COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EU) 1315/2013
Date: 2021-12-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: carbon neutrality, combined transport, common transport policy, project of common interest, sustainable mobility, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network, transport planning

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 14.12.2021  SWD(2021) 472 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EU) 1315/2013                      {COM(2021) 812 final} - {SEC(2021) 435 final} - {SWD(2021) 471 final} - {SWD(2021) 473 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ..................................... 1 

1.1  Political context ................................................................................................. 1 
1.2  Legal and policy context ................................................................................... 2 

2 

PROBLEM DEFINITION .......................................................................................... 6 

2.1  What are the problems? ..................................................................................... 7 
2.2  What are the problem drivers? ........................................................................ 13 
2.3  How will the problem evolve? ........................................................................ 24 

3  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? .............................................................................. 27 

3.1  Legal basis ....................................................................................................... 27 
3.2  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action ............................................................... 27 
3.3  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action .......................................................... 28 

4  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ..................................................... 29 

4.1  General objectives ........................................................................................... 29 
4.2  Specific objectives ........................................................................................... 31 

5  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .......................................... 33 

5.1  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? .................................. 33 
5.2  Description of the policy options and measures .............................................. 36 
Links between the problems, problem drivers and specific objectives in relation to each 

5.2.1 
policy option 46 

5.2.2  Contribution of each policy option to the European Green Deal ................................... 51 

5.3  Discarded policy measures at an early stage ................................................... 53 

6  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ................................. 53 

6.1  Economic impacts ........................................................................................... 55 
Investment needs ........................................................................................................... 55 
Impacts on GDP ............................................................................................................. 57 

6.1.1 
6.1.2 

Impact on SMEs ............................................................................................................ 59 
6.1.3 
6.1.4  Administrative burden ................................................................................................... 59 

6.1.5 

Impacts on transport activity .......................................................................................... 60 

6.2  Social impacts .................................................................................................. 63 
Impacts on employment ................................................................................................. 63 

6.2.1 

6.2.2  Road Safety .................................................................................................................... 64 
6.2.3  Connectivity and cohesion, including outermost regions .............................................. 65 

6.2.4  Accessibility for all users ............................................................................................... 66 
Impacts on health ........................................................................................................... 67 
6.2.5 

6.3  Environmental impacts .................................................................................... 67 
6.3.1  CO2 emission reduction ................................................................................................. 67 
6.3.2  Air Pollutant emissions reduction .................................................................................. 68 

6.3.3 

Impacts on noise, biodiversity and water ....................................................................... 69 

6.4 

Impacts on resilience of the transport infrastructure incl. maintenance .......... 71 

7  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? .................................................................. 74 

 
 
7.1  Effectiveness .................................................................................................... 74 
7.2  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 79 
7.3  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 81 
7.4  Proportionality and subsidiarity ...................................................................... 81 
7.5  Summary of the comparison of options, including stakeholder views ............ 82 

8 

PREFERRED OPTION ............................................................................................. 83 

9  HOW  WILL  ACTUAL 

IMPACTS  BE  MONITORED  AND 

EVALUATED? ......................................................................................................... 84 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 86 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................... 90 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? ............................................................... 98 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ........................................................................ 102 

ANNEX  5:  LINKS  BETWEEN  THE  CONCLUSIONS  OF  THE  TEN-T  EX-

POST EVALUATION AND THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................... 147 

ANNEX 6: OVERVIEW OF SPECIFIC POLICY OBJECTIVES,  MEASURES 

AND POLICY OPTIONS ....................................................................................... 152 

ANNEX  7:  RESILIENCE  CASE  -  POTENTIAL  RISK  OF  FLOODING  OF 

EU27 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURES ......................................................... 158 

ANNEX 8: DISCARDED POLICY MEASURES ......................................................... 166 

ANNEX 9: TEN-T KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ......................................... 169 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AF 

AFIR 

CEF 

CNC 

EGD 

Alternative Fuels 

Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation  

Connecting Europe Facility  

Core Network Corridors  

European Green Deal  

ERTMS 

European Rail Traffic Management System  

ESIF 

ETC 

ETS 

GHG 

GT 

HDV 

IA 

ITS 

IWT 

IWW 

LDV 

MaaS 

MoS 

MS 

NAPCP 

NECP 

OPC 

OPS 

OR 

P2W 

PO 

PM  

RFC 

RoPax 

RRF 

RRT 

SO 

SSMS 

SSS 

SUMP 

TEN-T 

European Structural and Investment Fund 

European Transport Corridors 

Emission Trading Scheme  

Greenhouse Gases  

Gross Tonnage 

Heavy Duty Vehicle  

Impact Assessment  

Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) 

Inland Waterway Transport  

Inland Waterways  

Light Duty Vehicle 

Mobility as a Service  

Motorways of the Sea 

Member State(s)  

National Air Pollution Control Programme 

National Energy and Climate Plan 

Open Public Consultation  

Onshore Power Supply 

Outermost Region(s)  

Powered two wheelers 

Policy Option 

Particulate Matter Emissions 

Rail Freight Corridors  

Roll-On-Roll-Off-Passenger-ship/ferry 

Recovery and Resilience Facility  

Rail-Road-Terminal 

Specific Objective 

Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy  

Short Sea Shipping 

Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan 

Trans-European Transport Network  

 
 
 
TFEU 

VOC 

WFD 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions  

Water Framework Directive 

 
 
 
1 

1 INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

This  impact  assessment  (IA)  accompanies  a  legislative  proposal  for  the  revision  of 
Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013  –  Union  guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  trans-
European transport network (TEN-T). The aim of the  TEN-T Regulation  is  to  build an 
effective EU-wide and multimodal transport infrastructure network across the European 
Union.  

1.1  1.1  Political context 

The  European  Green  Deal1,  adopted  by  the  European  Commission  in  December  2019, 
puts climate action at its core, by setting an EU climate neutrality objective by 2050. In 
the  domain  of  transport,  the  European  Green  Deal  (EGD)  calls  for  a  90%  reduction  in 
greenhouse gas emissions from transport in order for the EU to become a climate-neutral 
economy by 2050, while working towards the zero-pollution ambition2. It also calls for 
shifting a substantial part of the 75% of inland freight carried today by road to rail and 
inland waterways. Short-sea shipping  and zero-emission vehicles can also contribute to 
greening freight transport. The transport sector should also contribute to the objectives of 
the  biodiversity  strategy  for  2030  which  aims  to  put  Europe's  biodiversity  on  a  path  to 
recovery by 2030. 

To achieve this systemic change, the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy  (SSMS)3 
sets out the need to: (1) make all transport modes more sustainable, (2) make sustainable 
alternatives  widely  available  in  a  multimodal  transport  system  and  (3)  put  in  place  the 
right  incentives  to  drive  the  transition.  As regards the second pillar, the  SSMS sets  the 
following  concrete  milestones:  rail  freight  traffic  will  increase  by  50%  by  2030  and 
double by  2050; transport by inland waterways  and short sea shipping  will increase by 
25% by 2030 and by 50% by 2050; traffic on high-speed  rail will double by 2030 and 
triple  by  2050;  scheduled  collective  travel  under  500  km  should  be  carbon-neutral  by 
2030 within the EU; by 2030, there will be at least 100 climate-neutral cities in Europe. 

To create the enabling conditions in terms of infrastructure for such systemic change, the 
revision  of  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013,  including  all  delegated  Regulations  and 
delegated  acts  that  followed  its  adoption4,  is  a  key  action  of  both  the  EGD  and  the 
SSMS5. It is part of a package of legislative initiatives aiming at contributing to the goals 
of decarbonisation, digitalisation and higher resilience of transport infrastructure. Next to 
the  revision  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  there  will  be  the  review  of  the  Intelligent 
Transport Systems (ITS) Directive and the urban mobility package – all due by the end of 

1   COM(2019)640 final 
2   COM/2021/400 final Commission Communication “Pathway to a Healthy Planet for All EU Action Plan: 

'Towards Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil'” 

3   COM (2020)789 final 
4   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.  

5   Action  55  of  the  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy:  Revision  of  the  Regulation  on  the  Trans-

European Transport Network (TEN-T) 

1 

 
                                                 
2021. Closely related to TEN-T is also the revision of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure 
Directive  into  a  new  Regulation  (AFIR)  as  part  of  the  ‘Delivering  the  European  Green 
Deal’ initiatives that have been presented in July 2021.  

1.2  1.2  Legal and policy context 

“Connecting Europe” is the very purpose of the TEN-T. The TEN-T policy as defined in 
the  Regulation  is  about  connecting  businesses  and  economic  operators  by  creating  the 
arteries that are necessary for smooth passenger and freight transport flows, which are in 
return vital for the internal market. TEN-T is about connecting European citizens, since it 
allows  for  better  and  faster  transport  connections  throughout  Europe,  and  especially 
crossing  the  borders.  It  is  about  connecting  regions  since  the  TEN-T  ensure  economic, 
social and territorial cohesion by improving the accessibility across the EU, including a 
better  connectivity  of  the  outermost  regions  and  other  remote,  insular,  peripheral  and 
mountainous  regions  as  well  as  sparsely  populated  areas.  It  is  also  about  connecting 
Europe  with  the  rest  of  the  world,  since  transport  connections  to  our  neighbouring  and 
other  third  countries  are  of  paramount  importance  for  accessing  world  markets  and 
making  Europe  a  strong  global  actor.  And  finally  it  is  about  connecting  funding  and 
financing  since  the  TEN-T  Regulation  defines  the  priorities  and  conditions  for 
(European) funding and financing decisions.  

The TEN-T Regulation provides a key legal basis for infrastructure-related measures for 
all forms of transport in the EU and aims at creating a multimodal network of rail, inland 
waterways,  short  sea  shipping  routes  and  roads  which  are  linked  to  urban  nodes, 
maritime and inland ports, airports and terminals across the EU. The TEN-T is hence the 
very  basis  for  an  infrastructural  response  to  enable  sustainable  forms  of  transport,  to 
provide  for  improved  multimodal  and  interoperable  transport  solutions  and  for  an 
enhanced intermodal integration of the entire logistic chain. 

The TEN-T Regulation translates the overall purpose of a European multimodal transport 
system  into  four  specific  objectives6:  1)  Contribution  to  the  cohesion  of  the  Union;  2) 
Contribution  to  the  efficiency  of  the  transport  network;  3)  Contribution  to  the 
sustainability of the transport network; 4) Increased benefits for all users of the transport 
network. The main elements and features of the current TEN-T Regulation thereby are:  

  A  Europe-wide  network  indicated  in  the  maps  annexed  to  the  Regulation7  and 
identified  through  a  coherent  EU-wide  planning  methodology8.  The  current  TEN-T 
covers  around  30%  of  passenger  inland  traffic  and  close  to  70%  of  freight  inland 
traffic9 and is composed of two multimodal network layers:  

o  a ‘comprehensive’ network which is the ground layer to ensure accessibility of all 
European regions: it is comprised of 123,274 km of railway lines and 114,459 km 

6   Regulation (EU) 1315/2013, Article 4, Objectives of the trans-European transport network  
7   see: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/site/index_en.htm 
8   The  planning  methodology  for  the  trans-European  transport  network  (TEN-T)  of  7  January  2014,  

SWD(2013) 542 final 

9   ASTRA estimates developed by M-FIVE and TRUST model estimates developed by TRT.  

2 

 
                                                 
of  roads,  557  ports  (294  maritime  ports,  223  inland  ports,  40  maritime/inland 
(mixed) ports), 220 Rail-Road-Terminals (RRT) and 353 airports;   

o  a  ‘core’  network  which  is  the  part  of  the  comprehensive  network  of  highest 
strategic  importance  and  of  highest  implementation  priority  because  it  captures 
the  major  transport  flows  across  Europe10.  The  core  network  is  comprised  of 
67,448  km  of  railway  lines,  49,741  km  of  roads  and  15,732  km  of  inland 
waterways, 164 core ports (80 maritime, 60 inland ports and 24 maritime/inland 
(mixed)  ports), 116 RRT and 93 airports11. 

  The Regulation sets clear completion deadlines – 2030 for the core network and 2050 

for the comprehensive network.  

  Ambitious  and  binding  infrastructure  standards  and  requirements  for  all  transport 
modes to achieve interoperability and quality of the network, for both comprehensive 
and  core  network;  for  the  latter  it  defines  particularly  high  capacity  and  quality 
standards.  

 

Innovative  implementation  instruments to  ensure the realisation of  the core network 
by 2030, i.e. nine core network corridors (CNC) as well as two horizontal priorities 
(European  Rail  Traffic  Management  System  (ERTMS)  and  Motorways  of  the  Sea 
(MoS)) led by eleven European Coordinators.12  

Synergies with other EU policy instruments  

As  the  main  pillar  of  EU  transport  infrastructure  policy,  the  TEN-T  Regulation  acts  as 
enabler and also depends on complementary policies. 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,  that  the  TEN-T  rail  infrastructure  –  for 
ensuring  seamless  cross-border 
to  comply  with 
interoperability legislation set in railway policy. Similarly, TEN-T road infrastructure has 
to take up and comply with EU legislation on road safety. The implementation of sectoral 
policies also needs a strong TEN-T Regulation framework since the TEN-T provide the 
infrastructure network for the implementation of other sectoral measures or other pieces 

transport  and  mobility  –  has 

10   TRUST estimates for 2020 show that passenger inland traffic on the TEN-T core network is near 63% of 
traffic  of  the  comprehensive  network  and  that  freight  inland  traffic  is  73%  of  traffic  of  the  TEN-T 
comprehensive network. 

11   All figures on comprehensive and core network including UK. Status 2020.  
12   The  nine  CNC  are  a  subset  of  the  core  network  representing  between  70-80%  of  the  core  network 
length, depending on the transport mode. They represent the most important long-distance transport 
flows  along  the  core  network  and  consequently  ensure  the  continuity  of  the  most  strategic  EU 
connections. They are led by eleven European Coordinators which act as ambassadors and mediators 
for  infrastructure  planning  at  all  territorial  levels  and  bring  together  all  relevant  stakeholders  in  so 
called “Corridor Fora”. They aim at ensuring a better alignment of EU level and national planning and 
a timely implementation of the network in line with the required standards. They set out the priorities 
for  future  infrastructure  planning  in  dedicated  “work  plans”.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  is 
empowered to adopt “implementing acts” for the cross-border and horizontal dimensions of the core 
network corridor work plans. 

3 

 
                                                 
of legislation13, some of which however go beyond the TEN-T. 

The  TEN-T  Regulation  performance  on  indicators  such  as  those  related  to  modal  shift, 
better  service  quality,  uptake  of  recharging/refuelling  infrastructure,  etc.  depends  on 
coordinated  efforts  with  related  policy  fields.  This  particularly  relates  to  the  synergies 
between  TEN-T  and  AFIR  as  well  as  TEN-T  and  ITS,  since  both  are  intrinsically 
dependent  on  each  other.  For  instance,  the  AFIR  regulates  the  provision  of 
charging/fuelling  points  on  the  TEN-T  whilst  the  TEN-T  Regulation  provides  the 
infrastructure  basis  for  their  wide  deployment  in  a  European  network  perspective. 
Similarly, the ITS regulates the provision of intelligent transport systems on the TEN-T, 
as part of  a broader package of measures.  Both  AFIR  and  ITS  need a definition of the 
TEN-T  for  their  implementation  (i.e.  a  geographical  scope  of  application),  which  is 
provided  by  the  maps  contained  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  These  considerations  also 
apply to other initiatives which are part of the SSMS action plan, such as the revision of 
the  Rail  Freight  Corridor  Regulation,  the  revision  of  the  urban  mobility  package,  the 
launch of the NAIADES III initiative etc. The full potential on modal shift, better service 
quality,  uptake  of  recharging/refuelling  infrastructure,  etc.  can  only  be  achieved  when 
also  these initiatives, including the  revision of the  TEN-T Regulation, are  implemented 
together.  However,  it  needs  to  be  underlined  that  the  TEN-T  Regulation  (and  thus  its 
revision)  only  regulates  the  network  in  its  design  and  structure,  its  standards  and 
requirements  and  its  governance  and  monitoring  structure.  For  instance,  the  TEN-T 
Regulation  will  define  the  alignment  of  the  European  Transport  Corridors  that  shall 
replace  the  Rail  Freight  Corridors14  and  Core  Network  Corridors  as  announced  in  the 
SSMS. In this regard, the TEN-T Regulation will already make one important step ahead 
of  the  revision  of  the  RFC  Regulation  (foreseen  in  2022)  which  will  then  regulate 
operational questions of rail freight transport in view of the ETC.   

Funding and financing of the TEN-T  

The  investment  needs  to  realise  the  TEN-T  network  under  the  current  Regulation  are 
significant  –  about    EUR  1.5  trillion  for  the  TEN-T  comprehensive  network  and  other 
transport  investments  up  to  2050.  They  could  never  be  realised  with  EU  funding  and 
financing alone. Therefore, a sound mix of grants at national and EU level, of innovative 
financing  (e.g.  blending  instruments)  and  of  private  financing  (e.g.  loans)  is  needed  to 
realise the TEN-T in line with the standards defined in the current Regulation, but also in 

13   For  instance,  TEN-T  is  the  basis  for  the  Ports  Services  Regulation:  Regulation  (EU)  2017/352  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  February  2017  establishing  a  framework  for  the 
provision of port services and common rules on the financial transparency of ports. 

14   Regulation (EU) 913/2010 concerning a European rail network for competitive freight of 9 November 
2010,  required  Member  States  to  establish  international  market-oriented  Rail  Freight  Corridors  in 
order to meet three main challenges: strengthening cooperation between infrastructure managers on 
key aspects such as the allocation of paths, deployment of interoperable systems and infrastructure 
development;  finding the right  balance between freight and passenger traffic along the RFCs, giving 
adequate capacity for freight in line with market needs and ensuring that common punctuality targets 
for  freight  trains  are  met;  promoting  intermodality  between  rail  and  other  transport  modes  by 
integrating  terminals  into  the  corridor  management  process.  Initially,  9  RFC  were  created.  Their 
alignment  can be modified as well as new RFC can be created upon initiative of Member States.  To 
date, there are 11 RFC.  

4 

 
                                                 
line with each of the policy options elaborated in this impact assessment. In terms of EU 
funding,  the  TEN-T  Regulation  is  directly  linked  to  the  Regulation  of  the  Connecting 
Europe Facility (CEF) as it defines the projects of common interest that are eligible under 
CEF. In addition, the TEN-T infrastructure is largely funded by the European Structural 
and Investment Fund (ESIF) and since recently also through the Recovery and Resilience 
Facility (RRF).   

Indeed,  all  national  recovery  and  resilience  plans  (RRPs)  submitted  so  far  to  the 
European Commission for financing by the EU Resilience and Recovery Facility include 
both reforms and investments in favour of sustainable transport. Based on those 22 plans 
endorsed so far, more than 62 EJR billion has been climate tracked in the policy area of 
sustainable  mobility.  The  TEN-T  network  has  been  an  important  area  of  investment 
within this field, with many investments in rail transport to both aid the modal shift and 
make rail transport greener and safer. Relevant projects in RRPs relate to newly built or 
upgraded  railways  on  the  TEN-T  core  and  comprehensive  networks,  as  well  as  the 
reconstruction and modernisation of existing railway lines on the TEN-T networks. The 
RRF can also support projects assisting multi-modality across the TEN-T network. 

At  the  same  time,  the  TEN-T  implementation  does  not  limit  itself to  EU funding only. 
On the contrary, the TEN-T will be mainly realised through national funding and through 
other  (private)  financing  sources.  For  instance,  the  TEN-T  implementation  report  for 
2016 and 201715 states that the total investment made in the TEN-T network in 2016 and 
2017 amounts to more than EUR 91 billion. The majority of these investments have been 
met  by  national  resources  (73%).  Out  of  the  EUR  91  billion,  EUR  11.5  billion  were 
financed through EIB loans, EUR 9.8 billion were co-funded by the European Structural 
and Investment Funds (ERDF and CF) and EUR 3.1 billion by the CEF. Hence, it is clear 
that a major part of funding will have to be assured by Member States who also are the 
primary actors in terms of project planning. 

Evaluation of the existing Regulation 

The  evaluation  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  (SWD(2021)117final)16  concluded  that  the 
TEN-T provides all relevant actors (i.e. Member States, regions, cities, transport industry, 
infrastructure managers of all transport modes, users) with a common policy framework 
which  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 evaluation also concluded that efforts need to be stepped up in 
order  to  reach  new  political  targets.  Indeed,  since  the  establishment  of  the  TEN-T 
Regulation in 2013 the policy context has changed significantly, particularly through the 
adoption of the EGD and the SSMS as well as the Zero Pollution Action Plan (ZPAP). 

15   COM(2020)433 final 
16  Evaluation of the Regulation (EU) N° 1315/2013 on Union Guidelines for the development of a  trans- 
European transport  network, SWD (2021) 117 final of  26  May 2021;  see also:  Support  study for the 
evaluation  of  Regulation 
(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/1f938a68-4c20-11ec-91ac-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-243058839) 

(EU)  N°  1315/2013 

5 

 
                                                 
The  links  between  the  conclusions  of  the  ex-post  evaluation  (incl.  the  shortcomings 
identified) and the impact assessment are presented in Annex 5.  

2 

2 PROBLEM DEFINITION 

in 

innovation 

issues  such  as 

the  digitalisation  of  and 

interoperable  solutions,  cooperation  and  governance  aspects 

The TEN-T Regulation  covers a very comprehensive, integrated and inter-sectoral field 
of  intervention.  Indeed,  it  encompasses  not  only  all  forms  of  transport  and  all  types  of 
transport nodes but also  provides a harmonised  framework to  address a wide variety of 
transport 
cross-cutting 
infrastructure, 
for 
infrastructure planning and investments as well as monitoring and reporting systems for 
the TEN-T. These issues are addressed by specific policy interventions, with the TEN-T 
providing  for  the  infrastructure  basis  of  European  transport.  As  a  result,  the  problems 
addressed by the TEN-T revision are widespread and highly interdependent (see Figure 
1) and address not only problems with regard to the TEN-T infrastructure as such (e.g. in 
terms  of  network  design,  network  infrastructure,  standards  etc.)  but  also  with  regard  to 
the governance of the TEN-T. To address the complexity at stake, the following problem 
definition has been developed based on the results of the evaluation of the current TEN-T 
Regulation  and  the  objectives  set  by  the  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy,  the 
Zero Pollution Action Plan and more generally the European Green Deal. 

Figure 1: Overview of problem drivers and identified problems   

6 

 
 
2.1  2.1  What are the problems? 

Due to its very broad policy nature, the TEN-T revision has inevitably to address a mix 
of problems which can be grouped into four main categories:  

Problem  area  1:  Insufficient  and/or  incomplete  TEN-T  infrastructure  standards  and 
lack of integration of standards for alternative fuels infrastructure on the TEN-T  that 
does not enable higher use of more sustainable forms of transport 

Transport is one of the main sources of greenhouse gas, air pollutant and noise emissions. 
Transport  (excluding  international  maritime  traffic)  currently  accounts  for  almost  a 
quarter of all EU GHG emissions (road transport alone represents 20% of the total) and is 
a  major  contributor  to  air  pollution,  a  problem  particularly  acute  in  urban  areas17.  The 
current  TEN-T  Regulation  partially  addressed  this  problem  by  introducing  certain 
infrastructure standards which render the sustainable modes of transport, i.e. rail, inland 
waterways  and  short  sea  shipping,  more  competitive  and  efficient,  and  increase  their 
capacity and hence incentivize more activity in sustainable forms of transport.  

The  TEN-T  evaluation  states  that  future  challenges  of  the  European  transport  system 
overall – with ambitious climate change objectives, the digital transition or a significantly 
enhanced focus on user  expectations  – will place increasing demand on  TEN-T policy. 
The  evaluation  emphasized  that  the  TEN-T  shall  keep  pace  with  the  new  ambitions  on 
decarbonisation  until  2030  and  beyond  by  a  substantial  reinforcement  of  the  concrete 
measures  and  requirements  (i.e.  standards)  underpinning  the  sustainability  objective.  In 
this regard, a recalibration of certain standards or requirements and an integrated network 
approach, centred on interoperability and efficiency increase, is needed.18  

The evaluation  of the current  TEN-T Regulation  also  concluded that its  potential as an 
infrastructure  basis  for  modal  shift  has  not  been  fully  exploited  yet.  For  instance, 
progress  in  implementing  the  existing  requirement  to  enable  the  operation  of  freight 
trains  with  at  least  740 m  length  – which would significantly increase productivity  and 
capacity  of  rail  freight  transport  and  thereby  the  potential  for  modal  shift  –  remains 
unsatisfactory even on the horizon 2030. Similarly, the UNECE’s White Paper on IWT19 
highlights that one of the major challenges will be to ensure good navigability conditions 
on free-flowing rivers, especially  due to  increasingly more frequent periods of  extreme 
weather events and their impacts on water levels and respectively on water bound traffic. 
Last but not least, the potential of short sea shipping as an alternative to road transport 
within Europe has not been fully exploited yet. It lacks a concrete definition, objectives 
and a coherent and integrated concept for its development in Europe.     

The problem of standards also relates to their completion date. Indeed, the deadline for 
completion of the comprehensive network by 2050 comes too late in order to still support 
the  climate  law  targets  by  2050.  Similarly,  the  evaluation  also  outlined  that  a 

17   Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (2020), SWD(2020)331 final  
18   Evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation, SWD(2021)117final 
19   UNECE 2020, White Paper on the Progress, Accomplishment and Future of Sustainable Inland Water 

Transport 

7 

 
                                                 
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.  Indeed,  the  fact  that  there  are  differing 
ambitions with regard to standards and requirements for both network layers challenges 
their  functional  complementarity  in  terms  of  a  seamless  connectivity  throughout  the 
TEN-T.  

Last but not least, the TEN-T Regulation focused so far on setting standards per transport 
mode,  but  disregarded  the  potential  of  alternative  fuels  deployment,  even  though  the 
TEN-T’s  Europe-wide  network  approach  offers  a  unique  opportunity  for  the  wide 
deployment  of  alternative  fuels.  The  lack  of  continuous  and  coherent  coverage  of 
alternative  fuel  infrastructure for all modes of transport and  across the entire TEN-T is 
one  great  challenge and  problem.  TEN-T does so far not  exploit  this network potential 
and  also  does  not  cater  for  the  adequate  infrastructure  in  place  that  is  needed  for  the 
successful deployment of alternative fuels (e.g. on safe and secure parkings on roads).   

Problem  area  2:  Capacity  bottlenecks  and  insufficient  network  connectivity  to  all 
regions that hamper multimodality 

Another  problem  on  the  TEN-T  are  capacity  bottlenecks,  an  insufficient  network 
connectivity  which  hampers  multimodality  and  a  persistent  poor  connectivity  to  some 
regions  (in  particular  the  outermost  regions).  Such  capacity  bottlenecks  appear  for  all 
modes of transport since passenger and freight transport volumes on the comprehensive 
and core TEN-T are growing (see chapter 6.1). 

the  European  Union  does  not  have  a  sufficiently 

This is confirmed by a study on Scenarios for the Development of Multimodal Transport 
in  the  TRITIA20  which  highlights  that  despite  a  significant  number  of  investments 
undertaken, 
interconnected, 
interoperable  and  resource-efficient  cross-border  multimodal  transport  infrastructure 
network. According to the study, this is a result of the different national priorities set by 
each  Member  State,  which  prevent  a  harmonised  approach  to  ensure  a  more 
interconnected infrastructure. 

In  the  case  of  rail  infrastructure,  the  length  of  infrastructure  reaching  or  exceeding  its 
capacity  limits  is  constantly increasing. The length of tracks declared congested by rail 
infrastructure managers in the 27 Member States amounted to 2,261 kilometres in 2018 
(1,339  km  on  lines  designated  to  Rail  Freight  Corridors)  –  which  is  almost  double  the 
figure from 201521. Bottlenecks exist mainly in major and smaller urban nodes as well as 
on  intensively  used  strategic  axes  on  which  several  flows  overlap  on  a  single  line.  A 
secondary problem making it more difficult to address the issue of capacity bottlenecks is 
the  lack  of  commonly  applied,  objective  standards  to  define  the  capacity  of  rail 
infrastructure and its degree of use22.  

20   Kramarz  et  al  (2020),  Scenarios  for  the  Development  of  Multimodal  Transport  in  the  TRITIA  Cross-

Border Area 

21  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/default/files/com20210005-7th-rmms-report.pdf. 
22  See pages 39 to 42 of the evaluation of the Rail Freight Corridor Regulation, SWD(2021) 134 final. 

8 

 
                                                 
With  regard  to  road  transport,  most  bottlenecks  appear  in  and/or  around  cities,  e.g. 
congested  ring  roads.  Additionally,  for  rail  they  occur  on  sections  where  several  major 
domestic and cross-border traffic flows overlap, e.g. in the hinterland of major ports and 
on the access lines to strategic routes such as the Alpine and Fehmarn Belt crossings. For 
maritime  ports,  capacity  bottlenecks  are  mainly  caused  during  a  port  call  which  can 
evolve into a potential bottleneck for the entire logistic chain. In addition, maritime links 
are not sufficiently well integrated in the entire logistic chain, which is often due to a lack 
of quality of last mile connections to the port – both sea-side and land-side connections, 
impacting also on capacity and congestion. In terms of terminals, the distances between 
rail/road terminals on the TEN-T core and comprehensive networks are still well above 
300  km  in  many  regions,  limiting  the  possibility  of  short  (<150  km)  road  legs.  In 
addition, the availability of terminals is not sufficient throughout Europe in such that it is 
not possible to use intermodal transport.23 As regards rail and inland waterways, parts of 
the EU’s TEN-T rail and inland waterway networks are not capable of handling the type 
of  traffic  which  operators  and  users  would  like  to  carry.  Headroom  is  insufficient  to 
allow  taller  load  units  (or  multiple  stacks)  to  be  moved  by  train  or  barge.  Navigation 
depth  prevents  larger  barges  from  penetrating  further  upstream.  Route  capacity  is 
constrained  by  lack  of  passing  sidings  and  level-free  connecting  loops  on  busy  rail 
routes, by major variations in water levels on free flowing stretches of rivers, or simply 
because there are not enough links in the network. Long and slower combined transport 
rail services have to share the tracks with short and faster passenger services.24  

Missing links and poor connections, including between public transport and active modes 
of transport, remain the main challenges for integrating the urban nodes on the TEN-T. 
They  can  also  lead  to  bottlenecks  and  congestion  at  peak  hours  due  to  a  lack  of 
connectivity, and to a high degree of dependence on personal motorised transportation.25 

Problem area 3: Insufficient safety and reliability of the TEN-T infrastructure 

Insufficient  safety  and  reliability  of  the  TEN-T  infrastructure  is  another  major  problem 
for the efficiency of the TEN-T. Indeed, accidents caused by an inadequate safety level 
of  the  transport  network  significantly  add  on  to  the  problem  of  congestion  and 
disturbances of the transport system.  

Safety  and  security  are  therefore  at  the  heart  of  the  transport  system  and  are  the 
precondition to any sustainable transport system. If we look at roads, the EU had about 
51 deaths annually per million inhabitants in 2019. The report “Preparatory work for an 
EU Road Safety Strategy”26 states that the comprehensive TEN-T (while it only  entails 
around 4% of the total network (excluding urban roads) contributes to a disproportionate 
11% of deaths. Even though the infrastructure as such is not formally considered one of 

23   SWD(2020)331final  
24   TEN-T Evaluation (case study 3 on standards:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-

/publication/11f31ae6-4c1d-11ec-91ac-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-243059721 

25   SWD(2020)331final  
26   https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/bd17c6de-6549-11e8-ab9c-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en 

9 

 
                                                 
the  most  important  causing  factors  for  accidents,  higher  quality  roads  lead  to  less  (and 
less serious) accidents.  

Compared to road, rail is a very safe mode of transport, although there are still too many 
fatalities  involving  railways  (especially  at  level  crossings).  Altogether  1,721  significant 
accidents,  885  fatalities  and  760  serious  injuries  were  recorded  in  the  EU27  countries 
plus UK in 2018. A steady decrease in significant accidents and resulting casualties has 
been recorded in the period 2010-2018, for which harmonised data are available across 
the Union27.  

Next  to  safety  related  issues,  the  reliability  of  the  TEN-T  infrastructure  is  also  often 
hampered  through  man-made  or  natural  and  climate  related  events.  The  impact  of 
temperature  increases,  changes  in  precipitation  regimes  or  sea-level  rise  affect28  – 
directly or indirectly – the productivity of nearly all economic sectors in all EU Member 
States,  including  transport.  This  is  especially  true  for  regions,  in  particular  outermost 
regions  and  other  remote  islands,  being  cut  off  transport  links  during  extreme  weather 
events  and  other  crisis.  The  recent  events  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  have  also 
shown how such events can heavily disrupt traffic, especially cross-border and in remote 
regions,  and  how  it  can  hamper  the  continued  supply  of  essential  goods.  The  limited 
ability of some modes, in particular rail and inland waterways, to ensure the continuity of 
traffic during major disruptions of the main network, is aggravated by the non-integration 
of  proper  rail  diversionary  routes  into  the  TEN-T  as  well  as  the  difficulty  to  switch  to 
another transport mode if there is a disruption on one of them.  

Another  element  adding  on  the  reliability  of  the  transport  network  is  related  to  foreign 
direct investments. Such investments on the TEN-T can contribute to the Union's growth 
by  enhancing  its  competitiveness,  creating  jobs,  bringing  in  capital,  technologies, 
research and innovation, expertise, and by opening new markets for the Union's exports. 
However,  it  has  become  apparent  that  under  specific  circumstances,  they  could  distort 
transport flows on the network by not complying with TEN-T standards and hence affect 
security  or  public  order  on  critical  infrastructure.  Indeed,  while  in  principle  the  same 
standards  apply  to  the  TEN-T  infrastructure,  independent  of  the  source  of  financing, 
experience has shown that projects with foreign direct investment have a higher risk of 
not fully applying all standards. Problems have been observed in case of investments by 
non-EU companies in the EU. Non-EU investors provide funding but also impose often 
their  own  technology  which  is  not  compatible  with  the  TEN-T  requirements.  For 
example, there have been several cases of investments by foreign companies to develop 
rail  infrastructure  with  no  installation  of  ERTMS.  The  risk  of  non-compliance  with 
technical standards, for instance by using different IT or telematics systems, is therefore 
higher when the investment stems from outside the EU. This could be to the detriment of 
transport activities carried out by EU operators. This issue has  also been flagged in the 
Council  conclusions  “A  Globally  Connected  Europe”  of  12  July  202129,  where  the 
Council “notes that other key economies have developed their own approaches and tools 

27   SWD(2020)331final 
28   Especially maritime ports are vulnerable to sea-level rise effects 
29   https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10629-2021-INIT/en/pdf 

10 

 
                                                 
for connectivity and underlines the need for all such initiatives and actions to apply high 
international standards.” 

Greater awareness of such investments is thus necessary to allow intervention of public 
authorities if it appears that they are likely to affect security or public order. Regulation 
(EU) 2019/452 provides a comprehensive framework at Union level for the screening of 
foreign direct investments on the grounds of security or public order30. Currently the EU 
Member States are obliged to notify foreign direct investments when they are undergoing 
screening  pursuant  to  their  mechanism  and  the  Commission  and  other  Member  States 
have  the  possibility  to  initiate  a  cooperation  on  foreign  investments  not  undergoing 
screening.  The  problem  is  that  not  all  Member  States  have  a  fully-fledged  screening 
mechanism  allowing  the  screening  of  foreign  direct  investments  into  critical  transport 
infrastructure.  In  these  cases  the  EU  Regulation  does  not  oblige  Member  States  to 
perform  such  monitoring31.  Only  when  a  Member  State  performs  a  control  of  foreign 
investments, it must inform the Commission. Last but not least, the control is limited to 
matters linked to security or public order and thus addresses transport safety indirectly. 
However  it  is  not  aimed  at  ensuring  compliance  with  requirements  like  the  ones  in  the 
TEN-T Regulation (e.g. interoperability of the network).  

Problem  area  4:  Inadequate  TEN-T  governance  instruments  and  TEN-T  network 
design   

The  fourth  problem  area  concerns  on  the  one  side  the  inadequate  TEN-T  governance 
instruments and on the other side the design of the TEN-T as such.  

As regards the TEN-T governance, the evaluation came to the conclusion that the current 
instruments are powerful, but not entirely sufficient to address the increasing challenges 
at stake, nor fully adequate to respond to new arising policy priorities.  For instance, the 
scope of the  current  governance instruments  (e.g. European Coordinators’ mandates) is 
not  wide  enough  to  address  all  new  challenges  and  policy  priorities  (for  instance  with 
regard  to  resilience  and  maintenance  aspects,  climate  adaptation  issues  or  the  third 
country dimension of TEN-T – topics and geographical zones that their current mandate 
(and the related corridor studies) do not cover). The ECA has recommended to strengthen 
the role of European Coordinators.32 

Next  to  it,  the  current  Regulation  only  foresees  one  work  plan  by  each  European 
Coordinator, whilst in practice they saw the need to do an update on average every two 
years as to  stimulate the discussions with stakeholders and the national  priority setting. 
The sequencing of work plans was thus judged as not sufficient.  

30   Where  the  Commission  considers  that  a  foreign  direct  investment  is  likely  to  affect  programmes  of 
Union  interest,  including  the  trans-European  transport  network,  on  grounds  of  security  or  public 
order, the Commission may issue an opinion addressed to the Member State where the foreign direct 
investment is planned or has been completed. 

31   However  also  the  MS  without  a  screening  mechanism  in  place  are  required  to  comply  with  certain 
obligations, including the obligation to provide information to the Commission, when requested, and 
to take into account the Commission’s opinion. 

32   Special  Report  10/2020:  EU  transport 

infrastructures:  more  speed  needed 

in  megaproject 

implementation to deliver network effects on time 

11 

 
                                                 
Most  importantly  however,  the  existing  governance  instruments  do  not  sufficiently 
address  the  problem  of  insufficiently  aligned  national  priorities  with  TEN-T  priorities. 
Indeed,  one  major  issue  is  that  the  priorities  defined  in  the  national  (investment)  plans 
and  programmes  are  not  sufficiently  aligned  with  the  priorities  set  in  the  TEN-T 
Regulation  and  in  the  Coordinators’  work  plans.  The  related  case  study  of  the  TEN-T 
evaluation concluded that the national plans currently do not completely reflect Member 
States’  obligations  under  the  TEN-T  Regulation  with  regard  to  network  planning  and 
implementation. For instance, TEN-T priorities are not consistently included in national 
planning and investment programmes. This is partially due to the fact that the work plans 
of the European Coordinators (and hence their priorities) are not legally binding, even if 
the  plans  are  adopted  by  Member  States.  To  adopt  binding  measures,  the  Commission 
has made use of implementing decisions for the implementation of certain major cross-
border projects.  This  has been  welcomed by the  European Court of Auditors33, but  has 
not  been  exploited  at  a  wider  scale,  due  also  to  the  limitation  of  the  scope  of  this 
instrument in the Regulation.  

In  addition,  to  date,  no  transport  master  plan  at  national  level  provides  an  overview  of 
current  and  expected  TEN-T  completion  rates  in  terms  of  compliance  with  the 
requirements  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  by  203034.  Monitoring  of  progress  is  therefore 
rendered more difficult, in particular also since several Member States report in their own 
national monitoring against other deadlines than the TEN-T deadlines for completion of 
the  network  (2030,  2050).  There  is  also  no  coherent  and  regular  reporting  on  national 
priorities which makes the control of respect of TEN-T priorities difficult. 

In terms of monitoring and reporting at EU level, the reporting landscape of the current 
TEN-T  contains  too  many  elements  which  are  not  sufficiently  aligned  in  terms  of 
content,  frequency  and  scope.  This  leads  to  a  distorted  reporting  landscape  with 
incomparable  outputs  due  to  the  absence  of  coherent  and  harmonised  definitions,  data 
gaps,  outdated  data  and  inconsistencies.  In  addition,  current  reporting  is  lacking  the 
coverage  of  new  horizontal  reporting  priorities  to  reflect  the  EU’s  political  priorities, 
such  as  digitalisation,  decarbonisation,  military  mobility,  resilience,  improvement  of 
services.  Furthermore,  the  process  to  timely  get  high  quality  data  to  monitor  the 
compliance  with  the  TEN-T  standards  is  cumbersome.  The  report  from  the  ECA35 
confirmed such shortcomings in the Commission’s monitoring tools.  

As regards the TEN-T design, the current TEN-T does not fully match the new needs. For 
instance, the network as defined in the current Regulation does not fully cover the needs 
of  cross-border  rail  freight  transport,  a  fact  highlighted  by  the  differences  in  alignment 
between  the  Core  Network  Corridors  (CNC)  with  the  Rail  Freight  Corridors  (RFC). 
Indeed,  currently  parts  of  the  RFC  are  not  on  the  TEN-T.  Similarly,  93%  of  the  EU 

33   Special Report 10/2020: EU transport infrastructures: more speed needed in megaproject 

implementation to deliver network effects on time     

34   TEN-T Evaluation: support study on national plans: 

https://webgate.ec.testa.eu/publications/studiesdb/Consultation.xhtml?studyProjectId=14812  

35   https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR20_09/SR_Road_network_EN.pdf  

12 

 
                                                 
military  transport  network36  overlaps  with  the  current  TEN-T.  Considering  the  costs  to 
build  or  modernise  infrastructure,  it  is  essential  to  ensure  synergies  between  the  two 
networks  by  including  into  the  TEN-T  those  sections  of  the  EU  military  transport 
network  which  also  have  a  civilian  use  in  line  with  the  TEN-T  methodology,  so  that 
investments can serve the dual use of infrastructure.    

The problems above render the monitoring and governance of TEN-T priorities difficult.  

2.2  2.2  What are the problem drivers? 

Several  drivers  underpin  the  above  mentioned  problems  and  result  from  regulatory, 
technological or market barriers.  

Problem  Driver  1.1:  Sustainable  modes  of  transport  not  fully  efficient  and  fully 
attractive for users 

Rail  freight:  The  current  TEN-T  Regulation  defines  a  number  of  standards  and 
requirements especially for rail freight (e.g. electrification of railway lines, train length of 
740 m, 22.5t axle load, deployment of ERTMS) and inland waterway transport that aim 
at  providing  the  necessary  infrastructure  for  an  increased  competitiveness  and 
attractiveness of these modes compared to road transport. However, since the entry into 
force  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  in  2013  the  modal  shares  of  road,  rail  and  inland 
waterways  have  stagnated37.  This  indicates  that  efforts  so  far  might  not  have  been 
sufficient, although infrastructure, and therefore TEN-T is not the sole driver influencing 
modal  choice.  Many  issues  are  stemming  from  operational  aspects  (border  procedures, 
national  safety  requirements  etc.)  that  are  out  of  scope  of  the  TEN-T  and  for  example 
dealt with by the RFC Regulation or the Combined Transport Directive.  

The evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation concluded that the requirements for 740 m long 
trains and minimum 22.5t axle load are not yet sufficiently implemented throughout the 
network  and  sufficient  multimodal  terminal  infrastructure  is  often  still  lacking.  Indeed, 
the compliance of the network of the CNC with the 22.5t axle load requirement is at 81% 
per 2017 data, with outages mainly in Romania, Hungary, Poland and Ireland. For freight 
train length, the compliance versus the parameter of 740 m or longer sidings for trains is 
at  an  average  43%  per  2017  data.38  Especially  infrastructure  upgrades  to  enable  the 
operation of freight trains with at least 740 m length remains a significant challenge: this 
is as a key requirement to enhance the productivity and capacity of rail freight transport. 
The lack of progress in the implementation of this requirement means that the potential 

36   Geographic data defined in tables 2.17-2.43 of the Military requirements for Military Mobility within 
and  beyond  the  EU,  update  (ST  10921/19),  4  July  2019,  approved  by  the  Council  on  15  July  and 
consolidated with the remaining part on 19 July (ST 11373/19)  (not published in the Official Journal). 
37   According to « EU transport in figures  Statistical Pocketbook 2020 » the modal share of road in intra 
EU-27  freight  transport  between  2013  and  2018  increased  from  50.5%  to  51.0%  while  rail  fell  from 
12.8% - 12.6% and inland waterway transport from 5.1% to 4.0% 

38  COM(2020) 433 final 

13 

 
                                                 
for modal shift remains untapped39. In addition, stakeholders in the consultations to the 
evaluation40 as well as to the impact assessment indicated the lack of a clear operational 
definition of the requirement. The current definition leaves broad room for interpretation, 
e.g. to consider it as fulfilled if the operation of individual 740 m trains is possible during 
night hours without passenger traffic. However, capacity for freight trains is also needed 
during  day  time,  including  congested  peak  hours.  In  this  case,  the  fulfilment  of  the 
requirement requires  upgrades of sidings,  to  ‘park’ freight  trains  while being overtaken 
by passenger trains. 

A further issue identified in  the evaluation  and the impact  assessment work, mainly by 
rail stakeholders, is that (freight) traffic does often not originate and/or terminate on the 
core  network  but  uses  other  comprehensive  or  secondary  lines  on  its  journey.  Thus 
stakeholders  argue  that  applying  length  and  weight  requirements  only  on  the  core 
network is insufficient to address operational and market needs. 

Furthermore, the analysis revealed that the current requirements might not be sufficient 
to  support  multimodal  transport:  semi-trailers  are  a  de-facto  standard  for  long-distance 
freight transport on road, accounting for more than 95% of traffic. However, there is no 
requirement on the TEN-T rail network to  enable the  circulation  of  semi-trailers of the 
P400 dimension41, which optimises the use of the maximum dimensions permissible for 
road vehicles in most Member States. The circulation of P400 semi-trailers is currently 
not  possible  on  a  significant  portion  the  TEN-T.  Road-rail  combined  transport  using 
semi-trailers  has  been  the  most  dynamically  growing  segment  of  rail  freight  in  the  last 
ten  years  and  accounts  for  around  20%  of  traffic  of  the  major  operators  of  intermodal 
transport in the EU42. Given the prevalence of semi-trailers in road transport, a significant 
potential  for  further  modal  shift  remains  untapped.  In  this  context,  operators  providing 
multimodal  transport  services  clearly  call  for  an  additional  infrastructure  requirement 
making  the  circulation  of  P400  intermodal  loading  units  possible  on  standard  wagons 
throughout the rail network.  

Rail passenger: The SSMS sets out how the completion of TEN-T, including the high-
speed lines, will provide better connections along the main corridors. It further notes that 
when  suitable  alternatives  are  in  place  at  competitive  prices,  frequencies  and  comfort 
levels, people choose the more sustainable mode. It also underlines that the needs of all 
users should be taken into consideration, including persons with disabilities, persons with 
reduced mobility, and gender related aspects.43 

39   740m long freight trains can increase the capacity by up to 25-30% on most  networks  and have the 
potential  to  substitute  52  trucks  (ERA  (2021),  Fostering  the  railway  sector  through  the  European 
Green Deal, Part 2 – Freight) 

40   Railway  experts  consulted  for  TEN-T  evaluation  case  study  3:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-

detail/-/publication/11f31ae6-4c1d-11ec-91ac-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-
243059721 
In  accordance  with  UIC  leaflet 596-6,  the  “P400”  classification  refers  to  semi-trailers  with  a  total 
height of up to 4.0 m and width of 2.6 m to be transported on pocket wagons. 

41 

42   International Union for Road-Rail Combined Transport (UIRR), UIRR Annual Report 2019-20 
43   Whenever the term of accessibility of “all users” is used, it includes persons with disabilities, persons 

with reduced mobility, and persons travelling with small children in buggies 

14 

 
                                                 
In the framework of the TEN-T evaluation stakeholders noted that TEN-T policy should 
take a step forward with regard to rail passenger services. For example, there currently is 
no  minimum  speed  requirement  for  passenger  railway  lines.  Notwithstanding  certain 
success  stories like the  Barcelona–Madrid44 or the Berlin–Munich  high-speed lines, the 
overall  picture  of  the  TEN-T  for  passengers  is  more  that  of  a  patchwork  rather  than  a 
network. This was also confirmed in the special report of the ECA on “A European high-
speed rail network: not a reality but an ineffective patchwork”45. A case study performed 
under the TEN-T evaluation46 concluded that setting a minimum track-speed ambition for 
passenger  railway  lines  (e.g.  160  km/h)  can  provide  attractive  travel  times  and  higher 
connectivity if operations are coordinated and well-managed.  

Inland  waterways:  As  regards  inland  navigation,  the  Good  Navigation  Status  study47 
argues  that  inland  waterway  transport  (IWT)  on  the  TEN-T  can  only  fulfil  its 
transportation  role  when  there  is  sufficient  capacity  for  cross-border  European  traffic, 
which has not  yet been achieved.  Local waterway sections on the TEN-T which do not 
have  sufficient  draught  and  height  under  bridges  may  prevent  inland  navigation  from 
ensuring  efficient,  reliable  and  punctual  services.  Such  bottlenecks  may  hamper  the 
functioning of the TEN-T, undermining the full  potential of inland waterway transport. 
However,  the  evaluation  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  also  found  that  the  specificities  and 
hydro-morphology  of  inland  waterways  have  not  been  taken  into  account  in  the 
definition of the TEN-T standards, leading to the establishment of standards that are not 
realistic in the entire flow of rivers.  

Short  Sea  Shipping:  The  SSMS  sets  out  the  goal  to  increase  transport  by  inland 
waterways  and  short  sea  shipping  by  25%  by  2030  and  by  50%  by  2050.  The  TEN-T 
Regulation does not yet reflect such objectives, since it does not equally address short sea 
shipping (SSS) compared to the other transport modes. Indeed, in terms of SSS, only the 
funding  concept  of  Motorways  of  the  Sea  under  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  is 
included  in  the  Regulation.  A  modal  shift  from  road  to  SSS  would  however  require  a 
more coherent and integrated concept covering the entire logistic chain, better integrating 
maritime links into the TEN-T, and establishing more stringent standards with regard to 
the  quality  of  last  mile  connections  to  ports,  both  in  terms  of  infrastructure  and  digital 
systems. 

Problem Driver 1.2: Lack of integration of alternative fuels infrastructure on the TEN-
T hampering seamless mobility 

The  TEN-T  will  be  an  important  enabler  for  the  roll-out  of  recharging  and  refuelling 
stations.  The  availability  of  sufficient  and  interoperable  infrastructure  providing 
minimum services to consumers, is key to foster the market uptake of such vehicles and 

44   Since opening this line, modal split between air and rail changed from 85% plane/15% train in 2008 to 

38% air/62% rail in 2016. 

45   Special  report  n°  19/2018:  A  European  high-speed  rail  network:  not  a  reality  but  an  ineffective 

patchwork 

46   TEN-T  Evaluation,  case  study  5:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/af63e4a5-

4c1b-11ec-91ac-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-243059780  

47   Good Navigation Status - Guidelines towards achieving a Good Navigation Status, DG MOVE, 2018 

15 

 
                                                 
achieve the EU’s Climate Target Plan objectives48, as well as to reduce emissions of air 
pollutants  from  traffic.  For  road  transport  alone,  the  European  Green  Deal  sets  the 
objective  of  having  at  least  one  million  publicly  accessible  recharging  and  refuelling 
stations  in  place  by  2025  that  establishes  a  springboard  for  the  necessary  much  larger 
roll-out  of  such  infrastructure  until  2030,  as  shown  in  the  impact  assessment 
accompanying  the  revision  of  the  Directive  on  alternative  fuels  infrastructure  into  a 
Regulation  (AFIR).  Under  the  AFIR,  requirements  for  alternative  fuels  infrastructure 
would  also  be  foreseen  for  ports  and  for  electricity  supply  for  stationary  aircrafts  in 
airports.  

At  present,  the  references  to  the  alternative  fuels  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation  are  very 
general,  without  any  stringent  requirements.  In  principle,  the  infrastructure  on  the  core 
network  should  ensure  the  “availability  of  alternative  clean  fuels”  for  most  of  the 
transport modes without going into much detail.  Furthermore, following the revision of 
the AFIR, the TEN-T Regulation will have to be brought in line with the new obligations 
set out in the AFIR for the core and comprehensive network. 

48   https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-action/2030_ctp_en 

16 

 
 
 
                                                 
Problem Driver 2.1: Outdated definition and insufficient deployment of digital tools to 
manage traffic on the entire TEN-T  

The evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation found that in the current TEN-T Regulation, the 
topic  of  digitalisation  is  a  horizontal  enabler  of  relevance  to  the  specific  objectives  of 
enhancing  the  efficiency  of  the  TEN-T,  making  it  more  sustainable  and  increasing  the 
benefits for its users in all modes of transport. 

However,  the  evaluation  also  identified  a  number  of  challenges  with  regard  to 
digitalisation that hamper the deployment of digital tools across the TEN-T: 

  There is currently no shared understanding of what digitalisation means in relation to 
TEN-T  policy.  The  current  terminology  used  in  the  Regulation  only  refers  to  a 
selection  of  telematics  applications  in  the  different  modes  (VTMIS,  ITS,  RIS, 
ERTMS  etc.)49.  Consequently  it  neglects  a  broader  range  of  digital  systems, 
applications and services beyond those already existing applications. 

  There  is  limited  data  available  and  accessible,  for  example  concerning  information 
such as infrastructure conditions, the position of vehicles/vessels/wagons, cargo, and 
traffic density.50 

  From  a  logistics  perspective,  digital  infrastructure  related  to  terminals  needs  to  be 
further  developed  in  order  to  increase  the  efficiency  and  service  level  of  terminals 
and strengthen their role in the multimodal logistics chain. 

Due  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  the  integration,  coherence  and  interoperability  of 
systems  –  between  different  transport  modes  and  along  the  supply  chain.  As 
digitalisation  is  a  fast  developing  field,  the  evaluation  also  identified  the  risk  of  a 
potential  two-speed  deployment  to  occur,  where  distinct  differences  in  the  level  of 
digitalisation  appear,  for  example,  between  Northern  Europe  and  Southern  Europe,  or 
between Western and Eastern Europe. A more coherent TEN-T framework could help to 
alleviate  this  problem  and  in  addition  help  to  avoid  the  occurrence  of  insufficient 
interoperable systems between certain Member States and/or regions. 

Problem Driver 2.2: Lack of full interoperability of the network  

As presented under Driver 1.1, the implementation of certain infrastructure requirements 
on  the  TEN-T  is  currently  still  insufficient,  especially  in  a  cross-border  context,  thus 
creating  bottlenecks  for  seamless  transport  flows  and  negatively  impacting  on  the 
interoperability  of  the  whole  TEN-T.  As  presented  above,  a  further  issue  is  that 
infrastructure  requirements  are  not  consistently  applied  to  the  core  and  comprehensive 

49   Those  are  systems  using 

information,  communication,  navigation  or  positioning/localisation 
technologies in order to manage infrastructure, mobility and traffic and are mostly related to vehicle 
connectivity applications. 

50   Digital Transport and Logistics Forum, Background: 

http://www.dtlf.eu/sites/default/files/public/uploads/fields/page/field_file/dtlf_background_docume
nt.pdf 

17 

 
                                                 
 
networks and thus  again creating potential bottlenecks for traffic that is  not  originating 
and terminating on the core network. 

Multimodal  transport  terminals  play  a  central  role  in  ensuring  interoperability  of  the 
TEN-T.  As  has  been  identified  in  the  evaluation  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation,  in  order  to 
fulfil  this  role,  terminals  would  need  to  upgrade  their  handling  capacity  to  ensure 
competitive  and  seamless  transport  chains  for  intermodal  services.  Furthermore,  their 
first  and  last  mile  connections  (and  for  ports  the  wider  hinterland  connections)  ideally 
need to fulfil the same requirements as the TEN-T infrastructure (e.g. 740 m train length, 
electrification etc.). The evaluation concluded that this is not sufficiently addressed in the 
current Regulation which does not set any binding requirements for terminals. 

The  evaluation  also  concluded  that  in  terms  of  the  deployment  of  digital  tools, 
interoperability  needs  are  insufficiently  addressed  and  that  current  provisions  are 
inappropriate  to  ensure  the  network-wide  continuity  of  relevant  requirements.  This  is 
most apparent in the case of ERTMS where the  track side deployment, a key condition 
for  interoperability  and  the  enhancement  of  safety  and  more  efficient  capacity51  use 
shows the lowest  compliance rate of  all TEN-T requirements (11% in  2017).52   Thus a 
faster and more-wide spread implementation of ERTMS would be a precondition for rail 
freight interoperability and capacity increases with a view to the objectives defined in the 
EGD and SSMS.  

Problem Driver 2.3: Lack of integration of urban nodes in the TEN-T Regulation   

The  evaluation  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  found  that  the  current  Regulation  leads  to 
suboptimal policy results in terms of urban nodes fulfilling their full functionality for the 
TEN-T  (i.e.  ensuring  a  link  between  urban  and  interregional/international  traffic)  and 
thus  foregoing potential  for the  contribution to  the  EGD objectives. Decarbonisation of 
transport and reducing noise and air pollution requires an effective multimodal transport 
system  and  accelerated  development  of  more  sustainable  modes  in  urban  areas.  The 
following issues can be observed with regard to urban nodes in TEN-T: 

  Multimodality is currently hampered by the  insufficient number of efficient transfer 
hubs  for  passengers  and  freight  allowing  for  a  smooth  transfer  between  modes  and 
lacking possibilities for seamless door-to-door travel through integrated ticketing and 
travel information as well as innovative mobility services.  

  Urban  nodes  frequently  present  bottlenecks  for  TEN-T  traffic  flows  due  to 

congestion. The TEN-T does not include requirements to address this problem.  

  The  lack  of  complementarity  between  TEN-T,  the  sustainable  urban  mobility 
planning  including  clean  and  innovative  solutions  as  well  as  e.g.  Air  Quality  Plans 
and Noise Action Plans.  

51   ERTMS allows the reduction of minimum distances/times between trains, leading to capacity gains of 

up to 30%. 

52   TEN-T implementation report 2016 and 2017 COM(2020) 433 final 

18 

 
                                                 
The TEN-T  Regulation  currently does  not  provide sufficient  clarity of the definition of 
TEN-T  urban  nodes.  For  instance,  the  Regulation  contains  a  list  of  79  urban  nodes53 
which  were  used  to  structure  the  TEN-T  core  network  under  the  TEN-T  planning 
methodology  whilst  the  Article  30  applies  a  functional  definition  of  urban  nodes  and 
refers  thus  to  all  urban  nodes  of  the  network.  This,  as  the  evaluation  concluded, 
weakened  the  contribution  of  the  Regulation  to  the  objectives  of  “user  benefits”  and 
“sustainability”. 

Problem  Driver  3.1:  Insufficient  quality  and  lack  of  consequent  maintenance  of 
infrastructure  

The evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation concluded that while TEN-T policy has played 
an important role in the development and improvement of infrastructure along the TEN-
T, the situation is less positive with regard to the reduction in the quality gaps caused by 
insufficient  and  incoherent  infrastructure  monitoring  and  maintenance  as  each  Member 
State  has  a  specific  inspection  regime  in  place.54  Furthermore,  it  concluded  that 
insufficient attention is paid to infrastructure quality in the process of building new and 
upgrading existing infrastructure on the TEN-T. 

In the case of TEN-T road infrastructure, the special report from the European Court of 
Auditors  on  “The  EU  core  road  network“55  noted  that  insufficient  maintenance  by 
Member States puts the state of the core road network at risk in the medium to long term. 
National  maintenance  budgets  are  steadily  decreasing  rather  than  evolving  in  line  with 
the increasing length of infrastructure and ageing of crucial links.  The report states that 
although  this  could  potentially  have  an  impact  on  the  full  functionality  of  the  core 
network by 2030, the Commission does not have tools to verify whether Member States 
have  a  solid  system  in  place  ensuring  proper  maintenance  of  their  networks.  Events  in 
recent years like the collapse of the bridge in Genoa in August 2018 as well as issues in 
other  modes  of  transport  have  increased  the  political  attention  for  maintenance  of 
infrastructure.  

This analysis was also confirmed by stakeholders in the TEN-T evaluation case study on 
standards  who  largely  agreed  that  applying  a  life-cycle  approach  for  example  to  road 
infrastructure, aiming to ensure continuously high-quality of TEN-T roads and including, 
as necessary, aspects of preventive maintenance could contribute to further enhancing the 
quality  of  TEN-T  road  infrastructure  and  its  operation.  Similar  considerations  apply  to 
others modes as well.  The current  provisions in the TEN-T Regulation  on maintenance 
are however very limited and mainly refer to the need of rehabilitation of railway lines 

53   79 nodes for EU-27 (without UK); 88 nodes for EU-28  
54   In the example of bridges, inspections are an important element of the life-cycle approach. 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. 

55   https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR20_09/SR_Road_network_EN.pdf  

19 

 
                                                 
neglected in the past and in the case of ports to equipment that ensures the maintenance 
of port to port approaches. 

Problem Driver 3.2: Lack of resilience to natural events or man-made factors  

Resilience  of  transport  networks  is  understood  as  the  capacity  of  the  infrastructure  to 
withstand, adapt and recover from crisis and shocks of either technical, administrative or 
digital  nature.  It  not  only  concerns  natural  disasters  but  also  other  crisis  (incl.  new 
security requirements  and  new civil  and environmental  protection needs). Although the 
current Regulation already specifies that appropriate measures should be taken to ensure 
resilience  to  climate  change  and  other  environmental  disasters,  such  measures  are  not 
further specified. 

