies  to  the 
electronic  collection  of  all  types  of  road  fees,  on  the  entire 
Community  road  network,  urban  and  interurban,  motorways,  major 
and minor roads, and various structures such as tunnels, bridges and 
ferries 

The  Single  European  Sky  framework  covers  the  provision  of  air 
navigation  services  (ANS),  the  organisation  and  use  of 
airspace  and  the  interoperability  of  the  European  Air  Traffic 
Management  Network  (EATMN).  The four  Regulations  adopted  in 
2004  (the  SES  I  Package)  were  revised  and  extended  in  2009  with 
Regulation  (EC)  n°  1070/2009.  This  framework  also  includes  more 
than  20 
Implementing  Rules  and  Community  Specifications 
("technical standards"). 

Directive 2005/44/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the 
Council of 7 September 2005 on 
harmonised river information 
services (RIS) on inland 
waterways 

This  Directive  establishes  a  framework  for  the  establishment  and 
further  development  of  technical  requirements,  specifications  and 
conditions  to  ensure  harmonised,  interoperable  and  open  River 
Information  Services  (RIS)  with  a  view  to  enhancing  safety, 
efficiency and environmental friendliness and to facilitating interfaces 
with other transport modes. 

It applies to all inland waterways of the Member States of class 
IV and above which are linked by a waterway of class IV or above to 
a waterway of class IV or above of another Member State,  including 
the ports on such waterways. 

Source: Evaluation team’s compilation based on legislative documents listed in the table 

175