Especially  the  concept  of  climate  resilience  is  of  growing  importance  in  light  of  the 
increasing  adverse  effects  of  climate  change  that  affects  different  regions  and  transport 
modes in different ways. In terms of infrastructure quality, climate change brings about 
new challenges (such as increased precipitation, rapid and large temperature changes and 
differences and the increase in the strength and frequency of extreme weather events such 
as draughts, floods and hurricanes).  

Various  studies  have  analysed  the  impacts  of  climate  change  on  the  EU’s  transport 
system56 but reliable information for the different modes of transport  or specifically for 
the  TEN-T  are  lacking.  For  the  period  1998–2010  annual  direct  costs  for  the  whole 
transport sector (infrastructure repair/maintenance, vehicle damage, increased operational 
costs) due to  climate change have been estimated at  EUR 2.5 billion.  A  further EUR 1 
billion annually can be attributed to indirect costs from transport disruptions. Immediate 
effects are the closure of a piece of infrastructure that makes it impossible for a corridor 
to be used and requires the need for traffic to bypass it (e.g. on the Brenner pass57 or in 
the Middle Rhine incident in March 2021)58. Rail freight transport is particularly affected 
as it has limited possibilities to re-route traffic via other lines and due to interoperability 
and infrastructure challenges. 

Also  inland  waterways  and  short  sea  shipping  (SSS)  are  vulnerable  to  climate  change. 
For instance, droughts and floods have the most disruptive impacts on inland waterways 
and  ports  because  extreme  (low/high)  water  levels  impose  limitations  to  navigation 
services59.  As  an  example,  the  IA  support  study  estimated  that  108  TEN-T  ports  are  at 
risk by a 1-in-20-years river flooding event, this is 21% of all ports in the network (see 
Annex 7). In addition, 10.000 km of TEN-T rail network and 6.700 km of TEN-T road 

56  www.weather-project.eu and www.weather-project.eu/weather/inhalte/research-

network/ewent.php  

57  ScanMed RFC Annual Report 2020 (p. 10 and 27) 
58   The incident, caused by landslides in the context of heavy rainfalls, interrupted the rail freight service 
on  Europe’s  most  frequently  used  rail  freight  route  for  about  two  months.  The  alternative  routes 
extend the length of freight train routes on the Rhine-Alpine corridor by up to 300 km. 

59   However,  low  waters  affect  vessels’  loading  degrees  and  cargo  transport  to  a  different  degree, 
depending on the regions. e.g. on the Upper and Middle Rhine (Basel to Cologne), vessels’ maximum 
loading degrees fell to levels between 40 % and 50 %, while they remained above 60 % for the Lower 
Rhine (Cologne to Duisburg). 

20 

 
                                                 
network would be affected. Economic losses due to flooding were estimated in the JRC 
PESETA  IV  project  which  concluded  that  “in  2050  annual  economic  losses  due  to 
flooding in the EU can be 2.7 times larger assuming a 2°C warming scenario.”60  

With  the  COVID-19  crisis  it  became  clear  that  also  such  types  of  events  can  have  an 
adverse and far reaching impact on the transport system and especially on smooth cross- 
border transport operations to ensure the availability of goods and essential services.  

Problem Driver 3.3: Lack of safety conditions for TEN-T road infrastructure  

According to the TEN-T Regulation (Art. 17(3)) the road network shall be constituted of 
either  motorways  or  express  roads  or  even  conventional  strategic  roads,  leaving  the 
choice  to  the  Member  States.  In  this  framework,  the  audit  of  the  ECA  has  shown 
different approaches, with some Member States deciding to build exclusively motorways 
while  others  are  building  all  three  types  of  road  classes.  As  the  type  of  road  has  a 
significant  impact  on  the  safety  features  (separated  lanes,  level  crossings,  interchanges 
etc.) and could also lead to bottlenecks in case a road is not continued on the other side of 
the border to the same standard, a clarification and streamlining of this requirement in the 
TEN-T Regulation is needed. 

The same ECA report criticizes the lack of clarity concerning Art. 39(2)(c) of the TEN-T 
Regulation, which requires “the development of rest areas on motorways approximately 
every 100 km […] to provide appropriate parking space for commercial road users with 
an appropriate level of safety and security”. The auditors suggest that it should be made 
more explicit what is meant by a safe and secure parking or provide a framework which 
would  allow  the  determination  of  sufficient  parking  availability.  So  far  Member  States 
have applied their own criteria to classify parking areas as safe and secure. However, the 
“Study on Safe and Secure Parking Places for Trucks”61 clearly demonstrated that there 
is  a  lack  of  parking  areas  and  a  need  to  set  parking  standards  (net  shortfall  of  approx. 
100,000  spaces).  It  would  thus  need  to  be  further  clarified  which  level  of  safety  and 
security  standards  should  apply  to  rest  areas  on  TEN-T  motorways  and  how  frequent 
such areas should be available throughout the network. In addition, the putting in place of 
these  parkings  should  also  be  an  opportunity  to  deploy  alternative  fuel  infrastructures 
(see driver 1.2).  

In principle, tunnels over 500 m on TEN-T sections need to comply with the provisions 
of  Directive  2004/54/EC  on  minimum  safety  requirements  for  tunnels  in  the  Trans-
European  Road  Network62.  However  there  is  a  legal  uncertainty  as  to  the  binding 
deadline for certain tunnels to comply with the Directive. Findings from the evaluation of 
the TEN-T Regulation confirmed that the challenge of bringing all TEN-T road tunnels 
over  500  m  into  compliance  with  its  requirements  was  not  yet  completed  and  so  the 
minimum safety standard prescribed by the Directive is not yet fully in place. 

60   Dottori et al. 2020, p.6 
61  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/default/files/2019-study-on-safe-and-secure-parking-places-for-

trucks.pdf 

62   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32004L0054 

21 

 
                                                 
Problem Driver 4.1: Multiple and insufficiently coordinated layers of network  

Coordination  between  Core  Network  Corridors  (CNC)  and  Rail  Freight  Corridors 
(RFC): Infrastructure development and more efficient operations complement each other 
in  making  rail  freight  transport  more  competitive.  Operational  solutions  can  often  be 
implemented  faster  and  more  cost-efficiently  than  infrastructure  improvements  (e.g. 
improved  timetables  versus  construction  of  new  sidings).  At  the  same  time,  some 
operational  issues  cannot  be  solved  without  infrastructure  enhancements,  e.g.  repeated, 
systematic  delays  of  freight  trains  due  to  congested  infrastructure  in  urban  nodes.  In 
addition,  operational  issues  put  at  risk  the  benefits  resulting  from  infrastructure 
investments. An illustrative example is the question of the dwelling times of freight trains 
at border stations, which in many cases are in the order of several hours on average and 
annihilate  any  gains  in  transit  times  achievable  by  infrastructure  investments63.  As  a 
result, cooperation and coordination between stakeholders involved in the governance of 
the RFCs and CNCs have been set up as from the creation of the CNCs. There have been 
a  number  initiatives,  good  practices,  going  from  mere  exchange  of  information  to 
agreeing  on  activities  and  goals.  Such  cooperation  has  been  done  mainly  on  a  corridor 
basis.  Nevertheless,  the  coexistence  of  two  separate  structures  has  proven  to  be 
suboptimal for the following reasons: 

  There  are  various  cases  of  overlapping  activities,  for  example  the  RFC  investment 
plan or the RFC ERTMS plan that overlap to a certain extent with the CNC studies 
and the CNC Work Plans.  

  The  RFCs  and  CNCs  are  not  geographically  aligned  making  coordination  more 
complex64. This is due to the fact that the RFC regulation allows to add new sections 
and create new RFC corridors. This also contributes to the duplication of activities.  

There  is  therefore  an  important  untapped  potential  for  streamlining,  increased 
effectiveness  and  synergies.  The  European  Coordinators  could  benefit  more  from  RFC 
knowledge  and  activities,  especially  in  the  area  of  infrastructure  investments  (e.g. 
identification of priority projects, coordination of deployment of the TEN-T parameters, 
in  particular  740  m  trains).  Inversely,  the  RFCs  could  benefit  more  from  the  European 
Coordinators’ political influence to progress on operational issues.  

Dual use infrastructure (Military Mobility): Dual use infrastructure (Military Mobility) is 
a  new  dimension  of  the  TEN-T  policy,  as  underlined  by  the  report  of  the  European 
Parliament on the revision of the TEN-T guidelines.65 The EU military transport network 
is  a  multimodal  network,  which  for  the  most  part  (93%)  overlaps  with  the  TEN-T. 
However,  there  are  sections  in  the  military  transport  network  which  are  not  part  of  the 

63  See the evaluation of the RFC Regulation, https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-

say/initiatives/2118-Evaluation-of-the-rail-freight-network_en. 

64   For the alignment of the CNC and RFC, see maps on: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t_en and 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten-t_en 

65   https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0010_EN.html 

22 

 
                                                 
TEN-T, but are also of civilian use and of European added value. These sections which 
are of dual use could be included in the TEN-T as to increase synergies. 

Problem Driver 4.2: National investment plans not sufficiently aligned with priorities 
of the TEN-T Regulation 

The study on national plans and programmes undertaken in the framework of the TEN-T 
evaluation  revealed  that  national  plans  currently  do  not  completely  reflect  Member 
States’  obligations  under  the  TEN-T  Regulation  with  regard  to  network  planning  and 
implementation.  According to  the Art.  49(2) of the TEN-T Regulation,  these plans  and 
programmes should contain abstracts allowing the Commission to assess Member States’ 
progress regarding the development of the TEN-T.  

However,  to  date,  none  of  the  national  plans  analysed  in  the  study  presents  details  on 
how MS are fulfilling their obligations. The TEN-T is in most cases not identified in the 
plans,  nor  are  the  deadlines  2030  (core  network)  and  2050  (comprehensive  network) 
acknowledged66. This hinders an unambiguous assessment of the expected status of the 
network,  of  possible  delays  in  the  implementation  of  the  TEN-T  objectives  and 
consequently renders it difficult to take the appropriate counter measures.  

Problem Driver 4.3: Lack of competence of European Coordinators in certain fields 

In its 2020 report on “EU transport infrastructures”67 the European Court of Auditors has 
found  that  although  the  Coordinators  are  responsible  for  long  and  complex  corridors, 
they  have  limited  resources  and  only  informal  powers  at  their  disposal.  The  Court 
especially  criticizes  the  non-binding  nature  of  work  plans  and  the  limited  resources 
dedicated  to  corridor  forum  meetings.  It  concludes  that  this  framework  gives  the 
Commission a too distant role in overseeing the Member States efforts in implementing 
the network and putting its timely completion at risk. The Court ultimately recommends 
that  the  role  of  the  European  Coordinators  shall  be  strengthened  by  enhancing  the 
enforcement  of  the  corridor  work  plans,  by  allowing  their  presence  at  key  meetings  of 
management  boards  of  major  projects,  and  by  improving  their  role  in  terms  of 
communication of the TEN-T policy objectives. 

Findings from the evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation point in the same direction with 
interviewees consulted in the case study on core network corridors stating that neither the 
Coordinators nor the European Commission currently have the necessary tools to enforce 
the prioritisation of investment on the core network vis-a-vis Member States. Reinforcing 
the  role  of  the  Coordinators  would  also  allow  to  address  some  of  the  issues  described 
under Driver 4.1 and 4.2. 

66   The  study  found,  insufficient  information  in  the  national  plans  of  21  Member  States  (78%)  to 
confidently conclude that the TEN-T network will be completed by 2030. For 9 Member States (33%), 
there is strong indication of non-completion with TEN-T requirements, due to the lack of projects to 
cover  gaps  in  the  network  or  explicit  statements  in  the  plan  that  certain  sections  will  not  reach 
compliance by 2030. 

67  ECA Special Report 10/2020 

23 

 
                                                 
2.3  2.3  How will the problem evolve? 

Problem area 1: Insufficient and/or incomplete TEN-T infrastructure standards and lack 
of integration of standards for alternative fuels infrastructure on the TEN-T  

Without  additional  regulatory  action  at  EU  level  the  problem  of  insufficient  and 
incomplete TEN-T infrastructure standards as well as the lack of integration of standards 
for  alternative  fuels  infrastructure  is  likely  to  continue  to  exist.  Indeed,  as  highlighted 
above, the current standards are not sufficient to address the challenges of today’s TEN-T 
system and to support the delivery of the SSMS milestones68.  

Rail  freight:  Slow  implementation  of  the  740  m  criterion  would  persist.  Furthermore, 
without  clarifying  this  requirement,  Member  States  would  continue  to  apply  different 
approaches  to  fulfil  this  parameter  limiting  the  interoperability  of  the  network. 
Furthermore  the  lack  of  relevant  requirements  on  the  comprehensive  network  would 
continue  to  weaken  the  attractiveness  of  rail  freight  transport  as  traffic  often  does  not 
originate  or  terminate  on  the  core  network  and  as  the  need  to  re-route  traffic  during 
disruptions  of  the  core  network  requires  adequate  infrastructure  on  the  comprehensive 
network.  Finally,  by  not  introducing  a  requirement  making  the  circulation  of  P400 
intermodal  loading  units  throughout  the  network  possible,  a  significant  potential  for 
model  shift  of  freight  to  rail  would  be  forgone.  The  Coordinators’  work  plans69  show 
significant differences between the corridors as regards the capability of infrastructure to 
run such loading units. This reduces the market potential of multimodal transport. 

Rail  passenger:  In  its  audit  on  “A  European  high-speed  rail  network”70  the  ECA 
concludes  that  the  current  TEN-T  for  passengers  is  more  a  patchwork  rather  than  a 
network. Contributing to that is the fact that there is no requirement for a minimum line 
speed on TEN-T core network passenger lines. This leads to a situation of very differing 
line  speeds  between  Member  States  as  well  as  within  Member  States71  negatively 
impacting  attractive  travel  times  and  reliability  of  services  and  thus  the  potential  of 
shifting  more  passengers  from  other  modes  to  (cross-border)  rail.  Without  such  a 
minimum  requirement,  while  catering  for  specific  network  situations,  it  would  be  very 
likely that the current situation and thus the patchwork approach would persist. 

Inland waterways: While it is the safest mode of transport and has significant potential to 
absorb more traffic from other less sustainable modes inland waterway transport is also 
very exposed to climate change effects and subject of environmental concerns. Inflexible 
requirements  on  draught  and  height  under  bridges,  which  take  account  of  the 
hydrography  of  the  inland  waterway  will  not  guarantee  sufficient  capacity  to  absorb 
additional volumes. On the other hand, as is the case for all sectors of transport, if climate 

68   i.e.  increasing  traffic  on  high-speed  rail  by  100%  by  2030  and  by  200%  by  2050,  increasing  the  rail 
freight traffic by 50% by 2030 and by 100% by 2050; increasing the inland waterways and short sea 
shipping activity by 25% by 2030 and by 50% by 2050 

69   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/default/files/4th_workplan_nsm.pdf 
70   ECA Special Report 2018 N°19 
71   https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ 

24 

 
                                                 
change  and  environmental  concerns  (e.g.  biodiversity)  are  not  taken  into  account,  an 
unrealistic picture of the potential of IWT would be given. 

Short Sea Shipping:  Without  a more coherent and integrated concept  towards short sea 
shipping covering the entire logistic chain, integrating better the maritime links into the 
TEN-T,  as  well  as  more  stringent  standards  with  regard  to  the  quality  of  last  mile 
connection  of  ports,  the  attractiveness  and  thus  the  potential  of  this  transport  mode  for 
modal shift would be undermined. 

Alternative  fuels:  Without  an  integration  of  the  AFIR  standards  in  the  TEN-T,  the 
opportunity to provide a real network perspective for the deployment of alternative fuels 
across Europe would be missed out. More importantly, infrastructure needs would not be 
in  place  to ensure  full cross-border transport connectivity  on  the  TEN-T  for alternative 
fuel  vehicles.  This  will  not  ensure 
the 
that 
decarbonisation and cleaner air objective for the transport sector, in line with the SSMS 
objective. 

the  TEN-T  Regulation  supports 

Problem area 2: Capacity bottlenecks and insufficient network connectivity to all regions 
that hamper multimodality 

Without  additional  action,  capacity  bottlenecks  will  continue  to  appear  and  grow  since 
passenger  and  freight  transport  volumes  on  the  comprehensive  and  core  network  are 
generally growing while the capacity is not increasing at the same pace72.  

On  the  infrastructure  side  capacity  and  multimodality  is  mainly  hampered  by  the  slow 
implementation  of  certain  standards  (or  the  lack  thereof)  on  the  TEN-T,  by  a  lack  of 
capacity  in  multimodal  transport  terminals  and  by  the  slow  implementation  of  digital 
tools such as ERTMS. By not addressing these issues this would continue to negatively 
affect seamless cross-border transport flows but also flows especially around urban nodes 
where  TEN-T  infrastructures  are  often  heavily  congested.  Furthermore,  additional 
capacity and operational efficiency would not be gained if certain standards are not also 
extended  to  certain  sections  of  the  comprehensive  network  and  last  mile  sections  to 
transport nodes where most of the traffic originates or terminates. 

As  regards  network  connectivity,  without  clarifying  the  concept  of  “telematics 
applications”  to  also  include  digital  systems,  applications  and  services  beyond  those 
already included in the TEN-T Regulation, there would be a significant risk that systems 
and (new) applications are not applied coherently and at the same speed across the EU, 
potentially  creating  new  barriers  to  interoperability  and  seamless  transport  operations. 
Furthermore, by not introducing minimum requirements on digitalisation, for example in 
terminals  or  ports,  a  significant  potential  for  capacity  and  efficiency  increases  in  such 
infrastructures  that  are  essential  enablers  of  the  multimodal  logistics  chain  would  be 
foregone.  

72   An illustrative example is the Rhine Alpine Corridor which is one of the busiest while at the same time 
most mature core network corridors. Issues with capacity bottlenecks are highlighted in its 4th work 
plan: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/default/files/4th_workplan_ralp.pdf 

25 

 
                                                 
Finally,  one  of  the  biggest  potentials  in  ensuring  better  interoperability  and  additional 
capacity  on  the  railways  lies  in  the  consistent  implementation  of  ERTMS.  By  not 
addressing  the  slow  implementation  of  especially  the  track  side  deployment  of  this 
technology,  a  significant  potential  for  capacity  increases  without  constructing  new 
infrastructures would remain untapped. At the same time, by not setting a clear deadline 
for  the  de-commissioning  of  the  national  legacy  systems,  increase  in  operational 
efficiencies, interoperability and reductions in costs would remain underexploited. 

Problem area 3: Insufficient safety and reliability of the TEN-T infrastructure 

While  the  underlying  trend  remains  downward,  progress  has  slowed  sharply  in  most 
countries since 2013. Some countries are seeing fatalities even increasing again, and the 
EU target of halving the number of road deaths  by 2020 (relative to the 2010 baseline) 
will  not  be  met73.  An  insufficient  safety  level  and  lack  of  reliability  of  the  TEN-T 
infrastructure  would  thus  persist  without  additional  EU  level  intervention.  The  TEN-T 
can  however  be  part  of  the  solution  by  imposing  safety  standards  for  the  transport 
network, in particular the road network.  

Similarly, the reliability of the TEN-T is impacted by man-made and natural or climate 
related events. Such events are of increasing nature notably due to the effects of climate 
change. When building infrastructure, it is therefore needed to already take into account 
such potential events and plan and construct the infrastructure in a way that it resists to 
such effects (e.g. no infrastructure extension in flooding areas, built-in sensors in bridges 
alerting deterioration).74  

Last but not least, foreign direct investments are increasing. It would become problematic 
if  investors  decided,  for  example,  to  replace  technical  infrastructure  standards  or  IT 
systems of a port/airport/infrastructure facility to non-EU or non-TEN-T standards as this 
may affect continuity of the TEN-T network, hence public order and security of critical 
infrastructures.   

Problem area 4: Inadequate TEN-T governance instruments and TEN-T network design   

Without additional action taken from the side of the EU, the problem of inadequate TEN-
T  governance  instruments  and  TEN-T  design  would  persist.  This  would  in  particular 
endanger  the  timely  implementation  of  the  TEN-T  by  the  given  deadlines.  In  addition, 
new  arising  (policy)  priorities  such  as  on  greening  and  digitalisation  would  not  be 
covered  without  a  strengthened  and  widened  role  of  the  European  Coordinators. 
Similarly,  there  would  be  continuous  divergence  between  the  work  of  the  European 
Coordinators  on  the  CNC  and  the  work  of  the  RFC,  which  would  lead  to  the  situation 
that unused synergies (e.g. in terms of overlapping tasks) would persist.  

73   Press  release:  “Road  safety:  Europe’s  roads  are  getting  safer  but  progress  remains  too  slow” 

(11/06/2020);https://ec.europa.eu/transport/media/news/2020-06-11-road-safety-statistics-
2019_en. 

74   See also: EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change, COM(2021) 82 final 

26 

 
                                                 
In terms of priority setting,  there is  a risk that the national  priorities would continue to 
prevail European priorities or at least not be fully aligned. Reporting and monitoring of 
the TEN-T implementation would not allow reducing the existing burden and red tape to 
both Member States and the Commission. With regard to the TEN-T design, several of 
the proposed policy measures (such as the creation of the European Transport Corridors) 
would not be possible to be implemented without an adaptation of the TEN-T maps.  

3 

3 WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1  3.1  Legal basis 

The  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  (Articles  170-172) 
stipulates the establishment and development of trans-European networks in the areas of 
transport,  telecommunications  and  energy  infrastructures75.  The  Union  shall  aim  at 
promoting the interconnection and interoperability of national networks as well as access 
to such networks. It shall take account in particular of the need to link islands, landlocked 
and  peripheral  with  the  central  regions  of  the  Union  (Article  170  TFEU).  For  this 
purpose, the Union shall establish a series of guidelines covering the objectives, priorities 
and broad lines of measures envisaged in the sphere of trans-European networks. These 
guidelines shall identify projects of common interest, shall implement any measures that 
may  prove  necessary  to  ensure  the  interoperability  of  the  networks,  in  particular  in  the 
field of technical standardisation and may support projects of common interest supported 
by  Member  States.  Furthermore,  the  Union  may  also  contribute,  through  the  Cohesion 
Fund  set  up  pursuant  to  Article  177,  to  the  financing  of  specific  projects  in  Member 
States  in  the  area  of  transport  infrastructure.  To  ensure  interoperability  of  networks 
cooperation with third countries is equally foreseen (Article 171 TFEU).  

3.2  3.2  Subsidiarity: Necessity of EU action 

The TFEU defines that the 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.  

TEN-T  policy  is  thereby,  by  its  nature,  a  policy  that  extends  beyond  Member  States 
borders  since  it  focusses  on  a  single  European  network  scheme  across  borders.  Such 
European wide network can obviously not be established by one Member State alone. If 
Member  States  developed  infrastructure  purely  on  their  own,  national  interests  would 
often outweigh the European interest. Indeed, experience shows that Member States tend 
to  prioritise  projects  on  their  territory.  As  such,  the  benefits  of  a  European  sustainable 
and high quality transport network would be foregone. In this case, it would be likely that 
issues  of  cross-border  connectivity  and  interoperability  would  also  not  be  sufficiently 
addressed since intra-national connections are mostly prioritised by Member States even 

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

172)  

27 

 
                                                 
if cross-border projects are essential to exploit the benefits of the  entire network and to 
remove bottlenecks which generate congestion. This would not only lead to the risk of a 
lack of seamless travel connectivity across Europe, but also lead to possible incoherence 
of  national  planning  approaches.  In  return,  different  standards  and  interoperability 
requirements in different EU Member States would hamper the seamless transport flows 
throughout the EU and even increase costs for transport users. Overall, a seamless TEN-
T  without  physical  gaps,  integrating  intelligent  and  innovative  solutions  is  key  to 
facilitating  the  internal  market,  achieving  Cohesion  objectives  and  –  not  least  - 
contributing to the Green Deal objectives.  

3.3  3.3  Subsidiarity: Added value of EU action 

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. The EU added value of TEN-T has also been one of the main conclusions 
of the evaluation of the current TEN-T Regulation. Indeed, 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. Ensuring a common and coherent EU-wide basis for the identification of ‘projects 
of  common  interest’  and,  correspondingly,  for  the  alignment  of  planning  and 
implementation efforts of a wide range of actors is a clear and widely recognised added 
value of TEN-T.  

The  TEN-T  core  network  identifies  the  infrastructure  which  is  of  highest  strategic 
importance and of highest implementation priority because it captures the major transport 
flows  across  Europe.  Interoperability  through  technical  standardisation  is  a  key  area  of 
intervention  for  TEN-T  policy,  as  called  for  by  Art  171  of  the  TFEU.  Increasing 
multimodality  by  increased  use  of  railways  and  inland  waterways  requires  a  network 
approach across all EU Member States, as those modes become very efficient over long 
distances  and  hence  for  transnational  transport.  The  interconnection  of  the  national 
networks by creating or improving cross-border connections is by its very nature of high 
EU added value.  

This also accounts for the dimension of urban nodes as it is important that urban traffic is 
well  connected  with  interregional  and  international  traffic.  Indeed,  the  role  of  urban 
nodes  on  the  TEN-T  goes  beyond  the  local  level,  as  transport  activities  on  the  TEN-T 
start and/or end in such nodes, or transit them, requiring good coordination between the 
different levels in order to avoid bottlenecks.  

However,  urban  mobility  is  and  shall  remain  a  policy  mainly  under  the  remit  of  the 
Member States  (local  authorities). EU action should  remain limited to  aspects  of urban 
mobility  which  are  connected  with  interregional  and  international  traffic.  This  also 
accounts  for  the  maintenance  of  infrastructure:  while  maintaining  infrastructure  is  and 
will remain the main responsibility of Member States, it is essential to guarantee through 
minimum rules in the TEN-T Regulation that the TEN-T will continue to provide a high 
quality of services to citizens and businesses. 

28 

 
 
 
4 

4 OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

The overarching goal of the revision of the TEN-T Regulation is to support the delivery 
of  the  objectives  defined  in  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the  Sustainable  and  Smart 
Mobility  Strategy.  Indeed,  since  the  adoption  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  in  2013,  the 
policy context has changed substantially – the ongoing revision is thus the opportunity to 
modernize  the  legal  framework  and  to  align  it  with  the  new  political  priorities.  The 
revision of the TEN-T Regulation will support making transport on the TEN-T greener, 
more efficient and resilient by promoting more sustainable forms of transport (rail, inland 
waterways  and  short  sea  shipping)  and  by  fostering  multimodality  and  interoperability 
between them (ports, airports, rail-road terminals). The revision will also contribute to a 
better integration of the urban nodes as well as the core network corridors with the rail 
freight  corridors.  Last  but  not  least  the  revision  should  cater  for  the  conditions  to 
efficiently deploy alternative fuels and smart, digital solutions across the TEN-T and to 
improve  and  optimise  the  existing  governance  and  monitoring  systems  of  the  current 
TEN-T  Regulation.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  all  selected  objectives  received  wide 
support from the consulted stakeholders (see Annex 2).  

4.1  4.1  General objectives 

The revision of the TEN-T Regulation aims at reaching four general objectives: First of 
all,  it  aims  to  enable  to  make  transport  greener  in  view  of  the  90%  GHG  emissions 
reductions  in  transport  and  the  zero  pollution  ambition  by  2050.  Indeed,  the 
environmental  impacts  induced  by  transport  not  only  in  terms  of  GHG  emissions  and 
other air pollution emissions, but also in terms of noise or even soil pollution is a serious 
problem  as  described  in  chapter  2.  TEN-T  can  provide  the  appropriate  infrastructure 
basis as to alleviate congestion (and hence reduce emissions) and reduce GHG emissions 
and pollution of air and water through incentives for more activity of sustainable forms 
of  transport  and  through  the  application  of  TEN-T  standards.  The  coherent  network  of 
the TEN-T thereby also offers the unique opportunity to foster integrated decarbonisation 
solutions and to provide an overarching policy framework for their deployment. This also 
benefits  various  related  sectoral  legislative  acts,  such  as  AFIR  or  the  ITS  Directive,  as 
well as future legislative initiatives. Indeed, without  the appropriate infrastructure basis 
and  a  wide  network  approach,  alternative  fuels  could  not  be  deployed  efficiently  since 
their  efficiency  and  acceptance  by  end-users  depend  on  a  wide  deployment  on  the 
transport  network.  The  objective  of  ensuring  that  TEN-T  provides  the  enabling 
conditions for a decarbonisation of transport was ranked as most important objective in 
the public consultation for all groups of stakeholders (see Annex 2).  

Greening  transport  also  means  making  it  more  biodiversity  friendly.  The  Biodiversity 
Strategy for 203076 sets important objectives in terms of protecting and restoring nature 
including legal protection of a minimum of 30% of the EU’s land area and 30% of the 
EU’s  sea  area  as  well  as  maintenance  of  ecological  corridors  and  restoration  of  free 
flowing rivers. Development of new and upgrades of existing transport infrastructure will 
therefore have to be done in a way which does not jeopardise the achievement of these 

76   COM(2020) 380 final 

29 

 
                                                 
strategic objectives. Prioritisation of green infrastructure, e.g. in relation to protection of 
ecological  connectivity,  can  facilitate  this  process.  Site-specific  conservation  objectives 
will have to be used as a benchmark for authorisation of any plans of projects, which can 
affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites. 

Equally  important  is  to  facilitate  seamless  and  efficient  transport  in  order  to  better 
connect  people  and  businesses  across  Europe.  The  TEN-T  Regulation  needs  to  address 
the  existing  capacity  bottlenecks  in  the  TEN-T,  the  insufficient  intermodality  and 
interoperability  links,  the  lack  of  connectivity  (in  particular  in  urban  nodes  and  remote 
areas such as the outermost regions) and lack of quality of the last mile connections. The 
focus  should  be  on  research  and  innovation  and  technologies  which  allow  for  more 
digital solutions which in return also positively impact the decarbonisation objectives.  

The resilience of the transport network has shown to be important not only recently in the 
context  of  the  Covid-19 pandemic  but  also  more  generally  over  the  past  years.  Indeed, 
several natural disasters due to extreme weather events or man-made disasters (accidents, 
other disturbances of the traffic) have interrupted the transport flows significantly in the 
past years77. One important objective of the revision is therefore to increase the resilience 
of the TEN-T to climate change and to natural or man-made disasters.  

Even if the evaluation of the current TEN-T Regulation has demonstrated that the right 
implementation  instruments  are  at  hand  (core  network  corridors,  work  plans,  etc.),  the 
evaluation  also  pointed  out  that  there  was  a  need  to  even  further  strengthen  such  tools 
and  to  harmonise  and  streamline  the  reporting  and  monitoring  instruments.  As  a  cross-
cutting  overall  objective,  the  TEN-T  revision  will  therefore  aim  at  improving  the 
efficiency of the governance tools of the TEN-T Regulation.  

Figure 2: Overview of general objectives and their interlinkages with specific objectives  

77   e.g. rail tunnel collapse Aug.-Sept. 2017 near DE town of Rastatt; Morandi bridge collapse in Genova in 

Aug 2018  

30 

 
 
 
                                                 
4.2  4.2  Specific objectives 

Based on the four general objectives, six specific objectives have been defined which are 
highly interrelated (see Figure 2).  

SO1: To provide the infrastructure basis to increase activity by more sustainable forms 
of  transport,  notably  by  incentivizing  rail  freight  and  high-speed  rail  traffic,  inland 
waterways and short sea shipping in line with the milestones of the SSMS   

In  order  to  address  the  challenges  linked  to  climate  change  and  air  pollution,  it  is 
essential  to  decarbonise  transport  by  boosting  the  uptake  of  more  sustainable  forms  of 
transport,  notably  rail,  inland  waterways78  and  short  sea  shipping,  by  passengers  and 
freight operators. To this end, the milestones introduced by the SSMS are very ambitious. 
The TEN-T is the ground building basis for the implementation of such ambitious goals. 
Only if the right infrastructure is in place, the respective services can follow.  

SO2:  To  ensure  an  improved  network  quality  across  TEN-T  and  to  provide  for 
decarbonised multimodal, interoperable solutions and an optimal intermodal integration 
of the entire logistic chain, including a better integration of maritime links into TEN-T 

A  lack  of  multimodality  and  interoperability  across  the  27  EU  Member  States  and  in 
particularly  across  borders  is  still  one  important  challenge  to  be  addressed  in  order  to 
ensure seamless transport flows along the entire TEN-T. To this end, the revision of the 
TEN-T  Regulation  shall  concentrate  on  measures  for  improved  multimodal  and 
interoperable solutions and an optimal intermodal integration of the entire logistic chain. 
Here in particular the  role of inland waterways and short sea shipping links but also of 
ports and terminals should be better taken into account. TEN-T is unique because of its 
multimodal character which needs to be further strengthened.  This in return would also 
help  in  boosting  the  uptake  of  sustainable  forms  of  transport,  including  the  increase  of 
efficiency and decarbonisation, low noise and reduced air pollution of each single mode 
(see SO1).  

SO3: To digitalise the infrastructure of all modes (as to limit congestion) and to improve 
safety and security of transport also in view of addressing the needs of passengers and 
freight 

The digitalisation of infrastructure of all modes has proven to be an important element in 
order to limit congestion and hence also GHG and air and water pollution emissions. The 
TEN-T Regulation will support digitalisation efforts and measures – an aspect which has 
not been looked at in detail back in 2013, since the technologies were not that advanced 
yet  as  they  are  today.  However,  digitalisation  not  only  can  contribute  to  the 
decarbonisation of transport, but is also an important element to improve the safety and 
security  of  transport.  Ensuring  higher  safety  and  security  standards  along  the  TEN-T 
would in addition also contribute to more seamless transport flows since often accidents 

78   Any  development  or  upgrade  of  inland  waterways  will,  have  to  take  the  multi-functionality  of  EU 
rivers into account  including their role of protecting biodiversity and contribution to the integrity of 
Natura 2000 sites. 

31 

 
                                                 
lead  to  important  traffic  disturbances  and  disruptions  and  hence  to  increased  costs79.  It 
would also contribute to a more equal access and use of the network by female users and 
workers. 

SO4:  To  reinforce  the  role  of  the  urban  nodes  as  to  enable  seamless  passenger  flows 
between  the  TEN-T  and  local  networks  and  develop  multimodality  in  freight  transport 
through better integration of sustainable modes of transport 

Urban  mobility  policy  is  gaining  more  importance  in  view  of  the  achievement  of  the 
EGD  and  SSMS  objectives.  Indeed,  the  European  population  is  to  a  large  extent 
concentrated in urban agglomerations, which are therefore the origin and destination of 
most  traffic  flows.  Hence,  traffic  in  urban  nodes  is  particularly  dense  and  congested, 
often  leading  to  capacity  bottlenecks.  It  is  therefore  important  that  the  last  mile 
connectivity not only within urban nodes, but also with the rest of the intraregional and 
international transport system is of good quality and with better accessibility for all users. 
This  shall  be  addressed  by  better  connections  between  short  and  long-distance  travels 
(“last  mile”),  e.g.  through  the  creation  of  multimodal  passenger  hubs.  In  addition,  the 
planning  at  the  level  of  TEN-T  needs  to  be  better  coordinated  with  the  planning  and 
development  at  the  level  of  urban  nodes.  The  interaction  of  urban  nodes  with  TEN-T 
shall therefore be better taken into account. 

SO5:  To  improve  the  preparedness  and  resilience  of  infrastructure,  including  through 
better maintenance and a nature-based adaptation to climate change 

A well-functioning transport system depends on infrastructure that is resilient to natural 
or  man-made  disasters.  Indeed,  several  (important)  disruptions  have  occurred  over  the 
past  years  due  to  such  disasters  which  caused  severe  negative  impacts  on  the  transport 
flows in terms of delays and increased costs. It is therefore important that TEN-T builds 
upon  an  infrastructure  that  is  prepared  and resilient to  such  events.  Maintenance of the 
infrastructure is  in  this context  also  of utmost importance as to  prevent  disruptions and 
accidents.    

SO6:  To  better  align  national  (investment)  planning  with  TEN-T  priorities  and  to 
increase synergies between different policy instruments (e.g. CNC vs. RFC) 

TEN-T  policy  sets  priorities  of  European  interest  and  added-value.  However,  national 
priorities are sometimes not fully aligned with European priorities. For instance, from a 
European  perspective  it  is  of  utmost  important  to  enhance  cross-border  connections 
between  two  EU  Member  States  in  order  to  allow  seamless  transport  flows  across  the 
EU.  From  a  national  perspective,  national  transport  sections  are  however  often  the 
prevailing  priority.  Apart  from  the  priority  setting,  also  the  timing  of  infrastructure 
investments  are  often  not  well  coordinated  on  both  sides  of  a  border.  It  is  therefore 
crucial  that  there  is  a  better  alignment  of  national  (investment)  planning  and 
programming  with  the  TEN-T  priorities.  Moreover,  several  instruments  to  foster 
sustainable  transport  at  European  level  co-exist  (such  as  the  urban  and  regional  policy 

79   The digitalisation of transport has also a role in increasing resilience. For instance, the digitalisation of 

inland waterway transport will help in better adapting to changing water levels. 

32 

 
                                                 
supported  by  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  several  European  urban 
initiatives  (Eurocities,  Urbact  initiatives  etc.)).  It  is  therefore  important  to  efficiently 
exploit their synergies and avoid redundancies.  

5 

5 WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

5.1  5.1  What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

The EU Reference Scenario 2020 (REF2020) represents the starting point for  assessing 
the options in this impact assessment. The EU Reference scenario 2020 reflects the range 
of  foreseen  national  policies  and  measures  of  the  final  National  Energy  and  Climate 
Plans  (NECPs)  that  Member  States  submitted  in  2019  according  to  the  Governance 
Regulation80. The EU Reference scenario 2020 also takes into account the impacts of the 
COVID-19 pandemic that had a significant impact on the transport sector. More detailed 
information  about  the  preparation  process,  assumptions  and  results  are  included  in  the 
Reference scenario publication81.  

Building  on  the  Reference  scenario  2020,  the  Baseline  scenario  for  this  impact 
assessment has been designed to include the initiatives of the ‘Delivering the European 
Green  Deal’  package  and  other  measures  of  the  MIX  policy  scenario82.  The  MIX 
scenario follows a balanced approach of carbon pricing instruments and regulatory-based 
measures  to  deliver  on  the  ambition  of  at  least  55%  emission  reductions  by  2030  and 
climate  neutrality  by  2050.  The  Baseline  scenario  is  commonly  used  by  this  impact 
assessment  and  the  one  underpinning  the  review  of  the  ITS  Directive,  to  ensure 
consistency83. 

80   Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 
81   Link to webpage with publication – to be available in July. 
82   The  MIX  scenario  is  broadly  consistent  with  the  initiatives  proposed  by  the  Commission  on  14  July 
2021.  The  differences  are  not  expected  to  have  any  significant  impact  on  the  developments  in 
transport  activity  and  in  particular  on  the  modal  shares,  that  are  very  relevant  for  the  baseline 
scenario of this initiative. The common scenarios underpinning the impact assessment accompanying 
the  2030  Climate  Target  Plan  and  the  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  Sustainable  and 
Smart Mobility Strategy have shown that strong regulatory measures are needed to drive higher use 
of more sustainable transport modes.   

83   It  should  be  noted  that  the  MIX  scenario  underpinning  the  impact  assessments  accompanying  the 
‘Delivering  the  European  Green  Deal’  package  covers  the  initiatives  adopted  in  July  2021  but  also 
some  other  initiatives  of  this  year  and  of  the  following  year  (e.g.  for  transport,  CO2  standards  for 
heavy duty vehicles, the revision of the TEN-T Regulation, the revision of the ITS Directive, the revision 
of  the  Rail  Freight  Corridors  Regulation  and  of  the  Combined  Transport  Directive,  etc.).  For  this 
reason, only a  few adjustments had to be made in order  to provide a  suitable  Baseline scenario for 
this  impact  assessment.  This  however  does  not  mean  that  the  Baseline  scenario  deviates  from  the 
balanced approach of the MIX scenario, combining carbon pricing instruments and regulatory-based 
measures. These two initiatives were represented in a stylised way in the MIX scenario, ahead of the 
respective  legislative  proposals.  In  order  to  provide  a  meaningful  Baseline  for  the  two  impact 
assessments,  showing  how  the  problem  would  evolve  without  further  EU  level  intervention,  it  has 
been  assumed  that  only  the  current  EU  level  legislation  (i.e.  the  current  TEN-T  Regulation  and  the 
current  ITS  Directive)  is  in  place  for  these  two  initiatives.  In  addition,  for  the  Rail  Freight  Corridors 
Regulation  and  for  the  Combined  Transport  Directive  it  has  been  assumed  that  only  the  current  EU 
legislation  is  in  place.  This  is  because  of  the  important  synergies  between  the  revision  of  the  TEN-T 

33 

 
                                                 
 
In terms of transport network, the Baseline scenario assumes the completion of the core 
TEN-T  by  2030  and  of  the  comprehensive  TEN-T  by  2050  and  no  further  EU  level 
intervention  besides 
the  full 
electrification of the core TEN-T rail network by 2030 and of the comprehensive TEN-T 
rail network by 2050, in line with the existing TEN-T Regulation.  

the  existing  TEN-T  Regulation.  It  also  assumes 

The assumption of the completion of the core and comprehensive network by the given 
deadlines has been made as the evaluation results showed that, overall, the completion of 
the  core  network  can  be  expected  by  2030  or  shortly  after.  Indeed,  the  evaluation 
highlighted 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”.  Certainly,  some  delays  for  a  limited  number  of 
projects are observed based on the very close monitoring of over 3000 projects included 
in  the “core network corridor project  list” (a  comprehensive database that  is  monitored 
every six months and provides regular updates on the progress  made in  completing the 
projects). However, the limited number of projects (between 40 and 50 out of over 3000 
projects, according to the TEN-T evaluation results) as well as the limited delays of a few 
years (which is to be considered as minor taking into consideration that the planning and 
implementation of major infrastructure projects can stretch over more than 20 years and 
once  implemented  those  infrastructures  last  for  more  than  100  years)  did  not  justify  a 
different baseline scenario, since the potential impacts of such delays are not significant 
when  looking  at  the  overall  picture.  In  addition,  the  evaluation  report  noted  that  most 
Member States concerned appear confident that they will be able to remedy the current 
delays. Moreover, there are already a number of existing and new instruments aiming at 
addressing  and  solving  such  delays  (e.g.  European  Coordinators,  use  of  implementing 
decisions84). Most importantly in this context, the Directive on streamlining measures for 
advancing the realisation of the trans-European transport network85 will address the issue 
of  delays,  by  focussing  specifically  on  delays  due  to  lengthy  permitting  procedures.  A 
maximum  time  limit  of  four  years  will  apply  to  the  entire  permit-granting  process. 
Member  States  have  to  transpose  the  Directive  by  August  2023.  Finally,  the  baseline 

Regulation and the forthcoming revisions of the Rail Freight Corridors Regulation and of the Combined 
Transport Directive, that need to be enabled by the availability of high quality infrastructure for their 
success. All other assumptions were kept unchanged. 

84   Implementing decisions play an important role,  especially for the implementation and monitoring of 
the  major  cross-border  projects  as  well  as  the  TEN-T  horizontal  priorities.  A  few  implementing 
decisions were already established under the current  TEN-T Regulation (e.g. for ERTMS, Rail Baltica, 
Seine-Escaut,  Evora-Merida).  These  Commission  decisions  have  been  elaborated  in  very  close 
collaboration  with  the  concerned  Member  States  and  infrastructure  managers.  They  set  the  exact 
milestones to be achieved for the completion of such projects. As such, they are also a very solid base 
for  the  monitoring  of  those  projects  since  regular  progress  can  be  checked  per  milestone  and 
appropriate  measures  taken  in  case  of  delays.  When  adopting  these  implementing  decision,  the 
Member States concerned also agreed to a  regular  reporting on the progress achieved. The current 
TEN-T Regulation only allows for the establishment of implementing decisions for major cross-border 
projects and the horizontal priorities, in line with Article 47(2). With the TEN-T revision (PO2 and PO3), 
it  is  planned  to  reinforce  the  use  of  implementing  decisions  and  allow  for  its  use  also  for  single 
projects  and/or  for  entire  corridors.  This  follows  up  on  certain  recommendations  made  by  the 
European Court of Auditors. 

85   Directive (EU) 2021/1187 

34 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
scenario covers the whole TEN-T (core network and comprehensive network); the risk of 
not delivering on time concerns merely the core network since the deadline of 2050 for 
the  comprehensive  network  is  still  in  too  far  future  as  to  properly  assess  its  timely 
implementation.  

In the Baseline scenario, EU transport activity is projected to grow post-2020, following 
the  recovery  from  the  COVID  pandemic.  Road  transport  would  maintain  its  dominant 
role  within  the  EU  by  2050.  Rail  transport  activity  is  projected  to  grow  significantly 
faster than for road, driven in particular by the completion of the TEN-T core network by 
2030 and of the comprehensive network by 2050, supported by the CEF, Cohesion Fund 
and  ERDF  funding,  but  also  by  the  measures  of  the  ‘‘Delivering  the  European  Green 
Deal’ package that increase the competitiveness of rail relative to road and air transport. 
Passenger rail activity is projected to  go up by 24% by 2030 relative to  2015 (62% for 
2015-2050). High speed rail activity, in particular, would grow by 68% by 2030 relative 
to  2015 (155% by 2050), missing however to  deliver on the milestone of the  SSMS of 
doubling its traffic by 2030 and tripling it by 2050. Freight rail traffic would increase by 
41% by 2030 relative to 2015 (91% for 2015-2050) also not delivering on the milestone 
of the SSMS of increasing the traffic by 50% by 2030 and doubling it by 2050. Transport 
activity of inland waterways and short sea shipping is projected to go up by 19% by 2030 
and 44% by 2050. This however would also not be sufficient to deliver on the milestone 
of the SSMS of increasing activity by 25% by 2030 and by 50% by 2050.  

Congestion  costs  would  increase  by  about  14%  by  2030  and  30%  by  2050,  relative  to 
2015.  Congestion  on  the  inter-urban  network  would  be  the  result  of  growing  freight 
transport activity along specific corridors, in particular where these corridors cross urban 
areas with heavy local traffic.  

CO2 emissions from transport including international aviation but excluding international 
maritime, are projected to be 19% lower by 2030 compared to 2015, and 94% lower by 
2050. Compared to 1990, this translates into 1% emission reduction by 2030 and around 
90% reduction by 2050.86 The Baseline scenario shows that the emission reductions from 
the transport sector would effectively contribute to the ambition of at least 55% emission 
reductions  by  2030  and  climate  neutrality  by  2050,  but  this  would  rely  to  a  significant 
extent on technological solutions (i.e. the uptake of low- and zero-emission vehicles) and 
carbon  pricing.  This  would  depart  from  the  balanced  approach  of  the  MIX  scenario 
underpinning the impact assessments accompanying the ‘Delivering the European Green 
Deal’  package,  showing  a  combined  approach  of  carbon  pricing  instruments  and 
regulatory-based  measures  to  deliver  on  the  increased  climate  ambition.  This  may  also 
result in higher carbon prices, in particular if the decrease in the costs of technology and 
the  uptake  of  low-  and  zero-emission  vehicles  would  not  take  place  at  the  projected 
speed.  

86   When  accounting  intra-EU  aviation  and  maritime  in  the  transport  emissions,  Baseline  projections 
show reductions of 21% by 2030 and 97% by 2050 relative to 2015. When all intra-EU and extra-EU 
aviation  and  maritime  emissions  are  accounted  in  the  transport  emissions,  the  Baseline  scenario 
results in 17% decrease in transport emissions by 2030 and 93% decrease by 2050 compared to 2015 
levels. 

35 

 
                                                 
NOx  emissions  are  projected  to  go  down  by  56%  between  2015  and  2030  (87%  by 
2050), mainly driven by the electrification of the road transport and in particular of the 
light duty vehicles segment. The decline in particulate matter (PM2.5) would be slightly 
lower by 2030 at 52% relative to 2015 (91% by 2050).  

The number of fatalities is projected to be 22% lower in 2030 relative to 2015 and 27% 
lower by 2050, being however far from the milestone of the SSMS of close to zero death 
toll  for  all  modes  of  transport  in  the  EU  by  2050.  The  number  of  serious  and  slight 
injuries would go down at lower speed (18% for 2015-2030 and 22% for 2015-2050).  

The  assessment  of  the  policy  options  in  chapter  6  is  presented  against  the  Baseline 
scenario. However, where relevant, the impacts of the policy options are also presented 
against the REF2020. More detailed information on the Baseline scenario is presented in 
Annex 4. 

5.2  5.2  Description of the policy options and measures  

In line with the elaborated intervention logic, i.e. building upon the identified problems 
and  problem  drivers  and  the  resulting  general  and  specific  objectives,  three  distinct 
policy  options  have  been  defined.  To  define  these  options,  numerous  possible  policy 
measures were discussed on the basis of extensive consultations with stakeholders, expert 
meetings,  independent  research  and  the  Commission’s  own  analysis.  Those  possible 
measures  were  then  screened  based  on  the  likely  effectiveness,  efficiency  and 
proportionality  of  the  proposed  measures  in  relation  to  the  given  objectives  as  well  as 
their  legal,  political  and  technical  feasibility.  As  a  result,  a  set  of  policy  measures  has 
been  discarded  (see  chapter  5.2.3  and  Annex  8)  and  the  retained  policy  measures  have 
been  grouped  into  three  different  policy  options  on  which  this  impact  assessment  is 
based. The relatively high number of almost 30 policy measures thereby underlines the 
complexity  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  due  to  its  multimodal  nature.  Figure  4  as  well  as 
Annex 6 present the links of these retained policy measures with the specific objectives 
(SO) and the policy options (PO).  

All retained policy measures in the three POs are addressed to Member States since they 
are  in  the  first  place  responsible  for  transport  infrastructure  planning,  and  whenever 
applicable also the regional and urban administrative level. For the implementation of the 
measures, the infrastructure managers and operators of the respective transport mode as 
implementing  bodies  as  well  as  business  and  citizens  as  end  users  of  the  transport 
infrastructure  are  very  relevant  in  this  regard  too.  All  of  the  retained  policy  measures 
were also consulted with the stakeholders (public consultation and targeted consultations) 
and  generally  received  a  high  degree  of  agreement  (see  Annex  2),  with  no  particular 
distinction amongst type of stakeholder groups.  

On this basis, the three defined POs are of a successively increasing degree of ambition 
and level of intervention linked to four aspects: 1) the introduction of new and/or more 
ambitious  TEN-T  standards,  2)  new/accelerated  deadlines  for  network  completion,  3) 
increased  network  coverage  and  4)  governance  (see  Figure  3).  The  main  difference 
between  PO2  and  PO3  lies  in  the  geographical  scope  on  which  measures  are  applied 
(application  of  certain  measures  on  the  comprehensive  network;  identification  of 
additional urban nodes, etc.), the timing (e.g. application of the new standards on the core 

36 

 
network  from  2040)  and  the  governance  of  the  network  (e.g.  coherence  of  the  Core 
Network Corridors with the Rail Freight Corridors).87  

The measures as such are cumulative which means that all measures covered in PO1 are 
included  in  PO2,  and  all  measures  of  PO1  and  PO2  are  included  in  PO3,  without 
discarding  any  measure  of  the  previous  options.  Indeed,  as  regards  the  individual 
measures  analysed  in  the  three  options,  there  was  general  consensus,  also  largely 
supported throughout the different stakeholder groups  in the public consultation, on the 
need  of  each  individual  measure.  Some  measures  were  also  promoted  by  stakeholders 
already during the evaluation phase or are based on clear demands from the sector (e.g. 
P400 rail freight standard). In addition, due to the multimodal nature of the TEN-T, it is 
difficult  to  discard  single  measures  since  each  measure  is  highly  interdependent  with 
each other. For example, incentivising the use of rail for the transport of freight cannot be 
done  without  appropriate  measures  to  develop  multimodal  terminals  and  allow  the 
circulation  of  standard  containers.  Or  in  the  case  of  passenger  transport,  users  will  not 
shift to rail if there are no competitive travel times and reliable services (e.g. multimodal 
access to stations). 

87   The packaging of the measures is closely related to the nature of the TEN-T Regulation which aims at 
promoting  multimodality,  which  can  only  be  achieved  through  a  comprehensive  set  of  measures 
which are closely integrated and dependent of each other. For example, incentives to put freight on 
rail (by deploying P400 and minimum 740 meters long trains) make sense only if terminals (rail-road 
terminals as well as terminals in ports) are equipped to load/unload such trains. The  same goes  for 
passenger  transport  where  the  improvement  of  line  speeds  (160  km/h)  should  go  together  with  a 
better  planning  of  first  mile/last  mile  connection  in  urban  nodes  (through  the  establishment  of 
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans) and competitive travel times and reliable services (e.g. multimodal 
access to stations). In order to comprehensively address all problems and objectives, all new measures 
were therefore considered in PO2.  

37 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Figure 3: Overview of policy options in terms of ambition and level of intervention 

Policy option description 

PO1  This policy option introduces a number of updates of existing TEN-T 
infrastructure quality requirements and standards and provides for the 
adequate infrastructural basis for the deployment of AFIR and ITS. In 
addition, it includes measures to harmonise and streamline the existing 
TEN-T monitoring and reporting tools. In terms of TEN-T network, it 
also includes a review of the transport network and transport nodes. 

PO2  This  policy  option  represents  a  step  change  by  introducing  new  and 
more ambitious standards and requirements for all transport modes as 
to contribute to the decarbonisation, pollution reduction, digitalisation, 
resilience and safety of the transport infrastructure system. In addition, 
a  new  focus  on  urban  nodes  policy  is  introduced.  Finally,  a  boost  of 
TEN-T  implementation  will  be  given  by  better  aligning  national 
(investment)  planning  with  TEN-T  priorities  as  well  as  with  climate 
and zero-emission strategies. 

PO3  This  policy  option  adds  considerable  ambition  in  terms  of  the 
completion  of  the  TEN-T  by  advancing  the  deadline  of  certain 
standards  and  sections  of  the  network  to  2040  whilst  keeping  the 
ambitious standards and requirements introduced through PO2. It also 
goes  further  in  terms  of  network  alignment  and  adaptation,  e.g.  by 
creating  European  Transport  Corridors  (replacing  the  existing  Core 
Network Corridors and Rail Freight Corridors).   

Degree 
of 
ambition 
+ 

Level of 
intervention 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

++++ 

++++ 

Policy Option 1 (PO1):  

The objective of PO1 is to update existing infrastructure quality requirements in line with 
the current TEN-T policy approach and to focus on an increased infrastructure quality. 
This policy option is some sort of “ground layer” option with a basic level of intervention 
and  degree  of  ambition, aiming  at  optimising  the  current  instruments  with  only  limited 
legislative changes to the existing framework (see Figure 3).  

Under PO1, it is foreseen to update the TEN-T quality requirements as to respond to the 
problem  of  insufficient  and/or  incomplete  TEN-T  infrastructure  standards.  In  this 
context, the revised TEN-T Regulation will make a close link with the revised Directives 
on alternative fuels infrastructure (becoming a Regulation through its revision, i.e. AFIR) 
and on intelligent transport systems (ITS) to ensure their deployment within a clear time 
frame on the TEN-T (see measures 4 and 16 of Figure 4). The revised AFIR is expected 
to define specific requirements for road transport, ports and airports as well as for urban 
nodes. PO1 aims at completing a modern and efficient TEN-T and thereby contributes to 
the objectives of AFIR and ITS. Similar to the approach analysed for AFIR standards, the 
same  approach  shall  be  applied  for  the  ITS  Directive,  by  referencing  the  equipment  of 
roads  with  ITS  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation  and  thereby  address  the  problem  of  network 
capacity and safety issues.  

Changes to the network design through an update of the transport nodes and a review of 
the network are also included under PO1 (see measure 21 of Figure 4). The definition of 
the  TEN-T  core  and  comprehensive  transport  nodes,  i.e.  maritime  and  inland  ports, 
airports, RRT, will be updated. The transport nodes are included in the TEN-T network 
based on certain thresholds of transport volumes and in reference to an EU average over 

38 

 
 
 
a  period  of  three  years.  These  thresholds  have  been  recalculated  on  the  basis  of  the 
reference  years  2017,  2018  and  201988  and  on  the  2013  TEN-T  methodology89.  In 
addition, it should be checked whether the current TEN-T needs updates with regard to 
its  coherence  with  national  (investment)  planning.  It  is  indeed  important  that  the  new 
Regulation is based on an adequate network basis, respecting the current transport flows. 
This  review  of  the  network  is  particularly  important  for  AFIR  and  ITS  as  the  primary 
condition for their successful deployment is to have the right infrastructure basis in place 
(see  above).  The  need  for  such  adjustment  to  the  TEN-T  design  has  also  been  widely 
confirmed by the OPC. Indeed, the vast majority (more than 85% of the respondents90) 
agreed  with  the  statement  that  the  network  design  needs  to  be  adjusted  as  to  take  into 
account  changing  transport  flows  within  the  EU  and  with  neighbouring/third  countries 
and to further strengthen the accessibility of all regions as well as cross-border mobility. 

Finally,  PO1  includes  a  harmonisation  and  streamlining  of  the  existing  TEN-T 
monitoring and reporting tools (see measure 25 of Figure 4). For instance, the TEN-T 
Regulation  currently  foresees  the  elaboration  of  one  work  plan  by  each  European 
Coordinator. In practice, this work plan has been updated on average every two years by 
each Coordinator. Instead, it is proposed to do a formal update of the work plan including 
the priorities for the respective corridor development only every three years, with a brief 
annual progress report on the state of implementation of the CNC, MoS or ERTMS. This 
would also  replace the  report that is  requested every  year for the European Parliament, 
the  Council  and  the  Member  States  in  line  with  Article  45.5  (e)  of  Regulation  (EU) 
1315/2013.  

In terms of deadlines for completion of the network, the currently applicable deadlines 
of 2030 for the core network and 2050 for the comprehensive network completion will 
remain unchanged.  

Policy Option 2 (PO2):  

The  objectives  of  the  EGD  and  SSMS  demand  decisive  action  to  shift  more  activity 
towards more sustainable transport modes, which notably implies increasing the number 
of passengers travelling by rail and commuting by public transport as well as shifting a 
substantial amount of freight onto rail, inland waterways and short sea shipping. To this 
end, and on top of the measures brought forward for an increased infrastructure quality 
(PO1),  the  objective  of  PO2  is  to  upgrade  the  TEN-T  by  introducing  new  and  more 
ambitious  standards  as  to  better  reflect  the  objectives  of  decarbonisation,  pollution 
reduction, digitalisation, resilience and safety of the transport sector. The following new 
standards will be introduced under PO2 as to address the problem of insufficient and/or 
incomplete TEN-T infrastructure standards:   

88   The reference year 2020 has been discarded to exclude the heavy (temporary) impacts of Covid-19 on 

transport volumes.  
89   SWD(2013) 542 final 
90   The  vast  majority  –  more  than  85%  -  agreed  that  network  design  needed  to  be  adjusted  a)  to  take 
account  of changing transport  flows within the EU and with neighbouring/third countries, and b) to 
further strengthen accessibility for all regions and cross border mobility. For most stakeholder types, 
the percentages were even higher, e.g. for industry (92% and 89%, respectively); Other (86% and 89%) 
and public authorities (87% and 93%). Only citizens (75% and 73%) were less in agreement.    

39 

 
                                                 
As regards rail, the vision is to create a higher capacity and a more reliable rail freight as 
well  as  passenger  rail  network  across  Europe.  To  this  aim,  an  additional  rail  freight 
standard  is  proposed:  the  requirement  to  enable  the  circulation  of  intermodal  loading 
units compliant with the P400 classification on standard wagons (see measure 1 of Figure 
4). Under PO2, this standard would apply only to the core network and with a deadline 
for  completion  by  2050.  Allowing  the  circulation  of  intermodal  loading  units  of  the  P 
70/400 (or higher) classification is a minimum market requirement and thus essential to 
ensure competitiveness of combined transport with road transport91. 

Contrary  to  rail  freight,  the  current  Regulation  does  not  include  any  requirement  with 
regard  to  line  speed  for  passenger  rail  (see  measure  2  of  Figure  4).  This  is  a  gap  that 
needs  to  be  addressed  in  view  of  reaching  the  overall  vision  of  creating  a  competitive 
(high-speed) rail network across Europe. In combination with the existing and new high-
speed rail projects  of 240 km/h on parts of the core network, a minimum  line speed of 
160 km/h92 for all passenger core network lines by 2050 will be analysed. This shall in 
return  lead  to  network  effects,  a  more  coherent  network  and  an  increased  number  of 
passengers travelling by rail. This measure was called upon by many of the respondents 
to  the  OPC  who  called  for  a  wider  support  of  the  promotion  of  a  high-performance 
passenger  rail  network  (85  %  agreed  or  somewhat  agreed)  and  underlined  its  potential 
benefits  for  decarbonising  transport  and  emphasised  the  need  to  develop  a  coherent, 
interoperable  and  interlinked  European  high  speed  rail  network  to  link  its  capitals  and 
major cities.  

As regards inland navigation, the current parameters for inland waterways set up in the 
TEN-T Regulation do not guarantee a coherent  performance for all waterway stretches, 
as  waterways  in  Europe  are  characterised  by  a  heterogeneous  hydro-morphology.  In 
addition,  waterways,  especially  free  flowing  stretches,  may  be  heavily  impacted  by 
climate  and  weather  conditions.  In  consequence,  there  is  no  ‘one  size  fits  all’  solution; 
hence, there is a need for TEN-T parameters which take into account the specific hydro-
morphology  of  each  waterway  (e.g.  free-flowing  or  regulated  rivers)  as  well  as  the 
objectives of environmental policies (e.g. Water Framework Directive and Habitats and 
Bird Directives). Such an approach should be considered at corridor or river basin level 
(see  measure  3  of  Figure  4).  In  terms  of  minimum  requirements,  the  following 
parameters  are  being  analysed  under  PO2:  at  least  2.50  m  navigable  channel  depth  for 
rivers,  canals,  lakes  and  inland  ports  and  5.25  m  minimum  height  under  bridges  at 
defined reference water levels, which are exceeded at a defined number of days/year on 
statistical  average  by  corridor/river  basin.  Exceptions  to  these  minimum  requirements 
would be possible, to take account of specific hydro-morphology of inland waterways as 
well as for biodiversity considerations. This approach has been acknowledged by expert 

91   http://www.cer.be/sites/default/files/publication/181008_Sector_Statement_Progress_Report.pdf 
92   The boundary of 160 km/h was chosen for the following reasons:  

- 

- 
- 

- 

is  the  speed  boundary  between  high-speed  and  conventional  rail  from  an 

160  km/h 
infrastructural perspective.  
From 160 km/h on, investments for upgrades rise significantly.  
It  translates  roughly  into  a  commercial  speed  of  90  km/h  which  was  the  standard  envisaged 
already at the time of establishment of the EuroCity network in 1987.  
The  choice  of  a  minimum  standard  of  160  km/h,  with  an exemption  system,  does  however  not 
exclude the viability of upgrades to faster speeds, such as for example 200 km/h or 220 km/h. 

40 

 
                                                 
inland  waterway  stakeholders  consulted  for  the  evaluation  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation93. 
The analysis will also include the “good navigation status” which defines additional and 
specific corridor/river basin requirements for hard and soft components94 which are laid 
down in corridor implementing decisions. These requirements will take into account the 
hydro-morphological specificities of each waterway and will also integrate the objectives 
of  reaching  good  ecological  status  or  potential  as  defined  by  the  Water  Framework 
Directive. 

As  regards  short  sea  shipping,  a  concrete  definition,  objectives  and  a  coherent  and 
integrated concept for its development in Europe is envisaged to be incorporated in the 
TEN-T Regulation  and  will mainly be fostered through  reinforced  requirements for the 
last  mile  connections  of  ports  and  terminals  (see  measure  12  of  Figure  4).  In  addition, 
this measure foresees to  further develop the current Motorways of the Sea concept into 
the concept of a European Maritime Space with  the aim to better connect and integrate 
the  maritime  dimension  with  the  landside  network;  in  particular  with  the  European 
Transport  Corridors  through  the  upgrading  of  short-sea  shipping  routes  and  the 
development  of maritime ports and their hinterland connections to  provide an efficient, 
viable  and  sustainable  integration  with  other  modes  of  transport.  It  shall  more  clearly 
define  the  maritime  transport  infrastructure  to  be  implemented  within  the  port  area  / 
within  ports  of  the  core  and  comprehensive  network  and  the  wider  benefit  actions, 
namely those that are not geographically linked to specific ports yet benefit the maritime 
industry  widely,  such  as  support  to  activities  ensuring  year-round  navigability 
(icebreaking), ICT platforms and information systems including sea traffic management 
and electronic reporting systems, hydrographic surveys. 

In  order  to  overcome  capacity  bottlenecks  and  an  insufficient  network  connectivity 
hampering multimodality along the TEN-T, a number of policy measures are included in 
PO2  for  urban  nodes.  In  a  first  place,  all  TEN-T  urban  nodes95  should  be  required  to 
establish a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP), linked with existing air quality and 
noise plans whenever appropriate, and to report on certain key urban mobility data such 
as on GHG and air pollutant emissions, congestion, accidents/injuries, modal share and 
access to mobility services. This would help the Commission to set up a coherent urban 
policy and to  support cities to  evaluate the results of their mobility measures. As such, 
this measure would directly contribute to the achievement of the milestone set out in the 
Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy,  i.e.  to  have  a  large  number  of  carbon-neutral 
cities by 2030 (see measure 8 of Figure 4). In addition, PO2 introduces an obligation to 
develop multimodal passenger hubs for the facilitation of first and last mile connections 

93   Evaluation  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  Case  study  3:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/11f31ae6-4c1d-11ec-91ac-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-243059721 
94   The good navigation status defines additional specific corridor/river basin requirements for hard and 
soft components to be laid down in corridor implementing decisions: e.g. complementary parameters 
and  target  values  for  waterways,  specific  for  free  flowing  stretches;  specifications  for  related 
infrastructure, including its management; specifications for inland ports; appropriate mooring places 
and services for commercial users; resilience to climate change, natural and man-made disasters and 
disruptions;  deployment  of  alternative  energy  infrastructure  to  ensure  corridor-wide  access  to 
alternative  clean  fuels;  requirements  for  digital  applications  and  the  digital  transformation  of  the 
network. 

95   A TEN-T urban node under PO2 refers to the 79 urban nodes of the current Regulation. A TEN-T urban 

node under PO3 refers to the existing and newly identified urban nodes (around 460).  

41 

 
                                                 
(minimum  1  hub  per  urban  node  and  in  addition,  for  cities  larger  than  500.000 
inhabitants, one additional hub per every 500.000 inhabitants) (see measure 9 of Figure 
4). This measure aims to facilitate first and last mile connections from and to the TEN-T 
network which has been identified in the TEN-T evaluation as one of the major obstacles 
for  passengers  to  shift  to  more  sustainable  forms  of  transport.  In  practice,  it  mainly 
addresses  already  existing  passenger  stations.  Next  to  it,  each  urban  node  shall  also 
ensure the availability of multimodal digital mobility services (including MaaS services), 
allowing  passengers  to  access  information  and  book  journeys,  including  for  public 
transport and active modes. Finally, PO2 also includes a measure focusing on the design 
of  transfer  terminals,  e.g.  with  regard  to  the  accessibility  for  all  users,  provision  of 
information  across  modes  (also  covering  first/last  mile  connections),  and  enabling  of 
innovative mobility services96 (see measure 13 of Figure 4). It needs to be underlined that 
under  PO2  all  urban  nodes’  measures  apply  to  the  79  urban  nodes  referenced  in  the 
current TEN-T Regulation.  

For freight terminals, in order to ensure sufficient multimodal freight terminals serving 
the TEN-T, the obligation to establish at least one terminal serving each urban node and 
located in its proximity is analysed (see measure 14 of Figure 4). In practise this would 
mean the obligation to  have at  least  one multimodal  freight  terminal  for all existing 79 
urban  nodes  under  PO2.  Complementary  to  that,  it  is  proposed  to  bring  forward  an 
obligation  for  Member  States  to  conduct  market  and  prospective  analysis  aiming  at 
identifying the existing terminals serving transport flows on the TEN-T, in particular the 
urban nodes as well as the need for new terminals. On the basis and as a result of such 
analysis, Member States would be requested to submit to  the Commission a list of new 
terminals to be included in the TEN-T. The provision of terminals would go hand in hand 
with the introduction of certain requirements, such as the possibility to handle all types of 
intermodal loading units in the respective terminal, the availability of 740 m long tracks 
under the crane, the avoidance of shunting operations (requires electrification) as well as 
the  digitalisation  of  terminals  (see  measure  15  of  Figure  4).  Last  but  not  least,  PO2 
introduces  a  requirement  for  alternative  fuel  infrastructure  in  terminals  –  an  aspect  not 
considered  under  AFIR  (see  measure  5  of  Figure  4).  Indeed,  the  requirements  for 
electrification  are  only  applicable  to  the  railway  access  of  the  terminal.  The  alternative 
fuel infrastructure foreseen here would be targeted at the road and/or IWW parts of the 
terminals  thus  helping  to  decarbonise  also  the  first/last  mile  legs  of  freight  transport 
journeys.  

The  aim  of  PO2  is  also  to  promote  decarbonised  multimodal,  interoperable  solutions 
aiming  at  an  optimal  intermodal  integration  of  the  entire  logistic  chain.  To  this  end, 
certain  standards  of  the  core  network  need  to  be  extended  to  the  comprehensive 
network  in  order  to  grasp  full  network  benefits,  to  increase  interoperability  between 
network  types  and  to  enable  more  activity  by  more  sustainable  forms  of  transport, 
including through higher digitalisation and other technological solutions (see measure 11 
of  Figure  4).  Therefore,  PO2  foresees  the  application  of  the  existing  infrastructure 

96   Besides pure in-vehicle travel time savings, the last-mile of a rail journey and the connectivity of rail 
stations to the urban centres are important aspects for rail travellers. The location of a rail station and 
its integration in the urban and regional public transport networks are key for the attractiveness of a 
high speed rail service. 

42 

 
                                                 
requirements  of the core network also  on the comprehensive network: 22.5 t  axle load, 
100 km/h line speed for freight and the possibility of running trains with a length of 740 
m.  The  same  should  apply  for  the  last  mile  connections  by  rail/IWW  to  maritime  and 
inland  ports  as  well  as  to  terminals.  Even  if  somehow  biased  by  individual  responses 
raising doubts for this measure (in terms of budgetary constraints, feasibility, etc.), this 
measure was still widely supported by the OPC results. Indeed, over 80% of respondents 
supported the extension of a set of requirements (notably the rail freight  standards with 
regard to electrification, train length and axle load).  

In  order  to  address  the  insufficient  safety  and  reliability  of  the  TEN-T  infrastructure, 
measures aiming at ensuring a high-quality road infrastructure not only for the purpose 
of road safety but also for the roll-out and deployment of alternative fuels charging points 
are  introduced  under  PO2.  To  this  aim,  revised  road  standards  are  needed.  In  order  to 
overcome this issue, the obligation to ensure motorway97 standard as the only reference 
road  type  across  the  TEN-T  is  analysed  under  PO2  (with  possibilities  for  exemptions 
based on traffic intensity) (see measure 17 of Figure 4). In addition, a minimum level of 
safe  and  secure  parkings  every  100  km  on  the  core  network  with  the  availability  of 
recharging  points  as  well  as  rest  areas  every  60  km  for  the  core  and  comprehensive 
network are introduced.  

Next to new road standards, there shall also be a binding deadline for new tunnels >500m 
on  TEN-T  sections  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  Directive  2004/54  (“Tunnel 
Directive”)  (see  measure  18  of  Figure  4).  This  measure  aims  to  clarify  the  scope  of 
application of the tunnel directive and the deadlines applicable to tunnels, in particular in 
cases  of  tunnels  which  would  be  added  to  the  TEN-T  network  through  changes  in  the 
maps. 

Lack of maintenance can also be related to safety concerns as shown in Chapter 2. While 
maintenance  is  and  will  remain  the  main  responsibility  of  the  Member  States,  it  is 
important that the TEN-T – once built – is properly maintained to ensure a high quality 
of  services.  Therefore,  the  introduction  of  minimum  quality  standards  for  safety, 
maintenance and project life cycle standards is proposed (see measure 19 of Figure 4).   

In the same spirit, Member States  should be called to screen third country investments 
on the core and the comprehensive network to ensure that these investments comply with 
the TEN-T standards and do not affect continuity of the TEN-T network, hence security 
and public order (see measure 20 of  Figure 4).  The  implementation  of the standards of 
the  TEN-T  Regulation  are  obviously  binding  both  for  the  Member  States  and  for  the 
promoters of projects on the territory of the EU. The problem however is that, in case of 
non-compliance  with  EU  standards,  it  is  difficult  and  very  expensive  to  correct  a 
situation  a  posteriori,  when  the  investments  have  been  made,  for  example  by  requiring 
the removal of a non-compliant rail traffic control system and replacing it with ERTMS. 
Hence  the  added-value  of  a  mechanism  of  notification  so  that  the  Commission  can 
intervene a priori, that is to say before the investment is made.  

97   A  motorway  means  a  road,  specially  designed  and  built  for  motor  traffic  meeting  the  following 
criteria: (a) provided with separate carriageways for the two directions of traffic, separated from each 
other either by a dividing strip not intended for traffic or, exceptionally, by other means; (b) it does 
not cross at level with any road, rail or tramway track, bicycle or footpath.  

43 

 
                                                 
In addition to the various standards introduced, PO2 also aims at assuring consistency of 
infrastructure  development  (which  is  by  default  a  long-term  asset)  with  the  climate 
neutrality and other environmental objectives set out in the Green Deal, such as the “do 
no  significant  harm”  principle98  as  well  as  plans  and  programmes  required  by  existing 
EU environmental acquis. By providing further incentives to develop sustainable forms 
of transport (rail, inland waterways, short sea shipping) and with the implementation of 
all (reinforced) standards and requirements to green transport infrastructure of the TEN-
T, including strategic and project level environmental assessments, it will be assured that 
the  realisation  of  the  TEN-T  is  consistent  with  the  “do  no  significant  harm”  principle 
(DNSH). On top of that, any project on the TEN-T will have to comply with the quality 
standards  set  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation  and  their  realisation  will  contribute  to  the 
achievement  of an EU-wide, multi-modal, smart  and sustainable transport network (see 
measure 7 of Figure 4). 

Finally, to enable better governance of TEN-T, provisions to align national (investment) 
planning with TEN-T priorities will be introduced (see measure 26 of Figure 4). To this 
end,  it  is  foreseen  to  introduce  a  clause  in  the  revised  Regulation  that  would  oblige 
Member  States  to  take  into  account  the  TEN-T  priorities  when  setting  up  the  national 
transport and investment plans, paying particular attention to identified priority sections 
on  each  Corridor.  This  should  also  take  into  consideration  national  energy  and  climate 
plans as well as national air pollution control programmes. 89% of the respondents99 of 
the  OPC  also  agreed  to  this  measure  of  an  improved  alignment  of  planning  and 
implementation  procedures.  In  addition,  it  is  planned  to  make  broader  use  of 
implementing  decisions  (e.g.  for  single  projects  /  horizontal  priorities  and/or  for  entire 
corridors),  even  if  the  use  of  the  instrument  of  implementing  acts  raised  concerns  for 
some stakeholders (12% disagreement100).  

In terms of deadlines for completion of the network, this policy option foresees the core 
network completion by 2030 and the comprehensive network completion by 2050 as in 
the current TEN-T Regulation, with a difference that newly introduced standards on the 
core  and  comprehensive  network  as  well  as  extended  standards  from  the  core  to  the 
comprehensive network would only need to be complied with by 2050.  

Policy Option 3 (PO3):  

Building  upon  PO2,  additional  efforts  are  undertaken  as  to  ensure  a  more  seamless, 
efficient and interoperable transport network earlier by accelerating the completion of the 
TEN-T  and  by  ensuring  a  broad  and  coherent  development  on  the  network.  This  third 
policy option has the highest degree of ambition and intervention as it adds not only upon 
the  first  two  options,  but  on  top  accelerates  and  geographically  extends  many  policy 
measures (see Figure 3).  

98   Regulation  (EU)  2020/852  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  June  2020  on  the 
establishment  of  a  framework  to  facilitate  sustainable  investment,  and  amending  Regulation  (EU) 
2019/2088. 

99   There  is  not  much  variation  by  stakeholder  group:  the  responses  vary  from  85%  (citizens)  to  94% 

(other), with industry (90%) and public authorities (88%) in between.   

100  In terms of stakeholder groups, the percentages of disagreement per group are very similar (10% to 
14%),  including  for  public  authorities  (14%).  However,  when  looking  more  in  depth  at  the  public 
authorities who disagreed with this measure, 73% of them were national authorities.  

44 

 
                                                 
A central objective of PO3 is to adjust the TEN-T in view of creating a greater coherence 
between the different policies and related legal instruments. This translates into a much 
more substantial review of the TEN-T than under PO1.  

Firstly,  it  is  aimed  at  integrating  the  eleven  Rail  Freight  Corridors  (which  cover  the 
operational dimension of rail freight) and nine Core Network Corridors (which focus on 
the implementation and upgrade of infrastructure according to defined TEN-T standards) 
into  ten  so-called  European  Transport  Corridors  (ETC)  (see  measure  22  of  Figure  4). 
The objective is to integrate these two corridor concepts into one, in order to seek better 
synergies  and  to  ensure  that  the  operational  side  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the 
infrastructural  side.  The  merge  of  both  sets  of  corridors  has  however  impacts  on  the 
TEN-T design since not all sections that are part of the RFC are already on the TEN-T. 
To this end, an analysis has been undertaken to evaluate in how far the current RFC and 
CNC  networks  overlap  and  how  the  network  formed  by  both  types  of  corridors  can  be 
better aligned. Those sections of the RFCs which are not yet on the CNC but which are 
evaluated as important for a well-functioning corridor (in particular principal routes and 
critical diversionary routes) are proposed to be added to the newly created instrument of 
ETCs.  Such  alignment  between  both  types  of  corridors  was  also  called  upon  by  the 
stakeholders through the OPC and is indicated as an objective in the SSMS. 

Secondly and equally important is a better inclusion of the urban mobility policy in the 
context of the TEN-T Regulation. The Regulation lists 79 core urban nodes which have 
been used to define the core network overall.  It  is proposed under this policy option to 
define a complete set of urban nodes (around 460) (see measure 23 of Figure 4). Indeed, 
all  cities  above  100,000  inhabitants  and  the  capitals  of  NUTS2  regions  (for  NUTS2 
regions  that  do  not  have  a  city  of  at  least  100,000  inhabitants)  shall  figure  as  TEN-T 
urban  nodes  and  thus  fall  under  the  obligations  being  analysed  for  urban  nodes.  The 
importance of including more urban nodes on the network in order to improve the links 
between long-distance and local travel was also underlined by the OPC with more than 
80% of respondents fully agreeing.   

Thirdly, the EU military transport network101 should be better aligned with the current 
TEN-T (see measure 24 of Figure 4). 93% of the EU military transport network overlaps 
with the current TEN-T. Some sections (roads, railways) of the remaining 7% not yet on 
the  TEN-T  but  which  are  considered  of  European  added  value  and  of  strategic 
importance  not  only  for  the  military  but  in  particular  also  for  the  civilian  use  are 
proposed to be added to the TEN-T.  

These  adaptations  of  the  network  have  important  consequences  for  the  geographical 
scope  of  application  of  the  standards  newly  introduced  under  PO2.  Concretely,  this 
means that the new rail standards (i.e. the P400 loading gauge for rail freight and the 160 
km/h passenger line speed) will apply under PO3 not only for the core network, but also 
for the comprehensive network sections that are part of the ETC. Similarly, the obligation 
to have at least one multimodal freight terminal as well as a multimodal passenger hub 
for  each  urban  node  will  mean  under  PO3  that  460  urban  nodes  have  to  comply  with 

101  Geographic data defined in tables 2.17-2.43 of the Military requirements for Military Mobility within 
and  beyond  the  EU,  update  (ST  10921/19),  4  July  2019,  approved  by  the  Council  on  15  July  and 
consolidated with the remaining part on 19 July (ST 11373/19)  (not published in the Official Journal). 

45 

 
                                                 
these requirements (instead of 79 urban nodes under PO2). As outlined in chapter 2, the 
distance between rail/road terminals is well above 300 km in many regions which limits 
the  viability  of  multimodal  transport  in  regions  without  terminals102.  With  the 
requirement  of  one  terminal  at  least  serving  each  urban  node,  this  problem  would  be 
adequately  addressed  since  all  (but  three)  urban  nodes  under  PO3  would  be  located  at 
less  than  200  km  distance  from  each  other.  In  addition,  a  wider  network  of  terminals 
throughout the TEN-T would help better integrating the maritime links into the TEN-T 
since they would be serving the entire logistic chain.  

Another central objective of PO3 is to accelerate the TEN-T completion. Thus, PO3 goes 
an important step by introducing a new intermediary deadline of 2040 (see measure 6 of 
Figure 4). Thereby, progress on TEN-T will be advanced from 2050 to 2040 on sections 
of  the  comprehensive  network  of  highest  EU  added  value  (notably  the  parts  of  ETC). 
This  also  means  that  all  newly  introduced  standards  under  PO2  would  not  have  to  be 
complied with by 2050 (PO2) but already by 2040 (PO3).  

Apart from these aspects of network expansion and acceleration, PO3 also includes a few 
additional  measures.  Most  importantly,  PO3  introduces  a  legally  binding  deadline  for 
decommissioning  national  (class  B)  systems  and  making  ERTMS  the  only  signalling 
system  used  in  Member  States  by  2040  for  the  core  and  comprehensive  network  (see 
measure 10 of Figure 4). This means advancing the obligation to implement the ERTMS 
standard  for  the  comprehensive  network  to  2040  instead  of  2050.  This  shall  in  return 
alleviate capacity bottlenecks through the quicker deployment of ERTMS.  

Finally, this option also includes a reinforcement of the TEN-T governance tools. PO3 
reviews  the  role  of  the  European  Coordinators,  by  extending  their  mandate  regarding 
their  responsibilities  for  operational  issues  (RFC)  and  to  avoid  duplication  of  certain 
tasks  (e.g.  RFC/CNC  transport  market  studies  and  investment  planning  analysis).  The 
presence of European Coordinators in cross-border entities shall also be institutionalised. 
Finally, the scope of the mandate for topics related to urban nodes and cooperation with 
neighbouring  and  third  countries  shall  be  widened  (see  measure  27  of  Figure  4).  Such 
reinforcement of the Coordinators’ mandates also got wide support in the OPC. 

In terms of deadlines for completion of the network, this policy option foresees the core 
network  completion  (for  existing  standards  under  current  Regulation)  by  2030,  the 
compliance  with  newly  introduced  standards  on  the  core  network  as  well  as  on 
comprehensive sections as part of the ETC by 2040, the ERTMS deployment obligation 
on  the  comprehensive  network  by  2040,  and  the  completion  of  the  rest  of  the 
comprehensive network by 2050.  

5.2.1  5.2.1  Links  between  the  problems,  problem  drivers  and  specific  objectives  in 

relation to each policy option  

Since the overall intervention logic and the links between the problems, problem drivers 
and objectives is quite complex due to the very comprehensive and broad nature of the 

102  If the road leg of multimodal transport on the first/last mile of intermodal services is too long, benefits 
of rail on the long haul are not exploited making road-only transport more economic as transhipment 
costs are avoided. 

46 

 
                                                 
TEN-T  Regulation  covering  not  only  all  transport  modes,  but  also  a  variety  of  other 
horizontal areas, the following sub-section summarizes the links between the problems, 
problem drivers and specific objectives in relation to each policy option which are also 
illustrated through Figure 4 and in further detail in Annex 6.  

Policy Option 1 (PO1) particularly addresses the problem area 1 (lack of integration of 
standards for the alternative fuels infrastructure) by making a link with the standards of 
the  AFIR  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  The  TEN-T  provides  the  infrastructure  basis  for  a 
wide deployment of alternative fuels  and thus clearly addresses the specific objective 1 
(SO1).  PO1  also  addresses  the  problem  of  capacity  bottlenecks  by  introducing  the  ITS 
requirements  for  roads  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  This  in  return  helps  bringing  the 
digitalisation of transport  modes forward  (SO3)  and also  improves the resilience of the 
infrastructure  (SO5).  By  updating  a  number  of  existing  TEN-T  infrastructure  quality 
requirements  and  standards,  the  initiative  also  ensures  an  improved  network  quality 
(SO2)  and  reinforces  the  role  of  urban  nodes  (SO4).  As  regards  problem  area  4 
(inadequate  governance  instruments  and  TEN-T  network  design),  PO1  addresses  SO6 
through  reviewing  the  transport  nodes  and  through  the  inclusion  of  some  measures  to 
harmonise and streamline the existing TEN-T monitoring and reporting tools.  

Policy  Option  2  (PO2)  represents  a  substantial  policy  change  compared  to  PO1  by 
introducing new and more ambitious standards and requirements for all transport modes 
as  to  contribute  to  the  decarbonisation,  digitalisation  and  resilience  of  the  transport 
infrastructure  system.  It  thus  substantially  contributes  to  problem  areas  1,  2  and  3.  For 
instance, by introducing  new rail freight  standards,  it will incentivise rail freight  traffic 
(SO1)  and  an  improved  network  quality  will  be  ensured  (SO2).  Similarly,  the  new 
passenger  rail  standard  addresses  not  only  SO1,  i.e.  giving  a  push  for  passenger  rail 
transport,  but  also  SO3  by  improving  the  safety  and  security  of  transport  which  will 
benefit passengers. Capacity bottlenecks (problem area 2) are addressed mainly through 
new  obligations  for  urban  nodes  (SO4)  and  new  terminal  requirements.  Congestion  is 
equally being addressed through the extension of various rail freight standards from the 
core to the comprehensive network as to grasp benefits for the entire network (SO1 and 
SO2).  Safety  issues  (problem  area  3)  are  mainly  addressed  through  various  new  road 
standards  (thereby  addressing  SO1,  SO3  and  SO5).  In  response  to  problem  area  4 
(inadequate  governance  instruments),  PO2  puts  the  focus  on  the  streamlining  and 
alignment  of  national  plans  with  the  TEN-T  priorities  and  thus  specifically  addresses 
SO6.  

Policy  Option  3  (PO3)  takes  over  all  measures  introduced  under  PO2  and  covers  thus 
equally  all  problem  areas,  problem  drivers  and  specific  objectives.  PO3  adds 
considerable  ambition  in  terms  of  the  completion  of  the  TEN-T  by  advancing  the 
deadline  of  certain  standards  and  sections  of  the  network  to  2040  whilst  keeping  the 
ambitious standards and requirements introduced in PO2. For instance, decommissioning 
the class B systems and thus deploying ERTMS by 2040 on the entire network would be 
a  real  breakthrough  for  solving  the  problems  of  congestion  on  the  rail  freight  network. 
Another  added  value  of  PO3  is  the  update  of  the  TEN-T  network  (maps)  which 
particularly  addresses  the  problem  area  4  of  an  inadequate  TEN-T  network  design  and 
also  reinforces  the  role  of  the  urban  nodes  (SO4)  by  a  better  definition  and  integration 
into  the  network.  It  also  goes  further  in  terms  of  network  alignment  and  adaptation 

47 

 
(SO6),  e.g.  by  creating  European  Transport  Corridors  (replacing  the  existing  Core 
Network Corridors and Rail Freight Corridors).   

In this context, it should also be underlined that numerous measures do not only address 
one  specific  objective.  It  is  thus  not  possible  to  draw  single,  linear  links  between 
problems,  drivers,  objectives  and  measures.  To  give  a  precise  example:  the  new 
requirements  established  for  urban  nodes  under  PO2,  such  as  the  obligation  to  develop 
multimodal hubs to facilitate first and last mile connections for urban nodes larger than 
500,000 inhabitants, responds in a first place to the specific objective 4, i.e. to reinforce 
the  role  of  the  urban  nodes  as  to  enable  seamless  passenger  flows  between  the  TEN-T 
and  local  networks.  Indeed,  multimodal  hubs  are  essential  for  fostering  the  connection 
between  local  and  interregional/international  traffic  systems.  At  the  same  time,  such 
measure also  stimulates  rail traffic  (SO1) and an optimal intermodal  integration (SO2). 
This reflects also in the different problems and drivers that this single measure addresses. 
More  numerous  multimodal  passenger  hubs  throughout  Europe  help  in  a  first  place  to 
ensure  a  better  network  connectivity  to  all  regions  (problem  2)  and  thus  also  help  to 
better integrate urban nodes in the TEN-T (problem driver 2.3). At the same time, such 
hubs definitely also respond to problem driver 1.1 of sustainable modes of transport (in 
this  case  passenger  rail)  which  is  not  efficient  and  fully  attractive  for  users.  This  one 
example  shows  how  interconnected  all  the  different  measures,  objectives  and  problems 
are in the context of the TEN-T Regulation.  

Figure 4: Overview of specific policy objectives, measures and policy options 

Retained policy measure 

Specific 
objective 

Policy options 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

Problem area 1: Insufficient and/or incomplete TEN-T infrastructure standards and lack of 
integration of standards for the alternative fuels infrastructure on the TEN-T that does not enable a 
higher use of more sustainable forms of transport 
1  Rail freight: possibility to run trains loaded with 

SO1, SO2 

- 

- 

- 

SO1, SO3 

SO1, SO2, 
SO5 

intermodal loading units classified as P400 on standard 
pocket wagons (P400 loading gauge)  
- on the TEN-T core network by 2050 

- on the core network and on the comprehensive lines 
that are part of the European Transport Corridors 
(ETC) by 2040  

2  Passenger rail: introduction of a minimum passenger line 
speed of 160 km/h for the passenger core network 
- by 2050 
- by 2040  

3 

IWW:  
Minimum requirements: at least 2.50 m navigable 
channel depth for rivers, canals, lakes and inland ports 
and 5.25 m minimum height under bridges at defined 
reference water levels; Member States assure that locks 
are operated and maintained in such a way that waiting 
times are minimized.  
Additional requirements: definition of good navigation 
status with specific corridor/river basin requirements. 
- by 2050 
- by 2040  

48 































 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Retained policy measure 

Specific 
objective 

4 

Introduction of AFIR references for inland and maritime 
ports, airports, roads and urban nodes 

SO1, SO2, 
SO3, SO4 

5  Development of alternative fuel infrastructure at 

terminals (not defined in AFIR) 

SO1, SO2, 
SO3 

- by 2050 
- by 2040  

6 

Introduction of intermediary deadline of 2040 for:  

SO1-6 

  newly introduced standards on core network  
  completion of comprehensive sections as part of 

European Transport Corridors  

  ERTMS deployment obligation on comprehensive 

network 

7  Assurance of consistency of TEN-T with the ‘Do Not 

Significant Harm’ principle  

SO1, SO2, 
S05 

Policy options 

PO1 


PO2 

PO3 





- 

- 

- 










- 







Problem area 2: Capacity bottlenecks and insufficient network connectivity to all regions that 
hamper multimodality  
8  Obligation for all urban nodes to establish a SUMP and 

SO4 

- 

to report on urban mobility data.  
- for all 79 TEN-T urban nodes listed in the current 

Regulation by 2030  

- for all listed and newly identified core urban nodes by 
2030 and for all newly identified comprehensive urban 
nodes by 2040  

9  For urban nodes on passenger transport:  

  Obligation to develop multimodal hubs to facilitate 
first and last mile connections. 1 hub per urban 
node. In addition, for cities larger than 500.000 
inhabitants, one additional hub per 500.000 
inhabitants.  

  Ensure availability of multimodal digital mobility 

services (including MaaS services). 

- for all 79 existing TEN-T urban nodes by 2050 
- for all listed and newly identified core urban nodes by 
2030 and for all newly identified comprehensive urban 
nodes by 2050 

Introduction of a legally binding deadline for 
decommissioning national (class B) systems and making 
ERTMS the only signalling system used in Member 
States by 2040 for core and comprehensive network and 
thus to advance the ERTMS standard obligation for the 
comprehensive network to 2040 

10 

SO1, SO2, 
SO4 

SO1, SO2, 
SO3, SO5 

11  Rail freight standards’ extension: application of the 

SO1, SO2 

existing infrastructure requirements of the core network 
also on the comprehensive network (22,5 t axle load, 100 
km/h line speed for freight and the possibility of running 
trains with a length of 740 m) 
- for comprehensive network by 2050  
- for ETC comprehensive lines by 2040 and for rest of 

comprehensive network by 2050 

12  Maritime / inland ports / terminals: extension of the 
TEN-T standards to the last mile connection by rail / 
IWW 
- for all TEN-T ports and all terminals as identified in 

2013 Regulation by 2050 

- for all core ports and all core terminals resulting from 

49 

SO1, SO2, 
SO3 












- 













- 



























- 

- 

- 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Retained policy measure 

13 

terminal requirement (measure 14) by 2040 and for all 
comprehensive ports and comprehensive terminals by 
2050  

Introduce new elements for passenger transport, such as 
the design of transfer terminals, accessibility for all 
users, information across modes (also covering first/last 
mile connections), enabling of innovative mobility 
services 
- for all terminals as listed in the current Regulation by 

2050  

- for all existing and newly identified terminals 

(measure 14) by 2040 

14  Freight terminals:  

- at least one multimodal freight terminal serving each 
urban node and in proximity of the urban node;  
- requirements for terminals: all types of intermodal 
loading units can be handled; 740m long tracks exist 
under the crane; no shunting required (includes 
electrification) 
- for all 79 TEN-T urban nodes listed in the current 

Regulation by 2050  

- for all listed and newly identified core urban nodes by 
2040 and for all newly identified comprehensive urban 
nodes by 2050 

Specific 
objective 

Policy options 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

SO1, SO3, 
SO4 

- 





SO1, SO2, 
SO3 

- 































15  Digitalisation of passenger and freight terminals 

SO3, SO5 

- 

- by 2050 
- by 2040  

16 

Introduction of ITS equipment requirements for roads  

SO3, SO5 



Problem area 3: Insufficient safety and reliability of the TEN-T infrastructure  
17  Road:  

SO1, SO3, 
SO5 

  Obligation to ensure motorway standard on core and 
comprehensive network (with exemption clause 
based on traffic intensity).  
- 

for core and comprehensive road network by 
2050 
for core network by 2040 and for 
comprehensive network by 2050 

- 

  minimum level of safe and secure parkings every 

100 km on the core network with the availability of 
recharging points for LDV and HDV  
- 
on the core network by 2050 

- 

on the core network by 2040  

  rest areas every 60 km  

- 

- 

for the core and comprehensive network by 
2050 
for core network by 2040 and for 
comprehensive network by 2050  

18  Binding deadline for new tunnels >500m on TEN-T 
sections to comply with the provisions of Directive 
2004/54 (“Tunnel Directive”) 
- For new tunnels on core and comprehensive network 

SO1, SO3, 
SO5 

by 2050  

50 

- 









- 

- 

- 





































 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Retained policy measure 

Specific 
objective 

Policy options 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

- For new tunnels on core network by 2040 and for new 

19 

tunnels on comprehensive network by 2050  
Introduction of minimum quality standards for 
maintenance and project life cycle standards 

SO5 

20  Foreign Direct Investments: Fully fledged screening of 

SO5 

third country investments on the core and the 
comprehensive network by Member States 













- 

- 

Problem area 4: Inadequate TEN-T governance instruments and TEN-T network design   

21  Update for the transport sections and nodes (ports, 

SO6 

airports, RRT) on the basis of the reference years 2017, 
2018, 2019 with the same % thresholds of 2013 
methodology 

22  Update of the TEN-T maps – RFC alignment:  

SO5, SO6 

  Creation of European Transport Corridors 

integrating RFC and CNC leading to potentially 10 
ETC (Corridors can comprise lines which are part of 
the core and comprehensive network) 

  Integration of RFC sections outside the TEN-T in 

the comprehensive network 

23  Update of the TEN-T maps – urban nodes:  

SO4, SO6 







- 

- 

 

  Inclusion of all urban nodes above 100.000 

inhabitants (if on core network, they become core 
urban nodes; if on comprehensive network, they 
become comprehensive nodes) 

  Inclusion of all capitals of NUTS2 regions as urban 

nodes (core if on the core network, comprehensive if 
on the comprehensive network). However, in the 
case a capital is below 100.000 inhabitants and a 
larger city of that region is already identified as an 
urban node, then that capital should not be included.  

- 

- 

 

24  Update of the TEN-T maps – Military Mobility 

SO5, SO6 

alignment:  

  Most relevant parts of EU military transport network 

- 

- 



(road, railways) that are also used for civilian 
purposes are integrated into the TEN-T.  

25  Streamlining of existing reporting and monitoring 

instruments  

26  Alignment of national transport and investment plans 

with TEN-T / work plan priorities 

27  Review role of the Coordinators, in particular with 

regard to RFC and cross-border projects  

SO6 

SO6 

SO6 







- 

- 





- 



5.2.2  5.2.2  Contribution of each policy option to the European Green Deal  

The  overarching  goal  of  the  TEN-T  revision  is  to  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the 
European Green Deal goals. Each policy option thereby contributes to a different degree:  

In PO1, the contribution to the European Green Deal challenges is mainly limited to the 
inclusion of the AFIR requirements into the TEN-T by which an adequate geographical 
scope  of  application  will  be  enabled  for  the  AFIR  (notably  thanks  to  the  review  of  the 
network (ports, airports, roads).  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
PO2  includes  several  measures  contributing  substantially  to  the  European  Green  Deal 
challenges,  by  setting  new  and/or  more  ambitious  greening  standards  for  the  different 
transport modes and by providing incentives for more sustainable modes of transport and 
hence  stimulating  modal  shift  (e.g.  new  standards  to  promote  rail  freight  transport; 
minimum speed for passenger transport by rail, etc.).  

PO3 includes all measures of PO1 and PO2, but on top accelerates the implementation of 
parts  of  the  TEN-T  to  2040.  This  is  crucial  to  ensure  a  timely  implementation  of  the 
European Green Deal objectives.  

It  goes  without  saying  that  the  TEN-T  Regulation  alone  does  not  fill  the  climate  or 
environmental  gap  addressed  by  the  European  Green  Deal.  Indeed,  there  are  numerous 
other  instruments  that  all  together  address  the  problems  which  is  also  why  a  variety  of 
legal  proposals  (so  called  “Delivering  the  European  Green  Deal”  package)103  has  been 
put forward to  ensure that the transport sector effectively contributes to the revised EU 
climate ambition for 2030. In addition, the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) and the 
Effort  Sharing  Regulation104  ensure  by  definition  that  the  at  least  55%  emissions 
reductions by 2030, relative to 1990, are met. For example, CO2 emissions are capped by 
the  Emissions  Trading  System.  In  particular,  the  new  ETS  for  road  transport  and 
buildings  sets  the  impulse  for  the  road  transport  sector  that  the  required  emissions 
reductions  are  delivered  according  to  the  ETS  cap  –  even  if  the  infrastructure  does  not 
deliver and thus  it does  not  enable higher use of more sustainable transport modes and 
means  (e.g.  electric  vehicles).  In  this  case  the  carbon  price  would  be  higher,  driving  a 
reduction in the road traffic.  

On the other hand, as laid down in the Smart and Sustainable Mobility Strategy, in order 
to achieve the European Green Deal, “decisive action to shift more activity towards more 
sustainable  transport  modes  (notably  increasing  the  number  of  passengers  travelling  by 
rail and commuting by public transport and active modes, as well as shifting a substantial 
amount of freight onto rail, inland waterways, and short sea shipping)” is needed. Such a 
shift will only occur if the sustainable transport modes are (economically) more efficient. 
Today, this is not yet the case, given also that the respective infrastructure is not fit for 
purpose: freight trains cannot easily cross the Alps as there are no relevant base tunnels; 
lack  of  adequate  infrastructure  makes  that  passenger  services  on  rail  are  not  attractive 
enough in terms of travel time compared to other modes of transport; lack of reliability of 
navigability  (water  levels,  bridge  clearance,  etc.)  prevents  the  more  intensive  use  of 
inland  waterways.  The  TEN-T  Regulation  needs  to  ensure  that  the  necessary 
infrastructure  is  available  to  achieve  the  objectives  set  in  the  Sustainable  and  Smart 
Mobility  Strategy  on  the  increased  use  of  sustainable  transport  modes.  The  TEN-T 
revision will hence provide further incentives to  develop  sustainable forms  of transport 
(rail, inland waterways, short sea shipping). Reinforced quality standards will contribute 
to this objective by making sure that the necessary infrastructure is in place to allow for 
efficient and sustainable transport services. Last but not least, it should be stressed in this 
overall  context  that  the  realisation  of  the  projects  on  the  TEN-T  network  will  have  to 
comply with the applicable EU and national legislation on the protection of environment 

103  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/chapeau_communication.pdf 
104  https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/effort/regulation_en 

52 

 
                                                 
and biodiversity. No exception is granted to TEN-T projects. In addition, the high level 
standards  that  will  be  imposed  for  the  realisation  of  projects  on  the  TEN-T  network  to 
“green” transport will be consistent with the “do no significant harm” principle.  

5.3  5.3  Discarded policy measures at an early stage 

Following  an  initial  screening  based  on  findings  from  the  evaluation  and  tested  in  the 
open public consultation (OPC), a range of policy measures were discarded in the context 
of  this  impact  assessment,  also  because  some  of  the  aspects  will  be  addressed  through 
other  EU  legislation  or  soft  policy  instruments.  The  key  discarded  measures,  further 
detailed in Annex 8, are the following: 

 

Introduction  of  a  minimum  line  speed  of  200  km/h  or  above  for  the  rail  passenger 
core network  

 

Introducing a comprehensive network for inland waterways  

  More concrete provisions on innovations such as Hyperloop   

  Binding rules and obligations as well as standards on infrastructure maintenance   

 

Inclusion of a (long-distance) cycling network into TEN-T  

6 

6 WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

This chapter summarizes the main expected economic, social and environmental impacts 
of  each  PO  across  all  transport  modes  at  EU27 level105.  Impacts  are  shown  both  at  the 
level  of  the  TEN-T  and  for  the  entire  transport  network.  In  terms  of  time  horizon,  the 
assessment  has  been  undertaken  up  to  2050.  For  calculating  the  present  value  of 
monetary costs a 4% discount rate has been used.  

The policy measures that are part of the POs have different times of implementation (see 
Figure 5): certain measures are to be implemented as of adoption of the new Regulation 
(e.g. enhancement of the role of European Coordinators whilst other measures such as the 
TEN-T standards are to be implemented depending on the geographical location (core  / 
ETC versus comprehensive network) by 2030, 2040 or 2050 (depending on the PO) (see 
Figure 4 and Annex 6). In the model, the measures are phased-in up to 2030, 2040 and 
2050  since  investments  are  implemented  gradually  over  time.  Detailed  explanations  on 
the inputs for modelling used for the quantification of the policy measures as well as the 
related assumptions and additional results are provided in Annex 4 (section 3 and 4).   

105  The  quantification  of  impacts,  where  possible,  has  been  undertaken  with  the  ASTRA  and  TRUST 
models.  This  has  been  complemented  by  input  from  stakeholders  and  desk  research.  References  to 
the  sources  of  specific  information  and  explanations  of  assumptions  underlying  various  cost  and 
benefits results are further presented in Annex 4. 

53 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 5: Deadlines for the completion of the network for each Policy Option 

Policy Option 1 
“updated TEN-T” 

Policy Option 2 
“upgraded TEN-T” 

Deadlines for completion: 
2030:  
- 

core network 
completion 

2050:  
- 

comprehensive network 
completion  

Deadlines for completion: 
2030:  
- 

core network completion 
(with regard to 2013 
TEN-T standards) 

2050:  
- 

extended core network 
standards on 
comprehensive network  
newly introduced 
standards on both core 
and comprehensive 
network  
comprehensive network 
completion 

- 

- 

Policy Option 3 
“accelerated and better 
aligned TEN-T” 

Deadlines for completion: 
2030:  
- 

core network 
completion (with 
regard to 2013 TEN-T 
standards) 

2040:  
- 

- 

newly introduced 
standards on core 
network  
completion of 
comprehensive 
sections as part of 
European Transport 
Corridors  

-  ERTMS deployment 

obligation on 
comprehensive 
network 

2050:  
-  Completion of rest of 
comprehensive 
network 

It needs to be underlined that all POs are composed of measures of very different nature 
and not all measures can be quantified. For example, the review of the network and of the 
transport nodes is an essential part of the revision of the current Regulation as to ensure 
that  the  network  still  matches  the  basic  objectives  of  the  Regulation  (removing 
bottlenecks, improving connectivity of all regions of the EU). This will lead for example 
to  removing  certain  ports  and  airports  from  the  list  of  the  transport  nodes  and  the 
identification  of  new  ports  and  airports  which  are  relevant  for  the  completion  of  a 
multimodal network. The net impact might appear very limited since the overall number 
of transport nodes remains very similar106. However, the negative impact if such review 
is  not  performed  could  be  very  high  as  the  TEN-T  would  no  longer  match  with  the 
objectives  of  the  Regulation  and  the  reality  of  the  infrastructure  development  plans  of 
Member States. The possible negative impact of not updating the list of transport nodes 
would  thereby  be  in  the  first  place  of  financial  nature.  For  instance,  in  its  report 
“Maritime transport in the EU: in troubled waters — much ineffective and unsustainable 
investment”,  the  Court  of  Auditors  has  criticised  certain  past  investments  in  ports  as 
being  not  sufficiently  effective  and  efficient,  because  they  were  not  targeted  at 
infrastructures  which  have  a  potential  to  contribute  to  the  TEN-T  connectivity.  There 
would thus be a risk that for example financing decisions for alternative fuels would be 

106  The analysis of the three-year statistical thresholds for the definition of the transport nodes results in 
44  ports  to  be  newly  added  to  the  TEN-T,  whilst  42  to  be  removed.  For  airports,  one  new  airport 
would be added, whilst 5 would be removed.  

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                 
based on an outdated assessment that the port would be of European relevance because of 
its presence in the TEN-T based on past traffic volumes. There would be also a political 
risk of undermining the credibility of the EU approach applied to TEN-T ports if this was 
applied to ports which are no longer relevant. The same holds for nodes which should be 
included because they have increased in traffic flows and hence in importance.  

As a result, policy option 1 has been considered as a valid option to be further assessed, 
even if it addresses only a basic level of intervention (and thus limited impacts) aiming at 
optimizing  the  current  instruments  with  only  limited  legislative  changes  to  the  existing 
framework. The assessment of the POs  relative to the Baseline  excludes the impacts of 
the  revision  of  the  AFIR  and  ITS,  which  are  assessed  in  separate  impact  assessments, 
even though there is a direct link with the TEN-T Regulation.107 The TEN-T Regulation 
will  not  only  add  references  to  the  respective  AFIR  and  ITS  standards,  but  most 
importantly guarantees that the correct and high-quality network basis for the deployment 
of those standards is ensured. AFIR and ITS will deliver on their objectives only if the 
TEN-T  network,  which  is  used  as  infrastructure  basis  for  their  deployment,  is  of  high 
quality (e.g. TEN-T motorways must be well maintained and equipped with high quality, 
safe and accessible parkings to ensure a smooth deployment of AFIR charging points).  

The impacts of the POs are assessed in the context of a policy environment achieving the 
overall  55%  emission  reduction  objective  by  2030,  which  is  embedded  in  the  baseline 
scenario.  This  means  that  the  synergies  between  the  ‘Delivering  the  European  Green 
Deal’  initiatives  and  the  current  initiative  are  taken  into  account.  Where  relevant,  the 
analysis below also provides a comparison with the Reference scenario 2020 (REF2020).  

6.1  6.1  Economic impacts 

Economic  impacts  have  been  assessed  in  terms  of  investment  needs,  impacts  on  GDP, 
impacts on SMEs, administrative burden for public authorities and impacts on transport 
activity.  

6.1.1  6.1.1 

Investment needs  

In  order  to  implement  the  current  TEN-T  Regulation  (i.e.  in  the  baseline),  total 
investment needs over the period 2021-2030 are estimated at about EUR 500 billion for 
the  TEN-T  core  network  (EUR  50  billion  per  year  on  average),  and  at  about  EUR  1.5 
trillion  for  the  TEN-T  comprehensive  network  and  other  transport  investments  up  to 
2050 (including the core network investments;  EUR 50 billion per  year  on average)108. 
The measures  introduced through the revised TEN-T Regulation  would  add investment 
needs  of  around  EUR  15.1  billion  per  year  for  PO2  and  EUR  16.4  billion  per  year  for 
PO3  for  2025-2050,  relative  to  the  baseline.  This  represents  a  30%  increase  in  the 
average annual investments for PO2 relative to the baseline, and a 33% increase for PO3. 

107  The revision of AFIR is included in the Baseline scenario. Thus, when comparing the impacts of the POs 
to  the  Baseline,  AFIR  impacts  are  excluded.  ITS  impacts  will  be  assessed  in  the  impact  assessment 
accompanying the revision of the ITS Directive. 

108  Commission’s estimate based on the regular monitoring of the CNC project pipeline (CNC project list) 
2017: 

as 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/default/files/delivering_ten_t.pdf 

Member 

August 

States’ 

survey 

well 

as 

of 

a 

55 

 
                                                 
The  additional  investments  needed  for  PO1  are  negligible  relative  to  the  baseline  (see 
Table 1).  

In  this  context,  it  should  be  stated  upfront  that  the  measures  identified  in  this  impact 
assessment go far beyond the budgetary planning, both of the Member States and of the 
European Union  (e.g.  the current  EU  financial perspective  goes  until  the end of 2027). 
Most  of  the  new  measures  will  have  to  be  implemented  by  2040  and  then  2050.  It  is 
therefore clear that the funding needed to implement these measures is not  yet secured. 
Nevertheless, the new TEN-T Regulation will act as a catalyst to mobilise the necessary 
funds. For instance, as far as EU funding is concerned, the new TEN-T Regulation will 
be  used  as  a  reference  to  prepare  the  proposal  for  the  next  Connecting  Europe  Facility 
(CEF  III, for the period  after 2027). Similarly, the TEN-T Regulation is  also  used as  a 
reference for many other types of (private) investments. For example, the decisions of a 
private bank to finance a port might depend on the fact that the port is identified as part 
of the TEN-T network. The fact that the port is on the TEN-T will reassure the bank that 
the  Member  State  will  develop  multimodal  access  infrastructure  to  that  port  and  will 
ensure  refuelling  infrastructure,  and  that  the  port  will  thus  be  attractive  for  shipping 
companies. 

The investments for each PO, by type of measure and by Member State, are provided in 
Annex 4 (section 4).109 With regard to the level of investments, two measures stand out in 
particular:  the  introduction  of  a  minimum  passenger  line  speed  of  160  km/h  for  the 
passenger core network (34% of the additional investment costs in PO2 and 31% in PO3) 
and the extension of certain standards from the core to the comprehensive network (22.5 t 
axle load, 100 km/h line speed for freight and 740m trains) which represent around 50% 
of the additional investment costs in PO2 and 47% in PO3. Together, these two measures 
account  for almost 84% of the total  additional investments estimated for PO2 and  78% 
for PO3.  

The  average  annual  investment  needs  at  EU  level  for  the  period  2025-2030  amount  to 
EUR 15.1 billion in PO2 and to EUR 22.2 billion in PO3, which accounts for 0.1% and 
0.2% of GDP, respectively. The relatively higher investment needs under PO3 up to 2030 
result from the fact that this PO foresees the extension of the network (inclusion of RFC 
and  dual  use  infrastructures)  which  would  trigger  early  investments  for  these  newly 
included infrastructures to meet some of the already existing TEN-T requirements. The 
average annual investment needs for the period 2031-2050 amount to EUR 15.1 billion in 
PO2  and  to  EUR  14.7  billion  in  PO3,  which  accounts  for  around  0.1%  of  the  GDP  in 
both  POs.  The  relatively  lower  investment  needs  under  PO3  during  2031-2050  result 
from the fact that, as already explained, some investments are anticipated to the period up 
to  2030  and  hence  less  investment  is  needed  on  those  sections  to  meet  TEN-T 
requirements.  

109  Detailed assumptions for calculating the investment needs by type of measure are provided in Annex 

4 (section 3). 

56 

 
  
 
 
                                                 
Table 1:  Average  annual  investments  for  2025-2030  and  2031-2050  in  the  EU27  [Mln.  €2015], 
expressed as difference to the baseline 
Average annual investments by time period (difference to the 
baseline, in million €2015) 
2025-2030 
2031-2050 
2025-2050 
Source: M-Five 

15,084 
15,134 
15,123 

22,163 
14,717 
16,436 

0 
0 
0 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

The  investments  by  type  of  funding  (see  Table  2)  are  estimated  drawing  on  similar 
projects  in  the  pipeline  for  the  core  and  comprehensive  TEN-T110.  The  largest  part  of 
investments  is  estimated  to  originate  from  national  public  funding  (around  55%  of  the 
total  additional  investments).  Another  large  part  of  funding  (estimated  at  around  38%) 
would  be  borne  by  EU  funds.  Private  funds,  EIB  loans  and  toll  revenues  would  only 
constitute  a  smaller  part  for  financing  the  policy  measures.  Overall,  costs  for  public 
authorities (i.e. national public funds, EU funds, EIB loans111) would amount to around 
99% of the total investment needs.  

Expressed as present value over 2021-2050, additional investments needs are estimated 
at EUR 206.5 billion for PO2 and EUR 247.5 billion for PO3.  

Table 2:  Average annual investments for 2025-2050 per policy option and by type of funding in the 
EU27 [Mln. €2015], expressed as difference to the baseline 

Average annual investments by type of funding (difference to 
the baseline, in million €2015) 

National public funding 
EU funds 
Private funds 
EIB loans 
Toll revenues 
Total 
Source: M-Five 

6.1.2  6.1.2 

Impacts on GDP 

Levels 

Share in total 

PO2 
8,524 
5,747 
85 
648 
118 
15,123 

PO3 
9,009 
6,310 
98 
901 
118 
16,436 

PO2 
56.4% 
38.0% 
0.6% 
4.3% 
0.8% 
100%  100% 

PO3 
54.8% 
38.4% 
0.6% 
5.5% 
0.7% 

All policy options are expected to have a positive impact in terms of economic growth112. 
Due to the fact that the impacts of the measures included in PO1 cannot be quantified (or 
a quantification is not representative for the actual impact, e.g. the necessary review and 
update  of  the  TEN-T  would  lead  to  a  quasi-neutral  quantitative  impact),  there  are  no 

110  Project Database from the study Schade et al., 2018, the impact of TEN-T completion on growth, jobs 

and the environment. And CNC corridor studies (project list) and work plans.  

111  EIB loans are not counted as private investments. 
112  The results of the GDP and employment impacts have been cross-referenced with existing literature. 
However, the literature specific to TEN-T infrastructure is rare and various reasons suggest that TEN-T 
projects generate higher economic impacts than other investments. Previous studies which consider 
other fiscal spending or sectors with a smaller potential to generate productivity are limited in their 
time horizon (i.e. they miss out some second-round effects) or focus on individual regions/ countries 
and deny network effects.  The order of magnitude of reported  impacts on GDP and employment  in 
this impact assessment are consistent with those of earlier studies, e.g. the 2015 study on the “Cost of 
non-completion of the TEN-T” or the 2018 study on “The impact of TEN-T completion on growth, jobs 
and  the  environment”.  The  multiplier  effects  of  investments,  drawing  on  the  ASTRA  model  results, 
have also been discussed in the past with EIB.  

57 

 
                                                 
 
 
measurable impacts for PO1 to illustrate. However, this does not mean that PO1 does not 
contribute  to  economic  growth.  PO1  aims  at  reinforcing  the  implementation  of  the 
current  TEN-T  Regulation  by  an  improved  monitoring  and  governance  as  well  as  an 
update of the TEN-T with the aim to ensure the completion of the TEN-T by the given 
deadlines  2030/2050.  PO1  thereby  ensures  that  the  development  of  the  TEN-T  is 
correctly  targeted  and  in  line  with  the  evolution  of  transport  flows  and  infrastructure 
planning since 2013. This in return guarantees that the GDP growth driven by the current 
TEN-T can unfold without any delay.  

In  PO2  and  PO3  the  impacts  on  GDP  are  estimated  at  0.3%  and  0.4%  in  2030, 
respectively,  relative  to  the  Baseline.  The  impacts  are  estimated  to  be  much  higher  by 
2050  (1.8%  in  PO2  and  2.4%  in  PO3)  (see  Table  3).  These  impacts  account  for  wider 
effects  than  only  the  construction  of  projects,  namely  the  indirect  effects  on  other 
economic sectors and the effects induced by increased productivity, improved conditions 
for international trade and technological spill-overs. It also needs to be clearly underlined 
that TEN-T investments have a greater multiplier effect on GDP the earlier they are made 
(i.e. 2040 in PO3 versus 2050 in PO2).  

Table 3: 

Impacts on EU27 GDP in the policy options relative to the Baseline 

% change to 
the Baseline 

Baseline (billion €2015) 

PO1 

PO2  

PO3 

2030 

2040 

2050  2030  2040  2050  2030  2040  2050  2030  2040  2050 

Impacts on 
GDP 
Source: Astra model 

14,539  16,967  19,698  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.3%  0.9%  1.8%  0.4%  1.3%  2.4% 

At  country  level,  the  impact  depends  on  the  size  of  TEN-T  investments  and  on  their 
relation  to  national  GDP  and  to  total  investments  in  a  Member  State  (see  Figure  4). 
Productivity  and  demand  impulses  from  TEN-T  investments  provide  (on  average) 
stronger impacts in lower income Member States. Countries with higher productivity see 
smaller changes from additional investments compared to those with lower productivity. 
The  economic  gains  also  vary  depending  on  the  benefits  in  particular  sectors  in  each 
country as well as on the funding mechanism chosen for the investment. 

Figure 6: 
left side; PO3 – right side) 

Impacts on GDP in the policy options, by Member State, relative to the Baseline (PO2 – 

Source: Astra model 

58 

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%ATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLULVMTNLPLPTROSESISK% change in GDP2030204020500%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%ATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLULVMTNLPLPTROSESISK% change in GDP203020402050 
 
 
 
6.1.3  6.1.3 

Impact on SMEs  

While most of the construction activities as well as the provision of digital technologies 
(e.g. ERTMS) are expected to be provided by rather large companies, the upgrade of the 
infrastructure for combined railway transport and of terminals will generate opportunities 
to  establish  services  for  small-  and  medium  sized  companies  even  though  in  some 
segments  also  large  players  exist.  Main  stakeholders  concerned  are  the  railway 
undertakings in the freight market, the rail freight terminal operators, trucking companies 
and operators at passenger terminals.  

In  particular,  improving  the  rest  areas  and  parking  situation  for  regional  and  long-
distance  trucking  will  benefit  the  large  number  of  small  driver-owned  trucking 
companies, which are actually among the smallest enterprises in the transport domain, as 
they depend on a dense and quality network of parking areas. Therefore, PO2 and hence 
PO3 will be the most beneficial for SMEs, while PO1 is not expected to  generate such 
benefits. However, it was not possible to quantify these impacts.  

Moreover, the measures under PO2 and PO3 to better integrate urban developments into 
TEN-T,  in  particular  through  the  development  of  multi-modal  (passenger  and  freight) 
terminals, will also directly benefit SMEs which need such infrastructure to develop their 
services in cities. 

6.1.4  6.1.4  Administrative burden  

The  administrative  burden  for  public  authorities  and  private  sector,  expressed  as 
additional costs relative to the baseline, mainly stem from the requirements for Member 
States  to  participate  in  the  governance  of  an  additional  European  Transport  Corridor 
(ETC),  to  put  in  place  modified  monitoring  and  governance  systems  for  the  TEN-T 
implementation  and  to  step  up  efforts  for  a  better  alignment  of  national  plans  with  EU 
priorities (PO3). The costs thus cover for instance the provision of information regarding 
the  status  of  the  TEN-T  network  in  the  respective  Member  State  (by  national 
administrations,  project  promoters,  infrastructure  managers)  for  its  use  in  the  TENtec 
database  and  the  corridor  studies  as  well  as  the  participation  of  representatives  of 
Member  States,  project  promoters,  infrastructure  managers,  regional  representatives  in 
TEN-T Committees, corridor fora and workshops. 

At  the  same  time,  the  integration  of  the  CNC  and  RFC  into  the  ETC  will  lead  to 
synergies  and  thus  to  cost  and  time  savings  for  public  authorities  (e.g.  less  costs  for 
related  studies  due  to  the  reduction  of  overlaps).  Similarly,  costs  for  public  authorities 
will  be  reduced  through  the  streamlining  of  reporting  requirements  already  under  PO1 
which however could not be quantified.  

In  terms  of  timing,  the  costs  would  increase  after  the  adoption  of  the  revised  TEN-T 
Regulation  in  order  to  adjust  to  the  new  standards  and  requirements  introduced  in  the 
revised Regulation (both for Member States and EC / European Coordinators); however, 
one  should  expect  a  reduction  of  the  cost  increases  once  the  adaptations  have  been 
integrated  after  the  first  four  years  of  implementation.  Overall,  the  additional 
administrative costs relative to the baseline are moderate, especially compared with the 
ambitious revision plans under PO2 and even more so under PO3.  

59 

 
In PO2, in the first four years after the adoption the Commission would have to spend on 
average EUR 1.601 million per year relative to the baseline. In the following period, net 
costs  for  the  Commission  are  estimated  at  EUR  536,000  per  year  (i.e.  EUR  715,000 
additional  costs  and  EUR  179,000  savings  per  year).  Costs  for  Member  States’  public 
authorities  are  estimated  to  be  lower,  at  EUR  931,000  per  year  in  the  first  4  years  and 
EUR 389,000 per year for the following years of the implementation of the revised TEN-
T  Regulation.  Private  sector  (such  as  operators  on  the  infrastructure  and  hauliers, 
transport  associations  etc.)  would  incur  net  costs  of  EUR  1.265  million  per  year  in  the 
first 4 years and EUR 224,000 per year in the following period (i.e. EUR 1.375 million 
costs per year and EUR 110,000 savings per year in the first 4 years; EUR 370,000 per 
year  additional  costs  in  the  first  4  years  and  EUR  146,000  savings  per  year  for  the 
following  period).  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2021-2050,  net  costs  for  the  public 
authorities are estimated at EUR 17.6 million (i.e. EUR 10.6 million for the Commission 
and EUR 7 million for Member States public authorities) and those for the private sector 
at EUR 6.3 million.  

In PO3, in the first four years after the adoption the Commission would have to spend on 
average EUR 2.39 million per year relative to the baseline. In the following period, net 
costs for the Commission are estimated at EUR 800,000 per year (i.e. EUR 1.067 million 
additional  costs  and  EUR  267,000  savings  per  year).  Costs  for  Member  States’  public 
authorities are estimated to be lower, at EUR 1.275 million per year in the first 4 years 
and EUR 533,000 per year for the following years of the implementation of the revised 
TEN-T  Regulation.  Private  sector  (such  as  operators  on  the  infrastructure  and  hauliers, 
transport  associations  etc.)  would  incur  net  costs  of  EUR  1.733  million  per  year  in  the 
first 4 years and EUR 306,000 per year in the following period (i.e. EUR 1.883 million 
costs per year and EUR 150,000 savings per year in the first 4 years; EUR 506,000 per 
year  additional  costs  in  the  first  4  years  and  EUR  200,000  savings  per  year  for  the 
following  period).  Expressed  as  present  value  over  2021-2050,  net  costs  for  the  public 
authorities are estimated at EUR 25.4 million (i.e. EUR 15.8 million for the Commission 
and  EUR  9.6  million  for  Member  States  public  authorities)  and  those  for  the  private 
sector at EUR 8.6 million.  

More  details  on  the  administrative  costs,  drawing  on  the  impact  assessment  support 
study, are included in Annex 4 (section 4). 

6.1.5  6.1.5 

Impacts on transport activity  

An improved infrastructure basis for efficient transport is one of the primary goals of the 
creation of the TEN-T. The transport impacts of the policy options have been assessed at 
EU27 level, for the entire transport network and  also  for the  TEN-T.113 Figures for the 
comprehensive network include the core network. 

113  The results cover all mobility segments (i.e. urban, short and long distance traffic, both domestic and 
international)  for  road  (excluding  powered-two-wheelers),  rail  (including  tram  and  metro),  inland 
waterways, air (intra-EU traffic) and maritime (intra-EU traffic / Short Sea Shipping). The impacts are 
shown per type of transport activity (passenger transport, freight transport). 

60 

 
                                                 
6.1.5.1  6.1.5.1  Passenger transport activity  

The update of the transport sections and nodes under PO1 will lead to a better network 
integration. Similarly, the enhancement of the TEN-T implementation will contribute to 
the reinforcement of the sustainable modes of transport and thus have positive effects in 
terms of passenger rail transport activity. 

Passenger transport activity is particularly influenced by the introduction of the 160 km/h 
line  speed  standard  for  passenger  rail  core  network  lines  under  PO2  by  2050  and 
accelerated  under  PO3  by  2040,  with  related  investments  and  realisation  gradually 
phasing  in  as  of  2030  and  fully  operational  by  2050/2040.  The  thereby  increased 
attractiveness of the TEN-T rail network is expected to induce a shift to rail.  

Under PO2, this results in a reduction of 0.4% of activity by car by 2040 relative to the 
baseline and 0.5% by 2050 and an increase of 2.1% of rail passenger transport activity by 
2040 and of 3.5% by 2050 for all transport network. Under PO3, the introduction of the 
new passenger rail standard is anticipated to 2040 which results in an increase of 3.4% of 
activity by rail by that year and a slightly higher impact (3.5%) by 2050 at EU27 level. 
Overall, by 2050, PO3 performs quite similar to PO2 with a reduction of 0.4% of activity 
by  car.  Relative  to  the  REF2020,  the  impacts  on  rail  activity  are  however  much  more 
significant, resulting in an increase of around 7% by 2050 in PO2 and PO3. As explained 
before,  the  baseline  scenario  already  takes  into  account  the  context  of  the  policy 
environment achieving the overall 55% emission reduction objective by 2030 and climate 
neutrality by 2050. This is the reason for more limited impacts relative to the baseline.  

Table 4: 
Baseline for all transport network, core TEN-T and comprehensive network  

Impacts on EU27 total passenger transport activity in the policy options relative to the 

% change to 
Baseline 

Baseline (Gpkm) 

PO1 

PO2  

PO3 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050  2030 

2040 

2050  2030 

2040 

2050 

4,932 
553 
685 
715 
6,885 

4,532 
530 
591 
602 
6,255 

All transport network 
Car 
Bus 
Rail 
Air (intra EU)  
Total passenger 
transport 
Core TEN-T network 
Car 
Bus 
Rail 
Total  
Comprehensive TEN-T network 
Car 
Bus 
Rail 
Total  
Source: ASTRA and TRUST models 

917 
43 
273 
1,233 

1,424 
65 
380 
1,869 

1,076 
48 
324 
1,448 

1,673 
73 
450 
2,195 

5,258  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  -0.2%  -0.4%  -0.5%  -0.2%  -0.5%  -0.4% 
579  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  1.6%  1.8%  1.7%  1.6%  1.7%  1.7% 
771  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.2%  2.1%  3.5%  0.2%  3.4%  3.5% 
813  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  -0.2%  -0.4%  0.0%  -0.2%  -0.3% 
7,420  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.1%  0.1%  0.0%  0.1%  0.1% 

1,247  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  -0.4%  -0.9%  0.0%  -0.7%  -0.7% 
51  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  -0.3%  -0.7%  0.0%  -0.5%  -0.7% 
370  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  -0.2%  5.0%  8.4%  -0.2%  8.4%  8.4% 
1,668  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.8%  1.1%  0.0%  1.3%  1.3% 

1,926  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  -0.4%  -0.9%  0.5%  -0.1%  -0.2% 
77  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  -0.3%  -0.2%  0.0%  -0.3%  -0.2% 
513  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  2.4%  4.6%  1.1%  5.7%  5.7% 
2,516  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.2%  0.3%  0.6%  1.0%  1.0% 

Looking  at  the  TEN-T  network,  PO2  results  in  an  overall  increase  of  8.4%  of  rail 
transport  activity  on  the  core  network  and  of  4.6%  on  the  comprehensive  network  in 
2050  relative  to  the  baseline.  In  PO3,  the  anticipated  implementation  of  the  passenger 
speed measure is coupled with the extension of the TEN-T comprehensive network and 
thus projected to increase rail transport activity on the core network by 8.4% and on the 
comprehensive network by 5.7% relative to the baseline by 2050.  

61 

 
 
The  impact  on  passenger  modal  split  along  the  TEN-T  shows  that  the  improved 
competitiveness  of  the  TEN-T  core  rail  network  in  both  PO2  and  PO3  is  projected  to 
result in 1.6 percentage points (p.p.) increase in the rail share on the core network and in 
a 0.9 p.p. increase on the comprehensive network by 2050 relative to the baseline. In PO3 
however the increase in the rail modal share is higher by 2040 (1.6 p.p. increase for the 
core  network  and  0.9  p.p.  for  the  comprehensive  network)  relative  to  PO2  (0.9  p.p. 
increase for the core network and 0.5 p.p. for the comprehensive network). 

6.1.5.2  6.1.5.2  Freight transport activity  

Similarly to the passenger transport, the update of the transport sections and nodes under 
PO1  will  lead  to  a  better  network  integration.  The  enhancement  of  the  TEN-T 
implementation will contribute to the reinforcement of the sustainable modes of transport 
and thus have positive effects in terms of rail freight transport activity. 

Freight transport activity by rail is fostered by the introduction of the P400 loading gauge 
measure  (on  core  network  sections  by  2050  under  PO2  and  for  core  and  ETC 
comprehensive network  sections by  2040 under  PO3) as well as the  extension of some 
rail  standards  from  the  core  to  the  comprehensive  network  (22.5  t  axle  load,  100  km/h 
speed for rail freight lines, 740 m train length). In addition, measures with regard to the 
last  mile  accessibility  of  freight  terminals  also  enhance  the  operational  aspect  of  rail 
freight activity.  

This  results  in  an  increase  of  rail  freight  activity  at  EU27  level  for  the  entire  transport 
network by  1.1% by  2040  and by 2.4% by 2050  relative to  the baseline  under PO2.  In 
PO3,  this  results  in  a  1.6%  increase  by  2040  and  a  3.5%  increase  of  EU27  rail  freight 
activity by 2050. Relative to the REF2020, the impacts on rail activity are however much 
more significant, resulting in an increase of 8.6% by 2050 in PO2 and 9.7% in PO3. 

Focusing at the TEN-T only, the measures of PO2 result in an overall increase of 3.5% 
on  the  comprehensive  network  and  of  3.4%  of  activity  on  the  core  network  by  2050 
relative to the baseline. The extension of the TEN-T standards to the last mile connection 
of maritime ports envisaged in PO2 and PO3 is also projected to result in a 0.1% increase 
of transport activity at core ports, reflecting also some positive development for SSS. For 
PO3,  the  evolution  is  as  follows:  a  5.3%  increase  of  rail  freight  activity  on  the 
comprehensive network by 2050 and a 3.2% increase of rail freight activity by 2050 on 
the core network. The main  difference between PO2 and PO3 here is  however that the 
increase in the rail freight transport activity under PO3 is much more important already 
by  2040  than  under  PO2;  hence  generating  higher  leverage  effects  at  a  much  earlier 
stage.    

In terms of modal split, the rail sector gains 0.8 p.p. relative to the baseline in PO2 versus 
1.2 p.p. in PO3 on the TEN-T comprehensive network and 0.8 p.p. in PO2 and 0.9 p.p. in 
PO3 on the core network by 2050 – in both cases to the detriment of the road sector. For 
the entire transport network, the modal split of inland modes shows a gain of 0.5 p.p. for 
rail and a decrease of 0.4 p.p. for the road sector in PO2 by 2050. In PO3 by 2050, this 
leads to 0.6 p.p. increase of rail freight to the detriment of the road mode. The share of 
IWW in inland modes remains stable in both POs relative to the baseline and thus does 
not lose its competitiveness, despite the slight reduction of 0.2% in the transport activity 
relative to the baseline in 2050. Conversely intra-EU maritime traffic  which is  a proxy 
62 

 
for the short sea shipping is projected to slightly increase by 0.1% in PO2 relative to the 
baseline  and  to  remain  stable  in  PO3  by  2050.  The  baseline  scenario  shows  sustained 
growth  in  inland  waterways  and  short  sea  shipping  activity  relative  to  2015  (19%  by 
2030 and 44% by 2050), as explained in section 5.1, despite not delivering on the SSMS 
milestone.  

As regards IWW, it should be highlighted that the modelling of inland waterways is not 
differentiated  by  seasons,  thus  different  water  levels  and  consequently  different 
navigation  status  is  not  explicitly  considered  in  the  model.  Notwithstanding  the 
constraints  on  the  developments  of  IWW  traffic  (hydrography,  obstacles  to  develop 
infrastructure  on  free  flow  rivers  because  of  the  impact  on  biodiversity),  the 
implementation of the good navigation status would lead to a more reliable infrastructure 
for inland waterway transport, increasing its attractiveness and potential. 

Table 5: 
Baseline for all transport network, core TEN-T and comprehensive network 

Impacts  on  EU27  total  freight  transport  activity  in  the  policy  options  relative  to  the 

% change to 
Baseline 

Baseline (Gtkm) 

PO1 

PO2  

PO3 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2,498 
752 
201 
1,659 
5,111 

2,293 
670 
186 
1,483 
4,632 

2,156 
569 
172 
1,336 
4,234 

All transport network 
Road 
Rail 
IWW 
Maritime 
(intra EU)  
Total freight 
transport 
Core TEN-T network 
Road 
Rail 
IWW 
Total  
Comprehensive TEN-T network 
Road 
1,435 
Rail 
502 
IWW 
154 
2,090 
Total  
Source: ASTRA and TRUST models 

1,023 
370 
154 
1,546 

1,127 
430 
168 
1,724 

1,561 
581 
168 
2,309 

1,218 
475 
178 
1,871 

1,674 
643 
178 
2,495 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

-0.1% 
1.1% 
-0.2% 
0.1% 
0.1% 

-0.3% 
2.4% 
-0.2% 
0.1% 
0.3% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

-0.2% 
1.6% 
-0.2% 
0.1% 
0.2% 

-0.4% 
3.5% 
-0.2% 
0.0% 
0.3% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

-0.4% 
1.1% 
-0.1% 
0.0% 

-0.8% 
3.4% 
-0.1% 
0.3% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

-0.7% 
1.7% 
-0.1% 
-0.1% 

-1.5% 
3.2% 
-0.1% 
-0.2% 

0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 
0.0% 

-0.5% 
1.5% 
-0.1% 
0.0% 

-0.9% 
3.5% 
-0.1% 
0.3% 

0.3% 
1.1% 
0.0% 
0.5% 

-0.5% 
3.5% 
-0.1% 
0.5% 

-1.3% 
5.3% 
-0.1% 
0.5% 

6.1.5.3  6.1.5.3  Impacts on congestion 

The reduction in the external costs of inter-urban road congestion for passenger cars and 
freight HDVs is estimated at around EUR 2,185 million in PO2 and EUR 2,891 million 
in  PO3  relative  to  the  baseline  over  the  2021-2050  period,  expressed  in  present  value. 
This is mainly due to the shift of transport activity to more sustainable modes of transport 
and the consequent reduction of road traffic. 

6.2  6.2  Social impacts 

The  social  impacts  stemming  from  infrastructure  policy  are  diverse  in  nature.  For  the 
purpose of this  impact  assessment,  the focus has  been put  on  employment,  road safety, 
connectivity and cohesion, accessibility for all users and impacts on health.  

6.2.1  6.2.1 

Impacts on employment  

Higher investments on the TEN-T affect both the economy’s short- and long-term growth 
and  create  employment.  Jobs  are  created  directly  during  the  construction  phase  of 
infrastructure projects but also indirectly – induced through new opportunities generated 
63 

 
 
by  improved  connectivity  and  greater  EU  cohesion.  TEN-T  investments  lead  to  an 
increase  in  gross  value  added  per  sector  of  activity  which  is  a  positive  driver  for 
employment. On the other hand, higher productivity driven by technological progress can 
dampen employment. This however would not offset the positive effect on employment 
stemming  from  higher  gross  value  added.  All  policy  options  are  expected  to  have  a 
positive impact in terms of employment relative to the baseline. The impacts in 2030 are 
limited  in  both  PO2  and  PO3  (0.1%  increase  in  employment  relative  to  the  baseline). 
However, the impacts are projected to be higher by 2050, relative to the baseline (0.4% 
increase in employment in PO2 and 0.5% increase in PO3). This is equivalent to 652,000 
additional  persons  employed  in  PO2  in  2050  relative  to  the  baseline  and  840,000 
additional persons employed in PO3. Hence, PO3 projections show the highest increase 
in employment due to direct and indirect economic effects of investments made. 

Table 6: 

Employment 

Impacts on EU27 employment in the policy options relative to the Baseline 
PO1 

Baseline (million persons) 

PO2  

PO3 

2030 

2040 

2050  2030  2040 

2050 

2030  2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

186 

Employment (% 
change to the 
baseline) 
Employment 
(diff. to 
baseline, in 
thousand 
persons) 
Source: ASTRA model 

183 

179 

0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.1%  0.2%  0.4%  0.1%  0.3%  0.5% 

0 

0 

0 

141 

376 

652 

200 

561 

840 

Similarly  to  the  impact  on  GDP,  the  impacts  on  employment  vary  country  by  country. 
Higher employment increase in absolute terms correspond to larger Member States such 
as Italy, France, Spain, Poland and Germany (see Figure 5).  

Figure 7: 
(PO2 – left side; PO3 – right side) 

Impacts on employment in the policy options, by Member State, relative to the Baseline 

Source: ASTRA model 

6.2.2  6.2.2  Road Safety  

Road  safety  is  addressed  by  the  TEN-T  revision  through  the  obligation  to  ensure 
minimum road safety standards (i.e. motorway) on the core and comprehensive network, 
the minimum level of safe and secure parkings every 100 km on the core network as well 
as rest areas every 60 km. To be noted that adequate facilities are a condition to attract 
more women as transport workers, and hence PO2 and PO3 would have positive impact 
in this respect.   

Concretely, this results in a decline of fatalities and injuries from road transport by 0.4% 
and  0.5%  by  2050  in  PO2  and  PO3,  respectively,  relative  to  the  baseline  for  the  entire 

64 

050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000ATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLULVMTNLPLPTROSESISKadditional employment [Pers]203020402050050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000ATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLULVMTNLPLPTROSESISKadditional employment [Pers]203020402050 
  
  
  
 
network. At core network level, the positive effect on the reduction of fatalities from road 
transport is higher (0.8% in PO2 and 2.2% in PO3) and also on the reduction of injuries 
(1.1%  in  PO2  and  2.2%  in  PO3)  by  2050.  As  regards  PO1,  even  if  effects  are  not 
quantifiable, PO1 is crucial for generating the impacts under PO2 and PO3. Indeed, it is 
under  PO1  that  the  reference  to  ITS  standards,  in  particular  to  the  provision  of  road-
safety  related  traffic  information  services,  is  introduced.  As  such,  PO1  is  the  basis  for 
leveraging the effects of PO2 and PO3.  

The reduction in the external costs of accidents is estimated at around EUR 3,660 million 
in PO2 and EUR 3,930 million in PO3 relative to the baseline over the 2021-2050 period, 
expressed as present value. 

6.2.3  6.2.3  Connectivity and cohesion, including outermost regions  

In order to enhance connectivity and cohesion across Europe, it needs to be ensured that 
the  TEN-T  is  defined  properly  and  wide  enough  as  to  cover  all  European  regions.  The 
network definition is indeed the essential basis for any action on the TEN-T and it needs 
to be guaranteed that the right network is in place for fulfilling the various purposes of 
TEN-T.  For  instance,  the  AFIR  includes  obligations  on  the  deployment  of  alternative 
fuels. The revised TEN-T will complement the AFIR by providing the appropriate spatial 
coverage  for  its  deployment  across  the  entire  TEN-T.  PO1,  with  the  adaptation  of  the 
current TEN-T to future needs, is thus crucial for an improved connectivity and cohesion.   

Similarly,  further benefits  can be reached if the entire network  –  i.e. not only  core, but 
also  comprehensive  network  –  reach  the  respective  standards.  In  that  sense,  PO2  (and 
hence PO3) with the planned extension of key TEN-T requirements and standards from 
the  core  to  the  comprehensive  network  adds  important  value  to  the  aspect  of  regional 
cohesion.  For instance, many freight activities start and end outside of the defined (rail 
freight) corridors. Therefore, improving the conditions on the corridors is not enough to 
improve the quality of service for the customers. In the same vein, all measures related to 
freight  terminals  and  multimodal  passenger  hubs  under  PO2  will  contribute  to  an 
improved connectivity. 

Connectivity  and  cohesion  of  all  regions  can  only  be  reached  if  the  TEN-T  are 
completed. Even if single infrastructure projects increase the connectivity of parts of the 
network, the entire network will only fully function and exploit its entire potential once 
all missing links and bottlenecks are removed. In this regard, PO3, with the acceleration 
of  deadlines  for  the  completion  of  the  network,  adds  major  benefits  to  the  aspect  of 
connectivity. In addition, PO3 adds an important dimension to the cohesion objective of 
TEN-T by better defining (and integrating) the urban nodes, which play a crucial role for 
regional connectivity. It will ensure better coherence between long-distance traffic flows 
and  last  mile  deliveries.  The  current  lack  of  coherence  between  these  two  dimensions 
leads to bottlenecks in and around cities (leading to congestion and pollution). 

As  regards  the  outermost  regions  (OR),  they  face  particular  challenges  in  terms  of 
physical  accessibility  due  to  their  remoteness.  During  the  OPC,  the  importance  of 
improving  the  accessibility  of  the  OR  was  underlined.  In  addition,  stakeholders  called 
upon  the  Commission  to  ensure  that  EU  transport  infrastructure  policy  focuses  on 
completing  the  transport  network  in  these  regions.  These  requests  derive  from  Article 
349  of  the  TFEU  that  provides  for  specific  EU  measures  tailored  to  the  outermost 
65 

 
regions’  constraints  and  from  the  2017  Commission  Communication114  on  a  strategic 
partnership with the OR which calls for their accessibility deficit to be reduced. Still, the 
transport needs are different for each OR, resulting from differences in population size, 
structure  of  the  economy  and  geographical  location.  Overall,  the  OR  rely  on  air  and 
maritime transport connections to access their mainland and other EU countries as well 
as neighbouring countries. At the same time, their inner connectivity is equally important 
and  many  of  these  regions  still  face  huge  challenges  in  this  respect.  PO1  is  adding 
positive  impact  to  the  connectivity  of  the  OR  by  ensuring  that  the  TEN-T  includes  the 
necessary  infrastructure  (ports  and  airports)  needed  to  ensure  optimal  connectivity  of 
these  regions.  In  addition,  the  transport  network  of  the  OR  is  particularly  affected  by 
extreme  weather  conditions  (including  hurricanes)  and  climate  change.  Therefore,  all 
measures to increase the resilience of the network under PO2 also contribute positively to 
the  needs  of  the  OR  (notably  through  the  introduction  of  standards  and  specific 
provisions for maintenance). Accessibility and connectivity of OR will also be enhanced 
by  reinforcing  the  short  sea  shipping  dimension  under  PO2  and  by  expanding  TEN-T 
policy on urban nodes as foreseen under PO3115.  

6.2.4  6.2.4  Accessibility for all users 

As  regards  passenger  transport,  the  taking  up  of  public  transport  can  be  fostered  by 
improving  the  design  of  the  transfer  terminals.  This  includes  measures  to  ensure  the 
accessibility  for  all  users  or  the  provision  of  information  across  modes  (also  covering 
first/last mile connections). The design of terminals should encourage also the uptake of 
innovative  mobility  services  and  of  better  accessibility  to  all  users.  An  important  role 
plays  for  instance  the  location  of  a  rail  station  and  its  integration  in  the  urban  and 
regional public transport networks. 

The  review  of  the  TEN-T  under  PO1  will  ensure  that  infrastructure  will  be  developed 
where it is needed. For example the inclusion of an airport into the TEN-T should be an 
important  trigger  to  improve  its  connectivity  to  the  respective  urban  node  and  the 
local/regional  (public)  transport  networks.  PO2  introduces  new  elements  for  passenger 
transport. This should contribute to the better (including gender/equality sensitive) design 
of passenger terminals and has been simulated in the modelling by assuming a reduction 
of the time needed to access public transport modes. Depending on the state of the node, 
measures  could  include  modernization  and  interior  refurbishment  of  trading  areas, 
technical  building  equipment,  new  lighting  as  well  as  solutions  for  barrier-free 
accessibility. However, in PO2, the measure is limited to the urban nodes currently listed 
in the Regulation, with a time horizon of 2050. PO3 expands the scope of application to 
the  460  nodes  and  advances  the  deadline  to  2040,  thereby  leading  to  faster  and  more 
important results.  

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

COM(2017) 623 final.  

115  As the outermost regions are at NUTS2 level, the approach taken in PO3 ensures that there will be at 
least  one  urban  node  identified  for  each  outermost  region.  See  TEN-T  evaluation  (case  study  1  on 
urban  nodes:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/42610a34-4c16-11ec-91ac-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-243059327) 

66 

 
                                                 
6.2.5  6.2.5 

Impacts on health 

Enabling  higher  use  of  more  sustainable  transport  modes  would  result  in  reduced  air 
pollutant emissions and subsequent positive impacts on public health. Savings in external 
costs of air pollutants are estimated at 413 million EUR in PO2 and 420 million EUR in 
PO3, expressed as present value over 2021-2050. A reduction of air pollutant emissions 
would be particularly relevant in urban nodes. Here the extension of the concept of urban 
nodes  and  the  related  increase  in  the  use  of  SUMPs  and  active  modes  of  transport  in 
almost  460  cities  across  the  TEN-T  network  in  PO3  is  expected  to  have  a  positive 
impact. In addition, some positive benefits from a reduction of noise impacts through the 
anticipated electrification of rail can be expected under PO3. 

6.3  6.3  Environmental impacts  

The analysis of environmental impacts covers CO2 emissions and air pollutant emissions 
and  a  qualitative  analysis  of  the  impacts  on  noise,  biodiversity  and  water.  The  TRUST 
and ASTRA models have been used to quantify the impacts of the POs on CO2 emissions 
and air quality.  They build on  the  baseline scenario which is  already very  ambitious in 
terms  of  emission  reductions  and  includes  the  ‘Delivering  the  European  Green  Deal’ 
initiatives. In addition, measures targeting efficiency improvements (and hence emission 
reductions) of road transport through further digitalisation have not been quantified in the 
context  of  this  impact  assessment  but  are  part  of  the  revision  of  the  ITS  Directive. 
Impacts such as noise, biodiversity and resilience cannot be quantified at TEN-T level as 
they are often project specific and depend on the local environmental and infrastructural 
conditions. Thus they are assessed in a qualitative manner in the following chapter.  

6.3.1  6.3.1  CO2 emission reduction 

The  reductions  in  CO2  and  air  pollutant  emissions  are  mainly  driven  by  measures 
fostering modal shift to less polluting modes. PO1 ensures that the revised AFIR and ITS 
Directives apply to the most updated TEN-T network, taking into account the change of 
traffic  flows.  However,  the  quantitative  impacts  are  taken  up  in  the  respective  impact 
assessments  for  the  AFIR  and  ITS  directive.  Thus,  no  further  impacts  of  PO1  on 
emissions  are  reported  relative  to  the  baseline.  It  can  be  expected  that  through  the 
stimulus  to  foster  electrification  of  road  transport  by  the  combination  of  TEN-T  and 
AFIR revisions, the Clean Air Policies on the TEN-T are fostered as well already in PO1. 

The  CO2  emissions  for  the  entire  transport  network116  and  for  the  TEN-T  core  and 
comprehensive network, respectively, are provided in Table 17 (Annex 4, section 4).  

The shift from road to less emitting modes enabled by the bundle of measures included in 
PO2  and  emission  reductions  in  the  road  sector  are  projected  to  result  in  a  decline  by 
0.2% of CO2 emissions from total transport by 2040 and by 2050 relative to the baseline. 
PO3  projects  broadly  the  same  emission  reductions  for  the  entire  transport  network. 
Relative  to  the  REF2020,  the  impacts  on  CO2  emissions  are  however  much  more 
significant, resulting in a decrease of around 7% in 2030, 57% in 2040 and 89% in 2050 
for  both  PO2  and  PO3.  As  explained  before,  the  baseline  scenario  already  takes  into 

116  Excluding P2W and maritime. 

67 

 
                                                 
account the ‘Delivering the European Green Deal’ initiatives, achieving the overall 55% 
emission reduction objective by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050. 

When  looking  more  in-depth  on  the  TEN-T,  PO2  shows  a  reduction  of  CO2  emissions 
from transport on the core network of 0.3% and on the comprehensive network of 0.4% 
in  2040  and  in  2050  relative  to  the  baseline.  It  should  be  noted  that  TEN-T  results  for 
PO3 are computed on an extended TEN-T comprehensive network compared to PO2 and 
the baseline (inclusion of new sections due to integration of CNC and RFC and dual use 
sections). Thus, the PO3 is not directly comparable with the baseline and PO2. This also 
affects the PO3 results reported for the other air pollutant emissions. The changes in 2030 
relative  to  the  baseline  are  only  derived  from  this  extension  and  do  not  stem  from 
network improvements which take effect only in the following years. CO2 emissions on 
the  comprehensive  network  are  projected  to  decrease  by  0.1%  in  2040  and  by  0.3%  in 
2050 relative to the baseline. On the TEN-T core network, PO3 is projected to result in a 
decrease  of  CO2  emissions  of  0.4%  in  2040  and  in  2050  relative  to  the  baseline. 
Reductions are mainly driven by the reduction in road transport activity. Due to the full 
electrification  of  the  rail  core  network  (already  provided  for  in  the  current  TEN-T 
Regulation), no additional CO2 emissions from rail are assumed as of 2030 on the core 
network. Savings in external costs of CO2 emissions relative to the baseline, expressed as 
present value over 2021-2050 are estimated at 357 million EUR in PO2 and 387 million 
in PO3.   

6.3.2  6.3.2  Air Pollutant emissions reduction 

CO emissions:  The bundle of measures  in  PO2, aiming at  shifting transport activity to 
less polluting modes, leads to certain reductions in air pollutant emissions. On the entire 
transport network, the CO emissions are projected to decline by 0.1% in 2030 and 2040 
relative to the baseline and by 0.2% in 2050. CO emissions from road transport reduce by 
0.2% in 2030 and 2040 relative to the baseline and only by 0.1% in 2050. This is mainly 
due to the large scale deployment of low- and zero-emission vehicles fostered by the CO2 
emission  standards  for  vehicles  and  supported  by  the  revision  of  AFIR  that  is  already 
assumed  under  the  baseline  scenario.  Consequently,  due  to  the  low  level  of  emissions 
already  projected  in  the  baseline  by  2050  the  measures  included  in  PO2  targeting  at  a 
shift to less polluting modes only have a marginal effect on further emission reductions 
especially in  road transport.  The picture for CO emissions in  PO3 is  broadly  similar to 
that in PO2.   

NOx emissions: NOx emissions  from  transport  on the entire transport network in  PO2 
are projected to decline by 0.1% in 2040 and 0.2% in 2050 relative to the baseline, while 
NOx emissions from road transport are projected to reduce by 0.2% in 2040 and 2050. 
The situation on the TEN-T network is relatively similar to the projections for the entire 
transport  network,  although  the  impacts  for  the  comprehensive  network  are  slightly 
higher (0.4% reduction in 2040 and 0.3% in 2050 relative to the baseline). The impacts 
for the core network are the same as those for the comprehensive network. 

NOx emission reductions for the entire transport network are the same between PO2 and 
PO3 but differences occur when looking at the TEN-T network. Overall, NOx emissions 
from the inland modes on the comprehensive network are projected to decrease by 0.3% 
in 2040 and 0.4% in 2050 compared to the baseline. NOx emissions on the core network 

68 

 
are projected to decrease by 0.7% in 2040 and by 0.4% in 2050. The NOx emissions for 
the  entire  transport  network117  and  for  the  TEN-T  core  and  comprehensive  network 
respectively, are provided in Table 18 (Annex 4, section 4).  

PM emissions: PM emissions from transport on the entire transport network in PO2 are 
projected  to  slightly  increase  by  nearly  0.5%  in  2050  relative  to  the  baseline.  This 
however  is  not  linked  to  the  energy/fuel  use  but  can  be  explained  by  increased  PM 
emission from rail transport due to higher wear and tear118, as a consequence of increased 
rail freight activity. PM emissions from road transport are projected to decline by 0.2% in 
2050 relative to  the baseline  due to  lower  activity.  In the  case of inland  waterways the 
increased  availability  of  clean  fuels  brought  by  the  revision  of  the  AFIR  will  have  a 
positive  impact  on  air  pollution.  PM  emission  reductions  are  similar  between  PO2  and 
PO3.   

VOC emissions: VOC emissions from transport on the entire transport network in PO2 
are projected to  decline  by 0.1%  and those from road transport are projected to  remain 
stable in 2050 relative to the baseline. When looking at the TEN-T, VOC emissions are 
projected to decrease by 0.1% relative to the baseline in 2050 on the core network and by 
0.2% on the comprehensive network. No VOC emissions for rail are projected by 2050 
on  the  comprehensive  network  and  as  of  2030  for  the  core  network,  due  to  the 
electrification  of  rail.  The  results  for  PO3  are  similar  to  those  of  PO2  for  the  entire 
transport network and the comprehensive TEN-T network and slightly higher for the core 
network by 2050 (0.2% reduction relative to the baseline). 

6.3.3  6.3.3 

Impacts on noise, biodiversity and water 

Assessment  of  noise  impacts  strongly  depends  on  the  local  (traffic)  situation  e.g.  the 
pavement of road, roadside buildings, the configuration of an inland waterway etc., thus 
it is not possible to quantify local noise impacts in a European scale model. Apart from 
this, noise emissions depend on the mode of transport, the vehicle fleet composition and 
the  travel  speed.119  As  the  TEN-T  revision  aims  at  shifting  more  traffic  to  more 
sustainable  modes  of  transport  the  level  of  noise  reduction  is  directly  related  to  the 
magnitude of the shift under each PO (i.e. increasing from PO1 to PO2 and from PO2 to 
PO3). Further noise reductions may be achieved through the electrification of cars, vans 
and trucks especially in urban areas which is outside the scope of the TEN-T revision.120 

117  Excluding P2W and maritime. 
118  Emission from wear and tear are currently not part of EMEP/EEA Guidebook, which does not consider 
non-exhaust  emissions  of  rail  transport  as  a  separate  category,  so  reporting  with  respect  to  the 
emission inventory is not clear. However, it is included here for sake of completeness. 

119  To  solve  the  noise  from  transport,  where  the  Environmental  Noise  Directive  (2002/49/EC)  impose 
action plans to be adopted by the infrastructure authorities, infrastructure solutions are the preferred 
option e.g. for roads the combination of road surface improvements and speed reduction, for railways 
the rail track requirements (e.g. railpad and rail grinding) and for airports flight routes around airports. 
120  Noise in the majority of the real situations depends, for road vehicles, on tyres and road surface, for 
railway on quality of wheels and rails, and for aircrafts on engines and aircraft frame. Electric vehicles 
are  sometimes  associated  with  ‘no  noise’  pollution  which  is  however  not  the  case.  As  a  result,  very 
little benefits are foreseen by a renewal of the fleet. By 2030 an increase of noise is foreseen for all 
modes relative to 2015 due to the increase of the number of vehicles. By 2050 the increased number 
of  electric  vehicles  could  lead,  for  road  only,  to  a  limited  benefit  in  terms  of  noise  reduction.  The 

69 

 
                                                 
 
However,  by  ensuring  the  equipment  of  terminals  and  parkings  with  charging 
infrastructure, TEN-T will also contribute to this effect. On the other hand shifting traffic 
from road to rail and inland waterways will lead to higher traffic, and thereby more noise, 
along  rail  lines  and  waterways.  In  the  case  of  rail  this  is  addressed  through  equipping 
further  rail  freight  waggons  with  low  noise  brakes  and  through  the  positive  effect  of 
electrification on noise levels of railway lines, the latter being a measure already foreseen 
in the Regulation but which is going to be implemented more widely in PO3. In limited 
cases, noise disturbances for biodiversity on inland waterways (e.g. at specific periods of 
species  cycles)  will  need  to  be  taken  into  account  when  implementing  specific 
projects121.  

Impacts  on  biodiversity  loss  and  potential  conflicts  with  the  do  no  significant  harm 
principle  (DNSH)  emerging  from  the  Taxonomy  Regulation  (Reg.  EU  2020/852), 
NATURA 2000 sites as well as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) are difficult to 
assess  and  quantify  considering  that  impacts  are  generally  depending  on  the  specific 
location  and  characteristics  of  the  infrastructures  and  that  the  good  navigation  status 
standards will mostly be defined at corridor level. It is expected however that they will 
remain minor as none of the POs foresees a major extension of the TEN-T by adding new 
infrastructure  sections  and  rather  focus  on  improvements  on  the  existing  network122. 
Positive  effects  can  also  be  expected;  for  example  the  implementation  of  the  “Good 
Navigation Status” and specific navigability requirements depending on the corridor will 
ensure  a  balance  between  the  objective  of  improving  navigability  conditions  (thus 
increasing  the  capacity  of  IWW  for  freight)  and  biodiversity  (no  infrastructure 
developments  which  could  lead  to  a  negative  impact  on  biodiversity,  even  if  such 
development  could  potentially  improve  navigability).  This  new  approach  will  enhance 
predictability  concerning  the  use  of  the  IWW  (guaranteed  minimum  navigability  for  a 
certain period of the year).  

Other  measures  included  in  this  revision  rather  focus  at  a  better  use  and  efficiency  of 
existing infrastructure e.g. through higher speeds, higher axle loads or the extensions of 
terminals and sidings. In case modifications or extensions of infrastructure are necessary, 
they  are  likely  to  be  located  in  close  vicinity  of  existing  infrastructures,  thus  limiting 
adverse effects on biodiversity. Nevertheless, new 740 m sidings, extension of terminals, 
upgraded  last  mile  connections  or  additional  parkings  and  rest  areas  along  the  road 
network, as foreseen in PO2 and 3, all will require surface area and will thus contribute 
to  biodiversity  loss  and  soil  sealing.  In  the  case  of  inland  waterways  the  increased 
availability  of  clean  fuels  and  electrification  brought  by  the  revision  of  the  AFIR  will 
likely  have  a  positive  impact  on  water  pollution  along  the  TEN-T  which  will  to  some 

impacts are limited unless other specific measures are adopted that benefit the fleet renewal and at 
the same time target noise, as well as CO2 and air pollutant emissions reductions. 

121  Here  innovative  pollution  and  noise  monitoring  systems  (developed  by  EU  funded  projects)  should 

also be part of the solution. 

122  The  alignment  of  the  TEN-T  comprehensive  network  with  RFCs  and  military  mobility  will  result  in 
nearly 5.600 km of railways and nearly 2,000 km of roads to be added. These extensions represent 5% 
of the currently defined TEN-T rail network and 1.9% of the road network. Although the infrastructure 
is already largely existing, any plans for its further upgrade and any additional extensions would have 
to  be  assessed  at  project  level  in  light  of  the  requirements  of  Directive  2001/42/EC122  and  other 
applicable  EU  legislation  (in  particular,  Directive  92/43/EEC),  to  contribute  also  to  the  DNSH 
compliance. 

70 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
extent compensate the adverse effects of increased transport activity. However, as long as 
the exact location and size of an infrastructure is not known, the precise impact on loss of 
biodiversity  and  soil  sealing  cannot  be  established.  Thorough  environmental  impact 
assessment  (EIA)  in  accordance  with  Directive  2011/92/EU123  will  thus  remain  key  to 
establish  the  risks  and  adequate  mitigation  measures  (e.g.  brownfield  re-cultivation  or 
rehabilitation)  at  project  level.  In  addition,  any  project  that  may  affect  water  bodies,  in 
the  sense  of  the  WFD,  should  be  subject  to  additional  assessment  in  accordance  with 
article  4(7)  of  the  WFD  so  as  to  ensure  full  compliance  with  the  conditions  and 
mitigation measures required thereunder. 

Overall,  the  implementation  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  will  however  assure  that  the 
DNSH principle is being respected since all standards and requirements set in the TEN-T 
Regulation are geared towards a sustainable development of transport networks.  

6.4  6.4 

Impacts on resilience of the transport infrastructure incl. maintenance 

As described in chapter 2.2 resilience of transport networks is understood as the ability of 
the transport system  to  withstand and mitigate disruptions as well as to  recover readily 
from  or  to  adjust  easily  to  disruptions  so  that  major  breakdowns  are  avoided.  Resilient 
engineering  of  transport  systems  can  be  fostered  by  distribution  (e.g.  de-central 
warehousing),  redundancy  (e.g.  alternative  routes),  adaptive  technologies/organisations 
(e.g.  flexible  supply  chains)  or  flexible  control  (e.g.  change  from  automatic  to  manual 
vehicle control). Different  types of disruptions are possible and have to  be treated with 
different  instruments:  natural  events,  in  particular  events  driven  by  climate  change; 
human failures and technical failures and maintenance. 

Natural events 

The  analysis  looked  more  closely  at  the  effects  that  natural  events  could  have  on  the 
smooth  flow  of  passengers  and  goods  on  the  TEN-T.  Events  such  as  extreme  weather 
conditions (e.g. flooding, heavy rain and snow fall, thunderstorms, extreme tidal events, 
fires etc.) affected the transport system already in the past but are, due to climate change, 
likely to occur more frequently and become more severe in the future. In addition, newer 
effects  of  climate  change  like  extreme  temperatures  in  summer  times  and  extended 
periods of drought need to be taken account of. The effects of such disruptions are felt by 
all  actors  of  the  transport  system  (e.g.  infrastructure  managers,  operators,  clients)  and 
affect all modes of transport.  

There  are  currently  no  dedicated  studies  on  the  resilience  of  the  TEN-T.  Thus  in  the 
impact assessment an attempt was made to showcase the vulnerability of the TEN-T with 
regard to river flooding (see Annex 7). The analysis revealed that higher flooding levels 
(of a flooding event occurring once every twenty years) of 1 to 5 meters and of above 5 
meters can be expected in particular in Central Europe starting from the Netherlands, the 
Northern  part  of  Germany,  the  valley  of  the  river  Po  in  Northern  Italy  and  Slovakia, 
Austria, Slovenia, Hungary and Croatia. In some areas the expected water heights would 

123  Directive  2011/92/EU  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  public  and  private  projects  on  the 
environment (OJ L 26, 28.1.2011), as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU (OJ L 124, 25.4.2014). 

71 

 
                                                 
reach more than 20 m above normal water levels. Overall, about 6% of the TEN-T rail 
network  is  at  risk  by  1-in-20-year  flooding  events  and  about  4%  of  the  TEN-T  road 
network. However, there are marked differences between individual Member States (see 
tables  Annex  7).  Apart  from  the  line  infrastructures,  ports  are  especially  vulnerable  to 
flooding  events;  thus  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  analysis  revealed  21%  of  all  TEN-T 
ports being potentially affected by such a  1 in 20 year flooding event. 

The  three  policy  options  differ  in  terms  of  their  potential  to  address  issues  of  climate 
change  and  the  adaptation  to  it.  PO1  will  contribute  to  increase  the  resilience  of  the 
network as this objective is considered, for example by including alternative routes that 
could  be  used  in  case  of  natural  disaster  to  ensure  continuity  of  traffic  flow.  The 
inclusion  of  some  cross-border  missing  links  into  the  network  will  also  substantially 
enhance the resilience of the network (cfr the Rastatt accident124). It will also contribute 
to  better  adapt  the  infrastructure  to  climate  change  through  the  update  of  existing 
infrastructure  quality  requirements  and  standards  already  provided  for  in  the  current 
Regulation  in  terms  of  resilience.  PO2  includes  the  largest  amount  of  investment  into 
infrastructures.  The  upgrades  or  building  of  new  infrastructure  will  in  future  have  to 
consider  the  challenges  of  climate  change;  it  can  be  expected  that  PO2  will  lead  to  an 
improved adaptation of the TEN-T to those challenges. For example, dedicated measures 
for  climate  change  adaptation  will  likely  be  taken  simultaneously  with  investments  to 
increase rail line speeds to 160 km/h, to raise axle loads to minimum 22.5 t, to ensure the 
inland navigation requirements and to improve the last mile connections to ports. As PO3 
adds slightly more investment on selected network links and nodes compared to PO2 also 
its contribution to better adaptation of TEN-T can be expected to be moderately higher.  

Human failures 

Human failures in most cases lead to relatively small disruptions of the transport system, 
although  the  sum  of  failures  cause  high  economic  and  social  losses.  Human  failures 
causing  serious  disruptions  in  waterway  transport  (e.g.  collisions  of  barges  with  bridge 
pillars)  or  rail  transport  (e.g.  operating  errors  with  signalling  boxes;  neglecting  speed 
limits)  are  rare  events.  PO1  would  address  the  risk  of  human  failures  beyond  the 
requirements that are already foreseen in the current Regulation (digitalisation measures 
in the different modes such as ERTMS, VTMIS etc.) through the focus on an increased 
infrastructure  quality  and  by  ensuring  that  especially  ITS  requirements  are  adhered  to. 
The  additional  digital  improvements  and  the  new  and  more  ambitious  infrastructure 
requirements  and  standards  in  PO2  and  PO3  will  further  reduce  the  risks  of  human 
failures.  The  acceleration  of  the  completion  of  certain  parts  of  the  TEN-T  and  the 
deadline for decommissioning national class-B systems in favour of ERTMS under PO3 
would bring additional benefits in this regard. 

Technical failures and maintenance 

124  An appropriate alternative route was available on the French side of the upper Rhine valley. However, 
different  railway  technology  and  unavailability  of  French  locomotive  drivers  have  prevented  from 
using  such  alternatives  such  that  the  transport  capacity  on  the  Rhine-Alpine  corridor  dropped 
substantially for three months. 

72 

 
                                                 
Technical  failures  with  the  transport  infrastructure  are  often  caused  by  insufficient 
maintenance  and  replacement  investments.  In  advanced  EU  economies  the  investment 
needs  for  replacement  is  already  higher  than  the  needs  for  new  investments125.  Many 
engineering structures (bridges, tunnels) have been designed decades ago for much lower 
traffic and weight loads than they have to carry today.  

Increasing  maintenance  expenditure  and  replacement  investments  can  contribute  to 
develop better alternatives in case of incidents and to a better resilience of the transport 
system. The prime goal of reducing renewal and maintenance backlogs is to improve the 
reliability  and  availability  of  infrastructure  and,  consequently,  the  punctuality  and 
reliability  of  transport  services.  Furthermore,  it  is  expected  that  the  number  of 
contingencies can be reduced, and resilience increased. This is because in the course of 
major  renewal  works  usually  also  protect  against  land  slide,  widening  of  distance  to 
woods and wind shelters are installed. Alternative routes play an important role for use in 
case of contingencies on main routes but need to be well prepared in advance and ideally 
should  have  the  same  technical  parameters  as  the  main  route.  In  addition,  a  resilient 
transport system requires adequate possibilities to re-route traffic during disruptions. Due 
to  low  density  of  the  network,  this  is  a  particular  challenge  for  rail  transport.  The 
Handbook  prepared  by  RNE  and  PRIME126  has  been  developed  to  support  business 
continuity  following major disturbances, which  contributes to  a higher resilience of the 
rail system. Such organisational measures presuppose the existence of adequate routes to 
divert  traffic.  This  underlines  the  importance  to  extend  some  of  the  infrastructure 
parameters  applicable  to  the  core  network  to  the  comprehensive  network  in  PO2  and 
PO3. 

PO1 would address the risk of technical failures in so far that it ensures an update of the 
existing  requirements  and  standards  within  the  parameters  of  the  current  Regulation  to 
ensure  a  high  quality  infrastructure  throughout  the  network.  For  example  by  clarifying 
the provision on 740 m long trains additional capacity, especially on diversionary routes, 
could  be  made  available  in  cases  of  technical  failures  on  the  main  line.  In  addition,  it 
would  ensure  complementarity  with  the  upcoming  ITS  requirements.  Furthermore, 
through the improved reporting and monitoring foreseen under PO1, the impacts of the 
lack of maintenance could possibly be detected if this leads to non-compliance with the 
minimum  standards  (e.g.  reduced  maximum  speed  on  certain  sections  which  have  not 
been maintained).  

The  status  of  maintenance  and  infrastructure  quality  on  average  will  be  improving  and 
the  occurrence  of  technical  failures  will  be  decreasing  with  higher  investments  in 
upgrades  of  infrastructures  (e.g.  due  to  new  or  extended  TEN-T  standards)  or  in  new 
infrastructures. Thus, POs that foresee a higher amount of investment will perform better 
than  those  involving  less  investment.  The  largest  relative  improvement  to  well 
maintained and good quality infrastructure would come from PO2 as this option provides 
for  the  highest  additional  investment.  However,  as  PO3  builds  on  PO2,  the  absolute 
improvements under this option would be even higher.  

125  In Germany this accounts for more than two thirds of transport investments for road and rail. 
126  European Rail Infrastructure Managers Handbook for International Contingency Management 

73 

 
                                                 
Investments  under  PO2  will  support  the  reduction  of  technical  failures  both  emerging 
from  under-investment  in  maintenance  as  well  as  from  applying  outdated  technologies 
(e.g. signalling systems). PO3 in particular will improve on the latter as national class B 
systems  will  be  decommissioned  and  replaced  by  ERTMS  on 
the  core  and 
comprehensive network. 

The  introduction  of  minimum  quality  standards  for  maintenance  and  project  life  cycle 
standards as foreseen under PO2 and PO3 will contribute to address in the longer run the 
issue of maintenance, while fully respecting subsidiarity. For instance, digitalisation may 
improve  infrastructure  quality  when  it  supports  and  reduces  cost  of  maintenance  by 
integrating  intelligence  (e.g.  sensors  that  monitor  infrastructure  status)  into  the 
infrastructure.  In  PO3,  the  alignment  with  RFC  will  allow  to  provide  for  alternative 
routes  in  case  of  traffic  disruptions  on  main  railway  lines.  Including  these  alternative 
routes  into  the  TEN-T  ensures  that  they  will  reach  full  interoperability,  enhancing 
thereby  the  resilience  of  the  railway  system.  PO3  should  also  ensure  higher  coherence 
between  the  (civilian)  TEN-T  and  the  EU  military  network.  The  network  adaptation 
(which will include new dual use sections on the network) will enhance the resilience of 
the whole network. 

Third countries’ foreign investments 

In  general,  third  countries’  foreign  investments  should  be  welcomed  as  they  will 
accelerate the realisation of the TEN-T.  However such investments might jeopardize the 
objectives of the TEN-T, for example if the new infrastructure does not meet the TEN-T 
standards.  This  has  been  the  case  in  certain  Member  States,  with  infrastructures  which 
are  not  interoperable  or  which  do  not  meet  the  EU  safety  standards,  which  may  affect 
continuity  of  transport  on  the  TEN-T,  hence  public  order  or  security.  PO2  and 
consequently  PO3  will  address  this  failure,  by  calling  for  a  fully-fledged  screening 
mechanism of foreign investments.127  

7 

7 HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

The  three  policy  options  are  compared  below  with  regard  to  their  effectiveness, 
efficiency, coherence, proportionality and subsidiarity.  

7.1  7.1  Effectiveness  

The  effectiveness  of  the  three  POs  is  assessed  against  the  general  and  specific  policy 
objectives as described in chapter 4. The effectiveness of each policy option in achieving 
the objectives is presented in Figure 6. 

The three POs, with a gradually increasing degree of ambition, contribute to reach the set 
objectives for the TEN-T revision. Indeed, they all contribute to make transport greener 
by  providing  the  infrastructure  basis  to  increase  activity  by  more  sustainable  forms  of 
transport,  by  optimising  each  mode  of  transport  and  by  ensuring  an  improved  network 
quality  across  the  TEN-T.  The  same  applies  for  the  second  objective  to  make  the 

127  Regulation  (EU)  2019/452  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  March  2019 

establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union 

74 

 
                                                 
transport network more  seamless  and efficient, by  digitalising  the infrastructure  and by 
better integrating the urban nodes into the network. 

75 

 
 
Figure 8: Key Impacts expected 

 Strongly negative 

 negative 

O No or negligible impact 

 positive 

 Strongly positive 

Unclear 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

Rail transport 
Increase competitiveness of Rail Freight transport: 
 
 
 

P400  
speed up the implementation of ERTMS 
extend key core network parameters to the 
comprehensive network  
align CNCs and RFCs into ETCs 
extension of last mile parameters to terminals 
maritime/inland ports  
digitalisation of freight terminals 
one multimodal freight terminal serving each urban 
node  
additional requirements for terminals in terms of new 
standards (all types of intermodal loading units can be 
handled; 740m long tracks exist under the crane; no 
shunting required (includes electrification))   

 
 

 
 

 

 Addresses SO1, SO2, S03, SO4 , SO5, SO6 

Increase competitiveness of Rail Passenger transport:  
 
 
 

160km/h min speed 
speed up the implementation of ERTMS 
introduce new elements for passenger transport, such 
as the design of transfer terminals, accessibility for all 
users, information across modes (also covering 
first/last mile connections), enabling of innovative 
mobility services 
digitalisation of passenger terminals 

 

 Addresses SO1, SO2, S03, SO4, SO5 

Impacts  of  PO1  are  not  quantifiable 
in this field of intervention. However 
it  is  expected  that  the  review  of  the 
transport  network  and  nodes  has  a 
slightly positive impact. 

Increase  of  rail  freight  activity  at  EU27 
level of 1.1% by 2040 and 2.4% by 2050 
relative  to  baseline.  Modal  share  of  rail 
freight  increases  by  0.8  p.p.  on  the  core 
network  and  the  comprehensive  network 
by 2050 relative to the baseline. 

Anticipation  of  the  extension  of  the  core  network 
standards  to  the  non-core  sections  of  the  ETC 
corridors  and  of  the  full  implementation  of  P400 
standard  on  the  core  network  in  2040  result  in  a 
1.6% increase of EU27 rail freight activity by 2040 
and  of  3.5%  by  2050  relative  to  baseline.  Modal 
share of rail freight increases by 0.9 p.p. on the core 
network and 1.2 p.p. the comprehensive network by 
2050  relative  to  the  baseline.  Alignment  with  RFC 
will  allow  to  provide  for  alternative  routes  thereby 
enhancing the resilience of the railway system. 

Impacts  of  PO1  are  not  quantifiable 
in this field of intervention. However 
it  is  expected  that  the  review  of  the 
transport  network  and  nodes  has  a 
slightly positive impact. 

Increase  in  rail  passenger  activity  of 
2.1%  by  2040  and  of  3.5%  by  2050 
relative to the baseline at EU27 level. On 
the core network increase by 8.4% and on 
the  comprehensive  by  4.6%  by  2050 
relative  to  the  baseline.  Modal  share  of 
rail passenger increases by 1.6 p.p. on the 
core  network  and  by  0.9  p.p.  on  the 
comprehensive  network  by  2050  relative 
to  the  baseline  (0.9  p.p.  increase  for  the 
core  network  and  0.5  p.p.  for 
the 
comprehensive network in 2040). 

The  introduction  of  the  min.  160  km/h  standard  is 
anticipated  to  2040  which  results  in  an  increase  of 
3.4%  of  activity  by  rail  by  that  year  and  a  slightly 
higher impact (3.5%) by 2050 at EU27 level. On the 
core  network  activity  increases  by  8.4%  and  on  the 
comprehensive  network  by  5.7%  relative  to  the 
baseline  in  2040  and  2050.  Modal  share  of  rail 
passenger increases by 1.6 p.p. on the core network 
and  by  0.9  p.p.  on  the  comprehensive  network  by 
2050  relative  to  the  baseline  (1.6  p.p.  increase  for 
the core network and 0.9 p.p. for the comprehensive 
network in 2040). 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
Inland Waterway and Maritime Transport 
Increase competitiveness of inland waterway transport:  
 

requirements of at least 2.50 m navigable channel 
depth for rivers, canals, lakes and inland ports and 
5.25 m minimum height under bridges at defined 
reference water levels 
definition of good navigation status 
extension of last mile rail parameters to maritime/ 
inland ports) 

 
 

 Addresses SO1, SO2, S03, SO5 

Impacts  of  PO1  are  not  quantifiable 
in this field of intervention. However 
it is to be expected that the review of 
the  transport  network  and  nodes  has 
a slightly positive impact. 

Although  the  modal  share  of  inland 
waterway  and  maritime  transport  stays 
broadly stable, the implementation of the 
new standards allows the sector to absorb 
the  projected  growth  of  EU27  traffic 
volumes. Inland waterways and short sea 
shipping  activity  increases  by  19%  by 
2030 and 44% by 2050 relative to 2015. 

transport 

stays  broadly 

Although  the  modal  share  of  inland  waterway  and 
maritime 
the 
implementation  of  the  new  standards  allows  the 
sector to absorb the projected growth of EU27 traffic 
volumes.  Inland  waterways  and  short  sea  shipping 
activity increases by 19% by 2030 and 44% by 2050 
relative to 2015.   

stable, 

Urban Areas 
Better integrate urban nodes into TEN-T and improve 
conditions for sustainable urban freight and passenger 
transport:  
 

obligation for all urban nodes to establish a SUMP 
and to report on urban mobility data  
obligation to develop multimodal hubs to facilitate 
first and last mile connections 
one multimodal freight terminal serving each urban 
node 
Inclusion of all urban nodes above 100.000 
inhabitants 

 

 

 

 Addresses SO1, SO2, SO3, SO4, SO6 

Road Transport 
Enhance safety and security on roads: 
 
introduce motorway standard  
 
introduce requirements on safe and secure parkings 
and rest areas 
ITS equipment requirements for roads 

 

 Addresses SO1, SO3, SO5 

slightly  positive 

Impacts  of  PO1  are  not  quantifiable 
in this field of intervention. However 
it is to be expected that the review of 
the  transport  network  and  nodes  has 
a 
impact  e.g. 
including  an  airport  into  the  TEN-T 
should  be  an  important  trigger  to 
the 
improve 
to 
its  connectivity 
respective  urban  node  and 
the 
local/regional 
transport 
networks. 

(public) 

Better  air  quality  in  TEN-T  urban  nodes 
through SUMPS (not quantifiable).  

Better  air  quality  in  TEN-T  urban  nodes  through 
SUMPS (not quantifiable).  

Better  connectivity  and  accessibility 
especially for all users (especially PRMs) 
through  better  design  of 
transfer 
terminals,  information  provisions  across 
modes  and  enabling  of 
innovative 
mobility services. 

But  limited  to  the  79  TEN-T  nodes  by 
2050. 

Better  connectivity  and  accessibility  for  all  users 
(especially  PRMs)  through  better  design  of  transfer 
terminals,  information  provisions  across  modes  and 
enabling of innovative mobility services. 

Applies to all urban areas above 100,000 inhabitants 
and  certain  capitals  of  NUTS  2  regions  (ca.  460 
nodes) by 2040. 

is 

to  be  expected 

Impacts  of  PO1  are  not  quantifiable 
in this field of intervention. However 
it 
the 
implementation  of  ITS  equipment 
requirements  on  the  TEN-T  network 
(as  reviewed)  has  a  slightly  positive 
impact. 

that 

are 

expected 

EU27  fatalities  and  injuries  from  road 
transport 
to  decline 
respectively  of  0.4%  and  of  0.5%  by 
2050.  Fatalities  on  the  TEN-T  network 
decline  by  0.8%  on  the  core  and  on  the 
comprehensive  network.  Further  positive 
effects are to be expected on the working 
conditions  of  HDV  drivers  and  for  the 
deployment 
fuelled 
of 
charging stations. 

alternative 

EU27  fatalities  and  injuries  from  road  transport  are 
expected  to  decline  respectively  of  0.4%  and  of 
0.5%  by  2050.  Fatalities  on  the  TEN-T  network 
decline by 1.2% on the comprehensive and by 2.2% 
on  the  core  network.  Further  positive  effects  are  to 
be  expected  on  the  working  conditions  of  HDV 
drivers and for the deployment of alternative fuelled 
charging stations. 

77 

 
 
 
General network 
Ensure the adequacy of the governance tools for 
implementation of the TEN-T: 
 

Streamlining of existing reporting and monitoring 
instruments 

  Alignment of national transport and investment plans 

with TEN-T priorities 

  Review role of the Coordinators, in particular with 

regard to RFC and cross-border projects 

 Addresses SO6 
Ensure that the TEN-T network is well maintained and 
resilient: 
 

Introduction of minimum quality standards for 
maintenance and project life cycle standards 

  Align CNCs and RFCs into ETCs 
  Update TEN-T maps – Military Mobility alignment 
  MS screen third country investments on the core and 

the comprehensive network 

 Addresses SO5, SO6 
Make all modes of transport cleaner and limit the impact 
of transport on the Environment and Climate: 
 

Implementation of  AFID in all modes on the revised 
TEN-T network 

  Development of alternative fuel infrastructure at 

terminals – not covered by AFID) 

  Assurance of consistency of TEN-T with the ‘Do No 

Significant Harm’ principle 

 Addresses SO1, SO2, SO3, SO4, SO5 

The streamlining of the reporting and 
monitoring  is  expected  to  lead  to 
time savings already under PO1. 

In  addition  to  PO1  the  alignment  of 
national 
transport  plans  with  TEN-T 
objectives  will  help  to  ensure  the  timely 
completion of the network. 

In addition to PO1 and PO2, efficiency gains will be 
achieved  through  the  extension  of  the  coordinators 
mandates  and  the  streamlining  of  reporting  and 
investment planning between RFCs and CNCs. 

impacts 

improved 

Slightly  positive 
through 
implementation  of  ITS  requirements 
on  the  TEN-T  network  and  through 
and 
the 
monitoring  i.e.  the  impacts  of  the 
lack  of  maintenance  could  possibly 
be  detected  if  this  leads  to  non-
the  minimum 
compliance  with 
standards. 

reporting 

the 

Positive  as  maintenance  issues  are  often 
addressed  when  undertaking  investments 
on 
Furthermore 
network. 
digitalisation  may  improve  infrastructure 
quality when it supports and reduces cost 
of 
integrating 
intelligence  (e.g.  sensors  that  monitor 
the 
status) 
infrastructure 
infrastructure.  

maintenance 

into 

by 

digitalisation 

Positive  as  maintenance  issues  are  often  addressed 
when  undertaking  investments  on  the  network. 
Furthermore 
improve 
infrastructure  quality  when  it  supports  and  reduces 
cost of maintenance by integrating intelligence (e.g. 
sensors  that  monitor  infrastructure  status)  into  the 
infrastructure.  The  network  adaptation  (which  will 
include  new  dual  use  sections  on  the  network)  will 
enhance the resilience of the whole network. 

may 

Impacts  of  PO1  are  not  quantifiable 
in this field of intervention. However 
it is to be expected that the review of 
the  transport  network  and  nodes  has 
a  slightly  positive  impact;  it  ensures 
that the AFIDAFIR requirements are 
deployed  on 
the  most  adequate 
network. 

CO2  emissions  and  air  pollution  (CO, 
NOx,  and  VOC)  emissions  are  declining 
compared  to  the  baseline  although  at  a 
limited  extent.  CO2  emissions  decrease 
by  0.1%  in  2030  and  by  0.2%  by  2050 
relative to the baseline. The equipment of 
TEN-T terminals with alternative fuelling 
stations will have a positive effect on the 
deployment  and  uptake  of  the  related 
fuels. The impacts on noise emissions are 
expected to remain limited depending on 
the specific project situation. Biodiversity 
loss  will  be  limited  as  infrastructure 
expansion  remains  limited.  Introducing 
GNS  requirements  will  have  a  positive 
effect with regard to IWW. 

78 

CO2  emissions  and  air  pollution  (CO,  NOx,  VOC) 
emissions  are  declining  compared  to  the  baseline 
although at a limited extent. CO2 emissions decrease 
by 0.1% in 2030 and by 0.2% by 2050 relative to the 
baseline.  The  equipment  of  TEN-T  terminals  with 
alternative  fuelling  stations  will  have  a  positive 
effect  on  the  deployment  and  uptake  of  the  related 
fuels.  The  impacts  on  noise  emissions  are  expected 
to  remain  limited.  Biodiversity  loss  will  be  limited 
as 
limited. 
expansions 
Speeding  up  the  electrification  of  the  rail  network 
under  this  PO  will  however  have  positive  impacts. 
The introduction of the GNS requirements will have 
a positive effect with regard to IWW. 

infrastructure 

remain 

 
However, each PO complies with these objectives at a different degree of ambition. PO1 
will provide the right infrastructure basis for the roll-out of alternative fuels and ITS. It is 
thus  an  essential  option  for  decarbonisation  and  for  reducing  pollution,  with  however 
limited ambitions and effects. PO2 instead goes the most ambitious steps, with regard to 
the decarbonisation, pollution reduction and digitalisation objectives, since it introduces 
new infrastructure standards for rail, IWW and terminals, which are key for an increased 
multimodality and interoperability of the network. PO3 keeps that degree of ambition in 
terms  of  nature  of  measures,  but  adds  on  it  the  dimension  of  an  increased  speed  of 
completing  the  network  (i.e.  2040  instead  of  2050  for  the  core  and  parts  of  the 
comprehensive network) and a broader coverage of the network, which in return assures 
that TEN-T contributes timely to the decarbonisation goals by 2050. PO3 is therefore the 
most ambitious option.  

As regards the third general objective of a more resilient network, PO2 and PO3 respond 
to it through a multitude of measures that all aim at raising the quality of infrastructure 
components, thereby taking into consideration aspects such as maintenance, nature-based 
adaptation  to  climate  change,  as  well  as  resilience  in  relation  to  potential  negative 
impacts of foreign direct investments on security and public order interests.  

In terms of the fourth general objective of the revision, to improve the efficiency of the 
governance tools of the TEN-T Regulation, again all three POs respond to this need, but 
PO3  at  a  much  higher  level  by  reinforcing  the  role  of  European  Coordinators,  by 
streamlining  the  corridor  instruments  CNC  and  RFC  and  ensuring  coherence  between 
national investment plans and TEN-T objectives (in particular the corridor work plans). 

7.2  7.2  Efficiency  

Efficiency concerns the extent to which objectives can be achieved for a given level of 
resources or at least cost. The combined measures under the three POs have economic, 
social and environmental impacts. The major costs of the policy options come in the form 
of  investment  needs  for  upgrading  the  network  to  reach  the  objectives  of  the  revised 
Regulation. Expressed as present value over 2021-2050, additional investments needs are 
estimated  at  EUR  206.5  billion  for  PO2  and  EUR  247.5  billion  for  PO3  (PO1  not 
implying any hard investments). A high share of those investment costs can be attributed 
to two measures (the extension of certain standards from the core to the comprehensive 
network; 160 km/h passenger line speed) that in return bring important benefits in terms 
of  GDP  growth,  employment  and  modal  shift  as  well  as  improved  interoperability, 
services for passengers etc. Overall, costs for public authorities (EU and national) would 
amount to around 99% of the total investment needs. 

Economic growth is  fostered by all POs, even though no quantitative assessment could 
be undertaken  for PO1.  PO3 has the greatest  positive effects  at  EU27 level  in  terms  of 
GDP. Indeed, PO3 leads to a GDP increase of 0.4% in 2030 and 2.4% by 2050 relative to 
the baseline. In terms of employment effects, again PO3 produces highest impacts with 
200,000  additional  persons  employed  in  2030  relative  to  the  baseline  (+0.1%)  and 
840,000 (+0.5%) by 2050, driven by an increase in labour demand brought by the higher 
investments  in  the  transport  sector.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  many  of  the  effects  on 
GDP and employment would unfold beyond the time-horizon of 2050 and thus be even 
larger than what is currently observed as impact for 2050. Given the advancement of the 

79 

 
completion  of  some  standards/network  sections  to  2040  under  PO3  and  thus  of  a 
considerable amount of investments,  second round effects  on demand, productivity  and 
consumption would also occur earlier.   

Improvements of road safety are brought by the extension of the motorway standard and 
the related safety features to all network sections above a certain daily traffic threshold 
reducing the number of fatalities and injured persons. The reduction in the external costs 
of accidents is estimated at around EUR 3,660 million in PO2 and EUR 3,930 million in 
PO3 relative to the baseline over the 2021-2050 period, expressed as present value. The 
reduction in the external costs of inter-urban road congestion is estimated at around EUR 
2,185  million  in  PO2  and  EUR  2,891  million  in  PO3  relative  to  the  baseline  over  the 
2021-2050 period, expressed in present value. 

Regarding  the  impacts  on  the  environment,  PO3  performs  quite  similar  to  PO2.  The 
demand  of  the  rail  mode  increases  under  both  PO2  and  PO3  while  the  road  mode  is 
losing  demand.  The  substantial  investments  in  rail  infrastructures  to  improve  the 
standards  of  the  core  and  comprehensive  network  stimulate  rail  demand,  both  for 
passengers and for freight. In return, this modal shift leads to a reduction of CO2 and air 
pollutant emissions, despite the growth of freight transport stimulated by the increase of 
GDP. In terms of CO2 emission reductions, PO2 and PO3 are relatively on equal footing 
although  PO3  achieves  slightly  higher  emissions  reductions  relative  to  the  baseline 
earlier  (by  2040).  Savings  in  external  costs  of  CO2  emissions  relative  to  the  baseline, 
expressed as present value over 2021-2050 are estimated at 357 million EUR in PO2 and 
387  million  in  PO3.  The  positive  impacts  on  the  reduction  of  NOx,  CO  and  VOC 
emissions  is  relatively  similar  between  PO2  and  PO3,  although  similarly  to  CO2 
emissions  PO3  achieves  slightly  higher  air  pollution  emissions  reductions  earlier  (by 
2040).  Savings  in  external  costs  of  air  pollutants  are  estimated  at  413  million  EUR  in 
PO2 and 420 million EUR in PO3, expressed as present value over 2021-2050.  

In addition, all three POs make the TEN-T more resilient to natural events, technical or 
human failures, with PO2 and PO3 responding more firmly to such needs. For instance, 
PO2 and PO3 address the adaptation to climate change indirectly by investment measures 
that upgrade the network to new standards. They also  contribute to the objective of the 
DNSH  principle.  Similarly,  in  terms  of  network  effects,  the  risk  of  insufficient 
maintenance  is  addressed  indirectly  via  the  upgrade  of  infrastructure  but  also  through 
new standards on maintenance and project life cycle considerations under PO2 and PO3 
who  perform  equally  well.  In  terms  of  a  potential  loss  of  biodiversity  and  soil  sealing 
PO1 does not  have  any  effect  while PO2 and PO3 would potentially have very limited 
adverse  effects  on  those  aspects  due  to  space  requirements  resulting  from  additional 
infrastructure measures. 

Administrative costs resulting from the implementation of the revised TEN-T Regulation 
are relatively limited and considered justifiable for all three POs compared to the benefits 
provided,  in  particular  the  economic  and  employment  gains  and  the  enabling  of  more 
sustainable forms of transport. Expressed as present value over 2021-2050, net costs for 
the  public  authorities  are  estimated  at  EUR  17.6 million  (i.e.  EUR  10.6 million  for  the 
Commission and EUR 7 million for Member States public authorities) and those for the 
private  sector  at  EUR  6.3  million.  In  PO3,  the  net  costs  for  the  public  authorities  are 
estimated at EUR 25.4 million (i.e. EUR 15.8 million for the Commission and EUR 9.6 

80 

 
million for Member States public authorities) and those for the private sector at EUR 8.6 
million.  

In  terms  of  governance  and  monitoring,  the  POs  will  build  on  the  already  well 
established  reporting  and  monitoring  instruments  which  shall  be  further  streamlined 
under PO1 (e.g. automated data input in TENtec system). This would allow for efficiency 
gains in all three POs. In addition, PO3 foresees to strengthen the role of the European 
Coordinators  and  their  work  plans  –  two  tools  which  were  judged  very  cost-effective 
according to the results of the evaluation results. As the system is already in place, only 
limited  additional  costs  are  expected  to  occur  from  this  measure.  Furthermore,  by 
aligning  the  CNC  and  RFC  also  in  terms  of  reporting,  monitoring  and  investment 
planning, certain savings, mostly for MS, can be expected especially under PO3.  

7.3  7.3  Coherence 

In general terms, there are no issues as regards internal or external coherence.  All three 
POs are fully in line with the key policy objectives of the Union, in particular regarding 
the  long-term  objective  of  achieving  climate  neutrality  by  2050.  They  respond  to  the 
policy  ambition  of  the  European  Green  Deal  and  the  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility 
Strategy, even if each PO to a different degree of ambition.  

PO1 precisely responds to the need to enhance coherence between legislative initiatives, 
notably  with  the  AFIR  and  ITS  revisions  by  providing  a  quality  infrastructure  network 
basis for the deployment measures developed under these policies. On top of this, PO2 
adds  several  measures  that  assure  coherence  at  “technical”  level,  by  introducing  new 
standards  and  requirements  (e.g.  assurance  of  consistency  of  TEN-T  with  the  DNSH 
principle;  obligation  of  all  urban  nodes  to  establish  a  SUMP,  taking  into  account 
environmental  plans  and  programmes  required  by  EU  acquis).  PO2  also  adds  an 
important  element  of  “internal”  coherence  between  the  comprehensive  and  the  core 
network by extending the core network requirements also to the comprehensive network. 
PO3  includes  several  measures  that  assure  coherence  between  different  policy 
instruments, notably through the integration of the two sets of corridors (RFC and CNC) 
into one coherent set of ETC. Similarly, PO3 ensures greater coherence with the military 
mobility actions by increasing the overlap between the military mobility and the TEN-T 
network through the addition of dual-use sections with EU added value into the TEN-T. 
Last but not least, PO3 assures that there is greater coherence with urban mobility policy 
by integrating urban nodes in a more coherent and substantial way into the TEN-T.  

7.4  7.4  Proportionality and subsidiarity  

None  of  the  policy  options  goes  beyond  what  is  necessary  to  reach  the  overall  policy 
objectives.  The  proposed  intervention  incentivises  a  shift  of  transport  volumes  to  more 
sustainable modes of transport necessary to deliver on the increased climate ambition for 
2030  and  the  overall  objective  of  reaching  climate  neutrality  by  2050.  The  POs  are 
designed to create a coherent policy framework and a coherent, high standard transport 
network as the basis for other sectoral policies, e.g. AFIR, ITS, RFCs, Urban Mobility, to 
deliver on their objectives. They are designed to avoid disproportionate impacts on public 
authorities,  operators  of  infrastructure  and  mobility  service  providers,  notably  by 
building on and further developing a well-established governance system. This has been 
fully  demonstrated  in  the  evaluation  of  this  Regulation  and  the  baseline  analysis 
81 

 
underpinning  this  impact  assessment.  Thus,  they  fully  respect  the  principle  of 
proportionality.  

Moreover, all three POs are in full respect with the subsidiarity principle. The proposed 
level of intervention at EU level is also considered to deliver the highest impact: they aim 
at enhancing a trans-European transport network which is by its very nature of EU added 
value  and  would  not  be  created  without  a  harmonised  intervention  at  EU  level.  This 
relates  in  particular  to  the measures on urban nodes, included under PO2 and PO3; the 
Regulation will include an obligation to establish a SUMP but fully leaves it the regional 
and  local  level  how  to  establish  such  SUMP;  urban  nodes  will  also  be  required  to 
develop  terminals  which  are  key  to  ensure  efficient  last  mile  connections  between  the 
TEN-T and the urban nodes. As regards maintenance, Member States will retain the main 
responsibility. New requirements are limited to an obligation to maintain the same level 
of service over the life-time of the infrastructures.  

Overall, the specific measures on urban nodes will have important impacts on the better 
functioning  of  the  network  as  a  whole.  The  lack  of  coherent  planning  between  long-
distance  and  local/regional  transport  is  contributing  to  congestion  problems  and 
bottlenecks.  The  lack  of  intermodal  terminals  hinders  the  increased  use  of  sustainable 
transport modes which rely on the use of such terminals which have to be available in a 
sufficiently  dense  way  across  the  EU  territory.  It  is  therefore  proportionate  to  foresee 
measures at the level of urban nodes, as they have a direct impact on the whole TEN-T 
system. 

7.5  7.5  Summary of the comparison of options, including stakeholder views  

All  POs  meet  the  overall  criteria  in  terms  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  coherence  and 
proportionality/subsidiary. One could  conclude their “performance” as follows:  PO1 is 
the  least  costly  option,  but  with  limited  impacts.  PO2  is  an  effective  option  with  very 
substantial effects on the TEN-T with regard to increased infrastructure quality, leading 
to decarbonisation of the transport system. PO3 is the most effective and efficient option 
due to the fact that the high standards of PO2 are implemented at a higher pace and on a 
broader  network.  Even  if  PO3  is  also  the  option  with  the  highest  investments,  the 
additional 31 billion EUR needed are fully proportional to the gains in economic impacts 
unfolding over time. All three POs fully respect the principle of subsidiarity.  

Stakeholders are very supportive of a revision of the TEN-T guidelines and the measures 
brought  forward  under  the  different  POs  received  high  affirmation  by  the  majority  of 
stakeholders  that  responded  to  the  OPC  survey.  More  importantly,  the  results  from  the 
consultation activities show that a wide majority of stakeholders expressed a preference 
for  TEN-T  to  focus  on  a  combination  of  measures  aiming  at  decarbonisation, 
digitalisation and “hard” infrastructure deployment, corresponding to the policy design of 
PO3.  Indeed,  34%  of  the  respondents  ranked  this  option  as  first  preferred  and  an 
additional  12%  as  second.  Widest  support  was  given  by  public  authorities  (44%), 
businesses (35%) and citizens (17%) who ranked this option first. 

82 

 
8 

8 PREFERRED OPTION 

Based  on  the  combined  analysis  of  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts, 
acceptance  by  stakeholders  and  expected  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  proportionality, 
the preferred option is  PO3 (accelerated and better aligned  TEN-T). This option strikes 
the best  balance between the achieved objectives  and the overall implementation  costs. 
Although these are estimated to be higher compared to PO2 (247.4 billion EUR for PO3, 
expressed  as  present  value  over  2021-2050,  compared  to  206.5  billion  EUR),  the 
additional  measures  introduced  under  PO3  bring  significant  benefits  in  terms  of 
economic growth and employment between 2030 and 2050. Furthermore, PO3 performs 
well in terms of shifting transport activity to more sustainable modes of transport in the 
freight and passenger transport sectors on both network layers. Due to the advancement 
of the implementation deadline for certain TEN-T standards in PO3 (2040) the positive 
effects are also felt earlier. As regards improvements in road safety both policy options 
show broadly similar impacts with PO3 slightly performing better.  

Moreover,  PO3  adds  an  important  dimension  to  the  cohesion  objective  of  TEN-T  by 
better defining (and integrating) the urban nodes, which play a crucial role for regional 
connectivity.  At  the  same  time  this  will  allow  to  better  align  the  objectives  of  urban 
policy  with  those  of  TEN-T  policy.  In  terms  of  CO2  and  air  pollutant  emissions  PO3 
shows  positive  results.  Only  for  particulate  matter  emissions  a  limited  increase  is 
recorded which is due to emissions from wear and tear linked to higher rail activity. 

When  it  comes  to  the  resilience  of  the  transport  system  PO3  is  also  in  this  area  the 
preferred  option  given  that  it  foresees  the  highest  dedicated  investments,  and  climate 
change  adaptation  of  the  TEN-T  will  mainly  take  place  when  upgrading  existing 
infrastructure. At the same time such upgrades will also lead to a  reduction of technical 
failures.  PO3  shows  good  effects  in  addressing  the  issue  of  maintenance,  which  is 
another aspect of resilience, by introducing minimum quality standards for maintenance 
and  project  life  cycle  standards.  PO3  would  address  the  issue  of  resilience  through  the 
alignment  with  the  RFCs  allowing  to  provide  for  alternative  routes  in  case  of  traffic 
disruptions on main railway lines  and increased  overlaps between the (civilian) TEN-T 
and the EU military network.   

PO3 constitutes a leap forward in terms of railway interoperability by obliging Member 
States  to  decommission  their  national  class  B  systems  and  replace  them  with  ERTMS, 
thereby ensuring more seamless transport. 

The  choice  for  PO3  is  also  supported  by  stakeholder  views  who  expressed  their 
preference for TEN-T to focus on a combination of measures aiming at decarbonisation, 
digitalisation and “hard” infrastructure deployment. Indeed, in the OPC the most popular 
“focus area” pronounced by the stakeholders was a combination of all options which well 
reflects the PO3 identified for this IA.  

83 

 
 
 
REFIT (simplification and improved efficiency) 

This  initiative  is  part  of  the  Commission  Work  Programme  2021  under  Annex  I  (new 
initiatives) and is not part of Annex II (REFIT initiatives).  

The  preferred  option  improves  the  functioning  of  the  TEN-T  policy  by  increasing  the 
efficiency of the regulatory framework as a whole. On top of that, the revision gives the 
opportunity  to  clarify  certain  requirements  and  concepts.  For  instance,  the  concept  of 
Motorways of the Sea as currently defined in the Regulation has been acknowledged by a 
large number of experts and project promoters as overly complex. The evaluation of the 
TEN-T Regulation confirms that it would 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’.  Another  example  is  the  alignment  of  the  Rail  Freight  Corridors  with  the  Core 
Network  Corridors  which  will  allow  optimising  the  instruments  and  avoid  duplication, 
for example the requirement to draw up investment plans under the Rail Freight Corridor 
Regulation which should be simply removed as such investment plans overlap with the 
work plans which are regularly prepared by the European TEN-T Coordinators.  

Two further simplifications that will lead to potential cost savings have been identified:  

  automated data input into the TENtec system allowing an exchange directly from the 

data source (Member State, infrastructure manager); 

 

replacing  the  biannual  work  plans  of  the  European  Coordinators  and  the  biannual 
progress reporting on the implementation of the TEN-T by the Member States with a 
formal  update  of  the  work  plan  including  the  priorities  for  the  respective  corridor 
development only every three years, with a brief annual progress report on the state 
of implementation of the Core Network Corridors, Motorways of the Seas (in future 
European Maritime Space) and ERTMS. 

While the preferred option increases the overall  implementation  costs for authorities, it 
generates improvements, in particular economic and employment gains and enables more 
sustainable forms of transport that more than offset the increase in regulatory costs.  

9 

9 HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The  Commission  will  follow  the  progress,  the  impacts  and  results  of  this  initiative 
through  a  set  of  governance  instruments,  based  on  the  TEN-T  governance,  such  as  the 
strengthened  European  Coordinators  and  their  work  plans.  Monitoring  will  be  even 
further strengthened in the revised Regulation (with reference to the tools of the preferred 
PO3).  The  European  Coordinators  have  in  this  regard  been  instrumental  as  they  act  as 
ambassadors of TEN-T policy and mediators for all relevant stakeholders that they gather 
in so called Corridor Fora. This work will be further boosted through a reinforced role of 
the European Coordinators.  In addition,  each European Transport Corridor and the two 
horizontal  priorities  will  be  supported  by  dedicated  studies  which  monitor  the  progress 
made with regard to the fulfilment of standards, deadlines and priority setting. This is for 
instance  reflected  in  a  very  close  monitoring  of  all  projects  planned  or  ongoing  on  the 
TEN-T  (so  called  “project  pipeline”  analysis  and  half-yearly  “project  implementation 

84 

 
reports”). Projects are thereby being assessed in terms of their financial maturity as well 
as their status in terms of permitting and procurement, so that problems e.g. in terms of 
delays  can  be  easily  spotted  and  interventions  being  planned  by  EC  and/or  European 
Coordinators. The new Regulation will also include the possibility to build more than in 
the  past  on  implementing  decisions.  They  will  not  only  foster  the  priority  setting  at 
national level, but also facilitate the monitoring of progress made on the TEN-T against 
defined and agreed milestones in those implementing decisions. As such, they are also a 
very  solid  basis  for  the  monitoring  of  those  projects  since  regular  progress  can  be 
checked per milestone and appropriate measures taken in case of delays. When adopting 
these  implementing  decisions,  the  Member  States  concerned  also  agree  to  a  regular 
reporting  on  the  progress  achieved.  In  terms  of  monitoring,  the  progress  of  the  TEN-T 
will be monitored in terms of the technical completion of the TEN-T infrastructure with 
the defined TEN-T standards and against the defined deadlines of 2030, 2040 and 2050. 
The  standards  and  requirements  will  thereby  constitute  the  key  performance  indicators 
(see Annex 9) against which the success of TEN-T will be monitored (e.g. percentage of 
length of rail freight sections that are electrified, cater for 22.5 axle load and for 740 m 
train  length;  number  of  maritime  ports  with  a  railway  access  etc.).  The  progress  made 
with  regard  to  the  fulfilment  of  these  KPIs  will  be  documented  in  biannual  TEN-T 
implementation reports which do not only cover the technical progress made but also the 
financial investments done on the TEN-T by Member States and through EU funding and 
financing  instruments  (ESIF,  CEF,  EIB  instruments).  Next  to  it,  there  is  a  constant 
monitoring through the so-called TENtec database, a powerful information system which 
will  allow  in  future  an  automated  exchange  of  data  directly  from  the  data  source 
(Member State, infrastructure manager) in a timely manner.128  

128  In order to allow for a proper progress monitoring, it should be reminded that specific objectives 1-5 
should be achieved according to the implementation deadlines set for the different layers of the TEN-
T  network,  e.g.  2030  for  the  core  network  (existing  requirements),  2040  for  the  core  network  (new 
requirements) and important parts of the comprehensive network and 2050 for the remaining part of 
the  comprehensive  network.  In  general  for  these  five  specific  objectives  achievement  would  be 
measured through the level of network completion in terms of the respective standards (as foreseen 
in  the  work  plan  and  the  bi-annual  status  reports  of  the  network).  For  SO6,  implementation  of  the 
national  plan  requirement  would  apply  to  the  next  upcoming  plan  of  a  given  Member  State. 
Achievement would be measured through the work plans and the corridor studies and European Rail 
Traffic Management System and Motorways of the Sea studies. The alignment between Core Network 
Corridors  and  Rail  Freight  Corridors  would  apply  immediately  upon  entry  into  force  of  the  new 
Regulation. 

85 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The  lead  DG  is  Directorate  General  for  Mobility  and  Transport  (MOVE),  Unit  B1, 
Transport Networks.  

DECIDE reference number: PLAN/2020/8147 

The development of this initiative was announced under item  A 4 b) in Annex 1 to the 
Commission Work Programme 2021129. The Inception Impact Assessment was published 
on 20 November 2020130. 

Organisation and timing 

The Inter Service Steering Group (ISSG) for the evaluation of the TEN-T Regulation was 
set  up  in  September  2018  and  included  the  following  DGs  and  Services:  SG,  BUDG, 
CLIMA, CNECT, DIGIT, ECFIN, , EEAS, EMPL, ENER, ENV, ESTAT, GROW, JRC, 
MARE, NEAR, REGIO, RTD, SJ.  
The ISSG was later extended to cover also the Impact Assessment of the Regulation. In 
this  context,  the  following  services  were  added  to  the  ISSG:  DEFIS,  ECHO,  HOME, 
SANTE, TRADE. 

The  ISSG  approved  the  Impact  Assessment  roadmap,  the  Terms  of  Reference  for  the 
External  Support  Study  and  the  questionnaire  for  the  Open  Public  Consultation  and 
discussed  the  main  milestones  in  the  process,  in  particular  the  different  deliverables  of 
the support study. In total, 4 meetings of the ISSG were organised to discuss the impact 
assessment (in addition to 3 meetings on the evaluation). These meetings took place on 8 
September 2020, 24 March 2021, 9 June 2021 and 17 June 2021 (all virtual meetings). 
Further  consultations  with  the  ISSG  were  carried  out  by  e-mails.  When  necessary 
bilateral discussions were also organised with the most concerned services.  

Consultation of the RSB 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board received the draft version of the impact assessment report 
on 23 June 2021. The Board meeting took place on 22 July 2021 upon which a positive 
opinion with reservations was issued (see findings below). 

Evidence, sources and quality 

The impact assessment is based on research and analyses done by the Commission. The 
Commission  also  contracted  an  external,  independent  consultants  team  (Ricardo 
Nederland  B.V.  as  leader  of  the  group  together  with  Ricardo-AEA  Limited,  TRT 
Trasporti  e  Territorio  srl  (TRT)  and  M-Five  GmbH  Mobility,  Futures,  Innovation, 
Economics  (M-FIVE))  to  support  this  impact  assessment  in  specific  tasks;  i.e.  the 
assessment  of  the  policy  options,  the  comparison  of  the  options,  the  assessment  of  the 
administrative costs as well as the analysis of the open public consultation. The external 
support study will be published alongside this report.  In addition, the Baseline scenario 
has been developed by  E3Modelling with  the PRIMES-TREMOVE model,  drawing on 
the MIX scenario underpinning the impact assessments of the ‘Delivering the European 
Green Deal’ package. ASTRA and TRUST models have been calibrated on this Baseline 
scenario by M-FIVE and TRT, respectively.  

129  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2021-commission-work-programme-key-documents_en 
130  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12532-Trans-European-

transport- network-TEN-T-revised-guidelines_en 

86 

 
                                                 
Qualitative  and  quantitative  data  supporting  this  impact  assessment  has  been  collected 
from  Member  States,  regions,  infrastructure  managers,  transport  service  providers  and 
operators,  project  promoters,  commercial  and  private  users  of  the  TEN-T,  expert 
stakeholders and academics as well as other relevant public and private stakeholders. To 
this end, an open public consultation has been organised from 10 February until 5 May 
2021. 496 responses to the OPC questions, and in addition 118 position papers/additional 
contributions,  have  been  received  through  the  OPC  system.  In  addition,  9  qualitative 
interviews  were  conducted  by  the  consultants’  team,  in  order  to  gather  additional 
information with regard to expected investment and administrative costs.  

Findings of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board  

RSB main findings  

Modification of the IA report  

(1)  The  report  does  not  sufficiently 
highlight  the  policy  choices  that  policy-
makers will need to make. 

(2)  The  funding  mechanisms  behind  the 
revised  guidelines  remain  unclear  in  view 
of  the  very  significant  resources  required 
for the initiative.  

(3)  The  environmental  value-added  of  the 
revision  of  the  TEN-T  guidelines  is  not 
sufficiently  clear  in  view  of  the  objective 
to make transport greener. 

The  different  policy  choices  have  been 
explained in further detail in Chapter 5.  

Chapter  1  on  the  legal  and  policy  context 
as well as Section 6.1.1 on the investment 
needs have been amended to better explain 
the funding mechanisms and the source of 
funding and financing resources.  

Chapter  5  has  been  amended  in  order  to 
better  outline  the  links  of  each  policy 
option  with  the  European  Green  Deal 
objectives.  Similarly,  chapter  5  explains 
now  more  clearly  the  baseline  scenario 
which  allows  to  better  assess  also  the 
environmental impacts of this initiative.  

RSB adjustment requests  

Modification of the IA report  

(1)  The  report  should  clarify  the  structure 
and  logic  of  the  options.  In  this  regard,  it 
should  consider  the  usefulness  of  keeping 
the minimalistic option 1 versus discarding 
it  upfront.  With  regard  to  option  2,  the 
report  should  clarify  whether  the  long 
catalogue  of  measures  are  all  required.  It 
should  discuss  if  any  other  policy  choices 
or  measures  should  be  highlighted  and  if 
alternative 
investment  priorities  were 
considered.  Finally,  it  should  substantiate 
the  generalised  support  of  EU 
better 
Member States for the respective options.  

A new sub-section 5.2.1 has been added in 
order to better explain the overall structure 
and logic of the policy options. Additional 
explanations  have  also  been  provided  in 
the introduction of chapter 6 with regard to 
the relevance of keeping policy option 1 as 
a  valid  option.  Moreover,  it  has  been 
clarified more precisely in section 5.2 why 
all measures are required in PO2 and more 
generally also the support of the respective 
options/measures  from  the  stakeholders 
and in particular from EU Member States. 
Alternative 
investment  priorities  were 
considered, but discarded (see section 5.3). 

(2)  The  report  should  provide  a  better 
overview  of 
the  funding  mechanisms 
supporting  this  initiative.  It  should  clarify 

Section  1.2  (legal  and  policy  context)  has 
been  amended  by  adding  a  specific  sub-
section  on  the  EU  added  value  of  TEN-T 

87 

 
 
how  the  considerable  amounts  of  funding 
that are required will be mobilised, taking 
into  account  the  limits  of  national  public 
finances  and  the  limited  involvement  of 
the private sector. The involvement of EU 
funding sources should also be clarified.  

and 

their 

funding 

investments 
and 
financing  instruments.  In  addition,  section 
6.1.1 
(investment  needs)  has  been 
amended  in  order  to  better  clarify  the 
sources  of  funding  and  financing  for  the 
realisation of the policy options.  

The  problem  description  with  regard  to 
this  aspect  (chapter  2)  as  well  as  the 
description  of  the  related  measure  no  20 
(section 5.2) has been amended in order to 
clarify this problem.  

A new sub-section 5.2.2 has been added in 
order to outline more precisely the links of 
each  policy  option  with  the  European 
Green  Deal  objectives.  It  also  underlines 
the  respect  of  the  do  not  significant  harm 
respective 
principle. 
measure  no  7  (see  Annex  6)  has  been 
described in further detail in section 5.2.  

In  addition, 

the 

of 

new 

(3)  The  report  should  better  explain  the 
functioning 
screening 
the 
mechanism  for  foreign  direct  investment. 
In  particular,  the  existence  of  a  potential 
problem  of  unequal  treatment  between 
domestic and foreign investment should be 
clarified.  

(4)  While  the  size  of  the  environmental 
impacts  is  certainly  influenced  by  the  fact 
that  the  baseline  already  accounts  for  the 
‘Delivering  the  European  Green  Deal’ 
package,  the  value  added  of  having  the 
revised  TEN-T  guidelines  in  addition  to 
the Green Deal should be better explained. 
The 
the 
should 
environmental  contribution  of  TEN-T  in 
comparison with the existing and proposed 
legislation.  It  should  explain  better  how 
TEN-T  projects  would  systematically 
the 
avoid  doing  significant  harm 
environment, including to biodiversity and 
through soil sealing.  

clarify 

report 

to 

intervention 

logic  should  be 
(5)  The 
further  strengthened.  In  particular,  the 
report should clarify how the options relate 
to  the  specific  objectives  and  ultimately 
how  they  tackle  the  problems  and  the 
problem drivers. In this regard, it would be 
useful  to  include  some  material  from 
Annex 6 in the main report.  

A  new  sub-section  5.2.1  has  been  added 
which  specifically  highlights  the  links 
between  problems,  problem  drivers, 
specific objectives and policy options. This 
section  also  incorporates  the  table  of 
Annex  6  in  a  condensed  form.  Annexes  6 
and 7 have been merged into one common 
Annex 6.  

(6) The coherence between the narrative of 
the evaluation findings and the information 
provided  in  the  impact  assessment  should 
be ensured, in particular when it comes to 
the  delays  in  the  implementation  of  the 
possible 
TEN-T 
consequences. 
the 
incorporation of the full implementation of 
the  TEN-T  regulation  in  the  baseline 
should be explained.  

network 
In 

the 
regard, 

and 
this 

the 

Section 5.1 has been amended as to better 
explain 
the 
rationale 
assumption of a full completion of the core 
network  by  2030.  Thereby,  full  coherence 
with 
the  evaluation  results  has  been 
ensured and clarified.  

behind 

(7) The report should assess in more detail 
the  proportionality  and  subsidiarity  of 

More  explanations  are  provided  on  the 
issue  of  subsidiarity  in  sections  3.2  and 

88 

 
 
 
 
In  particular, 

individual  measures. 
it 
should  clarify  why  TEN-T  needs  to  set 
requirements on urban nodes for passenger 
transport.  Given  their  moderate  ambition 
level,  it  seems  likely  that  local  authorities 
would  develop  these  hubs  where  needed 
without EU intervention.  

(8)  As  this  is  a  revision  of  existing 
legislation,  a  REFIT  section  should  be 
included  under 
the  preferred  option, 
analysing  the  scope  for  simplification  and 
reduction of administrative burden. 

3.3,  on  the  specific  measure  for  urban 
nodes  in  section  5.2  (under  policy  option 
2) as well as in section 7.4 (Proportionality 
and subsidiarity).  

A  REFIT  section  has  been  added  to 
chapter 8.  

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  

An  on-line  open  public  consultation  was  undertaken  between  10  February  and  5  May 
2021  on  the  EU  Survey  website131.  The  consultation  was  divided  into  five  sections, 
starting with  a general  question on the Regulation,  followed by questions on additional 
measures that might be taken in, and the potential focus of, an amended Regulation. The 
main issues covered were: 

  Measures enabling the decarbonisation and the reduction of air pollutant emissions in 

the transport system;  

  Measures related to infrastructure quality and resilience; 

  Measures related to innovation, digitalisation and automation; and 

  Potential focus areas for the policy options.  

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  are  presented  below  for  each  of  these  elements. 
Differences in responses by different types of stakeholder are presented, where these are 
worth  noting.  For  each  closed  question,  graphs  by  the  main  stakeholder  types  (i.e. 
business respondents, public authorities, citizens and others) were prepared and analysed. 
Comments  generally  relate  to  the  qualitative  responses,  i.e.  the  responses  to  the  open 
questions,  as  there  were  no  significant  differences  between  the  responses  of  different 
stakeholder  groups  to  the  closed  questions.  This  is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that,  overall, 
there  was  broad  agreement  with  most  of  the  measures  and  statements  within  the 
consultation.  As  a  result,  breaking  down  responses  by  stakeholder  type  revealed 
differences  in  the  level  of  agreement,  rather  than  strong  differences  in  the  views  of 
different stakeholder types. 

Distribution of the responses  

The consultation received 496 responses in total (see Table 1), of which 27% (134) were 
from public authorities and 19% (95) from EU and non-EU citizens (there was only one 
of the latter). There were more responses from regional public authorities (43%, 58) than 
from international, national or local public authorities. Industry respondents contributed 
the  next  highest  proportion  of  responses,  with  companies  /  business  organisations 
providing  18%  (90)  of  responses  and  business  associations  a  further  14%  (69).  In 
addition,  9%  (46)  of  responses  were  from  NGOs  and  2%  from  both  environmental 
organisations  (11)  and  academics  /  research  institutions  (7).  The  remaining  responses 
came from trade unions (1%, 5), consumer organisations (0.4%, 2) and organisations that 
classified themselves as ‘other’ (37, 8%).  

When  considering  the  responses  to  individual  questions  by  stakeholder  category, 
‘industry respondents‘ refers to those representing ‘business associations’ and ‘company 
/ business organisations’. 

131  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12532-Trans-European-

transport-network-TEN-T-revised-guidelines_en 

90 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 1:  Distribution of responses to the consultation by category 

Category 

Public authority 

EU citizen 

Non-EU citizen 

Business association 

Company/business organisation 

Non-governmental organisation (NGO) 

Environmental organisation 

Academic/research institution 

Trade union 

Consumer organisation 

Other 

Source: TEPR analysis of OPC 

Number of 
respondents 

Percentage of total number 
of respondents 

134 

94 

1 

69 

90 

46 

11 

7 

5 

2 

37 

27% 

19% 

0.2% 

14% 

18% 

9% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

0.4% 

7% 

The  most  well  represented  Member  States  were  Italy  (14%,  70),  Belgium  (12%,  59), 
Czech Republic (11%, 56) and France (11%, 53), which together provided almost half of 
the responses (48%). No responses were received from two Member States: Estonia and 
Malta.  There  were  also  ten  responses  from  Norway  and  Switzerland  (2%,  6  and  4, 
respectively), as well as responses from the United Kingdom (1%, 4), the United States 
(0.4%,  2),  and  one  each  from  the  French  overseas  departments  of  Martinique  and  La 
Réunion.  

There  appeared  to  be  a  number  of  sets  of  coordinated  responses  –  around  10  –  where 
responses to some open questions were similar, if not identical, in some cases. However, 
for many  of these, responses to  all of the questions were not  the same, which suggests 
coordination to communicate a particular message in response to some questions, rather 
than  a  campaign.  Having  said  that,  many  responses  from  Czech  citizens  and 
environmental  organisations  raised  concerns,  some  of  which  were  similar,  about  the 
TEN-T in  their country. This  suggests that, in  Czech Republic at  least,  there was some 
effort to encourage citizens to respond to the consultation. However, as the responses to 
other questions – such as the closed questions – did not all follow the same pattern, these 
responses have all been retained, although similar responses to the open questions have 
been highlighted.  

In addition, there were three other sets of coordinated responses of around the same size. 
A set of around 10 responses, mainly from NGOs and some citizens, focused their open 
responses on active mobility, particularly cycling, whereas another set of 10 companies, 
citizens  and  an  academic/research  institution  focused  on  the  benefits  of  the  TEN-T 
supporting  hyperloop.  Another  10  or  so  responses  from  rail  interests  covered  similar 
themes  on  several,  but  by  no  means  all,  questions.  In  addition,  there  were  smaller 
coordinated responses – consisting of between three to seven responses – from separate 
groups  of  Swedish,  French,  Dutch  and  Finnish  public  authorities,  as  well  as  from 
separate groups of Italian and Austrian business associations. 

91 

 
General questions on Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 

Stakeholders were asked to rank ten potential areas on which EU transport policy could 
focus (including an ‘other’ option). The focus that was considered to be most important 
was “enabling the decarbonisation of transport”, which received a ‘10’ more frequently 
than other options (45%, 284, five ‘no opinion’s), and was also more commonly ranked / 
rated as being important (i.e. receiving a rank of between ‘7’ and ‘10’; 93%, 461).  

The  statement  on  which  opinion  was  most  divided  was  the  improvement  of  dual-use 
(civilian and military) infrastructure, for which responses were almost equally distributed 
across all ranks (only 9% (43) gave this a ‘10’ and 40% (196) a score of ‘7’ or more). All 
of the other statements were important to the respondents, and there was little difference 
in the level of importance of these, as all received at least a ‘7’ from between 78% and 
85%  of  the  respondents.  Hence,  there  was  support  for  “ensuring  the  reduction  of 
environmental  costs  related  to  transport”,  “facilitating  multimodal  transport  chains”, 
“removing  physical  and  other  bottlenecks  in  the  network”,  “ensuring  connectivity  and 
accessibility  of  all  regions”,  “establishing  physical  cross  border  infrastructures”, 
“ensuring  EU  wide  quality  infrastructure  standards”  and  “'facilitating  the  coherent  and 
continuous EU wide deployment of innovative transport solutions”. 

Those  stakeholders  that  identified  an  ‘other’  area  on  which  the  TEN-T  should  focus 
proposed  a  number  of  areas,  some  of  which  could  be  seen  as  being  part  of  one  of  the 
other nine areas mentioned in the original question. The most common ‘other’ area that 
was  mentioned  by  industry  respondents  was  the  need  for  EU  transport  infrastructure 
policy to ensure the deployment of the necessary recharging and refuelling infrastructure 
for alternative fuels. Other common responses from industry respondents for other areas 
included maintaining TEN-T infrastructure, more appropriate and coordinated funding of 
transport  infrastructure  and  for  stronger  connections  between  the  TEN-T  and  urban 
transport.  There  were  also  a  number  of  more  detailed  areas  relating  to  supporting  the 
EU’s railway network. From the perspective of citizens, other areas included more focus 
on intermodality and for greater transparency and public participation.  

Measures enabling the decarbonisation and the reduction of air pollutant emissions 
in the transport system 

There  were  five  questions  that  focused  on  reducing  emissions  in  the  transport  sector. 
First, stakeholders were asked to state their level of agreement with two statements that 
proposed  potential  reasons  for  making  minor  adjustments  to  the  network.  The  vast 
majority agreed with both statements, i.e. that the network design needed to be adjusted 
to  take  account of  changing transport flows within the EU and with  neighbouring/third 
countries  (86%,  392,  40  ‘no  opinion’s)  and  to  further  strengthen  accessibility  for  all 
regions and cross border mobility (87%, 407, 28 ‘no opinion’s). 

Respondents  were  also  asked  which  type  of  adjustment  they  deemed  to  be  necessary. 
Common responses from both industry respondents are citizens called for more focus on 
multimodality and on developing the EU rail network, while another common response 
from  industry  respondents  was  a  better  alignment  between  the  TEN-T’s  CNCs  and  the 
Rail  Freight  Corridors  (RFCs).  There  were  also  various  responses  that  focused  on 
particular  modes  or  which  identified  specific  adjustments  that  they  saw  as  being 
necessary. A common response from public authorities was the importance of improving 
the  accessibility  of  all  regions,  with  various  mentions  of  specific  regions  in  particular, 
including  peripheral  maritime  regions,  remote  areas,  less  populated  areas,  mountainous 
and island areas, the EU’s Arctic regions and the EU’s Outermost Regions defined in Art 
349 TFEU. There were also calls – particularly from French authorities on, or near, the 
Atlantic Corridor, as well as Irish respondents – to adjust the network to reflect Brexit. 

92 

 
Second,  stakeholders  were  asked  to  express  their  level  of  agreement  with  a  number  of 
statements relating to the objective of decarbonising transport. At least two thirds fully or 
somewhat agreed with all of the statements. There were five statements with which more 
than 85% of respondents either fully or somewhat agreed:  

  “The TEN-T needs further enhancement to enable future decarbonisation and further 
reductions of air pollutant emissions of EU transport” (93%, 450, 10 ‘no opinion’s); 
  “The  provisions  for  urban/transport  nodes  should  be  strengthened  to  achieve  better 
multimodal services for passengers and freight and to facilitate last mile connections 
including  connections  with  active  modes  and  other  sustainable  urban  mobility 
solutions” (92%, 413, 47 ‘no opinion’s); 

  “Synergies  between  energy  and  transport  infrastructure  policies  need  to  be 
strengthened to enable future decarbonisation and further reductions of air pollutants” 
(91%, 431, 20 ‘no opinion’s); 

  “The coordination between TEN-T core network corridors and Rail Freight Corridors 
should  be  further  enhanced  to  increase  service  performance  on  the  network”  (89%, 
368, 82 ‘no opinion’s); and 

  “'The TEN-T should promote a high performance rail passenger network to improve 

service quality on the network” (87%, 379, 61 ‘no opinion’s). 

There  was  also  substantial  support  for  “'binding  requirements  for  recharging  and 
refuelling  infrastructure  for  zero  and  low  emission  vehicles”  (79%,  351,  51  ‘no 
opinion’s),  for  “further  requirements  to  strengthen  short  sea  shipping”  (76%,  291,  115 
‘no  opinion’s)  and  for  “further  requirements  to  strengthen  inland  waterway  transport” 
(70%,  267,  117  ‘no  opinion’s).  The  statement  with  the  least  support  related  to  the 
introduction  of  new  requirements  for  road  safety,  although  this  was  still  supported  by 
67% (255, 1167 ‘no opinion’s) of respondents. 

Respondents  were  also  asked  which  type  of  adjustment  they  deemed  to  be  necessary. 
While  there  were  many  responses  to  this  question,  few  mentioned  explicit  specific 
adjustments, as respondents tended to provide more detail on particular areas. Synergies 
between  the  TEN-T  and  TEN-E  were  particularly  highlighted  by  industry  respondents 
with respect to the smart charging of electric vehicles and the potential role of the latter 
for energy storage, while the importance of consistency with the revised alternative fuels 
infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) was underlined with respect to binding requirements for 
alternative  fuels.  Some  respondents  underlined  the  importance  of  a  technology-neutral 
approach to alternative fuels in general, or in relation to specific modes, e.g. the maritime 
and  inland  waterway  sectors.  A  number  of  more  specific  suggestions  were  made  in 
relation  to  further  requirements  for  railways,  inland  waterways,  short  sea  shipping 
(including in relation to Motorways of the Sea) and urban nodes, including an amended 
definition  of  the  latter  to  include  its  functional  area.  Areas  in  need  of  additional 
requirements  that  were  suggested  included:  allowing  heavier  vehicles  to  be  used  in 
international  travel;  more  support  for  public  transport  more  generally;  the  provision  of 
the  necessary  digital  infrastructure;  and  support  for  the  transport  of  captured  CO2  in 
addition to its transport by pipeline, which was the only mode covered by the TEN-E).  

Common themes raised by citizens included the importance of promoting rail, of actively 
taking action to reduce the use of cars and trucks and of improving the infrastructure that 
connected  long-distance  and  urban  transport.  Some  public  authorities  were  concerned 
about any new requirements being binding, as a result of the limited financial resources 
available to  them, although some  called for increased financial support from  the EU to 
address this. In relation to urban areas, there was support amongst public authorities for a 
larger  number  of  urban  areas  to  be  included  as  nodes  on  the  TEN-T,  for  an  expanded 
definition of an urban area and for more attention to be paid to the last mile in the context 
of strengthening links between urban travel and long-distance transport routes. 

93 

 
Third,  stakeholders  were  asked  whether  or  not  they  agreed  with  the  expansion  of 
specified requirements from the core network to the comprehensive network. Over 80% 
of respondents supported such an extension in each case, i.e. in relation to requirements 
for: transport and urban nodes (84%, 283, 159 no ‘opinion’s); road safety / quality (84%, 
251,  197  no  ‘opinion’s);  alternative  fuels  (82%,  315,  114  no  ‘opinion’s),  rail 
interoperability  (82%,  249,  194  no  ‘opinion’s);  and  intelligent  and  digital  TEN-T 
components (81%, 271, 160 no ‘opinion’s). 

Respondents  were  also  asked  to  specify  other  or  particular  core  network  requirements 
that  they  believed  should  be  expanded  to  the  comprehensive  network.  From  the 
perspective of railway interests, it was suggested that extending the core requirements to 
the comprehensive network needed to be carefully assessed, particularly with respect to 
ERTMS,  or  that  this  would  already  be  achieved  under  the  Technical  Specifications  for 
Interoperability  (TSI)  on  infrastructure  (TSI  INF).  It  was  also  underlined  that  the  core 
network  requirements  should  not  be  softened,  although  some  of  these  needed  to  be 
clarified.  Finally,  it  was  suggested  that  alternative  fuel  infrastructure  (e.g.  for  battery-
electric  and  hydrogen  trains)  was  more  appropriate  on  the  comprehensive  network,  as 
this was where trains using alternative fuel infrastructure were more likely to operate.  

In relation to maritime transport, it was suggested that whether a port was on the core or 
comprehensive  network  was  not  necessarily  the  most  important  factor  in  determining 
whether particular infrastructure was necessary. It was also suggested that requirements 
for safe and secure truck parking areas be extended to the comprehensive network. The 
most  common  theme  mentioned  by  public  authorities  was  that,  while  in  principle 
expanding the core network requirements to the comprehensive network could be useful, 
in practice it was not possible as a result of budgetary constraints, or that it would need 
more EU funding.    

Fourth,  stakeholders  were  asked  to  express  their  level  of  agreement  in  relation  to  the 
reinforcement of specified current instruments. Over 70% of respondents either fully or 
somewhat  agreed  that  each  instrument  mentioned  needed  to  be  reinforced.  The 
instrument for which strengthening was most supported was the improved alignment of 
planning and implementation procedures with which almost 90% (402, 46 no ‘opinion’s) 
agreed.  The  instrument  that  received  the  least  support  for  its  strengthening  was  the 
increased  use  of  implementing  acts,  although  71%  (285,  96  no  ‘opinion’s)  still  agreed 
with  this.  The  strengthening  of  the  other  two  instruments  mentioned  was  supported  by 
similar  proportions  of  respondents  with  78%  (330,  73  no  ‘opinion’s)  agreeing  that  the 
reporting mechanisms on the status of the TEN-T needed strengthening, while 76% (330, 
61 no ‘opinion’s) supported a strengthening of the role of the European Coordinators. 

Respondents were also asked to specify other or specific adjustments that they deemed to 
be  necessary.  With  respect  to  the  role  of  the  European  Coordinators,  some  industry 
respondents  and  public  authorities  suggested  that  this  was  needed  to  speed  up  the 
implementation of the TEN-T, and they were suggestions that this could be extended to 
cover the RFCs, the deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure and the digitalisation of 
the  network.  There  were  mixed  views  in  relation  to  the  role  of  the  Coordinators  in 
relation to Member States, with some calling for the Coordinators to have a stronger role 
with respect to Member States, with others suggesting that their work should not interfere 
with that of Member States. Similarly, there were some calls for Member States’ plans to 
be consistent with the corridor investment plans, whereas others called for the TEN-T to 
be  based  on  national  plans.  Some  responses  from  citizens  and  NGOs  also  called  for  a 
greater role of the EU, e.g. in ensuring that projects went ahead. Some NGOs also called 
for a better alignment of the TEN-T with EU environmental legislation, while there were 
various calls for greater consultation, e.g. with stakeholders and regions.  With respect to 

94 

 
Member  State  reporting,  some  public  authorities  called  for  a  common  set  of  indicators 
and for reporting to be more transparent. 

Finally,  stakeholders  were  asked  to  rank  the  importance  of  the  TEN-T  giving 
consideration to  different  plans. The plans that  were overwhelmingly  ranked first  more 
than others were the National Energy and Climate Plans, which were ranked first by 59% 
(292) of respondents and were ranked in the top three by 84% (418) of respondents. The 
second  most  important  plans  in  terms  of  its  first  (13%,  63)  and  its  first  and  second 
rankings (62%, 307), were the National Air Pollution Control Programmes / Air Quality 
Plans,  although  overall,  again,  84%  of  respondents  ranked  these  plans.  Fewer 
respondents gave the same level of importance to either noise plans (48% (239) ranked 
these) or River Basin Management Plans (25%, 125).  

Respondents were also asked to mention other plans to which they believed the TEN-T 
should  give  consideration.  The  most  common  other  plans  that  were  mentioned  by 
industry  respondents  were  national  plans  for  the  development  of  electromobility  and 
national economic recovery plans, while the most common plans mentioned by citizens 
were  national  transport  plans.  The  importance  of  the  TEN-T  giving  consideration  to 
biodiversity plans was the most common response raised by NGOs, while by far the most 
common  other  plan  mentioned  by  public  authorities  were  national  transport  and 
investment plans. 

Measures related to infrastructure quality and resilience 

Stakeholders  were  asked  to  indicate  their  level  of  agreement  with  improving  the 
resilience  of  infrastructure  by  introducing  particular  new  quality  parameters  or 
requirements  in  specified  areas.  At  least  64% either fully or somewhat  agreed with  the 
introduction  of  each  of  the  proposed  new  quality  parameters  or  requirements  that  were 
mentioned. Climate adaptation was considered to be the most important area in which to 
introduce  new  parameters  or  requirements,  as  this  was  supported  by  88%  (412,  27  ‘no 
opinion’s)  of  respondents.  This  was  closely  followed  by  improving  the  quality  of 
structural infrastructure, e.g. bridges and tunnels, which was supported by 86% (392, 42 
‘no opinion’s) of respondents, and new requirements for civil protection (80%, 338, 74 
‘no opinion’s). The introduction of new parameters and requirements relating to security 
or public order was the least popular option, although 64% (233, 131 ‘no opinion’s) still 
supported this. 

Respondents were also asked to mention other areas relating to infrastructure quality and 
resilience that could be considered. There were few additional areas that were mentioned 
in  this  respect.  Other  areas  to  which  requirements  might  be  considered,  which  were 
mentioned  by  industry  respondents,  included  requirements  relating  to:  electric  vehicle 
recharging  infrastructure;  infrastructure  for  all  alternative  fuels  more  generally;  the 
cybersecurity  of  relevant  digital  infrastructure;  or  to  the  upgrading  of  the  road 
infrastructure on the CNCs to support heavier vehicles. The resilience of public transport 
was  also  mentioned  (also  by  citizens  and  public  authorities),  with  the  implied  need  to 
support this, while a similar comment in relation to port infrastructure was made by other 
respondents,  e.g.  NGOs  and  public  authorities.  Industry  respondents  and  public 
authorities also mentioned the importance of there being alternative diversionary routes, 
particularly for important rail corridors, in order to improve the resilience of the network.  

Respondents  were  also  asked  about  how  infrastructure  quality  and  resilience  could  be 
ensured.  From  the  perspective  of  industry  respondents,  making  the  necessary  funds 
improved  monitoring  and  reporting  of 
available  was  highlighted,  as  was 
infrastructure quality. In relation to security, it was suggested that countries should retain 
control  over  strategic  infrastructure.  Responses  from  environmental  organisations 
focused on the importance of working with the environment to improve the resilience of 

the 

95 

 
the  transport  system.  The  development  of  infrastructure  for  inland  waterway  transport 
was a particular concern of NGOs, which underlined that this should be integrated with 
the  needs  of  nature  and  local  communities.  The  most  common  theme  mentioned  by 
public  authorities  was  the  importance  of  identifying  the  infrastructure  that  was  most  at 
risk  from  climate  change  and  of  prioritising  its  adaptation,  and  of  identifying  and 
prioritising the infrastructure that needed upgrading for other reasons. The importance of 
additional funding to improve the resilience of the network was also mentioned. 

Measures related to innovation, digitalisation and automation 

Stakeholders were asked to indicate their level of agreement with four statements relating 
to  digitalisation  and  innovation.  At  least  eighty  per  cent  of  respondents  either  fully  or 
somewhat  agreed  with  each  statement.  The  most  popular  statement,  with  which  85% 
(349,  86  ‘no  opinion’s)  of  respondents  agreed,  was  to  adjust  the  requirements  for 
intelligent  and  digital  TEN-T  components.  Further  enhancing  TEN-T  infrastructure  to 
enable the future automation of transport was supported by 83% (364, 58 ‘no opinion’s) 
of  respondents,  while  80%  (356,  51  ‘no  opinion’s  and  343,  67  ‘no  opinion’s, 
respectively)  supported  both  ensuring  a  forward-looking  framework  with  flexibility  to 
integrate upcoming innovations and the better definition of the digital components of the 
different modes of transport. 

Potential focus areas for the policy options 

Stakeholders  were  asked  to  rank  the  importance  of  the  specified  ‘Focus  Areas’  for 
achieving the objectives that had been set out. These covered: 

  Focus  Area  1:  Major  emphasis  on  a  “traditional”  infrastructure  development,  along 
with  network  design  adjustments,  the  updating  of  essential  infrastructure  quality 
requirements  and  the  integration  of  binding  requirements  for  recharging  and 
refuelling infrastructure for low and zero emission vehicles. 

  Focus  Area  2:  Strengthening  the  concept  of  infrastructure  quality  to  enable  more 
efficient and sustainable transport services and a modal distribution in line with new 
ambitions of transport policy overall and to ensure a more resilient TEN-T. 

  Focus Area 3: Boosting digitalisation and innovation in TEN-T policy. 
  Focus Areas 4: A combination of different elements of Focus Areas 1 to 3. 
  Focus Area 5: None of the above. 

The most popular focus area was Focus Area 4, i.e. a combination of elements from the 
first three focus areas, as this was ranked first by 169 respondents, while the least popular 
was  Focus  Area  5,  i.e.  ‘none  of  the  above’,  which  was  ranked  first  only  by  24 
respondents.  Focus  Areas  1  and  2  were  almost  equally  well  supported  by  participants, 
with  similar  numbers  of  respondents  ranking  each  of  these  first  (106  and  110, 
respectively) and second (140 and 129). Focus Area 3 was less popular when considering 
first (53) and second (102) rankings. 

Where  respondents  selected  Focus  Area  4,  they  were  asked  to  further  specify  their 
preference.  By  far  the  most  common  combination  mentioned  in  the  context  of  Focus 
Area 4 by industry respondents, NGOs, and public authorities was a combination of all 
three of first three focus areas, whereas the most common response from citizens was a 
combination of Focus Areas 2 and 3. 

Similarly, where respondents selected Focus Area 5, they were asked to further specify 
this. The most common responses here were: for the TEN-T guidelines to recognise the 
role  of,  and  integrate,  active  mobility,  which  was  from  the  coordinated,  NGO-led 
response on this subject; for the TEN-T guidelines to be aligned with nature protection 
and  restoration  from  an  NGO;  for  a  greater  focus  on  the  environment,  or  on  socio-

96 

 
economic  benefits,  from  citizens;  and  for  a  greater  focus  on  strengthening  workers’ 
rights, from a trade union representative. 

Additional contributions  

Many of the additional contributions reiterated, brought together or elaborated upon the 
respondent’s responses to the specific questions. Hence, these covered many of the same 
issues, many of the most important of which have been mentioned above in response to 
earlier  questions.  Many  responses  from  public  authorities  underlined  the  importance  of 
the  needs  to  specific  regions  being  taken  account  of  within  the  TEN-T.  In  particular, 
there was a call for a better integration of the EU’s Outermost Regions into the TEN-T to 
open  up  access  to  funding  and  to  improve  connections  of  these  regions  with  mainland 
Europe  and  third  countries  in  their  geographical  basin  so  as  to  reduce  persistent 
accessibility gaps.  

A  cycling  NGO  reiterated  the  comments  that  had  been  made  in  response  to  various 
questions  by  the  NGO-led  coordinated  response,  which  were  that  the  European  cycle 
network,  EuroVelo,  should  be  integrated  into  the  TEN-T,  alongside  other  modal 
networks,  and  that  cycling  infrastructure  should  be  integrated  into  all  TEN-T  projects. 
Finally, many additional contributions  mentioned specific adjustments that they wanted 
to see to the TEN-T, in terms of the nodes or sections of infrastructure that they would 
like to see added, or in a small minority of cases, removed.  

97 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

The revision of the TEN-T Regulation aims to ensure that the EU transport infrastructure 
policy is updated and aligned with the policy objectives set in the European Green Deal 
and the Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy (SSMS).  

The  preferred  policy  option  identified  in  the  context  of  this  impact  assessment,  Policy 
Option  3,  consists  of  a  package  of  measures  to  make  transport  greener,  seamless  and 
efficient, resilient, while improving the governance tools. The measures include first the 
adoption  of  new,  reinforced  or  clarified  standards  for  all  transport  modes,  in  order  to 
reach a fully interoperable and functioning EU wide network. There are also measures to 
address  bottlenecks  and  insufficient  connectivity,  notably  by  targeting  urban  nodes  and 
furthering  the  digitalisation  of  the  infrastructure.  Furthermore,  there  are  measures  to 
increase  the  safety  and  resilience  of  the  network.  Finally,  governance  is  improved  by 
streamlining the existing tools (including the integration of Core Network Corridors and 
Rail Freight Corridors into European Transport Corridors).  

The  revision  will  have  implications  for  different  actors  across  modes  of  transport.  The 
following key target groups of this initiative have been identified: 

Infrastructure managers for road, railways and inland waterways 

-  Public authorities at national, regional and local level 
- 
-  Ports, airports and rail-road terminals 
-  Transport service providers and users 
- 

Industry (construction companies, providers of technologies and equipment, etc.) 

The Regulation would require Member States, infrastructure managers as well as  ports, 
airports  and  rail-road  terminals  to  plan  and  implement  their  parts  of  the  TEN-T  in  line 
with  the  standards  and  deadlines  set  in  the  Regulation.  As  this  would  be  done  in  a 
coordinated  way,  they  would  also  benefit  from  the  better  connectivity  at  the  European 
scale  and  could  time  the  investment  in  the  best possible  way  to  maximise  the  benefits. 
They would be supported in this endeavour by the reinforced implementing tools, under 
the leadership of the European Coordinators. 

Transport  service  providers  and  users  would  benefit  from  an  improved  network,  where 
congestion is reduced through the removal of bottlenecks, where greater connectivity is 
achieved  by  having  a  fully  functional  network  reaching  all  regions  in  the  EU  and  well 
connected to  the neighbouring  countries  and  where the long-distance transport is  better 
connected  to  the  local/regional  transport.  These  benefits  should  balance  out  the 
possibility of increased charges for the use of improved infrastructure. 

As  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  would  require  investments  to  build,  upgrade 
and digitalise the infrastructure, industry (including SMEs) would benefit as provider of 
services and equipment. Industry at large as user of transport services would also benefit 
from the completion of the TEN-T.  

Society  at  large  would  gain  from  the  reduction  of  the  environmental  impacts  from 
transport, while maintaining a high level of mobility.  

98 

 
 
 
 
SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option – PO3 (expressed relative to the 
baseline) 

Description 

Consumer and business 
benefits 

Safety improvements – 
reduction in external 
costs related to 
accidents relative to the 
baseline (i.e. present 
value over 2021-2050) 

Amount 

Direct benefits 

Comments 

The  completion  of  the  core  and  the 
comprehensive  network  will  benefit 
the  users  of  transport  services,  both 
citizens  and  undertakings,  as  there 
will  be  better  connectivity,  more 
reliability, or faster connections. This 
should  lead  to  better  or  cheaper 
services,  in  particular  for  the  most 
environmental 
transport 
modes. 

friendly 

Indirect benefits 

€3,930 million  

features 

Indirect  benefit  to  society  at  large. 
Improvements  of  road  safety  are 
brought  by  the  extension  of  the 
motorway  standard  and  the  related 
safety 
to  all  network 
sections  above  a  certain  daily  traffic 
threshold  reducing  the  number  of 
fatalities  and  injured  persons.  The 
reduction  in  the  external  costs  of 
is  estimated  at  around 
accidents 
€3,930  million 
the 
relative 
baseline  over  the  2021-2050  period, 
expressed as present value. Transport 
users  and  society  as  a  whole  do 
benefit. 

to 

€2,891 million 

Reduction in external 
costs related to inter-
urban congestion 
relative to the baseline 
(i.e. present value over 
2021 – 2050) 

Indirect  benefit  to  the  society  at 
large.  Improvements  on  the  level  of 
interurban congestion are brought by 
a  shift  of  transport  volumes  to  more 
transport 
sustainable  modes  of 
decongesting  especially 
the  road 
mode  and  reducing  delays.  The 
reduction  in  external  costs  related to 
inter-urban congestion is estimated at 
around €2,891 million relative to the 
baseline  over  the  2021-2050  period, 
expressed as present value. Transport 
users  and  society  as  a  whole  do 
benefit. 

99 

 
 
€387 million 

€420 million  

Reduction of external 
costs related to CO2 
emissions relative to the 
baseline (i.e. present 
value over 2021-2050) 

Reduction of external 
costs related to air 
pollution emissions 
relative to the baseline 
(i.e. present value over 
2021-2050) 

Positive impact on GDP 
relative to the baseline 

GDP increase of 0.4% in 2030, 1.3% in 
2040 and 2.4% in 2050 relative to the 
baseline. This translates into €57 billion 
increase in GDP relative to the Baseline 
in 2030, €229 billion in 2040 and €467 
billion in 2040.   

to 

Indirect  benefit  to  society  at  large. 
Savings  of  CO2  are  an  effect  of 
modal-shift 
environmental 
friendly  modes  and  efficiency  gains. 
The reduction in the external costs of 
CO2 emissions is estimated at around 
€387  million  relative  to  the  baseline 
over 
period, 
2021-2050 
expressed as present value. 

the 

reduction 

Indirect  benefit  to  society  at  large. 
The 
in  air  pollutant 
emissions is driven by modal-shift to 
environmental  friendly  modes  and 
efficiency gains. The reduction in the 
external  costs  of  air  pollution  is 
estimated  at  around  €420  million 
relative  to  the  baseline  over  the 
2021-2050  period,  expressed  as 
present value. 

Indirect  benefit  to  society  at  large. 
These benefits are the result of large 
scale  investments,  driven  by  the 
measures of the policy option. These 
impacts  account  for  wider  effects 
than  only 
the  construction  of 
projects,  namely  the  indirect  effects 
on  other  economic  sectors  and  the 
effects 
increased 
improved  conditions 
productivity, 
and 
trade 
for 
technological  spill-overs.  The  whole 
society  benefits:  citizens  by  higher 
income, business by higher revenues, 
government by higher tax revenues. 

international 

induced 

by 

Positive impacts on 
employment relative to 
the baseline (additional 
persons employed and 
percentage change to 
the baseline) 

200,000 additional persons employed in 
2030 (0.1% increase to the baseline), 
561,000 additional persons employed in 
2040 (0.3% increase to the baseline) and 
840,000 additional persons employed in 
2050 (0.5% increase to the baseline) 

These  benefits  include  direct  jobs 
created  due  to  the  construction  of 
projects  and  indirect  jobs  created 
thanks  to  the  positive  impact  on 
GDP.  EU  employees  and  self-
employed do benefit. 

100 

 
 
 
 
II. Overview of costs – Preferred option – PO3 (expressed relative to the baseline) 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off  Recurrent 

Investment 
costs   

Administrat
ive costs    

Direct 
costs 
relative to 
the 
baseline 
(i.e. 
present 
value over 
2021-
2050) 

Direct 
costs 
relative to 
the 
baseline 
(i.e. 
present 
value over 
2021-
2050) 

€1,350 
million  

€1,754 
million 
(linked to 
road tolls to 
fund 
investments) 

€242,584 
million  
(investme
nt 
support) 

€178 million 
(linked to 
multimodal 
digital 
mobility 
services for 
passenger 
transport) 

€8.6 million  
(linked to 
adjustments 
for 
compliance 
with new 
requirements 
mainly rail/ 
road 
businesses) 

€1,605 
million  
(linked to 
multimodal 
digital 
mobility 
services for 
passenger 
transport) 

€25.4 
million  
(linked to 
participatio
n in TEN-T 
governance 
processes): 
€15.8 
million for 
the 
Commissio
n and €9.6 
million for 
Member 
States 
public 
authorities. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

1.  Description of the modelling tool used  

The analytical  framework used for the  purpose of this impact  assessment builds on the 
PRIMES-TREMOVE, ASTRA and TRUST models, complemented by the assessment of 
the administrative costs, etc.132 

The  baseline  scenario  has  been  developed  using  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  model  by 
E3Modelling. PRIMES-TREMOVE has a successful record of use in the Commission's 
energy, transport and climate policy assessments.  In particular,  it  has  been used for the 
impact assessments underpinning the ‘Delivering the European Green Deal’ package, the 
impact  assessments  accompanying  the  2030  Climate  Target  Plan133  and  the  Staff 
Working  Document  accompanying  the  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy134,  the 
Commission’s  proposal  for  a  Long  Term  Strategy135  as  well  as  for  the  2020  and  2030 
EU’s climate and energy policy framework.  

ASTRA and TRUST are the main models used to assess the policy options presented in 
this impact assessment. The assessment has been undertaken by MFive and TRT. For the 
baseline  scenario  they  have  been  calibrated  on  the  results  of  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE 
model.  

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  light  duty 
vehicles  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 

132   MFive et al. (2021), Analysis accompanying the Impact Assessment for the revision of Regulation 
(EU)  N°  1315/2013  on  Union  Guidelines  for  the  development  of  the  trans-European  transport 
network 
SWD/2020/176 final. 

133  
134     https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020SC0331 
135  

Source: 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/pages/com_2018_733_analysis_in_support_en_
0.pdf  

102 

 
                                                 
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.  

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 
TREMOVE136 modelling community. Part of the model (e.g. the utility nested tree) was 
built  following  the  TREMOVE  model.137  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  figures138.  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. Available data on 2020 market shares of different 
powertrain types have also been taken into account. 

ASTRA model 

ASTRA  is  a  strategic  model  based  on  the  Systems  Dynamics  Modelling  approach 
simulating the transport  system development  in  combination with  the economy and the 
environment until the year 2050.  

ASTRA  consists  of  different  modules,  each  related  to  one  specific  aspect  such  as  the 
economy, transport demand or the vehicle fleet. The main modules cover the following 
aspects: 

  Population and social structure (age cohorts and income groups) 

  Economy  (e.g.  GDP,  input-output  tables,  employment,  consumption  and  investment 

both at aggregate and at sectoral level) 

  Foreign trade (inside EU and to partners from outside EU) 

  Transport (including demand estimation, modal split, transport cost and infrastructure 

networks) 

  Vehicle fleet (passenger and freight road vehicles by segment and drivetrain) 

  Environment (including air pollutant emissions, CO2 emissions, energy consumption). 

136   Source: https://www.tmleuven.be/en/navigation/TREMOVE    
137   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. 

138   Source: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics_en  

103 

 
                                                 
The  economy  module  simulates  the  main  economic  variables.  Some  of  these  variables 
(e.g.  GDP)  are  transferred  to  the  transport  generation  module,  which  uses  the  input  to 
generate  a  distributed  transport  demand.  In  the  transport  module,  demand  is  split  by 
mode of transport. The traffic performance by mode is associated with the composition 
of the fleet (computed in the vehicle fleet module) and the emissions factors (defined in 
the environmental module), in order to estimate total emissions. 

Several  feedback  effects  take  place  in  the  ASTRA  model.  For  instance,  the  economy 
module  provides  the  level  of  income  to  the  fleet  module,  in  order  to  estimate  vehicle 
purchase.  The  economy  module  then  receives  information  on  the  total  number  of 
purchased  vehicles  from  the  fleet  module  to  account  for  this  item  of  transport 
consumption and investment. Furthermore, changes in the economic system immediately 
feed into changes of the transport behaviour and alter origins, destinations and volumes 
of European transport flows. 

The  indicators  that  ASTRA  can  produce  cover  a  wide  range  of  impacts;  in  particular 
transport  system  operation,  economic,  environmental  and  social  indicators.  The 
environment  module  uses  input  from  the  transport  module  (in  terms  of  vehicle-
kilometres-travelled  per  mode  and  geographical  context)  and  from  the  vehicle  fleet 
module (in terms of the technical composition of vehicle fleets), in order to compute fuel 
consumption,  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  air  pollutant  emissions  from  transport. 
ASTRA also estimates the upstream emissions (well-to-tank) due to fuel production and 
vehicles production. Therefore, well-to-wheel emissions can be provided as well. 

Strategic  assessment  capabilities  in  ASTRA  cover  a  wide  range  of  transport  measures 
and investments with flexible timing and levels of implementation.  

Geographically,  ASTRA  covers  all  EU  Member  States plus  United  Kingdom,  Norway 
and Switzerland. The model is built in Vensim software and is developed and maintained 
by TRT, M-Five and ISI Fraunhofer. 

Data inputs 

ASTRA  is  calibrated  on  the  EUROSTAT  database  and  data  from  the  Statistical 
Pocketbook "EU transport in figures139. In the context of this exercise, ASTRA model is 
calibrated on historical data for 2000-2015. 

TRUST model 

TRUST is a European scale transport network model developed and maintained by TRT 
and  simulating  road,  rail,  inland  waterways  and  maritime  transport  activity.  TRUST 
covers the whole Europe and its neighbouring countries and it allows for the assignment 
of passenger and freight origin-destination (OD) matrices at NUTS3 level of detail (about 
1600 zones) on the multimodal transport network140.  

Road  rail,  inland  waterways  and  maritime  transport  modes  are  covered  in  separate 
modules,  each  with  its  own  matrices  that  are  then  assigned  simultaneously  on  the 
multimodal transport network.  

TRUST is built in PTV-VISUM software environment. The assignment algorithm used is 
Equilibrium  Assignment  which  distributes  demand  for  each  origin/destination  pair 
among  available  alternative  routes,  according  to  Wardrop  first  principle.  This  principle 
assumes  that  each  traveller  is  identical,  non-cooperative  and  rational  in  selecting  the 
shortest  route,  and  knows  the  exact  travel  time  he/she  will  encounter.  If  all  travellers 

139  
140  

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics_en  
Further information on TRUST is available on http://www.trt.it/en/tools/trust/ 

104 

 
                                                 
select routes according to this principle the road network will be at equilibrium, such that 
no one can reduce their travel times by unilaterally choosing another route of the same 
OD pair. This principle has been extended to consider generalised travel cost instead of 
travel  time,  where  generalised  travel  cost  can  include  the  monetary  cost  of  in-vehicle 
travel time, tolls, parking charges and fuel consumption costs. The impedance function is 
defined in terms of generalised time from an origin O to a destination D. Travel costs are 
defined  separately  by  link  types  using  combinations  of  fixed,  time-dependent  and 
distance-dependent  parameters.  Travel  time  is  estimated  endogenously  by  the  model  as 
result of the assignment. Speed-flow functions are used to model the impact of traffic on 
free-flow  speeds,  given  links  capacity.  The  model  iterates  until  a  pre-defined 
convergence criterion for equilibrium is reached. 

TRUST  can  be  used  in  the  context  of  impact  assessments  and  for  supporting  policy 
formulation  and  evaluation.  It  is  particularly  suitable  for  modelling  road  charging 
schemes  for  cars  and  heavy  goods  vehicles  as  well  as  policies  in  the  field  of 
infrastructure. 

Data inputs 

The main data sources for inputs to the TRUST model are the EUROSTAT database and 
the Statistical Pocketbook "EU transport in figures141, TENtec Information system142 and 
ETISplus database. 

2.  Baseline scenario 

to  reflect 

the  fundamental  socio-economic, 

transport  and  GHG  emissions.  The  socio-economic  and 

technological  and  policy 
In  order 
developments,  the  Commission  prepares  periodically  an  EU  Reference  Scenario  on 
energy, 
technological 
developments used for developing the baseline scenario for this impact assessment build 
on the latest  “EU Reference 2020 scenario” (REF2020)143. The same assumptions have 
been used in the MIX scenario underpinning the impact assessments accompanying the 
‘Delivering the European Green Deal’ package.   

Main assumptions of the Baseline scenario 

The main assumptions related to economic development, international energy prices and 
technologies are described below. 

Economic assumptions  

The  modelling  work  is  based  on  socio-economic  assumptions  describing  the  expected 
evolution  of  the  European  society.  Long-term  projections  on  population  dynamics  and 
economic activity form part of the input to the model and are used to estimate transport 
activity.  
Population  projections  from  Eurostat144  are  used  to  estimate  the  evolution  of  the 
European  population,  which  is  expected  to  change  little  in  total  number  in  the  coming 
decades.  The  GDP  growth  projections  are  from  the  Ageing  Report  2021145  by  the 

141   Source: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics_en  
142   https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure-ten-t-connecting-europe/tentec-information-

system_en 

143   Link to publication once available 
144   EUROPOP2019 

population 

projections: 

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/population-

demography-migration-projections/population-projections-data  

145   The 

2021  Ageing  Report :  Underlying 

and  projection  methodologies 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2021-ageing-report-underlying-assumptions-and-projection-
methodologies_en  

assumptions 

105 

 
                                                 
Directorate  General  for  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs,  which  are  based  on  the  same 
population growth assumptions. 

106 

 
 
 
Table 1: Projected population and GDP growth per Member State 

Population 

GDP growth 

EU27 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

2020 

447.7 

8.90 

11.51 

6.95 

4.06 

0.89 

2025 

449.3 

9.03 

11.66 

6.69 

3.94 

0.93 

2030 

449.1 

9.15 

11.76 

6.45 

3.83 

0.96 

10.69 

10.79 

10.76 

5.81 

1.33 

5.53 

67.20 

83.14 

10.70 

9.77 

4.97 

60.29 

1.91 

2.79 

0.63 

0.51 

17.40 

37.94 

10.29 

19.28 

5.46 

2.10 

47.32 

10.32 

5.88 

1.32 

5.54 

68.04 

83.48 

10.51 

9.70 

5.27 

60.09 

1.82 

2.71 

0.66 

0.56 

17.75 

37.57 

10.22 

18.51 

5.47 

2.11 

48.31 

10.75 

5.96 

1.31 

5.52 

68.75 

83.45 

10.30 

9.62 

5.50 

59.94 

1.71 

2.58 

0.69 

0.59 

17.97 

37.02 

10.09 

17.81 

5.44 

2.11 

48.75 

11.10 

2020-‘25 

2026-‘30 

0.9% 

0.9% 

0.8% 

0.7% 

0.2% 

0.7% 

1.6% 

2.0% 

2.2% 

0.6% 

0.7% 

0.8% 

0.7% 

1.8% 

2.0% 

0.3% 

1.4% 

1.7% 

1.7% 

2.7% 

0.7% 

2.1% 

0.8% 

2.7% 

1.1% 

2.1% 

0.9% 

1.4% 

1.1% 

1.2% 

0.8% 

1.3% 

0.6% 

1.7% 

2.0% 

1.7% 

2.6% 

1.2% 

1.0% 

0.7% 

0.6% 

2.6% 

1.7% 

0.3% 

1.9% 

1.5% 

2.0% 

4.1% 

0.7% 

2.4% 

0.8% 

3.0% 

1.7% 

2.4% 

1.6% 

2.2% 

Beyond  the  update  of  the  population  and  growth  assumptions,  an  update  of  the 
projections on the sectoral composition of GDP was also carried out using the GEM-E3 
computable general equilibrium model. These projections take into account the potential 
medium- to long-term impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on the structure of the economy, 
even  though  there  are  inherent  uncertainties  related  to  its  eventual  impacts.  Overall, 
conservative  assumptions  were  made  regarding  the  medium-term  impacts  of  the 
pandemic on the re-localisation of global value chains, teleworking and teleconferencing 
and global tourism. 

International energy prices assumptions  

Alongside  socio-economic  projections,  transport  modelling  requires  projections  of 
international  fuel  prices.  The  2020  values  are  estimated  from  information  available  by 
mid-2020. The projections of the POLES-JRC model – elaborated by the Joint Research 
Centre and derived from the Global Energy and Climate Outlook (GECO146) – are used 
to obtain long-term estimates of the international fuel prices.  

146  https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/geco  

107 

 
 
  
                                                 
The  COVID  crisis  has  had  a  major  impact  on  international  fuel  prices147.  The  lost 
demand cause an oversupply leading to decreasing prices. The effect on prices compared 
to pre-COVID estimates is expected to be still felt up to 2030. Actual development will 
depend on the recovery of global oil demand as well as supply side policies148. 

The  table  below  shows  the  international  fuel  prices  assumptions  of  the  baseline  and 
policy options of this impact assessment.  

Table 2: International fuel prices assumptions  

in $'15 per boe  2000 
38.4 
Oil 
26.5 
Gas (NCV) 

‘05 
65.4 
35.8 

in €'15 per boe  2000 
34.6 
Oil 
23.4 
Gas (NCV) 

2005 
58.9 
31.7 

‘10 
86.7 
45.8 

‘10 
78.2 
40.6 

‘15 
52.3 
43.7 

‘15 
47.2 
38.7 

‘20 
39.8 
20.1 

‘20 
35.8 
17.8 

‘25 
59.9 
30.5 

‘25 
54.0 
27.0 

‘30 
80.1 
40.9 

‘30 
72.2 
36.2 

‘35 
90.4 
44.9 

‘35 
81.5 
39.7 

‘40 
97.4 
52.6 

‘40 
87.8 
46.6 

‘50 

‘45 
105.6  117.9 
57.0 

57.8 

‘45 
95.2 
50.5 

‘50 
106.3 
51.2 

Source: Derived from JRC, POLES-JRC model, Global Energy and Climate Outlook (GECO) 

Technology assumptions 

Modelling  scenarios  is  highly  dependent  on  the  assumptions  on  the  development  of 
technologies  -  both  in  terms  of  performance  and  costs.  For  the  purpose  of  the  impact 
assessments related to the “Climate Target Plan” and the ‘Delivering the European Green 
Deal’ policy package, these assumptions have been updated based on a rigorous literature 
review carried out by external consultants in collaboration with the JRC149.  

Continuing  the  approach  adopted  in  the  long-term  strategy  in  2018,  the  Commission 
consulted  on  the  technology  assumption  with  stakeholders  in  2019.  In  particular,  the 
technology  database  of  the  PRIMES-TREMOVE  model  (together  with  PRIMES, 
GAINS,  GLOBIOM,  and  CAPRI)  benefited  from  a  dedicated  consultation  workshop 
held on 11th November 2019. EU Member States representatives also had the opportunity 
to comment on the costs elements during a workshop held on 25th November 2019. The 
updated technology assumptions are published together with the EU Reference Scenario 
2020. The same assumptions have been used in the context of this impact assessment. 

Policies in the Baseline scenario  

The  policies  included  in  the  Baseline  scenario  build  on  the  MIX  scenario  framework 
underpinning the impact assessments accompanying the ‘Delivering the European Green 
Deal’  package,  relying  on  a  combined  approach  of  carbon  pricing  instruments  and 
regulatory-based  measures  to  deliver  on  the  ambition  of  at  least  55%  emissions 
reductions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050.  

In the context of this impact assessment, the  Baseline scenario excludes the revision of 
the TEN-T Regulation and other policy initiatives supported by it (e.g. the forthcoming 
revisions of the Intelligent Transport Systems Directive, Rail Freight Corridors Directive, 
Combined Transport Directive)150.  

147  IEA, Global Energy Review 2020, June 2020 
148  IEA, Oil Market Report, June 2020 and US EIA, July 2020. 
149  JRC118275 
150  In the context of the MIX scenario the revision of the TEN-T Regulation, the revision of the Intelligent 
Transport Systems Directive, the revision of the Rail Freight Corridors Regulation and of the Combined 
Transport  Directive  were  represented  in  a  stylised  way,  ahead  of  the  adoption  of  the  specific 
legislative proposals. 

108 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In terms of transport network, the Baseline scenario assumes the completion of the core 
TEN-T  by  2030  and  of  the  comprehensive  TEN-T  by  2050  and  no  further  EU  level 
intervention  besides 
the  full 
electrification of the core TEN-T rail network by 2030 and of the comprehensive TEN-T 
rail network by 2050, in line with the existing TEN-T Regulation. 

the  existing  TEN-T  Regulation.  It  also  assumes 

The policy measures reflected in the MIX scenario, relevant for the transport sector, are 
summarised below: 

-  Extension of the EU ETS to the maritime sector, as well as to the road transport and 

buildings sectors; 

-  Revision of the Renewable Energy Directive; 

-  ReFuelEU aviation and FuelEU maritime initiatives; 

-  Revision of the Directive on alternative fuels infrastructure; 

-  Gradual internalisation of external costs (“smart” pricing); 

-  Incentives to improve the performance of air navigation service providers in terms of 

efficiency and to improve the utilisation of air traffic management capacity; 

-  Further  actions  on  clean  airports  and  ports  to  drive  reductions  in  energy  use  and 

emissions; 

-  Measures to reduce emissions and air pollution in urban areas; 

-  Pricing measures such as in relation to energy taxation and infrastructure charging; 

-  Revision of roadworthiness checks; 

-  Other measures incentivising behavioural change; 

-  Medium intensification of the CO2 emission standards for cars, vans, trucks and buses 
(as  of  2030),  supported  by  large  scale  roll-out  of  recharging  and  refuelling 
infrastructure. This corresponds to a reduction in 2030 compared to the 2021 target of 
around 50% for cars and around 40% for vans. 

These policies come in addition to other EU level policies and the National Climate and 
Energy  Plans,  included  in  the  Reference  scenario  2020  and  also  reflected  in  the  MIX 
scenario. The full list of policies included in the Reference scenario 2020 is provided in 
the Reference scenario publication.  

Baseline scenario results 

EU transport activity would continue to grow in the Baseline scenario by 2030 and by 
2050,  albeit  at  a  slower  pace  than  in  the  past.  This  is  despite  the  significat  impact  of 
COVID  pandemic  on  transport  activity.  Freight  transport  activity  for  inland  modes 
(expressed  in  tonne-kilometres)  would  increase  by  30%  between  2015  and  2030  (1.8% 
per  year)  and  55%  for  2015-2050  (1.3%  per  year).  Passenger  traffic  (expressed  in 
passenger-kilometres)  growth  would  be  lower  than  for  freight  with  a  15%  increase  by 
2030 (1% per year) and 33% by 2050 (0.8% per year). The annual growth rates by mode, 
for passenger and freight transport, are provided in Figure 1. 

109 

 
Figure 1: Passenger and freight transport activity in the Baseline scenario (average growth 
rate per year) 

Source: Baseline scenario, PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model (E3Modelling) 
Note:  For  aviation,  domestic  and  international  intra-EU  activity  is  reported,  to  maintain  the  comparability  with 
reported statistics.  

Road  transport  would  maintain  its  dominant  role  within  the  EU.  The  share  of  road 
transport in  inland  freight would remain relatively stable by 2030 and slightly decrease 
by 2 percentage points by 2050. For passenger transport, road modal share is projected to 
decrease by 2 percentage points between 2015 and 2030 and by additional 2 percentage 
points by 2050. Passenger cars would still contribute 71% of passenger traffic by 2030 
and more than two thirds by 2050, despite growing at lower pace relative to other modes.  

Rail  transport  activity  is  projected  to  grow  significantly  faster  than  for  road,  driven  in 
particular  by  the  assumed  completion  of  the  TEN-T  core  network  by  2030  and  of  the 
comprehensive  network  by  2050,  supported  by  the  CEF,  Cohesion  Fund  and  ERDF 
funding, but also by the measures of the ‘Delivering the European Green Deal’ package 
that  increase  the  competitiveness  of  rail  relative  to  road  transport  and  air  transport. 
Passenger rail activity is projected to  go up by 24% by 2030 relative to  2015 (62% for 
2015-2050). High speed rail activity would grow by 68% by 2030 relative to 2015 (155% 
by  2050),  missing  however  to  deliver  on  the  milestone  of  the  Sustainable  and  Smart 
Mobility  Strategy  of  doubling  the  traffic  by  2030  and  triplying  it  by  2050.  Freigh  rail 
traffic  would  increase  by  41%  by  2030  relative  to  2015  (91%  for  2015-2050)  also 
missing  to  deliver  on  the  milestone  of  the  Sustainable  and  Smart  Mobility  Strategy  of 
increasing the traffic by 50% by 2030 and doubling it by 2050.  

Domestic  and  international  intra-EU  air  transport  would  grow  significantly  (by  39% 
during  2015-2030  and  82%  by  2050)  following  the  recovery  from  the  COVID-19 
pandemics, although at lower pace than projected in the past.  The lower growth is also 
driven by the measures of the ‘Delivering the European Green Deal’ package.  

Transport  activity  of  inland  waterways  and  national  maritime  also  benefits  from  the 
completion  of  the  TEN-T  core  and  comprehensive  network  and  would  grow  by  19% 
during  2015-2030  and  by  33%  by  2050.  When  considering  all  short  sea  shipping, 
waterborne transport activity (inland waterways  and short sea shipping) would grow by 
19%  by  2030  and  44%  by  2050  missing  however  to  deliver  on  the  milestone  of  the 
Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy of increasing activity by 25% by 2030 and by 
50% by 2050.  

Total  energy  use  in  transport,  including  international  aviation  and  international 
maritime, is projected to decrease by 9% between 2015 and 2030 and by 42% by 2050, 
which in the context of growing activity shows the projected progress in terms of energy 
efficiency  driven  also  by  the  measures  of  the  ‘Delivering  the  European  Green  Deal’ 
110 

0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%TotalpassegertransportRoadRailIntra-EUaviationIWW andnationalmaritimeAnnual growth rates in Baseline'95-'15'15-'30'30-'500.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%Total freighttransportRoadRailIWW andnationalmaritimeAnnual growth rates in Baseline'95-'15'15-'30'30-'50 
 
 
package.  These  developments  are  mainly  driven  by  the  CO2  emission  performance 
standards  for  new  light  duty  and  heavy  duty  vehicles,  supported  by  the  roll-out  of 
recharging  and  refuelling  infrastructure  and  also  by  the  shift  towards  more  energy 
efficient modes such as rail and waterborne transport.  
Alternative  fuels151,  including  renewable  and  low  carbon  fuels,  are  projected  to 
represent  over  15%  of  transport  energy  demand  (including  international  aviation  and 
maritime transport) in the Baseline scenario by 2030 and around 89% by 2050.  

Figure 2: Share of alternative fuels used in transport (including international aviation and 
maritime) in the Baseline scenario 

Source: Baseline scenario, PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model (E3Modelling) 

Electricity use in transport would steadily increase over time as a result of uptake of zero 
and low-emission powertrains in road transport and further electrification of rail. Its share 
in the total energy use in transport would go up from around 1.2% in 2015 to close to 4% 
in 2030 and 25% in 2050. The uptake of hydrogen would be facilitated by the uptake of 
fuel-cell  powertrains  in  road  transport  and  the  FuelEU  initiative  for  the  maritime 
transport,  supported  by  the  increased  availability  of  refuelling  infrastructure,  and  is 
projected to represent slightly over 18% of energy use in transport by 2050. Around 8% 
of all transport fuels in 2030 would be of biological origin, going up to close to 27% by 
2050.  Finally,  hydrogen-based  fuels  (e-liquids,  e-gas,  methanol  and  ammonia)  would 
provide another 18% for the transport fuel mix by 2050.  

including 

international  aviation  but  excluding 
CO2  emissions  from  transport 
international  maritime,  are  projected  to  be  19%  lower  by  2030  compared  to  2015,  and 
94% lower by 2050. Compared to  1990, this  translates into 1% emission reductions by 
2030  and  around  90%  by  2050.  When  accounting  the  intra-EU  aviation  and  intra-EU 
maritime in the transport emissions, the Baseline projections show reductions of 21% by 
2030 and 97% by 2050  relative to  2015. When  all intra-EU and  extra-EU aviation  and 
maritime  emissions  are  accounted  in  the  transport  emissions,  the  Baseline  scenario 
results  in  17%  decrease  in  transport  emissions  by  2030  and  93%  decrease  by  2050 
compared to 2015 levels.  

151  According to the Directive 2014/94/EU, ‘alternative fuels’ refer to fuels or power sources which serve, 
at least partly, as a substitute for fossil oil sources in the energy supply to transport and which have 
the potential to contribute to its decarbonisation and enhance the environmental performance of the 
transport sector. They include, inter alia: electricity, hydrogen, biofuels, synthetic and paraffinic fuels, 
natural  gas,  including  bio-methane,  in  gaseous  form  (compressed  natural  gas  (CNG))  and  liquefied 
form (liquefied natural gas (LNG)), and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). 

111 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%BaselineBaseline201520302050% alternative fuels in transport methanolammoniae-gase-liquidsliquid biofuelnatural gasbiomethanehydrogenelectricity 
 
                                                 
Figure  3:  CO2  emissions  from  transport  (including  international  aviation  but  excluding 
international maritime) in the Baseline scenario 

Source: Baseline scenario, PRIMES-TREMOVE transport model (E3Modelling) 

NOx  emissions  are  projected  to  go  down  by  56%  between  2015  and  2030  (87%  by 
2050), mainly driven by the electrification of the road transport and in particular of the 
light  duty  vehicles  segment.  The  decline  in  particulate  matter  (PM2.5)  would  be 
slightly lower by 2030 at 52% relative to 2015 (91% by 2050).  

As  explained  above,  the  Baseline  scenario  in  the  ASTRA  and  TRUST  models  are 
calibrated to the results of the PRIMES-TREMOVE model. 

3.  Modelling assumptions for the policy options, per policy measure 

The policy measures included in each policy option need to be translated into inputs for 
modelling. This section presents the assumptions used in the transport modelling with the 
TRUST model and the economic modelling performed with the ASTRA model, drawing 
on the impact assessment support study152.  

Transport modelling 

Policy  measure:  Introduction  of  minimum  passenger  line  speed  of  160  km/h  for  the 
passenger TEN-T core rail network 

According  to  information  available  from  the  TENtec  information  system,  the  overall 
length  of  the  EU27  TEN-T  core  rail  network  (including  planned  new  constructions)  is 
about  63,000  km.  Out  of  this,  nearly  47,600  km  of  network  are  available  to  passenger 
transport153. Always according to the TENtec information system, in 2017 the length of 
the existing rail passenger core network was about 40,000 km154. Out of this, 26,000 km 
of the network had a maximum operating speed (real value) for passenger trains equal or 
lower than 160 km/h155. This means that in 2017 about 65% of the core network did not 
meet the requirement of a minimum passenger line speed of 160 km/h. 

The introduction of the new standard on the core network however is planned to be fully 
operational by 2050 in PO2 and by 2040 in PO3. As such the measure will apply to those 

152  MOVE/B1/2020-252:  Analysis  accompanying  the  Impact  Assessment  for  the  revision  of  Regulation 
(EU) 1315/2013 on Union Guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network 
153  Considering only the core network sections whose railway activity is for ‘Passenger’ or for ‘Passenger 

and Freight’. 

154  About 7,700 km of network is indicated as ‘Planned New Construction’. 
155  This indicator does not consider the core network sections marked as “New constructions” and those 

sections whose information on the Maximum Speed is not available (i.e. near 1,500 km) 

112 

01002003004005006007008009001,000BaselineBaseline201520302050Mt of CO2inland waterways andnational maritimeaviationrailother road transportheavy goods vehiclesvanscars 
 
                                                 
sections that in  20 or 30  years from  now will not  yet  be compliant with  such standard. 
Therefore, TRUST model’s assumptions build upon the model’s network layer in 2030 to 
take into account the expected development on the core network (which is already part of 
the Baseline).  

To simulate a gradual phasing in of the measure in PO2 assumptions entail the upgrade 
of the minimum speed of the rail core network links to 140km/h in 2040 and to 160km/h 
in 2050.  

PO3 envisages the anticipation of the measure which is simulated by fully upgrading the 
minimum  line  speed  of  the  links  in  need  of  improvements  to  160  km/h  from  2040 
onwards. The measure was applied on 56% of the length of the TRUST core passenger 
rail network. Feedbacks on changes of network’s transport time due to the new speed set 
in TRUST have been used as input for ASTRA simulations. 

Policy measure: Possibility to run trains loaded with P400 units (P400 loading gauge) 
for rail freight on the core network 

According  to  information  available  from  the  TENtec  information  system,  out  of  about 
63,000  km  of  core  rail  network,  nearly  49,500  km  are  available  to  freight  transport156. 
Always according to the TENtec information system, in 2017 the length of the existing 
rail  freight  core  network  was  about  46,000  km157.  Out  of  this,  about  33,000  km  of  the 
network had a loading gauge not compliant with the P400 units. This means that in 2017 
about 66% of the rail freight core network didn’t meet the requirement of allowing P400 
units for semitrailers. 

The modelling of this measure has entailed as a first step the identification of the sections 
of the core network not compliant with this standard. As some information gaps occur in 
the  TENtec  layer  (especially  for  France,  Spain,  and  Portugal)  the  data  gaps  have  been 
filled  by  using  the  information  available  from  UIRR’s  map  of  codified  lines.158  As  a 
second  step,  all  OD  pairs  transiting  on  the  identified  links  have  been  identified.  This 
means identifying the OD pairs that are currently affected by the limitation of using P400 
semi-trailers units and that will benefit from future improvements of the network loading 
gauge. In a third step a reduction of operating cost and transport time have been applied 
on the identified OD pairs of the unitized freight rail matrix. This assumption is grounded 
on  the  consideration  that  the  removal  of  the  bottleneck  on  even  a  single  section  of  the 
whole route of an OD pair will improve the operation of the whole trip. 

Assumptions for these reductions have been derived from the following main sources: 

  EU (2016) Project Move/B2/SER/2013/825 (SYSTRA) Measuring and upgrading 

clearance gauge of railway lines. Market Study and Feasibility; 

  UIRR (2020): 2020 Report on Combined Transport in Europe;  

  UIRR (2021): UIRR Position Paper April 2021; 

  Tomlift159 for cost data retrofitting of semi-trailers. 

PO2 considered a reduction of operating cost of 9.2% per tkm and of transport time of 
7.3% by 2050 and half of these reductions by 2040, to simulate a gradual phasing in of 
the measure. 

156  Considering only the core network sections whose railway activity is for ‘Freight’ or for ‘Passenger and 

Freight’. 

157   About 3,500 km of network is indicated as ‘Planned New Construction’. 
158  http://www.uirr.com/media-centre/leaflet-and-studies/mediacentre/66-map-of-the-railw  
159  http://transport-innovation.com/en/tomlift.html  

113 

 
                                                 
PO3 considered a reduction of operating cost of 9.2% per tkm and of transport time of 
7.3% since 2040. Moreover, PO3 assumes in 2040 the possibility to run rail freight trains 
loaded  with  P400  units  also  on  the  non-core  sections  of  the  European  Transport 
Corridors  (ETC).  This  measure  is  modelled  by  adding  to  the  list  of  the  OD  pairs 
previously identified for  the core network’s upgrade the  additional OD pairs originated 
from  the  inclusion  of  the  new  ETC  sections  on  the  non-core  network.  It  is  worth  to 
consider  however  that  the  number  of  additional  OD  pairs  identified  due  to  the  new 
sections  is  rather  limited  as  most  OD  pairs  were  already  included  in  the  first  selection 
(i.e.,  stemming  from  the  application  of  the  new  standard  to  the  core  network).  Same 
reductions of transport time and cost  on the OD pairs transiting on the concerned links 
are applied. 

Feedbacks  on  changes  of  network’s  transport  time  and  costs  set  in  TRUST  have  been 
used as input for ASTRA simulations. 

Policy  measure:  Extension  of  certain  standards  from  the  core  to  the  comprehensive 
network:  application  of  the  existing  infrastructure  requirements  of  the  core  network 
also  on the comprehensive network: 22.5 t  axle load,  100 km/h line speed for freight 
and the possibility of running trains with a length of 740 m 

Other  key  components  of  POs  are  the  measures  aimed  at  enhancing  the  TEN-T  rail 
freight network and are related to the extension of certain standards (i.e. 22.5 t axle load, 
100 km/h line speed and the possibility of running trains with a length of 740 m) from 
the core to the comprehensive non-core network. These measures are planned to be fully 
operational by 2050 in PO2 and in PO3. Moreover, PO3 assumes by 2040 the anticipated 
extension  of  these  standards  to  the  comprehensive  non-core  ETC  sections.  The 
identification of network links to be upgraded is based on TENtec information system. 

For the modelling of the standard of 22.5 t axle load and of train length of length of 740 
m  all  OD  pairs  transiting  on  the  identified  links  have  been  identified.  This  means 
identifying the OD pairs that are currently affected by the limitation of running trains of 
22.5 t axle load or with a length of 740 m. In the following step time and cost reductions 
have  been  applied  on  the  identified  OD  pairs  of  the  unitized  freight  rail  matrix.  This 
assumption is grounded on the consideration that the removal of the bottleneck on even a 
single section of the whole route of an OD pair will improve the operation of the whole 
trip.  

PO2 applied a time reduction of 7% and a cost reduction of 12% (per tkm) by 2050 and 
half of these reductions by 2040 to simulate a gradual phasing in of the measure. In PO3 
the measure is anticipated to 2040 to the comprehensive non-core ETC sections. A time 
reduction of 7% and a cost reduction of 12% (per tkm) on the OD pairs of the unitized 
freight rail matrix transiting on the identified links were identified. In 2050 time and cost 
reductions  are  applied  also  on  the  rest  of  the  comprehensive  network  in  need  of 
upgrading. 

For the modelling of the speed, we improved the speed of the links of TRUST model’s 
rail freight network following the identification of links to be upgraded from the TENtec 
information  system.  Feedbacks  on  changes  of  transport  time  and  costs  set  in  TRUST 
have been used as input for ASTRA simulations. 

Policy measure: Requirements for terminals 

New  requirements  for  terminals  (with  exemption  system  for  specialised  terminals  and 
terminals in spatially constrained locations) include: 

- 

all types of intermodal loading units can be handled  

-  740m long tracks exist under the crane 

114 

 
-  no shunting required (includes electrification). 

To take into account these improvements a 5% reduction of time and cost at intermodal 
terminals was applied. Feedbacks on changes of transport time and costs set  in TRUST 
have been used as input for ASTRA simulations.   

Policy measure: Maritime / inland ports / terminals: extension of the TEN-T standards 
to the last mile connection by rail / IWW 

Although, in case of extension of the TEN-T standards to the last mile connection by rail 
/ IWW there is actually no need for lock change, most ports and terminals are run at least 
partly  by  private  companies  and  thus  on  network  border,  there  will  still  probably  be  a 
lock change for organizational reasons. However, the other requirements lead to decrease 
of  handling  time  and  an  increase  in  transportation  speeds.  Additionally,  trains  can  be 
longer  and  heavier.  As  a  consequence,  more  goods  can  be  transported  to  terminals.  In 
most cases terminal infrastructure with loading and handling of goods is the bottleneck. 
More  important  is  the  increase  in  reliability  due  to  more  rail  capacity  on  last  mile 
connections. As a consequence, only minor cost and time savings related to second order 
effects  of  about  5%  per  tkm  on  concerned  OD  pairs  were  assumed.  Feedbacks  on 
changes of transport time and costs set  in TRUST have been used as input for ASTRA 
simulations. 

Policy measure: Introduce new elements for passenger transport, such as the design of 
transfer terminals, accessibility for all users, information across modes (also covering 
first/last mile connections), enabling of innovative mobility services 

The enhancement due to digitalisation is coupled with the enhancement due to the better 
design of passenger terminals and is simulated within the ASTRA model by assuming a 
reduction of the time needed to access public transport modes. Based on expert estimates, 
small time improvements for long-distance travel and commuting can be expected from 
this measure (3%). In contrast, relative improvements for shorter distances are supposed 
to be larger (5%). A reduction of 5 minutes per trip was assumed. 

Policy measure: Digitalisation of passenger and freight terminals 

The  digitalization  of  passenger  terminals  offers  new  opportunities  for  customers  along 
the  terminal  service  chain  and  optimizing  personal  travel  operations.  Digital  services 
include among others electronic ticketing, navigation through the terminal, and real-time 
information and guidance in case of disturbances or delays. There are also overlaps with 
other measures relating to the digitisation for passenger transport. An example is the one 
“for  urban  nodes,  including  MaaS  services  allowing  passengers  to  access  information 
and book their journeys, including for public transport and active modes.” For passenger 
transport, digitalisation of terminals can lead to further cost and time savings of around 
1%.  

The enhancement due to digitalisation is coupled with the enhancement due to the better 
design  of  passenger  terminals  and  is  simulated  within  ASTRA  model  by  assuming  a 
reduction of the time needed to access public transport modes. A reduction of 5 minutes 
per trip was assumed. 

The  digitalisation  of  freight  terminals  is  modelled  in  TRUST.  Further  potential  to 
improve information flows and remove the main technical and administrative barriers can 
be realised by replacing the still common paper-based communication, electronic billing, 
etc. Consequently, a reduction of costs and time for freight handled at TEN-T intermodal 
terminals  of about  2%  was  assumed. Feedbacks  on changes  of transport time and costs 
set in TRUST have been used as input for ASTRA simulations. 

115 

 
Policy measures: Obligation to ensure motorway standard on core road network AND 
Obligation to ensure motorway standard for comprehensive network 

Both  PO2 and PO3 assume a reduced accident rate on the TEN-T road network due to 
the  newly  introduced  obligation  to  ensure  motorway  standard  on  the  core  and 
comprehensive  road  network  with  exemption  clause  based  on  traffic  intensity  (10.000 
vehicles / day in both directions).  For non-motorway roads whose traffic is higher than 
10.000  vehicles  /  day  in  both  directions  the  same  accident  rates  of  motorways  were 
assumed. 

Policy measure RFC alignment: Integration of RFC sections outside the TEN-T in the 
comprehensive network 

A  cornerstone  measure  of  PO3  is  the  creation  of  the  European  Transport  Corridors 
integrating Rail Freight Corridors (RFC) and Core Network Corridors (CNC). Following 
this integration, several RFC sections currently outside the TEN-T will be included in the 
comprehensive  (non-core)  network.  Other  sections  will  be  added  to  the  TEN-T 
comprehensive network following (i) specific request of Member States, (ii) the inclusion 
of new urban nodes, and (iii) the alignment of TEN-T with Military Mobility network.  

Overall,  the  TEN-T  comprehensive  network  will  be  extended  by  near  5,600  km  of 
railways and by near 2,000 km of roads. These extensions represent 5% of the currently 
defined TEN-T rail network and 1.9% of the road network.160 These changes have been 
modelled  in  TRUST  by  adding  and  removing  links  to  the  alignment  of  the  modelled 
TEN-T. 

Policy  measure:  Introduction  of  a  legally  binding  deadline  for  decommissioning 
national  (class  B)  systems  and  making  ERTMS  the  only  signalling  system  used  in 
Member States by 2040 for core and comprehensive network and thus to advance the 
ERTMS standard obligation for the comprehensive network to 2040 

The introduction of the ERTMS standard for the comprehensive network is simulated by 
assuming a reduction of  operational  costs of rail by 9%. This  assumption draws on the 
study  ‘The  impact  of  TEN-T  completion  on  growth,  jobs  and  the  environment’161. 
Feedbacks  on  changes  of  transport  costs  set  in  TRUST  have  been  used  as  input  for 
ASTRA simulations. 

Economic modelling 

Challenges with (investment) cost allocation 

The investment estimates are strongly affected by the problem of cost allocation. That is 
why this chapter is devoted to a general explanation of the problem as well as a specific 
characterisation of the TEN-T measures especially with regard to the rail KPIs defined in 
the policy options. 

Rail KPI requirements defined in the TEN-T scenario options are: 

(1) ERTMS control technology for passenger and freight trains 

ERTMS  requirements  are  widely  independent  of  the  other  KPIs  because  they 
need  improvements  of  the  communication  technology  in  the  locomotives  and  a 
few instalments alongside the rail tracks (balises). Although the planning of new 

160  The length of the EU 27 TEN-T comprehensive network under the current Regulation is 113,005 km of 

railways, 106,650 km of roads and 15,732 km of inland waterways. 

161  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/default/files/studies/ten-t-growth-and-jobs-synthesis.pdf 

116 

 
                                                 
projects often includes a list of the above options including ERTMS, the ERTMS-
related costs are widely separable from the other KPIs. 
(2) Terminals appropriate for P400 and 740 m long trains. 

P400 and 740 m for terminals are also planned in the context of comprehensive 
projects including at least KPI (5). There may occur a few overlaps with KPI (5) 
implementation (e.g. sidings on the last mile) while in general measures for KPI 
(2) are independent and their costs separable. 

(3) Min. design speed of 160 km/h for passenger trains. 

Design  speed  of  160  km/h  is  standard  for  long-distance  passenger  trains  on 
double tracks. Sections not compliant with this standard are in mountainous areas 
or in areas where the railway networks have not been sufficiently maintained and 
renewed such that low-speed sections remain. If modernisation is planned, then it 
will  include  speed  increases  for  passenger  and  freight  trains  on  sections  with 
mixed traffic. Therefore, KPI (3) is interdependent with KPI (7). 
(4) Min. quality standards for maintenance and project cycle standards. 

If  major  maintenance  and  replacement  investments  of  network  sections  are 
planned, these are often  combined with  upgrades and modernization. Therefore, 
there is a close interdependency between KPI (4) with KPI (3), (5), (7) and (8). 
The latter KPIs are then often calculated at incremental costs, using the argument 
that the maintenance and replacement of depleted components would have to be 
done anyway in certain cycles. 

(5) P400 on the network. 

P400  on  the  network  is  closely  related  to  P400  in  terminals  (KPI  (2)). 
Furthermore, it requires in general an adjustment of clearing spaces in tunnels and 
can be implemented in the context of major tunnel maintenance (KPI (4)). 

(6) Min. freight train length of 740 m.  

740 m train length on the network requires that the same requirement is fulfilled 
for  the  relevant  terminals  (KPI  (2)).  This  means  that  KPI  (2)  and  (6)  should  be 
planned in a coordinated way. 

(7) Design speed of 100 km/h for freight trains. 

A  design  speed  of  100  km/h  for  freight  trains  is  interdependent  with  the  design 
speed  for  passenger  trains  (KPI  (3))  and  can  be  provided  in  combination  with 
major maintenance and replacement work (KPI (4)). 

(8) Max. axle load of 22.5 tons for freight train cars. 

Providing  22.5  tons  of  axle  load  requires  to  strengthen  the  track  layers 
accordingly,  which  is  also  necessary  for  higher  train  speeds  (KPI  (7)).  Cost 
savings  can  be  achieved  if  this  KPI  is  implemented  in  the  context  of  major 
maintenance and replacement investments (KPI (4)). If this measure is planned on 
sections, which include tunnels, then also the adjustment of tunnel clearance can 
be done simultaneously (KPI (5)). 

therefore 

Figure 4 summarises the cost interdependencies between the KPIs. The costs of KPI (1), 
indicating  a  cost 
ERTMS,  are  widely  separable, 
interdependency with other KPIs. The 740 m KPIs (6) and (2) can be calculated widely 
independent from the other KPIs. There is only a close interrelationship between 740 m 
on the network and in the relevant terminals. The KPI with the highest interdependency 
is  KPI  (4)  which  denotes  maintenance  and  replacement 
investments.  Many 
modernization  measures  can  be  done  in  the  context  of  regular  major  maintenance  and 
replacement work. Measures for increasing freight train speeds and axle loads (KPI 7 and 

is  no 

there 

link 

117 

 
8) are interdependent,  because higher speeds also require  a higher strength  of the track 
design (and additionally further measures like reducing curvature).  

Figure 4: 

Interdependencies between rail KPI costs 

Source: M-Five 

It follows from these cost interdependencies, that investment costs for the KPIs (3), (5), 
(7)  and  (8)  could  be  lower,  if  they  are  implemented  at  the  time  of  periodical  major 
maintenance/replacement  investment.  However,  such  an  investment  policy  would  face 
two caveats: 

  The  presently  best-maintained  sections  would  come  last  in  the  maintenance 
cycles.  If  these  sections  show  high  traffic  volumes,  then  modernization  benefits 
on highly used tracks would be shifted to the long-term future.    

  Synchronising  the  above  KPIs  with  the  maintenance  cycles  would  lead  to  a 
patchwork  of  network  improvements,  i.e.,  train  routes  between  OD  pairs  would 
be left incomplete until the last section would be foreseen for maintenance work. 
Again, the benefits would be shifted to a long-term future. 

From  this,  it  follows  that  an  optimal  investment  strategy  presupposes  a  comprehensive 
network  approach  including  all  KPIs  simultaneously.  The  costs  to  be  allocated  to  the 
single  KPIs  then  can  be  derived  from  the  optimal  investment  strategy,  for  example  by 
applying methods of infrastructure cost allocation as mentioned above. 

Approach in this study 

For  estimating  investment  costs,  identical  data  sources  (were  possible)  were  used  to 
ensure consistency of numbers and methodology. Cost data for the appropriate measures 
can  be  found  in  the  Project  Database  from  the  study  on  “The  impact  of  TEN-T 
completion  on  growth,  jobs  and  the  environment”  (Schade  et  al.,  2018,  contract  no. 
MOVE/B1/2017-184)162,  which  in  total  includes  3,037  projects.  When  estimating  the 
investment  costs,  one  is  confronted  with  the  general  problem  of  the  allocation  of 
common  costs  described  above.  As  explained,  a fair  respectively  efficient  allocation  of 

162   The CNC project list is an extensive database of all projects planned along the core network corridors 
(CNC)  to  complete  the  TEN-T  core  network.  The  final  database  contained  3,037  projects.  These 
projects have notably been identified in the framework of the corridor analysis carried out by external 
consultants on behalf of the European Commission as well as in a study on ERTMS. Member States 
and other stakeholders/ project promoters have been closely involved (in particular through the 'Core 
Network Corridor Fora'). 

118 

 
 
                                                 
 
common costs or synergy  gains  is  insoluble due  to  interdependencies. Hence, the costs 
estimations  derived  from  available  data  in  the  CNC  project  list  are  based  on  the 
assumption  that  KPIs  are  implemented  separately  so  that  the  single  KPI  cost  items  are 
additive. 

The  second  important  data  source  are  the  TENtec  shapefiles  of  the  (rail)  network 
including  the  quality  parameters  of  each  section  (e.g.  complying  with  minimum  speed 
KPIs,  enabling  740m  trains,  etc.).  The  shapefiles  provide  the  length  of  sections  not 
complying with a KPI in km length. I.e. the information is provided on the length of the 
section not on the length of tunnels on a section which need to be upgraded to P400 or on 
the number of sidings to be upgraded or added to a section to comply with the 740m KPI. 
The advantage of using TENtec is to apply a commonly agreed and consistent database. 
The disadvantage is that average or benchmark figures at the level of sections need to be 
applied for the cost estimation as the exact figures (e.g. metres of length of tunnel to be 
upgraded to P400, metres of sidings and switches to be added to comply with KPI 740m, 
etc.) are not available in the TENtec database. 

This consistent approach results in relatively low investment costs per km for the KPI (6) 
(740m train length) on the network part which is presently not compliant with this KPI. 
A  reason  is  that  the  measure  requires  only  the  extension  of  sidings  but  is  based  on  the 
length  of  a  section  not  complying  with  that  KPI.  The  costs  for  KPIs  (7)  (speed  of 
100km/h)  and  (8)  (22.5  tons  of  axle  load)  are  estimated  much  higher,  because  they 
require major upgrades on the total km length of the non-compliant tracks. According to 
the  interdependency  analysis  (see  above),  cost  savings  can  be  achieved  by  a  joint 
realisation. As this could not be fully considered in the data source, one can follow that 
the cost estimations for KPIs (7) and (8) are in the upper range of plausibility intervals.  

This perception is supported by cross-checking estimations with other sources as well as 
expert  interviews.  Both  confirm  the  approach  and  show  that  the  estimates  can  be 
considered  plausible.  A  detailed  overview  of  the  investment  estimates  and  validation 
procedures for each individual measure is presented in the following chapters. 

To conclude, estimating isolated costs based on average values is a practical approach for 
the  TEN-T  impact  assessment.  However,  there  are  limits  to  this  methodology.  As 
explained  above,  single  KPIs  are  in  practice  implemented  as  a  package  and  share 
common costs. Therefore, a separate estimation  of costs is subject of possible criticism 
based  on  the  problem  of  cost  allocation.  In  addition,  average  cost  estimates  based  on 
available data were used. Actual costs of individual projects depend on topography (flat, 
hilly, adverse terrain), settlement structure (rural, urban), geographic location etc. and the 
costs vary widely between projects. 

Policy measure for rail freight: Possibility to run trains loaded with P400 units (P400 
loading gauge) for rail freight on the core network 

First,  the  sections  of  the  TEN-T  core  network,  which  are  currently  affected  by  the 
limitation  to  operate  P400  loading  gauge,  have  been  identified  by  using  TENtec 
shapefiles. The total length of the network sections, which are currently affected by the 
limitation  to  operate  P400  loading  gauge,  in  all  EU  Member  States  (MS)  is  around 
33,168  km.  The  length  of  the  network  affected  in  each  MS  was  then  quantified  and 
multiplied  with  the  unit  costs  per  km.  These  were  taken  from  the  case  study  on  RFC2 

119 

 
Calais-Basel.163 Based on the study, unit costs were estimated at approximately 107,215 
€2015  per  km.  Countries  which  need  major  upgrades  of  tunnels  are  France,  Italy,  Spain 
and Portugal. For Spain and Portugal, half of the cost rate has been assumed, because the 
Iberian gauge leads to lower conversion costs. Other than that, the unit costs were used 
for all identified network sections without differentiating individual profiles of tunnels or 
bridges (strength, max. axle loads etc.). P400 can be achieved by standard pocket wagons 
(33  cm)  and  lower  pocket  wagons  (27  cm).  These  estimations  are  based  on  standard 
pocket  wagons.  Using  lower  pocket  wagons  could  reduce  investment  requirements  for 
tunnels (394 cm instead of 400 cm clearance). 

Investments include initial costs that occur, for example, for adjusting tunnel clearance. 
Follow-up  costs  for  maintenance  are  not  considered.  For  EU27  the  total  investment 
amounts to 3,556 Mln. €2015 (PO2 and PO3164). These investments are phased-in linearly 
over the years starting in 2025 up to 2040 (in PO3) and up to 2050 (in PO2). In ASTRA, 
investments  are  fully  allocated  to  the  sector  Construction.  Based  on  the  impact 
assessment support study, a share of 10% comes from EU funding. The rest is financed 
by national public funding (90%).   

Policy measure: Introduction of a minimum passenger line speed of 160 km/h for the 
passenger core network 

To  model  the  introduction  of  a  minimum  passenger  line  speed  of  160  km/h  for  the 
passenger  core  network,  first  the  sections  of  the  TEN-T  passenger  rail  core  network 
whose  minimum  speed  by  2030  is  below  160  km/h  have  been  identified.  For  this 
analysis, the TENtec railway lines are used. The TENtec shapefiles are filtered by core 
network. Links which are only used in freight transport are left out. The lines were then 
aggregated  by  MS  and  line  speed.  The  speeds  are  further  clustered  into  five  different 
speed classes. The following table shows railway line speeds identified in the data inputs 
that  have  been  aggregated  into  speed  classed.  The  table  also  shows  the  estimated 
additional unit costs (per km) per speed class relative to the Baseline. 

163  EC (2016): Measuring and upgrading the clearance gauge of railway lines: Assessment of information 
systems  and  procedures.  Final  Report  with  authorships  from  UIC  and  SYSTRA.  November,  2016 
  Ref.  No.  FR01T15B62/DCO/EU/34-16.  Brussels. 
Contract  number  –  MOVE/B2/SER/2013-825. 
Available 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2017-report-clearance-gauge-
at 
railway-lines.zip 

164   Rail freight core network will not change. 

120 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 3: 

Speed classification and additional costs per kilometre relative to the Baseline  

Speed 
300 
(km/h) 
250 
200 
160 
150 
140 
120 
100 
80 
60 
50 
40 
30 
0 

Speed classes 
(km/h) 

Mln. € per 
km (€2015) 

>=160 

120-159 

80-119 

<80 

unclassified 

0 

5.5 

5.9 

6.2 

5.9 

Source: M-Five analysis of CNC project list 2017 

In  order  to  determine  the  costs  per  km,  the  Project  Database  from  the  study  on  “The 
impact of TEN-T completion on growth, jobs and the environment” (Schade et al., 2018, 
contract  no.  MOVE/B1/2017-184)  has  been  used.  After  filtering  current  projects  for 
upgrades, only fourteen projects met the criteria and where closely examined. Costs for 
the speed class 120-159 km/h were estimated at 5.5 mill. €2015/km as average and used as 
a  base  value.  Following  literature,  a  13  percent  cost  increase  has  been  attributed  to  the 
lowest  speed  class  (<80  km/h)  resulting  in  6.2  mill.  €2015/km  (EC,  2018,  Contract 
No2017CE16BAT002)165. The cost per km for the speed class 80-119 km/h is computed 
using a linear interpolation. There are no additional investments as part of this measure 
for sections  whose line speed is  already equal  or over 160 km/h. The TENtec database 
also  provides  some  network  sections  without  speed  classification.  For  these  parts,  the 
mean  value  (5.9  mill.  €2015/km)  of  all  speed  classes  under  160  is  estimated  to  project 
investments.  

The  last  step  is  to  multiply  the  upgrade  costs  per  speed  with  the  respective  network 
length in each MS. By assumption, investments are phased-in linearly into the ASTRA 
model between the years 2025 and 2040 (in PO3) or 2050 (in PO2). For EU27, the total 
investments amount to 134 bln. €2015 between 2025 and 2050 for PO2 and PO3. Rolling 
stock costs were not considered, as it is assumed that the rolling stock does not require an 
upgrade  as  on  some  links  they  were  already  enabled  to  drive  at  160  km/h  or  above. 
Investments are fully allocated to the sector Construction. Following the abovementioned 
Project Database, the infrastructure investments are assumed to be funded by EU funds 
(30%), by EIB loans (5%) and by national public funds (65%).  

Policy  measure:  Extension  of  certain  standards  from  the  core  to  the  comprehensive 
network:  application  of  the  existing  infrastructure  requirements  of  the  core  network 
also  on the comprehensive network: 22.5 t  axle load,  100 km/h line speed for freight 
and the possibility of running trains with a length of 740 m 

Calculations of investments are broken up into the three separate upgrades of: 

-  22.5 t axle load,  

-  100 km/h line speed and  

- 

the possibility of running trains up to a length of 740m. 

165  EC  (2018):  Assessment  of  unit  costs  (standard  prices)  of  rail  projects  (CAPital  EXpenditure).  Final 

report. Contract No2017CE16BAT002. Brussels. 

121 

 
                                                 
For either one of these three actions, the length of the network that needs to be upgraded 
is determined with data from TENtec shapefiles. The total length of the network sections 
for all 27 MS is around 23,000km, 19,000 km and 34,000 km respectively for PO2. That 
means a share of 23%, 19%, respectively 34%, of the total network.166 The unit cost per 
kilometre  stems  from  the  Project  Database  on  “The  impact  of  TEN-T  completion  on 
growth,  jobs  and  the  environment”  (Schade  et  al.,  2018,  contract  no.  MOVE/B1/2017-
184).  It  is  determined  by  using  comparable  projects,  which  only  include  an  upgrade 
regarding the specific measure. Average investments per km were calculated on the basis 
of these projects identified. The resulting cost figures are shown in the following table. 

Table 4:  Rail network standards unit costs and total costs by type of standard 

Standard 
22,5 t axle load 
100 km/h line speed 
740m trains 

Estimated Unit Costs  
6.5 Mln. €2015 per kilometre 
2.5 Mln. €2015 per kilometre 
0.02 Mln. €2015 per kilometre 

EU27 investment 
147 Bln. €2015 
(PO2) 
47.7 Bln. €2015 
  0.8 Bln. €2015 

EU27 investment 
150 Bln. €2015 
(PO3) 
48.9 Bln. €2015 
  0.8 Bln. €2015 

Source: M-Five analysis of CNC project list 2017 

These  costs  are  to  be  understood  as  additive  if  the  same  section  has  to  be  upgraded  to 
account for all three standards. For EU27 the total investment amounts to 195.4 Bln. €2015 
(PO2), respectively 199.9 Bln. €2015 (PO3). These investments are phased-in linearly over 
the years starting in 2025 up to 2050 (PO2). For PO3 the implementation period is 2025-
2040 for ETC comprehensive and 2025-2050 for the rest of the comprehensive network. 
In  ASTRA,  investments  are  fully  allocated  to  the  sector  Construction.  We  assume  that 
the  infrastructure  upgrade  is  funded  by  EU  funds  (45%),  by  EIB  loans  (5%)  and  by 
national public funds (50%). These shares were derived in the light of similar projects in 
abovementioned Database.  

Due  to  the  problem  of  cost  allocation  described  above,  the  estimates  are  subject  to 
potential uncertainties and criticism. One could argue that the costs for the KPI of 740m 
trains are on the lower bound, while the costs for the 22.5 t axle load might be estimated 
at the higher end of costs. Therefore, a review of the cost estimates has been carried out. 
To  validate  our  estimations,  they  were  cross-checked  with  further  sources  and  projects 
outside  the  CNC  project  database.  The  findings  are  summarized  in  Table  5  for  740m 
trains and Table 6 for 22.5 t axle load. 

Table 5:  Costs from other sources for 740m trains 

Country 

Area or 
Line 

Cost per 
measure 
(Mln.€)  

Cost per km (in Mln.€ / 
km) (as used in 
methodology) 

Source 

Measures for whole countries 

DE 

PL 

AT 

Whole 
country 

Whole 
country 

Whole 
country 

421 (5.6 
Mln. € per 
project) 

2342* 

240 

0.524 

Verkehrsinvestitionsbericht 2018 
Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2030 

5.1 

** 

Study on capacity improvement - SCI. 
Analysis of 740m long trains. North 
Sea-Baltic 
Programm Herstellung Güterzuglänge 
Überholgleise 

Country  Area or Line 

Mln. €  Mln. €/km 

Source 

Measures for single projects 

DE 

Emmerich – 

1.5 

0.022 

Study Long Trains (740m) Corridor 

166  Due to network changes, the affected network in PO3 slightly increases to 23.500 km (23%), 20.000 

km (19%), 35.000 km (34%). 

122 

 
                                                 
Oberhausen 

Karlsruhe – Basel 

Ceneri (Tunnel) 

Chiasso – Milano 
(geographically 
challenging terrain) 
Antwerpen Haven - 
Bundel B3 
Antwerpen Haven - 
Bundel Oorderen 

DE 

IT 

CH/IT 

BE 

BE 

6.2 

2.1 

5 

0.4 

0.4 

Rotterdam-Genoa 

0.032 

0.133 

0.068 

0.031  Study on capacity improvement - SCI. 
Analysis of 740m long trains. North 
Sea-Baltic 

0.036 

Average across all projects 

Ø 0.071 Mln.€ / km 

Lines without geographically challenging 
terrain and tunnels 
*   Improvements on the network is needed and included in costs. 
** Further relevant infrastructure work is included (figures not considered sufficient to derive any ‘representative’ costs). 

Ø 0.030 Mln.€ / km 

Source: Compilation by M-Five based on various sources 

Costs relate to the creation of railways sidings and passing tracks. One can notice a high 
variance in costs. The estimation for costs based  on km used here is on the low end of 
possible  cost  estimations.  However,  interviews  with  German  and  Austrian  Ministries 
have reconfirmed that it is difficult to separate the costs clearly from other measures in 
the  context  of  comprehensive  modernisation  projects.  This  implies  that  cost  data 
published  on  this  matter  refer  to  packages  of  modernisation  measures  and  cannot  be 
allocated  only  to  740  m  trains.  Figures  from  Belgium  underline  that  the  measures 
necessary  for  this  KPI  are  in  the  first  instance  related  to  the  adjustment  of  sidings  and 
therefore not cost intensive. This supports the cost estimates used.  

A relevant argument for an increase of cost estimations could be that the use data base 
refers to the past when the necessary construction works were easy to implement while 
this  might  be  more  difficult  in  the  future  (e.g.:  land  acquisition,  approval  processes, 
environmental regulations, mountainous areas). However, estimating such effects would 
require more detailed country information.  

Table 6:  Costs from other sources for 22.5 t axle load 

Country  Line 

Cost per measure 
(in M€)  

Cost per km (in 
Mln.€ / km)                     
(as used in 
methodology) 

Source 

HU 

HU 

CZ 

Rajaka s.b - 
Hegyeshalom 

Rákos - Felsőzsolca 

Praha Libeň - Praha 
Malešice 

Average Costs of Projects 

*   includes ECTS 

Measures for single projects 

62  

672.6* 

4.96 

7.32* 

51 

9.44 

Ø 7.19 

Amber rail freight 
corridor. 
Implementation plan. 
RFC 11 CID BOOK 6 
Rail Freight Corridor 
North Sea Baltic. 
Corridor Information 
Document. 
Implementation Plan 

Source: Compilation by M-Five based on various sources 

A  major  argument  for  a  possibly  lower  cost  estimation  for  22.5  t  axle  load  is  that  the 
necessary  construction  works  could  be  done  in  the  context  of  major  works  for 
maintenance  and  replacement  investment.  While  there  is  no  doubt  that  subtracting  the 
costs of regular maintenance and replacement from the total cost of upgrading to the 22.5 

123 

 
 
axle load limit will lead to significant reductions of the cost estimation (taking only the 
incremental costs) this does not solve the following problems: 

  The costs of several other KPIs can also be reduced if the works are coordinated 
with major maintenance and replacement investments (see Figure 4, in particular 
the interdependency with speed-related improvements). The problem of allocating 
cost  savings  of  modernization  packages  to  all  interdependent  KPIs  is  more 
complex. 

  The 

two  caveats  described  above  must  be  considered.  Synchronising 
modernisation  with  maintenance  cycles  might  cause  delays  for  the  usability  of 
complete OD-routes such that the beneficial use of the modernized tracks cannot 
start before the last major maintenance work on a route is terminated. 

Insofar calculating the costs of the 22.5 tons KPI at incremental costs would imply that 
the cost savings are only allocated to this measure.  

Life-cycle cost effects have to be considered: If investment costs are including not only 
the present costs of modernisation measures but also the future costs of maintenance and 
replacement,  then  further  costs  for  the  22.5  t  measure  have  to  be  added.    The  costs  of 
track  depletion  increase  non-linearly  with  axle  weight.  These  higher  costs  of  increased 
frequency of replacement needs are reflected in the German figures on rail freight track 
charging.  The  magnitudes  of  charges  which  are  derived  from  an  infrastructure  cost 
allocation analysis are 

  3.05 EUR/train.km for standard freight trains 
  4.30 EUR/train.km for heavy freight trains (+41%) 

From this, it follows that even if a part of cost savings from common investment would 
be allocated to the 22.5 t KPI this would be widely compensated by additional costs of 
major maintenance and replacement. 

Policy measure: Requirements for terminals 

Requirements  for  terminals  (with  the  exception  of  the  system  for  specialized  terminals 
and terminals in spatially constrained locations) include: 

- 

all types of intermodal loading units can be handled  

-  740m long tracks exist under the crane 

-  no shunting required (includes electrification) 

In  order  to  estimate  the  total  investment  required  for  this  measure,  several  cost  items 
were considered. To ensure that all types of intermodal loading units can be handled, 
there investments are necessary for: 

-  Vertical transhipment: Retrofitting of semi-trailers (e.g. system Tomlift), use of 

Modalohr UIC pocket wagons, platforms for semi-trailers (e.g. system NiKraSa), 
for swap bodies equipment of cranes and reach stackers with grappler arms 

124 

 
 
-  Horizontal transhipment: Horizontal transhipment (e.g. systems Cargo-Beamer, 
Modalohr horizontal)167, railrunner technology (swap bodies on rail bogies)  

-  Transhipment road-rail and rail-rail  

Rail-road  terminals  are  able  to  transship  loading  units  from  one  mode  to  the  other. 
Usually  this  is  done  by  gantry  cranes  and  reach  stackers  in  the  case  of  vertical 
transshipment.168  The  number  of  tracks  can  be  adjusted  to  the  capacity  demand;  small 
RRTs are equipped with one track, mega-hubs with up to six.  

Rail-rail  shipment  requires  at  least  two  tracks  for  the  trains  such  that  the  loading  units 
(LUs)  can  be  moved  between  the  trains.  Efficient  processes  require  at  least  two  gantry 
cranes (if trains are 740 m long). Additionally, a road is needed between the tracks and 
storage  areas  on  both  sides.  This  technology  may  replace  shunting  processes  on  route, 
because  not  the  wagons  are  re-ordered  rather  than  the  LUs  –  comparable  to  passenger 
transport. Additional requirements necessary are moving transport platforms for carrying 
LUs on the parallel  road between the rail tracks, plus  control technology dependent  on 
digitalization.   

These processes  can be  automated (e.g.:  in  the  mega-hub of  Lehrte/Hanover). A newly 
built  megahub  with  6  rail  tracks  and  storage  areas  for  LUs  using  multiple  innovations 
required investment costs of 440,000 € (Lehrte). As not every terminal can be upgraded 
to  a  mega-hub  of  this  category,  it  has  to  be  estimated  how  many  terminals  can  be 
upgraded  to  a  higher  quality  level  in  the  terminal  hierarchy  on  the  core  and 
comprehensive network. 

The  requirement  of  740  m  long  tracks  under  the  crane  is  not  a  matter  of  available 
space for most terminals (see UIRR, 2020)169. Large terminals allow already train lengths 
of 700 m and more (e.g.: 720 m for Mega Freight Centre Lehrte). However, the length of 
tracks  operated  with  transshipment  technology  is  often  shorter,  as  trains  presently  are 
much  shorter,  on  average.  Therefore,  for  medium  sized  terminals  additional  costs  for 
extension  of  tracks  can  occur.  This  may  be  combined  with  the  investment  into  an 
additional  gantry  crane.  Furthermore,  storage  areas  have  to  be  provided  (in  terminals 
which did not operate semi-trailers and swap bodies before) and the last mile before the 
terminal  has  to  be  upgraded  (electrification,  eventually  sidings  for  waiting  trains).  In 
addition, equipment for totally integrated electrical power has to be considered. 

The requirement of no shunting required can be interpreted in two ways: 

(1)  No shunting required within the terminals, i.e. no shunter locomotive and driver are 
required for moving the train access/egress sections or within the processing station. For 
modern terminals this is a minor problem. Either they apply swing drive, i.e. entering the 
terminal at a speed sufficient for pulling the wagons to the processing track and stopping 
at the catenary on the other side. Or a train is pushed onto the processing track while the 
locomotive  keeps  standing  outside  below  the  catenary.  Also,  other  less  expensive 
methods for moving the train within a terminal can be applied (e.g.: cable winch), but at 
low speed of the operations. 

(2)  No shunting on the route, in  the sense that wagons have not  to  be decomposed and 
blocked  at  marshalling  yards.  This  would  correspond  to  the  rail-to-rail  transshipment 

167  For  horizontal  trans-shipment,  about  10  systems  are  on  the  market  or  under  development.  The 
analysis  was  reduced  to  2  (CargoBeamer  and  Modalohr)  as  they  are  most  advanced  and  already  in 
operation for some ODs. 

168  Rail-rail trans-shipment  is also possible  with horizontal technologies.  But  this is not  considered here 

because the technology has not been applied until now. 

169  UIRR (2020): 2020 Report on Combined Transport in Europe. Brussels. 

125 

 
                                                 
discussed above. It has been assumed that there are no considerable additional costs for 
the ‘no shunting’ requirement. For the estimation of investments, the analysis is restricted 
to  rail-road-terminals  (RRT)  and  classify  them  following  literature  and  publications  of 
logistic associations170 taking into account the requirement set for the TEN-T. 

Table 7: 

Typology of rail-road terminals  

Type 
medium 
large 
mega 

Capacity LUs 
40-100,000 
100-150,000 
>150,000 

 number 
1-2 
of tracks  
2-4 
>=4 

electrical 
+ 
p. supply 
+ 
+ 

All type of 
+ 
LUs 
+ 
+ 

740 m track 
+ 
length 
+ 
+ 

Trans-ship 
- 
rail to rail 
75% 
+ 

Source: M-Five analysis of CNC project list 2017 (+ means fully provided; - means not provided)  

The requirements with respect to further facilities (road tracks for moving LUs, storage 
areas,  sidings,  power  supply)  are  implicitly  considered.  For  further  analysis,  all  small 
terminals  (below  40,000  LUs)  are  excluded.  We  further  assume  that  mega-hubs  are 
limited  in  their  performance  to  keep  costs  within  reasonable  limits.  Mega-hubs  can 
provide  a  host  of  additional  services  which  are  outside  the  minimal  performance 
requirements defined here (e.g.: automation of processes, value added services, areas for 
transport  companies).  It  has  been  assumed  that  all  mega-hubs  for  which  the  approval 
processes have been started are finalised by 2030 (about 10 are allocated to the existing 
core network). For the number of terminals, we follow Regulation (EU) 1315/2013171 for 
the core and comprehensive networks. 

Table 8:  Number of terminals in the core and comprehensive network 

Network 

Core 
Non-core 

Rail-road terminals EU27 

111 
101 

Source:  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013The  following  assumptions  are  set  for  deriving  a 
quantitative estimation of investment for the upgrades of terminals. 

(1)  Only  the  RRTs  of  Regulation  (EU)  1315/2013  with  the  typology  of  Table  4  are 
considered. Based on literature, it has been assumed that 50% of RRT are medium sized, 
35% are large and 15% mega-hubs.172  

(2)  According  to  the  data  provided  in  the  Fourth  Workplans  of  the  Coordinators,  the 
requirement of handling all LUs may be largely fulfilled by 2030 (more than 70%) while 
the  track  length  upgrades  are  lagging  behind  (less  than  25%  implemented).  Also  other 
requirements  like  electricity  equipment  (about  one  third)  are  far  from  being  achieved 
according to the plan. Furthermore, several Coordinators report that in many cases also 
access links (last mile) and sidings are outdated such that the access to the rail network is 
far  from  the  desired  quality  level.  From  this,  it  can  be  deducted  that  there  are  still 
significant  upgrading  issues  for  terminals  in  the  core  network,  which  will  need  further 
upgrading work after 2030. 

170  FhG  and  TUHH  (2017):  Integrierte  Maßnahmen  zur  Verlagerung  von  Straßengüterverkehren  auf  den 
Kombinierte Verkehr und den Schienengüterverkehr. Integrated Measures for Diverting Road Freight 
Transport to Combined and Rail Freight Transport. Im Auftrag des BMVI. Dortmund. 

171  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013R1315" 
172  UIRR (2020): Report on Combined Transport in Europe. Brussels. 

FhG  and  TUHH  (2017):  Integrierte  Maßnahmen  zur  Verlagerung  von  Straßengüterverkehren  auf  den 
Kombinierte Verkehr und den Schienengüterverkehr.  Integrated Measures for Diverting Road Freight 
Transport to Combined and Rail Freight Transport. Im Auftrag des BMVI. Dortmund. 

126 

 
 
                                                 
 
(3)  For the existing conventional terminals only costs for removing terminal restrictions 
are  calculated.  Vertical  transhipment  of  craneable  LUs  (containers,  semi-trailers,  swap 
bodies)  will  be  feasible  at  all  conventional  terminals.  Horizontal  transhipment  will  be 
provided  at  a  few  mega-hubs  and  new  terminals  which  are  added  to  the  present  list  of 
terminals.  Further  costs  for  innovations  (e.g.  automatic  transshipment  technologies, 
packaging of services) are not considered.  

(4)  The following specification are considered in relation to the requirement for vertical 
transhipment:  

-  Medium  sized  terminals  between  40,000  and  100,000  LUs/a  need  1  additional 

gantry crane and additional reach stackers. 

-  Large sized terminals between 100,000 and 150,000 LUs/a need 2-3 gantry cranes 
and additional reach stackers as well as a minimum of 2-3 processing tracks. 

-  Constructing  a  mega-hub  is  calculated  at  a  fixed  cost  amount  of  100  Mln.  €  on 
average. This is lower than the cases reported above and based on the assumption 
that  most  mega-hubs  are  not  greenfield  projects  but  rather  developed  from 
existing facilities. The total number of mega-hubs would then sum up to about 30 
in  2050  (15%  of  TEN-T  RRT,  10  in  the  extended  core  and  20  in  the 
comprehensive network for both PO2 and PO3). 

(5)   Horizontal transhipment facilities will be offered in  addition  to  the present  list  of 
terminals.  This  technology  will  be  primarily  interesting  for  new  terminal  locations  in 
areas  with  low  terminal  density  or  for  company  terminals.  They  require  different 
facilities,  additional  space  and  partly  special  pocket  wagons.  Costs  are  substantially 
higher  compared  with  vertical  transhipment  so  that  the  market  share  will  be  relatively 
moderate.  The  market  volume  is  estimated  at  about  15  %  of  existing  terminals  (=  30 
terminals) in 2040. It is shared 50:50 by CargoBeamer (35 Mln. € per hub) and Modalohr 
(30 Mln. € per hub, incl. access/egress, parking). 

(6)  Avoidance of shunting within terminals does not require costly facilities, contrasting 
the  avoidance  of  shunting  on  route.  Rail  freight  transport  without  shunting  on  route 
(change  of  wagons)  requires  a  transhipment  from  rail  to  rail  which  is  possible  at  large 
hubs and mega-hubs. It has been assumed that mega-hubs are designed from scratch for 
this option. The additional costs for upgrading large hubs which operate at least 3 tracks 
are estimated 25 Mln. € per terminal (road, moving platforms, area for storage). This can 
reduce the number of marshalling yards, nevertheless a minimum number of marshalling 
yards  is  still  necessary  in  a  conventional  rail  freight  logistics  system  if  single  wagon 
transport will be performed in the future. 

The following table summarizes the estimated unit costs. 

Table 9:  Unit costs for terminal requirements 

127 

 
Cost type 
(a)   Additional costs for vertical transshipment 

Unit (current €) 

Additional Costs 

Mega-hubs 

Mln. € per mega-hub 

Vertical transshipment technology in terminals 

Mln. € per terminal 

Rail-to-rail transshipment (change of LUs at medium 
and large terminal) 

Mln. € per terminal 

(b)   Additional costs for horizontal transshipment technology 

CargoBeamer terminals  with equipment, rolling stock  Mln. € per terminal 
Mln. € per terminal 
Modalohr terminals  with equipment, rolling stock 
(c)   Cost of extension of tracks to 740 m length 
Core network terminals 
Comprehensive network terminals 

Mln. € per terminal 
Mln. € per terminal 

Source: M-Five 

100 

15 

25 

35 
30 

15 
20 

Under these assumptions, the following cumulative investments at EU27 level have been 
calculated for PO2 in the period 2025-2050. 

Table 10:  Cumulative costs for terminal requirements in PO2 (2025-2050) 

Cost type 
(a)   Vertical transshipment 
Add. cost mega-hubs 
Add. cost vertical transshipment 
Add. cost rail-to-rail transshipment 
(b)   Horizontal transshipment 
(c)    740 m length 
Sum total 

Source: M-Five 

Investment on core 
network [Bln. 
€2015] 

- 
0.42 
1.94 
0.00 
1.18 
3.55 

Investment non-
core network [Bln. 
2.02 
€2015] 
1.54 
1.79 
0.99 
2.02 
8.36 

Total investment 
[Bln. €2015] 

2.02 
1.96 
3.73 
0.99 
3.21 
11.91 

The  additional  costs  for  vertical  transhipment  at  mega-hubs  are  on  average  100  Mln 
€current  per  mega-hub.  It  has  been  assumed  that  20  mega-hubs  meet  all  requirements 
resulting  in  an  investment  of  2.02  Bln.  €2015  (comprehensive  network).  As  25%  of 
terminals will not be equipped for operating all types of LUs in 2030, the additional costs 
at terminals on the core network for vertical transhipment technology are 0.42 Bln. €2015. 
Upgrading costs of 15 Mln. €current per terminal for 28 terminals on the core network have 
been assumed. All  101 terminals  of the  comprehensive network will need upgrades  for 
operating  all  types  of  LUs  (15  Mln.  €current  per  terminal)  resulting  in  an  additional 
investment  of  1.54  Bln.  €2015.  Costs  for  rail-to-rail  transhipment  (change  of  LUs  at 
terminal)  are  calculated  for  medium  and  large  terminals  only.  For  medium  and  large 
terminals (145 in total) core and comprehensive network investments will add up to 3.73 
Bln. €2015 assuming unit costs per terminal of 25 Mln. €current (track, crane, road, area). On 
top  are  the  additional  costs  for  horizontal  transhipment  technology.  Fifteen  additional 
CargoBeamer terminals (with equipment, rolling stock) and unit costs of 35 Mln €current 
have  been  assumed,  as  well  as  15  additional  Modalohr  terminals  at  30  Mln.  €current  per 
terminal. These sum up to 0.99 Bln. €2015. Estimating the costs of extension of tracks to 
740 m length, we assume that 78 terminals on the core network as well as all terminals 
on the non-core network need to  be upgraded (track length,  crane, areas) at  an average 
cost of 15 Mln. €current per terminal. This results in investments of 1.18 Bln. €2015 (core) 
plus 2.02 Bln. €2015 (non-core).  

128 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
For the overall measure, we estimate total investments for EU27 of 11.9 Bln. €2015 (PO2), 
which  are  linearly  phased-in  between  2025  and  2050.  Due  to  a  small  number  of 
additional  terminals  in  PO3,  EU27  investments  in  PO3  are  estimated  at  12.3  Bln.  €2015 
from  2025  to  2040.  In  ASTRA,  investments  are  attributed  to  the  investment  type 
Terminal  and  allocated  to  the  sectors  Industrial  Machines,  Computers,  Electronics, 
Construction, and Other market services. Based on the impact assessment support study, 
a  share  of  20%  comes  from  EU  funding.  The  rest  is  financed  by  national  public  funds 
(80%). 

Policy measure: Maritime / inland ports / terminals: extension of the TEN-T standards 
to the last mile connection by rail / IWW 

First, the TENtec ports and rail-road-terminals (RRT) based on current Regulation (EU) 
1315/2013 are used. The ports and terminals where then aggregated by MS as shown in 
the following table. 

Table 11:  Number of ports and terminals in each MS (PO2) 

Member 
State 

Ports 
Number   Comprehensive 

Network 

Core 
Network 

RRT 
Number  

Comprehensive 
Network 

Core 
Network 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
Total 

4 
20 
8 
2 
9 
103 
26 
8 
25 
38 
17 
43 
11 
8 
5 
45 
1 
1 
3 
4 
64 
5 
13 
18 
26 
1 
2 
510 

2 
10 
5 
1 
5 
80 
24 
7 
20 
25 
12 
28 
8 
6 
2 
29 
0 
0 
1 
2 
53 
1 
10 
12 
21 
0 
0 
364 

2 
10 
3 
1 
4 
23 
2 
1 
5 
13 
5 
15 
3 
2 
3 
16 
1 
1 
2 
2 
11 
4 
3 
6 
5 
1 
2 
146 

7 
3 
6 
0 
10 
41 
6 
1 
6 
27 
2 
18 
1 
5 
0 
27 
3 
1 
0 
0 
3 
19 
5 
7 
8 
2 
4 
212 

4 
2 
2 
0 
3 
20 
3 
1 
3 
17 
1 
6 
0 
4 
0 
12 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
9 
3 
4 
3 
1 
2 
101 

3 
1 
4 
0 
7 
21 
3 
0 
3 
10 
1 
12 
1 
1 
0 
15 
3 
1 
0 
0 
2 
10 
2 
3 
5 
1 
2 
111 

Source: M-Five based on Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 

It has been assumed that the costs of this measure are connected to the allocation of ports 
and terminals to the comprehensive or core network. Extending TEN-T standards to last 
mile connection for ports/terminals  being part of the comprehensive network is  costlier 
than  for  ports/terminals  being  part  of  core  network.  This  has  been  shown  by  the 
assessment of similar projects as described in the following.  

The unit costs per port/terminal stem from the Project Database on “The impact of TEN-
T  completion  on  growth,  jobs  and  the  environment”  (Schade  et  al.,  2018,  contract  no. 
MOVE/B1/2017-184).  Fourteen  comparable  projects  where  closely  examined.  Projects 
have  a  broad  range  of  scope.  Some  works  only  address  smaller  upgrades,  while  others 

129 

 
 
address complete new construction. Consequently, there is a wide range of investments 
associated with a single project. Unit costs are derived as median costs separately for the 
comprehensive and the core network. 

Table 12:  Estimation  of  costs  per  port  and  terminal  for  the  extension  of  the  TEN-T 
standards to the last mile connection 

Network  
comprehensive 
core 

Source: M-Five 

Number of ports   Mln. €2015 per  

port   

364 
146 

30 
20 

number of 
terminals 

Mln. €2015 per  
terminal   

25 
10 

101 
111 

Consequently,  the  estimated  investments  in  each  MS  result  from  number  of  ports  and 
terminals  multiplied  with  the  respective  unit  costs.  For  the  overall  measure,  total 
investments for EU27 of 22.2 Bln. €2015 (PO2) are estimated, which are linearly phased-
in between 2025 and 2050. 

Estimations  for PO3 take all existing TEN-T terminals  plus  the newly added related to 
the 460 urban nodes  into account.  Consequently, EU27 investments  in  PO3 increase to 
28.8 Bln. €2015, phased-in linearly from 2025 to 2040. 

In  ASTRA,  investments  are  attributed  to  the  investment  type  terminal  and  allocated  to 
the sectors Industrial Machines, Computers, Electronics, Construction, and Other market 
services. Based on the analysis on funding sources of similar projects in abovementioned 
Project  Database,  it  has  been  assumed  that  EU  funds  provide  30%  of  the  funding.  In 
addition,  also  the  private  sector  has  an  interest  in  supporting  the  measure  financially 
(5%). The rest (65%) will be financed by national public funds.  

Policy measure: Introduce new elements for passenger transport, such as the design of 
transfer terminals, accessibility for all users, information across modes (also covering 
first/last mile connections), enabling of innovative mobility services 

An  upgrade  cost  per  terminal  of  around  700,000  €2015  is  estimated  based  on  literature 
research.173  These  costs  include  modernization  and  interior  refurbishment  of  trading 
areas,  technical  building  equipment,  new  lighting,  and  solutions  for  barrier-free 
accessibility for all users.  

The number of terminals in each MS was multiplied with the unit costs per terminal. On 
the core network this means a total EU27 investment of 71 mill. €2015; on the non-core 
network of 149 mill. €2015. So, 220 mill. €2015 must be budgeted for this measure for the 
entire network for PO2. By assumption, investments are linearly phased-in between 2025 
and 2050.   

Estimations  for PO3 take all existing TEN-T terminals  plus  the newly added related to 
the 460 urban nodes  into account.  Consequently, EU27 investments  in  PO3 increase to 
73 mill. €2015 (core) plus 153 mill. €2015 (non-core). The total of 226 mill. €2015 is phased-
in linearly from 2025 to 2040.  

Attributed to the investment type Terminal, the investments are allocated to the sectors 
Industrial  Machines,  Computers,  Electronics,  Construction,  and  Other  market  services. 
By assumption,  the  funding  would come  from EU funds (30%)  the private sector  (5%) 
and national public funds (65%).  

173  Lehmann,  T. 

(2011):  Der  Bahnhof  der 

traditionellen 
Bahnhofsempfangsgebäude  |  Entwicklung  eines  modularen  Entréesystems  für  kleine  und  mittlere 
Bahnhöfe.  [The  station  of  the  future  -  alternatives  to  the  traditional  station  reception  building  | 
Development of a modular entrance system for small and medium-sized train stations.] 

Zukunft  –  Alternativen 

zum 

130 

 
                                                 
Policy  measure:  Development  of  alternative  fuel  infrastructure  at  terminals  (not 
defined in AFIR) 

In order to estimate the costs for alternative fuel infrastructure at terminals, unit costs for 
charging  stations  of  50kW,  150kW  and  350kW  were  calculated  first.  By  assumption, 
charging stations of 750 kW are not  integrated in terminals  and are therefore not  taken 
into  account  in  the  investment  estimates.  Stakeholder  discussions  in  Germany  have 
shown that, 750 kW charging stations are only perceived as necessary for long-distance 
traffic  on  the  motorways.  At  terminals  they  would  not  be  appropriate  as  they  are  too 
expensive.  Further,  it  is  not  necessary  for  trucks  to  be  fully  charged  at  the  terminal 
because  they  mostly  refer  to  regional  traffic.  The  cost  assumptions  are  based  on 
literature.174  For  the  development  of  costs  per  loading  terminal,  yearly  cost  reductions 
due  to  economies  of  scale  and  learning  effects  have  been  assumed,  depending  on  type 
and time. The unit cost assumptions are provided in the following table.  

Table 13:  Costs for charging stations at terminals 

Charging 
station 
50kW 
150kW 
350kW 

Cost per charging 
station acquired in 
2020 [€2015] 

42,785 
80,917 
227,578 

Cost per charging 
station acquired in 
2030 [€2015] 

38,739 
71,611 
182,062 

Cost per charging 
station acquired in 
2040 [€2015] 

36,843 
64,764 
148,759 

Cost per charging 
station acquired in 
2050 [€2015] 

35,042 
60,369 
131,842 

Source: M-Five based on NPM [German National Platform Future of Mobility] (2020) 

By  assumption,  in  the  initial  phase  only  charging  stations  of  50kW  and  150kW  are 
possible  at  the  terminals.  A  mixture  of  all  three  types  is  assumed  in  the  process  of 
charging stations ramp-up. The ramp-up is calculated depending on the development of 
electric HDV stock in each MS. In 2020, no charging stations of 50+ kW are assumed to 
exist at terminals. The reason is that there is no need for charging stations of 50+ kW due 
to the very low number of heavy BEV trucks. Further, a total of 15 charging stations per 
terminal  has  been  assumed.  The  share  of  electric  charging  stations  per  terminal  was 
calculated based on the share of electric trucks in the fleet. 

Taking the number of terminals in each MS into account, the total EU27 investments are 
estimated at 50 Mln. €2015 between 2025 and 2050 for PO2.  Estimations for PO3 take all 
existing  TEN-T  terminals  plus  the  newly  added  related  to  the  460  urban  nodes  into 
account. Consequently, EU27 investments in PO3 increase to 57 Mln. €2015 from 2025 to 
2040. Investments are attributed to the investment type Terminal. Drawing on the impact 
assessment support study, 30% of the funding would come from EU funds, 5% from the 
private sector and 65% from national public funds.  

Policy measure: Digitalisation of passenger and freight terminals 

This measure aims to: 

-  Multimodal  freight  terminals  have  the  necessary  equipment  to  move  freight 
between different transport modes and for the positioning and storage of freight. 

- 

Infrastructure  components  are  equipped  for  the  provision  of  information  flows 
within  this  infrastructure  and  between  the  transport  modes  along  the  logistic 
chain, in line with the provisions in Article 31. 

174  Nationale  Plattform  Zukunft  der  Mobilität  [German  National  Platform  Future  of  Mobility]  (2020): 
WERKSTATTBERICHT  ANTRIEBSWECHSEL  NUTZFAHRZEUGE:  WEGE  ZUR  DEKARBONISIERUNG 
SCHWERER  LKW  MIT  FOKUS  DER  ELEKTRIFIZIERUNG.  ARBEITSGRUPPE  1  KLIMASCHUTZ  IM  VERKEHR. 
Available 
https://www.plattform-zukunft-mobilitaet.de/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/NPM_AG1_Werkstattbericht_Nfz.pdf 

at 

131 

 
                                                 
-  Main technical and administrative barriers to multimodal transport are removed. 

From the Project Database on “The impact of TEN-T completion on growth, jobs and the 
environment” (Schade et al., 2018, contract no. MOVE/B1/2017-184), the TEN-T project 
“DIGITMED-Digital  Single  Market  in  the  Mediterranean”  was  identified  to  be  in  line 
with  the  prerequisites  of  Article  31  ICT  solutions.  The  project  serves  as  a  basis  for 
evaluating the costs of optimizing digital terminals. Accordingly, the cost of a terminal is 
estimated at 8.86 Mln. €2015. 

The estimation of investments is based on a number of uncertainties that are especially 
high  in  the  case  of  digitalisation.  These  depend  on  the  digital  status  of  the  terminals, 
location,  freight  volume,  necessary  equipment  etc.  In  addition,  the  measure  and  the 
extent  of  the  digital  transformations  of  a  terminal  can  be  interpreted  in  different  ways. 
This  is  accompanied  by  the  fact  that  the  digitisation  of  terminals  has  not  yet  been 
implemented to this extent throughout Europe and therefore a cost analysis can only be 
made in the light of similar logistics and digitisation projects and not on the basis of real 
data.  Therefore,  the  investments  can  be  regarded  as  an  estimate  based  on  the  current 
knowledge. Costs can vary greatly in individual cases. 

Together  with  the  number  of  terminals  in  each  MS,  the  total  EU27  investments  are 
estimated at 1,878 Mln. €2015 between 2025 and 2050 for PO2, and at 1,931 Mln. €2015 
between 2025 and 2040  for PO3.  Investments  for digitalisation are allocated across the 
sector  Electronics  and  the  sector  Other  market  services.  Around  30%  of  investments 
would  be  sourced  from  EU  funds,  10%  from  EIB  loans  and  60%  from  national  public 
funds.  These  assumptions  were  derived  from  similar  projects  in  the  abovementioned 
Project Database. 

Policy measures: Obligation to ensure motorway standard on core road network AND 
Obligation to ensure motorway standard for comprehensive network 

To  estimate  costs  for  this  measure,  the  lengths  of  motorways  on  the  core  and  the 
comprehensive  network  that  needs  to  be  upgraded  need  to  be  identified.  For  the  total 
TEN-T road length of all EU27 MS, information from CEDR reports 2017 and 2019175 is 
combined  with  TRUST  data.  The  TEN-T  comprehensive  motorway  network  is  61,894 
km long (EU27), of which 27,563 km belong to the non-core network and 34,331 km to 
the  core  network.  Based  on  the  estimations  explained  below,  a  length  of  4,477  km, 
accounting for 7.2 % of the comprehensive network needs to be upgraded. The length of 
the  core  network  which  needs  to  be  upgraded  is  2,016  km  accounting  for  5.9%  of  the 
core network. The length of the non-core network which needs to be upgraded is 2,461 
km accounting for 8.9% of the non-core network.  

The measure is aimed at improving road safety. Hence, the accident rate in the respective 
countries  is  also  taken  into  account.  A  database  from  the  European  Road  Safety 
Observatory  is  used  for  this  purpose.176  Unfortunately,  the  accident  rate/fatality  rate  is 
not available for all countries (BG, CY, CZ, FR, HR, LV, PT, RO) in CDBR. In order to 
estimate the safety development on highways for these countries as well, countries with 
similar characteristics such as fatality rates/1000km or general accident rates are sought 
on the basis of ERSO data.  

Based  on  the  impact  assessment  support  study,  5%  of  motorway  length  should  be 
improved in low accident rate countries and 10% of motorway km in high accident rate 

175  CEDR  (2017):  Trans-European  Road  network,  TEN-T  (Roads)  2017  Performance  Report  Available  at: 

https://www.cedr.eu/docs/view/60632734c6c05-en 

176  European Road Safety Observatory (2018): Annual Accident Report 2018: 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/statistics/dacota/asr2018.pdf 

132 

 
                                                 
countries.  A  high  accident  rate  is  defined  by  a  fatal  accident  rate  of  at  least  0.8  (fatal 
accidents/vehicle-kilometre  per  section].  A  low  accident  rate  is  defined  by  a  fatal 
accident  rate  that  is  below  0.8  (fatal  accidents/vehicle-kilometre  per  section).  These 
values are based on the distribution of the data-based accident rates between MS. 

In order to be able to estimate the unit costs per km motorway, several projects from the 
Project Database of the study on “The impact of TEN-T completion on growth, jobs and 
the environment” (Schade et al., 2018, contract no. MOVE/B1/2017-184) were examined 
closely. The resulting average price for one kilometre of highway improvement is almost 
4 mill. €2015.  

With  the  costs  per  km  and  the  network  length  that  needs  to  be  upgraded  based  on 
accident  rates,  the  costs  for  the  respective  country  can  be  calculated.  The  total  EU27 
investments are estimated at 7,998 €  mill. €2015 for the core network between 2025 and 
2050. Additional EU27 investments to ensure motorway standards for the comprehensive 
network  are  9,760  mill.  €2015  between  2025  and  2040.  There  is  no  difference  between 
PO2  and  PO3  as  the  road  network  is  assumed  to  be  identical.  Further,  investments  are 
fully  allocated  to  the  sector  Construction.  Based  on  similar  projects  in  the  Project 
Database, the funding sources are assumed to be: EU funds (55%), private sector (5%), 
toll revenues (15%) and other national public funds (25%).    

Policy measure: Minimum level of safe and secure parkings every 100 km on the core 
network with the availability of recharging points for LDV and HDV 

A fundamental aim to provide safe and secure parking areas is the prevention of threats 
for  both  drivers  and  cargo.  Considering  the  rating  system  for  parking  facilities,  we  see 
different  kinds  of  users,  situations  (cargo,  locality  etc.)  and  security  levels  needed.  A 
European-wide  multi-level  rating  system  (from  low  security  to  high  security)  is 
introduced  in  the  Study  on  Safe  and  Secure  Parking  Places  for  Trucks.177  In  order  to 
comply with the measure, it is assumed that the parking site must: 

-  provide at least some level of technical security,  

-  offer  a  comfortable  stay  for  drivers  in  accordance  with  Regulation  (EC)  No. 

561/2006 on driving and resting time178,  

-  offer recharging points for LDV and HDV. 

Investments  for  setting  up  and  maintaining  databases  of  parking  facilities  as  well  as 
exchanging  data  is  not  included  in  the  calculation  here.  They  refer  to  the  European 
Commission’s Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013179 that establishes requirements 
for data collection related to safe and secure parking places for trucks. Furthermore, the 

177  EC  (2019):  Study  on  Safe  and  Secure  Parking  Places  for  Trucks.  Final  Report  for  the  European 
at 

Commission 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/default/files/2019-study-on-safe-and-secure-parking-places-for-
trucks.pdf 

Directorate-General 

Transport. 

Available 

Mobility 

and 

for 

178  Regulation  No  561/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  March  2006  on  the 
harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport  limits long-distance lorry trips in 
terms of driving and resting time requiring a maximum of 9 daily driving hours, a minimum of 11 hours 
daily  rest,  and  at  least  a  45  minutes  break  after  4.5  hours  driving  (at  the  latest).  Available  at 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32006R0561 

179  European Commission’s  Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing ITS 
Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of 
information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles. Available 
at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex%3A32013R0885 

133 

 
                                                 
Directive (2010/40 / EU)180 on the framework for the deployment of ITS in the field of 
road transport contains  two priority measures  that concern the provision  of information 
and booking services for safe and secure parking spaces for lorries. Hence, information 
and  booking  services  are  not  included  in  the  investments  of  this  specific  measure.  We 
only consider physical infrastructure investments.  

The number of parking areas that has to be upgraded is based on literature research. The 
minimum  demand  of  parking  sites  on  TEN-T  core  network  is  estimated  by  the 
requirement  of  a  maximum  distance  of  100km  in  combination  with  the  core  network 
length.  From these, existing spaces  with  some security  (16%) and spaces with  certified 
level of security (2%) are deducted. By estimation, there are almost 380 parking sites that 
have to  be upgraded for EU27. Following  the abovementioned study it is  assumed that 
they spread evenly across MS. The split up was carried out based on the network length 
in  each  MS.  The  lengths  of  the  core  road  network  for  all  EU27  countries  is  based  on 
CEDR reports 2017 and 2019181 in combination with TRUST data. 

The number of parking areas to be upgraded in each MS is then multiplied with unit costs 
per parking site for the security upgrades and construction work to ensure the availability 
of recharging points for trucks.  

In order to be able to estimate the unit costs per parking site, a cost analysis was made in 
the  light  of  similar  existing  projects.  For  this  reason,  several  projects  from  the  Project 
Database  of  the  study  on  “The  impact  of  TEN-T  completion  on  growth,  jobs  and  the 
environment”  (Schade  et  al.,  2018,  contract  no.  MOVE/B1/2017-184)  were  examined 
closely. The resulting average upgrade costs for one parking site is around 4.5 mill. €2015. 
This is the mean value as the individual projects differ greatly in terms of costs from 1.3 
mill. €2015 to 10.8 mill. €2015.  

A further literature research was carried out to check the average unit costs in terms of 
plausibility.  Results  show  that  the  assumed  unit  costs  correspond  well  to  other  studies. 
NEA estimated one-time investment costs per guarded site with 100 parking spaces and 
150€/m2 at around 5 mill. €.182 Another case study by INEA (2019) calculated almost 3 
mill. € of total initial costs.183 The latter includes planning/design, land purchase, adding 
safety features to upgrade the parking facility such as camera systems and light towers, 
plot  preparation  and  utilities  (sewage,  wiring,  electric  cabin),  pavement  renovation  and 
new  driveway,  barriers  and  gates,  the  construction  of  new  toilets,  shower  and  washing 
rooms,  the  construction  of  a  control  room,  a  catering  facility/snack  bar  as  well  as 
ensuring the availability of charging stations by means of suitable construction measures. 
The security standard corresponds to the level “Silver” of the EU security rating system. 

180  Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework 
for the deployment  of Intelligent  Transport  Systems in the field of road transport  and for interfaces 
with 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0040 

other  modes 

transport. 

Available 

of 

at 

181  CEDR  (2017):  Trans-European  Road  network,  TEN-T  (Roads)  2017  Performance  Report.  Available  at 
https://www.cedr.eu/docs/view/60632734c6c05-en and CEDR (2019): Trans-European Road Network, 
TEN-T 
at 
Performance 
https://www.cedr.eu/download/Publications/2020/CEDR-Technical-Report-2020-01-TEN-T-2019-
Performance-Report.pdf 

Available 

(Roads) 

Report. 

2019 

182  NEA  Transport  research  and  training  (2007):  Study  on  the  feasibility  of  organising  a  network  of 
secured parking areas for road transport operators on the Trans European Road Network. Final Report 
for 
the  European  Commission  Directorate-General  Energy  and  Transport.  Available  at 
http://temis.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/docs/Temis/0062/Temis-
0062010/17496.pdf 

183  INEA  (2019):  CBA  of  a  Safe  and  Secure  Parking  for  trucks.  CEF  |  Case  Study.    Available  at 

https://ec.europa.eu/inea/sites/default/files/cef_case_study_-_safe_and_secure_parking.pdf 

134 

 
                                                 
Following literature (INEA, 2019), the time horizon for the investment assessment is 30 
years, whereby there is no further upgrade/ replacement modelled.  

The  total  EU27  investments  are  estimated  at  1,689  €  mill.  €2015  for  the  core  network 
between 2025 and 2050 (PO2) or between 2025 and 2040, respectively (PO3). There is 
no  difference  in  the  size  of  investment  between  PO2  and  PO3  as  the  road  network  is 
assumed  to  be  identical.  Further,  90%  of  investments  are  allocated  to  the  sector 
Construction, whereas the rest corresponds to digitalization measures and is allocated to 
the  sector  Electronics  and  the  sector  Other  market  services.  This  split  is  based  on  the 
nature  and  costs  of  individual  components  of  the  upgrades.  Based  on  the  funding  of 
similar projects in the Project Database, 20% of investments would be provided based on 
EU  funds,  5%  by  the  private  sector,  10%  based  on  toll  revenues  and  the  rest  by  other 
national public funds. 

Policy measure: Rest areas every 60 km for the core and comprehensive network 

The  number  of  additional  rest  areas  per  MS  is  based  on  literature  research.  The 
calculations apply to  both  PO2 and PO3 as the road network is  identical. First,  the EU 
wide  demand  of  additional  rest  areas  (around  1,670)  is  based  on  INEA  (2019).  The 
information  on  the  core  and  comprehensive  network  length  (CEDR  reports  2017  and 
2019184  together  with  TRUST  data)  is  then  combined  with  literature  based  data  on  the 
percentage  shortfall  of  sites  in  each  MS  (NEA,  2007).  This  results  in  the  number  of 
additional  rest  areas  required  in  each  MS  on  core  and  comprehensive  network.  The 
number of rest  areas in  each MS is  then multiplied with  the average unit costs per rest 
area.  

In order to be able to estimate the unit costs per rest area, a cost analysis was made in the 
light  of  similar  existing  projects.  For  this  reason,  several  projects  from  the  Project 
Database  of  the  study  on  “The  impact  of  TEN-T  completion  on  growth,  jobs  and  the 
environment”  (Schade  et  al.,  2018,  contract  no.  MOVE/B1/2017-184)  were  examined 
closely. The resulting average upgrade costs for one rest area is around 2.6 € mill. €2015. 
This  corresponds  to  the  mean  value  of  the  individual  projects.  In  terms  of  costs,  the 
projects do not differ greatly and range from 2.1 mill. €2015 to 3.0 mill. €2015. Further, they 
correspond  well  to  other  literature  such  as  a  case  study  by  the  Texas  Transportation 
Institute  (2011)  with  average  unit  costs  of  2.7  mill.  €2015  for  the  rest  areas  under 
consideration.185  

The  total  EU27  investments  are  estimated  at  2,306  €  mill.  €2015  for  the  core  and 
comprehensive network. These cover the time period from 2025 to 2050 in PO2. In PO3, 
investments occur between 2025 and 2040 for the core and between 2025 and 2050 for 
the non-core network. They are fully attributed to the sector Construction. Based on the 
funding  of  similar  projects  in  the  Project  Database,  it  has  been  assumed  that  20%  of 
investments would be provided based on EU funds, 5% by the private sector, 10% based 
on toll revenues and the rest by other national public funds. 

Policy  measure  for  urban  nodes  on  passenger  transport:  Obligation  to  develop 
multimodal hubs to facilitate first and last mile connections. 1 hub per urban node. In 

184  CEDR  (2017):  Trans-European  Road  network,  TEN-T  (Roads)  2017  Performance  Report  Available  at: 
https://www.cedr.eu/docs/view/60632734c6c05-en and CEDR (2019): Trans-European Road Network, 
TEN-T 
at 
Performance 
https://www.cedr.eu/download/Publications/2020/CEDR-Technical-Report-2020-01-TEN-T-2019-
Performance-Report.pdf 

Available 

(Roads) 

Report. 

2019 

185  Texas Transportation Institute (2011): Benefits of Public Roadside Safety Rest Areas in Texas. Technical 

Report. Available at https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-6267-2.pdf 

135 

 
                                                 
addition,  for  cities  larger  than  500,000  inhabitants,  one  additional  hub  per  500,000 
inhabitants. 

To  calculate  the  number  of  hubs,  it  is  assumed  that  every  urban  node  gets  one 
multimodal  hub  for  first  and  last  mile  connections.  If  the  node  has  more  than  500,000 
inhabitants one additional hub for every 500,000 inhabitants was considered. A total of 
156 hubs (PO2), respectively 538 hubs (PO3), are required in the EU27. 

In  order  to  determine  the  necessary  investments,  assumptions  were  made  about  the 
offerings at the hubs. As hubs connect different modes, it is assumed that a site has rail 
and  road  access.  Furthermore,  facilities  for  bike  sharing,  car  sharing,  e-mobility  and 
private bicycles are assumed. For bike sharing this includes 50 bike-sharing bicycle, 10 
bike-sharing  cargo-bicycle  and  10  bike-sharing  electronic-bicycle.  For  private  bicycles, 
100 parking racks, 50 bicycle boxes and a service station are assumed. In addition, 10 car 
sharing  vehicles  are  assumed.  Such  a  multimodal  hub  costs  around  470,000  €2015,  plus 
investments for the fleet of sharing vehicles (assumed at around 320,000 €2015).186  

Considering all 79 urban nodes in the 27 MS, the total EU27 investment is estimated at 
123 mill. €2015 in PO2 for 2025-2050. For PO3, total investment at EU27-level increases 
to  424  mill.  €2015  as  it  refers  to  all  460  urban  nodes.  The  investment  in  PO3  is  split 
between  urban  nodes  on  the  core  (2025-2030)  and  on  the  rest  of  the  comprehensive 
network (2025-2050).  

Investments  for  the  hubs  themselves  are  fully  allocated  to  the  sector  Construction, 
whereas  the  car  sharing  vehicles  are  attributed  to  the  sector  Vehicles.  Based  on 
literature187, it is assumed that a share of 50% each can be financed by EU funds and by 
national public funds.  

Policy  measure  for  urban  nodes  on  passenger  transport:  Ensure  availability  of 
multimodal digital mobility services (including MaaS services), allowing passengers to 
access information and book their journeys, including for public transport and  active 
modes 

The estimation of investments necessary for multimodal digital mobility services is done 
by  consulting  the  “Impact  Assessment  Support  Study  for  the  revision  of  the  Intelligent 
Transport System Directive (2010/40/EU)” (Ref MOVE/B4/SER/2020-230).188   

The present analysis distinguishes between upfront costs and (yearly) follow-up costs in 
the  usage  phase.  Initial  costs  cover  National  Access  Points  (NAP)  as  well  as  Traffic 
Management  Centre  (TMC)  installation,  upgrade,  and  integration  with  RSI.  Ongoing 
costs  include  maintenance  and  data  collection.  The  following  table  shows  the 
corresponding cost assumptions.  

186  City  of  Wien  (2018):  Leitfaden  Mobilitätsstationen:  Die  Umsetzung  von  Mobilitätsstationen  in 
Stadtentwicklungsgebieten  am  Beispiel  Zielgebiet  Donaufeld,  Wien.  [Guide  to  mobility  stations:  The 
implementation  of  mobility  stations  in  urban  development  areas  using  the  example  of  Donaufeld, 
Vienna] Available at 

   https://www.wien.gv.at/stadtentwicklung/studien/pdf/b008521.pdf 
187  https://www.horizont-europa.de/de/Forderquoten-1926.html 
188  The present cost assumptions are based on “draft final” estimates referring to the Bundle 1A of Policy 
Option 3 in the “Impact Assessment Support Study for the revision of the Intelligent Transport System 
Directive (2010/40/EU)”. They might be subject to changes in the study concerned. 

136 

 
                                                 
Table 14:  Central ITS sub-systems costs  

Upfront 
costs 

Ongoing 
costs 

Component 
NAP set up 
TMC installation 
TMC upgrade 
TMC integration with RSI 
NAP Type A maintenance 
TMC maintenance 
Data collection  
Cost of integrating each provider on the NAP 

unit 
EUR per NAP per km 
EUR per TMC 
EUR per TMC 
EUR per TMC 
EUR per NAP per year 
EUR per TMC per year 
EUR per NAP per year 
EUR per NAP per year 

Costs [€] 

828 
1,000,000 
175,000 
1,500,000 
2,000,000 
100,000 
600,000 
2,243 

Source: Impact Assessment Support Study for the revision of the Intelligent Transport System Directive 
(2010/40/EU) 

The initial investment is phased-in linearly from  2025 to 2030. Starting in 2031, yearly 
ongoing costs will be due. By assumption, TMC upgrade is necessary every 5-10 years. 
It is assumed one NAP per MS and one TMC for each urban node. Costs for the backend 
system are included in NAP and the TMC costs. 

Considering all 79 urban nodes in the 27 MS, the total EU27 investment is estimated at 
1,818 mill. €2015 in PO2 (over the time period 2025-2050). For PO3, total investment at 
EU27-level increases to 3,737 mill. €2015 as it refers to all 460 urban nodes. Investments 
for digitalisation are allocated across the sector Electronics and the sector Other market 
services.  Drawing  on  the  abovementioned  Project  Database,  the  following  funding 
sources have been assumed: EU funds (30%), EIB loans (10%) and national public funds 
(60%).  

Policy measure for rail freight: Possibility to run trains loaded with P400 units (P400 
loading  gauge)  for  rail  freight  also  on  the  European  Transport  Corridor  (ETC) 
comprehensive lines 

First,  ETC  comprehensive  sections  to  be  upgraded  for  P400  in  each  MS  have  been 
identified by using TENtec shapefiles. At EU27 level the length sums up to 11,227 km 
(11%  of  total  network).  The  length  of  the  network  affected  in  each  MS  was  then 
multiplied  with  unit  costs  per  km.  In  correspondence  with  the  measure  on  the  core 
network,  these  were  taken  from  the  case  study  on  RFC2  Calais-Basel  (EC,  2016,  for 
Move/B2/SER/2013/825).189  Based  on 
the  costs  were  estimated  at 
approximately 107,215 €2015 per km. Countries which need major upgrades in terms of 
network length are France, Italy, Spain and Poland. For Spain and Portugal, half the cost 
rate has been assumed, because the Iberian gauge leads to lower conversion costs. Other 
than that, the unit costs were used for all identified network sections. 

the  study, 

For EU27 the total investment is estimated at 1,204 Mln. €2015 between 2025 and 2040 
for  PO3.  In  ASTRA,  investments  are  fully  allocated  to  the  sector  Construction.  The 
following source of funding have been assumed: EU funding (10%) and national public 
funding (90%).   

Policy  measure:  Introduction  of  a  legally  binding  deadline  for  decommissioning 
national  (class  B)  systems  and  making  ERTMS  the  only  signalling  system  used  in 
Member States by 2040 for core and comprehensive network and thus to advance the 
ERTMS standard obligation for the comprehensive network to 2040 

189  EC (2016): Measuring and upgrading the clearance gauge of railway lines: Assessment of information 
systems  and  procedures.  Final  Report  with  authorships  from  UIC  and  SYSTRA.  November,  2016 
Contract  number  –  MOVE/B2/SER/2013-825. 
  Ref.  No.  FR01T15B62/DCO/EU/34-16.  Brussels. 
Available 
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/2017-report-clearance-gauge-
at 
railway-lines.zip 

137 

 
 
                                                 
According to  this  measure, it is  assumed that ERTMS will be installed by  2030 on the 
core network and by 2040 on the comprehensive network.  

The  ERTMS  system  consists  of  two  main  subsystems,  namely  European  Train  Control 
System (ETCS) and the Global System for Mobile Communication for Railways (GSM-
R).  Most  studies  focus  on  trackside  elements  of  ECTS,  while  on-board  subsystems  of 
ECTS  and  GSM-R  mostly  are  excluded.  The  ERTMS  is  characterised  by  three  main 
functional levels.  Level  1 is the basic level for ERTMS, while Level 2 and Level 3 are 
further  improvements  of  the  basic  level.  Level  of  automation  increases  while  passing 
from level 1 to level 3. 

The  EU  MSs  adopted  different  strategies  for  ERTMS  deployment  which  depends  on 
technical  and  economical  parameters.  The  various  deployment  strategies  have  different 
impacts on signalling unit costs. A “whole network deployment” takes place typically in 
countries with a small railway network or with an obsolete signalling system. It requires 
higher  capital  expenditure,  whilst  marginal  cost  is  reduced  as  result  of  economies  of 
scale.  In  contrast,  “Prioritised  deployment”  means  an  ERTMS  deployment  only  in 
prioritised  sections  due  to  economical  and/or  technical  difficulties  to  intervene  on  the 
whole network. In particular, high speed lines of TEN-T CNC and interconnection lines 
between corridors are considered of higher importance. Furthermore, there are countries 
with limited deployment due to scarce interest. In addition, there are different migration 
strategies:  Dual  trackside  migration  strategy  (interoperability  with  trains  equipped  with 
legacy system), Dual on-board strategy (interoperability with lines equipped with legacy 
system) and a Mixed migration strategy. A strategy/ migration path matrix is displayed in 
the following figure (EC, 2018)190.  

Source: EC (2018; Annex 14, p.11) 

Unit  costs  for  trackside  ERTMS  deployment  varies  from  60  k€  to  370  k€  per  double 
track kilometre. The cost range depends on both the deployment strategies and ERTMS 
functional levels. Moreover, unit costs for deployment of ERTMS level 2 is significantly 
higher  than  deployment  of  level  1.  For  further  elaboration  we  use  unit  costs  from 
literature (EC, 2018, Annex 14), by taking the average costs  for level 2 implementation 
of 0.17 mill. €/km.   

The  relevant  sections  of  the  TEN-T  rail  comprehensive  network  have  been  further 
identified. For this analysis, the TENtec railway network for PO3 is used to include new 
additions to the comprehensive rail freight network. In order to calculate the deployment 
costs,  the  affected  network  lengths  has  been  multiplied  with  the  unit  costs.  At  EU27-
level, the network length is 53,127 km (52% of total network). 

The total EU27 investments are estimated at 9,032 € mill. €2015 between 2025 and 2040. 
As  in  Schade  et  al.  (2018),  investments  for  ERTMS  are  allocated  to  the  sectors 

190  EC (2018): Case study on ERTMS. Assessment of unit costs of rail projects (CAPital Expenditure). Annex 

14. Available at 
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/reports/2018/assessment-of-unit-
costs-standard-prices-of-rail-projects-capital-expenditure 

138 

 
 
                                                 
Electronics, Computers, Construction, and Vehicles. Following the Project Database, the 
costs are assumed to be funded by EU funds (85%) and by national public funds (15%).    

Policy measure RFC alignment: Integration of critical RFC sections outside the TEN-
T in the comprehensive network 

A cost analysis was made in the light of similar TEN-T projects. The Project Database of 
the  study  on  “The  impact  of  TEN-T  completion  on  growth,  jobs  and  the  environment” 
(Schade  et  al.,  2018,  contract  no.  MOVE/B1/2017-184)  was  taken  as  the  data  basis  to 
calculate  unit  costs  per  km.  Several  projects  were  closely  examined  that  integrate  rail 
sections outside the TEN-T into the network and thereby raising the line characteristics to 
meet  TEN-T  standards.  Average  costs  of  1.8  mill.  €2015  per  km  were  calculated.  This 
cost rate can be applied to all MS. Unit costs are multiplied with the length of additions 
to  the  comprehensive  rail  freight  network  per  MS  based  on  TENtec  data  for  PO3.  The 
length at EU27-level is 5,578 km (accounting for 5% of the comprehensive network). 

The  total  EU27  investments  are  estimated  at  10,268  €  mill.  €2015  between  2025  and 
2040 in PO3. They are fully allocated to the sector Construction.  

4.  Additional results for the assessment of the policy options  

Investment needs by PO and type of policy measure 

The average annual investments for each PO, by type of policy measure, are provided in 
Table 13. Detailed assumptions for calculating the investment needs by type of measure 
are  provided  in  Annex  4  (section  3).  With  regard  to  the  level  of  investments,  two 
measures stand out in particular: the introduction of a minimum passenger line speed of 
160 km/h for the passenger core network (34% of the additional investment costs in PO2 
and  31%  in  PO3)  and  the  extension  of  certain  standards  from  the  core  to  the 
comprehensive  network  (22.5  t  axle  load,  100  km/h  line  speed  for  freight  and  740m 
trains) which represent around 50% of the additional investment costs in PO2 and 47% in 
PO3.  Together,  these  two  measures  account  for  almost  84%  of  the  total  additional 
investments estimated for PO2 and 78% for PO3.   

Table 15:  Average  annual  investments  for  2025-2050  per  policy  option  and  by  type  of 
policy measure in the EU27 [Mln. €2015], expressed as difference to the baseline 

Policy Measure 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

Rail freight: possibility to run trains loaded with P400 units for rail 
freight on the core network 

Introduction of a minimum passenger line speed of 160 km/h for the 
passenger core network 

Extension of certain standards from the core to the comprehensive 
network: 22,5 t axle load, 100 km/h line speed for freight and the 
possibility of running trains with a length of 740 m 

Requirements for terminals (with exemption system for specialised 
terminals and terminals in spatially constrained locations): 

- all types of intermodal loading units can be handled 

- 740m long tracks exist under the crane 

- no shunting required (includes electrification)    

Maritime / inland ports / terminals: extension of the TEN-T standards to 
the last mile connection by rail / IWW 

Introduce new elements for passenger transport, such as the design of 
transfer terminals, accessibility for all users, information across modes 
(also covering first/last mile connections), enabling of innovative 
mobility services 

139 

0 

0 

0 

137 

137 

5,165 

5,165 

7,515 

7,688 

0 

458 

471 

0 

0 

855 

1,106 

8 

9 

 
Policy Measure 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

Development of alternative fuel infrastructure at terminals (not defined 
in AFIR) 

Digitalisation of passenger and freight terminals 

Obligation to ensure motorway standard on core road network (with 
exemption clause based on traffic intensity).  

Obligation to ensure motorway standard for comprehensive network 
(with exemption clause based on traffic intensity) 

Minimum level of safe and secure parkings every 100 km on the core 
network with the availability of recharging points for LDV and HDV 

Rest areas every 60 km for the core and comprehensive network 

For 79 urban nodes on passenger transport under PO2 and 460 urban 
nodes under PO3:  Obligation to develop multimodal passenger hub per 
urban node. In addition, for cities larger than 500.000 inhabitants, one 
additional hub per 500.000 inhabitants.  

For urban nodes on passenger transport: Ensure availability of  
multimodal digital mobility services, including MaaS services 
Rail freight: possibility to run trains loaded with P400 units for rail 
freight also on the European Transport Corridor (ETC) comprehensive 
lines   

Introduction of a legally binding deadline for decommissioning national 
(class B) systems and making ERTMS the only signalling system used 
in Member States by 2040 for core and comprehensive network  

Update of the TEN-T maps: RFC alignment: Integration of critical RFC 
sections outside the TEN-T network in the comprehensive network  

EU27 total   
Source: M-Five  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

72 

2 

74 

308 

308 

375 

375 

65 

89 

4 

65 

89 

14 

70 

144 

0 

0 

0 

46 

347 

395 

0 

15,123 

16,436 

Investment needs by Member State 

Based on the assumptions in section 3 above the investments needs for each PO, by EU 
Member State, are provided in Table 14. The average annual investment needs at EU27 
level for the period 2025-2050 amount to 15,123 Mln. EUR in PO2 and to 16,436 Mln. 
EUR in PO3 which in both cases accounts for 0.1% of the annual EU27 GDP (see table 
14  below).  However,  looking  at  individual  Member  States  differences  can  be  seen 
between EU13 and EU14 countries. The relatively higher investment  needs in  terms  of 
achieving the infrastructure requirements of the TEN-T in EU13 countries paired with a 
relatively lower GDP in this region leads to annual investment needs of up to 1% of GDP 
in  those  Member  States.  This  is  for  example  the  case  for  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Croatia, 
Hungary,  Lithuania  and  Latvia. Other  countries  have (on  average) a stronger economic 
performance  (GDP),  so  that  (although  they  have  higher  levels  of  investments  needs), 
their  Investment/GDP  share  is  lower.  Still  others  have  a  lower  GDP  relative  to  EU 
average but  also  require  very little investments  due to  their small  TEN-T infrastructure 
network  (Malta,  Cyprus  etc.).  The  differences  in  annual  investment  needs  per  Member 
State and their investment/GDP ratio between the POs are marginal although investments 
needs are slightly higher in PO3. 

140 

 
 
 
 
Table 16:  Average  annual  investments  for  2025-2050  per  policy  option  and  by  Member 
State [Mln. €2015 and share of GDP], expressed as difference to the baseline 

Average annual investments by 
Member State for 2025-2050 
(difference to the baseline, in 
million €2015) 

Levels (in million 
€2015) 

GDP in 2020 (in 
million €2015) 

Share of additional 
investments in GDP  

PO2 

PO3 

PO2 

PO3 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

235 

183 

504 

5 

370 

995 

206 

209 

685 

2,266 

134 

1,287 

446 

988 

352 

1,338 

285 

25 

250 

6 

289 

296 

214 

528 

6 

429 

1,164 

272 

213 

717 

2,274 

176 

1,260 

449 

1,026 

358 

1,511 

294 

27 

254 

6 

346 

1,804 

2,234 

476 

838 

459 

264 

225 

468 

891 

493 

252 

276 

350,641 

416,361 

50,306 

20,605 

182,245 

3,078,230 

296,253 

24,062 

168,463 

1,064,484 

223,718 

2,173,256 

46,450 

125,876 

346,610 

1,572,641 

42,921 

57,698 

26,555 

11,530 

726,992 

499,822 

184,902 

188,212 

482,071 

42,750 

84,913 

0.1% 

0.0% 

1.0% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

0.1% 

0.9% 

0.4% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

0.8% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.7% 

0.0% 

0.9% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

0.3% 

0.4% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

0.3% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.1% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

0.1% 

0.9% 

0.4% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

0.8% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.7% 

0.0% 

1.0% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

0.3% 

0.5% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

0.3% 

EU27 
Source: M-Five  

15,123 

16,436 

12,476,171 

0.1% 

0.1% 

The average annual investment needs at EU 27 level for the period 2025-2030 amount to 
15,084 Mln. EUR in PO2 and to 22,167 Mln. EUR in PO3 which accounts for 0.1% of 
the  annual  EU27  GDP  in  PO2  and  0.2%  in  PO3  (See  table  15  below).  The  relatively 
higher investment needs under PO3 in this early period of implementation result from the 
fact  that this PO foresees  the extension of the network (inclusion of RFC and dual  use 
infrastructures)  which  would  trigger  early  investments  for  these  newly  included 
infrastructures to meet some of the already existing TEN-T requirements. Again the same 
differences between EU13 and EU14 Member States as described above are noticeable. 
While  investments  needs  for  some  of  EU13  countries  in  this  time  period  under  PO3 
would account for up to 1.6% of GDP, in other countries like Austria, Finland, Denmark 
and  Sweden  whose  network  already  mostly  complies  with  TEN-T  requirements  the 
investment to GDP ratio would be as low as 0.1%. 

141 

 
Table 17:  Average annual investments for 2025-2030 per policy option and by Member 
State [Mln. €2015 and share of GDP], expressed as difference to the baseline 

Average annual investments by 
Member State for 2025-2030 
(difference to the baseline, in 
million €2015) 

Levels (in million 
€2015) 

GDP in 2020 (in 
million €2015) 

Share of additional 
investments in GDP  

PO2 

PO3 

PO2 

PO3 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

233 

182 

502 

4 

368 

995 

205 

207 

683 

2,266 

132 

1,287 

444 

986 

350 

1,337 

283 

24 

248 

4 

287 

1,804 

474 

837 

457 

262 

223 

427 

297 

808 

6 

582 

1,665 

387 

289 

931 

2,955 

262 

1,875 

562 

1,261 

381 

2,101 

432 

41 

380 

7 

496 

2,908 

637 

1,029 

691 

354 

404 

350,641 

416,361 

50,306 

20,605 

182,245 

3,078,230 

296,253 

24,062 

168,463 

1,064,484 

223,718 

2,173,256 

46,450 

125,876 

346,610 

1,572,641 

42,921 

57,698 

26,555 

11,530 

726,992 

499,822 

184,902 

188,212 

482,071 

42,750 

84,913 

0.1% 

0.0% 

1.0% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

0.1% 

0.9% 

0.4% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

0.8% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.7% 

0.0% 

0.9% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

0.3% 

0.4% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

0.3% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.6% 

0.0% 

0.3% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.2% 

0.6% 

0.3% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.2% 

1.0% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

0.1% 

1.4% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

0.3% 

0.5% 

0.1% 

0.8% 

0.5% 

EU27 
Source: M-Five  

15,084 

22,167 

12,476,171 

0.1% 

0.2% 

The average annual investment needs at EU27 level for the period 2031-2050 amount to 
15,134 Mln. EUR in PO2 and to 14,716 Mln. EUR in PO3 which accounts for 0.1% of 
the annual EU27 GDP in both POs (See table 16 below). The relatively lower investment 
needs  under  PO3  in  this  later  period  of  implementation  result  from  the  fact  that,  as 
explained  above,  some  investments  are  anticipated  to  the  period  up  to  2030  and  hence 
less investment is needed on those sections to meet TEN-T requirements. Again the same 
difference  between  EU13  and  EU14  Member  States  as  described  above  are  noticeable 
but are less pronounced. While investment needs for some of EU13 countries in this time 
period under PO3 would account for up to 0.9% of GDP in other countries like Germany, 
Belgium, Luxemburg and France the investment to GDP ratio would be below 0.1%. 

142 

 
Table 18:  Average  annual  investments  for  2031-2050  per  policy  option  and  by  Member 
State [Mln. €2015 and share of GDP], expressed as difference to the baseline 

Average annual investments by 
Member State for 2031-2050 
(difference to the baseline, in 
million €2015) 

Levels (in million 
€2015) 

GDP in 2020 (in 
million €2015) 

Share of additional 
investments in GDP  

PO2 

PO3 

PO2 

PO3 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

DK 

EE 

EL 

ES 

FI 

FR 

HR 

HU 

IE 

IT 

LT 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

235 

184 

505 

6 

370 

994 

207 

209 

685 

2,267 

135 

1,287 

447 

988 

352 

257 

190 

445 

5 

383 

1,013 

237 

190 

652 

2,069 

151 

1,075 

416 

956 

351 

350,641 

416,361 

50,306 

20,605 

182,245 

3,078,230 

296,253 

24,062 

168,463 

1,064,484 

223,718 

2,173,256 

46,450 

125,876 

346,610 

1,338 

1,335 

1,572,641 

285 

26 

250 

7 

289 

253 

23 

217 

6 

301 

1,805 

2,032 

476 

839 

459 

264 

225 

418 

850 

433 

222 

238 

42,921 

57,698 

26,555 

11,530 

726,992 

499,822 

184,902 

188,212 

482,071 

42,750 

84,913 

0.1% 

0.0% 

1.0% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

0.1% 

0.9% 

0.4% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

1.0% 

0.8% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.7% 

0.0% 

0.9% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

0.3% 

0.4% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

0.3% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.9% 

0.0% 

0.2% 

0.0% 

0.1% 

0.8% 

0.4% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.9% 

0.8% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

0.0% 

0.8% 

0.1% 

0.0% 

0.4% 

0.2% 

0.5% 

0.1% 

0.5% 

0.3% 

EU27 
Source: M-Five  

CO2 emissions from transport 

15,134 

14,716 

12,476,171 

0.1% 

0.1% 

The CO2 emissions for the entire transport network (excluding P2W and maritime) and 
for  the  TEN-T  core  and  comprehensive  network  for  each  PO  are  provided  in  the  table 
below.  

143 

 
 
 
Table 19: 
relative to the Baseline 

Impacts on CO2 emissions (excluding P2W and maritime) in the policy options 

CO2 emissions 

Total transport  
(excluding P2W 
and maritime) 
of which  

on the TEN-T 

core network 

on the TEN-T 

Baseline (Mt of CO2) 

PO1 

PO2  

PO3 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

718 

272 

61 

0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 

-0.1%  -0.2%  -0.2%  -0.1%  -0.2%  -0.2% 

130 

47 

7 

0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 

-0.3%  -0.3%  0.0% 

-0.4%  -0.4% 

193 

68 

7 

0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 

-0.4%  -0.4%  0.5% 

-0.1%  -0.3% 

comprehensive 
network 
Source: ASTRA and TRUST models 

NOx emissions from transport 

The NOx emissions for the entire transport network (excluding P2W and maritime) and 
for  the  TEN-T  core  and  comprehensive  network  for  each  PO  are  provided  in  the  table 
below.  

Table 20: 
relative to the Baseline 

Impacts on NOx emissions (excluding P2W and maritime) in the policy options 

NOx emissions 

Total transport  
(excluding P2W 
and maritime) 
of which  

on the TEN-T 
core network 

on the TEN-T 
comprehensive 
network 

Baseline (Mt) 

PO1 

PO2  

PO3 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

2030 

2040 

2050 

1.9 

1.0 

0.6 

0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 

-0.1%  -0.2%  0.0% 

-0.1%  -0.2% 

0.2 

0.1 

0.1 

0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 

-0.4%  -0.3%  0.0% 

-0.7%  -0.4% 

0.3 

0.1 

0.1 

0.0%  0.0%  0.0%  0.0% 

-0.4%  -0.3%  0.5% 

-0.3%  -0.4% 

Source: ASTRA and TRUST models 

Energy consumption from transport 

The modal shift from road to more sustainable modes of transport enabled by the bundle 
of  measures  included  in  PO2  is  projected  to  result  in  a  slight  decrease  in  energy 
consumption from transport relative to the baseline (-0.1% in 2030; -0.2% in 2040 and -
0.1% in 2050). Similar reductions are observed in PO3. 

When  looking  in  more  detail  at  the  TEN-T  network  level,  in  PO2  total  energy 
consumption  from  transport  on  the  comprehensive  network  is  projected  to  decline  by 
0.2% in 2040 and 0.4% in 2050 relative to the baseline. Main energy savings are coming 
from the road sector (-0.5% in 2040 and -1.2% in 2050) while rail energy consumption 
would  increase  relative  to  the  baseline  (+1.9%  in  2040  and  +3.9%  in  2050)  due  to  an 
increase  in  railway  activity.  Energy  consumption  on  the  core  network  is  projected  to 
remain stable relative to the baseline in 2030 and to decrease by 0.1% in 2040 and 0.2% 
in  2050  compared  with  the  baseline.  Similar  to  the  situation  on  the  comprehensive 
network  while  energy  use  in  road  transport  is  projected  to  slightly  decrease  (-0.4%  in 
2040 and -1.2% in 2050) rail energy consumption is projected to increase (+2.5% in 2040 
and +5.3% in 2050). 

In PO3 energy consumption from transport on the comprehensive network is projected to 
increase  by  0.5%  in  2030,  0.2%  in  2040  and  to  remain  stable  by  2050  relative  to  the 
baseline.  This  increase  is  only  shown  because  of  the  extension  of  the  comprehensive 
network in PO3 relative to the baseline and the fact that they are not directly comparable, 
144 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
due  to  the  different  scope.  If  the  same  scope  for  the  network  would  be  maintained,  it 
would result in a slight decrease relative to the baseline – as shown by the results for the 
entire  transport  network.    On  the  core  network,  energy  use  in  PO3  is  projected  to 
decrease by 0.2% in 2040 and 0.3% in 2050 relative to the baseline.  

Assessment of administrative costs 

The  assessment  of  administrative  costs  has  been  based  on  past  expenditures  (e.g.  for 
PSAs  and  European  coordinators)  as  well  as  on  estimations  drawing  on  stakeholders 
interviews and literature review. It is assumed that in the first four years after entry into 
force of the Regulation i.e. as from 2025 costs would be slightly higher than in the phase 
that follows. This assumption is based on the experience from the first 4 years after the 
adoption  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  in  2013  which  required  additional  corridor 
coordination (e.g. stakeholder engagement and guidance).  

As  it  can  be  seen  from  Table  19  under  PO2  the  Commission  will  have  to  spend  an 
additional EUR 1.6 Mln. per year compared to the baseline in the initial phase of 4 years. 
After this phase administrative costs can be reduced significantly and would amount to 
EUR 536,000 per year up to 2050. This reduction can be achieved in the first instance by 
a streamlining of studies, reports and communication activities. 

Under  PO3  the  Commission  will  have  to  spend  an  additional  EUR  2.39  Mln.  per  year 
compared to  the baseline in  the initial  phase of 4  years. After this phase administrative 
costs  can  be  reduced  significantly  and  would  amount  to  EUR  800,000  per  year  up  to 
2050.  This  reduction  can  be  achieved  in  the  first  instance  by  a  streamlining  of  studies, 
reports and communication activities. 

Table 21:  Additional  administrative  costs  for  the  European  Commission  relative  to  the 
baseline (thousand EUR), expressed as yearly averages 

Cost type (thousand EUR per 
year) 

PO2 

PO3 

Initial phase - 4 
years 

Rest of the 
period 

Initial phase - 4 
years 

Rest of the 
period 

ETC operation 

EC studies, meetings 

Additional PSAs 

Total 

Source: IA Support study 

975 

586 

40 

1,601 

687 

-179 

28 

536 

1,455 

875 

60 

2,390 

1025 

-267 

42 

800 

Table  20  reports  on  the  additional  administrative  costs  for  other  public  authorities  (i.e. 
MS administration and SUMP in the table below) and private sector. The main cost types 
relate  for  example  to  urban  mobility  planning  (implementation  of  SUMPs),  terminal 
adjustments  (to  newly  defined  KPIs)  and  sector  organisations  (e.g.:  road,  rail, 
adjustments to new requirements).  

Under  PO2  savings  for  the  private  sector  of  EUR  110,000  per  year  could  be  achieved 
already in the first phase of four years through streamlining the corridor organisation. In 
the following phase these savings would amount to EUR 146,000 annually relative to the 
baseline  (up  to  2050).  However  net  additional  costs  of  EUR  1.265  Mln  per  year  have 
been estimated for the initial phase for the private sector. In the rest of the period (up to 
2050) the net additional costs would be lower, estimated at EUR 224,000 annually. For 
other public authorities, the additional costs are estimated at EUR 931,000 per  year for 
the initial phase of 4 years and at EUR 389,000 per year for the rest of the period.  

Under  PO3  savings  for  the  private  sector  of  EUR  150,000  per  year  could  be  achieved 
already  in  the  first  phase  of  four  years  through  streamlining  the  corridor  organisation 
(integrating  the  RFCs  and  the  CNCs  into  ETCs).  In  the  following  phase  these  savings 

145 

 
would amount to EUR 200,000 annually relative to the baseline (up to 2050). However 
net additional costs of EUR 1.733 Mln per year have been estimated for the initial phase 
for the private sector. In the rest of the period (up to 2050) the net additional costs would 
be lower, estimated at EUR 306,000 annually. For other public authorities, the additional 
costs are estimated at EUR 1.275 Mln per year for the initial phase of 4 years and at EUR 
533,000 per year for the rest of the period.  

Table 22:  Additional  administrative  costs  for  other  public  authorities  and  the  private 
sector relative to the baseline (thousand EUR), expressed as yearly averages  

Cost type (thousand EUR per 
year) 

PO2 

PO3 

Initial phase - 4 
years 

Rest of the 
period 

Initial phase - 4 
years 

Rest of the 
period 

PSA own 

Not PSA covered 

Network organisation 

Corridor organisation 

MS administration 

SUMP 

Terminals 

Sector Cost 

Total 

of which: 

Public authorities  

44 

131 

110 

-110 

456 

475 

219 

871 

2195 

931 

26 

79 

73 

-146 

183 

207 

73 

119 

613 

390 

60 

180 

150 

-150 

625 

650 

300 

1,193 

3,008 

1,275 

35 

108 

100 

-200 

250 

283 

100 

163 

839 

533 

146 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: LINKS BETWEEN THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE TEN-T 
EX-POST EVALUATION AND THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  

The  evaluation  of  the  TEN-T  Regulation  came  to  a  number  of  key  conclusions  and 
identified a number of shortcomings that shall be addressed with the revision (see table 1 
below): 

  Lack  of  appropriate  basis  in  terms  of  infrastructure  for  the  achievement  of  the 
challenging objectives of the transport system as a whole such as multimodality and 
sustainability and of the European Green Deal overall.  

  Current  provisions  are  inappropriate  to  ensure  network-wide  continuity  of  relevant 
requirements in the fields of 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 emission and low carbon 
mobility.  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. 

  There  are  shortcomings  in  relation  to  the  functioning  of  urban  and  transport  nodes 
such  as  insufficiencies  in  network  integration,  design  of  transfer  hubs,  accessibility 
conditions  for  all  users,  last  mile  connections,  smooth  information  services  and  the 
complementarity between TEN-T and sustainable urban mobility planning, including 
clean and innovative solutions. 

  Some  specific  quality  requirements  for  rail,  road  and  inland  waterways  as  well  as 
requirements  for  the  maritime  dimension  of  TEN-T  were  found  insufficient  or 
inappropriate.  Such  problems  (for  example,  inability  of  terminals  to  accommodate 
740 m long trains) may affect the continuity and sustainability of services, or social 
conditions for transport workers (e.g. 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. 

  With regards to the network implementation 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. 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 
were identified as causes for delays. 

 

In  relation  to  the  coordination  between  core  network  corridors  and  Rail  Freight 
Corridors the evaluation found that although this has led to efficiency gains, potential 
synergies  between  the  two  instruments,  e.g.  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. A better alignment of the two 
investment  planning,  project 
instruments  would  be  beneficial 
identification and governance. 

terms  of 

in 

147 

 
 
 
Table 1: 

Main conclusions of the ex-post evaluation and linkages with the IA 

Main conclusions of the ex-post evaluation  

Impact Assessment 

Conclusions on relevance 

All  four specific objectives of the  TEN-T Regulation remain 
relevant,  are  equally  important  and  complementary  to  each 
other.  

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.    

for 

the 

However, 
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.  

For  the  specific  objective  “sustainability”,  the  lack  of 
appropriateness  to  enable  decarbonisation  in  line  with  the 
objective of the European Green Deal needs to be overcome. 
The reduction of transport emissions by 90% by 2050 cannot 
be  achieved  without  a  proper  TEN-T  allowing  for  greener 
transport. 

For the specific objective “increasing user benefits”, the TEN-
T  Regulation  should  be  advanced 
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.  

to  strengthen 

The  IA  maintains  and  develops  the  specific 
objectives of the regulation further 

The 
IA  broadly  maintains 
structure and the completion deadlines 

the  network 

Policy  measures  are  defined  to  increase  the 
quality  of  the  TEN-T  and  ensure  that  this 
quality  is  preserved  over  the  lifetime  of  the 
infrastructure. 
are 
introduced  to  advance  on  interoperability  and 
accessibility of the network. 

Further  measures 

Policy  measures  are  defined  to  enlarge  the 
scope  and  reinforce  requirements  in  line  with 
the needed contribution to the EGD objectives 
for all transport modes.  

In  the  IA,  policy  measures  are  defined  to 
strengthen the service  and user perspective  of 
the TEN-T especially  in relation to passenger 
transport. 

Complementarity  between  core  and  comprehensive  networks 
could  be  strengthened 
to  help  overcoming  remaining 
accessibility and connectivity gaps and ensuring the broadest 
possible  and  most  effective  coverage  of  new  infrastructure 
quality parameters. 

The IA defines policy measures targeted at an 
alignment  of  standards  and  requirements 
between the two network layers in fields such 
as  railway  infrastructure,  alternative  fuels  or 
urban nodes. 

Conclusions on effectiveness 

The  TEN-T  Regulation,  overall,  has  been  very  effective  in 
identifying  thousands  of  projects  on  the  basis  of  a  single 
Europe-wide policy framework. 

However  there  remain  problems  of  delays  for  a  number  of 
projects  caused  by  complex  preparatory  procedures, 
remaining  divergences  between  agreed  European  objectives 
and national infrastructure and investment planning or limited 
EU level governance tools. 

implementation  could  be 

TEN-T 
further  enhanced  – 
especially  in  the  light  of  the  new  challenges  and  objectives 
(decarbonisation,  digitalisation  and 
increasing  risks  of 
unforeseen crisis events) 

The framework for identifying projects on the 
network will be maintained in the IA. 

The  IA  defines  measures  to  ensure  alignment 
of  national  interests  and  responsibilities  with 
respecting 
TEN-T 
subsidiarity.191 

objectives, 

while 

The IA defines measures further strengthening 
existing  EU  instruments  (e.g.  core  network 
corridors,  work  plans,  delegated  acts). 
Furthermore  it  defines  measures  targeted  at 
addressing unforeseen events. 

The  instrument  of  the  core  network  corridors,  including  the 
European Coordinators, has found to be both highly relevant 

The  IA  further  develops  and  extends  the 
corridor  concept  and  strengthens  the  role  of 

191  The  question  of  complex  and  lengthy  preparatory  procedures  is  addressed  through  the  future 
Directive  on  streamlining  measures  for  advancing  the  realisation  of  the  trans-European  transport 
network (TEN-T) 

148 

 
 
                                                 
Main conclusions of the ex-post evaluation  

Impact Assessment 

and effective. 

Conclusions on efficiency  

In relation to the reporting and monitoring obligations set out 
in the TEN-T Regulation there is some room for streamlining 
and strengthening these tools. 

The  coordination  between  Core  Network  Corridors  and  Rail 
Freight corridors has led to certain efficiency gains but there 
is  untapped  potential  in  a  better  alignment  between  the  two 
instruments  in  terms  of  investment  planning  and  project 
identification. 

Conclusions on coherence and coordination 

Achieving  the  objectives  of  the  European  Green  Deal  would 
require that the TEN-T infrastructure is fully aligned with the 
provisions  resulting  from  the  other  policy  initiatives  in  the 
fields  of  AFIR,  FuelEU  Maritime  and 
the  ReFuelEU 
Aviation. 

Need to enhance coherence with the challenges of the digital 
transition and other new technologies 

Conclusions on EU added value  

The  added  value  of  TEN-T  policy  overall  has  always  been 
strongly  affirmed  by  Member  States,  regions,  cities  and 
industrial stakeholders. 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 Asia. 

Ensuring  a  common  and  coherent  EU-wide  basis  for  the 
identification  of 
interest’  and, 
correspondingly, 
the  alignment  of  planning  and 
implementation efforts of a wide range of actors is a clear and 
widely recognised and would not have been possible without 
Regulation (EU) 1315/2013. 

‘projects  of  common 
for 

the European Coordinators 

IA  defines  measures 
instruments 

and 

The 
monitoring 
reporting. 

streamlining 
facilitating 

The IA will ensure the geographical alignment 
of  both  corridor  instruments  into  European 
Transport Corridors and further strengthen the 
coordination 
two 
instruments. 

aspects  between 

the 

The  IA  ensures  full  alignment  with  other 
policy initiatives on alternative fuels. 

The  IA  ensures  full  alignment  with  other 
policy 
transport 
systems. 

initiatives  on 

intelligent 

The  approach 
to 
country involvement is maintained. 

third  and  neighbouring 

The  TEN-T  framework  for  a  harmonised 
planning  and  implementation  of  the  network 
will  be  maintained  and  further  developed  in 
the IA. 

Summary of the TEN-T evaluation 

The  evaluation  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  N°  1315/2013  on  Union  Guidelines  for  the 
development of a trans- European transport network has been adopted on 26 May 2021 
(SWD(2021)117 final).  

This  evaluation  was  carried  out  almost  at  mid-term  on  the  way  between  the  last 
substantial  revision  of  the  Regulation  in  2013  and  the  first  key  milestone  of  TEN-T 
policy  –  the  completion  of  the  core  network  in  2030.  It  assessed  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 and 2050 milestones. In addition, it 
aimed  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.  

The overall evaluation of Regulation (EU) 1315/2013 led to the following conclusions in 
terms  of  “lessons  learnt”.  Those  are  grouped  in  accordance  with  the  five  evaluation 
criteria that have been applied:  

Relevance  

149 

 
 
  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.  

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 

150 

 
Regulation  more  generally,  the  evaluation  suggests  that  there  is  some  room  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  are  fully  aligned  with  the  provisions  resulting  from  the  other  policy 
initiatives in the fields of AFIR, FuelEU Maritime and the ReFuelEU 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 
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  on 
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. 

151 

 
 
 
ANNEX 6: OVERVIEW OF SPECIFIC POLICY OBJECTIVES,  
MEASURES AND POLICY OPTIONS  

Retained policy measure 

Specific 
objective 

Policy options 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

Problem area 1: Insufficient and/or incomplete TEN-T infrastructure standards and lack of 
integration of standards for the alternative fuels infrastructure on the TEN-T that does not enable a 
higher use of more sustainable forms of transport 
1  Rail freight: possibility to run trains loaded with 

SO1, SO2 

























- 

- 

- 

SO1, SO3 

SO1, SO2, 
SO5 

intermodal loading units classified as P400 on standard 
pocket wagons (P400 loading gauge)  
- on the TEN-T core network by 2050 

- on the core network and on the comprehensive lines 
that are part of the European Transport Corridors 
(ETC) by 2040  

2  Passenger rail: introduction of a minimum passenger line 
speed of 160 km/h for the passenger core network 
- by 2050 
- by 2040  

3 

IWW:  
Minimum requirements:  
- at least 2.50 m navigable channel depth for rivers, 
canals, lakes and inland ports and 5.25 m minimum 
height under bridges at defined reference water levels 
which are exceeded at a defined number of days/year on 
statistical average by corridor/river basin and which may 
be altered by a delegated act according to Article 172 
TFEU;  
- Member States assure that locks are operated and 
maintained in such a way that waiting times are 
minimized.  
Additional requirements:  
- definition of good navigation status: additional and 
specific corridor/river basin requirements for hard and 
soft components which are laid down in implementing 
decisions, such as:  
(a) complementary parameters and target values for 
waterways, specific for free flowing stretches; 
(b) specifications for related infrastructure, including its 
management; 
(c) specifications for inland ports; 
(d) appropriate mooring places and services for 
commercial users 
(e) resilience to climate change, natural and man-made 
disasters and disruptions 
(f) deployment of alternative energy infrastructure to 
ensure corridor-wide access to alternative clean fuels  
(g) requirements for digital applications and the digital 
transformation of the network. 

- by 2050 
- by 2040  

4 

Introduction of AFIR references for inland and maritime 
ports, airports, roads and urban nodes 

SO1, SO2, 
SO3, SO4 













152 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Retained policy measure 

5  Development of alternative fuel infrastructure at 

terminals (not defined in AFIR) 

Specific 
objective 

SO1, SO2, 
SO3 

- by 2050 
- by 2040  

6 

Introduction of intermediary deadline of 2040 for:  

SO1-6 

  newly introduced standards on core network  
  completion of comprehensive sections as part of 

European Transport Corridors  

  ERTMS deployment obligation on comprehensive 

network 

7  Assurance of consistency of TEN-T with the ‘Do Not 

Significant Harm’ principle  

SO1, SO2, 
S05 

Policy options 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

- 

- 

- 










- 







Problem area 2: Capacity bottlenecks and insufficient network connectivity to all regions that 
hamper multimodality  
8  Obligation for all urban nodes to establish a SUMP and 
to report on urban mobility data (at minimum on GHG 
emissions, congestion, accidents/injuries, modal share 
and access to mobility services) as to help the 
Commission to set up a coherent urban policy, increase 
the effectiveness of EU funding and its coherence with 
EU goals and commitments, and to support cities to 
evaluate the results of their mobility measures.  
- for all 79 TEN-T urban nodes listed in the current 

SO4 

- 








Regulation by 2030  

- for all listed and newly identified core urban nodes by 
2030 and for all newly identified comprehensive urban 
nodes by 2040  

9  For urban nodes on passenger transport:  

  Obligation to develop multimodal hubs to facilitate 
first and last mile connections. 1 hub per urban 
node. In addition, for cities larger than 500.000 
inhabitants, one additional hub per 500.000 
inhabitants.  

  Ensure availability of multimodal digital mobility 
services (including MaaS services), allowing 
passengers to access information and book their 
journeys, including for public transport and active 
modes. 

10 

- for all 79 existing TEN-T urban nodes by 2050 
- for all listed and newly identified core urban nodes by 
2030 and for all newly identified comprehensive urban 
nodes by 2050 

Introduction of a legally binding deadline for 
decommissioning national (class B) systems and making 
ERTMS the only signalling system used in Member 
States by 2040 for core and comprehensive network and 
thus to advance the ERTMS standard obligation for the 
comprehensive network to 2040 

11  Rail freight standards’ extension: application of the 

SO1, SO2 

existing infrastructure requirements of the core network 
also on the comprehensive network (22,5 t axle load, 100 
km/h line speed for freight and the possibility of running 
trains with a length of 740 m) 
- for comprehensive network by 2050  
- for ETC comprehensive lines by 2040 and for rest of 

comprehensive network by 2050 

153 





SO1, SO2, 
SO4 

- 





SO1, SO2, 
SO3, SO5 









- 















- 

- 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Retained policy measure 

12  Maritime / inland ports / terminals: extension of the 
TEN-T standards to the last mile connection by rail / 
IWW 
- for all TEN-T ports and all terminals as identified in 

13 

2013 Regulation by 2050 

- for all core ports and all core terminals resulting from 
terminal requirement (measure 14) by 2040 and for all 
comprehensive ports and comprehensive terminals by 
2050  

Introduce new elements for passenger transport, such as 
the design of transfer terminals, accessibility for all 
users, information across modes (also covering first/last 
mile connections), enabling of innovative mobility 
services 
- for all terminals as listed in the current Regulation by 

2050  

- for all existing and newly identified terminals 

(measure 14) by 2040 

14  Freight terminals:  

- at least one multimodal freight terminal serving each 
urban node and in proximity of the urban node, meeting 
current and projected transport flows, in particular flows 
serving urban nodes;  
- obligation for MS to propose a refinement of the 
current TEN-T terminal list, through 1) conducting a 
market & prospective analysis aiming at identifying the 
existing terminals serving transport flows on the TEN-T, 
in particular the urban nodes as well as the need for new 
terminals. MS shall at least examine current transport 
flows as well as projected flows, in particular road 
traffic; consult relevant stakeholders; assess how to 
ensure adequate coverage of terminals to feed urban 
nodes; 2) submitting to the Commission the list of new 
terminals to be included in the TEN-T as a result 
(Commission to update the list via delegated Act);  
- requirements for terminals (with exemption system for 
specialised terminals and terminals in spatially 
constrained locations): all types of intermodal loading 
units can be handled; 740m long tracks exist under the 
crane; no shunting required (includes electrification) 

- for all 79 TEN-T urban nodes listed in the current 

Regulation by 2050  

- for all listed and newly identified core urban nodes by 
2040 and for all newly identified comprehensive urban 
nodes by 2050 

Specific 
objective 

SO1, SO2, 
SO3 

Policy options 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

- 













SO1, SO3, 
SO4 

- 













SO1, SO2, 
SO3 

- 























15  Digitalisation of passenger and freight terminals 

SO3, SO5 

- 

- by 2050 
- by 2040  

16 

Introduction of ITS equipment requirements for roads  

SO3, SO5 



Problem area 3: Insufficient safety and reliability of the TEN-T infrastructure  
17  Road:  
- 

SO1, SO3, 





154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific 
objective 

SO5 

Policy options 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

Retained policy measure 

  Obligation to ensure motorway standard192 on core 
and comprehensive network (with exemption clause 
based on traffic intensity (10.000 vehicles/day in 
both directions)).  
- 

for core and comprehensive road network by 
2050 
for core network by 2040 and for 
comprehensive network by 2050 

- 

  minimum level of safe and secure parkings every 

100 km on the core network with the availability of 
recharging points for LDV and HDV  
- 
on the core network by 2050 

- 

on the core network by 2040  

  rest areas every 60 km  

- 

- 

for the core and comprehensive network by 
2050 
for core network by 2040 and for 
comprehensive network by 2050  

18  Binding deadline for new tunnels >500m on TEN-T 
sections to comply with the provisions of Directive 
2004/54 (“Tunnel Directive”) 
- For new tunnels on core and comprehensive network 

SO1, SO3, 
SO5 

by 2050  

- For new tunnels on core network by 2040 and for new 

19 

tunnels on comprehensive network by 2050  
Introduction of minimum quality standards for 
maintenance and project life cycle standards 

SO5 

20  Foreign Direct Investments: Fully fledged screening of 

SO5 

third country investments on the core and the 
comprehensive network by Member States 





















































- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Problem area 4: Inadequate TEN-T governance instruments and TEN-T network design   

21  Update for the transport sections and nodes (ports, 

SO6 

airports, RRT) on the basis of the reference years 2017, 
2018, 2019 with the same % thresholds of 2013 
methodology 

22  Update of the TEN-T maps – RFC alignment:  

SO5, SO6 







  Creation of European Transport Corridors 

integrating RFC and CNC leading to potentially 10 
ETC (Corridors can comprise lines which are part of 
the core and comprehensive network) 

  Integration of RFC sections outside the TEN-T in 

the comprehensive network 

23  Update of the TEN-T maps – urban nodes:  

SO4, SO6 

- 

- 

- 

- 

 

 

192   Motorway  means  a  road,  specially  designed  and  built  for  motor  traffic,  which  does  not  serve 
properties bordering on it and which meets the following criteria: (a) it is provided, except at special 
points  or  temporarily,  with  separate  carriageways  for  the  two  directions  of  traffic,  separated  from 
each other either by a dividing strip not intended for traffic or, exceptionally, by other means;  (b) it 
does  not  cross  at  level  with  any  road,  railway  or  tramway  track,  bicycle  or  footpath;  (c)  it  is 
specifically designated as motorway.  

155 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
Retained policy measure 

Specific 
objective 

Policy options 

PO1 

PO2 

PO3 

  Inclusion of all urban nodes above 100.000 

inhabitants (if on core network, they become core 
urban nodes; if on comprehensive network, they 
become comprehensive nodes) 

  Inclusion of all capitals of NUTS2 regions as urban 

nodes (core if on the core network, comprehensive if 
on the comprehensive network). However, in the 
case a capital is below 100.000 inhabitants and a 
larger city of that region is already identified as an 
urban node, then that capital should not be included.  

24  Update of the TEN-T maps – Military Mobility 

SO5, SO6 

alignment:  

  Most relevant parts of EU military transport network 

- 

- 



(road, railways) that are also used for civilian 
purposes are integrated into the TEN-T.  

25  Streamlining of existing reporting and monitoring 

SO6 

instruments:  
- Adoption of the Coordinators’ work plans every three 
years, with an annual progress report on the state of 
implementation of the CNC/MoS/ERTMS. 
- Removal of the Report Article 45.5 (e)  
- More efficient data input from MS and automatic 
exchange with TENtec database  

26  Alignment of national transport and investment plans 

SO6 

with TEN-T / work plan priorities:  
- Introduce a clause in the revised Regulation that would 
oblige Member States to align the national transport and 
investment plans with the TEN-T Regulation, including 
particular attention to identified priority sections on each 
Corridor. This should also take into consideration 
national energy and climate plans as well as national air 
pollution control programmes.  
- Adoption of implementing decisions (for single 
projects/ horizontal priorities and/or for entire corridors) 

27  Review role of the Coordinators, in particular with 

SO6 

regard to RFC and cross-border projects:  
- extend the mandate of Coordinators regarding their 
responsibilities for operational issues (RFC) and to avoid 
duplication of certain tasks (e.g. RFC/CNC transport 
market studies and investment planning analysis) 
- institutionalise the presence of European Coordinators 
in cross-border entities 
- widen the scope of the mandate for topics related to 
urban nodes and cooperation with neighbouring and third 
countries  







- 





- 

- 



156 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7: RESILIENCE CASE - POTENTIAL RISK OF FLOODING OF 
EU27 TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURES 

TENtec  maps  of  railways,  roads  and  ports  were  used  and  overlayed  with  a  map  of 
flooding  risks  to  identify  TEN-T  network  sections  that  are  in  particular  vulnerable  to 
flooding events. The results provide for a proxy of potential flooding risks of the TEN-T 
infrastructure. 

For the flood hazard  analysis  data from  the study  ‘A new dataset  of  river  flood hazard 
maps for  Europe and the Mediterranean Basin  region’ was used. The data is  available 
for  six  different  flood  return  periods,  from  1-in-10-years  to  1-in-500-years.  The  maps 
depict  the  areas  prone  to  river  flooding  events  with  the  considered  return  period.  The 
dataset  is  based on  a JRC elaboration.  For the calculation the researcher team  used the 
hydrological  model  LISFLOOD,  and  the  2D  hydrodynamic  model  LISFLOOD-FP  (see 
Dottori et al. 2021). 

The JRC data was validated using county specific, official hazard maps. Especially in the 
flood  probability  maps  below  1-in-100-year  the  data  has  limitations.  In  these  return 
periods,  on  average,  two-thirds  of  the  flood  prone  areas  are  identified.  The  model  also 
overestimates  the  expansion  of  floods  in  the  same  periods.  In  comparison  with  other 
large-scale  flood  models  the  results  however  are  comparable.  For  our  analysis  of  flood 
hazards to the TEN-T the 1-in-20-year dataset is used to depict the high-risk parts of the 
TEN-T.  Figure  1  shows  the  height  of  the  water  level  that  can  be  expected  on  average 
every  20  years  along  European  rivers.  Higher  flooding  levels  of  1  to  5  meters  and  of 
above  5  meters  can  be  expected  in  particular  in  Central  Europe  starting  from  the 
Netherlands, the Northern part of Germany, the valley of the river Po in Northern Italy 
and Slovakia, Hungary and Croatia. In some of the red areas the expected water heights 
would reach more than 20m above normal water levels. 

Figure 1: 

Map of 1-in-20-years river flooding risk in Europe showing different flooding levels 

Source: M-Five presentation, based on JRC hazard maps 

 
 
 
For the flood hazard analysis the TEN-T shapefiles of the road and the rail network have 
been  overlaid  with  the  JRC  dataset  as  shown  in  Figure  .  It  highlights  network  sections 
that cross an area that is potentially affected by a flooding event, which in its severity is 
only occurring once per 20 years. 

The network analysis does not consider any differentiation between infrastructure which 
is on ground level (e.g. a normal road or rail section) and infrastructure that isn’t (e.g. a 
bridge  crossing  a  valley,  which  might  be  flooded).  This  means  bridges  are  shown  as 
affected  by  flooding,  which  must  not  be  the  case,  although  it  can  be  argued,  that 
supporting pillars  of bridges based in  the  flooded valley  could  themselves be at  risk of 
scour in case of flooding. 

The following maps show which parts of the network are at  risk from  the 1-in-20  year 
flooding  event.  The  first  map  is  for  the  rail  network  only  (Figure  2).  The  second  map 
shows only the road network (Figure 3). About 6% of the TEN-T rail network is at risk 
by  1-in-20-year  flooding  events  and  about  4%  of  the  TEN-T  road  network. 
Corresponding with the flooding map, 18% of rail core network is affected in Slovakia. 
This  is  the  highest  percentage  for  any  MS.  The  second  most  affected  MS  is  the 
Netherlands  with  13%.  But  also  11%  of  the  Austrian,  Czech  and  Slovenian  core  rail 
network  are  at  risk  by  such  a  1-in-20-years  flooding  event.  On  the  rail  comprehensive 
network  again,  Slovakian  networks  are  most  at-risk  with  17%  followed  by  the  same 
group as on the core network with between 13% and 10% of their networks at risk. The 
group  of  MS  with  about  one  tenth  of  their  rail  non-core  TEN-T  at  risk  also  includes 
Luxemburg and Belgium. 

Source: M-Five analysis and representation, based on TENtec and JRC hazard maps 

Figure 2: 

Map of at-risk TEN-T rail network 

In  terms  of  road  networks  at  risk  the  Netherlands  are  affected  most  with  20%  of  their 
core road network (see Figure ). Slovakia with 18%, Croatia (11%) and Hungary (10%) 
also belong to the MS revealing the largest shares of their road core network at risk of a 

159 

 
 
1-in-20-years  flooding  event.  MS  with  most  affected  non-core  TEN-T  road  networks 
include Netherlands (12%), Croatia (11%) and Austria (10%). 

Source: M-Five analysis and representation, based on TENtec and JRC hazard maps 

Figure 3: 

Map of at-risk TEN-T road network 

The following tables  are presenting the length and shares of the network at risk for the 
different Member States. 

Table  1  presents  the  absolute  length  of  networks  at  risk  to  flooding  differentiated  into 
core  network  and  that  part  of  the  comprehensive  network  that  is  not  part  of  the  core 
network.  The  longest  at-risk  parts  of  networks  are  located  in  France  (1  842  km  of  rail 
links  and  911  km  of  road  links)  and  Germany  (1  370  km  of  rail  and  568  km  of  road 
links). In terms of potentially affected TEN-T road length also Italian roads reveal a high 
exposure with 902 km. This ranking can be expected because these belong to the largest 
MS  and  at  least  Italy  and  Germany  both  reveal  a  substantial  area  of  hot  spots  with 
potentially very high flooding levels. 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 1: 

Total length of TEN-T network in flood hazard area 

MS 

Rail (in km) 

Road (in km) 

Core 

Comprehensive (non-
core) 

Core 

Comprehensive (non-
core) 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
EU27 

190.9 
94.4 
130.6 
266.7 
709.6 
8.2 
11.8 
100.3 
546.0 
29.4 
1032.9 
87.7 
167.3 
7.0 
423.6 
16.3 
1.2 
58.5 
174.1 
181.8 
40.7 
364.2 
218.0 
84.4 
197.0 
5142.5 

320.9 
154.2 
56.8 
169.5 
660.9 
0.0 
4.3 
77.0 
200.7 
128.9 
810.4 
111.4 
360.4 
44.2 
406.5 
23.8 
20.4 
11.0 
216.2 
241.0 
58.3 
384.2 
157.0 
25.0 
171.1 
4814.0 

108.9 
50.2 
117.5 
74.3 
311.0 
3.4 
21.3 
97.6 
147.1 
81.6 
382.8 
177.6 
159.7 
7.9 
430.3 
14.7 
0.0 
82.4 
216.6 
277.0 
9.2 
230.2 
131.8 
50.1 
225.1 
3408.3 

106.2 
62.8 
32.4 
51.5 
257.5 
1.0 
16.6 
45.6 
153.4 
305.7 
523.2 
68.9 
191.3 
40.0 
471.9 
51.8 
0.0 
49.4 
246.0 
135.4 
47.7 
164.2 
201.5 
6.6 
102.4 
3333.3 

Source: M-Five analysis, based on TENtec and JRC hazard maps 

To get a better idea of the dimension of the flood hazard the following Table shows the 
percentage  of  the  at-risk-network  in  comparison  to  the  whole  TEN-T  network  of  a 
Member State. As can be seen, 4 to 6 % of the network is located in a flood hazard area. 
MS with a very high portion of at-risk network parts are Slovakia and the Netherlands. 
Overall rail networks are slightly higher at risk in the comprehensive non-core network, 
while road is more at risk on the core network. 

161 

 
 
 
Table 2: 

Percentage of whole TEN-T network at risk 

MS 

Rail  (in percentage) 

Road  (in percentage) 

Core 

Comprehensive (non-
core) 

Core 

Comprehensive (non-
core) 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
EU27 

11% 
5% 
6% 
11% 
5% 
1% 
1% 
4% 
5% 
1% 
7% 
9% 
7% 
1% 
5% 
1% 
1% 
3% 
13% 
2% 
2% 
9% 
3% 
11% 
18% 
5% 

12% 
10% 
8% 
8% 
8% 
0% 
0% 
5% 
3% 
3% 
7% 
9% 
11% 
2% 
6% 
2% 
13% 
1% 
10% 
5% 
3% 
11% 
4% 
6% 
17% 
6% 

7% 
4% 
6% 
5% 
3% 
0% 
2% 
4% 
2% 
4% 
5% 
11% 
10% 
1% 
7% 
1% 
0% 
5% 
20% 
4% 
1% 
6% 
2% 
8% 
18% 
5% 

10% 
4% 
2% 
3% 
3% 
0% 
1% 
1% 
2% 
3% 
4% 
11% 
9% 
1% 
5% 
2% 
0% 
3% 
12% 
2% 
2% 
5% 
3% 
2% 
9% 
4% 

Source: M-Five analysis, based on TENtec and JRC hazard maps 

Table 3 presents the length of the total TEN-T network at risk by the 1-in-20-years river 
flooding  event.  Overall  nearly  10.000  km  of  rail  network  are  at  risk  of  such  event  and 
6.700 km of road network. The summary confirms the MS having at risk the largest share 
of TEN-T by river flooding events. Interestingly the Netherlands have developed both a 
National  Adaptation  Strategy  (NAS)  and  a  National  Adaptation  Plan  (NAP),  while  the 
other most affected countries Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia did only elaborate a NAS, 
while they have not adopted a NAP.193 

193  See: https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-regions/countries  

162 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 3: 

TEN-T network at risk by MS – rail and road 

MS 

AT 

BE 

BG 

CZ 
DE 

DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 

FI 
FR 
HR 

HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
EU27 

TEN-T Rail network 

TEN-T Road network  

(in km) 

(in percent) 

(in km) 

(in percent) 

511.8 

248.6 

187.4 

436.1 
1370.5 

8.2 
16.1 
177.3 
746.6 

158.3 
1843.4 
199.1 

527.6 
51.2 
830.1 
40.2 
21.6 
69.4 
390.3 
422.7 
99.0 
748.4 
375.0 
109.5 
368.1 
9956.5 

12% 

7% 

6% 

10% 
6% 

0% 
1% 
5% 
4% 

2% 
7% 
9% 

9% 
2% 
6% 
1% 
6% 
2% 
11% 
3% 
3% 
10% 
3% 
9% 
18% 
6% 

215.1 

113.0 

149.9 

125.8 
568.5 

4.4 
37.8 
143.3 
300.5 

387.3 
906.0 
246.5 

350.9 
47.9 
902.2 
66.5 
0.1 
131.9 
462.6 
412.4 
56.9 
394.4 
333.4 
56.7 
327.5 
6741.6 

8% 

4% 

4% 

4% 
3% 

0% 
1% 
2% 
2% 

3% 
4% 
11% 

9% 
1% 
6% 
2% 
0% 
4% 
15% 
3% 
2% 
6% 
2% 
6% 
14% 
4% 

Source: M-Five analysis, based on TENtec and JRC hazard maps 

The link based analysis  is  completed by  also  looking at  the ports  as  an important  node 
infrastructure of the TEN-T network. In analogy to the results shown for the rail and road 
network, an analysis for the ports in the TEN-T network was carried out by overlaying 
the  map  of  TEN-T  ports  with  the  flooding  risk  map  (Figure  1).  The  following  map 
(Figure  4)  presents  the  at-risk-ports  of  MS.  The  share  of  potentially  affected  ports  is 
much  larger  than  for  rail  and  road  infrastructure  reaching  21%  of  all  TEN-T  ports.  Of 
course, such a result can be expected as naturally apart from some seaports all ports are 
connected with a river. 

163 

 
 
 
Source: M-Five analysis and representation, based on TENtec and JRC hazard maps 

Figure 4: 

Map of at-risk TEN-T ports 

The  following  Table  4  shows  the  percentage  of  the  at-risk-ports  in  every  MS  and  the 
percentage  in  comparison  to  total  ports  per  MS.  The  analysis  shows  that  on  the  whole 
108  ports  are  at  risk,  this  is  21%  of  all  ports  on  the  network.  On  the  core  network  the 
share is slightly higher with 23%. The 74 comprehensive at-risk-ports make up 20% of 
all comprehensive ports. Germany reveals the highest total number of at-risk-ports of all 
MS. Both in the Czech Republic and Luxembourg 100% of the ports are at-risk, which in 
the case of Luxemburg can be easily explained by the fact that there exists only one port, 
while in case of the Czech Republic ports play a larger role, but all nine TEN-T ports are 
at risk by the 1-in-20 years flooding event. 

164 

 
 
 
 
Table 4:  

 Ports in the TEN-T network at risk 

MS 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 

EU27 

Total number of ports 

Percentage of the whole network 

Core 

Comprehensive non-
core 

Core 

Comprehensive non-
core 

1 
4 
1 
0 
4 
8 
0 
0 
0 
2 
0 
3 
0 
1 
1 
2 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
2 
1 
0 
2 
34 

1 
3 
2 
0 
5 
30 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
6 
1 
5 
0 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
11 
1 
0 
4 
1 
0 
0 
74 

50% 
40% 
33% 
0% 
100% 
35% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
15% 
0% 
20% 
0% 
50% 
33% 
13% 
0% 
100% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
25% 
0% 
33% 
20% 
0% 
100% 
23% 

50% 
30% 
40% 
0% 
100% 
38% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
8% 
21% 
13% 
83% 
0% 
10% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
0% 
21% 
100% 
0% 
33% 
5% 
0% 
0% 
20% 

108 

21% 

Source: M-Five analysis, based on TENtec and JRC hazard maps 

165 

 
 
 
ANNEX 8: DISCARDED POLICY MEASURES 

Introduction of a minimum line speed of 200 km/h or above for the rail passenger core 
network  

While  literature194  shows  that  HSR  can  be  profitable  in  the  operational  phase  even  if 
demand  is  low,  the  costs  related  to  its  construction  are  by  far  the  highest  among  all 
transport  modes.  The  construction  costs  for  rail 
to  grow 
exponentially  with  design  speed195.  Besides  track-side  infrastructures,  the  cost  of  HS-
rolling stock is higher than conventional railway rolling stock limited to 160 km/h, since 
stricter  safety  regulations  apply  and  the  installed  power  in  the  power  cars  increases 
exponentially  with  required  speeds196.  Other  factors  which  change  over-proportionately 
with  speed  increases  are  related  to  HSR-operations,  namely  maintenance  cost  (due  to 
higher wear and tear of infrastructure and rolling stock) as well as energy costs197.  

infrastructure 

tends 

The  case  study  on  High  Speed  Rail  undertaken  in  the  framework  of  the  evaluation  has 
shown that while the first HSR lines in Europe connected major centres which provided 
high  demand-levels,  newer  lines,  tended  to  connect  secondary  metropolitan  areas  with 
lower  demand  potentials.  These  lower  demand  levels  have  led  these  lines  to 
underperform, therefore sometimes leading to negative socio-economic outcomes. Since 
future  improvements  in  the  European  rail  network  will  to  a  great  extent  encompass 
network sections  connecting secondary metropolitan regions,  it is  questionable whether 
the expected demand potentials justify the high costs of very high-speed lines.  

The case study concludes that from a traveller’s point of view the overall level of service 
can  be  more  valuable  than  travel  time  gains  in  the  range  of  minutes.  HSR-lines 
connecting  large  and  economically  vibrant  metropolitan  areas  connected  within  travel 
times below 4 hours have a very high potential of socio-economic success. Rather than 
aiming  at  maximum  technically  possible  speeds,  but  at  attractive  journey  times  in  the 
margins of the boundary above is a promising strategy for increasing the social balance 
between  costs  and  benefits.  Speed  increases  to  speeds  lower  than  the  normative  high-
speed threshold of 250 km/h or 200 km/h can therefore sometimes achieve very similar 
levels  of  benefits  at  lower  cost.  Consequently  the  analysis  in  the  Impact  Assessment 
focussed on the costs and benefits of introducing a minimum required line speed on core 
network railway passenger lines of 160 km/h, which can be considered the lowest end of 
the  high-speed  threshold  from  an  infrastructure  point  of  view  but  does  not  exclude 
upgrading to higher speeds if circumstances warrant it. 

194  Betancor, O. & G, Llobet (2017). Financial and social profitability of HSR in Spain. In: D. Albalate & G. 

Bel (eds) Evaluating High-Speed Rail: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Routledge, London. 

195  Wu,  J.  (2013)  The  Financial  and  Economic  Assessment  of  China’s  High  Speed  Rail  Investments:  a 

Preliminary Analysis. Discussion Paper, Inter-national Transport Forum, Paris:  
Alignments designed for higher speeds result in curves with bigger radiuses and smoother  slopes. This 
results in more earthworks as well as a higher proportion of tunnels and bridges needed to complete 
the final alignment. European HSR safety standards (Technical Specification for   Interoperability  –  TSI, 
first  issued  in  2002)  also  require  for  example  separate  tunnel  tubes  for  each  track  above  a  certain 
minimum length and do not allow for grade level crossings with road or other rail infrastructures. In 
urban areas, the need for  sound barriers (or other means for reducing noise) is also a  relevant  cost 
factor. 

196  Trains running at speeds above 160 km/h require cabin signalling systems as well as further track-side 

safety systems which increase the costs for signalling and communication equipment.  

197  A  speed  increase  from  160  km/h  to  250  km/h  (56  %  increase)  results  in  more  than  doubling  of 

necessary installed power (144 % increase) based on increased aerodynamic resistance. 

166 

 
 
                                                 
 
Introducing a comprehensive network for inland waterways  
In the framework of the TEN-T evaluation some stakeholders suggested the broadening 
of the scope of the TEN-T IWW network to incorporate CEMT class III waterways and 
thus introducing a comprehensive network layer for IWW to the TEN-T network.  While 
indeed this could have benefits in terms of shifting more freight from road to IWW, the 
adverse effects on the environment and biodiversity could be substantial in a sector that 
is  already  heavily  affected  by  climate  change.  Furthermore  widening  the  scope  of  the 
network would only apply to a limited number of Member States and rivers which does 
not  warrant  creating an  extra network layer. Consequently such a change would hardly 
contribute to the cross-border and cohesion dimension of the network. 

In  light  of  the  overall  objectives  of  the  TEN-T  revision  the  analysis  in  this  impact 
assessment rather focussed on the costs and benefits of ensuring a good navigation status 
through flexible approach for waterways of the already existing network. 

Introduction of more concrete provisions on innovations such as Hyperloop   

In the framework of the TEN-T evaluation some stakeholders suggested that the TEN-T 
Regulation should incorporate provisions on innovative new transport solutions such as 
the  Hyperloop198.  This  was  reaffirmed  by  ten  respondents  to  the  OPC  on  the  impact 
assessment.  The  evaluation  took  a  closer  look  at  this  technology  in  the  case  study  on 
“TEN-T as an enabler of a future oriented mobility system”. It found that experts in the 
field  assume  that  commercial  journeys  are  only  likely  to  happen  after  2040199. 
Furthermore there are currently no standards on the Hyperloop technology. In addition to 
the fact that the technology is not yet mature and requires substantial research, foreseen 
under the SHIFT2RAIL initiative and its Horizon Europe follow-up, the concept would 
also  pose  a  challenge  to  the  multimodal  nature  of  the  TEN-T  by  introducing  new 
interoperability barriers between the different modes of transport. Thus this measure was 
not further analysed in the impact assessment. 

Introducing  binding  rules  and  obligations  as  well  as  standards  on  infrastructure 
maintenance   

In the framework of the TEN-T evaluation (OPC, targeted surveys, Case studies) several 
stakeholders  suggested  that  the  TEN-T  Regulation  should  set  binding  rules  and 
obligations  to  ensure  maintenance  of  its  TEN-T  infrastructure.  Maintenance  of 
infrastructure is clearly a Member States and not an EU competence. Any form of direct 
EU  interference  would  thus  be  a  breach  of  the  subsidiarity  principle.  Furthermore,  the 
Commission  does  not  have  the  necessary  resources  to  enforce  and  monitor  the 
maintenance of the network on its own.  

Additionally  there  are  currently  no  EU-wide  accepted  and  applied  standards  on 
maintenance  that  could  be  referred  to  in  the  TEN-T  Regulation.  Eurocodes  that  were 
suggested in the evaluation are technical specifications and not standards. As such, they 
are not  compulsory. While the majority  of Member States have amended their national 
legislation  to  make  all  or  part  of  the  Eurocodes  compulsory,  this  is  not  the  case 
throughout the EU. As a consequence this measure was not further analysed in the impact 

198  The Hyperloop concept, is embedded in airspace technology and uses especially built infrastructure, 
deviating from existing high-speed rail design by eliminating the rails, enclosing the passenger pod in a 
vacuum tube and suspending it on air  bearings. Application of this novel service is foreseen for both 
passengers  and  freight  transport  and  several  companies  pursue  real-life  testing  in  the  very  near 
future. 

199  https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/support-policy-making/support-eu-

research-and-innovation-policy-making/foresight/activities/current/bohemia_en 

167 

 
                                                 
assessment  and  the  analysis  rather  focussed  on  the  introduction  of  minimum 
infrastructure quality standards and the application of the project-life cycle approach. 

Inclusion of a (long-distance) cycling network into TEN-T  

In the framework of the TEN-T evaluation (OPC, targeted surveys, Case studies) several 
stakeholders suggested the inclusion of a pan-European cycling network into the TEN-T. 
The  main  purpose  of  the  TEN-T  network  is  the  facilitation  of  mainly  long-distance 
passenger  and  goods  transport  flows  across  Europe  with  a  special  focus  on  seamless 
cross-border  connectivity.  While  cycling  indeed  is  gaining  importance  as  a  mode  of 
transport  for  passengers  and  freight  this  is  mainly  the  case  for  trips  in  an  urban 
environment  and  on  shorter  inter-urban  distances.  While  EUROVELO  routes  serve  the 
objective  of  enhanced  multimodality  and  shifting  activity  to  more  sustainable  transport 
modes to some extent, long-distance cycling is mainly done for touristic purposes. Thus 
it was considered that the inclusion of a large trans-European cycling network would be 
out of scope of TEN-T policy. However, cycling (infrastructure) will remain a focus of 
the TEN-T Regulation. Recital 9 of the current Regulation already states that:  

“Where  possible,  synergies  with  other  policies  should  be  exploited,  for  instance  with 
tourism  aspects  by  including,  within  civil  engineering  structures  such  as  bridges  or 
tunnels, bicycle infrastructure for long-distance cycling paths like the EuroVelo routes.”  

This in principle already offers some possibilities to include cycling infrastructure in the 
scope of certain types of TEN-T projects and has been done in past projects but shall be 
further clarified. Furthermore by strengthening the ties between TEN-T and urban policy 
and by integrating multimodal passenger hubs cycling will benefit as well. 

168 

 
 
 
ANNEX 9: TEN-T KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS  

Mode 

TEN-T Compliance Indicators 

Corresponding TENtec parameter 

(1) Electrification 

(2) Track gauge 

Traction 

Track gauge (mm) 

(3) Line speed (freight trains) 

Max. operating speed for freight trains (km/h) 

(4) Axle load (freight trains) 

Max. axle load (tonnes) 

(5) Train length (freight trains) 

Max. train length (m) 

Railways 

(6) Intermodal gauge 

(7) Structure gauge 

(8) ETCS status 

(9) ETCS baseline 

(10) ETCS level 

(11) GSM-R status 

(12) ECMT class 

(13) Draught 

(14) Height 

(15) RIS 

Inland 
Waterways 

Combined transport profile for semi-trailers 

Structure gauge (EN 15273) 

ETCS status 

ETCS baseline 

ETCS level 

GSM-R status 

CEMT class 

Maximum draught of vessel/convoy 

Minimum bridge clearance 

River Information Services 

Roads 

(16) Express road/motorway 

Type 

Airports 

(17) Connection to rail 

(18) Connection to rail 

Connection with rail 

Connection with rail 

Ports 

(19) ECMT class IV waterway connection 

Waterway connection (CEMT Class) 

(20) Facilities for ship generated waste 

Waste reception facilities 

(21) Alternative Fuels 

Alternative Fuels 

169